[Arrakeen]

InquiringMind wrote:

Arrakeen wrote:

Where is the line that divides politics and morality? Does the church have a responsibility to call out morally reprehensible actions done by governments around the world? What happens if they do?

In case you haven’t noticed, people sharply disagree about what’s moral. Everyone agrees that we should do what’s good, but we very much disagree about what “good” is. At this point in US politics it seems that we have two completely separate and competing moral systems, represented by the Left and the Right. They are two very different systems of morality with different values and different goals. I don’t see this as a sustainable situation, with two very different visions about what the US is supposed to be. We can’t survive very long with two strongly conflicting national narratives.

The decline of Christianity as the primary religion in the US has created a void of meaning and purpose, and many people have sought to fill that void of meaning and purpose with politics. Political parties and political ideologies have come to replace churches and religious beliefs as a place for people to find belonging and a sense of meaning and purpose in life. And who can blame them? The consequences of political decisions seem immediate and critically important, while concerns about the afterlife seem far away….if there is an afterlife. God doesn’t always answer prayers, but laws and politics affect you directly.

It does seem to make some sense from a nonreligious point of view. We got rid of our silly supernatural religious beliefs, so now we can turn our attention to what really matters, which is building a better world here and now. Except that we can’t agree on what “better” is. We can’t agree on what’s good and what’s moral, so we’re having a lot of trouble (from a secular point of view) building a better world without religion.

I actually think that’s why religion is important. Religion helps us think about a world beyond this one, which makes politics less urgent and less immediate. If this life is all we get, then yeah, politics is the most important thing – and I think that’s a bad situation because we can’t agree on what’s moral, and we’re going to end up fighting constantly. Thinking about the afterlife makes politics less all-important: maybe your candidate lost the election, but you’ll still get your reward in heaven, so no big deal, right?

I get that many people disagree on morality, but my point was there are certain things that an overwhelming majority of people and church members agree on, but the church still remains silent on because of politics. For example, almost everyone agrees that genocide is bad. Mass murder is bad. But if these things are committed by the government of a country where the church has any sort of presence, they seem unable speak out. Whether from a fear of potential fallout or a desire to remain above the fray, it makes them seem powerless and irrelevant. If they can’t even condemn human rights abuses around the world, how are they supposed to have anything to say about more nuanced issues of morality or politics?

[Arrakeen]

Roy wrote:

Quote:

We don’t know why the Lord organized things so that men are holders of the priesthood and cannot create life while women create life and cannot hold the priesthood. But we do know that “men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. … In the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by husband and wife” (President M. Russell Ballard).

The parallel they try to make here between priesthood and motherhood doesn’t really hold up in my opinion. Pretty much any man in the church (or even a 12 year old boy) can get the priesthood if he wants. But not every woman can be a mother, even if they want to. Saying that men get the priesthood, women get childbearing leaves out those women who remain single, or those who are married but unable to have children.

And while perhaps men cannot “fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman,” the fact is there’s still a lot that men can do with the priesthood without a woman. Single men can bless and pass the sacrament, give blessings, and have certain leadership roles. But what about single or childless women? Where do they fit in to this structure?

Quote:

President Boyd K. Packer didn’t see the bestowal of a priesthood office as being a limitation on women, but rather as an expression of the greater role that women hold as primary nurturers and caretakers in the home.

“The limitation of priesthood responsibilities to men is a tribute to the incomparable place of women in the plan of salvation. The prophet who said that ‘no success [in any field of endeavor] can compensate for failure in the home’ (David O. McKay) did not exempt callings in the Church.”

No priesthood calling is more important than the work that goes on within the walls of our own homes.

And then there’s the idea that women nurture and raise children, men work and do “important leadership stuff” in their careers and at church. But it’s pretty obvious that the best outcomes happen when both men and women nurture and care for their children. So really it’s not that unique. Women can be good parents, but men can too. Maybe what this really shows is the potential for priesthood callings to take men away from their important responsibilities in the home… If the home is really so important that women having the priesthood would be a distraction, then men who are fathers probably shouldn’t have it either.

[Arrakeen]

Watcher wrote:

I have also discovered that if one employs logic they will come to logical conclusions.

This is not always true. Or perhaps a conclusion may be logical, but not necessarily correct. As an engineer myself, I also place a high value on logic. However, there are serious limitations to logic alone. In the field of artificial intelligence there is a phrase “garbage in, garbage out”. No matter how amazing your algorithm or logic is, if the data you input is bad or biased, the outputs will be lacking as well. Similarly, we humans are limited by our own biases, assumptions, range of experiences, and beliefs. There are many intelligent, logical people who have argued in favor of several theories about God’s relationship to man. There are many other intelligent and logical people who have argued for conflicting theories or even against the idea of God altogether. Some of these people use the exact same logical principles but arrive at opposite conclusions. The problem is, all of us humans start with different datasets containing our own biases and experiences. So no matter how sound our logic is, our conclusions often reflect those biases. So the best we can do is follow our own logic with the awareness that it is influenced to some degree by our own biases, and remember to be open minded and empathetic to the experiences of others who are working with different data.

Quote:

What I have attempted to do is to provide that framework of logical principles form which someone can catalog and categorize their personal experiences with G-d. That is assuming that G-d is merciful, just and as Isaiah prophesied – that he makes his “secrets” known unto man (us).

Here are the principles relisted for convenience:

1G-d will not do for any person that which they can do for themself.

2. G-d will do for any person that which they cannot do for themself.

3. G-d will not do anything for or to any person, that which is not beneficial to them.

4. G-d will do anything for or to any person, that which is beneficial to them.

5. G-d will not do anything for or to any person without their acceptance and investment. (Agency)

Principles 1 and 3 reflect a metric for justice. Principles 2 and 4 reflect a metric for mercy. Principle 5 is a corresponding logical reflection of agency. None of the principles are intended to be applied separately but rather all used together in combination (as an aggregate only – never singularly) . As both as scientist and theologian I believe that we should utilize both disciplines in this time of restoration of knowledge to better understand our relationship with G-d.

I did not intend these to be the answer to all questions but rather to provide a structure anyone can use to navigate our spiritual and physical journey through mortality to both think critically now and have hope for what is to come.

This is an interesting framework to categorize your beliefs. I used to have a similar framework consisting of what I considered the foundational truths that I was most confident in and from which I could logically reason every other part of my testimony. It was good to have a structure to “catalog and categorize” my experiences, like you said. Though in my case I eventually had personal experiences which caused me to revisit those foundational axioms and my beliefs took a different turn.

But I do think it can be a worthwhile exercise to categorize beliefs into a framework like this. Likely many members of the forum have their own frameworks that have led them to what they currently believe. Such a framework can provide structure to bring our personal beliefs together as a unified whole that allows us to then make sense of new knowledge and experiences as we gain them.

[Arrakeen]

For how much we talk about the importance of the mortal experience as part of the plan of salvation, it always seemed to me that a lot of it must not be that necessary. If a child dies before the age of accountability, we teach that it works out because they go to the celestial kingdom. So apparently the rest of mortal life is not so important that God doesn’t let that happen. I have also heard the mortal stage of the plan of salvation framed as our time to accept and learn the gospel and prepare to meet God. But if someone dies without the gospel (like the vast majority of people who ever lived), they just learn it in the spirit world. So it seems that part of mortal life isn’t so important either.

I would tend to disagree that the purpose of life is to suffer. To me that feels quite bleak and makes our efforts to minimize suffering for ourselves and others seem futile or even counterproductive. I would say that from an LDS perspective the idea that makes the most sense to me is “men are that they might have joy”, and not just in the next life, but here and now.

However, as for myself I honestly don’t really believe there is any overarching purpose to mortal life. There was a point in my faith crisis where I lost all remaining belief in God and spiraled into an existential crisis. I had trouble with the idea of no remnant or sign of my existence remaining after my own death, the death of any posterity, extinction of the human species, heat death of the universe, etc. It was pretty depressing. I never came up with a good answer for the purpose of life, but I eventually started to feel differently about it to where I just accept that there may be no purpose, and if there is one I have yet to find it. In the meantime I will just do what I think is good and brings me joy.

[Arrakeen]

There are a few different views on the afterlife that I have encountered in recent years that I find quite interesting.

Growing up in the church, I always thought reincarnation was a ridiculous concept, but more recently I have come to appreciate it more. I think reincarnation could be a form of “eternal progression” that could solve a lot of things that bother me about the plan of salvation. It could allow for universal salvation while still requiring eventual perfection of everyone. We could carry certain positive character traits we develop into a new life after we die, then repeat the cycle as we get better and better. This could be one type of “heaven”, which would pretty much just be life but with the opportunity to make ourselves better and the hope of more favorable circumstances in the next life.

There is another concept of the afterlife that I have seen in some works of fiction where a character is given immortality, often as a form of punishment. They live a fairly normal life as an immortal among mortals, unable to die but having some kind of supernatural powers, and also being immensely wealthy after having lived for 1000 years. While the point of these stories is often the pain of outliving everyone they care about and the meaninglessness of an unending existence, I think there are elements of this that are kind of nice.

Basically, there are a lot of things I would like to do that I will never get the opportunity to do because of time, money, or mortality. Too many things to be able to do in one human lifetime. Expensive things that I will never have the money to do. Dangerous things that are too risky to do as a mere mortal. For me, I would hope for a heaven where I can pretty much still be me, but be able to do the things I was not able to do before. And if everyone else was still mortal, you could go around doing good and making the world a better place. In many ways, I think being in the human world as an immortal but still human being would be far more interesting than being in a heaven where everyone is exalted and has all they would ever need. This could also be a type of “heaven”, which I guess could be seen as the Three-Nephite track.

[Arrakeen]

Watcher wrote:

1. Do you believe there are laws (rules) in heaven? If so, are there punishments for breaking them?

2. Do you believe there is justice in heaven?

3. Will all individuals be alike, or will there be differences in eye color, hair color, skin color or other physical or spiritual attributes? Will some be more glorious than others? Why or why not?

4. Will there be an order or hierarchy – will some be more responsible than others?

5. What do you plan to do? Will you take an eternal vacation, or will you work endlessly? Or some combination?

6. What service can you possibly provide if everybody has everything they want or need?

7. Will you sit on a throne and give directions or make judgements?

8. Will you have closer relationships with certain others (family)?

1. I don’t believe in eternal laws or punishments in the typical sense of rules that would be actively enforced. I believe the only laws would be natural laws, with their natural consequences.

2. What is justice? I sometimes feel justice in the mortal world is a futile attempt to make right what in reality cannot be made right. If someone commits murder, they get punished. But that doesn’t actually fix anything. The victim is still dead. I suppose an afterlife without human limitations could have some better way of fixing things that would actually restore things to an unbroken state.

3. I’m not sure any of our human characteristics would matter much, and I’ve never understood the point of exalted bodies as often imagined in LDS thought. Why have hands or feet if you can move things with your mind? Or a nose if you don’t need to breathe air? The human body seems to be suited for survival on planet Earth, and a lot of it just doesn’t make sense for an immortal, godlike being. So if there is an afterlife, I’m not sure we’d be in anything resembling a human body.

4. Assuming we are the same people in the afterlife, I think there will be a hierarchy because that’s just what people do. Hopefully there will be enough individual freedom that whatever structure there is will be entirely voluntary.

5. I certainly don’t like the idea of a busy heaven having to micromanage billions of spirit offspring. I’d probably lean towards the eternal vacation and let many prayers go to voicemail. I do think eternal leisure could get boring though, so I’d hope that heaven still has a lot of new things to learn about and that I’m not already omniscient.

6. Everyone may think they have everything they want or need, but I’m sure some entrepreneurial spirit will come up with something new that everyone will suddenly decide they need.

7. No thrones or judgements for me. I’m an introvert who would rather stay out of the spotlight.

8. Not sure about relationships. I guess with an eternity together you would know each other pretty well. But I think relationships will be pretty much the same as they are here. Some people will get along, some won’t.

[Arrakeen]

There’s something I’ve been wondering about. Is the church shooting themselves in the foot with this missionary push?

I’ve heard that the mission age was lowered in an attempt to keep young men in the church, but is that actually true? Do missions make men more likely to stay in the church, or are the kinds of people who are more willing to go on missions those who are already more likely to stay in the church? I have also heard conflicting arguments about young men who don’t want to go deciding to leave the church rather than face the stigma of not being a returned missionary, suggesting that the pressure to serve a mission could actually be contributing to the attrition of young male members. And a bad mission experience can definitely affect someone’s desire or even ability to remain active in the church.

I know my horrible mission experience is primarily what has driven me away from the church. And among the other young men in I knew from my priests quorum in high school, I know at least one other who left the church because of a horrible mission experience.

What is the purpose of this new push for missions? Even if it results in higher missionary numbers in the short-term, what are the long-term effects going to be?

[Arrakeen]

Roy wrote:

Quote:

Commit Now to serve a mission. I then invited all those that accepted that challenge to stand. I was overjoyed as the entire congregation of young men stood in response to an apostle’s challenge.

Please follow up with your young men (if they did not attend, extend the challenge now). Ask them about their experience. Help them be worthy. Help them prepare. Help them keep their commitment to serve. You will be blessed if you follow this counsel. Your young men are needed in this great work, this I know.

I am concerned that this “theme” of browbeating the young men into committing to missionary service is only just beginning.

I really don’t like the idea of pressuring people to do things by getting them to commit on the spot and then holding them to it. This is something we were always encouraged to do in missionary work, and it always felt too pushy.

I also have a problem with the idea of using “keeping commitments” as a lever to get people to do things even if they may have changed their minds. It’s entirely possible a young man will “commit” to serve a mission at camp, and later decide it’s not for him. He shouldn’t feel like he has to go just because he previously indicated he would. And a young man on a mission shouldn’t feel like he can’t go home early because of his previous commitment to serve two years.

BYU always used this commitment angle to push back against any criticism of the honor code. The idea was that you already committed to follow it, so now you must accept it without question. They always used this quote from Karl Maeser which was supposed to illustrate integrity:

Quote:

“I have been asked what I mean by ‘word of honor.’ I will tell you. Place me behind prison walls–walls of stone ever so high, ever so thick, reaching ever so far into the ground–there is a possibility that in some way or another I may escape; but stand me on the floor and draw a chalk line around me and have me give my word of honor never to cross it. Can I get out of the circle? No. Never! I’d die first!”

I always thought this was stupid. If you somehow convinced me to give my word never to leave a chalk circle, would I really stand there until I died? Of course not. I’d decide that my previous promise was stupid, and I’d go ahead and break it.

While there is value to keeping commitments and following through on promises, I also believe in the freedom to change one’s mind. No one should be pressured into serving a mission based on some “commitment” they may have made under peer-pressure.

[Arrakeen]

On Sunday I met with the bishop, and I think it actually went pretty well.

I was very direct and expressed that I wanted to avoid any misunderstanding, and that I am not interested in trying to regain a testimony. I explained that my faith journey has led me to a new destination, where I have different beliefs and am starting to think about things in new ways. I made clear that since I don’t believe the same anymore, church can feel alienating. I also mentioned how because of my mission experience messages from church leaders such as the recent lesson on missions have torn open old wounds that I need to let heal.

The bishop was very understanding and thanked me for making myself clear. He said I am always welcome to come back if I feel like it, and said he can let me know about YSA activities if I want. I set some boundaries, so I will not have ministers assigned, but I am ok with ward members occasionally checking in on me as long as they do not expect me to change in a particular way.

Basically, I have decided to step away from church again. I may still attend the occasional activity, but I don’t plan on attending regular church meetings for a while. I feel like this is what I need to do. At least for the time being I am leaving, but I have left the door open in case I want to come back in the future. I guess now it’s time to try building a social life on my own.

[Arrakeen]

nibbler wrote:

Roy wrote:

Yes! The church has encouraged women to apply this sort of pressure on the men for a long time. Perhaps the biggest “chip” that the church has in pressuring men to serve missions is that the men will not be considered full marriage material without serving.

A portion of the 5th Sunday lesson I attended was the instructor randomly calling on YW in attendance to ask them how they could help YM to serve a mission. They didn’t ask YW how they themselves could prepare to serve a mission, it was specifically how they could help YM to serve a mission.

I think the instructor was fishing for answers similar to what you describe Roy. It was pretty disgusting.

It is interesting how much importance can be placed on being an RM for dating and marriage. In our Sunday lesson one woman said a man isn’t really mature until he’s served a mission. Which when you think about it, makes absolutely no sense. Billions of men have done just as well not serving a mission.

At BYU they always said non-members were shocked at how mature BYU students were compared to students at other universities, and that this was because of missions. I always thought you know, being two years older than their peers probably makes a difference more than the actual experience of the mission. You would expect a 20 year old to be more mature than an 18 year old. That’s just how growing up works. I certainly don’t feel much more mature than other people my age, especially when I consider that those I knew in high school who didn’t serve missions graduated college a couple years earlier and now make a lot more money than me.

The mission is one of many milestones where the church won’t really consider you an adult until you’ve done it. Men who haven’t served missions aren’t treated as mature adults capable of relationships. And YSA members aren’t treated as adults even if they have careers and mortgages and a 401k because apparently marriage is what actually makes someone a real adult.

[Arrakeen]

Roy wrote:

Arrakeen wrote:

(I had told them quite frankly that the only reason I had come back was to have community and try to make friends).

The church can be a great community and give some a wonderful sense of belonging and validation. I feel that the church works best for creating friendships for adults through serving in callings together. Because of where I am on the participation and belief spectrum, I do not feel that church participation would be a good place for me to look for friendships.

There was a time when DW expressed that making friends outside of the LDS church was too hard because there wouldn’t be the shared foundation of beliefs, values, and life experiences. Now it is precisely the opposite. LDS people have beliefs, values, and life experiences that are not the same as where she is now and that tension creates a barrier to more full friendship.

Making friends as an adult can be hard. I do recommend joining clubs and groups that do activities you enjoy or promote causes that you support. It can still be difficult to bridge the gap between people that you see at the group and actual friends that you might hang out with outside of the group but it is at least a starting point.

I think part of my frustration with going back to church is a realization that I am reaching a point where my beliefs and values no longer really line up with the church the way they used to.

I think I do need to make a more serious effort to socialize outside of the church. I just hoped going back to church would be some sort of “cheat-code” to give me instant friendship and community. And it seems I have changed too much for that to be a realistic expectation.

[Arrakeen]

PazamaManX wrote:

The other route, and the one I’d probably opt for considering what you’ve told them already, is complete and open honesty. Being gently blunt about where you’re at might get you the result you want. Be open with what you are wanting out of church. Politely rebuff attempts to misconstrue what you’re saying as anything other than what it is. As DJ said, your bishop is probably speaking to you out of a desire to help. If your bishop has any wisdom, he’ll hopefully see that making you a project is the worst thing he can do. But, if you don’t think you’re bishop can do that, I wouldn’t choose this approach.

This is what I’m leaning towards. I think I’ve spent enough time the last few years pretending to be someone I’m not in order to fly under the radar. I really want to just tell it the way it is, and they can choose to either accept or reject me the way I am.

[Arrakeen]

The saga continues….

This whole going back to church thing is not working for me. Last Sunday’s lesson on missions brought back a lot of trauma and tore open wounds that I had spent years healing from. I’m just not sure church is really safe for me anymore.

I ended up having a meeting with my bishop and stake president after church about it, explaining why my mission was so horrible. They offered the usual “God loves you,” “the Atonement can help,” “Keep trying” kind of advice. They even suggested that perhaps the reason I had recently come back to church was some sort of spiritual longing or something (I had told them quite frankly that the only reason I had come back was to have community and try to make friends). I told them I couldn’t find much comfort in their words because I do not believe in God.

Unfortunately, I’m worried that the bishop has seen this as an opportunity to rescue a lost sheep, and he has scheduled a meeting with me next Sunday. I fear he may have interpreted my moment of emotional vulnerability as a desire to get spiritual help and seek answers to my questions.

How can I be direct and to-the-point without being too harsh? I want to get across that I am just not interested in regaining my testimony, that I am happy with where I have landed spiritually (as an atheist). I am happy to attend social gatherings or service projects, but for my own well-being I feel it is necessary to once again step back from regular church attendance.

I guess I just struggle to be quite that direct to someone’s face, especially if it seems I may have unintentionally misled them into thinking I was willing to come back to the fold.

[Arrakeen]

As far as the church’s response, I would say one of the things that bothered me most was how they went ahead with that whole special Restoration General Conference rather than address the pandemic head-on. It felt super bizarre. It seemed like the whole world was worried about the pandemic, people were dying, there were lockdowns and masks and quarantines, it was a scary time. And the prophet who was supposed to be God’s chosen mouthpiece to lead the world through the difficulties of the latter-days………. read a proclamation about Joseph Smith and unveiled a new logo. What?

[Arrakeen]

For me, COVID could not have come at a better time. I was at struggling as a non-believer at BYU, going to church to avoid losing my endorsement. I had just met with my bishop who had signed my ecclesiastical endorsement for my final year of school. A few days later, campus was shut down for COVID. I never attended church for the remainder of my time at BYU, which is perhaps the single greatest thing I ever did for my mental health.

Now, I was always worried about catching COVID (and I still haven’t). I would not have wanted to go back after hearing about people refusing to wear masks and grumbling about the most basic precautions. But to be honest, I just really needed a break from all things church.

[Author]

Posts