Church Is Wild, Y’All

 Caught a bus, made it to church on time, super proud of myself. Also forgot it was May 1st and, therefore, Fast Sunday, and had yogurt before leaving the house (but not the candy bar - Bounty! - in my bag). Slightly less proud of myself, but not cranky. So.

The meeting was a little bit crazy. The accompanist is highly talented and overdramatic; it’s not a BAD thing to play the hymns as written! People can sing the parts to the music when you do! (FYI, floppy-haired drama piano dude.) One of the first testimonies was from an older gentleman (my age? Urgh) with a fantastic beard who talked like a preacher from the early 1900’s. I’m fairly certain that one is not meant to preach to or ‘exhort’ the congregation while bearing testimony. Love the British accent, though. A slightly more confusing accent was up next; he looked like a Spaniard and greeted us in Spanish but his English bore traces of Scottish (verified when he talked about dedicating the ground to bury his father’s ashes in the garden of his mother’s house in Scotland). Great story: he talked about how this experience showed him his family is afraid of inspiration, and testified that following the Spirit is actually a revolutionary concept. The things we take for granted are definitely strange and new, sometimes!

Then an elderly man in a motorized wheelchair came up the aisle, shoved a stroller out of the way that was (literally) in the spot he wanted to ‘park’ in next to a bench, and proceeded to run over a little girl’s foot (twice) while trying to navigate the chair to where he wanted it. He had no idea - at least not until she started wailing. He caught on at that point.

An earnest young man said, as part of his testimony: “I believe in righteousness.” I haven’t thought all the way through that yet, but I love it.

It seemed like almost everyone who got up mentioned when they had been baptized, and a few counted down the anniversary. Justin was visiting from Arizona (he invited everyone to come visit him in the States) talked about a time he was having “a discouraging, but not disheartening, experience”, and I thought that was so profound. Adds some perspective, and a measure of control, even when we’re having some of our hardest times, yeah? He went on to talk about how the Lord is always mindful of us and the things we’re going through. Then a young dad got up, and mentioned how, during an episode of sadness he had the (very normal) thought: “This too shall pass.” However, he was then edited by the Spirit, which revised the thought to: “This too is a gift.” He said that every moment of this life is a gift; it has literally been given to us. Then he bore testimony of the gifts of the Lord and the Spirit and I thought: what about giving all the moments of our own lives as a gift to our Heavenly Father? Give Him the happy moments to share, and give Him the sad/difficult moments as a display of trust that He will know what to do and will help us get through them.

It was cool that nobody was blasé about their testimonies. They were sometimes slightly inappropriate, but what they were saying was always heartfelt and important to them. 

Somebody quoted Sister White from the April 2022 General Conference, on how waiting on the Lord is and should be a sacred place. (I need to go read/listen to that talk. Well, all of them - I was a little out of it this last Conference - and that would be a good one to start with.)

So when I looked back at my notes - I took notes! - I realized that I have a complete Sacrament Meeting talk here, made up of concepts and connections from things people talked about in their testimonies. It was fascinating, and quite lovely. I’ll have to report back (I will probably not report back) if I ever get the chance to give that talk.

Oh, and in this ward the sacrament was at the end. I suppose that might be tricky for some, but after a meeting of testimonies and wonderful moments (even with children shrieking - and not just the one who’d had her foot rolled over!) I felt well-prepped to take the Sacrament. 

The Little Big Stuff (I NEED -YOUR- HELP)

I have a dilemma.

It's nothing huge, don't worry... but don't you hate how you agonize over the small things, when you can make major decisions in a couple of blinks? (Or maybe you don't. You probably think the big stuff over for a reasonable amount of time, and then make a well-thought-out decision. This is why I'm coming to you for help.)

The sitch is this: I play the piano for Relief Society. From the very first day I stepped in I've been asking to get the weekly hymns in advance so that I can practice them (so as not to suck). (Sorry for saying 'suck' in a church-y post.) No one seems to plan the hymns in advance (there is a music coordinator, but I haven't seen her at RS for months. I think she's been having some health/mobility issues). Here's the problem: the sitch is making me crazy.

I TOLD you it was nothing huge.

I love the hymns. They are actually a lot harder to play than you might expect, and they're even harder to play when you're trying to follow a conductor while a bunch of people are singing along to what you're playing (or in my case, trying frantically to play). No one will let me know in advance what hymns to look at (at least, not without -me- pulling -their- teeth), they just say 'Oh, you pick - anything you like' two minutes before the meeting starts. So here's my dilemma: How do I tell the teachers and/or RS Presidency that I am not 'down with this' without sounding preachy, petty, whiny, and/or self-righteous? (Point one: It may not be possible, as I could very well be one of all of these things. Unfortunately. Point two: My RS Pres is pretty blog-saavy, and may check in here before I actually decide what to do. She's cool, though, and may have some good suggestions. Hi, Naomi! You rock!)

I want to help build the kingdom, and I don't want to criticize. I want to be positive and helpful, not all growly and finger-pointy. I also want to define some acceptable limits so that I don't chew down my back teeth. (This is a very dental-adjacent post, for some reason.) So, at the moment I'm thinking of a letter, something like this:

"Dear wonderful RS teachers:

Thank you so much for your love and work on the lessons! I think you might be missing an opportunity, though, and I'd like to share it with you. The hymns we sing in Relief Society are a chance to both set the mood for your lesson and wrap it up/support it on the way out. I, the pianist, have a very limited repetoire of hymns that I can play well, and I depend on getting a little notice in order to practice them so that I can help your lessons.

Here's the opportunity: I'm playing as a volunteer, not because it's a calling - I haven't been blessed or set apart to have any particular insight into what you'll be teaching. I'm also a student looking at an extremely busy second term. However, I am very willing to do what I can to practice whatever hymns will best speak for your lessons - otherwise, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a list of the songs I actually can play (I think there's about 10) and we'll have to choose from those the day of if there isn't something picked out at least a couple of days ahead of time. You've all been very kind about mentioning how well I play - trust me, I cringe over every wrong note. If I can't practice, I can't improve, and I just don't have time this term to learn ALL the hymns! I want to help, I really do, and a hymn that 1) supports your lesson and 2) helps the sisters learn and become familiar with a wide range of hymns (also known as 'Scripture') can only be a good thing.

I know our Music Coordinator has been dealing with other things and hasn't been around, so I'll make this request one more time. Could you please get me two hymns that you'd like sung with your lesson by the Wednesday before you teach? (Or, do like Amy Hunt did the week before last and give me the song numbers the week before in church! It was awesome.) I will make every effort to practice. I may not be perfect, but I'll feel a lot better about the effort - and that much less stress means I'll be able to enjoy your lessons even more. I do hope you don't mind my asking! If this is too much pressure for you, I understand and I'll get you that list of hymns.

Thank you, ladies -

Charisse"

* * * * *

So, what do you think? Am I really as obnoxious as I'm starting to suspect I am? There's something of a tendency over here to expect other people in the Church to 'take care of' things (and with some validity: I am playing, after all) and I don't want to enable that any more. IT'S SUCH A SMALL STUPID THING, I KNOW,  and I am almost as frustrated by the fact that I'm frustrated about it as I am frustrated about the initial... frustration. Sheesh. Do I send (well, Facebook Message) this letter (or some version of it)? Do I shut up and start meditation exercises, and learn two news hymns a week? Do I draw hymn numbers out of a hat and play those, regardless of the lesson topic? (I... actually really like that last one. Hmmm.)

Please help me not go postal on my sweet Relief Society sisters and the generally pretty cool Relief Society presidency. Help me to sharetheloooooove and maketheworldabetterplaaaaaace, instead.

Especially not over 'hymn choice.' Over pornography, smoking in the bathroom*, or the ward Christmas party, sure. Not the hymns.

Thanks. I'll be in the corner, chewing on my fingernails in order to give my molars a break.

Weigh in!**

* Not that anyone I know has ever done this. Particularly not at church. Or during a Ward Council meeting. Allegedly.

** That means 'please comment' and GUIDE MEEEEEEE.

One Mormon's Respectful Response

... to being referred to as a member of a 'cult', or told that they are 'not Christian'.

This is pretty much what I've been planning to write for quite some time. Only it's much better.

* * * * *

Dear Pastor Jeffress (of First Baptist Dallas),

I’m just one of the millions of people who saw and heard on TV news shows your statements that “Mormonism is a cult” and “not a part of orthodox Christianity”.  As a faithful lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I felt a strong reaction to those statements, as you might imagine.  My remarks here are only my personal thoughts, but I assure you they are heartfelt.

My reaction was twofold.   First, I saw your remarks as an unfortunate “below-the-belt” swipe at Mitt Romney in the hopes of advancing your own favorite political candidate.   While you certainly have the right to do that, I think many Americans join me in feeling that such a move was beneath a prominent religious leader such as yourself. 

Second, as a devoted believer and follower of Jesus Christ I was saddened that you felt the need to speak out against my faith and beliefs.  I’m sure there are those who think it was done with malice, but I’ll try to do the Christ-like thing and give you the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps you’ve just been misinformed about “Mormonism” as many others have been.

But it might surprise you to learn that I actually agree with part of what you said, although perhaps for different reasons than you might imagine.

You said that Mitt Romney is “not a Christian” (and by association myself and the other six million-plus Americans who are Latter-day Saints).  But I believe you need to be more specific.  There are many different kinds or “flavors” of Christians.  I agree that the LDS people are not Baptist Christians or Evangelical Christians or Catholic Christians, etc.   I will even agree that we’re not part of  “orthodox” or “traditional” flavor of Christianity, if by that you mean the post-Nicene church that became the “universal” or “catholic” version of Christendom. 

I believe my faith to be the original church of the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and yes, those who were first called Christians in Antioch,  - that same church now restored in these latter days.  So I call myself a “latter-day Christian", with theological roots that precede the “historical” or “orthodox” version that was the product of the various councils and creeds.  That “orthodoxy” eventually became so corrupt and so apostate that the Reformers broke away from it in protest of its having “fallen away” from Biblical truths (2 Thess. 2) and “changed the ordinances” (Isa. 24:5) so that the “faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3) was no longer recognizable as the church that Jesus organized.

There were many enlightened Christian thinkers and theologians in history who, like Joseph Smith, believed that Christianity had become apostate and that a restoration of the New Testament church of Christ was necessary.  John Wesley the founder of Methodism wrote:

   It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian; . . . From this time they almost totally ceased; . . . The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens . . . . This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left.

The Works of John Wesley, vol. 7, pp.26-27

As I’m sure you well know, John Smythe the founder of the Baptists first left his position as a Church of England minister and joined the Separatists, but then dissolved his congregation to re-form it as the first General Baptist church among English expatriates in Amsterdam in 1609.  He felt that the “historic” or “orthodox” Christianity of his time had wandered astray, especially with regard to the apostate doctrine of infant baptism.  Those first Baptists were considered a “cult” by many Protestants in the “traditional” Christian denominations that persecuted them unmercifully.

Around 1640, Roger Williams of Providence, Rhode Island, founder of the first Baptist church in America refused to continue as pastor on the grounds that there was:

… no regularly‑constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any Church ordinance: nor could there be until new apostles are sent by the great Head of the Church, for whose coming, I am seeking.

 (Picturesque America, or the Land We Live In, ed. William Cullen Bryant, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1872, vol. 1, p. 502.)

If I understand your words correctly your definition of a Christian (and that of most Evangelicals) is a pretty narrow one, far different from the standard meaning found in most dictionaries.  Personally I think anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as the Only Begotten Son of God and as his/her personal Savior who died for our sins and was bodily resurrected on the third day is a Christian.  C.S. Lewis described such people as “mere” Christians.

But your narrow definition would exclude anyone who:

1. Does not believe in a closed canon of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

2. Does not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

3. Believes in living prophets and apostles as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

4. Believes in continuing revelation from God to man.

     I could go on.  I’m very familiar with the standard arguments against “Mormonism”.

But the Bible says that believers in Christ were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26).  I would respectfully submit that those Christians:

1. Did not believe in a closed canon of scripture.  (some of the New Testament had not yet been written.)

2. Did not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  (it would not be written for 300 years)

3. Believed in living apostles and prophets as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

4. Believed in continuing revelation from God to man.

So if you’re going to say that Mitt and I are not Christians based on those reasons, you’ll have to say that the believers in Antioch were not Christians either according to your definition.

You said in your Hardball interview that “Mormonism” is a “cult” because:

1. “Mormonism came 1800 years after Jesus Christ”

2. “Mormonism has its own human leader, Joseph Smith”

3. “it has its own set of doctrines”

4. “it has its own religious book, The Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible”

Your exact following words were:  “and so by that definition it is a theological cult”.  You made a weak distinction between a theological cult and a sociological one, but most people will not even notice that fine differentiation.  It was obvious to any sophisticated viewer that your main goal was to keep repeating the word “cult”.   It’s such an inflammatory buzz word that I’m sure your goal is to use it as often as you can to scare people away from “Mormonism” without seriously considering our theology and our beliefs.  It’s a word used to end or avoid discussion, not to foster it.  As a Latter-day Saint I welcome the opportunity to “stand ready to give a reason for the faith that is in me”, but those who sling around the word “cult” with respect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seek to cut off debate rather than to encourage dialog.  It’s as though they are afraid of an open and honest discussion.

But following your own definition of “cult” for a moment, I’d like to respectfully submit that:

1. Roman Catholicism came 300 years after Jesus Christ.

2. Roman Catholicism has its own human leader, the Pope (or Peter if you accept the Catholic claims that he was the first Pope)

3. Roman Catholicism has its own set of doctrines (Mariology, transubstantiation, priestly celibacy, veneration of  “saints”, indulgences, etc.)

4. Roman Catholicism has its own religious books (9 deuterocanonical more than those found in the Protestant Bible – also used in Eastern Orthodox churches)

And even your own Baptist flavor of Christianity in some ways fits your definition of what makes a cult;

1. “Baptistism” came 1609 years after Jesus Christ

2. “Baptistism” had its own human leader John Smythe – a Church of England minister (see footnote below from the website of  the Baptist History and Heritage Society)

3. “Baptistism” had its own unique doctrines, including the “believer’s baptism” of adults.

4. “Baptistism” was considered a cult by the “orthodox” or “traditional” or “historic” Christian denominations of the time.  In fact Baptists suffered severe persecution from other Christians who believed in the “mainline” doctrine of infant baptism prevalent in that era.  Thousands of Baptists were martyred for baptizing adults.

One of the dictionary definitions of a cult is that is a small isolated group that is out of the mainstream.  That certainly does not apply to my church.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest religion in America, and the second largest Christian church in Washington, Oregon, and California (after Catholicism).  You mentioned that there are 15 million Southern Baptists.  By 2012 at the present rate of growth there will be more Latter-day Saints than that.

Pastor Jeffress, in order to be consistent and truthful you would have to admit that the same definition you’ve used to brand “Mormonism” a cult applies at least in part to  Roman Catholicism and “Baptistism” as well.  Are you willing to say that on national television?  I would hope so.  I would hope that you’d want to be totally consistent and truthful.

Thank you for your time.  I’m attaching a summary I wrote of what I believe happened to “the faith once delivered to the saints”.  There was a great apostacy that fundamentally changed the New Testament church of Jesus Christ into something so different that those Christians at Antioch or Peter or Paul would not have recognized it in the Dark Ages that came upon the earth.   (Amos 8:12)  That apostacy required the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:21 to occur before Christ’s return.   That restitution or restoration of original Biblical Christianity was what was looked forward to by Roger Williams.

I testify to you that that restoration has come, and the original Christianity is back on the earth in its fullness as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  If you would like to investigate these claims I’ll be happy to “bring forth my strong reasons” for “the faith that is in me.”  I would welcome a thoughtful dialog.

Cordially yours,

Robert Starling

A Latter-day Christian

(footnote to above reference to John Smyth)

BHHS -- Baptist Beginnings http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

The first General Baptist church, led by John Smyth, was founded in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608/09. Its members were English refugees who had fled England to escape religious persecution. John Smyth was a minister in the Church of England. As a student and later as a pastor and teacher. …   By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a "covenant," rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only.

* * * * *

This is a post I came across on Facebook. I think it's beautifully, calmly, intelligently, faithfully laid out, and the author did an amazing job. What are the chances Pastor Jeffress actually WOULD ever read it? Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleeeaaase let that happen...

Sunday Snippet

"Man cannot raise himself to higher things through what he would like to accomplish, but by what he endeavors to accomplish."
 - Elder Glancy

Faith is seldom Comfortable.

*  *  *  *  *

At the end of today's fast-and-testimony meeting the bishop announced the closing hymn, then looked over to find the pianist looking back at him with a little confusion and panic as the chorister was missing. (Poof. Gone. Slipped out at some point, and had not slipped back in!) The bishop, having had some musical training, picked up a hymnbook and rather sheepishly moved over to "lead" the music. (He was waving his arm - sheepishly, mind - to the music, and got the right time signature by the second measure, but I wouldn't actually say he was conducting anything.) Just before the end of the first verse, the chorister (sweet, loopy Jean) walked back in; stepped up to the stand and took a spot next to the bishop, looked up at him looming over her (tall - short), and started conducting right along with him. I thought I heard a faint choking noise behind me. The bishop, noticing Jean, rather awkwardly moved back to his seat a couple of measures into the second verse. Just as Jean really got into the swing of things, the music stand in front of her inexplicably began sinking (the bishop had been holding his hymnbook in his other hand) and she immediately stopped conducting and tried to fix it. I heard the choking sound again.

By the end of the two-verse hymn Jean was hunched over a very low music stand, the bishop had checked out, and I couldn't look at either of them because I was nearly in tears trying to keep from laughing. As Jean sat down I glanced back (it was safer than looking forward) and found the Relief Society President looking at me - both of us cracked up and fought to smother our giggles (once again, she sounded like she was choking) before the closing prayer.

I love my ward.




ETA: Just came across this post by Scott Adams. Fascinating. Such interesting commentary on communication, clarity of intent, and just how much credit people are willing (or unwilling) to give each other.

Sunday Snippet

Today was Remembrance Sunday, always the Sunday after Nov. 11, and involved one more day of wearing the paper poppy and included two minutes of silence during Sacrament Meeting. I guess there were further ceremonies and public events around London, but I’ve been out of it with a cold and didn’t think to investigate further. It occurred to me that next year there will be a first and second 11:11 on 11/11/11. Should make a lot of computer programmers happy.

I visited the Hyde Park ward today – I’ve been attending in Peckham, but I wanted to try a ward further north up in London, both because I really want to move closer to my school and because I feel really out of sync with my ward. I loved the London ward, had some great moments that were a big help to me, and got a couple of numbers of people to call about possible housing. Perfect.

- There are not many things in this world that are cuter than Primary-aged children with British accents. And the one Sunbeam who bellowed “FOLLOW THE PROPHET!” completely off-key was awesome.

- In Sunday School we were in Jeremiah, and talked about internalizing the gospel, or “writing upon our hearts.” One sister talked about memorizing scriptures to have them there for instant access – her quote was “There is power in knowing from the back of your head.” The teacher made the point that there is a difference between writing on your mind and writing on your heart, and that we shouldn’t let the mechanics take precedence over an invitation to the Spirit. One sister gave a moving illustration by talking about her “perfect” family; they had scripture study and family prayer every day, FHE every week, regular and consistent temple attendance… and yet, her parents divorced (possibly in connection with some other family trauma involving two of her siblings) and the family fell apart in spite of their “crossing all the ‘t’s’ and dotting all the ‘i’s’.” She summed it up by saying that “zealousness is not righteousness” and that we are obedient so that the Lord may change our hearts as the truth of the gospel is written upon them. The teacher asked us to think about the words the brethren use in connection with the scriptures: study, feast, immerse – never “read”. If our time with the scriptures is changing us, than we’re using them correctly.

- Musical Moment: on the Underground, hearing “Everlasting Love” played on the accordion. Maybe not as elegant as it sounds. ;-)