[Rix]

Tom wrote:

There is quite a list of things that I disagree with in the church, but one of the things on the top of the list is the constant usage of “I Know”.

It’s an interesting paradox, I think. The use of the phrase “I know,” and the constant emphasis on bearing testimony is a sort of sales tool used to convince oneself and others that the “product,” the LDS gospel, is absolutely the path to follow. So I see why it is used — even by innocent children. However, like Whitney said, it can be viewed by the educated observers to be, as Hugh Nibley said paradoxically, “zeal without knowledge.”

Think of going to a sales presentation and hearing that a particular product cures cancer, gives us energy, helps us lose weight…and of course will make us a million dollars in a year. The sellers have a vested interest in the product giving the results described, and must be viewed with skepticism by those looking for scientific and medical fact. But maybe that’s why there are so many MLMs in Utah?! There is a similar mindset as to how to learn “truth.”

So I would agree with Tom that if the church is to evolve to attract the educated convert, there must be some processes changed. But that all depends on what they want!

[Rix]

jmb275 wrote:

Rix wrote:

But I just have to wonder if the reason we see “God” as human is because that’s how our parents saw “Him,” and theirs too — all the way back to the myth of Zeuss on his throne, with all his anger and jealousy, and when we didn’t understand that lightning, earthquakes, etc, were natural events, not God expressing his passions on us. From what we understand about evolution, it seems science is quite content with “no God,” but I think many of our experiences keep us believing in some sort of guiding force.

Well, I’m not so sure that it’s that science it content with “no God,” but rather that instead of chalking up unexplained phenomena to a god, we seek for explanations. Most scientists I’m around believe in a supreme force or being of some kind, they are just very slow to assign mysteries to him/her/it.

Maybe I should have said, science doesn’t take the leap to needing a “God” to explain things. But that might not be the best way to describe it either….but I’m afraid my exposure in science is quite opposite yours (my medical training was at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco) — very few believe in a “perfected human-type” deity. Supreme force or energy? Maybe some. But mostly atheists/naturalists in medicine.

[Rix]

Tom Haws wrote:

Rix wrote:

Why do we need to make God a perfected human?

I think there are some useful aspects to that. But I also believe it can give the wrong impression. But what are you going to say that does give the right impression, other than (yeah, this belongs in the “As man now is” thread) “As man now is….” I am a spark of God. So to bring it back to the problem of evil, being a spark of God, I have to believe it all isn’t a mess, and it isn’t evil. It’s all beautiful. Now don’t stone me for saying that. I spoke freely and trustingly.

Oh you are SO STONED! LOL! This what I love about this forum…I’ve been able to speak my thoughts, and nobody’s banned me yet! I can’t say that for the Mormon Apologetics board — another discussion!

hawkgrrrl wrote:

God being a perfected human is just the best explanation I have for human existence. Why would a unifying creative energy force create sentient life among bi-pedal humans rather than whales or turtles? What sets us apart from the rest of the animals is our self-awareness and ability to grow our intelligence. Humans bodies are not superior to that of some of our animal brethren. We have skin that can be permeated, unlike the strong exoskeletons of insects. In fact armor mimics that better construct. We have less tolerance for variation in temperature than many species. We typically only reproduce one live offspring at a time, and our gestation period is one of the longer ones. Our life cycle isn’t the longest. We can’t breathe underwater or move from water to land the way some species can. If God doesn’t look like us and it turns out to be a happy accident that we evolved into a sentient species, I can accept that. It just seems more coincidental (to me) than the idea that God is a perfected human.

Thanks for the comments! Yes, when we look at other species from “our” perspective, we certainly seem like the “alpha species!” It’s easy to see why one would consider the “creator” as being the ultimate alpha male!

But I just have to wonder if the reason we see “God” as human is because that’s how our parents saw “Him,” and theirs too — all the way back to the myth of Zeuss on his throne, with all his anger and jealousy, and when we didn’t understand that lightning, earthquakes, etc, were natural events, not God expressing his passions on us. From what we understand about evolution, it seems science is quite content with “no God,” but I think many of our experiences keep us believing in some sort of guiding force.

But maybe I’ve just watched Star Wars too many times?! 😆 😮 😯

[Rix]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Obviously that’s an oversimplification, but it seems that God set it up, but doesn’t manage it regularly.

I actually do like this too…but I have a question for you, or anybody interested in commenting. Why do we need to make God a perfected human? I know scripture pretty much states this, but suppose “scripture” is wrong; do you see the possibility that “God” is simply a unifying, creative energy in the universe?

(okay mods…should I start a new thread?)

[Rix]

just me wrote:

Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels

If you would like to learn more about the history of early Christianity and how it was shaped this is a great book!

Yes, I loved this book — and many others written by her. I’ve studied quite a few author’s takes on the gnostic gospels, but I find Ms. Pagels to be one of the most compelling. Like so much in religion, many authors try to slant their interpretation to fit what their background is. IOW, a staunch Christian will find the words of Jesus that confirms his/her paradigm of religion. I heard Pagels speak about 4 years ago, and she was very confident yet humble about what she knows. It was here at Westminster College, so she had some iron rod Mormons attacking her, and she handled them tactfully.

Like many, I was enthralled in the subject of Jesus’ life after reading ‘The Davinci Code’ and ‘Angels and Demons.’ Of course they were fiction, but it really brought to light for me the possible alterations made in early Christianity of true history. I do believe in the literal Jesus, but like Pagels, I see him as an enlightened teacher, but many of the legends taught us (virgin birth, resurrection, half God, half man, etc.) were really borrowed from other traditions — mostly Paganism. But of course I could be wrong.

[Rix]

swimordie wrote:

Valoel wrote:

We work on accepting things as they are, understanding things as they are, and experiencing what is truly real — the now. The future does not exist. The past is a memory that fades and morphs over time.

Rix wrote:

1) I am responsible for everything in my life; and

2) I have no expectations of anybody else; anything I receive from others is a gift.

After reading your posts, Valoel and Rix, my eyes welled up in joy. To me, this concept is the most important concept for us to learn and live our whole lives. It may also be the most difficult thing to learn and live, which makes sense if it”s also the most important.

Sorry if that sounds overstated, but I believe it and feel it deeply.

In that “universe space” of real detachment and presence and awareness, the greatest communication with the “light” inside all of us happens. It feels instinctual. Every thought is “pure”, motive is “good”, intimacy is deeper, joy is ecstatic, humor is funnier, food tastes better, there is joy in sunshine and rain alike. Grief and pain are also more acute but embraced as an important part of the process, as lesson, as a type of “hands-on-living”.

I haven’t been able to maintain super long stretches of true detachment in the year+ that I’ve been attempting to live that way, but when I’m in that place, oh the joy!

Absolutely amen…and another amen! ❗ ❗

[Rix]

Tom Haws wrote:

Rix, you are right. You have been through great tribulation. You have overcome. Thanks for sharing, brother. You spoke the truth. I’m probably about 10 years behind you. Been through “to pot”, transcendence epiphany, and the gurus. Just barely finally getting it about love and about that personal evidence of bad feeling that I am seeing things in error. Wow! It’s great.

Thanks Tom! I certainly don’t think I’m “there” yet, but a lot closer than I’ve been! Hindsight is 20/20 (I can say that as an eye doctor… 😆 ), but I can see now that all the challenges I had were great gifts that I needed to have the experience. It’s hard to be grateful for the pain when you’re in it, but it really increases your appreciation when you’re on the other side, huh?!

[Rix]

Valoel wrote:

I am nothing more than a novice at this too, but I agree that detachment does not mean a lack of feeling (joy or sorrow). Quite the opposite! We should feel these as much as possible.

Detachment to me is related to expectations. Expectations (and dependence) causes fear, that we might not get our desire at some point in the future. Detachment in the sense we are talking about is letting go of expectations. We do good for the experience of doing it, not so that we get something expected in return. We work on accepting things as they are, understanding things as they are, and experiencing what is truly real — the now. The future does not exist. The past is a memory that fades and morphs over time.

Detachment does not indicate a lack of living. It is super-living!

Actually, to respond to Swimordie, this post by Valoel is about what I would have said (if I didn’t get busy at work and had to cut it short! 😡 ) He said it well!

I was raised with the emphasis on that ole scripture “for obedience to each commandment, there is a corresponding reward (or “blessing”). (of course paraphrasing….). I took it quite literally and it became a game of mathematics. If I paid my tithing, I expected financial “blessings.” If I fulfilled my callings, went to meetings, read my scriptures, etc., etc….I expected that life would generally go my way.

It didn’t (at least how I expected it too). So as I did the math, God was upside down with me. The paradigm was failing. So in my resentment, my life went to pot (from the world’s view).

In my searching/recovery process I read and listened to gurus from all walks of life. I read books on the life of Ghandi, Buddha, many new thought teachers…all taught me much. Through all of it, I learned that what worked for me was to approach life with an attitude involving two simple principles:

1) I am responsible for everything in my life; and

2) I have no expectations of anybody else; anything I receive from others is a gift.

It changed my life. You can’t be a victim of anything with this approach. God, the Church, my friends, my parents, my spouse…were all doing the best they could with what they’d been given. There was no fault anywhere…nor blame. My life turned around in every sense of the word from there. When all there is is gratitude, there is no stress or worry.

I also changed my take on “love.” I don’t believe in “loving” the way many do. I don’t “love another” in the way where we would expect that if I give something, I get something back…or if I do something for “her,” she should do something for me. That is a set up for disaster! The only person I can “love” is myself. When I do that perfectly, I can share my love with others, but I expect nothing in return. I can commit all my romantic love to my wife, but I expect nothing, nor do I need anything, from her. We simply enjoy sharing our life experience with each other.

I think that is consistent with detachment. At least that’s what I try to live. I find that if I start to get upset about something…I have lost sight of one or both of the principles, and I replay it until I see it correctly. And I can honestly say my life is awesome today!

[Rix]

just me wrote:

*loving this thread*

In regards to the danger of apathy. If someone is fully living life for the experience and to experience joy, sorrow, etc, wouldn’t that avoid apathy? Wouldn’t that person see the purpose in experience?

Quote:

We devour the beautiful and enticing fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. It is no longer on the tree, shining in appearance. Have we destroyed it? No. We took it inside ourselves. We digest it, and it is assimilated into our being, into every cell. The experience is described as the assimilation of opposites. In order to truly live, we must also die. In order to have joy, we must weep. It’s a tension of opposites that plays out like a fractal diagram expanding, creating a life experience. We can fear this. We can find beauty and wonderment in it.

I say we are on a hero’s adventure, not sitting in a study hall taking a pass/fail proficiency exam.

I absolutely love this, Valoel!!!!!!! I may steal it….

I like it too!

Like others, I don’t see detachment as the same as apathy. In fact, quite the opposite. To me, in a way, detachment is the opposite of a few things…one being codependency, another is expectations. Codependency, if defined as “one’s well being is dependent on another’s behaviors,” can be very pathological. It leads to depression, sadness…and when combined with expectations, only leads to much disappointment. After all, we really only have control of our own life.

So detachment, from this perspective, may look selfish and self-absorbed, but is really a process of letting go of many things we were taught to attach to. That looks like apathy to those who don’t understand it.

[Rix]

Tom wrote:

That is all I am asking for too, is just a welcomed place at the table.

And the challenge is that it is usually the “Iron Rods” that become the leaders — that’s part of their character. So I’m not quite as optimistic as John in the “5-10 years” time frame. But with the internet and the world getting smaller, I agree that it will happen.

Sometime.

[Rix]

swimordie wrote:

Now, THAT would be staying present!!

Absolutely! I served my mission in Japan (Buddhist mostly) where I first heard the term “detachment.” It was so contrary to my Mormon upbringing that it took years to grasp it. It is a beautiful concept. Eckhart Tolle’s work (Power of Now, The New Earth…) helped me further understand it, and you are so right on about how much peace and joy we have when we live the principle.

[Rix]

swimordie wrote:

Am I crossing some line by expressing the belief that “God” will literally never intervene with anything?

Not in my mind…but “you” may not want to go there with me either .

I consider myself an “ignostic.” One definition of it is: “Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.” Or also see: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignostic. As such, the concept of “intervention” may also not be defineable. IOW, I’m quite comfortable that God (as most religions describe “Him”) has been created in man’s image. So I also see that it’s possible that evil, free will, sin, etc. are man-made and man-defined.

But I also feel there is a possibility that “God” may intervene, somewhat as quantum mechanics describes by us aligning — maybe in frequency or vibration — with “Him,” or His energy in the universe. The “law of attraction” (for me the jury is still out on that one, but I see its potential) would say that through certain thoughts and behaviors (meditation, prayer, etc), we can co-create with “God.”

But maybe I cross the line here with that?!

[Rix]

Great discussion here! I have to say, I could have written exactly what WS23 just did (but not as eloquently, of course! ).

I just mentioned this in another post, but I think the church is being forced to evolve quickly. The internet is too available to us today…and even if it is suggested that members not read “challenging” material, there’s always curiousity, and we can close the computer room door!

I think there are a few driving forces for change — one quite ironic. I believe that the worldwide missionary program is triggering change in the church. My mission to Japan was life-changing for me — and not in a way the church would like. I was able to have my eyes open to a very different way of thinking, and viewing spirituality…a way that is obviously quite peaceful and healthy. I also learned that people CAN be successful and happy without the church, or even Christianity! That wasn’t possible, in my limited, 60s and 70s Utah worldview. And having to understand how my investigators thought, I came to quite enjoy eastern ways!

Another (maybe obvious) challenge is the church emphasis on education. That includes science. “The Glory of God is Intelligence” is a phrase that most members see as consistent with learning truth.

But I do see a roadblock. The ascension to leadership process leaves an aged administration that may not be so willing to change. I know in my old age of 51, I don’t change as quickly as I did at 25. I can only imagine the response a young church historian gets when he goes to a 90 year old GA and says “we need to stop emphasizing the Joseph Smith story — a bit too inconsistent and too many versions…”

But it must change. Richard Packham estimates that there are 2 people leaving for every person joining today. That pace will demand a change that will make the church attractive to more than the less educated, third world converts they are getting today.

But that’s just my humble opinion….

[Rix]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Temples are a good investment for the church for two main reasons:

– ordinances are the church’s products (what it sells). Closer temples = better distribution network.

– temples are places where members increase commitment: to get a TR you must be observant/practicing the religion, and once within the temple you commit to your marriage, to God, to the church, to your fellow human beings, etc. Now, honestly, once you’ve done this for yourself, that’s technically enough, but going through again and again reminds people of those commitments. It’s like renewing your wedding vows in a sense (but to the church).

So, McTemples are put in all reasonably large communities, and this will reinforce commitment (McCommitment?).

Love it! I’m sure many will say this is just too worldly a view, but I see it differently. The Church is a sales organization. It sells a specific social culture. Some would say it sells salvation and exhaltation. Either way, it needs to grow (success breeds success), and it apparently has a good amount of wealth, so investment in real estate is about as good as any other, so it’s really a win-win to build more places to recruit/retain members.

[Rix]

jmb275 wrote:

It’s like the analogy above. swimordie used to “know” that goosebumps meant the Holy Ghost was testifying or whatever. Now he has a more realistic explanation that makes it seem much less fantastic. He sees natural process in it rather than “miracles.” This is just part of growing up, learning, and understanding our world. I would like to see the church be more open, and honest about it. It will happen, it is happening.

Yes, I don’t think the church has a choice but to be more forthcoming about its history. The internet is forcing that. The JS Papers, RSR, the book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre by the historians (can’t remember the name), etc., all tell a history that completely contradicts what I learned in seminary in the 70s.

I find an interesting comparison today…the 7th Day Adventists. Their founder had a “dream” that became their version of the BoM. It was scripture. Recently, evidence shows it was plagiarized, but the church continues without losing many members. They have evolved to be more “Christian,” and the culture is like ours…very steeped in tradition. To an extent, I think the LDS church may evolve similarly.

Also, I had a similar re-defining of a “spiritual witness” too. My formative years (the 70s), like so many other people my age, involved listening to Conference and fireside talks by Paul H. Dunn. There was no speaker that could give you the warm fuzzies like he did. I’m sure I wasn’t alone when I said I had my most powerful spiritual experiences when hearing him. Then when we learned that many of the stories were either false or greatly exaggerated, I had to re-evaluate what it was I “felt.” One conclusion I made was that it was highly tenuous to base a “testimony” of anything historical on a feeling. And today, at 51 years old, I have had so many very emotional experiences outside “church” events, that I believe the most I can say definitively is that “it made me feel very good!”

Maybe that’s all there is.

[Author]

Posts