Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is it okay if you cross your fingers behind your back when you answer a question or make a covenant? Traditionally that has been recognized as the universal sign that negates whatever it is you are agreeing to. At least, if everything I ever learned on the playground still counts. The Bah’ai’s are all right (though I can never remember where that apostrophe goes, lol). Back in the ’90s when I was deciding “which church to join,” it ultimately came down to a choice between the Bahai’s and the LDS, and I ended up picking the LDS. They have a lot in common in terms of continuing revelation, prophets, and worldwide aims. The Bahai’s seem more democratic than the LDS on the local level, but there is some authoritarianism involved too which you can read about at various dissident websites. They have several beautiful Houses of Worship around the world, open to anyone — there’s a big one not far from the Chicago Temple and a beautiful lotus-shaped one in New Delhi. I think the main thing that turned me away was that I just didn’t feel culturally or socially attuned to the Bahais. I chose Mormonism partly because it is originated and based in the U.S. and has American roots, which I can more easily relate to.
I’m always surprised when WoW discussions turn so rancorous. I once assumed that observing the WoW was a given, or at any rate a tangential point. From a sociological perspective (re: Jan Shipps) I think the change in strict observance of the WoW came along with the “Great Accomodation” of the church to mainstream culture in the early 20th century. Having surrendered its temporal and political claims, the body of members lost an important socializing influence and needed to find a substitute for it. Increasing emphasis on things like the WoW and temple attendance are two large parts of that shift in emphasis.
I found it equally surprising that some present-day fundamental Mormon groups, who otherwise are very strict about observing unchanged gospel principles, do not place such a high importance in observing the WoW at least in terms of tea and coffee (they still shun tobacco, afaik.)
You have to do what you have to do. If they stipulate certain requirements, you have to meet them in order to qualify for that recommend, that’s just the way it is. It may be pressure but that’s the way it is, or do without the recommend. If you need a cup of coffee or a smoke now and then just do it discreetly away from where you can be seen and discard the evidence later. Discretion is key. But you have to decide what is most important to you. cwald wrote:I really see the caste system as, those who have a current temple recommend, and those who don’t. Those who are going to the CK because they are worthy of temple attendance, and those who are going to the TK because they are not worthy of temple attendance. Those who have TR and hold the callings, and those who don’t have a TR and are “ineligible” to hold the callings. IMO, there is an obvious pecking order in Mormondom, and it revolves around the temple recommend.
It’s not a caste system by definition because you can move back and forth between the two categories at any time. Castes are by definition immobile.
At every interview you are only asked if you consider yourself worthy. No one makes that final judgment but
yourself. The only reason most people don’t have a TR is because they don’t want one. No one is stopping them from fulfilling the requirements. No one is holding them down and forcing coffee down their throats through a funnel. 
I have visited the Kirtland Temple several times, I agree it’s a beautiful piece of architecture no matter what your doctrinal views or position. The hand craftsmanship is remarkable. It’s beautiful with its white stucco (?) coat, and even though it was originally a darker color I’m pleased they didn’t keep to absolute authenticity on that score. The new Nauvoo Temple is beautiful in its own right but it doesn’t quite have the same impact on you as you know it’s a reproduction. Still, I love both of them. I was just there last year and visited the new CoC visitors’ center for the first time. I like the way they put you in this large theater for the video, then at the climactic moment open up the curtains on a huge picture window revealing the actual temple in all its glory across the lawn. Of course, most people do see the temple before they walk into the visitors center so I suspect the big reveal may be anti-climactic for them.
BTW, I have heard several people insist on calling it the “House of the Lord,” not temple, and state that it was not originally called a temple. I haven’t done exhaustive research on this topic so I can’t conclude its accuracy one way or another. I have a feeling that both terms were used from the beginning but I can’t prove it off the cuff. Maybe someone else can enlighten us on this bit of history trivia.
One Mormon author who I’ve long derived inspiration from is Ogden Kraut, who has written many books on various gospel principles. One which helped clarify my understanding a lot is called The Church and the Gospel. The title is pretty self-explanatory. In a nutshell, Kraut is concerned here to show that the two terms are not necessarily synonymous. A person might have legitimate concerns or issues with the church at any given time, but may yet retain faith in the unchanging Gospel principles. So, when we speak of someone “leaving the gospel,” we have to be extra careful to clarify exactly what that person is thinking and what his aim is. Unless he is completely changing religions or leaving religion altogether (which might be understandable in some cases), don’t take it for granted that a person’s difficulties or disillusionment with the church equates to leaving the gospel.
I recently read Waiting for World’s End: The Diaries of Wilford Woodruff, and ended up typing a bunch of quotations that struck me to keep in a text file. Here is a quotation that stood out in my mind in regards to the WoW. Quote:I met with Brigham Young and High Priest quorum; the word of wisdom was brought up. B. Young says shall I break the world of wisdom if I go home and drink a cup of tea? No. Wisdom is justified of her children. … All concluded that it was wisdom to deal with all such matters according to the wisdom which God gave. That a forced abstinence was not making us free but we should be under bondage with a yoke upon our necks.
(November 1841)
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:I feel the church is very much a clan-based network.
Yeah, there’s some of that for sure, and I find it buggy too. Same boat here, since both my parents are converts and there’s no church connex prior to them.
I guess I could make something up about some 19th century ancestor who sailed across the Atlantic on a handcart to Navuoo then put the wheels on it and pulled it to Salt Lake just in time to hear Brigham Young say “This will have to do.” (Or words to that effect.) And along the way maybe he took a side-trip to Missouri and did battle with some mobocrats.
Heber13 wrote:I like the way you worded this…very rational and mature.
Don’t worry, I’m overdue for a vitriolic rant any time now. I save it up.
😆 @ hawkgrrrl 1 – There are some aspects of the culture I don’t feel comfortable with or actively dislike, but mostly the issue is that I just don’t feel like a part of it. I want to research my family history and find out if some ancestor ever joined the church or was involved way back when, so I can feel a connection there. My predecessors only came to the U.S. around the turn of the 20th century, and to the east coast, so I doubt if I have any forebears in the church. I feel the church is very much a clan-based network.
2 – The history doesn’t bother me much, you can find the same or worse things with almost every religion that’s been around a while. Some religions have benefited from the long passage of time where a lot of bad press may have gotten buried in the sands of time.
3 – The doctrines are really up for grabs and subject to every individual’s interpretation.
4 – No personal issues at this point. I never really got to know anyone all that well.
Years ago i did a “Church history” road trip … I visited JS’s birthplace in Vermont, the Sacred Grove in Palmyra (this was before the temple was there), Kirtland, Independence and Nauvoo where I stood at the purported grave site of Joseph. I was strongly inspired and gained a powerful testimony of the work of the restoration then. I drifted afterwards, maybe from lack of reinforcement, and went in different directions over the years. Lately I was somewhat startled to read that some people believe that Joseph may have been resurrected, perhaps around the time of John Taylor’s 1886 revelation. I don’t have a testimony of this yet however and I don’t know if I want or need to go that route at this point. I understand how a lot of people can have serious issues with Joseph Smith. After literally YEARS of studying and praying about this point, I have come to accept him as a very imperfect human but a prophet nonetheless. In fact if you look in the Old Testament and even the BoM, all the prophets are flawed in some way or another. A prophet simply has a mission from God to fulfill, he is only a vehicle for a message and a mission. That said, a prophet can also serve as a gateway for you to go deeper into gospel understanding, even with his imperfections. Actually, I think the imperfections make Joseph more relatable in my own life than he otherwise would be. I find the tendency to put a halo on the prophets (even if they are Saints, lol) takes away from that reality.
Thanks for the info. I guess as an adult convert, I always felt like an outsider to the culture. That was something I’ll have to deal with as I go along.
I actually don’t agree with a lot of stuff on NOM right now. I went there hoping for a more balanced viewpoint, but it seems to be veering into a lot of negativity lately and it gets tiresome chewing over the same old problems over and over. I want to use church to help me grow, not get stuck on old obstacles.
