Categories
culture life religion thoughts

Daily Religious Observances

3040858085_1fac0bd99b_z
Photo by Eric Angelo

If there is one thing that sets apart spiritually stable people from spiritually unsteady people it is their participation in daily religious observances. It doesn’t matter what religion they belong to – it matters whether they willingly and consistently engage in personal acts of devotion. I got thinking about this after reading a comment from Peter Rival on this thread:

A parish that doesn’t nurture mid-week Mass attendance is one that will quickly see other practices fall to the wayside as well.

Categories
religion

The Truth of Prosperity Theology

3987407022_d93900c58f_o

Photo by Alpha Lim

More and more among spiritually attuned people I hear warnings against the dangers and falsehoods found in prosperity theology. If I were inexperienced in my spiritual and theological awakening I would think this was some new cancer entering the culture of Christianity. The truth is that prosperity theology isn’t new. An internet search on the subject will bring up the idea that it has been around for 60 or 70 years. (see Wikipedia) The truth is that such doctrine has been around for thousands of years – popping up from time to time as circumstances make it effective in drawing followers. I personally suspect that if you knew where to look in any prosperous society in history you would soon uncover some variant of the prosperity gospel.

Categories
culture religion

Wholesome Views on Modesty

The post: Seeing a Woman: A conversation between a father and son got me thinking about how daughters should be taught about modesty and personal responsibility. Nate Pyle nailed the fact that boys need to take responsibility for their thoughts and actions with regard to women regardless of how the women dress.

Categories
religion thoughts

Asking Questions within the Divine Institution of the Lord’s Church

Asking vs Advocating

Supporters of Kate Kelly love to repeat the claim that “she was only asking a question.” They consistently assert that she was a faithful member of the church and would have been satisfied if President Monson had prayed about whether women should receive the priesthood and then shared the outcome of that inquiry. All of this is meant to emphasize that her choice to agitate for change was simply an attempt to make herself heard and not an indication of her being doubtful of the person she acknowledges to be the Lord’s appointed mouthpiece today. Let’s examine that assertion.

While I will examine this assertion of supporting the prophet with a focus on the Kate Kelly situation I hope that readers can recognize that this exercise in examining the implications of what it means to sustain him and how that relates to our actual actions. I would also like to explicitly acknowledge that there are times when we must be vocal in order to affect change. The issue I am dealing with is how to recognize the boundary between advocacy and apostasy.

Categories
religion thoughts

The Only Possible Answer

In the Old Testament there is a fascinating story about two and a half tribes from the 12 tribes of Israel.  These two and a half tribes (Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh) were promised an inheritance by Moses that lay outside the promised land on the condition that their men would not reside there until the remaining tribes had taken possession of their inheritance lands in the promised land.

When Joshua took Moses’ place as the leader of Israel and was preparing to take the people across the Jordan River into the promised land he called the leaders of those tribes and reminded them of their promise to Moses. They responded by saying:

All that thou commandest us we will do, and whithersoever thou sendest us, we will go. (Joshua 1:12)

As I read that response I realized that if they truly believed that Joshua had authority from God to speak for God to them there was no other answer they could have given. Any other answer to be given would be an indication that they did not truly believe that Joshua had the authority to speak the word of God for them.

Categories
culture life religion

Religious Obedience

I was listening to a talk today in sacrament meeting where the speaker was putting great emphasis on the fact that the leaders of the LDS church seek for members to obey their leaders out of understanding rather than blindly obeying. I’m confident that most people would concede that this is the ideal for any organization. The question that came to my mind was – in cases where someone has not gained an understanding regarding why they have been asked to do something, would church leaders prefer blind obedience or would they prefer inaction from those who do not understand?

I know some people would find that question easy to answer – those who view church leaders as power-hungry would argue that they would obviously prefer blind obedience in all cases where understanding has not been attained. Since I do not see the leaders of the church as seekers of power I don’t believe that absolute answer. I would think that they would prefer blind obedience only when inaction was identical to opposition. Otherwise it seems that seeking to understand would be of greater importance in most cases than ignorant obedience.

Of course in seeking to understand there is the counsel from the Lord that “If any man will do his will (obey), he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I (whoever is declaring the doctrine or commandment) speak of myself. ” (John 7:17) This suggests that seeking for understanding would require obedience to those things that you do understand as well as an eyes-wide-open test, through action (obedient action being the assumption), in order to gain understanding of whatever the leaders are saying that you do not understand yet. The question is, is that blind obedience, or is that simply a logical, clinical test? I think of it as a clinical test.