Perhaps It's Time To Leave Again

[Snow]

Yeah Jason,

Something unsaid is going on with you - yes? You don't have to say what it is but beyond just a general desire to become more harmonious with the spirit, something else is at play. You really don't sound like the Jason of 6-8 months ago at all. Course you could just be going through a phase or a mood swing but I rather suspect that you have had some point of crisis, some intense motivating trigger that is behind all this new-found gentleness.

My first thought was that you were just one of the evangelical fanatics who is a bit tweaky and over the top in their devotion, (you know, jumping from one religious/emotional bandwagon to the next) but now I'm more thinking that you had some specific incident or confluence of events or culmination of emotional/mental/physical trauma that is pushing you towards a new life-view.

Is any of that close? I myself had just such a unique motivating experience 4 years ago that set me down my current path; the statute of limitation prevents me from saying just exactly what. Course, it hasn't yet altered by surely demeanor but I still have hope...

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 9 2004, 04:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 9 2004, 04:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Mar 9 2004, 03:53 PM

Pray tell.  What is your problem, really?

It seems that it is you.

Ewww. Ouch. Stab in the heart. Curvette doesn't like me.

How can life....go....on?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Ray@Mar 9 2004, 02:57 PM

What do you mean by a different doctrinal slant?  What basic beliefs must someone have?

Maybe this isn't exactly what Jason has in mind...but here are my thoughts...

I think the idea is that everyone in attendence at this new "church" would believe in a "God" of some sort. A higher power at least. Some sort of universal morality. Beyond that, all doctrines would not be discussed. Well, maybe they could be discussed, but trying to convert each other would be discouraged.

Example:

An LDS, a Catholic, a Jew, and a Muslim are together at a weekly meeting.

They discuss the importance of faith. All can agree that faith is important in their lives.

They talk about forgiving each other (and themselves) for sins.

They talk about living a moral life, and the rewards that go with it.

They share their different beliefs in the afterlife, without trying to make the other see things the same way they do. They don't pass judgement on each other. For example, the Catholic doesn't tell the Muslim that he is going to Hell because he is not Christian, and vice versa. Instead, they talk about how living a moral life will reflect on them in the afterlife...no matter which afterlife you believe in.

I think it would work, if the people involved were respectful of each other.

As I said before, if someone is being disrespectful, he would be ignored.

This is probably very similar to Unitarian Universalism, but since I am not too familiar with their church, I can't say for sure...

[Ray]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 9 2004, 04:01 PM

Ray,

(For the other thread) Perhaps what Scott is trying to get through to you is that Christ has led his wife elswhere. Now you seem to think that it's impossible for God to tell you one thing and Scott's wife another. God would be consistent you say. Okay.

But did you ever think for just one minute that it might be God talking to Scott's wife, and you're listening to another spirit?!

(for this thread) It looks to me like there are more who would be willing to live in my type of community that there are of yours. Take a look inside (as Peace would say) and ask yourself why....

Jason

Oh, I understand why. Your society seems to be more tolerant, and some people equate tolerance with justice and righteousness. You seem to think that society would function better if people would simply overlook the faults of their neighbors, allowing them to do whatever they think they should do that will make them happy. Of course, I could be wrong about that, but you didn’t really elaborate on what the standards for your society would be, and when I asked for clarification, you responded with more of this hubbabaloo about how I must be the one who is wrong when most people seem to want what you want, which may or may not be true. But you did suggest that there wouldn’t be any enforcement in your society, and that people would be allowed to do whatever they felt was right as long as they held the same “basic” beliefs. Why didn’t you simply respond to my questions? Why resort to this tactic of trying to make me feel like I am doing something wrong? If you think I’m doing something wrong, specify what it is that you think I am doing wrong, and stop just throwing around seeds of doubt and contention, would you? Your input is neither informative nor enlightening, and I can see no good thing in anything you just said.

I thank God that He reveals His will to me through His spirit, and that He has given me Faith to know that I am doing what He wants me to do. This feeling I have is wonderful, with my mind being enlightened with the things of God, and nothing you can say will ever hurt me.

Now, if you’d care to “discuss” this society topic of yours in a little more detail, and help pinpoint for me why your vision of society is so much better than anything I talked about, I am ready and willing to listen. If not, there will be no harm done to me, because my vision of a perfect society is better than what you mentioned, and I do have no desire to go to a place like what you described.

[Jason]

Snow,

I'll say your about right. Profound things happining in my little world....

TS,

I think you've about got it. Although I would not say it's a "church". More of a mutual respect for everyone's belief system, but without the contention. Appreciating the common good, and keeping to oneself on other matters. (The Catholic pondering the mysteries of the Holy Eucharist, while the Mormon pondering the mysteries of the Endowment.)

Jason

[Ray]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Mar 9 2004, 04:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Mar 9 2004, 04:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Mar 9 2004, 02:57 PM

What do you mean by a different doctrinal slant?  What basic beliefs must someone have?

Maybe this isn't exactly what Jason has in mind...but here are my thoughts...

I think the idea is that everyone in attendence at this new "church" would believe in a "God" of some sort. A higher power at least. Some sort of universal morality. Beyond that, all doctrines would not be discussed. Well, maybe they could be discussed, but trying to convert each other would be discouraged.

Example:

An LDS, a Catholic, a Jew, and a Muslim are together at a weekly meeting.

They discuss the importance of faith. All can agree that faith is important in their lives.

They talk about forgiving each other (and themselves) for sins.

They talk about living a moral life, and the rewards that go with it.

They share their different beliefs in the afterlife, without trying to make the other see things the same way they do. They don't pass judgement on each other. For example, the Catholic doesn't tell the Muslim that he is going to Hell because he is not Christian, and vice versa. Instead, they talk about how living a moral life will reflect on them in the afterlife...no matter which afterlife you believe in.

I think it would work, if the people involved were respectful of each other.

As I said before, if someone is being disrespectful, he would be ignored.

This is probably very similar to Unitarian Universalism, but since I am not too familiar with their church, I can't say for sure...

The topics of discussion would probably be very limited, it seems to me. You wouldn't even be able to go into a lot of detail about our Lord, or of heaven, because someone else might not believe what you believe and they might be offended that you were talking about something that they didn't believe. Is that really something that you would want?

Even if you didn't talk about religion, and talked about moral purity, for instance, some people would have different beliefs than some other people, and since there would be no agreement on those things, you wouldn't be able to talk about those things very much either, right?

Some people would say that homosexuality is wrong, because they believe God has assured them of that, and some would say that homosexuality is fine as long as two people want to be homosexual. Again, the discussions would be extremely limited.

One of the things I like most about being a member of the Church is that I am exposed to so much knowledge about things, and I can find out more through the power of the Holy Ghost as He testifies to me personally. In that society, my knowledge would seem to be a lot more limited, and there would probably be some things that I never would know.

No thank you. I don't believe that a society centered around the weakest link in that society is in the best interest of everybody involved. That society appears to be pretty much what we have now, in the world in general, so where do you see any improvement?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

The topics of discussion would probably be very limited, it seems to me.

My experience so far in the LDS Church (I admit it is limited) is that they talk about the same things over and over...once you have read "Gospel Principles" you have basically heard it all...and then they spend the rest of their time bearing testimonies that it is all true...then when they run out of topics they go back the beginning (maybe mix it up a bit and change some words) and teach the same stuff over again.

The LDS Church gives alot of detail (editing out the stuff they don't talk about anymore)...but little variety.

I think in Jason's hypothetical club (since we are not calling it a church)...we would hear alot more variety, but less detail on each topic.

Maybe it would be similar to an F&T meeting where people just talk about how much they love their families, without the need to testify to the truth of any doctrines or books. Maybe 30 minutes of these non-religious testimonies, and another 30 minutes of discussion or talks on various topics. In a short meeting, there wouldn't be a need for so much content. Just an hour of feeling spiritual with your neighbors.

That is just one way to do it...

Most importantly, one should not attend this club if they would rather be at their own church. They should not attend if their intention is to act as a missionary...they should only attend if they have an honest desire to learn from other religions. If they do not, they will become frustrated and not find the services a spiritual experience.

Discussion of beliefs in this setting would require a very open mind...the ability to hear views that might totally oppose your own...and the restraint to accept that your neighbors think differently than you, and that you don't need to teach them anything.

Even if you didn't talk about religion, and talked about moral purity, for instance, some people would have different beliefs than some other people...

I think that might be one problem with the Unitarian Universalists...I might be wrong about this, but from what I know of them, they seem to promote toleration for homosexuality and abortion (to name a few things)...and that probably scares off alot of conservatives.

But in Jason's club, I think there could be enough univeral morals (like non-violence, honesty, living humbly, protecting the environment, etc.) to keep them occupied. Homosexuality and abortion doesn't need to be brought up.

[Lindy]

I put so much into my posts, that it's emotionally draining sometimes. That's one of the reasons I gave up being an LDS Seminary teacher. I'd put alot into my classes, only to have a negative or neutral response from the high school age students.

Jason....Even if you got a negative or neutral response from the teen agers, don't think that maybe somewhere later in their lives they *won't* remember something of what you put so much into...and it will mean something to them then.

Sometimes it helps if we just tell ourselves that we did the best we could, and know that we might have planted a seed that will take hold and grow into something wonderful. (sometimes it is really hard to tell ourselves anything positive, when all we can see is the negative....that is why we have friends :) )

--------------------

Edited:

Oh, and Jason.....count me in as a neighbor too.....that is a community I would love to be part of....no questions asked.

Ray~

I think that you could have just said something nice about Jason's idea of people living together in harmony, instead of splitting it open with a filet knife. He had a great idea....something I have thought about for years....I don't have a problem with other people believing differently than I do....the fundamental beliefs are just fine with me....anything else is just icing on the cake. I would love to be part of that world, I like diversity.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 9 2004, 03:34 PM

Ray. You act like an incredible jerk sometimes.

Don't we all?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Mar 9 2004, 06:18 PM

I put so much into my posts, that it's emotionally draining sometimes. That's one of the reasons I gave up being an LDS Seminary teacher. I'd put alot into my classes, only to have a negative or neutral response from the high school age students.

Jason....Even if you got a negative or neutral response from the teen agers, don't think that maybe somewhere later in their lives they will remember something of what you put so much into...and it will mean something to them then.

Sometimes it helps if we just tell ourselves that we did the best we could, and know that we might have planted a seed that will take hold and grow into something wonderful. (sometimes it is really hard to tell ourselves anything positive, when all we can see is the negative....that is why we have friends :) )

Jason....I thought you would be more into trying ...maybe with the Lord...it wouldn't have been so draining.

Lindy...Cool message.

[Jason]

Thanks Lindy. You and I can be neighbors anytime!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 9 2004, 03:00 PM

Well Ray,

It looks like it wouldn't be the place for you. There would be no enforcement. It would be strictly voluntary. If you didn't like it, you could leave.

This sounds like the society I have been promoting.

[porterrockwell]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Mar 9 2004, 02:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Mar 9 2004, 02:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Mar 9 2004, 01:31 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@ Mar 9 2004, 11:58 AM

You know, I've been thinking. I haven't posted this but I'd like to. If it were up to me (and of course it's not) I would love to build a community where all righteous minded people of ANY "christian" denomination could come together and be at peace. We would not discuss specific points of doctrine, just those simple basics we share in common (ie. the golden rule), and allow each other to contemplate the deeper things on their own. To me, that would be a better paradise than any we as individual churches have tried to establish over the last 2000 years. No contention. Plenty of study for those of us who enjoy it, but a brotherly attitude throughtout. I would rather live next to a righteous Jehovah's Witness or Mormon or whatever than an unrighteous Catholic.

Well there’s an interesting idea. I wonder how original it is.

First off, who is it up to? If it is even possible to “build a community where all righteous minded people of ANY “Christian” denomination could come together and be at peace”, who could do that? What would be involved? Would it ever really happen?

Sounds like the Unitarian Universalist Church to me. I went there once, and enjoyed it.

But how could one ever convince Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, Jews, Muslims, etc. to all go there each Sunday instead of attending their own meetings?

The only people who would show up would be the liberal-minded ones.

Hmm, have you ever heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I think they pretty much agree with allowing everyone to worship God as their conscience dictates

True...but if your views contradict LDS teachings in any way you are better off to keep quiet about it. Like I do

First off Jason, good luck bro. In whatever you find. Secondly, Tao, it's not people bringing up contradictory beliefs that frustrates me. It's the simple attitude of contradicting beliefs JUST to contradict because we are Mormon. I have seen and heard many a "mainstreamer" take opposition to LDS principle even though they may perfectly agree with it, only because they have one mission, to keep us out of Christianity. It most of the time takes the place of actually worshipping the Lord. So that is what gets frustrating. I could say the sky is blue and as previously mentioned, I would get a theological assessment about how it really isn't, only because I a Mormon. That is the general attitude toward Mormons on other "Christian" forums. So when we have a forum for Latter-Day Saints, it can get frustrating to have so much counter opinion. Even when it is a constructive breakdown of principle for the meer sake of understanding.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 9 2004, 07:57 PM

Thanks Lindy. You and I can be neighbors anytime!

[Behunin]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 09:36 PM

it's not people bringing up contradictory beliefs that frustrates me. It's the simple attitude of contradicting beliefs JUST to contradict because we are Mormon. I have seen and heard many a "mainstreamer" take opposition to LDS principle even though they may perfectly agree with it, only because they have one mission, to keep us out of Christianity. It most of the time takes the place of actually worshipping the Lord. So that is what gets frustrating. I could say the sky is blue and as previously mentioned, I would get a theological assessment about how it really isn't, only because I a Mormon. That is the general attitude toward Mormons on other "Christian" forums. So when we have a forum for Latter-Day Saints, it can get frustrating to have so much counter opinion. Even when it is a constructive breakdown of principle for the meer sake of understanding.

Amen.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Behunin+Mar 9 2004, 08:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Behunin @ Mar 9 2004, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Mar 9 2004, 03:00 PM

Well Ray,

It looks like it wouldn't be the place for you.  There would be no enforcement.  It would be strictly voluntary.  If you didn't like it, you could leave. 

This sounds like the society I have been promoting.

Yeah!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:36 PM

Secondly, Tao, it's not people bringing up contradictory beliefs that frustrates me. It's the simple attitude of contradicting beliefs JUST to contradict because we are Mormon.

I agree...people just shouldn't do that.

I was not referring to keeping quiet about contradictory beliefs on LDS TALK. I think everyone here knows that I vocalize my contradictory beliefs whenever possible

But I do keep quiet about them in Church, because it is just likely to cause problems.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Mar 10 2004, 12:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Mar 10 2004, 12:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:36 PM

Secondly, Tao, it's not people bringing up contradictory beliefs that frustrates me.  It's the simple attitude of contradicting beliefs JUST to contradict because we are Mormon.

I agree...people just shouldn't do that.

I was not referring to keeping quiet about contradictory beliefs on LDS TALK. I think everyone here knows that I vocalize my contradictory beliefs whenever possible

But I do keep quiet about them in Church, because it is just likely to cause problems.

No kidding! LOL I once brought up something and got stomped on....after class a guy in our ward who was the stake clerk came up to me privately and said that these people were like babes...on milk and couldn't take the meat. LOL

I thought that was a superiority attitude...LOL

[Tr2]

My first thought was that you were just one of the evangelical fanatics who is a bit tweaky and over the top in their devotion, (you know, jumping from one religious/emotional bandwagon to the next) but now I'm more thinking that you had some specific incident or confluence of events or culmination of emotional/mental/physical trauma that is pushing you towards a new life-view.

Where does this utter hatred of the evangelical church come from? It is an extremely unhealthy thing. I first read this paragraph and then went back to other posts similar in nature. Your anger is subtle but fierce. I am now thinking that you are a member of the mormon church just to spite the evengelical church. You don't hold many traditional mormon beliefs but still hold the notion that you are part of a more elite belief system. Don't know why this has taken so long to dawn on me.

Jason, best of luck to you.

[Snow]

Well which is it going to be Trident? Utter and fierce, or subtle? Seems like it's one t'or the t'other but not both.

But, I'll grant that you have a point. I have to say that of all Christians, conservative evangelicals - annoy me more than others these days. I am sure it isn't coincidental that the cult-hunter goof-ball industry comes out of the evangelical community. Acutally I am not sure that evangelical is the right word. I have good friends who consider themselves evangelical Lutherans and I find nothing even remotely annoying about them or their faith. I should probably refine my choice of words. My annoyance mostly goes out to the conservative faction of the evangelical community that seeks to exclude others from salvation by virtue of some acid test of man-made doctrinal purity and gives rise to and supports the for-profit cottage industry of attacking other religions. Oddly enough Trident, my little yellow friend, they are the same ones you attack you as a cultist.

[Jason]

Ray,

You said: "Heh, no enforcement at all?"

I've been pondering this for a while, and I came across this: " If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good." (Confucius, Analects, Book II. WEI CHANG, Chapter III. Legge's translation)

Jason

[Cal]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Mar 21 2004, 02:21 PM

Ray,

You said: "Heh, no enforcement at all?"

I've been pondering this for a while, and I came across this: " If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame. If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good." (Confucius, Analects, Book II. WEI CHANG, Chapter III. Legge's translation)

Jason

And I would add---" and if the people are taught rationality, good sense and good ethics, they need only be led by their internal conscience, and thereby avoid BOTH punishment and SHAME, and be even BETTER"

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal+Mar 21 2004, 02:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 21 2004, 02:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--ExMormon-Jason@Mar 21 2004, 02:21 PM

Ray,

You said: "Heh, no enforcement at all?"

I've been pondering this for a while, and I came across this: " If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.  If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good."  (Confucius, Analects, Book II. WEI CHANG, Chapter III.  Legge's translation)

Jason

And I would add---" and if the people are taught rationality, good sense and good ethics, they need only be led by their internal conscience, and thereby avoid BOTH punishment and SHAME, and be even BETTER"

I think shame isn't all that bad....It teaches...it disaplines from within...

The thing is....it needs to be placed in the correct power for good...and not for self-destruction.

When the shame comes from the conscience from correct principles....one should feel bad and try and change...

But when it comes from outside sources because our consicences are seared, hardened, or otherwise malfunctioning...then it becomes destructive.

When it gets to where we hide from righteous people and point the finger at them as the cause of our shame....we must realize it is because we have problems with unresolved, unrepented of sin.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Peace@Mar 21 2004, 03:02 PM

Ray,

You said: "Heh, no enforcement at all?"

I've been pondering this for a while, and I came across this: " If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame.  If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good."  (Confucius, Analects, Book II. WEI CHANG, Chapter III.  Legge's translation)

Jason

And I would add---" and if the people are taught rationality, good sense and good ethics, they need only be led by their internal conscience, and thereby avoid BOTH punishment and SHAME, and be even BETTER"

I think shame isn't all that bad....It teaches...it disaplines from within...

The thing is....it needs to be placed in the correct power for good...and not for self-destruction.

When the shame comes from the conscience from correct principles....one should feel bad and try and change...

But when it comes from outside sources because our consicences are seared, hardened, or otherwise malfunctioning...then it becomes destructive.

When it gets to where we hide from righteous people and point the finger at them as the cause of our shame....we must realize it is because we have problems with unresolved, unrepented of sin.

Good points. I would add that when a person operates from his own sense of consciousness of what is right and wrong (that is, he has internalized through careful thought and experinece, a set of values) rather than from a set of rules he feels obligated to obey in order to please someone else, even if it be a diety, he is bound to fail (and feel shame) a lot more often. In fact, I don't think shame is the word for what someone feels when they fail to live up to their own sense of right and wrong. One can see for himself, very quickly, how he has erred, and will most likely label the behavior for what it is: a mistake, rather than the violation of someone elses rules.

[Guest Starsky]

That is true. We need to be true to ourselves. We shouldn't allow others to cause us to feel wrong about what we feel good about.