Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
wayfarer wrote:
Should we want to discuss this further, may I suggest you open a new topic on what “etermal life” means? It really isn’t part of the TR interview topic.
This is from the TR interview thread. Looks like you beat me to it!
Really, the direction I was going with this is different from the direction you are going, so I’m not sure whether this is a thread jack or not. On the other hand, how many threads about the meaning of eternal life do we really need?
I’ll just plow on, and if we need another thread I guess one can be started.
The aspect of “eternal life” that interests me is the Heaven part. Living with God forever, etc. As I said on the other thread, until quite recently I thought that baptism was the gateway to what Jesus referred to as being “saved”. A more careful reading of current LDS sources suggests that it’s actually temple marriage. My bishop says that also and was a little surprised anybody could find anything else in the teachings of the church, although I have heard PH leaders teach this also, that baptism was the gateway to heaven.
So often people disagree in these threads because their underlying assumptions are different (uh oh, another possible thread jack). One tangle I perpetually get into with other “middle way” types is that, for me, the church gets to define what it is and the leaders have to be taken seriously. When the leaders continually claim the LDS church is the only true church, they set a high standard for it and for their own authority and I think they should be held accountable for that authority and for those statements. Thus I can have a crisis of faith over a single Ensign article where one GA quotes Marion G Romney as saying my salvation is dependent on my belief (or not) in the 1838 first vision story, where others just brush this stuff off and don’t worry about it.
OK, back to the point.
In the other thread you refer to “speculation”, and in this one you talk about whether Uchtdorf is correct or not in his use of the term eternal life. My feeling is that in order to consider yourself a believing and fully participating member of the LDS church, these men and their authority has to be recognized and their statements considered to establish some level of doctrine. I don’t think it’s possible to go every Sunday and hold a calling and maybe a TR and look like a good Mormon to others while still saying “well, the stuff they say is just their opinion” etc.
Although on the other hand D Todd Christofferson’s Sunday morning talk from the last GC has to be considered also, as well as a recent LDS newsroom post suggesting that the doctrine of the church was established by the standard works.
To me it’s all a mass of confusion at times. These guys claim to speak for God, and then you try to line up all their pronouncements and just go crazy trying to fit it all together.
I guess where I’m coming from on this is that in general recent talks and statements in “True to the Faith” are pretty clear that what most people consider “salvation” is obtained through temple marriage. Am I to try to take these things seriously, or is it just “speculation”, and there really is no doctrine and it’s up to me to pray and try to figure it out?
wayfarer wrote:BobDixon wrote:I would really love to go back to the temple again and could probably come up with a way to answer the questions honestly, but in general I just believe the cultural restrictions are wrong and have no intention of being an orthodox Mormon again. The temple is the gateway to eternal life and I just don’t believe moderate consumption of coffee or alcohol has any relevance to anything Jesus said in the bible about salvation. These things are metrics of your obedience to church leaders, and that has little to do with trusting in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. I could play the game. I did it for 20+ years. I just refuse to.
Even after nearly seven years of thoroughly exploring evangelical Protestantism, the Book of Mormon is the single best expression of my personal faith. If I can’t be “saved” based on those things, what is wrong with this picture?
You are saved entirely based upon the atonement of Jesus Christ — that is the eternal Doctrine. While “obedience” is also an eternal principle, the word of wisdom, the amount of tithing you pay, and other requirements of the church are not eternal principles in and of themselves.We’ll discuss the word of wisdom when that question comes up.
I don’t see attending the temple, or the temple recommend interview as a game, but rather, a self-examination of one’s own worthiness. The questions are to be asked as written, and the interviewer is to seek the spirit in interpreting the responses. If you are tentative and doubtful, then the interviewer may seek to clarify your doubts. On the other hand, if you have come to a confident position of where you stand, confirmed by the spirit, then there is no reason for doubt or being tentative.
Probably my biggest remaining “issue” right now is the way we translate what Jesus said about being “saved” to current LDS doctrine and practice. During my TBM years, 20+, full activity, daily scripture study, I always thought baptism was the gateway to heaven and the temple ordinances were extra stuff leading to godhood that I wasn’t all that interested in. After a lot of study and discussion with my bishop I came to understand that I was mistaken. When Jesus talks about being “saved”, enjoying “eternal life”, going to “heaven”, etc., according to current LDS doctrine the gateway to that is temple marriage and not baptism. Conference talks allude to it, and it’s clearly stated in “True to the Faith”, which is the closest doctrinal statement we have. You may say that the atonement paid the price for your sins, but the sealing ordinances are the delivery vehicle for the full measure of the atonement, and I just can’t buy into that.
As far as the TR questions I don’t see where sustaining the leaders as prophets seers and revelators is a significant measure of personal worthiness. If you want to reword the question to sustaining them as good men doing the best they can and entitled to revelation in their callings, that I could support.
I would really love to go back to the temple again and could probably come up with a way to answer the questions honestly, but in general I just believe the cultural restrictions are wrong and have no intention of being an orthodox Mormon again. The temple is the gateway to eternal life and I just don’t believe moderate consumption of coffee or alcohol has any relevance to anything Jesus said in the bible about salvation. These things are metrics of your obedience to church leaders, and that has little to do with trusting in Jesus for the forgiveness of sins. I could play the game. I did it for 20+ years. I just refuse to. Even after nearly seven years of thoroughly exploring evangelical Protestantism, the Book of Mormon is the single best expression of my personal faith. If I can’t be “saved” based on those things, what is wrong with this picture?
One question to ponder . . . Is the individual’s role to serve the organization, or the organization’s role to serve the individual?
The church is not the Rotary, the boy scouts, etc. Its purpose is to lead people to salvation in Christ. Its purpose is not to protect itself or to further its own institutional goals, except in the sense that it maintains that pathway to eternal life for each individual.
When we talk about the rights of organizations, etc., it might be more useful to focus on their responsibilities. I think there are reasons for excommunication where that leads a person to repentance or where individuals might be harmed. i.e. generally men engaging in sexual assault where people are harmed.
There is no sense in which inactivity or substance abuse harms the church or directly harms individuals within the church, other than maybe providing an example of another choice. If we think that somehow the example of one substance abuser, unwed mother, viewer of pornography, etc, is more powerful than the example of hundreds of others that don’t do those things, I think we underrate the power of the gospel to change lives and we expose an unspoken belief that evil is more powerful than good and that sin is so much more enjoyable and powerful than righteousness that the only way to avoid it is to try not to think about it.
In general I think excommunication is not about saving the individual or protecting others, but throwing the individual under the bus in order to protect the reputation of the church.
If you think about excommuncation theologically, its primary impact is not “you can’t come to my meeting and pretend to be part of my club”, but “the saving ordinances are all invalidated and the doors of heaven are closed to you until we open them again”. Is inactivity or substance abuse really a reason to exclude someone from eternal life, if these situations are not based on willful behavior? i.e. an intentional turning away from the influence of the Holy Spirit? I don’t think so.
Old-Timer wrote:As I said, Bob, I understand that. You’re new here, but I’m the resident parser.
I still wouldn’t use “deceptive” – especially in a couple of the cases you listed. In at least two cases, there was no deception whatsoever, unless that term is defined so broadly that your own comment can be called deceptive (
since it also didn’t include every possible aspectand, therefore, wasn’t totally comprehensive). I don’t think your coment was “deceptive”, so I don’t want to define the word that broadly.
Just seeking understanding and not being argumentative . . . which two cases did you not think involved deception? Just wondering whether we are working from different facts, different interpretation, or different definition of the word.
In general my issue is not with the history or the doctrine. 33 wives for JS? Cool by me as long as no “priestcraft” is involved. Adam/God? Bring it on. Denying Blacks the priesthood? Wrong, but well intentioned. My issue is invariably the “deception”, so I want to understand other viewpoints.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:The “middle way” is centered in the more mature understanding that the institutional LDS church is deceptive in its teachings and practices.
Fwiw, that also is far too broad for me to accept as written.
I tried to pick a word with less load attached to it, than, say, “lying”, but it’s a subtle point to get across. The LDS church attempts to create impressions of things that aren’t true in a lot of the lessons and official communications. It’s all for noble intent, but still these things aren’t true. For example not mentioning Joseph Smith’s polygamy and creating the impression that he was either not a polygamist or that it was maybe just Emma and Eliza R Snow. GBH’s “I don’t know that we teach that anymore”, when he knows full well we teach it. Russell M Nelson solemnly intoning that marriage is between one man and one woman when he’s sealed to two wives that expects to be his in the afterlife. When they talk about how there is no paid clergy (in small print “at the local level”) while at the same time knowing GAs are generally receiving six figure “living allowances”. The recent newsroom item about how doctrine is determined by the standard works, when of course it’s the leaders who interpret what they mean. These things are done to protect people’s faith and to present a positive image of the church to the outside world, and from a legal standpoint are not really “lies”, because they are not specifically saying things that are not true, but incorrect impressions are being intentionally created by what is not said or by what is carefully said, and this meets my definition of “deceptive”.
Being able to hold this in your head without going crazy is what the “middle way” is about, not just doing 50% of your home teaching or closing your eyes during half of the R rated movie.
Shawn wrote:I think the Middle Way is rubbish. It’s not a great way to live, stuck on the fence or standing with one foot in Israel and the other in Babylon. Neither enjoying the blessings nor “enjoying” riotous living. If one experiences a faith crisis, it should be overcome quickly.
I also lived the Middle Way for a couple years at least – I just had no idea people were calling it that. I had serious concerns but continued church attendance. I served in my calling only half-heartedly. I rarely went to the temple. I thought about leaving altogether.
Many people who are perceived as TBM live the MIddle Way. They may not have serious concerns, but they don’t have burning testimonies. They go to church to avoid conflict and don’t take home teaching or other things seriously.
I very much like being a TBM (as I now consider myself to be) more than living the Middle Way. I sincerely hope that all here will work toward being TBM. For now, I suppose living the Middle Way to stayLDS is better than leaving altogether.
I don’t see why you would say you could never get a temple recommend again.
WHY NOT‽Also, I respectfully but strongly disagree with the statement “there’s not enough Jesus in the LDS church.” I apologize for being new here and not knowing your history. Your registration is new and I don’t really know whether you’re an old-timer in these “middle way” discussion boards, a new zealot, or frankly just a troll who likes to stir things up. Not trying to be insulting here, but I just don’t know.
The most polite response I can muster is that I just don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I don’t think your statement that the “middle way is rubbish” is accurate, because your definition of the “middle way” is from the typical black/white TBM perspective where people suffering a faith crisis are just slackers who aren’t trying hard enough or who don’t measure up in some way. Your description of the middle way being between Israel and Babylon is a false dichotomy and is based on the paradigm of the gospel being about behavior, personal righteousness, and keeping the commandments. That’s what the church teaches, so I don’t suppose you can be faulted for that, but my own belief is that the gospel is primarily about faith and belief and heart change, and behavior follows those things and not the other way around. The gospel is primarily about faith, grace, and forgiveness and not about personal behavior.
The “middle way” is centered in the more mature understanding that the institutional LDS church is deceptive in its teachings and practices. All for good reasons, in the same way that you don’t tell the whole truth to children, but at its core it is still deceptive. It whitewashes the history. It is not truthful about the true doctrine. The “middle way” is not accepting the black/white “the church is true or it isn’t”, but appreciating that the truth is somewhere in the middle and being able to live with that in peace, to accept the good things while not ingesting the bad ones and being overcome by them.
It is not always possible to overcome a true faith crisis quickly when the object of your faith is found to be based on a foundation of shifting sand. For example I’ve been in my “crisis of faith” since about 2005. The last tipping point was an Ensign article solemnly quoting Marion G Romney to the extent that my salvation was in jeopardy if I didn’t believe the 1838 First Vision account. If you’ve been around at all you know there are several accounts, and the 1832 version, the first one recorded, is substantially different than the 1838 version, and forcing me either in or out of heaven based on just one version is completely irresponsible. So, how does one quickly overcome a faith crisis over something like that? Other than by just leaving.
The primary reason I could never get a temple recommend is because I believe Thomas S Monson is a good man who tries hard, but in no way measures up as “prophet seer and revelator” in the way we are expected to shower him with adulation and total obedience. I just this morning read his PH session talk, and it fell far short of what it should have been. The usual recycled sappy stories from half a century ago and trite moralisms. Limp dishwater. I respect the First Presidency and apostles as leaders of the church, but their revelation for my life doesn’t trump my revelation for my life.
As far as not having enough Jesus in the LDS church, that’s almost worthy of another post, but this one is probably enough damage for one day. It would be an interesting exercise to read Enos and Jacob and 2 Ne 25 and compare the tone to most of what is said in general conference or in church lessons. One is designed to turn my heart towards faith in Christ. The other is mostly focused on capturing my time and my money and my obedience, and hopefully I’ll find Christ in there somewhere.
Thanks for listening, and sorry if I offended in any way. I just don’t know how else to put it.
wayfarer wrote:meanwhile, in priesthoood, the HP group was reviewing
Christopherson’s talk in last conferenceI just skimmed this talk, and maybe it actually says less than people think it does. I think his point is that doctrine is whatever the prophet says it is *right now*. He says that not everything a church *leader* says is doctrine, in light of an earlier statement that it’s up to the prophet to interpret the mind and will of the Lord.
His point is more that the leaders are not accountable for anything that may have been said in the past and I think the BY story is illustrative. Pushing back Johnston’s army was interpreted as the mind and will of the Lord in the morning, but by the afternoon it was something different. I doubt seriously the morning talk was prefixed by “folks, this is just my strongly held opinion, but . . .”.
He also doesn’t draw the obvious connection to the current president of the Church, or the implication that we should maybe wait and see whether metaphorically the morning talk will be reversed in the afternoon, in the morning President Monson will be against gay marriage, but in the afternoon he will claim it was just Tom Monson speaking, etc.
I think this was generally a good talk, but I see it as a gigantic ink blot that you can interpret most any way you want. Largely it gives the leaders plausible deniability to reverse course on any subject any time they choose, to appear to publicly disavow teachings like the King Follett sermon while still really teaching them, to disavow polygamy while still really practicing it, etc.
Also, he speaks of course with authority, but if leaders are not guaranteed to be speaking doctrine, how does this not apply to his talk as well?
afterall wrote:I love that “the evangelical Christian side of my Mormonism” ! That exists in me too!
I’m channeling Grant Palmer here, but to me the BoM is 19th century Methodism in amber. It answers most of the burning theological questions of the day in a nice neat package. It’s trinitarian and aggressively grace-centered. It’s not about the foundation of a large bureaucratic corporation running a church, as opposed to a church running a corporation. To me it refines a lot of the doctrines for which there are building blocks in the Bible, but really no coherent and processed summaries. I was reading the Book of Enos a couple of days ago and found it to be the best thumbnail sketch of the gospel out there. I mean, Jacob had a much sounder understanding of Christian faith and theology than any of the apostles in the Bible and presents it much more succinctly. That’s the church I want to belong to, the one where a 14 year-old boy could go into the woods seeking a spiritual experience and have the world’s understanding of religion turned on its head.
Sadly, I don’t know that we teach that anymore.
In some ways non-denominational Protestant churches are more Mormon than the LDS church is. There’s that restless pioneer spirit and the idea that God has something new out there, just beyond the edges of what we can see in the light before us. They’re just bound by the early church councils and ideas of “inerrancy”.
