Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I picture myself standing at the judgment bar being told you really messed up. You had the truth and ignored it. My only defense will be “If it was so true why was it so confusing, I did the best I could with the information I was given” Elder Hafen makes an illogical argument. If one is to claim divine revelation then one must detail how they obtained that particular bit of revelation, and the method of obtaining revelation becomes critical. Otherwise how can we accept the validity of the message. This is why the varied stories lend doubt to the claim of being divine. If I were to tell you a story of life I had experienced on another planet you would doubt me until I could show pictures, or show you my spaceship or something. We just have a much lower threshold for spiritual claims in the church because it is more magical and we can believe without evidence. He also makes the claim that the information Joseph gave us was so monumental that we should ignore the means by which he obtained it. Again it is only monumental by his own standards. IN relation to other beliefs or even works of fiction it could just as easily be termed run of the mill. Mark Twain once claimed the BoM was “chloroform in print” He was coming at it from a literary point of view so to him it was rather ordinary.
We must always be careful when we assume that where we are standing is the center of the universe. It could just as easily be the outer rim.
I teach whatever I feel like in High Priests Quorum within reason. They have no sway over me. The only thing that can really happen is to get released. I personally believe stifling thought is a dangerous thing. People should always be exposed to more than one point of view or opinion. Tom Haws wrote:Flowerdrops,
The LDS widget system works by pointing us to the temple, then measuring certain performances to qualify us for the temple. When we are young, the temple is an aim–“I will be worthy to enter the temple.” When we are old, the temple is a standard, “I have a current recommend.” All our doing and teaching is, from the Howard Hunter perspective, aimed at the temple, and the temple provides a unique structure to our religion. Because of the temple, we really avoid extra-marital sex. Because of the temple, we really don’t drink. Because of the temple, we really pay 1/10 to the church, and church properties are debt free. Frankly, I find it a fascinating system when I get into my religion-building mindset.
Good question.
I agree the temple is not about work for the dead but about controlling current members. I think we would be a much better organization if we did not have such an obsession with the dead and put all our energy into the living. The dead are not going anyplace but with the living we only have a finite amount of time to enhance their situation. I have always dreamed of the church getting involved in local charities. Working with other faiths to help the poor. But we always go it alone and the youth do some token service project to satisfy the commandment to help the poor. Imagine what we could do in the church if we really put all our resources toward it.
Poppyseed wrote:Cadence, wow……I just want to thank you for posting this today. Two days ago I was ready to completely walk away from the church. After one event with my VTing companion this week, my husband is now ready to take a serious break from church. Too much for too long I guess. We both talked this morning about how hard it is to keep bitterness out of our hearts. But as we have pondered our feelings these last 48 hours, neither of us feel that we can leave the church. There is too much of the doctrine written inside the core of who we are. I don’t know how to get where you are…..with finding a new way to enjoy participating in the church. That part is a real struggle for me right now. I am angry and hurt and frustrated while what I really want to feel is peace and understanding and hope. It’s like I can see the picture of how I want to be, but getting there is not a reality yet and that makes me frustrated with myself.
How did you arrive at that place of peace? Did it just come to you? Did you pray for it? Was it a conscious decision?
Anyway, thank you, Cadence.
Bottom line is I decided to leave the guilt behind. Everything I do is because it appeals to me and feels like the right thing to do. I refuse to experience what a good friend of mine calls “spiritual anxiety” So I go to church and participate but let all the crazy stuff slide by. Except occasionally I will throw out a comment in SS just for fun. The church does have a great support system and we all need to belong to something and this is the most natural for me, whether I believe everything they say or not.
Hope you can make this work. I loved the original podcasts. I would be glad to help but I do not know anyone interesting. I spend most of my time being invisible in the church. I am a little skeptical when church leaders issue a personal challenge linked to behavior based on Mormon doctrine. Its one thing to challenge you to lose weight or donate your time to helping the poor, but its another to challenge you on something as abstract as the temple. Just what blessings are you suppose to get. It is always very vague what the actual benefits are. Although the Bishop is most likely sincere I tend to believe it is more a control issue. Do what you are told and you will be happy. For me it does not work that way. Fear is a hard thing to overcome. When I was a child I was afraid of the dark. Then I remember vividly one day saying to myself this is irrational. I now choose not to be afraid. From that point on I no longer feared what I could not see. So it is with the church and me. I made the decision to take the good that worked for me and discard the irrational. Those things that I can not make sense of such as for me it is work for the dead I choose not to worry about. If at some point in the future I suffer Godly punishment my only defense will be I did the best I could with the information I had at hand. I am willing to live with the consequences of my rational thought processes. I have thought it is not so much a matter of atoning for our sins but setting an example of sacrifice. Christ showing his ultimate compassion was willing to suffer both mentally and physically perhaps to show us the degree that he was willing to go for us. In other words I (being Christ) suffered these things for all, now you must be willing to follow and sacrifice for your fellowmen. Not in agony as he did but by service. What he went through was the best option to make it a universal symbol. This is of course just speculation on my part but it is how I have been able to give merit to the act of the atonement. As far as the church is concerned I believe they very much teach the debt debtor concept.
I like what Rix said. I agree with about 95% of his statements. The challenge I think we are facing as a church is the future. The working model we have now may not work in the future. With the advent of the internet and the information more widely available it is possible a time will come when there are just to many members asking to many questions. Right now the church discourages the use of the internet to find out anything about the church. It preaches correlation to control the message. I am not sure how long that can last. It may be that it will last for a long time, but the real determining factor will be the actual growth rate of the church. NOt the published growth rate but those who stay active in the faith. If this starts to take a dip then things may change. mormonheretic wrote:As the man who set up Consecration in Utah, Brigham would be pro-union, pro-environment, pro-socialism–pretty much everything the Republicans stand against.
What more proof do you need that Brigham was way off base as far as politics is concerned.
Consider it took the Catholic church almost 400 years after Galileo to admit the earth revolves around the sun. It was only after the evidence became so overwhelming and accepted by 99% of the population that an official declaration was made. We may want to believe we live in an more enlightened age and we do to some respect but cognitive bias is so strong in the church that to consider that there are egregious errors probably does not enter into the equation for most members or leaders. There is this very nice sister in our ward who is very well read and articulate. She is a self professed expert on church history, yet she would never accept any of the negative aspects of church history to be accurate. It simply does not fit her world view. The real question may be how much do the church leaders really know. We may want to assume they know everything. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t, I have no way of knowing. But as long as you have leaders such as Elder Packer who view history as not relevant I believe not much will change. And since it tends to be self perpetuation in that these men select other men like themselves to lead the bias gets passed along. I do agree very much with Brian’s comments. The tipping point will come when enough members overcome their bias and start to either require more honesty and change or they leave the church in droves. Either way it will cause the church to adapt to the new reality it finds itself in.
I guess it is a question of what you believe is “feeling the spirit”. If you are looking for a true witness from God I do not think you need ot be in church for that. In fact I have never felt much at church. Church for me is more of the administrative part of the process. If I want o get close to God I will go climb a mountain, or go out into the desert. For me personally being in Gods creations is much more of witness to me of his existence than church will ever be. That being said I think it is important to attend. YOu build social relationships that are important. You may receive instruction, or you may feel the spirit, but I would not think it a bad thing that you do not always feel so great while at church.
