bcspace wrote:I think anyone who thinks the Church heaps shame on people is neither a TBM or spiritually mature. Not saying (yet) that anyone here is, but one who seeks to subvert the CHI or other doctrines or policies or operate outside them when they address the situation directly is not qualified to be a bishop and is not even a believer by any stretch of the imagination.
Anyone who says the Church doesn't use shame, guilt, and fear is spiritually blind. Wake up man! Without fear the church doesn't motivate people at all.
Anyone who says the Church doesn't use shame, guilt, and fear is spiritually blind. Wake up man! Without fear the church doesn't motivate people at all
Where or when did I say any of those things? Guilt and shame are an integral part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church merely does not add to it as the Gospel (when actually taught) applies it in the correct amount. One could certainly go in the opposite direction by telling us "that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime." Alma 30:17
So I would say to you, wake up! and study the Gospel which is before our eyes and yet the unrighteous take the truth to be hard. You are supposed to feel guilt and shame for sin which, if one were humble, would motivate one to repent. But if one is not humble, it motivates to rebellion; hence the sin of pride. How many times in the scriptures, the Gospel one pretends to know, does God/Jesus/the prophets call us to repent? Numerous times.
So I have no sympathy at all for those who rail against guilt and shame and claim they have not sinned when they have and teach others to do the same.
bcspace wrote:So I would say to you, wake up! and study the Gospel which is before our eyes and yet the unrighteous take the truth to be hard. You are supposed to feel guilt and shame for sin which, if one were humble, would motivate one to repent. But if one is not humble, it motivates to rebellion; hence the sin of pride. How many times in the scriptures, the Gospel one pretends to know, does God/Jesus/the prophets call us to repent? Numerous times.
So I have no sympathy at all for those who rail against guilt and shame and claim they have not sinned when they have and teach others to do the same.
I can agree with you to a large degree but sometimes we make a mountain out of a molehill. For example, drinking coffee is something that could warrant having a temple recommend taken away. If the sinfull coffee drinker would simply replace their terribly sinfull act with drinking Dr. Pepper then they could get a temple recommend. "scratches head" it just does not look or feel right to me.
Zelder wrote: I can agree with you to a large degree but sometimes we make a mountain out of a molehill. For example, drinking coffee is something that could warrant having a temple recommend taken away. If the sinfull coffee drinker would simply replace their terribly sinfull act with drinking Dr. Pepper then they could get a temple recommend. "scratches head" it just does not look or feel right to me.
The temperature at which one drinks their caffeine has a lot to do with whether or not they are sinning.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
bcspace wrote:Where or when did I say any of those things? Guilt and shame are an integral part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Church merely does not add to it as the Gospel (when actually taught) applies it in the correct amount. One could certainly go in the opposite direction by telling us "that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime." Alma 30:17
So I would say to you, wake up! and study the Gospel which is before our eyes and yet the unrighteous take the truth to be hard. You are supposed to feel guilt and shame for sin which, if one were humble, would motivate one to repent. But if one is not humble, it motivates to rebellion; hence the sin of pride. How many times in the scriptures, the Gospel one pretends to know, does God/Jesus/the prophets call us to repent? Numerous times.
So I have no sympathy at all for those who rail against guilt and shame and claim they have not sinned when they have and teach others to do the same.
You're speaking to a fearless man, Space. Once I rid myself of fear, I rid myself of a need for the Mormon church. I don't fear death, hell, the devil, or God. What could your church possibly offer me?
bcspace wrote:I think anyone who thinks the Church heaps shame on people is neither a TBM or spiritually mature. Not saying (yet) that anyone here is, but one who seeks to subvert the CHI or other doctrines or policies or operate outside them when they address the situation directly is not qualified to be a bishop and is not even a believer by any stretch of the imagination.
Well you would be wrong. I was a TBM at the time I was called to be a bishop. And your opinion about this demonstrates your spiritual immaturity. The church excels at using shame. It is a simple fact. But I have noted here before that based on your dogmatic attitude about politics and worthiness as well as your ever willingness to excommunicate has made me hope you have never have that authority. I fear that you do or have however. As for the CHI as a bishop I followed it well. Not sure how that came up.
More terrible advice. A good Bishop will be creative within the bounds the Lord has set in the CHI.
Awful attitude to take -- "A good Bishop will be creative within the bounds the Lord has set". I think you've extended ideas in "other ceremonies" far too much with that quote. There is nothing worse than a manual thumping leader who isn't wise enough to recognize when the CHI doesn't cover unique situations. I've worked alongside these people, and you know what you get? The same old non-results you got previously. The best Ward I served in was a with a Bishop who knew when to do something new, and when to stay with the guidelines set by the CHI.
And remember, the CHI has a ton of "weasel words" in it which give leaders flexibility such as "normally" "usually" etcetera. The fact that is says these words allows leaders to address situations that don't fit the manual.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I did not make everyone happy but I think most appreciated my efforts.
I sure hope the ultimate judge is God, not the Church membership. We often rightfully point out the fallibility of human Church leaders. Are we foolish enough to think the majority of the membership is not equally if not more fallible?
I don't believe the law should be judged and changed based on whether or not it produces the immediate desired results. In fact the true law should not be subject to change at all. It is what it is. We can choose to live it and enforce it or we can choose to say that it is something it is not. But we cannot change it, nor can we change the ultimate consequences of this law even if we disagree with it, even if the majority of the world disagrees with it.
And when the confederates saw Jackson standing fearless as a stone wall the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
bcspace wrote: The merciful quality is fine, but coupled with the reasoning that the Church somehow heaps shame on people means that this was probably not a very good bishop.
Mercy is one of the core divine Christ like attributes. If more LDS leaders understood this and applied it the church members would be much happier. As for the church and shame it was clear to me even as a TBM that the church used this tools excessively. Of course it takes someone that has a bit of spiritual maturity to see this as well as someone who does not simply operate by blind faith. As for whether I was a good bishop or not I will let the members of my ward judge that. I did not make everyone happy but I think most appreciated my efforts. I know many since have told me this missed having me as their bishop. I am fairly satisfied with my service. I was not perfect and made lots of mistakes and would do some things differently if I could go back.
Having served as a bishop twice I heartily agree with Jason. To me the day pharasaic rigidity Trump's mercy and compassion is a sad day. You really have to be there to appreciate the role of a bishop. Like Jason I was certainly not a perfect bishop and did not make everyone happy but I tried to show as much love and mercy as possible. I know I helped some individuals with serious issues who have expressed their sincere gratitude to me since. When I stand at judgement some day I hope those people will be there to put in a good word for me.