-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Making Changes in Your Religion
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
In Nichiren Buddhism there are many sects or "denominations". Each have a different spin on what our founder and even Shakyamuni Buddha said Himself. I went with SGI because that is the only "Buddhist" denomini in my area. Other temples the culture and language clash so much its hard to really know the belief with a good level of languistic understanding.
I am comfortable with my beliefs (and paganism is a default so there is nothing Id want to change there)
SGI:
I'd change the high focus on Saku Ikeda. They put more emphasis on him than Nichiren and even The Buddha!
I'd like to whipe away the political confrontations between Shoshu and SGI.
The Shakobuku (evanglization) is strict in shoshu and depending in SGI...Id like more focus on the other persons spiritual well being rather than get them to follow us.
Id take away the focus of "getting a quota" on new members more heavily pronounced in Shoshu but SGI has it too.
SGI has what Baptist have of giving testimony of experiences. They differ in that SGI seems more promoting a religion while baptist are sharing their religion. Id like less promotion and marketing feel to more religion: aka fellowship.
If Nichiren Shu was in my state, Id go there. I wouldnt change faiths.
Sees
Dragonslayer
I would copy Rival in that I wish groups and individuals who give the traditions a bad image would go away.
Besides that though, I'm for them as a whole being evolving and organic. I don't think anything is at a true perfection stage whether past or present, or that it needs to be stagnant and locked-down.
Besides that though, I'm for them as a whole being evolving and organic. I don't think anything is at a true perfection stage whether past or present, or that it needs to be stagnant and locked-down.
I wish it became dogma in Heathenry that anyone who said "you're doing it wrong" had his tongue pulled out with tongs with Garmr waiting to begin taking slow bites. 
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I'd be the first to say that Mormonism is not "perfect as it is." The changes I would like to see, however, have nothing to do with doctrine but with policies and practices. I can think of three just offhand...
1. There are so many instances in which an LDS man is expected to be clean-shaven. A Mormon man cannot, for example, serve as a full-time missionary, work in one of the Church's temples, or be a member of the Tabernacle Choir if he wears a beard. This isn't because of some Mormon doctrine which says beards are wicked or perverse. It's just a policy that dates back to sometime in the 1960s when pretty much the only men who wore beards were pretty anti-establishment. They were rebels, non-conformists, even radicals. That way of thinking has persisted to this day and it's time for us to move into the 21st century. My husband looks much better with a beard than he does without one, and neither of us wants him to shave it off. This silly little policy, however, is keeping us from being able to have a lot of experiences in the Church we'd be able to have if he were to shave.
2. All the time our kids are growing up, we tell them that they need to prepare to get married in one of our temples. It's a big deal, and it should be. We believe that there is something different about a temple marriage, and that unlike a marriage performed elsewhere, a temple marriage has the power to survive beyond the grave. In other words, in a regular (non-temple) service, the couple is said to be husband and wife "until death do you part" or "for as long as you both shall live." In the temple wedding, they are said to be husband and wife "for time and for all eternity." This is something we sincerely believe. The problem these days is that so many young couples are getting married who have close family (parents, in particular) who aren't members of the Church and who therefore are not able to go to the temple and witness their child's wedding. Now, it is possible for an LDS couple to be married in a non-temple service (performed either by their bishop or by a justice of the peace -- it doesn't matter) and then, once a year has passed, go to the temple and be "sealed" together "for time and for all eternity." The end result is exactly the same. Unfortunately, there is so much emphasis on "doing it right the first time" that even if the couple wanted to have a non-temple marriage so that their parents could all be present, the culture of the Church pressures them to choose to have the temple wedding instead. For a church that emphasizes family so much, so much damage comes from this policy. I wish the Church would let the kids marry in a non-temple ceremony where their family members could be present, and then have their marriage sealed in the temple as soon as they wanted to.
3. As worthwhile as I believe the Church's health code, "The Word of Wisdom" is, it was not originally given as a commandment. Church leaders have turned it into one, but there is no record of any directive from the Lord telling them to. When Joseph Smith initially received the Word of Wisdom, by revelation from God, God specifically stated that He was not giving it as a commandment. Today, a person who does not live the Word of Wisdom cannot be baptized a member of the Church. While I'm all for living a healthy lifestyle, and only taking those things into our bodies which are good for us -- which is what the Word of Wisdom is all about, I feel so bad to think of the many people who would happily join the Church still drinking their morning cup of coffee and then working on breaking the habit once they have the support of the members of their congregation. It just seems to me that the importance of the Word of Wisdom has come to be so overstated as to be seriously problematic. When someone who has a glass of wine once or twice a year is said to be breaking the Word of Wisdom, but somebody who wouldn't touch a drop of alcohol but is morbidly obese is said to be keeping this "commandment," something's wrong, in my opinion.
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
While I agree with the liberal social positions the Episcopal Church is coming to embrace I wish these changes were rooted more in a theological consensus and spiritually grounded instead of being made primarily for secular reasons and with no consensus rooted in theology. This also results in some changes being the result of compromise and can be hurtful to many people in the church whether they are liberal or conservative.
I also wish the church had not been so drastic in its revision of the Book of Common Prayer and in the new liturgical movement. In some places the sense of the sacred and transcendent has been lost in the liturgy and music. In most of those places there has also been a loss of sacral English, the distinctive Cranmerian prayer language Anglicanism was known for. While there is a Rite I in the new prayer book that preserves a slightly more modern rendition of this form of English, the Psalms for that rite are modern, clashing with the rest of the liturgy and come no where near the beauty of the Coverdale psalms. Prior to the new prayer book, the Coverdale psalms had been preserved with only slight changes in every single edition of the prayer book. Most parishes that use Rite I or even the old Rite still take the readings from the NRSV, a good translation of itself, but the prayer book and the KJV were written for each other and are wonderful together, but I only experience this if I'm saying the Daily Office privately.
A lot of what bothers me about these things is that we are losing so much culture that has marked us as distinctive historically, legacies that we contributed to the world, to English literature, and we should be proud of it. But often we are not, and we throw it all out and become less and less distinctive. And often the newer liturgies do not come anywhere near the literary excellence of what came before and are hardly a continuation of prior liturgies.
While my parish is far more traditional than most, I had a really hard time with these things when I briefly joined the Catholic Church where the situation was much worse. It does worry me if I was in a situation where I couldn't find a traditionally-inclined Anglican parish because I think I'd just have to drop out altogether like I did with Catholicism. Much of this situation is made up for by the eclectic and esoteric approach I also take to my spirituality. I have my own sacred rites that the church cannot touch, largely drawing on the structure, cadence, and certain prayers of older Episcopalian and Anglo-Catholic liturgies.
I also wish the church had not been so drastic in its revision of the Book of Common Prayer and in the new liturgical movement. In some places the sense of the sacred and transcendent has been lost in the liturgy and music. In most of those places there has also been a loss of sacral English, the distinctive Cranmerian prayer language Anglicanism was known for. While there is a Rite I in the new prayer book that preserves a slightly more modern rendition of this form of English, the Psalms for that rite are modern, clashing with the rest of the liturgy and come no where near the beauty of the Coverdale psalms. Prior to the new prayer book, the Coverdale psalms had been preserved with only slight changes in every single edition of the prayer book. Most parishes that use Rite I or even the old Rite still take the readings from the NRSV, a good translation of itself, but the prayer book and the KJV were written for each other and are wonderful together, but I only experience this if I'm saying the Daily Office privately.
A lot of what bothers me about these things is that we are losing so much culture that has marked us as distinctive historically, legacies that we contributed to the world, to English literature, and we should be proud of it. But often we are not, and we throw it all out and become less and less distinctive. And often the newer liturgies do not come anywhere near the literary excellence of what came before and are hardly a continuation of prior liturgies.
While my parish is far more traditional than most, I had a really hard time with these things when I briefly joined the Catholic Church where the situation was much worse. It does worry me if I was in a situation where I couldn't find a traditionally-inclined Anglican parish because I think I'd just have to drop out altogether like I did with Catholicism. Much of this situation is made up for by the eclectic and esoteric approach I also take to my spirituality. I have my own sacred rites that the church cannot touch, largely drawing on the structure, cadence, and certain prayers of older Episcopalian and Anglo-Catholic liturgies.
arthra
Baha'i
Baha'i Faith for me has been a wonderful experience and I think I could say this for my family as well... We don't involve ourselves in partisan politics...attacking other religions or have internal conflicts within our communities.. I attended our Convention which was only one among well over a hundred in the US this past week or so ... One of the virtues I like very much in the Faith is to encourage consultation about the issues facing us and we do this on the local, regional and national levels. Our administrative bodies are elected annually and that process of election is begun in prayer rather than debate or partisanship.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Edit: Oh gosh. Sorry. Didn't mean to make it this long.
I mean, does seeing things we need to change in our faith make us want to change our faith? I hope not. Maybe this is one of the many ways to really think of what believe as not perfect but in that we help out with working the kinks.
For example, I decided to create a meetup site and have an informal study on the Sutras, and specifically the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren's Writings (Gosho). Helping others know more about their faith through their eyesa and not just through another is one of my goals. Yet, I don't want people to depend on what I give them rather than reading it themselves. I hope they do.
I also found it helpful to tell my friends what I am comfortabe with and what I am not. I don't go to their World Peace Gongyo. I went there twice. We sit in a huge school auditorium. There is a huge flat screen on the side of us and we see "commercial" scenes of Ikeda and different things he does around the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the guy. I mean, I follow the Buddha's teachings, and the Buddha was just as much human as me and Ikeda. However, I would change the focus on how we learn about our faith. It's all through the words of Ikeda. All his interpretations. He and Toda, the past president of SGI.
After everyone has done Gongyo (our worship and chanting), we watch these commercials. Then we hear people come up front and share their testimonies. What I'd like to change is when people ask me, "do you have a testimony?" and "has the Gohonzon (our object of worship) changed you? What benefits have you seen? Has your health gotten better?" Things like that.
I love Shoshu if the theology matches that of Nichiren's and Shakyamuni's. If the people were not about "getting numbers", I would have stayed. The priest have good sermens on what the Gohonzon means and things like that. I and with the help of my sponsor were going to help with a study program with the priests help given it's on his property.
It's one thing to change things that you disagree with, it's another thing to want to change the faith. Shoshu, I wanted to change the faith. At least with SGI the people are very nice. They evangalize heavily, but they respect my disinterests in doing the same. They have, what they call, human revolution (enlightenment) and Kusen Rufu (World enlightenment) in Buddhist terms, I guess you can translate. I like their goals and small meetings where we talk about our practices.
I'd like to add more study on the Gohso and Lotus Sutra. We read from Living Buddhism and all of it is written by Ikeda and Toda. No one else.
I mean, we an love our faiths to death. I also feel that a community works to make our customs and faiths stronger. That's what change really means.
In my pagan practices and values, I see nothing I want to change. It's like a default to my worldview. We are born to live naturally. I see nothing wrong in the rituals and prayers I do. I would only like to have more commuity.
I mean, does seeing things we need to change in our faith make us want to change our faith? I hope not. Maybe this is one of the many ways to really think of what believe as not perfect but in that we help out with working the kinks.
For example, I decided to create a meetup site and have an informal study on the Sutras, and specifically the Lotus Sutra and Nichiren's Writings (Gosho). Helping others know more about their faith through their eyesa and not just through another is one of my goals. Yet, I don't want people to depend on what I give them rather than reading it themselves. I hope they do.
I also found it helpful to tell my friends what I am comfortabe with and what I am not. I don't go to their World Peace Gongyo. I went there twice. We sit in a huge school auditorium. There is a huge flat screen on the side of us and we see "commercial" scenes of Ikeda and different things he does around the world. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the guy. I mean, I follow the Buddha's teachings, and the Buddha was just as much human as me and Ikeda. However, I would change the focus on how we learn about our faith. It's all through the words of Ikeda. All his interpretations. He and Toda, the past president of SGI.
After everyone has done Gongyo (our worship and chanting), we watch these commercials. Then we hear people come up front and share their testimonies. What I'd like to change is when people ask me, "do you have a testimony?" and "has the Gohonzon (our object of worship) changed you? What benefits have you seen? Has your health gotten better?" Things like that.
I love Shoshu if the theology matches that of Nichiren's and Shakyamuni's. If the people were not about "getting numbers", I would have stayed. The priest have good sermens on what the Gohonzon means and things like that. I and with the help of my sponsor were going to help with a study program with the priests help given it's on his property.
It's one thing to change things that you disagree with, it's another thing to want to change the faith. Shoshu, I wanted to change the faith. At least with SGI the people are very nice. They evangalize heavily, but they respect my disinterests in doing the same. They have, what they call, human revolution (enlightenment) and Kusen Rufu (World enlightenment) in Buddhist terms, I guess you can translate. I like their goals and small meetings where we talk about our practices.
I'd like to add more study on the Gohso and Lotus Sutra. We read from Living Buddhism and all of it is written by Ikeda and Toda. No one else.
I mean, we an love our faiths to death. I also feel that a community works to make our customs and faiths stronger. That's what change really means.
In my pagan practices and values, I see nothing I want to change. It's like a default to my worldview. We are born to live naturally. I see nothing wrong in the rituals and prayers I do. I would only like to have more commuity.
Last edited:
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
You didn't catch the tongue-in-cheek. No pun intended.
The major things I want to change, I'm already working on. My religion is always a work in progress, as it should be, and I wouldn't have it any other way. A religion that doesn't grow and change with me is useless.
As for non-personal aspects of religions I affiliate with, whether that's Neopaganism, Unitarian Universalism, Druidry, or religious Witchcraft? It's not really my place to suggest changes to it. I think that the Neopagan label has gotten more heterogenous that I think it should be, but that's about it.
As for non-personal aspects of religions I affiliate with, whether that's Neopaganism, Unitarian Universalism, Druidry, or religious Witchcraft? It's not really my place to suggest changes to it. I think that the Neopagan label has gotten more heterogenous that I think it should be, but that's about it.
syo
Well-Known Member
it is perfect as it is, but I really want pagan hostility against christians and vice versa to stop.
The Holy Bottom Burp
Active Member
As a former Christian, and looking at the religion now in a different way entirely, I think the thing I'd like to see change most is the attitude towards birth control. The world is overpopulated, and it shows no sign of slowing down, we might be on course for an environmental disaster as we use up natural resources to keep an ever growing population alive . I do hope I'm wrong, but we seriously need to start thinking about population. Telling people contraception or abortion is not a sin would help.
The fundamentalists of my religion should stop mixing Indian nationalism with Hinduism.
They should also read more than say whatever they don't like is anti-Hindu.
What one or two things about your denomination, or your religion as a whole, would you like to see changed, or is it perfect as is?
My Christianity is focused on one true thing, which is perfect and unchangeable; The Son of God came to this earth to die for our sins and redeem us from satan's grasp. We don't want to change that.
ronandcarol
My Christianity is focused on one true thing, which is perfect and unchangeable; The Son of God came to this earth to die for our sins and redeem us from satan's grasp. We don't want to change that.
ronandcarol