Since June I personally have refrained from hot drinks, alcohol, illegal drugs and tobacco. As well, I am celibate.
Between myself and God, I am repenting my past sins in private. On Friday, August 29, I am to be baptized as a Mormon.
So all that talk of remaining a Jack Mormon is pure satire. My epiphany came when I read the anti-Mormon views on the interviews preceding baptism: they gave me the wrong impression.
Nobody in the hierarchy asks you to confess your darkest sins to them, for that isn't supposed to be shared with another mortal soul.
While I am still going to be liberal and still write about Buddhism, politics and other topics that I am interested in, I am also going to write about Mormonism as objectively as I am able. Though the anti-Mormon propaganda will no longer be of interest to me, except perhaps to provide inspiration for commentary.
For now, this post will provide me with the opportunity to explain simply why I decided to be baptized as a Mormon.
With eyes open and an open heart, I attended all the instruction hours since the end of May until now and will continue to do so.
While I am convinced that Joseph Smith Jr was inspired by God to write the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, the Testimony of the Three Witnesses only convinces me of his inspiration. However, I will go along with the cover story that the angel Moroni took those brass plates back to wherever he went.
My own statement above is not a confession of doubt but is made because I have never been shown the original literature by the angel Moroni.
As well, the Egyptian hieroglyphics which inspired Joe Smith to write the Book of Abraham do not translate as that book. Even so, I would consider Mr Smith as inspired by God to write all the scriptures specific to Mormonism and consider him a Mormon prophet.
Nothing I have written so far will fully explain why I became a Mormon. I am sure that it's because I am a people pleaser.
Also, the fact that this local Mormon community is the least judgmental of all Christian denominations has also convinced me that my choice is the best one to make out of all the choices that I faced.
For I could have rejected Mormonism and dealt with being a Buddhist whose spirituality accepted that there is a God and even allowed for the Christ. On closely examining my sarcastic statement that "my Christ is the Buddha", I realize that the statement is considered a religious one by Christians of other denomination.
So my explanation for becoming a Mormon is actually summed up by the concept of the Buddha as my Christ, due to the religious pluralism that I have been quietly practising since 1990. This has been confirmed for me by the Mormon cosmology regarding the souls of pre-mortal times to today's current incarnation on Earth and to the Afterlife. Even Spirit World and Spirit Prison fit into my Buddhist worldview, though the Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms would become similar to Buddhist heavens.
Of course, at first glance, the Mormon cosmology is in my eyes more like a rough draft of the more complex Buddhist cosmology. Though it is more likely that I am not going to revert to Buddhism because of this revelation.
Another reason why I became Mormon because I like the fact that the Mormon literature has had articles on Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism written without critique of each religion.
It is that religious pluralism which confirms my belief that Mormonism is going to be the most wonderful part of my spiritual journey.
Even so, everyone who thinks I have gotten sucked into a cult have no idea at all because they might keep forgetting that I have become Mormon with my eyes open and my heart open to the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints. That does not mean I am going to forget my roots as a Buddhist. Instead, Mormonism will take what I have learned about Buddhism to a new level.
Because this blog is semi-private, I will only refer to the Elders and the wonderful brothers and sisters of my local Mormon ward without specifically identifying anyone.
Thank you too to the brothers and sisters, and especially Elder M and Sister M who all served as hosts for dinner - three wonderful dinners that led from uncertainty to confusion and finally to understanding.
However, my thanks goes out to Elder L who invited me to church, Elder M who patiently instructed me, Elder F who knows his wushu very well, and Elder T, whose words impress me the most. Also thanks to Brother C for his sponsorship.
A poem on My Baptism (which I plan to read after baptism): http://gandhara.blogspot.com/2014/08/my-baptism-poem.html
Showing posts with label confession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label confession. Show all posts
20140818
Be Discreet in Your Confessions (satire)
Regarding the confession of sins before the clergy by a church member, I find that what a person does in his or her home should not be aired in church, even when such a confession might be warranted in private.
This article is about confessions of sin in religion. If the gentle reader is not at all religious, then this article is still useful as a guide in being discreet when being candid with a trusted family member, friend and even a coworker or a work supervisor.
From what I have been able to understand, the clergy believes moral responsibility implies that they should pressure their members and their children to suppress natural human desires in order to enjoy a utopia in the afterlife. Additionally, some of them would pry into the privacy of one of their members, using the ruse that confession of sin is good for the soul while sometimes using the private information revealed to them unethically.
Personally, I feel that what people do in the privacy of their home is their responsibility. Airing one's dirty linens in a confessional risks the sinner being subject to invasion of privacy and needless shame. It also opens a whole ball of wax, because it's more socially acceptable to be sincere about keeping the faith than to be totally candid about personal privacy.
Indeed, a few unscrupulous clergy may have used their position of authority to make a vulnerable member compliant to what amounts to emotional blackmail, which is a violation of the sanctity of confession of sins.
It is truly unethical for the clergy to take advantage of a church member who is candid about his or her sins. Indeed, it is morally irresponsible for the clergy to force a member to do something against his or her will through the use of emotional blackmail to keep them quiet.
For this is devilish of clergy to behave in such a way, especially when it is excused by declaring that it is done for the member's own good i.e. ensuring one's destiny in the afterlife.
By exercising power and control over a church member in such a manner, the clergy certainly is not behaving ethically, regardless of any justification made.
So I would caution church members to be careful about what sins they confess before clergy. For personal privacy means that any member is free to maintain her privacy about personal questions that the church has no business asking.
Am I suggesting that a church member lie? No, if the questioning gets uncomfortable, then the church member should sincerely declare that she is not there to air her dirty linen without a supportive witness present.
It also is unethical for a witness for emotional support to side with the clergy should the member be candid about her sins. That witness' role is to provide emotional support, not gang up on the sinner.
Even so, it requires much prayer before being candid about one's sins. The clergy is actually practising a form of psychological abuse when demanding a full confession of sins with the threat that lack of candidness means a trip to Hell.
Indeed, warrantless emphasis on the destiny of the wicked as 'damned to Hell' without presenting the strong case of mercy by a loving God through repentance is itself a kind of sin that equally damns anyone else. For it is indeed devilish to needlessly frighten a church member into compliance.
This is why I would caution church members to be ever vigilant when in an interview with clergy or a member of high standing, so as to not complicate the confession process needlessly.
It is far better to confess privately to God your private sins, and pray for forgiveness than to confess about them with clergy, unless you trust them to keep your sins secret and to remain morally responsible in light of your confession of sins to them.
I am sure this is why we are selective about who we confess our errors to, lest the empaths try to shame us into repentance, which is different from freely repenting.
We are not perfect, being human. Yet there might be some unscrupulous person to abuse their moral responsibility by violating their sense of professionalism and turning sociopathic, if only to "teach us a lesson".
So be discreet about what you confess to a confident who you trust, and always be open to repentance.
This article is about confessions of sin in religion. If the gentle reader is not at all religious, then this article is still useful as a guide in being discreet when being candid with a trusted family member, friend and even a coworker or a work supervisor.
From what I have been able to understand, the clergy believes moral responsibility implies that they should pressure their members and their children to suppress natural human desires in order to enjoy a utopia in the afterlife. Additionally, some of them would pry into the privacy of one of their members, using the ruse that confession of sin is good for the soul while sometimes using the private information revealed to them unethically.
Personally, I feel that what people do in the privacy of their home is their responsibility. Airing one's dirty linens in a confessional risks the sinner being subject to invasion of privacy and needless shame. It also opens a whole ball of wax, because it's more socially acceptable to be sincere about keeping the faith than to be totally candid about personal privacy.
Indeed, a few unscrupulous clergy may have used their position of authority to make a vulnerable member compliant to what amounts to emotional blackmail, which is a violation of the sanctity of confession of sins.
It is truly unethical for the clergy to take advantage of a church member who is candid about his or her sins. Indeed, it is morally irresponsible for the clergy to force a member to do something against his or her will through the use of emotional blackmail to keep them quiet.
For this is devilish of clergy to behave in such a way, especially when it is excused by declaring that it is done for the member's own good i.e. ensuring one's destiny in the afterlife.
By exercising power and control over a church member in such a manner, the clergy certainly is not behaving ethically, regardless of any justification made.
So I would caution church members to be careful about what sins they confess before clergy. For personal privacy means that any member is free to maintain her privacy about personal questions that the church has no business asking.
Am I suggesting that a church member lie? No, if the questioning gets uncomfortable, then the church member should sincerely declare that she is not there to air her dirty linen without a supportive witness present.
It also is unethical for a witness for emotional support to side with the clergy should the member be candid about her sins. That witness' role is to provide emotional support, not gang up on the sinner.
Even so, it requires much prayer before being candid about one's sins. The clergy is actually practising a form of psychological abuse when demanding a full confession of sins with the threat that lack of candidness means a trip to Hell.
Indeed, warrantless emphasis on the destiny of the wicked as 'damned to Hell' without presenting the strong case of mercy by a loving God through repentance is itself a kind of sin that equally damns anyone else. For it is indeed devilish to needlessly frighten a church member into compliance.
This is why I would caution church members to be ever vigilant when in an interview with clergy or a member of high standing, so as to not complicate the confession process needlessly.
It is far better to confess privately to God your private sins, and pray for forgiveness than to confess about them with clergy, unless you trust them to keep your sins secret and to remain morally responsible in light of your confession of sins to them.
I am sure this is why we are selective about who we confess our errors to, lest the empaths try to shame us into repentance, which is different from freely repenting.
We are not perfect, being human. Yet there might be some unscrupulous person to abuse their moral responsibility by violating their sense of professionalism and turning sociopathic, if only to "teach us a lesson".
So be discreet about what you confess to a confident who you trust, and always be open to repentance.
20101018
I feel Vindicated about My Decision Not to Ignore FACEBOOK's BAN
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304772804575558484075236968.html
"Many of the most popular applications, or "apps," on the social-networking site Facebook Inc. have been transmitting identifying information—in effect, providing access to people's names and, in some cases, their friends' names—to dozens of advertising and Internet tracking companies, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found.
The issue affects tens of millions of Facebook app users, including people who set their profiles to Facebook's strictest privacy settings. The practice breaks Facebook's rules, and renews questions about its ability to keep identifiable information about its users' activities secure."
They broke their rules before I joined, and they broke their own rules after they assured everyone else on Facebook and informed everyone of their strictest privacy setting.
Facebook also got members to nark on pedophiles, rather than changing security to include sending in or emailing ID like I did on one local dating site.
As well, they denied any responsibility when Facebook was used by criminals to scam other users, steal from them, and even didn't catch wind of the other capital offences committed by a few bad apples, probably despite a handful of complaints.
In my case, I was banned. Was it for posting partially nude pictures of people I don't know, heavily edited with the Gnu Image Manipulation Program (GIMP), usually by degrading the image to black and white and creatively blurring the pictures? Or for adding young people from Indonesia to help me rack up a high score at a Yazuka game Facebook runs? I really don't know.
The usual way to prevent banned users from signing up under a fake name to wreak revenge on the people who finked on them is to refuse to validate accounts associated with an email address and its associated IP address.
In my case, after receiving the email Facebook sent me which stated that I was banned due to complaints from other Facebook member, I indirectly admitted wrong-doing in reply. Within hours, I received the second email from them which stated that their decision stands and that their decision was final.
My response is documented in my blog entry for May 9, 2010, My Time on Facebook is Over.
After reading the article on Wall Street Journal, I feel vindicated for not returning to Facebook.
FWIW all my Facebook friends are spending time online they will never ever get back.
As for me, I'm getting out more often this winter to prevent SAD from turning me into a grumpy old man.
"Many of the most popular applications, or "apps," on the social-networking site Facebook Inc. have been transmitting identifying information—in effect, providing access to people's names and, in some cases, their friends' names—to dozens of advertising and Internet tracking companies, a Wall Street Journal investigation has found.
The issue affects tens of millions of Facebook app users, including people who set their profiles to Facebook's strictest privacy settings. The practice breaks Facebook's rules, and renews questions about its ability to keep identifiable information about its users' activities secure."
They broke their rules before I joined, and they broke their own rules after they assured everyone else on Facebook and informed everyone of their strictest privacy setting.
Facebook also got members to nark on pedophiles, rather than changing security to include sending in or emailing ID like I did on one local dating site.
As well, they denied any responsibility when Facebook was used by criminals to scam other users, steal from them, and even didn't catch wind of the other capital offences committed by a few bad apples, probably despite a handful of complaints.
In my case, I was banned. Was it for posting partially nude pictures of people I don't know, heavily edited with the Gnu Image Manipulation Program (GIMP), usually by degrading the image to black and white and creatively blurring the pictures? Or for adding young people from Indonesia to help me rack up a high score at a Yazuka game Facebook runs? I really don't know.
The usual way to prevent banned users from signing up under a fake name to wreak revenge on the people who finked on them is to refuse to validate accounts associated with an email address and its associated IP address.
In my case, after receiving the email Facebook sent me which stated that I was banned due to complaints from other Facebook member, I indirectly admitted wrong-doing in reply. Within hours, I received the second email from them which stated that their decision stands and that their decision was final.
My response is documented in my blog entry for May 9, 2010, My Time on Facebook is Over.
After reading the article on Wall Street Journal, I feel vindicated for not returning to Facebook.
FWIW all my Facebook friends are spending time online they will never ever get back.
As for me, I'm getting out more often this winter to prevent SAD from turning me into a grumpy old man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)