7 Reasons Why Mormonism and Christianity Are Not the Same

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok. Yet Joseph Smith followed Rigdon on the stand and commended him for his talk. If Joseph Smith had give the talk I think you might have a different talk on it. Rigdon's Salt Sermon had a huge impact on LDS history - Scripture or not! It changed the whole course of the outcome of the Missouri episode. Thanks. I am not debating you, just adding a bit more context.

I realize its historical impact.  Doesn’t mean it would be recognized as scripture.  Just because something has a significant social historical influence is not a reason to consider it spiritually edifying or revelation.  We don’t recognize the KFD as scripture as a church (though it has come close, but lacking a text and not having an acceptable reconstruction hampers it being consider such) and that has even had an impact on our doctrine imo.  

Even if Joseph spoke his approval of it, there seems no indication he called it inspired, the Word of God, revelation, etc., at least none I came across in looking at references to it in the JSP.

Plus we don’t even have a text.  Why are we even discussing whether or not the Salt Sermon is scripture when we can’t read it?

Perhaps you can find a comparable text to the Salt Sermon in terms of topic by Joseph or Brigham or another president of the Church and we can see if it is treated as scripture by church leaders.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I realize its historical impact.  Doesn’t mean it would be recognized as scripture.  Just because something has a significant social historical influence is not a reason to consider it spiritually edifying or revelation.  We don’t recognize the KFD as scripture as a church (though it has come close, but lacking a text and not having an acceptable reconstruction hampers it being consider such) and that has even had an impact on our doctrine imo.  

Even if Joseph spoke his approval of it, there seems no indication he called it inspired, the Word of God, revelation, etc., at least none I came across in looking at references to it in the JSP.

Plus we don’t even have a text.  Why are we even discussing whether or not the Salt Sermon is scripture when we can’t read it?

Perhaps you can find a comparable text to the Salt Sermon in terms of topic by Joseph or Brigham or another president of the Church and we can see if it is treated as scripture by church leaders.

I am really not debating you at all. Sorry if it came across that way. I was speaking purely as a historian. Besides the colonies, my time of greatest interest in Mormon history is the Missouri period. It is a controversial time period that is really interesting. Talking about a social historical influence! It impacted the Mexican-American war and Mennonite history in Oregon! How is that for an impact, far beyond its even greater impact of course on Mormon history! It of course, had a huge impact on the Whitmers, one of my favorite Mennonite-River Brethren-German Baptist-LDS and goodness knows what other faith-family. They were a family constantly on pilgrimage. I am only discussing the sermon because of its historical impact, whatever were the exact words. Again, sorry if I came across differently.

[Navidad]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

We (Saints) unfortunately use “worthy” as equivalent to “eligible” as well as “being righteous”, which causes a great deal of confusion, imo.  Both nonmembers and females are not eligible to perform ordinances because we are not eligible to hold the office of priesthood. 

Wow, this is really critical! I have never heard this before. I never thought of "worthy" as equivalent to "eligible." I have never heard a member of the church explain that before.

Of course I am not eligible to administer ordinances in the LDS church. But an LDS priesthood holder by that same definition is not "worthy" to perform an ordinance in any other church either. In that sense lack of worthiness has an entirely different meaning, one that LDS priesthood holders share. I have tried to say that in posts, but never with the clarity that your statement provides. Wow Wow Wow Wow! Quadruple Wow! Thanks.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

. I am only discussing the sermon because of its historical impact, whatever were the exact words. Again, sorry if I came across differently

Not a problem. It was confusing because you seemed to be trying to apply a theological term “scriptures” in a historical way and that just didn’t make sense to me. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow, this is really critical! I have never heard this before. I never thought of "worthy" as equivalent to "eligible." I have never heard a member of the church explain that before.

Of course I am not eligible to administer ordinances in the LDS church. But an LDS priesthood holder by that same definition is not "worthy" to perform an ordinance in any other church either. In that sense lack of worthiness has an entirely different meaning, one that LDS priesthood holders share. I have tried to say that in posts, but never with the clarity that your statement provides. Wow Wow Wow Wow! Quadruple Wow! Thanks.

Glad to help.  Just be aware “worthy” may be used by Saints in both ways in the same paragraph.  In fact it may be seen as both generally righteous (generally because no one is perfect, but they are trying to make good choices most of the time) and eligible at the same time as is usually meant when someone uses “temple worthy”.

Some Saints may not realize that is what they are doing, but if they are unsure if that is accurate, you can ask them what does being worthy for the priesthood means and if they say it means the men are righteous, then ask them does that mean female members or those under 12 aren’t righteous?  Of course it doesn’t, so it has to refer to eligibility in other ways as well as quality of behaviour. 

Baptism, for example, may or may not result in making you more righteous, but it can make you worthy/eligible of the temple.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

On 6/17/2023 at 4:08 PM, Navidad said:

I care because Romans 12:18 teaches me: "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. "  I would like to live peaceably with you on this forum. Is that possible? I am open to any suggestions from you on how to accomplish that Biblical admonition.

I came across this the other day:

"The parable of the Traveling Merchant:  A certain wealthy and powerful merchant left on a long business trip while his children were yet young. During his absence, his children began to dispute with one another about the nature of their Father's business and what kind of person he was. These disputations escalated into outrage and even violence, and deep hatreds developed.

"Then one day the merchant returned from his journeys, and his children all ran to him and demanded to know which of them was right about the nature of his business and what kind of person he was. He said to them, some of you are pretty close in your beliefs, but I am much more concerned with how you have treated one another during my absence than with whose beliefs are the most accurate."

In other words, perhaps there is not "us" and "them".  Perhaps there is only "us". 

As to HOW an individual might go about "living peaceably with all men", imo Stephen Stills said it well:  "Love the one you're with."  

Near death experiencer Howard Storm had a conversation with Christ while he was on the other side and one might come away from it thinking Stephen Stills was inspired.  The whole eight and a half minutes of this video clip is great, but I've cued it up to the relevant part:

 

 

And just for the record, @Navidad I see you (and quite a few others on this site, both LDS and non-LDS) doing exactly what Howard Storm describes as being "The Plan". 

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by manol

[T-Shirt]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok. Yet Joseph Smith followed Rigdon on the stand and commended him for his talk. If Joseph Smith had give the talk I think you might have a different talk on it. Rigdon's Salt Sermon had a huge impact on LDS history - Scripture or not! It changed the whole course of the outcome of the Missouri episode. Thanks. I am not debating you, just adding a bit more context.

My recollection is that Joseph was not very happy with Rigdon's Salt Sermon. It has been many years since I have dealt with this topic, I would have to go back and dig up some old stuff to see if my recollection is accurate.

[Navidad]

44 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

My recollection is that Joseph was not very happy with Rigdon's Salt Sermon. It has been many years since I have dealt with this topic, I would have to go back and dig up some old stuff to see if my recollection is accurate.

Hi. I would love to read or hear about what you find. There are wide eye-witness testimonies to the sermon, including to Joseph's Smith's comments thereafter. it was a terrible time in Missouri and Sidney Rigdon was a powerful orator to stir the folks up. The great biography of Rigdon by Richard Van Wagoner goes into some detail about the sermon and its impact as does LeSueur's book The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri. LeSueur lists a good bibliography of sources, eye-witness testimonies and a clear explanation of the impact of the sermon at which Joseph Smith was present. The Mormon War by Brandon Kinney also provides sources on the sermon. The Book David Whitmer's Interviews also discusses the threats, in Whitmer's own words of the support of both Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon against him and others in Missouri. We have a lot of testimony from Reed Peck, Sampson Avard, and others on the sermon and the impact of it on the founding of the Danites, in which Joseph Smith participated. Anyone that summer who had the misfortune of being labelled a dissenter did not have a very good June and July. 

Maybe it is time for a good article on the Salt Sermon and its impact in those troubled times in that rough and tumble summer of 1838. Maybe you can write it? I don't have time right now, but might get to it next year.

 

 

 

[T-Shirt]

Again, according to my recollection from when I studied this topic many years ago, Joseph did give the assignment for the speech to Sidney Rigdon and he was there when it was delivered, but not knowing before hand what he was going to say, afterward, Joseph was not particularly comfortable with the speech and felt that it might backfire and cause more tension and problems rather than less. I'll have to try to review this, but it was a long time ago. My recollection could be wrong.

[Navidad]

39 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Again, according to my recollection from when I studied this topic many years ago, Joseph did give the assignment for the speech to Sidney Rigdon and he was there when it was delivered, but not knowing before hand what he was going to say, afterward, Joseph was not particularly comfortable with the speech and felt that it might backfire and cause more tension and problems rather than less. I'll have to try to review this, but it was a long time ago. My recollection could be wrong.

Well, it certainly did cause more tension and problems! No question about that. However it seems that the tension and problems were for those that both Rigdon and Joseph Smith wanted gone. It was a complex time between the Missourians and the Saints, amongst the Missourians,  and separately amongst the Saints. No one knew how best to handle the situation.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Again, according to my recollection from when I studied this topic many years ago, Joseph did give the assignment for the speech to Sidney Rigdon and he was there when it was delivered, but not knowing before hand what he was going to say, afterward, Joseph was not particularly comfortable with the speech and felt that it might backfire and cause more tension and problems rather than less. I'll have to try to review this, but it was a long time ago. My recollection could be wrong.

Everything I read that spoke about it suggested that Joseph likely knew beforehand what Sidney would say and may have helped Sidney write it.  Several sources say he spoke of it approvingly afterwards and both talks were published as well.

I will find the sites later.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Calm

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

We have a lot of testimony from Reed Peck, Sampson Avard, and others on the sermon and the impact of it on the founding of the Danites, in which Joseph Smith participated.

I'd be interested to see what evidence there is (if any) that Joseph Smith participated in the Danites.  If there was some evidence of his participation, I would have expected to find it in Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling (he doesn't seem to hold back).  But instead Bushman says that the situation was complicated by George Robinson (a Danite supporter and Sidney Rigdon's son-in-law) who was keeping Joseph Smith's journal in that period of time, and Bushman says that Robinson may have exaggerated the First Presidency's backing.  Bushman says Robinson plays up the First Presidency, not Joseph, as the effective governing body of the Church, as he makes it sound like Joseph goes along with Rigdon, rather than taking the lead, "making it difficult to determine the degree of Joseph's involvement."  (RSR, p.350)  In October 1838, Joseph Smith referred to Avard's Danite group as a "secret combination" (History, 1838–1856, volume B-1 [1 September 1834–2 November 1838], p 843), so at least by that point Joseph was against them and their purposes.

There are articles in BYU Studies on these topics.  There's a really short article on Sidney Rigdon’s Missouri Speeches, by F. Mark McKiernan, and it indicates that Joseph apparently sanctioned what Rigdon said in the salt sermon (although the footnote reference for that comment doesn't make sense in my opinion, or there are differing page numbers for that published source, because when I looked it up it didn't back up what was being said in the article).  Another article is The Danite Band of 1838, By Leland H. Gentry.  

[Stargazer]

On 6/16/2023 at 5:55 AM, Calm said:

I think I really dislike the practice of labeling something as “meaningless” for someone else.  Even when I understand you are not actually doing that, you are only applying the term in a limited way, I am reacting to it like I do when someone tells another person they are angry, etc., not that they appear to be angry, etc.  

Fair enough.

On 6/16/2023 at 5:55 AM, Calm said:

Telling someone what has or doesn’t have meaning for them personally is mindreading in the worse way imo.  We as humans create our own meanings in every thing.  Dictating to someone else where and when they will find meaning seems quite wrong to me.  Of course, we have the right to determine if what someone did is meaningful or meaningless to us….which is what “officially” meaningless actually is….their action is meaningless to us rather than automatically meaningless to them the context of the baptismal covenant (meaning nonapplicable).

The following is a long, drawn-out, and possibly pointless dissertation, for which I apologize in advance, because I do realize that you understand that "worthy" means "eligible".

As it happens, I didn't mindread my convert. I didn't tell him it didn't have a meaning for him personally. It obviously did. What we did tell him was that as a renewal of a covenant it had no meaning, since he hadn't yet entered into that covenant, and there was no covenant to renew. We gave him the facts. If he felt contrary to what we told him, that was his prerogative. 

Note that when a church member has been given restrictions as the outcome of a membership council, they are frequently told that they may not partake of the sacrament for the time being. Why? Because according to the scriptures, they are partaking of it unworthily, which the scriptures say has consequences. If they choose to partake anyway, that's their prerogative, but there may be consequences. The leaders aren't being mean, they are attempting to advise not performing an act which may lead to divine consequences. When members lose their membership (used to be called excommunication) they are likewise told that while they are welcome to attend sacrament meeting, they are not to partake of the sacrament. Why? Because they aren't members. If they choose to do so anyway, that's on them.

Facts do not care about feelings.

• 1 Corinthians 11:27,29 - Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. ... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
• 3 Nephi 18:28 - And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
• Mormon 9:29 - See that ye are not baptized unworthily; see that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily..

By being "unworthy" is to be understood not only someone with an unresolved fault in them (e.g. a wrongdoer in this context), but also someone who does not qualify for the particular status. In other words, a nonmember of the church or a member under some degree of restriction. For new investigators partaking of the sacrament, it would seem that while they are partaking unworthily, they may be doing so unknowingly. Thus they may get a free pass from the Lord. I know that people get all hung up on the term "unworthy." It has more than one meaning, depending upon context.

By way of a similar example consider the law as codified in the US Code, governing the behavior of persons when, at an event, the US national anthem is played. US law, found at "36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem," states that in that circumstance

• "...individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note." It further says that
• "members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform." And finally,
• "all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart." (emphasis added)

In other words, according to law, the only ones worthy to render the military salute are current active and former military members. The others are not. This is not to be understood as an insult or an expression of contempt, but as an expression of qualification. Another example is this: two of my grandchildren may introduce themselves to others as Doctor Cooper. Why? Because they both hold PhDs. I do not introduce myself as Doctor Stargazer because the best I got is an Associates degree. I guess I could introduce myself as Associate Stargazer, but it just doesn't have the same ring, does it? I do not introduce myself as Doctor Stargazer because I am unworthy of the title, because I do not hold the qualification needed to be so addressed. Not because I am a contemptible person. Well, I might be contemptible, but not because of that in particular.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow, this is really critical! I have never heard this before. I never thought of "worthy" as equivalent to "eligible." I have never heard a member of the church explain that before.

It's not a special LDS use of it, but an older meaning of the word, and perhaps less used in that sense in our day. You can find it being used as "eligible" in older English writings. For example, the Book of Revelation, chapter 5:

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

Not even a "strong angel" was worthy to open the book.

And one of my favorite parts of The Messiah, Worthy is the Lamb Which Was Slain:

 

15 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course I am not eligible to administer ordinances in the LDS church. But an LDS priesthood holder by that same definition is not "worthy" to perform an ordinance in any other church either. In that sense lack of worthiness has an entirely different meaning, one that LDS priesthood holders share. I have tried to say that in posts, but never with the clarity that your statement provides. Wow Wow Wow Wow! Quadruple Wow! Thanks.

As to the bolded, yes, absolutely. But "worthy" is a more complicated word than many believe. From Wiktionary:

worthy 

1. Having worth, merit or value. 
2. Admirable or honourable.
3. Deserving, or having sufficient worth. 
4. Suited; suitable; befitting. 

It is in sense 4 that worthy is frequently used in LDS usage. A better example in the neutral sense of the word might be: "That is a worthy saddle!" said of a very suitable saddle for horseback riding. But calling a saddle unworthy says nothing about its righteousness, only that it isn't suitable for the purpose.

Edited June 20, 2023 by Stargazer

[bluebell]

On 6/17/2023 at 9:59 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

First: from an LDS writer. No other work has shaped my understanding of the Atonement of Christ like Stephen E. Robinson's duology "Believing Christ," and "Following Christ." I stumbled across those books as a young man passing through some emotional difficulties, finding it difficult to love myself and forgive myself. Dr. Robinson taught my why the Atonement makes both of those things possible. I can't imagine what kind of basket case I'd be today, if those books hadn't pointed me in a more merciful direction.

Second: a clichéd answer from a non-LDS author. I've read "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis more often than I've read some books in the Bible (I'm looking at you, First Chronicles). Which probably says more about my weak spiritual health than it does about Lewis' scripture-writing prowess.

Finally: a dark horse candidate. Every time I read "Watership Down," by Richard Adams, I'm enthralled by its message about the importance of heeding the prophetic voice. It's a rip-roaring fun adventure story about a band of bunnies, but gosh darn it all, if I don't see spiritual themes throughout its length and breadth. 

Agree on all counts!  Especially Watership Down.  It's my favorite book and I even have the painting below hanging in my bedroom.  It's an amazing book (but you have to slog through the first 50 pages to really get into the story.  I always tell everyone not to stop until you get through the first 50 pages or you just won't get it).

[bluebell]

On 6/18/2023 at 8:11 AM, Sara H said:

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/primary-accounts-of-first-vision

They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church in kingdom. Other key phrases include "there was no society or denomination that was built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ" and "Behold the world lieth in sin at this time, and NONE DOETH GOOD, NO, NOT ONE.""And I was especially comanded not to go after them." 

Doesn't this article condemn Christianity?

 

Was Joseph not trying to figure out which branch of Christianity he should join? Why has God stopped feeling this way in the last 200 years of Christianity? According to me, he is still disappointed with the state of Christianity. Is that an accurate assessment, taking into account what the first vision reveals about many faiths?

 

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond.  I should learn not to comment on posts when I'm out of town and can't really easily reply back.

Thanks for providing the quote that you were basing your comments on.  From my perspective, that doesn't condemn Christianity (and I've never been taught anything in the church or heard other members teach that either so that's probably why it's a new concept to me).

It definitely condemns some of the practices and beliefs of the Christian churches that JS had to choose from, and outlines why a restoration was necessary.

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, InCognitus said:

as he makes it sound like Joseph goes along with Rigdon, rather than taking the lead

There seems to be evidence that this is exactly what happened in June. Rigdon was a great orator and could really fire folks up. He was also fearless and perhaps a bit manic depressive according to sources. On several occasions we know that Joseph Smith allowed Rigdon to speak when Smith was on the stand. I think that there is general consensus that Rigdon was the better orator of the two. I think that Rigdon has gotten much less credit for the first years of the church than what he is granted. Take care . . . gotta run.

[Calm]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Everything I read that spoke about it suggested that Joseph likely knew beforehand what Sidney would say and may have helped Sidney write it.  Several sources say he spoke of it approvingly afterwards and both talks were published as well.

I will find the sites later.

This is one site 

Quote

According to one observer, JS seconded the thrust of Rigdon’s remarks.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-march-september-1838/31#historical-intro

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Fair enough.

The following is a long, drawn-out, and possibly pointless dissertation, for which I apologize in advance, because I do realize that you understand that "worthy" means "eligible".

As it happens, I didn't mindread my convert. I didn't tell him it didn't have a meaning for him personally. It obviously did. What we did tell him was that as a renewal of a covenant it had no meaning, since he hadn't yet entered into that covenant, and there was no covenant to renew. We gave him the facts. If he felt contrary to what we told him, that was his prerogative. 

Note that when a church member has been given restrictions as the outcome of a membership council, they are frequently told that they may not partake of the sacrament for the time being. Why? Because according to the scriptures, they are partaking of it unworthily, which the scriptures say has consequences. If they choose to partake anyway, that's their prerogative, but there may be consequences. The leaders aren't being mean, they are attempting to advise not performing an act which may lead to divine consequences. When members lose their membership (used to be called excommunication) they are likewise told that while they are welcome to attend sacrament meeting, they are not to partake of the sacrament. Why? Because they aren't members. If they choose to do so anyway, that's on them.

Facts do not care about feelings.

• 1 Corinthians 11:27,29 - Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. ... For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
• 3 Nephi 18:28 - And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;
• Mormon 9:29 - See that ye are not baptized unworthily; see that ye partake not of the sacrament of Christ unworthily..

By being "unworthy" is to be understood not only someone with an unresolved fault in them (e.g. a wrongdoer in this context), but also someone who does not qualify for the particular status. In other words, a nonmember of the church or a member under some degree of restriction. For new investigators partaking of the sacrament, it would seem that while they are partaking unworthily, they may be doing so unknowingly. Thus they may get a free pass from the Lord. I know that people get all hung up on the term "unworthy." It has more than one meaning, depending upon context.

By way of a similar example consider the law as codified in the US Code, governing the behavior of persons when, at an event, the US national anthem is played. US law, found at "36 U.S. Code § 301 - National anthem," states that in that circumstance

• "...individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note." It further says that
• "members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform." And finally,
• "all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart." (emphasis added)

In other words, according to law, the only ones worthy to render the military salute are current active and former military members. The others are not. This is not to be understood as an insult or an expression of contempt, but as an expression of qualification. Another example is this: two of my grandchildren may introduce themselves to others as Doctor Cooper. Why? Because they both hold PhDs. I do not introduce myself as Doctor Stargazer because the best I got is an Associates degree. I guess I could introduce myself as Associate Stargazer, but it just doesn't have the same ring, does it? I do not introduce myself as Doctor Stargazer because I am unworthy of the title, because I do not hold the qualification needed to be so addressed. Not because I am a contemptible person. Well, I might be contemptible, but not because of that in particular.

I am not sure I am following you and I want to do so. Are you saying that believe no non-member of the church has ever made a covenant with God that they remind themselves of when taking the sacrament wherever and whenever? Certainly a non-LDS person cannot renew the exact same covenants as the LDS, but that doesn't mean they haven't made other similar, or in some way almost identical covenants. The Sacrament is the Lord's supper patterned after a general command from Christ himself. It is not the exclusive domain of any church, is it? It is neither the Mennonite nor the LDS's table - it is the Lord's supper. Could you not personally renew your LDS covenants in a Lord's table ordinance that I was leading? What would my worthiness (to use your term) have to do with your own devotion at the table. If you pray while in a Baptist church, will God refuse to hear your prayer? If you pray in a movie theater or at a baseball game won't God hear your prayer. I am not following you. Please help me.

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agree on all counts!  Especially Watership Down.  It's my favorite book and I even have the painting below hanging in my bedroom.  It's an amazing book (but you have to slog through the first 50 pages to really get into the story.  I always tell everyone not to stop until you get through the first 50 pages or you just won't get it).

My wife and I watched the digital version last night on Amazon Prime. My guess is it did not do the book justice, but that is just a guess.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

My wife and I watched the digital version last night on Amazon Prime. My guess is it did not do the book justice, but that is just a guess.

None of the movies or shows do it justice.  It's not a great option for that medium and I wish they would quit trying.  The animated version from the 1980s scarred me for life!

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

None of the movies or shows do it justice.  It's not a great option for that medium and I wish they would quit trying.  The animated version from the 1980s scarred me for life!

I haven’t attempted to read it for that reason. 

[Navidad]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

None of the movies or shows do it justice.  It's not a great option for that medium and I wish they would quit trying.  The animated version from the 1980s scarred me for life!

That is the one we watched!

[Stormin' Mormon]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agree on all counts!  Especially Watership Down.  It's my favorite book and I even have the painting below hanging in my bedroom.  It's an amazing book (but you have to slog through the first 50 pages to really get into the story.  I always tell everyone not to stop until you get through the first 50 pages or you just won't get it).

Kind of a relief to hear you say this.  As soon as I hit submit, I started second-guessing myself, whether I was giving too much credit to this favorite novel.  And then when Navidad said he ordered the book on my recommendation, I started second-guessing myself even harder.  Glad to know that I am not alone in my esteem and love for Hazel and his crew.  

 

[BlueDreams]

On 6/17/2023 at 9:47 AM, Navidad said:

Thank you for your post. As always it is insightful, kind, and I learn from it. I am often in your shoes . . . I read posts here I am not sure if I should like or disagree with. I "like" them whether I agree or not because I like them. Disagreeing may also mean I don't understand the meaning of words that are used by the one posting. I also have a lens and blindspots. Those often get in the way of both agreement and understanding.

I mean to respond to you earlier than this and just never could seem to get around to it. I know this is a little old at this point but still wanted to reply. 

On 6/17/2023 at 9:47 AM, Navidad said:

I speak and write regularly on human conflict, especially in two worlds - the world of religion and the world of public education. If I am traveling somewhere to speak or writing something it is far more often than not about religion or about public education. When I speak or write, I usually have opportunity to define my terms. Here, on these posts I do not. I write long, rambling posts, but still don't have time to define the terms I use. I also think when I make a comment in a post here, folks assume I am writing specifically about the LDS church. This is after all, a Mormon forum. Sometimes I am, but many times I am not. I don't always identify which. I am sure that is confusing.

When I write about doctrine, I am not writing about LDS doctrine. I am talking about religious, sectarian, ideological, groups - doctrine in the broadest of terms. When I use the word dogma, I am not using it in the Catholic sense of the word, but in the absolutist sense of the word (as in dogmatic), and certainly not always in a religious sense. I write about the soul - but more often than not, I am not using the religious sense of the word. When I talk about normalizing, I am referring to the tendency to make the fringe the norm for a benefit or purpose. This happens in politics, in school districts, in churches, and in anywhere dogmatism can be present, especially in families.

Ditto for ranking, othering, generalizing, and dehumanizing. They are the source causal agents behind all the negative isms in my paradigm and model. It is what I teach and I find it generally well-accepted or I would never be invited anywhere to speak! I find a focus on the isms themselves, not particularly conducive to effecting change if we don't go deeper into the causative agents that produce them.

I generally don't define my use of words here. In spite of my lengthy posts, there just isn't time. I am a big advocate of systems theory, especially in conflict theory. "Duty" has an especially negative context for me in my definition and usage of the term. Without an understanding of that, I would guess some of my posts are confusing to someone with differing definitions. When the order was given to attack the Fanchers, folklore (history? - we are not sure which) tells us that the leader said "Do your Duty!" That is the type of duty I am decrying. It is evident in public education and in religious culture. It was ever present in the Second Shepherd's Crusade in France in the early 1300s and is ever present today.

 

For the record, though I have LDS specific examples I wasn't picturing the terms you used in LDS-only ways. I think the terms you used are pretty universal enough concepts.  It also doesn't surprise me that the ideas are well received. There's a case to be had for their negative impact. One of my more annoying traits is that I constantly look for the exceptions to rules. Several of these had exceptions I could immediately think of. I think we all have a tendency to generalize things as good or bad (see what I did there? ) And it makes it easier to move in the world when there's rules we go by to navigate it. But every rule I've met can have its pathology when taken to an extreme. There's concepts that I find it harder to find a bunch of exceptions. Prideful behavior like othering and dehumanizing are ones that I struggle to see how it could be good or even neutral. A number of other ones like normalizing are really easy for me to find both good and bad cultural/personal experiences of that. Same with generalizing. Because of that I don't see them as equally problematic. 

Even the phrase "the type of duty" to me points to the problem of noting duty as a whole is problematic. It indicates that it's not duty as a whole but a specific extreme. One that most of us never get to. 

Ps. I'm also a lover of systems theory. My masters was based on systems theory (marriage and family therapy) and it's generally my first thought when I see pathology: what is the environment that led to this experience? 

On 6/17/2023 at 9:47 AM, Navidad said:

And perhaps what I should first and foremost acknowledge, I don't fit paradigms. I am not particularly proud of that. The fact is I simply just don't fit many paradigms people have developed. I often face that living here in Mexico. I faced that as a superintendent and deputy superintendent in large urban school districts. Sometimes I face that as an Evangelical. I often face that here. Perhaps what I do have to admit that what I do enjoy is knocking down incomplete or inaccurate norms. Our society today (again - public schools and religious institutions) are replete with inaccurate norms. Of course, now I haven't defined how I think of "norms."

I actually relate to this alot. I generally seem like a walking contradiction to a lot of people...which can make me hard to read. People who prefer simple boxes and categories for others usually get really annoyed with me. The one difference is that I actually quite like it. It's made me a cultural chameleon, to get into spaces people don't usually get solid views of, to look at problems and concerns differently, and to recognize that all systems, beliefs, and people will make sense if I take the time and effort to slip into their world. Paradoxically I feel like I relate to people more because I don't fit. A professor once noted that I would probably have an easier time/advantage when taking a gender and ethnicity class because I'm really good at perspective taking (this was my chair in my masters). I was confused because I assumed everyone could do that. It was just the water I swam in most my life. One where stepping in and out of cultural norms and worlds was just what I had to do. He was right though, it wasn't something many had normally. And some really struggled to find healthy balances when their worldviews had to expand to include really painful narratives. 

So I see it as one of the gifts I've been given in life. Not always...it's had its downsides. But I still like the vantage point that allows me  To see my faith, people in general, even myself as more of a Rubik's cube than as a simple box. 

On 6/17/2023 at 9:47 AM, Navidad said:

 

Sorry, I won't go on. Just please know I appreciate your posts. I am an "other" on this forum, but have largely been made to feel welcome. I appreciate that so much. The LDS church is confusing for me, so I tend to ask lots of questions. On the one hand my LDS friends insist they focus on being orthopraxic instead of orthodox, but yet at the same time have a baked-in orthodoxy that to an observer (me) seems to be ranked higher than orthopraxy and that provides most of their life's direction, culture, and identity. That confuses me. The breadth of LDS doctrine's influence in the lives of its followers is approximated in no other Christian faith I know of except for the Anabaptist - Mennonites, Amish, and Brethren, and some Pentecostal groups. Sorry, gotta quit now. Take care, God bless, and keep the thoughtful posts coming!

Thanks as well for your comments and perspectives.  Ack! I forgot to mention that I could understand why our faith may seem confusing base don what you've mentioned here. I would also disagree a little to those who say our faith care more about practice than doctrine. We do probably put emphasis on orthopraxy BUT this is often informed and based on our own orthodoxy. More accurately it's that there's a big blur between the two as categories. I'll give and example in a minute....

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited June 22, 2023 by BlueDreams