ADAM - Slow Down and Enjoy the Ride

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Of course, there will be hundreds more pointing Adam to the door and showing no empathy.

I don't know that anyone is really pointing him to the door. I just think there are those who can't identify with the struggle. Since they are never going to understand it, their jabs don't have much sting. They may have great insights in other areas, but not on this.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Maybe I should pray to be an apostle. Who will join me? I want to make an end-run.

No, there are too many BYU fans in the church hierarchy these days.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sterling McMurrin went about it the wrong way. As did Juanita Brooks. Hugh B. Brown ... gah, the McKay book may be the most misquoted and misunderstood text on this message board.

What on earth did Juanita Brooks do wrong?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Dan

Full salvation, IMO, cannot be obtained without first being willing to sacrifice all things. The church helps facilitate such focused devotion by its members. Though the members can be misguided at times, it really is an all-in decision. Those who are teetering on that decision or who are going back and forth are always stretched out to in the hope they will eventually come all-in.

when you think about it "all-in" sounds a lot like being "saved" (which is anathema to the typical Mormon).

In Mormonism, you must be "all-in" but you will never be "all-in" until your calling and election is made sure. Does this lead to decreased happiness? High expectations + low attainment = unhappiness. It's like the complete opposite of zen.

Now I'm not saying all Mormons are like this, or the gospel is truly like this, but I think it is so for many Mormons in their version of belief, as taught to them.

[Dan]

Maybe not so liberal compared to some here however. I fully believe that people can be very spiritual in other faiths. If they find peace there, great. But Mike, I do believe in the restoration and I will not apologize for it. I believe the priesthood was restored. I believe the D&C when it says that one can come closer to God by abiding by the precepts of the BoM than any other book (a book despised by virtually all other faiths). Yes, LDS folk act too pharisaic in practice, IMO, but with all of the factors weighed together, I believe it is by far the best place to be and the only one with priesthood authority. With that authority comes responsibility for its use. That is why I originally suggested in this thread that we focus on the micro level of what we can actually influence with our priesthood and stewardship, rather than righting the ship that is our of place, or that we perceive is out of place.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

when you think about it "all-in" sounds a lot like being "saved" (which is anathema to the typical Mormon).

In Mormonism, you must be "all-in" but you will never be "all-in" until your calling and election is made sure. Does this lead to decreased happiness? High expectations + low attainment = unhappiness. It's like the complete opposite of zen.

Now I'm not saying all Mormons are like this, or the gospel is truly like this, but I think it is so for many Mormons in their version of belief, as taught to them.

All-in to me is being willing to give all. Putting the things of God before the things of man. Of course none of us will do that perfectly and that is why some LDS are unhappy. I believe God is very merciful, and if we treat others as we would have them treat us, we have won most of the battle. I am at peace with the idea that we cannot reach perfection in practice in this life, but the scriptures generally call for perfection of our love, not our pharisaic observation of rules and regulations.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Dan

Maybe not so liberal compared to some here however. I fully believe that people can be very spiritual in other faiths. If they find peace there, great. But Mike, I do believe in the restoration and I will not apologize for it. I believe the priesthood was restored. I believe the D&C when it says that one can come closer to God by abiding by the precepts of the BoM than any other book (a book despised by virtually all other faiths). Yes, LDS folk act too pharisaic in practice, IMO, but with all of the factors weighed together, I believe it is by far the best place to be and the only one with priesthood authority. With that authority comes responsibility for its use. That is why I originally suggested in this thread that we focus on the micro level of what we can actually influence with our priesthood and stewardship, rather than righting the ship that is our of place, or that we perceive is out of place.

What we are seeing is the price of believing in personal revelation. In a church where ANYONE can receive revelation, it soon became apparent that there needed to be rules instituted because there was chaos and confusion. So the extreme top-down structure is a reflection of the fear of chaos related to the belief in personal revelation. The Lord will never plant in my mind an idea to improve the church that he hasn't already planted in the mind of Thomas Monson. That is the current belief. So if you do have an inspired idea, it is either redundant (and therefore without need to be expressed) or it is uninspired (and potentially from Satan).

One of the greatest curses, I think I've come to believe, is to be Mormon and have the mind of a sociologist.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What we are seeing is the price of believing in personal revelation. In a church where ANYONE can receive revelation, it soon became apparent that there needed to be rules instituted because there was chaos and confusion. So the extreme top-down structure is a reflection of the fear of chaos related to the belief in personal revelation. The Lord will never plant in my mind an idea to improve the church that he hasn't already planted in the mind of Thomas Monson. That is the current belief. So if you do have an inspired idea, it is either redundant (and therefore without need to be expressed) or it is uninspired (and potentially from Satan).

One of the greatest curses, I think I've come to believe, is to be Mormon and have the mind of a sociologist.

My how little you understand the church of which you are a part. This is certainly not the current belief. Joseph once taught (and I'm mangling his words here from memory) that the Lord would reveal to any saint that which he revealed to himself (Joseph) as quickly has he (the saint) was able to receive it.

The Lord may reveal things to you--about the church, or otherwise--which falls outside your stewardship. He might do so with the proviso of trust that you will not abuse such revelation in unrighteously usurping power or stepping outside of your stewardship. I am quite certain that idea of eliminating the Regional Representatives came to Gordon Hinckley quite a bit sooner than it was implemented. But it didn't happen until he received the proper mantle.

My mission president once humbly related a story of a revelation he received about who someone in his ward (not himself) who was to be called bishop. He kept it to himself, and the calling was extended as it had been revealed.

Your problem, and apparently Adam's, is that you don't understand (or you understand, but reject) the very real stewardship boundaries of the priesthood. You are the ultimate embodiments of modern-day Uzzahs, stepping outside your bounds because you think you know best.

Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. But until you get the mantle, you don't get the right.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

My how little you understand the church of which you are a part. This is certainly not the current belief. Joseph once taught (and I'm mangling his words here from memory) that the Lord would reveal to any saint that which he revealed to himself (Joseph) as quickly has he (the saint) was able to receive it.

The Lord may reveal things to you--about the church, or otherwise--which falls outside your stewardship. He might do so with the proviso of trust that you will not abuse such revelation in unrighteously usurping power or stepping outside of your stewardship. I am quite certain that idea of eliminating the Regional Representatives came to Gordon Hinckley quite a bit sooner than it was implemented. But it didn't happen until he received the proper mantle.

My mission president once humbly related a story of a revelation he received about who someone in his ward (not himself) who was to be called bishop. He kept it to himself, and the calling was extended as it had been revealed.

Your problem, and apparently Adam's, is that you don't understand (or you understand, but reject) the very real stewardship boundaries of the priesthood. You are the ultimate embodiments of modern-day Uzzahs, stepping outside your bounds because you think you know best.

Maybe you do, and maybe you don't. But until you get the mantle, you don't get the right.

This post should extend this thread another 5 to 10 pages.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

My how little you understand the church of which you are a part. This is certainly not the current belief. Joseph once taught (and I'm mangling his words here from memory) that the Lord would reveal to any saint that which he revealed to himself (Joseph) as quickly has he (the saint) was able to receive it.

actually this is exactly what I said. Joseph gets all the revelation for the church, and others can get it as well, but they will never get what Joseph has not received, which is implied in his statement.