- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
Fwiw, there came a time when the garments became a symbol of loyalty to the church and pharasacial apostasy to me. They were causing me a tremendous amount of negative spiritual energy and were a huge distraction to my spiritual journey. I quit wearing them. Some might call me arrogant and prideful for what I just said, but i dont give a damn.
It took awhile, but I’m comfortable with my decision, and can focus more on the gods and the true Gospel.
But, I also know and accept I will not be getting a TR anytime soon, and am relegated to a lower grade tier Mormon at this time.
See, I don’t see you as a lower grade Mormon — or anyone who is without a temple recommend. Sure, there are certain callings you can’t have — but do you want them even? We are all at different levels, at different times. There may well be a time when a certain percent of the Bishops currently serving in the church will be without a TR. I know we have one in our Ward right now who was that way for years, and then shared that fact with me….
Forgotten_Charity wrote:cwald wrote:But, I also know and accept I will not be getting a TR anytime soon, and am relegated to a lower grade tier Mormon at this time.
People don’t come in tiers Cwald. No matter what anyone says. This is what “love the sinner hate the sin” tells us(or at least me). I stand in opposition to the idea of tiered people that has been used to subvert or take from others those thought to be “lower tiered”.
We would like to think not, but it is a reality — there is a caste system in the church:Highest tier: the inner circle of friends and families of GAs now and past. These are the elect.
Next tier: TR holders who have or have held leadership positions. These are the local elite.
Next tier: TR holders. These are the card-carriers.
Next tier: Active non-TR holders. These are the ‘developmental’ ones.
Next tier: less actives. These are the ‘projects’.
Lowest tier: apostates that need to be pushed out.
Please tell me that I’m wrong — I’ve been in most of these tiers, except for the top one, and there is a MATERIAL difference from tier to tier. Middle Way mormons may be found in almost any tier, but to those who are hard-line in their beliefs (at any of the top three tiers), Middle Wayers are “lowest tier” – Apostates that need to be pushed out. I can choose to be Middle Way, either practicing enough to have a TR or by simply not practicing enough to have a TR, and depending upon the priesthood leaders I have (aka Priesthood Roulette), I can either be accepted and embraced, tolerated, or rejected.
Quote:Middle Way mormons may be found in almost any tier, but to those who are hard-line in their beliefs (at any of the top three tiers), Middle Wayers are “lowest tier” – Apostates that need to be pushed out.
Quote:“Tell me if I’m wrong.”
You’re wrong.
It’s true of some “hard-liners” but absolutely not true of others. For example, Pres. Packer is as hard-line as it gets in some areas, but, based on lots of other things he has said over the years, I doubt seriously that he would like to push out ANY member simply because of heterodox views (and many heterodox actions) or view a TR-holding heterodox member lower than an inactive member.
I also think it’s incredibly important to add that our currect church is not “your father’s church” in many, many ways. (or the church of your and my youth, specifically) It is MUCH better in regard to heterodox memebrs, especially active ones, than it used to be – cases like cwald’s branch notwithstanding.
Forgotten_Charity wrote:People don’t come in tiers Cwald. No matter what anyone says…
I respectfully disagree.
There is no caste system in the gospel. But there certainly is a caste system in the church, IMO.
The church is all about the caste system. The “temple recommend” has been the key since the start…when JS used it as a way to distinguish those loyal to him and the church, and prepared them for “celestial marriage.”
Even today, we have continue to take it a step further and have an elite club that you can only be nominated and invited into by a current member, known as the “second anointed” club.
-sigh-
But thanks anyway. I appreciate it.
SilentDawning wrote:Sure, there are certain callings you can’t have — but do you want them even? ….
No. I don’t. But I would and did accept them for years as a matter of duty and service. But that is old hat.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Middle Way mormons may be found in almost any tier, but to those who are hard-line in their beliefs (at any of the top three tiers), Middle Wayers are “lowest tier” – Apostates that need to be pushed out.
“Tell me if I’m wrong.”
You’re wrong.
It’s true of some “hard-liners” but absolutely not true of others. For example, Pres. Packer is as hard-line as it gets in some areas, but, based on lots of other things he has said over the years, I doubt seriously that he would like to push out ANY member simply because of heterodox views (and many heterodox actions) or view a TR-holding heterodox member lower than an inactive member.
I also think it’s incredibly important to add that our currect church is not “your father’s church” in many, many ways. (or the church of your and my youth, specifically) It is MUCH better in regard to heterodox memebrs, especially active ones, than it used to be – cases like cwald’s branch notwithstanding.
ray… “to those that are hard-line in their beliefs, middlewayers are ‘lowest tier'”. Then you tell me that I’m wrong, but then you say, “It’s true that some hardliners….” ok…I think my father’s church (of the 50s) was a lot less hard-line than the church of BKP. 1982-1993 were very rough for all of us, and then again, 2008… It comes and goes. I stand by the fact that hard-liners want us out, or at least relegated to somewhere other than front-line. It’s what we have to deal with. Maybe it’s not the majority, it certainly isn’t the policy. But we can’t deny it — it’s part of the reason many of us are here.
Old-Timer wrote:Pres. Packer is as hard-line as it gets … I doubt seriously that he would like to push out ANY member simply because of heterodox views.
Whoa, whoa, wait just a minute. Are we talking about the same Boyd K Packer who was largely responsible for ousting the September Six? We recently discussed one of them, Maxine Hanks, who was rebaptized, reportedly without being asked to recant any of the previous views and/or statements for which she was excommunicated in the first place. Does that mean that it didn’t really happen? Did the definition of the word “heterodox” just change? Are we speaking the same language?
Seriously, sometimes the way you guys talk I wonder if we’re even talking about the same church.
We love ray, especially when he puts on those cute rose-colored glasses… wayfarer wrote:We love ray, especially when he puts on those cute rose-colored glasses…
You mean the ones through which he sees darkly? I wonder if it’s possible that’s what Paul had in mind?I said quite clearly that the situation now is different than the situation 20-50 years ago (roughly the days of wayfarer’s and my youth) – and I really do think that Pres. Packer currently doesn’t want to push out temple-recommend holding members with heterodox beliefs and doesn’t see them as at a lower tier than inactive members. I didn’t say he is a warm and fuzzy supporter of all things heterodox. I made a very narrow claim – and I think the reaction to that claim says a lot about how even those of us here who remain actively involved have to be careful of immediate emotional reactions to things we read into what others say that often aren’t in the words themselves. If we can do it so easily even at a site like this among friends, consider how easily we can do it in other situations.
Much of the tension and conflict between heterodoxy and orthodoxy is the fault of the orthodox – but there is more that lies at our own doors than we often realize.
It seems we’re going a little far afield from the original subject re: garments, but I’ll bite on the caste system question and the church’s tolerance of heterodoxy. It’s pretty well common knowledge that there have been two large-scale movements towards homodoxy in the church, spearheaded by F. Smith and Fielding Smith and their acolytes. Prior to F. Smith, there was a very active, robust “Mormon mysticism” embodied by such luminaries as B.H. Robert, John Widsoe, Talmage, etc. They wrote, spoke and preached topics such as pre-Adamite races, second anointings, etc. F. Smith promptly tamped all that down, but of course it doesn’t stay down. Other “progressives,” for lack of a better word, came along, most notably Hugh Brown. Then Fielding Smith, McKonkie, BKP et al re-established the homodoxy, instituted correlation, made a subscription to Sunstone the opposite of a temple recommend, and got us all wearing white shirts, blue suits and red ties.
The church has a long history of ebbing and flowing between heterodoxy and reactionism – it seems we’re swinging a bit to the former right now, but I wouldn’t count the other side out.
Just want to thank Brian Johnston for the information and the manner in which he presents it…. I have not yet read the entire conversation following the initial post because I was too excited to finally have a place to give my two cents. The reality and the idea of garments is one that has weighed heavily on my mind for quite some time now and still causes me a certain amount of pain and guilt to consider. Here goes. From a purely objective standpoint, garments have at least as many up-sides as they do down-sides. Consider this article (which I know has been linked here before):
http://www.wham1180.com/pages/boblonsberry.html?article=10037569#.T5S6pFPUVj What a beautiful thing! For a people of any background to have such a desire to serve God that they will commit to a sacred garment of any kind and submit to all the necessary sacrifices attached for the rest of their lives! I have a deep admiration and respect for people with such faith that they do not feel complete in their worship unless they can wear it on their skin.
Additionally, garments are an extremely effective personal reminder to the wearer of their relationship with God, and have the side benefit of regulating modesty standards, making any kind of sexual appearance nearly impossible and making unchaste behavior rather inconvenient.
From a human, emotional, personal standpoint, garments have done me more emotional and spiritual harm than good. Being happily married and sealed to a wonderful husband, I too have found garments to be a limitation and a hardship in developing physical and emotional intimacy with my spouse. Also, because of the attitudes of those closest to me and the experiences that I have had since becoming endowed, garments have become strongly associated with feelings of guilt, shame, sacrifice and a lack of agency rather than an expression of my faith and devotion to a God that I love. I have recently made the decision to stop wearing my garments so that I can have a chance to heal from the negative emotional scars I have developed concerning them (which I recognize was my own misunderstandings and not the fault of the church), and I may one day feel recovered enough to begin wearing them again. But I may not.
I also recognize that a major purpose of garments is to be a symbol of the covenants we made upon endowment. It makes sense from a universal view, and especially from a religious institutional view, to have a physical association to any moment in your life that you make an important promise to yourself and to God to become better. The church is a good source for those moments. All the covenants made in this religion can be and are very useful in living a good, faithful life, and some sort of physical manifestation of that is extremely effective (especially if worn at all times for the rest of your life).
I have come to believe that, while those symbols are highly useful,
they are not inherently required to either keep your covenants or to make it back to God’s presence.We certainly may be blessed for constantly wearing the garments, but I do not believe that any blessings will be held back from us by choosing to show our faith and commitment in other ways.
So while I feel at peace in my decision to give them up for now, my only regret is that it is the only thing preventing me from attending the temple. I would like to be able to adopt a mindset that can justify answering yes to that particular TR question, but I just can’t. My DH has been so wonderfully understanding and adaptive, but it breaks my heart to see him carry on our traditional thursday night temple trip alone.
Meoclew wrote:So while I feel at peace in my decision to give them up for now, my only regret is that it is the only thing preventing me from attending the temple. I would like to be able to adopt a mindset that can justify answering yes to that particular TR question, but I just can’t. My DH has been so wonderfully understanding and adaptive, but it breaks my heart to see him carry on our traditional thursday night temple trip alone.
Personally, I see no reason you need to stop going to the temple due to the emotional challenges you have around the garment.Here is a threadsomething to consider is that personal and emotional healing is far more important than rote obedience. if you are striving to keep your covenants, finding ways to wear the garment in a limited way that works, then there is no reason you need to withhold going with your husband to the temple.
Meoclew wrote:I have come to believe that, while those symbols are highly useful,
they are not inherently required to either keep your covenants or to make it back to God’s presence.
I love this! Thank you. Perfectly said. I have come to believe the same thing. I just kept thinking and turning it around in my mind… Would my God, my father who is perfect love, hold me away because I do not wear a certain symbol? I just can’t see that.
I have read the other suggestions on how to answer the temple questions, and I still struggle with them thinking I cannot answer that question and feel like I am doing so completely honestly. Yes, if you turn things around enough ways, you can make an answer fit. But it still seems like more of a distortion of the truth on my end if I answer yes to the question “do you wear them day and night?” I know full well that I haven’t in years and have no desire to. I thought about wearing them once in a while just so I could say yes, I thought of other ways to justify a yes. While it’s acceptable for me to know other people here doing it, I don’t know how I feel about that personally. I had been wanting so much to go to the temple and be sealed my youngest son. My other kids were sealed to me in my first marriage but my 2 year old baby is from my second. It cannot be heaven without him. I have suffered much torment because my current situation will not allow me to step foot in a temple. Maybe for years. Maybe forever.
But as I started thinking about my problem with symbols… that symbols are a useful exercise as a spiritual constant reminder, I do not believe they would keep me from the God I believe in. If it would keep me from God, I would not be sure I would want to worship that God. My God would not be so petty.
And then I started thinking… and what is the temple? It is a symbol in which symbols are exercised, practiced, and taught. It’s all symbolic… every last thing about and inside the temple. Will God really not let me keep my baby because no matter how much I learn of charity, and no matter how pure my heart and my service to others, I did not perform all the necessary symbols? I think I would not want to worship that God. Is it so necessary to seal families? The husband/wife pair I get, sort of. But as I read somewhere on this board, I think it was Brian, said we seem to picture out small nuclear family sealed: as in a husband and wife and all their little children frozen as children forever. At some point those kids become adults, and while I while always love them and have motherly feelings for them, I expect them to someday be my equals, leaving me to be with their spouses and children. And if everyone is sealed, all the way back to Adam and Eve, we are all sealed to everyone, including our exes and such, so is it redundant? IDK. As the other thread pointed out, just as funerals are not for the dead, but for the living, perhaps temple ordinances are not so much for the filling of the letter of the law of the Gospel, but for us in our confused mortal state. We need to have exercises to get us focused on eternal principles, to turn our hearts to service, to take steps in disciplining ourselves etc. Maybe it’s not the end, but a step of discipline that can help us get to the end. Perhaps there are indeed other steps on other paths that can help us achieve the same end. That is just one step now that many people can take in this world, in this dispensation.
So I thought maybe temples are not as essential to salvation as we currently think. Maybe they are an exercise in disciplining our minds and hearts. They are good and worthy symbols. But they are symbols. Most of those symbols, as we know, were inspired from JS’s experience with the Masons anyway, and not detailed directly by God. So maybe I can come up with my own symbols and do my own meditations that can accomplish the same thing. Maybe I don’t need to go to that place and go through those motions, and endure the longing and torment that I may not make it to that place and it will cost me my child, because a petty God dictates it must be so. Maybe this is a heresy that will send me to hell, but I don’t think so. I long to be with my Father, I yearn for things of the spirit and of growth. I do not think He would cast me away because I must find my own path to Him.
Still, I went to the Brigham City temple open house. As I walked through those halls and beheld the most beautiful details of the celestial room, how I longed to be there in the quiet, just sitting, thinking, communing. But my hands are tied and I cannot get there unless God opens a door for me that I cannot. I have tried so many times. It has to do with other people and their agency and I have no control over them. But my recent thoughts have brought me to a place that I am letting go of that guilt and angst and terror that I might not be doing everything 100% right for my kids. I will have to find my temple outside the temple. And if God wants me, He knows where I am. And I am still not putting on my garments until and if I receive a personal revelation that He really wants me to.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.