- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Okay Ray. Let’s just for the sake of argument say you are correct, and the LDS church’s doctrine and dogma is what you have been describing. My next logical conclusion would be, then what is the point of the church? If the church leadership and the prophets who supposedly speak for god, can’t even tell us the truth about all this kind of stuff over the pulpit in GC, than what is the point? Because the church leaders ARE NOT, and you even admit, they WILL NOT come out and tell us “the truth.” In your own words, it would be a disaster if they did. What is the point then? I submit to you, that the reason the prophet WILL NOT give this message at CG – because the PEOPLE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE TRUTH, and will reject the prophets, and kill the very prophets they accuse me of forsaking. The people, the core orthodox membership of this church, are not going to listen to your message Ray, which I believe is quite profound. They have rejected it, and replaced it with cultural traditions and called it the gospel – and they are happy and content to have it. This is a discouraging discussion for me, because, I actually believe everything you have said Ray. I believe it — but it IS NOT what my religion is all about – and it IS NOT what the prophets are telling us in GC, and it is NOT what we can expect to hear in the future from our prophets at GC. So what is the point – if our prophets are not going to stand up and speak the message that needs to be heard? Perhaps it is what Pure Mormonism is all about, but if that is the case, than our church has completely gone astray and is not the pathway that I once thought it was – and it is not the pathway for me. I am searching for the pathway you have described. I’m not sure that pathway is an option for many folks in the LDS church anymore. Kudos for anyone here who can find it within the church, because it is SOOOOOO far removed from anything that our church is currently teaching and emphasizing. Congratulations.
I will bow out now and let others voice an opinion. I hope someone here can logically tell me how I am wrong and way off on my conclusions. I would love for someone here to tell me and show me how the “universal” principles that Ray has been describing here actually fit in with our religion – using the prophets words from the last 30 years. Someone tell me I’m wrong in my conclusions. Someone convince me that the LDS church actually teaches and believes all this “pure mormonism” that we like to talk about so much.
I had a similar discussion with a TBM HP recently (a convert of many years – very correlated). The discussion led to the New Jerusalem and the Millennial Reign (a paradisiacal existence). At first I was shocked by his very firm and matter of fact stance and have been reflecting on it since. I was trying to point out that the ecclesiastical leaders and church would not exists in the New Jerusalem, that the church would be gone, and that the only requirement for entry into the city/community would be for their knee to bow and tongue confess, that Jesus is the Christ.
His response: “Well sure, but they will NOT be on the same level as us”. Of course he is thinking of the three degrees of glory, or at best the 3 divisions of the Celestial glory, as well as the temple ordinances as referred to in this thread. I argued that no, based on the cleansings of the 7 trumps that everyone in that city would be at the same level and in the same place.
My later reflections brought to mind this seeming conflict that New Jerusalem teachings do tend to be Universalist with basically two divisions: those that are in and those that got toasted (it’s heaven or hell, with no religious boundaries and the basic most requirement). I suppose it’s pretty clear that the Telestial members of humanity meet those trumps with much dismay, but what of our Terrestrial sisters and brothers? I suppose that after they get toasted and spend some amount of time in hell, they are off to their moons, as it were (i.e. Earth ends up sea of glass on transition from paradisiacal to Celestial). OR do some of these find their way to the city as well??
cwald, I go back to my statement in another thread that the Church, as an organization, is a terrestrial organization – since it is made up of people who are, generally speaking, terrestrial beings striving to comprehend what it means to be celestial beings, working toward that ultimate goal, but not there yet. It works quite well for those who are not yet doctrinally / theologically / spiritually self-sufficient – but it has obvious and important limitations when it comes to serving those who are becoming self-sufficient in those areas. Thus, while it has to teach various celestial ideals (which include what I have described), it has to do it is a way that doesn’t freak out or discourage the terrestrial beings who make up the large majority of the organization. (Jesus said he was sent NOT to the whole but to the sinners – and he also said that the well need not a physician. The Church functions largely as a doctor’s office, in many regards, and it does a really good job for most of its patients – again, speaking generally and not specifically about any particular wards and branches.) Add to that foundation the fact that even the leaders, broadly speaking, aren’t celestial beings yet, and you have an organization that has to spend more time teachings correct principles (like the general outline of the scope of our theology), teaching “doctrine” that the vast majority of the membership can understand and use in a way that actually helps them in their real lives (which means terrestrial doctrines, if you will) and letting them “govern themselves” as to whether or not they can see beneath the generalities and terrestrial doctrines to the celestial implications. It’s not discouraging for me, even though it’s disappointing still, simply because it’s true of every organization of which I’ve ever been a part. (even more so of others, actually, since there are more telestial beings in those organizations than there are in the LDS Church, generally) There are LOTS of things I can’t say at work, for example, that I would LOVE to say – simply because, as an organization, my employer isn’t ready to accept and implement some of the things I am positive would do wonders for it. “My employer” is an organization, but that organization is made up of individuals who rotate in and out of jobs – and much of what happens in education happens with a focus on consensus. That limits real, sweeping, radical changes, but it also provides stability and buy-in and broad involvement – which is a trade-off.
One of my professional areas of expertise is change management, and my current employer has embarked on an effort to make major changes – literally to change itself in major ways to become something it has never been in the past. I go to work each day and want so badly to make certain suggestions, and I try to find ways to do so appropriately given my total lack of authority there (having started all over again two years ago at the bottom of my current field), but, in the end, all I can do is all I can do – and I can see the desire of those “above me” to make changes, even as I don’t think they are the best or only possible changes. It’s really hard to be patient, but they aren’t doing anything that is obviously and unmistakeably self-destructive (even though they are doing things that I believe are “destructive of their stated mission to change”). Thus, at the risk of sounding arrogant, I am a celestial being in the field of organizational change management who has to deal with being part of an organization that is not able to make the type of radical changes right now that would turn it quickly into a celestial organization – knowing that if it did what I think it needs to do to make that comprehensive organization change immediately it actually might implode and fail, simply because there are enough employees who wouldn’t understand the changes that they would abandon ship through the time period (probably about two years) when numbers would fall and it would appear like the organization might be failing.
Let me repeat something that is very important, I think, to credit:
Everything I have said in this thread actually IS being taught in the LDS Church.It is. It’s just the combination of how I’ve ordered the overall idea and the implications of the composite doctrines that are not being taught – and really can’t be taught publicly. Here’s the kicker, cwald, and I’m going to make it a quote in order to highlight it better:
Quote:The fact that you can read what I’ve written and understand it – and then accept it, is because of your years in the LDS Church. If you had spent the same years attending another Christian denomination, you almost surely would be arguing with me if you read what I’ve written – since your thelogolical foundation would be radically different and not able to accommodate such radical ideas. You are self-sufficient enough now to contemplate the implications of our theology in a way that those around you generally are not, but you got to that point as a direct result of having to contemplate the paradoxes that are an inherent part of Mormonism. With those paradoxes, you wouldn’t be at the point where you are now – and without others who have been where you are now, your journey from here moving forward would be much more limted, as well. How you react is up to you, even as it might take time to work it all out.
Just as a thought experiment, and, again, said as humbly as I can say it, what if I had walked away from the Church when I first realized what I’m describing here? How many people that I personally have helped in the last decades would not have gotten the help they needed? I hope my input here has helped you in some way. What if the orginal admins here hadn’t been able to tackle a project like this? How many people we didn’t know at all when this started would have been affected? What about the active, faithful man who talked with me in the hallway last Sunday at church and told me his testimony still is affected by his ex-wife’s journey into anti-Mormon literature and the divorce she demanded of her best friend simply because he couldn’t leave the Church with her? He asked for my e-mail address and said he might ask me some questions via e-mail. I could go on and on, but where would people go who are on the edge of the jump from a terrestrial paradigm to a celestial one if those who have made that jump (or who are crossing that bridge, if that is a more realistic analogy) leave once they’ve crossed that divide?
I posted something on my personal blog yesterday, ironically, that applies directly to the situation in which you have found yourself and my own philosophy when it comes to these things. It was not written with this post and thread in mind; in fact, I scheduled it to be published over a year ago – so the timing is kind of eerie. In essence, as it relates to this comment, it says that those who become self-sufficient in this manner (who begin to catch sight of the celestial foundation underlying the terrestrial doctrines) have an obligation to “give back” to the organization that enabled them to become who they became – or contribute to the stagnation of that organization by leaving.
The link to my post is:
“Within the Church, Be the Change You Desire” (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/05/within-church-be-change-you-desire.html cwald wrote:
I will bow out now and let others voice an opinion. I hope someone here can logically tell me how I am wrong and way off on my conclusions. I would love for someone here to tell me and show me how the “universal” principles that Ray has been describing here actually fit in with our religion – using the prophets words from the last 30 years. Someone tell me I’m wrong in my conclusions. Someone convince me that the LDS church actually teaches and believes all this “pure mormonism” that we like to talk about so much.Can’t do it logically, cwald. It’s extra-rational. But it’s also the reality.
The LDS church fosters the ability of the Saints to tune into the Holy Spirit. That’s why we fast, that’s why we serve, that’s why we do 90% of what we do. Ok, maybe it’s 80%.
Those who belong to the Shepherd, hear His voice. Those who ponder and meditate on the endowment (and many scriptures as well) and then act in faith on the resulting experiences are led through the ‘Cloud Upon the Sanctuary’ and into the Church of the Firstborn — where there are no buildings, no meetings, no roster and no leaders save One. This is, frankly, the mission of every ‘church’ ‘ashram’ ‘synagogue’ or ‘temple’. In my experience, there is no church that can compare to the LDS church in providing this vital service to its members.
It’s funny. This reminds me of a time (decades ago) when I was studying the Secret of the Golden Flower (Buddhist) and read the writing of an ‘ascended Master’ who, in the deep meditation of his practice, suddenly saw a white, shining man who appeared to him. He did not dare to close the distance, but merely observed, as the man smiled and then faded out. “Who”, said he (the mystic), “could it have been, but the Buddha?”
Let me add to that, an experience of a friend of mine. He was a RM and quite serious, devout and so forth in the Church. One day as he was open to the Spirit, he suddenly saw Jesus appear before him. He saw in vision, darkness all around, save Jesus, who shone with radiant light. As his intellectual, logical mind kicked in, he paused. Then he said to Jesus “really?” “That’s you, God? If there is something my own biases are interfering with my perception of You, if You are not exactly as You appear to me, then please reveal Yourself to me as You really, really are!” Jesus disappeared and Santa Claus appeared. “WHAT!?” Santa disappeared and the Easter Bunny appeared. Buddha, Confucius, and more appeared. “No, but really, God — let me see You as You really are”, said my friend. And then there was Nothing. Nothing at all. As you can imagine, this shook my friend up and thrust him into severe doubt.
Which, I think, is just what he needed.
If you know Kabbalah (which my friend did not know at the time), then this confirms that God has a sense of humor. Ein or Ain.
http://www.webofqabalah.com/id28.html But that’s another story.😈 The question is, what is the “Church of the Lamb of God” today? It is all those churches and traditions and religions, etc. that lead their members into the Light. At that point, it is our job to ‘see’ the Light and follow it. The LDS Church does this beautifully, for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see. All we need is faith, and an affinity for the Light. Added later: …and humility…
:wave: HiJolly
Old-Timer wrote:
I posted something on my personal blog yesterday, ironically, that applies directly to the situation in which you have found yourself and my own philosophy when it comes to these things. It was not written with this post and thread in mind; in fact, I scheduled it to be published over a year ago – so the timing is kind of eerie. In essence, as it relates to this comment, it says that those who become self-sufficient in this manner (who begin to catch sight of the celestial foundation underlying the terrestrial doctrines) have an obligation to “give back” to the organization that enabled them to become who they became – or contribute to the stagnation of that organization by leaving.
I hate your blog entry and this last quote and the jist of this post.
timpanogas, I don’t know if it will help at all, but I just went back and re-read the post on my personal blog- then added an important postscript. Old-Timer wrote:… those who become self-sufficient in this manner (who begin to catch sight of the celestial foundation underlying the terrestrial doctrines) have an obligation to “give back” to the organization that enabled them to become who they became – or contribute to the stagnation of that organization by leaving.
Yes. The butterflies have much they can do for the caterpillars, which they once were.HiJolly
HiJolly wrote:Old-Timer wrote:… those who become self-sufficient in this manner (who begin to catch sight of the celestial foundation underlying the terrestrial doctrines) have an obligation to “give back” to the organization that enabled them to become who they became – or contribute to the stagnation of that organization by leaving.
Yes. The butterflies have much they can do for the caterpillars, which they once were.HiJolly
Yeah, until they kick my ass out. Got the call this morning from BP that the SP wants to meet tomorrow.
Old-Timer wrote:timpanogas, I don’t know if it will help at all, but I just went back and re-read the post on my personal blog- then added an important postscript.
Still hate it (nothing in your postscript clears me).
I suppose I should have been a bit clearer, I only hated it because I could find no fault in it, and it condemns me. It was the spirit and this concept that brought me back, for a time, this past year. Just cannot seem to deal with the correlated gospel and where I fear LDS.inc is at.
cwald, I hope it goes well. If not, not – but I hope it does. If you are released from your calling, there can be some liberation in that.
Yeah, in reality I would love to be released and just move on with my life. I won’t lose sleep over being released. I do lose sleep over the reasons for it though— because I believe our correlated cultural gospel is causing massive spiritual roadkill, and I won’t live the outward cultural commandments necessary to receive a TR. Because I don’t care enough (or care too much actually) to live the, according to M&G, the Terrestrial laws that our church have mistaken as the “fullness of the gospel.” So they will replace me with someone who will. Someone who will “follow the prophet” without question and wear a white shirt to church and not drink tea and and call it righteousness.
I guess my comments about it is, it’s all fine to say that the butterflies need to help the caterpillar. I like that analogy. It just seems like in our church that once it becomes known one has pupated into a butterfly, one is usually condoned as an apostate sinner (in my case – a Satanic gay man) and eliminated from any kind of leadership position – and most will finally probably just leave the church because it becomes so unwelcoming and uncomfortable.
The Middle Way is a tough path to walk.
Thanks Timp – perhaps I will have to update the avatar tomorrow. I tried to crack some humor in the Myers-Briggs/Jung type thread, but upon actually taking a couple of the tests I find it true that some personalities might naturally be very good at staying to help others along, and that others might more naturally fly free. Somewhere else in this forum I also noted (I believe It was ray) an analogy to settlers and explorers which was very good. Naturally I’m an explorer. That’s my strength. In life, I’ve found that my greatest strengths are also my greatest weaknesses, as even in these Myers-Briggs deals, we are talking about opposites, neither of which are negative, but are strengths.
If only I could overcome my greatest weakness (my strength), which keeps me from going back, maybe I could have some hope of personally growing in my greatest weakness (which would be the ability to lay aside my greatest strengths).
My natural desire is to help by fixing. Oh how I wish my natural desire was to help by loving, with no thought of the church, the inc, the brethren, the lessons etc. but only for those in my ward, only about them.
This is why I really hate ray’s post.
I really don’t need to go back for them, I need to go back for me
timp, I think you have hit on one of the central paradoxes of the Gospel Jesus of Nazareth preached – that to find one’s self, what someone thinks of as “self” has to be lost first. Maybe, just maybe, you are the cusp of discovering how to go back for you by going back for them. I don’t know; I really don’t; but . . . maybe.
Most people never understand that paradox fully in this life, and I am one of those most people when it comes to understanding it “fully” – but I’ve been unable to find my own natural self inside the organization for so long that I gave up trying a long, long time ago. Instead, I focused on helping others find themselves. Yes, my personality lends itself to that, but my experiences also helped me understand a little better how wonderful it can be to lose myself within a group.
I want to share a story here that might or might not help, but it came to me as I read your comment, so I hope it is inspiration. If not, oh, well.
Long story short, I had finished most of 11th Grade math by the time I left 7th Grade, but my rural junior and senior high schools had no idea what to do with someone in that situation – so I repeated 3 1/2 years of math until my class reached in 11th Grade where I had been individually in 7th Grade. One of the reasons I came to accept that situation is that in 8th Grade, I had a math teacher who couldn’t teach. He knew the math, but he was a terrible teacher.
I had two choices: pout or teach. I chose to teach – and I found my life’s love of teaching. I did about four weeks’ worth of homework in one night, then, when the teacher finished introducing the material to the class and went back to his office to play computer games, I got up, actually taught the concept in a way that the other students could understand it and walked around the class helping individuals with the problems that were stumping them. I was, in practical terms, the teacher of that class. I literally, in a very real and powerful way, came to understand the joy and wonder that can occur when we put aside what we want individually (what we deserve and what “should” happen) and focus on helping others who aren’t where we are get to where we are.
I don’t mean to heap further condemnation on someone who is feeling that right now, and I understand individual personalities and that it was easier for me “naturally” to have that outcome than it would have been for others – but . . .
Looking back on that year, I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I learned something important about myself and what I perceive to be an important principle – and
what I want to focus on for the purpose of this thread is that I learned it through an experience that sucked in every objective way imagineable. It shouldn’t have happened; the educators in those schools should have been more aware of me and my needs and done SOMETHING to help me; they had a professional commission and duty to do so; they shouldn’t have “kicked my ass out of” the educational track I was on when I arrived; they failed miserably in fulfililing that commission. I’m so glad they did. In fact, I think I’ll be grateful eternally that they did.
I’m not saying that such an experience is right for everyone, and I’m not saying it’s ok for people to screw up big time in the performance of their responsibilities, and I’m not saying anyone else should (or could) have had my own experience in that situation – but I am saying there is a power in many Gospel paradoxes that is impossible to grasp until we’re involved in a searing, unfair, difficult struggle that forces us to weigh competing ideals and discover there often is a balance hidden somewhere in the struggle – a balance that is personal and invididual and intimate and enlightening in our own efforts to find our own “I am”.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.