- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mackay11 wrote:
The Mormonism I read here and elsewhere in the week is very different from the Mormonism that’s preached from my local pulpit on a Sunday.
I think the hope is that the tent of Mormonism can be big enough to encompass all these variations.
Roy wrote:mackay11 wrote:The Mormonism I read here and elsewhere in the week is very different from the Mormonism that’s preached from my local pulpit on a Sunday.
I think the hope is that the tent of Mormonism can be big enough to encompass all these variations.
It does. But don’t expect it during the 3-hour block. Where I live that’s a pretty small tent.
I agree with about 95% of what cwald says, but don’t quite go all the way to where he goes with it. It is not a
completelydifferent church between these two perspectives. But my experience tells me that while there is variation from unit to unit in the church, the clear majority of the church falls closer to the 14 fundamentals than the universalist camp. The great majority, in fact, since that is explicitly and openly taught, where as universalism is hinted at with the wonderful quotes in this thread. However, I have talked to many people who are smart enough to know that there is more to God’s plan than the narrow approach of Mormonism. After basketball saturday morning, I chatted with a good guy who has just been released as bishop. He knows of my recent separation and pending divorce. He was caring enough to talk to me, and is the salt of the earth kind of guy.
He just said, “Don’t worry, I’ve been bishop long enough to see so many situations with people. The only thing I can conclude is that there is more to this life than what we can understand or even what is taught in church. Things work out for those who are good people in heart. I think when we get to the other side, we’ll see how great and wonderful the Atonement really is, and we’ll be pretty surprised at what we learn.”
I get these snippets from individuals during one-on-one talks. I don’t think people express it over the pulpit, because they are not sure exactly how to. But the one-on-one discussions that give me a peek into others’ hearts are more meaningful to me anyway. And with the Internet and all that is happening in this world…I truly believe there are more thinking mormons in our midsts than just drones and regurgitators. Oh…there are those too…but the people I hang out with seem to be pretty open and accepting.
I think there is more of that in the church than we know about. Therefore…I don’t think there are really completely different churches. There are just pockets and differences among the flock. I don’t think it is quite as stark as cwald’s description. Nor do I foolishly think his opinion and personal experience is false. He has a point. And I agree with most of it.
I you will find sympathizers for your talk of inclusive and loving thoughts around all of God’s children. But I think most people in the church draw the line from univeralism by clearly defending the Church’s authority and laws and ordinances.
Instead of 2 completely different churches, I think there is more of a Venn Diagram of ideas in the church…and there is overlap to be found for the universalist to fit in the church, even if it requires some effort to navigate it with others who must defend their faith.
But that is just my experience, and I don’t live in Utah.
PS – I also appreciate cwald’s warning, because sometimes I find I can get a bit too optimistic or idealistic with my new ideas and faith. And while I feel confident there are no problems with it at church…I have had bishops pull me in their office and tell me otherwise, which disturbs me. But that is OK. It is just their view as they try to magnify their calling. I guess I just appreciate cwald keeping it real…we can’t get too rosy-eyed on what we should expect from our experience in the church.
I know that the Church varies radically at the local level. I also know that lots of people view “The Global Church” according to their experience with “the local church” – largely because of how often we hear that the Church is the same everywhere. It isn’t, and, while I’m glad it isn’t (for multiple reasons), I also am saddened that there are too many places where it is not close to what it should be. Contrary to some perceptions here, I’ve experienced the difficult wards and branches. I’m not a Pollyanna or wearing rose-colored glasses. I’ve just lived in multiple states in almost every region of the United States and had callings that put me in multiple congregations in those states – and I’ve seen more of the universalism belief (at least of the overall theology) in most of those places than I’ve seen of the exclusivity belief, even when the formal rhetoric leans toward a non-universal slant.
I think the wide-spread prevalence of the negative ideology gets over-estimated in certain areas where the fundamentalism is obvious and open, largely because so many members don’t live in enough places outside that fundamentalism to see that it’s not “universal” throughout the Church. I think the more conservative perspective is much more common than the universal perspective in practice (especially when it comes to inactive members), but most members accept the universal view when it comes to how they view non-members.
That difference (between how most members view “their inactive own” and “others”) is sad – but it’s very natural, given the higher expectations and feelings of disappointment and . . . fear . . . people as a whole associate with those whom they feel are not living up to their expectations of them. It’s easier not to have expectations of people whom are not known as well, so we tend to be easier on those we don’t know.
To me, that is the issue in conversations like this with people who are or have been members but who are not orthodox. They feel the real weight of unrealistic expectations, attempts of others to change them, dismissal and attacks from a sense of concern and/or misguided love, etc. – which are not directed, generally, at non-members (who are seen as potential members and, therefore, have their faults and issues overlooked more readily).
Fwiw.
cwald wrote:Quote:Ultimately, the members who complained to the Stake President, primarily, are at fault.
No. They are not.
We just heard that the 14 Fs got read over the podium by a HC in another ward just this week.The church could have repudiated this talk and this kind of doctrine and culture three years ago. Please people, don’t blame the members. If the prophets don’t like what is being said and don’t agree with the culture that talks like the 14 Fs build, they need to say so and get that stuff out of the manuals. I don’t blame church0333’s Stake President one bit for what happened. He is merely doing what the church has set the culture up to do.
I think this might be reference to my comment about our talks this Sunday. To clarify, the good news is that it wasn’t read word-for-word by the high council member, just a regular (concluding) speaker. Bad news is that it’s the second time I’ve heard it in a sacrament meeting in the last three or four months. Fwiw….
P.S. We spend quite a few Sundays having talks re-read to us. So without very pointed additional comments or any “authorization” from a stake president, for instance, I don’t think the 14 Fundamentals makes much of an impression on people who, by and large, tune out when being read to. Ann wrote:P.S. We spend quite a few Sundays having talks re-read to us. So without very pointed additional comments or any “authorization” from a stake president, for instance, I don’t think the 14 Fundamentals makes much of an impression on people who, by and large, tune out when being read to.
DW went to SM solo this week and I brought the kids to church after. She confided in me that she was hoping for spiritual upliftment because she is usually so distracted by the kids. The talks were painfully bad and she found herself missing the distraction of the kids to help relieve her boredom. Funny how that can happen.
:crazy: I’ve come late to this discussion but how can Mormonism be Universalism if only those that adhere to LDS belief and practice either in this life or posthumously can be exalted? (Ditto on the sacrament talks. My wife is ready to leave the church over repeats of conference talks in SM.)
cwald wrote:Annnnnd, after reading my last four/five posts, I better take a break from the staylds board, as I am wount to do from time to time.
don’t do dat. you are 100% correct — the church we want to exist doesn’t, but the Church of the 14 fundamentals does. We’re deluded, sometimes, because we want to make it work, and we filter out the bad to make the good work.we need you dude.
GBSmith wrote:I’ve come late to this discussion but how can Mormonism be Universalism if only those that adhere to LDS belief and practice either in this life or posthumously can be exalted?
I like the idea that all religions “see through a glass darkly” and that in the afterlife Mormons will need to make just as many adjustments to our thinking process as many of our good non-LDS neighbors.
The good part about Mormonism is that we have an idea of eternal progression – so that people (Mormons, Baptists, Whatever) that have limitations in their understanding of eternal truths will have opportunities to learn and accept those truths at a later time.
“Pure Mormonism” says that everyone will be judged according to how they strive to live according to the dictates of their own consciences – and that God makes up the difference in the ideal and the real. That theology is as universal as it gets, especially when D&C 19 and the ideal of “eternal punishment” not being “never ending punishment” is factored into it. The only more universal idea is that everyone, eventually, will reach the same end result – and even that is possible within Mormon theology (with the exception of Sons of Perdition, who consciously choose to exclude themselves from it), even if few members believe it.
Old-Timer wrote:“Pure Mormonism” says that everyone will be judged according to how they strive to live according to the dictates of their own consciences – and that God makes up the difference in the ideal and the real. That theology is as universal as it gets, especially when D&C 19 and the ideal of “eternal punishment” not being “never ending punishment” is factored into it.
The only more universal idea is that everyone, eventually, will reach the same end result – and even that is possible within Mormon theology (with the exception of Sons of Perdition, who consciously choose to exclude themselves from it), even if few members believe it.
I think the question cwald asks or better said posits is whether the church under correlation is anything like pure mormonism, and whether pure mormonism exists anywhere as a church.Under Correlation – No. Universalism/Mormonism doesn’t exist outright. For me I reversed the subject line of this thread, when I do that I find Universalism in Mormonism. Is it burning bright. Not yet. I am hoping it will. I find it in Christ’s teachings and example. And if I can use the quotes that point to that light I will because my heart really loves a more tender God.
If we say we can find universalism in mormonism, I agree. If we say that Mormonism IS universalism, then I think we err in saying that universalism is a identifying attribute of mormonism; and as practiced today, it is not. Obviously, it is an important strategy for staying LDS for us to select what we want to believe of the religion. I accept that, and the universalist aspect is absolutely to be found in some of the teaching. We key on these as our own way of interpreting mormonism. I think, though, there is a danger in imputing our meaning onto the true believing masses of mormons. As Alma 12:9 says, sometimes the more enlightened version of the Gospel Truth is for our own consumption and not necessarily for sharing.
It all depends…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.