[Andrew]

SamBee wrote:

Definitely! is that picture from Yojimbo or is it one of the other ones?

You nailed it.

[Andrew]

Tom wrote:

Roy wrote:

I am reminded of the words of a very dear pastor friend, “You can be saved and be Mormon, but it won’t be the Mormonism that saves you.”

I love this, Roy! Very charitable of him. Best evangelical perspective I’ve ever heard.

I love that, too. The same could be said of any organized religion.

[Andrew]

I think the Law of Chastity as taught is generally good counsel and common sense. I believe marriage vows are sacred and should not be violated; I think it is wise for young people to delay sexual activity. There are powerful emotions involved for most of us in sex; reserving sex and those connected emotions for a committed partner makes sense.

What I worry about is Mormonism’s hierarchy of sin and the way we teach youth in particular chastity and “virtue.”

Too often, discussions on chastity make no mention of repentance or forgiveness or the Atonement. If we’re going to discuss sin and avoiding sin, discussing the Atonement should always accompany it.

[Andrew]

SamBee wrote:

I see you’re a fan of the late great Toshiro Mifune. That puts you up in my estimation already!

Mifune and Kurosawa were one hell of a combination, weren’t they?

[Andrew]

curt wrote:

I totally sympathize with those who wrestle with this issue but I also think that the entire issue just demonstrates a problem with the church that places undue guilt on its members to remain in the fold.

Yes.

I understand that for some parents, a child leaving the church might feel like a repudiation of all that you’ve taught them, or your values, or even of yourself. I understand the theological reasons for the anxiety of an unbelieving or apostate spouse.

While much of the anguish surrounding an apostate family member is understandable and probably unavoidable because of the theological underpinnings of Mormonism and the emotional realities of being a parent, I think there are cultural forces that have heaped more and completely unnecessary anguish into such a situation.

As I reflect on my upbringing in the church and the journeys of people out of the faith, it seems that the church and Mormon culture place a high premium on anchoring individuals to the church rather than working to anchor us first to God or Christ, and then the church. Many Saints would likely disagree with my characterization, but at the least, I think it’s fair to say that many Saints view being anchored to the church AS being anchored to God.

To use a more scriptural metaphor, are we encouraging and helping people to build their houses on a rock?

The as-delivered version of Elder Poelman’s 1984 General Conference talk is a good example of what I think is a healthier approach; the edited and refilmed version exemplifies the approach that I think we often take and that I believe causes unnecessary anguish. (You’ll have to Google it; all the hosted versions of the original talk are hosted on sites hostile to Mormonism. For background, see here)).

If the approach in the church became about anchoring people to God or Christ first, and then the church (and not conflating the two as the same thing), then a) there’d be less anguish and guilt when someone leaves the fold and b) we wouldn’t be creating “graduates” of our religion who are completely allergic to religion and theism.

[Andrew]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

It gives the impression that to Church leaders loyalty to the Church and outward acceptance of its exclusive claims comes first and being Christian comes second (if at all) almost like it’s an afterthought.

Yes. This.

[Andrew]

In the end, we’re all relativists.

[Andrew]

This is such an interesting (and IMO, depressing) dynamic in the church.

The only year-long theme I remember from Seminary was 1 Samuel 16:7:

Quote:

But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

That theme came from my sophomore or junior year. It stuck with me – it seemed then and now to express the essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Every year we study the Old Testament in Gospel Doctrine, this one verse gets a lesson entirely devoted to it.

How is it that the official church is simultaneously teaching 1 Samuel 16:7 and and that we need to wear shirts of a particular color, how many earrings, etc?

I think the Sunday School lessons and the Scriptures themselves indicate that the view espoused in 1 Sam 16:7 is doctrinal – that is bedrock. At the same time, the absence of scriptural basis or even in many church curriculum materials of discussions of what clothes to wear and earrings is an indication that these expectations or statements from church leaders are not doctrinal. Rather, they are cultural. They reflect the cultural norms that many of these leaders grew up with and would like to see continued in the church. And as the letter writer rightly notes, in another cultural context, many of these directions would either a) make no sense whatsover; b) be completely impractical; c) contradict cultural and familial traditions.

So, what is the “weightier matter of the law” here? Conforming with directions that may be “revelation” or may simply be cultural, or adopting an approach to others that has been repeated throughout scripture and even by modern leaders?

Digging a little deeper, I think the crux of the issue is how we define scripture, revelation, and the word of the Lord.

It sounds like the writer’s daughter is of the opinion – all too common in the church, I’m afraid – that anything said from the pulpit or said by the president of the church or one of the Twelve is doctrinal or scripture.

A better scriptorian than me might be able to point out verses in the Doctrine and Covenants that dispute this point, but the very fact that much of President Packer’s October GC address was edited, and the ways in which it was edited (i.e., the Family Proclamation was declared a “revelation” in the original, edited to read “guide”) suggests this opinion is not factual.

[Andrew]

PiperAlpha wrote:

Didn’t someone say (Pres Monson maybe???) in the last conference that talks are not assigned to speakers, but they let them follow the spirit to decide for themselves, which are then obviously approved and read over? So there really can’t be a consistent message in Conference Talks, because different speakers are choosing their topics, right? Pres Monson didn’t say, “I need Elder Costa to go get some support for me.”

Anyway, it seems more like lots of well-intentioned people are trying hard to keep offering inspiring messages and best practices…which just turn into more rules. The intention is good, but the result is information overload. I need a google browser for church rules, and search on “Important to my growth” – and let the filter tell me which ones I should focus on, because I can’t focus on them all at once, which is the realization that we all live buffet style.

I don’t remember if it was Pres. Monson that said it, but that is true. I’ve had it verified to me by people in the know. Several weeks before Conference, they submit all their scriptural references to make sure that they aren’t being repeated, but that’s it. There’s no direction on specific topics.

I think there’s a pretty simple explanation for why we hear things like the “Fourteen Fundamentals” – the dynamics of the hierarchy. I think it’s pretty clear from the way many Seventies and Auxiliaries (YW, YM, and Sunday School) and sometimes the Presiding Bishopric, that many are desperately trying to ingratiate themselves with the Twelve and the FP. The yearning to please higher-ups that I often hear in in their talks drowns out any other message. With a few exceptions, Seventies usually deliver messages that are most likely to emphasize rules, following the prophet, blind obedience, etc.

[Andrew]

It’s a worthwhile book. I found some of the “insights” not all that illuminating, but overall, the book gave me a greater appreciation for the diversity of faith expression in the U.S. and how vital religion is in people’s lives.

[Andrew]

I find church painful because it seems to me that our culture is completely intolerant on any expressions of doubt or questions, whatsoever. There is a kind of social capital that comes with certainty that I don’t have and can no longer fake.

And, as Cadence said, it is really, really dull. Even the most formal of protestant churches have more engaging weekly services than ours.

[Andrew]

I completely missed conference for the first time…uh, ever.

It was kind of liberating.

Anyway, any really excellent talks I should watch or read?

[Andrew]

I don’t think doing anything differently would have prevented me from coming to disbelief in the church’s truth claims.

Once you learn the complications of the church’s actual history, and some of the specific [strike]problems[/strike] challenges, you can’t go back. The legitimacy and integrity of the organization are called into question. Even though I’m long past being bothered by, say, the Kinderhook Plates episode, I have very little confidence in the narrative about Joseph Smith that the church propounds as a result of learning about the Kinderhook episode and others like it.

Thus, no longer having confidence in the church’s claims of authority and integrity, I no longer accept every choice made by the hierarchy as being inspired. So things that maybe would have seemed strange or wrong-headed to me which I would have immediately put on the shelf when I was a more traditional believer are now subject to scrutiny.

[Andrew]

Forums aren’t a great medium for sarcasm or gentle ribbing…re-reading my response, I think it comes across as more defensive and serious than I intended.

[Andrew]

SilentDawning wrote:

The one when Judas said money used to buy annointment for Jesus’ feet would be better used to help the poor…

You calling me Judas? 😡

Actually, it was “the disciples,” not Judas specifically. (Matthew 26:8-11) So I’m not in as bad of company.

And I get that reasoning, but it seems so easy to extend that logic to almost anything. And read in context, Jesus isn’t rebuking their desire to aid the poor instead of communing with God; he’s telling them that he’s about to die and leave them; she’s “preparing him for death.” So I don’t know that we can “liken” that scripture to our current situation. And if we were to get into the scripture trading game to justify our positions, we could always find a verse here or there to support our (or anyone’s) position. Really, my statement about wasting resources was a bit of a throw-away line – that expresses my preferences, but it’s not the bulk of my argument there.

[Author]

Posts