[Gerald]

I have looked at a number of forums and this is the only one I have ever joined. I am not interested in “splinter” groups nor am I interested in groups of members or exmembers that enjoy bashing the Church. I joined this forum because the emphasis is on RESPECTFUL discussion. That means if you are an active, “card-carrying” member of the Church (as I am) you’re not going to feel attacked and if you have made the decision to distance yourself from the Church, you will not feel denigrated. I can’t praise the administrators of this forum enough for keeping discussions at this level. Some of the topics are obviously highly emotional and personal and yet the tone of most posts remains cordial.

[Gerald]

Quote:

Another case in point is a local practice (I think) of having a ‘spiritual thought’ as part of the agenda for every single meeting. Can’t proceed without one. I’m not sure where or when it got started or if it is, in fact, a church-wide thing, or just something that got started here locally. Does anyone else do this? The fact that I don’t know the answer to that attests to the inherent power of these kinds of things.

It’s not church-wide because I’ve never come across it and I’ve lived in 10 different wards in my adult life (all in the Mormon belt).

[Gerald]

I think that a number of members are “one-issue” party members. They focus on one issue and then affiliate with the party that supports that position. For example, some members are Republicans because Republicans don’t support abortion or because they support lower taxes. (Though I would guess that the issues focused on tend to be moral ones). They don’t really understand the entire party platform. Ultimately, I don’t care to hear people’s politics discussed in Church (regardless of what they may be). I’ve found myself cringing on more than one occasion in a Sunday School class when someone makes a political crack and the entire room erupts into a knowing titter. As has been pointed out, it’s erroneous to assume everyone in there is on the same page politically.

[Gerald]

Most people hate ambiguity. A procedure is right or its wrong. A person is good or he’s bad. An action is sinful or holy. I am constantly confronted with this kind of thinking both in and out of the Church. I think it is human nature to seek for absolutes as they provide reliable structure for our lives. We don’t WANT to think about every action we take and consider and meditate as to whether it’s the right one. We just want to do it and get it overwith. No wonder common practices become doctrines. I had a discussion the other night with my DW who was insisting that one of my children set the table correctly. Afterwards (not in front of the kids!) I mentioned that I didn’t think it was a big deal. She immediately defended her actions by stating why it was important (helps kids learn order, helps them learn to count, etc.). I pointed out that our house is usually a mess anyway and that I didn’t think that setting the table was going to counteract the general untidiness of our children. Well, she settled down after that but her initial attitude was one I see all the time in the Church. A kind of panic sets in when what is SUPPOSED to happen DOESN’T happen. Here’s a more relevant example. In our ward, we always have either a musical number or a rest hymn before that last speaker. ALWAYS! Well, one Sunday the ward music chairman had arranged for neither. During the sacrament, it suddenly dawned on the bishopric that there would be no musical number or rest hymn. From my seat in the congregation, I notice a flurry of quiet conversing on the stand. They talked for about five minutes and then the counselor walks down and speaks quietly to the ward music chairman (who I see shake her head). Then he walks over to the organist (who nods her head) and then he walks over to my wife (who was the chorister at the time) and I hear him ask her to lead a rest hymn. The bishop picks one, announces it, and my wife walks up to lead. The day is saved! The whole time I’m just shaking my head and wishing I could say to the bishop “Just skip the hymn! It’s okay! It’s really okay!” Now I don’t believe the bishopric thought they were violating some commandment but a habit had become “doctrinelike” to the point that they were worried about it. And like all “doctrine” (regardless of its origin) these are the kinds of actions that provide a securing sense of steadiness we are often loathe to abandon.

P.S. Based on some of the prior messages, I read President Packer’s talk “The Unwritten Order of Things.” Like other commenters, I agreed with his basic point but didn’t particularly agree with his examples though most seemed fairly innocuous. But his diatribe about funerals! Where did THAT come from?

[Gerald]

Quote:

It is helpful to me to see this as a VERY incomplete attempt to describe something of great spiritual significance in the afterlife. It is a human’s attempt (Joseph Smith) to describe something that is far beyond our ability to get our heads wrapped around. We can’t even prove we exist after we die, let alone precisely define what we all do FOREVER AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER in that continuing existence. Any activity, even the most happy and pleasurable, done for a long enough period of time becomes torturous. So what is the afterlife really like? What are we going to be doing in a BILLION years? Nobody can really get their mortal mind wrapped around that. Let’s face it. Being a king or queen and making babies for a couple billion years probably gets boring at some point. I’m just harping on that to make my point. Joseph Smith maybe was given a cool story. It could even be literal revelation from God, but it isn’t even close to a complete answer. If there is an afterlife, and there is an answer, it would be like a human scientist trying to explain to a banana slug what it’s like to live and work at the Large Hadron Super-Collider in Switzerland.

Thanks Brian. What you say makes sense to me. Some things may just be incomprehensible to us. (Which might be why we don’t have too many details).

[Gerald]

I appreciate the warm welcome I’ve received since joining this board. I’ve never joined any discussion boards before (though I’ve lurked on a few). It’s kind of a big step for me personally.

[Gerald]

Quote:

I like a man, who can share power, rather then do the whole administrative thing on spiritual things and I just follow, most women want a man to preside to me, because that is what they have been taught to like, and what they have learned to like.

Just a thought. My wife and I share quite a bit (I guess you’d have to ask her how effectively) but the sharing of power, administration and other things does have its downfalls. What happens when you don’t agree? Let me use an innocuous example. We have both done laundry throughout our married life (going on 23 years). However, she HATES how I fold the clothes (I’m just not that good at it). She initially (and to my mind, rather condescendingly) tried to teach me how to fold but I just didn’t care enough. This led to unnecessary bickering. Finally, I insisted that if I’m doing the laundry I get to fold clothes any way that I want and she left me alone. This same scenario played out in many other aspects of our marriage. Then I read some research that indicated that marital satisfaction was highly correlated with how well the husband and wife roles are defined in a marriage. When there is little or no ambiguity regarding who does what, both spouses are happier. When it’s not clear, meaning that sometimes the husband takes on certain responsibilities and sometimes the wife takes on those certain responsibilities, it is a breeding ground for conflict. I am by NO MEANS advocating a strict patriarchal order in the home. But if you’re not going that direction, you need good communication between the partners to deal with the inevitable tensions that arise when two people of widely varying backgrounds, values, and goals attempt to run a home together (and children just make the whole thing more complicated).

[Gerald]

SD,

I’m sorry to hear that your wife is struggling with her calling. My wife was recently released as a counselor in the Primary presidency. She asked to be released. She had served in that calling for nearly three years and (as you probably know) Primary can be incredibly draining. Our bishop was very understanding when my wife spoke to him about being released and within a couple of weeks the change had been made. It was the first time she had ever asked to be released from a calling and she struggled with the decision for a while.

I had been in a particular calling for about three years. It wasn’t a very difficult calling but one that I didn’t like very much. I also approached the bishop about being released (first time I had every been asked to be released) and found that he hadn’t realized I had been in the calling for that long. Again, he was very supportive and understanding and within a month I was on to other things.

As I read about the experiences that other people have in their wards, I become more and more convinced that the quality of the LDS experience depends a great deal on the local leadership. It saddens me to think that some people end up struggling with the church not because of doctrinal issues or personal problems but because the local leadership is either inept or unhelpful. Not sure how you solve that problem!

[Gerald]

I’ve served in a number of elders quorum presidencies over the course of my adulthood and I have to agree with jamison. If elders were consistently men from 18 to 45 say and high priests consistently 45 and up (or whatever age ranges you wish to use), it would make some sense. The elders would be the ones responsible for service projects (wood cutting, yard work, snow shoveling, etc.) and the older high priests would do whatever it is high priests do (don’t know as I am an elder). In our ward, however, we have elders who are in their late 50s (one I believe is pushing 60) and we have high priests as young as 28 because they were called into bishoprics during their student ward days. It makes for a mish mash of types in the quorums and means that the young high priests are never asked to do anything physically rigorous when it comes to service projects and the older elders may feel compelled to participate in activities they are not suited for.

Let’s add one more fact. In our ward (and I think this is church policy but I’m not sure) high priests hometeach the single sisters (young and old). One rationale would be that a 70 year old brother is less likely to develop an inappropriate relationship with a 30 year old single mother. But what if a significant number of high priests are in their 30s?

And let’s not forget that status within the ward is inextricably tied up with the priesthood you possess. The idea that it is “all the same priesthood” is cold comfort for some 65 year old elder trying to fit in with a bunch of 20 something and 30 something elders still wrestling with babies or a 30 year old high priest attempting to find something in common with men in their 60s and 70s. I know their are doctrinal reasons for the separation but I sometimes wonder if some of these policies shouldn’t be viewed with a more practical eye.

[Gerald]

Brown,

When I was on my mission, my companion and I were given a ride to our destination by a man who quite eagerly talked to us about his experience with the Mormons. He made a point to say that he had prayed about the Book of Mormon (Moroni 10 promise) and that it had left him cold. His attitude was “what about that, huh?” Well, I didn’t have a good answer to his question then and I don’t have a good answer to your question now (wish I did!) but it did get me to thinking about D&C Section 9.

Quote:

8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a astupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

I’m no scriptorian but I do wonder if this verse isn’t one of the most misinterpreted in the Church. These verses were given to Oliver Cowdery when he was eager to translate. Here are the following verses:

Quote:

10 Now, if you had known this you could have translated; nevertheless, it is not expedient that you should translate now.

11 Behold, it was expedient when you commenced; but you feared, and the time is past, and it is not expedient now;

This seems to be specific instructions to one man but is often treated as a general recommendation in the Church. Members have come to expect that this is how personal revelation occurs but I have my doubts. The problem is when you approach a situation with the expectation that this is what you’ll experience (a burning or a stupor) and you don’t get that, it’s a bit of a letdown. Maybe this is what Cowdery felt but it may not be how personal revelation manifests itself in all of us. I believe I’ve had personal revelation but it did not occur as described above.

[Gerald]

SD,

I think when a talk is uplifting and the spirit is right, even a meeting with several hundred people can be rewarding. I do sympathize though. Stake conference is probably my least favorite meeting (especially when my children were young!) My son’s a teenager and it still exasperates him that the meeting is two hours long.

[Gerald]

Quote:

As everyone knows who knows me even moderately well, I absolutely LOVE Elder Wirthlin’s analogy of the orchestra – where all instruments are valued and unite to create truly “perfect” music, together in full and comprehensive harmony not playing the exact same melody. Solos can be beautiful, but they pale in comparison to complex and intricate arrangements of harmonic grandeur.

I like this analogy as well and would take it one step further. I took a music class a long time ago and the intructor told us that when the instruments of the orchestra play, they are all slightly off tune but this gives the music its rich and full sound…an experience that would be different if everyone was perfectly in tune (which would sound artificial and weak). It’s the differences that makes the experience more satisfying.

[Gerald]

One of the “pitfalls” of a lay clergy is that you don’t have professional speakers and, sometimes, ill-prepared speakers. My current bishopric is made up of three very good-natured, caring and concerned men…and each week the announcements are incomplete (on one occasion, the bishop had to get three times during the meeting to correct an announcement he’d made at the beginning of the meeting) and introductions get fumbled (one Sunday the second counselor announced the prayer and mispronounced the name of the lady giving it. That wouldn’t be so bad except that the lady offering the prayer was his wife ). Yet, I find it charming in a way. It’s a constant reminder that this is how wards are run…by imperfect men and women doing their best. As Ray suggested, I try to exercise charity especially when I know that on some future occasion I may be the one up at the pulpit boring the congregation to sleep.

[Gerald]

Quote:

For me personally to make sense of it, I must conclude that God is much more open, accepting, and forgiving of our faltering attempts to draw near unto him than I had previously supposed. If some of the terrible acts, personal flaws, and abhorrent doctrines possessed by some of the saints at varying times can be overlooked by our Heavenly Father, perhaps we should be less restrictive and limiting in our own views.

I have noticed that some members of the Church take a very deterministic view regarding God’s interactions with man (and woman). They discuss how God has guided their footsteps and shaped their lives into what they are today. This idea is epitomized by Elder Hugh B. Brown’s story of the currant bush. (See below).

Quote:

And then I heard a voice, and I recognized the tone of this voice. It was my own voice, and the voice said, “I am the gardener here. I know what I want you to do.”

from http://lds.org/new-era/1973/01/the-currant-bush?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>http://lds.org/new-era/1973/01/the-currant-bush?lang=eng

This is a nice story and a very attractive idea until you start making the kinds of comparisons that have already been discussed. In the Old Testament, God is a god of vengeance. In the New Testament, God is a god of love. In the Book of Mormon, God seems to have both characteristics. And in the early history of the Church (Doctrine & Covenants) God is a demanding teacher. From this perspective God appears to suffering from multiple personality disorder and the control he wields over our lives highly suspect. (Whow knows when you will be Nephi confronting a Laban?)

But this contradicts the doctrine (and I think it IS a doctrine) of free agency. Why would God care to direct each and every step of our lives? Why would he have ever done this? God did not tell the brother of Jared HOW to solve his problem. God ALLOWED Joseph Smith to lose the 116 pages of his translation. I believe God gives us direction and inspiration but allows us to make our own decisions, create our own lives, and (yes!) make our own mistakes. God’s nature is filtered through the interpretations we make of his commandments. It could be that Kirkegaard was right on some level and there is a subjective aspect to the gospel that perhaps we don’t entirely understand right now. If that’s the case, then it is entirely reasonable that the culture and ideas associated with God at different points in history would be radically different. And it doesn’t preclude the notion that God may step in and take control if He views it necessary (e.g. the Restoration, Elder Brown, maybe all of us at some time).

I hope this rambling makes some sense and is not straying too far the the original poster’s intent. These are some ideas that have been bopping around in my head for a long time and this seemed a good time to try and articulate them a bit more.

[Gerald]

I don’t know if this is “official policy” but it seems that, with respect to missions, the Church is no longer as tolerant as it used to be of two things: disobedient missionaries and missionaries with significant health problems. On my mission, I served as secretary to the president which meant I was privy (for a time) to all the different problems that missionaries had. It amazed me to realize that there were more missionaries WITH problems than without (problems ranging from health issues to inappropriate relationships with members). Very few missionaries were ever sent home. The mission president worked hard to keep them out in the field regardless of the issue (there were, of course, exceptions). That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. I would not dissuade any young man or woman from pursuing the possibility of a mission if that’s what they want but just be aware that severe health issues can get a missionary sent home early. And there is a DEFINITE stigma associated with “coming home early from a mission” REGARDLESS of the reason.

[Author]

Posts