[Orson]

I find this site:

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult_q0.html

an interesting read on the cult subject. It is fairly inclusive, meaning most religious movements qualify as “cultish”, but it definitely gives food for thought on what goes too far.

Looking back I see my early years in the church as moderately cultish – in other words I got the message that dissenting views were poisonous words from the devil and there was some fear around hearing the wrong message. In my mind a non-cultish view is that truth can hold its own, fear itself is the tool of the devil, and if you’re swayed by error it’s because you don’t have enough good information – not because you have too much bad information.

[Orson]

Great post Ray!

katielangston wrote:

…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…

I love to put the “be ye therefore perfect” quote in its proper context. Jesus was talking about LOVE. Start at the paragraph beginning, Matthew 5:43 – “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt Love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, LOVE your enemies, bless them that curse you…” He continues to explain that ANYONE can love those who love them back, but to truly be the children of our father we will love EVERYONE regardless of who they are or what they do. This is the standard of perfection – Perfect LOVE. It’s all about BECOMING in this way the ‘true’ children of our father. Christ’s sacrifice helps us do this (or should help us – if we understand it).

I love what Ray says at the end of his post about repentance becoming an exciting forward looking activity. Personally I prefer to think in terms of Becoming. Repentance should be a synonym to becoming. Looking backward and focusing on ourselves is counter productive. Looking forward and focusing outward is how we “become”, it is how we “grow the love”, in my mind it is what the gospel is all about. Love, charity, service, selflessness — this is pure religion, this is how we become, this is how we gain our [eternal?] life by losing it. On a practical level if we can help transform the world with love we may actually contribute to its “salvation.”

[Orson]

Interesting thoughts Ray, I like it! I find your “pure Mormonism” very similar to my idea that the real “gospel” is defined by what is actually true – not necessarily every detail of what we have culturally accepted as ‘Truth’.

[Orson]

Keep us posted MM. For me personally I find I’m more edified the more open I am. I try to consider the intent from the heart of the person that is talking or commenting (what they mean to say – not always what they actually say).

[Orson]

Welcome Dan! I hope you find the support and spiritual insights here that you seek.

daniel wrote:

I think what I want within in Mormonism is the ability to view it as a place to spiritually edify me and my wife, a place to learn how to better myself, a place to learn how to have more compassion for others, and a place to be happy. I’m not sure I want any emphasis placed on “The Truth”. Does that make sense?

I could have written this myself, and have written similar things many times. In my struggle over the past couple years I have decided to put “The Truth” on a shelf so to speak. I am currently in the process of “building a new relationship with the church” (as a quote from Richard Bushman referred to). There are many angles to, and varying degrees of “truth”, I am content to let the whole thing reveal itself in time. I, like you, prefer to focus on the positive elements – learn to be happy, have compassion, grow patience – and continually ponder what truths are of God.

I look forward to hearing more from you.

[Orson]

Old-Timer wrote:

In the end, I also believe that if two people truly can become one in this life, God will not split them up in the hereafter – since “joining the Church” is not the ultimate goal. Becoming one with each other and with God is the ultimate goal – and that happens outside the Church (and even outside Christianity) all the time. It’s just much harder when religious beliefs differ.

My thoughts exactly. If you can grow a beautiful tree with love, God will not chop it down. His purpose is to promote love. The mature and responsible way to make a decision is to consider all the factors involved (type of soil, seed, climate, to continue the analogy) but ultimately it is a healthy mature tree that is the goal – not to use any specific prescribed method to grow it.

[Orson]

That’s a good point. I agree it doesn’t fit the purpose of the story to share – it’s just when I hear the 5 say “if we share with you we won’t have enough for ourselves” it strikes me as being less than perfectly selfless, and it seemed to contrast the other times Jesus taught selflessness. (Maybe they could have worded their answer in a different way?) I find it interesting that some Bible scholars think this parable may have been inserted by the church centuries after Christ’s death.

[Orson]

That is very cool, thanks for sharing!

This is evidence to me that the church is changing, and I think moving in a positive direction. It is very gradual and will take a long time but I like to see evidence of good things happening.

P.S. Good to see you here Buffy!

[Orson]

I was also under the impression that the stone in the hat period was with Oliver Cowdery, this is what David Whitmer would have witnessed (and of course Emma was near during both periods). I think someone could also argue that Joseph hid manuscript pieces under the lining in his hat – but like Valoel said it really doesn’t matter what types of arguments you can come up with — if it speaks to your heart it’s scripture. It may be literal, it may be symbolic mythology, you simply cannot physically prove spiritual things (the physical ancient record is not the spiritual meat in my opinion). Even if it was proven to come from some mortal’s mind you cannot prove that God didn’t use them to produce an inspired work.

I do agree that it can be an interesting discussion, I’m not saying don’t ask the questions. Personally I just like to separate the physical from the spiritual. This is what works for me.

It’s always interesting to hear people discussing seer stones in church. There is the Ensign article from July 1993 that we can point to: “A Treasured Testament” by Russell M. Nelson – it says:

The details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known. Yet we do have a few precious insights. David Whitmer wrote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe…”

So David Whitmer at least seemed to think Joseph was reading the interpretation in written English. I find that interesting, he didn’t think Joseph was personally searching for the words to describe images that came to his mind.

Anyway, glad you’re still hangin with us Curt! What else is on your mind lately?

[Orson]

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

I think Joseph pondered the same question and he says he was ‘surprised’ to learn that none were correct.

I know this is a tangent but I agree with Valoel about Joseph going to seek forgiveness. In his earlier 1832 account Joseph says that by studying the scriptures he came to realize that the world was in apostasy and he felt to pray for the forgiveness of his sins and the sins of the world. This is one of my little ‘hot-buttons’ that I wish the church as a whole was more familiar with the 1832 account. I hear people saying Joseph went to the grove looking for a one word answer – “Methodists” or “Baptists” would have suited him just fine – but I think that is an over-simplification of what was actually going on in Joseph’s head (and it would be nice to be able to discuss the potential reality in more depth in church).

[Orson]

Like you MagicM I need to ask why, I need to grasp as clearly as I can what things are, what they represent, why they are that way, and how they got to be what they are. I like Fig’s statement about the present personal experience, I have grown to the point (I feel anyway) spiritually of being able to agree with that statement. I think what we experince personally, in a spiritual way, is more important than how anything external may relate to our spiritual life. With my unique personality I have needed to put the whole authority question “on the shelf” to be able to focus on my personal spiritual growth. In my mind the circumstances of the past, our early church history, do relate to whether or not God actually gave “exclusive authority” in a universal worldwide sense to Joseph Smith to establish an exclusively authorized church on earth that has the sole responsibility to unlock the salvation of all men, women, and children past and present. The literalness of these types of statements are difficult for me to understand and process – so to be quite frank I don’t worry about it. I focus on my personal growth and hope that by improving myself I can help to change the world in some small way. I don’t know if the second coming of Jesus (in power and glory) will be a literal returning of the resurrected personage, or if his teachings and message will be accepted world-wide (teachings of love, forgiveness, non-violence, etc.) to the point that his presence will “rule” and the world will be transformed. Either way I see my personal growth and promotion of these principles to be an assistance of the end goal.

I also constantly think of something Leonard Arrington said regarding spiritual truth and scriptural stories – “I am prepared to accept them as historical or as metaphorical, as symbolical, or as precisely what happened. That they convey religious truth is the essential issue, and of this I have never had any doubt.”

[Orson]

Thanks for your thoughts Hawkgrrrl, very well put. While I had a good idea of Fowler’s stages from all the summaries and talk out there before I read the book, I still enjoyed it and found many moments of enlightenment as he explained the advanced stages in depth. It is not a fast and easy read, I should read it again to try to get more out of his complex thoughts. Not easy – but worth the effort in my opinion.

[Orson]

You make some good points Ray, I think there is a fine line that is difficult to articulate. At first I thought Buscador was going to ask about the early attempts at theocracy – how could that fit if the constitution was inspired to separate church and state? I think the points, or questions, are similar in spirit. I guess I see it as one of the thousands of little seemingly contradictions that are all around us. Maybe I have acclimated (so to speak) to the paradox of life (and life in the church) enough that these things barely trigger my radar. I don’t know, it’s paradoxical. As Richard Bushman once said “LIFE is paradoxical.” I notice at times in myself my actions can contradict my deepest values, it’s hard to nail down why – but I hope I’ll always keep looking. I do enjoy subjects like this, but perhaps I don’t expect any definable solutions. Please excuse the random thoughts.

[Orson]

Valoel wrote:

I remember someone asking me if I got additional planets (to rule over) as a reward for serving a mission for the Church.

I always get a kick out of the way some men in the mid 1800’s would talk about the worlds they may posses in the next life.

[Orson]

Yes, good question. I think it is simply the perpetuation of a bad habit that was probably started 100 years ago (or more). People just don’t think a lot of the time (as in “I could care less”) about what they’re saying – in my opinion.

[Author]

Posts