- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald wrote:
We really need to get away from this model:
Man > Church > God. And focus more on this one: Man > God > Church.
Or perhaps just
Man > Godwith church in a parallel capacity. Wouldn’t that be something? cwald wrote:Heber13 wrote:cwald wrote:I don’t believe local church leaders have a right to define my mormonism.
I like this response, cwald.
Realistically, there are some things the local leaders do have a right to do:
1) They can determine if I practice the priesthood in church (ordinances like baptism or baby blessings and TRs, etc)
2) They can determine callings for me
3) They can limit participation (prayers, talks, responsibilities, etc).
It’s their ball to limit our participation, and to SUGGEST callings — but not determine them. Ultimately, it’s my choice. They can also limit our use of the priesthood if they want.
The thing is, these things only have power if we buy into them – if we consider them important to us at the time.
I remember during my first bout of less activity, they had nothing. As long as I said I had a testimony but was suffering from commitment problems due to [insert cause here], and CHOSE not to hold a TR, they were totally off-base. There was nothing they could do or say as I had already stripped myself of the temple priviledge. They could offer advice, but it was up to me whether I actually acted on it.
Now, the new handbook gives them broadened powers to prevent us from participating in Melch priesthood ordinances and other events, which provides checkpoints, but ultimately, these things are punishments only if we decide it matters to us to have them withdrawn.
cwald wrote:I don’t think the church leaders have any right to determine one’s relationship with god, and since we are following the mormon pathway and have some kind of beliefs that baptism and ordinance are good ideas and in some cases necessary, they should not be making these decisions based on thoughts, belief and unorthodoxy and so called “worthiness.” We really need to get away from this model:
Man > Church > God. And focus more on this one: Man > God > Church.The church should suppliment our efforts to find the gods, not determine it.
I would see it this way:Man <--> God
and separately,
Man <--> Church.
My relationship with God has nothing to do with the church whatsoever. Not any more. Maybe there is an evolutionary ladder of faith, perhaps akin to fowler, but not quite the same. I believe that people in the earlier stages (2) need faith/religion to help point the way. Perhaps, in mormon terms, this would be in the telestial kingdom, where there are all sorts of options, and varying beliefs. In the days of moses, the LDS version of the moses myth was that Israel couldn’t handle the higher law, so they were stuck with the lower one — the Torah, rather than the laws of a higher kingdom.
In my view of Joseph Smith, a very complicated but brilliant person, he was able to see above the lowest tier of church evolution, and felt free (my opinion) to pick and choose beliefs from several of the telestial organizations (sources of the BoM, his hebrew lessons, masonic rites), and construct a virtual cafeteria of beliefs for the edification of the saints. The early saints were all over the map — utopian socialism, ordaining blacks to the priesthood, creative (uh) marriage arrangements — a whole raft of innovations for the time. JS was by no means orthodox, nor did he enforce orthodoxy — it was all innovative, creative, and mystical (magical, perhaps a little pious fraud mixed in for good measure).
Well, this innovative approach goes above the church tier in the telestial kingdom and sees that there may be something beyond the churches, an ultimate reality that can be accessed directly and personally by revelation — mysticism, as it should have been called, but never was. If we take anything out of the mess that was Joseph Smith, was that orthodoxy should not bind the mind, but that sycretism, and openness might expand the mind above orthodoxy and ‘standards’.
Then mormon orthodoxy started to emerge from BY through the 20th century, to the point that the Church fell back into its solid position as telestial kingdom property. This more or less corresponds from the political shift to the hard right
:silent: .Forgive my rambling, but in the end, orthodoxy gets in the way of direct access to the divine. Hence, the church cannot be between me and god.
just my opinion, for what little that’s worth.
SilentDawning wrote:…
I remember during my first bout of less activity, they had nothing. As long as I said I had a testimony but was suffering from commitment problems due to [insert cause here], and CHOSE not to hold a TR, they were totally off-base. There was nothing they could do or say as I had already stripped myself of the temple priviledge. They could offer advice, but it was up to me whether I actually acted on it.
Now, the new handbook gives them broadened powers to prevent us from participating in Melch priesthood ordinances and other events, which provides checkpoints, but ultimately, t
hese things are punishments only if we decide it matters to us to have them withdrawn. Yes, perhaps. But when kids come into play, all the rules change. Unfortunately, I think there are certain leaders who realize this, and use it to “manipulate” people and as a way to control. I mean, what is more important than family to an LDS man in the church? Nothing – and the leaders know it. This guy’s kid was in tears because he wants to be baptized. This is why I was one of those people who had a melt-down when they came out with the new requirements in the CHI – the policy about TR worthy needed to perform certain ordinances. Most people here want to give the church the benefit of the doubt. Okay. But this is obviously what can happen, and, IMO, will continue to happen as long as these policies are not addressed and the membership allow the leadership to put more and more control mechanisms in place and demand more and more conformity and orthodoxy.
Way — I agree with everything you just wrote. It’s right on. From the latest CHI: Page 140 General Policies “A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood.”
Only a temple rec holder can confirm a person a member of the church or confer the Melch Priesthood.
So, if you hold the priesthood, you should be allowed to baptize your son. A temple recommend interview is not necessary, nor is worthiness to attend the temple. You cannot confirm him a member, however.
Cnsl1 wrote:From the latest CHI: Page 140 General Policies
“A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood.”
Only a temple rec holder can confirm a person a member of the church or confer the Melch Priesthood.
So, if you hold the priesthood, you should be allowed to baptize your son. A temple recommend interview is not necessary, nor is worthiness to attend the temple. You cannot confirm him a member, however.
But I think that’s up to the discretion of the Bishop — right? Ideally, don’t they want the priesthood holder to be fully temple worthy to participate in any ordinance? And if they DO allow someone to participate in the Aaronic priesthood ordinances, for example, it’s after the Bishop makes a determination of whether the person’s lack of temple worthiness should be “overlooked” (bad word, but I can’t think of anything else to describe it).
Just to be a little more subversive, the Church ultimately only has control of two things: 1. Legal right to grant or restrict access to their buildings and facilities (meeting houses with fonts, temples, etc.).
2. What gets recorded and stored in their databases.
They don’t actually have any power or control over a person exercising priesthood in the service of God, unless that person acknowledges and accepts their control.
😈 The bottom line with most of these issue though is the desire to be a part of the community, and to have the community accept and validate the “rites of passage” of our loved ones. I don’t deny how important that is.
Cns1 has the right quote from the instruction manual that the Bishop should realize it CAN be done, it has been done, and many other bishops and SPs allow it to be done. These are the kinds of things that I think can be worked out with humble, honest, and truth-seeking attitudes to have the SP and Bishop explain specifically why it CAN’T be done in your case. It also helps to quote sections of Pres Packer’s talk or other sources that talk about the importance of binding the families together through these ordinances, and the long-term positive effect on the children and families while we continue to work out things in our lives, truly turning to God and the Spirit to help us as we do so.
Often, the leaders with this kind of information will take time to pray and think, and come back with a more loving response. But if not, if the leader can’t approve…the choice is to talk with your spouse and see if it is more important to the child to get baptized by a relative, or just hold out and say when the time is right, the baptism will happen on matter of principle that strebor is worthy and should be able to do it. And the consequences be upon the heads of the leaders and all involved.
That is a personal choice on how to handle the situation. But its not easy, and my heart goes out to strebor’s family. God bless ’em.
strebor, thank you for your postings. This is an interesting situation. I wonder how I would handle it? I’m sure, not as diplomatically.
In this life, we don’t have the power to control how other people react to a specific situation (SP).
We only have the power how we will react.
This is the way I probably would react:
A.) I would consider having my Father in law do the Baptism. This assumes that you feel close to him.
When my youngest son was baptised, we were still active. I wanted my FIL to do it because he was a great example of a good member living a Christ like life. I also considered him the Patriach of our whole family. I felt closer to him then I did my own Father, in a lot of ways.
B.) Next I would write a letter to your Bishop & SP explaining your decision about the baptism. Then, basically bare your testimony, in a few brief paragraphs, explaining your core beliefs. Plus, throw something in regarding his position & your willingness to support his position. Assuming of course that you can do that. I wouldn’t include any buzz words that would give him more doubts about you.
C.) I would talk it over with your wife & family, explaining that we should do this as a family & we want to react to this situation in a Christ like manner, without anger.
This is easy for me to say & hard to do. I don’t know if I could do it.
I’m sure in the pre-existence, we were told that this life wasn’t going to be easy.
Best of luck. Keep us informed about your progress along the way.
We want to learn from your experience.
God Bless,
Mike from Milton.
This is easy to say & hard to do.
I think if you haven’t committed a major sexual or criminal misdemeanor, then you should be allowed to do it… Really appreciate all the suggestions and thoughtful responses. The next few days are going to be stressful because of the holidays with family everywhere. I’m pretty sure something will come up. I’m leaning towards asking for another meeting with SP. The hardest thing for me to deal with in this whole thing right now is that I don’t really believe that SP understands where I’m really at. He almost seemed preemptive with not accepting my answers, like he had his mind made up. His insistence on yes/no did not seem spontaneous, almost like he had been warned that I could be stopped by that. Wondering if he would have been given instruction of that sort when he talked to the “brethren” about our membership. If that is the case then I probably won’t benefit from another discussion but I honestly think he is a very good man and that if he knew everything I have been through, he would not choose to draw a line right now.
I somehow want to make it very real for him, because it has enormous consequences for my family. If he wants to draw a line after a full discussion then I can’t stop him, something inside of me(the spirit?) says I need to try.
Anyway not sure where this all will go but hoping for the best.
Fwiw, strebor, I really like your last comment. When someone hurts us, it’s hard to remember that, sometimes, it’s just a case of a good person trying his or her best.
I know I’ve hurt others plenty of times in my life, and I hope I am a good person. If I can hurt others unintentionaly, just because I’m a stupid, flawed, blind mortal, I try really, really hard to keep that in mind with regard to others. I try really hard to have my first “action” be charitable rather than judgmental. I don’t succeed as often as I’d like, but I do try.
As one of my favorite sayings goes,
“May there be a road.”Personally, this is why I say, “Yes” to the questions. Honestly it isn’t the questions on the TR interview that bug me. Its the assumption that everything is doctrine and of the Lord. That excuse was used up at School on more then one occasion for things to happen. (I went to BYU-Idaho, have graduated), It just doesn’t make sense to me. No not everything is of the Lord in a Church, in which the Lord gives men agency to do as they see fit so long as they follow certain commandments. strebor wrote:I’m leaning towards asking for another meeting with SP. The hardest thing for me to deal with in this whole thing right now is that I don’t really believe that SP understands where I’m really at. He almost seemed preemptive with not accepting my answers, like he had his mind made up. His insistence on yes/no did not seem spontaneous, almost like he had been warned that I could be stopped by that. Wondering if he would have been given instruction of that sort when he talked to the “brethren” about our membership.
the TR interviews are intentionionally vague, limited in depth, and require a yes or no. anything you say other than yes to the first four indicates to the interviewer that there is a problem that prevents you from saying yes. that is why, for me, it was important to lay out my personal belief statement, so i can honestly and confidently answer without any elaboration or explanation. i humbly suggest the same. work out what you believe before meeting with him again, searching your own feelings and come to peace with what you believe. then go to him with a change of heart (if applicable) and answer directly and simply without elaboration.my heart continues to go out to you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.