Stone Box

[ERayR]

I agree, but keep in mind that one of the amenities of being a follower of Christ should be the blessings of love and fellowship in His congregation. Therefore if the congregation is "programmed" to see certain elements as frowned upon by the brethren/Lord, (take for instance two piercings instead of one per ear) then the full fellowship of the congregation can be subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) withdrawn from that individual who is percieved as out of order or not following the program.

Maybe I am just blessed but I have never lived in an LDS branch or ward where the blessings of love and fellowship did not abide in abundance.

[ERayR]

I don't see that post #166 speaks to this.

I have never seen any church where the minister wasn't held in high esteem so your intimations of it being an LDS phenomena is unfounded.

[MormonMason]

Could you give us that citation. I apologize if I missed it.

I quoted it here.

However, if you have a printed copy, you will find it on page 173 of Book 2 (2010), bottom left paragraph--or so I am told. If you want a reference from the old General Handbook of Instructions, that would be a bit on the impossible side due to the fact that it was a long time ago and I did not keep mine (you aren't supposed to keep them but pass them on to your successors, after all).

[mrmendoza]

I was half way through reading a thread on a stone box when I replied to MM which 'leapfrogged' me to the last page.

I see the usual delightful MDDB entropy has occurred and we're now discussing. Umm... ?? White shirts and polygamy?

I was half way through reading a thread on a stone box when I replied to MM which 'leapfrogged' me to the last page.

I see the usual delightful MDDB entropy has occurred and we're now discussing. Umm... ?? White shirts and polygamy?

Yeah. I was kind of wondering what happened to the originale topic myself!

[Palerider]

I have never seen any church where the minister wasn't held in high esteem so your intimations of it being an LDS phenomena is unfounded.

I see.

I certainly wouldn't say it was strictly an LDS attribute, but shared wrong-headedness is wrong nonetheless.

Additionally, although I believe most here will take issue with this, I think there is a type of "leadership worship" that occurs in the LDS faith. I've never seen an entire congregation stand at the entrance of a pastor in any of the other churches I've observed. Does it happen with the Pope? Can't remember........maybe.

[Palerider]

Your perceptions of the congregation of the followers of Christ is much different than mine. I do not perceive the majority or even a large minority of members of the LDS faith as the self-righteous judgmental people that you apparently experienced/perceived. I have found members of the LDS faith to be some of the most accepting, kind, loving, and truly Christlike people that I have ever had the good fortune of meeting.

Indeed many of them are. But I've also seen young girls ostracized for having two piercings in each ear. I've seen members judge one another for drinking Coke or Pepsi.

You've never heard that saying......? "You can judge the righteousness of a member by the temperature of their caffiene?"

That one used to go around in our stake quite often.

[Palerider]

Yeah. I was kind of wondering what happened to the originale topic myself!

In the military that's called "Mission creep".........

I think the Stone box issue has about played itself out and I think I'm done with the rest of this anyway. It really needs to be set up in a different thread if conitnued.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Palerider

[Tacenda]

http://www.lds.org/l...M100000176f620a____

I saw this on LDS.org. On it there are questions by different individuals pertaining to the gold plates. Questions that never even entered my mind until now. I have one to add, how did the many authors of the BoM engrave on the gold plates? What did they use? Why didn't this ever cross my mind?

[Calm]

The church in my estimation equates following the "program" with spiritual growth.

CFR...at least some statements that support that approach. Edited May 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Anyone who thinks those holding leadership positions aren't held in higher esteem as having made good spritual progress doesn't understand the church (or spent enough time in priesthood meetings).........

I do not deny that some in the church equate higher callings with higher esteem and spiritual progress. I've seen it often among new converts that aren't aware of how things work such as in Russia where a bishop resigned after having been released from the calling after the usual time because in Russia there were only negative reasons given for demotion and thus he was insulted. And even among some old converts for whom church has substituted for the usual community social life and habits of the world have been transferred to the Church from the Club, etc.

That does not mean that such are an inherent attribute of church structure or organization.

I have seen plenty of Stake Presidents and Mission Presidents, etc. accept callings as happily as Nursery leaders or bulletin people. Do you really think that anyone believes that they are now not as spiritual as they were before?

Generically speaking, I believe there is an expectation that those who are called into positions of authority are going to be spiritually in tune, etc so as to be able to deal with the burden of the work (the calling is not seen as a reward for spirituality but as a necessity from what I've seen among my associates)....and when it comes to specific callings where the person is known personally, I haven't seen too many people suddenly go to oneself 'oh, he's bishop material, I must have been wrong about him' if they didn't already see him as developed in the spiritual area when he was a home teacher but rather they hold to a 'wait and see if the mantle gives him a big hand of help'. IOW, they don't let the office trump their own personal knowledge.

And in addition, the alleged higher spiritual esteem aura around a calling rarely outlasts imo the presence of a man who is spiritually as developed as an 11 year old who hasn't even had his first zit. A rotten MP for example leads to the next MP not being taken on faith (if he ever was), but required to prove his spiritual 'intuneness'.

Considering the comments I have heard in regards to all callings from usher to apostle, my experience is that most everyone is judged by their own actions that demonstrate their spirituality rather than automatically assumed to be walking on water if given a uplevel calling or walking in the mire if given a calling such as bulletin person, hymnal or Scout assistant.

For those who have the habit of equating spiritual level with level of church calling placement, it is hardly surprising when their misguided faith is thrown a loop by a dose of reality. Hopefully they realize that at issue was not the Church's standards, but their own being misapplied.

Edited May 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I would say that that is probably true for any church you would like to name. However, I would not compare them to Pharisees after all a group needs something to measure the dedication of it professed adherants.

I think level of calling is one good measure of dedication and commitment due to the higher time and resource commitment as one moves to higher authority levels, though not spirituality except in a co-orelated way (someone who is spiritually developed will have a higher level of commitment, not necessarily the reverse though). Of course a YWs leader may pursue her calling with a commitment that turns it into a full time effort. We are all blessed to have that opportunity to develop ourselves in such ways in the Church, one thing that I find very admirable about our faith.

[Calm]

I agree, but keep in mind that one of the amenities of being a follower of Christ should be the blessings of love and fellowship in His congregation. Therefore if the congregation is "programmed" to see certain elements as frowned upon by the brethren/Lord, (take for instance two piercings instead of one per ear) then the full fellowship of the congregation can be subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) withdrawn from that individual who is percieved as out of order or not following the program.

And if this were to happen they would be the ones under condemnation as is clearly taught over and over again by our leaders.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/developing-good-judgment-and-not-judging-others?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=180&sourceId=e37cfd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1988/10/the-hand-of-fellowship?lang=eng

[Calm]

Yeah. I was kind of wondering what happened to the originale topic myself!

Evidence of evolution happening right before our eyes!!!

[Calm]

I think there is a type of "leadership worship" that occurs in the LDS faith. I've never seen an entire congregation stand at the entrance of a pastor in any of the other churches I've observed. Does it happen with the Pope? Can't remember........maybe.

We don't stand at the entrance of a bishop either. The Pope or some other leader of a large multiple congregation would be a more appropriate comparison. I have been in one evangelical meeting where the congregation applauded at the entrance of the pastor. I have no idea whether or not this is a common occurrence, nor do I condemn it if the congregation wished to express their love and support for the pastor in such a way. What a wonderful feeling that community was able to share with each other during that time.

I think there is a difference between leadership worship and feeling connected to one's leader as someone who is working in one's community to help everyone become something more, to help one and one's loved ones become more connected with God, who is walking down the same road and is trying to help others that are stumbling or distracted or discouraged. I think it is a shame to condemn what is often admiration and sincere gratitude for worship. Calling something evil that is at heart good is not a wise or happy thing to do.

[Stone holm]

CFR...at least some statements that support that approach.

Really, Calmoriah you need a CFR on that?

[Tacenda]

Evidence of evolution happening right before our eyes!!!

I tried to get it turned around a couple of posts back, but no one paid it no mind, no how.

[volgadon]

Someone please buy MormonMason a Kindle. If I had £1 for every time you made a statement but couldn't answer a CFR because you weren't 'with your books' then I'd have at least £32. Maybe £37.

So to clarify, when a single critic writes a statement that contradicts your view of the world they're talking nonsense. But when a single critic says something that supports your position you're happy to accept it?

I've learned long ago to not accept any critical (or supportive) assertions without being able to read the source in full. Given this definitive claim is only based on the distant memory of your infamous but distant 'books' I'll hold off on accepting this until I can see the reference for myself and appraise accordingly.

Very well put.

[volgadon]

the mindless minutia of the law (which they had expanded)

Think of it what you will, but mindless it never was.

[Calm]

Really, Calmoriah you need a CFR on that?

That actual church leadership (I mean GAs and such) equate following some generic program with spiritual growth...as opposed to a program being an aid in spiritual growth, yes. Edited May 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Palerider]

Think of it what you will, but mindless it never was.

Maybe I'm wrong here but I thought that having the Law pinned down to how many steps one could legitimately take on the Sabbath seemed kind of "mindless" to me in the larger view. But perhaps that was a hasty choice of words.

Or am I mis-informed? Maybe that was just something I heard they had done and was an over-statement.

[Palerider]

That actual church leadership (I mean GAs and such) equate following some generic program with spiritual growth...as opposed to a program being an aid in spiritual growth, yes.

I think there was a slight attempt to move the goal post with this statement. A desire to redefine what I was saying in order to parse the issue in your favor.

[Stone holm]

That actual church leadership (I mean GAs and such) equate following some generic program with spiritual growth...as opposed to a program being an aid in spiritual growth, yes.

No GA is ever going to admit to that, but can't you detect a lot of that in our approach, its hard to measure spiritual growth but it is possible to measure whether we are following a program, and the Church has a lot of former businessmen in leadership positions and they are big on measuring things. " Performance measured is performance improved..." Come on Calmoriah join the modern Church with religion adopting corporate management styles, don't be so archaic.

[Palerider]

CFR...at least some statements that support that approach.

From Mormon Doctrine by Bro. McConkie:

“For administrative purposes the church is divided into stakes and missions. Each stake (composed of wards and branches) is so organized as to carry on the full program of the church; each mission (composed of districts which in turn are composed of branches) adapts itself to the circumstances prevailing in it and carries on as much of the church program as possible. Priesthood quorums and auxiliary organizations function within the stakes, wards, branches, missions and districts. Groups of stakes are combined to form regions or districts, for the purpose of administering various programs, as for instance the welfare program and the work in the temples”

Ever thought of temple work as being a "program"..........Hmmmm....

Since home teaching is a program created by the church to administer D&C 20: 42-54:

“ When this home teaching is done properly, it complies with all phases of the revelation, brings about conversion to the truth, increases righteousness among the saints, and leads souls to eternal salvation.”

And since living the program brings forth increased righteousness and spirituality:

“Truly spiritual men walk in the light of personal revelation and enjoy the frequent promptings of the Holy Ghost. They are always sought for to serve as patriarchs and in other positions of church responsibility and leadership. It is not uncommon to hear such expressions as, “President McKay is a very spiritual man.” The thought behind this is that he has so lived as to overcome worldliness and put himself in tune with spiritual and eternal things.”

Can you blame the church for making the connection that advancement in the church organization is directly connected to how "spiritual" a person is and how well they follow the program?

I know someone will remark that "McConkie isn't establishing the doctrine of the church", but I'm not talking about establishing doctrine.

I'm saying that his writings are a very accurate reflection of the boots on the ground "culture" of the church, which has been created by it's leadership.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Palerider

[Palerider]

I tried to get it turned around a couple of posts back, but no one paid it no mind, no how.

I apologize Tacenda.

I always figured ancient scribes were writing with some sort of stylus or possibly a punch in the case of cuneiform. I'll have to check LDS.org out to see what they say.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Palerider

[MormonMason]

Very well put.

That's right, folks! Just rub it in. I already feel badly enough about being so far away from my books without charitable people like you rubbing it in. Thanks! Thanks a lot!