- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I read the following scripture in Revelations years ago, and it’s always stuck with me: Quote:Rev. 3: 15-16
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
What does this mean for the article on How To Stay in the Church? I love the article — I think it provides a way for people to remain connected to all the goodness of the Church, without feeling they are being untrue to their intellect, themselves, etcetera. Being a member of the Church on their own terms, and still being open to its influence is a good thing. I personally would rather have someone stay in the Church by modifying their commitment and even adherence to certain commandments (within a feasible range) than have them leave entirely.
So, how do you reconcile the definite common sense of the “How To Stay In the Church” article presents, with the scripture above?
“Live what you believe to the best of your ability.” “Be dedicated to your beliefs.”
“Do your best.”
“Try your hardest to be true to yourself.”
“Don’t be lazy.”
“Be anxiously engaged in a good cause.”
I don’t think it says a thing about being close-minded, obsessive and/or fanatical. I think it simply says to be committed to your beliefs – and if charity and grace and kindness and meekness are part of those beliefs, not being an aggressive fanatic can be part of that commitment.
Be an awesome, motivated, excited and zealously mediocre Mormon 😆 😆 😆 Sure, I know some members will use that scripture to say people like us are lukewarm, and are therefore not accepted by God. I just hope Jesus doesn’t really eat us. That’s an even more literal interpretation. Whether he chews us up and swallows us, or spits us out… Scary stuff!
On a serious note, scripture interpretation often tells us more about the person interpreting than the “truth” or absolute meaning to the verses.
Perhaps god would be okay with a “lukewarm” Mormon who was ‘hot” when it comes to serving others, loving god, and and loving our fellow man, rather than a “Hot” Mormon who was “lukewarm” when it came to serving others, loving god and loving our fellow man. Maybe he would even prefer it. You know – that scripture was not written for Mormons only. I’m pretty sure that if one wants to take it literal, it would need to be literal for EVERYONE on the planet – Mormons, Catholics, Buddhist, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. In the staylds essay on Why stay, I quote: Why stay? When someone becomes disaffected from the LDS Church, it is quite common for them to be accused by family, friends, and fellow ward members of lacking faith and commitment. It is also common for them to be accused of grave sin or disobedience to church teachings. While we’re sure that this is true of some people, as we’ve communicated with over 1,500 disaffected Mormons over the past several years,it has been our experience that most disaffected LDS Church members were “guilty,” if anything, of caring too much about the church, not caring too little.I don’t see anyone as ‘lukewarm’ in this group. Rather as caring too much! In fact, “We’re mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!”
I think the scripture represents a kind of judgmental attitude by someone who happens to be in a committed period in their life as far as the gospel goes. It represents their looking at others from their own narrow perspective. I think it also shows a lack of charity. I think it depicts my attitude when I was a priesthood leader years ago when I had my out-group (the people who came to Sunday meeetings and socials, but wouldn’t lift a finger when it came to anything else), and my in-group — the uber-committed types. It’s an attitude I hope never to adopt again because it only leads to frustration.
Perhaps the scripture is referring to the attitude that will be taken on judgment day. I mean, ultimately, don’t we HAVE to get eventually to the point where we are firing on all cylinders and are hot and willing in our commitment eventually? The scripture implies that you can’t stay lukewarm forever. Eventually, those tendencies need to be replaced with high-level commitment at some point in our eternal journey…when, before its too late…I’m not sure.
Quote:“We’re mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!”
For the record, that doesn’t describe me – and, I suspect, most of the regulars here.
I take those verses to mean that we are to act, rather than be acted upon. Life is about making choices. Personally, I think life is more interesting if we make the bolder choice. Being conscious of how little we know or how much we doubt does not mean that we are lukewarm. I think another interpretation could be that we need to be progressing rather than being stagnant. Old-Timer wrote:Quote:“We’re mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!”
For the record, that doesn’t describe me – and, I suspect, most of the regulars here.
When I read Bridget’s post, I interpreted it differently. As someone who struggles with attitudes and weaknesses that cause me angst in the Church, I’ve often felt intense disapproval of the circumstances and angst I bring up on myself, and it motivates me to do something about it. Rather than let the weakness get you down, you demand that you do something about it because you’re just plain sick and tired of the negative effects. So being “mad as blazes” at one’s own less activity, unhappiness or other peace-disturbing tendencies is a good thing; it’s a call to personal action that should be encouraged, in my view.
And adopting some of the attitudes in the “How to Stay Active in the Church” article is one way of dealing with those maddening negative effects on your life.
Back when I had my run-in with the Bishopric and the injustice I was feeling, as well as the inactivity I was constantly fighting out of my life — I got this DRIVE to do what I had to in order to stay connectd with my Ward. So, I threatened to quit my calling and take my family to another Ward unless the situation could be brought to a “satisfactory resolution”. Some would argue I should’ve just forgiven and moved on, but I COULDN’T — all attempts had failed. So, I did what I had to, to take charge of the situation. And what I did helped. I felt more peace, stayed in my calling and stayed connected.
So, being mad as blazes at a situation, which motivates you to action may well be your saving grace at times. It was for me.
Now, I didn’t express the anger — everything was couched in gentleman’s langauge and described politely, but unerneath it all was EXTREME DISAPPROVAL for the circumstances I was in. It motivated me to stay in the church, and I made it through that trial of faith.
Today I look back at myself before the faith crisis and see that I was much more “lukewarm” then. I feel like I have much more purpose and understanding in everything I do now. I’ve decided a couple things after reading the Stay in the Church article — one is, I’m not beating myself up over not attending meetings that I see little value in -such as Stake Training on topics I’ve heard a buzillion times. Also, not going to accept callings that have the potential to disturb me due to certain interactions with people at Church. Not out bitterness, but out of self-preservation given some bad thinking tendencies I have I have one other commitment brewing that I also feel good about. But that I won’t be sharing that one. Also, unlike my last stint as Ward Leader, I’m also not going to accept a calling when I KNOW it’s going to keep me run off my feet as a I pursue my soont-to-be doctoral studies.
As I reflected on all these things, I felt such peace. And then, without all this stress on me, I started reflecting on who I might go forward and serve in our ward for service’s own sake. Isn’t it strange how church policies or procedures/expectations sometimes actually inhibit us from showing pure love for people due to how busy they can make us? And how letting go of certain cultural expectations can actually make you more committed?
SD, I agree – and I’m just saying that it’s important to be clear that anger certainly has a place in the process in which we are engaged for many people, but it’s not the continuing condition for which we are striving here. Anger might get some/many to the place where they can begin to craft their own belief structure within Mormonism – but it certainly doesn’t have to be the case for all/most/many. bridget, I didn’t mean my previous statement to be a criticism. I meant it simply to be a statement. Many of us are HERE, at this particular site, because we no longer are “angry” – at least to the extent that existed previously for some. Some here used to spend more time at other sites where anger is the norm; it’s not the norm here. Of course, there still is anger to a degree even with people here – but it’s not the underlying reason for this site, and I hope sincerely it is dissipating for each person here over time.
I also think there is a tendency to equate great passion with the verses quoted in this post – and there is a degree of validity to that interpretation, I am sure. However, for me personally, I simply have never liked the phrase “mad as Hell” – since I always have seen that phrase as very destructive. I probably wrote a bit more curtly than I meant to do because of how I view that phrase. I don’t think being “mad as Hell” is a proper interpretation of the verse to be hot or cold.
SilentDawning wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Quote:“We’re mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!”
For the record, that doesn’t describe me – and, I suspect, most of the regulars here.
When I read Bridget’s post, I interpreted it differently. As someone who struggles with attitudes and weaknesses that cause me angst in the Church, I’ve often felt intense disapproval of the circumstances and angst I bring up on myself, and it motivates me to do something about it. Rather than let the weakness get you down, you demand that you do something about it because you’re just plain sick and tired of the negative effects. So being “mad as blazes” at one’s own less activity, unhappiness or other peace-disturbing tendencies is a good thing; it’s a call to personal action that should be encouraged, in my view.
And adopting some of the attitudes in the “How to Stay Active in the Church” article is one way of dealing with those maddening negative effects on your life.
Back when I had my run-in with the Bishopric and the injustice I was feeling, as well as the inactivity I was constantly fighting out of my life — I got this DRIVE to do what I had to in order to stay connectd with my Ward. So, I threatened to quit my calling and take my family to another Ward unless the situation could be brought to a “satisfactory resolution”. Some would argue I should’ve just forgiven and moved on, but I COULDN’T — all attempts had failed. So, I did what I had to, to take charge of the situation. And what I did helped. I felt more peace, stayed in my calling and stayed connected.
So, being mad as blazes at a situation, which motivates you to action may well be your saving grace at times. It was for me.
Now, I didn’t express the anger — everything was couched in gentleman’s langauge and described politely, but unerneath it all was EXTREME DISAPPROVAL for the circumstances I was in. It motivated me to stay in the church, and I made it through that trial of faith.
THANK YOU Silent Dawning. That is what I meant. Bridget
Old-Timer wrote:SD, I agree – and I’m just saying that it’s important to be clear that anger certainly has a place in the process in which we are engaged for many people, but it’s not the continuing condition for which we are striving here. Anger might get some/many to the place where they can begin to craft their own belief structure within Mormonism – but it certainly doesn’t have to be the case for all/most/many.
bridget, I didn’t mean my previous statement to be a criticism. I meant it simply to be a statement. Many of us are HERE, at this particular site, because we no longer are “angry” – at least to the extent that existed previously for some. Some here used to spend more time at other sites where anger is the norm; it’s not the norm here. Of course, there still is anger to a degree even with people here – but it’s not the underlying reason for this site, and I hope sincerely it is dissipating for each person here over time.
I also think there is a tendency to equate great passion with the verses quoted in this post – and there is a degree of validity to that interpretation, I am sure. However, for me personally, I simply have never liked the phrase “mad as Hell” – since I always have seen that phrase as very destructive. I probably wrote a bit more curtly than I meant to do because of how I view that phrase. I don’t think being “mad as Hell” is a proper interpretation of the verse to be hot or cold.
Ray, I do understand where you are coming from. And it is not good to go around mad with a chip on your shoulder. I know this group is to help us come to terms with our thoughts and feelings about the church. I just used the term in the context from a movie I saw once. There are moments when we feel such ‘righteous indignation” (not sure if that is the right term) but this anger at injustices, whether it is from being over taxed or for feeling judged just because you have doubts or questions about the church.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:“We’re mad as hell, and not going to take it anymore!”
For the record, that doesn’t describe me – and, I suspect, most of the regulars here.
Yet I think that’s a place we have experienced, recognized, avoided, and learned not to be.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.