- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m not as settled as she is, but I can respect a call to stop the name-calling. If agreement with the policy rises to the level of a TR question, I will be left standing outside. I can’t see any other way for me. But it probably wouldn’t be phrased as agreement; it would be about sustaining, supporting, accepting. I would really like to know how this strikes you all.
http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2016/01/11/outside-the-house-of-god/#comment-1500032 Quote:I don’t remember his name. Maybe one of these days I’ll go to the Church History Library and check the historical reports for the Kansas City 3rd Ward and find out who was serving as bishop in 1974.
But while I’ve forgotten his name, I haven’t forgotten the youth fireside he hosted at his home one Sunday evening, and I haven’t forgotten its theme. That theme has come back to me so many times in the past 40 years that I’m absolutely certain I recall the precise wording.
“Never make a choice in life that leaves you waiting outside the House of God.”
It was the perfect formulation for me:
“The House of God” was tangible: I could visualize it and understood that there were specific expectations for entering the temple. Yet it was also symbolic and stood for all commandments and blessings and hopes and promises associated with the gospel.
“Waiting outside” was also both specific and symbolic: What teenager doesn’t understand being “outside” while desperately wanting to belong? That longing for good things deferred extended beyond the walls of the temple and affected all goals and passions and priorities.
“Make a choice” gave me great power over my own destiny: I was an agent, making choices that would lead me inside, or leave me waiting in the cold and dark.
“Never make a choice in life that leaves you waiting outside the House of God.”
Turning in a temple recommend to make a grand gesture of political protest would leave me literally outside the House of God, without the means of entering.
Labeling apostles of Jesus Christ as bigots, claiming they are out of touch, saying they are dishonest, pitting my own wisdom and opinion and judgment against theirs, declaring boldly that I am right and they are wrong, that they are sacrificing our children to the God they have created in their own twisted and homophobic image would leave me outside of the Restoration. There is no point in having a prophet if I accept his leadership only when he is following me.
Misrepresenting the words and impugning the motives of Church leaders, assuring already vulnerable brothers and sisters that the shepherd is leading the flock to destruction, that pointing the way to safety is punishment rather than concern for their eternal welfare, would not only leave me waiting outside but could make me complicit in others’ decisions to accompany me.
We’ve been wrestling with the new policy concerning the children of same sex couples for more than two months now. I’ve listened more than I’ve spoken. I’ve tried to put myself, with compassion, in the shoes of others. I’ve thought, and considered, and prayed, and consulted. I’ve heard Church leaders speak, sometimes publicly and sometimes privately, and I’ve contrasted their voices with those of others.
I will not condemn President Monson, or President Nelson, or any other prophet or apostle, for leading, for testifying, for doing the very thing they have been called to do. I will continue to try to understand. I will not make any choice in this matter that leaves me waiting outside the House of God.
It strikes me that this person has decided to stay LDS. I respect Ardis greatly (and that is an understatement), and I respect what she has written. It doesn’t work for everyone, but the central point she makes about tone and seeking understanding (while not accepting automatically or even ever) is an important one.
Ardis followed up in the comments: Quote:But to be clear, I do not think it is inconsistent with “standing with the Lord” or being “on the Lord’s side” to have questions, and struggle, and suffer, and, for a time, at least, to doubt and grieve and go through any other emotion, when someone is seeking to understand. Sometimes opposition is a blind, reactionary response — but then, so can obedience and triumphalism be a blind, reactionary response.
“To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know … to others it is given to believe on their words …” Whichever gift you or I have, we need compassion for those whose gifts are different.
I like Ardis’ posts a lot too. This one doesn’t resound with me at all because I have *already* placed myself outside of the temple, literally and figuratively. It’s not a place of peace for me , so the desire to be temple worthy isn’t a very effective carrot to hang on my personal stick.
I think they are more and more members who value the temple, but not at any cost. But she has some strong, wise words in there, the cautions against labeling and misrepresenting. Am I doing that right now, or am I moving about by the light of Christ?
I wasn’t really a fan of this piece and I’m not familiar with her other writings. It reads a lot like other posts I’ve been reading from other LDS people my age–who are concerned with the policy–who have issues with the policy–but have decided since they believe Church leadership is divinely inspired–that they will accept it as the will of the Lord. I don’t mean to demean or belittle the author or say that’s exactly what she’s going for. It’s just the kind of things I read a lot from other members. Forgive me this little ramble about religions. But how does a successful, authoritarian religion retain its power in people’s lives? By establishing rituals that it claims are essential for entrance into heaven, selling this idea to its adherents until they completely buy into it, and then driving home the idea that their church has exclusive authority to perform such rituals. Once a cycle has started, it can drive this message into the minds of the youth, and it becomes easier. How does a successful authoritarian religion exercise control over the thoughts and behavior of its members? Limit the membership’s access to such rituals if they deviate from conformity to the religion’s code of conduct or display unsatisfactory levels of obedience.
This might read as blasphemy, but I’m not meaning to be malicious here, or say that the LDS Church is alone in this. It’s a
commonthing for successful world religions. And I’m not even saying this is bad. It just is. university wrote:…how does a successful, authoritarian religion retain its power in people’s lives?
By establishing rituals that it claims are essential for entrance into heaven, selling this idea to its adherents until they completely buy into it, and then driving home the idea that their church has exclusive authority to perform such rituals.Once a cycle has started, it can drive this message into the minds of the youth, and it becomes easier. How does a successful authoritarian religion exercise control over the thoughts and behavior of its members? Limit the membership’s access to such rituals if they deviate from conformity to the religion’s code of conduct or display unsatisfactory levels of obedience. This might read as blasphemy, but I’m not meaning to be malicious here, or say that the LDS Church is alone in this. It’s a
commonthing for successful world religions. And I’m not even saying this is bad. It just is.
I just read a passage in RSR that describes the “hold” – whether one perceives it positively or negatively – the church has on us:Quote:…Harold Bloom sees solitude as the characteristic position of the worshiping American….
Mormonism had individualist tendencies, but priesthood involved Latter-day Saints in communal religion. Priesthood embedded individuals in a hierarchy of priesthood offices and a line of priesthood holders. Mormons needed the ordinances of the priesthood to come to God, and as priests they ministered to others. Bloom says that, “the American spirit learns again its absolute isolation as a spark of God floating in a sea of space”; Joseph’s Mormons never floated alone. Priesthood was an order reaching back into antiquity. A later revelation called it “the holy priesthood, after the order of the Son of God,”
The priesthood web prevented Mormons from ever spinning freeinto isolation with God. Their lives were interwoven with priesthood from the foundations of the earth.” Lately it feels like a web, with the negative connotations. But I know others see it as a safety net or a rope ladder.
I’m sure Ardis has her struggles like everyone else. But when I read of her desire to not be out in the cold, I find it convenient for her that she happens to be a heterosexual. Otherwise, the choice would be a lot harder for her, I’m sure. turinturambar wrote:I’m sure Ardis has her struggles like everyone else. But when I read of her desire to not be out in the cold, I find it convenient for her that she happens to be a heterosexual. Otherwise, the choice would be a lot harder for her, I’m sure.
turintarambar – What I hope for us all is that people who step outside the house aren’t really too far away, that many of us keep in touch and offer support so it’s not the separation it used to be. And I hope I’ll have integrity to honestly “call it” and accept that I am outside if I know in my mind and heart that I am. I don’t want to stay mainly out of fear. Thank you for sharing here and I hope there are happier days to come.Quote:“Never make a choice in life that leaves you waiting outside the House of God.”
At this point in my life, I acknowledge that the temple usually felt more overbearing than peaceful or holy. For years, I hoped that would change. Now, I just acknowledge it and move on. I am worthy in my actions to enter the temple, but I cannot with clear conscience answer all the TR questions with a yes .. And I wouldn’t want to. I do not wait outside because I do not wait.
There are certain places that feel like Holy Ground to me. Certain places where I can go and feel closer to God. Those places have become my “House of God”. I am still welcome there.
Ardis .. She makes an excellent point in that we have no right to question the LDS leaders. If someone believes, let them follow the leaders. If someone doesn’t believe, then it is time to walk away without making issues personal with individuals. That is never professional, tactful nor kind.
Ann wrote:
Quote:…Harold Bloom sees solitude as the characteristic position of the worshiping American….
Mormonism had individualist tendencies, but priesthood involved Latter-day Saints in communal religion. Priesthood embedded individuals in a hierarchy of priesthood offices and a line of priesthood holders. Mormons needed the ordinances of the priesthood to come to God, and as priests they ministered to others. Bloom says that, “the American spirit learns again its absolute isolation as a spark of God floating in a sea of space”; Joseph’s Mormons never floated alone. Priesthood was an order reaching back into antiquity. A later revelation called it “the holy priesthood, after the order of the Son of God,”
The priesthood web prevented Mormons from ever spinning freeinto isolation with God. Their lives were interwoven with priesthood from the foundations of the earth.” Lately it feels like a web, with the negative connotations. But I know others see it as a safety net or a rope ladder.
Great quote Ann. In some ways the temple is symbolic of our sense of belonging in our tribe, community, and even family. Remember the “no empty chairs” meme? At what point are we saying “never make any choice that would leave you outside the family.” or “your sense of belonging in this family is conditional upon your continued loyalty to the church.”?
Family is family is family. We do not cut them off and then heap scorn upon them for “choosing” their exile.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.