Simon Magus and Needing a Temple Recommend to Perform Ordinances

[falafel]

This is exactly what has allowed me to continue serving and attending church. It's liberating and honestly makes church more fun. I laugh at stupid stuff, turn down stupid assignments, and serve where I feel the need really exists. I'm not vocal about much of it but will express my opinion at times if needed. I'm also grateful to have a hand in directing the ward and constantly being able to address the youth.

In short, I'm working out my own salvation. The church is not the kingdom of God on earth, but hopefully someday it gets to that point.

What assignments have you turned down? Callings?

[swampfrog]

It's nice to know once and a while they we are not alone in having "achieved" this state of church worship and participation. With exception of withholding the right to perform church ordinances for my kids, there is little to nothing a church leader can actually say or do that compels me to act out of accordance with my personal moral guidelines. Once I was comfortable conceptually with a disconnect between "church doctrine, tradition, culture, policy, and programs" and the simple gospel of Christ, it became much easier. When a church leader chooses to employ the stick instead of the carrot, it's tolerable because while the leader believes he is indeed holding a real actual stick, to me it's imaginary. There is no spoon.

It can still be problematic when the emotional sticks are employed. Public embarrassment, the afore mentioned withholding the right to perform ordinances for family, guilt trips, long circular interviews, etc. Over time it wears on you.

Our SP recently resorted to "brother, do you sustain the brethren or not?" (not directed to me, but in a public meeting). My second MP and our current new SP are the leader type that believe that the HOI and missionary "white bible" are minimum standards, but our mission/stake can be much better than that. Here's a list of initiatives that we are implementing. It's going to be a long 9 years. I feel sorry for the Bishop.

One of these days my wife will actually let me tell the missionaries my qualifications for considering introducing them anyone I know. All they have to do is convince me they have sincerely disavowed the commitment pattern.

[Moliere]

What assignments have you turned down? Callings?

I turn down relatively few, but I also don't get a lot of assignments given my current calling. As far assignments, I've recently declined to do the stake presidents family history assignment that was given to the ward council. I told the EQP in ward council nonetheless that I would no longer clean the church 4 times a year and instead would only accept being assigned once a year (this got them to overhaul the cleaning assignment process). As YMP we were "assigned" to attend roundtables by the 1C Stake Prezy since our stake had abysmal attendance and I still never went. Honestly, now that I think about it, our ward generally has an easy time filling certain things by volunteer instead of using assignments, which I guess is a good thing.

I've never turned down a calling. I'm not opposed to turning one down and I'd likely turn down any calling at the stake level, but I've found that the most challenging callings have been the most rewarding. I also like being able to influence things for good, which I think most church members enjoy as well. Oh, and I'd likely turn down WML as well.

[Sleeping in EQ]

The manner in which you frame that is telling. You are omitting all the things Mauss said about giving people the benefit of the doubt and are emphasizing the notion of a big soul-crushing bureaucracy. From the Mauss quote:



Notice that he is recognizes that both the church and the leaders are imperfect but deserving of our loyalty and respect.

Here is another point from SIEQ's post:



Does the HOI take otherwise good people and turn them into heartless robots? Hardly.

Wuap shared that that he has had a good experience with both of his bishops, but this last one is off the rails. He has shared some things that his bishop has done (withholding recommends based on HT performance, expecting all kids to bear testimony each week, etc.) that have particularly bothered him. Can you please show me where those things are in the HOI? You could argue that this guy's problem is he going well beyond the HOI.

But hey, these things happen. It is a big organization run by normal people. The HOI isn't perfect and neither are the leaders. Neither is you or me or wuap or SIEQ. Once you fully accept that and understand that everyone is at different stages in life and has varying levels of leadership skills, etc. the more content you will be.

Not that it matters, but I know Mauss and he and I have quite similar views.

To the point, though, your interpretation of what I wrote is an oversimplification and a distortion. I think you meant well, but I want to clarify nonetheless:

I don't think the HOI makes "otherwise good people into heartless robots." Some Mormons are good people, others are not, but being "heartless" or "robotic" isn't the issue. The issue is that the HOI is like a franchise manual that, first and foremost, seeks to minimize the Church's legal liabilities, but that also outlines the parameters of group identity in the Church. Local leaders can be kind and compassionate in casual, everyday circumstances, but it is clear about what needs to happen when lines are crossed. If local leadership doesn't follow it, they will eventually be replaced with leadership that will. This process has been intensifying since at least WWII, and has contributed to many of our current problems with excessive conformity and treating adults like children.

Moreover, the Church emphasizes the HOI precisely because it doesn't have a professional clergy at the local level (and arguably, not at higher levels either, but that's another discussion). Bishops and SPs are given clear criteria for what to do, but they aren't given much training as spiritual mentors, theologians, or leaders. Sure, some are better than others, but spiritual people like Wuap are bound to have conflicts and issues that the Church simply hasn't accounted for (literally). If Wuap, and others like him, are going to grow, they are going to do so by moving into territory that Church leadership may not recognize, and that it will almost invariably find threatening. In religious groups with highly trained religious leaders--Judaism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and so on--people don't have the same burden of lack of understanding on the part of the leader. The fact is, our own structure exacerbates the problems for people like Wuap, and seeking understanding from people who mean well, but who cannot be expected to have it is a recipe for depression.

In the end, the Church has the same problem that every Western religious institution I can think of is having--the group identity, or mass identity, becomes more of a problem the larger the group becomes, and the result is a guilt-ridden "statist-like" attempt to construct a group identity that will inevitably be a spiritual hindrance to some.

The institutional Church sure seems to be a negative factor for Wuap, and I stand by my advice that he minimize those aspects that are harming him. In the end, it isn't about leaving the Church or staying in the Church as much as it is about him being in a spiritual place where he can be Wuap.

[Topper]

Not that it matters, but I know Mauss and he and I have quite similar views.

To the point, though, your interpretation of what I wrote is an oversimplification and a distortion. I think you meant well, but I want to clarify nonetheless:

I don't think the HOI makes "otherwise good people into heartless robots." Some Mormons are good people, others are not, but being "heartless" or "robotic" isn't the issue. The issue is that the HOI is like a franchise manual that, first and foremost, seeks to minimize the Church's legal liabilities, but that also outlines the parameters of group identity in the Church. Local leaders can be kind and compassionate in casual, everyday circumstances, but it is clear about what needs to happen when lines are crossed. If local leadership doesn't follow it, they will eventually be replaced with leadership that will. This process has been intensifying since at least WWII, and has contributed to many of our current problems with excessive conformity and treating adults like children.

Moreover, the Church emphasizes the HOI precisely because it doesn't have a professional clergy at the local level (and arguably, not at higher levels either, but that's another discussion). Bishops and SPs are given clear criteria for what to do, but they aren't given much training as spiritual mentors, theologians, or leaders. Sure, some are better than others, but spiritual people like Wuap are bound to have conflicts and issues that the Church simply hasn't accounted for (literally). If Wuap, and others like him, are going to grow, they are going to do so by moving into territory that Church leadership may not recognize, and that it will almost invariably find threatening. In religious groups with highly trained religious leaders--Judaism, Catholicism, Buddhism, and so on--people don't have the same burden of lack of understanding on the part of the leader. The fact is, our own structure exacerbates the problems for people like Wuap, and seeking understanding from people who mean well, but who cannot be expected to have it is a recipe for depression.

In the end, the Church has the same problem that every Western religious institution I can think of is having--the group identity, or mass identity, becomes more of a problem the larger the group becomes, and the result is a guilt-ridden "statist-like" attempt to construct a group identity that will inevitably be a spiritual hindrance to some.

The institutional Church sure seems to be a negative factor for Wuap, and I stand by my advice that he minimize those aspects that are harming him. In the end, it isn't about leaving the Church or staying in the Church as much as it is about him being in a spiritual place where he can be Wuap.

Well said.

[Eddie]

I had what I thought was an epiphany once. It made sense to me - but maybe it only makes sense in my mind.

We were having a discussion about youth activities. Some of the kids had thought it would be cool to build a temple out of sugar cubes. I guess they had friends who had done it in other wards and they'd heard about it. OK. Whatever.

Then the relief society asked if the youth would be willing to provide child care for some dinner they were holding. They wanted to get as many of the women there as they could. And we've got enough single parents that they knew child care would be a draw - or at least eliminate a barrier for some women.

That's when the idea occurred to me.

What if we divide the youth into small groups and assign each 3-4 of the kids who need watching. Then provide them with all of the supplies they need to build a sugar cube temple. And even some paper and pencils if they want to try drawing a design. Then - the youth direct the kids in the building of the temple. They can show them the picture. Tell them how to do it. Offer all the advice they want. But they cannot physically assist in any way. Ultimately, the temples would be built by the little kids.

With the ultimate lesson being that God may be perfect. And His plans may be perfect. But his plans and organization are left to be carried out by imperfect beings. I'm sure that sometimes he's got to be somewhat frustrated as he provides direction, and then looks back on the final product - which includes biases from human experience and history. At some point he's got to be thinking "I think this is probably as good as I can get right now". I imagine Him sometimes thinking - that's not exactly what I had in mind. But I'm not sure any amount of instruction is going to fix it. So I guess we'll go with it.

Obviously that's an overly simplified explanation. But I think the point stands - we all do what we do within the environment we came from. We've learned certain things and have certain biases. And we carry those with us. I honestly believe, as has been expressed, that all of my church leaders have done their best to fulfill their callings in a way that they belief God wants them to. I haven't always agreed with them. But I have always sustained them.

One of the more interesting aspects of this to me, has been when I've witnessed these individuals change over time. Not all of them, to be sure. But I've seen several who were different men when they were released than when they were called.

As an epilogue - we never did do that activity. But I still like the visual it creates - the idea that what we have likely isn't God's ideal either. But that's because he is building it with imperfect people.

[Topper]

As an epilogue - we never did do that activity. But I still like the visual it creates - the idea that what we have likely isn't God's ideal either. But that's because he is building it with imperfect people.

It would have been contrary to the CHOI.

[Eddie]

It would have been contrary to the CHOI.

Really? Why?

I ask, because our current YMP want to plan an activity for later this year that he is titling "social experiments." He wants to offer free babysitting to everyone in the ward, then do social/behavioral experiments with the kids when they arrive.

Our 2nd counselor in the bishopric is down - as long as they do the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment instead of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

I mentioned the need for IRB approval, but I think he's going to bypass that step.

[falafel]

Really? Why?

I ask, because our current YMP want to plan an activity for later this year that he is titling "social experiments." He wants to offer free babysitting to everyone in the ward, then do social/behavioral experiments with the kids when they arrive.

Our 2nd counselor in the bishopric is down - as long as they do the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment instead of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

I mentioned the need for IRB approval, but I think he's going to bypass that step.

Don't know if it would be contrary to the HOI, but I'm pretty sure it would be an abject disaster. Giving little kids a huge supply of sugar cubes and asking them to build something with them instead of eating them? No chance. Add in the fact that the YM/YW can't even get involved to prevent the younger kids from eating them (that would be contrary to your lesson) seals the deal.

[Eddie]

Don't know if it would be contrary to the HOI, but I'm pretty sure it would be an abject disaster. Giving little kids a huge supply of sugar cubes and asking them to build something with them instead of eating them? No chance. Add in the fact that the YM/YW can't even get involved to prevent the younger kids from eating them (that would be contrary to your lesson) seals the deal.

Seals the deal on it being a disaster. But frankly, that makes the object lesson all that much easier to understand. Disaster is kind of what I'm going for.

[falafel]

Seals the deal on it being a disaster. But frankly, that makes the object lesson all that much easier to understand. Disaster is kind of what I'm going for.

Take home: This earth life, and the church which is led by mortal men, its kind of disaster.

I like it.

[Eddie]

Take home: This earth life, and the church which is led by mortal men, its kind of disaster.

I like it.

It's all relative in scale, of course. But, um, yeah.

[LVAllen]

Seals the deal on it being a disaster. But frankly, that makes the object lesson all that much easier to understand. Disaster is kind of what I'm going for.

As a parent of little kids, screw that. I would be livid if I found out my kids were pumped full of pure sugar right before bedtime just so they could be the objects for a lesson.

[Pelado]

I love that the gif of Fred Rogers delivering the double bird shows up with the thread title on Tapatalk's thread timeline list.