- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So many inaccurate assumptions, so little time… That being said, that is a lot of resources (diligence, determination, and desire) loaded into the “celestial kingdom” and “family” baskets.
That is setting up all kinds of uncomfortable, potentially traumatizing, potentially abusive situations between parents and children, between spouses as those resources get fed into the “Celestial Kingdom or Bust” bandwagon fuel tank.
The advice is great if you value your own autonomy and decision-making over that of your children’s or over D&C 121.
Roy wrote:
Yesterday, our SM meeting program had this ETB quote:Quote:Fatherhood is not a matter of station or wealth. It is a matter of desire, diligence and determination to see one’s family exalted in the celestial kingdom. If that prize is lost, nothing else really matters.
😮 😯 :wtf: 
I’m really scratching my head on this one. Worst parenting advice ever!
This sort of reminded me of some thoughts I had about a TV show recently. I am a Big Bang Theory and Young Sheldon fan. Young Sheldon had its series finale last month. I don’t want to spoil too much, but fans were all aware that it was around this age when Sheldon’s father unexpectedly died, and this happened near the end of the series (they did it well and it was actually moving). There is a plot sequence that has Sheldon’s fairly religious (Baptist) mother, Mary, worried about their eternal welfare to the point of her not being able to function. She is worried because they are not all baptized. Her mother (Meemaw/Connie) became concerned about her daughter and at one point tells her they don’t need her prayers, they need her in their time of grief. FWIW, that advice doesn’t work in that case and Mary continues to fret (and Meemaw tries another tactic).
I think sometimes this is a “can’t see the forest for the trees” situation for members. I think some members get so caught up in the worry about not having a “celestial” family that they end up making the situation even worse. My own wife went through this with my faith crisis and subsequently when some of our children pushed the church away (none of them are fully active). Fortunately, I think she has recognized that mercy and grace do play a part, and those are often ignored in statements like Benson’s (and the current emphasis on the “covenant path”). I think many others (and I know a few) fall into near total despair, like Sheldon’s mother. And I think that’s not the message of Jesus Christ and it’s very sad.
I love the concept of the Celestial Kingdom, but I can say that solely because I see it so differently than most members. I like the “Council of the Gods” version, where we all work together to keep the process going, without a clear, limited parent/child relationship from our mortal relationships. That traditional view makes no sense whatsoever to me, so my faith (hope in the unseen) is the broader version of everyone working together, collectively, to help others grow and progress.
If I can be the joker who keeps people relaxed through laughter and the person who steps in and calms things down when stress gets tough, I will be happy leaving the rest of the work to others.
I like what OT said:
Old-Timer wrote:
If I can be the joker who keeps people relaxed through laughter and the person who steps in and calms things down when stress gets tough, I will be happy leaving the rest of the work to others.
Even in today’s world, we need more OT”s. Don’t get me started on politics.
Old-Timer wrote:
I like the “Council of the Gods” version, where we all work together to keep the process going, without a clear, limited parent/child relationship from our mortal relationships. That traditional view makes no sense whatsoever to me, so my faith (hope in the unseen) is the broader version of everyone working together, collectively, to help others grow and progress.If I can be the joker who keeps people relaxed through laughter and the person who steps in and calms things down when stress gets tough, I will be happy leaving the rest of the work to others.
I find myself as a “midwife of transitions” (my own role description) in moments of creation.
NOTE: This is mostly emotional/conceptual creation because I have absolutely lousy fine motor skills and visual-spatial manipulation limitations.
I sit in company at a specific point in time and space (rather then being a wandering “guide”) I try to be fully “there” with the individuals in the tough times, the messy times, providing encouragement/inspiration and information. I prevent many paths that could be taken that would cause disasters. I am a co-creator with a limited, specific role. I have benefitted many times from those who “emotionally labored with me” and helped me create better versions of myself (among other results).
Old-Timer wrote:
I love the concept of the Celestial Kingdom, but I can say that solely because I see it so differently than most members.I like the “Council of the Gods” version, where we all work together to keep the process going, without a clear, limited parent/child relationship from our mortal relationships. That traditional view makes no sense whatsoever to me, so my faith (hope in the unseen) is the broader version of everyone working together, collectively, to help others grow and progress.
If I can be the joker who keeps people relaxed through laughter and the person who steps in and calms things down when stress gets tough, I will be happy leaving the rest of the work to others.
That is an interesting point of view but only because it’s somewhat contrary to the mainstream concept. However, my own point of view is more similar to yours than the mainstream. Very briefly, I don’t believe Joseph Smith and other early church leaders saw us as sealed together in family units as we know them here, rather that we are sealed together as one big family of children of God. This messes a little bit with the idea of patriarchal order both here and there, but fits much more closely with your ideation. I like it and I could buy into it because it otherwise fits with what I believe.
Old-Timer wrote:
If I can be the joker who keeps people relaxed through laughter and the person who steps in and calms things down when stress gets tough, I will be happy leaving the rest of the work to others.
Notloudlaughter, though. 😯 Carburettor wrote:
Old-Timer wrote:
If I can be the joker who keeps people relaxed through laughter and the person who steps in and calms things down when stress gets tough, I will be happy leaving the rest of the work to others.
Notloudlaughter, though. 😯
I do get the joke, and I think it’s funny. But correct me if I’m wrong because I haven’t actually been to the temple, but I recall reading that the loud laughter requirement was removed in the most recent set of changes.
:thumbup: DarkJedi wrote:
I do get the joke, and I think it’s funny. But correct me if I’m wrong because I haven’t actually been to the temple, but I recall reading that the loud laughter requirement was removed in the most recent set of changes.:thumbup:
I last went to the temple in February 2023 after Jesus was inserted everywhere. I think I was too amused to notice whether “loud laughter” had been taken out. I certainly don’t go in search of all the various subtle changes aimed at making everything more palatable. Either way, it has never stopped me from laughing explosively whenever an appopriate occasion arises. The louder, the better.😈 Carburettor wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I do get the joke, and I think it’s funny. But correct me if I’m wrong because I haven’t actually been to the temple, but I recall reading that the loud laughter requirement was removed in the most recent set of changes.:thumbup:
I last went to the temple in February 2023 after Jesus was inserted everywhere. I think I was too amused to notice whether “loud laughter” had been taken out. I certainly don’t go in search of all the various subtle changes aimed at making everything more palatable. Either way, it has never stopped me from laughing explosively whenever an appopriate occasion arises. The louder, the better.😈
Just curious what was amusing? One of the reasons I don’t care to go to the temple is I find it very boring and fairly irrelevant (once you’ve seen it, you’ve seen it). I do find some of the portrayals of Satan interesting, and the pastor from the old days was also interesting (channeling Bugs Bunny, “What a maroon!”). And I have had some curiosity about how Jesus was added/mentioned more often, but I don’t expect anyone to share stuff that makes themselves or others uncomfortable. In general I’m in favor of more Jesus, and I do recall thinking in the past (especially the long past – I was first endowed in 1983) that the temple had little to do with Jesus except maybe as creator. I’m OK with the role of Jesus as creator (or co-creator) but I don’t think that was Jesus’s main role in eternity and not what we should focus on. Anyway, don’t share anything you don’t feel comfortable with, I’m just curious.
And for the record, I always had a hard time with the loud laughter thing because … Why? How is that “sinful?” I do find many things to be very funny, and I do laugh out loud at movies, TV, and good jokes – but I can’t say I’ve been especially “guilty” of anything I might consider loud laughter. Then again, what’s loud to me might not be to the next guy.
DarkJedi wrote:
Just curious what was amusing? One of the reasons I don’t care to go to the temple is I find it very boring and fairly irrelevant (once you’ve seen it, you’ve seen it).
You’ve confused me, DarkJedi. In a previous post, you wrote “correct me if I’m wrong because I haven’t actually been to the temple,” but you subsequently wrote that you were endowed in 1983. A typo? Or perhaps you meant since everything changed almost beyond recognition.I took out my endowment in 1982 before heading to the mission field. If you went through the following year, you’ll remember the death threats. Oh, my! How uncomfortable those made me feel. I was already dealing with imposter syndrome over my suppressed same-sex attraction. The warnings about how my life would be taken served only to up the ante.
To answer your question, the endowment is now overflowing with myriad references to the Savior — reinforced by static images of various artistry (one of which made me actually chuckle because I thought the painting was hideous). It’s amusing because some of the references felt gratuitous to me. Like, seriously, how many can you get in there? We can make everything remind us of the Savior if we’re sufficiently creative. For example, “the lights in the endowment room remind us of the Savior because they help us to see more clearly. The chairs on which the patrons sit remind us of the Savior because they offer comfort and support.” It wasn’t quite that bad, but it wasn’t far off.
😈 Carburettor wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
Just curious what was amusing? One of the reasons I don’t care to go to the temple is I find it very boring and fairly irrelevant (once you’ve seen it, you’ve seen it).
You’ve confused me, DarkJedi. In a previous post, you wrote “correct me if I’m wrong because I haven’t actually been to the temple,” but you subsequently wrote that you were endowed in 1983. A typo? Or perhaps you meant since everything changed almost beyond recognition.
I haven’t been to the temple recently. And my most recent two visits have been for family members being sealed, no endowment session.
Carburettor wrote:
I took out my endowment in 1982 before heading to the mission field. If you went through the following year, you’ll remember the death threats. Oh, my! How uncomfortable those made me feel. I was already dealing with imposter syndrome over my suppressed same-sex attraction. The warnings about how my life would be taken served only to up the ante.
Yes, the penalties were part of the endowment then. After the hype leading up to going through the temple, for me it was a bit of a let down. Like really, this is it? This is what people rave about? The creation story enhanced with Mormon stuff?
Carburettor wrote:
To answer your question, the endowment is now overflowing with myriad references to the Savior — reinforced by static images of various artistry (one of which made me actually chuckle because I thought the painting was hideous). It’s amusing because some of the references felt gratuitous to me. Like, seriously, how many can you get in there? We can make everything remind us of the Savior if we’re sufficiently creative. For example, “the lights in the endowment room remind us of the Savior because they help us to see more clearly. The chairs on which the patrons sit remind us of the Savior because they offer comfort and support.” It wasn’t quite that bad, but it wasn’t far off.😈
Thanks. Again, because I haven’t been since these changes, I only know there are more references to the Jesus, I am not aware of exactly what they are. BUT, I do have a hard time imagining how to make more references to Jesus when the story really isn’t about him. Going back to my earlier comment about when I first went to the temple, I was expecting it to be more about Jesus as Savior. That is the message of the Gospel. Wedging his name in more does not bolster that message IMO (again, not having seen it). I can say the same about some of what happens in SM, SC, and even GC. Just using the name of Jesus does not make it centered on him and his message.DarkJedi wrote:
Just using the name of Jesus does not make it centered on him and his message.
Too right. I am reminded of a guy in my ward who inserts “Heavenly Father” into practically every sentence when he prays.It goes something like this, “Dear Heavenly Father, we are grateful to meet here today, Heavenly Father. And we ask thee, Heavenly Father, if thou wilt pour out thy spirit, Heavenly Father, on the proceedings of this day.”
I want to shout, “Enough with the Heavenly Fathers already!”
In my opinion, when we repeat something simply to make it sound like we’re focused on it, we devalue it.
I remember laughing out loud in a young guy’s sacrament talk many years ago — and my wife and I still repeat (to each other) his verbal tic to this day when something triggers it.
The guy kept adding “and stuff” to everything in the way that some people add “OK” at every pause in a sentence.
He was saying things like, “And we went to the temple
and stuffand did a few sessions and stuffand it was a great experience that we hope to repeat again sometime and stuff.” I was beginning to find it grating (as it can be when someone has a verbal tick), until he said something like, “And then we went back to our car to collect our stuff
and stuff.” At which point I fell about laughing. I know it’s juvenile, but when my wife or I include the word “stuff” in a sentence, the other still adds, “…and stuff.” And how we laugh.
Carburettor wrote:
We can make everything remind us of the Savior if we’re sufficiently creative. For example, “the lights in the endowment room remind us of the Savior because they help us to see more clearly. The chairs on which the patrons sit remind us of the Savior because they offer comfort and support.” It wasn’t quite that bad, but it wasn’t far off.😈
https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?p=143524&hilit=flesh+of+jesus#p143524 See the link above for a discussion of endowment changes in 2023.
I am particularly tickled by the idea that the veil and therefore the garments represent the flesh of Christ.
Roy wrote:
I am particularly tickled by the idea that the veil and therefore the garments represent the flesh of Christ.
Ah, yes. I remember thinking at the time that it was a stretch too far. I thought it sounded grim, like transubstantiation in Catholicism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.