Changing ordinances

[LA Ute]

EJ, you and I need to meet up once a week and have our own study session, given that we live so close. I'm struggling with the same sort of thing you are - raised TBM with all the trappings, but am realizing that most of what I was taught was complete bunk. And so I'm having to reconstruct my relationship with the Church from scratch.

I'm sorry, these types of study sessions are not approved and must be monitored.



(The foregoing post is made entirely in jest. Just wanted to make that clear.)

[Moliere]

I'm sorry, these types of study sessions are not approved and must be monitored.

(The foregoing post is made entirely in jest. Just wanted to make that clear.)

I know you are kidding, but I've had boardmail exchanges on CB about this type of thing. The response I always, and I mean always, get is that any study group without a PH leader in attendance is against church policy. I once looked through the CHoI 1 and didn't see anything that was directly on point but I did find that interesting. I wonder if this is why RS Book Clubs were poopooed a couple years ago.

EJ, you and I need to meet up once a week and have our own study session, given that we live so close. I'm struggling with the same sort of thing you are - raised TBM with all the trappings, but am realizing that most of what I was taught was complete bunk. And so I'm having to reconstruct my relationship with the Church from scratch.

You have a standing invitation for lunch if you are ever around my area. I'd even pay.

One difference between you and me is that I think you had to reconstruct things from nothing after it was torn down (I might be grossly mistating here but it's what I remember reading). I never really had anything torn down but in a sense I'm metamorphasizing from TBM to CuFfie. Obviously this entails a different process but should have a similar result.

I do too. Does that help?

Not as much as All American, but yes it helps*.

*Sorry, he's a BYU fan so I trust him more

[All-American]

Not as much as All American, but yes it helps*.

*Sorry, he's a BYU fan so I trust him more

As well you should. How LA Ute navigates around that moral conflict, I'll never know.

I'll say too, though, that one of my goals for this year is to learn how to contribute more in elder's quorum and sunday school classes when the instructor is saying something with which I disagree. I don't want to be disruptive or contentious, which means that it is often wisest just to let some things go without comment, but I'd also like to be able to figure out how to speak up without treading upon sensitive feet.

For example. In an institute class a few weeks ago, the assigned material was the first few chapters of St. John. In speaking on the topic of giving rebukes, somebody quoted D&C 121, which prescribes reproving "betimes with sharpness" and said that sometimes, it was important that you give a rebuke that really, really stung, or else they wouldn't get it. I spoke up and said that I wasn't certain that this interpretation was correct. "Betimes" didn't mean "sometimes"; it means "in the appropriate moment", or in a timely manner. "Sharpness" didn't need to describe intensity; maybe it was meant to indicate precision-- a surgeon, for example, uses a sharp instrument to make cuts exactly where they needed to be made without causing any more harm than necessary. The opposite of a sharp rebuke wouldn't necessarily be a light rebuke, but a blunt rebuke, and in interpreting D&C 121 to require it to hurt, we may be doing the exact opposite of what the scripture teaches. THAT point was accepted fairly well.

Later on, though, there was a point about Nicodemus, who went and visited the Savior at night. The instructor asked why he felt the need to visit at night, and somebody answered that he must have felt ashamed. I spoke up and said that this didn't seem to be the only necessary conclusion; maybe he was busy, or maybe, as a public leader, he didn't want to appear to be acting in an official capacity. This suggestions was much less appreciated, especially as it contradicted that which was in the manual, which, of course, had the approval of the first presidency. Here, it would have been better to keep quiet, or maybe find a better way to present the idea. It's something I'm trying to figure out.

[LA Ute]

As well you should. How LA Ute navigates around that moral conflict, I'll never know.

It's a cross I've borne for many years. Don't worry about me, though; I'll be all right.

I'll say too, though, that one of my goals for this year is to learn how to contribute more in elder's quorum and sunday school classes when the instructor is saying something with which I disagree. I don't want to be disruptive or contentious, which means that it is often wisest just to let some things go without comment, but I'd also like to be able to figure out how to speak up without treading upon sensitive feet.

For example. In an institute class a few weeks ago, the assigned material was the first few chapters of St. John. In speaking on the topic of giving rebukes, somebody quoted D&C 121, which prescribes reproving "betimes with sharpness" and said that sometimes, it was important that you give a rebuke that really, really stung, or else they wouldn't get it. I spoke up and said that I wasn't certain that this interpretation was correct. "Betimes" didn't mean "sometimes"; it means "in the appropriate moment", or in a timely manner. "Sharpness" didn't need to describe intensity; maybe it was meant to indicate precision-- a surgeon, for example, uses a sharp instrument to make cuts exactly where they needed to be made without causing any more harm than necessary. The opposite of a sharp rebuke wouldn't necessarily be a light rebuke, but a blunt rebuke, and in interpreting D&C 121 to require it to hurt, we may be doing the exact opposite of what the scripture teaches. THAT point was accepted fairly well.

Later on, though, there was a point about Nicodemus, who went and visited the Savior at night. The instructor asked why he felt the need to visit at night, and somebody answered that he must have felt ashamed. I spoke up and said that this didn't seem to be the only necessary conclusion; maybe he was busy, or maybe, as a public leader, he didn't want to appear to be acting in an official capacity. This suggestions was much less appreciated, especially as it contradicted that which was in the manual, which, of course, had the approval of the first presidency. Here, it would have been better to keep quiet, or maybe find a better way to present the idea. It's something I'm trying to figure out.

This is a subject that fascinates me. I don't think there's any easy solution, but I have observed some members who are masters at disagreeing without being disagreeable. The right approach seems to begin with approaching the issue in the right spirit (that part's easier) and then moves on to tactful language, smiling facial expression, and even body language. That's the harder part. But I think the right spirit and tone has gotten me a long ways when I do it right.

[Jarid in Cedar]

At my house we're old school.

When we were told that our Home is "like the temple" we took that literally. We've cordoned off a couple of rooms, and do our ordinance work for the dead, right there in the large master bathroom. As far as the initiatories, we still do it the old way, as it works for us.

Now this is funny...

[Jarid in Cedar]

EJ, I don't have much to add to your frustration other than to keep bringing them up here(regardless of the monkey's protestations). Having an outlet to bounce ideas, frustrations, and serious inquiries is invaluable. Nikuman has gone through it, I have gone through it, and many others have as well. Reconstructing ones beliefs after feeling that the walls are falling down around you can be daunting. Especially if you are doing it in the vacuum of your own mind. Having a place to see your thoughts critiqued, affirmed, or rebuked allows you to think and rethink your thoughts and hopefully they come out a better representation of what you believe. CUF has allowed me to revisit thoughts and beliefs that I felt were set in stone. Being malleable as a person is a good trait(as I have learned)

[creekster]

Apparently conceding all the other issues, ERC suggests that by saying if someone is saddened by silence in SS that someone should either say something or not complain I am attempting to squelch discussion here. JIC seconds the notion, referring to my 'protestations' against posting this sort of issue here.

So as doctors can we assume that you would both agree that if someone comes in and says "it hurts every time I stick my finger in my eye ball" you should avoid pointing out the obvious solution because you wouldn't want to squelch self-reporting?

I am not (let me repeat, NOT) putting this on EJ, as he has explained himself further in this thread. But let's also be clear: just as anyone is free to complain about the church or some aspect of it here (and does anyone feel like they are not permitted to do so?) so anyone else, even me, can offer a contrary POV.

[Moliere]

Apparently conceding all the other issues, ERC suggests that by saying if someone is saddened by silence in SS that someone should either say something or not complain I am attempting to squelch discussion here. JIC seconds the notion, referring to my 'protestations' against posting this sort of issue here.

So as doctors can we assume that you would both agree that if someone comes in and says "it hurts every time I stick my finger in my eye ball" you should avoid pointing out the obvious solution because you wouldn't want to squelch self-reporting?

I am not (let me repeat, NOT) putting this on EJ, as he has explained himself further in this thread. But let's also be clear: just as anyone is free to complain about the church or some aspect of it here (and does anyone feel like they are not permitted to do so?) so anyone else, even me, can offer a contrary POV.

You aren't squelching it, you are just giving the standard CB answer of "if you don't like it then leave."

By "sadden" I meant to imply that I think we miss out on a lot more spiritual and thought provoking discussion in church teachings. This is not a new thought to this board but is instead one that I'm not coming to realize. I'll continue to do my part to put in my $0.02 and opinions where I want during GD but those won't always be well received, which is another thing I need to learn to live with.

Let's just say that four years ago I was the type of member that poopooed the people that skipped GD class. Now I understand, at least for some, the reason that they skip that class.

[LA Ute]

You aren't squelching it, you are just giving the standard CB answer of "if you don't like it then leave."

By "sadden" I meant to imply that I think we miss out on a lot more spiritual and thought provoking discussion in church teachings. This is not a new thought to this board but is instead one that I'm not coming to realize. I'll continue to do my part to put in my $0.02 and opinions where I want during GD but those won't always be well received, which is another thing I need to learn to live with.

Let's just say that four years ago I was the type of member that poopooed the people that skipped GD class. Now I understand, at least for some, the reason that they skip that class.

As long as we are discussing various points of view, here's one from a bishopric member (who can't seem to get released). In our suburban L.A. ward, we look at gospel doctrine class and see 40 minutes during the block when our members can be taught about one of the standard works. In that class we see members of all kinds -- returning to actiivity, just barely hanging on to activity, staunchly active, fairly recent converts, life-long members, divorced, single, married, engaged, part-member, and so forth. When we call a teacher and when we try to get people to attend (and we attend ourselves) our goals are pretty straightforward and modest: We are hoping the class will have a spiritual experience, will learn something and gain insight into the gospel, and will generally be better able to live the gospel and make it through the coming week. We also really want the class-time experience to be positive. If the class is thought-provoking and intellectually satisfying, that's great, but those goals are not really that high on our list for what we hope happens in that 40 minutes.

Just a different perspective. I know what you are saying and I would like to have more opportunities for in-depth discussion of the scriptures and church history. I just don't think gospel doctrine class is a realistic place to attempt that.

[Pheidippides]

As long as we are discussing various points of view, here's one from a bishopric member (who can't seem to get released). In our suburban L.A. ward, we look at gospel doctrine class and see 40 minutes during the block when our members can be taught about one of the standard works. In that class we see members of all kinds -- returning to actiivity, just barely hanging on to activity, staunchly active, fairly recent converts, life-long members, divorced, single, married, engaged, part-member, and so forth. When we call a teacher and when we try to get people to attend (and we attend ourselves) our goals are pretty straightforward and modest: We are hoping the class will have a spiritual experience, will learn something and gain insight into the gospel, and will generally be better able to live the gospel and make it through the coming week. We also really want the class-time experience to be positive. If the class is thought-provoking and intellectually satisfying, that's great, but those goals are not really that high on our list for what we hope happens in that 40 minutes.

Just a different perspective. I know what you are saying and I would like to have more opportunities for in-depth discussion of the scriptures and church history. I just don't think gospel doctrine class is a realistic place to attempt that.

This is the real place in which I dot have any answers. I appreciate the broad and simple nature that must be for formal instruction in GD. I've learned to be happy if false doctrine isn't promulgated.

On a separate note, I'm thinking of writing the brethren a note about this problem of finding out that things aren't the way we think they are. I'm thinking with the advent of the interwebs the church is going to have (if they don't already) a real problem with this. I'm at the point now where I'm convinced that most of the modern trappings we have - temple, garments, emphasis on family, etc. - is a legacy of JS and polygamy. Which is a major problem for a guy who doesn't believe in polygamy as an eternal principle, let alone a temporal one. But that's a discussion for another thread perhaps.

[Moliere]

As long as we are discussing various points of view, here's one from a bishopric member (who can't seem to get released). In our suburban L.A. ward, we look at gospel doctrine class and see 40 minutes during the block when our members can be taught about one of the standard works. In that class we see members of all kinds -- returning to actiivity, just barely hanging on to activity, staunchly active, fairly recent converts, life-long members, divorced, single, married, engaged, part-member, and so forth. When we call a teacher and when we try to get people to attend (and we attend ourselves) our goals are pretty straightforward and modest: We are hoping the class will have a spiritual experience, will learn something and gain insight into the gospel, and will generally be better able to live the gospel and make it through the coming week. We also really want the class-time experience to be positive. If the class is thought-provoking and intellectually satisfying, that's great, but those goals are not really that high on our list for what we hope happens in that 40 minutes.

Just a different perspective. I know what you are saying and I would like to have more opportunities for in-depth discussion of the scriptures and church history. I just don't think gospel doctrine class is a realistic place to attempt that.

Your is a different perspective, but I think it is also a cop out....sorry no offense. Is having a lesson as presented by the current manual really a spiritual experience for most? I would say no. In fact, I would say that we have been predisposed to think it is a spiritual experience when in fact it is simply a facade (not sure if that is the right word) put on to make people feel comfortable. This goes back to a thread I started a while back about feeling the spirit and being comfortable and how can one know the difference. I think it's a complicated issue but I doubt many people really are having consistent spiritual experiences in GD class. I know I'm not, but yes I do have them but they are not consistent.

I'm not expecting an indepth look into the symbolism of Isaiah or for a lesson on the MMM. I'm just looking for more breadth and depth in the discussion, which is facilitated by an experienced and well prepared teacher that isn't afraid to bring in views that go against a literal interpretation of the scriptures. In short, I want more scholarly-type material in the lesson to give a better framework around the real intent of the scriptures.

I've mentioned this before but one of my pet peeves is the cherry-picking of verses that we (and other religions) do. While studying Daniel this year, we had a full 50 minute lesson on the Word of Wisdom. Why? Because Daniel refused to eat the kings meat and wine. I'm fine with a lesson the WoW but I'd rather discuss why Daniel really refused to eat the meat and wine (I'm sure there are many interpretations but none were discussed outside of Daniel living the Lord's law of health) instead of discussing whether it is okay to drink Coke or Dr. Pepper. Again, we provide comfort to many in the audience while denying a true spiritual experience.

Obviously this is all my opinion and I will respect yours as it is shared by many in the church.

[Moliere]

This is the real place in which I dot have any answers. I appreciate the broad and simple nature that must be for formal instruction in GD. I've learned to be happy if false doctrine isn't promulgated.

On a separate note, I'm thinking of writing the brethren a note about this problem of finding out that things aren't the way we think they are. I'm thinking with the advent of the interwebs the church is going to have (if they don't already) a real problem with this. I'm at the point now where I'm convinced that most of the modern trappings we have - temple, garments, emphasis on family, etc. - is a legacy of JS and polygamy. Which is a major problem for a guy who doesn't believe in polygamy as an eternal principle, let alone a temporal one. But that's a discussion for another thread perhaps.

I tried once but even UD wouldn't touch that one. We believe it is an eternal principle, we don't preach it and in fact we scour at it now, but we continue to perform polygamous sealings in the temple. We have really gotten ourselves into a bind on this one.

[Pheidippides]

I tried once but even UD wouldn't touch that one. We believe it is an eternal principle, we don't preach it and in fact we scour at it now, but we continue to perform polygamous sealings in the temple. We have really gotten ourselves into a bind on this one.

Indeed. If one of this historically educated on her cares to refute the point I'm all ears, but my own reading makes it hard for me to come to any conclusion other than the temple in it's inception was all about polygamy and specifically the concealment thereof by JS.

[Katy Lied]

...THAT point was accepted fairly well.

Later on, though, ... This suggestions was much less appreciated, especially as it contradicted that which was in the manual, which, of course, had the approval of the first presidency...

I don't think viewpoints have to receive unanimous or instantaneous acclaim for one to feel validated in Gospel Doctrine. Everyone proposes their own interpretation, and class members can pick and choose what they want to remember to muse on later in the week.

[creekster]

You aren't squelching it, you are just giving the standard CB answer of "if you don't like it then leave."

ANd by labeling my POV a "CB" POV you are doing more to attempt to undermine it and de-legitimze it than anything I have said about your POV here. Do you not see the irony? Besides, sometimes the 'CB' POV is correct. Labeling my or anyone's POV in this way is as arrogant, dismissive and non-'intellectual' as anything that happens on CB. And I never said to leave anything. You must be looking for it if you saw it in my comment. I said speak up. You have to be present to do that.

By "sadden" I meant to imply that I think we miss out on a lot more spiritual and thought provoking discussion in church teachings. This is not a new thought to this board but is instead one that I'm not coming to realize. I'll continue to do my part to put in my $0.02 and opinions where I want during GD but those won't always be well received, which is another thing I need to learn to live with.

You are correct that it is not a new thought. My guess is I started having such thoughts before you were born. I have spoken up many times in GD class. There are many ways to raise such issues and to engage others in such discussions. Moreover, when I have been in a position to influence the choice of GD instructors or the topics to be addressed, I have decided to speak up in a culturally and socially appropriate way to increase the breadth and depth of discussions. In my experience you and others who see themselves as wise but silent martyrs to the cause of conformity are underestimating the members of your GD class. Many people share your thoughts and many people want to talk about them, and it can be done in an appropriate way.

Let's just say that four years ago I was the type of member that poopooed the people that skipped GD class. Now I understand, at least for some, the reason that they skip that class.

Oh yes, the persecuted intelligentsia. Please. go to class and make it what you would like. Sorry, but I have a hard time feeling badly for you on this aprticular count. You are briught, you are articualte and, you seem like someone who could easily address some of these topics without unduly offending or disturbing. So when you tell me it saddens you to be silent in GD class, I suggest you speak up. Is that a 'CB' response worthy of derision? If so, I can live with it.