- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There is a brilliant post over on BCC today with the title above. I HIGHLY recommend it to this group. http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/11/27/sexual-transgression-and-dwelling-together-in-love/ A couple of highlights for me, which were hard to choose – given how much I loved the post:
Quote:The atonement is meant, in part, to provide us a space by which we can stop being cut off from everyone, from God, from our community and family, and ourselves. But the ways we have been taught to think and act about sexuality have created walls of humiliation and shame between us and other people.
Quote:When we as a community heap shame and humiliation on someone because of their behavior, we contribute to the same estrangeness and isolation that they experienced as a result of their sin. Consequently, that person’s individual sin and our sin as a community in not loving that person amount to exactly the same thing: we are cut off from one another, or better, we are bound to one another in shame, embarrassment, isolation, and misery.
It truly is an astounding post.
Yes, I thought it was very good, too. I wasn’t sure where it was headed, but I particularly liked the idea that the one who rejects other sinners is the sinner and also sins against him/herself. hawkgrrrl wrote:Yes, I thought it was very good, too. I wasn’t sure where it was headed, but I particularly liked the idea that the one who rejects other sinners is the sinner and also sins against him/herself.
I liked what I was reading, but it did take a while to get through — a lot there, and in re-reading it a couple of times, it raises a very significant concern.I think the point made is that god’s love and atonement operates a lot sooner than we think, and that sin, particularly sexual sin, estranges us from the help we really need through isolation.
It occurs to me that the concept of ‘worthiness’ is played hard in the church, through the ‘for the strength of the youth’, to the TR interview, to everything. “Saved after everything we can do” implies something, perhaps that isn’t quite right in the day-to-day living context. To most people, myself included, the idea of being ‘saved’ needs to have a current focus — saved from the guilt, shame, and screw-ups I make on a daily basis. I need god’s help here and now, a life-buoy to get through the day. Perhaps to use the term ‘saved’ is incorrect, but it is real. it’s almost like, “swim harder, and harder, then when you’ve worn yourself out, I’ll send you a lifebuoy”.
the born-again christian movement proposes that when I ask for help, Jesus sends the lifebuoy immediately — he ‘saves’ you, absolving you of the guilt and shame associated with sin. This does not mean, from everything I have discussed with reasonable born-again christians, that I am absolved of doing good or right, it’s only the order in which it happens. Our model seems to be you fall into the water of sin, you of yourself swim your heart out to try to get out of the water, and if and when you’re about to drown (after all we can do), we get the lifebuoy. The born again approach is that you fall into the water of sin, you call for the savior to save you, he sends you the lifebuoy, and then he guides you back to the save harbor. You still have to swim, but you have help.
In my impression, those who truly fall in love as a natural part of coming of age and adulthood who through passion fall into the way of sexual transgression need love and support, as much as can be given them. their love and acts of sex were natural, but to brand it all sin and unworthiness leads to guilt and shame, and unchecked, leads to disfunctionality across the board. Once the big scarlet letter is applied to the person, returning is hard, and staying out isolates. Overcompensation, either direction, can be the outcome. I had an uncle and aunt that i think may have ‘blown it’ before their temple wedding, and as personal acts of contrition, lived the remainder of their lives as obsessively righteous mormons. So obsessive that they wore the old-style garments always, and wouldn’t allow any commandment given over the GC pulpit to go unobserved in their family. All five of their children ended up out of the church, many with serious dysfunction: jails, institutions, nymphomania, attempted suicides. True story.
To me, the atonement is absolute, complete, perfect, and already done. God’s forgiveness and the salvation offered by christ as I understand it is absolute. there are no conditions of salvation, except maybe just to ask for it in faith. When I was in the depths of despair and could not stop drinking 24 years ago, I broke down and could not continue, and at that point, I had a complete release from my desire to drink. I was free of it. It did not mean that I could sit there, the reprieve was daily renewable, but the point is that I was saved in a moment, not after all I could do. When I went to the bishop a few weeks later, all I got was punishment, no help whatsoever. I believe that this should not be the case.
To me the concept comes down to how the term ‘worthiness’ is perhaps misunderstood. I would prefer to break it down as ‘worth’ ‘i’ ‘ness’. The ‘ness’ is the state of being. “i” is me, and I have “worth”. True, without the power of god, which power I choose to call ‘the Way’, I am nothing, but as stated in the YW theme, I am a [child] of god who loves me and I love him”. Hence, my state of being is that “I” am “worth” an infinite amount, and there is a power there, always, to redeem my soul, to save me, if I but turn to him daily.
To tell someone through punishment that they are ‘not worthy’ is a horrible thing to do. Instead, leaders and counselors should change the paradigm to say, “you, a person of infinite divine worth, have made a mistake and fallen into the water. I love you, and since It’s dangerous there, let’s work together to bring you out of danger.”
just my long opinion…too wordy, i know.
The article is compelling. Unfortunately,even if a general authority came over the pulpit and said something similar (and I don’t think any of the G.A’s would disagree with the basic theme) few members of the Church will ever look upon sexual sin with anything but utter abhorrence. Many of us don’t understand alcoholism, drug abuse, or violent behavior. So we admire the reformed alcoholic or take pleasure in hearing about how someone overcame their drug habit precisely because these problems are so foreign to many of us. When was the last time you heard a reformed sex addict talk in Church (or in any church context)? How about someone who committed adultery? Nearly everyone has felt passion, desire, and the kinds of temptations associated with sexual sin. Those desires are programmed into our physical bodies and can be expressed at appropriate times and in appropriate ways. There is no point when drinking alcohol is okay or smoking or gossiping about our neighbor etc. But sex! It has to be turned off and then turned on depending upon your marital status, partner willingness, and context. It hits close to home. It strikes at something deeply personal and private. And it can never, never, EVER be discussed with ANYONE (not even your spouse). If those desires stray into the “unnatural”, the isolation will be even more profound.
I like this posting too. In it he states:
Quote:One recent study shows that nearly 1/5 of boys and nearly 1/3 of girls in the United States have had a sexual encounter of some kind with an adult by the time they reach high school. The rates are much higher in less developed countries.
Are these statistics true? Are they really this high?
Would this be true within the church too?
More later.
Mike from Milton.
So, Wayfarer — what are you suggesting — that the notion of “by grace we are saved after all we can do” has it backwards? Or simply that the phrase leads to a punitive orientation on the part of Church leaders? [This isn’t a confrontive question, it’s just a question. It sounded more confrontive than I meant it to be after I read it a second ago, please don’t read anything negative into it — I’m sincerely curious]. On this note, I am now of the tentative belief that the Bishop and Stake President are primarily administrators. Although they can give support, their self-interest is tied to what the SP is going to do if the HC pass on something he did wrong to the SP. I experienced the same thing when I was a counselor in a Bishopric. The Bishop sort of “coached” (to put it VERY nicely) me on procedural matters I did wrong now and then…and he would often say regarding finances that “is the SP going to fire me over that?”….
Brian made the point that Bishops and SP’s are stable, good men, and their opinion has some value, but we can’t get away from the fact that they have a quadruple role as judge, jury, executioner and supporter. Sometimes with conflicting aims at times when you hold their position power and standing with the organization in the mix.
Quote:So, Wayfarer — what are you suggesting — that the notion of “by grace we are saved after all we can do” has it backwards? Or simply that the phrase leads to a punitive orientation on the part of Church leaders?
SD, wayfarer can answer, but my own answer is in a post I copied here a while ago. Short version – I believe it’s a case of an incorrect interpretation of the verse in question, which is addressed about halfway through the post:
“Grace – Long Initial Post” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=201&hilit=grace SilentDawning wrote:So, Wayfarer — what are you suggesting — that the notion of “by grace we are saved after all we can do” has it backwards? Or simply that the phrase leads to a punitive orientation on the part of Church leaders? This isn’t a confrontive question, it’s just a question. It sounded more confrontive than I meant it to be after I read it a second ago, please don’t read anything negative into it — I’m sincerely curious.
to be generous, I think the ‘after all we can do’ is misinterpreted. ‘after all’ has semantic meaning different than sequence. I read it like this — “no matter what I can do in this life to earn worthiness from the lord, I’ve learned that it is by grace I am saved after all.” It is a realization after the fact that grace was operative all the way through.Regarding the punative orientation of church leaders — yes, by interpreting the case that grace ain’t gonna happen until I put in the ‘all i can do’ effort, I believe BPs and SPs are seeking the ‘all you can do’ as an indicator that you are doing enough, and if you aren’t doing ‘all you can do’ in their impression, the judgment will be harsh and severe. No cookies for you.
SilentDawning wrote:On this note, I am now of the tentative belief that the Bishop and Stake President are primarily administrators. Although they can give support, their self-interest is tied to what the SP is going to do if the HC pass on something he did wrong to the SP. I experienced the same thing when I was a counselor in a Bishopric. The Bishop sort of “coached” (to put it VERY nicely) me on procedural matters I did wrong now and then…and he would often say regarding finances that “is the SP going to fire me over that?”….
not suprising at all — and being fired is not a bad thing.priesthood leadership is entirely administrative — i would argue that it is its exclusive function. one of my best friends is an exmo after being in a stake presidency as well as being a bishop. as bishop, the SP was extraordinarily demanding on exact compliance on all sorts of policies, and made each PPI and meeting a rant on how he as a bishop was doing things wrong. The HC rep assigned to the ward was constantly returning-and-reporting how things weren’t being done by the book (the HC rep was later ex-ed for immorality), and the SP took the HC input on face value without investigating at the time. The constant managerial pressure from the SP drove my friend to ask to be released as bishop after 13 months on a thursday and it happened on the next sunday — obviously the SP already had a backup plan in place.
In two stints as HP group 1st Assistant, I became very well known as a ‘not by the book’ mormon, and treated reporting requirements with a degree of laissez-faire. My last HPGL was a good friend, very accommodating of diversity, but he realized and made the recommendation that I was not eligible as his replacement due to not having the ‘right stuff’. He saved me a lot of grief.
SilentDawning wrote:Brian made the point that Bishops and SP’s are stable, good men, and their opinion has some value, but we can’t get away from the fact that they have a quadruple role as judge, jury, executioner and supporter. Sometimes with conflicting aims at times when you hold their position power and standing with the organization in the mix.
I’m not sure that ‘supporter’ is part of the job description. I would go with a quadruple role as proscutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Their purpose is to preserve the purity of the church, the integrity of the brand as it were. That is largely an administrative function, in my opinion.for what it’s worth…
As jaded as I may have sounded on this earlier, I do think there is some role as supporter. Even Church disciplinary councils put “doing what is best for the [transgressor]” in the list…and in my last read of the old CHI, the Bishop was the only one in the ward who was supposed to give counseling to members. So, this is part of his role. Now, in practice what does it mean? Probably not a lot as the Bishop is not trained in counseling. When I pointed out some really useful books on diagnosing marital problems to our Bishop, back when I was in leadership, he indicated that if someone comes to him with marital problems, he just refers them to the LDS Social Services.
Also, if you look at the “counselling training footprint” of effort expended by our organization, the majority of the leadership meetings I’ve attended tend to focus on administrative training, with motivational and spiritual talks present as well to help people feel the spirit….but I rarely hear or or see training happening to help people be better spiritual counsellors.
Perhaps everyone feels the “mantle” is enough of the calling so it’s unecessary to train Bishops in counselling principles.
SilentDawning wrote:As jaded as I may have sounded on this earlier, I do think there is some role as supporter. Even Church disciplinary councils put “doing what is best for the [transgressor]” in the list…and in my last read of the old CHI, the Bishop was the only one in the ward who was supposed to give counseling to members. So, this is part of his role.
Now, in practice what does it mean? Probably not a lot as the Bishop is not trained in counseling. When I pointed out some really useful books on diagnosing marital problems to our Bishop, back when I was in leadership, he indicated that if someone comes to him with marital problems, he just refers them to the LDS Social Services.
Also, if you look at the “counselling training footprint” of effort expended by our organization, the majority of the leadership meetings I’ve attended tend to focus on administrative training, with motivational and spiritual talks present as well to help people feel the spirit….but I rarely hear or or see training happening to help people be better spiritual counsellors.
Perhaps everyone feels the “mantle” is enough of the calling so it’s unecessary to train Bishops in counselling principles.
the term bishop in greek is episkopos, or literally, overseer. In literal terms, one who looks over the church, but in fact ‘overseer’ is administrative manager of the church. Oh how I wish it were different, but that’s what ends up being the calling. Some who are called to it have genuine empathy and are good listeners, and it serves them well to do so. others see their role as the one true representative of the rod of iron. there is personal latitude in the counseling area, but not in the area and role of administration and church discipline. Given the lack of effective pastoral training and the lack of time available to the bishop, counseling and support are often not well served by the administrative role that by itself requires nearly a fulltime commitment.wayfarer wrote:I think the point made is that god’s love and atonement operates a lot sooner than we think, and that sin, particularly sexual sin, estranges us from the help we really need through isolation.
It occurs to me that the concept of ‘worthiness’ is played hard in the church, through the ‘for the strength of the youth’, to the TR interview, to everything. “Saved after everything we can do” implies something, perhaps that isn’t quite right in the day-to-day living context. To most people, myself included, the idea of being ‘saved’ needs to have a current focus — saved from the guilt, shame, and screw-ups I make on a daily basis. I need god’s help here and now, a life-buoy to get through the day. Perhaps to use the term ‘saved’ is incorrect, but it is real. it’s almost like, “swim harder, and harder, then when you’ve worn yourself out, I’ll send you a lifebuoy”.
Good thoughts wayfarer.Let me ask a follow-up question…let’s say someone sins and truly repents, including confession to the bishop. The Bishop teaches they are not worthy to take the sacrament. Then the person feels from prayer they are forgiven…and perhaps that part you mentioned about “God’s love and atonement operates sooner than we think” they truly feel in their heart. But the bishop continues to make them wait for a certain period of time (6 months or a year).
Do you think the sin is forgiven prior to the worthiness to take the sacrament or enter the temple, or can a person be forgiven prior to the bishop’s waiting period?
Quote:Do you think the sin is forgiven prior to the worthiness to take the sacrament or enter the temple, or can a person be forgiven prior to the bishop’s waiting period?
Absolutely – but I wouldn’t say “worthiness to take the sacrament or enter the temple”. I would say “privilege to take the sacrament or enter the temple” – since administrative measures aren’t about worthiness, foremost, as much as about demonstrated willingness to give up “privilege” by a show of contrition. Someone might have the “worthiness” spiritually to partake but not have the “privilege” to do so.
I wish that could be eliminated entirely, but, from a purely practical perspective, it’s WAY too subjective and open to abuse to disappear completely, imo.
Heber13 wrote:Let me ask a follow-up question…let’s say someone sins and truly repents, including confession to the bishop. The Bishop teaches they are not worthy to take the sacrament. Then the person feels from prayer they are forgiven…and perhaps that part you mentioned about “God’s love and atonement operates sooner than we think” they truly feel in their heart. But the bishop continues to make them wait for a certain period of time (6 months or a year).
Do you think the sin is forgiven prior to the worthiness to take the sacrament or enter the temple, or can a person be forgiven prior to the bishop’s waiting period?
Quote:A bishop and certain other priesthood leaders can extend forgiveness on behalf of the Church for serious sins, but the Lord’s forgiveness can only come from God through revelation. (D & C Institute manual)
Quote:If repentance is sufficient he may waive penalties, which is tantamount to forgiveness. The bishop claims no authority to absolve sins, but he does share the burden, waive penalties, relieve tension and strain; and he may assure a continuance of activity.” ( “President Kimball Speaks Out on Morality,” Ensign, Nov. 1980, p. 98 ; or New Era, Nov. 1980, p. 44 .)
It would seem that there is no correlation between waiting periods and forgiveness.
Mike wrote:Are these statistics true? Are they really this high?
Would this be true within the church too?
Yes, these statistics are right in line with what my understanding is. I could only guess what the statistics would be like in the church but assume that they would be similar.
Quote:Christ’s love is not dependent on what we do, and therefore forgiveness means that Christ gives himself to us before anything we do. Fore-giveness. [1] “We love him,” the scripture says, “because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19). His love is not contingent on what we do but is grounded in who we are.
Quote:When we are aware that his love was there before those sins we committed and it remains afterward, the most powerful ever-present force in the universe, everything changes for us and we are newly born in his image. Being newly born means, in fact, that the entire world takes on a newness of life, a pristine texture of hope and possibility. Repentance in this context means to accept Christ’s forgiveness and mercy, always already given to us before anything we’ve done.
Quote:To see with new eyes is to see through Christ’s eyes, eyes of faith, hope, and love. When we are bound to each other in relationships of unforgiveness we are saying that we are waiting to give ourselves to each other until we see what the other does, and if it’s acceptable. In other words–to see with our own, old eyes, eyes of distrust, despair, and fear. “And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves; for charity shall cover the multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:
. Whose sins? Not our own. Charity is a love of others, not ourselves. Or maybe better said: it is the true and pure love of ourselves that allows us to freely love others and see them as they really are. Peter teaches here that to have charity, to love others, is to hide their sins from our own eyes. This is why, in the end, we are the ones that become new creatures (2 Cor. 5:17), and all things become new to us.This is exactly how I think God sees us: Isa. 43:25 “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.”
He loves and sees us as we really are, not from a position of our worthiness but of our divine worth. It is to acquire this view that allows us to repent/ be born again.
Old-Timer wrote:In short, you repent by “losing (your view of) yourself” and “finding (His view of) yourself”.
Once we have acquired his view of ourselves, we can move forward in using “His view” to view others as well.:thumbup: Heber13 wrote:Let me ask a follow-up question…let’s say someone sins and truly repents, including confession to the bishop. The Bishop teaches they are not worthy to take the sacrament. Then the person feels from prayer they are forgiven…and perhaps that part you mentioned about “God’s love and atonement operates sooner than we think” they truly feel in their heart. But the bishop continues to make them wait for a certain period of time (6 months or a year).
Do you think the sin is forgiven prior to the worthiness to take the sacrament or enter the temple, or can a person be forgiven prior to the bishop’s waiting period?
my personal feeling is that a person is forgiven the moment the spirit tells them they are forgiven.church forgiveness is on an entirely different schedule. according to CHI, the informal probation ends upon meeting certain conditions. if you have met them aside from timeframe, i would think that some bishops are in tune enough that if you came to him after a personal spiritual experience of forgiveness, he might change an
informal probationpunishment period, but there are no guarantees. formal probation, the result of a disciplinary council, would require a reconvening of the council to lift the probation. same deal with disfellowshipment, except that the guidance is usually a year. in both cases of formal probation and disfellowshipment, the disciplinary council considers whether a full repentance has been completed. that is what i read of the policy. i am not a fan, because it all depends on human judgment, and that is oh so different from ward and stake to ward and stake.
it is what it is.
I know myself I’m a recovering sex addict. I’ve done those things that only involved me. So I haven’t confessed every slip-up I had. Sometimes I believe the Holy Ghost will tell you to keep quite. I could be wrong about that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.