Jump to content

CV75

Contributor
  • Content Count

    12,731
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,840 Excellent

2 Followers

About CV75

  • Rank
    Creates Man & Woman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

4,776 profile views
  1. CV75

    All-you-can-eat religion, Buffet style

    Sometimes what is suggested we do is to protect others as well as ourselves and our own. For example, the instruction to use the right hand in some wards or persons may build needed unity among those who hear it, or strengthen others' feeble knees for those who observe and follow. Even if it is an instructive opinion.
  2. CV75

    All-you-can-eat religion, Buffet style

    He was only doing his job, and even as a new member, I could see that.
  3. CV75

    All-you-can-eat religion, Buffet style

    Which of these directives did you actually have to weigh and measure?
  4. CV75

    All-you-can-eat religion, Buffet style

    When I was a new member of the Church (I joined in college), I was introduced to a member of the Twelve at a stake conference. As he learned I had been in the Church for a year, he asked if i was going on a mission. I said yes, in a couple of years when I graduate. He asked how old I was and said again, "You could be going now," and I assured him that I'm going -- when I graduate. In that case, I had already decided based on a prior personal revelation before I was baptized, and a blessing I received when I was confirmed. Maybe that doesn't count because I weighed and measured his invitation according to the light I already possessed, and I didn’t interpret him as actually directing me to go. It also might not count if we are already going our own way without prayer, which I suspect is often the case. Or if we are sufficiently aligned with the directive to follow it without much consideration or inconvenience. Or if we follow it halfheartedly or nominally. Another example is when our stake president challenged the stake members to double our fast offerings. I prayed about it and reduced "other" categorical donations to go toward fast offerings instead. I increased my total offerings, but not as much as if I had doubled my fast offering and left the others alone. I wasn’t necessarily going another way, but not fully in line with what someone else might take to be the letter of what was asked, either. Again, I see that as an invitation rather than a directive. I was one asked by a leader to be flexible on following some instruction he had given me, but in order to take the high road, I did not for the sake of other affected parties. I did weigh and pray about that pretty carefully and feel all concerned have been blessed. I think as long as we can answer the temple recommend questions in good faith, we are in good standing as to how well we are hearkening to our leaders' directives.
  5. CV75

    All-you-can-eat religion, Buffet style

    Just as often, and probably more (I'd like to see an analysis of the Left Hand thread), the noisy voices are those that turn support of leaders, or invitations to consider that the leaders might have a point, into a boogey-man (straw-man) that “everything a leader says is God’s directive.”
  6. CV75

    All-you-can-eat religion, Buffet style

    I've always taken the approach to just decide what the Lord wants me to do with what my leaders teach or direct (or what the scriptures say). That to me constitutes what is taught and directed of God. I don't even worry or consider whether these are just an opinion* or not, nor whether the leaders are worthy/inspired/able or not, nor what others are doing, etc. If I am wrong in what I choose to do, I am willing to repent and the Lord will understand! I am ultimately responsible for making the Holy Ghost my constant companion and discerning the Lord's will for me as expressed though various means, large and small, strong and weak. *there is nothing inherently wrong with an opinion, and maybe God wants me to consider it, weight it, and decide what to do with it.
  7. CV75

    A Story about healing.

    I already know it is me.
  8. CV75

    Left Hand

    And even the Handbooks allow for exceptions, accommodations and flexibility. This “written order of things” is as malleable as the “unwritten order of things.” I think our response to them, and our response to how others respond to them, is an indicator of how well we are learning to become Christlike, not by prescription but by invitation. I think the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost can be very beneficial in how we do that.
  9. CV75

    Left Hand

    I don't see President Oaks committing the offense you describe above ( taking God's name in vain). When people recognize and share the same spiritual underpinnings of their faith community (e.g. a testimony), that contributes to the ethos, which in turn is expressed, in part, through the unwritten order of things. I am not talking about a testimony of cultural norms any more than President Oaks is taking the Lord's name in vain. Boundary maintenance does not apply here; there is no "in or out" with regards to the unwritten order, only personal responses to it which have no bearing on membership in the community. All continue to be welcome and appreciate the higher intent of the unwritten order and none are rejected for not doing so.
  10. CV75

    Left Hand

    In defense of the “unwritten order of things” that are established by those with the keys and prerogative to set them, or correct them as eh case may be, and which do change over time, is that they are part of what makes a “house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God” (D&C 88:119). I think things like this, the simple practices, not the embellished ones; things not in the handbooks but what Elder Packer once called the "unwritten order of things" established and supported by those with the keys and responsibility to do so in the Church; and things that don't even qualify as "appendages"* are still part of the ethos -- and try to imagine what you would be like without one of any kind; you inescapably belong to an ethos of some kind. While they may be on a par with myth, having no direct basis in revelation that we know of, myths can still serve a practical purpose in advancing our spirituality (and the ability to receive revelation) when handled in the right spirit... and that's the kicker, or the rub for some! Do we have to do them? No. Are they a reflection of our morals or worthiness? No. Will they change over decades or centuries? Probably, and even yes, just as the ethos does. Will they be replaced with some other practice? Certainly. I think it important to recognize that our ethos has its basis in personal testimony of the fundamental principles and appendages of our religion. * Referencing Joseph Smith, "“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”
  11. I think there is also a loss of religious faith because of using secular methods on religious themes, but he seems to mean that as well.
  12. No, I’m suggesting that: 1. they don’t want people to substitute rationalization for faith as a strategy for staying in the Church; 2. they are not teaching people how to stay in the Church by any means necessary; that is not their calling; 3. they are not telling people to leave if they haven’t faith, either (reference “desire to believe”); and 4. they teach us how to understand and apply the principles of faith, learning and discipleship which, which like the principle of becoming as a child, can be misunderstood and abused (just like Fowler's stages of faith development and similar models). As a result, as I was suggesting, people can both happily stay in the Church on sound spiritual principle and perform research (and even rationalize explanations that may include nuance and context) to their heart's content.
  13. I think they are suggesting we use a spiritually mature, disciplined approach to staying in the Church. The approach may seem very basic, and "becoming as a child" may be a misunderstood principle, but once a firm foundation is established (you mentioned Elder Holland at the MI earlier), people can both happily stay in the Church and perform research to their heart's content. The findings in their research could cause another to stumble in their faith, or the facts can be all that are seen when faith has been laid aside for some reason. Nuance and context (rationalization), in my opinion, are not features of faith in the Church but of personal willpower (instead of faith) to stay in. I don't think our general authorities would want that for or of anyone.
  14. I see differences between a “fundamentalist and unnuanced expectation,” faith in the fundamental, primary principles, and the process of “divine learning” (from the Corbridge article). I see a relative spiritual maturation from the first to the last. When someone finds himself struggling due to the unmet expectation, he can certainly develop nuanced and contextual substitutes for faith and divine learning since one can discipline himself to train his intellect to override his spirituality, no matter how great he may assess either may be.
  15. If you cut a crumb in half you get two crumbs.
×