Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mackay11 wrote:
That thing at the back of my house? Oh… that’s a garden. They didn’t mention gardens.Genius
:clap: You`ve set my brain off on a whole stream of culturally relative justifications now. I`ll ponder this some more when I go home for my tea tonight…
Thanks Ray for the thoughtful summary. My thoughts were on another tangent when I first read this thread but this widens the scope. I’m in complete agreement. We do seem as an organisation to be entering an age of greater compassion and understanding, if not yet acceptance, of those who in the past have been marginalised or vilified. I’ve said this before in relation to those who doubt but agree it applies to the subject of same sex attraction. This sentiment Isn’t universal in the church yet but some elements at the top are changing.
I agree that theology is key. For many, change will flow when there is a theological framework on which they can legitimately pin these changes. For me that is Joseph’s greatest legacy. He thought big and and he thought expansive. He pulled in ideas from where ever he found them and never stopped tweaking and evolving them.
With some of the individuals involved with the Neal A Maxwell institute (Miller especially) we seem to be entering an age of really exploring where, theologically speaking, we can go as a church.
I agree fully with what you say Ray but was interested in what our definition of universalism was in the context of this post. You mention Josephs growing development of the concept. How fluid was his definition and how far did he take it? I’m interested as this has become a topic of conversation in my family recently. Eternal progression for all feels right and underpins a much more merciful God. Was this Joseph’s conclusion? Can I get clarity on what we mean by universalism? The general sense of universalism presented by the church seems to be that, yes all mankind is saved, but to different fixed kingdoms. I’m with Givens on progression between kingdoms as to me being separated from family for eternity,even in a telestial paradise state, sounds like hell.
These 2 readings of universalism are fundamentally different. Are we talking past each other when we discuss this question at church?
Orson wrote:I love that, and it reminds me of one of my favorite scriptures – the idea that we need to lose our life in order to find it. Sometimes we need to lose our “certainty” about religion to be able to find our authentic and more powerful spirituality.
Sorry to tag on to the end of an old post but I`ve just read Orsons interpretation of the “losing our life to find it ” scripture. I`d never considered that reading of it before.. but it resonates. Thank you.
I have a similar personality type and struggle with big groups of people I don’t know. I find it hard to talk to people I don’t know at unstructured activities. Where I find it best to get to know people is when I’m on task at something like a service project where you work alongside someone or especially when playing team sports. We have a lot of student investigators in our ward and I find it difficult to make the first approach on a Sunday but I find it much easier and more natural with those who have come along and played basketball with us.
Try getting an assignment in the ward to help organise something that will force you to go around and get people to sign up for something (sports team,food list, that sort of thing). I find it much easier to talk to people if I have a clear reason to do so.
But I share your pain. I’ve been there.
Amen to all of the above my experience…
My last 3 bishops have all known to varying degrees about the state of my faith. One has known in detail but all have known that half the time I`m far from sure there`s even a God out there. Most of the ward know I`m somewhat liberal (even by UK standards) and most of my family aren`t quite sure what to make of me either.
Yet I`ve never been without a calling, often holding multiple callings. I`m currently in ward leadership. I believe I am accepted because I am willing to serve, am trusted to teach and because I try to practice extending charity and a non judgemental attitude towards others. And I more or less keep my main concerns out of the public domain, only sharing or expressing them in certain situations. That final one can be considered a compromise, and to some extent it is, but it is one I am willing to make for a number of reasons. Especially considering the fact that whatever I feel about my current faith position I know that it will change, as it constantly does.
I rarely bear testimony and when I do I always use the word “hope” and, given that I do have hope, I find that entirely genuine.
I have found that if we are honest and respectful towards others the things we consider to be gaping chasms between us can become insignificant compared to the friendship and charity that draws us together.
Besides, having grown up in a number of small struggling UK branches I`ve yet to see anyone sidelined who was willing to pick up broom and join the ranks.
🙂 Curious, is it stated in the handbook that those who do not attend their geographic home ward cannot enjoy full membership rights? We have at least 3 individuals/families in our ward who live outside the boundaries. One of those has been RS pres and primary pres and others have all held leadership positions.
Hi kristmace I’ve added the first reply to your blog
Given that my wife reads your fb entries it will be interesting if she reads and identifies my response.
I actually caught her listening to John Dehlins presentation you linked to on fb a while back and even heard her discussing the impact this has on real people with her family. Your missionary efforts are bearing fruit…
Roadshows were stopped many years ago in the church?? Can we get that memo recirculated? Our stake has one this year and I have a feeling I will be required to participate…
A lot of wisdom in that article. My eldest son is not too far off mission age and I can see his efforts to prepare himself. I`m going to pass a copy to him to read. It may open his mind to greater possibilities that serving a mission can present to him than he may have so far considered. Canucknuckle wrote:
IIRC – Wasn’t that essentially the case with Benson in the last few years of his life. Hickley and Monson ran the show while Benson was incapacitated.Board members – please correct me if I am wrong but that was my perception of things.
That was my perception of things. We had the statements from president Hinkley that despite President Bensons physical incapacity his mind was still alert and he could communicate his intent to the brethren by a blink or the way he looked at them (I`m sure i`m misquoting that but that was the general gist of how I remember it). This was pre faith issue time for me so I didn`t have much of an issue with that. I do remember feeling that it was one of those PR statements to reassure the membership that everything was ok and not to worry.
It was only later that I read Steve Bensons remarks about how president Benson was unable to recognise anyone, even his family, and that it was a case of lights on nobody home. Who knows the full facts behind that situation though.
I can`t help but feel in retrospect that the church missed an opportunity at that point, not just to be honest about his state of health (if there was a question to be answered), but to teach the membership an important lesson. Growing up during the 80`s, and especially following president Bensons famous talk on the prophetic calling, there was an air of prophetic infalliability around. I don`t know whos fault that was but it was definitely there among the wards and stake I grew up in. What a lesson it would have been on the separation of the man from the calling if as a church we could have acknowledged that he was no longer able to function as prophet. How much easier would it be now for the membership to accept that although we revere Joseph Smith as a prophet that doesn`t mean that everything he said or did was prophetic (sorry I didn`t do a very good job of linking those 2 thoughts but you get the underlying idea). It would have been an important step towards the more open, nuanced and vibrant faith that I sense the church leadership are trying to foster amongst the membership now.
I like your parallels from a faith crisis perspective. I’d never considered it that way before as in my head the story was always leading in the opposite direction. Maybe you’re on to something. Did you just out Stephenie Meyer? 😆 For me the story was always about building the eternal family unit. Everyone paired up for an immortal life and fixed in their prime. The gentile vampires have to pass through the refiners fire to get theirs but the lamanite guy gets a free ride to immortality due to his heritage.
This approach has been really effective for me over the years mackay11 wrote:Sunday just gone was the first time I really enjoyed church in a while. I started the day realising it was my time and my choice and so listened for the whole day looking for ways to be a better neighbour. Next time I might look for ideas on how to be a better father or friend or whatever.
It’s human nature to boomerang and its certainly harder to sustain the good side immediately after a faith crisis.
Remember that, despite the spiritual state you are in, you are a baptised member and its just as much your church as any one elses in your ward. You have a right to be there. In some ways more of a right as the ‘whole need no physician’.
