Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I just reviewed through all the posts and wonder, what about the suicides, broken marriages, resignations, and according to a Mormon Stories podcast, excommunications for “apostasy” that occurred just a few weeks prior to the announcements? I agree with the opinion that this was not revelation but opinion and then policy. The question I have is any of it revelation and for me the answer is no, not now, not about any of it. QuestionAbound wrote:
If we all talk the same, and think the same, and walk the same…is that Zion or something else, ya know?
It doesn’t necessarily mean were correlated but that we’ve missed the point or as DJ pointed out, we’ve not done it right. I’ve had enough bad sacrament talks and EQ lessons that were just regurgitations to last me a lifetime. But every so often someone takes the time and effort to craft something that’s worthwhile, like happened in our SM yesterday, and I was glad I came and stayed awake. Let’s face it, we’re a do it yourself church and what shows up any given Sunday is what we get. I’m fine with correlation as long as it doesn’t mean publicly swearing fealty to JS and polygamy, multiple first vision narratives, BoA, etc. as long as what counts are the first and second great commandments. I’ve had one foot out the door for awhile now, but it has more to do with history stuff than with good people trying to do their best.For me it’s like a neighborhood bar. You want to go where everyone knows your name. The flip side of that analogy is that you’re expected to take your turn tending it. I think many people find a great deal in attending the temple for no other reason than the feeling they get in a beautiful place that’s quiet and peaceful and filled with good decent people. It represents the devotion of people to family history and to their own families, a hope for their marriages, time taken sometimes a significant sacrifice to just do something good. My wife was a temple worker some years ago when in grad school at ASU and talked about how much she loved being in a place that felt holy. I may have issues with some things but not with trying to connect with something divine, wherever it may be found. felixfabulous wrote:
If you are a literal believer, they are one in the same, but with a non-literal belief, it’s hard to see a lot there to teach and encourage spiritual development that is not tied to obedience.
agreedI’m interested as a master mason as to the reasons JS adopted and adapted the ritual. Was it to teach, add another level of charisma to ensure loyalty of his inner circle, further enforce secrecy to keep everything quiet about polygamy, introduce his ideas of sealing and family ties as regards salvation and exaltation? One thing that may have to be edited out is BYs contribution that the signs, tokens, and key words were necessary to be able to pass the sentinels and return to the Father if taking a non literal approach is needed. In looking at the covenants it’s interesting that two of them deal with commitment, obedience, and total financial support of the church. dande48 wrote:
GBSmith wrote:
Having it first has always given me the impression of just getting it over with so we can get on to more important things.
But then most members wouldn’t show up for the first 40 minutes of sacrament meeting!
😆
I think you’d be surprised. In the Episcopal church worship is divided into the liturgy of the word and liturgy of the table. The word is comprised of the lessons, readings from the psalms, OT, NT and finally the gospels followed by the sermon. Everything focuses to the eucharist as the high point of service finishing with the words “let us go forth to love and serve the Lord” or something similar. For a typical sacrament meeting you have to be spiritually ready and focused to get the most from the sacrament and then as often as not the following talks are a let down to one degree or another. I think we do it the way we do because that’s the way we’ve always done it and I wish someone would actually look at the possibility of a change or at least giving wards the option.
On Own Now wrote:My preference would be to have the Sacrament at the end, as the culminating event.
Agreed. Every Christian church service that I’ve ever attended places the eucharist/sacrament at the end. Having it first has always given me the impression of just getting it over with so we can get on to more important things.
Old Timer wrote:
Quote:I’m not sure comparing JS to Jesus is a step up for him or a step down for the Savior, but I think it’s a step too far.
Why? Seriously, why?
I chose my words VERY carefully. I was crystal clear in my comparison. It wasn’t Joseph to Jesus. It was a statement about “all famous prophets”. It was qualified by narrowing it to viewing Jesus only objectively, “without the lens of believing faith” – like a historian who was analyzing him strictly as a mortal without assuming he was a perfect God-made-man and the Sacior and redeemer of the world – or like a Muslim or Hindi or Jew or atheist would do. He can be analyzed legitimately both ways, and I believe ignoring the man and focusing only on the perceived God does serious damage to both. I also am certain it is classic whitewashing and leads to a whole lot of horrible, terrible, no good, very bad doctrine.
I understand completely the issue of even implying the entire Joseph was equal to the entire Jesus – but that isn’t what I said or implied. I chose my qualifying words very carefully.
If you still believe the usage (relative to all famous prophets, without the lens of believing faith) is a step too far, I sincerely am interested in why.
I think first of all we need to define what you mean by “prophet”. Even in the absence of a faith based position looking at people like Moses, Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Peter, Paul, James, John, etc. or modern prophets excepting BY are in a entirely different category than those such as MLK, FDR, Mother Theresa, Donald Trump, Abraham Lincoln, people who were visionary for good or ill and projected a doctrine or set of beliefs that motivated people to action. Adding Jesus to those groups does not elevate or emphasize your point but does in the case of JS make him into much more than he was. And as regards seeing Jesus as someone distasteful possessing the worst characteristics a person might have when you only have the NT record on which to make your decision, is a stretch.
I know that you take great pride in your choice of words but I believe in this case you missed the mark in making what you wanted to say “crystal clear.”
SamBee wrote:All of these contradictions are true:
* Plagiarist vs original thinker.
* Poor leader vs great leader.
* Unfairly treated vs treating others unfairly.
* His legacy stands vs his legacy is divided.
* A builder of cities vs a breaker of homes.
* A family man vs an adulterer.
I guess if he didn’t claim that God’s priesthood authority had been restored through him and that all saving ordinances by any other denomination were not recognized and that the church he organized under the direction of Jesus Christ was the only true and living church, I could go along with the idea that he was just a flawed human being and I need to cut him some slack
Old Timer wrote:
Fwiw, I have come to accept him as a very human, very complicated person – as a quite typical “visionary” and charismatic man. There are things about him I find distasteful, but there are other things about him I find incredibly admirable. I think he truly was a serious saint – and a serious sinner. He seemed to be and do most things to excess.Ironically, that fits almost all famous “prophets” throughout history. They tend to be our best and worst characteristics on steroids. Judged objectively, without the lens of believing faith, even Jesus, of Nazareth, legitimately could be described that way.
I’m not sure comparing JS to Jesus is a step up for him or a step down for the Savior, but I think it’s a step too far.
Very interesting post. RE: RMN’s comments about missionary safety I remember the mission president when we were working in New Zealand speak in stake conference and tell a story about one of his elders that was on his bike and hit by a car. After bouncing off he got up, brushed himself off, and GQ’d the driver, the implication that since he was faithful, he was bullet proof. After the closing prayer I was going to go up and ask him about the elder back in Washington where we lived that was killed making a turn on his bike but my wife stopped me. When it comes down to it the only thing we’re entitled to is to roll the dice and take our chances and any thought otherwise is just self righteous arrogance and magical thinking. A while back I mentioned that when my wife was released as YW president the bishop said that he wished she could be one of his counselors given her contributions in ward council, etc.. I expect we could get along without women in the running of the church but we’d be sorry, real sorry. Just sayin’. Strike one was this morning when I read that RMN felt prompted by the Lord for us to not be called Mormons anymore. This is strike two. When the third shoe drops (sorry about mixing metaphors), I’m going to start looking for the exit. I’m 73 and have been lucky enough to have known enough LGBTQ people over my life to say that if the POX was anything, it was not “revelation”. It’s like a scale where community, support and friends are on one side and on the other is history, doctrine, and organization. After awhile you realize you’re only there to meet and greet and for a church that demands all your time and talents, sooner or later that’s not enough for you or leadership. That’s when you have to make a decision.
