- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thank you Dark Jedi for those threads. I have skimmed through both of them and I will read them more thoroughly tonight. I appreciate the more nuanced view of the temple recommend questions and what it means to sustain a leader. As much as I want to believe how “enlightened” I have become, I really think I am trapped in the black and white thinking that I have grown up in. I am such a darned rule follower. I’m either obeying the right way or I’m failing. (Hence the reason that I am worn down by the church right now) Nibbler, I see what you’re saying. And I probably came across as accusing the leaders of being a bunch of control freaks who just want to make my life miserable. Honestly, I believe a lot of their reasoning is that their hands are tied as you said. Rules are rules and that’s the way it has always been. Sometimes, when I’m in a more cynical mood, I think that temple recommend questions have been used to get what they want from members so that the church can be run better. An example would be tithing added to the TR questions because they were in debt. Question the leaders in public? You could have your temple recommend, i.e. families are forever and eternal salvation, taken away. It makes their lives easier. Which I don’t blame them, I would not like to have their job. The rules before people culture you mentioned really resonates with me. It’s too bad it has to be this way.
I have read a couple of books lately about how sometimes religion can take away from your relationship with Christ. That the reason Jesus corrected the Pharisees so much is because all the rules they created prevented people from focusing on Him. That made so much sense to me. I’m doing it right now. I’m spending so much time on trying to figure out which rules I should follow and which ones I should let go. I just want to get rid of all the other voices and try to figure out what Jesus wants me to do. Sounds pretty basic I know but I really would love to know what He wants from me and what He wants me to believe because I have no I idea what I believe myself right now.
This board and the people here are so amazing. I can’t thank you enough for the understanding, empathetic responses and for giving me a safe place to vent. Although, I don’t post much, I read almost everyday and it keeps me from being hard hearted and bitter. I’m sorry Silent Dawning for side-tracking your thread but thank you for creating it.
Quote:My short version is that sustain means: they aren’t good enough to be a prophet, but with my help…
😆 Quote:This is one thing that I really wish was true of my experience with the church. I really feel that the church culture was that we were following all of these steps as requirements to earn God’s love/favor/blessings.
This is at odds with the concept of having an inalienable father son relationship with my God. That He will love me and do what is best for me no matter what I do. And that I can choose to obey out of love for Him – knowing that my position with Him was always secure and never hung in the balance.
I do believe that the church teaches grace here and there but it has been my experience that you need to know where to look for it… and you need to get better at ignoring all the stuff that says you must earn your way into heaven.
Roy, I agree with everything you said whole heartedly. If we talked about that type of grace in the church more, I would actually look forward to going to church on Sundays.
Heber13 wrote:
Which is why I had to correct SD for inaccurately stating what the church teaches, even if I agree with those who share how it feels based on how imperfect members practice it.
I think the flaw in Heber’s statement is assuming I was trying to portray what the church teaches about conflict resolution with church leaders. I wasn’t trying, as they they tend to teach different things depending on who is quoted. I was giving my own opinion based on experience.
For me, what they teach is a mixed bag, but a certain theme seems to prevail depending where you are in the testimony-building and commitment process.
But first, the two themes…On one hand, there are stories about blind obedience that are in the scriptures — Abraham’s story with Isaac as a case in point. I know Ray has a different interpretation of the Abraham/Isaac/sacrificial story than others, but the standard interpretation was that we should obey the people above us, even when it doesn’t make sense and seems to incur great cost. A similar message is sent by the BoM story of Nephi slaying Laban, even though he shrunk from doing so.
The same blind obedience expecations seemed to occur when Moses asked everyone to look to the serpent on the pole to be healed, and some didn’t because it didn’t make sense – a highly symbolic story of following God even when it’s not logical. There is STRONG guidance to follow the prophets, or weep…check the 14 Fundamentals. And the stripling warriors who followed instructions with “exactness”. The blind obedience on a large scale that occurred in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was an example of how blind obedience existed in our culture at that time. In my view, when so many people who profess a humanitarian religion, terminate ALL male members of a wagon train unanimously — this is an expression of the blind obedience culture that we often hear about at church.
Other expressions of the blind obedience culture came from DHO. He said that it’s OK to have personal revelation, but it can’t conflict with the priesthood line. We also can’t ignore that if we disagree too strongly with our leaders on fundamental issues, we run STRONG risks of losing privileges in the future or facing ostracization, or discipline.
There is a quote from the new Era, 1945 that said this:
Quote:
When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.Then, in contrast, there are other talks that you need your own witness of the things leaders say. The quotes by others above present a gentler form of”informed obedience”. These gentler forms of obedience seem to soften the blind obedience we tend to associate with cults. That if you have exceptions, you have to work it out with the Lord (DHO),
But in my time in the church, the blind obedience model has been more prevalent than the informed obedience model. The blind obedience model is the one that tends to get mentioned over the pulpit more often than the informed obedience model.
How do we reconcile these views to define our culture? I think that when it comes to matters of testimony, or foundational features of our religion, then we encourage the “informed obedience model”. But after a person has expressed their faith or knowledge in the truthfulness of the church, there is a tendency to expect blind obedience.And notice how I used the term “informed obedience” model. Is there a successful “informed
disobedience” model? Not one that I think you can actively point to as advocating informed, disobedience in any conference talk, scripture etcetera. In fact, the closest we get is Holland’s statement that you can disagree individually, but consider taking people with you, then we have a problem…With the more extreme example of this found in the excommunication of Kate Kelly who tried to organize a collective voice on items they disagreed with. Heber13 wrote:Do the two disagree? Sure.
Does the bishop get direct and say “You are out of compliance. You must obey because as your leader, I say you must. Your own personal revelation is wrong.”
They don’t say that. As Kate said…it would be foolish.
They DO say that sometimes. DHO said that personal revelation cannot conflict with the priesthood line of revelation. They quote kicking against the pricks, they warn that they are “worried about you”, and in some cases, will deny you privileges based on what you said. Some actually get offended and take a really hard line with you, and may even invite you to take your name off the records of the church. And it doesn’t even have to be on hard core doctrine…..some of you saw the message I received from an ex-Bishop who invited me to leave it altogether to search for the truth elsewhere because I objected to our conscription model of callings and releases. And I did it myself as a High Priest Group Leader to others during HT blitzes…not my proudest moments. So, expressing contrarion ideas can lead to invitations to leave — there is not a lot of tolerance and acceptance for those who openly disagree.
Quote:At the end of the day, the UOM decides it is helpful to seek those things and try to get an answer for themselves, or they just see the bishop doesn’t see it the same way they do, and you stop talking to the bishop about it.
Yes, and as you can see from many other’s posts, you have to be VERY CAREFUL what you say to leaders in power. VERY careful. There is often fallout, and its not pretty if you do not agree with the textbook line of the church. You can only disagree within a certain range or get labelled apostate, disloyal, unworthy, etcetera.
For me, this trend in many leaders behavior (not all, but many) embodies the prevailing expectation of relatively blind obedience…
There is so little tolerance for disagreement, I believe it’s normally better not to disagree at all, except on highly local, implementaton based initaitives like local programs or things that aren’t fundamental. Go after fundamentals at your own risk….and make sure you do it completely alone.
The Church is not the same everywhere, and we all interpret the same words differently at times. It is good to keep that in mind.
Old Timer wrote:
The Church is not the same everywhere, and we all interpret the same words differently at times.It is good to keep that in mind.
Yes, that’s true. I find one thing that works in favor of the blind obedience model is that blind obedience stories can be very spiritual.
When you have someone giving up their free agency to a higher power [whether divine or an inspired leader], even in the face of illogical requests and it works out (or even fails, with a lesson learned], it releases quite a spiritual feeling. One of sacrifice of personal will, the expression of humility. And when it works out, the spiritual emotionalism that comes from the idea that benevolent God is out there doing what’s best for you and teaching you a lesson in the process can be very spiritual.
I think that phenomenon tends to further the blind obedience model….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.