- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
morzen, all I can say is that I disagree strongly. In individual units, your description surely is accurate – but I’ve lived in numerous wards and branches over the last 25 years and it doesn’t describe any of them – not one. It certainly doesn’t describe the LDS Church as a whole. (For example, Pres. Uchtdorf is every bit as dynamic a speaker as Pres. Brown was – and he teaches much of the same message Pres. Brown did. Elder Maxwell, Elder Wirthlin, Pres. Hinckley, Elder Andersen, Elder Oaks, Pres. Eyring, Elder Holland – none of them were/are boring and generic speakers, whether you agree with them or not.) Please be aware of the message you are sending with the words you choose. I’m NOT trying to keep you from participating in ANY way at this point, but when you essentially call those who teach classes at church brainless and add some of the other stuff you did in your last comment you are crossing a line here that we cannot allow. This is a support sight for constructive discussion, even as it is a place to vent and ask questions. If you read your comment dispassionately, I hope you will understand what I am saying.
Finally, the name of this forum is “StayLDS”. There is a reason for that name. Please respect it and those of us here who are tarred by the broad brush you just used.
Morzen, On some level I agree with much of what you wrote, even though I don’t think it supports the mission of these forums. But I think your last sentence was a little over the top. I think when we see President Clinton, Bush, Obama, Hinckley, or Monson as not just imperfect, stumbling, and compromised, but as attempting malice, we are on dangerous ground personally. I say this having made identical judgments myself and even having lived in that frame of mind for decades. I just don’t see anymore that it’s helpful in any way.
Here’s a fun thought question:
You’ve passed to the other side and you are going through the blackness toward the light, when suddenly you look to the side and see Brother Packer winging his way alongside you, smiling rapturously just as you are. What is your reaction?
A. Uh, Saint Peter, I think there is some mistake here.
B. Think SLOW so you don’t have to go through the pearly gates next to him.
C. Group hug!
D. Stop the bus! If he’s going this way, I must be going the wrong direction.
Just for fun.
I still didn’t get a reply to my questions: “Isn’t God the god of the world as well as the church? Do you really think that God has deposited truth and instructions for good, righteous living only in the LDS church?” Anyway…
@ Old-Timer: You said, “the name of this forum is “StayLDS”. There is a reason for that name. Please respect it and those of us here who are tarred by the broad brush you just used”‘
I encourage anyone to “StayLDS” if that is their choice. I have never in my entire life said anything to the contrary (and if I ever have, then I plead temporary insanity). You have erroneously implied that I have or am suggesting that people leave the church because that is what I think (not absolutely certain) I am in the process of doing. In fact, as for my own adult children, (of whom are both active and inactive and of whom most are married), when speaking to them I emphatically encourage them to stay with the LDS church for a great variety of *good* reasons. Hence, if staying LDS works for you then why leave; why fix something if it isn’t broken?
Further, I have not “tarred” anyone, UNLESS they are in fact Mormon Red Guard, ecclesiastical power-tripping yahoos, or LDS Nazi, dogmatic zealots. In other words they are Latter-day *Ain’ts* instead of humble, striving “Latter-day Saints.” And although I consider myself to be a ‘striving’ Christian, I would still prefer describing myself as being an “Honest-Ain’t” instead of assuming the universal, bold moniker of “Latter-day Saint.” Nevertheless, “striving” to be better (honestly or otherwise) can never be an excuse for abject wrong doings and harm perpetrated upon another person. You don’t ratify the abusive actions of a parent or spouse by coming to a justifiable conclusion affirming, “Well, sure he beat the crap out the family member, but he is trying (striving) to be a better person, so let’s just turn a blind eye to the incident.” Instead, you speak up for the intention and with the hope of ending the deleterious behavior, or at the very least, ameliorating the situation. NB: Something very similar to this scenario actually happened as a result of a bishop’s imprudent decision, which resulted in the severe beating of a wife who was told by another LDS leader (her home teacher) to immediately get away and stay away from her husband. But she also decided to speak with her bishop to get a second opinion. The bishop concluded that her husband wasn’t all that bad (perhaps stating that he was “striving”), and to go back and ‘support him.’ The woman, unfortunately (and erroneously), thought that a bishop was more entitled to revelation and inspiration than a mere home teacher (who, by-the-way, was far more closer to and consequently knowledgeable about the various aspects of the situation than the bishop), so she went according to the bishop’s advice instead, and that very night ended up in the hospital and worse. But I digress. If I am or have ever been guilty of harming or offending someone, then I most fervently hope someone would make this known to me so that I can make amends as best as possible. Yeah, sure this may come across as an attempt to make myself appear to be so noble and high minded, but I know from experience that when someone (or some institution — think Toyota) attempts to run away or hide from their sins by not taking immediate responsibility for them, the transgressions *always* come back to do more damage than had you come clean to begin with.
And about the “brainless” comment, did I call you or anyone else on this forum “brainless?” I have been in GD classes taught not just by ‘brainless’ teachers, but one in particular who was also more than that (extremely insensitive) and beyond brainless by making a remark attempting to use the scriptures about members of the church not being “as worthy” as those who were not divorced. The ‘pregnant silence’ that ensued was deafening. Brainless twit? No. Brainless a$$h___!! And I could give accounts of other ‘brainless’ stories. I find it almost incredible that you have not experienced anything like this (or won’t admit to it — “sweeping the dirt under the carpet” because doing so manifests loyalty to the Lord, aka “lying for the Lord”). Or, you really haven’t because you are so new in the church (but I don’t get that impression), or that you have been extraordinarily fortunate never to have been a witness or victim of this kind of behavior — like being forever in an Enochian ward! Must be wonderful for you, but sucks to be me.
And about the H.B. Brown comment. I am stating my opinion. It is *my opinion* that the church is not like it used to be in the days of David O. Mackay, etc. I did not single out any GA, or make any overt, disparaging remarks about any such persons. I would make this exact same affirmation of opinion in a HP quorum, Sunday school class, or before any other *appropriate* audience of adults — such as this forum I would have thought.
I will end on a more positive and less indicting note though (but I am attempting not to accuse you of anything, but rather I am just being defensive and explanatory), in that I acknowledge your efforts in trying to treat me in a sensitive manner. There are far too many others that would not have been so inclined. *THEY* are the power-tripping, Red Guard zealots, not you as it would appear.
@ Tom Haws: I am pleased that you agreed with much of what I wrote, although you and I both know that we are all at the distinct disadvantage on this forum of not being able to dialogue with each other so that that we can hear each other’s vocal intonations and view each other’s body language so that we can more accurately interpret either our motives or pedestrian opinions (i.e., just ‘shootin’ the breeze).
I thought my very last sentence was… creative, but to be sure, there was no intention to malign any GA. I did start off with the word “if,” but then I should have continued into the statement with the addition of “then *perhaps*” in order to soften the comment and not come across as attempting to affront anyone’s sensitivities.
About your little game. Mmm… I don’t think I can play that one because the premisses of the situation are not valid. To be sure, according to every NDE account I’ve heard and studied, I won’t be experiencing it with anyone let alone Boyd K. Packer. And why did you pick him, of all people? Now *that* may be of interest to me. I can’t recall ever meeting him, but I will say that based upon the comments I’ve heard him say and viewing his demeanor, and taking into account other peoples’ interactions and opinions, a reputation does seem to precede him.
Perhaps the question to ask should be, “How would I feel if I ended up in the same place with B.K. Packer?” If that were to happen, then that would indicate that he had repented!
— edited for some grammar and typos
Morzen wrote:I still didn’t get a reply to my questions: “Isn’t God the god of the world as well as the church? Do you really think that God has deposited truth and instructions for good, righteous living only in the LDS church?”
Answer: No. Of course not. Truth is deposited everywhere around us. The LDS Church does not have a monopoly on it. There is beauty all around, when there’s love [in our personal] home. In particular, I also find the Dalai Lama very inspiring. I find Rumi, the Sufi poet, spiritually inspiring. I am inspired and enlightened by Eckhart Tolle, John O’Donohue, the Dalai Lama, Joseph Smith (is he still considered LDS? hehe), Joseph Campbell, Robert Lawlor, Hildergard von Bingen, and many many others.
It was hard to pay attention to that great question while trying to sift through all the angry stories of abuse, incompetence, and the unified and collective effort of LDS Church leaders to perform damaging brain surgery on God. I’m not saying any of that never happens. It does. I’ve received flawed advice from a Bishops. Do you think we’ve never heard of this before? Why is it important for you to tell us so much about all the bad things that you have experienced? I am asking that as a dispassionate question. I am sincerely interested in your introspection on that. I learn from others and see new things in myself when I hear how people process their experiences.
Morzen wrote:I would make this exact same affirmation of opinion in a HP quorum, Sunday school class, or before any other *appropriate* audience of adults — such as this forum I would have thought.
Morzen wrote:Further, I have not “tarred” anyone, UNLESS they are in fact Mormon Red Guard, ecclesiastical power-tripping yahoos, or LDS Nazi, dogmatic zealots. In other words they are Latter-day *Ain’ts* instead of humble, striving “Latter-day Saints.”
I would like to point out to you that this type of statement sets up an emotionally charged dichotomy in the conversation. If someone agrees with you, they are of course a humble and intelligent person. If they do not agree with you, then they automatically receive labels drawn from the most heinous examples in recent history — Nazi’s and Red Guard.
That makes it hard to have an engaging conversation with you, one that will foster respect understanding. I would guess that you run into trouble if indeed you also say similar things in HP group and other settings where “adults” should be able handle your language. Again, that sets up a dichotomy where those who disagree or get upset must be the opposite of adults. The reason people get upset is because they are childish and immature, instead of you taking responsibility for language you use to communicate.
Morzen wrote:I find it almost incredible that you have not experienced anything like this (or won’t admit to it — “sweeping the dirt under the carpet” because doing so manifests loyalty to the Lord, aka “lying for the Lord”). Or, you really haven’t because you are so new in the church (but I don’t get that impression), or that you have been extraordinarily fortunate never to have been a witness or victim of this kind of behavior — like being forever in an Enochian ward! Must be wonderful for you, but sucks to be me.
Options for disagreeing with you:
1. Because the other person is a liar.
2. Because the other person is such a newbie that his views are irrelevant.
3. Because the other person is a “Pollyanna” and incapable of understanding you (a self-fulfilling prophecy).
Is it possible for people to have different experiences and make different conclusions that are valid? This ties into the same idea as being able to see truth in other places, letting the symbol and metaphor of other people’s religious views inform and enlighten us.
Morzen wrote:I will end on a more positive and less indicting note though (but I am attempting not to accuse you of anything, but rather I am just being defensive and explanatory), in that I acknowledge your efforts in trying to treat me in a sensitive manner. There are far too many others that would not have been so inclined. *THEY* are the power-tripping, Red Guard zealots, not you as it would appear.
Thanks Morzen. This is helpful. We really aren’t your enemy. People here probably agree with you on a lot of things. There really isn’t a huge need to throw up the defenses here. We’re on the same team. We all want a better experience and want the Church to become better. We want to be better people, regardless of where we gain new truth.
morzen, please re-read both your original comment and my response carefully and slowly. I said you are certainly correct about some wards. I then gave specific examples of where my disagreement lies. I’m not here to fight with anyone – and I just can’t address your comments (the bulk of both of them) constructively right now. I simply can’t – and I hope you understand why. Brian laid out the heart of my concern – that drawing such black and white lines in such extreme terms doesn’t allow for constructive conversation at all.
As to your central question, I am going to ask two very direct questions:
Have you read the posts in this forum? If so, how can you possibly ask that question seriously of us?
Nobody here is going to argue with your question or the core answer you give – nobody. My disagreement and concern is with the extrapolation from that question and the tone and word choice used in that extrapolation.
In my opinion, we are getting off topic from what Porter raised initially. The question isn’t IF there is truth outside of mormonism, the title of the thread implies we all agree there is.
The question isn’t IF there are boneheads in the church who say silly things, or if some people are judgmental or not. No labels or accusations need to be thrown around about this.
The question is, since we all agree that we can read great books and be enlightened by some good things we know come from God that are in the world, is it possible that God’s work and His specific intent is using the world to teach and correct the church from that method? (Porter, that is how I interpret the meaning of your question, correct me if I’m off).
I think he’s not pitting one group against the other for reproach or to teach a lesson, but teaches truth out to all His children, and as Ray said, that truth found elsewhere helps prune the church when it surfaces, unless we’re too prideful to see it, which leads to unhealthy limbs remaining and weakening the tree as a whole. I don’t think he’s specifically teaching others so that we can be corrected, He is just teaching all His children and if we don’t want to see it, that is our loss. I think He is going to teach us in the most perfect way possible, sometimes that is through the prophet, sometimes through other sources.
Thanks, Heber. You are right about the focus, and I appreciate you getting it back to the original post’s actual question. Quote:I don’t think he’s specifically teaching others so that we can be corrected, He is just teaching all His children and if we don’t want to see it, that is our loss. I think He is going to teach us in the most perfect way possible, sometimes that is through the prophet, sometimes through other sources.
That is said perfectly, imo.
@ Brian Johnston and Old-Timer: Brian said, “I’ve received flawed advice from a Bishops. Do you think we’ve never heard of this before? I am asking that as a dispassionate question. I am sincerely interested in your introspection on that”
Because I stated, “I digress.” It’s just “talk” — prattling. I was in a meeting with President Monson whilst on my mission and he told story after story about errant (*bizarre*) events of members and missionaries. It was both entertaining and enlightening. But now that I have lived life many decades beyond that event, the ‘shock value’ has greatly dissipated — I now have some of my own stories to tell as do perhaps you, hence you were obviously neither entertained nor enlightened by the story I used as an illustration or whatever. But it was just a digression.
Ray said, “Have you read the posts in this forum? If so, how can you possibly ask that question seriously of us? … My disagreement and concern is with the extrapolation from that question and the tone and word choice used in that extrapolation.”
Yes, I poke around here every once in a while, and this place has a better ‘feeling’ (for me) than, for example, the NOM site, although there are good posts (and people) there as well.
But getting back to “tone,” etc. I reiterate that I am at a distinct disadvantage because you cannot ‘read me’ in real time as far as voice inflections and body language. This, of course, is also a reflection on my ineptness in being able to effectively communicate “tone, etc” via the written word. I am quite sure that if we were all sitting around a table at a restaurant having this conversation, there wouldn’t have been an issue made about our individual demeanors or modes of communicating with one another. Me thinks, “What we have hee-eh-re is a failure to communicate.” So maybe we should all take a step back and declare “no harm, no foul,” and move on to …
… @ Heber13: My original comment (although perhaps to some people, inflammatory and insensitively expressed):
“Is this sort of “common sense” worth 10% and more, of your income? I think you can get it for a lot less on Amazon (and even better content a lot of times). And it comes delivered right to you; you don’t even have to dress up and go to it. AND no angst coupled with boring, inane grade three (the constant milk) fluff and filler material.”
was only used for the purpose of putting a concerned frame around the semi-rhetorical question:
“Could God be using the world to correct the church?” Let me ask: Isn’t God the god of the world as well as the church?”.
What I was attempting to say is that it is my opinion that the church is stifling freedom of speech to an inordinate degree more so now than I can ever recall or have experienced. Oh, this may not be the impression you get listening to GC talks, but at the local level it’s another story. It is my opinion, based upon what I hear more and more regarding the focus of “just stick to the manual” that perhaps I am not the only one who has been directly affected by this now current state of church governance. I think that’s what evoked the comments about “Red Guards,” “Nazis,” etc. And for your ‘entertainment’ I’ll illustrate this further by giving an account of the most recent experience I had.
Not to toot my own horn, but I have always been regarded as very good teacher being knowledgeable and interesting to listen to. I would spend a lot of time preparing my lessons. Think ‘Relief Society’ and the indispensable ‘table’ at the front of their class with all of the ‘lady’ stuff used to enhance the lesson. But in this case don’t think, ‘lady,’ think ‘male.’ I would create illustrations and bring in interesting stuff to illicit ‘thinking.’ The most common feedback I would get was that “when Morzen teaches, you sure go away thinking.” In my last teaching position teaching in the HP quorum in our new ward (at the time), I actually received no less than two ‘thank-you’ notes sent via regular mail, from two quorum members expressing how they have been really enjoying my lessons, etc. Yeah, well that’s at least two attendees, but what about the others? During the lesson I could readily discern that there were those “others” who were not as pleased with my lessons. These were mostly the old guard, former stake presidents, bishops (lots of those), a mission president, and even at least one former temple president that I knew of. They would sit there all stiff and stone-faced, and would never contribute much unless really provoked. I really tried ‘reaching’ these guys, and I think I was making some progress actually. But were they ever hard nuts to crack. Anyway, I could see the writing on the wall (I won’t take the time to elaborate), but the pressure of certain ‘public opinion’ was the hand that was doing the writing, and I knew my time in that capacity was coming to an end and it eventually did.
No sour grapes, though, just a sad realization that at the end of the road of a long life of participation in the church, your membership just becomes this social bone yard of fossilized relationships with a few very old established friends (if you’re lucky enough to have been in the same ward or area for a long time, or you’re not too old to start afresh), and stale or shallow (in my opinion), ethnocentric-like routines.
If someone makes any attempt to inject some sort of diversity, at least into a lesson, you are met with objections. And yet isn’t it strange what we have to endure many times during so-called ‘testimony’ meetings listening, a lot of times, to anything but a ‘testimony.’ But when it comes to the lesson material you better not deviate from “the manual.”
The world, I am now really discovering, is such a wonderful place full of fantastic ideas, and I am perhaps a little upset or even angry that my church is putting the pressure on its members to put on blinders and not expand their thinking AND tolerance for the ideas of other individuals, belief systems or what-have-you. Real sad.
I enjoy teaching in Church too Morzen. I’ll easily end up spending 2 or 3 hours preparing for a 30 min EQ lesson. I am sure I would be one of the people that loved to sit in your class. It is people like you that make the best lessons. We are also the types that run into trouble — because we care so much, even too much at times. It is hard targeting the lesson material just right to both challenge class members (which is essential to making it beneficial) and at the same time not losing too much of our audience. You really would think that former bishops, mission and temple presidents (the high priests, pinnacles of the Church) could handle a little more meaty discussion. Sad, but it is what it is. Dealing with the reality of it … well, that’s what we have to do.
I know it has been a cultural “rule” in a lot of places to only stick to the lesson manual and not deviate. I think the new lesson manual for RS/PH makes it very clear that teachers MUST adapt the lessons and bring in additional material. You can’t even waste enough time in class simply reading all the lesson material verbatim without running out before the class ends. We had a discussion about that in my recent ward EQ (we just moved), and everyone agreed we needed to tailor the lessons to our quorum. Everyone (including the EQ presidency) seemed pleased with that idea. *Shrug* I guess that was one of the Enochian wards
We have to work with people as they are to nudge them forward a little – one small step at a time. Doesn’t God do that with us? I think so, at least.
Just remember Morzen. You are in the position you are because you care so much. If you didn’t, none of this would bother you. That passion is admirable. God needs people who care (to frame it religiously). It’s how a lot of us get here to where we are, questioning things and wanting to make a difference.
I hope you can see us in this community as being on the same team as you. We’re trying to make a difference by being who we are, as much as is possible in the reality of the situation. There is so much beauty and truth out there. We adventurous explorers are the ones that can bring those prizes back to the community of our heritage.
Yes. The world changes the Church. God is the God of the world too.
Appreciate the comments. Very kind. Brain said, “Yes. The world changes the Church. God is the God of the world too.
Yes, the world does change the church — think end of the Negro priesthood ban, changes in the temple ceremony, etc.
When you say, “God is the God of the world, *too*” take a step back a look at that statement. What do you see?
My wife told me about a pet peeve that she has experienced a few times. She’ll be talking to a member of the church and a non-member’s name will come up. Then the member will say something like, “Oh, yes, I know them. They’re not members of the church, BUT they’re still good people.”
I think the church has all too often clouded our thinking without us ever truly realizing its impact. We are constantly told from primary on up that we are God’s “elect and chosen people” and especially so if we were born in the covenant, and so on and so forth. We are better than all the rest; we have the ‘Truth’! I don’t know about you, but that’s how I was raised and I have witnessed the same thing with other members countless times and in countless ways throughout my life.
Not wanting to offend or confront you, but don’t you think the statement would be better put as, “God is *principally* the god of the world.” or “God is the god of whole world and we are just one, small or otherwise, part of it.”
Something like the new change in the preface of the Book of Mormon, i.e., now it’s “among” not “principally.”
Just my thoughts.
Thanks for the additional commentary, morzen. I will echo what Brain said, with one additional caveat: The LDS Church is comprised of two very distinct organizations: the central, vertical one and the local, horizontal one. In my experience,
*ironically*,everything works best when the local church doesn’t swing more conservatively than the central church – but that isn’t the case in far too many local units. Unfortunately, “cultural Mormonism” is more influenced by the local leadership than the central leadership – and much of what the central leadership preaches actually is in response to stupid stuff done at the local level. (For example, correltation was a direct result of some of the ridiculous things that were being taught in local classes, and the streamlining of auxiliary budgets was the result largely of grossly inappropriate spending at the local level.) Thus, there can be members who end up viewing the LDS Church as incredibly restrictive and suffocating, while others end up viewing it as extremely liberating and enabling – with every degree of difference between those two extremes. I really feel for those members whose experience is what you describe. The only point I make is that such an experience is not “the Church”; rather, it is the Church on some issues in some locations for some people. Recognizing that goes a long way toward being able to see it charitably – and that is the beginning of peace and/or reconciliation.
Finally, in my viewing over the years, with the exception of a few issues, the central church actually is less conservative than many of the local units and the membership.
Therefore, returning to the original post, I believe God uses whatever tools are available to correct (prune) the Church – and to lead all His chlidren toward Him.
This reminds me of a classic story that illustrates a point: The prophet is concerned about members leaning over the edge of a cliff nearby. They like to get a good view. It’s dangerous and some people have fallen and gotten hurt. He tells the Q12 to warn members to just be a little more careful when they are out for a hike.
The apostles hear this revelation, and wanting to be diligent and careful, they warn the Q70 in a leadership meeting to teach members not to get near the cliff at all.
The Q70 take this message out to the stake presidents. In order to be extra vigilant and go the extra mile, they teach the stake presidents that the prophet wants the members of their stakes to never go more than half-way up the mountain.
The stake presidents take this message to their local ward leadership meetings. In order to be magnify their callings, they are even more faithful and instruct Bishops to teach the ward leaders to spread the word — nobody goes near the mountain. Period!
A little boy asks his father what that big thing is on the horizon. His father is shocked and quickly scolds the boy “Never look at that. It’s a mountain. We are never to go near it or even speak of it. The Bishop let us know these are the words of the prophet.”
…and the non-Mormons sit on top of the mountain and say:
Quote:Boy, those mormons sure are missing a beautiful view from up here. If only they knew what they were missing!
Morale of the story: Confirm for yourself what the prophet is asking us to do, don’t take your Bishop’s words at face value.
(Is that fair?)
Morzen wrote:When you say, “God is the God of the world, *too*” take a step back a look at that statement. What do you see?
I see Brian’s tongue in his cheek. You have to know Brian, one of our resident mystics. That was his form of irony or absurdity, and I loved it.
Morzen wrote:Me thinks, “What we have hee-eh-re is a failure to communicate.”
Yeah. I’ve noticed on internet forums you really have to double read, or sometimes do a quick edit, of everything you say. I like your idea of adding weasel words (grace words?) like “perhaps” and “I think”.
I like your story.
Good story (and funny comment). I’ve heard a few variations of it over the years, but it’s always fun to hear them again in all their variety. And all the additional comments are germane and there is nothing that I would disagree with.
I should explain that my feelings as of late have been focussing less on the church and a lot more on religion. I have been ‘forced,’ for the lack of a better word, or constrained due to circumstances to look beyond the local church hubbub and really examine *what* my *religion* is instead of *what* and *how* my *church* operates. Ever since I have rid my mind, and I’ll even say heart, of the clutter (false LDS mantras and urban myths, etc) I feel more free and less burdened with quilt. I am beginning to understand or view God differently notwithstanding the years of influence by the whole spectrum of the LDS church; I am no longer creating God in my image by relying totally on just the ideas and concepts taught to me by former authority figures. I am getting a sense of a more marvelous, although still perplexing, feeling of something far more complex than I ever realized before. There is a greater sense of wonder now. It’s perplexing and can even be stressful, but it’s also more peaceful, i.e, the universe is unfolding as it should and I am just trying to be a good person that I reasonably can be.
I know it’s a tired cliché, but I am not totally “throwing the baby out with the bath water,” i.e., I am still grateful for a lot of LDS teachings and for the influence it has been in my youth instilling good teachings to be a good person. And to be sure, being a member of the LDS church has been a real learning experience in the school of hard knocks a lot of times — but as we all know, that’s partly how we really learn and develop. But returning to the main point, I don’t know if you would describe my current personal paradigm shift as being ‘more’ or ‘greater’ or whatever, but there is certainly ‘something other’ that I have a greater and more acute sense of. It doesn’t necessarily exclude the LDS church, but I am realizing more and more that the LDS church with all of its ornaments, doctrines and memes is not at the center of the stage — it’s just playing its own role like everything else in the world.
And to Tom Haws: I have never heard of that express before — “weasel words” being grace words, but you’re right I do consciously insert them. I just hope it doesn’t come across as being insincere or worse — ‘weaselly’ obsequious.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.