Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well, maybe I’m nuts, but I feel that I can insist on empiricism and entertain spirituality. But I would change the words to something like… employ empiricism and embrace spirituality. What happens when they contradict or appear to contradict? Ah, maybe that’s the genesis of the really great ideas. What do you do when it “smacks you in the face”? You’ll have to make a choice? Then, how about choose to THINK, not to decide. Accept the new information and move forward, continuing to learn.
I am one that does not really see “science” and “spirituality” as polar opposites or even qualitatively different. They are different constructs, certainly, but different constructs to explain things… to explain truth… to explain our world and ourselves. One construct demands empiricism and a little faith. The other construct demands faith and a little empiricism. The more we develop our understanding of ourselves and our world, the better we become at applying empirical methods to better understand spiritual data. Our scientific knowledge of spirituality is comparitively miniscule, but so was our knowledge of the workings of the brain 100 years ago. I believe that the expanding body of scientific knowledge will very shortly, using empirical methods, eventually develop hypotheses regarding many of the things we consider spiritual (e.g., promptings, spiritual communication).
Maybe the key is thinking of Easter as a season, not as an event that needs to occur on one day. Most wards will have Easter themes, Easter musical numbers by the choir, and Easter-related talks EVEN IF General Conference falls on Easter Sunday. We do the same during Christmas season, even if Christmas falls on a day other than Sunday. Another thing, I always wondered why some people feel they need to be Christmasized or Easterized, or otherwise entertained on those particular days. Maybe some of this comes from the Protestant and Catholic cultures of having giant events on those days when lots of people decide to come to church. In the Mormon church, the difference in attendance is not NEAR as great for those days. In some churches, Easter is like “Black Friday” when businesses finally get out of the red. Call it their “Black Sunday”. They danged sure better put on a show! In the Mormon church, however, it’s kind of like another day at the chapel, and we talk about Christ and teach of Christ just like we ordinarily do. This isn’t a Sunday that’s going to make or break our budget.
I’m not saying we still can’t go out of our way to make these meetings a little more special and recognize, with our Christian cousins, the magnificent events these holidays represent.
No doubt, this quote from Pres Monson is very troubling for some people because for them happiness and contentment do NOT come from just choosing to have faith. Ignoring these doubts and questions causes internal unrest and they hate feeling that way… they need to learn, discover, try to know and understand. Equally troubling, probably, is the very categorical quote from Pres. Hinckley indicating that there is no middle ground. If that’s true, where does that leave most of the people on this message board? Ah, but we’ve advanced beyond the categorical way of thinking, and we recognize that doubting and questioning can lead us to MORE happiness and contentment as we discover places of faith and how God and church fit with who we are and who we want to be. Not to place us and our intellectual thinking above that of prophets, but we understand, prophets or not, that these are men, men charged with the task of leading and guiding a worldwide church the best they know how, using the tools God has given them over a lifetime, which has been a lifetime of faithful service, dedication to duty, and a history of finding words and direction that generalize well to the group. But, since we’re not categorical thinkers (and really, they are probably not totally either), we realize these statements are certainly one way but maybe not the only way to consider our world, our God, and our religion, and that the statements might apply poorly to some people. So, what’s the point in really getting upset by them? Getting upset would be a categorical way of thinking, wouldn’t it?
WofW is always an interesting topic. I think if the church had settled in the south rather than the west, we would have ignored the part about tobacco and focused more on eating meat sparingly.
Ha.
Silly traditions can easily become rules and norms for us morms… for everyone, actually. And, guidance given by GA’s can be interpreted quite differently by leaders down the line. An interesting example of this occurred in two stakes in my area a few years ago. One stake asked men in leadership callings to shave… allowed no facial hair. In the other stake, however, nothing was said. When stake leaders in Stake A realized that Stake B was not shaving, they wondered what was up… “They received the same direction from Elder ____ that we did”, they said. The direction was just interpreted differently. One stake leader change later and the “rule” was forgotten.
I’ve been amazed at how really dumb ideas and directives are followed by intelligent people (I understand I’m being very subjective here… I mean ideas and directives that seem really dumb to several people including me). They’ll often say things like “I don’t really see the point, but I’ll support my leaders and go ahead and do this” thing that might take a great deal of time and effort. Some however, just say “okay”, but don’t do that dumb thing, or put it so low on the priority list that it kind of goes away. A very few say, “No, I think this is a bad idea for these reasons, so we’re choosing to do this other thing instead.”
I also have seen a trend for NEW Stake Presidents to make a lot of changes, give a lot of silly directives, and frankly… in my opinion, make a few mistakes in their first year or two on the job. Has anyone else noticed this trend (subjectives aside) of several new “rules” or “programs” or directives in the first year of a SP? This might be a natural thing… new Presidents of anything usually try to start with a bang. I don’t see this as much with new Bishops. Most new Bishops seem like they are bumbling their way along for the first little while, just trying to cover the bare minimum.
I certainly hope I wasn’t the sunday school teacher that suggested to Maple Leaf the idea that fossils and dinosaur bones may be a remnent of the unorganized matter God gathered together when putting together this earth. I came upon that idea independently (as I remember, anyway) many years ago when trying to justify what I learned about the earth in school and in church. I remember spouting that idea to friends and anyone who might listen and may have hung on to the idea past mission and in early SS teaching years. Ooops. I don’t think this was a unique idea, however. I think lots of people came up with this one. Isn’t it funny when that happens? You think you have an original idea only to find 174 other people also thought of it independently? The “Nephi Wise Man” idea was also one of my originals that turned out to be not so original (though I never considered Samuel and Lehi as part of that group). Anyway, what I wanted to bring up, and maybe this isn’t the right thread, is the idea (not one of my ideas) that in the Big Inning, God hit one out of the park and sent the world up up and away out of its orbit into where it spins now, taking with it all that it already developed and evolved. Equally silly on one hand, but plausible if you squint the right way and consider the relativity of dimensions, time, space, and coelacanths.
If you look at the etymology of the word “cult”, you’ll see it wasn’t pejorative until recent times. Like just about all of our English words, this one can mean different things. In some ways, “cult” defines our church. In other ways, “cult” is the opposite of our church. On the few times I’ve been told that my church is a cult, I ask them what do they mean by “cult”? If they mean blindly following an extremist way outside the societal norms, I invite them to sneak into church, listen to what’s being taught, and then save me. Those previous sentences were statements I’ve heard throughout my life. The one that used to most irritate me was “we’re not supposed to know….”, even though I have used that cliche in my life. It really didn’t matter to me if we were or were not “supposed” to know. I wanted to know and that’s what mattered to me. Such statements don’t bother me much anymore, obviously, even when spouted from the pulpit. Granted, these aren’t the kinds of things I have heard regularly from GC pulpit, but certainly more than twice in Stake Conf, Ward Conf, and particularly SS class.
I don’t think it’s a matter of cricitizing those who are certain, however. Voltaire notwithstanding, there is some comfort and security in certainty and us of all people possibly wish we had a little of that feeling of certainty back. It’s the irritation arising from the feeling of having a blanket put over your head by a person who acts as if they are afraid of your questions.
Adapting belief system to fit the data (including emotions, promptings, personal revelation) may not be in the repretoire of many people. And, that’s okay so long as I can keep their comforter off my head.
I like pie.
You can lead a Mormon to science, but you can’t make him think. “Don’t worry about all that stuff. You think too much. If it were necessary for our salvation, we’d be given that information. God proves scientists wrong all the time. We’re not supposed to know that stuff yet.” “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Victor Frankl is a keeper that should be a part of everyone’s book list sometime in their lives. I remember as a teen reading and being inspired by a very small pamphlet book called “As a Man Thinketh” by James Allen. I haven’t seen that one in a long time, but remember enjoying it at the time.
But, the idea of “prosperity Gospel” is taught constantly at every level in our church. We are taught that the result of our obedience to anything is a particular blessing. We are not taught that obedience will ameliorate our troubles, but certainly that it will bring us some kind of blessing. My parents were told that having a missionary out would bring them great blessings. It brought my mother severe stress, depression, and poor health. It brought my father not enough income to keep the house, forcing them to sell and rent for many subsequent years. Were there blessings too? I’m sure there were, but I’m also sure my parents were not looking forward to my brother going out on a mission a few years later. They learned that bad things happen when you send out a missionary. In the church, we are taught directly and indirectly that obedience and individual prosperity are positively correlated. We USED to be taught indirectly that our station in life NOW is somehow related to valience in the pre-existence, but I don’t hear that dogma preached much anymore. I remember, as a youth, hearing the idea that black people were black because they were pre-mortal “fence-sitters” who just couldn’t decide until the last minute which plan to follow. Even then, the idea didn’t sit well with me, but helped me justify in my own small mind, why they couldn’t receive the priesthood at the time. I remember being happy hearing about the revelation that allowed the priesthood to be given to all worthy male members. Will we ever hear a revelation that the priesthood can also be given to worthy hermaphrodites?
I have another question regarding obedience and prosperity. Is it true? Is it true WITHIN the church that there is a significant positive correlation between obedience to church directives and financial prosperity? I’m not for a minute trying to justify the dogma, but wondering if there is any real correlation. We all have anecdotal examples of completely obedient poor church mice and completely disobedient richy richers, but what does the data show about members in general? Does anyone know?
The “gay ward” idea is interesting, however. I lived in SF several years ago and they split three wards not by geography, but by age and marital status. There was an “old ward” full of retirement age people, the “young married ward” full of newly married to non-retired couples and their families, and then the “single” ward full of many gay members, members trying hard not to be gay, and members wondering where the heck they landed. I was in the young married conglomeration, but heard stories from friends and acquaintences in the singles ward. An interesting place with problems this country boy had never considered, such as “Bishop, why can Jack and Diane hold hands in church, but not Bill and Ted?” Reportedly, one of the bpric members of that ward was single and gay, but behaved in a celibate and modest manner, remaining worthy. I liked that oblique input, Rix. And thanks for pulling the thread back toward the original topic. The rash of syrupy loving mariposa mormony boy messages was starting to make me sleepy. Ha, no offense you fruitcakes, I’m just kidding. Speaking of gays… (insert sideways segue grin), no one ever posited an opinion to my question of whether or not the church, given hypothetical scientific proof of the existence of a “gay gene”, would evolve to the point of allowing a gay person to be baptized. My guess is no, since it could still be argued that a biological press does not necessarily a behavior make. Maybe a more likely scenario would be given hypothetical legalization of plural marriage in the USA, would the church eventually evolve to allow Jack, Jill, and Jennifer, a happily and legally married trio, be baptized if they met all other requirements. Again, I’m guessing no, since this situation surely exists somewhere else in the world where plural marriage is legal and surely we would have heard of it. So, maybe these questions are superfluous, like much of what I write.
Does God use the world to correct the church? The church is people. People progress, advance, learn, and grow, using the systems and knowledge available to expand, press, and push toward a better understanding of themselves and their environment. With God, people feel desires to become better and feel prompted to help one another and make the world a better place. People change the world, yet people also destroy the world. Deus ex populus!
Thanks, Tom. It’s obvious that I’m not a guy that likes to read the directions before putting something together (or attempting to put something together). One of these days when I feel it’s important for me to learn it, I’ll learn the easy task of making quote boxes. Right now, in my small mind, it appears way more effort than perceived value. I’m being economical, in my ignorant way.
What I really wanted to comment on is the ubiquitous two great commandments.
Have you noticed any tendency for well-meaning church members and leaders to connect nearly every command, directive, or assignment to one or the other of these two great commandments, either directly or indirectly?
