[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

So, Wayfarer — what are you suggesting — that the notion of “by grace we are saved after all we can do” has it backwards? Or simply that the phrase leads to a punitive orientation on the part of Church leaders? This isn’t a confrontive question, it’s just a question. It sounded more confrontive than I meant it to be after I read it a second ago, please don’t read anything negative into it — I’m sincerely curious.

to be generous, I think the ‘after all we can do’ is misinterpreted. ‘after all’ has semantic meaning different than sequence. I read it like this — “no matter what I can do in this life to earn worthiness from the lord, I’ve learned that it is by grace I am saved after all.” It is a realization after the fact that grace was operative all the way through.

Regarding the punative orientation of church leaders — yes, by interpreting the case that grace ain’t gonna happen until I put in the ‘all i can do’ effort, I believe BPs and SPs are seeking the ‘all you can do’ as an indicator that you are doing enough, and if you aren’t doing ‘all you can do’ in their impression, the judgment will be harsh and severe. No cookies for you.

SilentDawning wrote:

On this note, I am now of the tentative belief that the Bishop and Stake President are primarily administrators. Although they can give support, their self-interest is tied to what the SP is going to do if the HC pass on something he did wrong to the SP. I experienced the same thing when I was a counselor in a Bishopric. The Bishop sort of “coached” (to put it VERY nicely) me on procedural matters I did wrong now and then…and he would often say regarding finances that “is the SP going to fire me over that?”….

not suprising at all — and being fired is not a bad thing.

priesthood leadership is entirely administrative — i would argue that it is its exclusive function. one of my best friends is an exmo after being in a stake presidency as well as being a bishop. as bishop, the SP was extraordinarily demanding on exact compliance on all sorts of policies, and made each PPI and meeting a rant on how he as a bishop was doing things wrong. The HC rep assigned to the ward was constantly returning-and-reporting how things weren’t being done by the book (the HC rep was later ex-ed for immorality), and the SP took the HC input on face value without investigating at the time. The constant managerial pressure from the SP drove my friend to ask to be released as bishop after 13 months on a thursday and it happened on the next sunday — obviously the SP already had a backup plan in place.

In two stints as HP group 1st Assistant, I became very well known as a ‘not by the book’ mormon, and treated reporting requirements with a degree of laissez-faire. My last HPGL was a good friend, very accommodating of diversity, but he realized and made the recommendation that I was not eligible as his replacement due to not having the ‘right stuff’. He saved me a lot of grief.

SilentDawning wrote:

Brian made the point that Bishops and SP’s are stable, good men, and their opinion has some value, but we can’t get away from the fact that they have a quadruple role as judge, jury, executioner and supporter. Sometimes with conflicting aims at times when you hold their position power and standing with the organization in the mix.

I’m not sure that ‘supporter’ is part of the job description. I would go with a quadruple role as proscutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Their purpose is to preserve the purity of the church, the integrity of the brand as it were. That is largely an administrative function, in my opinion.

for what it’s worth…

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

I never really bonded well with the temple…I realized recently that I don’t like the feeling of being one of the identically dressed people there, all treated the same, following the same ritual. I like the feeling of the celestial room, but I would like to have a room like that in my house so I can just go into it to meditate. I once thought of a little structure in my backyard, even 10X10 which was serenely decorated on the inside, possibly all in white, with the feel of the temple in it, scriptures handy, some very quiet spiritual music — used for no other purpose than meditation away from the world. That would satisfy my spiritual needs.

in my impression, repeated ritual and uniformity serve to remove the ritual and differences among people from the worship.

Not too long ago, I had a chance to go to a very important shaivite temple in Thiruvannamalai, dedicated to the worship of the shiva-lingam through fire. I was invited by a close friend, a very devout hindu, to participate in a puja in the innermost sanctum of this temple. Without going into any detail, the shiva-lingam is a phallus, and there is a bit of symbolism in the ritual that could be construed as having some very interesting origins. Those who wish to condemn hinduism for its pagan roots would relish what I experienced as evidence. I have seen this among christian critics of hinduism.

I can assure you, however, that for my friend and his family in this puja, there was nothing inappropriate, and for them it was deeply spiritual. Because I was tripped up by the symbolism, I didn’t bond well with the experience. I’m not sure I ever would; but I don’t think i need to. It gave me a renewed understanding of how the LDS temple rites can be alarming and different at first. The key, in my opinion, is to see what lies beyond. My hindu friend sees beyond his lingam-worship to the divine oneness of self-with-god. That is what i see beyond the symbols of the temple is the oneness of entering into god’s presence. then, when we realize that the temple is a metaphor for the body (and not the other way around), we come to a realization of how and where we can enter god’s presence, day by day.

What has helped me most is temple service — working in the temple in some capacity. the repetition of certain things leads to a process that goes from initial discomfort, to comfort, to boredom, to re-evaluation, then onto deep spiritual significance.

[wayfarer]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Yes, I thought it was very good, too. I wasn’t sure where it was headed, but I particularly liked the idea that the one who rejects other sinners is the sinner and also sins against him/herself.

I liked what I was reading, but it did take a while to get through — a lot there, and in re-reading it a couple of times, it raises a very significant concern.

I think the point made is that god’s love and atonement operates a lot sooner than we think, and that sin, particularly sexual sin, estranges us from the help we really need through isolation.

It occurs to me that the concept of ‘worthiness’ is played hard in the church, through the ‘for the strength of the youth’, to the TR interview, to everything. “Saved after everything we can do” implies something, perhaps that isn’t quite right in the day-to-day living context. To most people, myself included, the idea of being ‘saved’ needs to have a current focus — saved from the guilt, shame, and screw-ups I make on a daily basis. I need god’s help here and now, a life-buoy to get through the day. Perhaps to use the term ‘saved’ is incorrect, but it is real. it’s almost like, “swim harder, and harder, then when you’ve worn yourself out, I’ll send you a lifebuoy”.

the born-again christian movement proposes that when I ask for help, Jesus sends the lifebuoy immediately — he ‘saves’ you, absolving you of the guilt and shame associated with sin. This does not mean, from everything I have discussed with reasonable born-again christians, that I am absolved of doing good or right, it’s only the order in which it happens. Our model seems to be you fall into the water of sin, you of yourself swim your heart out to try to get out of the water, and if and when you’re about to drown (after all we can do), we get the lifebuoy. The born again approach is that you fall into the water of sin, you call for the savior to save you, he sends you the lifebuoy, and then he guides you back to the save harbor. You still have to swim, but you have help.

In my impression, those who truly fall in love as a natural part of coming of age and adulthood who through passion fall into the way of sexual transgression need love and support, as much as can be given them. their love and acts of sex were natural, but to brand it all sin and unworthiness leads to guilt and shame, and unchecked, leads to disfunctionality across the board. Once the big scarlet letter is applied to the person, returning is hard, and staying out isolates. Overcompensation, either direction, can be the outcome. I had an uncle and aunt that i think may have ‘blown it’ before their temple wedding, and as personal acts of contrition, lived the remainder of their lives as obsessively righteous mormons. So obsessive that they wore the old-style garments always, and wouldn’t allow any commandment given over the GC pulpit to go unobserved in their family. All five of their children ended up out of the church, many with serious dysfunction: jails, institutions, nymphomania, attempted suicides. True story.

To me, the atonement is absolute, complete, perfect, and already done. God’s forgiveness and the salvation offered by christ as I understand it is absolute. there are no conditions of salvation, except maybe just to ask for it in faith. When I was in the depths of despair and could not stop drinking 24 years ago, I broke down and could not continue, and at that point, I had a complete release from my desire to drink. I was free of it. It did not mean that I could sit there, the reprieve was daily renewable, but the point is that I was saved in a moment, not after all I could do. When I went to the bishop a few weeks later, all I got was punishment, no help whatsoever. I believe that this should not be the case.

To me the concept comes down to how the term ‘worthiness’ is perhaps misunderstood. I would prefer to break it down as ‘worth’ ‘i’ ‘ness’. The ‘ness’ is the state of being. “i” is me, and I have “worth”. True, without the power of god, which power I choose to call ‘the Way’, I am nothing, but as stated in the YW theme, I am a [child] of god who loves me and I love him”. Hence, my state of being is that “I” am “worth” an infinite amount, and there is a power there, always, to redeem my soul, to save me, if I but turn to him daily.

To tell someone through punishment that they are ‘not worthy’ is a horrible thing to do. Instead, leaders and counselors should change the paradigm to say, “you, a person of infinite divine worth, have made a mistake and fallen into the water. I love you, and since It’s dangerous there, let’s work together to bring you out of danger.”

just my long opinion…too wordy, i know.

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

I never really bonded well with the temple…I realized recently that I don’t like the feeling of being one of the identically dressed people there, all treated the same, following the same ritual. I like the feeling of the celestial room, but I would like to have a room like that in my house so I can just go into it to meditate. I once thought of a little structure in my backyard, even 10X10 which was serenely decorated on the inside, possibly all in white, with the feel of the temple in it, scriptures handy, some very quiet spiritual music — used for no other purpose than meditation away from the world. That would satisfy my spiritual needs.

Every house in india, including mine, has a puja room, where you can put whatever floats your boat as for worship. I find it a little claustrophobic to meditate there.

[wayfarer]

Mike wrote:

Wayfarer, I agree with everything you said. Especially:

Quote:

i enjoy the temple for a lot of reasons, none of them really logical.

With my inactivity, that is the most I miss about not attending the temple.

Mike from Milton.

thank you for message. there is something so powerful about leaving behind the world and allowing wordless teaching to enlighten my soul. what I have found in the temple is pure delight.

What has disturbed me most lately about the church is the ongoing mucking into the political front, and the inability to deal with teachings in a way that accommodates the issues of history. All of this narrowness exists in the corporate church — the one we deal with outside the temple, and one we set aside in the temple.

the temple is quite different — there is no ad-hoc teaching. no interpretation. strange stuff, at times, for sure, and originating in some ways from Joseph Smith’s connection to masonry. But there is another spirit there, undeniable, and it’s the one that sets aside all worldly dress and conversation, and enters the realm of pure spirit. Perhaps that is what I bring to it. I’m not interested, really, in the things done or said, but rather, that which is not said or done.

this, alone, for me, is worth it. Now if I can keep reminding myself of that….

[wayfarer]

doug wrote:

We can’t really have it both ways, can we?

I am reminded of this quote from Ben Franklin’s autobiography concerning a group known as the Dunkers.

Quote:

This modesty in a sect is perhaps a singular instance in the history of mankind, every other sect supposing itself in possession of all truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, tho’ in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them.

I think this is universally true. Every sect, more or less by definition, thinks they are in the right, and none of them seems to be able to step back and see things from a different point of view. Of course, there are always a few individuals within those sects who are capable of this, but they are few and far between.

doug, what a great quote! i looked up more:

Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography, quoting from the Anabaptist Dunkers wrote:

“When we were first drawn together as a society,” says he, “it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge;”

Hence, this group, the German Brethren, resisted writing anything down. they also had no formal priesthood, referring to the Anabaptist/Baptist concept of “the priesthood of all believers”. there was an absolute understanding that the church was inferior to and distinct from the gospel. their creed was meant only to be the new testament, specifically the sermon on the mount. they focused on free will, and recognized that faith and works go hand in hand, hence were very active in charitable endeavors. They believed in nonviolence, “all war is evil”, and some of the faith were conscientious objectors during the various wars. they believed in living simply, wearing plain and modest dress, and called each other “brother” and “sister”.

pretty neat stuff, in my opinion.

Today, the “Church of the Brethren” and about six other variants are the descendents of the German Brethren, the Dunkers (the nickname referring to baptism by immersion of adult believers). Some of the variants have adopted more sectarian policies, requiring adherence in some cases to specific conservative theological positions, and excommunicating those who objected, causing schism.

i think it is in the nature of all sects, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they in time begin to excercise exclusive, self-righteous dominion.

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

I have tried very hard during the effective and fully active periods in my life to live most good spiritual principles taught at Church. But based on the perfection thread Wayfarer started, I realize some give me a “sinking feeling” when I pursue them seriously.

…

So, I wonder, what principles used to give you that sinking feeling, and how have you dealt with it? I’m not talking about commandment bashing here…so although Tithign has given me a sinking feeling, I’d rather tot talk about it — but are there spiritual principles that have been taugth that when applied, give you that sinking feeling inside as you wholeheartedly applied them, and how did you deal with that principle to prevent it from causing you to sink inside?

is not the sinking feeling one where you desire something the church promises can be done, then realizing it cannot, you lose hope in the desire?

I believe that the focus on perfection as a desirable thing to attain is destructive and wrong. Wholeness, completeness, authenticity in the here and now is completely possible, although the persistent state of such wholeness probably ain’t gonna happen. Almost all religions have a concept that we are working toward something. Even in buddhism, the idea is that someday you’ll be enlightened. In hinduism, to be have samadhi (kind of sort of enlightenment) in a permanent state of moksha (release) is only attainable as one gets to a level of life-long practice. Christianity and Islam seek ‘heaven’. Each of these systems propose to you that your current life is suffering, depraved, etc., and that unless you work the system until god knows what you are going to suffer. That is the sinking feeling in spades, and it’s just not right.

So, in my opinion, the key to getting rid of the feelings of fear and regret is to live in the present: to be oneself, fully, authentically me. That’s where coming to a realization that the gospel principle of ‘eternal progression’ means that ‘eternal life’ exists from eternity to eternity, thus there is no ‘attaining’ eternal life. we’re already living it, right here, right now.

In contrast to ‘eternal life is here and now’, I realize that there are numerous LDS scriptures that say that if we endure to the end (is there an end in eternity?) then we will receive ‘eternal life’. I believe that the idea of attaining ‘eternal life’ makes it ‘not now’, which puts into the mode of striving for something already right present with us. Thus, we become dissatisfied with the present, this world, and always wish for something better. It truly causes unhappiness. I feel that I must reject that kind of BS, because “this” is all I’ve got.

Likewise, striving for perfection as something I’ll attain eventually is destructive to who I AM now. “Be still and know that I AM god” means godness is in the present, not “i will be” or “i was”. godliness is in the here and now. The idea of ‘no unclean thing can enter god’s presence’ or ‘god does not look at sin with any degree of allowance’ create for me a situation where god will not talk with me or abide with me if I’m defective. Since I’m never perfect, it puts me forever at odds with god, and therefore disconnected from the source of power that can remove my imperfections. This is a serious sinking feeling, and causes me ‘self-hatred’ and worse, ‘self-loathing’.

In one way, the Born Again concept of Jesus saves us without our works helps build the bridge to a relationship but it has to go further. god and I are on the same team working through my difficulties. it’s a partnership and a mutual covenant to work together. God is thus my coach, my advisor, my counselor, my friend, completely forgiving me my defects (sins, for lack of a better word), but also recognizing with me the need to improve. The confidence that god makes up the difference of what i cannot do for myself — for whatever reason — allows me to rise above the sinking feeling.

just my opinion — for what it’s worth…

[wayfarer]

Old-Timer wrote:

I avoid that sinking feeling by not letting others row my boat – and learning to row above the waves.

I have no idea if I can explain what I mean by that last phrasing, but I really have learned over the course of my life to row above the waves. Mostly, it’s just letting go of concern over whether or not other people agree with me – of accepting me as me – of being comfortable being what “I am”. I still try my best to be a better “I am” than my current “I am” – but I no longer care one bit about being the best “I am” imaginable right now. I figure I have an eternity to get there, so why stress over trying to rush it?

I also have no concern whatsoever if my “I am” is radically different than the other “I ams” around me, including my biological and church families.

That’s easier for me to say than for many others to do, since it fits my natural personality more than many others’ – but it’s what works for me.

Ray, this is really great stuff. i truly think “I am” is the great key to the gospel. When i realized what it was to be authentically me in the present, then all the other BS rolls away. “Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour”, as Blake put it. all things come in and through “the name”, hashem in hebrew, JHWH, ‘I am’. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” means to me this principle of “I AM” is the Way, the Truth, and life. And, “Be still, and know I AM god”. When I repeat these verses, not as quotes, but rather, as affirmations, then the sinking feeling melts as irrelevant fear of something I AM NOT. I am not what I WAS, therefore guilt, regret, and remorse are irrelevant. I am not what I will be, yet, therefore fear and anxiety, the sinking feeling, are irrelevant as well.

In practice, the deep meditation on the principle of “Who am I” can lead to a release of these non-me fears. I love what you said about being above the waves. that’s where our ship belongs, not mired in the undercurrents of fear and trepidation.

cheers!

[wayfarer]

a couple quick points, in line with ray’s comment above:

1. priesthood is really just heirarchy (it is what the word meant in greek). that heirarchy is a communication channel that supports you spiritually. however, each person’s fundamental spiritual power comes from direct access to the divine, what we in the church call the holy ghost. men and women in the temple are equal in their access to spirit.

2. the endowment comes from joseph smith’s ‘inspired translation’ of the masonic rites, and as such has vestiges of the male-oriented ritual and symbols inherent to freemasonry. over time, the church has been gradually changing this to be more spiritual and equal, but it is not all the way there yet.

3. the ritual is deeply symbolic and in some ways startling. no one has an easy first go at it, but in time, the richness of the symbolism can help make for a very spiritual experience.

4. what i like most is the silence. in the highest room, there are no words, only pure spirit, if you allow that to enter your heart.

5. consequently, for me, (similar to ray’s comment) it is best to empty the mind of any preconceived notions about it, to go with openness, and to receive whatever you find of use at the time, leaving aside things, for now, seem troubling or incomprehensible. allow the richness of the ritual to fill you, without getting caught up in the baggage.

i enjoy the temple for a lot of reasons, none of them really logical.

i hope you have a pleasant experience there.

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

Salvation is not a church matter — nothing the church can do will affect my salvation, because that is between me and the god of my understanding.

I call BS.

Yes, yes, Way, we get it. You and I and most folks here agree 100%. But, BUT, there is no way that our church agrees with this comment. No way. In the LDS church today, one MUST go through the church authority to reach god. MAN > CHURCH > GOD. Yes? Some one convince me I am wrong and that I’m just being tough on the church. PLEASE! I would love to be wrong. I mean, is there any such thing as real repentance that does not go through the priesthood leadership? Is there anything in the form of essential ordinances that do not go through the priesthood? And please don’t talk about temple work for the dead in this conversation, because we all know that the traditional belief is that those things are only reserved for those who did not get a chance in this lifetime.

The LDS church, the church priesthood today, insist that all must go through them to reach salvation. I contend this is a horrible and malicious doctrine, and I don’t think our pure mormonism, the church that JS envisioned, ever intended for to be this way. Will we ever evolve past this kind of warped spiritual view? I don’t know.

You are wrong…in a Way…

The scriptures including BoM say that salvation comes in and through christ and in no other way.

Doctrinally, the church teaches that the atonement of christ is once and for all. Salvation, in the LDS sense, is the free gift of life eternal and resurrection, which occurs for everyone that goes to the telestial, terrestrial, or celestial kingdoms. LDS would say that exaltation, “eternal life” in the CK requires the ordinances of the priesthood. Thus Salvation is available to all by virtue of the atonement, and exaltation only thru the priesthood, repentance, temple covenants, and enduring to the end…

And yes, real repentance does not have to go thru the priesthood, except for certain sins that would typically result in Church Discipline. But even an excommunicated person has the right to pray and receive answers.

That is church doctrine, not my opinion.

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

I contend that that Matt 5:48 is perhaps the most misunderstood, and hence, the most pernicious and emotional and spiritual damaging verse and doctrine ever taught in the LDS church.

the verse really means “be ye one”, and as such, means something very important and consistent with some of the most important teachings of all.

The core message of the sermon on the mount, and perhaps of christ’s entire corpus, is to love one another. To twist this into a call for flawless purity destroys the entire message.

Yet whenever I have taught the true meaning of the verse, quoting Nelson’s GC address (for legitimacy of course , people in the church are always grateful. There is something relieving to know that the mandate to be perfect doesn’t exist.

cwald wrote:

And since you quote it from Miracle of Forgiveness —- I would contend that book is the most misunderstood and the most pernicious and emotional and spiritual damaging book and doctrine ever taught in the LDS church.

Oddly, I liked SWK, although, as an apostle, publication of MoF in 1969 had the effect of really screwing up a lot of people I knew.

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

BP: What about your salvation?

I dunno, SD, looks like this is where the conversation took a left turn. Of course, I’m looking at this from the outside and with 20/20 hindsight vision, but it seems to me that the question about salvation was not exactly appropriate. I think less is more in these interviewing situations, and instead of going down the rat-hole of personal struggle, etc., I thnk it important to separate personal spirituality (salvation) from frustration with church. According to Book of Mormon, Mosiah 3:17, “There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent”.

Salvation is not a church matter — nothing the church can do will affect my salvation, because that is between me and the god of my understanding.

If my BP asked about my salvation, I would answer, “BP, my salvation is between me and my savior, and of that relationship I have no doubt right now. I think I’m taken aback by the behavior of the some of the church leaders, and I need a little time to sort that out.”

for what it’s worth…

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

The sorry part of this kind of crap, is I should never have had to choose. jwald should never have had to make the choices in regards to her husband and church. And Strebor and his wife should not be put in this place where they have to make these choices in regards to faith and family. This is ecclesiastical emotional and spiritual bullying and it needs to end.

indeed. religious abuse and harrassment is perfectly evil.

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

SD, I just spewed coffee all over the counter. I get what you are saying but you may want to change some of your wordage.

😆 careful, you might be thought to have a 👿 mind…

[wayfarer]

Featherina wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

… I feel that blatant falsehood and harmful teachings ought to be challenged, albeit gracefully, when pushed at me. To me, it’s a moral imperative to fight against tyranny over the mind, to quote Jefferson. But more and more, I feel that people don’t care, and resent having their perception of church perfection altered in any way. It seems a bit like charging at windmills in the deserts of Spain.

Ah well, what to do, what to do…

I have a hard time keeping quiet when something is said that is not only wrong, but I can see how it has & can motivate harmful beliefs & behavior (ie prejudice, close-mindedness, denial).

I honestly think there is a moral imperative to correct harmful teaching or advice. Two examples are the mandate to be perfect, and the degrading condemnation of natural autoeroticism can lead people to internally condemn themselves, years without end. The problem is that people don’t talk about how talks and interviews creating the context of condemnation have adversely affected them, and thus live a life of shame very privately.

How does one fight against this? I really don’t know. When a harmful teaching comes out at GC, I guess I can protect my family by addressing it then and there. In SM, it might be a one-shot deal to stand up and object when some really bad garbage is being spoken. I really don’t know how to address blatent falsehood without quickly marginalizing myself.

Featherina wrote:

I also need to remind myself that we can only handle so much truth at a time… line upon line. When a friend told me some troubling things about the temple, my first reaction was to think she was being influenced by the adversary. It took some time for me to digest things… to question things… & I’m still trying to find my way. So, I really need to be patient with them, even when they treat me rudely – like kids who don’t know better yet.

as we all are trying to found the Way, or at least navigate it the best we can. thanks for your post.

[Author]

Posts