Wondering if this should be in the "regret" thread.
Yeah, you regularly have a different bishopric every few years or so, and so you'll get a wide variety of personalities you pick up on pretty quick. The ones I've had would at least try to help, but it's a calling in the church that's pretty heavy so if the bishop's not ready for it or keep his head up, he's gonna struggle. I've noticed a difference from the family ward to single's ward, but it could also just be that the bishop treats/looks at you differently once you become an adult, I dunno. Gets awkward to meet with them if you're not involved in church activities and such.My Mormon Bishop was a nice man but he kind of seemed like somebody who was there unwillingly
That's pretty cool. I've noticed that it looks like some sects have their own songs that are well-known in their churches, unless it's such a small roster that every couple weeks or so they rotate songs. I imagine they have CDs, too, they give out to their members, but it might mostly just be by ear. Like they're not bad songs at all, they're definitely something to have on a playlist, and yet I've never heard of them before so I wonder where they come from.This was a great one that they played at the church I went to.
It's hard to find the exact songs, the same way they were performed, but I think this gives a general sense of it. Now, there was a lot of variety, but in general it was this Black-influenced, jazzy/funky music.
Musical worship really goes hand-in-hand with God and other deities, hence the need for hymns and why angels are traditionally depicted with harps and trumpets, but I think the amount of energy is based on the scale of reverence depending on how you view the house of the Lord. Congregation participation tends to be the loudest hymns get thanks to the number of people singing, I've noticed, while dances of worship seems to be reserved for ceremonies and celebrations. I think other temple dedications do this for their countries and states, so when the Gilbert Arizona Temple was being dedicated in 2014, there was a cultural celebration that night with music and dance that was the biggest cultural celebration held (think still even to date), which was the most I've ever seen dancing performed in person and for spiritual reasons if only to give praise to God (any time there was dancing at Young Women's Camp, it was mostly for fun). The segment I remember most, though, was members of the Pima tribe doing a couple of traditional dances. (Time-stamped, hopefully.)Pentecostals believe that the fun/energetic atmosphere is worshipful in the more true sense. It's supposed to be an ecstatic feeling. These songs don't reflect it real well, too, but the singing often involved a lot of explicit "praise you God" type lyrics.
Oooh, that sounds lovely. Honestly, I do believe every religion and spiritual system is connected in some form or another from one original religion/belief, and bits and pieces survived but are scattered. It's why I think music is the key that holds it all together because it's so universal, but other ideologies can be linked in some way or another. Meditation is another connection, but the method varies based on where you look for spiritual enlightenment.By the way, my ideal religion would basically take the afterlife and Eternal Progression concepts of Mormonism with the iconography of Orthodoxy and the music and general worship style of Pentecostalism. And the church would be peopled by Baptist youths and Mormon adults and we'd have that Baptist pastor in charge. The members would give sermons once a month, but the pastor would do it on the other weeks.* There'd be ancestor worship elements like Confucianism, but more focused on recent ancestors as opposed to famous distant ancestors. There'd might be something like Orthodox saints, but I'm not sure about that.
I feel like I've seen this concept before, if not in other cultures, it was in a sci-fi show. Stars in the heavens more-or-less already have roots in religious symbolism, hierarchy for example, although adding other layers to it could make for an interesting perspective on the concept of eternity or how finite mortality is.I also sometimes think about star-worship, like taking astronomy/cosmology and just layering spirituality over it, but I haven't developed that idea much.
I wouldn't say there was ever professionalism in giving talks, probably is why I find it odd most other churches just have the one preacher that's like their job or something to that effect, though Sunday schools still seem to be commonplace to get another perspective/ interpretation. Majority of the time for sacrament meetings, though, assigned speakers draw more from previous talks and scripture verses, it's actually rare to write an original talk. It's mainly used for like personal review/reminder or personal revelation, but some speakers get lazy and rely too heavily on scripture to fill the time or use made-up "urban legends" for their testimonies like "Oh, there was the time my cousin twice-removed was getting married and the prophet happened to be there and initiated the ceremony and it was just so beautiful and a blessing" stuff like that. Actually heard the latter used in person about a year before a seminary teacher brought up urban legends in casual talk before class. Funny stuff.*For those of you who don't know, in Mormonism, you don't have the bishop (priest) delivering the sermon, usually. Instead, it rotates through the members. I think it's really nice to have members do that, it makes it feel more tight-knit and gives a variety of perspective, but it also suffers because you lose the polish/learning that a professional preacher has.
On the subject of turning the other cheek, years ago I read something interesting about that on another forum:I'd be a hardcore Christian if we could stop this turn the other cheek crap and go back to reclaiming the holy land.
Admittedly I'm not 100% sure if this is true or not, but I thought it was interesting none the less.There is always someone that says, "Turn the other cheek" and they have no clue what it actually means. The closest translation to the original is this:
"but I say unto you, That ye resist not with evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
This is NOT meant for you to be passive and just take it, it is an act of defiance. We need to touch on a little history to understand why. In that time (and even currently in the middle east in some places) the left hand was used to wipe your ass. There was no toilet paper. It is considered unclean to eat with your left hand as it would have the remnants of shit on it.
When a person has hit you on your right cheek they have used the left hand to do so. They have treated you like shit and as a second class person. The act of turning the OTHER cheek to them is an act of non-violent resistance! You are telling them with your action that to engage you again they MUST hit you with the clean hand. This would elevate you as an equal to them.
You resist them but not with evil or aggression but with their own beliefs and ideas.
. In that time (and even currently in the middle east in some places) the left hand was used to wipe your ass. There was no toilet paper. It is considered unclean to eat with your left hand as it would have the remnants of shit on it./QUOTE]
Ha and filthy arabs say that westerners are unclean and disgyenic
Ain't this the damn truth.I'd be a hardcore Christian if we could stop this turn the other cheek crap and go back to reclaiming the holy land.