OMG, Time Flies! I've been a secret apostate for years now!

[_why me]

Why Me, now that you are back, I was wondering if you could address my post regarding LDS women feeling the need to be perfect. You mentioned that you did not see this. My comment was, as follows. I am repeating it because it kind of got lost on page 9 of the thread. Something weird happened with the quote function and I had to re-post. Here is my prior post I would like a response to:

You don't see it because you are not a woman, and do not attend Relief Society. ;-)

I am not arguing the fact that many LDS women work. Most of my ward's Relief Society work outside the home. However, as one of those working Moms, I think that the culture puts even more pressure on us in a way. We are not only expected to excel in our outside jobs, but also be the perfect juggler...the kids must still excel in school, be spit shine clean, etc.

Again, I realize that the Church, itself, does not expect this. But it is very easy for us, in striving to do everything right, to take things to this level. And, the Church, as an organization, does reward those who do, at least project the image of perfection. Those folks are looked up to.

It is easy to forget that we have not walked in anyone else's shoes but our own.

Why Me, what frustrates me about you is that you tend to refuse to acknowledge that there are aspects of the Church, and of the Mormon culture, that you don't know everything about! By your own admission, you are a partially participating member. As such, you are not completely immersed in the Mormon culture and community the way others of us who are 100% active are. To claim that you understand that level of immersion is very disingenuous. I believe that this is why you have so much trouble communicating with folks here.

I will get back to you because I have to leave the computer now. Will be back later.

[_mfbukowski]

He lists several things in which it is possible to achieve perfection as a mortal person.

He refers to people in the scriptures who were called perfect during their mortal life.

He explicitly says that mortal perfection can be attained and says how.

Conclusion: mortal perfection cannot possibly be attained.

I just wanted to preserve that quote.

[_Darth J]

He lists several things in which it is possible to achieve perfection as a mortal person.

He refers to people in the scriptures who were called perfect during their mortal life.

He explicitly says that mortal perfection can be attained and says how.

Conclusion: mortal perfection cannot possibly be attained.

I just wanted to preserve that quote.

So you can summarize what you've been arguing more succinctly?

[_mfbukowski]

I find that it interesting that if you google "self mastery", which oddly for this board, most people find to be a GOOD thing- not a road to neurosis, as it has been described- the fifth site that comes up is no other that LDS.org, with a talk by James Faust on that very subject.

Most people think it's good to try to be the "best you can be", except of course here.

Here it is a "recipe for neurosis".

I wonder why that is? It almost seems that being as base as possible is celebrated. What's wrong with trying to be the best you can?

[_mfbukowski]

I think that anything we can do to more thoroughly understand how we function as human beings, what really drives us, and how we can utilize that understanding to be better human beings and better spiritual beings, is definitely a part of our evolution. And I think it has to happen rapidly because our technology is multiplying in its capacity and its strength and its diversity more rapidly than our technology for the management of human emotion, which is what drives all human action. And I think that's the part that has to be focused on. We need to develop the emotional and spiritual muscles to deal with whatever challenges show up. So if there's a prayer I have, it's not "Give me, Lord." And it's not "Why me?" It's "Make me." It's "Make me more." I don't necessarily want it to be easier. Maybe intellectually I'd like that, but what I really want is to be better. Because if each one of us was constantly more and better of what is really inside of us, then our capacity as a species and as a spirit and as a unified spiritual body to do good, be good, create good, and experience more of our true selves, our authentic selves, I think would be multiplied many times over.

The above is a quote, and I did not write it. I deliberately left quotes off to make a point.

But I agree with it completely. The author? I'm not a fan of his, but he's Tony Robins. The point I am making is that people will pay through the nose to try to learn to be better people, but here those who try to be better, and live to higher standards are mocked.

Why is that?
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j ... asp?page=3

[Guest]

I find that it interesting that if you google "self mastery", which oddly for this board, most people find to be a GOOD thing- not a road to neurosis, as it has been described- the fifth site that comes up is no other that LDS.org, with a talk by James Faust on that very subject.

Most people think it's good to try to be the "best you can be", except of course here.

Here it is a "recipe for neurosis".

I wonder why that is? It almost seems that being as base as possible is celebrated. What's wrong with trying to be the best you can?

The above is extraordinarily poor reasoning.

Nobody on this thread is arguing that whatever the vague, subjective idea of "self-mastery" is, it is bad.

Nobody described whatever "self-mastery" is supposed to mean as a road to neurosis.

I did not say James E. Faust's talk was a recipe for neurosis. I said that a recipe for neurosis is the teaching in an institute manual to write down everything you think you're doing wrong and obsess over it every day.

Nobody is arguing against being "the best you can be." The OP is saying that the arbitrary rules and social taboos of the LDS Church interfere with being the best you can be. Being as base as possible is not being celebrated simply because your premise is disputed. The OP and those who agree with its general thesis do not grant your implied assertion that disbelieving that God really wants us to do everything that LDS leaders say we need to do equates to a defect in character.

[_Darth J]

I think that anything we can do to more thoroughly understand how we function as human beings, what really drives us, and how we can utilize that understanding to be better human beings and better spiritual beings, is definitely a part of our evolution. And I think it has to happen rapidly because our technology is multiplying in its capacity and its strength and its diversity more rapidly than our technology for the management of human emotion, which is what drives all human action. And I think that's the part that has to be focused on. We need to develop the emotional and spiritual muscles to deal with whatever challenges show up. So if there's a prayer I have, it's not "Give me, Lord." And it's not "Why me?" It's "Make me." It's "Make me more." I don't necessarily want it to be easier. Maybe intellectually I'd like that, but what I really want is to be better. Because if each one of us was constantly more and better of what is really inside of us, then our capacity as a species and as a spirit and as a unified spiritual body to do good, be good, create good, and experience more of our true selves, our authentic selves, I think would be multiplied many times over.

The above is a quote, and I did not write it. I deliberately left quotes off to make a point.

But I agree with it completely. The author? I'm not a fan of his, but he's Tony Robins. The point I am making is that people will pay through the nose to try to learn to be better people, but here those who try to be better, and live to higher standards are mocked.

Why is that?
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j ... asp?page=3

Who the hell do you think you're arguing against?

[Guest]

I find that it interesting that if you google "self mastery", which oddly for this board, most people find to be a GOOD thing- not a road to neurosis, as it has been described- the fifth site that comes up is no other that LDS.org, with a talk by James Faust on that very subject.

Strange. When I googled it the LDS.org index was 13. Faust's Ensign talk was 14. But I'm glad the Church's internet optimization machine is working.

Most people think it's good to try to be the "best you can be", except of course here.

Here it is a "recipe for neurosis".

I must have missed this. Please show where this is demonstrated.

I wonder why that is? It almost seems that being as base as possible is celebrated.

I must have also missed this. Again, please show where this is demonstrated.

What's wrong with trying to be the best you can?

I believe that almost everyone here would agree with this rhetorical.


-------------
edit: Darth, I missed your reply to mfbukowski, above. Sorry for the duplicate effort.

[_Darth J]

The point I am making is that people will pay through the nose to try to learn to be better people, but here those who try to be better, and live to higher standards are mocked.

Your premise is not granted that the arbitrary rules and social taboos of the LDS Church and Mormon culture are better (than what?) or that they are "higher" standards. That's the point of the OP.

You are begging the question every time you assert this.

[_Drifting]

The real problem is that the LDS church tells you all this shiz you need to do but they fail to address HOW to do it. How to function. How to overcome real life issues.

Mostly, we all sit there wondering why everyone else can handle it and we can't. I have yet to meet a Mormon who says they *know* they are going to the Celestial Kingdom.

I know that if the Celestial Kingdom exists then I cannot be kept out of it regardless of my achievements in becoming perfect. I have been married in the Temple and D&C 132 gives me the promise that, as long as I do not shed innocent blood, I'm in - regardless of my performance on all the other criteria since that ceremony. I doubt I would choose to live there though, too many of the people I want to be with would be elsewhere.