[Rix]

Poppyseed wrote:

Anyway…..love this comment….

Quote:

“Christ lets us live forever. Buddha helps us be okay with it”

Sometimes I think Buddha and Christ would really get along.

I’m having a statue made for my garden where Jesus is embracing Buddha. I really see their teachings as one and the same.

[Rix]

Poppyseed wrote:

Quote:

But like we’ve been talking about, I really do see most other churches evolving to an attitude of equality with others — not competetive.

Perhaps I need to see this play out in the real world more often. I really would like this to be more true. Doesn’t seem so when you see the US political elections or see some dynamics that happen in ordinary neighborhoods.

Yeah, I’ve concluded (stereotyping, I know…) that those that often are interested in politics are the ones that need to be competetive and/or control others. It is unfortunate since they do end up with authority to make laws that are sometimes not in the best interest of the majority.

But I agree, particularly the EV’s tend to be separatist (we’re right, you’re wrong), and they make their views known. Those that are more accepting of differing beliefs don’t need to be heard…so they aren’t so much. Maybe it’s because I want to see this, but right here in Salt Lake City I am seeing much more respect of others than ever before.

(Now the “bubble” of Utah County…that’s another story! 😆 😮 🙄 )

[Rix]

Poppyseed wrote:

Is “The Four Agreements” the name of the book or part of the book? Sounds good.

It is the name of the book. If you like it, his other books are great too. I really like “The Mastery of Love,” but The Four Agreements should be read first.

[Rix]

Old-Timer wrote:

Have at it: Post quotes and start the discussion.

Okay I’ll bite (slow day at the office today… 😆 ). The man said: ““I don’t love you anymore. I’m not sure I ever did. I’m moving out. The kids will understand. They’ll want me to be happy.”

A few things stood out for me. His snap-shot perception of the relationship was that it had always been strained, loveless and routine. He thinks he needs the romance he is NOW imagining — the excitement, passion, something new. And he thinks it will all appear if he leaves his wife and family.

She describes her life as bliss.

Where’s the disconnect? I think it is in their different levels of understanding — of how life happens. And I think it is a common problem in relationships — all kinds. Spouses, parent/child, friends, etc. She understands that she makes her happiness. He is a key “player” in it, but it is up to her to be happy. The players change, move, grow…but she is always the same. And she knows it.

He expects happiness to come to him. He deserves it. He sees it in movies, so it must be true. And when it doesn’t, it is somebody else’s fault…so he must “leave” to allow his bliss to come to him. Elsewhere. Thus the phrase, “the grass is greener….”

It ain’t true.

She is a genius to recognize that he will learn this in time. I don’t think most of us are that smart! My parents divorced in the late 60s — a rare occurence then. My dad was the man in the story. After a year, he started begging her to take him back…but mom had moved on. It was too late. Even recently he has told me he made a big mistake. But it’s too bad we don’t understand these things as they happen to us. So many lessons in life we must learn the hard way.

I’ve certainly had my share!

[Rix]

Heber13 wrote:

Poppyseed wrote:

But I know about the truth that is written on the inside of me …. and it isn’t something that is a product of rational thinking or intellectual conclusions. When I hear truth, I think I recognize it. It kinda resonates inside me and I see the fruit of it as it expands and directs me.

Great thoughts Poppyseed. You seem to have a confidence about you in your ability to live with your truths. That’s great.

It made me think a little…has it happened to you where the “truth that is written inside of [you]”, that truth that you recognize as resonating inside of you, has it ever been wrong and made you wonder how that could be so? If so, how do you handle that and still have confidence in the next truth you accept?

Yes, I think many times what is “inside” is our mind wrestling with our heart. Sometimes the mind has been poisoned with the traditions of our parents — not always the truth for us.

Don Miguel Ruiz writes in his “Four Agreements” about putting off the old “dream” for the new. I like how he does it. (I know, guess that means another book review, huh?!) 😆

[Rix]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Are we becoming more and more enlightened or should we be ready to drop a few levels on the food chain in the next life? To me, that’s a notion of accountability and growth.

Yes, me too! I think there are aspects to enlightenment that are unifying in each spiritual tradition; being kind to others, being healthy, communion with God…and just living the Golden Rule — can’t go very wrong with that!

[Rix]

Old-Timer wrote:

Rix, I probably should write a separate post about this, but I am amused often by the charges that Mormonism is becoming more Protestant when I see SO much movement within Protestantism that is embracing fundamentally Mormon concepts.

I still remember listening to a southern evangelical preacher on the radio years ago who was slamming the Mormons at the beginning of his broadcast for being such an evil cult then encouraging his listeners to spend one night per week with their families engaging in wholesome family activities, prayer and reading the Bible – since James Dobson had been inspired by God to think of this idea.

So true, Ray! I had always thought so many of the rituals/processes in the LDS church were so bizarre to the outside world. Then I started attending and listening to other Christian churches. I felt more “normal” than they were!

I actually believe that most religions are becoming more alike lately. Maybe not the rituals, but the philosophies and teachings. We are evolving to view scripture as metaphor rather than literal — possibly because science isn’t melding with much of scripture. I remember a phrase by Christian theologist Marcus Borg:

“The Bible is true, and some of it happened.”

[Rix]

Tom Haws wrote:

jmb275 wrote:

I generally have very little to say about various eschatological theories. The fact is, I don’t know, and don’t really feel like I can know. Until we discover a way for people to die, bring them back, and have them retain their consciousness (without the brain, which seems quite unlikely), I don’t think we’ll have a real clear picture on it.

jmb, I realize that everybody has their own cup of tea their own way, but statements like this make me wonder if people are really up on the latest data. I read the other day a philosophical article from about 1925 that I can’t put my finger on at the moment, and if I understood correctly, the general gist was about what you said above. Essentially, “we don’t know anything, there’s no data. Very few people claim to have seen the Master of the Universe. It’s not testable. It’s not study-able.”

I am a humanist. I agree with the spiritual idea that eschatological pretzels are yucky. I agree that now is the day and the time of our salvation. But I am also a scientist. And when there is data, I believe it shouldn’t be ignored.

This is the 21st century. Things are changing. Old paradigms don’t always hold true any more. There may be more evidence than you think. At the same time, you can’t put old wine into new bottles. Looking at new evidence with old paradigms doesn’t work. The paradigms have to change. What is God? What am I? Who are you? The old theological and philosophical constants such as “omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent” may no longer work. Seek and we shall find. Ask and we shall receive. Knock and it shall be opened unto us.

Love it…love ALL of it! Thanks Tom!

[Rix]

Poppyseed wrote:

Well, I stand properly broadened then.

But I can see how my comment was rather git-ish and I apologize for sounding that way.

Apology accepted 😆 (as if you needed that!) I (think) I knew what you meant…and I suspect I’ve probably had more exposure to other spiritual paths than most, so I had an unfair advantage. But like we’ve been talking about, I really do see most other churches evolving to an attitude of equality with others — not competetive. Like many of us here who call Mormonism our tribe, they call theirs the same and simply see it as a path they are familiar with and what works for them.

[Rix]

just me wrote:

Thanks for letting me vent!

The whole thing seems so grade school…hope you can see it that way. It’s always a nice cop-out to blame things on “Satan.” It’s pretty hard to have a constructive dialogue about that. Guess that’s why “he’s” been in our mythologies for so long.

I think it’s helpful to get to a place where you can see each person as doing the best they can with what they’ve been given; and it ain’t your responsibility to fix them. Learn to find your own happiness and peace without needing their approval. If you can truly do that, they’ll come around.

[Rix]

Poppyseed wrote:

I don’t know. One thing I love about being LDS is that there are no boundaries on spiritual growth. And I love that we are to find truth wherever it may be found. Tell me another church that believes that?

No offense Poppyseed, but I attend about five different “churches” and they all teach that (UU, Unity, Church of Religious Science, SL Center for Spiritual Living, the Zen Center….).

Just sayin….

[Rix]

HOLY POWERFUL! I love this article!

Of course, 98% of us wouldn’t be able to do what she did…but she gets it! Most of the time when one lashes out at their partner, it is their own stuff. But how many of us realize that and don’t lash back?!

But she was real and had her own doubts along the way. She did set her own boundaries, and fortunately he came around in time. I’m a firm believer in the concept that we are responsible for our own happiness, and the minute we start thinking another is, we’ve got to do our own work.

Thanks for posting this!

[Rix]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

I think the article has valid points about the evolving nature of American’s and religion, and correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like a lot of us here fit the mold this article is referencing. By that, I mean that views shared here aren’t exactly orthodox, and lots of theories/ideas are discussed and given some level of merit.

Yes, that’s what I’ve enjoyed here — discussion about things that were never possible years ago.

Like you, my mission experience was a constant hammering of “we have the one and only truth.” I was in Japan, and a universal saying was “there are many paths that lead to the top of Mt. Fuji, but they all get there.” They lived this philosophy — really believed that our ways were right for us and theirs theirs. It was a concept hard to swallow for me then, but probably the first cog-dis that started my spiritual transition. I’ve often thought that the missionary program itself, paradoxically, is the tool that begins many of us thinking outside the box…simply because we have to relate to our investigators to be successful…and we have empathy. Then we bring it back home and incorporate it into our own paradigm.

I also think a factor in the evolving nature of religion is the shrinking of the world. We push a button on a cell phone and talk to a person half-way around the world. The internet unites all the cultures. So I think it makes each of us more respectful of others, which also means we see they may be good people too, and their path may be just as valid as ours.

[Rix]

jeriboy wrote:

Quote:

Rix said… If I’m not mistaken (and I could be!), I think that IS the policy today. The real question is, as the leadership comes to understand (that’s how I would put it…) that God made gays how they are, what is considered “chaste?” “Sex” only within their committed union — however that is defined?

Gods gives us weakness that we might be made strong. I am a person who has violated the laws of chastity and needs to repent. I have no desire for God to lower his standards for my convenience, I am the one who needs to repent and measure up to his ETERNAL laws.

Jeriboy, of course I don’t know about your situation, but I think it’s quite possible that at least as it relates to gays, that many have misinterpreted what God really means regarding “chastity.” I mean even in our short history, chastity has evolved from one man and many women to one man and one woman. Was that God changing? Or was it our incorrect reception of God’s inspiration?

[Rix]

Old-Timer wrote:

I believe that the present always is more important than the future – and I believe that same concept is embedded in “pure” reincarnation. I do NOT believe it is imbedded in most of the rest of Christianity,…

Very well said! However, I’ve found that like here at “StayLDS,” other Christian denominations have their segments that are quite progressive and are helping evolve their faith to more a more “present” mindset.

[Author]

Posts