Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian was a good friend, we shared some great times together, since he lives near my home. I think he was instrumental in keeping me sane through the whole idea of faith crisis. I’d love to learn more about the GoFundMe for his family. warmest regards to you all.
-wayfarer
great to see that these topics are still relevant. i think we have to grapple with the idea that revelation comes line upon line and precept upon precept, and historical “revelation” often reflects the “lesser portion of god’s word which he doth impart to the children of men.”
often, god’s inspiration is mixed with very human ideas…the temperance movement, etc., or even, as Leonard Arrington discovered, the need to rein in imports for expensive goods like wine, tobacco, coffee and tea.
and these have created the version of the word if wisdomwe have today. and living that law, i became clinically obese, with stage two hypertension, fatty liver steatohepatitis, and a host of other problems, including a five year death sentence from my doctor if i didnt change things. for the past two years, well after starting this survey, i have lost sixty pounds, yet i frequently enjoy adult beverages in moderation. i exercise, i enjoy life more than ever. today, going to my doctor, i have no evidence of liver disease, and my blood pressure, which was pushing 160/100 with medication, is 120/70 with no medication.
the spirit of the word of wisdom, updated with modern medical best practice, works extremely well, and can transform your life…it certainly transformed mine. the letter of the law as practiced by LDS today? a formula for gad health.
there is so much more good in mormonism when we set aside the literalism and control dynamic of the current corportate control paradigm.
Orson wrote:My immediate question was: “how does the knowledge of love put people in direct opposition to God?”
The problem is when I read “good” or “righteousness” I instinctively see it as “Love” or synonymous with “charity” or “the love of God.” Obviously Greg Boyd had another concept in mind, one that involved details, commandments, or some tangent from love that can lose the original point.
My point is only to build awareness of how others often see things differently than ourselves. When we are discussing the finer details there is a good chance we mis-communicate more often than not.
true. miscommunication abounds, and not everything Greg Boyd says resonates with me. He refers to the partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil as putting ourselves in gods place, or as Satan put it, “ye shall be as the gods”. Whether you replace Good and Evil with Love and Hate – either way, its a kind of predefined knowledge structure.I think our temple teachings have a deeper meaning, one which isn’t available to boyd. The purpose of the temptation of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was to take a short-cut — Twice the temple ritual discusses that the purpose and Plan is to “learn through our own experience”. Interestingly, a “tree of knowledge” sounds an awful lot like an ontology — a schema of information in an organized “tree” hierarchy, and when we add “good and evil” on it (or in your case “love and hate”) it becomes a specific ethical schema – a set of orthodox knowledge, represented in strictly dualistic terms: good and evil, love and hate, white and black, etc., and thus your eyes will be opened, and you shall have “knowledge”.
As i contemplate the specific emphasis that Satan puts on the term “knowledge”, I have to observe how this “knowledge” embodies our LDS certainties: “I know that God lives”, “I know that Jesus is the Christ”, “I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet”, “I know the book of Mormon is the word of god”, “I know the Church is the only true church on the face of the earth”, “I know that Thomas S. Monson is a living prophet.”, and “I know that the prophets cannot lead us astray”. In specific terms, when Correlation began, Elder Harold B. Lee laid out a complete hierarchical representation of all knowledge a church member needed to “know”: a tree of knowledge of good and evil, that would be followed with exactness in the Church curriculum, talks, and media.
We might say that such ontological dualism is necessary to provide a framework for religious education; but instead of helping us, the dualism creates a strict splitting of things within the Mormon symbolic universe, and that which resides without. And, the “we/they” mentality is the natural result. Everything becomes constrained by the boundaries of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil”, and the easy choice is then to “love our neighbors (those within our universe), and hate our enemies (those outside our universe)”.
Boyd certainly makes the case that judgment is gods provenance — and while I agree, I think the deeper meaning is that God is One, and we are One in God through the atonement. Dualism denies the Oneness of God, and as such, keeps us separate from the mystical reality of God’s love.
Old-Timer wrote:I speak up regularly – slowly, softly, and in orthodox terms. I do it in any meeting I am attending, no matter who else is there.
Why? The voices that are heard are the only ones that will be remembered.
(Good to see you again, wayfarer.)
good to be seen. Of course you know where you can find me most of the time…
I totally agree with the idea that we need to speak up, and use “orthodox terms” to express the Way as we see it. I think it important that all of us can only perceive things from our own point of view, thus being humble is always in order. As well, when we confront people with language that makes them uncomfortable, they turn off as quickly as we do when we hear what seems to us as being narrow-minded orthodoxy. We all see through a glass, darkly.
I think the Book of Mormon helps us understand how to share the Word as we understand it. I now see the narrative of the Book differently, understanding the humanity of the heroes, and the goodness of the villians. Are we Laman and Lemuel and the active church members Nephi and Sam? Or, is it that Laman and Lemuel are the representatives of Jewish orthodoxy (they are, in fact), and Lehi is more like “Denver Snuffer”, and Nephi is more like “Rock Waterman”. Realizing this, I can see that the real lessons learned in the Book of Mormon are how miserably Nephi failed in convincing his brethren by being so self-righteous (no offense to Rock — he isn’t self righteous, but Nephi sure was).
We are going to be attacked in our meetings — no question about it. Our faith journeys are in
transformation: we are coming to a new rebirth of our understanding of God and the gospel. We are not “losing faith”, but rather, our faith is being refined by the fire of doubt and adversity. This is inherently threatening to our brethren and sisters who find great happiness in what they perceive as certainties of the Church and the comfort of following the leaders without question. Truth be known, our faith journeys are as difficult as Lehi’s family was in leaving Jerusalem. Yet such “leaving” is purely symbolic, at least for me. I have already “left” orthodoxy — absolutely. But for many reasons, I “Stay LDS” in as full of a sense of being an active member as I can possibly stand. Lately, in the wake of the “Policy Revelation”, this has become
really hard! Not a week goes by that I don’t get negative energy as I try to share what I think is the more loving aspects of the Gospel in response to “we/they” bigotry. So how do we survive? Again, I think the answer may be in the Book of Mormon. Symbolically, I think of the Church as being the “Lamanites” of the time of Alma the Younger and the Sons of Mosiah. Clearly, the disciples of Alma the elder — those who lifted each others’ burdens, mourned with those who mourn, and comoforted those who stood in need of comfort, had withdrawn themselves from the prevailing culture. Alma the Younger and the Sons of Mosiah were renegades: they had gone through their “rumspringa” and had transformed their faith and identities into an abiding and powerful faith.
The most successful among these was Ammon. While his brothers likely took the confrontational approach with the Lamanites, Ammon chose to serve them, and when asked to teach, chose to use terms that Lamoni would understand. He spoke in the language of the prevailing culture — he was not confrontational, nor did he call them wicked and insist on their repentance.
I firmly believe that the Book of Mormon was written for and about us
Mormonsin our times. When it speaks of nephites and lamanites, it is not speaking of “nephites=mormons” and “lamanites=the world”, but rather, both nephi and laman were members of the (jewish) church. When it speaks of a great and spacious building, we have to ask ourselves whether our great and spacious conference center and temples are not a form thereof. When it speaks of “king men”, we need to contemplate whether our desire to put our trust in the arm of flesh — authoritarianism (“follow the prophet: he cannot lead us astray”) — isn’t a case in point. When it speaks of “secret combinations”, we need to consider how the lack of transparency in the church and the secret attempts to subvert the voice of the people in Hawaii in the 90s isn’t also a case in point. In 1986, I sat fifty feet from a Prophet of God, Ezra Taft Benson, when he declared his first words as Prophet: that the Church is under condemnation for not heeding the words of the Book of Mormon. In halting words, as if receiving them right then and there, he spoke without his prepared speech and uttered what became his theme as prophet. Unfortunately, the church decided in response to focus on the Book of Mormon as a tool for proving that we are the “true church” rather than embracing the radical message it embodies.
I guess the point of this long post is to say that the message of the book of mormon to us has to be to lift each others’ burdens, to mourn with those who mourn, to comfort those who stand in need of comfort, and to witness of God (who is “love”) in all times and in all places we may be. Sure, this means that our church needs to be more loving and the hateful “Policy Revelation” stands in direct contrast to the truth of the gospel — but here is the deal: if we leave, if we become hateful in response, then we cannot lift our LDS brothers and sisters burdens, we cannot mourn with them, comfort them, and our witness will never be heard. When we become angry, confrontational, silent, or leave, we are failing to embrace our covenant as expressed in the book of mormon. And when we “witness” — if we do so in a way that turns people off, then we aren’t being effective.
Ultimately, the message of the book of mormon is that the lamanites dwindled in unbelief and the self-righteous nephites were killed off. Yet, in the middle of this dynamic, there were moments when a Nephite became a lamanite (Ammon) and a Lamanite became the Prophet (Samuel). And when Nephites and Lamanites became One, as in the case of the Ammonites and in third/fourth nephi, they realized Zion.
We who are trying to stay amidst this horrible division among us are becoming fewer and fewer as we try to hold on. It’s very hard to stay LDS right now, at least for me. Yet I remain committed to staying. And if so, then finding a way to be One with the better elements of our LDS community is in order. So, while i feel compelled to speak out against bigotry and we/they divisiveness, how i do so truly matters.
The problem with “Us vs Them” in the church may be our greatest sin. Instead of embracing the love of god, we put ourselves in the place of god and judge others. When we do this, we sever ourselves from the love of god. As mormons, our baptismal covenant is best expressed in Mosiah 18: to lift each others’ burdens, to mourn with those who mourn, to comfort those who stand in need of comfort, and to be a witness of God in all times and in all places we may be. If “God is Love”, then witnessing to god is to love one another, unconditionally, and without regard to their “worthiness”.
I’m reading a book by Greg Boyd, “Repenting of Religion: turning from judgment to the Love of God”. In this he equates our judgment of others as “religious sin”:
Greg Boyd wrote:irst it is important to notice that religious sin is the only sin Jesus publicly confronted. The religious variety of the forbidden fruit [judging] is the most addictive and deceptive variety. Instead of acknowledging that the knowledge of good an evil is prohibited, religious idolatry embraces the knowledge of good and evil as divinely sanctioned and mandated. It gives the illusion of being on God’s side even while it destroys life and hardens people in direct opposition to God.
Religious sin is the most destructive kind of sickness, for it masquerades as it feeds off the illusion of health. Far from being open to a cure, this kind of sickness thrives on the illusion that it is the epitome of health. By its very nature, it resist soft correction. Indeed, because it gets life from the rightness of it’s beliefs and behavior rather than from love, the religious version of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil tends to construe all compassion, accommodation, and unconditional acceptance as compromise. People afflicted with religious sin thus tend to disdain compassionate love, even if it is extended toward them. Hence, Jesus’ approach to leaders who fed off this illusion could not be to gently offer them a cure. Rather, for their sake and the sake of those who blindly followed them, he had to publicly expose their sickness.
What does this mean for the church? We have seen that the church is called to be the corporate body of Christ that unconditionally loves and embraces all people, regardless of their sin, and invites them into its own celebration of the cessation of the ban [on judging]. The only exception to this otherwise unconditional embrace is the sin Jesus confronted in the religious leadership of his day… Religious sin [judging] is unique in that it is the only sin that can keep a community from fulfilling the commission to unconditionally love and embrace everyone. As we have said, it is a sin that by its very nature resists the cure of God’s unconditional love and embrace.
Most of my available time is spent moderating A Thoughtful Faith, but today we’re snowed in… and I am getting cabin fever… so here i am!
If we don’t speak up, they win. If we walk out, they win.
if we do speak up, then we might get censured. But it’s a price worth paying.
I have come to realize that in the wake of the “Policy Revelation”, I need to stay, witness, and above all, love.
I don’t think we can go wrong if we focus on love. Every time someone throws off a judgment of others – as was the case here — they are not loving. But as well, if we nail the teacher’s butt, we’re not loving either. So it boils down to, “I don’t know, it seems to me that stories of leaving get a lot less interesting when we learn both sides. And as LDS, we are called to lift each others’ burdens, mourn with those who mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort. In other words, we are to love unconditionally as god loves us. How, then, is our conversation here, ridiculing those who are struggling with beliefs and faith, consistent with God’s love? How effective are we when we reject others? Does that help bring them back to our community?”
Well, perhaps our community has become so judgmental that bringing them back may not be in their interests. But, I have to say, we can do a lot better.
just my 2c
I love that damn button. But I’m pretty sure that any “truth” it provides, is just as contingent as that which resides in my own mind.
or yours.
just sayin’.
how’s everyone doin?
Bumping this. I have had a number of people on other sites continuing to seek guidance on how to authentically answer temple recommend questions. If anyone here has more to add, please go to the various topics referenced in the original post on this thread.
thanks!
Except it doesn’t appear to be for sacrament meeting. That is strange to me. It does appear to me more of a legal position vis-a-vis “religious liberty”–putting a stake in the ground about allowing the church the freedom to discriminate against those who wish to live authentically as both a LBGT and a Mormon.
Since my original post, I have changed my answer, today, to “YES”. After explaining my many reasons why, I still pass… Priesthood roulette.
Ann wrote:I’m new to being a green-typeface moderator here, but maybe this will be the end of it. I’m really angry.
is this a moderation comment? I love giving moderators a hard time. Ask ray.Ann wrote:To the church I want to say: Write the standard questions differently if you want this information. Please don’t pretend that only open
advocacyendangers a person’s recommend. If my unspokenthoughts and sympathies are going to keep me out of the temple, I’m afraid they will also keep me out of the chapel. Life’s too short for this particular type of contentiousness.
yeahhh….. FUBAR — “Fouled” up beyond all recognition.Here are comments from the Church handbook of instructions around the purpose of temple recommend interviews, how they are to be conducted, and what the Church officers are expected to do if they feel a person may be unworthy. 3.3.3 General Guidelines for Issuing Recommends wrote:Authorized Church officers conduct worthiness interviews for temple recommends as outlined in the temple recommend book. Church officers make every effort to see that no unworthy person enters the house of the Lord.
Temple recommend interviews must be private. They should not be rushed. Interviewers should not add any requirements to those that are outlined in the temple recommend book.
While the second paragraph indicates that the interviewer should stick to the “requirements”, the first paragraph frames the idea that the interviewer must make a judgment of worthiness. “Outlined requirements” can be interpreted to mean “topics” or “intent” of the questions. The idea that “Church Officers make every effort to see that no unworthy person enters the house of the Lord” means that there is no absolute limit to what the Bishop can do to determine your worthiness.In my experience, they typically keep to the script, starting with a prayer. To me, it can be a very spiritual experience. On the other hand, some Church officers and participants enter the interview with a feeling of suspicion. This often can be sensed by both parties, and if it is acted upon, doesn’t lead to good results. I truly believe that approaching a temple recommend interview prepared is the best policy, and to take it seriously if you want a recommend.
3.3.4 Members Whose Close Relatives Belong to Apostate Groups wrote:Bishops and their counselors must take exceptional care when issuing recommends to members whose parents or other close relatives belong to or sympathize with apostate groups. Such members must demonstrate clearly that they repudiate these apostate religious teachings before they may be issued a recommend.
This should be motivation for us to keep our facebook profiles relatively clean from public denunciations of Church leaders, and absent any overt associations with what are becoming known as “apostate groups”. Ask cwald. Here’s what happens: A bishop (or an overzealous family member or ‘friend’) who is perusing Facebook or these forums might observe, through friends and “likes”, that a ward member has connection to OW, John Dehlin or other people he deems to be “Apostate”. Perhaps the bishop or “friend” has been reading some of “Mormon Interpreter” himself, and noting the articles vehemently denouncing MormonStories leaders and participants like us as being “antichrist”. This clause gives him the right to probe into your family and relatives to determine if ANYONE “sympathizes” with “apostate groups”, and it goes without saying that if we have “likes” to any of the “apostate groups” or their leaders, then the bishop has a basis for asking probing questions and require us to “repudiate these apostate teachings” before you can get a recommend.The damnable part of this is that zealous family members who know this policy simply don’t want you as a friend or even family member. They don’t want to be called into question. This policy poses a real concern to keep your overly religious family members distant from your facebook profile and your public expressions about the church.
3.3.7 Unworthy Recommend Holders wrote:If the bishop determines that a member who has a current recommend is unworthy, he immediately requests the recommend from the member. If the member refuses to return it, the bishop notifies the stake president at once. The stake president cancels the recommend …”
Note that there is no criteria for determining whether a member is “unworthy”, it’s just a blanket determination of whether the Bishop “determines” that a member is unworthy. The bishop at any time could “determine” that I am unworthy, perhaps by looking on my facebook page or determining that I’m a member of MoSto or something, and by that determination, unaudited by anyone, could simply demand my Temple Recommend and cancel it.
I hope this helps.
