[Orson]

Yes I like it, and fitting it into my personal framework of “earth life is school” this concept could be seen as its own important course of study.

As I try to equate “final judgment” with the Father as something that comes at the end of schooling I wonder if it can be related to commencement, or more of a recognition than the traditional idea of “judgment.” Of course those who do not receive a diploma (and cannot progress to a career) may feel judged.

[edit:] After putting that into words it sounds more “earn your way” than I intended.

[Orson]

Reuben wrote:

I’m still working on not being angry with God. It would be easier if I had a concrete idea in mind of a being I should work on forgiving. Should I transfer the anger to the men responsible for teaching me about God and then forgive them instead?

That sounds like a great idea. I have found power in forgiveness, it helps bring me closer to understanding what God may think/feel. The way I see it humans find it difficult to forgive someone that doesn’t deserve it, but not God. Forgiveness then becomes the act of throwing off the shackles of the natural man, it can be very empowering and spiritually energizing. This is how we become more like God. When we get a taste of divine love it keeps us coming back for more.

I wonder if you could expound on your anger toward God. What are the assumptions that frame it? Who is God? What did he do or not do?

[Orson]

Thanks Mom3, I just realized your quote from Richard Bushman in your signature is pointing in the same general direction. Your love and care comes through loud and clear.

I am probably peculiar in more ways than I realize, but I enjoy stretching exercises (of the mental/spiritual variety). I keep a low profile at church, but I sometimes imagine getting into conversations where someone reacts badly – transforming misunderstanding into accusation against me. My hope is that I could remain calm and forgiving, working to ease their fears. All the authors in your Llamas post have helped me understand that the same words spoken by two different people are carried with different assumptions and potentially project different meanings. The same point was also made in a recent Mormon Matters podcast. We can speak our truth even when we know it will be interpreted differently by others who see differently. It is actually kind of fun to just sit back and try to imagine the different ways a statement in church may be interpreted.

[Orson]

Joni wrote:

1. Do you think Heavenly Mother(s) participated in the creation of the earth?

Yes, of course.

Joni wrote:

2. If yes, how do you reconcile that with the fact that the creation is depicted in the temple as being an all male endeavor?

The temple is symbolic, meant to point us toward deeper truths. All scripture and revelation is subject to the understanding and interpretation of men, who see through a glass darkly. God cannot reveal to man more than he is able to accept or comprehend.

I believe science can help reveal details of the creation and the state of our universe.

[Orson]

Some of the classics:

Eugene England

Leonard Arrington

Lowell Bennion

Richard Bushman

[Orson]

Welcome Lucysmack!

lucysmack wrote:

I had remembered a lesson in Sunday school, Joesph Smith was inspired to build the Kirtland temple and there were no other buildings like it. God had given him specific instructions in a revelation on how it should be built. I brought this up with my husband and he said he remembered having the same lesson. Over the years, I have heard and seen many contradictions in the church that have bothered me.

I agree. We are taught many things that introduce needless contradictions. I think it is well meaning members and leaders who are telling stories that they personally find to be faith promoting. They just don’t understand that by not fact checking they are building false expectations in others. Or in the case of “I saw a miraculous healing so I believe if you have the faith you will too” they simply miss or have not experienced the broader reality.

I too wish we could see growth and greater maturity in the church in these areas, but before we hold our breath I think it pays to acknowledge that we are dealing with humans – and as Elder Holland said it must be terribly frustrating even to God. (I’ll skip the tangent but simply note I believe God is above frustration, but I agree with the spirit of his comment.)

lucysmack wrote:

I’m not sure why this feels so scary to write this.

Likely because we can hear the judgments of others all too well.

[Orson]

Welcome squarepeg!

squarepeg wrote:

. . . During that illness, which began seven years ago, I felt for the first time in my life complete abandonment by Heavenly Father. I cried out in desperate prayer countless times. I was doing everything I could, trying my best to follow the commandments, and my heart was humble and contrite. I could not (and still cannot) figure out why He would just not be there at all, and for such an extended period of time. I also had asked to be shown the solution to my illness or just to be shown something that would help. When that failed too many times I asked to please just feel His presence. That also failed. I know for a fact that I had enough faith to be healed. I had all the faith that it was possible for a person to have, with no doubt at all. But the healing did not come. And I felt a shocking absence of any heavenly care or love or concern of any type whatsoever.

I relate to your experience, at an important moment in my life I also felt a gaping absence of God. While it felt crushing at the time today it fits into my life story and plays an important role.

squarepeg wrote:

Sometimes now I can feel the Spirit again. But I still feel like it isn’t true when the scriptures say, “Seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you.”

You remind me of feelings I used to have. I don’t know if my story will be useful to you but I’ll throw it out. Ironically my faith crisis opened a personal path of spirituality for me that had been blocked before. My problem as I see it now is I was looking for the same experiences that other people told me about. I had an image of what I thought they experienced, and I assumed I would have that same type of experience. When nothing came that matched my expectations my entire “house of cards” eventually came down.

One day I simply decided to be open to whatever the universe might share with me, without any expectations going in. At the time I was even uncomfortable with the term “God”, it held too much baggage with me. I simply opened myself up to any connection that runs through humanity. It is very important to stress that I had completely shed all expectations and even hope, and that my curiosity was genuine. I was in a very real way walking a tightrope without a net. What followed I can only describe as the most powerful spiritual experience of my life. It didn’t even confirm to me that God exists in a way that I would have accepted before, but it was the planting of a fertile seed in that moment. The experience defies description, but the closest word is love. I opened myself up, and it came.

Obviously just as I could not relate to the experience of anyone else, I don’t expect you will duplicate mine. I only hope you can release all the expectations that may be holding you back, and take whatever comes to you.

Best wishes!

[Orson]

Heber13 wrote:

I thought the discussion on how some news sources handle false statements by Trump was interesting. The word “Lie” seems to be too strong…or perhaps too emotionally charged…or perhaps assumes intent.

Yes, “lie” implies intent. A person may speak in error and not lie, a lie has the intent to deceive. I carefully avoid using “lie” because that word demonstrates my judgment of others regarding their intent. I don’t want to be caught judging. I can say they were misinformed or the facts will contradict their statement without accusing them of intending to deceive. …unless their intent has been clearly documented and there is good reason to expose it. A good enough reason to risk trading off a little of my credibility as I make the accusation.

As you can tell, the people that freely claim others “lie” will themselves lose a little credibility with me.

[Orson]

I am again riding one of my major themes, the same words will mean different things to different people:

Heber13 wrote:

I do not place kindness above truth.

Quote:

Go ahead and run in the street, Jimmy…I don’t want to hurt your feelings and say no.

…that would be wrong.

I would say I do believe in love and kindness, practically above all else – and they do not conflict with truth. If Jimmy is about to run into the street the unkind thing to do is let him, but there can be different ways to approach the task of stopping him. Sometimes being immovable against all efforts at persuasion can be the most loving act of all, but resistance does not need to turn ugly. Think of Gandhi and MLK.

[edit:] Perhaps “polite” is closer to your thoughts of not offending Jimmy?

[Orson]

DarkJedi wrote:

Orson wrote:

I enjoy freedom from linear thinking. I see rich symbolism everywhere, I have no idea how the literal/concrete realities of life coincide with spiritual truths; my preference is not to mingle them.

I (metaphorically) stand on the term “God is Love.” To me that means God’s love is love, we can only experience it because of, or through His grace. That makes the love of God universal and individual at the same time. Every small detail can be credited to God, as well as the claim that he is for the most part “hands off.”

I know how senseless this all sounds, but it is my truth. It doesn’t easily conform to words.

I actually do get this, Orson. If indeed we are able to take the idea of God being a person or being of some sort and just view God as love, it can work. I have tried in the past to make that concept work with some success – but not total success. . . . I could relate to the Mormon God because I could somewhat comprehend Him. The idea of God being love, which is closer to Catholic theology in some ways, is harder for me to wrap my head around while trying to let go of what I have believed about God.

Sometimes I read things that I wrote in the past and wonder where in the heck that came from. I think of R. Bushman telling of how Joseph Smith would study the revelations he had received, in a small way I can relate.

I like to say “God is the reality, science can only teach us more about God and his ways.” People put creation and evolution at odds, I see evolution as the outcome of intelligent design. If the universe was designed in a way that pointed directly to God and nothing but God, faith could not exist. The purpose of life requires that we don’t know, that is the only way we can ask sincere questions and discover for ourselves.

The question of intervening for me rests on the point of view. I don’t believe in the “button pushing” God, the image of “okay I’ll help them find lost keys but I won’t heal that child’s cancer.” I see the conditions of life as the proper classroom to teach us what we are to learn. Humans are prone to superstition, many blend it with religion. Our prayers should ultimately help us become one with our neighbors, as we ask for blessings for our loved ones it puts other wheels into motion. We are his hands, together we fulfill the purposes of God. I don’t mean that to exclude the possibility of “divine intervention” but I see our ultimate exaltation as growing more out of our education from experience than our reliance on an invisible hand.

[Orson]

Joni wrote:

. . . here’s a General Conference quote from Elder So -and-so which says that husbands and wives are equal partners. I’m sorry, but that is NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE TEMPLE! And if our church’s teachings inside the temple contradict what we say outside the temple, I’m going to assume that what actually counts, what is eternally binding, is the stuff that we actually covenanted to.

Book of Orson: What actually counts is what the spirit carries into your heart and is bound up there. We drive ourselves crazy when we try to hold within us all the opinions of everyone else.

All this confusion around interpretation is part of the human condition. I see it as testing our patience in dealing with our fellow men, speed bumps on the highway of the great commandment. It’s not so hard when we place it all in proper perspective.

We all see through a glass darkly, this is mortality. Scriptures are based in revelation but are written by humans and unavoidably colored by human perception. The Lord cannot teach us what we are not prepared to accept. I see all that stuff in the Old Testament that does not portray a loving God as the color of human perception. The idea that men should rule over women is as old, but we are seeing the light of the Lord shine on the topic in these latter days.

[Orson]

LookingHard wrote:

With lots of people leaving at least the TBM mentality (some staying with the church, such as NOM’s, and some that leave) the church will either open up a bit or will close down and could move towards the direction of even more “fundamentalist”. That scares me for the family I have in the church.

Like DJ I see enough movement away from a fundamentalist retrenchment to ease my mind. Hearing CES people say they are instructed to teach from the gospel topics essays is one sign – but the movement is slow. We hear mention of the essays in a church class, immediately followed by a lesson on the first vision that exclusively quotes the 1838 version. 🙄

[Orson]

Thanks for your thoughts Roy, I think we are generally saying the same thing – with our individual word choice.

In a loose over-simplified way I will call physical truth “universal”, and spiritual truth “subjective” and resting on personal experience. Of course we all wonder what is the physical reality of God? And we hope our spiritual experiences point to a physical universal truth. My thoughts are that our ability to comprehend the grand and eternal workings of God and the universe are severely limited by our mortal state. Think of a 2 to 3 year old’s grasp of Santa Claus, they would not follow a conversation on possible origins of the story. As humans we may be arguing from our different religious perspectives about the anti-gravity or thrust theories that enable Santa’s sleigh to fly, and missing the broader point about the purpose and spirit of the Santa story.

Orson Pratt got in trouble with Brigham Young for saying he would worship the attributes of God wherever he found them, but maybe he had a point that we should pay attention to.

[Orson]

SilentDawning wrote:

Just curious how you reconcile the physical evidence verifying the physical truth, and spiritual evidence verifying spiritual truth, when we have the time honored scripture that “all things are spiritual”. This would mean that physical truths are spiritual….

Yes, two sides of the same coin. Think about repairing a computer, I would not work on the hardware to fix a software problem.

[Orson]

Heber13 wrote:

I think another complexity to this is that there can be overlap, like a Venn diagram. They are not always mutually exclusive…and so there are times when physical evidence can lead to spiritual truths, or times inexplicably when spiritual manifestations can help a doctor or scientist, for instance, with physical truths. The trouble, I think, is not understanding these differences, and then mistakenly expecting all truth (physical or spiritual) can always be found thought spiritual means, or the same risk that if physical evidence does not prove something, there is no truth.

But…I think there can be overlap. Which complicates things.

Yes. Thank you. It is difficult to communicate everything, I don’t want to give the impression I have certainty on all the details of any area.

Thank you for all your thoughts, they stand well – I don’t have anything else I feel like clarifying beyond your insights.

ydeve wrote:

I find the spiritual and the physical to be two sides of the same coin, two different ways of describing much the same thing. But the paradigms are so different that, like you pointed out, the assumptions, methods, and vocabulary used in one rarely ever translate over to the other. Although it’s interesting to note how the philosophical or mathematical idea of “truth” is rarely what we mean by the word, physical or spiritual. Practical use of the word is much more fuzzy or hazy than “absolute truth”. Real life deals more with approximations.

Thank you for your thoughts, I appreciate that. I also like the idea that “the opposite of a great truth is another great truth” where the opposite of a small truth is a falsehood. We do fight major barriers to fully effective communication.

I believe the Lord will be with you.

Roy wrote:

Does this mean that parts of the BOM can be “true” and other parts can not be true for you? Also that parts can be paradoxically true. Such as “The early bird gets the worm.” And “All good things come to those who wait.” Both of these axioms are true for different people in different circumstances and not true for other people in other circumstances. They are both true axioms yet contradictory.

---

Does this mean that the BoM might not be spiritually true and this church might not be spiritually true for your brother?

Yes, I “never” want to make an all-or-nothing statement. To believe any scripture is infallible is to believe a human may be infallible, even for a time. Not only because humans actually put the pen to paper, but because our language is so prone to misinterpretation. You could give me a pure message but it is still up to me to receive that purity without clouding it through my own limited ability to comprehend. At the moment the Sermon on the Mount is very true for me, but the Lord saying “slay Laban” doesn’t register.

In the same way depending on the focus, interpretation, and unique purpose of my brother any variation may or may not be “true” at one point in time. Yes.

[edit:] I feel that I should clarify this idea further. People can only see what their paradigm will allow, like filtered lenses, or even being on a safari at night with and without night vision goggles. A guide may say “a lion is in the grass 70 yards on your right” but for the person without night vision, the lion does not exist for them. Saying it is there but they can’t see it doesn’t make it any more or less real from their point of view, they can’t see it, that is all they know. When we are talking about spiritual things our individual experience is our reality. If we try to tell others to accept our own personal reality and discard their own we are doing a disservice to both of us. It is not sustainable. We can try to help them put on and dial in the night vision, but until they see the lion we need to accept the reality that they don’t see it.

The general purpose of this post was to give a flavor of my mindset as I use a common vocabulary with others in church. I enjoy the deeper dive from your thoughts and observations.

[Author]

Posts