Looking after the fatherless and the widows

[miss taken]

Okay, I think James said it.

i.e. 'pure religion and undefiled...was to look after the fatherless and the widows, and to keep yourself unspotted from the world'

To what extent does Mormon Theology keep pace with this view?

and...is it the best definition of 'pure religion'????

Any takers???

[nikki]

Okay, I think James said it.

i.e. 'pure religion and undefiled...was to look after the fatherless and the widows, and to keep yourself unspotted from the world'

To what extent does Mormon Theology keep pace with this view?

and...is it the best definition of 'pure religion'????

Any takers???

well, Joseph Smith is not around anymore, so I guess that means a lot of widows are not taken care of.

[miss taken]

Nikki!!!! (Good one though!! :D :D )

[peter_mary]

This is part of the problem with Mormonism...I don't think you CAN take care of the widows and the orphans and stay unspotted from the world. The two are mutually exclusive. Here's my thinking...

In the Church, we have a way of providing "service at a distance," (and I always want to be very, very clear that the service that members render is always a wonderful thing...), by which I mean, Mormons give a GREAT deal, but it's almost always in the form of money or donations, and there is little "hands-on" service. It's almost like they're afraid that they'll get dirty if they roll up their sleeves and wade into the real problems. (Okay, it is true that the YM/YW often will go and rake some widow's leaves, or the EQ will go shingle a needy family's house...that happens...that's also not what I'm talking about. Read on.)

The really tough social problems of our era benefit from money and donations, no question, but they also benefit from people who know how to work in the trenches (and here I'm accusing myself, too, as I've not been a good foot-soldier on the front lines of poverty and other social ills). The problem is, when you really get in and muck around with the problems of the world...you are changed. Suddenly, all does not appear as the Garden of Eden where you simply make righteous choices and the blessings of heaven come pouring forth. You see people who really suffer, and wonder, "how could a loving God allow this to happen?" You see men who are hardened in prison, women who are struggling to balance the need for crack with the need for milk for their babies--babies who never will know their father. You see children who were born infected with AIDS; men, women and children with limbs blown off from errant (or not so errant) bombs or left-over landmines. You see mothers wasting away with famine, holding their babies as they, too wither...and you cannot help but become "spotted by the world." There are the rare few, such as Mother Teresa, who manage to keep a vision of God intact while they work among the world's truly needy...and I believe their religion is true indeed. I read a statement by the Dalai Lama who, when asked about his religion, simply said, "My religion is compassion."

I can comprehend that. I can comprehend the love of mankind sufficient to engender compassion. But I cannot comprehend a religion that believes all suffering is by virtue of God's will.

Guess that leaves me on the outside of tradition, eh?

For me, the Church would manifest the elements of true religion only when the sole and stated purpose of their empire was for feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, rather than "building the kingdom." When I see the millions of dollars spent on adding new steeples to older buildings, just so they can look similar to the new buildings, it makes me wonder why? When I see oodles of new buildings, smaller than the old ones so that wards are smaller and more buildings are required to house the same number of people, I wonder why? Why does the kingdom have to be built so lavishly, when that money could be feeding hungry people? Now, I'm not so naive as to think ALL the money could be used for that...the Church is entitled to spend what it needs to maintain itself...but it's the obvious excess that is troublesome to me. If the Church cleaned house and gave of it's excess to those who are in the "have-not" category, then I would believe we were seeing "true religion," because then I would be seeing compassion over empire building.

I have no interest in empires. But I do have an interest in people.

Paul

[Born Free]

Okay, I think James said it.

i.e. 'pure religion and undefiled...was to look after the fatherless and the widows, and to keep yourself unspotted from the world'

To what extent does Mormon Theology keep pace with this view?

and...is it the best definition of 'pure religion'????

Any takers???

As I pondered the thrust of this, it has heavy suggestions of assuming a patriachal sociotal structure, where the men are the powerful and the benefactors, and to not be attached to, or have the patronage of one placed one at great risk.

In reality, Mormonism probably does adhere to that (patriachal) structure. Whether is complies with the spirit of a principal of attending to the weak, the powerless, the orphaned etc., is more the point I gather you are making, and I always felt Moism saw charity beginning very close to home - like OUR folk and folk the gentiles (unless they see the Light)!

I only became aware recently that one of the major developments in the Hebrew religion was it becoming very concerned with what we would now call social welfare. That was well in the BC era.

On a more acid note, this is further proof Joe Smith was a Prophet. He saw to the needs to teh widows even before they became widows. Now that is visionary! :cool:

[shamdiel]

Okay, I think James said it.

i.e. 'pure religion and undefiled...was to look after the fatherless and the widows, and to keep yourself unspotted from the world'

To what extent does Mormon Theology keep pace with this view?

and...is it the best definition of 'pure religion'????

Any takers???

As long as humans continue to believe that true religion is supporting some church and expending all their best efforts trying to please the misanthropic God of that religion, and by that I mean all religions and all their Gods that are currently stirring things up and causing divisions amongst us, we will not see true religion. I don't even like the word any more. Spirituallity seems to be a better choice cause you can do that, just fine, without any religious affiliation. I believe in Humans!!! Yes, that makes me a pagan! Pagan, pagan pagan. I have seen more concern more compasssion and more of everything else, for humans, coming from humans than from any God! When the watch cry becomes 'How will it benift humanity?' or 'Will this promote unity between nations?' rather than 'How much does it pay?' or 'Does it promotes my agenda/religious beliefs?' ... Only when humanity is seen as more important than any other thing/s, will we ever see the purity that could be religion.

[Born Free]

This is part of the problem with Mormonism...I don't think you CAN take care of the widows and the orphans and stay unspotted from the world. The two are mutually exclusive. Here's my thinking...

I have no interest in empires. But I do have an interest in people.

Paul

Paul,

As usual, your thoughts are sharp and relevent.

One thing I always respect about the Salvation Army; they are light on doctrine and heavy in the trenches.

I am in total agreement with Paul. Theory is great in a vacumme, but gets shaky when you get out in the real world, and I believe that theory that can't stand the acid test has been disproven.

Just this week I took a phone call from a man whose wife now admits she married him to be acceptable to her family. She is lesbian or lesbian in reaction to untreated childhood sexual abuse by a stepfather. They have two children. He has been excluded from their lives and was suicidal as a result.

This is the real world result of attitudes such as those harboured and doctrinized by Mormonism. They keep well away from the tragic implications of their "pure mindedness". I struggle to find any respect for such thinking.

Daryl

[miss taken]

Thanks for comments.
I took quite a few trips to Israel, and walked around Capernaum etc, etc, and couldn't help be struck by the impression that I got of Jesus, that the early christian religion that He organised was very earthy. No big churches, just meeting in people's houses (and they were not big), I think that he embodied pure religion, in that he was NOT in it for money (I suppose there are parallels with other pre-christian and post christian leaders), he seemed to espouse a religion that was social in its context, in the trenches, as someone else said, with love as its foundation value, and not just love of an 'elite' few, but of all mankind. It may have very quickly become something else, after he died, and it did begin to become institutionalised, but whether the Pauline vision, followed that of Jesus, is something that I think the theologians still argue over today.

As a youth in the church, I remember often being told, not to associate myself with people of other religions, and certainly not to go in pubs, clubs etc, for that was where the devils work went on...!!!

I often thought of the paradox, with Jesus who always associated with the unacceptable of his time, prostitutes, tax collectors, the drunk, and when I used to mention this to members, they would say Jesus was strong, and would remain untouched, wheras I was not

I dunno. Never sat right with me.

I have rambled, but I do agree with Paul that Mother Teresa embodied pure religion, and I personally believe that because of that she will get there ahead of many of us, and it wont matter one hoot what religion she belonged to, because God (if there is one) looks deeper than that, otherwise he would be superficial, and I cant believe that.

[shamdiel]

I have rambled, but I do agree with Paul that Mother Teresa embodied pure religion,

Miss Taken; I can appreciate your kind sentiments toward an obviously kind and gentle woman. But make no mistakes, these soft sentiments often betrays us and allows many people to continue to believe in and follow after their religions or as evidence for joining a religion. Mother Theresa was more than likely being used by the Catholic church as a Public Relations ace. And what she did, she did in service and employment of her religion. That is not to say that she didn't do it becuase she had love in her heart or true feelings in her heart for the people she was serving. How many people do that same thing daily around the world, and we never hear about them, because they are not worthy of the PR blitz funded by a large church.

You and others on this site have already given ample evidence of what it takes for a person to be able to think and make choices for themselves beyond the reach of religion or politics. I doubt that Mother Theresa and many others you could name would fall in this category. You can't have it both ways, Miss Taken. It can't be black and white, both. It has to be one or the other. A person has either freed their mind and their conscience from the moral constraint of a religion or political institution, etc. or they haven't. IF they are not free they are not making the choices because they come from their soul. They make the choices because they must to satisfy the dictates of their religion.

Pure religion is referred to quite often in these threads. To me, pure religion is an oxymoron. I don't feel religion can be pure because it is and always will be, controlled by authorities who want power. There have been many references to Jesus Christ, whose real name was actually Yeshua, by the way. Had he intended for a religion, then why didn't he write anything? It sems to me if he wanted to form a pure religion, undefiled by men, it would have been in his best interest to clearly write down what his intentions were, so that no one could misunderstand what he wanted his religion to be? But to this date, no one has found evidence of him having writen anything.

It seems if Yeshua was after anything, he was trying to teach people how to be holy. For those of you who still believe in God, consider this: Is the holy Holy because God loves it, or does God love it because it is holy? One speaks of God's arbitrary will and all its variants, and the other speaks of evolution becoming of like mind. Or as posted elsewhere in this thread, discovering the like mind within. Perhaps it would be better if we stopped our impossible quest after pure religion, and set our sights on being holy.

:D

[miss taken]

Thanks Shamdiel, maybe I am not so good at explaining myself, but I was trying to make the point (perhaps over-stated) that pure religion is about 'a way of being' and that it transcends any one religious group.

I don't know everything about Mother Teresa, but I think it is perhaps a little cynical to say that she was being used as some kind of 'advertisement' for the Catholic Church. When I think of her, I don't think. 'ooh she was a catholic nun, I think I'll become one' I think ...wow...what a good person. She followed her path, and we all follow ours, and though we may not help the poor and needy in India, we too can 'love our neighbours'. Am I sounding preachy??? I don't mean to. Just musing on the meaning of life. Hubby thinks the answers are in 'Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy'!!!

[miss taken]

Pure religion is referred to quite often in these threads. To me, pure religion is an oxymoron.

:D

Okay Shamdiel, what the flippin eck is an oxymoron!!!!

[shamdiel]

Okay Shamdiel, what the flippin eck is an oxymoron!!!!

The definition of an Oxymoron is: conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence')

Another example: Jumbo Shrimp. 'Military Intelligence' hahahahahah.

John :p

[miss taken]

Thanks John!!! I learn something new every day!!!
Mary :D

[wescape]

Hi MissTaken,

Great question. I think that James was referring to the loving way Christ treated people whom the world rejects. Unfortuantely, the word religion has many meanings. Here's a few I found on an internet dictionary:

1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I think Mormonism probably would fall under #1b because of the word institutionalized. Paul made the point well that giving money is much more the case here than actually getting involved with people's lives. Jesus was much more interested in the latter and his life demonstrated that. I think he would agree with Paul that people are what matter and not empires. In fact, I believe he came to restore people and do away with empires.

I agree with you that Mother Teresa embodied the kind of pure religion spoken James spoke of. Again, I believe she was motivated by gratitude and awe rather than pressure or guilt. I think she would have burned out quickly operating under the latter. Instead, the love that radiated from her face was not of this world.

Here's a quote from her that I think you'll enjoy:

"Whether one is Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian, how you live your life is proof that you are or not fully His. We cannot condemn or judge or pass words that will hurt people. We don't know in what way God is appearing to that soul and what God is drawing that soul to; therefore, who are we to condemn anybody?"

I believe this quote speaks to how she viewed her service (or anyone's) to God and others. The love she embodied was not the thing that "gets her in" to heaven but rather the proof that she is his. In other words, God already accepted her before she ever did any of those things and her response to that unconditional love was to love others. The love she had for people overflowed out of a grateful heart and was evidence that she had been transformed by her relationship with God. Again, this is the exact opposite of what is taught in Mormonism (pressure and guilt to perform with the threat of not making it if you don't do enough).

Anyway, thanks again for your question! :)

Take care,

Wes

[miss taken]

Hi MissTaken,

Paul made the point well that giving money is much more the case here than actually getting involved with people's lives. Jesus was much more interested in the latter and his life demonstrated that. I think he would agree with Paul that people are what matter and not empires. In fact, I believe he came to restore people and do away with empires.

I agree with you that Mother Teresa embodied the kind of pure religion spoken James spoke of. Again, I believe she was motivated by gratitude and awe rather than pressure or guilt. I think she would have burned out quickly operating under the latter. Instead, the love that radiated from her face was not of this world.

Here's a quote from her that I think you'll enjoy:

"Whether one is Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian, how you live your life is proof that you are or not fully His. We cannot condemn or judge or pass words that will hurt people. We don't know in what way God is appearing to that soul and what God is drawing that soul to; therefore, who are we to condemn anybody?"

I believe this quote speaks to how she viewed her service (or anyone's) to God and others. The love she embodied was not the thing that "gets her in" to heaven but rather the proof that she is his. In other words, God already accepted her before she ever did any of those things and her response to that unconditional love was to love others. The love she had for people overflowed out of a grateful heart and was evidence that she had been transformed by her relationship with God. Again, this is the exact opposite of what is taught in Mormonism (pressure and guilt to perform with the threat of not making it if you don't do enough).

Anyway, thanks again for your question! :)

Take care,

Wes


Thanks Wes, I found your response to be very thoughtful and insightful. I really loved that quote from Mother Teresa, I had never read it before but am not at all surprised that she said it.

Given me a lot to think about..

I am not sure where the Mormon CHurch fits in, particulaly at a macro level. On an individual level with people themselves I suppose that everyone interprets the church in a different way. I know some faithful LDS members who live their lives much like Mother Teresa, they are such good people that it really wouldn't matter what religion they were, they would still be the same thoroughly decent people that they are.

Maybe some people use the church as a tool to 'beat' other people up with, or to feel superior to the rest of the world, but I know many LDS people who do not come into that category, and seem to be able to look beyond the theology and its implications.

My former bishop was one such person. He was extremely kind and loving towards me when I was leaving the church, and non-judgemental. I have heard many LDS people say that they felt the spirit whisper that I was on the right path for me, which I appreciated greatly, and when I married my non-mormon husband in an LDS chapel (I was inactive myself also), I was told by that same LDS bishop how proud he was of my decision and the fact that I was marrying such a good man.

I have rambled, but I mention this as evidence that there are many active LDS members who also embody what it is to be truly loving.

Mary

[wescape]

Mary,

I'm glad you know Mormons who are able to love and live beyond their theology and its implications. I remember a few like that myself growing up. The image of God that I believe is the core of every human being cannot be erased in people, even in a system as oppressive and stifling as Mormonism. It's just sad to me that someone would have to look beyond their own theology in order to really love people. If that is the case with any belief system, it seems to be a pretty big indicator that something is deeply wrong with it.

I'm also glad you're in a marriage that you enjoy! :) Unfortunately that seems to be more and more rare these days.

Well, I'm behind on my reading for class and I really need to get started. Have a great weekend!

Wes

[Born Free]

You and others on this site have already given ample evidence of what it takes for a person to be able to think and make choices for themselves beyond the reach of religion or politics. I doubt that Mother Theresa and many others you could name would fall in this category. You can't have it both ways, Miss Taken. It can't be black and white, both. It has to be one or the other. A person has either freed their mind and their conscience from the moral constraint of a religion or political institution, etc. or they haven't. IF they are not free they are not making the choices because they come from their soul. They make the choices because they must to satisfy the dictates of their religion.

Pure religion is referred to quite often in these threads. To me, pure religion is an oxymoron. I don't feel religion can be pure because it is and always will be, controlled by authorities who want power.
:D

I'll self-apoint to the black hat role here!

Is it possible one of the appeals of the coal face, is that it does not have the complexity of real-politic? We all love teh simplicity of the black/white polarisation, but I have rearely found it out there in the real world.

I have seen material that suggested that Mother Terresa was a pretty shrewd gal. I suspect there may not be the same politics in addressing the needs of Bombay's poor as the power politics of the Vatican, so she was relatively free to free wing it in her own backyard, knowing there were not too many people who wanted to have a turf war with her in addressing the acute needs of the poor.

One of the insights that have complicated my world in my graying years is the realisation that there are some very gray moral/ethical areas out there in the real world. We are all repulsed that the Allies employed after the war senior Nazi research and applied scientists who had been involved in some deeply repugnant work, but in the face that the Russians had a group of similar men working with them, was anything served by putting heads in the sand?

I have come to see how morally superiour I can be, while I am not personally faced with such complexity. The more history I read, the more thorough documentarys I view, the more complex it gets. Yet, at the same time, I am conscious that to function on mere short term pragmatism, is also fraught.

People who have moved beyond having a priority value like Law/Rule, then work on Law/Guide. But they still live in a world where written law exists, and have a place. I do not see stages of development as some sort of mutually exclusive deal. The law says I have a speed limit of 100klm on the open road - fact. Would I break that under certain cirmcumstances? Yes, but these days my departure is less about my personal convenience (I am late, and ignore the risk), and more likely to be a calculated preparedness to live with consequences because of specific circumstances - rushing to hospital, for example. that are more likely to be about some perceived greater good. The later also gives me a very strong case to argue as a defence in the event I am fined, and the law allows for departure under exceptional circumstances.

This discussion does highlight for me the difference between the notions of religion and spirituality.

By my definitions, athiests and agnostics can be spiritual, and the religous can frequently be severely lacking in spirit. Indeed, I tend to agree that much religion actively destroys spirit (life-force by my definition). BTW, this issue of spirituality was kicked around quite a bit under the thread Post-Mo Spirituality.

So for me, spirituality can involve progressively moving beyond what is unhealthy and repressive about social structure, but retaining what is healthy and pro-social.

The conservative hold on to "the law" in rigid consistency, frequently because they are so afraid of departure, or ignorant of the underlying principles; that they fear refinementof teh law for fear their little world will tumble. They frequently cannot engage in a temperate dialogue about what is core and non-core to the area.

The intelligent and confident and far more willing to see, call and dialogue around what is outdated, and jettison it for something better when that action is most evident.

Daryl

[miss taken]

THanks Daryl, I will check out the post-mormon spirituality thread. Found your comments really interesting.

As I was researching Child Development, I noted that the social constructionist thread seems to suggest that we are all puppets to culture in effect. That we develop very much in league with the particular culture that we are born in. To a great extent this is absolutely true. However, I suppose the 'constructionist' part of the argument would allow for creative change where we see fit.

Some follow like sheep, for many reasons I suppose, they are happy, they are fearful, they are apathetic.

Some however choose to be the trail blazers and to change their own status quo. Most of the time it is because they are basically discontent or unhappy with something.

It is only then, that change can take place. When one does it, another may do the same.

And as far as I can tell, this is always how changes and developments in culture have taken place, including technological change.

So....thank God for the creators, the trail blazers, and the unhappy!!! Otherwise nothing would ever change!!!!!

Off to check out the post-mo spirituality thread!!

[Born Free]

THanks Daryl, I will check out the post-mormon spirituality thread. Found your comments really interesting.

As I was researching Child Development, I noted that the social constructionist thread seems to suggest that we are all puppets to culture in effect. That we develop very much in league with the particular culture that we are born in. To a great extent this is absolutely true. However, I suppose the 'constructionist' part of the argument would allow for creative change where we see fit.

Some follow like sheep, for many reasons I suppose, they are happy, they are fearful, they are apathetic.

Some however choose to be the trail blazers and to change their own status quo. Most of the time it is because they are basically discontent or unhappy with something.

It is only then, that change can take place. When one does it, another may do the same.

And as far as I can tell, this is always how changes and developments in culture have taken place, including technological change.

So....thank God for the creators, the trail blazers, and the unhappy!!! Otherwise nothing would ever change!!!!!

Off to check out the post-mo spirituality thread!!

miss taken

A book that I greatly valued from my reading of the last few years was Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. He quotes a range of recent research (a big chuck of it the twins research) to argue that the money is now on that about 50% of personality comes from genes, about 20-25% from culture and that we choose about a similar percentage. So much for those Mos who fantasize they are brim full of agency, whilst I expect their actions are more shaped by culture than most!

I place that observation against the stages of development material about 1. physical autonomy, 2. emotional and finally 3. intellectual. How many achieve the last 2?

I work a lot with separated men, and many have failed to develop substantial emotional autonomy.

On the particular challenges presented by prevailing cultures, I love the quote by George Santayana:

"We can't be sure who discovered water, but we can be sure it wasn't the fish".

It takes tremendous effort to get out of "the water" and contemplate it, to consider whether we might fit better in another pond, to consider the possibility that our pond may be oxygen deprived. That is why international travel can be so eye-opening.

I went back to review the Post-Mo Spirituality thread, and there was some wonderful stuff shared there. I am looking forward to the responses on the Taboo thread, as I expect that we have all gravitated (or sweated ourselves) to a similar space, where we demand a lot of oxygen.

Daryl