[Arrakeen]

I am part of the intended audience, and it did indeed feel like a bulldozer.

DarkJedi wrote:

Lacking perspective on the part of the speaker in this case is almost a given. I think most of them (Q15) do not have perspective on things like doubt or faith crisis (and some other things) because they haven’t experienced it. Isn’t that why we love Holland, because he speaks from experience with mental health? As much as I love Uchtdorf, I’m not sure how much he really understands full blown faith crisis, but he does seem to have empathy nonetheless.

I did like Uchdorf’s devotional this week. I liked how when he mentioned how he had always believed, he acknowledged that this was not the case for everyone. He seems to recognize that he doesn’t fully understand people who doubt, so he takes a much more sensitive approach.

nibbler wrote:

Quote:

and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

It’s a challenge. In many cases we’ve got people that have not suffered a specific “infirmity” believing that they know how to assist people that have. In the end they may end up doing more harm than good.

The church doesn’t do a good job of supporting people who doubt because most people that are in a position to truly succor people with doubts are found on the outside of the church. I think that’s one of the reasons it can be important to stay, to make the church more capable of succoring the needs of all members.

I find this incredibly ironic given the analogy they used about not trusting those who doubt, “Would you entrust your financial portfolio to someone who was broke?”

Would you trust someone who has never been through a faith crisis to help you through yours?

[Arrakeen]

I grew up in a very politically liberal area and used to agree with most of the leftist/liberal stuff, but recently all the race/gender/identity politics has been driving me towards a more simple “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff” kind of philosophy. I’m still all for equality and treating people kindly, but it seems the pc culture involves a lot of hate, shaming, and outrage these days. I think instead of focusing so much on language we should just focus on treating everyone as fellow human beings and recognize that we all have differences and will inevitably be offended at one point or another, that’s just part of living in a diverse and free society.

[Arrakeen]

I like the two-hour block. Sunday school was still hard to get through, but knowing that church was over right after made it more bearable. I do like how we ended up with only 20 minutes in sacrament meeting for testimonies today, so there was a lot less awkward silence.

[Arrakeen]

I have some relatives who are devout Buddhists, and they have done a lot of good in the world volunteering with the Tzu Chi charities in Taiwan. In terms of service, they put most members of the church to shame. It makes me embarrassed that my two-year “service” for the church was far less Christlike and service-oriented than what they do. There’s a lot we can learn from the Buddhist tradition. I’m not very familiar with the Zen type of Buddhism though, I’m interested to learn more about that.

[Arrakeen]

dande48 wrote:

Also… being “honorably excused” also seems fishy, as if the Church needs to give you their stamp of approval if for whatever reason you choose not to serve.

I want to break away from the Mandatory mission service mandate. I want a youngin’ to be able to say, “I will not be serving as a missionary”, and still retain full societal fellowship in the Church.

The “honorably excused” part is what really bothers me. I strongly believe individuals need to be given the freedom to decide whether or not to go on a mission, without the Church deciding if their decision is “honorable” (which implicitly labels others as “dishonorable”). I worry that this will only increase the stigma for those who don’t serve, since people will think there’s no excuse now that the Church has provided other options.

[Arrakeen]

I’ve noticed that all too often the rules harm the obedient, without helping the disobedient. The people the rules are meant to rein in often just don’t care about the rules, and will continue to disregard them no matter how many rules you have or how strict you make them. Meanwhile, those who do follow the rules end up beating themselves up with perfectionism and scrupulosity, when they probably would have done just fine without any rules.

[Arrakeen]

I wish I could have seen this discussion before I left on my mission. I was one who made it the whole two years, but probably should have come home early. I believe not only is it ok for people to come home early if they can’t stay out, but in many cases it is actually the best choice to go home and get help instead of suffering through the rest of a mission. Interestingly, “Called to suffer” is exactly how I referred to my mission experience while in the field.

Quote:

He still believes in the doctrine taught by the church, but has a hard time at Sunday meetings, especially when people talk about missions.

“I have days where I feel like such a loser, and I ask, ‘why did God let this happen?’”

This, even more than my actual mission experience, was a catalyst to my faith transition. It’s hard to constantly hear about how God helped everyone else through their trials on a mission, but for some reason never answered your prayers even though you were just as faithful and obedient.

[Arrakeen]

Quote:

The religions start from mysticism. There is no other way to start a religion. But, I compare this to a volcano that gushes forth …and then …the magma flows down the sides of the mountain and cools off. And when it reaches the bottom, it’s just rocks. You’d never guess that there was fire in it. So after a couple of hundred years, or two thousand years or more, what was once alive is dead rock. Doctrine becomes doctrinaire. Morals become moralistic. Ritual becomes ritualistic. What do we do with it? We have to push through this crust and go to the fire that’s within it.

-David Steindl-Rast

[Arrakeen]

Unfortunately, it’s not just the honor code office that can kick you out, but your bishop can also revoke your ecclesiastical endorsement if he sees fit, effectively kicking you out of the university. So the honor code office won’t punish sexual assault victims, but if your bishop finds out you did something else wrong, it goes back to leadership roulette.

[Arrakeen]

nibbler wrote:

I remember a few cases from my mission (and I’ve heard other anecdotes) where someone wanted to go home and they endured days of fighting to have their wishes met. I don’t get it. These are volunteers, volunteers that are paying their way to be there, yet we sometimes treat them like deserters in an army during wartime.

It seems a lot of mission presidents’ headaches could be solved simply by letting people go home when they want to. I see little point in keeping people there against their will.

LookingHard wrote:

I know that they often have a counselor that can be called upon (your mileage will vary), but I have been told that if you have more than 3 sessions your ticket is punched to go back home. This discourages going to the counselor.

We had a counselor who we could talk to on the phone once a week, but not in person. In person counseling was six sessions, then you go home. I did end up getting antidepressants from the mission doctor though.

LookingHard wrote:

“My testimony as his dad is teetering and it will not survive having another son sent to a slum where he has a companion that threatens to kill him

I had a very threatening companion who threatened to kill me on several occasions, but wasn’t able to open up to my parents about it until long after. After all, your companion is right next to you looking over your shoulder while you email as per mission rules. Companions are supposed to protect you, but all too often do just the opposite. To make things worse, my companion was a favorite project of the mission president, who kept him from going home at all costs hoping he would reform.

[Arrakeen]

I was in a first-world country which would hardly be considered a dangerous place, but still had my fair share of scary incidents and close calls. Several times I was sure I was about to be murdered.

For one thing, I think the way missionaries stand out creates problems for safety. A young foreigner wearing fancy clothes and not understanding the local language makes an obvious target. Maybe making the missionary uniform less conspicuous could help. Also, a lot of missionaries haven’t lived on their own before and simply lack street smarts.

I think the culture tends to glorify the mission system. There’s a common idea that if something happens to you, it was probably because you were disobedient, since the rules are the Lord’s way of protecting his missionaries. We always had to watch a road safety video of Elder Holland which at one point noted that most accidents resulted from disobedience to mission rules. Similarly, concerns about proselyting after dark were often dismissed since the mission schedule was divinely instituted.

I do think the church is trying to improve the mission experience, even if they don’t admit the old ways were wrong. I remember hearing people say the missionary schedule was divinely inspired, that it was the absolute healthiest way for missionaries to live. But recently they changed it to allow missionaries to get more sleep, probably after discussions with mission doctors and psychologists.

[Arrakeen]

I’ve read chapters 1-7 so far on the Gospel Library app. It seems accurate and well-cited, and incorporates new facts into an easy-to read narrative but with a clearly apologetic tone. I think their goal is not to directly deal with any controversial topics, but simply increase exposure to such topics among members, so they won’t be as surprised when they hear mention of it somewhere else. They’re clearly going for something to be widely read by the membership of the church instead of just the history buffs. To be honest though I was hoping for something a little more detailed and less apologetic.

[Author]

Posts