[katielangston]

Ray, this is a wonderful post, thank you. I love just about everything you’ve said, especially the last two paragraphs. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.

Just to add to (or reiterate) your thoughts, my understanding is that when we accept the Savior through baptism, we enter into a covenant with Christ and are made whole (perfect) IN HIM. Therefore, despite my faults, my struggles, my sins, my setbacks, because I am in His covenant, I am “saved,” to use the traditional word for it. As a result, I believe that if I were to die today, I would go to the Celestial Kingdom (assuming Mormonism is true). This has nothing to do with my level of righteousness, because on my own, I am wicked and fall short of the glory of God. Instead, it has everything to do with Christ’s righteousness, because He has graciously extended Himself as an offering for my sins.

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this board, my biggest concern is the lack of emphasis on grace in LDS teaching. So while I absolutely love what you’ve written here, I wonder if the church in general sees it the way you do?

Here are my major concerns with how grace is (or isn’t) taught in Mormonism…

1)–“Worthiness.” I think this is a terribly misleading concept, and I would actually go so far as to say that I hate the way this word used in the Church. Here’s why: NO ONE is worthy! That’s why Christ atoned for us. He is the only worthy one to ever live.

I think the “worthiness” culture is damaging on two levels. First, it lulls people into a false sense of security and pride, a la, “well, I can get a temple recommend, so I’m okay.” Or: “My sins are lesser than other people’s sins, so I’m okay and/or better than them.” Secondly, it literally drives people into depression and anxiety when they realize how perfect God’s standard is and how they will never be able to attain it on their own–yet because of the “worthiness” culture there is this underlying expectation that they should be able to.

2)–The Fall. As a church, I don’t think we do a very good job of remembering that we are naturally enemies to God and desperate for His grace. We pat ourselves on the back for being His children, for being His chosen people, for being “gods in embryo” (heard that one on my mission a lot)…but the truth is, none of that matters without Christ. I am concerned that the lack of emphasis on our plight as fallen mortals prevents us from realizing how much we need Christ. I also think this leads to the sin of pride, because we fail to admit how lost we are.

3)–Meeting God Halfway. Growing up, this is what I was taught: “You do everything you can. Maybe it’s just a 2 on a scale to 100. And maybe your neighbor is a 20. Either way, as long as you’re doing your best, Jesus makes up for what you can’t do on your own, and that is grace.” As an intense perfectionist, that gave me serious heartburn, because I was pretty sure I was never doing my best; as a result, I never felt right with God. I am also concerned that this minimizes Christ’s atonement. I believe Jesus did it ALL for us. He doesn’t just cover what we can’t get to on our own; He changes our very nature to make us whole.

4)–Keep ALL the commandments. We are told we are supposed to keep ALL the commandments, deny ourselves of ALL ungodliness. This is simply not humanly possible. I don’t know why we even say things like this.

A few months back, I decided to try to listen, really listen, for messages of grace in my church experience (i.e. in Ensign articles, conference talks, and Sunday meetings). I thought maybe these messages had been there all along, but that I had developed a way of listening critically that prevented me from hearing it. It has been quite discouraging to realize that, except for a few gems here and there (like this beautiful post), I never heard it because, for the most part, IT ISN’T THERE. It just isn’t. We talk about commandments. We talk about our duties. We talk about how we can be better, more “worthy.” We even talk about “applying” the atonement in our lives, as though it is just a special “tool” God has given us to improve faster, instead of the very essence of the gospel. It’s so rare to hear someone say, “We are lost without Christ and need Him desperately. We cannot do this alone.” I’m not saying it’s never said, I’m just saying it’s rare–in my experience, anyway. And it should be, imho, the most prevalent message of all.

And so then I’ve had to ask myself: “Is this teaching so glaringly absent because people in the church are imperfect in their understanding, and just don’t think to emphasize it, or is it because, as a church in general, we really DON’T believe in grace?”

I don’t know the answer to that question. It’s what I’m grappling with above all else right now. It’s he main reason I have doubts about the truthfulness of the Church in general. Because I don’t know about other people, but I am definitely not righteous enough or strong enough to live without grace. Just absolutely, positively, CANNOT do it alone.

Anyway, this is already too long. But I wanted to throw some of these thoughts out there…

[katielangston]

Ray, that is interesting re: “easy grace” and “serial confession.” Since grace happens to be my biggest hang-up (I think we don’t preach it enough or clearly enough), I have some thoughts about that…

The “easy grace” of many Protestants/Evangelicals is their biggest doctrinal downfall (imho). I think so many people take the easy way out, and are truly never converted to Jesus; they mistake some emotional (even spiritual) experience at a meeting or in an hour of need for true conversion. But if you’ve really accepted Christ into your heart, He will change your heart! So if your heart hasn’t changed–manifest through your outward actions–you’ve got to ask yourself seriously if you’re really converted to Him.

I have Protestant/Evangelical friends who create “confession lists,” where they write down the sins they can remember and take the list to God in prayer. They do it not because they are afraid of “losing their salvation” if they don’t, but because they want to eliminate sin from their life and because they want to be constantly reminded of how holy God’s standards are and how indebted they are to Him for granting them saving grace.

I think the scriptures teach clearly that confession is part of repentance, and continual repentance a crucial part of being sanctified through the Spirit. But where I find I’m getting lost these past few days is in the idea that confession to an authority figure is necessary–male or female–whether we see their role as a mediator, or facilitator, or whatever. I wonder if it might place an inappropriate barrier between sinner and Savior.

[katielangston]

All this makes me wonder if the Catholics aren’t on to something. If you’re going to require ecclesiastical confession at all, make it totally anonymous, with a wall between you.

…Not that the Catholics have a great track record when it comes to avoiding abuse!

(Certainly didn’t mean that maliciously. My whole family on my mom’s side is Catholic and I’ve got nothing but love and respect for Catholicism. Just given the public controversy in recent years, I realized it was kind of a funny statement after I wrote it. Undoubtedly, the vast majority of parishes do not have abuse problems.)

[katielangston]

Thanks, guys. You’re helping me feel better.

It’s kind of jarring to realize things you always thought are probably wrong. But liberating too, especially when the things you thought are hurtful.

P.S. Ray, I really like what you said about the misinterpretation of Alma!!! (As an aside, I always like what you have to say. I’ve lurked in the Bloggernaccle for a couple of years now and you always make me pause and think. So thanks.)

[katielangston]

Quote:

I heard this explained in a very specific way that the leader is not in any way a “mediator” but more of a “facilitator” of the process. The person who has committed a serious sin may have difficulty determining next steps, feeling the spirit, feeling worthy, or recognizing spiritual progress given the feelings that accompany sin. While that is not always the case, the “facilitator” can help them through the process. The sinner has to identify when s/he has been forgiven.

This is an interesting point. I really DO see the value in having a bishop there as a sounding board. I’m sure there are instances where having a bishop there to help you through the process to sort it all out is so important and valuable to people who are struggling. I guess I’m just grappling with why it’s REQUIRED.

I remember lessons in church where they told us that if we had something to confess, we better offer a whole confession–share every last detail of what we did wrong–or else it was like we weren’t really repenting. It always seemed to me that talking to the bishop was your punishment for sinning, part of the process to prove that you’re really, truly sorry and that you’re willing to do the absolute most uncomfortable thing imaginable in order to be forgiven.

Now I think there is serious danger here of denying the grace of Jesus. Confession to God makes sense, of course. Confession to those you’ve wronged, absolutely. But confession to some guy you barely know, but who looks so sternly out at the congregation each Sunday? I dunno…

(Yikes, re-reading that last sentence, I think I’m having flashbacks of being 15 again!)

[katielangston]

Quote:

I think “abusive” implies a certain pre-meditation to the situation. … At best, it just doesn’t seem like an ideal situation. I think it might hit the border of what you are talking about. I just don’t think the system is setup that way to abuse people on purpose.

I think you’re right. “Abuse” implies something sinister and planned. This seems more thoughtless and inconsiderate than anything else. Abuse is probably an overstatement. That makes me feel better.

The more I think about it, though, the more I wonder if the whole craziness over sex in general isn’t kind of creepy anyway. Don’t get me wrong: I believe sexual purity pleases God, and sexual sin displeases Him. I think He wants us to cherish our bodies and I will teach my children to honor their bodies and the special gift God has given us.

But all this nonsense about it being “the worst thing you can do besides murder” (especially when EVERY kind of sexual sin from masturbation to “necking” [anyone ever figure out what the heck that meant?] gets lumped into the same category) is damaging. Except in those cases where addictions, abuse, or adultery are involved, and a loving third party could help the healing process, I’m not sure it’s anyone’s business–least of all an untrained volunteer bishop. You know?

Seriously not trying to sound bitter here (realize I may a little bit). I’m usually a pretty happy-go-lucky kind of gal. I just hadn’t really ever considered this question before, and now it’s kinda buggin’ me. 😡

[katielangston]

Quote:

Personally, I think this is an excellent idea. I hope the church adopts this idea of having women handle for women. Also, in church disciplinary hearings, I feel women should have a female advocate. That’s just my opinion, but I do feel it would be much more sensitive and loving to the women in the church.

Thanks, hawkgrrl. I agree.

Do you think there’s anything “abusive” about NOT providing this?

(I don’t like throwing that word around cavalierly, but that conversation has kind of gotten to me…)

[katielangston]

This is an interesting question. As I first considered it, I thought that I *do* have a secret world. But as I began to consider the question more, I realized I might not. Here’s what I mean…

Obviously, as a disaffected member, I attend church with a much different perspective than most of the TBMs in the ward. I don’t make an effort to hide my disaffection, but I don’t trumpet it either. I try to be positive, upbeat, thoughtful, and honest. I’ve noticed that most people respond positively to this. I’ve had several people thank me for being genuine. And I have a lot of true friends in the ward–though they have varying levels of understanding about how deep my doubts and questions really go.

The choice I’ve made not to trumpet my disaffection has less to do with self-preservation and more to do with “protecting” my LDS friends. The last thing I’d ever want to do is “lead” someone down this road, because it hurts. On the other hand, I think it’s good for LDS to hear and learn about unique perspectives, so I try to be myself and frame unorthodox perspectives in as “non-threatening” a way as possible. And I want people with questions to know I’m someone they can talk to without judgment. So I guess what all this babbling boils down to is that I try to be charitable as I can to the people around me and meet them where they are. My experience is that most people respond in kind.

[katielangston]

Hi MSA01, Nice to have you here. I’m sorry your experience with your ward is unpleasant. I hate that. Hopefully you’ll find in this forum some of the fellowship you may be missing at church.

[katielangston]

Welcome, Whimsey!

At times, I have often wished I could’ve found the church later in life, when I might have a somewhat more “objective” point of view about it. But then, if I did that, I wouldn’t be me. Look forward to connecting with you here.

[katielangston]

Soooo…not to be totally lame, but what is NOM?

[katielangston]

Quote:

Part of it is how we seem to grade and order sins into magnitudes and severity in the Church. We are *ALL* sinners who fall short, from TSM all the way down to the most inactive member. Which is the worse sinner? Does it even matter in the eyes of God that we attempt to grade them? God has total, all-encompassing love and acceptance for us just as we are. God also urges us to keep walking forward, and to discover our personal divinity, while shedding the things that hold us back, whatever those things may be.

Wow, this is something I’ve come to realize quite recently, but was not able to put into words. Thanks for expressing it so accurately. This whole gradation of sin concept is highly problematic for me, and as I think about it, probably stems from our doctrine of a graduated salvation. This, in turn, perpetuates what I believe are viciously false teachings re: salvation by works. In other words, in a graduated salvation model, you are rewarded based upon the works you have performed: some people are extra good (celestial); others are middle of the road (terrestrial); others are pretty bad (telestial); and still others are truly awful (outer darkness).

Well, I’ll tell you what. I know I’m a sinner, and I sure as hell don’t want to get what I deserve. 😈 And I’m pretty sure if they’re honest about it, no one else does either. That’s why we need the grace of Christ so very desperately. (Sorry for the little swear. If it’s not okay, please let me know and I will not do it again.) Perhaps without these rigidly defined categories of salvation we could be, as Valoel puts it, more “comfortable” with imperfection…more open about the fact that we ALL need Jesus…and by extension, more understanding and loving to each other. Including, of course, our gay brothers and sisters.

(I also feel compelled to mention that I’m open to the idea that the *doctrine* of a “graduated” salvation doesn’t need to change, but more what we interpret the *implications* of the doctrine to be [i.e. NOT works and merit-based rewards].)

In any event: Ray, I would be very, very interested in hearing more about your vision of how gay members could/should be integrated into the Church. I tend to agree with you. But are you saying you think our fundamental definition of the law of chastity needs changing (i.e. homosexuality is NOT a sin?)…or would your take be more along the lines of what Valoel has said, in that we should do away with making it out to be the big, bad, “evil” monster sin it’s become, while still asserting it’s wrong and/or not ideal?

[katielangston]

Hear, hear. That was very well put.

[katielangston]

Quote:

I saw a bumper sticker today that said “Ignorance is the world’s greatest problem” or something like that, and I thought, “No, Certainty is.”

LOVE it! I have a business mentor who says that the most dangerous person is someone who doesn’t really know what they know. (Or, rather, doesn’t know what they *think* they know.)

Thank you, everyone, for your kind welcome! I look forward to dialoguing with you further.

[katielangston]

One more thought about this topic in general. Does anyone else feel a sense of unease or even guilt upon abandoning (or considering abandoning) the “all or nothing” paradigm?

When I consider it, it makes me feel so happy and free to think that I can follow my heart by accepting what I perceive to be good and rejecting what I perceive to be bad. On the other hand, there’s this nagging little voice in the back of my head that says, “Oh, no you don’t! You’re CHEATING!”

And that makes me very, very nervous.

[Author]

Posts