[katielangston]

Here are my top 5…

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)

2. Orthodox Quaker (88%)

3. Eastern Orthodox (85%)

4. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (85%)

5. Roman Catholic (85%)

Mormon was my #22. I’m 46% Mo. And an ENFP.

I love quizzes, thanks for posting it, Tom.

[katielangston]

Poppyseed,

Quote:

Confession is good for the soul

.

Definitely agree with you there! I believe it is an integral part of leading a humble, spiritually in-tune life. What concerns me is the church’s current policy that certain sins REQUIRE the confession to a bishop. Confession to God–absolutely. Confession to the offended party–yes. Confession to trusted friends, counselors, parents, or advisors (which could most certainly include a bishop)–without a doubt. The scriptures are clear that we are to confess our sins to one another (James 5:16), and secrets can tear a person up inside–especially ugly ones. But required confession to a priesthood leader as a PREREQUISITE for forgiveness? I don’t buy it.

I recognize that most LDS would disagree with me here, but then again, I’m coming from a very different place than most LDS–insofar as I don’t believe all church policies are inspired of God and necessarily reflect His will. This would be one for me.

Quote:

Owning ones worthiness is good too.

Actually, the most helpful discovery I have ever made in my entire life is owning my UNworthiness.

Let me elaborate what I mean by that. I’m prone to severe perfectionism, and spent my entire youth and young adult life trying in vain to “be worthy.” I was miserable.

It wasn’t until I realized that I’d never “be worthy” that I first experienced an inkling of what it means to be embraced by God’s love. In my desperation, I gave it all over to Him, and let HIM make me worthy IN SPITE of my fallenness (not BECAUSE of my righteousness)…and in allowing Him “own my worthiness,” I found the first real peace I’d ever known.

Having said that, I definitely appreciate the sentiment of taking personal responsibility for one’s actions (which I think is part of the cleansing power of confession, actually). Isn’t it interesting how different people come to relate to the same topics in such disparate ways?

[katielangston]

Thanks everyone for your feedback!

A few clarifications…

–At this point in my journey, I’m disinclined to accept LDS leaders as God’s Authorized servants with a capital “A.” I believe they have a special commission to serve God and lead people to Him–as we all do–and carry a sacred trust and responsibility to do so with love and compassion by virtue of their positions of leadership and influence. I guess you could say I view them in the same vein as one might view a protestant minister or even a parent or a friend.

–On the topic of confession specifically, I believe confession is between God, the sinner, and the offended party. I think bishops, pastors, and counselors should be there if someone needs extra help and voluntarily seeks it–and we should actively encourage folks to do so. But I don’t believe God needs us to go through human beings as a requirement for forgiveness or absolution. My faith is that this is what Jesus Christ has done for us.

Quote:

Do you find it offensive to have the Bishop ask if you or your daughter are full tithe-payers? Or is it specific to sexual sins that you are uncomfortable with?

The short answer is I feel it is inappropriate. If and how I tithe is between God and me. The longer answer is that I probably wouldn’t have thought to ask the question if they didn’t probe into sexuality–and it is the sexual questions that REALLY bother me. I could probably live with it if it weren’t for the sexual questions, even if I have misgivings about the practice in general.

Ray, as usual, your suggestion is really, really good. I’m going to think and pray about it. Thank you.

Katzpur, that is the kind of thing I’m just terrified of happening to my daughter. Thank you for sharing, and I hope it all works out.

[katielangston]

Ray, once again, you strike gold.

Thank you for this wonderful insight.

[katielangston]

Ray,

Thanks for the thoughtful and eloquent post (as always). I loved it. Just a few thoughts your post sparked…

“Be ye therefore perfect…”

Speaking as a “recovering perfectionist,” I have come to love and appreciate the charge to be perfect also; but because I have come to see it as possible only through the grace of God. So I see it more as an injunction to draw near to Christ than a “goal” that anyone can accomplish on their own.

“We see through a glass, darkly.”

The past few months, that’s become one of the most comforting scriptures of all to me. It reminds me that no one can quantify all truth–NO ONE. It makes me feel a lot better about my own questions and spiritual wanderings.

Then I love how you juxtapose the light of Christ against the darkness. There is such hope in the message of Jesus. Once you begin to doubt the LDS faith, it’s easy to go down a road of questioning everything–including the very existence of God. But even for all my questions, I find such unspeakable comfort in the idea of a Savior who understands me and loves me and draws me to Him, that I hope I never let go of it.

I’ve been labeling myself lately as someone without a testimony, or a struggling testimony, or a broken testimony. But this post has reminded me that I do have a testimony. I’m not so sure about the church. But I really, really love God and I have hope and (dare I even say it?) faith that He exists and that Jesus loves me.

Anyway, thanks for the reminder.

[katielangston]

Thanks, all, for your words of encouragement.

HiJolly, I read your introduction. Really interesting journey! I hope God will lead me into the kind of peace you’ve encountered. I trust he will in his own due time.

Ray, you’re right: church and church meetings probably aren’t the most appropriate times and places to discuss my doubts and concerns. Most people would naturally feel threatened and uncomfortable. That’s not at all a charitable thing to do to folks. I’ve actually started praying that God will point me in the direction of one or two people I can open up to a little about this. I know it’s primarily my own journey, and a personal one, but having someone to bounce ideas off of and confide in would be a great relief for someone with my naturally social personality. I’ll keep my eyes open.

As you noticed, it isn’t really something you can talk about in public, not without damaging others around you.

Valoel, this is something I try to keep in mind above all others. When I get angry or frustrated, it’s very tempting to open my mouth and start talking about things that bother me, ask difficult questions, or bring up historical problems that many are unaware of. But I’d be doing it out of pride and anger, and that would be displeasing to God and ultimately counterproductive. Above all else, I’m trying to keep a charitable outlook. No matter what I end up deciding about the church in the long run, it would be wrong to deny the good that has come from my association with it, and that the people within it are sincere and loving. They don’t deserve vitriol.

[katielangston]

Quote:

I saw plenty of that in the Canary Islands (topless 70+ yr old German women who hadn’t worn a bra since the late 1960s), and I thought my retinas were going to incinerate.

Hahahahahahahaha! Good one.

Quote:

Our focus on chastity and modesty is, I believe, productive in the goal of getting kids on missions and married as virgins, but counterproductive in creating healthy functional sexual beings.

I agree, Bouvet. And I think it’s dangerous. But here is a question I have been thinking about lately: If we teach kids more “positive” attitudes toward sexuality, will they be more likely to lose their virginity younger (i.e. before marriage)? Is it the FEAR ITSELF that is the primary motivating factor for kids to “behave” to whatever extent they do?

[katielangston]

Quote:

Based on the experience of my second conversion, I would feel very irreverent and blasphemous to suggest that the Father needs any excuse to extend grace and mercy to His

Quote:

Katie, to follow-up on Tom’s comment about the Father and Son, we have inherited an outlook of a “just Father” (i.e., a punishing, vengeful, OT God) and a “merciful Son” (i.w., a loving, forgiving, gracious NT God) – and I think that is one of the most basic abominations of the apostasy.

Okay, so you guys are saying that the idea that the Father is any LESS loving or merciful than the Son is the abomination? That the Father is every bit as loving and forgiving? I agree, that is problematic, though I haven’t ever considered the question in this light before.

I do think one of the results of LDS teaching on God is that we lose his “oneness.” In other words, our very literal, physical interpretation of God as three separate, independent, autonomous humanlike Beings may make it difficult for us to comprehend of a God who is truly whole and complete. In fact, though the scriptures tell us that that three ARE one God, we rarely use that terminology, speaking instead of a “godhead,” and on some level, maybe even relating to God as we would a bishopbric or stake presidency.

I think the unity of God is probably much deeper than that.

(Seriously not trying to get all Trinitarian here and I’m not talking about egg yolks, whites, and shells. Just pointing out that the [inappropriate?] distinction between a just Father and a merciful Son may be exacerbated somewhat within an LDS theology that emphasizes God’s “threeness” over his “oneness.”)

Tom, I am intrigued by your concept of God without the constraints of justice/mercy theology. I have never even thought to question that justice is one of God’s eternal characteristics. But if there is no justice–and no law–can good truly exist? Perhaps that’s not what you’re saying. Would like to understand this better.

[katielangston]

Quote:

This wasn’t my question, but I wanted to respond anyway. I think where you are headed with that thought is a distinct possibility. I don’t want to go offtrack in this thread, but yes. I have considered that too.

Am seriously intrigued by this and it might help me find some peace re: the temple. If anyone has developed this train of thought further, would love for them to start a thread or point me to a post or something.

[katielangston]

Quote:

Whether or not vicarious ordinances really are necessary for others…

This is another thread entirely…but it really intrigued me. Are you saying you think all of the temple ceremonies may be symbolic? Including the vicarious work we do? As in, not literally necessary?

Quote:

It’s the modern hedging about the law (works of man) that bothers me, not necessarily the focus on doing what God and Jesus told us to do (bringing forth good fruits).

When you say “hedging about the law,” you mean the common Evangelical/Protestant view that you can do whatever you want and still be saved, right? Just clarifying.

[katielangston]

Quote:

Yes. Grace is more important than works. Grace saves everyone. Works are the gravy.

You know what, Valoel? I agree.

[katielangston]

Quote:

But do the works of the gospel profit anyone who doesn’t do them for love?

Yes. If a wicked person helps me in a time of need, even for imperfect reasons, I still profit. A “good” is still enacted in the world. The giver doesn’t benefit in that example. Doesn’t the recipient still profit?

Yes. Even those who only do good publicly in order to gain the praise of men “have their reward” – the praise of men. That reward simply isn’t eternal.

Really excellent distinctions here. Thank you. Doing good for the wrong reasons can earn you earthly rewards–or help a person in need–but that doesn’t necessarily translate into eternal blessings.

One other thing I’ve been thinking about as a result of this thread is the idea of judgment. The scriptures teach that we are judged by our works, but it is my understanding that if we are to get what we deserve works-wise, we are all damned.

Isn’t it true that those who have NOT accepted Christ will be judged by their own works–left to stand on whatever they’ve merited alone, as it were–but those who have accepted the Savior will be judged by Christ’s works as opposed to their own? The implication being that when we attain at-one-ment with God, His works swallow up ours and we are judged on the merits of CHRIST, not our own merits. This is yet another application of grace. Yes?

[katielangston]

Ray, my sentiments exactly.

[katielangston]

I’ve had a few more thoughts after pondering this thread today.

I agree that grace vs. works is the great tightrope/pretzel (love the pretzel image) of Christianity. An emphasis of one over the other is damaging indeed. Is one more important than the other? I don’t think so. But is there a better place to start? I think there might be.

I have come to embrace what I suppose might be termed a more “protestant” view; that is, the kind of works that God will use to sanctify us are the works that spring forth from a converted heart.

Just as faith without works is dead, works without faith are dead.

There are any number of reasons to do good works. Fear. Habit. Compulsion. Duty. And yes, even pride.

But do the works of the gospel profit anyone who doesn’t do them for love?

There was a time I’d have said yes, because all my works were wrought from fear, and I knew it. And it would have destroyed me to say that I was doing it all for nothing.

But looking back on it now, I can honestly say I was doing it all for nothing. It didn’t bring me closer to God; it drove me further from Him. It didn’t create compassion for my fellow man; instead, it inspired suspicion, judgment, and pride. In my desire to be “righteous or else, dammit,” I was turning further and further from the humble, submissive, charitable, open, and caring person God really wants me to become.

My “good works” were turning me into a Pharisee.

And this touches on your comment, Ray, regarding the distinction between exaltation and salvation, where salvation is grace and exaltation is works. I’ve thought a lot about this recently. I think it’s still important to remember that the sanctifying process, which might otherwise be called the path to exaltation, is inextricably tied to God’s grace.

Because our BECOMING doesn’t happen on its own; it doesn’t happen through sheer willpower, grit, and determination; it happens through our surrendering to God. It’s an act of opening up, of turning to Him, of allowing Him to work THROUGH us (receiving His image in our countenances, as Alma so beautifully puts it). This, like the gift of salvation itself, is not something we earn; it’s something God has already given us, if we will only allow Him to work in our lives.

Does that mean we don’t have a say in it? Of course not. We use our freedom to choose God each and every day. But I think it’s important to remember that it is God who is changing us.

The “easy grace” we’ve talked about is a cheap substitute. Because grace changes you, fundamentally. Grace *is* the mechanism through which we DO and BECOME. It is the enabling power that makes it happen.

[katielangston]

Tom,

Very interesting thoughts.

Could you explain to me what you mean by “Christianity has preserved a Father who has some undesirable characteristics that are resolved only by the Son”?

I’m not an intellectual giant, so I’m having a hard time understanding precisely what it means. In other words, the Father is deficient in some way without the Son? And the Son was constructed to resolve it? Or something else? If it’s what I said, in what way(s) is he deficient?

[Author]

Posts