Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Feeling Like an Alien at Church

Elder Wirthlin said in his wonderful talk, "Concern for the One", that some people leave the Church because they feel different - that they don't fit in and can't be accepted.  As I have worked with those who are struggling with some kind of crisis of faith, his words have resonated deeply with me.  The following is something that hit me recently as I was discussing this very topic with a group of friends:
----------------------------------
Feeling like an alien is hardest for those who didn't feel like an alien for most of their lives. For someone who has spent years feeling comfortable and accepted and "normal" within the Church, it's extremely hard to go through a crisis of faith and suddenly feel like they don't belong anymore - and that is magnified and exacerbated when those around them downplay or criticize them for their change in perspective. What could have been a wonderful opportunity to grow a more mature and personal faith turns into a "conflict" that drives them away - and much of the responsibility for which way they go rests with those around them and how they react. 

I have an advantage in a real way, since I've felt like an alien pretty much my entire life - and my "alien-ness" is related directly to how I view and interpret history, doctrine, scripture, etc. One of the reasons I can view myself as orthodox even though I have a number of heterodox beliefs is that I've been dealing with that paradox (being a peculiar person in an already peculiar group) for so long that it now simply is part of how I view my own condition of "I am".

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Monday, February 25, 2013

Music in Heaven

Guitars and pianos and piccolos and violins are great, but it won't be heaven without saxophones and bagpipes.

Also, there will be NOBODY learning to play the bagpipes in heaven. That will happen in Hell - learning to play the bagpipes without ever learning to play the bagpipes well.
 
Just sayin'.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Sometimes We Ask Too Many Questions

Sometimes we simply ask WAY too many questions.

What I mean by that is that sometimes we ask questions of leaders - and they feel like they have to provide an answer - and that answer isn't something we like or want to hear - and we could have avoided the whole situation if we simply hadn't asked the question in the first place and just gone ahead and done what we believed was right.

Let me give an example from the world-wide Church Handbook of Instructions training from November 2010.

Pres. Beck talked about a RS President who was standing outside a home, pacing back and forth, concerned that she hadn't heard back yet from the Bishop about what she could do to help the sister and family in the home. She had left a message for him asking him what she could do.

Pres. Beck related that her advice to this sister was, to the best of my recollection: 
You have authority in your position as a President. Do what you feel impressed to do - and then go to the Bishop and tell him what you did.

I know that the culture of the Church in the past hasn't supported that advice in many cases, but it was said more than once in the training that organizational presidencies in the Church need to be empowered to seek and act on their own inspiration for their own stewardships - that they need to "ask less" and "do more". It also was said that the Bishop (and everyone else) needs to realize that the Bishop will not receive all the revelation for the ward - that all who have official responsibilities within the ward may receive revelation for their organizations (and families, in the case of parents) and provide honest, open, candid input in any councils in which they participate. Again, a statement that, in some important ways, we need to ask less and do more.

Again, sometimes we ask too many questions.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Temple Sealing as a Shadow of Practical Sealing

I absolutely love the concept of eternal marriage and the sealing of the family of God - and I also love the concept that everyone can be part of that, regardless of their religious affiliation in this life. I understand the emphasis on temple marriage and sealings, but I also believe God will not "put assunder" ANY couple that truly becomes one in this life - that the sealing ordinances are important symbolically but only shadows of what I would call true practical sealing.

A couple can be "temple sealed" without being "truly sealed" - and a couple can be "truly sealed" without being "temple sealed". Frankly, that actually is taught and understood in the Church (even if not as explicitly as I would like), so it doesn't cause me any real angst. Also, frankly, that concept is not taught explicitly in any other Christian denomination (at least, not in the same way as in the LDS Church) - and it's an ideal I believe desperately needs to be taught and internalized by humanity.

Finally, there is a power in taking a symbol and "actualizing" it through a physical performance that includes BOTH body and spirit. The same is true of something like baptism, where there is a tangible event that is "recorded in the body", if you will. I want eternal marriage to be something "embodied" in an ordinance - even as I would like the rhetoric ratcheted down a notch with regard to non-temple marriages (especially of non-Mormons) and the concept divorced more directly from the other temple requirements. (pun intended)

Monday, February 18, 2013

Why I Don't Mind Correlation in the Church

Some people complain about the Church's correlation effort - that the lessons and manuals are too restrictive and bland.  My response is very simple:

I have had some absolutely wonderful classes even with the correlated material.

If a lesson is read word-for-word or limited to "yes/no" responses, it's hellish; if it's used as a jumping off point for serious discussion, it's totally fine and can be incredibly enlightening and edifying. I've experienced both, so I know it's not all the fault of correlation.

Also, there were some really wacky things being preached and taught in the Church prior to correlation - when instruction basically was set at the local level. Correlation was the attempt to stop most of that wackiness and focus on the principles of the Gospel.

Serious question for contemplation:

Would you prefer the current material be used to focus on discussion of the concepts and principles in the manuals - or would you prefer having the local leaders in your wards or branches deciding what gets taught each Sunday in all classes?

If you tend to complain about correlation, consider the alternative - and how much the "craziness" of the past might bother you. (and, if you tend to downplay that craziness - or haven't experienced it like I have, think of the person in your ward, branch or stake whose views seem a bit "off" to you - and picture them controlling the instruction) 
 
I will take correlation and the possibility of focused discussions about the core principles of the Gospel, every day and twice on Sunday - and that is true especially now with the new youth curriculum and "revelations in context" online materials. 

Friday, February 15, 2013

The Church Needs Tithing - and Fast Offerings - and a Corporate Component

There has never been a "successful" organization of ANY kind in the history of the world that wasn't successful at raising enough money to continue its existence. There has never been a successful church that didn't "fund raise" in some manner. With any organization that has philanthropic giving as part of its mission, cash influx must be greater than cash outflow in order to be successful in carrying out its mission to give.

I have no problem with disagreements about "how" the Church uses its money, but I can't complain about it having a corporate component - especially if that corporate component allows it to use its members' donations to fund meetinghouses, temples, colleges, missionary work, etc. and to feed, clothe, house and otherwise bless the poor and suffering. Frankly, and this is just me being me, I also want its corporate component to be profitable - specifically so it doesn't have to tap into its donations during difficult financial times simply to survive.

One last thing just for perspective:

Many people use the failed bank attempt of Joseph's day as "proof" that he wasn't really a prophet (since they believe God would have helped a real prophet know how to invest the Church's money successfully), while many of those same people use the Church's current financial success as "proof" that our current leaders aren't really prophets (since God would use the Church's financial success differently or not allow it to be so successful financially in the first place). In this case, the issue isn't the Church's financial condition; it's the outlook of the people evaluating it.

That alone is worth recognizing and considering.