- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
HiJolly wrote:
How about, “Is there any hope for an explanation that I can accept?”
👿 Probably not. But I’m not motivated by the hope that I’ll convince anyone. I’m just saying what I’m thinking for me.You’re good. How about “understand”. I think you did a good job of that.
I really, really, really like what you wrote. I identify with much of it. I think it is a great view. I have walked much of the same thought path.
So, what is best? In trying to put my finger on what denotes, indicates, demonstrates Best, the thing I boil down to is
fruit: is the community approaching Zion better than any other community? There is a paradox at play in that, “It is necessary that offenses come, but wo unto him by whom they come.” My greatest growth at the Stage of life I am in probably comes as I relate in a community of blemished fruit. But for those in earlier Stages of life, and for the question as a whole, I think it’s best (most correct) to boil the consideration down to “how does the fruitcompare?” “How are they approaching Zion?” So, by their fruitshall I know them. Fruit comparison list
Sponsorship of all faith Stages
- Support of a consistent life ethic
- Movement toward zion (no treasures on earth, no oaths, no fine apparel, no poor among them, real spiritual status, not status symbols)
- Priorities straight (people above structures and programs and organizations, eternity above expediency, the global effect above the present-group effect)
- Overcoming the flesh (chastity, reverence, fasting, healing, cleanness of teeth, health of the bowels)
- Overcoming the world (opened hand, no need for lawsuits, no need for locks and contracts, no need for debts, no need for treasures, no need for cosmetic surgeries, no need for expensive clothes, living day to day in peaceful and serene faith)
- Receives revelation from all quarters; a prophetic community of a prophetic globe
It appears the LDS Church has not done comparatively well at approaching zion. It has an extremely weak (if existent) peace testimony (they support capital punishment and wars; they train their sons to be fighters). It values wealth greatly (behold their houses, their toys, and their investment portfolios!). It loves building an earthly empire while squalor is visible across the tracks or the sea. It closes its ears to the revelation of the sages and the masses, and says, “you have great truth; we have it and more; we will add to you; come let us”.
Maybe an impartial Fruit thread would be helpful. The church has chastity (I think). The church has health. The church has Covey and Arbinger and Anasazi. The church has marital fidelity. The church opposes abortion. The church teaches fasting (after its own manner). The church has good fruit. But when I consider the whole picture, I can’t see Joseph’s restoration moved the world toward zion except in its own special ways. It is a piece of the puzzle. And it needs the other pieces.
At least that’s what I’m thinking. I appreciate your helping me clarify.
Wow, Tom, super-utopia!! I found myself laughing at the idealism and yet yearning for that place/institution/whatever. Fantastic list! Marx is weeping in his grave
😆 .Wow I had no idea how many people would respond to this comment. I live in Utah. The typical Utahn is not a fifth generation Mormon. They are 2nd or 3rd generation and they think the religion is all about success and being upper middle class. They care more about appearance than anything else. Many are new to Utah or have only lived in Utah a few generations. They also think being positive is faith. It sounds very old style Presbyterian to me. As a newlywed, my mother moved into a new ward. She sat down with the bishop and told him about all her wonderful ancestors. She listed their accomplishments and how long her side of the family had been in the church. Her bishop listened patiently and then asked, “And Sister ___, what have YOU done for The Lord.”
I was raised with that story. And taught that family linage didn’t mean squat. It is what we as individuals accomplish. And yet, I have friends whose entire identity is centered around their family linage. Which is more correct? I dunno. I see it as a cultural difference. Some families put more emphasis on it than others.
I grew up in California and Brazil. Then after college — to Texas.
The members in California had certain traditions — such as the yearly ward beach camp out. A very California tradition.
When we moved to Brazil, I found that most of the members came from a catholic background. They changed their religion, but many of their religious cultural traditions came with them. Candles!
The members in our small Texas town were often converts from a baptist or Pentecostal background. Some brought their suspicions about dancing with them. They just couldn’t wrap their heads around having a rock and roll dance at church. When in charge, they always seemed to have the dance changed into a Square Dance … Or become a sit down dinner instead.
Some areas of LDS culture has developed a focus on attainment of wealth. I have wondered if all those generations of suffering pioneers have created a culture that over-values financial success? There is nothing wrong with financial success .. I just don’t think God cares about how much we have. But certain regional areas of the church culture care too much.
Sorry lady but you are an example of what I am talking about. Ancestors do not matter. You are being politically correct and not Mormon. The Jews, Elijah, Mormon, Joseph Smith would be shocked. Ever hear of the remnant of Israel. So Israel and his descendants do not matter. Wow, I must be reading the wrong standard works. God will accept anybody into Israel but sorry honey ancestors do matter to some of us. I am in the church because of my ancestors. Maybe you are in for a different reason. You be you and I will be me. In my Utah ward at least; they do respect my heritage. They also welcome converts. Try to be more tolerant towards us and we will be more tolerant to converts. amateurparent wrote:As a newlywed, my mother moved into a new ward. She sat down with the bishop and told him about all her wonderful ancestors. She listed their accomplishments and how long her side of the family had been in the church.
Her bishop listened patiently and then asked, “And Sister ___, what have YOU done for The Lord.”
I was raised with that story. And taught that family linage didn’t mean squat. It is what we as individuals accomplish.
I love that story, amateurparent.My own opinion is that there is nothing wrong with looking at your own ancestors for strength. But anyone that thinks they are better than other people because of their ancestors is misguided.
utahdane wrote:In my Utah ward at least; they do respect my heritage. They also welcome converts. Try to be more tolerant towards us and we will be more tolerant to converts.
Utahdane, I am a convert to the Church, and I happen to agree with you that your pioneer ancestry is enormously important.
However, it is either disingenuous or ignorant to spread the notion that somehow people who are not of pioneer ancestry are “disrespecting” or de-emphasizing your heritage and causing a watering-down of LDS teachings. Most of the men and women in top leadership positions in the Church are of similar background as you. It is the Church leadership which does not want to divide Latter-Day Saints according to ancestry. It is just one of several principles that guide how they talk about the members (notice for example how they speak of “Spanish-speaking wards” but do not want to classify Saints by ethnicity).
The notion that we are a church of modern-day converts is vastly overstated. Not only is the Church still run and held together mostly by Mormons of pioneer ancestry; but even in overseas stakes, foreign Mormons depend tremendously on missionaries and expatriates, most of whom come from your background, to run the Church there. I live way out in the mission field where I see converts and 2nd/3rds all the time, and I can assure you that the number of converts that are really engaged in the life of the Church is rather low; and even lifelong members who are not multigenerational are far fewer than I expected when I was baptized. I think Joseph Smith would be shocked at how little the Church has progressed beyond dependence on descendants of the original pioneers plus the European immigrants who joined them later.
By the way, I am dismayed that I have to explain this to a Mormon of your pedigree: while the LDS Church of course teaches that the descendants of Israel matter, it does not teach that these descendants are only the ones who are known (e.g., Jews and people like you). It teaches that descendants of Israel are still scattered and are being gathered to the Restored Church. So please don’t imply that the other people commenting here know nothing about the Gospel importance of ancestry. You are the one distorting the principle as the Church teaches it.
As a convert, I feel that I owe a debt to gratitude to the 5th/6th generation Mormons that I know personally because without them, I wouldn’t have a clue what the Church actually is. You guys are the ones that actually know anything beyond what little the Church officially teaches. So the question is not what is your ancestry and how proud you are of it; the question is how are you using that God-given gift of birth to benefit your fellow Saints and the converts and children of converts who could learn something from you?
[Admin Note]: utahdane, your last comment was WAY out of line in this forum. We don’t do insults, and amateurparent is correct as to the central point of the comment – that it’s not ancestry that will save or exalt anyone. Rather, it is personal faith and effort. That is all that was said – and it echos perfectly Jesus’ own words to the Jews who claimed they were saved merely by being descendants of Abraham. The comment you condemned said absolutely nothing about you personally. I am leaving your comment alone, since there has been a very good response to it, but understand one thing:
Personally insulting comments are not appropriate here. Any more will be deleted without explanation.
Wow. Like a Phoenix rising from the ashes a thread almost five years old comes back to life with fire. I’m a convert of over 30 years. I’ve lived most of my LDS life in the “mission field”. My most unhappy times in the church have been in “Zion”. It appeared to me that the pioneers were worshipped and those without pioneer ancestry were not as good. Just my thoughts and observations. So yes, I see a rift at time but it shouldn’t be there and it shouldn’t diminish the contributions either make to the Church.
Utahdane your condescending,chauvinistic, uneducated comment is so stereotypical of the multi-generational lds male privilege it is both hilarious and sad at the same time. It is unfortunate that your comments paint lds men in a bad light when so many are the opposite of your “glorious self” thank the heavens indeed “HONEY”! [Admin Note]: Dax, your frustration is understandable, but the same thing applies as it did with regard to utahdane’s comment. Personally insulting comments are against our rules of conduct. Seriously, any more from anyone after this comment will be deleted without notice.
My ancestry goes back to the early days of the church on my mother’s side. My dad is a convert and didn’t join the church until my parents had been married for about 15 years. My husband is a convert and still the only member of the church in his family. His ancestors were among some of the earliest immigrants to “the Colonies.” I’ve never lived in the Mormon corridor, and have in fact lived all over the US and in various foreign countries. I give this background because I want to say that while I find my ancestry interesting and I’m grateful for those early converts, what they did has nothing to do with what I’ve done with my life or the choices I currently make, any more than my husband parades his ancestry and says it makes him a better American. If your attitude is correct, Utahdane, than it negates most of Christ’s teachings, especially that the gospel is for ALL humankind. What about how He taught non-Jews and gasp! even to the Samaritans? If this is the true Church of Christ (the jury is still out on that for me, but for the sake of argument) than it’s about the core teaching of His gospel and not about traditions, even the earliest traditions of THIS dispensation.
Our current stake president is a convert and one of the the most Christian men I know. He joined when he was 18, like my husband. Are you saying that he isn’t as worthy a member of the church because he’s a convert? If that’s true, then why the missionary effort? One of the first things Joseph Smith did was send out missionaries.
I can’t speak for the church in Utah because I don’t and haven’t ever lived there, but maybe you’ve spent too much time there and should try living outside Utah for a while. After all, the church didn’t start in Utah and it’s not going to end there.
I have a few questions about some things you wrote in your OP. I really am curious about what you meant because they seem in opposition to some of the earliest Church teachings.
Quote:People want to deny our history, they want to say God is all powerful instead of one of many Gods, they want to do away with the word Mormon.
What do you mean by “one of many Gods?” Do you disagree with this statement from the recent essay on lds.org?
Quote:For some observers, the doctrine that humans should strive for godliness may evoke images of ancient pantheons with competing deities. Such images are incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe that God’s children will always worship Him. Our progression will never change His identity as our Father and our God.
Also, what do you mean by “they want to do away with the word Mormon”? This is what Joseph Smith said:
Quote:“The name Mormon, and Mormonism, was given to us by our enemies, but Latter-day Saints was the real name by which the church was organized.” (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 458. Standardized.)
What is your understanding on this?[ Admin Note: This comment deleted, since it was one long insult and included a borderline condemnation of one of the Church Presidents who initiated some changes in the Church that led to the rise of “modern Mormonism”. This thread is being locked for a short time to let people cool down and respond without insults.]
- The topic ‘Pure bred Mormon’ is closed to new replies.