- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s a mix between control and personal spirituality. For me, the rules WERE the spirituality for a long time. I thought by living them, I could recapture the powerful spirituality I had when I was a youth, and God touched my life and convinced me He existed.
I have since learned that the rules don’t bring spirituality. They sometimes bring deep, protracted unhappiness and DETRACT from spirituality. I like what Steve Jobs said “if you find you’re doing something you detest too many days in a row, it’s time to make changes”. Also, ask yourself “if today was the last day of my life, would I want to be doing this????”.
Coupled with personal honesty about one’s motives, I think this can be a powerful way to live your life.
I applied the Jobs principle this session in my work after it became overly drugerous in spots, and it was amazing the way I got the same results while doing things dramatically differently. I wonder how it can be applied to LDS Church experience where there is far less flexibility…..?
I like the idea of self-mastery, so then the “rules” are really just the steps to take to gain self-mastery. But when you are just following orders, that’s not self-mastery; it’s compliance. I don’t think that’s what it means to become like God. The orders aren’t the point, any more than the weights are in weight-lifting. It’s the muscle you build or tone. It’s the flexibility you gain. SilentDawning wrote:It’s a mix between control and personal spirituality.
I applied the Jobs principle this session in my work after it became overly drugerous in spots, and it was amazing the way I got the same results while doing things dramatically differently. I wonder how it can be applied to LDS Church experience where there is far less flexibility…..?
I have been attempting to do it at church for abut a year. The only thing is you can not tell anyone what you are doing and you have to be careful. Not sure if that negates the purpose for trying but i am not sure there is another way to be in the church but live by your own rules.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I like the idea of self-mastery, so then the “rules” are really just the steps to take to gain self-mastery. But when you are just following orders, that’s not self-mastery; it’s compliance. I don’t think that’s what it means to become like God. The orders aren’t the point, any more than the weights are in weight-lifting. It’s the muscle you build or tone. It’s the flexibility you gain.
I was just thinking something similar… how Mormonism can be helpful or harmful, depending on how it’s interpreted & applied.Cadence wrote:SilentDawning wrote:It’s a mix between control and personal spirituality.
I applied the Jobs principle this session in my work after it became overly drugerous in spots, and it was amazing the way I got the same results while doing things dramatically differently. I wonder how it can be applied to LDS Church experience where there is far less flexibility…..?
I have been attempting to do it at church for abut a year. The only thing is you can not tell anyone what you are doing and you have to be careful. Not sure if that negates the purpose for trying but i am not sure there is another way to be in the church but live by your own rules.
You HAVE to be quiet about it, or else, say things in a way that are non-offensive. And you have to be careful who you say it to as well if you do take a risk. I made a Socratic “comment” in Sunday School the other day and my wive got a little upset with me — as it was divergent thinking and challenged the status quo. So, much of what one thinks should be kept to oneself.
For example, I’m starting to feel much better about tithing. Now that I’ve pieced together the actual wording of the 1970’s FP letter defining tithing (including the part the correlations committeed conveniently left out of Gospel Principles and the CHI), I have my own feeling about it. I’m not going to broadcast what I think now to the world at Church, but I feel comfortable with it. That way lies madness and an invitation for conflict.
In fact, when I shared my new philosophy, my wife indicated that a Bishop told us his own divergent version of it when we were newly married — and we BOTH thought the guy was off his rocker she said. She asked her TBM Dad who took the hard line on it and said this Bishop was wrong. WEll, I now think this man, who is now in the SP in our former locale, may have had it right all along.
He told me point blank that tithing was a personal decision and that if most people in our Ward, if they paid tithing as 10% of gross or net, “would find themself on some kind of welfare program”. He was implying that 10% of gross/net conflicted with their self-reliance, and so, he felt they could pay on a total they felt was most appropriate for their circumstances.
If I believed this, and lived it, and cared about having a TR right now, and went into tithing settlement on this basis, I don’t think I would start spouting off the exact manner in which I calculated tithing. This would be an invitation for the Bishop to TEACH ME his own distorted view of the world (aren’t we all looking through a glass darkly?) and probably enforce it by withdrawing priviledges. I would only share this version of tithing if pressed.
Quote:I applied the Jobs principle this session in my work after it became overly drugerous in spots, and it was amazing the way I got the same results while doing things dramatically differently. I wonder how it can be applied to LDS Church experience where there is far less flexibility…..?
I don’t think it’s any more difficult really. Nobody knows what’s up with most people at church IME. People don’t ask. Why tell?
Exactly — if they aren’t asking, then why tell? For some reason, people come to this discussion forum after telling all to their Bishop — and then find he takes a hard line with them. I’m not advocating lying abour moral issues, by the way, but like many sitautions in life, you don’t VOLUNTEER information regarding grey areas where there is room for interpretation. So, do we all agree that religion was created and continues to be focused on “control” of behavior and thought and emotion? Whether that is good or bad, and necessary for the preservation of the species…. a separate discussion perhaps. But it seems that CONTROL is the goal of religion? Yes?
It depends on the organization. For some, it’s change. For other’s its control. I feel that in our Church, with the consequences of not aligning directly with organizational goals being inflicted here and now, it’s control. If those consequences where off-loaded to the future (like the blessings are!!!) then I would consider it a desire for change, but not control. cwald wrote:So,
do we all agree that religion was created and continues to be focused on “control” of behaviorand thought and emotion?…Whether that is good or bad, and necessary for the preservation of the species…. a separate discussion perhaps. But it seems that CONTROL is the goal of religion? Yes?No, I for one don’t believe that control is necessarily the main purpose or point of religion at all; this is simply one of many ways that religion is often used by those in positions of authority (or misused in the worst cases). I think at least one common and better alternative purpose for religion is simply to give people hope and make them feel better than they would otherwise. Another purpose for religion is to promote group solidarity or a sense of community. If it doesn’t do any of this for you that doesn’t mean it doesn’t or shouldn’t do this for anyone else. Also, religion sometimes provides answers to questions people care about that science and philosophy do not. As far as I’m concerned, whether the answers are true or not does not matter as much as whether people are satisfied with the answers they get from religion.
Well said DA. Cadence wrote:There is no historical evidence of a taboo that says refraining from skiing on Sunday keeps you from dying. It is not like robbery that creates havoc in the community so you can rationally say it is to be avoided. It is purely a religious notion.
Foir me, the purpose of the Sabbath day commandment is to make sure people are free to come to Church. That way they can get the spiritual benefits, but also the teaching and training about how to be a good Mormon, staff its Sunday operations, etcetera. If everyone put other things ahead of Church, the primary vehicle for influence — Sunday talks — is diluted.
I agree with cwald’s compliment of DA’s comment. :crazy: (Sorry, just got dizzy for a moment trying to follow that sentence.)😆 “Control” and “impassioned direction and strong influence” are easy to confuse.
Quote:“We have learned through sad experience . . . exercise unrighteous dominion . . .”
The tension between wanting badly to help people and allowing them to suffer as a direct result of their choices is not easy to balance – and the natural tendency is to ease the suffering (perceived or real, present or future) at the expense of personal responsibility and growth.
I think I can understand the concept of people accepting Lucifer’s plan of ease and no pain and failure. I also can understand the concept of good people crossing the line into unrighteous dominion out of a sincere feeling of love and concern. It’s the central tension of religion, imo – the struggle to maintain a degree of control in one’s own life and in the lives of others in a world that cannot be controlled.
cwald wrote:So, do we all agree that religion was created and continues to be focused on “control” of behavior and thought and emotion?
Controlling people use religion and the accompanying rules to control people.
Spiritual people use religion and the accompanying rules to enlighten people.
So I would answer yes and no. Religion has been used as a form of control. It has also been used to advance enlightenment. It has been used for injustice and tyranny. It has also been used for justice and freedom. Religion is just a tool. It’s effect on the world is manifested by the desires of the wielder.
Brian Johnston wrote:Controlling people use religion and the accompanying rules to control people.
Spiritual people use religion and the accompanying rules to enlighten people.
+1 — you’re my guru.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.