Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I am talking about atonement as in accessing the Atonement of Jesus. This was the AI summary when I started googling LDS version of Amazing Grace to find out what might have been written about the missing second verse.
Quote:Key aspects of “Amazing Grace” and its relevance to Latter-day Saints:
Divine Grace:
The hymn emphasizes the concept of grace, which is central to Latter-day Saint theology. Latter-day Saints believe that God’s grace is the divine help and strength we receive through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This grace enables us to overcome death and sin and to progress towards becoming like God.
Atonement:
The hymn’s message of redemption and forgiveness aligns with the Atonement of Jesus Christ, which is the core of the Latter-day Saint faith. Through the Atonement, Christ offers forgiveness and the opportunity to overcome our weaknesses and become better.
Enabling Power:
The hymn highlights the empowering nature of grace, enabling individuals to do good and serve beyond their natural capacities. This is similar to the Latter-day Saint belief that the Holy Ghost helps us grow and progress through the guidance and empowerment of God’s grace.
I speculate that it was “how precious did that grace appear, the hour I first believed.” From what I read, it sounds like LDS treat grace and atonement like synonyms and I assume that some individuals would be bothered by the idea that someone can benefit from the atonement by just believing. There are steps to repentance after all. I think we LDS are similarly uncomfortable with the guy being crucified and Jesus says, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” We tend to identify with the brother of the prodigal son that was not thrilled when his brother returned from his riotous living and was welcomed with open arms. In church yesterday, we sang Amazing Grace. I felt that there was something different about it and set about to investigate. It turns out that the original hymn of Amazing Grace contains 7 verses. Most Christian churches sing verses 1,2,4, & 7.
Our LDS version appears to be verses 1, 3, & 4.
Conspicuously absent is verse # 2,
Quote:’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed!
Quote:The reason I ask this is because when I joined the church, I thought if you stayed active, pray, read scriptures, paid your tithing,
did missionary work, etc, etc. God would protect you & your family. If God didn’t provide protection,
God would give you answers & strength to continue. When the challenges came, and they always do. all I seemed to get was silence.
In the silence, I found anger & it stayed with me for a time. (I won’t go into details.) I feel like I’ve moved on.
Dear friend, I sit with you in spiritual and life challenges. I have similar experiences and feelings.
I had a sense of trust and naiveté that I had the formula to have a blessed and fulfilling life. When that didn’t happen, I was left wondering if I had done something wrong. It was a major and destructive earthquake to my assumptive world. There was long periods of deconstruction and rebuilding and I am now in a very different place.
I do still sometimes feel nostalgic about the good old days before it all came crashing down. There was a sense of belonging that was like a warm blanket. The assurance of power to overcome sickness and death and live forever in joy with my family was intoxicating. The constant validation from others in the community that we were on the right path together felt great. I think these gave me a sense of alternate reality, where whatever might happen in life would be tempered to an extent because it was only to be endured in this short mortal world and then, if I bear it well, I would be rewarded forever and ever.
The ward family can be a great community and this can also help soften to blow of life’s challenges. For example, if the compassionate service people bring over meals for a few days following a surgery that can really help FEEL supported and less alone in the world. They also can be wonderful positive influences. The men are good examples of good men and the youth are generally really great youth.
I’ve been observing the doctrine of some other churches and they seem (as a group) to be more accepting of challenges coming upon the faithful. It is more a story of God making beauty even from your tattered and broken experience. I think that this mindset would have helped to prepare my assumptive world for the inevitable shocks to the system.
Echoing the talk by Elder Uchtdorf, It works wonderfully for some people, in some circumstances, and for some time periods.
Yes, and when that change happens there will be some that long upheld the old standard that are confused by the change because they had thought that the no beard standard was the way that God insisted that it be done. I took some summer classes at BYU. I was 24 years old, a senior at UNLV, an RM, and I had driven up from Vegas overnight. I came in that morning to fill out some paperwork in the registrar’s office and they asked me if I had shaved that morning. I was confused and responded that I drove all night. They gave me a disposable razor and told me that they couldn’t help me until I was clean shaven. This was my first inkling that I wasn’t in Kansas anymore.
AI says:
Quote:In LDS baby blessings, women are traditionally not part of the blessing circle or included in the ordinance itself. While the mother can often hold the baby, the ceremony is typically led by priesthood holders. However, some wards allow mothers to assist with the microphone or other support roles.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Priesthood holders:
The official blessing is performed by Melchizedek Priesthood holders.
Mother’s role:
Traditionally, the mother holds the baby while the priesthood holders bless it.
Assistance:
Some wards allow mothers to assist with the microphone or other support roles.
Bishop’s discretion:
The bishop has the authority to make decisions about how the ceremony is conducted, including the role of women.
No formal prohibition:
There is no formal rule prohibiting women from holding the baby during the blessing.
It is at the bishop’s discretion. I observe human nature that people like to be asked for things and can get defensive if it is perceived that things are being demanded. Therefore, I would be careful that the new husband’s words about the wife’s participation not come across as demanding.
On the other hand, when we were preparing to baptize my youngest son, Old Timer encouraged me to not ask for permission to perform the baptism but rather to just operate like it was a given that I would act in that role. However, there was significant tradition and inertia on my side. The bishop would have had to act to pump the breaks on the plans and risk upsetting the apple cart if he wanted to prohibit me.
Didge wrote:
One of my favorite passages from the book is: “Rather than asking if the church is true, ask something like: Is this the body of Christ? Is Christ manifest here? Does his blood flow in these veins? Does his spirit breathe in these lungs? Does forgiveness flourish here? Is faith strengthened? Is hope enlivened? Is charity practiced? Can I see, here, the body of Christ?” (p. 114) Sometimes I think I see it, sometimes it remains opaque to me. My fault? I can only keep wondering.
Wow! I think I need to add that to my signature.
It is true that we are making baby strides towards embracing grace.
I think that the most loyal members of the church tend to be fairly elderly as a group. This group is somewhat resistant to changing group norms and inclined to think that the younger generation have it easy and/or have gone soft. This is not a great recipe for great shifts away from works and towards grace. As if to say, “Back in my day, we earned our salvation with fear and trembling. Why does the rising generation think they are too good for that?”
In addition, we are a very hierarchical, top-down controlled church and nearly ALL of the top leadership comes from that older generation.
AmyJ wrote:
I am a good 6-8-10 years into a crash-course on my kid, and what I know the most is that the church doctrine, culture, traditions, community, and expectations didn’t work for her.
Kuddos to you. Our children challenge many of our preconceived notions … again … and again … and again.
AmyJ wrote:
Previously, you expected them to be “the people with knowledge and authority over you” and relied on that certainty.Eventually, you changed your expectation about what they knew (because you had more information on specific topics – theology and history are cited) to “administrator” (one with more generalized information and a more communal perspective).
Now, you seem to relate to the church leaders as “well-intentioned but imperfect individuals” and you relate to them on a person-to-person equalized footing.
Right.Some examples:
1) I remember that part of the BoA facsimile says that it can only be revealed in the temple. When I had the chance to meet a temple president in the temple, I asked about it and he didn’t know (I speculate that it was a reference to signs and tokens).
2) I had a doctrinal dispute with a companion and we asked the MP to settle it for us – which he did. This is an example of an appeal to authority.
3) Early on in our marriage, DW and I were having troubles and wanted the bishop to help sort them out (not unlike the appeal to the MP in the previous example). He wisely declined. Whatever may be included with the power of discernment, marital advice does not seem to be part of it.
Now, I see them as on equal footing to me. However, with my Bishop I have been careful not to flaunt this equality lest it be interpreted as apostacy.
Taking this a slightly different way, there were times when I saw my Bishop, Mission President, and Temple President as people with knowledge and authority over me to be trusted on what to do in my life. I currently understanding that their knowledge might not be as extensive as mine in various aspects of LDS theology, doctrine, and history. This is partly because being a good administrator does not require a theologian or a historian.
I also do not recognize their authority over me. That is a different form of trust – a reliance, like a child looking up at their parent. I feel as though I have grown up and now recognize my parents/church leaders for the well intentioned but imperfect individuals that they are.
Minyan Man wrote:
If you’re wondering, the definition of Chutzpah:Chutzpah is a Hebrew word that has been adopted into Yiddish and then English. Chutzpah has
been defined as audacity, insolence, impudence, gall, brazen nerve, effrontery, incredible guts, presumption and arrogance.
Yet something essential about chutzpah is missing from all these words.
I think that JS and later BY had incredible Chutzpah. JS had Chutzpah to speak as the voice of God and BY had Chutzpah to consolidate the fragmented portions of the church around his leadership with ruthless efficiency.
I sometimes watch true crime shows and admire the Chutzpah of the fraudsters (think Leonardo DiCaprio’s character from “Catch Me If You Can”). “If only they had quite while they were ahead or kept the fraud smallish and more manageable they could have kept it up perpetually,” I think to myself. But then the same character trait of Chutzpah that enabled them to step into the role they are pretending is also the same character trait that doesn’t allow them to stop.
Didge wrote:
“I take the Bible too seriously to take it literally.”
I really love that. Taking it literally is only a very surface level understanding of the history, people, and contexts that gave us these inspired and holy writings.
I often compare the Adam and Eve story to creation myths of other cultures and religions. I work with Native American tribes and find the creation myths involving the coyote trickster protagonist to be especially fascinating. If such creation myths don’t accurately describe the literal creation of earth, what value do they have? I would argue that they don’t have much value in terms of adding to our scientific knowledge of the earth but they can have great value communally, socially, and personally (social sciences).
In some senses, we LDS are VERY LITERAL. We have resurrected men from many of the Bible and BoM stories returning to literally give priesthood keys from their dispensations.
On the other hand, we seem to be pretty chill about accepting scientific understandings about the age of the earth and dinosaur bones, etc.
It is a mix.
I find it interesting that we should consider a book to be the Word of God as though that book should be the final arbiter of truth as if God himself selected placed each jot and tittle. I am much more comfortable with the term “Holy Writ” or even “Wisdom Literature.” In this way, I can respect and honor the traditions that brought the writings to us without making them binding on everybody.
