Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
Actually, the more I read about this, the less I see it is similar to plural marriage and the issue the church faced back in the late 1800s. I can draw similarities, but the societal landscape seems to be so different.
Exactly right, Heber. I’ve found that there are HUGE similarities to legal challenges to the miscegenation laws of the 1950’s-60’s. And some interesting parallels to the ways the church attacked ERA in the 1970’s. (though I’m not old enough to remember, I just came across a bunch of campaign material from back then)
Heber13 wrote:It seems to me that the “ideal” way of loving your neighbor and being tolerant of everyone is at conflict with maintaining and upholding the teachings of God. It is like there is a teaching that is “ideal” and then there is real life on how to live in society accepting and being tolerant of others.
I would only change this statement in one way, kind of a JSTranslation, if you will
😳 I’m definitely NOT a prophet.😆 LaLaLove wrote:There is no right definition of Faith.
I think Tom used the art analogy in another post. I like that here, too. I taught a humanities class a few years ago and we spent two hours in class trying to define what “art” is; and we never came up with a definition that even the majority agreed with. I agree with you LaLa, that faith can’t be imposed or presupposed, it’s just too personal.
So, could F&T meeting just be like going to an art museum, everyone just sharing their faith for everyone else to observe and interpret in their own individual way, without qualitative judgments?
I’m liking that as a concept; reality, mmmmm….. dunno. I do feel that staylds.com has approached this ideal. For me anyways. Thanks everyone.
I saw a fascinating movie this week called “Moon”. I don’t know if this is a forum to discuss it but in reading your “wrap up”, heber, I couldn’t help but think of it. It tackles in a most interesting way some very existential issues and, of course, the idea of meaning. Someone else even said it and you used it in your “wrap up”, that religion is a way for people to engage meaning. And, of course, the core concept of your question, at least to me, is the idea of meaning.
So, I think this made sound, oh so existential, but if it’s worth asking for (blessing, etc.) to the individual, it has meaning. By assigning meaning, you’re inherently giving the concept a value equal to the individuals belief in God. It follows, in my mind, that the very fact that an individual would think of taking something to God, whether in question or blessing, by consequence it is not only appropriate but should be encouraged (based on the concept of “exercising faith”).
I totally get what Ray was saying and I believe intensely in the concept of agency, but can we really bug God with all this frivolous asking? I think if we’re all trying to discover our own meaning, then the way we go about that should not necessarily be “guided” or “mentored’ into some other person’s way or groups way or religions way or whatever.
In the movie, there was a computer that was on the “space station” with the main character and he was there to help. No matter what. Because it seemed emotionless, (though there was a funny trick that was used to make him have emotions, yes, emoticons) anything the character asked for was given as much weight as anything else. A computer doesn’t judge the weight of the matter, it just responds. It’s sole purpose was to “serve” the main character.
Of course, we all assign a different meaning to God and God’s role in our individual lives, so our response to another’s request to us to give a blessing or prayer may actually shift the meaning of God to that person, for better or worse.
I guess that’s my point: if it’s just semantics, why not more constructive uses of the “concept”, particularly in the abstract? I’ve always felt like faith is an action, motivating concept, driven by a belief. But as it’s internalized, the outcomes become predictable; I know helping this person will make me feel good. So am I still acting on faith?
It’s kinda like those near-death experiences; people who experienced that almost invariably had an experience that was consistent with their theologic/spiritual construct. Was that faith?
Is faith the illusion of knowledge for a sense of security, or a delusion for a sense of meaning, or something else? Or is it just too close to the whole purpose, existence, meaning of God concept to deconstruct?
What role did faith have for Christ personally? I guess, that’s the heart of my question.
That is fantastic, Ray. Thanks. This concept is the most difficult thing that I still struggle with as an outcome of my upbringing. Never being good enough is how it manifests itself in my psyche, emotional life. I agree with all of the sentiments in the post, in fact, they’re all critical to true emotional health and the pursuit of real happiness. Yet, I find myself remembering all of the past and current examples of the “church”, the “brethren” or local leaders imposing the opposite. I know it’s mostly my perception but there are real examples: Prop 8, all deacons must have missionary haircuts to pass the sacrament (current policy in my ward), multiple piercings.
Thought game: what if a man showed up in church in his wife’s nicest Sunday dress? Is this example bending the intention of the thought past the breaking point? I mean, there are people who would feel more like themselves and less like “faking” if the cultural “norms” were more flexible. What role does that play? I mean I know everyone is unique to the point that there is no such thing as “normal” but that isn’t really true when you go to a mormon church service. I know everywhere is different in its cultural/ethnic background but in the inner-mountain west region, if you’re white and wearing a white shirt and tie…..
There’s actually a VERY strong cultural pull to be “normal”, look “normal”, act “normal”, talk “normal” and we all know what it is. That’s why it’s so pervasive and self-perpetuating. And no one I’ve ever been around in the church does anything to break the cycle. When they announced the policy in my ward that all aaronic ph had to have missionary haircuts to administer the sacrament, I wanted to speak up, walk out, scream, etc. But I sat there and did nothing and said nothing. Luckily, my sons aren’t to that age yet, if so, I have no idea what I would have done. The message: worthy=normal. Very dangerous, imho.
I’m killing the spirit of this beautiful concept but it got me thinking….
Tom Haws wrote:I have faith that someday if I mature and grow enough
Obviously, I have a ways to go. Just ask my DW.
I don’t know how to change the title, guess I should have thought of that before I posted it.
🙄 😯 😳 What’s the procedure?
You knew I’d look it up, didn’t you, Ray? 🙄 I put in the leading statements and the subsequent for context. fwiw, this was almost the beginning of the talk/address.
GBH (2002):
Quote:We declare without equivocation that God the Father and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared in person to the boy Joseph Smith.
When I was interviewed by Mike Wallace on the 60 Minutes program, he asked me if I actually believed that. I replied, “Yes, sir. That’s the miracle of it.”
That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of that vision.
It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud.If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens. Reflect upon it, my brethren and sisters. For centuries the heavens remained sealed. Good men and women, not a few—really great and wonderful people—tried to correct, strengthen, and improve their systems of worship and their body of doctrine. To them I pay honor and respect. How much better the world is because of their bold action. While I believe their work was inspired, it was not favored with the opening of the heavens, with the appearance of Deity.
The rest of the talk is GBH pontificating on ‘how in the world’ the rest of Christianity can’t embrace the BoM, that the church works with other denominations but they’re just not inspired. I know this sounds like I’m paraphrasing in a condescending way, so if you want the whole talk (this talk sounds just like my dad, so take my comments with a huge grain of salt):
I’m still working on getting past my own Stage 3-ness when faced with black/white statements. imho
😯 Valoel wrote:I think there are some people that would really rather not be responsible completely for their life.
There it is.
Valoel said it, not me.
😈 There was a much more recent version of this, I’m too lazy to look it up but it was GBH, I think in a priesthood session in 2004 (?) in which he basically said “it’s either all true or it’s a fraud”. I would submit that this line of thinking is alive and well in the church. For better or worse???
Sorry for the late addition. I just found this link of an exchange between two members over the nature of some Prop 8 material originally entitled “Six Consequences the Coalition has identified if Proposition 8 fails”. This list of six may be what Heber was after. This link is the last “rebuttal” of the first rebutter, or whatever. Anyways, there is the original rebuttal, a counter, and, lastly, this one. You can click on the first two from the top of the page in this link: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgbmjj9g_3cppnnzjm They’re very thoughtful without too much vitriol. (If only I could be that, sigh
I love Mormon cosmology is the sheer splendor of the path’s ultimate objective.
Interesting that you would cite this. One of the ideas that has become so important to me on my own “personal” journey is the sense of the importance of THIS life, our mortal existence. Not to discount what you said above, but my experience in the church (and especially my parents) has been the overwhelming sense of how much MORE important the eternities are relative to mortal life. I get the whole analogy of time and how short our mortal existence is in the scope of eternity, but this actually makes me feel the opposite: this life must be INFINITELY important relative to eternity because one only gets one chance at this and eternity is forever anyway. (My grammar teacher’s head just exploded
😆 )I’m rambling on a tangent which is in total agreement with what you’ve already said so… what Ray said.
Thanks, Ray. That was one of the best dissections of the grayest part of this very gray issue. Very thoughtful and I agree with your analysis. In fact, one of my sister’s best friends is a lesbian of the exact order that you explained: TBM, RM, looking for a male eternal companion, found an alternative in a special relationship with a woman and now is 100% lesbian (according to her), completely abandoning church beliefs/activity. (And she had some unfortunate family male models) I do not feel, however, that this implicitly means that “teaching” about homosexuality necessarily engages a young mind into a sense of sexual experimentation that could eventually lead to whole-sale life-long homosexual identity.
And, frankly, the unstated premise is that homosexuality of some sort or any sort is “wrong”.
Gender and gender identity is likewise fluid for some people though not the vast majority of us. Is it likewise inappropriate to “teach” girls “boy” things like football, race cars, boxing, marines, math? (The math one was the Harvard president a few years back
I know the counter is: “that’s apples and oranges”. But is it? If you feel that it’s okay for either gender to do anything they want regardless of gender or gender identity, then it may follow that it is okay for a person of any sexuality, hetero, homo, bi, fluid, to “do” anything they want regardless of their disposition.
Old-Timer wrote:those who want to limit the way that homosexual activity is portrayed as fine for anyone might not be motivated by fear as much as by a belief that (for those for whom sexual orientation is not fixed) it is better to “remain” heterosexual
Is there a basis in that “belief”? Why is it “better” to “remain” heterosexual? Beside the fact that there are real bigots out there who will hurt and kill anyone with even the appearance of a gay or transgender identity.
Love this idea, Tom! The art analogy/comparison is perfect. Art, like truth, is in the eye of the beholder. It can only be interpreted by the individual and becomes the individuals’ sole property. It can be shared but should never be imposed, either indirectly through implication or directly through coercion. Faith is each persons individual artistic expression. Although I abhor the oxymoronic concept of “faith promoting stories”, I love this idea!
I agree that we create paradox in trying to form functioning human community/society. Biologically, it seems, men have the natural “urge” to procreate with as many women as possible. Women, to find the best “mate” as is possible; healthy, wealthy, wise. Some of this biology creates “contradiction” or “paradox” when humans are forming communities to function in what would be deemed the “best” way based on cultural or traditional mores, probably which have been established through the trial and error of previous generations. When these mores become interwoven with spiritual belief, government, social etiquette, etc., imbalances between perceived “reality” and the natural world seem to create these “paradoxes”. So, inasmuch as God communicates with man, and man interprets this through the filter of their own learned mores, man is the one creating these paradoxes, not God. Man could create myths or God could communicate myths to man (again filtered) that would entrench paradox into multiple planes of consciousness (self, collective, etc.) This would make paradox “seem” natural/normal/indemic to the human experience.
Maybe… ??
Old-Timer wrote:The key is the conscious identification and pursuit of the end result – the “becoming” something different than one’s natural (wo)man. The religious terminology is to “seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” – but when you translate “the kingdom of God” into secular terms of serving and helping others, it is accessible to all.
Wow! Beautiful sentiment!
In this context, what is the role of organized religion? Just another vehicle or something more?
swimordie wrote:
Heber13 wrote:I’m still studying to see if there is some reason that teaching should not hold up to protect our children, since it is often the young lambs that stray and get themselves in danger. So what are the dangers of SSM? Do we have a list?I hope I didn’t kill this thread with my last post. I didn’t intend to be inflammatory (stage 3)
😳 Maybe someone else can answer Heber’s question with a list that is less rhetorically challenged.
