Church, Agency And Consequences

[Joshua Valentine]

That's the problem. Without even realizing it, some Latter-day Saints end up living in a sort of hybrid Mosaic Law version of Mormonism where they find themselves spiritually stymied at every turn by a counterproductive salvation by works state of mind. So the members who become enmeshed in this false approach to the Gospel never feel forgiven because, strangely enough, the never feel worthy enough to be forgiven. So they live joyless lives as members of the Church because they never experience the peace of mind that comes with being forgiven and comforted.

I believe this false approach to understanding and living the Gospel usually starts with well-meaning but misinformed parents who don't properly explain to their children that the Gospel is primarily a message of mercy and compassion. By employing a letter of the law approach to parenting they leave their children with the false impression that Gid is a cruel and overly demanding taskmaster. So when these kids grow up and turn away from the Church they think they're turning away from Mormonisn, but in reality they are actually turning away from a perverse and wrongheaded version of Mormonism.

 

 

The gospel got a bit easier when I realized that being worthy of forgiveness is a nonsensical statement. God does not expect such a thing. Confess and forsake and if you cannot yet forsake keep begging for strength and power and keep confessing until you do. Too many falter when they imagine there is a standard they must reach before help is available instead of realizing that their perfection is as much Christ's responsibility as it is theirs. He can do it and will do it as long as you desire it and do not stop him.

 

 

I would very much appreciate citations for the version of the LDS Gospel you two are describing?

 

 

I recommend reading the standard works to start.

 

Oh, come on The Nehor. Don't be like that. Please?

 

Both Bobbieaware and you indicated that there is a way that (a significant portion of) members understand the LDS Gospel that is different from the one you two now espouse. Obviously, reading the Standard Works is common among both groups, yet they espouse different versions of what the LDS Gospel is. So, simply reading the Standard Works is not sufficient to guarantee the understanding you two are proposing.

 

You two both claimed a different version of the LDS Gospel from that of others who have read the Standard Works. You two made the claim. There is nothing amiss in my asking for a specific citation or two that brought about your change in perspective of the LDS Gospel.

 

 

Note: first time I posted this the Name intros to the quotes did not post. So if they are still not there, that's a new bug I haven't seen before.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

[The Nehor]

Oh, come on The Nehor. Don't be like that. Please?

 

Both bobbieaware and you indicated that there is a way that (a significant portion of) members understand the LDS Gospel that is different from the one you two now espouse. Obviously, reading the Standard Works is common among both groups, yet they espouse different versions of what the LDS Gospel is. So, simply reading the Standard Works is not sufficient to guarantee the understanding you two are proposing.

 

You two both claimed a different version of the LDS Gospel from that of others who have read the Standard Works. You two made the claim. There is nothing amiss in my asking for a specific citation or two that brought about your change in perspective of the LDS Gospel.

I found it in the standard works and through revelation. As to how people come to different conclusions I would suggest that reading comprehension has never been humanity's strongest talent.

[Joshua Valentine]

The gospel got a bit easier when I realized that being worthy of forgiveness is a nonsensical statement. God does not expect such a thing. Confess and forsake and if you cannot yet forsake keep begging for strength and power and keep confessing until you do. Too many falter when they imagine there is a standard they must reach before help is available instead of realizing that their perfection is as much Christ's responsibility as it is theirs. He can do it and will do it as long as you desire it and do not stop him.

 

 

I recommend reading the standard works to start.

 

 

Oh, come on The Nehor. Don't be like that. Please?

 

Both Bobbieaware and you indicated that there is a way that (a significant portion of) members understand the LDS Gospel that is different from the one you two now espouse. Obviously, reading the Standard Works is common among both groups, yet they espouse different versions of what the LDS Gospel is. So, simply reading the Standard Works is not sufficient to guarantee the understanding you two are proposing.

 

You two both claimed a different version of the LDS Gospel from that of others who have read the Standard Works. You two made the claim. There is nothing amiss in my asking for a specific citation or two that brought about your change in perspective of the LDS Gospel.

 

 

Note: first time I posted this the Name intros to the quotes did not post. So if they are still not there, that's a new bug I haven't seen before.

 

 

I found it in the standard works and through revelation. As to how people come to different conclusions I would suggest that reading comprehension has never been humanity's strongest talent.

 

Come on The Nehor! You claimed that you, yourself, had to "realize" a key difference in the LDS Gospel to your previous understanding of it. How did you come about this epiphany "of comprehension" about being "worthy of forgiveness"? Considering that you are making a claim about LDS Doctrine (that you are recommending to others, not just yourself), surely you can substantiate your claim with some citation from an authority that has the authority to back up such a doctrinal view, that should be espoused by others, not just yourself.

[The Nehor]

Come on The Nehor! You claimed that you, yourself, had to "realize" a key difference in the LDS Gospel to your previous understanding of it. How did you come about this epiphany "of comprehension" about being "worthy of forgiveness"? Considering that you are making a claim about LDS Doctrine (that you are recommending to others, not just yourself), surely you can substantiate your claim with some citation from an authority that has the authority to back up such a doctrinal view, that should be espoused by others, not just yourself.

I came across this "epiphany" while reading the scriptures and understanding that repentance is a joyful process and that we do not merit forgiveness. I got the wrong impression from a succession of bad gospel teachers in my early teens one of whom indirectly convinced me to stop repenting. Looking back with adult eyes he was an idiot and a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Joshua Valentine]

I came across this "epiphany" while reading the scriptures and understanding that repentance is a joyful process and that we do not merit forgiveness. I got the wrong impression from a succession of bad gospel teachers in my early teens one of whom indirectly convinced me to stop repenting. Looking back with adult eyes he was an idiot and a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

Hmm... we will have to continue these topics elsewhere. Very soon.

 

How about you Bobbieaware? Can you elucidate the origin or support for your claim to doctrinal insight?

[cinepro]

When anyone argues that the Church or its various facets (BYU, Priesthood Quorums, Relief Society, Wards, Stakes, etc.) restrict or deny members choice I am want to remind them that the whole program,

• Church Membership
• Belief
• Programs and Policy
• Attendance
• Donations

Is VOLUNTARY.

 

Perhaps my status as a convert colors my view.  But even when it is a 7 generation family tradition (and understandably hard to oppose), Mormonism or more specifically membership and obedience to the doctrines and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is voluntary.

 

 

Arguing that constitutional freedoms, agency, choice, freedom of association, etc. has been denied or restricted by voluntary membership in a religious organization is an argument built on a false premise.  It is lazy or perhaps sloppy to blame the church for ones actions.  No less lazy or sloppy than saying "the devil made me do it".

 

Changing one's membership is a social risk, but as a convert one I know can be survived and even lead to thriving.  Is there any valid reason an individual or group should use coercive techniques to solicit changing the church from the outside, vs councils and prayer to elicit change or greater understanding for the church organization and individuals alike?

 

In short knowing you have a choice about affiliation why ask the organization to bend to your will?

 

Can you provide a reference to someone who is arguing that the Church (or its programs) deny someone this agency?  I think you're setting up a pretty blatant (and willfully ignorant) strawman.

 

You are also adopting the overly literal definition of "agency" that is never, ever used in a Church setting (as far as I can tell). 

 

By your logic, everyone has total "agency", even a prisoner in a North Korean labor camp.  Obviously the only reason they are staying there is because they choose to.  They could leave any time they wanted by making a run for it. Sure, they might be killed in the process, but it's still their choice.  Every abused wife or child is staying by their choice; they could leave any time they wanted to.  And so on.

 

Obviously, I'm not saying the Church is like a North Korean prison camp or abusive spouse, but when we adopt some philosophically absurd definition of "agency" that ignores the effect that the consequences of our decisions can have on "agency", and ignore the wide latitude the Church has in setting policies that effect the direct consequences of our choices and actions, the concept has no meaning.

 

For example, the Church now teaches that you must pay tithing in order to get a Temple Recommend.  This has not always been the case, and is a policy change.  Yes, everyone has the agency to choose not to pay tithing and miss their daughter's wedding, but that is an artificial consequence constructed by current Church leaders, so there is nothing wrong with pointing it out and suggesting it could change (since it has changed in the past).

Edited July 24, 2015 by cinepro

[Mars]

I came across this "epiphany" while reading the scriptures and understanding that repentance is a joyful process and that we do not merit forgiveness. I got the wrong impression from a succession of bad gospel teachers in my early teens one of whom indirectly convinced me to stop repenting. Looking back with adult eyes he was an idiot and a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

it appears we had a similar experiences growing up.  perhaps it's generational - i've gotten the impression that you are in your mid 30s, same as me.

 

myself personally: growing up, a kid who goes to the bishop to try and get his life together to go on a mission or to the temple will probably have a variety of experiences.  in my case, bishops and sunday school teachers who have taught me about repentance have varied in their counsel. some made me feel horrible and stressed action on my part to make the repentance process complete.  some made me feel light and didn't talk much about what i had to "do".  forgiveness was a fixed in my mind as a backup to when i messed up - and i wasn't supposed to be messing up.  though i didn't term it this way to myself, i can look back now and see that i was approaching forgiveness as though it was something i achieved.

 

i began to think differently a few years back.  i remember reading romans 8 in my personal scripture study, and a shift in that approach occurred.  it had been building for months, but it finally kinda snapped into focus during a reading one day.  forgiveness was always there.  i didn't achieve or deserve it, it was given to me.  i just needed to choose it.  a couple of years later, i saw Adam Miller's Grace Is Not A Backup Plan and felt that fit perfectly what I had experienced.

 

i still think abstention from sin is important, but i no longer see it as a precondition for forgiveness.  repentance moved from being a checklist of things i did to a slow and subtle change of my heart and mind.

 

so yeah.  relevant experience 'n' what have you.

Edited July 24, 2015 by Mars

[mormonnewb]

I have questioned policy and procedure and not suffered any negative consequences. It is not questioning that is a problem. It is how we question and sometimes oppose. The greatest example of this in my memory is how the West African Saints appealed to the brethren on race and the priesthood. They felt inspired and asked the brethren to pray. Unlike some protest movements that demanded that they were correct and the brethren needed to change based on their demands.

There are ways to influence change while respecting the order of the organization you want to change.

So, I assume you are contrasting the West African saints with, say, OW. The problem is that this seems to make HF quite petty and even unjust. In your view, not only is He withholding the priesthood from women because they didn't ask "politely," but He is withholding the priesthood from ALL women because 600 didn't ask politely. Whatever happened to not being punished for another's transgressions?

[Avatar4321]

I would very much appreciate citations for the version of the LDS Gospel you two are describing?

The Book of Mormon, Bible, D&C, and PofGP

[Mars]

I would very much appreciate citations for the version of the LDS Gospel you two are describing?

 

i can't answer for them

 

but as far as i'm aware, i was "given the impression" that forgiveness was achieved.  yes - all of it was enabled by grace.  I didn't earn it through my own merits, no one ever taught me that.  everything i was able to do under my own power was not going to actually be the thing that got me my forgiveness, because of Jesus.  BUT - i came away with the impression that my demonstration of repentance was necessary before being forgiven. 

 

i no longer think that. 

 

i think that forgiveness is always there.  repentance isn't the backup plan, it is THE plan.  this sort of language causes some people to think that they have license - or worse, that i'm SAYING they have license - to go do what they want because God will beat us with a few stripes and we'll be saved.  that's not what i'm saying.  at all.

 

i gave up thinking i had to be good enough.  that's pretty much it.

 

i realized how valuable i was as a Son of God.  and how God who spared not His own Son to save us would stop at nothing to redeem us - if we chose it.  i got this from a tweaked/new/renewed sense of understanding of the Atonement beginning with Alma 34 and then Romans 8.

 

i hope that helps.

[KevinG]

So, I assume you are contrasting the West African saints with, say, OW. The problem is that this seems to make HF quite petty and even unjust. In your view, not only is He withholding the priesthood from women because they didn't ask "politely," but He is withholding the priesthood from ALL women because 600 didn't ask politely. Whatever happened to not being punished for another's transgressions?

 

Humility has less to do with politeness and everything to do with "never the less thy will be done not mine".

 

I suggest that humility in approaching our Father in Heaven about policy (even through His representatives) has the power to change what external pressure will not.  And in the case of not getting what we want humility has the added benefit of helping us stay close to the Spirit of God.

 

Flipping what you are saying here perhaps Father is not changing policy for Ordaining Women because only a small group of women were overly concerned with exercising the priesthood (outside the Temple), and millions are content and understand why men have it?

Edited July 24, 2015 by KevinG

[KevinG]

 

Can you provide a reference to someone who is arguing that the Church (or its programs) deny someone this agency?  I think you're setting up a pretty blatant (and willfully ignorant) strawman.

 

 

There is a constant chorus of "the church made me...  or when I was a Mormon I had to... type arguments by critics.  

 

The point I'm making is that while there are consequences for some of our policies and programs, all of them are ultimately voluntary.

 

Call me a crazy Mormon but I like the following from an old Jew...

 

“When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.”

 

 

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

― Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

 

Few things set me on edge like someone failing to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions.

[cinepro]

There is a constant chorus of "the church made me...  or when I was a Mormon I had to... type arguments by critics.  

 

The point I'm making is that while there are consequences for some of our policies and programs, all of them are ultimately voluntary.

 

Call me a crazy Mormon but I like the following from an old Jew...

 

“When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.”

 

 

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”

― Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning

 

Few things set me on edge like someone failing to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions.

 

Do you think those people mean that the Church literally forced them (by using strong men or robots to force their bodies to move and go somewhere and do something), or could it be that they mean something else?

 

If I told you that I made my son take out the garbage last night, would you imagine your absurd, overly literalistic interpretation of what it means to "make" someone do something, or would you think of the more reasonable situation in which certain conditions and consequences were attached to an expectation?

[HappyJackWagon]

Do you think those people mean that the Church literally forced them (by using strong men or robots to force their bodies to move and go somewhere and do something), or could it be that they mean something else?

 

If I told you that I made my son take out the garbage last night, would you imagine your absurd, overly literalistic interpretation of what it means to "make" someone do something, or would you think of the more reasonable situation in which certain conditions and consequences were attached to an expectation?

Cinepro- You're being too reasonable. It's not going to work.

[Bobbieaware]

So, I assume you are contrasting the West African saints with, say, OW. The problem is that this seems to make HF quite petty and even unjust. In your view, not only is He withholding the priesthood from women because they didn't ask "politely," but He is withholding the priesthood from ALL women because 600

didn't ask politely. Whatever happened to not being punished for another's transgressions?

Until the day comes that the advocates of OW humble themselves, step down off of their high horses, and no longer allow themselves to automatically presume secular progressive dogma is equivalent to revelation from God, they will continue to be in turmoil and never be at peace.

Think about this: What will the OW advocates do if when the fuller revelation of the role of the priestesshood of women is finally revealed and much to their utter shock and horror they learn the divine authority of priests and priestesses run along parallel lines but that those lines of authority do not usually intersect? What will the members of OW say if they learn the divinely ordained roles of priests and priestesses are not one and the same thing and hat It's the immutable will of God that women never serve as Bishops, Stake Presidents, members of the Quorum of the Twelve or members of the First Presidency? What's going to be the reaction of the adherents of OW if in contradiction to feminist doctrine it turns out that in heaven women and men are not interchangeable and that they will always have different roles, different stewardships and differing manifestations of divine authority?

What will be the reaction if while OW and its allies fervently believe they are engaged in a noble struggle to correct some great perceived wrong, if it actually turns out they have been barking up the wrong tree; or, even worse, tilting uselessly at windmills of imaginary injustice while the God of heaven looked on with a shaking head and a bemused smile on his face?

Edited July 25, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[KevinG]

Do you think those people mean that the Church literally forced them (by using strong men or robots to force their bodies to move and go somewhere and do something), or could it be that they mean something else?

 

If I told you that I made my son take out the garbage last night, would you imagine your absurd, overly literalistic interpretation of what it means to "make" someone do something, or would you think of the more reasonable situation in which certain conditions and consequences were attached to an expectation?

 

Did you frog march him to the can, or beg and plead for the 15th time?  This will help me frame my answer.  

 

Seriously- it is the notion that an adult was trapped or coerced into doing something, when membership itself is voluntary.  There are consequences, and sometimes difficult ones for membership and non-membership alike, but I bristle at those who claim victimhood when they had the power to choose their level of activity and commitment.

[HappyJackWagon]

Did you frog march him to the can, or beg and plead for the 15th time?  This will help me frame my answer.  

 

Seriously- it is the notion that an adult was trapped or coerced into doing something, when membership itself is voluntary.  There are consequences, and sometimes difficult ones for membership and non-membership alike, but I bristle at those who claim victimhood when they had the power to choose their level of activity and commitment.

 

Your signature line is a wonderful match for your compassionate philosophy of worship.

 

 

When someone asks you What Would Jesus Do?  Remind them that overturning tables and scourging people is not out of the realm of possibilities.

 

Lets always be sure to remember that scourging is a legitimate possibility for you.

 

Don't make this conversation personal.

[KevinG]

Your signature line is a wonderful match for your compassionate philosophy of worship.

 

 

Lets always be sure to remember that scourging is a legitimate possibility for you.

 

You stay classy HJW!

[sdc999]

Did you frog march him to the can, or beg and plead for the 15th time?  This will help me frame my answer.  

 

Seriously- it is the notion that an adult was trapped or coerced into doing something, when membership itself is voluntary.  There are consequences, and sometimes difficult ones for membership and non-membership alike, but I bristle at those who claim victimhood when they had the power to choose their level of activity and commitment.

Here is where you are dead wrong.  

You Bristle at those who claim victimhood when they had the power to choose the level of activity and commitment?  You have just told every woman in an abusive relationship that it is her fault if she doesn't leave.  Obviously, the woman is an adult and had the "power to choose".    

Not everyone has the 'power' to walk away from their family.  And yes, there are families that will disown you if you should 'choose' to walk away from the LDS church.  Are they Right?  Not even close.  They do have the right to be concerned if that is their belief but to withdraw love because they choose to worship differently.     Your rebuttal : "that's not what the church teaches"   My answer:  It goes on every day in the church and and complacently accepted.  

[theplains]

Do you believe there are any unique LDS teachings that are not false, given you are not LDS?

 

Would you provide some examples?

 

One comes to mind.  Voting to accept a supposed revelation from God.

 

"Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent

assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please

signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

 

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative."

(source: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2)

 

"In 1908 in a general conference, President Joseph F. Smith read section 89 of the

Doctrine and Covenants—the Word of Wisdom. Then he, both of his counselors, and

the President of the Twelve all spoke to the same subject, the Word of Wisdom. Then a

vote to accept it as binding upon the members of the Church was unanimously passed."

(2007, April, Boyd K. Packer, ‘The Spirit of the Tabernacle,’ Ensign, May 2007, ¶ 43)

 

Thanks,

Jim

[KevinG]

Here is where you are dead wrong.  

You Bristle at those who claim victimhood when they had the power to choose the level of activity and commitment?  You have just told every woman in an abusive relationship that it is her fault if she doesn't leave.  Obviously, the woman is an adult and had the "power to choose".    

Not everyone has the 'power' to walk away from their family.  And yes, there are families that will disown you if you should 'choose' to walk away from the LDS church.  Are they Right?  Not even close.  They do have the right to be concerned if that is their belief but to withdraw love because they choose to worship differently.     Your rebuttal : "that's not what the church teaches"   My answer:  It goes on every day in the church and and complacently accepted.  

 

I NEVER condoned silence or submission in the face of abuse.  I DO blame families who abuse or neglect others agency as sinful and the root cause of many cases of disaffection.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth in order to argue with them.

[KevinG]

 

Would you provide some examples?

 

One comes to mind.  Voting to accept a supposed revelation from God.

 

"Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent

assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please

signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

 

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative."

(source: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2)

 

"In 1908 in a general conference, President Joseph F. Smith read section 89 of the

Doctrine and Covenants—the Word of Wisdom. Then he, both of his counselors, and

the President of the Twelve all spoke to the same subject, the Word of Wisdom. Then a

vote to accept it as binding upon the members of the Church was unanimously passed."

(2007, April, Boyd K. Packer, ‘The Spirit of the Tabernacle,’ Ensign, May 2007, ¶ 43)

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

 

We vote to demonstrate we will support and live by the revelation, not to determine if it is true or false.

 

This is probably threadworthy in its own right.  What a sustaining vote means in the LDS Church.