Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think the advice here is all great! I just wanted to also add that there’s a podcast actually called Marriage on a Tightrope that is specifically about a mixed faith couple and them still figuring things out. It’s a very uplifting podcast, and they interview other couples who are also mixed faith. As far as I know, they are all couples with one spouse in the lds church, but I haven’t listened to all their interviews. But the main couple on the podcast is made of an lds wife and a husband who doesn’t believe anymore, and they live in Utah. Here’s the link to their page: https://marriageonatightrope.org/ I wish you and your wife all the best, and I hope things are able to work out.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
SD said: “Although I wonder why he gives us answers to prayers telling us to join the church when it may not be what it says it is? I asked if it was true and if I should join. I felt the Spirit strongly enough to forge ahead.
I often wonder if he was more concerned that at that point in my life, it was a good thing for me to join the church. So, he gave me the spiritual feelings I needed to join. Perhaps being a member would bring greater good than being a non-member? I’m not sure God is so concerned about absolute truth, as he is about influencing us to make decisions that are useful to Him, or his children. Particularly given our limited understanding relative to him.
But back to accessibility….this lack of accessibility and clarity about what is true is giving me confidence. Confidence that I may be able to die someday, not necessarily “firm in the faith”. This also gives me drive to simply do as well as I can on this earth from a character perspective.”
For me personally, since I don’t think prayer answers are legit, I think those feelings are from us, and we know more about what we need than we think we do. I think sometimes in life we feel a connection to something and are driven to be a part of it. Whether it’s because it makes sense to us and gives us a feeling of security, or because it tells us something we need to hear, or because it resonates with beliefs we already have from our upbringing and view of how the world works. There are just so many people who get spiritual witnesses for their religion, it doesn’t seem to have to do with which religion is true. This could work in a scenario where there is no God, or if God is very uninvolved in our lives and mostly lets our lives pan out however they will. I think both are possible. I have a hard time personally believing in a God who is loving, and all powerful, and willing to let people suffer so badly. Especially when the suffering has no point to it, pointless suffering goes against the idea of it being “for our good”. Those are my thoughts at least, what do you think SD, do you think that feeling you had when you felt the spirit could have been from you?
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I have also thought on this subject before. What I’ve come to believe is that, if there is a God, he doesn’t seem especially attached to any one religion over another. Things are so unclear with every religion in the world claiming to be God’s true church, and so many religious books, and so many different teachings, so many different ideas of God that have changed over history, etc. With everything being as unclear as it is, it seems like God either God is pretty unfair in expecting everyone to figure out His true religion, or, if He’s a loving God, that he actually doesn’t care what religion we follow. Either that, or it isn’t important to him that people belong to his true church while they’re mortal. Maybe instead of Mormonism being God’s one true church, and every other religion having only some truth, maybe every church (including Mormonism) in the world and every church in history has some truth to it. That’s my view now. I have a hard time believing in a God who would be mad at me for losing my faith in Mormonism, when He’s made things unclear enough that I was able to misunderstand his communication with me, and by using my brain instead of my feelings, realized the church made no sense and could be a fraud, and I thought I had been tricked into following that fraud. I lost my faith based on a untrue prayer answer, and that was supposed to be my connection with God, so it made me realize if His way of communicating with us can be wrong, even when it feels like a very clear answer, then it wasn’t a valid way of figuring out truth.
Anyways, back to your thought, I think God is way less worried about what religion people join, than people seem to think He is.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
On Own Now wrote:There is definitely a shift in the way this is being described. However, I find it not only very unsatisfying, but more than a little frustrating as well. To me, it falls along the lines of saying “hate the sin, love the sinner”. It’s meant to soften a position, but all it does is makes the Church look like it’s trying to hide behind words, what it does in actions.
There will be absolutely no equality in priesthood unless and until a woman can serve as a Bishop and Stake President.
I agree. They are definitely trying to make it sound like we’re equal when we aren’t. I forgot! That was another phrase they kept saying during the lesson “men and women are equal, but they have different responsibilties in the priesthood”. It honestly reminded me of “separate but equal” [emoji849]
On another note, it frustrates me too because even though their old stance of ‘women don’t have the priesthood, and men do, and the priesthood can do ______’ made women not feel equal, at least it was more clear what the priesthood was and the abilities it gave. I feel like by blurring the lines of what counts as the priesthood will make people realise that it isn’t (imo) real. As they were talking about women receiving revelation for their children being a priesthood thing, I immediately thought about how women who haven’t been through the temple can receive revelations regarding their children, and women and men in other religions receive revelation about their children, so it makes it seem like anything influenced by God is using the priesthood which would take away their authority if they blur that too much. I feel similarly with them blurring the lines on what kind of revelation a prophet receives compared to regular members and how they are the same as regular members. It’s all fluff talk to lower our expectations of prophets, but if they lower the bar too much, they’ll lose that authority of being a voice for God above any other voice for God. In a way, maybe I’m being too picky since I don’t like the hard-liner view either, I think it’s just frustrating seeing them trying to make things seem nicer, but I think it eats at that view I had as a kid of how clearly the church was true because they had the priesthood and the prophet spoke to God personally, and is pretty close to perfect. When they take those away, they’re taking away their specialness that the child in me wanted to be real. Which maybe sounds immature, but I think there still a child-like part in everyone. I think mine still wants the church to be true, but when they do things like this, it makes that part of me cringe, because it feels like it’s obvious that it’s made up (imo). When I was a kid, I thought the church didn’t follow the ways of the world, and while in a way, I’m glad they are because the world is moving in positive directions, it points to the idea that the church is slowly following the world rather than being an example to the world.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I’ve been quite happy for the last while. Things have been hectic which adds some stress, but more often than not, I am enjoying life and feel lucky to be alive. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I think they did a good job making it into an interesting story, and I was glad to see them admitting to some things about the past. As you and others have said though, it was not as forthcoming as I was hoping. I didn’t like how much they put Joseph on a pedestal. They seem like they want to show “he’s a man just like any other man” but they aren’t willing to show just how human he was. They want to make sure he still seems “saintly”. I think this is a good book for members who want to learn more about church history in a way that is fun to read, but not in a way that challenges their faith too much. It’s definitely not a book for people who already know the difficult parts of church history and want a completely honest history. I did NOT like the parts where I could see them blatantly avoiding certain parts of history that were uncomfortable. They completely avoided talking about Joseph marrying his foster daughters (Sarah and Maria Lawrence). They also completely avoided him marrying Helen Mar Kimball. They also heavily white-washed Emily Partridge’s story of how Joseph proposed to her. if you read her story in Saints, then read the source they give for it, completely different versions. One makes it sound like she was hesitant at first and then was a willing participant and was fully ready for polygamy. The other sounds like she was a scared girl who didn’t want to get married to him and even tried to run away from the proposal but was chased and eventually submitted after a ton of pressure from men with authority over her. Bothered me a lot, as her story was one that struck me the most in learning about polygamy, so I hated how they changed it to make her seem like she was completely ready and willing to practice polygamy. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I really like a lot of the suggestions here. I was remembering something that I really enjoyed while I was struggling in my faith crisis. I remember feeling very alone and like I couldn’t tell anyone about my questions because I didn’t want anyone else to go through what I was going through. Anyways, there was a relief society lesson that I really appreciated. I don’t remember what the lesson was on, but I do remember them handing out papers and pencils and telling us to anonymously write down something we had a question about, they would draw a question out of the hat, and the class would try to answer it. They never got to my question because they had such a short amount of time. I don’t remember if they had any good answers or not, but I remember the feeling I got as they asked the questions. It was a feeling of “I’m not alone, there are others with questions who also silently struggle with things related to the church.” It was at least a good start to creating a more open environment for questions. I think if that was a thing they did often (say, answering one question a week that had been put into an anonymous box) that it would have slowly created an environment of questions being okay and having a place to potentially have a question at least be out in the open and have some people try to answer it as best they can. I really appreciate anything open and ‘real’ at church, because often there is a lot of fluff, and not a lot of being realistic about things. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Roy wrote:
1) I am interested to see the footnote on the angel telling JS to keep it secret except from people with unwavering “integrity”. I am not sure I remember that part. That seems to excuse JS from being deceitful to his wife and others.I would imagine this was their way of starting to introduce the idea of Joseph ‘testing’ his followers before introducing plural marriage to them, like he did in the case of Heber C. Kimball when he told Heber that the Lord commanded that Joseph marry Vilate. Then after Heber struggled with it horribly, he obediently brought Vilate to Joseph. Joseph broke down and said Heber had passed the test, and then sealed Heber and Vilate as a reward for their obedience. It is (not directly) after this that Joseph tells Heber he is supposed to practice plural marriage, and also asks for their 14 year old daughter Helen Mar as a wife eventually as well. They never mention this test in the Saints book, but it is something they may need to eventually address, and saying the angel was the reason would be an easy way to cop out of that disturbing part of church history.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
So I just finished reading it recently. I was skimming through it to see what they did and didn’t bring up. I found that the troubling parts of church history that they did bring up, were talked about in a very apologetic manner and leaned toward positive light. If there is something we don’t have 100% proof of either way, they swing towards the positive side. For instance, they bring up the 1826 trial about Joseph being accused as a glasslooker and say very clearly that he was found not guilty. The problem is that no one knows for sure one way or the other, so that bothered me that they made it sound like a fact that he was found not guilty. They brought up Fanny Alger as well. Here’s the whole section about Fanny Alger: Oliver’s falling out with the prophet went beyond disagreements over how to lead the church. Since learning about plural marriage during his inspired translation of the Bible, Joseph had known that God sometimes commanded His people to practice the principle. Joseph had not acted on this knowledge immediately, but a few years later an angel of the Lord had commanded him to marry an additional wife.12
After receiving the commandment, Joseph struggled to overcome his natural aversion to the idea. He could foresee trials coming from plural marriage, and he wanted to turn from it. But the angel urged him to proceed, instructing him to share the revelation only with people whose integrity was unwavering. The angel also charged Joseph to keep it private until the Lord saw fit to make the practice public through His chosen servants.13
During the years Joseph lived in Kirtland, a young woman named Fanny Alger worked in the Smith home. Joseph knew her family well and trusted them. Her parents were faithful Saints who had joined the church in its first year. Her uncle, Levi Hancock, had marched in the Camp of Israel.14
Following the Lord’s command, Joseph proposed marriage to Fanny with the help of Levi and the approval of her parents.15 Fanny accepted Joseph’s teachings and his proposal, and her uncle performed the ceremony.16
Since the time had not come to teach plural marriage in the church, Joseph and Fanny kept their marriage private, as the angel had instructed.17 But rumors spread among some people in Kirtland.18 By the fall of 1836, Fanny had moved away.19
Oliver was deeply critical of Joseph’s relationship with Fanny, although how much he knew about it is unclear.20 What Emma knew about the marriage is also uncertain. In time, Fanny married another man and lived apart from the main body of the Saints. Later in life, she received a letter from her brother asking about her plural marriage to Joseph.
“That is all a matter of our own,” Fanny wrote back, “and I have nothing to communicate.”21
They avoid a lot of topics in the book as well:
-Helen Mar Kimball is never mentioned once, not even as a person who existed during the time period. She doesn’t exist in the book.
– the Lawrence sisters are also never mentioned at all. They even cover how Emma consented to some of Joseph’s wives, but make it sound like she only agreed to two (the partridge sisters), when she actually agreed to four (the partridge sisters and the lawrence sisters. Here’s that story in one short paragraph:
In early May, Emma took Emily and Eliza aside and explained the principle of plural marriage to them.34 She had told Joseph that she would consent to him being sealed to two additional wives as long as she could choose them, and she had chosen Emily and Eliza.
They avoid some other things, but I want to cover the part that bothered me the most. To me, the story of Emily Partridge’s experience with polygamy is one that was especially troublesome. I was surprised that they put her story into the Saints book, but what they gave was extremely disappointing, as it did a huge disservice to what she went through. I will post her version of what happened, then post the version in the new Saints book.
Her version:
After a year in the Smith home, Emily remembers: “…in the spring of 1842…Joseph said to me one day, ‘Emily, if you will not betray me, I will tell you something for your benefit.’ Of course I would keep his secret…he asked me if I would burn it if he would write me a letter. I began to think that was not the proper thing for me to do and I was about as miserable as I ever would wish to be…I went to my room and knelt down and asked my father in heaven to direct me…[At Joseph’s insistence] I could not speak to any one on earth…I received no comfort till I went back…to say I could not take a private letter from him. He asked me if I wished the matter ended. I said I did.” Emily recalls, “he said no more to me [for many months].”
Soon after Emily refused Joseph’s letter, Elizabeth Durfee, who had married Joseph the previous year, invited Emily and Eliza to her home. Emily recalls being tested, “She introduced the subject of spiritual wives as they called it in that day. She wondered if there was any truth in the report she heard. I thought I could tell her something that would make her open her eyes if I chose, but I did not choose to. I kept my own council and said nothing.” Emily later learned “that Mrs. Durfee was a friend to plurality and knew all about it.” On their walk home from Mrs. Durfee’s, Emily raised courage enough to mention Joseph’s offer to her sister: “[Eliza] felt very bad indeed for a short time, but it served to prepare her to receive the principles that were revealed soon after.”
Joseph approached Emily again on February 28, 1843, her nineteenth birthday. Emily said, “He taught me this principle of plural marriage…but we called it celestial marriage, and he told me that this principle had been revealed to him but it was not generally known.” A week later, “Mrs. Durf[ee] came to me…and said Joseph would like an opportunity to talk with me…I was to meet him in the evening at Mr. [Heber C.] Kimballs.” Not wanting to incur any suspicion, Emily didn’t change from the dress she had been working in that day. “When I got there nobody was at home but [the Kimball children] William and Hellen Kimball…I did not wait long before Br. Kimball and Joseph came in.” Emily recalls that Heber and Joseph sent the Kimball children to a neighbor’s home, and pretended to send Emily away as well: “I started for home as fast as I could so as to get beyond being called back, for I still dreaded the interview. Soon I heard Br. Kimball call, ‘Emily, Emily’ rather low but loud enough for me to hear. I thought at first I would not go back and took no notice of his calling. But he kept calling and was about to overtake me so I stopped and went back with him.”
Back at the Kimball home, Joseph spoke to Emily: “I cannot tell all Joseph said, but he said the Lord had commanded [him] to enter into plural marriage and had given me to him and although I had got badly frightened he knew I would yet have him…Well I was married there and then. Joseph went home his way and I going my way alone. A strange way of getting married wasn’t it?”
Here is the version in the Saint’s book:
For more than two years, she and her older sister Eliza had been living and working with the Smiths, not far from where their mother lived with her new husband.5
Emily belonged to the Relief Society and talked often with the women around her. Occasionally she would hear whispers about plural marriage. More than thirty Saints had quietly embraced the practice, including two of her stepsisters and one of her stepbrothers. Emily herself knew nothing about it firsthand.6
A year earlier, however, Joseph had mentioned that he had something to tell her. He had offered to write it in a letter, but she asked him not to do so, worried that it might say something about plural marriage. Afterward, she had regretted her decision and told her sister about the conversation, sharing what little she knew about the practice. Eliza appeared upset, so Emily said nothing more.7
With no one to confide in, Emily felt like she was struggling alone in deep water. She turned to the Lord and prayed to know what to do, and after some months, she received divine confirmation that she should listen to what Joseph had to say to her—even if it had to do with plural marriage.8
On March 4, a few days after her nineteenth birthday, Joseph asked to speak with Emily at the home of Heber Kimball. She set out as soon as she finished work, her mind ready to receive the principle of plural marriage. As expected, Joseph taught it to her and asked if she would be sealed to him. She agreed, and Heber performed the ordinance.9
Eta: sorry I sound negative about it, it is a very engaging book, but I am always let down when they say they are going to be open, but then aren’t as open as I hope they will be. I am glad they were a bit more open than they have been in the past though, just wasn’t to the level I hope to see someday.
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
dande48 wrote:What if the Holy Ghost IS Heavenly Mother?
😯
Dh and I have played with this idea, as I know others have. It would make sense as the holy ghost is the comforter and is there to speak to us. It sounds better than a Mother in Heaven who is never allowed to speak to us or be near us. What kind of life is that for a mother? I also don’t think the Holy Ghost necessarily has to be a personage of spirit to be able to speak to our spirits. Gods are omnipotent after all, who’s to say the Holy Ghost HAS to be a spirit in order to speak to us? Why can’t an all powerful God or Goddess speak to us directly. I enjoy exploring all the possible options for the godhead now that my beliefs aren’t structured with the churchs’ set up anymore. There are so many more options than I used to think!Thanks everyone. These were some good points. I used to think I would never be able to do this, but as I am getting closer to the end of my anger phase, I find myself feeling strong enough and comfortable in myself enough to try it. I also, as Nibbler said, feel like I’m at a point where I have nothing to lose. I don’t really want to attend anymore, but I am still going to help my husband, so I’d like to see if speaking up makes it more easy to be there. I also am becoming aware of how many members are quietly questioning and are afraid to speak up, and I would love to be a person who is able to say what they want to say since I have nothing to lose and they do. I like the idea of going into it slowly at first, and also making sure I frame it in a faith promoting light every time. I think that will help it be more easily received. I had to read your post history because this was an idea similar to one my husband was telling me he’d come up with a few months ago. Totally thought you might be him haha. His idea was similar. His idea was basically: what if there’s a “god” part of our brain. Maybe that prompting feeling is actually our own minds trying to tell us what we need to know/do? Maybe our minds are more amazing than we think they are, who knows? But it would make sense, as you said, with prayer answers being wrong sometimes, and with people having spiritual experiences with different religions than other people. And if there isn’t a God out there, it would also work for those miracles that happen. The times when someone just knows if they go down a street, they’ll die. Or that just knows what doctor to go to so that they can find a cure for an illness. Maybe we still have some strong animal instincts deep within us that come up from time to time. It is an interesting idea. In a way, it would be cool for the 16-18 year old boys to be able to perform the baptisms (I would imagine they would feel like they were even more involved in the movement of the church and bringing souls to God), but I can’t help but remember my days as a youth. I’m a girl and I remember feeling a bit vulnerable going into the water with a man while I was in a jumpsuit. If the leader who was baptising me was attractive, I was distracted by it. I can’t imagine having boys my age being in there with me. I had a lot of crushes in high school and I can totally imagine being super giddy (I guess is the word) if the guy I had a crush on was holding me and dunking me under the water. I would have been so distracted. I would imagine the boy would be distracted too if he was holding a girl he had a crush on. Who knows though, maybe it’ll get more youth to participate [emoji6] Here are my pros and cons about the Face 2 Face event. Like you said, beefster, I like how Ballard said we shouldn’t demonize the PERSON having a problem with porn. I think that was a good thing to say. As well as a couple other things I can’t remember which I thought were good, even a couple jokes that made me chuckle. Now for the downside, I did NOT like when Ballard started talking about how the church leaders have NEVER hidden anything because that’s not part of the Lord’s program, and to just trust them. Bothered me a LOT, since we literally have proof of things being hidden from the members in church history, and the church currently hides its finances. I felt like it was a flat out lie. Here’s the whole quote: “It’s this idea that the Church is hiding something, which we would have to say as two apostles that have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning of time–there has been no attempt on the part, in any way, of the Church leaders trying to hide anything from anybody.
Now we’ve had the Joseph smith papers. We didn’t have those where they are in our hands now. And so we’re learning more about the Prophet Joseph. It’s wonderful we are. There’s volumes of it. There’s so much in those books now on my book shelf. Maybe you’ve read them all [gestures toward Oaks], but I haven’t got there. I’m a slow reader.
So, just trust us wherever you are in the world, and you share this message with anyone else who raises the question about the Church not being transparent. We’re as transparent as we know how to be in telling the truth. We have to do that. That’s the Lord’s way.”
The other thing that was at the top of my list for bothersome things said, was Oaks saying this (on how to know whether answers to prayers are from ourselves or from God):
“If we get an impression contrary to the scriptures, to the commandments, to the teachings of his leaders**, then we know that it can’t be coming from the Holy Ghost. The gospel is consistent throughout.” (Asterisks added)
It mainly bothered me because it touched on one of the problems I see in the church where your inspirations have to line up with what the GA’s say, or you’re feeling the spirit wrong. Even though we have so many examples from church history of church leaders being wrong, if we get an answer from the holy ghost saying the leaders are wrong, we aren’t supposed to listen to that. He could have meant it differently, but that was what I heard.
