“Here’s what I think in a single sentence: I think that the real religion is about the understanding that if we can only still our egos for a few seconds, we might have a chance of experiencing something that is divine in nature. But in order to do that, we have to slice away at our egos and try to get them down to a manageable size, and then still work some practiced light meditation. So real religion is about reducing our egos, whereas all the churches are interested in is egotistical activities, like getting as many members and raising as much money and becoming as important and high-profile and influential as possible. All of which are egotistical attitudes. So how can you have an egotistical organization trying to teach a non-egotistical ideal? It makes no sense, unless you regard religion as crowd control. What I think most organized religion—simply crowd control.”
John Cleese, from his interview in The Onion
Archive for the 'Spirituality' Category
In Eckhart Tolle’s book entitled: A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose, it says the following about Spirituality and Religion:
What is the role of the established religions in the arising of the new consciousness? Many people are already aware of the difference between spirituality and religion. They realize that having a belief system–a set of thoughts that you regard as the absolute truth-does not make you spiritual no matter what the nature of those beliefs is. In fact, the more you make your thoughts (beliefs) into your identity, the more cut off you are from the spiritual dimension within yourself. Many “religious” people are stuck at that level. They equate truth with thought, and as they are completely identified with thought (their mind), they claim to be in sole possession of the truth in an unconscious attempt to protect their identity. They don’t realize the limitations of thought. Unless you believe (think) exactly as they do, you are wrong in their eyes, and in the not-too distant past, they would have felt justified in killing you for that. And some still do, even now. Continue reading ‘Eckhart Tolle on Spirituality and Religion’
Tom Lantos, a powerful member of the US House of Representatives for many years, died recently. In this report of his funeral I learned he had a significant connection to Mormonism: His wife and daughters, who apparently converted some time ago.
Continue reading ‘Tom Lantos and Mormonism’
My alma mater, Northern Illinois University, is mourning today, following a shooting in one of its classrooms. News reports say that a gunman whose identity is not presently known shot and killed four students and wounded many more when he fired a shotgun and then pistol in a large auditorium classroom before turning his pistol on himself. It is sad, and it hits me close to home as I think of the many exams I proctored in that very classroom during my grad school days. Continue reading ‘Mourning with my Alma Mater’
In sacrament meeting two weeks ago, a speaker asked, “What are you willing to give up to be closer to your Father in Heaven? A computer game? A TV show?” She suggested that the time gained by sacrificing this leisure pursuit was to be spent reading the scriptures. Ugh.
I know, I know. It’s good for you. So are brussels sprouts. It is a measure of my spiritual sterility that I would rather play solitaire on my computer (I lost $1000 in pretend money last night during a bout with insomnia) than read the scriptures. I don’t know HOW to read the scriptures. Randomly? Meditatively? Make a plan? Set a date? In the bathtub? Could you, would you, with a fox?
I don’t much like Brussels sprouts, but I like broccoli, and I like cauliflower. I’m not opposed to cruciferous vegetables in principle. Maybe I just need a different approach. I have a KJV and an RSV. I prefer the RSV. Would a different version help? A good study guide? A concordance?
The new Executive Director of the Sunstone Educational Foundation gave me a gift of Krista Tippett’s book “Speaking of Faith.” I haven’t finished the book yet, but I have read some sentences and paragraphs over and over again, savoring the words. Chapter One: “Religions are containers for human identity.” I keep coming back to that sentence. It describes one of the problems I have with finding my place in Mormonism: because I don’t know what kind of Mormon I am, I don’t know what kind of person I am.
Being a believing Mormon framed my life. What I drank, what I did for fun, how I spent my Sundays, what I taught my children, who I slept with (or more accurately, didn’t sleep with) were all behaviors defined by my religious identity. I poured my self into my Mormonism and it contained me. When I lost my faith, I didn’t know who I was any more. I lost my “self” because I had defined myself by the container. When I created a new self-definition based on my non-belief, which had its own constraints and social norms, I had found myself a new container. Now that container doesn’t fit either.
What does the container look like for those taking the Middle Way? Sometimes I feel like my identity changes depending on who I’m with. I have friends on both sides of the fence and I treasure those friends. The social norms of one group are different from the social norms of another. It’s not only that the behaviors differ, the values are different. It would make little sense to recommend to a non-believing friend, “maybe you should pray about it.” It would offend a believer for me to say of Apostle X, “He’s just another clueless old guy.” Either of these statements can seem natural and sensible to me.
Perhaps the new container for my identity doesn’t have solid sides. It shapes itself based on its environment. NOMs are often accused of being inauthentic or disingenuous or lacking integrity. Perhaps it’s because our containers change based on context - not because we’re insincere, but because we are sincere. When we present one way to one group and another way to a different group, it’s because we are sharing authentic aspects of our identity that fit with our current circle. We’re celebrating what we have in common. That’s not insincerity.
Being in a flexible container can make it difficult to define and find our “self.” It’s better, though, than forcing ourselves into a container where we don’t fit.
A basic element in religion is connection. As I understand it, the root of the word religion traces back to the idea of connection, which people in Western religion often construe as connection with God. Like many who inhabit the cultural hall, I prefer to see it more broadly: spirituality represents connection with the world, with nature, or with humanity.
I was reminded of this when I read a friend’s memoir, published in the new literary journal, Memoir (and). Take a few minutes to read it, and enjoy the sense of spirituality it beautifully expresses.If you’re at all like me, you’ll find yourself reflecting on your connections and the many forms they take. Take a moment or two and, as the hymn suggests, “count your many blessings.” Chances are, your connections are atop that list.
OK, we’re not Oprah, but we can still have a book club, no? If so, I heartily recommend Krista Tippett’s Speaking of Faith as our first (a generous gift by a dear friend, I should add). 
In my mind, it’s one thing for all of us to attempt to articulate the Mormon “Middle Way” experience. It’s an entirely different thing altogether to have a non-Mormon articulate our experience better than we can ourselves. For me, that’s what Krista Tippett does in this book. Allow me to illustrate:
As a journalist, I’m committed to drawing out the contours and depths of what I call “the vast middle” — left, right and center between the poles of competing answers that have hardened our cultural discourse. In the vast middle, faith is as much about questioning as it is about certainties. It is possible to be a believer and a listener at the same time, to be both fervent and searching, to nurture a vital identity and to wonder at the identities of others.
Continue reading ‘Krista Tippett’s Speaking of Faith: A “Cultural Hall” Book Club Book’
How far into the mainstream can you be and still be pursuing the third way?
Tonight I had a meeting with my bishop. I initiated it. I wanted to talk about getting a temple recommend.
I’m still a bit confused by the whole thing. I’m doing this because I want to. I’m not sure WHY I want to. It took me a long time to reassemble my present identity from the shards of my shattered faith. I have never considered that an aspect of that identity might be the desire to go to the temple. And yet, I think I might want to go to the temple. To do so, I need a temple recommend.
The conversation went fine. My concerns are with doctrine, not practice. We discussed the questions I was concerned about (four and seven). He said that the boundaries within which a member must abide to be able to go to the temple are more flexible than I imagine. We ended with him asking me to make an appointment for a proper interview.
I have friends, people I care for very much, who have taken a different path after losing their faith in the church. Some are out entirely, others are going along to get along. Will y’all still respect me in the morning?
Can I still be a permablogger here if I have a temple recommend?
Church mostly sucked yesterday. This even though I gave a talk on three faithful LDS women and Why I Like Relief Society that I got lots of compliments on, and we’re doing a great song for Easter in choir all about Jesus from the Methodist Hymnal (our bishop is singing a short solo).
Sunday School was once again a trial. Relief Society went off on a tangent about the Only True and Living President of the United States and I just had to leave. The Middle Way is doubly difficult if you’re a Democrat.
(Note: hyperbole alert.)
Critics will say of course it sucks, it’s church. Didn’t I say over on NOM once, “Church mostly sucks and most people leave”? Ah, my own criticisms, come back to haunt me.
The Uber-faithful will say that it’s my own fault for lacking charity and for being a Democrat.
When you’re trying to find the middle way, everybody thinks you’re wrong.
I think the solution is for y’all to tell me how wonderful I am and how it’s OK for church to suck and that doesn’t mean it’s stupid to keep going. Also, remind me that I’m not evil and that George Bush is an idiot. That’ll help a lot.
While over at FPR discussing the vagaries of the Flood, I made a comment which LXXLuthor very gently pointed out was a threadjack. It occurred to me that my comment had some NOMish possibilities, so I brought it over here to discuss.
Symbolic or literal? The earth is full of students and scholars who debate the historicity of the Biblical stories. Often to the detriment of the underlying principle beneath, such scriptorians cast their nets for any scientific tidbit or authoritative statement that will back up their assumptions. Two Biblical accounts which are especially susceptible to such wresting are the Creation story in Genesis and the record of Noah and the Flood.
In construing the Flood narration, some believers advocate an extreme literalist approach. Noah was a real person, they say, who built an actual boat, the exact dimensions of which we know. There was a worldwide Flood which covered the entire earth, including the highest moutaintops. Others religionists prefer a different approach. Scientific evidence is incompatible with a worldwide Flood, they point out. Perhaps there was a regional deluge, on a smaller scale, but covering the world as Noah knew it. This approach also presupposes a real figure–Noah, or perhaps Gilgamesh or Utnapishtim or Ziusudra. Legends of this event were incorporated into the Bible by its writers. Julie M. Smith has posted a Sunday School lesson which succinctly explains these two proposals along with good reasons and poor reasons for subscribing to a literal Flood or a localized Flood. (190 fun comments by advocates of both sides follow!) A third method of interpreting the Flood is as an allegory. The story of a great Deluge and an ancient prophet is an allegory–a story written as a poetic means of illustrating an abstract or spiritual meaning. We should not be expected to believe this event actually happened.
I have noted that proponents of each of these views can make their case with equal vehemence, but a more interesting direction for New Order Mormons may be to consider each theory in its own right and what principles we can learn from each. This method might even be a productive way to approach the scriptures in arenas where there are conversation between conservative, liberal and non-believing participants.
For example, if the flood story is an allegory, appropriated from Mesopotamian myth, why was it used by Biblical authors? What poetic elements are used? How do they advance the objectives of the author(s)?
Perhaps the flood was a localized event based on the flooding of the Tigris/Euphrates River Valley, What lessons did the small group of people who survived learn from the event? How did they see themselves in the larger picture of world history? What ties did they have to the story to cause them to adopt it as their chronicle of national origin? How does their story apply to us as a “chosen people?”
Lastly, consider Noah’s story as a literal worldwide catastrophe. Why would God find it necessary to cleanse the entire earth and start over? What were his purposes in doing so? What made him promise not to do it again?
Perhaps others may think of more thought-provoking questions, I’m just throwing out a few simple ones to illustrate the possibilities in using this approach. I’m not sure that Sunday School teachers would be comfortable teaching the scriptures in this manner. But perhaps if class members were open to thinking this way, we could claim more of a role in “the most dreaded Sunday meeting.”
Since calling for a Bloggernacle Fast for Peace, I’ve seen several different LDS responses to the political realities of international conflict. I believe that we all desire peace in our world, countries, neighborhoods, and families. We have diverse opinions as to how this may be achieved, or if it is even possible. But I believe that within each individual lie the seeds of peaceful resolution to conflict. I call upon you to join me tomorrow, Sunday, March 4th, in a vigil for world peace. I ask you to pray, fast, meditate, or send out positive thoughts regarding peace. As you do so, I hope you will be able to find more peace in your heart and your own little corner of the world.
In meditating this week upon my upcoming fast for peace, I read several articles that you may find of interest as you ponder upon peace. This Dialogue article makes a case for Mormon pacifism. Here is a more moderate piece about the complexities of Mormon thought on War and Peace. And this article is a discussion of Christian pacifism. I’d love to hear your comments about how this vigil for peace unfolded in your life.
Click twice on the object for a close-up.
About a year ago, I blogged over at “Viva Ned Flanders” about an experience I had at church. I received a pretty clear impression that if I wanted to, I could believe again.
It’s been a long year, and I’ve come a long way in my attitude toward faith since then. A number of events, ideas and notices have aligned in the last few months that have really pushed this idea home to me. So I’ve been thinking: Do I want to believe again?
I joined the Church at age 19, and it took me no time to learn Mormon vocabulary. By the time I left on my mission, no one could tell I wasn’t born and raised in the Church. Recently, I’ve become interested in the reverse phenomenon. When a long-time member’s Church vocabulary slowly begins to change, what alterations in their lives does this portend? What does it mean when “I know that God lives” changes to “I deeply believe that the universe was created by a Divine Intelligence?” When “I know the Book of Mormon is true” changes to “I am convinced that living the principles taught in the Book of Mormon can lead to a fulfilling life?” When “I know the Church is true” changes to “I have found joy and happiness in participating in the Church organization?”
(Now, I haven’t read all of Fowler’s Stages, only a synopsis.) So some of you may enlighten me: Did Fowler include a change in vocabulary as signifying entry into a different stage of belief? I’m postulating that all those who examine their faith deeply will begin to express themselves rather differently than with the standard Mormon usage. This includes those who will deepen their faith in the principles of the restored gospel as well as those who will eventually leave or who will come to consider themselves NOM’s.
Mormon vocabulary is so distinctive it seems impossible to make much of a change without being noticed in the community. So I have some questions for the readers of this blog.
-
As your beliefs shifted, did you struggle with your use of Mormon language?
-
Did others notice a change in your vocabulary? Did this make you “suspect” in the eyes of traditional Mormons?
-
Have you noticed other Mormons who have transformed their vocabulary away from “Mormonspeak?” Does this generally portend changes in their religious affiliation?
-
What are some specific examples you’ve heard, read, or changed to? (For example, I no longer begin prayers with the phrase, “Dear Heavenly Father.”)
In a recent effort to avoid some pressing task, I settled in to watching an entire disk from
the 7th Season Simpsons Collection. My attention was caught by (what I later looked up on the internet and learned to be) the episode called “Lisa the Iconoclast” (Season 7 Episode 13). Here’s the TV Guide blurb for it:
Donald Sutherland is the voice of the curator of the Springfield Historical Society, where Lisa’s research on patriarch Jebediah Springfield turns up some unknown — and unpopular — facts. Other Voices: Yeardley Smith, Harry Shearer, Phil Hartman
In an attempt to learn more about the founder of her beloved Springfield, Lisa digs deep into history in order to find out more evidence about the mysterious yet charismatic leader. She discovers facts about him that run contrary to everything she has been taught and to what everyone around her believes. First she confronts the historian about the discrepancy. Having dedicated his whole life to the subject, he is understandably eager to dismiss these findings as lies and slander.
Hurlbut: I think, Lisa, that you’ve been taken in by an obvious
forgery. Unfortunately, historical research is plagued by
this sort of hoax — the so-called confession. It’s just
as fake as the Howard Hughes will, the Hitler Diaries, or the
Emancipation Retraction.Lisa: But it explains why there’s no record of Jebediah Springfield
before 1796. He was Hans Sprungfeld until then.Hurlbut: That’s preposterous. Get out! You’re banned from this
historical society! You, and your children, and your
children’s children — for three months.
Lisa then turns to the general populace trying to pull back the curtain for those who still have a deep and passionate faith concerning the leader. The other believers are not swayed and in fact are furious with Lisa for casting doubt onto their beloved leader. Her insistence on talking about her findings eventually alienates her from friends and family. Even her father, her sole supporter, is fired from his job as Town Crier (a role he was born to play) just for standing by his daughter.
Homer: Hear ye, hear ye. My daughter has something to say about
Jebediah Springfield.Moe: Aw, look. That cutie wants to say something cute.
[barflies murmur]
Shut up, you bums, shut up!
Go ahead, angel.Lisa: Ahem. Jebediah Springfield was nothing more than a murderous
pirate who hated this town!
[barflies and Moe's jaws drop]Moe: Good God! Homer, I support, you know, any prejudice you can
name, but this hero-phobia sickens me. All right, you and your
daughter ain’t welcome here no more. Barney, show them the
exit.Barney: There’s an exit?!
Lisa wants to let the matter go but her consciousness plagues her. Can she really live in a world where everyone around her believes something she KNOWS not to be true? She searches for a way to prove to everyone that the man they worship was a fraud.
Lisa: Jebediah Springfield was really a vicious pirate named Hans
Sprungfeld. His tongue was bitten off by a Turk in a grog house
fight.Homer: No tongue, eh? How did he talk and eat [melodramatically] and
laugh and love?Lisa: He had it replaced with a prosthetic tongue made out of silver.
Homer: Yes, that’ll do.
In an effort to clear her name and bring truth forward, Lisa leads a small group of concerned citizens to the former leader’s grave. The group exhumes the body of the dead leader searching for the evidence to validate Lisa’s claims. It’s not there.
Wiggum: Well, that settles it. There is no silver tongue… is there,
bonesy?[takes Jebediah's skull and uses it as a dummy]
[as skull] Oh, I wish chief. With that kind of dough, I could
buy me some eyeballs! [laughs]That’s the spirit, bonesy. Why don’t you sing a song for
the nice people?[as skull] Okay! Camptown ladies sing this song, doo-dah
doo-dah, Camptown races five miles long…
Lisa eventually discovers the historian that was so reluctant to believe her claims had covered up the truth by removing the evidence before the group could see it. Lisa has her proof; the beloved leader was a charlatan and a liar.
Lisa decides to reveal her findings to the whole town during the parade celebrating the beloved leader. As she stands in front of the happy throngs of people who have looked to this man as a symbol of good and truth and righteousness, a man who they have based so much of their collective and personal histories on, she can’t bring herself to reveal her findings and instead gives her support to the parade. And what about Homer and his town crier role?
Ned: Well, hey, it’s Homer. Good to see you, neigh–
[Homer pushes him and takes his bell]
Homer: Get lost!
[rings the bell]
Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye!Helen: He is not the official town crier! Police, do something!
Wiggum: Well, I’d like to, ma’am, but he’s too damn good!
Let him march, boys. Let the man march!
I left the details a little vague in an effort to hammer the similarity a little harder, but this episode seems to very accurately portray the path of a NOM. You replace “beloved leader” with “beloved prophet” and “exhumed his body” with “counted how many wives he had” and you pretty much have my story exactly.
Some critics (if one can refer to people who leave comments on message boards as “critics”) have expressed distaste with this particular episode on the basis of Lisa’s decision to suppress the truth in favor of a positive role model for her fellow Springfieldians. The decision of one character can never equal the moral of the entire show, but Lisa has very often been the ethicist of The Simpsons. If she decides it is wrong to steal cable, then it BECOMES wrong to steal cable (Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment Season 2 Episode 13). Her actions alone cause Homer to give up the thing he wants most in the world (for that episode, for like the rest of us, Homer’s desires will not be tethered) even though people like Marge and Reverend Lovejoy support him. In this way we can see that if Lisa had really put her mind to it, really exercised her place in the community, she could have eventually convinced a good amount of Springfield that the character upon which they had built their whole moral foundation was nothing but a silver tongued pirate.
Lisa always tries to act in a moral manner. Her actions are rarely selfish. Even in season 3 Episode 8 “Lisa’s Pony” she gives up the one thing she wants most because it requires too much sacrifice from a dad who hasn’t always sacrificed enough for hs daughter. And from time to time her decisions are decidedly misinformed and end up doing more harm than good like in the 1st Tree-house of Horror from Season 2 when the family is kidnapped by Aliens and Lisa unveils the Aliens’ plot to eat them (the Simpsons) based on the evidence of a cookbook that looks to be titled “How to prepare humans” but through a series of dust removals is later revealed to be titled “How to prepare for 50 humans”. Her accusations cost the Simpsons a life of fulfillment on a paradisiacal planet. So that was bad.
But Lisa very rarely considers the consequences of her actions. Te reason “Lisa the Iconoclast” is such a powerful episode for her character is the whole episode finds her temed up with (instead of pitted against) Homer. In the begining of the episode he says “You always end up being right about these things. this time I want to get in at the ground floor.” Lisa is happyto have the support, but her actions end up hurting and not helping the person who loves her most. Homer’s trust and accfeptance of his daughter puts agreater responsibility on her.
The question remains, did Lisa make the correct decision? Is it better to leave people in what you consider to be a blissful state of ignorance, or is it better to pull them kicking and screaming out of the cave and force them to look directly at the sun? Lisa’s tragic flaw is her hubris. As some book of scripture says somewhere, “Once men know a little something they think they are wise, but they’re not that wise.”
Lisa’s desire to know the truth and the ability to see where it should and shouldn’t be enforced make her a perfect representative of what a New Order Mormon should be. But most of all she should be admired for her love of her family and her desire to see them happy and fulfilled, be it as a well informed lover of truth or as the best daned town crier Springfield has ever seen.
I just read Blink, a book by Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point.
This is a fun, fascinating book. The central thesis- our minds can reach accurate conclusions about many things in a matter of seconds (most of the time). Making snap judgments is not a bad thing- we should rely on initial impressions and intuition more often.
Many of the impressions described in the book parallel testimony meeting experiences with the Holy Ghost.
Summarized from the intro chapter in Blink:
“The Getty museum was considering buying an ancient Greek sculpture. After 13 months of evaluation and testing by scientists and lawyers, they felt confident in their purchase of it for $10 million. Then they started bringing in Greek art/history experts. Each expert had a different feeling, such as repulsion or nausea when they looked at it. They knew it was a fake, literally within a second or two of looking at it. Additional clues were discovered that proved it was a forgery.”
This is a really great article, and a perfect one to end the year on as middle-way Mormons/semi-religious folk.
“Andrew Sullivan on the rise of fundamentalism and why embracing spiritual doubt is the key to defusing the tension between East and West.”
Check it out, return, and report.
When I joined the Church in 1979, I was told that I could depend upon my spiritual senses to tell me if the things I was reading and being taught were true. I was told I could ask God, and I would know of the truthfulness of the restored Gospel by a burning in the bosom or a peaceful feeling. I have taught basically the same principle as a missionary and to my children. I was reminded of these teachings as I read from Deepak Chopra’s recent book, “Power, Freedom, and Grace.” Chopra writes:
Listen to your body’s wisdom. Become aware of the sensations in your body, and you will know the whole cosmos, because the whole cosmos is experienced as sensations in your body. In reality, these sensations are the voice of spirit…
The next time you need to make a decision, rather than trying to understand it intellectually, pay attention to the sensations of comfort or discomfort in your body, and go with your intuitive feelings. Intellectual understanding is all right, but it’s not always the ultimate test of whether you’re making the right decision. Before making a choice, ask your body, How do you feel about this? If your body sends a signal of comfort and eagerness, proceed. If your body sends a signal of physical or emotional distress, watch out.
Now, certainly there are some caveats to this advice. When I decided to join the Church I realized that, as a minister’s daughter, there would be repercussions. Contemplating this, I did feel some emotional distress. But on the whole, my feelings told me to proceed. I felt excitement and peace.
If we can trust our feelings and the physical sensations of our body to tell us to proceed into baptism into the Church, can we not trust it to tell us when to stay and when to go? There will surely be difficult times in our membership. There will be times we are offended and hurt. There will be times we are bored. There may be times of disillusionment. There may be a loss of faith. These times require patience and prayer. I do not feel these are the times to decide to go. Emotions are often difficult to read.
But I do believe there may be times when our body and spirit may be trusted to tell us if something is damaging, and we need to back away for a while, either temporarily or permanently.
Have spiritual feelings played a part in your decisions to stay or leave the Church? Can one trust one’s spiritual feelings when one no longer believes many of the traditional Mormon teachings?
I sat in choir practice this morning pondering how slightly odd it seemed for me to go to the trouble to wake myself and the children up so early, to get to the chapel by 8am, to rehearse for a Christmas choir program–in spite of the fact that I don’t even really consider myself to be a literal believer in the traditional view of the atonement/resurrection, or even in the anthropomorphic nature of God.
Notwithstanding, I was absolutely in love with the experience. Sitting up in the stands w/ fellow ward members. Joking between songs. Singing about God and the Savior’s love. Pondering the teachings of Jesus, and his example/sacrifice for me. Feeling a deep sense of love, peace, and joy.
I’d rather play at hug o’ war,
Where everyone hugs
Instead of tugs….
~Shel Silverstein
The religious premise behind Christmas is a gift. A gift given freely because of love. And so it continues with us, religiously, we are commanded to love (1 John 4 outlines this beautifully).
For those of us who’s traditional views of Christmas have changed, the premise to love one another hopefully remains. We humans need it, every one of us. There are few things as meaningful as an expression of pure love given without condition.
Continue reading ‘Need a gift idea? Wrap a person in a hug.’
Deep Mormon heritage is often listed as a significant reason why NOMs choose to stay involved in the church. It’s certainly a major factor for me. But every 24th of July, when we drive two hours South to celebrate the holiday with my in-laws in the tiny Mormon town of Kanosh, Utah, I’m reminded in no uncertain terms that in the Mormon world there’s heritage—and then there’s Heritage.
I believe that “O Be Wise,” by Elder M. Russell Ballard from the October 2006 LDS General Conference, will go down as one of the most important “modernizing” talks ever given by an LDS General Authority–if anyone actually pays attention.
This talk was absolutely groundbreaking to me. Please allow me to provide a few examples:
Continue reading ‘“O Be Wise,” or Praise be to Elder Ballard’
I grew up marginally active in a Christian church believing all people were wicked sinners deserving of God’s eternal wrath. Even those who did not consciously choose to sin were sinning in some way or other all the time because of their fallen state. We were all a mighty lucky bunch that God took pity and let Jesus die for us because we’re vile little creatures. This is what I was taught and this is what I struggled with. It’s hard to feel good about oneself let alone the concept of life in general under that banner.
When I took the missionary discussions, the sisters showed me a scripture that has stayed with me ever since.
“Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy.”
-2 Nephi 2:25
I was amazed. What a concept! It was a startling paradigm shift. Continue reading ‘joie de vivre’
On behalf of theculturalhall.com permabloggers, I/we must begin by thanking all of you (posters and commenters alike) for your interest in, and support of theculturalhall.com. Both the growth and the level of conversation so far has exceeded my/our fondest hopes.
As we’ve matured and evolved a bit, it’s clear to me us it’s now time to formalize a comment policy for theculturalhall.com.
DISCLAIMER – This post contains facts about my life that you might not want to know if you are, for example, my mom. Just a warning. Also I apologize for the gratuitous use of metaphors.
Like a lot of youngins who leave the church I found myself pulling out of Super Strict Rule City onto the Do Whatever The Hell You Want Expressway. I threw the WoW out the window and let the sexual standards slide back as I revved my free will and headed towards freedom.
Anyone heard of Joseph Campbell, or a book entitled “The Pagan Christ?” I have a really, really smart cousin who recommended it to me, so I must recommend it to you.
There is a Joseph Campbell Quote that he gave me last week that has really stuck with me: “Myth is what never was, but always is.”
I went to Testimony meeting for the first time in a long while today. It was nice. I used to cringe every time TM rolled around because I felt like the things said from the pulpit somehow where completely tied with my own beliefs. Any time anyone said something I disagreed with (which was getting to be more and more things) I would cringe and make a joke to whatever poor person had sit next to me. (Well “poor person” might be a bit of an overstatement. My testimony taunting, while admittedly ruthless, is hilarious.)
Now when I listen to testimonies, the things I don’t agree with don’t matter. They are such interesting looks linto very private moments of the lives of people. It’s a really great experience to listen to them.
This week my mom asked me to send my missionary sister a letter about my testimony of the savior. I wracked my brains on this a little. Continue reading ‘A Testimony’
My Home, by Rockapella and the Persuasions
On a recent Speaking of Faith episode, The Spirituality of Parenting, (Read more and listen here.), Rabbi Sandy Sasso discussed the challenges of people from a variety of points on the spiritual spectrum fostering their children’s spirituality and answering the tough questions. Though I’m not a parent, I found all of it relevent to my own spiritual journey and experiences. One particular quote from Rabbi Sasso stood out to me:
“Don’t let the people who gave you a bad impression of your religious tradion be the only ones to define it. You, too, are a part of that tradition and you’re not just a descendant, you’re also an ancestor and you helped to create the future of that tradition.”
Continue reading ‘Musings From “The Spirituality of Parenting”’
Have you ever wondered what your calling was? I’m not speaking of a calling you recieve from your local priesthood leader, but a vocation—some special pursuit toward which your unique talents and desires orient you.
A scene from Galaxy Quest– the crew of the spaceship, who are really the cast of an old science fiction show, pressed into service as a real spaceship crew, is watching a group of cute little blue aliens come out from a tunnel….
Gwen: Oh, they’re so cute.
Guy: Of course they’re cute NOW. But in a second they’re going to turn MEAN and UGLY somehow and then there are going to be a million MORE of them!
Continue reading ‘But words can break my heart…’
Today’s lesson in RS and Priesthood in my ward was on David Bednar’s infamous “be not offended” talk from October General Conference. Since I don’t attend General Conference or read the Ensign, I had only heard about this talk second hand, and the reviews were not flattering.
My husband was teaching the high priests, and we had some vigorous discussion about the lesson on Friday night and again yesterday. My DH is no apologist, but you don’t teach the high priests unless you have a faithful perspective on things. The discussion with him left me eager to attend the lesson today.
Some of you may have heard of the term “The Middle Way” within a Mormon context. It denotes (to me) a rejection of the notion that you must either be a TBM (True Believing, Literalist Mormon) or an ex-Mormon. It means staying active within the LDS church, while not necessarily accepting all of the doctrinal or cultural teachings. And to be clear–for me, it does NOT denote a requirement of staying silent on the most important issues.
In this excellent RadioWest interview,
Continue reading ‘Facing East–Carol Lynn Pearson as a Pioneering, “Middle Way” Mormon’
A Thanksgiving thought, by Gibran Khalil Gibran (props to my friend Abbass):
“See first that you deserve to be a giver, and an instrument of giving.
For in truth it is life that gives unto life – while you, who deem yourself a giver, are but a witness.
And you receivers – and you are all receivers- assume no weight of gratitude, lest you lay a yoke upon yourself and upon him who gives.
Rather rise together with the giver on his gifts as on wings;
For to be overmindful of your debt is to doubt his generosity who has the free-hearted earth for mother, and God the father
I have a new calling. I’m the chorister. Yeah, I know; nobody pays attention to the chorister unless she stands at the front and yells, “Sing, you idiots! Sing!” But I really enjoy it anyway, mostly because I get to pick the music.
Yesterday’s songs were all Thanksgiving songs. The opening was “Prayer of Thanksgiving,” a traditional song from the Netherlands, ca. 1626. It has stood the test of time. I particularly enjoy singing traditional Protestant and Catholic songs; flashbacks to my childhood and to my brief sojourn among the Methodists five years ago.
Every week someone emails or calls me, and asks me why/how I stay in the LDS church–as a non-traditional, non-literal believer. Last week, during a dinner with 2 good friends, I tried to distill my thinking down to something very simple. Here’s what I came up with.
Continue reading ‘If you’re gonna leave the church…..and why I stay.’
Recent Comments