- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s easy to forget that we still are babies or adolescents in terms of other religions and denominations. We’re still “growing up” as a religion, in a very real way. I have no problem with that, since I view “The Restoration” as a process and not as an event, but it can be difficult for members who have been taught to see it as a glorious event at which time all truth and knowledge flooded the Earth in perfect form.
It’s ironic to use this analogy, but snakes shed their skins multiple times as they age. Religions do, as well – all of them. The LDS Church has done so already, more than once, and I am sure it will continue to do so as it continues to mature. The endowment is a good example of this, since it has evolved significantly (and I mean remarkably) over time already. Just as one simple example, attending the temple back in the day was nearly an all-day affair. Now we can be in and out of an endowment session and the temple itself in a little over two hours. We also have eliminated the most stark remnants of Masonry, which is not a small thing all by itself, as well as the explicit “us vs. them” denominational component that used to be part of the portrayal. Those are very deep, important changes that have occurred in the last 30 years I’ve been attending.
Old-Timer wrote:It’s easy to forget that we still are babies or adolescents in terms of other religions and denominations. We’re still “growing up” as a religion, in a very real way.
I have no problem with that, since I view “The Restoration” as a process and not as an event, but it can be difficult for members who have been taught to see it as a glorious event at which time all truth and knowledge flooded the Earth in perfect form.
It’s ironic to use this analogy, but snakes shed their skins multiple times as they age. Religions do, as well – all of them. The LDS Church has done so already, more than once, and I am sure it will continue to do so as it continues to mature. The endowment is a good example of this, since it has evolved significantly (and I mean remarkably) over time already. Just as one simple example, attending the temple back in the day was nearly an all-day affair. Now we can be in and out of an endowment session and the temple itself in a little over two hours. We also have eliminated the most stark remnants of Masonry, which is not a small thing all by itself, as well as the explicit “us vs. them” denominational component that used to be part of the portrayal. Those are very deep, important changes that have occurred in the last 30 years I’ve been attending.
I agree with you, Ray, and have come to understand the the restoration is a process as you point out. You example of the temple rites is good, because I remember the old penalties and the direct references to other religions/churches, etc., that were part of earlier versions.
That said, I think we forget because many in the church don’t understand that and pretty much teach the opposite – that it was all restored in the beginning, or at least during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. My own patriarchal blessing says everything we need is here. I have also come to a different understanding of that statement, but the old way I understood meant that the restoration happened at some point in the past and now it’s just up to us (me, in the case of the blessing) to do what we’re supposed to do, including keeping the commandments, enduring, celestial marriage, paying tithing, doing missionary work, etc. – all mentioned specifically in my blessing. I now understand the church is still evolving or growing up, but I submit to you that the vast majority of members don’t understand this, and it’s preached from the pulpit to an extent, although I think less so now from GAs than in the past. I also think members who don’t see a difference in the gospel and the church understand that when someone talks about the gospel being unchanging or God being unchanging doesn’t mean the church doesn’t change.
Well said, Dark Jedi. Those all are legitimate issues that need to be tackled. AS cwald points out occasionally, the membership needs to follow their prophets more in lots of regards – and it’s ironic that such an admonition applies every bit as much (more in many instances) to those who cling tightly to the past.
In posting this, I am NOT saying, “Just let it go.” (nibbler made a great comment in another current thread about how saying that doesn’t help, so I thought I would explain upfront that is not what I am saying.) I simply read a quote from Morgan Freeman about why he doesn’t watch movies about slavery anymore, and I thought it was profound and related directly to this conversation. Therefore, I am sharing it with all of you: Quote:While on (the) topic (of) race in America, the 76-year-old also revealed his reluctance to view Steve McQueen’s Oscar-worthy film, “12 Years A Slave.”
Quote:“I saw a television movie that was made a few years ago about the same character [Solomon Northup]. But I don’t particularly want to see it,” he admitted. “I don’t want my anger quotient exacerbated, you know? Things are bad enough as they are. I don’t want to keep punching myself in the face with it.”
It’s okay to reduce or even eliminate things that feel like getting punched in the face constantly, especially if doing so allows you time and space to find ways to make it stop feeling that way. For example, using the exact reference to movies, if the endowment presentation currently exacerbates your anger quotient and makes you feel like you are being punched in the face, it’s okay to not “particularly want to see it”.
I know I’m very late to this particular party and I hardly ever post here anymore, but I just had to say that I’ve loved reading this thread. It’s always good to know that I’m not alone in the way I feel about the temple. Ray wrote:It’s okay to reduce or even eliminate things that feel like getting punched in the face constantly, especially if doing so allows you time and space to find ways to make it stop feeling that way. For example, using the exact reference to movies, if the endowment presentation currently exacerbates your anger quotient and makes you feel like you are being punched in the face, it’s okay to not “particularly want to see it”.
Thank you for this insight Ray. When I talked with my mom about me and my family not currently attending church, she was very insistent that I give her a “good” reason. Not wanting to make anything worse between us or open any of the historical cans of worms, I simply told her that for me, right now, attending church is not mentally or emotionally healthy. It “exacerbates my anger quotient” so to speak. That she could understand. I haven’t ruled out attending again one day, but I don’t see myself attending the temple, at least not endowments or sealings. A lot of people talk about taking the good and leaving the bad. I’ve finally made peace with the fact that it is okay that the endowment and sealings are part of the bad for me individually.
Curtis wrote:It’s easy to forget that we still are babies or adolescents in terms of other religions and denominations. We’re still “growing up” as a religion, in a very real way.
I think we’re likely adolescent by now!
They are a number of younger sects – Jehovah’s Witnesses, Theosophy, Pentecostalism, modern Druidism, Salvation Army – and much younger ones (anything invented after WWII or thereabouts) – Scientology, Hare Krishna, Transcendental Meditation, Wicca, Nation of Islam – along with religions that either have shallow roots in the west, or are exotic outside their settled communities – i.e. Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism.
There are also some religions which are not that much older than us, despite what you might think – Sikhism, Chabadism etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements A few days ago I was asking DW about her beliefs on several church tenets in order to better understand them. She told me that she had always believed that God the Father had more than one wife.
I asked her how she got that idea as it never appears in our scriptures as far as I know.
Her answer was “Because He is all powerful, and He CAN.”
It saddens me when people define God and their relationship with Him through such limiting and earthbound concepts as racism, sexism, and polygamy.
Unfortunately, at least as far as the sexism and polygamy goes, I fear that our church is still infuencing the rising generation negatively in their personal walk with God.
I’m reminded of a lesson once in elder’s quorum years ago. I can’t remember exactly what the lesson was but it had something to do with marriage. A guy made a comment that I’ll never forget. As best as I can remember it was:
Quote:I let my wife make quite a few decisions in our home, just so I don’t have to deal with them. But sometimes that starts to go to her head. When that happens I take her to the temple so she can remember how things really are.
I know some have mentioned ways that they are able to interpret the endowment so that it is more comfortable. The problem is that those interpretations are necessary. When taken at face value, there is no question that women play a secondary role in the endowment.Having said that, a quick search for changes to the endowment will show that the church has made some very good progress. We’ve actually come a long way. Unfortunately, I think some (myself included) see the new films as a sign that we’re stuck where we are for several more years.
What a stupid man. 👿 That’s all.
Great discussion. Really enjoyed it. My views on God have evolved so much in the past 9 months that I don’t even get bothered by the sexism in the temple or in the church… well, it bothers me, but it doesn’t hold the emotional charge it used to because I just don’t believe it to be even close to the true nature of God/Gods. I don’t ever plan on attending again, but if I do I want to keep in mind with OOO suggested to see it, as if I am Adam and that God created the earth for me. I LOVED that, and I believe that to be true. Curtis:
:clap: Amen.
I expect this has already been mentioned but man has always dealt with the concept of deity as subjects to a king, not a queen, not a joint power sharing agreement between male and female as coequals but a man or a God with male characteristics. Absolute ruler with absolute power over every aspect of your life. We kneel and bow, pray and at times fast to get his attention so that he’ll consider our wants and needs. And mortal kings and rulers are there “by the grace of God” so defying them is defying God . The “sexisim” of the temple is just borrowed from that cultural sterotype is not going to be cured or changed until there’s change in the cultural view of God as a king a ruler. IMHO. We are taught that Eve was figuratively made from Adam’s rib to represent their relationship – they were equal partners standing side by side; she was not made from his head and placed over him, and she was not made from his feet and placed under him. However, the scriptures don’t seem to support that interpretation:
Quote:“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shallruleover thee . -Genesis 3:16 (Moses 4:22 has the same language)
Maybe they were equal only until Eve transgressed, and then the relationship was redefined?Why would Eve be made from a part of Adam at all? What does that mean figuratively? Here’s what it meant to Paul:
Quote:Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. -1 Timothy 2:11-14 …the head of every man is Christ; and
the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head…For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. -1 Corinthians 11:3-4,7-9 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it… -Ephesians 5:22-25
I suppose Paul believed Adam was superior because he was “first formed” and Eve was “was in the transgression.” He compares the relationship of Christ to man to the relationship of man to wife. Of course, Paul wrote more on this issue. We also have this from Peter:
Quote:Likewise,
ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning…But let it be the hidden man of the heart…For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. -1 Peter 3:1-7
Besides those verses, there’s the issue of biblical patriarchy in general. It’s baffling. Should some scriptures be disavowed? I just don’t know….Very little of scripture can be confirmed to have been written by the authoritative sources we claim. The things Jesus said were sometimes added later. The Pentateuch was definitely written down late in the game by unknown authors. The Bible was changed radically when monolatry was introduced. Very few women’s viewpoints are shared in the scriptures (even when women are named). So, I guess when I hear an appeal to scriptures, I always go with a grain of salt. Often, I take a boulder of salt. I just don’t turn back to it, given what happened to Lot’s wife.
😆 That’s very interesting what you brought up, Shawn. Even if we today teach equality, the opposite teachings have been the standard. The temple view comes from that biblical teaching I would say. I’m certain that things will continue to improve on how they talk about women in the church, and the temple will change as well. But here are scriptures that we apparently don’t believe anymore, and it makes me wonder why God has allowed this process to be so slow. It is confusing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.