Mormons and the term "Heavenly Father"

[LaMar]

That proves your extreme dishonesty. You could have only obtained that by lying through your teeth to your bishop and stake president. Not a good character to emulate.

zerinus

Actually I haven’t said anything here that I haven’t told both of them in person.

The recommend questions are very specific, and the leaders are not allowed to define terms like “believe”, “day and night” or “full tithe”.

Read Focault and Habermas to get the idea. LOL!

 

[LaMar]

Yeah, I lurk at MADB still, but don’t post. Who knows what the Danites among them will do?

Exmo-- I mostly lurk, occasionally post. It isn’t as bitter as it used to be. I think they got hold of amazon.com/When-God-Becomes-Drug-Booth/dp/0874777038#CustomerDiscussions

I’ve never read that. It looks pretty interesting.

When I started branching out into experiencing other traditions (the Episcopal Church and Reformed Judaism, specifically) I realized that Mormonism really isn’t any stranger, in the grand scheme of things, than any other belief system. They all contain a bit of pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die stuff, and they can all be used as tools to better oneself and one’s society.

What I like about Judaism (and to a lesser extent the Episcopal Church) is the fact that it’s not so much about believing nonsense, and more about doing constructive things in the real world. God doesn’t care if you believe in Him literally, so long as you feed the hungry, visit the sick and take care of your family.

There’s an element of that in Catholicism too, but it seems to be an underground movement. The Catholics call it “de-mythologization” (i.e. forgetting about virgin births and transsubstantiation). And then the Catholics have the green theology and liberation theology stuff, which appeals to me also.

 

[RC_Matt]

I still have a temple recommend, but I appreciate being “excommunicated” on an internet bulletin board.

LOL, at least you only got “e-excommunicated;” he "e-condemned’ me to HELL.

 

[zerinus]

Actually I haven’t said anything here that I haven’t told both of them in person.

The recommend questions are very specific, and the leaders are not allowed to define terms like “believe”, “day and night” or “full tithe”.

Read Focault and Habermas to get the idea. LOL!

Here is a list of temple recommend questions I found on the Internet. Not sure how up-to-date it is; but is it good enough for my purpose here:

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

You fail.

1. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

You fail.

1. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

You fail.

1. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

You fail.

[Questions 5 to 13 require knowledge your personal circumstances.]

1. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

You fail (if you said yes).

zerinus

 

[LaMar]

Right. It was my old bishop who tipped me off to the fact that the brethren allow a member to define “faith” and “testimony” (among every other word in the interview) in his own way. Bishops don’t get to append qualifiers such as “and ‘testimony’ means you believe this nonsense literally” or “you must believe in a historical Jesus, and that Angel Moroni actually floated down and chatted with Uncle Joe in the physical world”. Statements like that are absolutely forbidden, for a reason. Why don’t you try and figure it out?

I believe the first vision story described a psychological process, and that the most important message of Jesus wasn’t that he actually ran around doing magic tricks, but that the story encourages people to achieve their potential and help others to the same end. My bishop knows this (I’ve made it very clear) and doesn’t have a problem with it.

The post-modern Mormons in my ward (there are several of us) are often referred to popularly as “the Marxist - feminist contingent” by people I have never met personally, which means that the average adherent in my ward also knows about us and doesn’t have a problem with us. The only person with a problem is you. With that in mind, it’s your problem, and you’ll have to live with it.

 

[zerinus]

Right. It was my old bishop who tipped me off to the fact that the brethren allow a member to define “faith” and “testimony” (among every other word in the interview) in his own way. Bishops don’t get to append qualifiers such as “and ‘testimony’ means you believe this nonsense literally” or “you must believe in a historical Jesus, and that Angel Moroni actually floated down and chatted with Uncle Joe in the physical world”. Statements like that are absolutely forbidden, for a reason. Why don’t you try and figure it out?

I believe the first vision story described a psychological process, and that the most important message of Jesus wasn’t that he actually ran around doing magic tricks, but that the story encourages people to achieve their potential and help others to the same end. My bishop knows this (I’ve made it very clear) and doesn’t have a problem with it.

The post-modern Mormons in my ward (there are several of us) are often referred to popularly as “the Marxist - feminist contingent” by people I have never met personally, which means that the average adherent in my ward also knows about us and doesn’t have a problem with us. The only person with a problem is you. With that in mind, it’s your problem, and you’ll have to live with it.

Your respons speak louder than my words. I need say no further.

zerinus

 

[LaMar]

Your respons speak louder than my words. I need say no further.

zerinus

Glad we cleared that up. We might both be Mormons, but I’d never want to be confused with your type of true-believer.

On the upside, anti-intellectuals are on the way out: Boyd K Packer was overlooked as a counselor and people like me are opening up Mormonism to much bigger and better things. I suppose that’s another reason I stick around, rather than wandering off into the Hebrew or Nazarene camps.

 

[zerinus]

Glad we cleared that up. We might both be Mormons, . . .

I certainly am, and proud of it. Not sure about you.

. . . but I’d never want to be confused with your type of true-believer.

That makes two of us then.

On the upside, anti-intellectuals are on the way out: Boyd K Packer was overlooked as a counselor . . .

That shows your multitude of ignorance. Boyd K Packer, as President of the Twelve, is the second most senior Apostle, and in line for succession to the Presidency of the Church if that position became vacant.

. . . and people like me are opening up Mormonism to much bigger and better things. I suppose that’s another reason I stick around, rather than wandering off into the Hebrew or Nazarene camps.

Just remember, you don’t speak for Mormonism. You don’t believe in any tenet of it. You are not a true Mormon.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

conservative mormon, meet liberal mormon.

thank God it’s almost time for Mass.

 

[zerinus]

conservative mormon, meet liberal mormon.

Gordon B. Hinckley once said (quoting from memory): “There is no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon . . . these people are not members of our church”. To that I will add: There is no such thing as “conservative Mormon” vs. “liberal Mormon”. There are only faithful Mormons and unfaithful Mormons. LaMar is not a faithful Mormon. In fact, I question his credentials as a Mormon at all. He is not a Mormon. He just likes to think or pretend that he is.

zerinus

 

[J_C]

Gordon B. Hinckley once said (quoting from memory): “There is no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon . . . these people are not members of our church”. To that I will add: There is no such thing as “conservative Mormon” vs. “liberal Mormon”. There are only faithful Mormons and unfaithful Mormons. LaMar is not a faithful Mormon. In fact, I question his credentials as a Mormon at all. He is not a Mormon. He just likes to think or pretend that he is.

zerinus

my heart is with you on this score, z. though we disagreee substantially on most religious things, it is very obvious to me, and I daresya most others, that our friend LaMar is if not an atheist, at least opposed to all religion. I have known Catholics who talk exactly like LaMar does.

the substance of religion is the mystery of it. Without the sacred mystery, he might as well be practicing communist. after all the Marxist ideals are swell sounding and communisits do do some nice things for common man, like the great medical care they get in Cuba for instance. So I would wonder why anyone would bother with a religion to do good things for humanity, which is what Lamar keeps bringing up as his reason.

well I think LaMar is a version of whyme, just playing a game. Must have lots of time on hands.

 

[why_me]

Well, for what it is worth, I attended Mass yesterday and the priest in his homily addressed god as ‘our heavenly father’. It reminded me of this thread. It seems that catholic priests also address god as heavenly father. Mormons and catholics have much in common.

 

[why_me]

Glad we cleared that up. We might both be Mormons, but I’d never want to be confused with your type of true-believer.

On the upside, anti-intellectuals are on the way out: Boyd K Packer was overlooked as a counselor and people like me are opening up Mormonism to much bigger and better things. I suppose that’s another reason I stick around, rather than wandering off into the Hebrew or Nazarene camps.

You are a different type of mormon LaMar. I was surprised to read that you still have a temple recommend. I suppose that the bigger question is: will you be able to pass your next temple recommend interview? I don’t have a temple recommend. Not worthy enough. I don’t mind it at all. But…how do you rationalize your temple recommend when it seems as if you really don’t believe in the lds church?

 

[ibkc]

But…how do you rationalize your temple recommend when it seems as if you really don’t believe in the lds church?

You - the guy who receives the Eucharist while still considering the Mormon sacrament to be valid - have an amazing amount of chutzpah to ask a question like this of LaMar (or anyone, really).

 

[zaffiroborant]

You - the guy who receives the Eucharist while still considering the Mormon sacrament to be valid - have an amazing amount of chutzpah to ask a question like this of LaMar (or anyone, really).

I found his chiding of LaMar ironic also.

 

[Jerusha]

LDS are splitting in all directions. This three-way argument is no surprise to me. Just like in 1844 and 1890. What else do you expect from a Gnostic religion?

 

[Jerusha]

I’ve never read that. It looks pretty interesting.

One strength of the book, for LDS, is that it never mentions LDS as having serious problems with the issue. Sort of breaks down the resistance.

One can be a green, or feminist, or social justice Catholic, and still accept all the supernatural aspects. That is what Irish Catholicism is all about—even when the Irish ancestry is waaaay back. (Or nonexistant) Remember “What would Jesus do?”

 

[LaMar]

You are a different type of mormon LaMar. I was surprised to read that you still have a temple recommend. I suppose that the bigger question is: will you be able to pass your next temple recommend interview? I don’t have a temple recommend. Not worthy enough. I don’t mind it at all. But…how do you rationalize your temple recommend when it seems as if you really don’t believe in the lds church?

How do those Jesuit priests in the “de-mythologization” movement manage to indulge in all the rituals, while they write articles exposing the fact that no such person as Jesus actually existed as a historical character?

The rituals are personal and mean different things to different people. Catholics can indulge in rituals and use their church to promote good ethics and social progress. Mormons can too.

I can answer “yes” to the questions as they exist today, because the questions about testimony are vague and spiritual/psychological for the most part. If they’re changed into historical questions, then I’d have to say “I don’t know” or “I doubt it” where “yes” would be expected.

 

[LaMar]

One strength of the book, for LDS, is that it never mentions LDS as having serious problems with the issue. Sort of breaks down the resistance.

I don’t know if I understand this paragraph. Are you saying that Mormons (of the true-believer variety) instinctively become hysterical whenever their own faith is examined, even in passing? If so, then I agree with you.

I don’t understand the whole “recovery from LDS Inc.” movement. It seems like it just makes people more and more upset. Of course, if I lived in rural Utah it might come in handy, occasionally, to meet with other dissidents and vent my spleen, but the whole thing looks like a huge angst fest and is very negative.

There is an “ex-Catholic” forum which is almost precisely similar in how it works. I’d post the link here but I’m sure the moderators wouldn’t appreciate it.

Being angry at the LDS church doesn’t hurt the LDS church. It simply wastes the time of the perpetual victim. The people who are so emotional would do a much better job if they weedled their ways into teaching gospel doctrine at the ward level and started sprinkling gems of historical truth into their lessons. If that’s too much trouble (and I don’t blame them for not wanting to) the best thing to do is move on with your life and enjoy it. We only get one…

 

[why_me]

You - the guy who receives the Eucharist while still considering the Mormon sacrament to be valid - have an amazing amount of chutzpah to ask a question like this of LaMar (or anyone, really).

Ahhhh…but I don’t have a temple recommend. And that makes a lot of difference.