Seeking your thoughts on mine

[Anonymous]

I wanted to get your thoughts on this. It’s an excerpt taken from my latest epistle to my missionary son. This part is actually near the end, so there has already been exposition on how everything said by a prophet is not scripture or doctrine and that Jesus spent some time during his ministry refuting some common teachings of the day. And I did specify that this is the gospel according to Dad.

“If Jesus came to an LDS church, what do you suppose he might say? Would he tell the deacon not wearing a white shirt or tie he can’t pass the sacrament or humiliate him by giving him an ugly pink tie from the 80s? Would he ask the girl with the tattoos and multiple earrings to sit outside, and tell her she can’t be baptized, take the sacrament or to go to the temple? Would he tell the struggling single mother, regardless of how she got that way, that she is less important to him than a young man? Would he flip the table if he found the priests playing face cards? I believe he wouldn’t do any of those things, that he would stand to pass with the deacon and embrace the girl, the mother, and her children and he might say something like this: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” The gospel is so simple. Our church is not different than any other, they all add this kind of stuff to it, and it’s not all bad. But we so easily get caught up in the commentary – the teachings of men – that we can forget how simple it really is and how little is really required to obtain salvation through the grace of Christ.”

My son is fairly orthodox – he is a missionary, after all. He does seem to grasp subjects like this, though, and not argue or vehemently disagree.

What are your thoughts? Would this fly in a high priest group meeting?

[Anonymous]

Honestly, DJ, and I say this with complete respect, love and appreciation for you, but I think this is a little harsh. There’s a lot of truth in what you say, but I think all we can really control is ourselves individually, and we have to recognize that there a lot of members of the Church that are really great people, in spite of the foibles and quirks that we can exhibit as a collective.

DarkJedi wrote:

Would this fly in a high priest group meeting?

No. But not because people in HPG are oppressive Pharisees. Rather, simply because it is a generic attack against the Church, its culture and its people. I know for me, I don’t like to be lumped into a generic group and then told how bad I am because I’m a part of a group that somebody else assigned me to.

I think of my own ward. The HPGL is a good man. Very orthodox, very by the book. Yet, he always makes an extra effort to greet me and shake my hand and tell me things like “good to see you”. Its very genuine and not at all forced. He asks how I’m doing and makes me feel totally welcome. This in spite of the fact that I attend most SMs and nothing else and have for years now. When my oldest son was serving a mission, the HPGL always asked me about how he was doing, yet HIS only son was a wayward son, who spent a lot of time in jail. BTW, he did this long before he was the HPGL, and he has never once asked about my attendance (or lack of it). So, from that standpoint, I think he’s doing exactly what you ascribe to the hypothetical actions of Jesus if he came to our ward.

The Church certainly does suffer from, as you put it, getting caught up in the commentary. But I think its unfair to say that Church members are unchristian in their hearts or actions. For my part, I think the LDS Church is home to some of the best people I’ve ever known. Not exclusively, but consistently. As I ponder this post, I’m thinking again about all the significant acts of kindness that my family and I have received over the years. Too many to mention, but many, many really wonderful people have gone well above and beyond for me.

If Jesus were to come back to the earth today, my opinion is that he would be so utterly shocked and dismayed by all of it, that it is unlikely he’d feel the need to call out LDS people specifically.

[Anonymous]

Point taken, OON. This is exactly what I said to my son, although somewhat out of context, and maybe it’s really out of context the way it is presented here as well – I just didn’t want to make the post really long because I know I don’t usually read those kinds of posts unless I’m bored. Like you (and Pres. Uchtdorf) said, some of the finest (and most Christlike) people I know are members of the church and for the most part I believe church members are following their own consciences and trying to do what is right.

Let me point out that I chose HPG because that’s where I would attend if I did attend (since my return it has been SM only, but I would be more apt to go to priesthood than SS) and I think that there are HPs who are more mature in their faith journeys than perhaps the average member. So the question really is would this fly in any church meeting? (FWIW, I could honestly see Elder Oaks or Elder Nelson furrowing their brows and pointing their fingers and saying something like this in the right context.)

I don’t mean to indicate that members of the church are unChristian or even that factions of them are. Part of the second epistle of Dad included an explanation of how the gospel is like an onion, layered with the most important concepts (two great commandments, Jesus is the Christ) at it’s core and all of the other layers having grown out of that until we reach the outside (skin), the part we don’t use. It included both Hillel’s story (see signature) and Joseph Smith’s “all other things pertaining to our religion are appendages” (to the gospel of Christ). It did not contain Pres. Uchtdorf’s “everything else in life should be secondary to these two great priorities” (the two great commandments).

And, I had also talked about how the referenced scripture was Jesus talking to the chosen people of the time, and that what the Pharisees, scribes, and chief priests taught were accepted doctrine of the time. I think we often interpret that scripture to be talking about others – other Christians, Jews, Muslims – but that’s not who Jesus was talking to. He was talking to the true church of the time, and I do believe those words apply to us as well as others. Among those who Jesus taught were his followers, the scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, etc., and other Jews as well as Gentiles. He clearly wasn’t talking about all of them, but he also didn’t direct it at only some of them. I do believe there will be Mormons among those who hear the words “I never knew you” and that this should be a warning to his modern chosen people as well.

Is there a gentler way to say that we sometimes get so caught up in the outer layers that we forget from whence the onion grows?

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Is there a gentler way to say that we sometimes get so caught up in the outer layers that we forget from whence the onion grows?

It’s a great question. I think people like us would like to speak up sometimes when we see areas in which we wish others at Church would change their perspective. But how can we do it without attacking?

I think the answer to your question is “Yes, there is a gentler way.” In the context of spiritual/religious discussion, when pointing out successes, say ‘we’. When pointing out failings, say ‘I’. That way, there is no indictment of other people. Here is what ‘I’ sometimes forget… here is what ‘I’ have to remind myself.

The hearer will make the connection, if it applies.

If you can’t substitute ‘I’ for ‘we’ then you shouldn’t be saying ‘we’… For example, can you say, “I sometimes get so caught up in the outer layers that I forget from whence the onion grows”? I don’t think you can. That’s not how I perceive you. So, when you say ‘we’ you really mean ‘they’ or ‘you’, and everybody knows it. When the EQP gets up and says, “Brethren, we need to do a better job in our HTing assignments”, I find that annoying, because HE is already doing a good job. So, it comes across as an accusation.

If you can’t say ‘I’ and you still want to make the point, then turn it into a question: “How can I/we avoid getting caught up in the outer layers?”

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

Our church is not different than any other, they all add this kind of stuff to it, and it’s not all bad. But we so easily get caught up in the commentary – the teachings of men – that we can forget how simple it really is and how little is really required to obtain salvation through the grace of Christ.”

I think DJ hits it home with this. I have been shaken up recently, and this is so close to home (long story which I might post after I’ve had time to digest). Human nature is really all there is in the church, where there is a strong incentive for the appearance of righteousness at the expense of actual righteousness (i.e., the Pharisee praying vs the Publican beating his breast admitting he is a sinner). The unfortunate truth is that all the same bullocks (I can swear in British and it won’t offend Americans) that occurs in other churches is alive and well in ours, even if we mask it with a Mormon version of doublespeak.

I’m not saying there isn’t genuine good and a unique flavor of that good in the church, but I’ve have more persecution/oppression from within the church than without – and I’m surrounded by atheist colleagues who think I’m stretching myself mentally to accept the possibility of Deity given the paucity of evidence. Even buddhist monks are political and backstabbing from time to time (Buddhist dharma is full of weird examples). We are just homo economicus, and learning to be OK with that has been a challenge. I have probably just been too naive in expecting Church members to be the “one true” flavor of good that they claim to be. Lesson (hopefully) learned.

[Anonymous]

Your insight serves you well, OON. I sense you may be strong with the force.

Yes, what I am really asking here has to do with my new responsibilities and the possibility I might encounter such thinking and not be able to keep quiet and/or that I might just like to speak about it anyway. I know what I said in the OP won’t fly in public and it is well to note that I said it to my believing son in private – a son who knows (and embraces to an extent) that I see things differently. I do think within my own HPG (and the same guys in SS) there are some who would at least entertain the idea if properly presented and may even enter into a civil discussion of it. Likewise, my HPG room is as full of parrots as anyone else’s.

I would have a hard time saying I in this particular situation, because I don’t think I do lose sight of the core, and I don’t think everyone else does all the time either. But we sometimes do (and some of us do it a lot).

[Anonymous]

So I usually favor a gentle approach however when I look at the scriptures, specifically the Gospels, I see the Lord most upset with the members of “the church” who are excluding others and lifted up in the pride of their own works. His harsh rebukes were reserved for his peers, fellow church authorities who diminished God by limiting his capacity to reach the unclean, the lost, the fallen, the wayward, and the infirm. He knew that they knew better. Or at least, they should have.

If there is anything that sets me on fire at church, it’s when we follow the tradition of those arrogant Pharisees and Saducees.

We recently had a lesson in RS during which the teacher was warning us about the the evils of the world, to include pointing out that children from broken homes and non-traditional families (read: contaminating influences) go to school with our children.

I came absolutely unglued. It was not a good moment and I still feel bad about it but [expletive deleted], if this is how we are going to define our church, then I need to find a new congregation because (1) my home and family aren’t perfect and (2) I refuse to treat people like lepers because they have either experienced adversities, been dealt a difficult hand in life, or made bad decisions at some point. The rain falls on the just and the unjust in the first place and we all sin and fall short of the glory of God in the second place.

I haven’t attended RS since because no matter how I try, I just can’t sit silent through this kind of rameumptom speak.

On the one hand, I want to have compassion for the people who say these kinds of things but on the other hand, we are supposed to actually be representing Christ in this world. We have obligated ourselves to a better way that directly involves how we treat and view outcasts, the unclean, and the oppressed. So I guess what I’m saying is that sometimes you have to speak up. I wouldn’t go overturning any tables, though…

[Anonymous]

I don’t like it, friend, for one very simple reason:

Quote:

Would he tell the deacon not wearing a white shirt or tie he can’t pass the sacrament or humiliate him by giving him an ugly pink tie from the 80s? Would he ask the girl with the tattoos and multiple earrings to sit outside, and tell her she can’t be baptized, take the sacrament or to go to the temple? Would he tell the struggling single mother, regardless of how she got that way, that she is less important to him than a young man? Would he flip the table if he found the priests playing face cards?

The top leadership would not be okay with ANY of the examples you listed, and neither would most members of the Church. I know too many local leaders who would do the first one, but the VAST majority of the members and leaders I know wouldn’t do ANY of them. Seriously, those are really, really bad examples of what ails “The Church” as a collective whole. There are way too many legitimate examples to use the ones above.

It’s neither accurate nor charitable to describe an entire organization based on the actions and attitudes of the minority of its members – especially when those actions don’t reflect the views or actions of its leadership.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t read it as DJ describing the entire organization, it’s just a list of things that us imperfect people do from time to time. On the re-re-re-read (I have very poor reading comprehension) I do now see “refuting the common teachings,” I guess I put more emphasis on “everything said by a prophet is not scripture or doctrine” meaning the thrust of the argument was to show how leaders are not perfect, not to show that all leaders do these things. A hair has been split.

That said…

DarkJedi wrote:

Would he tell the struggling single mother, regardless of how she got that way, that she is less important to him than a young man?

Knowing a bit of the history here that one might come across as a direct attack on his MP.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it was the “common teachings of the day” that was at the heart of my comment.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t like it, friend, for one very simple reason:

Quote:

Would he tell the deacon not wearing a white shirt or tie he can’t pass the sacrament or humiliate him by giving him an ugly pink tie from the 80s? Would he ask the girl with the tattoos and multiple earrings to sit outside, and tell her she can’t be baptized, take the sacrament or to go to the temple? Would he tell the struggling single mother, regardless of how she got that way, that she is less important to him than a young man? Would he flip the table if he found the priests playing face cards?

The top leadership would not be okay with ANY of the examples you listed, and neither would most members of the Church. I know too many local leaders who would do the first one, but the VAST majority of the members and leaders I know wouldn’t do ANY of them. Seriously, those are really, really bad examples of what ails “The Church” as a collective whole. There are way too many legitimate examples to use the ones above.

It’s neither accurate nor charitable to describe an entire organization based on the actions and attitudes of the minority of its members – especially when those actions don’t reflect the views or actions of its leadership.

Again, point taken. It is not meant as a condemnation of the organization as a whole by any means (and I never said “the Church”), but there are many individuals who espouse those ideas – it’s directed (in my mind) at those. All of them those examples are based on actual things I have seen. Multiple examples of deacons in different wards with different bishops (although not our current bishop); I get and agree with the whole idea of looking the same in the temple – in that particular case it was actually the girl’s hair color (although she did have multiple tattoos and earrings); the single mother thing is taught by more than one GA; and several years ago my bishop did not allow two priests who admitted playing face cards (maybe gambling) to participate in the sacrament. I know these are not indicative of everyone and I have seen bishop’s counselors disagree with bishops on some of these. The point here really is that individuals can be so prone to following directions in Mormon Doctrine (for example) and forget what LDS doctrine really is – and it’s not any of those things.

I know I’m not Jesus, and I don’t want to be crucified – but I will point out that Jesus offended, too. The truth can sometimes hurt.

Let me be clear again – I do not intend to say this in this way (and maybe not at all). I would like to know how to gently and safely convey the message that we sometimes get off track and lose focus on the central themes of the gospel and do get caught up in the teachings of men (non-doctrine).

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I didn’t read it as DJ describing the entire organization, it’s just a list of things that us imperfect people do from time to time. On the re-re-re-read (I have very poor reading comprehension) I do now see “refuting the common teachings,” I guess I put more emphasis on “everything said by a prophet is not scripture or doctrine” meaning the thrust of the argument was to show how leaders are not perfect, not to show that all leaders do these things. A hair has been split.

That said…

DarkJedi wrote:

Would he tell the struggling single mother, regardless of how she got that way, that she is less important to him than a young man?

Knowing a bit of the history here that one might come across as a direct attack on his MP.

Another whose insight serves him well. Your original meaning is how it was intended. I recognize that I do sometimes have difficulty expressing complex thoughts in writing.

And, yes, I don’t agree with the mission “policy” (for lack of a better word) of focusing on young men above others. I believe the gospel is for everyone. I’m not sure how much the MP actually pushes that, it was taught to them by a visiting GA – but I am aware that he and at least two other GAs teach the same thing. My son, to whom the original was written, also does not agree with that particular idea and I’m sure he understands the meaning, as he does the other examples, all of which he has also witnessed.

[Anonymous]

Jesus did offend.

But when it comes to us vs them he also said this:

Quote:

Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector… But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

There are two ways to read this parable:

1 – we see ourselves in the tax collector and we see others as the Pharisee.

2 – we see our own weaknesses in the Pharisee and recognize that we should be more like the tax collector.

[Author]

Posts