- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom and Ray, great thoughts. I have two concerns with missionary work or sharing my vision of the gospel: on the one hand, I feel that the traditional missionary approach can be manipulative in a way that I simply find unacceptable. So I try to steer very clear of that, erring on the side of not saying anything at all. On the other hand, I don’t want to damage anyone’s faith as they now find it. I do think there are probably “right” and “wrong” answers, but I also think we’re only capable of getting to a certain point depending on our individual capabilities and predilections, and I don’t want to “advance” someone’s knowledge of a particular fact or idea that will just hurt their ability to be happy. I mean, it’s not ideal to be 100 miles from shore on a deserted island, but it might well beat being 50 miles from shore in the middle of a raging sea. Tom, with regard to your last post. I think you’re right that there’s a big problem with the Joseph Smith that is assumed at church. I mean, we just know for a fact that he’s not what the Church History institute manual says he is. But I find myself wondering if it needs to be corrected. If we disabuse folks of the idealized Joseph, will they really seek a more nuanced understanding? I think most would likely just be reactionary and dismissive, while a few would let go of a model that’s giving them some peace and just get lost.
Great points and questions, Tom. First, I don’t think all is well in Zion; I just don’t think the Church is going to Hell in a handbasket. (Not saying you do; just that generally those are the two options presented in most places.) I see the Church as continuing the apostasy pruning process that has been going on since the formation of the Church. I see much of the apostasy still existing in the Church, and I believe in the need to root it out of the Church. I just don’t believe in using a hatchet to do the job; I prefer shears, used judiciously so as to minimize damage.
I really like your last paragraph:
Quote:The subject of this thread is Joseph Smith. (1) In trying to make sense of him, should we summarize without saying clearly he perhaps failed to accomplish the grand Restoration he envisioned? (2) Should we summarize without saying clearly he perhaps left the plain and precious truths buried beneath abominations? (3) Should we let it be assumed he delivered the Gospel to us once and for all with nothing left for us but to study his word?
My answers to each question:
1) No, I believe strongly he didn’t succeed in implementing his vision. Frankly, I don’t think he even understood the same vision throughout his life. He brought his own background baggage to his efforts, and, as one simple example, I believe his incorrect assumptions about the Book of Mormon have had a lasting effect on how the general membership incorrectly understands that book to this day. Honestly, I’m not going to say it that way in most group settings, but I certainly am going to talk about what I see as those misunderstandings. (For example, I think the most recent DNA evidence provides GREAT support for the BofM, but our historical misunderstanding of the book gets in the way of accepting it.)
2) I’m not quite sure exactly what you mean, but if “left buried” simply means “never fully brought to light” I agree. Again,
it’s HOW I approach those subjects that is important to me– in a carefully instructive way, not a slash and burn, full truth at all costs way. 3) Most certainly not.
I’m talking about the “how”, not the “what”. I agree 100% with the main message of your comments. All is not well in Zion, and we need to be doing what we can in the healing process. I just think we need to use a surgical scalpel within our own spheres of influence on those who are willing to undergo surgery, not a hammer and butter knife within the entire Church structure. I’m also saying we need to be willing to have a surgical scalpel used on us, even sometimes through it being wielded by someone with whose overall perspective we disagree. Often, the latter is more difficult than the former, but it’s the much better indicator of humility and discipleship in many cases.
If I were a prophet, perhaps my approach would be different; perhaps not. I’m fairly certain I’ll never have to find out.
Gabe P wrote:I mean, it’s not ideal to be 100 miles from shore on a deserted island, but it might well beat being 50 miles from shore in the middle of a raging sea.
That about says it, Gabe. Ahh. Patience and perspective. Patience and perspective.
Ray, you explained very well that time. Sorry I keep asking you to do it. Old-Timer wrote:If I were a prophet, perhaps my approach would be different; perhaps not. I’m fairly certain I’ll never have to find out.
Hmm, why did you say that? You derailed my whole group hug (Sorry. Personal failing. I’m still young and foolish.). You? Not a prophet? Please explain.
Bad wording, Tom. Seriously, that was loose wording. I’m fairly certain I’ll never have to find out if my presentation manner will change by becoming an apostle or seventy.
Replies were posted, mistakes were acknowledged, lessons were learned. Awesome, Gabe. Abso-freaking-lutely awesome! Oh, that is great, Gabe! Seriously very great in the highest sense. Old-Timer wrote:Bad wording, Tom. Seriously, that was loose wording.
No problem. After all, we are embracing our LDS-ness. Sometimes we are going to slip and sound like LDS, for whom prophet means most high priesthood leader. I should have known that’s what happened. Then again, for any lurkers, maybe it’s good we clarified.
. Quote:“And what is the true religion,” I asked the person who met me after I left my body.
“Whichever one brings you closest to God,” came the answer.
Great quote. I will only add that at some point, religion has done what religion does as a human community and it’s up to us to do the rest. That’s what I think anyway. Once you get to that point, you could be a great Mormon, or a great Catholic, or a great whatever you are. Sometimes I think people choose their faith community, but other times I think the faith community chooses the person. Either way, our real faith community has to become the human race. What is unique to Mormonism has very little to do with our daily life – it just provides a framework with ordinances. But life is lived in the rooms of that framework, not in the framework itself.
I think that’s a nice observation. I’d only add that the “one true church” path just isn’t open to those of us who are questioning what we’re taught and believe. Even if we resolve our concerns, we’ll create new ones. Even if the Church really is exactly what it claims to be, we’re not going to be in a position in the mortal experience to know that for ourselves because we’re unwilling to absorb the assumptions that the Church would depend upon. So I think I’d emphasize the institution even less than hawkeye did, if only because we’re not really in a position to take advantage of the certainty that a lot of people get. So why stay LDS? Well, for me, the answer is “Why not?” If I’ve only had spiritual experiences in the LDS tradition, it probably has something to offer me. I’m already a cafeteria guy, so there’s not much reason to abandon one orthodoxy for another. There’s no reason to go to a place with no orthodoxy, since I’m not being actively oppressed in the LDS church and a lack of orthodoxy doesn’t imply an abundance of openness.
The way Joseph Smith fits into this is as follows: he’s a complex figure, but there’s no way he’s what the church says he was. That realization probably disqualifies me from an orthodox faith, but no more so than the above concerns would. So the Joseph Smith story takes on a different importance depending on the faith you’re trying to emphasize. Because of this, I think we make sense of Joseph Smith in a way that’s predictable from our approach to the world: believers will believe, cynics will think he’s a fraud, and people in the middle will reach varying conclusions, none of which fit into Monson’s or the Tanners’ vision of what the Church is.
hawkgrrrl wrote:What is unique to Mormonism has very little to do with our daily life – it just provides a framework with ordinances. But life is lived in the rooms of that framework, not in the framework itself.
Great quote Hawk! I’ll have to remember that one.
Morzen wrote:I am beginning to wonder myself, why I am here. I suppose it is mainly wanting to really discover if the Mormon church is absolutely the “one and only” church (absolutism). And then I need to whole-heartedly jump in, or if it isn’t, then I need to completely move out, and away from it. It’s about “absolutely” not wanting to be duped, or being “absolutely” assured that the church is what it claims to be.
So how do you discover the complete, unedited “absolute” truth? Well, I don’t think many people really do, or even can. Sure there are the warm fuzzies that people testify of, and the personal miracles and manifestations, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that these types of things happen to all kinds of people in all types of belief (and non-belief) systems throughout the whole world.
…Hence, what do I treasure? I treasure knowledge, but can that knowledge be absolute, especially about knowing which religion “brings you (me) closest to God”?
You make some good points Morzen. I consider myself a recovering absolutist, and for me this is a major key to “staying LDS.” I also separate the physical from the spiritual. In my mind many physical truths can be proven through the scientific method – in the spiritual realm things are more tricky and personal; I would say you discover your personal truths. Yes, there are some very good “universal” type guidelines, but to me right now spiritual truths are deeply personal and individual (revelation is personal, I cannot have a revelation for the rest of the world; leaders can have revelations to run their organizations, that only makes sense).
My connection to Mormonism, in an absolute sense, is that I believe God wants me to be a Mormon right now. There are a lot of qualifiers in there — me and now (not the whole world and forever). All I can be sure of, if I can be sure at all, is *me* and *now*. I feel strongly through the spirit that I should help other people stay LDS, if that is their calling and place. People need help with that. I see a lot of this like Gabe described above. I am not so tightly connected with the LDS Church anymore, that I couldn’t walk away at any moment. My spiritual identity is not tied directly. I really LOVE some ideas in mormonism, and they are not described anywhere else in the same way. I like a lot of aspects to “the framework” as others have mentioned.
JS is a part of that. I feel like I am rediscovering the excitement of him from under many layers of paint and varnish that subsquent mormons used to cover up things they didn’t like (understand) or made them uncomfortable. I sometimes think I am becoming a mormon fundamentalist, minus polygamy. I love the un-varnished JS much more than I ever connected with the “Paul Bunion” version I was given in my youth.
Quote:I love the un-varnished JS much more than I ever connected with the “Paul Bunion” version I was given in my youth.
That is a great way to say it, valoel. This is how I described my view concisely:http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2008/09/very-short-tribute-to-joseph-smith.html This was part of a comment I just wrote on another thread here:
Quote:I really like the fact that the Mormon vision of the eternities still blows me away and challenges me intellectually. It boggles my mind sometimes to think that Joseph Smith saw things like this – and it makes me appreciate what I see as his struggles to understand how to translate it into a workable, mortal paradigm. I can’t imagine trying to do that.
Valoel wrote:My connection to Mormonism, in an absolute sense, is that I believe God wants me to be a Mormon right now. There are a lot of qualifiers in there — me and now (not the whole world and forever). All I can be sure of, if I can be sure at all, is *me* and *now*.
I feel strongly through the spirit that I should help other people stay LDS, if that is their calling and place. People need help with that. I see a lot of this like Gabe described above. I am not so tightly connected with the LDS Church anymore, that I couldn’t walk away at any moment. My spiritual identity is not tied directly. I really LOVE some ideas in mormonism, and they are not described anywhere else in the same way. I like a lot of aspects to “the framework” as others have mentioned.
Ditto. Ditto. It is a great religion. And the church needs more “non-piccoli” to stay in it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.