Brad Kramer

[Brian]

In the middle of listening to the latest MormonStories podcast, and interview with Brad Kramer.
http://mormonstories.org/brad-kramer...ing-go-of-eden

I'm not all the way through it, but he talks of a very interesting paradigm for the relationship between the church and the members.
He likens it to the symbol of leaving Eden after the Fall. A kin to leaving childhood and innocence, and entering a world where there is an understanding of good and evil, and the building of an adult relationship between person and the church.

More thoughts as I finish listening, and have some time to write more.

[Sullyute]

I would be interested in your thoughts once you have finished. Sounds kind of like Ronald Poelman's conference talk from 1984. The more you grow in the gospel the less you rely on the church.

[Utah]

I would be interested in your thoughts once you have finished. Sounds kind of like Ronald Poelman's conference talk from 1984. The more you grow in the gospel the less you rely on the church.

This is really interesting and this is where my dad and I ended up with our whole "what would have happened if Smith hadn't been shot/which GA will be thrown under the bus when they let LGBT's go to the temple" chat.

Smith spoke about how the Church was a vehicle to bring people closer to God. The Sacrament, tithing and opportunities to serve do exactly that. After that, what's the point of the other 2.5 hours every week? I think it is a constant, weekly reminder of what hell will be like one day...one endless F&T meeting...ha ha.

I think some times, some members get caught up in the "calling promotions" and miss the real meaning of why they are there. It isn't necessarily so you can personally shake the hand of every new Elder in the ward. It isn't so you can hold 5,000 meetings a week, with each one full of 45 mins of faith building stories.

We forget that the Church won't save you. The Church can help you, and can teach you, and give you opportunities to be more Christ-like through service, but at the end of the day, it's you fighting everyday to get a little closer to God, and when your journey ends, it's pleading at Christ's feet to take you the rest of the way.

[LA Ute]

I would be interested in your thoughts once you have finished. Sounds kind of like Ronald Poelman's conference talk from 1984. The more you grow in the gospel the less you rely on the church.

I am not sure what you mean, but I am pretty sure that's not what he meant. https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...hurch?lang=eng

You still need the ordinances and the priesthood authority, don't you? A place to take the sacrament, to magnify callings, serve vicariously in the temple, and so forth?

[Sullyute]

I am not sure what you mean, but I am pretty sure that's not what he meant. https://www.lds.org/general-conferen...hurch?lang=eng

You still need the ordinances and the priesthood authority, don't you? A place to take the sacrament, to magnify callings, serve vicariously in the temple, and so forth?

As i am sure you are aware, that is not his original talk. And I am pretty sure that is what he meant. For most Mormons they have received all of their required covenants and ordinances by their early twenties. After that it is really a personal journal back to God.

[LA Ute]

As i am sure you are aware, that is not his original talk. And I am pretty sure that is what he meant. For most Mormons they have received all of their required covenants and ordinances by their early twenties. After that it is really a personal journal back to God.

Fair enough. But even in his original talk I do not believe he meant to say we do not need the church. I don't hear you saying that, either. I think we need it less and less, but we still need it. Does that make sense?

[Sullyute]

Fair enough. But even in his original talk I do not believe he meant to say we do not need the church. I don't hear you saying that, either. I think we need it less and less, but we still need it. Does that make sense?

Since the word "need" is so subjective and pointless to argue about, I think we can agree that faith is a personal journey and outside influences can only take us so far. Ultimately we are responsible for our own individual salvation.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Since the word "need" is so subjective and pointless to argue about, I think we can agree that faith is a personal journey and outside influences can only take us so far. Ultimately we are responsible for our own individual salvation.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Absolutely true. I'm just saying this: If I stopped participating in church I'd be toast, in terms of my ability to live with God and my family eternally, mainly because doing so would be a violation of covenants I've already made. A covenant to build up the kingdom of God can't be honored unless I'm participating in that kingdom. That's just how I see it.

[Utebiquitous]

LA,
I don't disagree at all with your statement about building the kingdom of God but I ruminate all the time now about how to build that kingdom - specifically what it means to build Zion. While some may say differently, the Church - our authorities - would say that building Zion is what we're doing in the Church. I would say building Zion needs to be much broader and more inclusive than that. The pure in heart - or those trying to become pure in heart - are much, much more than just Mormons. I am loyal to a few institutions - very loyal - but my loyalty to the Church (not to Mormonism) wanes a little within the paradigm of building Zion. We must broaden the vision. For me, it may even start with being a little more focused on serving the living again. We sure emphasize serving the dead in the Church these days. I don't have a problem with that except that it's all I'm hearing in my corner. We are becoming more insular - settling on tithes and offerings being enough for our service to the living. I fear we serve the dead so excessively because the dead don't talk back. Would a stronger emphasis on service broaden our views and get us working more with the pure in heart wherever they may be and whatever faith they are? I don't know. Maybe it's more a Utah or even SLC thing. Perhaps things are different for you outside of "Zion."

[LA Ute]

LA,
I don't disagree at all with your statement about building the kingdom of God but I ruminate all the time now about how to build that kingdom - specifically what it means to build Zion. While some may say differently, the Church - our authorities - would say that building Zion is what we're doing in the Church. I would say building Zion needs to be much broader and more inclusive than that. The pure in heart - or those trying to become pure in heart - are much, much more than just Mormons. I am loyal to a few institutions - very loyal - but my loyalty to the Church (not to Mormonism) wanes a little within the paradigm of building Zion. We must broaden the vision. For me, it may even start with being a little more focused on serving the living again. We sure emphasize serving the dead in the Church these days. I don't have a problem with that except that it's all I'm hearing in my corner. We are becoming more insular - settling on tithes and offerings being enough for our service to the living. I fear we serve the dead so excessively because the dead don't talk back. Would a stronger emphasis on service broaden our views and get us working more with the pure in heart wherever they may be and whatever faith they are? I don't know. Maybe it's more a Utah or even SLC thing. Perhaps things are different for you outside of "Zion."

I'm in agreement, 'biq. Maybe there's an emphasis on temple work in your area. Every area in the church has its own unique challenges and culture. Where I live we seem to be getting much more of a push to reach out to living folks -- both less active and those who are searching for something. That emphasis has produced some great experiences and some real blessings to people who were desperate for them.

Recently Elder Christofferson, in general conference, referred pointedly to "disciples of Jesus Christ who are not members of our church." I don't know if others noticed that but I was really struck by it. I hadn't ever heard a high-level GA statement like that. I was also heartened when Pres. Monson added to the threefold mission of the church (ways to bring souls to Christ) a fourth emphasis: "caring for the poor and needy." I'd sure welcome hearing more about that one. Bottom line: I agree with you that we've got to be more outwardly directed.

[LA Ute]

I knew Eugene England and really admired him. Here's one of his essays that I had never seen until today. It addresses the "church vs. the gospel" question in a unique way.

http://www.eugeneengland.org/why-the...-as-the-gospel