Oh, come on, Steve. Like I advocated this! Re-read the post, why don’t cha.

Aaron B

P.S. Am on vacation, and so don’t have time to respond to anybody else right now …

From this it is easy to understand where we get so confused in defining our beliefs. Should our doctrine be as simple as the articles of faith? You bet. Why aren’t they? Because everyone in authority in the church or who has power to make something authoritive has to add to it and try to clarify something that does not need clarifying. Why do we not come up with something like BRM “Mormon Doctrine” then? Because the authoritive Brethren will probably never be able to agree on all of the little parts that make up the whole and be correct in all things at the same time. This church we have to remember is one that is still growing and evolving and one that continues to be enlightened daily in advancing the doctrine more perfectly.

It is thus my opinion that when we define “mormonism” we should always look at it from the view of what we currently believe in but in doing so that perception might change in the future. This does not hold well with critics or even ourselves, but at the same time we should be open to the facts that since Joseph Smith first organized this church, we have continually changed our methods of ordinances, worship and purpose that today does not resemble the definition of what Mormonism was viewed at a 100 years ago.

I do wish that we could somehow get together on the core doctrine of the plan of salvation and get that set in concrete though as that part will never change.

While this image that I’ve drawn is a bit simple and problematic, I do not doubt that many journalists approach the church with a similar background to the one mentioned above. So, where are they to begin? Where are they to go? With whom are they to speak? There are endless outlets ranging from websites to interviews to books on every topic imaginable. It certainly seems to be a daunting task.

And the point of all of this is simply to say that we do not make the job of a journalist any easier. The fact is, the church is complex and complicated. Mormons are not just another protestant, evangelical people with the basic belief in salvation through Jesus Christ. And any attempt to boil the LDS doctrine down to something simple like this is misleading and wrong. All too often I hear institute teachers and gospel principle teachers telling classes that the doctrine of the church is simple: something along the lines of faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end. Ha! If only it were so easy.

The church needs to be increasingly transparent, even at the risk that involves. We need to help journalists understand that although we are a relatively young church, we are yet a highly organised and structured church with a complex set of doctrines and traditions only rivaled in Christianity with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Mormonism isn’t something to approach lightly and we as members can’t attempt to explain it in such terms either. I fear that the leadership of the church all too often gives the wrong image and attempts to hide from the difficult task of our ‘deep’ doctrines and traditions rather than facing them and being understood as a ‘high’ and complex church.

I think it is even difficult to point to any discrete examples to support this assertion. Can anyone point to any classic or espcially typical bloggernacle debates.

I agree that the methodology of doctrinal construction is uncertain–but let’s show this is so with specific examples and evidence. That is, let’s not frame our uncertainty with more uncertainty.

Now, if you can’t get worked up about the idea, that’s a different thing altogether. Perhaps the topic of apathy is worth examining?

“True to the Faith” is simply not a good reference for these things. For example, it doesn’t even mention plural marriage. Any decent reporter who wanted to understand LDS doctrines about the family would have questions about plural marriage. It’s also full of distinctive mormon language that is less meaningful to an outsider than it is to insiders.

But I’d agree that the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a great resource, and really should be the primary resource for this type of reporting. The problem is, I don’t think it’s very well known or easily accessible. Is it on the web?

In a Church where “Follow the Prophet” is a ubiquitous refrain, and past prophets are understood to have been just as in tune with God’s will as the current one, non-Mormons often assume that, absent strong repudiations, the statements of past prophets are still normative.

The assumptions of non-Mormons are the least of our problems. The real problems arise when Mormons assume that the statements of past prophets are still normative.