- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Ann, fwiw, what keep me most anchored in the LDS Church (along with my family roots in it) is the incredible scope of Mormon theology – beginning and ending with its positioning of people relative to God. We really do worship a different God, the Heavenly Parents, and God, the Son, than other Christian denominations (or, at least, I believe our theology teaches a different view than others’) – and that difference is foundational to me, whether or not it is Truth. We see through a glass darkly, but what I see in Mormon theology speaks to my soul like no other theology I know – and I’ve studied just about everything else.
Old-Timer wrote:We really do worship a different God, the Heavenly Parents, and God, the Son, than other Christian denominations (or, at least, I believe our theology teaches a different view than others’) – and that difference is foundational to me, whether or not it is Truth.
I don’t suppose I disagree intellectually with this statement. Still, it comes off funny that you are technically agreeing with those that claim that Mormons worship a different God and a different Jesus.
:eh: Yeah, Roy, I get the irony – but my position is the same for a discussion of what it means to be Mormon or LDS and what it means to be Christian: It’s okay to see things differently; there is no “one right view” that makes someone a “real” Mormon or Christian; we can worship a different iteration of God/Christ/trinity/Godhead/whatever and still fit into the acceptable parameters of each umbrella term.
In that light, I am fine with other Christians seeing us as apostate Christians and even with others seeing us as non-Christian. I think they are right about the first description, from their own perspective, but wrong about the second designation – since no one denomination gets to define that, imo.
In other words, if we claim the privilege, institutionally, of defining others as apostates, we must allow anyone else to do the same to us, let them label how or whom they may. We don’t claim the privilege of defining who is Christian or not, however, and neither should anyone else. If you worship Jesus as “The Christ” or self-identify with a group that calls itself Christian, you are Christian; if you accept Joseph Smith as the prophet of the restoration (whatever that means) or self- identify with one of the groups that were established as a result of his work, you are Mormon; if you accept the modern LDS leadership as your religious leaders or self-identify with the LDS Church, you are LDS; etc. People might add any number of qualifiers (faithful, inactive, less active, jack, good, bad, orthodox, unorthodox/heterodox, liberal, traditional, etc.), but those are qualifiers – NOT the primary designation.
(As always, this is my personal view, not one that must be authoritative and prescriptive for all.)
Old-Timer wrote:Ann, fwiw, what keep me most anchored in the LDS Church (along with my family roots in it) is the incredible scope of Mormon theology – beginning and ending with its positioning of people relative to God.
This is where I feel a lump growing in my throat. I’ve undergone some kind of metamorphosis and just can’t brush past it now. “People” are positioned in a beautiful place relative to God in Mormon theology, temple, and Sunday meetings; men and women aren’t. It’s the snag that catches on my sleeve all the time now.
(I know that’s not “what this thread is about,” but that’s kind of the problem. It’s been discussed elsewhere here many times, so I’m not saying this thread should, too.
🙂 )nibbler wrote:Roy wrote:Unfortunately for some, the further they go towards what is being pointed towards (grace) the less that they fit in at church. Is it possible that the church can stifle the gospel?
Isn’t one of the goals of the Mormon theology learning to become like god? Once one becomes more like god the church has largely served its purpose. It’s a stepping stone, crutch, ladder rung, etc.
At the point where the church begins to stifle progress I suppose people can stick around and shepherd others in their discovery. Maybe others will see the church as a means and not the end, maybe not. I know outside guidance down this path wouldn’t have worked for me before I was ready but the church did have the right mix of crazy to make this all possible.
I think this was what was being conveyed by Ronald Poelman originally in his 1984 talk, before they revised it to try not to send the wrong message about the necessity of the church…
Quote:When we understand the difference between the gospel and the church and the appropriate function of each in our lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons.
…
As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.
Ann wrote Quote:
This is where I feel a lump growing in my throat. I’ve undergone some kind of metamorphosis and just can’t brush past it now. “People” are positioned in a beautiful place relative to God in Mormon theology, temple, and Sunday meetings; men and women aren’t. It’s the snag that catches on my sleeve all the time now.I hear you.
Somehow this remarkable God and Divinity has always been a part of me, since my earliest childhood memories there was a glorious, benevolent God. Then he get’s bogged down in religion and I miss him. Worst of all, I don’t know how to communicate Him to others.
mom3 wrote:I hear you.
🙂 More accurate for me to say that women have to clear more hurdles than men to arrive at the conclusion that the gospel as our church teaches it is empowering, expansive, inclusive, etc., for
all people. It seems to me that they forgot to include the women…on terms that can appeal to present-day women. Adam Miller talks in the podcast about accepting some ambiguity and a margin of error in order to be committed to the things we are sure of, so I guess the question for every individual is how much ambiguity, how much error.
Quote:
More accurate for me to say that women have to clear more hurdles than men to arrive at the conclusion that the gospel as our church teaches it is empowering, expansive, inclusive, etc., for all people. It seems to me that they forgot to include the women…on terms that can appeal to present-day women.I also hear the struggle for LGBT brothers and sisters, as well as the past race issue. Is it for
all peopleor some of all people? I think most would say that it is for all people… regardless of what reality dictates. There’s what people say, which likely represents the ideal that we strive for; then there’s what people do, a snapshot in time of our attempt to live the ideal. I would say it wasn’t all people in the past and it isn’t all people right now but it feels like we are converging on all people as opposed to diverging away from it. Of course most of the credit for that can go to “the world” but at least we drag our theology with us with each iteration.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.