As I think back over a lifetime in the church, I can recall only a few instances during my childhood or young adulthood when grace was mentioned in sermons or class discussions at all, and when it was, it was usually in a dismissive tone, because after all we know that "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (2 Ne. 28:23) The speaker would always land on "after all we can do" with both feet, implying that in this life we'll never be done with "all we can do," so grace is just something that kicks in after we die, and then only if we've been really really righteous. There was a sort of tacit understanding that salvation by grace was some sort of Protestant heresy, a get-out-of-hell free card that allowed people to sin all they pleased as long as they believed. I don't recall it ever being mentioned that grace is something that attends us every moment of our lives, that our very lives are a gift (e.g., an expression of grace), that none of our blessings are "earned," that good works should be done out of love for God and others rather than transactionally, and so forth. In other words, growing up in the '50s through the early '70s, I heard very little positive mention of grace in the church context.
And so to me it seems like a very welcome change that now we're hearing more about it, and in a positive light. We're singing "Amazing Grace" again, and "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" with its phrase "to grace how great a debtor," and so forth. And Adam Miller, a Mormon philosopher whose works merit serious attention, has written "Our lives are a gift, the law is itself a gift ... None of it can be earned and none of it can be repaid. Obedience cannot balance the books. And, moreover, to the extent that we use obedience as a strategy for suppressing our dependence on God's grace, obedience itself become--ironically--a hallmark of our sinfulness. ... Obedience to the law, valorized on its own terms, becomes an obstacle to fulfilling the law's purpose in love." Future Mormon: Essays in Mormon Theology (pp. 6-7) One of my favorite passages from the book is: "Rather than asking if the church is true, ask something like: Is this the body of Christ? Is Christ manifest here? Does his blood flow in these veins? Does his spirit breathe in these lungs? Does forgiveness flourish here? Is faith strengthened? Is hope enlivened? Is charity practiced? Can I see, here, the body of Christ?" (p. 114) Sometimes I think I see it, sometimes it remains opaque to me. My fault? I can only keep wondering.
on grace
Re: on grace
I grew up in the 80's and 90's - some of the conversations around "Grace" had been softened.
I think that the strongest denominator about how much "Grace" is talked about is how much our leadership wants to be perceived as "friendly to" and "like" other churches. The more we are shedding our unique "Mormon" identity, the more we talk about "Grace".
I would mirror Adam Miller's questions - sometimes we couch our "Grace-full" conversations as "Faith" or "Hope" or "Charity / Compassion".
To me, I tend to view "Grace in Action" more from a functional "Accommodation" perspective. Yes, our culture talks about "Accommodation" from a "what do you/does the individual need?" in terms of external environmental factors such as wheelchair access, fragrance-free zones, family bathrooms, braille signs, etc. But our culture comes from also seeing "Accommodation" from the hospitality side - "what do you need" in terms of bathrooms, bedrooms, internet, etc. To me, "Grace-full" people can see some environmental factors that need to be set up ahead of time and the mindset that goes with it. As a caregiver, I have to balance feeling resentment about the many things that I can do/handle that my spouse cannot and I have balance protecting their interests and protecting mine - just like our hospitality industry has to balance protecting and preparing for the interests of incoming visitors and protecting and preparing for the staff providing the accommodations.
On a spiritual side of things, our church community has informal leaders who set up the "accommodations" we walk into. Some of them are more explicit - like the ways that the bishop or stake president structures the units they serve. Some are more implicit - like the ways that the RS and EQ structure ministering routes. The whole point of "home-centered, church supported" was to signal that the "accommodations" available on Sundays from the church was functionally changing - and pushing the 3rd hour back to the people (ideally to the women to run at home with the church's manual).
I think that the strongest denominator about how much "Grace" is talked about is how much our leadership wants to be perceived as "friendly to" and "like" other churches. The more we are shedding our unique "Mormon" identity, the more we talk about "Grace".
I would mirror Adam Miller's questions - sometimes we couch our "Grace-full" conversations as "Faith" or "Hope" or "Charity / Compassion".
To me, I tend to view "Grace in Action" more from a functional "Accommodation" perspective. Yes, our culture talks about "Accommodation" from a "what do you/does the individual need?" in terms of external environmental factors such as wheelchair access, fragrance-free zones, family bathrooms, braille signs, etc. But our culture comes from also seeing "Accommodation" from the hospitality side - "what do you need" in terms of bathrooms, bedrooms, internet, etc. To me, "Grace-full" people can see some environmental factors that need to be set up ahead of time and the mindset that goes with it. As a caregiver, I have to balance feeling resentment about the many things that I can do/handle that my spouse cannot and I have balance protecting their interests and protecting mine - just like our hospitality industry has to balance protecting and preparing for the interests of incoming visitors and protecting and preparing for the staff providing the accommodations.
On a spiritual side of things, our church community has informal leaders who set up the "accommodations" we walk into. Some of them are more explicit - like the ways that the bishop or stake president structures the units they serve. Some are more implicit - like the ways that the RS and EQ structure ministering routes. The whole point of "home-centered, church supported" was to signal that the "accommodations" available on Sundays from the church was functionally changing - and pushing the 3rd hour back to the people (ideally to the women to run at home with the church's manual).
-
nibbler
- Posts: 5241
- Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
- Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe
Re: on grace
I remember placing more emphasis on the "after all we can do" portion of that verse. I can't say that the lessons I received pushed me in that direction, I think I was just wired to place emphasis on that portion by default. The trap was that people generally feel that there's always something more that they could be doing, so grace felt forever out of reach.
It's the same phenomenon as the blessings trap. If you don't feel blessed it must mean you're not living righteously enough to be blessed, leading some to spiral in scrupulosity.
I have been hearing more messages on grace lately. I think it's for a few reasons.
What I see is the church taking its first baby steps towards grace. When an actual baby takes its first steps I don't criticize the baby for not being able to take strides, I celebrate the event and encourage them to keep going.
It's the same phenomenon as the blessings trap. If you don't feel blessed it must mean you're not living righteously enough to be blessed, leading some to spiral in scrupulosity.
I have been hearing more messages on grace lately. I think it's for a few reasons.
- The one Amy mentioned, to bring the church more in line with wider Christianity. Maybe as a response to criticisms that the church isn't Christian.
- A direct response to criticism that the church culture produces scrupulosity.
I think back to that BYU study mentioned in another thread where they found that Mormons that understood the teachings of the church properly were the least scrupulous and people that left the church were the most scrupulous. I think they were compensating for something and that something was criticism that the church culture had issues with toxic perfectionism.
We're mentioning grace and scrupulosity more in an effort to address a very real issue with church culture.
What I see is the church taking its first baby steps towards grace. When an actual baby takes its first steps I don't criticize the baby for not being able to take strides, I celebrate the event and encourage them to keep going.
If you erase the mistakes of your past, you would also erase all the wisdom of your present. Remember the lesson, not the disappointment.
— I dunno
— I dunno
Re: on grace
I'm traveling at the moment but just wanted to throw out that when we're trying - and most of us are - we are probably all doing that we can do. I think many people, including many non-members, are going to be very surprised at how loving and merciful our God really is. Again, I would reference the parable of the prodigal son.
I applaud the church for opening the grace door more. There may be other reasons in play here, but I also believe RMN gets it, as do several others among the Q15.
I applaud the church for opening the grace door more. There may be other reasons in play here, but I also believe RMN gets it, as do several others among the Q15.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.
Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
My Introduction
Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
My Introduction
Re: on grace
Regarding where the emphasis is, I read someplace that our modern language has shifted the meaning of the emphasis. The gist of it is that back in the day, "after all we can do" is more like gestural flourishing and a reference to a "grace-filled" connotation and recognition of limitations
similar to "despite our best efforts". The irony of legalese and religious scrupulosity here is not lost on me here.
- Optics matter. The fact that we have extra books of scripture, are known for our polygamous past, re-invented our culture out in the desert, and were super isolationist and reactionary/have a persecution complex - all that makes our religious culture "sus" (suspicious for those of you who aren't being linguistically corrupted by teenagers).
- Our narrative of the Adam & Eve story changes what "The Fall" looks like on the cosmic level, so what Jesus Christ does in terms of "Fall Repair" in the "Atonement" also changes (and so our model of "Christianity" isn't within the "Christian" mostly scholastically stated parameters).
Britt Hartley explains it much better (and has studied American theology at a Master's Degree level) in case you want a deeper delve into the question.
Some of us who changed our engagement with the church organization are the ones who took church engagement seriously and came to a point where our conclusion is that the church wasn't taking a doctrinal point as seriously.
Sarah Bessey puts it this way:
what usually happens is that we are told "we did it wrong" and that "we wanted to rebel". Our past devotion - our missionary service (especially as women), our years in Primary, our contributions to our family structures, our thoughtful testimonies - all that gets dismissed because "we weren't faithful enough (and ended up in a faith transition)".
All that is tough. But here is the nearly universal faith transition kicker that Sarah Bessey pointed out:
similar to "despite our best efforts". The irony of legalese and religious scrupulosity here is not lost on me here.
I have not been church or doctrine-hopping, so I have limited experience in the actual "under the hood" doctrinal mechanics going on.nibbler wrote: ↑02 May 2025, 05:51 I have been hearing more messages on grace lately. I think it's for a few reasons.
- The one Amy mentioned, to bring the church more in line with wider Christianity. Maybe as a response to criticisms that the church isn't Christian.
- A direct response to criticism that the church culture produces scrupulosity.
- Optics matter. The fact that we have extra books of scripture, are known for our polygamous past, re-invented our culture out in the desert, and were super isolationist and reactionary/have a persecution complex - all that makes our religious culture "sus" (suspicious for those of you who aren't being linguistically corrupted by teenagers).
- Our narrative of the Adam & Eve story changes what "The Fall" looks like on the cosmic level, so what Jesus Christ does in terms of "Fall Repair" in the "Atonement" also changes (and so our model of "Christianity" isn't within the "Christian" mostly scholastically stated parameters).
Britt Hartley explains it much better (and has studied American theology at a Master's Degree level) in case you want a deeper delve into the question.
Some of us who left were extremely scrupulous:)nibbler wrote: ↑02 May 2025, 05:51 I think back to that BYU study mentioned in another thread where they found that Mormons that understood the teachings of the church properly were the least scrupulous and people that left the church were the most scrupulous. I think they were compensating for something and that something was criticism that the church culture had issues with toxic perfectionism.
We're mentioning grace and scrupulosity more in an effort to address a very real issue with church culture.
[/list]
Of course I'd like to see more grace but I have to extend grace to receive it.
Some of us who changed our engagement with the church organization are the ones who took church engagement seriously and came to a point where our conclusion is that the church wasn't taking a doctrinal point as seriously.
Sarah Bessey puts it this way:
Some of us "took it seriously" and really tried to do "The right thing". I spent years at church praying (literally praying) that the Church (or at least the Church community) could be the "sanctuary for the wounded" that my eldest needed. I spent a ton of mostly my attention and time trying to "tweak the system" so it could nourish my child the way it had been advertised to do so. When COVID hit, the natural pause in activity allowed me to realize that the more important "system" that needed correction was the "family system" (based on gender-based performance roles) and what was going on in my household. After all, the church had literally just shifted to a "home-centered, church supported" model (though I am pretty sure that they did not intend for their model to be used against church activity).You took it seriously, didn't you. You dared to hope that the Gospel was true. You dared to hope that Jesus meant what he said and God is love. You dared to believe that the Church could be a sanctuary for the wounded and the misfits and the marginalized... You dared to hope that Jesus's teachings and his way of life would matter more than politics or power, that truth and goodness matter...
what usually happens is that we are told "we did it wrong" and that "we wanted to rebel". Our past devotion - our missionary service (especially as women), our years in Primary, our contributions to our family structures, our thoughtful testimonies - all that gets dismissed because "we weren't faithful enough (and ended up in a faith transition)".
All that is tough. But here is the nearly universal faith transition kicker that Sarah Bessey pointed out:
You’ve had your certainties blown to hell, and it turned out that God was the One who lit the match.
My favorite quote about "baby steps":
I always love it when people say 'baby steps!' to imply they're being tentative, when actually baby steps are a great unbalanced, wholehearted, enthusiastic lurch into the unknown. - Olivia Smith
Re: on grace
I expect that there will be a lot of surprises about the nature of God:)DarkJedi wrote: ↑02 May 2025, 06:55 I'm traveling at the moment but just wanted to throw out that when we're trying - and most of us are - we are probably all doing that we can do. I think many people, including many non-members, are going to be very surprised at how loving and merciful our God really is. Again, I would reference the parable of the prodigal son.
I applaud the church for opening the grace door more. There may be other reasons in play here, but I also believe RMN gets it, as do several others among the Q15.
I agree that the church is opening the "Grace" door more for the average member. I don't think that the leadership is opening the "Grace" door to the intellectuals, the feminists, and those who do not meet gender-based performance expectations in terms of actual actions taken. I see RMN as a primary talker for "conditional Grace" here when he codes dissenting individuals as "lazy learners". It might be his age showing and that he is a regular centenarian rebel.
I might be the problem because I expected more "Grace" (and less judgement) from the leadership on a variety of issues.
Re: on grace
Wow! I think I need to add that to my signature.Didge wrote: ↑01 May 2025, 07:49 One of my favorite passages from the book is: "Rather than asking if the church is true, ask something like: Is this the body of Christ? Is Christ manifest here? Does his blood flow in these veins? Does his spirit breathe in these lungs? Does forgiveness flourish here? Is faith strengthened? Is hope enlivened? Is charity practiced? Can I see, here, the body of Christ?" (p. 114) Sometimes I think I see it, sometimes it remains opaque to me. My fault? I can only keep wondering.
It is true that we are making baby strides towards embracing grace.
I think that the most loyal members of the church tend to be fairly elderly as a group. This group is somewhat resistant to changing group norms and inclined to think that the younger generation have it easy and/or have gone soft. This is not a great recipe for great shifts away from works and towards grace. As if to say, "Back in my day, we earned our salvation with fear and trembling. Why does the rising generation think they are too good for that?"
In addition, we are a very hierarchical, top-down controlled church and nearly ALL of the top leadership comes from that older generation.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood
“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223
"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223
"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13
Re: on grace
I do agree that the church/church leaders are not especially graceful toward the marginalized segments of the church membership (with some exceptions of course). And yes, RMN is still jaded by his own misunderstanding, or maybe just hasn't reconciled the whole concept yet. Just to clarify that in the sense of this thread I am referring to grace/mercy/God's love in the eternal aspect of redemption/salvation/exaltation/whatever. I believe/hope in the eternal sense we are all redeemed and will all ultimately be forgiven and go to heaven - every knee will bow and every tongue confess.... That's universalist me speaking.AmyJ wrote: ↑02 May 2025, 08:03I expect that there will be a lot of surprises about the nature of God:)DarkJedi wrote: ↑02 May 2025, 06:55 I'm traveling at the moment but just wanted to throw out that when we're trying - and most of us are - we are probably all doing that we can do. I think many people, including many non-members, are going to be very surprised at how loving and merciful our God really is. Again, I would reference the parable of the prodigal son.
I applaud the church for opening the grace door more. There may be other reasons in play here, but I also believe RMN gets it, as do several others among the Q15.
I agree that the church is opening the "Grace" door more for the average member. I don't think that the leadership is opening the "Grace" door to the intellectuals, the feminists, and those who do not meet gender-based performance expectations in terms of actual actions taken. I see RMN as a primary talker for "conditional Grace" here when he codes dissenting individuals as "lazy learners". It might be his age showing and that he is a regular centenarian rebel.
I might be the problem because I expected more "Grace" (and less judgement) from the leadership on a variety of issues.
In the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope.
Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
My Introduction
Once there was a gentile...who came before Hillel. He said "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
My Introduction
-
Minyan Man
- Posts: 2359
- Joined: 15 Sep 2011, 13:40
Re: on grace
Pres Uchtdorf gave a great talk during the last General Conference about Grace.
Here is the link: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... ng#kicker1
He is one of my favorites.
Here is the link: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... ng#kicker1
He is one of my favorites.
Re: on grace
The leadership talks a LOT more about grace now.
Elder Kearon is focused on that concept more openly and explicitly than any apostle in my lifetime, I think - even more than Elder Wirthlin was. I am sure it is his own nature, but I’m sure Elder Uchtdorf was an inspiration for him in that regard.
Elder Kearon is focused on that concept more openly and explicitly than any apostle in my lifetime, I think - even more than Elder Wirthlin was. I am sure it is his own nature, but I’m sure Elder Uchtdorf was an inspiration for him in that regard.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)
Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken