Looking Beyond the Mark

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

I’m interested in hearing more from Shawn on how this works:

Shawn wrote:

All we have to do is focus on the “fundamental gospel truths, which provide a basis for faith.”

and how that reconciles with D&C 9:7-9.

Well, I guess I would consider the context (translating ancient records) and consider what topics would be appropriate to study out in my mind and take to the Lord. I think I don’t need to do this with the timing of the Second Coming, evolution, Brigham Young quotes, polygamy, etc. How to increase faith in Christ, repent, follow the Spirit, and serve others would be good things to consider.

wayfarer wrote:

To say the Church is the only true and living church is looking well beyond the mark and worshipping the creation rather than the creator. This is idolatry.

The Church is not the Way. Jesus said, “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Those that place the Church at the center and insist that it only can save are looking beyond the mark.

Scriptures are not the Truth. To Pharisees that insisted that the Scriptures were the only source of Truth and Life, and studied them endlessly, Jesus said, “Ye search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, but they do not, because scriptures testify of me, and ‘I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.'” Those that insist on endless searching of scripture are looking beyond the mark.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church set up by Christ and administer saving ordinances. Those ordinances will be available to everyone eventually. Simply saying that’s it’s the true church in no way constitutes “worshipping the creation rather than the creator.” I am with you on Jesus being the way, but He is one who set up the Church to help us on the path. If someone really does focus on Church structure and policies more than the Savior, then they are missing the point, I guess. If saying “The Church is not the Way” is used as an excuse to skip church, I call rubbish 🙂 The scriptures are true, but not the only truth. If regular study of the scriptures equals “endless searching,” then it is a very good thing.

And I call rubbish to your rubbish comment. 🙂

It is my belief that the church is one Way, one pathway, one of many, that people can find the gods and peace, in this life, and perhaps the next.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Well, I will keep you in my prayers, Shawn. I’m still active and have strong testimonies of Christ, His church, Joseph Smith, the scriptures, modern-day prophets, and latter-day continuing revelation. I have posted some topics on here, but I mainly read comments. I enjoy finding out how other people deal with staying in the church after having some faith struggles. Sometimes they are negative. Other times they are positive and uplifting. I agree that this site is not for everyone. I also agree, Shawn, that the Gospel is simple. Living in the Church and living in this world isn’t always so simple because life has gray areas. I really believe that Christ’s wants to do the best we can to become like Him through following in His footsteps. We are given the Holy Ghost to discern truth. Christ is still needed because we will not always follow the Spirit. Not always because we don’t want to but because we won’t always know or believe when the Holy Ghost is speaking to us. When all is said and done in this life, only Heavenly Father and Christ will be able to judge all things and everyone perfectly because they are without sin, we are not. Well, anyway, Shawn, I’m happy for you in your renewed faith in Christ and His church and I pray that you will continue to grow spiritually in that faith.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I really wish that others here could have a similar experience

I’m going to say this as gently as possible, with a grin of love on my face as I type, but I dare say I and lots of others here HAVE had “a similar experience” (and, just perhaps, an even stronger experience or two or twenty) – and that is precisely why some people here still “stayLDS” depsite certain concerns and ohter expereinces. (even truly horrible experiences with members of the Church, in some cases.

Please consider that possibility and try to avoid brushing with a huge, indescriminate brush.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

Quote:

Shawn wrote:The witness I received really made my concerns go away. I felt at peace with everything.

…This is truth, this is beauty and sacred. Your personal revelation that helps you is a good thing to hear, and we need to have people share what they find and their personal experiences. It can help inspire others. But it can’t be forced upon others as the only way.

You are right. It can’t be forced. I really wish that others here could have a similar experience, though. Maybe some could benefit by letting go of some issues.

I have received a similar witness in a time when I was in a very dark place and was hurting on multiple levels. In discussing this later with my bishop, he said that sometimes a person goes through an experience that forces them to demolish old assumptions until they get to the internal bedrock of truth that doesn’t break and won’t fracture. The individual can then use that firm position as an anchor to rebuild a more sturdy and consistent internal structure. He said that he had gone through this same process and come out the other end. But it was apparent from our discussion that his bedrock truth was different than mine or rather that I had to dig deeper or fall further before I found my witness and was able to regain a solid footing.

I cannot deny my witness; it is as true to me as anything I hold dear. How do I explain how my former bishop and I hit bedrock truth at different places and in different ways and interpreted it so differently? I like to think that God will interact with us on our level and will therefore meet us where we are. This does not mean that all roads lead to God but rather that God can walk down all roads to claim his children.

This for me also helps me to understand how BY can have incorrect racist views and still have communion with God – because God does not require that we are perfect before he will stoop to touch our souls. Nor do I believe that having this inspiration from God will make one correct on all (or even most) topics from henceforth. I think that somtimes God just reaches down to stop the freefall at a place and moment that we (as individuals) are prepared to accept.

I believe that your witness is from God, that it is true, and that its purpose is to bless your life.

You are known! You are loved! Blessed be!

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I really wish that others here could have a similar experience

I’m going to say this as gently as possible, with a grin of love on my face as I type, but I dare say I and lots of others here HAVE had “a similar experience” (and, just perhaps, an even stronger experience or two or twenty) – and that is precisely why some people here still “stayLDS” depsite certain concerns and ohter expereinces. (even truly horrible experiences with members of the Church, in some cases.

Please consider that possibility and try to avoid brushing with a huge, indescriminate brush.

The experience I was referring to “made my concerns go away. I felt at peace with everything.” If people still have serious concerns, maybe they didn’t have a similar experience, or they have had such an experience but need another.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church set up by Christ and administer saving ordinances. Those ordinances will be available to everyone eventually. Simply saying that’s it’s the true church in no way constitutes “worshipping the creation rather than the creator.” I am with you on Jesus being the way, but He is one who set up the Church to help us on the path. If someone really does focus on Church structure and policies more than the Savior, then they are missing the point, I guess. If saying “The Church is not the Way” is used as an excuse to skip church, I call rubbish 🙂 The scriptures are true, but not the only truth. If regular study of the scriptures equals “endless searching,” then it is a very good thing.

Hmmm. A very good friend of mine, a former bishop, very TBM, and I were talking recently. I have a tradition of asking him if the church is still ‘true’. It’s meant as humor, and he takes it as such. His response used to be ‘of course it is!”, but now it’s “What does that word ‘true’ mean?” He has a point. If ‘true’ means perfect, 100% free of falsehood, subterfuge, defect, or deception, then I would have to say, based upon objective criteria, “The church is not true”. Even if we say that ‘the church is true’ and mean that it is an exact reflection of the church as established by Jesus Christ in around 33 CE, then I would also have to say, based upon very objective criteria, not it is not ‘true’ to that either, although in some way it is a better reflection of the original jewish christian “Followers of the Way” as they were called. This I can demonstrate from extensive research into the primitive church.

Then when you say, “The church is the only true and living church on the earth,” I wonder what you mean. I wonder what any means when they say this. I used to say this. With conviction!!! Yet, aside from a rote statement that I learned growing up, I have no real basis for making this claim. I don’t take anything away from the divinity of the church by saying that I have found a tremendous amount of divinity elsewhere in all traditions, but I choose to stay LDS for a lot of reasons, but not that it is the only true and living church on the face of the earth.

If saying that helps you feel more secure in your testimony, then please have at it. But let me give you a scenario. I have had the chance to work with some very interesting people in India. The grandson of one of the founders of modern india was my sponsor to do the work I did there. I met people who lived and worked with Mother Teresa. As we talked about Mother Teresa, they conveyed a personal side that was known to very few — a woman of exceptional spirituality and humility, who gave of everything she had to sanctify the poor of India. When I walked into the LDS churches in India, I found a pseudo-utah culture, where persons of indian origin are trying to be american utahns, completely divested of the spirituality of their culture. The District President asked to speak to me, and thinking he would offer me a calling, instead, knowing of the seniority of my position in my company, he needed a job. Ok, I got you. You need help. But I really struggled to find in any LDS the depth of spirituality of those who truly knew their own spirit and culture.

Likewise, I have worked closely with people of every culture. I find no uniqueness among LDS that sets us apart morally or ethically from anyone else in the world. My hindu colleagues have extraordinarily chaste families, teach exceptional values, and have eternal love that I cannot deny in the least. To say that I have the only true and living church is a meaningless braggadocio against the backdrop of humanity. If I offend you, please understand that I was in your position, and having travelled through all these faith traditions, I see things differently. To make a claim that “The Church is the Only True and Living Church on the Earth”, means that you have some credibility to say that statement, that you’ve actually lived in the other churches, and by some degree of comparison, you can say what you’re saying.

And I’m not saying this to diminish your testimony. I simply ask that if you make a claim, that the basis of that claim be at least, tested if testable. “true” has a meaning — the generally accepted meaning is free from falsehood. If the Church makes a bona-fide claim, and that claim is false, then it cannot be ‘true’ by the standard, generally accepted meaning. There are other meanings of ‘true’, for example, ‘true for you’ is a relative claim, and cannot be dismissed as easily as the general ‘true’ [for all] claim. I am willing to say that the church is ‘true’, meaning ‘true for me’, and meaning ‘directionally true’, but in so saying, I have the risk of sounding like I am claiming that it is true for all and without falsehood. And therein lies a problem.

As for the Church being the ‘only one set up by Christ’, that is a debatable claim. First, it is not entirely clear that Christ set up a church. Early followers did form an authoritative, priesthood-based organization within the context of Judaism. They also leveraged the authority of early leaders as Jewish authorities — James the Just was somehow empowered to officiate in the Jerusalem temple, and he was also the first Bishop of the Jerusalem branch of the church, and most likely presiding bishop of the church as well as an after-the-first-12 apostle. He was very, very Jewish, and very, very Christian — they harmonized this. But even if we make the claim that Christ organized the church originally, then at least six churches currently can lay claim to direct succession from apostles. Christ ‘formed’ these churches as well.

There is the question of your clause ‘and administer saving ordinances’. This is a claim, but a self-referential claim. If the church says that certain ordinances are necessary for salvation, then to be saved according to definition, you must have them, then the church is the only one authorized to do those specific ordinances. Aside from baptism, the definition of LDS saving ordinances are not to be found in the bible, nor are they part of the original church at all. Nothing in the original church, nor in the Jerusalem temple rite in which James officiated, had anything to do with masonry. Washings, annointings, endowments, sealings, and second annointings are without precedent in the primitive church; and the ‘washing of feet’ was meant as an object lesson in enlightened leadership rather than an advanced priesthood ordinance representing purification. Bear in mind that the nature and structure of LDS saving ordinances has radically changed from the beginning of the church, so how does the claim of the church having unique control over these ordinances have any meaning?

But more to the point of ‘going beyond the mark’. You quoted the following:

Jacob 4:14 wrote:

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

People who are disaffected do not despise the words of plainness, nor do they kill the prophets. Instead, they wonder how the gospel of simplicity could have gotten so convoluted with doctrines of blood atonement, polygyny, polyandry, kolob, Adam-as-God, Adam-as-Alien, Elohim-having-sex-with-Mary, etc. Who is the parallel of the Jews versus the family of Lehi? Lehi left Jerusalem because the Jews were out of control in trying to control their people. “Looking beyond the mark” is another expression for how Jews would “Build a Fence around the Law”, adding law upon law beyond the law to make it impossible to violate the law, and in so doing became less than plain. If you use the term ‘look beyond the mark’, who does it better apply to today? The NOMs who point out the lies and deception of the church? or the Church which lies and deceives to keep people in line? When BY taught that Adam was God, was that the gospel, or looking beyond the mark? Was it something that was difficult to understand? I think the indictment in Jacob applies far more fitly to the pharisaical tendencies of the church than it does to disaffected membeers.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

I think the “How to Stay” essay really does encourage jack mormonism, but I didn’t call any person a jack mormon 🙂

:thumbup: Good correction…you are right, you didn’t call anyone a jack mormon. Thanks for clarifying.

Shawn wrote:

Quite passionately I said “With all the stuff Brigham Young said, there is no way he could have been a prophet. And the Church changes according to the trends of the world – it is just 20 or so years behind. Why can’t the Gospel be simpler? Why does all that crap get in the way?” I voiced some other concerns (I can’t’ really remember it all), and my wife was upset and crying. …Anyway, she strongly said, “…The Gospel is simple and beautiful.” She totally owned me.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was a website people could come to and receive support on knowing how to talk about these things productively, prior to having to “passionately” blurt things out and cause pain and harm to loved ones and ward members, or their loved ones can come and increase compassion through understanding? Or find a place to talk about things when their shelf collapsed after putting so many things up on it for years and years, and look for a new option other than just leave the church in haste all together? Not a website to introduce negative things…but a forum to know what to do after having a crisis and feeling alone not knowing how to handle it? Maybe a website where others can share how they handled their similar experiences, and what worked and what didn’t? Something to give people hope they can survive the “dark night of the soul”? :angel:

I feel VERY strongly, the long-term solution is not to stay away from websites, put issues on the back burner or the shelf, and just pray and stick to simple gospel principles and life will be just fine. These issues are out there, people stumble across them knocking them out of Stage 3 involuntarily. I believe the Savior will want us to reach out to those in need of support, and validate their experience, and realize they are on a journey. God allows others to wallow in the mud at times.

Quote:

“It’s like growing lotus flowers. You cannot grow lotus flowers on marble. You have to grow them on the mud. Without mud, you cannot have a lotus flower. Without suffering, you have no ways in order to learn how to be understanding and compassionate. That’s why my definition of the kingdom of God is not a place where suffering is not, where there is no suffering…”

Once a flower has bloomed, it cannot turn back to the other seeds in the mud and simply say…get out of the mud, its much better here in the sunlight.

Shawn wrote:

The experience I was referring to “made my concerns go away. I felt at peace with everything.”

Is it possible to have this experience and enjoy the peace and the warmth of the Spirit, you first had to be allowed to wrestle things out in your own mind, in your own way, in your own time, in your own mud? Perhaps God lovingly allowed you to do so, that you may learn wisdom and compassion through such an experience. The beautiful thing about your experience is…you did not have to remain in the mud. It is a story of hope.

I think we all need to be allowed that freedom to wrestle it out. Members of the church need to show compassion when others have their turn in the mud. I have not found people come to this site looking for an easy way out, or to rationalize rules. They come because they care so much about the church and the Lord…they are willing to spend hours studying it out in their minds, so that the Lord can then send them the peace you also experienced on that Sunday. I have felt that too. I do not think we need to fear doubt, or asking questions, if we are seeking truth and goodness.

[Anonymous]

See my last comment, Shawn. Having said that, I am a huge fan of multiple, continuing spiritual experiences. :thumbup:

Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

[Anonymous]

I’m feeling a bit hoodwinked here. Shawn came onto StayLDS on 07-Jun-2012, posted a few rebuttles to questions of belief, and then yesterday, posts a very long message saying that we on StayLDS are “Looking Beyond the Mark”, misquoting a scripture used to refer to the jewish propensity to make up arbitrary laws to enforce on members. What utter irony.

While I accept that Shawn understands some of problems with the Church’s foundational truth claims, I seriously doubt if the toothpaste ever really left the tube. I’m done on this thread. moving on.

[Anonymous]

I read through this and I’m actually quite impressed with how people responded to the opening post. I know at first I thought it was a bit harsh for us here, but am impressed with the way people in general responded. And many of Shawn’s own responses showed an open-mindedeness to willingness to reflect on the discussion. It convinces me there is something deep and spiritual to be gained from listening to the advice of the people who frequent this forum. I have been on other religion-oriented forums and find it takes a lot less to push everyone into flaming etcetra, which doesn’t seem to have happened here.

Regardless of differences in orientation toward the church, there is a sense that people have worked on their personal character to be able to participate in a thread like this successfully.

I also want to add, the ONLY reason I stay active in the Church is because I’ve had those powerful spiritual experiences Shawn mentioned earlier. Ray said it and I echo that statement. It’s not so much the doctrine, the history or the things most people find objectionable for me, and its not lack of testimony or basic commandment-keeping either.

The experiences I’ve had in the church alone would have propelled me into another church, or out of organized religion for a very long time if I did not have a testimony — the kind where you get up from your prayer thinking something huge and spiritual and deep and meaningful has just happened to you. Which has happened to me at different times in my life, and during teaching appointments as a FT missionary.

So, in my case, any fears of lack of testimony aren’t really the concern.

I just want to put that one the table so its clear that some of us have issues that are completely outside of commandment-keeping and testimony. And looking directly at the mark for a very long time, and making sacrifices in tht direction is part of the reason I had to come to StayLDS in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Shawn, may God bless you in your search.

Just some thoughts that may help you understand others…

{disclaimer} If these things effect your testimony, then please dismiss them.

1st of all…” the Church”… What Church?

-The body of Christ that Paul mentions.

-The Church that was restored by Joseph Smith.

-The corporation that has established “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” as it’s trademark.

I submit that with a little open-minded and prayerful research you will come to realize that these are three VERY different things.

As Elder Poelman once said, (paraphrasing)… the Gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect (true) and the church is a really good delivery mechanism for that truth. Nothing more, nothing less. But…they should not be confused with one another.

Personally, I almost take pride in the term “jack mormon”. Could we agree that Jesus was a “jack jew”…in that He challenged the status quo? Those miracles on the sabbath probably violated the “handbook of instructions” of His day.

I’m on a roll so I’ll use some hyperbole….

-Do you suppose those jerks that flew the planes into our buildings ever had a “spiritual witness” to the truth of what they were doing? If we fall into the “my spiritual witness is better than your spiritual witness” trap, we can easily lose our ability to grow and progress.

Just sayin…. best wishes.

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

the Gospel of Jesus Christ is perfect (true) and the church is a really good delivery mechanism for that truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unless the Church is as true as the Gospel: http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1999_e_004.pdf

It all depends on what your definition of the word “is” is…. 😈

[Anonymous]

Good one Roy… :clap:

Shawn,

Many of us just can’t accept the “blind obedience”….”follow the prophet” mentality. If you decide to, that is your choice just please be true to yourself. That’s pretty much all of us here are trying to do.

May God bless you and yours….

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Hmmm. A very good friend of mine, a former bishop, very TBM, and I were talking recently. I have a tradition of asking him if the church is still ‘true’. It’s meant as humor, and he takes it as such. His response used to be ‘of course it is!”, but now it’s “What does that word ‘true’ mean?” He has a point. If ‘true’ means perfect, 100% free of falsehood, subterfuge, defect, or deception, then I would have to say, based upon objective criteria, “The church is not true”. Even if we say that ‘the church is true’ and mean that it is an exact reflection of the church as established by Jesus Christ in around 33 CE, then I would also have to say, based upon very objective criteria, not it is not ‘true’ to that either, although in some way it is a better reflection of the original jewish christian “Followers of the Way” as they were called. This I can demonstrate from extensive research into the primitive church.

Then when you say, “The church is the only true and living church on the earth,” I wonder what you mean.

No offense, but this reminds me of Titus 3:9 – “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.” I don’t want to contend and strive about definitions like this.

wayfarer wrote:

As we talked about Mother Teresa, they conveyed a personal side that was known to very few — a woman of exceptional spirituality and humility, who gave of everything she had to sanctify the poor of India. When I walked into the LDS churches in India, I found a pseudo-utah culture…Likewise, I have worked closely with people of every culture. I find no uniqueness among LDS that sets us apart morally or ethically from anyone else in the world. My hindu colleagues have extraordinarily chaste families, teach exceptional values, and have eternal love that I cannot deny in the least.

Yes, spiritually and truth can be found all over the world in different faiths and cultures. I don’t see how that can mean that God hasn’t established His church on earth.

wayfarer wrote:

As for the Church being the ‘only one set up by Christ’, that is a debatable claim. First, it is not entirely clear that Christ set up a church.

Christ ordained the twelve apostles and gave them authority and power (Luke 9:1–2 and Mark 3:14). He gave the sealing keys (Matthew 16:19). The saints were part of the “household of God” and were “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:19-20). “the Lord appointed other seventy also” (Luke 10:1).

wayfarer wrote:

There is the question of your clause ‘and administer saving ordinances’. This is a claim, but a self-referential claim. If the church says that certain ordinances are necessary for salvation, then to be saved according to definition, you must have them, then the church is the only one authorized to do those specific ordinances. Aside from baptism, the definition of LDS saving ordinances are not to be found in the bible, nor are they….

Questions, contentions, and strivings. No offense.

[Anonymous]

[Admin note]

This is not pointed at any particular comment or person, so please don’t take it that way. The timing is due to my available time and when I logged in just now:

As admins, we want to continue productive, enlightening, solution-focused discussions. We don’t like to lock threads or discourage communication. However, our site is dedicated to civility and respectful dialogue that is focused on solutions – and to helping individuals find individual ways to live true to the dictates of their own consciences, hopefully within the community of participants in the LDS Church. Again, our focus is on productive conversations that help people “StayLDS”.

We didn’t establish this site as a vehicle to convince others that we are right and they are wrong. That goes both ways (multiple ways, actually). We aren’t trying to convince people that traditional, orthodox views and beliefs are wrong – and that people who hold them should abandon them; we aren’t trying to convince people that non-traditional, heterodox views are wrong – and that people who hold them should abandon them. We’re trying to help people find what views and beliefs work for them – again, in the hope that building their own faith can help them “StayLDS” to the greatest extent possible for them individually.

If this thread continues to be that type of discussion, it will continue to remain open and active – and all of the admins and moderators here hope that is what happens. However, if it devolves into argument about who is right and who it wrong – if it turns into a verbal fight of any kind, it will end.

/back to the regularly scheduled discussion 🙂

[Author]

Posts