[Tom Haws]

Hi, John. It’s good to see you again. Like I said, this is a bit off-mission, but I have some LDS/CofC friends who were wondering about a comparison list Steve Shields published in the 90’s.

I took the comparison here and reworked to be more neutral here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hawstom/LDSvsCofC

It’s nowhere near polished, but maybe it’s less offensive to our sisters and brothers in both “camps”.

Tom

[Tom Haws]

Yeah. That’s John. He always uses his real name, that I have known. I will try Common Consent. Thanks.

[Tom Haws]

Bouvet, I certainly don’t know how to interpret the study or make generalizations about Latter-day Saints. But your post does have some respectful and careful thoughts. I agree with you that it would seem that the natural framework of the nuclear family would be a good place for kids to develop a healthy and unassuming working understanding of general anatomical differences. The alternative may be, as you suggest, an unnaturally keen curiousity once the hormones begin to rage.

Tom

[Tom Haws]

Wow, HiJolly. Great final thoughts.

LW, for what it’s worth, I think your stake president’s counselor was behaving badly, and you are entitled to gently point out that he is off script, though the recommend is ultimately his to grant, not yours to claim. The question is a spoken one, and I believe its spoken words say, “Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?”

I have been totally frank and honest with my priesthood leaders, and they know I can honestly answer yes from two “non-traditional” angles, and they generously grant me the recommend.

Angle 1

I believe that the Holy Good News of heaven is being restored world-wide at this moment to souls who ask, knock, and seek.

Angle 2

I believe that in a limited sense Joseph Smith restored *some* good news of Heaven to at least himself, his family, and his religious descendants to this day.

Keep in mind that attitude is everything. They appreciate a positive framing of the issues if you can.

[Tom Haws]

happymom wrote:

Does this sound alright?

I think it does. I hope we don’t lose this. This is one Very Good Thing about the LDS Church religion.

[Tom Haws]

katielangston wrote:

But if there is no justice–and no law–can good truly exist? Perhaps that’s not what you’re saying. Would like to understand this better.

You know that old quote that “Righteousness is its own reward and sin is its own punishment”? Consider that seriously for a moment. Consider the Law of the Harvest: “You reap what you sow”. Think about the Becoming we’ve been talking about. In the end, you are what you are, regardless of the perfection of the Holy One. If you respond to that perfect Love (nod to Orson), you can move from hell to heaven, from darkness to light.

Example 1: I, the Dad, don’t have to be mean and demanding and just for the Law to apply. It just applies. And the way I see it, He, the Source, doesn’t have to be a punishing, vengeful, OT God (nod to Valoel) for the Law to apply. It just applies.

How does it work? How does the sorting happen? I can only guess. Perhaps the Highest and all the Holy Angels, due to their supreme intelligence (about what really matters) and power (over own interior sin and temptation), can be (probably naturally/automatically since they aren’t petty) in places/planes/existences that the less holy simply can’t access. Example 2: Consider yourself at a party, having a good time. Suddenly the entire party simply disappears except for the host’s aged mother. You turn to her questioningly and she simply says, “They moved on.”

“Where?” you beg.

“I can’t really say. But they know.”

Tom

[Tom Haws]

Happymom, your story is very sad.

Have you considered that there is absolutely nothing wrong with separation, as long as you are not “alone” (since it’s truly not good for man to be alone), and as long as you aren’t trying to start another family? Sometimes, maybe in your case, a long walk to clear one’s head may need to stretch out for months or years. Can you be with family? Can you strike out in faith and then work on getting a modest place to sleep? Peace in a hovel is worth all the kingdoms of the world.

Of course you don’t want to go and start another family, but from what you’ve said, I’m thinking that your husband wants your marriage to work. I’m not hearing that he would go and get a divorce just because you legally separated from him. And of course you will reassure him that it’s only until you know it is safe to have your family together again.

Please separate and don’t return without a formally written agreement about your rules! And please let us know how things go. You need this. Your children need this. The world needs this from you.

Tom

[Tom Haws]

For me, Rough Stone Rolling was heartbreaking. I thought it told the story of a beautiful promise corrupted and unfulfilled. My prevalent ongoing exclamation as I read it was, “For what?”

I read it after my second conversion (my mystic initiation), when the Sermon on the Mount had come to embody the highest religion, and bricks and mortar and earthly dominions meant little to me. At around the same time I was reading Lucy Mack Smith’s history, and I had been compelled sometimes as I read Lucy to exclaim about Joseph Smith, “This boy is the real deal! He knows what I know and has seen what I have seen.” But in contrast, I experience in “Rough Stone Rolling” very much what I experienced in “The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt”. I saw an idealistic vision turn in the course of a lifetime through a series of worldly and fleshy compromises into another disappointing mess.

I admit it would be hard for any human to live up to the promises and ideals of the Plain and Precious truths taught by Jesus. I don’t even hold that Jesus himself exemplified them in every moment. I think what made “Rough Stone Rolling” difficult for me was Bushman’s portrayal (rightly) of the whole process as grand religion-creating. When Bushman pressed that theme, I had to respond, “For what?”

I could see in the infant beginnings of the movement the faint spark of non-violence and non-resistance that eventually only barely survived (D&C 98) buried beneath the emergence of self-defense. I could see the clear ideal of ungrasping that was somehow enshrined in the scripture even as it was buried beneath the expediencies of an earthly kingdom. When I read Joseph demanding in 1830 of Oliver Cowdery, “By what authority he took upon him to command me to alter or erase, to add to or diminish from, a revelation or commandment from Almighty God,” I saw the evaporation of meaningful corporate spiritual gifts leaving a twistedly hierarchal idea of revelation in their place.

In the end, the book was too dismal for me to finish. And as I write this review I remind myself of its lesson that Staying LDS must never mean giving up the faith. Did Parley and Joseph stay LDS, only to lose their simple faith in the process? Perhaps I can return to the book again someday as a check of whether for me, too, Priesthoods and Kingdoms, Generals and Covenants have overcome Love and Mercy, Simplicity and Peace, which I hope to seek as long as I walk on earth.

Tom

[Tom Haws]

LW,

I have really appreciated your comments on the other threads, and I hope that we (I) can continue to seek the positive as we acknowledge compassionately each other’s Sunday frustrations.

Tom

[Tom Haws]

“The church is true”. It references implicitly the Doctrine and Covenants statement that Joseph’s church was “the only true and living church upon the face of the earth”. Is it a useful expression?

Pros:

[list]

[Tom Haws]

Old-Timer wrote:

I absolutely LOVE that, Tom.

You are very, very kind, Ray. Of course you can quote me or outdo me.

katielangston wrote:

Could you explain to me what you mean by “Christianity has preserved a Father who has some undesirable characteristics that are resolved only by the Son”?

Based on the experience of my second conversion, I would feel very irreverent and blasphemous to suggest that the Father needs any excuse to extend grace and mercy to His children. But our (distorted?) Pauline conception of the Father has Him demanding payment before opening the pearly gates. That’s why I say that a flaw in our conception (though it’s probably very useful in some ways and minds and times) is that we require the Son to make the Father complete. This thread is profoundly meaningful and true, but its meanings are vivid to me (even more clear and real, I’d say) without the classic Justice and Mercy theology of Paul, Alma, and others.

Old-Timer wrote:

Those who have not accepted Christ will be judged by their own works alone, ….

Wow!

By “Christ” here, you mean grace, love, and onement?

By “be judged by” here, you mean reap?

If so, could I say “Those who have not accepted grace, love, and onement will reap their own works alone”? Very scary, since my works could put me in eternal despair when I view the pain they caused. But if, on the other hand, I accept Christ (grace, love, and onement), I am, can, and will be rescued and brought from despair/darkness to joy/light.

katielangston wrote:

our BECOMING doesn’t happen on its own; it doesn’t happen through sheer willpower, grit, and determination; it happens through our surrendering to God

This, to me, is the miracle. By simply believing that this Lover truly Loves me (and glimpsing just what that means to Him in terms of forgiveness, sacrifice, proxy suffering, etc.), I become softer, more loving, more perfect. Back to Ray’s opening Amazement. See also the book “The Peacegiver”.

—-

Finally, I appreciate the recent wonderfully merciful and generous thoughts on rewards.

Tom

[Tom Haws]

Ray,

One man’s balancing act is another man’s pretzel. I’m afraid I see this problem as inherent in Pauline Christianity. I don’t know how the Buddhists and the Jews and the Atheists handle the underlying issues of morality and meaning, but I believe strongly that Christianity has preserved a Father who has some undesirable characteristics that are resolved only by the Son.

My LDS religion makes me view the matter with very simple faith (that it will work miracles) in very simple terms. Namely, “I must act to glorify the Father, and I must extend to you unending grace as you walk your own path.“

That’s really how simple and demanding my LDS religion is.

Tom

[Tom Haws]

Very good thread:

Blacks When will our lessons discuss Elijah Abel, Brigham Young, and David O. McKay on the same page with Spencer W. Kimball?

Polygamy Lying for the Lord–shudder!

The means of translating the BOM Why can’t we tell good history?

The 3 witnesses Whitmer and Cowdery compel me to take pause.

The 8 witnesses Could Joseph Smith have been THAT charismatic?

The Pearl of Great Price (that’s a BIG one) Good parts; bad parts. Abraham facsimile 2 (circle) is sheer fakery.

Brigham Young My brother, not my teacher.

The Blood Doctrine We don’t believe it so much anymore, but still some.

DNA evidence not aligned with BOM The Book of Mormon isn’t a proof text for me either way.

re-baptism Can you tell us more?

Homosexuals Our marriage doctrine is getting us into trouble again.

Masonry similarities to the Temple If we told good history, this wouldn’t be an issue.

The fact that prophets no longer testify of actually talking/seeing/speaking with God I do. Ditto Valoel.

Adam-God Theory Doesn’t matter to me.

Mountain Meadows BY regretted it, but covered it up, and it still stains our culture.

Secret Tunnels Can you tell us more?

Dannites Now that I know there’s no perfect church, this doesn’t surprise me, but why can’t we tell the truth?

Lafferty Brothers Why can’t we see the dark part of ourselves in them?

White Salamander Why does history have to be under corporate control? Let’s the academics duke it out and live the Sermon on the Mount.

The Wave Stone Can you tell us more?

The Sword of Laban Terrible story of origin. Can you tell us more?

Mummies Can you tell us more?

Parchment Facsimile 2 fakery is too obvious to pretend about.

Dolemite Can you tell us more?

Zelph What Valoel said: “Once JS had the story in his mind, everything became evidence. I don’t think that is so out of the ordinary. We all do it.”

Cain It would be nice if we told about all those old legends and could conceive of our religion as maturing instead of supposedly cut perfect out of the mountain.

Three Nephites I really like that story. Would I rather minister forever than go speedily to heaven?

John the Beloved There is more going on around us than meets the eye. Reverence and respect are in order.

Jackson County Interesting. But not as interesting as the Golden Rule.

Destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor Ooooh. Bad. Very bad. This unaccountability to the highest sensibilities of the culture is a persistent blind spot.

Kirtland Financial Crisis Did Joseph really pad safe deposit boxes with rocks? I’d like to know more, but don’t really want to delve into the muck.

Spiritual Eyes vs. Actual Vision Beautiful description of mysticism. Which is more real?

Different Accounts of the First Vision Earlier is better in this case. A flexible view is good.

The “real” origin of The Word of Wisdom I like it regardless of it’s origin. Same goes for any good quote, sermon, or teaching. Origin matters nothing.

Quakers on the Moon He was weird. So am I.

The lost 116 pages Great mystery. Doesn’t matter to my religion.

Solomon Spaulding So, how about them Plain and Precious truths of the Gospel of the Lamb–non-resistance, non-possession, non-judgment, etc.?

Philastus Hurlbut So, what’s for lunch?

[Tom Haws]

This is all a little too Christian for me, but in good StayLDS style, I will see this as half full, but before I do, let me say that I see everything we are discussing under the umbrella of Grace/Atonement as a native characteristic of the Father that only WE need to impute to Christ to perhaps help us accept it.

I think there is real and practical power in the underlying thoughts in this thread, and I love kl’s contributions. I’d like to throw out some possible practical effects:

1) Parenting

[list]

[*]Do we aspire as parents to make similar grace/atonement a reality in our homes?

[*]Does Onement in our families come from our parental nature as a finished fact, or from the unfinished anticipated obedience of our children?

[*]If we really believe we are unacceptable before the Father unless we merit acceptance, how does that affect our parenting?

[/list]

2) Social issues

[list]

[*]Do we end up believing we really are worthy of whatever comforts we enjoy?

[*]Do we end up believing the poor (or heathen) really deserve less comfort? I have heard this expressed explicitly.

[/list]

3) Leadership and Relationships

[list]

[*]Do we believe we can’t forgive our peers at work or in the business place because if we do they won’t have any incentive to repent? I have heard this expressed explicitly

[/list]

Good stuff.

[Tom Haws]

That is very cool, BVS. I hope Orson is right. A big ship takes a long time to turn around.

[Author]

Posts