Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Roy wrote:
I was taught in LDS institute in the early 2000’s that dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was a sign of the curse but not the curse itself. I did not interpret the essay to have refuted this BoM teaching (and it would appear that the writers and editors of the Come Follow Me Manual did not understand it this way either). Is that what the church is now saying? That Nephi was wrong?
I was taught the same thing just a few years ago, I think it was in a BYU religion class. If the church really is trying to disavow these teachings, it won’t be easy. It’s been part of the official curriculum for a very long time.
I also don’t see why everything has to be so controversial. Chick-Fil-A actually seems to listen to some of the concerns, which cannot be said of many other companies. It’s fine to disagree with their actions and not go there anymore, but when it turns into “this company (or person) is evil and you are evil for supporting them” it rubs me the wrong way. It feels like some people live off controversy these days. Personally, I don’t really agree with their political positions, but I really like their chicken sandwiches.
I will say I have seen these ads even after turning off ad personalization and blocking most forms of tracking, so they are reaching the general population, at least in Utah. Whether they work is hard to know. I did notice they take on a much more general Christian tone, with little of the unique “Mormon” things. And with the whole emphasis on not using “Mormon” it’s not immediately obvious which church it is the first time you see it.
Old Timer wrote:We read D&C 46:11-14, where it says: 1) not everyone has all gifts; 2) all gifts are given to humanity to help each other; 3) SOME people are given the gift to know that Jesus is the Christ; 4) others are given the gift to believe those who know. We talked about how even the most central aspect of our beliefs won’t be known by all members – that some carry on in faith. We talked about not being ashamed or depressed or feeling inferior or worthless if we can’t say we know something – that faith also is a gift and that believing or wanting to believe is good enough. Verse 14 says the ultimate reward for knowledge AND for continue faithfulness is the exact same. Knowledge is not morally or spiritually better than faith; it just is different.
We talked about how some people testify of specific things and promise everyone they also can know those things. I told them directly and clearly that such statements aren’t consistent with the verses we had read. I told them I don’t know paying tithing keeps people from financial difficulty; in fact, my own experiences have taught me otherwise. I have NO problem with other people making that claim, since that is their experience, and I understand why they beleive it can be true for everyone else (“If God will bless me, God will bless anyone,” is a sincere statement based on humility.), but it is inaccurate as a collective standard – even if it is said by an Apostle from the General Conference pulpit. I will not argue with people about their own views on it, but I also will explain my experiences to help provide balance and help others not feel inferior or guilty.
I really liked this. Thanks.
I also don’t get why we need to separate everything by gender. As a youth, almost all of my friends were girls. It seemed kind of ridiculous that we couldn’t do the same youth activities together, and I was stuck doing the “manly” stuff with the other young men. Yes, men and women are different, but not thatdifferent. It’s not like I ever had much in common with the other young men anyway. I also wonder what might change about YSA dating culture if boys and girls actually did more together as youth. Also, why can’t we just provide opportunities for youth to just get together, have a good time, and learn from each other? Why does everything need to have an agenda or theme? Can’t we let them choose what kind of man or woman they want to become? I personally really hate when other people tell me what goals I’m supposed to have, which is why I’ve never been on board with the stake/ward/mission goals set by leadership.
That’s a really interesting way to see things. I think Easter Island is also a good analog for the modern world in some ways. Humans once believed that the Earth was all there was. We now know we live on a tiny blue dot with limited resources in an impossibly vast universe. For a while it seemed like religion had all the answers to why we’re here. But science has opened up a universe bigger than anyone could possibly have imagined, and now there are many unanswered questions. Just like the people on Easter Island, we’re finding ourselves on a tiny island in the middle of a much bigger world, with wars among ourselves and quickly depleting resources. Maybe one of these days we’ll meet explorers from other planets. Imagine the faith crises that could cause. nibbler wrote:
We’re human, we judge one another, and at church I think people assume that everyone is on the same page.
I don’t think this is limited to judgement either. I often hear people make comments like “we all know ____,” “we all believe ____,” or “isn’t it great to be at a place where we all have the same beliefs?” It’s something to find comfort in if you fit in, but if you don’t it can feel pretty alienating.
I don’t think prayer is inherently arrogant, but it can be depending on what you pray for. For example, if you expect God to give you more blessings than someone else because you are more righteous than they are. Or if you pray about how glad you are to be better than others (like the Pharisee in Jesus’ parable). I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having faith that God will answer your prayers. But if you think God answers your prayers becauseyou are so worthy, or if you think other people’s prayers go unanswered because they were less worthy than you, then I think that’s the point where it becomes arrogant. It is a very interesting question though, why God answers even seemingly trivial prayers for some people, but does not address some much more serious needs for others. I really have no clue.
I really did not like the devotional. It seemed to me like saying the church is true because the church leaders say so and the world is always wrong. I didn’t like how it seemed dismissive of concerns, especially those “disaffected from the church”. I feel like those who trust the church leadership got nothing but confirmation of their views, and those like me remained unconvinced. So I’m not really sure what the message was supposed to accomplish. Honestly, I’ve been having a really hard time as a BYU student going through a faith crisis and this was definitely not the message I needed to hear. The devotional was one more thing that makes me feel like I just don’t belong anymore.
I also didn’t like his part about how things always work because they are divine laws. What about those of us who find that covenants, prayer, missions, etc don’t work for us? Even with his heart surgery example, there may be underlying laws that don’t change, but not every heart surgery is successful. It doesn’t always work. There are random factors that change things. And humans are often wrong about what those laws are. I feel very marginalized whenever I hear that the gospel always works for everyone.
As for the definition of marriage, well maybe God’s definition of marriage hasn’t changed, but what is that definition exactly? It’s pretty clear the modern church’s definition of marriage is quite different from, say, Brigham Young’s.
Overall, I feel like the message was tailored for the regular believers, not for people like me. It makes sense, focusing on the majority audience, but it negatively affects people like me on the margins.
Personally, I view the atonement as a demonstration of God’s true character. Rather than being a distant, harsh, lawgiver God, he was one who became a vulnerable human to meet us at our level, allowing himself to suffer and die rather than exempting himself from these mortal trials. He met with sinners and outcasts, showing that God isn’t about withdrawing from and punishing sinners, but about helping and healing. I view the justice and mercy thing in terms of natural consequences. If you touch the hot stove and get burned, that’s justice. Nobody’s punishing you, that’s just the natural consequence. Mercy is someone coming and treating your wounds, helping you heal. It doesn’t get rid of the natural consequence–you still got burned–but it makes it better in the end. Because the world is a cruel place sometimes, we often get hurt through no fault of our own, but it’s all still part of the natural consequences. Physical processes and the actions of others have consequences that affect us, that’s all still part of the natural universe, following the laws of physics. Life just isn’t fair. For me I would still call this “justice” since it is natural laws having natural results (though quite different from the usual moral definition of justice). My hope is that a merciful God, who has himself experienced living as a human in a cruel, unfair world, will one day heal us and bind up our wounds.
There’s definitely an unhealthy obsession with pornography in the church. Porn is a real problem, but the church’s methods are not helpful. We seem to spend a lot more time scaring people away from it instead of how to move on from it if you’ve already used it (which many, perhaps most, have). This just creates shame. If after using it a few times you are already labeled an addict, unclean, unworthy of dating/marriage, unable to take sacrament, etc, then you might as well give up and keep doing it. Labeling someone an addict can send the message that they are incapable of stopping, which is not a helpful way to view things. This really frustrates me because like many people my age, I struggle at times with pornography. But there seems to be little acknowledgement that shame and addiction language often only make things worse. I need to be feel like I can move on from my mistakes, not that I will be trapped by them. Treating porn as a chemical addiction also makes it easy to overlook reasons behind the behavior like shame, loneliness, and hopelessless, which some of the rhetoric at church can exacerbate. Honestly the message I need is that I can simply move on and put things behind me, not that I am some seriously damaged person who needs to go through a lengthy rehab program to have any hope of changing.
I don’t get why they feel the need for even more indoctrination. They already have Sunday church and seminary every weekday. I don’t think force feeding more of the gospel is going to keep kids in the church. It’s just going to appeal to the super spiritual types and alienate everyone else. We might be about to see youth program involvement drop dramatically next year. Honestly the youth just need an opportunity for wholesome fun, and a lot only show up because of the fun activities. No amount of instruction in the gospel can compensate for the church experience not being enjoyable. I remember as a youth a lot of the young women were jealous that we got to have fun running wild at scout camp while they were stuck doing testimony-building activities at girl’s camp. Now I worry that both youth camps will become Sunday school in the woods.
I never really liked the achievement-focused approach in young mens, so I never even bothered with Duty to God. It just seemed like a checklist to get done and get an award. Scouting on the other hand was fun because a lot of our activities were focused on having a good time, and the achievements weren’t the only goal. I hope they take a more activity-focused approach to learning for the new program and don’t use it as just another opportunity for indoctrination and checking boxes. I find it interesting that at the same time we’re becoming more comfortable with a diversity of religious belief, we’re becoming less comfortable with a diversity of political beliefs. The “us vs them” mentality seems to be declining in religion and increasing in current ideologies, and an argument can be made that some ideologies have become a new sort of religion. I think traditional religion has lost a lot of power in the public sphere, so religions are more likely to put aside their differences to work together. Also, since individual religions have less influence, there is less of a perceived threat that your neighbors religious beliefs will be forced on you, so you don’t have a need to compete with other religions. Without as much competition between religions, the “one true church” idea doesn’t make as much sense.
I noticed as a missionary that many of the people we taught did not care at all about Joseph Smith or the Restoration, and were only concerned with things like prayer, the nature of God, and the sense of community. The truth claims came up more when arguing doctrine with other churches.
