Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:
To be candid, I certainly picture myself as faithful. That doesn’t mean I truly am, but it’s nevertheless my self-conception.
I think this is a good description (from another thread) of the key difference between NOM and StayLDS. You’re in a good place when you are ready to own what you want (your faith) and let go of what you don’t want (whatever you don’t buy).
Quote:Reincarnation is one of the most compelling aspects of Buddhism to me, and I see Mormonism’s stages of existence as the closest thing to reincarnation that exists in all of Christianity. I kind of see Mormonism as an institutionalized, Christian version of Buddhism. I certainly think we are exponentially closer to Buddhism, especially in regards to our eternal existence, than to orthodox Christian theology.
Me too. There’s a Mormon theological theory called multiple mortal probations. There was a post that aggregated several related posts/models here:
http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2005/06/multiple-mortal-probations/95/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2005/06/multiple-mortal-probations/95/ Quote:The “all or nothing” camp might be a majority.
Maybe. Or just a vocal, very confident minority. I think the majority are people who just have other things on their mind, like whatever’s going on in their own life.
If the purpose of that is to say that “know” = “feel,” that’s a pretty accurate description of religious “knowledge,” IMO. I personally don’t like the word “knowledge” applied to religion. It seems to imply a certainty that we can’t really possess. We can have a strong feeling. I’m okay with that. Why not make up a new word instead of “knowledge” like “bluxark.” I bluxark that God loves me. I bluxark that Jesus lives. I bluxark that I love my husband. Hah – now that I said that, the editor in me can clearly see the word is unnecessary. The sentences are stronger if you just say “God loves me.” “Jesus lives.” “I love my husband.” Quote:How did their leaving the church affect you? Did you look back and say, “What a liar!”? I sometimes think about this and wonder if I just walk away how will it affect all the youth that I’ve worked with over the past 13 years in this ward.
I never thought “what a liar” about that guy. I just thought it was too bad their family went through divorce and that they weren’t doing that well with the church. We were initially surprised, but then in retrospect maybe not. It just was his own personal matter. I still love that family. They are great people. His daughter is my age. When I think about her dad, he was just funny and personable and awesome. I don’t really remember his testimony or his religious feelings, but he really related to the kids. His son found cigarettes in his car once, and we all talked about it, but we just said, “oh, that sucks you found those in your dad’s car. What are you going to do about it?” I really don’t think anyone ever judged him for it. I can’t recall anyone who did. We were in a small branch, and everyone hung together. People got ex’d sometimes. People got offended and quit coming. We always just tried to help people do the best they could.
Quote:(1) that’s how I was raised and (2) that’s what the church teaches.
Most of the cultural stuff I don’t like is related to the fact that the church is a gerontocracy (although to be clear, I see tremendous upside to that also). My parents’ generation was just more black & white (TSM is the first president in their lifetime who is younger than my parents). If you fought in WWII, you see the world as heroes and villains, good and evil, and frankly, there’s a lot of that in the scriptures, too. But that’s just not how real life is or how real people are. I would add that children really do see things as very black & white too, so that we were raised that way is probably just because it’s how you perceive things growing up. Does the church teach that? Yes and no. There are also members of the 12 who don’t stick to polemic arguments or who find them to be problematic. They tend to be the ones focused on the exception rather than the rule, more able to see the gray, and more focused on love in their talks than on obedience. I’ve gotten pretty good at tuning down the voices that say things that feel less enlightened and good at tuning up the ones that speak to my soul. There’s some cafeteria Mormonism for ya!
Kari said: Quote:If I really have to decide between either all true or a fraud, I would have to vote fraud. But I would like another choice. Will people like me ever be welcome in the LDS Church?
I totally agree with Valoel’s reponse. My perspective on JS was always a little more nuanced that the polemic offered by Pres. Hinckley. I think there are many possibilities, to name a few:
– JS was sincere and exactly correct in all he said (would require him to not change in his own perspectives on his experiences also)
– JS was sincere and sometimes confused about things that happened to him (this seems like Bushman’s view)
– JS was deluded or crazy
– JS at times deceived himself in order to justify his sins or live up to his high calling
– JS deliberately deceived others (this is more like Fawn Brodie’s view)
I tend to mostly view it as #2 or sometimes #4 (frankly, we’re all guilty of that sometimes, IMO). I have sometimes wondered about #3. I think #1 and #5 are the least likely alternatives and the least consistent with all I have read.
But I agree with Valoel. Dogmatic people think they run the church. Look around. They also think they run your family and your work and your son’s little league team. But that doesn’t make it right. You are just as Mormon as they are. They don’t really own the place. Don’t let the “knowers” chase out the “believers” and the “hopers” and the “sincere doubters.” There’s room for all.
Another thing I like to remember and remind people about this one is that it’s called the First Vision, not the First Visit. Considering it a visit adds a lot more implications that are not clearly supported by it. It ends up being made to mean everything (God and Jesus look alike, they have physical bodies like ours, they are separate personages, etc.), which again wasn’t how it was originally positioned. My current ward is really very good. My DH and I occasionally surf the internet on our blackberries when a lesson gets dull, usually in GD. RS has mostly been good, although there are times when I clean out my church bag during a lesson that doesn’t require much thought. I also just enjoy being in a room that is mostly quiet, and I jot down ideas for writing also. I really only find it boring sometimes, never “hard” in this ward. In my old ward in UT (before we moved to AZ), I had a few pet peeves:
– women with low self esteem who never felt they were good enough and constantly commented on everything from that place.
– a GD teacher with some really odd old-fashioned yet truly scary notions (women who dressed immodestly brought rape on themselves, children should be whipped with a stick when they misbehave), and another GD teacher who was campaigning to be the next bishop.
– people who weren’t very educated making comments they thought were common sense but were really only the former.
– all lessons on food storage. In my current ward, those don’t bother me. In my old ward, they were just not very practical about things. When I suggested buying things you actually eat rather than food you don’t even know how to prepare, everyone looked at me like I had a second head and went back to weevil-themed recipes.
Something really cool in my ward this week: one of the counselors in the Bishopric was sharing a story in his testimony and he referred to “recent unfavorable publicity” due to an “event.” It was great. No mention of politics or gay marriage or opinions. Just that this negative publicity had him concerned about how a friend might view Mormons as a result and how his friend dispelled that worry. What a great example of how to keep things neutral.
SallyM: Quote:I cannot get up and teach about JSs lovely letters etc to his family etc when the lesson is only showing a sheer shread of the real JS, as one could ask “which wife, and which family
No question, that was hands down the worst lesson so far this year in the JS manual. Most of the lessons, though, have been quite easy to teach following a method similar to what Valoel describes. I also teach RS, 2nd Sundays. And I love teaching. Fortunately for me, we got off schedule and skipped JUST that lesson #20 – A Heart Full of Faith and Love.
I have been blogging the RS lessons at Mormon Matters, pointing out some of these issues, but also trying to get deeper meaning out of them as well. Here is a link to the one on Lesson #20:
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/09/virtual-rsph-20-a-heart-full-of-love-faith-the-prophets-letters-to-his-family/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/11/09/virtual-rsph-20-a-heart-full-of-love-faith-the-prophets-letters-to-his-family/ Salo: Quote:” does democratic behaviour mean the behaviour that democracies like or the behaviour that will preserve democracy ? “
That’s a good quote. My own view is that democratic behavior is simply government by the people for the people (so more like the concept of “the behavior that democracies like”); IOW, majority rules–for better or worse. That your quote is from Aristotle is a good reminder of the tenuousness of democracy. It’s an experimental form of government that is probably the least oppressive but the most hard to sustain. The US is arguably as long lived as any democracy has ever been before it becomes some other form of government (e.g. oligarchy, dictatorship, etc.). The behavior that will preserve democracy? I suppose the notions of compromise, forgiveness, and patience come the closest to any others I know to get groups that completely disagree to come together for the common good.
Quote:Legalized SSM to me is not a church issue it is up to the people of free society to decide.
That’s of course what Prop 8 was about–whether it was the right of the people of the state of CA to decide or not. They had voted against SSM, and the court overruled their vote. Prop 8 was to restore the matter to the vote of the people. The people again voted no, although they did it by a narrower margin this time. I would certainly say that’s an arguable point, whether it’s a decision that belongs with the public or the courts. As for whether an individual church wants to sanction a specific type of marriage, that’s also pretty much a consensus issue. Almost all have stated (so far) that they think that’s the discretion of a given church.
Personally, I am uncomfortable when politics are introduced at church. I would prefer we not take an activist stance on just about anything, but leave those matters to the discretion of individuals. “Teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves.” At the end of the day, regardless of whatever rhetoric you hear at church, you’re the only one in that voting booth anyway. I don’t like the strange bedfellows that politics brings. I don’t like the hyperbolic rhetoric individuals use (in either party and for most causes).
I like Ray’s idea about mainstreaming gay church members, even when they are not living the law of chastity. Perhaps they cannot hold church callings (just as heterosexuals who are disfellowshipped cannot), but we can love them and include them. They can fully participate as members, side by side with us.
Some of the drag on change in the church is probably due to being led by a gerontocracy; for their generation, these guys are pretty progressive. But OTOH, I don’t care to be led by a bunch of young wet-behind-the-ears whippersnappers either. A little life experience would be helpful at giving credibility. Look at how much other Christian denominations struggle due to the personal instability of their young leaders. Many of them simply aren’t ready to handle the “fame” and importance of their positions.
Various members of the twelve have had heated disputes on this very topic. There’s no official stance (to Ray’s point, the 1909 one has to be parsed closely for what it really says, but IMO Joseph F Smith was simply a creationist and a contemporary of the Scopes Monkey Trial whose day colored his view). The scientific apostles have all essentially come out on the side of evolution, and it is taught at the Y. This is one of the issues on which we differ from hard-core evangelical groups (our softer stance on abortion is another). I always get nervous when anyone tries to put our position too close to that of the evangelicals. I saw Ben Stein’s movie about how “scientists” exploring Intelligent Design were blacklisted from the scientific community, denied tenure and funding, and essentially discredited. Yet, I was unconvinced that this was the travesty suggested by the movie. What I did notice, though, was that evolution does not have a true “origin” theory. It’s just how species evolve–not how they began. There is still no proven scientific theory stating exactly how life began that is replicable or repeatable.
Salo – Quote:I find it intresting that you would admit that our prophets can be faillible but not concide that our sacred books written by prophets can be.
I’m not sure Ray concludes that, but he can speak for himself. I certainly don’t conclude that at all. The scriptures, IMO, absolutely can be misinterpreted and can be “seeing through a glass darkly.” In many places they seem to contradict themselves. There are clearly problems there to be dealt with.
Someone summed up the human problem this way: “The Catholics say their pope is infallible and none of them believe it; the Mormons say their prophet is fallible and none of them believe it.” Maybe the priesthood ban, polygamy, and other problematic elements are there to keep us from relying too much on the arm of flesh, as a stinging reminder that the gospel of Jesus Christ is pure and true, but is instantly corrupted (to varying degrees) when it comes through human beings. We have to learn to find truth for ourselves and not rely on others to tell us everything or to interpret everything for us. That shouldn’t be an excuse for us to do less, but rather a reason to do much more and to become strong enough to rely on ourselves.
