Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ldt, Thanks for the link. Very informative and respectful of Church and FM. I appreciated the point that JS seemed to use it as a model for ritual, rather than as a source of content… how to teach it…
FM/Temple was one area of conflict for me during my FC that I can say now is significantly reduced in my mind. I certainly can see why it would be an issue for many, but I think I was overly concerned with it at the time. In retrospect, I think JS was an imaginative tinkerer. Since I work in the Software Engineering trade, I see those attributes often; sometimes to an annoying degree. For example, it’s extremely common for a software engineer to see a problem, look at how it was solved, come up with an alternative and then actively fight for their way as the right way. Funny thing is that if the problem had originally been solved their way, they would have come up with an alternate to that and pressed for adoption of that new alternative. Often, these engineers will say ‘better’ when they really just mean ‘different’. Anyway, it doesn’t make JS a liar or thief (in and of itself).
I have also come to think of the Endowment as so metaphorical that I have been able to abstract it into a general idea/concept and I no longer think of it in the same way as BY, who once said we’d have to give the signs and tokens to angel sentinels to enter the Celestial Kingdom. That was a hyper-literal view of the endowment, which I no longer think of as relevant or even as what was originally intended.
A tidbit that has nothing to do with anything: I once bought a book from the gift shop in the RLDS/Community of Christ Temple on a Sunday. According to LDS dogma, I may be going to hell, but a can’t tell for which part. Interesting topic. I appreciate your bringing it up and your insight to the question. For me, I don’t think I’d say that Jesus was downplaying the importance of the temple. I’d probably say that he was using it as a way to illustrate internal corruption that can (has) come upon us that needs to be purged. FWIW, even non-religious scholars believe Jesus of Nazareth was executed as a direct result of some demonstration at the temple. So, I’d say that the temple was important enough to the man to risk crucifixion to make his point.
IMO the temple was very important to Jesus, the early disciples, and Paul, in particular. But Paul was working with and among people of the Diaspora and Gentiles. Their connection to the temple was more representative of something, rather than concrete. I’m a fan of I Corinthians 3, where Paul describes the community of Saints in Corinth as having been built up from a field into a building that has become the Temple of God, because God’s Spirit dwells within that congregation.
As for LDS Temples, I’d say that the same concept applies. It’s the House of the Lord, if you see it that way. It’s not if you don’t. I haven’t been to the temple in ages, but I sometimes think I could go back now and easily unsee things that used to bother me more, because I have abstracted spirituality away from the dogma of the Church. To me the Church (with its chapels and temples, conferences and scriptures) is just a vehicle, it’s not the point in and of itself.
I caught a tiny snippet of the one talk where the guy used golfing at St. Andrews for some corollary in the Church/Gospel. I’m sure it was a fine talk and that the guy is top-notch, but I don’t think this is the kind of story that will resonate with the non-wealthy. The members of the Church I knew in South America, some of whom couldn’t read or write, all of whom had low prospects for financial security would not have known what St. Andrews was or anything about golf, for that matter. I think the Church GAs have done a pretty good job in the last couple decades of trying not to have an elitist look, but sometimes it still comes through. It made me wonder what a talk by Thurston Howell III would be like. Old-Timer wrote:
[Admin Note]: From the original post:Quote:“With conference next weekend, I’m curious if anyone here has anything that they are expecting or hoping for?”
I would like to see fewer talks on paying tithing and obedience and more talks directed at being a true disciple by not letting differences of opinion, no matter how large, drive us to judging our fellow church members (Romans 14) and by going beyond major cultural-political differences to treat with an abundance of kindness the people who think and act the least like us — to treat people in our out-groups the way we would want to be treated (Sermon on the Mount, Parable of the Good Samaritan)… In short: about setting aside our outrage and focusing on being a better person (Sermon on the Mount) and making the world a better place through our actions rather than our arguments (Sermon on the Plain).
I didn’t see all of GC this morning, but heard good talks that go a long way to toward the above, especially GWG and DES.
SamBee wrote:
it isn’t the virus that worries me the most just now. It is where we are heading.
My own 2cents:What I notice much more now than at any other time in my life is the smugness with which people (of all political persuasions) seem to treat opposing views. It’s as if they think their own views are perfect, enlightened, honorable and correct — and that anyone who doesn’t share their particular view is a moron who needs to be shouted down publicly. People frequently describe views with which they don’t agree as “dangerous”; not simply different… “dangerous”. Then we marginalize and shame people who don’t think the way we do. We declare that they shouldn’t vote, because they are so wrong. We attack their character (as a way to marginalize their opinions further, and thereby build up our own).
There’s always been some of this, but not to the degree that it exists now.
And here’s the rub. It’s really hard to recognize that each of us is just as guilty of this as the people we oppose… we just can’t see this in ourselves or our allies. But it blares out like a foghorn from the heads of those with whom we don’t share common opinions.
We can’t see it easily in our in-groups.
It’s all we see in our out-groups.
nibbler wrote:
Do any of the various versions have licensing fee considerations? I bet something like that would factor into any decision.
Great point. The NRSV is copyrighted by the Nacional Council of Churches in the USA. I’m sure there would be some fee associated with the Church publishing it in their own binding. However, I believe the intent is for such a fee to be to defray the cost of translation and ongoing updates, so that seems to me like it would be reasonable.At the risk of sounding cynical, I imagine the Church could purchase the NCC in the morning, give themselves rights to publish the NRSV at noon, and sell the NCC that afternoon — and all the while, the lights would go no dimmer in the Conference Center.
A more practical way would be for the LDS Church to join the NCC as a contributing member, make a couple-Million-dollar donation, pledge future translation assistance, and by so doing, gain access to the copyright. The current 38 member churches of the NCC include the Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, several competing Baptist Conventions, and… the Community of Christ.
But the most likely way would be to make a simple donation to the NCC. I doubt the NCC would walk away from $5M for the LDS Church to gain permanent rights to publish the NRSV. Maybe the Church throws in some Mark Hofmann forgeries to sweeten the deal.
DJ, I’ve seen that DFU has quoted from both the NIV and ESV, but haven’t seen one yet for the NRSV.
Quick side note for those unfamiliar with these:
– the NIV, popular among Christian churches today, is a modern translation of the best ancient texts we have, and is written at a 7th grade level, so IMO can sound a bit like, “See the boy. See the boy run.”
– the NRSV, used extensively among modern ecclesiastical scholars, is a modern translation of the best ancient texts we have, and is at an 11th grade level, so while modern, still has a higher literary sense. See the quote from Romans in my signature line below for an example of the NRSV text.
– the ESV is similar to the NRSV, but a little more conservative as a translation. The ESV stays clear of gender-neutral language now in use in the NIV and NRSV (for example, in the quote from Romans, below, the NRSV says “another” where the ESV would say “a brother”).
– the KJV is written in the King’s English and probably sounded a bit stuffy even in 1611, since most of its text goes back to many years before even that time. It was a very expertly translated text, accomplished by true craftsmen, but is based on the ancient texts that happened to be available at the time, what we now know to be a pretty poor source, and they translated it into a dead version of English that seemed archaic to our Great-great-grandparents.
Personally…. speaking for myself alone… only my own opinion… I’d love to see the Church shift officially to the NRSV, print new bibles and tell everyone to get on board by 2025. However, there will still be KJV holdouts for the rest of their lives. In practice, I think the Church could simply say, use the KJV, the NRSV, the ESV, or the NRSV… whichever suits you.
Just to pull in an interesting corollary, the Community of Christ has two official versions of the BofM: The Authorized Version and the Revised Authorized Version. Both can be purchased from Harold House Publishing (a sort of cross between LDS Distribution Center and Deseret Book). The AV was first published in 1908. The RAV came out in ’66. It modernized some of the grammar. Its most obvious change was to reduce the usage of the BofM’s favorite phrase: “And it came to pass”. Apparently, 55 years has not been long enough for the membership to adopt the ‘new’ version. As for the Bible. The CofC doesn’t declare any winners. You can buy one of two versions from Harold House: the Inspired Version (JST) or the NRSV.
nibbler wrote:
or maybe even getting more modern with the official translation we use for the Bible.
Yes please. But as a way to show just how hard this is, I note that I will be unhappy if we ever switch to the NIV and its overly-simple language. NRSV for me. Would be OK with the ESV.Arrakeen wrote:
This would be huge. But, I don’t think it will happen soon, especially since the Book of Mormon uses all the King James language. Maybe a new modern translation of both? And then we could also drop the old school “prayer language” as well…
I think the biggest hurdle in the past has been the JST which is very tied to the KJV. However, I will point out that the Church has now translated the JST into Spanish. Now that this has happened, and the JST correlates with a non-English and non-KJV bible, I would assume that reworking it to fit with the NRSV would be no different.The BofM language is much simpler than the KJV, so other than the places where it uses the KJV closely, it wouldn’t be a huge deal. Same with the D&C. I like the idea of a modernization of the language of the D&C/BofM as a matter of keeping them current.
DarkJedi wrote:
I think we’ll get a “message of hope” that the pandemic is coming to an end…The church website bills this as an Easter General Conference…
It’d be a great opportunity to tie the Easter renewal message with the opening of church buildings and temples and the return to what we have lost.
One concept that I always keep in mind when reflecting on these events is that Mark Hofmann is a man who made a name for himself by fraud, extortion, and murder. He often gets a sort of hero’s welcome among former LDS, maybe because he is perceived as sticking it to the man… who knows? Nothing in this thread, for sure, but I do see it from time to time among the disaffected. The man gets no sympathy or kinship from me. What he did was wrong with a capital WR.
I’m just going to bring out a couple of past comments:
Regarding Mark Hofmann:
On Own Now wrote:
He is a murderer who took the lives of two innocent people for nothing more than to take attention off of his already-felony schemes. Those are facts he has admitted to. I try not to be black & white about much, but that’s a line that I cannot straddle. The murders far outweigh any other aspect of his crimes and the murders were about self preservation; nothing to do with the Church.My heart goes out to the families of Steven Christensen and Kathy Sheets.
Regarding the Church’s motives of “hiding” the contents of these documents:
On Own Now wrote:
I will say that if we take the Salamander Letter as a case study, it is somewhat illuminating. The pop culture view of the SL is that the Church purchased it in an attempt to keep it hidden, and there will always will be people that assume this. However, it’s objectively not true. Mark Hofmann tried to sell the letter to the Church via collector Lyn Jacobs, but the Church declined. Jacobs then turned to other potential buyers and was able to convince Steven Christensen (later, a murder victim of Mark Hofmann) to buy it, and subsequently, Christensen gifted it to the Church. During the entire process of the Church’s forensic analysis of the document, its contents were known and published in the local press.Another interesting and related item is the Joseph Smith III blessing, also a Hofmann forgery. Again, conspiracy theorists believe that the Church purchased this document to suppress it, because it was potentially damaging to the Church (it purported to be a blessing by JS to JSIII, declaring the latter to be the successor for leadership of the Church). The Church did purchase it, but at the time, it was a bidding war between the LDS and RLDS Churches, and they both had facsimiles of the blessing, so there was no way that the Church could ‘destroy’ it in order not to let out the contents.
And just to put my own personal touch on these, at the time and as an all-in believer, I knew about and knew the contents of the two above-mentioned letters before they were debunked, so if the Church was trying to “hide” them, they did a pretty poor job of it.
Interesting. Glad to hear it… yet, I should note that he’s not saying that it ISN’T the Only True and Living Church on the Face of the Whole Earth… what he is getting at is to be careful how you say it. DHO lays out two strawman arguments and then counters them by saying “none of them is true”. 1 – According to DHO, it is not true that we have a “monopoly on truth that excludes other faiths and philosophies”, but that’s a very well-constructed statement. The Church believes that the Godhead is made up of three distinct beings. So do some other Christian Churches. Therefore, we don’t have a “monopoly” on that idea. But, I would guess that DHO believes that no other Church or Philosophy has a truth that we do not. If it sounds like I’m carefully parsing his words, let me just say that DHO carefully CRAFTS his words to be legally true, even if doing so sometimes gives an intended mistaken impression (women DO have the priesthood, according to DHO, you just have to say it in a certain way).
2 – DHO also points out that it is not true “that Latter-day Saints are better than others.” Although I’m glad he made this statement, I don’t feel he really backed it up. According to the speech, we have better stuff from God than others… so the inference is too-easily drawn that we must be better. If the Church wants for its members to embrace the idea that we are no better than others, it needs to discuss this more openly. Sadly, it’s a missed opportunity, because, in fact, our doctrine is pretty clear that “God is no respecter of persons” or that “all are alike unto God”. So, it would be a simple matter of reminding that we are all equal in God’s eyes, and in fact, we have a responsibility to those other equals to help them find what we ourselves have been given in spite of our no-more-worthy nature. What I am getting at is the basic precepts of the Church can be held in this way, but we never do in practice. In practice, non-members can join the Church, but the instant they do, they are members of that exclusive club. Non-members who don’t join are still living in darkness, etc, etc…
Hi SamBee, Ramblings follow…
if it were my assignment, here’s what I would do (but there are many other perfectly valid ways to do it, so do what you like best):
– I’d stay away from money versus treasures in heaven. I would not take the “treasures of the earth” to mean wealth, but rather the pursuit of comfort, ease, entertainment as our highest priority. (Otherwise, the message only applies to those who have money).
– I would not use D&C or MH stories. Most bishops would expect you to use those as thought-provoking references to get you started, but I also think most would be OK with members using related, but different sources, as long as the message is the same (and if they aren’t as OK with it, so what? They aren’t going to hit the trap-door button, during a talk.)
– Me? I’d start with the Sermon on the Plain (and I use the NRSV here, for clarity), which is a more earth-bound version of the Sermon on the Mount. In it, Jesus is reported to have said such things as “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.” And, unlike the Sermon on the Mount (same talk, different reporter), in the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus is said to have pronounced opposing ‘woes’: “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.” I would use this as a springboard to talk about focusing on doing good and being good and giving the pursuit of earthly ‘comfort, ease, and entertainment’ a back seat compared to loving our neighbors, being a peacemaker, and treating others the way we hope they treat us. Nothing wrong with pursuing the good things in life, but too often, those who do sacrifice some of themselves in doing it; and when they reach the end of their life, they might look back on the times when they laughed and they might weep with regret. The Sermon on the plain goes on to this:
Quote:But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
I would note that the vibe is very this-worldly. “Your reward will be great”, “blessed are those who are hungry now, for you will be filled”. He doesn’t say, ‘in the next life’. “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God”… But he also says in Luke 17:21, “The kingdom of God is among you (or within you)” (JST: “The kingdom of God has already come unto you”). These are all this-world declarations.
So, how do we find ourselves in the this-worldly Kingdom of God? By letting go of the this-worldly “treasures” (trappings). By becoming something on the inside that is not defined by our earthly status, nor by strict obedience to commandments to satisfy requirements, but by being the kind of people that Jesus was teaching about. By being “merciful” like our Father, etc, etc, etc.
Bottom line: my version of this talk would be about what makes for a good life, which has nothing to do with (material wealth,) comfort, ease, or entertainment. But I wouldn’t equate a ‘good life’ with paying tithing, following the prophet, keeping the WoW, instead, I’d equate it with being kind when it’s difficult, on being a peacemaker, on forgiving and loving others… The inner-self that matches what we think of when we think of good people we know.
I will surprise no one, I suppose, by saying that the resolution to this issue lies more with us than with the Church. I agree that it is great when the local wards have activities that are more social and less purposeful, but people like us have to allow that it’s not the Elks Lodge or a Book Club. The foundation of the Church is faith in JC, acceptance of JS, and adherence to the Church Programs. Social-only gatherings are icing on the cake, not the cake itself.
The Church is a church of believers. If we want to be welcome there, we need to accept that we are guests in their environment and do our best to be people they would want to welcome into that environment.
Back in the first century AD, we know that there were among the Jews in the Mediterranean world, people who were called “Friends of God”. They weren’t Jews by birth. Neither were they Jewish “Proselytes” (Gentiles who had converted to Judaism). Rather they were Gentiles who had a close association with Judaism, even to the point of being a part of a local congregation, but who were not themselves Jews or Proselytes. I do think the name for these people is illuminating: “Friends of God”. The term is telling about how they saw themselves and how they were seen by their Jewish congregations. I think that’s how we have to see ourselves and how we have to be seen by our LDS Wards to be truly welcome.
Just as an example, my current bishopric all know that I believe there’s no God, but that I also believe in the goodness of the Church generally, and in the New Testament in particular. And, even with all that knowledge, they treat me just like anyone else. They are each friendly toward me, welcoming of me, and have never made me a project. Under this current bishopric, I have been asked to speak in SM and I have had a calling as a SS teacher (both on NT topics, which I love and respect). Apparently, there is room for this Atheist.
On the topic of the endowment itself, I will say that I would probably be more OK with it now than I was for a long time. I used to like it fine, but then FC happened and I fell out of respect for the ceremony. I don’t remember the last time I was in the temple, but guessing around ’95/’96-ish. But over the long and strange road of my Faith Transition, I have come to believe in the spiritual meaning of symbolism as something much more abstract and compelling on its own than I did as an all-in member or in the decades after my FC.
Taking the sacrament as a close corollary in symbolic depth, I don’t believe that the bread or wine or water are actually the body and blood of Christ, nor do I think of them as even really “in remembrance” of the body and blood. Instead, what I have come to is more of a call to the body and blood of Christ. In remembrance? Yes, but not in the sense of a reminder, more in the sense of a connection to those things. Jesus is portrayed as a part human, part divine being who was as close to ‘good’ as we can attain and in spite of that he was judged, condemned and died for his goodness. I will also someday die, and along the way, I’ll have plenty to suffer, and even more so if I really eschew convenience in the name of doing as much good in the world as I can. But, in recognition of that, I can join with him through the symbolic taking in of his suffering and make it my own; to join with him in the good-centered life. I’m not saying that I’m a good person, but the invitation to strive to be like him is there present in the sacrament and it is compelling. To me, this is many steps beyond the “in remembrance” clause.
Now, turning to the endowment. If we look at it as an arguably goofy ritual with weird and mysterious symbols, then yeah, it’s not very uplifting. But, instead, we can view it as a symbolic trip through our life journey in which we fall short, find a way to become more like God, are given the tools to do it (the attire and symbolic gestures). Then at the end of our lives if we are true to the things that we were taught, as demonstrated at our moment of reckoning for ourselves, then we can enter into the presence of God. To arrive at that perspective, we have to view the symbols as very abstract, not at all concrete, and no actual keywords, signs or tokens that we will show to the sentinels of the gates of heaven, as BY said. But, if we abstract it that far and keep the larger view in mind, I actually think it’s quite a bit more palatable.
I sort of wish I could return to the believing days with my new-found views rather than the more concrete views of my past.
nibbler wrote:
The publication does something else, it draws elements of the temple experience out into more open conversation. Not sure how to put this, but it trims back a portion of the hedge we’ve built up around the temple experience.
Yes! Exactly. And there’s this other paragraph in the same General Handbook chapter:
Quote:Temple covenants and ordinances are sacred. The symbols associated with temple covenants should not be discussed outside the temple. Nor should we discuss the holy information we promise in the temple not to reveal. However, we may discuss the basic purposes and doctrine of temple covenants and ordinances and the spiritual feelings we have in the temple.
This is interesting because it only prescribes two rules for what “should not be discussed” outside the temple:
–
“The symbols associated with temple covenants”. Think about what those are. Don’t discuss those, other than that they exist, as stated in the GH. –
“The holy information we promise in the temple not to reveal”. Holy information is pretty broad, but it is narrowed down here. It’s stuff that you specifically “promise in the temple not to reveal.”
