Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I wanted to add, after reading my pep talk sounding reply, that I turn down stuff all the time. I just don’t feel bad about it anymore (for better or worse). I do not do home teaching at all. I’ve had that discussion with the EQP. I’m the scout leader for the 11 year olds, but I don’t do every activity that pops up. I like the calling, but I have told them MULTIPLE times that I can barely get there on time after work and they would be much better off with someone else as the official leader. I’m not going to make it tonight. I have fun with the boys though and enjoy it. I always try to make sure we do something with fire and knives every week
😈 There’s nothing wrong with saying no. You may really need some time to chill. YM President would stress me out. I couldn’t do it.
Wow, good points Hawkgrrl. I would add that in some ways you might provide a better experience for the youth. You are in a tough, high-profile position though. That makes it stressful. How can you put your heart into it? You are in charge as the YM president, so do it your way. You will have a lot more leeway in a ward like yours. It sounds like mine. They are just grateful that I show up on a regular basis. There’s no being picky and elitist about callings
I would say it depends more on how much you enjoy working with the youth, more so than how strong of a standard testimony you have. Making the youth program *FUN* is really important. My oldest son (17) rarely goes to the weeknight activities lately. I have a hard time making him go, because they don’t really do anything. Like Hawkgrrl said, she appreciated just having someone there who was interested. I think the best YM presidents are the ones that related to the kids and organize fun social activities.
So that my answer — a question
Its very hard to make this sound as nice in written form as I want to say it, so please read it with love and kindness in my tone. It seems to me like most people at Church who say they “know” something is true generally don’t know much factually about it. What they are really saying is that it makes them feel good inside to hope it is true. They should really say “I feel it is true.” A lot of people who would say they “know Joseph Smith was a prophet” don’t actually know much about Joseph Smith. A lot of people will say “I know the Church is true,” but they don’t know much about the Church really, and they don’t really care much about the definition of the word “truth.” They are all saying (IMO) “I have a good feeling inside when I say this.” This gets them a pass on the TR interview. They are speaking a language of Mormonism that insiders understand, but really doesn’t make a lot of sense if you are an outsider or a questioner.
My point isn’t to tear down people who say those things. That’s why I wanted to qualify my intention initially. It’s fine with me if people see the Church and their faith that way. My point is to deconstruct their language a little to show that we’re not so different from them. They don’t really know as much as their language implies. Its really a lot of feelings and hopes. That seems to be enough to qualify for a TR.
So I see two approaches to the answers from our perspective:
1. Just say “Yes” or “No” and leave out the details. I think we get too hung up on the language. Those of us that have gone through doubts tend to be much more concrete and exact than most of the members. We mean the same thing, it just sounds like the others are more sure because of the language of Mormonism.
2. If you feel #1 is misleading (which it may or may not be), then answer that you hope, want to or do your best at those things in the TR interview. If asked for details, I would try to be as brief and positive as possible. Let them know that you sometimes feel uncertain being so absolute, and want to work on increasing your faith through the spiritual benefits of the temple.
Either of those paths are honest, as long as you are approaching the temple with a sincere desire to make it a spiritual and holy experience. That’s my opinion.
Hi JustMike, Welcome to the forums. Thanks for introducing yourself and sharing your story. You will find people here that are going through the same turmoil or have been there. This is a safe haven to talk about it all with people that understand, and who aren’t going to get all freaked about your doubts and concerns. The difference between here and other places is we are actively trying to get to a new place of faith. There’s no going backwards, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel if we keep going forward and plow through this stage in our life (or so I am told, hehe). You haven’t done anything wrong. You aren’t a failure. You are going through a very normal process in your life’s journey, one shared by many others (of all faiths).
I don’t think I could handle being a YM President. I’m not really in the right frame of mind and heart for that at this point. I enjoy being a scout leader and working with the young men though. I have 2 sons in the scouts/YM. I offer that as a suggestion, maybe the Bishop might get some “inspiration” to transfer you if you asked? It sounds like he knows some of your situation. Scouts let’s me still be involved without being pushed into some of those “testimony” situations as often. Scouts is about pracitcal skills and universal moral values.
I would also highly recommend FacesEast.org for your wife, if she is inclined to participate in online support forums. That site is specifically for the more-believing spouse of a disaffected or non-member. I am a moderator there too (I am actually the much more believing spouse in our marriage now).
I look forward to hearing more from you. Please feel free to start topics of discussion. There are some already, but we just got started here a month or so ago.
I come to the same end conclusion as Ray. I approached it from a different angle, but my path lead to the same destination. I believe the ban existed because of the flaws of the LDS Church people (and the leaders), and it was not the will of God. That was one of the best explanations I have seen Ray, especially using the olive tree scriptures. Thanks! I also spent a lot of time researching this topic in order to feel like I could understand it. I’ll post my stuff later tomorrow. I have a lot going on at work today. I approached this more from a history angle going forward.
I personally think its fine to talk about the possibilities. I don’t know if Orson meant it as a “rebuke” or not. Its possible that people can come to a conclusion that Sidney Rigdon was the major source? I don’t know. That just doesn’t seem as likely, for all the reasons you listed Salo. It’s true that Sidney Rigdon was a mature, seasoned and skilled preacher. He was definately a key figure in the early Church, and no doubt had a lot of influence in how things developed. I agree that Sidney seems most tempting to those who want to deny all credit to Joseph, not even to acknowledge Joseph as a religious genius at a minimum. That’s way too cynical for my belief. The resulting expansion and lasting duration of the LDS Church speaks volumes to the genius of Joseph Smith, if not testifying of a divine influence and inspiration. I didn’t chime in yet with a serious response. My first was sort of an attempt at humor. I agree with others when they talk about the social aspects and how it was maybe necessary in forming the seed of the restored Church. In a lot of ways Mormons had to be very special and unique. This was a whopper of a way to do that! Yes. I think it was vital in some odd way to the LDS Church not fading quickly into obscurity in the history books — a 19th century novelty.
The whole concept seemed to fail miserably. Church members do not seem to have implemented it very good. Sure, some did ok at it. A lot did not do a good job. I think they lived it mostly for the wrong reasons, especially thinking that it was necessary for salvation. That was a big mistake IMO. I personally think it’s ok if everyone involved really wanted to go that route, but it became too much of a cultural icon — if you want to be a “winner” in this community, this is what you do. I don’t think the truly willing participants are/were nearly as numerous.
In Joseph’s defense, I think he felt compelled to restore ancient practices (whether all divinely inspired or not). The LDS Church is not a reformation. It’s a restoration. It was part of the 19th century push to find primitive Christianity (the original Church that Christ founded, supposedly). Joseph went many steps further to Christianize Old Testament prophets even. To him, even people like Adam, Abraham, Moses and Isaiah were followers of Christ. That’s a somewhat radical view for his day (even today).
So what does he do with all the prominent figures in the Old Testament that had multiple wives and/or concubines? There are at least 18 characters in the Old Testament who are explicitly described as righteous men, if not prophets, that were polyamorous (Abraham, Jacob, Ephraim, Moses, David, and Solomon to name a few). Before I come across as some pro-polygamy fundamentalist, I am not promoting this lifestyle. One wife is more than I can handle
It would seem at least, from a Biblical perspective, that polygamy is permissible. I don’t think it is in any way required or even maybe preferred. If the Bible is truth though, then polygamy has been approved of by God in the past. Like I said, I think it is maybe “permissible.” It is still practiced by a majority of the nations in the World today, just not so much the Western “first world” anymore. I would argue that even we still allow its practice on a social level in the form of sexual relations outside of marriage. There are men that for all practical purposes still do this, we just don’t seem to require them to acknowledge and support all the children they father (the so-called “baby daddy”).
I can also sometimes see open sexuality as a path to losing the attachment and need for others. This is pretty far out there, but sometimes it seems to me that our ultimate goal of eternal progression is to be whole and complete — not needing and depending on anyone else. I have doubts sometimes that marriage, as we know it here, is not really a relevant concept in the afterlife. Well, it just may not be the same. I don’t know. I am not sure I really believe this, but I think about it sometimes. This would allow for polyandry as well. I think my limited exposure to eastern spirituality leads me in this direction. The process of letting go of attachments is interesting.
There’s one glaringly huge problem with all these semi-defenses. Human beings seem to fail pretty consistently when they explore these ideas. This is one of those cases where I think its better just to leave it as a theory or a concept. Polygamy and open sexuality always seem to lead to far worse trouble than they might possibly provide through some new insight gained.
So I think the issue of polygamy in the LDS Church’s history is complex. I have a hard time saying it was just one thing, or only another. It could have been a divine inspiration for the social results of making a tight-knit community? It could have been JS just making it all up? It could have been one of those things that had to be restored so that this last dispensation is truly the “fullness of times?”
I don’t know. I wish also that we could just lay it all out there and talk about it. Hiding it, as usual, seems to cause a lot of trouble.
I just wanted to throw out there that it’s helpful to see how other people process and deal with these issues (Like BofM historicity). We don’t have to all come to a single conclusions. If it helps you stay engaged positively with the Church, and gives you a sense of reconciliation, then that works as far as I am concerned. I love seeing how other people work through this stuff. I am learning to get comfortable with having a portfolio of possibilities instead of having the one “True” answer anymore.
In fact, I sometimes consider the benefit of all the different angles being explored internally. I feel like I gain spiritual insights of all types by really pondering and considering other angles. It’s not so much about solving the problem and finding the answer once and for all. Each way of believing is a journey, a story with a purpose and destination.
Salo wrote:4th : helping others within the faith that struggle with testimony helps me see were the church needs people like me even if they will never admit it.
I couldn’t agree more! I find myself searching for people that have lost their faith. I don’t always consciously intend to help them. Maybe I do by listening to them? I don’t know. Talking with many people in a similar situation, especially those that I think are farther down the path than me, helps me see all kinds of new possibilities. I don’t agree with everything all the time, but it so therapeutic to know that I am not alone.
I know “they” (the Church) will not admit it, but they do need people like us. Thanks for saying that. There so many people in the Church whose spiritual needs are not met, and they are lost, because the Church can’t seem to acknowledge and deal directly with the problem of disaffection (or the journey of the Dark Night of the Soul).
I’ve thought many times about approaching my Bishop or Stake President to volunteer to talk to people that go in to see them about a crisis of faith. But I also don’t feel comfortable doing that. It’s such a can of worms to open up. I wish there were an auxiliary group or something for this. There’s no organizational support structure for this important journey of spiritual growth.
Hi Salo, Welcome to the StayLDS forums.
Salo wrote:I believe that life is a process of working out your relationship with God not simply learning and following Gods will . I should add that while I am at peace with this world view I struggle to find meaning in it from time to time, knowing Gods will and plan is a tough act to follow .
This was nicely said. Thanks for sharing that idea. I agree. I want to try and think that the two are still related, but I also find myself focusing more recently on my relationship with God. It is exciting and new. I think the only way I could see this is going through what I have, and being pushed into situations where I thought I had to chose the classic obedience (my old view of that) OR relationship — as if they were mutually exclusive. I had to be broken down. I don’t think my path will circle back to the same point. I frankly just don’t care about or prioritize things like I used to. I can’t seem to totally dismiss my actions from my relationship with God though.
I’d love to explore this more sometime. There are always so many great and new things to dive into.
Salo wrote:I have long given up trying to figure out exactly why I stay it is probably a combo of maintaining family unity, cultural, social and spiritual reasons ? I am still committed to the church and am looking for a community to share the ups and downs of living with one foot in and one foot out , so to speak .
Once broken of the notion that “the Church is True(tm),” I found I could actually enjoy the trees more while looking at the forest. I meant that in the sense that you listed good reasons to be in a church community. I’m hoping all those smaller reasons prove more secure and valuable in the future. I think they will be.
Again, Welcome! Thanks for sharing your story with us.
Old-Timer wrote:So, just because it isn’t what members assumed it was doesn’t mean it isn’t what it actually claims to be.
That’s what I meant about it not being what I thought, and this is an important point. I was raised to think of it in a certain way. I think Joseph Smith and early Church members thought that way too. They thought the Native Americans were the Lamanites. They could be wrong about that, and it doesn’t affect the purposes of the BofM.
It’s yet another example of something miraculous and mystical happening, and then people make assumptions about meaning leading off that experience that may or may not be correct. Making a wrong assumption about meaning doesn’t invalidate the mystical experience (make it not “true”). It also does not make the people liars or insincere. It just means they may have been wrong. I’m wrong all the time
That’s fine. I understand. Just one last word of encouragement maybe, you’d be suprised how open and accessible people can be. A simple email asking if she still actively posts somewhere isn’t a big deal. I’ve been pleasantly suprised most of the time when i’ve tried to contact people in the larger mormon internet community. They’re usually very cool about it.
cjonesy108 wrote:How do we reconcile those two worlds? how do we merge internet and chapel (or more appropriately, temple) mormons together?
This is the riddle expressed at times as “The Squaring of the Circle.” People have worked this problem for thousands of years. How do you reconcile and combine:
Mind vs Heart
Heaven vs Earth
Rational vs Irrational (irrational is a natural state sometimes in the universe, not always bad)
Literal vs Symbol
Fact vs Meaning
There’s a point in our development where we fight with and struggle to solve this. Some of the greatest minds in history made this the object of their work.
So basically, this is my way of saying I don’t know
😆 I’m working on it too.cjonesy108 wrote:The question I have though is this: If the bofm is in fact a 19th century creation, does that preclude it from being inspired by God?
That’s the big point I come to exactly. I don’t know things for sure right now. I know that my experience from reading and putting ideas of the BofM into practice lead to positive results for me. It did what it said it would do. Beyond that, I don’t know. I have hopes and faith.
I think it could be a historical record. It’s possible. It just doesn’t seem to be what I was raised to think it was. It might not be the historical record of the Native American Indians.
Regardless of how or why it came into existence, my experience with it has been that it contains a divinely inspired message. I’m ok if I meet God someday, and He says “Joseph was a 19th century genius that I used to tell you this message. It worked pretty good. He did the job I needed done.”
I don’t know them, except through listening to their interview from MormonStories and reading their Blog a little. Here’s serenity’s email address:
serenityv@gmail.com It was posted on their blog (which hasn’t been active for months).
