155 replies to this topic

[MormonMason]

Palerider, on 21 May 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Try administering the sacrament with a non-white shirt and let me know how you fair.

Sounds like some Bishops aren't getting with the program...

Quote

Those who bless and pass the sacrament should dress modestly and be well groomed and clean. Clothing or jewelry should not call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. Ties and white shirts are recommended because they add to the dignity of the ordinance. However, they should not be required as a mandatory prerequisite for a priesthood holder to participate. Nor should it be required that all be alike in dress and appearance. Bishops should use discretion when giving such guidance to young men, taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church.

( https://www.lds.org/...lang=eng#20.4.1 )

[bubbachen]

Hey Palerider, forgive me if the answer to my question is already public knowledge - if I may be so bold as to ask what denomination of mainline Christianity you ascribe to?  I ask because I'm a convert to the LDS Church, having grown up going to Methodist and Baptist churches, also nondenominational EV churches in college.  I also currently attend Solid Rock Church in Portland, Oregon as well as attend and serve in my ward.  I really do enjoy your posts as they mirror feelings and unspoken thoughts originating from my religious background.  Most of my closest friends are of some evangelical persuasion, and I enjoy regular discussions with them about faith and God, sometimes calmly and sometimes with unfettered emotion.  I ask what denomination you align with because I'm wondering if you apply the criticism of LDS theology and culture, mostly valid criticism from what I've been reading, to your particular flavor of Christianity, what kind of answers do you find?  For myself, I see no better option than the LDS Church amongst other churches (although I am also spiritually fed regularly at Solid Rock and Christian radio).  As only another face in the Internet but also, I hope, as a Christian brother, I just want to let you know that my faith in the Lord and of my firm foundation in the totality and witness of the Bible is expressed and comes to fruition as a member of the LDS church.

Nothing should mediate between ourselves and our Savior, and I think much of your writings speak against doing so with ritual, works, cultural norms, human leaders, etc.  I agree.  But theories and belief systems, even supposedly core doctrines such as the Trinity, biblical infalibility, vicarious atonement, creationalism vs. evolution, even such can and often do supercede our relationship with the living God.  God did not come as the Christ to teach us theories and dogmas, He came to give us Himself, the true Life.  I think when anyone in any faith system substitutes doctrine and dogmas for the living Lord Jesus (again what I think you are writing about) to some degree they will miss connection and relationship.  Sorry I'm preaching, I'm not meaning to.

[calmoriah]

Palerider, on 21 May 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Unfortunately the culture created in the LDS faith does not support what you are saying here. I have read a number of personal histories where a man's "progress" in the church was being stymied because of his reluctance to enter into plural marriage.

According to whom?  The only one we need to worry about whether he thinks we are being "stymied" in our personal growth is God.

[calmoriah]

Palerider, on 21 May 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

I think it went to the heart of what you were trying to say.

If so I think you missed my point

Quote

The gospel is not a "program" devised to make one have a "spiritual experience".

It is news of a relationship between God and Man that can be aided by man but also hindered by him just as easily.

I am not the one who called it a program.  It is no more of a program than growing up in a family with father, mother, siblings, cousins, is.

[calmoriah]

bubbachen, on 21 May 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

He came to give us Himself, the true Life.  

And I think the essential purpose of our lives is to learn how to live that "true Life" that he has given us, not just to sit by and watch him live it for us.

[volgadon]

Palerider, on 21 May 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Try administering the sacrament with a non-white shirt and let me know how you fair.

For over thirty years, my dad has not worn a white shirt, let alone a tie when administering the sacrament. Of course, that is not all wards and branches.

[Palerider]

MormonMason, on 21 May 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

Sounds like some Bishops aren't getting with the program...

When I was in AZ. I occasionaly wore a light cream colored shirt with my suit. When I was called into the Bishopric I was rather strongly informed that, (to quote the Stake councelor who was in attendance) "we are a white shirt stake". He didn't need to say more.

[Palerider]

calmoriah, on 21 May 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

According to whom?  The only one we need to worry about whether he thinks we are being "stymied" in our personal growth is God.

The account I'm thinking of was where the stake wanted to call a particular man to be Bishop but they were reluctant to do so because he had not taken a second wife, and was loathe to do so. Hence his "progress" in the church was hindered.

And yes it would take some serious time to go back through all of my reading and find this account if anyone is thinking of requesting a reference, but I believe I have cut others here some slack.

[Palerider]

calmoriah, on 21 May 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

If so I think you missed my pointI am not the one who called it a program.  It is no more of a program than growing up in a family with father, mother, siblings, cousins, is.

Growing up in the church seemed like an endless array of "Hey we've got a new program" for this or that. When I was in the mission field we went through three different sets of discussions, each trying to come up with a new approach or program to bring people into the church.  I get tired thinking about it.............

[Palerider]

bubbachen, on 21 May 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

Hey Palerider, forgive me if the answer to my question is already public knowledge - if I may be so bold as to ask what denomination of mainline Christianity you ascribe to?  I ask because I'm a convert to the LDS Church, having grown up going to Methodist and Baptist churches, also nondenominational EV churches in college.  I also currently attend Solid Rock Church in Portland, Oregon as well as attend and serve in my ward.  I really do enjoy your posts as they mirror feelings and unspoken thoughts originating from my religious background.  Most of my closest friends are of some evangelical persuasion, and I enjoy regular discussions with them about faith and God, sometimes calmly and sometimes with unfettered emotion.  I ask what denomination you align with because I'm wondering if you apply the criticism of LDS theology and culture, mostly valid criticism from what I've been reading, to your particular flavor of Christianity, what kind of answers do you find?  For myself, I see no better option than the LDS Church amongst other churches (although I am also spiritually fed regularly at Solid Rock and Christian radio).  As only another face in the Internet but also, I hope, as a Christian brother, I just want to let you know that my faith in the Lord and of my firm foundation in the totality and witness of the Bible is expressed and comes to fruition as a member of the LDS church.

Nothing should mediate between ourselves and our Savior, and I think much of your writings speak against doing so with ritual, works, cultural norms, human leaders, etc.  I agree.  But theories and belief systems, even supposedly core doctrines such as the Trinity, biblical infalibility, vicarious atonement, creationalism vs. evolution, even such can and often do supercede our relationship with the living God.  God did not come as the Christ to teach us theories and dogmas, He came to give us Himself, the true Life.  I think when anyone in any faith system substitutes doctrine and dogmas for the living Lord Jesus (again what I think you are writing about) to some degree they will miss connection and relationship.  Sorry I'm preaching, I'm not meaning to.

Hi Bubbachen,

I'm sure most have heard this before, to you who have, forgive me. I'll try to abbreviate and let you read between the lines

I was raised Mormon. Seminary, mission, temple marriage, all my sons served missions, all children married in temple, EQ president couple of times, gospel doctrine, couple of different bishoprics, last calling was HP group leader, when I told them I couldn't do it anymore in the face of my church history studies.

I actually miss alot about the church. I think they have a great sense of community that may or may not exist in other christian denominations, but I don't pursue any particular denomination. I think the "Christian church" including the LDS faith as a part of that community is in somewhat of a state of disarray. I study mostly by myself in my own search for truth. Culturally I still hold to many of the guidelines of the LDS faith.

I think the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13 is very indicative of where the Christian church is at this point and find it quite interesting that when the angels desire to go and "restore" the field to it's "original" purity, their request is denied by the Master. All indications to me, are that the Savior will return in glory in an indisputable way (not in a grove) or in the secret chambers. See Matthew 24: 23-27

At that time "Israel" will be gathered and all false doctrine and false teachers will be set straight without controversy or argument.

I think there is sufficient knowledge and information available in the Bible to lead anyone to salvation, who sincerely desires it and is willing to seek, ask, knock...

I think the Lord grants His Spirit to those who seek it on a consistent basis and that the laying on of hands specifically (read carefully here) for "constant companionship" is a myth.

[mrmendoza]

Questing Beast, on 20 May 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

What if all of lost, that is to say dead, history is more or less a "fairy tale"? What if pounding on the block of "literal history" is arguing competing phantasms?

Some subjects are copiously covered with evidence, some are almost bereft of any evidence at all. For instance, taking two secular examples, the American Civil War, and the Norman Conquest (two interests of mine): the ACW is so blessed with a wealth of written documentation that no single person can ever sift through all there is; whereas the Norman Conquest is so meagerly supplied with written, that is to say original, documentation, that anyone can read all there is in an afternoon, not hurrying. And if memory serves, we have (maybe) three extant, medieval copies of Julius Caesar's history, well over a thousand years after the purported events, and a handful of Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, also copies many hundreds of years after the related events. Put a collection of witnesses on the stand and have them relate a shared event from memory; no two will ever agree in details. Nobody remembers what actually happened, they only remember what they noticed and what their brain chooses to remember and how it chooses to remember it: this is all based on a subconscious determination of a complex of what is needful, desirable and inescapable, i.e. impressive or troubling, etc. So anyone writing down what they "saw and heard" is at best going to provide only what they remember, which is first of all incomplete, and secondly colored by HOW they remember it. If you take the Book of Mormon to be literally an ancient record from the members of an ancient culture, you still have what? Mormon transcribing and abridging and Moroni adding a bit at the end: and what are they setting down? The written perceptions of individuals, whose collective memories are those of other individuals. In short, "history" is mostly distorted and imaginative, it can't be otherwise.

This reality puts contemporary life into a different perspective, vis-a-vis written history, or that which lies beyond living memory. All such (sic) is equally accessible to interpretation by all now living, and equally valid as interpreted, if "they" say it is. The only issue, then, is to restrict and remove what is unjust. If belief does not produce injustice (and it rarely does so), then believing what you want is okay, go for it.

Arguing religion based on "historical veracity" is pointless. I just didn't know that for many, many, many years....

I think I agree with much of what your saying here. (If of course I'm interpretating it correctly!)
I believe that this is a problem that I've heard expressed many times when I 've had people tell me that "The Bible has been "proved" by manuscript documentation, or archiology, and the BOM has not! While i can accept that in Mormans abridgement
& Moroni's ad endum, was not only their Interpretation of events, only some of which,they had first hand knowledge of, but mostly what they believed was most important to inscribe!
Did they make mistakes in the cronology? were some of the of the events listed within the text their preception and subject to their biases? Possibly and Probably!
Mormon himself admits as much in the title page. "And now, if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men; werefore, condem not the things of God..."
What he is saying IMO is that the most important things - I.E the Atonement Of Christ- are preserved and the history of his people  while greatly abridged is mostly accurate.
But as you've pointed out  the historical veracity of its religious concepts cannot be "proved" even if archiologocol evedence for the story could be established.
Of course, in my mind,the fact that we're accepting Mormon and Moroni as authors, would indicate that we are also accepting the Book of Mormon, as a valid testiment to what they are saying!
Mike

Edited by mrmendoza, Yesterday, 10:01 PM.

[why me]

Palerider, on 21 May 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

When I was in AZ. I occasionaly wore a light cream colored shirt with my suit. When I was called into the Bishopric I was rather strongly informed that, (to quote the Stake councelor who was in attendance) "we are a white shirt stake". He didn't need to say more.

However, if you would have worn your favorite cream colored shirt, nothing would have happened to you. No one can dictate what one's wears to church or to meetings.

[MormonMason]

Palerider, on 21 May 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

When I was in AZ. I occasionaly wore a light cream colored shirt with my suit. When I was called into the Bishopric I was rather strongly informed that, (to quote the Stake councelor who was in attendance) "we are a white shirt stake". He didn't need to say more.

Your Stake Counselor was wrong...end of story.  Being called into the Bishopric would have given you a copy of what you needed from the CHI to ask him relative to such a policy when the CHI (or, back in the old days, General Handbook of Instructions) says otherwise.  Back in the day I wore a yellow shirt, a blue shirt, a gray shirt, as well as a white shirt, and never had a problem one.  But I was prepared for a potential problem had it arisen.

[calmoriah]

Palerider, on 21 May 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

Growing up in the church seemed like an endless array of "Hey we've got a new program" for this or that. When I was in the mission field we went through three different sets of discussions, each trying to come up with a new approach or program to bring people into the church.  I get tired thinking about it.............

And your point?

[calmoriah]

Palerider, on 21 May 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

Hence his "progress" in the church was hindered.

Anyone who thinks that progression comes within the church through getting callings that are higher in authority doesn't understand the gospel and true spiritual progression.

[Storm Rider]

It is interesting how an individual can take an action - everyone must wear white shirts - and that person then becomes the entire Church on a global level. Nothing could be further from the truth.  Look boys and girls, leaders are just people; no better or worse than others.  They were given a calling and they accepted, but their calling does not make them more righteous or more worthy; it makes them more accountable.  Sometimes they make poor choices and sometimes they make great choices, but never, not ever, does being a leader mean that everything they say and do is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Some bozos like short hair; some like white shirts; some like long sleeves; some want 100% home teaching; some have wild hairs; and some are as docile as a lamb. Regardless, they are just people.  If you want to be offended, you will find ample opportunity when dealing with humanity, if you look for it.  You will also not find it if you realize that the vast majority of the time, it is not personal.