My Experience In The Land Of The Two Holy Mosques

[canard78]

Well in fact, the church has now specifically issued a letter stating that children should not be helped by adults in their testimonies, and I can confirm that Bishops do not use the testimony glove questions in baptismal interviews. That is pure bunk.

'Not helped by adults...' is this only in testimony meeting?

Re Bishops in interviews... Who said they did? I must have missed that comment. I can imagine some well-meaning Bishops using it, but I hope not.

[canard78]

I'm dying to know what it's like on the outside!

Gambling on lunch-breaks, vodka laced candy, free brothels, and (worst of all), church dances where there isn't room for even a page of the Book of Mormon between the teenage dancing couple.

You'd hate it

Edited January 21, 2013 by canard78

[Questing Beast]

Classical goodness. I believe I heard "God" chuckle when I read the lyrics for the first time.

"Nine CTR's thank the same things verbatim"

Yep, that testimony glove works well: it gets kids to repeat something else instead of the "thankamony" they learn from the adults in their ward....

[mfbukowski]

'Not helped by adults...' is this only in testimony meeting?

Re Bishops in interviews... Who said they did? I must have missed that comment. I can imagine some well-meaning Bishops using it, but I hope not.

It used to be the practice that adults would get up and whisper in the ears of children saying their testimonies. The letter said children were welcome give their testimonies unassisted, meaning without adults whispering in their ears. It should be their own testimony expressed in their own words and their own feelings, freely stated voluntarily by the child.

Of course there are a few kids who just like to hear their voice over the microphone and be the center of attention, but that is up to their parents to control.

If you listen to the commercials it says something along the lines of "these are the questions the bishop will ask in your baptismal interview"- something like that. Those are not "the questions". Children's baptismal interviews tend to be pretty free-form but it depends on the bishop.

[mfbukowski]

Gambling on lunch-breaks, vodka laced candy, free brothels, and (worst of all), church dances where their isn't room for even a page of the Book of Mormon between the teenage dancing couple.

You'd hate it

You forgot the barrels of free drugs on the street corners. Cheesh!

[Calm]

I have never in my life heard of a testimony glove but of course I have only been in the church 33 years - what do I know? What is it?

First for me here as well....and it's 54 years, including in the most densely populated LDS communities outside of the Mormon corridor. Looks like it is a simplified version of the AoF using fingers instead of keywords for memory prompting. I will have to ask my friends who teach in Primary how big of a deal it is, if it is used all that much or was just one of many Friend ideas that have faded quickly.

It appears to be a recent memory aid for children: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1d2791ddb6b9c110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

add-on: while I've lived in Utah the last 10ish years, I have not been involved in Primary. Haven't ever seen the testimony glove used, will listen in the future to see if there are hints of it in children's speech though I doubt it because the ones that get up in our ward tend to be very articulate and not give anything close to what I would describe as a routine child's testimony.

Edited January 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Faith, not based on intellect, leading to a deep conviction.

I think there is a significant difference between the above and what you quoted and what we believe "based not merely on the intellect". Edited January 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If you'll notice on the website for purchasing the combo pack, Kristen Oaks is the Author of the book and came up with the idea. I can imagine it would be a little difficult for Deseret Bookstore to turn down her book even if they weren't fond of the idea. Kristen Oaks is Dallin H. Oaks wife.

I suspect there are a number of people at DB positively thrilled with the idea considering other items I have seen come through the stores over the years. They tend to love anything that helps make what appears to be an abstract idea more concrete. When forget-me-nots were used in a conference talk, the following Mother's Day many wards handed out cards with quotes from the talk along with the flowers and DB was full of artwork with the same quote. Edited January 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

[media=]

Classical goodness. I believe I heard "God" chuckle when I read the lyrics for the first time.

"Nine CTR's thank the same things verbatim"

Yep, that testimony glove works well: it gets kids to repeat something else instead of the "thankamony" they learn from the adults in their ward....

Children's testimonies are the highlight for my boys to listen to during F & T, on the occasion they say "the darndest things". I miss the days they would all line up to bear testimony! This is probably just in my ward and it may be just a lately kind of thing.

[canard78]

You forgot the barrels of free drugs on the street corners. Cheesh!

I thought I'd save a few surprises for when they finally breached the state border.

[canard78]

First for me here as well....and it's 54 years, including in the most densely populated LDS communities outside of the Mormon corridor. Looks like it is a simplified version of the AoF using fingers instead of keywords for memory prompting. I will have to ask my friends who teach in Primary how big of a deal it is, if it is used all that much or was just one of many Friend ideas that have faded quickly.

It appears to be a recent memory aid for children: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=21bc9fbee98db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1d2791ddb6b9c110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

add-on: while I've lived in Utah the last 10ish years, I have not been involved in Primary. Haven't ever seen the testimony glove used, will listen in the future to see if there are hints of it in children's speech though I doubt it because the ones that get up in our ward tend to be very articulate and not give anything close to what I would describe as a routine child's testimony.

There's an important difference between the glove wording and the AoF. One say 'I know...' The other 'We believe...'

[canard78]

I think there is a significant difference between the above and what you quoted and what we believe "based not merely on the intellect".

I'd have to study more on the Islam approach to faith to know whether it's faith independent of intellect or not.

Perhaps those more knowledgable of Islam can help us.

[CV75]

The more I meet the practitioners of diverse faiths, particularly the non-Abrahamic ones, the less I feel comfortable with the absolutist implications of D&C 1:30

If some people need absolutism, why are you uncomfortable when the Lord uses it? Those who do not need absolutism still get the same message from the same passage of scripture. Do you mean to say that the discomfort is with the potential for abuse of absolutism, which is a subset of the abuse of agency? If so, the potential for abuse is offset by the potential for proper use. God allows that His message will not be accepted by all when He says, “…that all that will hear may hear.”

The word “all,” a word with potentially absolutist meaning, is used in D&C 1: The voice of the Lord us unto “all men” and “all people” that “all that will hear may hear” and that “all shall be fulfilled.” I think He means to save all His children by fulfilling all His words through the Church with which He is well pleased. Whether He uses more express language or not, or whether the hearer needs absolutism or not, I do not think that God would ever suggest that His children don’t need to depend on Him or His Church more than any other. He may leave them without a fulness for a time, or reveal a little at a time, but He will never deny Himself or His message.

[Calm]

I'd have to study more on the Islam approach to faith to know whether it's faith independent of intellect or not.

Perhaps those more knowledgable of Islam can help us.

So you are saying the quote you quoted (see below for a requote) may be wrong then?

The first necessity for progression along the path of spiritual development is MAN (faith)... This should be a firm conviction, based not merely on the intellect, but also on acceptance by the will. The stronger and deeper this conviction, the more profound a man’s faith will be.

There is nothing in that quote that states faith is supposed to be independent of intellect, instead it says it shouldn't be merely of the intellect...thus intellect and more. Edited January 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

There's an important difference between the glove wording and the AoF. One say 'I know...' The other 'We believe...'

I would agree.

[canard78]

So you are saying the quote you quoted (see below for a requote) may be wrong then?

There is nothing in that quote that states faith is supposed to be independent of intellect, instead it says it shouldn't be merely of the intellect...thus intellect and more.

Sorry, it's me getting in a muddle. I agree with you and appreciate the correction (I've changed the original post).

I guess as Mormons we'd base our faith on 'intellect and more' too. I'd be interested to understand this further in Islam. I wonder where the 'more' comes from. They say "he stronger and deeper this conviction, the more profound a man’s faith will be." - I wonder how they get the stronger, deeper conviction.

[mfbukowski]

If some people need absolutism, why are you uncomfortable when the Lord uses it? Those who do not need absolutism still get the same message from the same passage of scripture.

I second that for literalism also.

All I know is that I don't know much. If God created the world in 6 days, I can see it that way. If that is a symbol for something else, I can see it that way, If people talk about absolutes, some things are and I can see it that way too. Some things are relative and I can see it that way as well.

Once you see that all these are different models and not much more and what matters is what is in your heart, your life changes irrevocably and all that becomes important is being guided by the spirit.

Being radically skeptical epistemologically means you know nothing but see it all clearly at the same time. Whatever is said is through a glass darkly and we will not see as God sees until we are at his side.

[CV75]

I second that for literalism also.

All I know is that I don't know much. If God created the world in 6 days, I can see it that way. If that is a symbol for something else, I can see it that way, If people talk about absolutes, some things are and I can see it that way too. Some things are relative and I can see it that way as well.

Once you see that all these are different models and not much more and what matters is what is in your heart, your life changes irrevocably and all that becomes important is being guided by the spirit.

Being radically skeptical epistemologically means you know nothing but see it all clearly at the same time. Whatever is said is through a glass darkly and we will not see as God sees until we are at his side.

Here, here!

[canard78]

If some people need absolutism, why are you uncomfortable when the Lord uses it? Those who do not need absolutism still get the same message from the same passage of scripture. Do you mean to say that the discomfort is with the potential for abuse of absolutism, which is a subset of the abuse of agency? If so, the potential for abuse is offset by the potential for proper use. God allows that His message will not be accepted by all when He says, “…that all that will hear may hear.”

The word “all,” a word with potentially absolutist meaning, is used in D&C 1: The voice of the Lord us unto “all men” and “all people” that “all that will hear may hear” and that “all shall be fulfilled.” I think He means to save all His children by fulfilling all His words through the Church with which He is well pleased. Whether He uses more express language or not, or whether the hearer needs absolutism or not, I do not think that God would ever suggest that His children don’t need to depend on Him or His Church more than any other. He may leave them without a fulness for a time, or reveal a little at a time, but He will never deny Himself or His message.

Maybe I didn't express myself accurately. I am comfortable with the idea that God lets or inspires multiple religions to talk in absolute terms or with claims of exclusivity. Even though that might be a contradiction, His global family need this, so it works. I can't reconcile the COJCOLDS being 'the only true and living church on the face of the earth' and that 'all others faith are wrong.' I don't accept that our church is the only true church and all other faiths are wrong.

I would be more comfortable considering the church of the Lamb of God (1 Nep 14:10) to be the only true church. I don't consider the COJCOLDS and the Church of the Lamb to be one and the same. The etymology of 'church' is powerful.

On another recent thread I wrote the following on the meaning and origin of the word church (it doesn't really mean 'organisation' or 'denomination'):

I took the word for 'Church' used in the approved translation on lds.org (toggle language top right):

French: Église, runs through Latin into the Greek "to summon" or "to call"

Spanish: Iglesia, and Italian: Chiesa have same Latin/Greek root as French 'Église'

1 Nep 14:10 Behold there are save two (summons) only; the one is the (summons/call) of the Lamb of God, and the other is the (summons/call) of the devil

German: Kirche, same root as the English: Church meaning house or power.

This root also applies to Dutch and Scandinavian languages where Kerk or Kyrka etc are used (in Scotland some still say Kirk for church).

1 Nep 14:10 Behold there are save two (powers) only; the one is the (power) of the Lamb of God, and the other is the (power) of the devil

Chinese: 教會 (Jiàohuì*), which comes from the characters for "teach" (or place of teaching/can teach)

1 Nep 14:10 Behold there are save two (teachings) only; the one is the (teaching) of the Lamb of God, and the other is the (teaching) of the devil

*Pronounced Jaow (to rhyme with 'Ow' like when you're hurt) and Hway (like 'way' but with a 'H' sound at the start). Both said with a downward inflexed tone like you're telling a dog to sit.

So in other words, I believe that there are only two powers/calls/teachings. The power of the Devil and the power of the lamb of God, which is also the only power and summons that is 'true and living' and with which the Lord is well pleased. I believe God wants me to embrace that power/call/teaching of the Lamb in a Mormon 'way.' But I don't presume that He wants that for all. I think some people need the certainty that comes from being told 'this is the only true church, all others are wrong.' But that statement could be applied to multiple faiths and only works when the statement has the appendage 'this is the only true church... for you... all others are wrong... for you.'

Does that make it more clear? Clear as mud...

[Calm]

Sorry, it's me getting in a muddle. I agree with you and appreciate the correction (I've changed the original post).

.

No problem, if it hadn't been so significant of a difference I would have assumed it was merely a typo, but since it was rather important (because there are those...usually critics not attempting to understand...that insist that faith is totally apart from the intellect) thought it worthy of being pointed out.

[EllenMaksoud]

I just returned from the lands of a prophet of another time and place. Amidst preparing for business meetings, I spent time memorizing surahs (Al-Fatihah is required for prayer and fairly simple) and trying to understand the land and its people.

Imagine, if you would, a place where LDS standards are not only practiced, but it's actually quite difficult to violate the standards of the church. Modesty is rigorously enforced. Nothing is open on the Sabbath. It's not feasible to violate the word of wisdom (in most of its particulars) because several substances are simply not available. Prayer is a daily part of life, with time set aside from work and commerce to pray as needed. The proclamation on the family (or at least a polygamy-friendly version) is abided by firmly, as mothers are almost forbidden from working outside the home. Even "blood atonement" is alive and well...

The people I met with in this land are wonderful. I find them to be very caring, family-oriented, and honest with me. Their food is absolutely exquisite. It's very clean (aside from the desert sand everywhere), and a great place to visit...but something struck me as I visited.

The custodians of the two Holy Mosques, Mecca and Medina, are the leaders of this holy enclave. Pictures of the King and his two principle heirs adorn every building. As I sat on the dais of a government hall presenting to 'princes' (no big deal --there are 15,000 in total), I looked up to find these three pictures of very old men reminded me of similar pictures in each and every building of worship in my own land and faith.

True, the rules are different. But that's not my point. If I were a 'gentile' in 1855, the territory of deseret would have appeared to me just like...saudi arabia does today.

I have always been open to other faiths. I"ve read the Quran twice in english, only to realize, ultimately, that you're not reading the Quran unless it is in arabic. Hence, I've been focusing on surahs in arabic, at least while wayfaring in the land of the holy mosques. This trip to this land, I've tried to think in terms of how a muslim would think -- which is at odds with what I've adopted in my life of Mahatma Gandhi's statement, "I am a muslim, I am a hindu, I am a christian, I am a jew, and so are all of you". As I memorized surahs and contemplated the meaning of the first pillar of Islam, "There is no god but god and Mohammed is his prophet", I realized that there is no middle ground -- no place where I can claim that statement AND hold that Joseph Smith, was also a prophet and that Pres Monson is a prophet today.

As there are are hundreds of times more muslims as there are LDS, I have to wonder: what kind of God enables this mutual exclusivity? What can I learn from the statements of exclusivity rampant in islam, which many of our LDS prophets today have preached with equal certainty? How is a recited testimony from a glove any different than the profession of faith of a muslim?

As Salaam Alaykom Wa Ramatullah Wa Baraktulluh Brother Wayfarer.

I was Sunni Muslim and immersed in the culture here in the US for 6 years. There are reasons that it did not work for me in the end, namely their failure to recognize Jesus Christ as the Son of God, however the real educated ones hold (Jesus) Isa PBUH in very high esteem. Oh, I am now very firmly LDS and hope to receive temple privileges soon.

Still, not living in the culture constantly tears at me every single day. In that culture I felt and practiced such a reverence for Allah SWT (Heavenly Father) in a way that is now absent in those around me, except at Sacrement Service. While not around other LDS members, I still think of Allah SWT and dress the way I used to. It makes me feel secure and safe.

Yes, I know that my words would prompt some to call them to take me away if they knew how to find me.

Yes, there are some very dark things about Saudi Society for the errant, but if you are observant of the true path, life can be good. I've finally started to realize that women do not drive in Saudia, not because they can't do it but because the men are such bad drivers. LOL

[mfbukowski]

There is nothing in that quote that states faith is supposed to be independent of intellect, instead it says it shouldn't be merely of the intellect...thus intellect and more.

Faith is to me, as Joseph said, a "principle of action". Any action you take, intellectual or not has consequences which are unpredictable and therefore subject to exercising faith that they will turn out well.

You get in the car and drive to church- it is highly likely that you will not be killed in an accident, yet it happens. In a sense, everything you do, can have unintended consequences, but we have faith that they will turn out as we intend.

Similarly, we act on religious principles confident that we are right, yet we cannot absolutely know that anything will turn out the way we think it will. So faith is a pervasive fact of life for everyone, and anyone who doesn't realize that needs to do so.

Any activity which assumes something will turn out as predicted tacitly takes that on faith.

Edited January 22, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Maidservant]

I'd have to study more on the Islam approach to faith to know whether it's faith independent of intellect or not.

Perhaps those more knowledgable of Islam can help us.

Islam places a great value on Reason, the capacity of our God-created minds to come to spiritual truth by reasoning.

[CV75]

Maybe I didn't express myself accurately. I am comfortable with the idea that God lets or inspires multiple religions to talk in absolute terms or with claims of exclusivity. Even though that might be a contradiction, His global family need this, so it works. I can't reconcile the COJCOLDS being 'the only true and living church on the face of the earth' and that 'all others faith are wrong.' I don't accept that our church is the only true church and all other faiths are wrong.

I would be more comfortable considering the church of the Lamb of God (1 Nep 14:10) to be the only true church. I don't consider the COJCOLDS and the Church of the Lamb to be one and the same. The etymology of 'church' is powerful.

On another recent thread I wrote the following on the meaning and origin of the word church (it doesn't really mean 'organisation' or 'denomination'):

So in other words, I believe that there are only two powers/calls/teachings. The power of the Devil and the power of the lamb of God, which is also the only power and summons that is 'true and living' and with which the Lord is well pleased. I believe God wants me to embrace that power/call/teaching of the Lamb in a Mormon 'way.' But I don't presume that He wants that for all. I think some people need the certainty that comes from being told 'this is the only true church, all others are wrong.' But that statement could be applied to multiple faiths and only works when the statement has the appendage 'this is the only true church... for you... all others are wrong... for you.'

Does that make it more clear? Clear as mud...

It’s all a matter of subject and degree, of course. All other churches are wrong in that they haven’t the keys; any church can be right inasmuch as they profess a vestige of that which originates from the Light of Christ, whether they are Christian or not. The Lord is well pleased with only one Church, and pleased to a lesser extent with others.

On another level and in another sense and in another conversation, the Church of the Lamb is the only true Church; or the Church of the Firstborn is the only true and living Church. It all depends. D&C 1 is about the Lord’s own restored Church.

It is clear, and I am very comfortable with all ways that “this” (whatever “this” is in relation to scripture—Church of the Lamb, the Firstborn, the LDS, etc.) is the only true Church. I think this is how we can most effectively (meaning by the power of the Spirit in us) draw people from the Church of the Lamb and into the LDS Church.

[canard78]

It’s all a matter of subject and degree, of course. All other churches are wrong in that they haven’t the keys; any church can be right inasmuch as they profess a vestige of that which originates from the Light of Christ, whether they are Christian or not. The Lord is well pleased with only one Church, and pleased to a lesser extent with others.

On another level and in another sense and in another conversation, the Church of the Lamb is the only true Church; or the Church of the Firstborn is the only true and living Church. It all depends. D&C 1 is about the Lord’s own restored Church.

It is clear, and I am very comfortable with all ways that “this” (whatever “this” is in relation to scripture—Church of the Lamb, the Firstborn, the LDS, etc.) is the only true Church. I think this is how we can most effectively (meaning by the power of the Spirit in us) draw people from the Church of the Lamb and into the LDS Church.

As mentioned I don't consider the church of the Lamb and the LDS denomination as the same thing.

The church (power, call, teachings) of the Lamb is what I consider to be the only true church and I see people finding many ways of being part of that broad church. Non-mormons are also in the church of the Lamb.

I think some people can only stay in the church of the Lamb by believing they are the 'only' ones in it. I think some latter-day saints need the statement 'only true and living' and 'all others are wrong' in order to stay in. They need absolutism. I probably need absolutism. But other non-LDS also need absolutism in the denomination they participate in. And then some others don't but are still able to stay loyal to the Lamb (even if they call him by a different name).

As mentioned before, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the 'only true and living' church (denomination) for me to participate in to follow the Lamb and be in his church. I imagine it always will be. I think 'all others are wrong' for me to participate in. But I think other denominations are true for other people and 'not wrong' for other people.