One true church - Virtue or Vice?

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Ah yes, the popular feel-good revisionist idea of the vague and amorphous "restoration movement" thingy.

The Church was organised eleven days after the Book of Mormon was first published. The restoration wasn't just a bunch of nice "impulses" that only gradually ossified into a church; the Church itself, with specific Priesthood authority, an organised missionary arm and a body of rites and ordinances, was an organic part of the program from the very beginning.

Sorry to disappoint.

Your comments here are not supported by a close reading of the historical evidence.  Priesthood narratives were constructed after the fact in the 1833-35 timeframe.  No talk of a restored church happened until the summer of 1829 as the BoM dictation was coming to a close.  

There are more universalist impulses in the earlier theology articulated by Smith.  The idea that you could access God directly which was in harmony with universalist beliefs that his father would also have subscribed to.  

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn’t say no sin or righteousness.  And I’m quite familiar with 2 Nephi 2, used to have much of it memorized. 

If no law is sanctioned by God, how can one sin?

[Maestrophil]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The earliest impulses articulated by Joseph seem to be restoring an idea that God is again speaking to humans and that the gifts of the spirit are real and that the Bible should be taken seriously and the BoM is proof of God working with humans again.  

Only later did this turn into a restored church movement.  Some scholars think Cowdery was a large influencing factor about establishing a formal church organization.  Christopher Smith gave a very compelling presentation on this idea at Sunstone this summer.  Supposed to have an essay out on this soon.  

Interesting theory, but I don’t come to the same conclusion based on my study and the d&c.  

How is the LDS church restricting access to God?  Anyone who is humble and seeks Him will find a measure of his Spirit. 

You seem like you don’t believe the brethren are what they claim to be. Fair enough, but I do.  So the brethren are declaring as Gods representatives that all can have full access to all the blessings of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob as they fall in line with Gods own revealed commandments.  Jesus himself was exclusionary in requiring all to come to him and be baptized.  This “God wants everyone to get a free pass” thinking does not fit my reading of scripture.  

[CV75]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought I was answering your question, I’m lost about what specifically you’re asking me to clarify.  

Clearly you are. One more time:

Can you address the salient point about how someone in the "borderlands" can expect to teach the overwhelming majority of LDS how to properly understand and apply a doctrine that, in the  borderlands, is considered the inspiration of their extreme behaviors? This of course refers to the specific doctrine and behaviors in your OP.

Have Shipps or Taves contributed to resolving the specific concern laid out in the OP (were you suggesting they did)?

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

If no law is sanctioned by God, how can one sin?

Two things, I said that God doesn't sanction or condone the laws of mortals.  This doesn't mean that God doesn't have laws or principles in some divine sense.  I'm reminded of that Isaiah scripture about Gods ways and thoughts not being our thoughts and ways.  There is this idea that God's ways are on a higher plane.  

The other things is the concept of sin as a violation of a specific law.  I tend to think of sin more in the context of a fallen state of being than a specific transaction.  But needless to say, I can understand the more correlated use.  

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

How is the LDS church restricting access to God?  Anyone who is humble and seeks Him will find a measure of his Spirit. 

The LGBT policy and gender discrimination with respect to the priesthood are front and center.  Past policies on race discrimination are also part of the history of restricting access to God.  

Ultimately, I don't believe the LDS church has any actual authority to restrict access to God, but for believing members who do believe the hierarchy has authority that governs their relationship with God and the church, the policies and practices are in place to restrict and discriminate against certain people based on their identities and preferences.  

[hope_for_things]

6 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

You seem like you don’t believe the brethren are what they claim to be. Fair enough, but I do.  So the brethren are declaring as Gods representatives that all can have full access to all the blessings of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob as they fall in line with Gods own revealed commandments.  Jesus himself was exclusionary in requiring all to come to him and be baptized.  This “God wants everyone to get a free pass” thinking does not fit my reading of scripture.  

I meant to respond to this part as well on the last post.  What you describe is what I called earlier in the thread, the tribalism of the church creating a construct and then requiring people to jump through hoops to get access to God.  Did Jesus use exclusionary language or did an author that wrote something many years after Jesus lived, construct a particular theological idea in a story about Jesus, and did that story contain certain cultural biases and context related more to that author than to anything Jesus may have said.  

I'm not sure what you mean by the everyone get a free pass comment.  I never said that.  What does that even mean?  If its a free pass to Disneyland though, can you tell me where to sign up? 

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Can you address the salient point about how someone in the "borderlands" can expect to teach the overwhelming majority of LDS how to properly understand and apply a doctrine that, in the  borderlands, is considered the inspiration of their extreme behaviors? This of course refers to the specific doctrine and behaviors in your OP.

The simplest answer is often the best.  Why not?  Why can't someone in the borderlands or hinterlands, or any lands, share an opinion on a message board.  That's what I'm doing.  I'm not going on a mission to the Mormons in my ward, or going door to door selling a new idea and asking everyone to buy into my way of thinking.  I'm participating in a very informal way on a niche message board in Mormonland.  

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Have Shipps or Taves contributed to resolving the specific concern laid out in the OP (were you suggesting they did)?

Honestly I've only read some of their stuff, and I couldn't comment on whether they've ever addressed this topic, I'm not that well read to know if this has ever come up in the past for either of them.  I only started getting into Mormon studies roughly five years ago, and they've been involved for a very long time and have written and said a multitude of things on Mormon topics.  I used the example to illustrate that even non-Members can make substantive contributions to conversations on Mormonism, so why not a person in the borderlands, or anyone for that matter.  

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Two things, I said that God doesn't sanction or condone the laws of mortals.  This doesn't mean that God doesn't have laws or principles in some divine sense.  I'm reminded of that Isaiah scripture about Gods ways and thoughts not being our thoughts and ways.  There is this idea that God's ways are on a higher plane.  

So man can't know or teach God's laws?

If not, then you are suggesting that we can sin in ignorance?

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The other things is the concept of sin as a violation of a specific law.  I tend to think of sin more in the context of a fallen state of being than a specific transaction.  But needless to say, I can understand the more correlated use.  

How does one become "fallen" if not as a result of violation of law?

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

So man can't know or teach God's laws?

If not, then you are suggesting that we can sin in ignorance?

I don't think humans can ever fully understand the laws of God, I think that's a principle that we're always seeking a greater understanding in mortality, but never fully getting it.  I think we often sin in ignorance, yes.  

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

How does one become "fallen" if not as a result of violation of law?

Personally, I think our mortal state is a symbolic fall of sorts, but I haven't really thought about the fall idea much in recent years.  It might have more theological value to mine, but I also see problematic elements of the fall theology in the Christian tradition.  I'm no theologian though, so its not really a topic that interests me much.  

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The simplest answer is often the best.  Why not?  Why can't someone in the borderlands or hinterlands, or any lands, share an opinion on a message board.  That's what I'm doing.  I'm not going on a mission to the Mormons in my ward, or going door to door selling a new idea and asking everyone to buy into my way of thinking.  I'm participating in a very informal way on a niche message board in Mormonland.  

Honestly I've only read some of their stuff, and I couldn't comment on whether they've ever addressed this topic, I'm not that well read to know if this has ever come up in the past for either of them.  I only started getting into Mormon studies roughly five years ago, and they've been involved for a very long time and have written and said a multitude of things on Mormon topics.  I used the example to illustrate that even non-Members can make substantive contributions to conversations on Mormonism, so why not a person in the borderlands, or anyone for that matter.  

Inadequate answer to the first question: Why not? The question was about how. And you similarly weren't suggesting that Shipps and Taves addressed the question either.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Inadequate answer to the first question: Why not? The question was about how. And you similarly weren't suggesting that Shipps and Taves addressed the question either.

Sorry I was inadequate at responding to your query.  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think humans can ever fully understand the laws of God, I think that's a principle that we're always seeking a greater understanding in mortality, but never fully getting it.  I think we often sin in ignorance, yes.  

Personally, I think our mortal state is a symbolic fall of sorts, but I haven't really thought about the fall idea much in recent years.  It might have more theological value to mine, but I also see problematic elements of the fall theology in the Christian tradition.  I'm no theologian though, so its not really a topic that interests me much.  

A whole lot of guessing.  Without the ability to understand what God expects of us, it kind of makes sin and righteousness meaningless.  Ignorant sin and ignorant righteousness is not sin or righteousness at all, it is ignorance.  It puts the sinner and the righteous man in the same boat of ignorance, one cannot be better than the other. 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

A whole lot of guessing.  Without the ability to understand what God expects of us, it kind of makes sin and righteousness meaningless.  Ignorant sin and ignorant righteousness is not sin or righteousness at all, it is ignorance.  It puts the sinner and the righteous man in the same boat of ignorance, one cannot be better than the other. 

I see it as a strength in that it forces us to be humble and teachable and considerate of circumstances so that we don't jump to conclusions or have false pride or prejudiced positions.  To me being in the same boat with the sinner is the whole point, because everyone in the boat is a sinner, and none are righteous.  

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The U.S. government is based on the idea of justice being blind and not discriminating against anyone.  As a society we agree to a social contract and give authority to the government.  If they misuse this authority by discrimination then yes it would impact dignity and respect.  

God's authority is based on ideas of love and justice and mercy as well though, and government's have authority even if some members of the country don't agree to give it to them or want them to have it.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I see it as a strength in that it forces us to be humble and teachable and considerate of circumstances so that we don't jump to conclusions or have false pride or prejudiced positions.  To me being in the same boat with the sinner is the whole point, because everyone in the boat is a sinner, and none are righteous.  

I see it as a justification to do all sorts of evil because we can't know what God expects of us.  You said earlier that you agree that not all actions are dignified.  That creates division.  But now you are contradicting that by trying to erase division.  It is all kind of pointless to try and be good, because we don't know what good is.  And it becomes pointless to try and resist evil, because we can't know what that is either.  It becomes a free for all...but hey at least there is no judgment right!?  It appears that the only virtue is non-judgment in your paradigm.  The funny thing is, we already teach that.

Edited November 29, 2017 by pogi

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

God's authority is based on ideas of love and justice and mercy as well though, and government's have authority even if some members of the country don't agree to give it to them or want them to have it.

So if a government has a practice, law, or policy that discriminates against people and is out of alignment with the values of citizens, what should they do?  

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I see it as a justification to do all sorts of evil because we can't know what God expects of us.  You said earlier that you agree that not all actions are dignified.  That creates division.  But now you are trying to throw everybody in the same boat because if there is division, we can't know what it is.  It is all kind of pointless to try and be good, because we don't know what good is.  And it becomes pointless to try and resist evil, because we can't know what that is either.  It becomes a free for all...but hey at least there is no judgment right!?  It appears that the only virtue is non-judgment in your paradigm.  The funny thing is, we already teach that.

Interesting to read your articulation.  I think it is human nature to want certainty.  A lack of certainty can be distressing and uncomfortable and cause difficult interactions with others of differing opinions.  But to me, this is the beauty of the life, the variety, the differences, the lack of certainty that we're doing what is right at any given point in time.  This requires faith and risk on one hand, but it can lead to growth and beauty and diversity on the other.  To me, this is the essence of the gospel.  

For some a Jackson Pollock painting is just a mess and confusing, and for others it is a beautiful work of art.  Now, I'm not saying no judgment, we are always making judgments as humans, but I think we need to constantly question our judgments in a very humble way, seeking to learn and reconsider whether a judgment we made earlier was the correct one, and being willing to make a different judgment next time.  This is line upon line learning again, this is the Mormonism that I find inspirational.  

[pogi]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting to read your articulation.  I think it is human nature to want certainty.  A lack of certainty can be distressing and uncomfortable and cause difficult interactions with others of differing opinions.  But to me, this is the beauty of the life, the variety, the differences, the lack of certainty that we're doing what is right at any given point in time.  This requires faith and risk on one hand, but it can lead to growth and beauty and diversity on the other.  To me, this is the essence of the gospel.  

For some a Jackson Pollock painting is just a mess and confusing, and for others it is a beautiful work of art.  Now, I'm not saying no judgment, we are always making judgments as humans, but I think we need to constantly question our judgments in a very humble way, seeking to learn and reconsider whether a judgment we made earlier was the correct one, and being willing to make a different judgment next time.  This is line upon line learning again, this is the Mormonism that I find inspirational.  

In regards to the bold section, in order to judge someones actions, we have to have a standard to judge them against.  The problem is that you are arguing that man cannot know that standard.  Therefore any judgement is arbitrary - we can't know if it is "correct".  What you seem to be saying is that the inability to know what the standard is will help us to approach others with more compassion, understanding, tolerance, etc.  That is true (only if everyone subscribed to your paradigm) but you are not considering the consequences of not having a standard to measure against.  Your peace and tolerance will be lost in corruption, violence, and selfish evils.

Again, that leads to spiritual anarchy - no standard, no sin, no righteousness, just ignorance. 

I don't believe in certainty.  That is not what I am preaching.  But I do believe that through the Alma 32 experiment, we can attain some level of confidence in what is good and evil.  I believe that prophets, through the gift of prophecy, can give us the standard that God expects of us, and that we through the application of Alma 32 can test that standard for ourselves.

Edited November 29, 2017 by pogi

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So if a government has a practice, law, or policy that discriminates against people and is out of alignment with the values of citizens, what should they do?  

I suppose there are all sorts of options for them, not all of them equal in validity or rate of success.

My point though was that the mere existence of a society where some have authority over others isn't in and of itself negative.  The authority can be abused, but that also does not mean that the society model is negative.  It just means that some people can take a positive and turn it into a negative.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I suppose there are all sorts of options for them, not all of them equal in validity or rate of success.

My point though was that the mere existence of a society where some have authority over others isn't in and of itself negative.  The authority can be abused, but that also does not mean that the society model is negative.  It just means that some people can take a positive and turn it into a negative.

Your point makes sense.  I still think it works differently in a religious authority from God context.  Since God is the ultimate authority and essentially trumps all other claims at authority in the eyes of believers, its can be a very strong weapon when misused.  Also, I just don't find value in the concept of divine authority wielded by mortals.  I believe it is problematic on multiple levels. 

Within Mormonism I see many strains of theology that push against this idea of exclusivity, things like the concept that we're judged by what's in our hearts, or the vision that Joseph had of Alvin in Celestial Glory, or the idea that we all have to be saved collectively (without our dead we can't be saved), these ideas are inspirational to me.  The idea of exclusive authority to perform rituals is not inspirational to me and I think it represents the impulse to control and differentiate, rather than the impulse to include and freely give.  

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your point makes sense.  I still think it works differently in a religious authority from God context.  Since God is the ultimate authority and essentially trumps all other claims at authority in the eyes of believers, its can be a very strong weapon when misused.  Also, I just don't find value in the concept of divine authority wielded by mortals.  I believe it is problematic on multiple levels. 

I agree, it can be a strong weapon when misused.  I just disagree that that alone means it's not valid.

Quote

Within Mormonism I see many strains of theology that push against this idea of exclusivity, things like the concept that we're judged by what's in our hearts, or the vision that Joseph had of Alvin in Celestial Glory, or the idea that we all have to be saved collectively (without our dead we can't be saved), these ideas are inspirational to me.  The idea of exclusive authority to perform rituals is not inspirational to me and I think it represents the impulse to control and differentiate, rather than the impulse to include and freely give.  

From my perspective, this is an issue of rule and exception.  

I believe that God, being a God of order, has 'rules' (for lack of a better term), the need for His authority being one of them. I believe He uses rules to teach us how things work in the economy of Heaven and His kingdom, the same way that parents use rules to teach their kids how society works so they can eventually function and thrive in it. 

However, I also believe that God grants exceptions-things that are still His will, but for whatever reason, don't exactly follow the rules.  I believe exceptions exist with God for the same reason that parents will sometimes grant exceptions for their own children--Granting exceptions, when done the right way, does not negatively impact the child's 'real-world' education and can actually help them to mature and learn how to use higher reasoning skills.  Plus, rules are notoriously bad at fitting every situation so exceptions must exist for those times when the rules aren't fair or merciful enough.

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree, it can be a strong weapon when misused.  I just disagree that that alone means it's not valid.

From my perspective, this is an issue of rule and exception.  

I believe that God, being a God of order, has 'rules' (for lack of a better term), the need for His authority being one of them. I believe He uses rules to teach us how things work in the economy of Heaven and His kingdom, the same way that parents use rules to teach their kids how society works so they can eventually function and thrive in it. 

However, I also believe that God grants exceptions-things that are still His will, but for whatever reason, don't exactly follow the rules.  I believe exceptions exist with God for the same reason that parents will sometimes grant exceptions for their own children--Granting exceptions, when done the right way, does not negatively impact the child's 'real-world' education and can actually help them to mature and learn how to use higher reasoning skills.  Plus, rules are notoriously bad at fitting every situation so exceptions must exist for those times when the rules aren't fair or merciful enough.

Ok, I think I can go along with the rule analogy if you think about how as our children grow the rules change and children need more autonomy as they mature.  Rules for a young child might help keep them safe and be perfectly appropriate, but those same rules applied to an adult might actually do harm and impede growth.  I'm a believer that adults continue to grow and develop, and I see value in strict and more rule centric religious paradigms for certain stages of adult life, but less and less value during other stages of adult development. 

Learning to develop a strong internal authority is something that I see as part of the gospel message that I didn't notice in my younger years.   And just like how certain rules are applicable for young children but can be harmful for adults, I see the same with certain religious rules for adults that for lack of a better term the adult has graduated from gaining value from that rule and they needs something different at another stage of development.  I hope that makes sense, its not to excuse certain behavior that society would consider immoral, some people in earlier stages of development might be fearful of this kind of thinking.  

Edited November 29, 2017 by hope_for_things

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The LGBT policy and gender discrimination with respect to the priesthood are front and center.

Yes, I realise that these are popular slogans in some circles.

But the claim that either of those things "restricts access to God" is clearly, plainly and demonstrably false.

 

[kiwi57]

On 11/29/2017 at 3:44 AM, hope_for_things said:

Since I never asked for advice on which church to attend, making the implication that my ideas don't fit with the group and might fit better somewhere else, that isn't a little passive aggressive?  

Are you sure you're really in a good position to be raising that subject?

After all, some people might think it's just a teensy weensy bit passive-aggressive to slyly insinuate that all believing Latter-day Saints are ipso facto either sanctimonious prigs or "hyperjudgmental" zealots, while all truly wise and enlightened people are smart enough to know better than the Lord, when He declared that this is the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.