Uncomfortable God

[MorningStar]

I have read Elder Holland's talk and Cate's take on it. The talk is spot on. It is not the apostles and prophets that are falling away from what the Church taught in the beginning.

 

here we have a person who holds herself up to be the paragon of virtue, of discipleship.

"There is a cost of discipleship. I know it. I’ve paid it. I pay it every single day. And having traversed my own wine press, however incomparable to that of my exemplar, I found a God who was radically more interested in my ability to love my neighbor in spite of his or her fallen state than to draw lines which exclude. I found a God whose love is transformative and whose love, when manifest through me, is a corrective force needing little, if any, accompanying condemnation.  Precisely because I found that God, I found Elder Holland’s words a harsh and demoralizing oversimplification of what I and so many others have experienced:"

 

Then she goes on to excoriate everyone and everything that she know in the church, practically:

"At my church, 90% of what we do is incestuous service; we make dinners for each other, we visit the sick within our own congregations, we go to the temple for our own families. On occasion, we have a community service "project" or the Relief Society makes prescribed hygiene and newborn kits from downloadable patterns available on the Church website. We rarely see the faces of those who most need our service. As a congregation, we are so insulated. So aloof. So free to simply donate money as we plan our next family vacation, shop for a new "modest" dress, or call a plastic surgeon to schedule a mommy makeover. "

 

I am not going to make any judgment on her comments. They pretty much speak for themselves.

 

I will say that that I do not know the church that and the people that she describes.

 

I will also say that she completely missed the point of Elder Holland's talk.

 

Glenn

We as members don't have to wait for the church to tell us who to go serve.  We are "agents unto ourselves".  We are taught charity, service, etc. and I also don't recognize what she describes.  I have friends in my ward who reguarly volunteer at the Ronald McDonald house, serve in soup kitchens, organize dinners to feed the homeless face to face, deliver blankets to the homeless downtown on Christmas with lunches, and more.  Yes, we also serve each other.  We are family and take care of each other. 

[bluebell]

I have read Elder Holland's talk and Cate's take on it. The talk is spot on. It is not the apostles and prophets that are falling away from what the Church taught in the beginning.

 

here we have a person who holds herself up to be the paragon of virtue, of discipleship.

"There is a cost of discipleship. I know it. I’ve paid it. I pay it every single day. And having traversed my own wine press, however incomparable to that of my exemplar, I found a God who was radically more interested in my ability to love my neighbor in spite of his or her fallen state than to draw lines which exclude. I found a God whose love is transformative and whose love, when manifest through me, is a corrective force needing little, if any, accompanying condemnation.  Precisely because I found that God, I found Elder Holland’s words a harsh and demoralizing oversimplification of what I and so many others have experienced:"

 

 

 

I would guess that she doesn't see how self righteous the above paragraph sounds.

 

She has basically said that Elder Holland and anyone else who didn't find his talk harsh, etc. haven't found God yet.  Otherwise, per her own words (it is precisely because she has found God that she didn't like the talk), everyone would agree with her.

 

I would hope that she doesn't actually believe that, even though that's what she wrote.  It's hard to say though.

[stemelbow]

I would guess that she doesn't see how self righteous the above paragraph sounds.

 

She has basically said that Elder Holland and anyone else who didn't find his talk harsh, etc. haven't found God yet.  Otherwise, per her own words (it is precisely because she has found God that she didn't like the talk), everyone would agree with her.

 

I would hope that she doesn't actually believe that, even though that's what she wrote.  It's hard to say though.

I didn't find Elder Holland's talk harsh and yet I also found her blog interesting and much of which I can agree with. With that, I felt no judgment from her that I don't know God. Although to be upfront I am far more lost than she and Elder Holland combined and do feel I do not know God in the most meaningful sense, as much as I've tried.

Edited June 11, 2014 by stemelbow

[Buzzard]

I'm a follower of a Christ. A disciple (at least I try). I still need the prophet. I listen. I heed. But the Savior is the examplar.

That sounds very nice. And I am sure you are doing the best you can to work out your salvation with the Lord. But guess what? So are the Baptists, the Catholics, the Methodists, Muslims, and so on down the line. And their efforts are to be admired as well. But if we don't follow (not listen, follow) the living prophets that God has called today, we end up in the same category as all these other nice folks following "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture". Do our leaders, local and general sometimes make a verbal gaffe, or even a slight doctrinal deviation? Sure. But taken as a whole, these self-correct, and usually in pretty short order. 

I think that you would find that the LDS church has not only the keys and authority of the priesthood to bind on both heaven and earth, but also the doctrines which will lead us back to the presence of our Lord and God IF we will follow them. 

[Rivers]

I feel that Cate made some interesting points but I very much disliked the tone of the article.

The main message I took away from Holland's talk is that living gospel isn't always easy. Being a member of the church requires work. I have no idea where she gets the idea that Holland's words were directed at people want to serve others.

But I do agree the that we as a church have a lot of room for improvement.

One thing that as always bothered me is the time and resources we spend with family history and temple work.

[MorningStar]

I feel that Cate made some interesting points but I very much disliked the tone of the article.

The main message I took away from Holland's talk is that living gospel isn't always easy. Being a member of the church requires work. I have no idea where she gets the idea that Holland's words were directed at people want to serve others.

But I do agree the that we as a church have a lot of room for improvement.

One thing that as always bothered me is the time and resources we spend with family history and temple work.

Why does that bother you? 

[Rivers]

It just seems like we could spend more time and resources taking care of the living and wait for the millennium to do deal with all the ordinances for people.

[stemelbow]

It just seems like we could spend more time and resources taking care of the living and wait for the millennium to do deal with all the ordinances for people.

Why not just pour all our resources into family history and wait for everyone to enter the world of spirits before they need to decide about accepting ordinances and covenants? The living are no more important than the dead and there are tons more dead to be dealing with.

[MorningStar]

It just seems like we could spend more time and resources taking care of the living and wait for the millennium to do deal with all the ordinances for people.

You might be underestimating how hard the wait is for them.  My grandmother has been missing for over 40 years and we have no proof she is dead, so her temple work can't be done.  I have spent countless hours trying to track her down because I had a strong prompting to do so and I often wonder how hard it must be for her. 

[Rivers]

I guess my real issue is with the theology that these ordinances are so important that billions of deceased people are in such desperate need of them in the first place.

[stemelbow]

I guess my real issue is with the theology that these ordinances are so important that billions of deceased people are in such desperate need of them in the first place.

I get the feeling that they are pretty relaxed about it. If they know it will happen why feel the need to have it done now as opposed to the millennium. It's not like they are getting old and going to die or something.

[Vance]

I think she's suggesting more of a return to the core gospel principles.  ETA:  Probably better stated -- I think she's suggesting a move away from some of the periphery.

She specifically mentioned those two (periphery ?) items I was responding to, SO, I think you are wrong in your thinking of what she is suggesting.

Also, she certainly was attempting, but failing, to claim the moral high ground (her self righteousness caused the failure), if you ask me. I certainly came away unimpressed with her, and her position.

[bluebell]

I guess my real issue is with the theology that these ordinances are so important that billions of deceased people are in such desperate need of them in the first place.

 

I kind of wondered about this myself, until i studied how many times the Lord has used Malachi 4: 4-6 as major instruction for His prophets/people.  Especially pondering on His pronouncement that the earth would be cursed unless these things came to pass helped me to understand how serious the issue is.

[MorningStar]

I get the feeling that they are pretty relaxed about it. If they know it will happen why feel the need to have it done now as opposed to the millennium. It's not like they are getting old and going to die or something.

Isn't baptism the gateway to Heaven?  Seems like it would be a big deal to the deceased.

[Gray]

That sounds very nice. And I am sure you are doing the best you can to work out your salvation with the Lord. But guess what? So are the Baptists, the Catholics, the Methodists, Muslims, and so on down the line. And their efforts are to be admired as well. But if we don't follow (not listen, follow) the living prophets that God has called today, we end up in the same category as all these other nice folks following "the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture". Do our leaders, local and general sometimes make a verbal gaffe, or even a slight doctrinal deviation? Sure. But taken as a whole, these self-correct, and usually in pretty short order. 

I think that you would find that the LDS church has not only the keys and authority of the priesthood to bind on both heaven and earth, but also the doctrines which will lead us back to the presence of our Lord and God IF we will follow them. 

 

Until we replace prophets with divine automatons, we will always hear the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Case in point - the idea of the curse of Cain/Ham. 

[Ahab]

I'm having to quote Bambi in my head....and it ain't working.

With luv (and a little exasperation),

BD

It was actually Thumper, and Thumper's Mom, who said "If you can't say somethin nice, don't say nothin at all".

And yeah, I wish her Mom had taught her that too, and I also concur with your thoughts.

[BlueDreams]

It was actually Thumper, and Thumper's Mom, who said "If you can't say somethin nice, don't say nothin at all".

And yeah, I wish her Mom had taught her that too, and I also concur with your thoughts.

 

Bambi....as in the movie title. Like saying, I'm having to quote the Bible. I know it was Thumper quoting his mom. 

 

And as for Cate....from her writing style I assume she probably did too. She's not out-and-out vicious about her points. But she makes a common mistake that we all can do of fighting a caricature than any real diverse organization. The image she's depicting is one that is flat and uniform, that even just a few of the comments here indicate that doesn't really exist. What is real and tangible for her are the people she immediately associates with, who are probably fairly like-minded  (based on the description) and whom she loves and finds community with. So when Holland gives his talk, it's not words that can flexibly be given by a concerned Apostle to any situation that may entail us looking for the easier or at least more worldly accepted views to a figurehead of a monolithic organization who is speaking against real people who are just concerned and looking out for other people's welfare. An organization that she feels hyper-focuses on image and financial progress over concern for others.

 

It is her caricature that I find aggravating. Because it's not what I see, interact with, or know. To me the idea presented gives the church as somehow divorced from it's spiritual roots. And that is not at any point what I've ever seen. The pieces I've seen and interacted with are multifaceted, earnest and seeking.  They're not always perfect, but they are always caring and I have no doubts about their overarching purpose. I do not see any real evidence to question that. To me that point she makes is presumptuous.

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Glenn101]

Bambi....as in the movie title. Like saying, I'm having to quote the Bible. I know it was Thumper quoting his mom. 

 

And as for Cate....from her writing style I assume she probably did too. She's not out-and-out vicious about her points. But she makes a common mistake that we all can do of fighting a caricature than any real diverse organization. The image she's depicting is one that is flat and uniform, that even just a few of the comments here indicate that doesn't really exist. What is real and tangible for her are the people she immediately associates with, who are probably fairly like-minded  (based on the description) and whom she loves and finds community with. So when Holland gives his talk, it's not words that can flexibly be given by a concerned Apostle to any situation that may entail us looking for the easier or at least more worldly accepted views to a figurehead of a monolithic organization who is speaking against real people who are just concerned and looking out for other people's welfare. An organization that she feels hyper-focuses on image and financial progress over concern for others.

 

It is her caricature that I find aggravating. Because it's not what I see, interact with, or know. To me the idea presented gives the church as somehow divorced from it's spiritual roots. And that is not at any point what I've ever seen. The pieces I've seen and interacted with are multifaceted, earnest and seeking.  They're not always perfect, but they are always caring and I have no doubts about their overarching purpose. I do not see any real evidence to question that. To me that point she makes is presumptuous.

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Blue Dreams, I really think that your signature says it all. "We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.". I don't think that I really need to elaborate on that. But it is apparent in this thread and in the one(s) on John Dehlin and Kate Kelly.

 

Glenn