[HiJolly]

What you hunger for is the life you left behind when you came to this mortal sphere of existence. You can’t have it back, not really, until you die. Sorry about that.

For now, you are required to be as wise as a serpent, and as harmless as a dove. You need to be ‘worldly’ enough to survive and thrive in the hard, painful reality of a brutal world. You came here to learn how to do this, for it was impossible in our beautiful, peaceful pre-mortal existence. Question: how old are you? Have you been to the temple?

We are here to learn to cope with and eventually thrive in a dark and dreary world. That is our task.

Follow the example of all life in nature. Either you survive by cunning, sheer force, or privileged status. None of these are ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ in and of themselves. They simply are what must be for survival. You need to learn this, and learn it well, or your years here in mortality are a waste. Once you have this figured out, then it is your duty to reach out to those who struggle. To help them in their struggles to survive.

The Church welfare system teaches that first we must have the necessities of survival, before we can ever become enlightened and ‘one’ with God.

The Hindu Sadhus have nothing, but need nothing — thus they too fit this model.

For us in the Western world, it’s a lot more complicated.

My suggestion is to allow yourself to enjoy the things this life offers, in moderation, while learning how to live in the world, and eventually live happily in it. Not everything in the world is bad. There are great horrific realities, and great beautiful realities as well.

I would think that your family, atheists as they are, can show you the nice, even beautiful things in the world. Let them teach you. Learn how to deal justly with others, in ways that they cannot take advantage of you. This is key.

And someday, learn to not only be happy, but to experience joy in this life. God has provided it to you, you chose to embrace it, now carry through and be!!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

mercyngrace wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

Mercyngrace, you *heretic*, you!

HiJolly

Want to know what’s funny?

I read comments by others like me who feel marginalized. And though I’ve felt that way from time to time, I refuse to move to the fringe. I’m intent on bringing my whole ward with me… LOL! And most of the members seem happy to come along. I’ve been teaching almost all my adult life and have never held back (lots of foot in mouth moments along the way – oops). Instead of releasing me, my bishops keep putting me right back in front of the ward, every chance they get.

I (and I’m sure most others on the board) are so glad to hear that!

As I said elsewhere on this board, in 2009(D&C, Church history) I was the adult Gospel Doctrine teacher and I strayed quite far from the manual, but practically everyone really enjoyed it, including High Councilmen, Ward & Stake leadership. And it’s amazing how that calling actually came about, considering that I have a General Church calling & usually can’t serve in the Ward like that. Last year, this year, no can do. It was surely a ‘tender mercy’.

I’ve served 10 years in my calling, and hope for another 10 before I’m put out to pasture… Until then, the Stake Pres. & Bishop can’t call me to anything else — except Bishop. Hasn’t happened in 10 years, probably won’t for another 10. :thumbup:

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Mercyngrace, you *heretic*, you!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:

Quote:

hawkgrrrl wrote…Just a side comment. Does anyone actually NOT take TSM’s stories with an enormous grain of salt? He is an obvious embellisher.

Hawkgrrrl, I really would like to add to your comment, but I fear that Ray is watching.

:silent:

Ray does a marvelous job on this board. This site is an unique environment *because* of his care concerning content.

Love ya, Ray!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Old-Timer wrote:

In summary, this is why I don’t like the 14 Fundamentals – not because they all are crap in and of themselves, when parsed ONLY for what they say, but because of the foundational message to which they point in #14 with which I just don’t agree as worded. I think they should be focused on prophecy, not on “the prophet”.

Excellent thoughts! Especially this last paragraph. So true.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I’m not trying to look down on anyone and disrespect or criticize their decisions based on their sincere beliefs, I’m sorry if anything I said came across that way.

I appreciate that.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

A more accurate description of my point-of-view is that I feel sorry for some of these members that are making extreme sacrifices for the Church. Maybe they don’t want any pity, but the reason I can’t help feeling this way is mostly because I think many of them are making these choices based on limited information and/or under significant pressure from other members.

DA, we’re ALL making choices based on limited information. I don’t care if you read every book ever written on God, Jesus, Mormonism or whatever, what we know or believe is all based on limited info. You and I are no different than they. Everyone should pity everyone else.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

It would be easier for me to give the Church and other members the benefit of the doubt that they are doing all this because they really want to and honestly feel good about it if they had actually heard both sides of the story so they could make an informed decision but I doubt that is actually happening in most cases.

I could make a really crude comment about “informed decision(s)”, but I’ll refrain… Why do you suppose the first principle of the Gospel is faith? Should rationality be your guide, or personal experience?

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

If the Church would tone it down with some of their claims and expectations or try to make sure people really understand what they are getting into and why then I would gladly stop criticizing their approach. However, as long as they only present whitewashed history then I’m not going to apologize for complaining about their demands for all this sacrifice because as far as I’m concerned this just isn’t a very Christian or ethical way to treat people.

I *do* wish we could switch the Sunday meetings from being devotional only to being educational and a few other things, including some devotional time. I even regret that we don’t do ‘practice hymns’ anymore…

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

For example, what happens when the typical TBM that goes on a mission, gets married in the temple, faithfully pays tithing, doesn’t turn down callings, etc. for half their life stumbles on some anti-Mormon propaganda on the internet and loses faith in the Church? Many of them will inevitably feel like victims and will be bitter toward the Church because of all this time, money, and effort they’ve invested in it. That’s why I recommend saying no to the Church if you don’t feel good about something to anyone that will listen, not just for their own sake but hopefully to send the message that enough is enough and maybe help the Church gradually move toward some positive changes.

Preachin’ to the choir, chief!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Fatherof4husbandof1 wrote:

… and after reading “The Mysteries of Godliness- a history of Mormon temple worship- I see it as a complete waste of time, and money. This is just my opinion.

I *have* to dig that out of the box it’s in and read it. I bought it 6 years ago or so, and still keep finding other things to read before it. Right now I’m reading James’ “The Varieties of Religious Experience” (again) and Nibley’s “One Eternal Round”. On my MP3 player I’ve got McCullough’s “John Adams”. I know, TMI…

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Mercyngrace,

I have really enjoyed your comments in this thread. Carry On.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

SilentDawning wrote:

The temple president and others who advocated this practice have long forgotten who I am, for sure, but the memory remains with my family. And I still feel the effects of that today. If any GA’s read this, please consider a kinder, gentler approach to non-member families that don’t force you to alienate your non-member family for the sake of the temple.

Amen.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I hear you. This tendency with many of my brothers & sisters troubles me as well.

But because I have the living spirit within me, I don’t see it quite so negatively. Granted, they probably won’t ask me to teach Gospel Doctrine to the Adults anytime soon after my year of teaching the D&C and Church history(2009), but I promise no one slept through my lessons. I was surprised, but even with members of the Stake Presidency attending a few times, and the bishop and/or his counselors being there regularly, I was never “spoken to” or asked to stop breaking my promise to stick to the manual.

I loved it.

People are a bit gun shy, though, of a real prophet cutting loose. I mean, consider Joseph. He scared the crap out of all sorts of reasonable people. Why? Because ultimately, religion and spirit are not rational. And that opens up a very touchy can of worms, especially in our day and age. OTOH, people aren’t really rational either — thus the match between people & their religions.

Rules are rational, reasonable, consistent, and so forth. But revelation? Hah. You sure you want that? Unfettered, it’s “Katy, bar the door!”

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

GBSmith wrote:

“HiJolly

Quote:

Being immersed in it as they are, the possibility for them to actually see the ‘hidden’ light is greatly enhanced. The cloud upon the sanctuary parts and reveals that light which cannot be expressed by mortal tongue.

Sorry, but you lost me there. Experiences that people describe in the temple seem to have as much to do with their state of mind and level of expectation than where. T. Edgar Lyon once said that the experiences in Kirtland may have had something to do with prolonged fasting followed by beer. Maybe the temple is a “thin place” but as far as a light that cannot be expressed by mortal tongue, I don’t know. When I went through the temple for the first time in 1964, the officiator was Mr. Miles, my 9th grade science teacher who used to routinely shake the crap out of anyone who made trouble in his class. It comes to mind whenever I go. Maybe that’s why I’ve not been able to see the ‘hidden light’ that you mention. It’s what we make of it and not so much what it is. IMHO

I think there’s a LOT of truth to that, GBSmith. Really.

I have literally seen the light while in the temple, and I know it was because of my state of mind (and a few other things, but sadly, not beer). 😈

My studies of the human mind (brain, etc), combined with my personal, anecdotal experiences have settled the issue for me. Subjectivity is required for spiritual life.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

doug wrote:

Speaking for myself, my problem is that since this was presented at GC, this anecdote now sets the standard.

But we all know that the story is not ‘standard’, or it never would have been mentioned. We know it is *exceptional*, meaning, a drastic exception from what most people do. So I sincerely hope no one takes it as a new standard of some sort – how sad that would be! I think only the uptight trying-too-hard people are going to make that mistake. I find that those who try too hard are living frankly miserable lives, and are quite hard to live with — both the ones with literal faith, and the ones who question faith. There’s a couple in my own family like that —- nice, but not so much really…

doug wrote:

No difficulty, up to and including the physical separation of my family for four years, is a good excuse for not getting my butt to the temple. Of course that wasn’t stated explicitly, but we all know how this works.

You may be right but I sincerely hope not. What a sad thing!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

cwald wrote:

So, I like the comments so far, but what about my second question. You know, when I heard that story about the guy who left his family for four years to save money to take his fam to the temple, I thought, sure, this is perhaps a faith promoting story to some LDS members. But to me, it was sad and just another example of unnecessary sacrifice and unrealistic expectations the church places on the members (I put that in just for you DA 🙂 ) It was not faith promoting to me in the least.

Why do you think it was unnecessary? or unrealistic? Why was it not faith promoting to you? These questions are rhetorical, your answer to them is valuable only to yourself, internally. They are extremely worth time & effort in meditation and pondering within yourself. Why do others feel otherwise? Could it have a spiritual component, rather than a logical or “convenience of living in the USofA” one?

The reason it is unnecessary and unrealistic in my opinion is because it looks to me like the Church doesn’t really have the knowledge and power they claim they do to ever be able to deliver on some of their promises.

Ok, if you don’t believe God inspired Joseph to ‘restore’ the Church(and a boat-load of other stuff), then that makes sense. But many LDS *do* so believe. For them, it can easily make sense. And I know from my own experience that having that belief, and acting and sacrificing for that belief, can and does result in powerful spiritual experiences. For me, that check was paid in full. So while these sacrifices can be characterized as ‘unnecessary’ or ‘unrealistic’ by some, they can still bring to the individual of faith a powerful, life-changing encounter with God. And I’m not even talking about the endowment, here. That’s a whole ‘nother level of pay-off, for me.

So if someone and their family is willing to sacrifice something that another person is not, is it unreasonable that they each get the varying, even polar results their mindset and level of commitment has produced? I think not. And neither should second-guess or look down on the other.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

In other words, their mouth has written checks that can’t ever be cashed as far as we know.

Well, yeah. Good qualification there. I’d say there’s a lot we don’t know.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

They are basically saying that being obedient Mormons is the only path to salvation and the only way to have an eternal family and the temple ordinances and covenants are a big part of these exclusive claims. Sure there is the whole spirit world contingency plan but I don’t think most TBMs would want to count on that; they want some assurance that they are already righteous and sure enough the Church is ready to issue them a TR as long as they agree to believe and do exactly what they are told.

There is a lot of personal satisfaction in certainty, yes. And while I don’t personally believe the Church is correct in all its exclusivity claims, nevertheless I *do* believe that the Gospel as taught in the Church and in the temple can lead the membership into a beautiful discipleship of love, hope, charity, and faith. As Eckartshausen’s Cloud Over the Sanctuary beautifully explains, the exoteric Church is only the introductory point into the internal or esoteric Church of the Firstborn. One should never mistake the one for the other, even if others around us do.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Sure it might be a very meaningful experience for some members to go to the temple similar to the way it is a meaningful experience for some people to climb mountains when they don’t really need to.

Let us definitively determine whether it’s needed or not. Shall we? *Can* we?

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

However, what if this man in Thomas S. Monson’s story that worked for several years away from his family to be able to afford to take them all to the temple mostly did all this simply because he believed all the Church’s promises but then it turns out that the afterlife is significantly different than the way the Church says or maybe this life is all there is?

I guarantee that “the afterlife is significantly different” from what the Church teaches. In many ways. And if this life is all there is, then shouldn’t we decide to enjoy it and relish it and be happy? How are we doing that when we place our judgements upon others who sacrifice in ways that we feel is foolish? Does that really mean that *they* are foolish, or that *we* are? Don’t they have that right, to seek for, to find, happiness?

If they find it in a way that makes no sense whatever to us, is that a problem? Why so?

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

In that case, I don’t see how you can realistically view this extreme sacrifice as much of anything but mostly pointless, tragic, unreasonable, and unnecessary.

I don’t think that’s the only valid viewpoint possible, obviously.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

For the record, I don’t have a problem with them building more temples in places like the Amazon so members there don’t have to travel as far to get to a temple anymore but what I don’t understand at all is the need for at least 5 different temples in Salt Lake and Davis County alone. I really doubt the overall attendance has gone up that much from when they only had the Salt Lake, Ogden, Provo, and Jordan River temples to serve the entire Wasatch Front.

The volume of members going through is incredible. I lived in the Jordan River district until the Oquirrh Mountain temple was built – and it was way too crowded. Not only that, but think of the blessing for the added temple workers. Being immersed in it as they are, the possibility for them to actually see the ‘hidden’ light is greatly enhanced. The cloud upon the sanctuary parts and reveals that light which cannot be expressed by mortal tongue.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

It looks almost like they are trying to force feed members/investigators the idea of temples as some kind of marketing campaign. I don’t really mean that as any kind of cynical bottom-line money making scheme but simply that they think this is one thing that Mormonism has to offer that makes it different from other sects so they want to emphasize this as a major selling point but personally I think they’ve gone overboard with this and they should probably tone it down with some of the temple hype before it comes back to bite them.

Mormonism is the *only* Christian church I know of that has a built-in mystery school(the temple) associated with it. It is and will bite the Church, certainly, someday. I think it’s only a matter of time before the temple and how it came to be and what it involves becomes well known, despite obfuscation and deceptive books such as the recent one by Matthew Brown. What a disapointment *that* was. I don’t think any temple attending Mormon can fully explain it without getting dangerously close to violating their temple covenants. (added later: ok, nobody I know of can “fully explain” it — at all.)

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

cwald wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

Why do you think it was unnecessary? or unrealistic? Why was it not faith promoting to you? These questions are rhetorical, your answer to them is valuable only to yourself, internally. They are extremely worth time & effort in meditation and pondering within yourself. Why do others feel otherwise? Could it have a spiritual component, rather than a logical or “convenience of living in the USofA” one? ….

He is making it more efficient. Temple are being built right & left — and that is literally making the temples more available to His children….As for the importance of the endowment. The true importance is hidden. And far more important than vicarious work for the dead. The temples, now as always, are for the living, first & foremost. HiJolly

Really? I don’t know you yet HiJolly, but you obviously missed my point. Since your comments and questions are “rhetorical” I will refrain from debate. 🙂

When I’m missing something, I don’t mind being set straight. Go ahead.

Sooo — your point was that you think that the guy shouldn’t have sacrificed as he did for four years so that he could go to the temple? Really? Maybe I totally don’t get your point, because I don’t agree with you at all. Maybe if I understood your point, I would agree with you.

But for me, why would you criticize someone for sacrificing for what they believe in, of their own choice? Or are you saying the sacrifice was a valid expression of faith and values, but Pres. Monson shouldn’t have ‘highlighted’ the story, thus officially sanctioning such freewill choices? Is that what is wrong in your eyes?

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

cwald wrote:

So, I like the comments so far, but what about my second question. You know, when I heard that story about the guy who left his family for four years to save money to take his fam to the temple, I thought, sure, this is perhaps a faith promoting story to some LDS members. But to me, it was sad and just another example of unnecessary sacrifice and unrealistic expectations the church places on the members (I put that in just for you DA 🙂 ) It was not faith promoting to me in the least.

Why do you think it was unnecessary? or unrealistic? Why was it not faith promoting to you? These questions are rhetorical, your answer to them is valuable only to yourself, internally. They are extremely worth time & effort in meditation and pondering within yourself. Why do others feel otherwise? Could it have a spiritual component, rather than a logical or “convenience of living in the USofA” one?

cwald wrote:

Really, we could dedicate the basement of the stake centers and do the endowment. Yes, some say the members just believe these gaudy buildings are magic. Some think it’s all about tithing revenue. I don’t know, if this endowment is so important and god is really going to hold folks accountable to have it by the hands of the “priesthood.” It seems like he would come up with a much more efficient way to make it available to “his children.” As a father, I know i would.

He is making it more efficient. Temple are being built right & left — and that is literally making the temples more available to His children.

As for the importance of the endowment. The true importance is hidden. And far more important than vicarious work for the dead. The temples, now as always, are for the living, first & foremost.

HiJolly

[Author]

Posts