- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Church has not told young men they will go to Hell if they don’t serve missions. I am positive there are too many members who have done so (including local leaders), but the Church never has. Sure, there has been pretty intense cultural pressure to serve, but Hell has never been preached by the Church as the result of not going. I am not discounting your experience, Rob4Hope, or that of your son – but I always address hyperbole when it is recorded here. That is true when it comes from either side of the fulcrum – apologetic or accusatory. I served my mission in the 80’s, and I lived in Utah County. Cache County and Southern Utah probably were more conservative than where I lived, but not very many other places were. Many of my relatives and high school friends did, and many of my relatives and high school friends didn’t. The ones who didn’t weren’t told they were going to Hell – and quite a few of them served in various callings and attended normal wards (family and/or singles) during the years they would have been serving missions.
I am positive the area where you lived was exactly as you described, Rob4Hope, but it wasn’t that way throughout the entire Church, and that message wasn’t preached from the General Conference pulpit. Again, I know the pressure involved in framing a mission as a Priesthood duty for all young men, but that hasn’t worked on all young men at any time in our history – and Hell used to be preached as the result in the distant past when married men were called to serve for long periods of time and, sometimes, for multiple stints. It hasn’t been stated that way in my lifetime.
Old-Timer wrote:The Church has not told young men they will go to Hell if they don’t serve missions. I am positive there are too many members who have done so (including local leaders), but the Church never has. Sure, there has been pretty intense cultural pressure to serve, but Hell has never been preached by the Church as the result of not going.
I am not discounting your experience, Rob4Hope, or that of your son – but I always address hyperbole when it is recorded here. That is true when it comes from either side of the fulcrum – apologetic or accusatory. I served my mission in the 80’s, and I lived in Utah County. Cache County and Southern Utah probably were more conservative than where I lived, but not very many other places were. Many of my relatives and high school friends did, and many of my relatives and high school friends didn’t. The ones who didn’t weren’t told they were going to Hell – and quite a few of them served in various callings and attended normal wards (family and/or singles) during the years they would have been serving missions.
I am positive the area where you lived was exactly as you described, Rob4Hope, but it wasn’t that way throughout the entire Church, and that message wasn’t preached from the General Conference pulpit. Again, I know the pressure involved in framing a mission as a Priesthood duty for all young men, but that hasn’t worked on all young men at any time in our history – and Hell used to be preached as the result in the distant past when married men were called to serve for long periods of time and, sometimes, for multiple stints. It hasn’t been sated that way in my lifetime.
They didn’t say that “you will go to HELL” Ray…this is true. The message was: “You are seriously jeopardizing your eternal salvation”. I heard this from 70 type people. I don’t remember where, but it trickled down into MANY of the stakes in SLC. I was in one that had such a position, and there were others.
There is intense social pressure now still over this issue. I have a friend who didn’t go. He is still asked…where did you server your mission, and when he says “I didn’t serve one”…depending on the age group of who asked, is given a sad “Oh,..how sad for you” look. I have another friend who came home after 9 months for a medical concern, and he feels similar feelings.
The focus has changed,..but when I grew up, this was the way it was. I know of at least 3 stakes where this was the culture…VERY strong culture.
There was also a culture in the mission itself. If you didn’t baptise, it was because you weren’t keeping the rules and didn’t have enough faith. I was EXTREMELY pleased to see the emphasis change in Preach My Gospel when they made it clear that the goals you set for yourself SHOULD be things under your control–not number of baptisms.
Anyway, your point is well taken, and I certainly know that pockets of culture change from place to place.
I also appreciate the changes you mention in Preach My Gospel. There still are too many MPs and missionaries who don’t get it, but there are a lot who do. Fwiw, I find it highly ironic that many of the same people who complain the most vocally about retention rates in earlier days of questionable baptisms now complain just as loudly about a lower number of baptisms. Most of them can’t see the irony due to their focus on needing to complain, but it is there in spades.
Old-Timer wrote:I also appreciate the changes you mention in Preach My Gospel. There still are too many MPs and missionaries who don’t get it, but there are a lot who do.
Fwiw, I find it highly ironic that many of the same people who complain the most vocally about retention rates in earlier days of questionable baptisms now complain just as loudly about a lower number of baptisms. Most of them can’t see the irony due to their focus on needing to complain, but it is there in spades.
One other thing. I am aware of this inside myself, and it is dangerous for me. Satan uses logic against the saints,..or at least against me.
In my earlier college days, had to take classes in logic (computer science and math stuff). There is an argument called contraposition. It goes like this: “A” implies “B” if and only if “B not” implies “A not”.
OK…those of you how are reading this…don’t freak out…I will give an example. Weather is a good choice here.
Suppose certain conditions for rain exist. If those conditions exist,…it rains. If, however, it is not raining, then those conditions don’t exist.
There it is.
There was a directive in our mission, and I was told it came from headquarters — ie. the GA level. That directive was that each missionary should work to baptize a person each month.
Now, we are told over and over that God will never give us a direction that he will not prepare a way for us to accomplish it. And, we are taught that the prophet will never lead the church astray…so this “directive” was authoritative.
Here is the damage.
If you have enough faith … you will baptize. If you are not baptizing, you obviously don’t have enough faith.
BAM!
In my mission, the average baptismal rate was 1/2 a baptism per missionary per MISSION. I personally know missionaries who went home totally demoralized, feeling like utter failures BECAUSE they didn’t have enough faith–as they supposed.
I think this type of logic–supported by the BofM by the way “unto such it shall be given to baptise thousands” (read the verse and look at the logic behind it)–does damage.
Sometimes these types of policies, they may seem small, but they can cause real problems. Just saying….
I now a therapist who believes her purpose in life is to pick up the pieces of return missionaries, and those who get through being destroyed by their bishops who solve problems by telling members to read more scriptures, say more prayers,…etc.
SNAP! Dang, there is a lot of bitterness coming out of my fingers tonight. I’m sorry folks.
I’m not aware of that baptism reference in the Book of Mormon, Rob4Hope. I’d like to know the reference, so I can read it in context. Old-Timer wrote:I’m not aware of that baptism reference in the Book of Mormon, Rob4Hope. I’d like to know the reference, so I can read it in context.
Ray I didn’t quote it very good. Actually, I killed it. My apologies.
Here is the direct reference,..and it wasn’t baptism, it was repentance:
Alma 26…
22 Yea, he that repenteth and exerciseth faith, and bringeth forth good works, and prayeth continually without ceasing—unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed; yea, and it shall be given unto such to bring thousands of souls to repentance, even as it has been given unto us to bring these our brethren to repentance.
This scripture, IMHO (and I can accept if I am wrong here…no problem there at all), has caused damage. Notice how the logic can get into this and make a mess….
If you repent, exercise faith, bring forth good works and pray continually without ceasing,…it is given to you to know mysteries, reveal thing, and bring thousands to repentance.
Is that not what this scripture says?
So, if you are not getting those things–ie, you are not knowing mysteries, revealing things, and bringing thousands to repentance,…then you are obviously not repenting, exercising faith, doing good works and praying continually.
Contraposition.
Yeah, that is one with which I can agree and disagree, depending on the interpretation. There are a lot of those. 🙂 That interpretation is damaging, I agree, since it is unrealistic. I understand that those for whom it is true assume it is true for everyone, but it just isn’t how it works for everyone, imo. Fwiw, that same general idea is the heart of much of the traditionalist apostasy / opposition that is occurring in some places.
I was raised so orthodox, and when I have brought questions, like that scripture up for example, to people, they just waffle. “Oh, that isn’t what it means…”…so I ask them what it does mean, and they come out with some line of bull that is unintelligible as it relates back to the words on the page. And, what I usually find is that they don’t believe it themselves anyway, and then I am left to wonder what they do believe, or if they are a source of any wisdom or information at all. life long occurrence with this type of thing.
You now, I am going to start another thread with the James 1:5-… thing. That scripture hurt me REALLY bad.
Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, that is one with which I can agree and disagree, depending on the interpretation. There a lot of those.
🙂 That interpretation is damaging, I agree, since it is unrealistic. I understand that those for whom it is true assume it is true for everyone, but it just isn’t how it works for everyone, imo. Fwiw, that same general idea is the heart of much of the traditionalist apostasy / opposition that is occurring in some places.
I very much think the interpretation of this and similar scripture is behind the judgmental part of our culture that so many of us find distasteful and what has led some to a crisis of faith. People do judge those in FC, or simply questioning, as not reading the scriptures enough, not praying enough or correctly, etc. Conversely, part of my FC had to do with trying to figure out what was wrong with me or what I was doing wrong because my prayers were not being answered and I had questions and doubts. After many years and much soul searching I have overcome this – but I fear many never do, and I grieve for them. (Side note, this is why I love the hymn Where Can I Turn For Peace.)You card carrying folks….when the bishop asks you if you believe TSM is the only mouth piece for God on this planet, how do you all answer that? Any questions that feel like you have to swallow your beliefs or feelings in order to answer the “right way”?
This is something I don’t have to worry about for a while, but I wonder about it. I know I am gunna run into a sticky point on a few of those….
Rob4Hope wrote:You card carrying folks….when the bishop asks you if you believe TSM is the only mouth piece for God on this planet, how do you all answer that?
Hopefully that’s not something the bishop is likely to ask you. If the question is in reference to the temple recommend interview there’s a thread here:
nibbler wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:You card carrying folks….when the bishop asks you if you believe TSM is the only mouth piece for God on this planet, how do you all answer that?
Hopefully that’s not something the bishop is likely to ask you. If the question is in reference to the temple recommend interview there’s a thread here:
TR Question Survey – Question 4: Sustaining LDS LeadershipNibbler,..perfect. That was what the question was in reference to. I will check that thread out…thanks…
Rob4Hope wrote:You card carrying folks….when the bishop asks you if you believe TSM is the only mouth piece for God on this planet, how do you all answer that?
That whole set of threads about the temple recommend questions that Nibbler referred you to is great. And thanks, Nibbler, for thinking to link it on the reference thread.
To directly answer the question, Rob, the question does not ask if I believe TSM is the only mouthpiece for God on the planet. It asks if I sustain him as a prophet, seer, and revelator and as president of the church and the only one authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. This is one I struggled with a bit when I was contemplating returning. From one point of view I take these questions very literally – I read absolutely nothing into them (and I think that’s the way it’s supposed to be). The answer to the question of whether I sustain him is quite simply yes, even though I don’t necessarily believe he has received any more revelation than any of the rest of us and none for the church as a whole (although I believe it’s possible he could). Likewise, as far as I am aware he was properly ordained according to church traditions and therefore has the authorization to exercise whatever priesthood keys there are and I recognize him as the leader of the church (very much the same way I recognize the pope as leader of the Catholic church). Additional stuff I stated here aside, when I am asked the question I answer yes.
A follow up…. Is there not at least a cultural teaching that unless you go to the temple, you will be denied the CK….or, be damned? It seems like if you want to go to the temple, you accept TSM as the spiritual leader of the world,…period.
In the temple, I remember something about hearkening to someones council as [they] hearken to God’s. I wish we had same latitude in the question…I will sustain TSM to the degree he supports and follows JC. But, we have this doctrine again of TSM never being even allowed to be lead astray….
Prophet comes along and said that blacks are not valiant in heaven?…accept it..he is the prophet. Prophet comes along and gets into the bedroom of the saints?…accept it..he is he prophet. It seems like a fine line to me to have the prophet say something and then be forced to accept it when you can’t push back and say:…hey, wait a moment on that one….
Where is the persuasion, meekness, long suffering, love unfeigned? Not with the prophet…what he sais goes. period.
This is just a minor rant/reaction post here…it can probaby be ignored. There is no easy answer….
Rob4Hope wrote:A follow up….
Is there not at least a cultural teaching that unless you go to the temple, you will be denied the CK….or, be damned? It seems like if you want to go to the temple, you accept TSM as the spiritual leader of the world,…period.
You can suppose whatever you like about me.🙂 It really doesn’t matter what you or anyone else suppose about me and going to the temple – I sustain President Monson in my own way (which does not necessarily include recognizing him as the “spiritual leader of the world” – and I have never been asked that).Rob4Hope wrote:In the temple, I remember something about hearkening to someones council as [they] hearken to God’s. I wish we had same latitude in the question…I will sustain TSM to the degree he supports and follows JC.
I do recall what you’re referencing in the temple, I’m not sure there is a question outside the temple related to the TR interview. Maybe you could clarify.Rob4Hope wrote:But, we have this doctrine again of TSM never being even allowed to be lead astray….
Doctrine? Hardly. A common teaching or tradition perhaps, but it doesn’t fit my definition of doctrine and is not expressly posited anywhere in scripture.
Rob4Hope wrote:Prophet comes along and said that blacks are not valiant in heaven?…accept it..he is the prophet. Prophet comes along and gets into the bedroom of the saints?…accept it..he is he prophet. It seems like a fine line to me to have the prophet say something and then be forced to accept it when you can’t push back and say:…hey, wait a moment on that one….
Where is the persuasion, meekness, long suffering, love unfeigned? Not with the prophet…what he sais goes. period.
This is just a minor rant/reaction post here…it can probaby be ignored. There is no easy answer….
Rant accepted, we all need to vent sometimes. There are threads here that talk about knowing for ourselves if what a prophet says is true. Likewise, it has been expressed by church leaders of late that it is perfectly OK to hold views contrary to teachings of the church (like support of gay marriage). It is what we do with those beliefs that matters.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.