ADAM - Slow Down and Enjoy the Ride

[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]

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.

[Dan]

Fair points.

I am not implying Adam has only recently started down the road of troubling church history. I mentioned in a prior post that this cross-roads period can cover a number of years before something has to give one way or another. But I believe sooner or later something will give for Adam or anyone in a position of such apparent frustration. I have seen Adam post for probably over a five year period, stretching back to the early 2000s on cougarboard. It has not been until the last two or three years that I noticed quite a bit of hostility or resentment that appears to coming to a critical mass at some point. My cause of concern is that I have experienced this myself and I have seen others go through this as well, with different individuals ultimately reaching different long term results.

Adam my well have a larger historical library than me now and may be more 'well read' with LDS history than I am. If people are reading 4-6 books a month on LDS history and theology for one or two decades they are going to invariably read many of the same things. What it comes down to is the reaction a person has to the information they drink in. That brings the discussion back to the cross-roads. Different people choose to go in different directions. All I am doing is trying to suggest if there is a desire to remain in the church, a sense of peace and satisfaction, eventually, will need to be obtained. It cannot be obtained while continually arguing subjectively about words and actions of local and general leaders in the church.

I would not say that Adam has up to this point tried to steady the ark, but he is not a completely annonymous figure on the board. And as time goes on, a constant drum beat can turn into something similar to steadying the ark, especially if in the future, the actions turn into things like writing letters to the editor of public papers, speaking to groups publically. Of course, the higher one's standing in the church (bishop, high councilman, etc.) the more closely that person will be scrutinized for such 'ark steadying.'

I hope no one feels I have suggested Adam is not providing valuable service to the church as I have noticed in the past he has appeared more willing to do so and take certain steps than others, at least by his tenacity of discussion on certain topics. I have been focusing primarily on spirituality going forward, and how certain attitudes can be damaging to that.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Dan

Fair points.

FWIW, Dan, I felt where you were coming from. I have many of the same thoughts myself. I think this is a good place for people to do a bit of venting and testing of ideas that it is not "safe" to do in other venues, but I too have monitored at least what I perceive to be the emotional levels of some.

I think there are a great many here that are in the process of figuring out what the church means to them and how they fit into it after having gained a more mature understanding of it. As you say, it is a process. I am a big proponent of that struggle leading to a place within the church rather than without as I think you are.

Anyway, I felt the compassion and empathy in what you said. Thanks for your thoughts. We can always use more examples in the church and around here of people who have fought the demons and stayed in. Its not the only path, but in my opinion it is the best one.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

FWIW, Dan, I felt where you were coming from. I have many of the same thoughts myself. I think this is a good place for people to do a bit of venting and testing of ideas that it is not "safe" to do in other venues, but I too have monitored at least what I perceive to be the emotional levels of some.

I think there are a great many here that are in the process of figuring out what the church means to them and how they fit into it after having gained a more mature understanding of it. As you say, it is a process. I am a big proponent of that struggle leading to a place within the church rather than without as I think you are.

Anyway, I felt the compassion and empathy in what you said. Thanks for your thoughts. We can always use more examples in the church and around here of people who have fought the demons and stayed in. Its not the only path, but in my opinion it is the best one.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.