Clarification so as to be clear.

[Gadianton]

.AND post-mortal opportunity where luck isn’t the final word,

The problem with this is that your stop-gaps are doing far more work than the plan itself. Only a handful of people will ever hear of Mormonism in this life, let alone have a set of circumstances that gives them a perfectly fair chance to accept it. The real plan happens in the afterlife, when time is unlimited and so there is plenty of time in principle for everyone to have the chances they need. The Mormon plan of salvation is the perfect example of a few boys in a treehouse plotting world takeover, and thinking their tree fort has some kind of major significance to the world.

Jesus said that where much is given much is expected and that he that is greatest among you let him be a/your servant. You folks keep saying that being born into the LDS Church is some kind of 'elitist' kind of thing where members feel as though they are better than their neighbor. This just isn't true. If the message of the CofJCofLDS is indeed true then members have an obligation to serve their fellow man

As you've said, you grew up a beach bum in Southern CA, had a life pretty smooth sailing in Utah, and do a lot of biking and swimming with a little service here and there. I'd be interested to see by what standard your life has been one of excellence compared to the typical person of your social economic class who isn't Mormon.

it's not the car...it's the road traveled

Like I said earlier, the only sensible conclusions are that all religions are false, or that all religions are true -- all religions can be true in existentialism.
Once you understand what you just wrote, you can see why people don't need to become Mormon.

[MG 2.0]

I think that you are trivializing the experiences and commitment of other people.

Not necessarily, although I would say, again, that these "experiences and commitments" are the result of personal choices made or not made. Active members of the church attend church every week on Sunday and may also serve at other times during the week. Church service and commitment are based upon covenantal relationships that a person has made between them and God. Covenantal relationships are a strong motivator to keep up with the commitments to serve over the long haul.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I think that you are trivializing the experiences and commitment of other people.

Not necessarily, although I would say, again, that these "experiences and commitments" are the result of personal choices made or not made. Active members of the church attend church every week on Sunday and may also serve at other times during the week. Church service and commitment are based upon covenantal relationships that a person has made between them and God. Covenantal relationships are a strong motivator to keep up with the commitments to serve over the long haul...

This is why I continue to think the mental gymnast is only here to troll. No legitimate thinking adult would argue that the only people on the planet who make commitments, and behave consistently with those commitments, are the people in his miniscule Mormon church. Even if we broaden this to believers in general, it's still laughable to think that only those who believe in a supernatural being are motivated, committed, etc. And the fact that he rules out completely people who make 'personal' choices is just silly.

Mentalgymnast has developed a troll character who has disparaged and despised people out of his church for decades, and he's found a perfect vehicle here. In the end though, if he is not a troll, and he sincerely believes and merely exemplifies the extreme stereotyping and bigotry of his religion, then his posts here are an indictment of way of life required in the LDS church that rivals any other criticism.

[sock puppet]

Mentalgymnast has developed a troll character who has disparaged and despised people out of his church for decades, and he's found a perfect vehicle here. In the end though, if he is not a troll, and he sincerely believes and merely exemplifies the extreme stereotyping and bigotry of his religion, then his posts here are an indictment of way of life required in the LDS church that rivals any other criticism.

This.

[Rivendale]

Not necessarily, although I would say, again, that these "experiences and commitments" are the result of personal choices made or not made. Active members of the church attend church every week on Sunday and may also serve at other times during the week. Church service and commitment are based upon covenantal relationships that a person has made between them and God. Covenantal relationships are a strong motivator to keep up with the commitments to serve over the long haul...

This is why I continue to think the mental gymnast is only here to troll. No legitimate thinking adult would argue that the only people on the planet who make commitments, and behave consistently with those commitments, are the people in his miniscule Mormon church. Even if we broaden this to believers in general, it's still laughable to think that only those who believe in a supernatural being are motivated, committed, etc. And the fact that he rules out completely people who make 'personal' choices is just silly.

Mentalgymnast has developed a troll character who has disparaged and despised people out of his church for decades, and he's found a perfect vehicle here. In the end though, if he is not a troll, and he sincerely believes and merely exemplifies the extreme stereotyping and bigotry of his religion, then his posts here are an indictment of way of life required in the LDS church that rivals any other criticism.

Nothing, absolutely nothing is out of bounds to defend the church. Alyssa Grenfell had body image problems. People who struggle to gain faith are in some sort of spiritual autism. The horrific history is a series of moving parts that are only understood through synchronicity. Joseph's constant immortality is blamed on the victims. It is a testament to Steven Weinberg's quote..."With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion".

[malkie]

I think that you are trivializing the experiences and commitment of other people.

Not necessarily, although I would say, again, that these "experiences and commitments" are the result of personal choices made or not made. Active members of the church attend church every week on Sunday and may also serve at other times during the week. Church service and commitment are based upon covenantal relationships that a person has made between them and God. Covenantal relationships are a strong motivator to keep up with the commitments to serve over the long haul.

Regards,
MG

When I said that I thought you were trivializing the experiences and commitment of other people, I should have expected that you would double down, but I didn't - silly me!

I'll try to remember this example in the future.

[malkie]

Thank you for sharing that so openly.

I can see, and appreciate as an “investigator,” how being on both sides of that line has led to an understanding very few—if any—people outside of the church has.

The “bishop roulette” comment strikes at the center of what I’ve been trying to understand. The idea darkly captures the gap between personal judgment and institutional standard, where what’s considered “worthy” is subject to a person who happens to be sitting across a desk but represents access to God. As I’ve said, I’m distrustful of any human having that kind of ecclesiastical power. Your story even confirms that distrust—sometimes you didn’t feel worthy yourself, so how could you be responsible for anyone else’s access? And that isn’t applicable to you alone—I don’t think any human could or should fill that role, myself included.

This is all going back several decades, so you should naturally consider how memories evolve over a period of time, and tend to favour the rememberer

Shortly after I was called as Branch President, I phoned my District President with that same problem: how was I, a fallible human, to pass judgment on my branch members. I was one of the youngest adults in the branch, and one of the newest members. He said I should just accept the responsibility and do my best, and let God take care of the details.

So I did do what I thought was my best at the time. Some years later, after I had emigrated from Scotland, I was reminded, through a couple of conversations on the branch Facebook page, that I was far from popular as a "leader". But I didn't see being called as a popularity contest. If you're interested, I'll relate the details as I remember them, though it is a bit painful.

What stands out most in what you said is that feeling worthy and being declared worthy can be entirely different experiences. It is remarkable to me that one person could be both the declarer and receiver of that pronouncement simultaneously.

Here's a true story that I think illustrates the difference between the internal feeling and the institutional declaration. It also highlights the way that the person making the judgment, though supposedly equitably applying the rules of the organization, can let personal preferences not just put a thumb on the scale, but almost glue one side to the table.

One day I asked the District Pres if he would interview me for the renewal of my temple recommend. My expectation, of course, was that we would arrange a convenient time and place, so I was astounded when he said no, he would not interview me. He explained that his "boss" in the hierarchy, the Mission President, had said that no priesthood leader in the district would be interviewed, never mind given a recommend, unless they were clean shaven. Unfortunately I was not, having had a beard and moustache for pretty much all of my adult life. The next day I asked again, but this time the beard & moustache were nowhere to be seen.

When I attended the temple a couple of months later there were lots of men with beards (I didn't check the women), confirming that the "rule" being imposed was no more that the Mission Pres's preference.

I suppose you could say that I was no different with and without the facial hair, but you could also justify the view that I had passed a "test" of obedience. OTOH, my wife, who had never known me without the beard, was not at all happy, for quite some time.

I’ve been studying what I see as an evolution of a theological construct within the Book of Mormon beginning with Alma but adapted through the course of the book. There is a tension between justice and mercy that the book tries to resolve, but it ultimately results in a theology of compassionate imitation—to be like God is to be subject to and enforce rules, but to “act” mercifully.

I could/should have learned from that idea

From your story it isn’t clear if you had been “acting” throughout, but I’d be curious if you’d describe that understanding of the teaching similarly, and if my understanding rings true based on your experience having lived on both sides of that line.

My first thoughts are that I was conspicuously unsuccessful at the "mercy" part. However, I think it's a powerful idea, and worthy of serious consideration.

After a few years as Branch President I was "promoted" (ugh!!) to First Counselor in the District Presidency, so at least as far as the organization was concerned I seemed to be doing OK. Who knows, if we hadn't come to Canada I might have risen to District President - or beyond!!

[Limnor]

If you're interested, I'll relate the details as I remember them, though it is a bit painful.

Thank you for offering to share, but please only do so if it feels okay, I’d never want to add to the hurt. But if talking about it helps, I’ll listen.

I suppose you could say that I was no different with and without the facial hair, but you could also justify the view that I had passed a "test" of obedience. OTOH, my wife, who had never known me without the beard, was not at all happy, for quite some time.

This really confirms what has always made me uneasy about those kinds of “tests,” how quickly someone’s personal preference can be mistaken for God’s.

That story really says a lot about how a leader’s personal taste can suddenly turn into divine decree. This confirms by longstanding belief that no one should stand between a person and their relationship with God, beard or no beard, and is a good example of how these “tests” reveal more about the tester than the tested.

How could you independently confirm that “test” was one directed by God? I suppose you could say you received a witness that it was from God, but how could you know if that witness was reliable?

The part about not checking the women actually made me laugh out loud.

learned from that idea…My first thoughts are that I was conspicuously unsuccessful at the "mercy" part. However, I think it's a powerful idea, and worthy of serious consideration.

I appreciate that, but I probably should clarify that when I said “acting,” I actually did mean pretending. The way the book frames it, mercy often starts as performance: a person is told to imitate it, maybe even fake it, until it becomes something real. That’s what I find so striking: that compassion can be more rehearsal than a real expression from the heart.

I think the book—and maybe the church, I am not sure as I have no experiential evidence to support that view—encourages “mercy as performance” more so than a genuine expression of mercy.

One example is found here:

Alma 1 17 Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.

I realize this is framed as a “bad guy” doing so, but this method is consistent throughout the book.

And in Alma 32, the faith begins by “desiring to believe,” through what I see as a performative act, and not a true “changing of the heart.”

Across these episodes, the Book of Mormon consistently portrays faith, mercy, and charity as habits of imitation. A person is told to begin by acting as if the ideal were true, sometimes even pretending, and in doing so, becomes the thing desired.

Belief in the Book of Mormon is almost always learned by doing, and doing begins, quite literally, as pretending.

Who knows, if we hadn't come to Canada I might have risen to District President - or beyond!!

I’m actually glad you didn’t.

[MG 2.0]

Not necessarily, although I would say, again, that these "experiences and commitments" are the result of personal choices made or not made. Active members of the church attend church every week on Sunday and may also serve at other times during the week. Church service and commitment are based upon covenantal relationships that a person has made between them and God. Covenantal relationships are a strong motivator to keep up with the commitments to serve over the long haul.

Regards,
MG

When I said that I thought you were trivializing the experiences and commitment of other people, I should have expected that you would double down, but I didn't - silly me!

I'll try to remember this example in the future.

Covenant theology such as that found in the LDS Church gives structure and spiritual weight to service, it’s not just about doing good, but about fulfilling a sacred promise to God. That said, I don’t believe that commitment outside that framework is trivial. People make profound sacrifices for causes, communities, and beliefs that matter deeply to them, and I respect that.

All I've done is try and articulate what makes LDS commitment/service distinct, not necessarily superior. I'm hoping that this might bring further clarification that might help resolve what you see as a problem.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I suppose you could say that I was no different with and without the facial hair, but you could also justify the view that I had passed a "test" of obedience. OTOH, my wife, who had never known me without the beard, was not at all happy, for quite some time.

Unfortunate. Years ago while working as an educator I worked part time on the security staff at an LDS temple. During that time the grooming standards changed for male temple workers in that they could no longer have beards. At the time I thought that was like way weird.

Jesus had, and I would imagine still has, a beard. Although I would hazard a guess, he keeps it well cared for and within Godly standards.

One of life's great mysteries is why a beard on a resurrected individual would even need a trimming now and then...but I digress.

Regards,
MG