Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The LDS church uses priesthood power in somewhat vague terms. There seems to be two approaches to priesthood “power”. 1. The priesthood is the authority to administer in ordinances. Also, you can argue that these functions are found in the Aaronic priesthood. The Melchizedek priesthood having more to do with the powers of heaven.
Ray – I read your lesson. I thought it was great. You can correct me if I am wrong but I think you take the approach of the priesthood/Priesthood as the authority and the calling for administration of ordinance work and for doing good.
I have no problem with this approach. Every church can define their set of rules for priesthood functions and service.
2. The power of the priesthood as referring to a power from heaven. This is used in the LDS vernacular as a distinct power. The power that god created the universe and so forth.
I went to
https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=enghttps://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood/world-priesthood?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood/world-priesthood?lang=eng This section talks about the miraculous “power” of the priesthood. I have to side with Cadence on this in asking where is the power evident of the priesthood that the church talks about here? I am not talking about sign seekers either. I don’t buy the argument that healings or other manifestations of priesthood power are denied because of everyone being a sign seeker. Just to be clear, I think a sign seeker should never see anything because of curiosity. However, sincere believers are a different case. Didn’t Christ ask the man, “do you believe” and the man responded “I believe Lord please bless my unbelief.”
I would love to believe that there exists a “power” from god on earth. It would truly be great if the priesthood were something that really did bless the entire world ecclesiastically and physically. Sadly, I think the whole priesthood thing is an invention of man. There is no real power where limbs are re-grown or sickness is healed. Science and medicine have made much more advances than all of the priesthood blessings. I also don’t buy the argument when blessings don’t work that a person’s faith is not sufficient or maybe they were just given their problem as a way to learn something. I think that is just a crock.
Like to add my two cents and say that I think it is definitely better to have not gone on a mission than to come back early. The church culture is not very forgiving for missionaries that come home early. I have a nephew that recently returned home early from his mission. I don’ t know the details. He has gone completely inactive. He felt ostracized and ashamed. There is simply no support structure for a missionary that “fails”. It doesn’t matter the reason given. People in the ward see him/her back early and ask questions. Most of the youth their age are either on missions or at school. There is so much loneliness and guilt that the only option they see is inactivity. After the pain and rejection, comes the anger. In my nephew’s case there is just too much anger now to even consider coming back to church. Quote:As one who essentially did not go on a mission and yet continued to be active in the church, I can say it gets easier to deal with.
I agree with this. After the years go by it will become less and less on an issue. When the issue of a mission comes up you can say “I never went on a mission”. Much easier than having to say you went on a mission but had to come home early. That just gets a potential follow up question or even awkward silence. I don’t think in the church there is a bigger conversation stopper than bringing up a dishonorable mission, meaning you didn’t finish the two years. Regardless how you try to explain it, it is an albatross.
Thanks all for the input. This day will be about my son and his new bride and of course, not about me. On Own Now, as always I appreciate you sharing your situation.I thinking about doing some preemptive work with immediated relatives prior to the wedding date. Talking to individuals will be repetative but I think it will avoid any akwardness or embarassment for my son. If everyone knows in advance prior to the temple date, then the focus will be off of me and on them where it should be. I assume this is what you did as well. I couldn’t tell from your post if some relatives found out you were not going to be in the temple on the wedding day or earlier. I like the idea of a ring ceremony but I will let me son decide that. Of course I know weddings are important for both men and women but I think men will agree that wedding day’s are mostly about the bride, her mother, etc. I’m not saying any of that is bad. It is wonderful. On my wedding day I could have worn any suit and any tie. I wanted the whole thing to be over with and take off. I didn’t care about the pictures or parties. That is why I feel so badly for my mother about her not being able to see me get married.
I think it will all be good. Thanks to all for listening.
Ray, Have you talked to your future in-laws? How do they feel about the arrangement? I hope this works for you and your family.
When I married my mother could not attend. It hurt her for years. She couldn’t understand how all my wife’s family could attend and she was alone waiting in the temple visiting center. I had total tunnel vision then. I thought I was doing it the “right” way. I was too naive and young to realize the pain I caused my mother. It strained the relationship with my wife for years.
How do you explain to someone that they can’t attend a wedding ceremony?
My very informal research turns up the John A. Widtsoe was the last GA with a beard http://truemiracleswithgenealogy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/John-A.-Widtsoe.jpg ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://truemiracleswithgenealogy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/John-A.-Widtsoe.jpg What is next GC the new GA looked like this?
http://www.byujourneys.org/blog/orson-pratt-homesite-2/http://www.byujourneys.org/blog/orson-pratt-homesite-2/” class=”bbcode_url”> A woman praying in General Conference makes history. 18 year olds going on missions. Whatever next? I can just see it now… “mormon church calls first bearded GA since George Albert Smith” That’s what I call progress!
BTW, who was the last bearded GA?
First of all I don’t think I made the point very clearly in my first post based on some of the responses. I point all interested to this web link [ deleted by admin] to better understand where I’m coming from. ( You probably aren’t aware of it, El Cid, but the link was to one of the most famous anti-Mormon websites in existence. It is their explicit mission to help destroy the LDS Church, and they are very open about it. Thus, I deleted the url. – Ray] Second there are principals that are beautiful in the LDS church, however some of the practices on growth are negative.
1) Missions – My mission was driven by stats. There was no question about it. My MP wanted the mission to be #1 in baptizing mission in the state. The practices were sales techniques. I didn’t know at the time as a naive 19 year old. In my professional life I know now that that is what they were. How to close. What phrases to use. The percentages of discussions taught, the number of BOM placed were correlated to number of baptisms expected. If 200 baptisms were achieved one month then 225 ought to be expected next month. Growth came from hard work. If you weren’t baptizing you were doing something wrong. If investigators were not interested you moved on. You job was to teach after all right? Go after the low hanging fruit.
I know now that not all missions are as extreme as mine was but you can’t tell me that baptisms are not still the big indicator of a mission success. The goal is to baptize.
Why does the need to baptize and grow numbers of baptisms need even be part of the missionary process? Why can’t missionaries just have goals to do good and have goals to serve. Imagine missionaries going around in their communities and simply looking for people to serve. An elderly lady needs help around the house or to be taken to the store or doctor once a week. Some guy needs to sod his lawn, paint his house or whatever. I know missionaries today do more service but this is not their primary goal. They are sent out to teach and to grow the chuch membership.
In today’s society it would really be something for two young people just showing up and offering to help and ask for nothing in return. People would probably wonder who the heck these guys were? Folks might want to pay them for their trouble and missionaries would say no. Well then what do you want? We want nothing. I think people would be stunned by this approach today. The teaching of the gospel would come through their examples. The teaching of discussions would come as later. Not the other way around. This approach involves risks to baptism goals. Not all people would become curious and ask missionaries questions. The “preaching” of the gospel IMO is being accomplished. Preaching the gospel doesn’t always have to equate to short term goals.
Isn’t this what Ammon did? Serve first with no strings attached and the curiosity of gospel practices in action made the King want to know why?
2). Emphasis on temple attendance – At least in our stake there is this huge push to attend the temple. I mentioned in another post that members are being “asked” to go to the temple once a month. Why do you have to ask people to go to the temple? If people want to go they will go. Do you have to harp on people to attend the temple like home teaching?
I have read posts here about where temples are built tithing increases and that is the motive behind temple building. I don’t know if that is the reason for this push or not. Is growth the reason for this practice? And what is bein grown?
Setting goals and trying to reach them is a good practice and is a good life skill. Motivations for growth in any organization is an interesting topic. There are principles and then there are practices. My original question was about the church’s approach to growth and the motivations behind the practices.
Quote:But another way to look at it is that any of the Q15 is perfectly capable of taking on the role of Church President. The Church today is guided much more by sound practices and inspiration than it is by revelation
I think you are right. Any one of the Q15 are capable of taking on the role based on their many years of church service. The point I was trying to make was that different individuals have different skills and abilities that, with their individual leadership, can take an organization on different paths.
Harold B. Lee stated, privately at least, that he would not change the policy on blacks and the priesthood, for example. SWK was of a different opinion obviously and the policy was reversed. After JS’s death, can you imagine if Samuel Smith or Sidney Rigdon had become the next prophet? Would the Saints have migrated West? I suppose you could say that if moving West was the Lord’s will then regardless of who was in the position the church would have moved West. I think that if it had not been Brigham Young, quite possibly the church would have stayed or migrated somewhere else.
History is full of examples of unique personalities leaving their own mark based on their approach to obstacles and challenges. An Abraham Lincoln versus a Stephen A. Douglas or Pope John Paul versus a Cardinal Belleni.
When I read David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, it was amazing just how much church leadership is not as united as it appears. There were many differences among leaders about various policies. McKay was a charismatic leader and had the ability to take the LDS church from a small US religion to a worldwide religion.
Right now the next in line in the LDS church is Packer. People on this forum talk about what he has said and his philosophy all the time. Where would Packer lead the church if he became the next prophet?
I work with many Catholics and it was actually quite moving the prayers they expressed for the new Pope and the genuine hope for their faith. There was a succession crisis after the death of Joseph Smith and there was quite a bit of “campaigning” by many individuals to take over the role as the new prophet. I’m not sure after Brigham Young succeeded in becoming the next prophet if the process has changed from today. Maybe someone can chime in on this historical part. With the new Pope being announced I was thinking about this process too and started to poke around the Internet a bit.
From the LDS Newsroom
Quote:The appointment of a new president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints happens in an orderly way that — remarkably in today’s world — avoids any trace of internal lobbying for position or rank. Viewed by members as a divinely revealed process, it is devoid of electioneering whether behind the scenes or in public.
Seems like an odd way of wording this. Makes it sound like the LDS church is above the whole process of other wordly organizations (I assume meaning the Catholic church). Here is the full link –
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/succession-in-the-presidency-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints And then this head scratching comment at Mormonwiki (I know it’s just wiki but it’s out there to read)
Quote:It is truly the Lord who calls a man to be prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Lord controls who His president will be in the following ways:
The Lord determines who is called to be an apostle and when they will be called. This includes who will be ordained first if two men are called at the same time (For instance, Spencer W. Kimball and Ezra Taft Benson were ordained apostles on the same day. Because Pres. Kimball was ordained first, he became prophet after the death of Harold B. Lee. If Pres. Benson had been ordained first, Pres. Kimball would never have become the prophet).
The Lord can choose when an apostle will die, thus altering seniority.
The Lord, through revelation, established the system.
Link –
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Choosing_a_Prophet I’ve always thought that the Spirit should determine who the right person is for the right time. In the LDS church it is a foregone conclusion who the next prophet will be. Revelation is not even mentioned. When you read the official succession process of succession in the church, it sounds like a board meeting with formal motions and the rest of it. Al least the Catholics state they involve prayer and fasting in their process…
I think you hit the nail on the head On Own Now. The church creates a lot of absolutes like the ones you mentioned. I think it has also painted itself into a corner with these absolutes. In public, the church is trying to appear mainstream but when someone investigates the doctrinal points they have to start to accept absolutes on many things. There is not a lot of wiggle room when you claim you are the one true church and Jesus Christ is at the head or you have the true priesthood passed down from Him, etc. Quote:All the church has to say is that we don’t know what the hell JS was thinking, but it wasn’t from God and it isn’t a part of our faith… now let’s talk about how helping our less-fortunate brothers and sisters helps us to strengthen the Kingdom of God here on the earth.
It would be great if Sunday’s were spent talking about this, but there probably isn’t a F&T meeting that does not go without someone making an absolute statement of some kind or ending a lesson with the same. The points are made over and over in lessons and talks. Aboslute statements always bring challenges. If I say I have a web site that will never be cracked or these facts are irrefutable or some other absolute, it will always be challenged.
Wow Wuwei, I thought I was having flashbacks when I was reading your experiene. Here is my question. What should the outcome of a two year mission be? Is it personal growth, getting closer to God? Or fulfilling the mission of the church, i.e., baptize because that is still the measure of “success”?
Seems like a big concern of the church is the big percent of return missionaries going inactive. The church is now a correlated church. I think missions, missionaries and MP’s are part of that correlated approach.
Quote:I can agree or disagree with specific practices, but I do believe the top leadership is motivated by genuine concern for people – and, again, Preach My Gospel is explicit in its definition of “success” in non-numerical terms.
I’m not so sure what the motivation is at the top leadership regarding baptisms. I have included the link to the article on baseball baptisms –
http://mormonstories.org/baseballbaptisms.html . I would like to believe the top leadership has pure motives as well, however, all the sales tactics, misguided incentives and goals for baptisms such as a goal of over 1,000 baptisms to celebrate Pres McKay’s birthday seem not in line with the gospel at all. That period might be considered really out of wack but your hear from time to time some pretty crazy stories still to this day on baptisim goals in various missions. It would seem to me that someone in the leadership, if not Pres McKay himself would have put a stop to it. After the huge mess he leadership tried to undo the damage done by sending Mark E. Peterson (I believe) to try and help undo some of the damage.This emphasis on baptisms still is part of the culture. To the extent that leadership is aware of abuses (and it seems like abuses depend on your point of view) that they just ignore it. I will say that on my mission our MP made it a point to tell us that his goal was to be the top baptizing mission in the state. The leadership in the mission was (AP’s, Zone leaders, etc) when interviewing missionaries were instructed to ask missionaries about their baptisms. The number of lessons taught, BOM’s placed and contacts made were all about meeting that goal. Our MP later became a member of the Seventy. I don’t want to say that it was always all about baptisms every day, but it was clear from the start of my mission that baptisms equated to success.
It was painful then and it is still painful to this day how much it bothered me and how much I started to equate baptisms with being a worthy successful missionary. What was wrong with me? Was I not fasting enough? Was I not working enough? Should we give up our p-day and work (which many missionaries were encouraged to do) in the hope of success. When I read the story of the baseball baptisms it brings back bad memories.
Even when I was at my most believing (on my own mission) I never understood the ongoing pressure to baptize. On my mission the joke was “by stats are ye saved”. I don’t know why the emphasis needs to be on baptisms anyway. Wouldn’t a desire for baptism come as a natural outcome on the investigator’s part to better his/her life? On my mission we had a GA come and I brought up the problem of retention and how in our mission so many were being baptised so quickly and then going inactive. His response was that even if they fall away right away they still were given the opportunity to have the “light and knowledge” for a short time. At the time that answer seemed to make sense because I thought the zeal we were all about was to spread the gospel “with urgency”.
Maybe the the church just still takes a statistical approach. I’ve read the David O McKay book by Gregory Prince. The goals, quotas, comparative charts, incentives, material rewards, and deadlines were among the “well-known salesmanship techniques” that Henry D. Moyle made part of the LDS church’s world-wide missionary work. The baseball baptisms were a huge mess that the church had to clean up in Europe but I think that same approach in many missions is still taken today.
I have to agree with some of the posts about this topic on how all talks have taken on the same appearance and mannerisms. Since the talks have become prepared months in advance and read from teleprompters, you might as well just read them or listen to them later. I’m dating myself but gone are the fun speakers like LeGrand Richards, Mathew Cowley and Paul Dunn. I either grew up listening to them in conference or, in Mathew Cowley’s case older broadcasts. Really, you could tune in to a conference from six years ago and hear the same topics emphasizing the same things.
Mike/Heber13, Thanks for the encouraging posts. I wonder if anyone has posted steps to disaffection on the board somewhere. I am not saying that to be facetious in any way because I feel like it is almost a grieving process that I am going through. After putting in so much time (a mission, temple marriage, tithing, etc.) and then to step back from it, it really quite an emotional roller coaster.
I know I have to start looking at the church from a different point of view and I guess that is what is hard at this point. I just can’t sit in another F/T meeting as an example or a lesson on the importance of temple attendance, home teaching or missionary work. I begin to think critical thoughts, get angry and ask myself “how can they say that”. I don’t want to feel negative toward the church and its teachings so staying away is the best thing right now.
Being away now I’ve had time to just reflect and I pulled out my old missionary journal. It is hard not to shake my head as I read my journal entries. Many entries express feelings of guilt for either not being worthy enough to accomplish some mission goal (usually baptisms), seeking strength by trying to pray harder or saying to myself “you’re not working hard enough!”. When I read that right now I don’t feel any nice sense of nostalgia. Instead I feel like I committed two years of my life to baptizing people that, for all I know, are going through the same thing I am.
I could see myself warming up to the idea of even coming back but I really don’t know how I can be in the church without either objecting and feeling uncomfortable versus simply keeping quiet and try not disagree. It is funny that when you are a believer you go along and think “all is well” right? It is helpful for me to read the posts of everyone because it helps me to see that there yet may be a way for me to re-align in some way.
Getting other’s perspectives helps and I guess that is why I ask if there is some 5, 6 or 7 step process that someone may have posted. I’m surely in one of those stages now. I have read some of the posts on James Fowler’s Stages of Faith but I think this is more like stages of grieving/disaffection. Like I said, I don’t know if there are some posts on this site already. John Dehlin’s podcasts on navigating a faith crisis have been helpful as well.
Again, thanks for all the encouragement. Some of you regulars on this site might think you see so many similar posts and maybe it starts to get old but I just want to say thanks for the support because when you are going through this there are not many places to get help.
