[Kumahito]

Welcome, Baldzach. I can relate to a bit of what you wrote. To me, one of the beauties of the Church is the “different strokes for different folks” aspect. I have twice been a ward finance clerk, and I absolutely hated it, both times. On the other hand, I’ve been a primary teacher twice (team teaching with my DW) and absolutely loved it! There are others, though, who just seem a perfect fit as the finance clerk. God bless them for it … they can have it!

Quote:

And for the record, I don’t like teaching primary. But I can, so I do. 5 & 6 year-olds. Ugh.

I love teaching the primary kids – the younger, the better. Somehow I feel like they actually get what I’m teaching in a way that I never experienced teaching GD.

Enjoy, mate.

[Kumahito]

A distinction that doesn’t get drawn often enough (in my opinion) is that between doctrine and practice. I think a simple definition of “doctrine” is the combined principles that constitute the sine qua non of Mormonism – the bedrock principles that guide and animate our practices.

– There is a god. He is the father of our spirits

– Jesus Christ is the Son of God

– Christ mediates with God on our behalf, based on His Atonement

There is obviously more. Our practices, on the other hand, flow from our doctrine. For example, we go to Church on Sundays to worship God and renew our covenants. Sunday worship is not a doctrine itself – it serves a doctrinal purpose. Hence Christ’s teaching that the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Not a very well-thought-out or cogent posting on my part, but I think there’s a very small, dense core of doctrine, and the rest is practice that relates to and emphasizes the doctrine.

[Kumahito]

Welcome, Cave. I had a similar experience to what you describe on my mission. We met the most wonderful man who invited us in to chat. He knew who we were – he’d lived in the US for several years (I served in a mission where the church was brand new, and 90% of people had never heard of us) and had already had several missionary discussions in Colorado. He was back in the old country again, and struggling with the lack of a church support structure. He’d converted to Seventh Day Adventism in the US. He proceeded to tell us the story of his conversion, including his dabbling in the LDS Church before his witness of Adventism’s truthfulness. To hear him bear his testimony of Adventism — you could have just as easily substituted “Mormonism” in his testimony, and it would have sounded like the most sweet, humble testimony of our church. This in itself was very confusing to me … I thought there was only “one true church.” But what made it even more confusing … the Holy Spirit’s presence was palpably manifest as we both bore testimony to each other with firm conviction. I wasn’t testifying of Mormonism, and he wasn’t testifying of Adventism – we were both testifying of the Gospel of Christ. There was nothing adversarial at all about it – he was sharing with us, and we were sharing with him. It was one of the most sublime moments of my life.

We invited him to listen to the missionary discussions again; he politely declined, although he invited us to come back any time to talk. That episode caused me a lot of soul-searching about the “one true church” claim. I brought this up with my mission president, who was (is) a lovely man. He gently explained to me that the LDS claim to be the one true church did not, necessarily, demand that all other churches be patently false. He asked me whether I believed the HG would testify of truth, regardless of the setting. I agreed. He then asked, “well, if this gentleman sat in an Adventist church on a Saturday morning and heard a sermon on the Atonement and the role of Christ as Redeemer, why should he not receive a witness that this message is true?”

I’ve come to know that God loves all his children, and he gives them all directions and guidance. There are truthes of the Gospel in many of the religions and philosophies of the world, and when we hear those truths, we connect with that aspect of God. It seems like you’ve experienced that, too, Cave.

Best wishes on your journey – the church is definitely richer for having thinkers like you. I hope you can find a place in the church to stay.

[Kumahito]

I think this distinction is quite evident in the Old Testament. After the return to the promised land, the Hebrews had high priests who officiated in the temple rites, and they also had prophets. Sometimes the high priest was also a prophet – like Samuel. Sometimes there was both a high priest and a prophet, but not the same guy. Oftentimes there were prophets who were not temple priests – Elijah, Elisha. I often wonder if our modern prophets don’t fill both roles; some of them are much more prophetic and transformative, while others serve more simply as the symbolic head of the church.

[Kumahito]

I’d have paid money to see that. Totally gutsy and, it seems, effective.

[Kumahito]

Quote:

As mentioned in General Conference recently –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waJSMXZ_GXo

Sporting record –

http://stats.allblacks.com/asp/Profile.asp?ABID=324

The kid Will Hopoate in Australia has made big headlines Down Under by choosing to leave the Manly side right after winning the Grand Final (think Superbowl). He played a couple years professionally, and is now on a mission.

http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=43414” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.rleague.com/content/article.php?id=43414

[Kumahito]

Quote:

I’m not sure that our goal for this forum should be to get more attention.

IMO, it should be to help members struggling with their beliefs.

The people will come to this site is by word of mouth.

I know that since I’ve been here I’ve told others about it.

I’m here because of the article, too. As a newbie it’s probably not my place to comment too much on the site, but I’d agree that attention (and the attendant growth) for its own sake isn’t a proper goal of this site, but the attention is a positive if it leads other like-minded folks who want to engage in the dialogue that goes on here.

[Kumahito]

Loved your intro. And I think you gave your own reason to stay – it’s the reason I’m staying, too:

Quote:

I wanted to do good for the sake of doing good and not because I was afraid of the consequences.

For me, the church has primarily become about serving others, and allowing my family to be served by others. I think that’s the biggest thing the church offers: a vehicle for us mortals to learn how to love and serve one another. Sounds like you’re very lucky to have a great ward that’s a tight community. Not that my advice is worth much, but I’d keep on finding ways to love and serve them, and allow them to love and serve you back.

[Kumahito]

Thanks, all. This site really is a breath of fresh air.

[Kumahito]

Thanks, all. I’ve enjoyed reading the various takes on this. I do agree to a certain extent that it’s a regional thing. When I lived in a college town in Virginia, my ward was a bit further left than your typical US ward, and you’d see a smattering of non-white shirts (and non-white people, too).

My biggest issue with this subject is the “mission creep.” It started with the GAs and the missionaries – between the black nametag and the white shirt, it made the missionaries easily identifiable. Not a bad thing to “brand” the missionaries. A clean-cut look. Then it crept onto the pulpit in the bishopric and the presidencies. Then it crept to the sacrament table. And now it’s covered the pews, too. And then, it had to be justified. They can’t say “wear a white shirt because we told you to.” So they make up this symbolism bit, which sounds very reasonable and plausible, but has no basis in either doctrine or church history.

Quote:

Sure, we call it symbolism now, but that is just something we made up to justify it

Exactly.

Hawkgrrrl, to your points:

1. Certainly not all cults wear a uniform, and not everyone who wears a uniform is in a cult. And there are certainly cultural norms of dress. I wear a suit to church, no matter what color my shirt is. I don’t go to work in board shorts and a tank top, either (although I wish I had a job where I could wear boardies). But to my eye, an enforced uniform does make us seem a bit … you know (a nod to cwald here).

2. When I say it’s lazy, I mean that Brother Jabba (to steal from another thread on the WoW) can slap on a ratty pair of cargo pants, his Ugg boots, a short-sleeved white shirt left over from his mission 12 years ago, and the most garish tie he’s got, and he’s somehow seen as more properly dressed for Sunday meetings than the guy who looks like a million dollars with a blue/pink/yellow shirt. I actually don’t have a problem with either of those modes of dress … but don’t tell me Brother Jabba is more squared away than Brother Corporate Lawyer.

3. I agree that there are a certain segment of converts who take comfort in instantly fitting in by wearing a blue suit and white shirt – it’s the equivalent of getting the fraternity tattoo. I’ve got non-member friends, though, who have commented on it to me, and never in a positive way. I guess this kind of goes back to point one on the uniformity/cultishness of it.

Thanks again for the thoughts. Very interesting.

[Kumahito]

Thanks for the reply. I reference Elder Oaks from Oct 2008 conference where he quotes Elder Holland that the AP should wear white shirts and ties when administering the sacrament as a symbol of the purity of baptism. Of course, there is absolutely no doctrinal basis for this.

In my own ward just a couple weeks ago my bishop told the EQP during Ward Council to speak to one of his counsellors about his shirt color at Sunday meetings. Drives me batty.

[Kumahito]

This is one I’ve wrestled with. D&C 89 proscribes wine and “strong drinks” but allows that mild barley drinks are good for man. How, then, did beer get banned along with wine and distilled spirits?

[Author]

Posts