Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Orson wrote:
I get the impression you already have an answer in your heart as you ask the question. We will validate it for you – but do you really need us to? What feels right to you IS right for you. Go with it.
I disagree that I have an answer yet. I was TBM just 6 weeks ago, I’m still gathering information. I just need to know what the options are. I realize the options are as numerous and I am willing to believe they are. However, maybe I belong at NOM more than here, for the time being.
Rix wrote:Yes, I lean this way as well, but will add that “God” may not be a separate, perfected human, Kolob living entity at all. “He” may be within each of us; we may be the creators(s), individually and collectively of everything in our lives.
agreed as well
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:It seems that on StayLDS, people come to find meaning in the LDS doctrines that may not have been originally intended or that are contrary to the current teachings of the doctrines.
Well, when it comes to the temple, I beg to differ. There is no current teaching that contradicts this idea. Basically, no ones talks about the temple, and what they do say is consistent with what I said: that it’s symbolic and that we make progressive covenants. Also, how do you know what the original intent was? Again, it’s not taught. Personally, I believe the original intent was to increase the commitment of members and bring them closer to god and godhood. This is done through a symbolic ordinance.
You are right. I guess I’m just basing my perception of the temple on the quote by BY about the endowment and what we receive there, which is what I’ve always been taught. Stage 3 faith takes the temple very literally.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Quote:From a Stage 5 approach, is there anything wrong with finding stage 5 faith in a different faith tradition than your original tribe?
Not necessarily, although most organized religions are predominantly full of Stage 3 individuals. Stage 5 often “transcends” religion – meaning it doesn’t attach to or limit spirituality to the context of a religion’s view. Some religions are better at enabling individual personal spirituality than others, although all do allow for it to some extent.
The goal of StayLDS is to enable people to effectively continue in the LDS faith, despite the cognitive dissonance and challenge to their faith. I recognize this forum’s goal, but is it always God’s goal for an individual to continue in the LDS faith? What if trying to stay hurts a person’s spirituality more than going somewhere else for spirituality? (I am thinking here of converts to the church who may have a different “tribe”, or homosexuals where the church may actually be a toxic environment for some).
Heber13 wrote:Option1. The church isn’t for everyone. Sometimes we just realize it is good enough for the majority, but some individuals must be pioneers to find their own path through the mists of darkness, being taunted both by people in the large and spacious building AND by those holding on to the Iron Rod. But they can find another path to God and enjoy all the same blessings as the Iron Rodders. Sin for me may not be judged by God as sin for others, but the church will define what is sin for its members. And so the church and its teachings are not for everyone, but God takes care of it in the Eternities.
or..
Option2. Straight is the way, narrow is the gate…the church is the path for all, we just have to endure the current environment with faith it will one day be revealed why obedience to the commandments as taught by the church can be done by everyone, and everyone will be judged according to the same standard and by how they love everyone else. In this way, we should learn from past experiences like the Blacks and the Priesthood…that even if we can’t control or change our race or our sexual tendancies or our physical or mental capacities given to us in this life, and immediate circumstances are “unfair” because of it, we must have faith it will one day be taken care of and we will be judged on how we handled the experience. This means gays must endure just like blacks had to endure (although very different circumstances, still requires like endurance and faith), and others in the church must become better at loving and comforting those that stand in need of comfort.
I’m leaning toward Option 1. Perhaps God loves his children so much that he creates many different religions/churches, so that everyone can find the path that personally speaks to them and be made a better person and return to God. I don’t necessarily think that even Christianity is the only path for everyone, let alone the LDS church.
Old-Timer wrote:Just curious: Do you have a problem with that if the answers are, “Correct?”
No, I don’t have a problem if the answers are correct.
Perhaps I need to clarify where I am coming from. 6 weeks ago I was a typical TBM and my wife announced her disaffection with the church to me. It was very difficult and heart-wrenching to me to have her “deny the faith”, so to speak. However, I love my wife very much and I very much value her judgement and insight. I decided that I should do some research into the history of the church. DW had been researching this for nearly a year and I often responded to her criticisms with bad apologetics. Delving into the history, I was convinced I would be able to reconcile everything and that historical facts can be interpreted several possible ways so history would be unable to provide any conclusive arguements on the truthfulness of the restored gospel. Now, 6 weeks later, I have discovered many things that absolutely destroy my old testimony and that make it so I can never go back to being a typical TBM. I am still in “data collection” mode and I am coming to see everything about my old faith in a very different light. However, some days I am more Stage 3 than Stage 4. Listening to the Mormon Stories podcast on Masonry and Mormonism made me think that perhaps there was someway to reconcile all the new information I’ve obtained about Mormonism and Masonry with my old faith in the temple, a very stage 3 type approach (possibly because the podcast was with someone from FAIR and was filled with apologetics). On the other hand, this insight from Valoel is much more in a Stage 5 sort of acceptance, so I am trying to understand what exactly are the implications of these insights on my current Stage 3/Stage 4 understanding.
hawkgrrrl wrote:What if he had been into line dancing? Or fantasy football? We could have a very different endowment today . . .
4 – It being symbolic doesn’t mean that it’s not necessary – what it symbolizes could very well be necessary.
Wow, this is deep, but consistent with what I think Valoel was saying.
It seems that on StayLDS, people come to find meaning in the LDS doctrines that may not have been originally intended or that are contrary to the current teachings of the doctrines. However, most people stay because it is their tribe. From a Stage 5 approach, is there anything wrong with finding stage 5 faith in a different faith tradition than your original tribe?
Valoel wrote:I highly recommend the book “Mysteries of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship”
http://www.amazon.com/Mysteries-Godline … 1560851767Just ordered it. I am looking forward to reading it.
Valoel wrote:No ritual or ceremony does anything, nothing at all. It only creates an event that someone can “realize” or make real within themselves at some point (could be at the time of the ceremony or later).
So you would argue that there is no need to separate the Endowment from the presentation of the Endowment because there is no specific thing we are actually given that changes anything? Rather the ceremony itself (presentation and all) serves as simply an experience that can obtain personal meaning for the individual as they attach such personal meaning to it? Am I understanding your perspective?
This is certainly not what we are taught in church, but I am beginning to realize there are a great many things we are not taught church or are even mistaught in church. This argument would suggest that the ordinances of the temple are not in actually saving ordinances or in any way required for our salvation. Correct? And, in fact, could simply have been made up by JS without affecting their ability to become attached to an individual’s personal meaning. Correct?
Bruce in Montana wrote:Do we know the history of how the Masons recieved their tokens, etc? I mean, could it have not simply been revealed to them as well? Just curious as I’ve never really researched it.
From what I’ve read, there appears to have been some influence from the Kabbalah on the development of the Mason organization, including its symbols, etc. Within Masonry there are actually many different types of lodges and each lodge actually has control over its own ceremonies etc. History suggests that the tokens have actually changed significantly within Masonry itself. However, the similarities between Masonry and Mormonism actually are specifically found in 19th century Masonry in the Illinois area. I highly recommend the link I posted in the OP. It appears that if you actually research the specific types of Masonry practiced in Illinois, the similarities between Mormonism and Masonry are actually even more pronounced than comparing Mormonism to modern Masonry.
Thanks for sharing the conversation. There are some interesting points to ponder and I may comment on them after I have thought about them for a while. HiJolly wrote:The real or inner or esoteric fulfillment is entirely different, and comes not at the beck and call of some church administrator or legalistic functionary, but rather from God Himself, when He decides the time is right. We often refer to this process as the confirmation of the Holy Spirit of Promise, in the Church.
Actually, it could be argued that what we currently refer to as the confirmation of the Holy Spirit of Promise, is actually the ordinance of the 2nd annointing, as JS originally intended it (at least referring to D&C 132).
HiJolly wrote:Historians and scientists have to always keep probability in mind. If it’s improbable, it must be discarded. Miracles can’t occur. That’s the secular standard.
Yes, but!!!
Actually, the book I was reading compared the differences between the different Gospel accounts and then compared it to other historical documents that were written around the same time. The arguement against the divinity of Christ was not due to the miracles that were purported to have occurred, but rather based on historical facts. It was fairly compelling, although I am looking for a better documented book on the historicity of Jesus. Any suggestions?
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:It is hard for me to accept that I must have the discernment to determine which of JS “revelations” were truly from God, if any.
Ah yes, the essense of buffet Mormonism. But we have to have that kind of discernment anyway, in or out of the church, with regard to the church and everything else. Otherwise, we have no spiritual growth and resilience. That’s the Gospel According to Hawk anyway.
Very good point. I guess I was feeling a little black and white in my views when I posted that. I’m still struggling into Stage 4.
hawkgrrrl wrote:WoW violations are not confession sins. Likewise looking at porn in a single instance (although your wife might feel harmed – you may want to discuss it with her). However, if either of these leads to an addiction problem, going to your bishop to deal with the addiction might be a good idea (or to a professional counselor). The church does offer a very good addiction recovery program for all kinds of addictions.
I agree that porn likely damages a spouse and should be addressed with them as part of the repentence process.
I have a mormon friend with sex addiction, and from what I have heard, it is probably more useful to speak to a professional counselor to get real help, rather than consulting with the Bishop or going through an addiction recovery program that is geared toward the generalities of addiction. One should get a program that is specifically designed for that specific addiction.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Not buying this story as legit. IMO, JS said that due to wishful thinking and to bolster the troops. I just don’t buy that it was revealed to him or that Zelph was an actual Lamanite.(Honestly, neither do I). Unfortunately, dismissing this story simply raises my concerns with what other things JS said due to wishful thinking, or to bolster the troops, or to satisfy his own desires. This includes raising concerns with the Book of Mormon itself. It puts me in a catch-22 of sorts. It is hard for me to accept that I must have the discernment to determine which of JS “revelations” were truly from God, if any.
Chapter 1: The Twin Charges of the ApostleshipAn interesting introduction on Apostles as (1) Special witnesses of Christ and (2) individuals in a hierarchy that demands unanimity. Quinn clearly debunks the notion that current Apostles have visionary/visitation experiences with Christ/Angels (which I had already largely accepted before becoming disaffected). I was unaware of the need for unanimity. Of course, before my disaffection, I figured that it shouldn’t be that hard to be unanimous when the answers came from God, but I can now see how good men who are trying to make the right decisions can come to different conclusions (just like my decision to vote for Obama and my friend’s decision to vote for McCain).
Chapter 2: Tensions among the First Presidency and Quorum of the TwelveA very interesting treatment of documented dissension between members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and some of their power struggles. The most interesting bits of the chapter were when Quinn discusses general authorities that have presided during my lifetime. Quinn clearly illustrates the many ways in which our general authorities are merely humans, which is a healthy view to have of our leadership, I think.
Chapter 3: Ezra Taft Benson: A Study of Inter-Quorum ConflictThis was a “delicious” chapter that I “gobbled” up. I must admit personal bias while reading this chapter. Recently, many of my TBM facebook friends have been posting criticism of Obama in the form of Ezra Taft Benson conference addresses. It was great to read of the personal conflicts many of the other apostles had with these conference addresses. I now have some great quotes from Elder Brown to use in refuting my TBM facebook friends. I can see how Ezra Taft Benson may be, in part, the cause for such conservatism with the LDS church and a distrust of liberalism. It was fascinating to read about the secret espionage set up at BYU by Ezra Taft Benson, as well as the origins of the “Strengthening the Members Committee.” This chapter further helped to dispell the myths I have regarding the inspiration the apostles receive and I can see how personal opinions can be preached over the pulpit. It also shows me the danger in following the prophet, no matter what he says. I would be interested to hear recollections of this time period from those that remember it clearer than I do, as I was quite young when Ezra Taft Benson was giving these types of conference addresses.
This chapter also contained many fascinating parallels with current situations in the church regarding Prop 8. It made me think about the conflicting messages from the apostles on homosexuality. Such as:
President Faust wrote:
[There is a] false belief of inborn homosexual orientation. . . No scientific evidence demonstres absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness.vs
Elder Oaks wrote:
[There is] some evidence that inheritance is a factor in susceptibilities to various behavior-related disorders like aggression, alcoholism, and obesity. It is easy to hypothesize that inheritance plays a role in sexual orientation.Chapter 4: Presiding Patriarch, Presiding Bishop, the Seventy, and an Expanding BureaucracyQuinn presents more evidence for disagreements and conflict between the upper levels of the church hierarchy with lower levels of the hierarchy. It is very interesting history, including the discussion on why we no longer have a presiding patriarch in the church. The most disturbing part of this chapter is Quinn’s discription of the expanding bureaucracy. It seems to compare quite nicely with governmental bureaucracy, except with lifetime appointments and without the ability of the “people” to chose their representation. While this is not a problem to TBM believers, I am having some issues with this structure given my more realistic understanding of our leaders’ humanity.
I think that repentence involves asking forgiveness and making restitution for the sin between you, God, and whoever else was harmed. Most of the time this can be done without the Bishop being involved. I personally only think you need to go to the Bishop if the Church is harmed (I view him more as the Church’s representative than God’s representative anyways). WoW – doesn’t harm the church unless you are in a high leadership calling and others see you breaking it, so usually Bishop doesn’t need to be involved (he’d call you in if it was that obvious anyways). I really only see needing to go to Bishop if you harm the church in some way, such as embezzeling church funds or stealing church property. When it comes to purely moral things that don’t affect the church, keep it between you, God, and whoever else was damaged. My 2 cents . . . overit wrote:The election of Obama has brought the most virulent racism to the surface in our town, and my children are constantly faced with outbursts from their peers at school linking Mormons to hating/wanting to kill the president. Most of this happens in seminary, and in some instances, the seminary teachers participate. I even heard that one teacher outlined scriptural refrences linking Obama to the anti-Christ. The schools, at the urging of the few, yet powerful, LDS parents, refused to show the president’s message to students a few weeks ago. When teachers expressed disappointment over this, Mormon students stated “It’s because Mormon’s hate Obama.”
I’m so glad that I don’t live behind the “Zion curtain”. I live on the East Coast and volunteered for the Obama campaign and we put a huge sign on our front lawn. Everyone in the ward knew who I was voting for. Happily I never heard any racist comments about Obama. Primarily the arguments were conservatism vs liberalism (although they may have been hiding behind such comments to disguise their racism.) Interestingly, at our last Stake Conference, one of the speakers brought up politics, but as far as I could tell, he was questioning Republican/conservative ideals and was in general espousing more liberal ideas. I would have major problems if I saw the blatant racism that you describe.
Heber13 wrote:Likewise, Joseph may not know where the Nephite promised land was, if God never told him directly.
Ah, but God did tell JS exactly where the Nephite nation was. While hiking in Illinois with Zion’s Camp, JS and the company came across some remains and God revealed to JS that these remains were from a a white lamanite.
History of the Church wrote:His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky mountains.
This clearly shows that God revealed to JS that the lamanites, at least, were in North America, from “the Rocky Mountains to the eastern sea”.
The account of this encounter can be found here: History of the Church, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1932-51), 2:79-80
