Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
People don’t have to chose to be in only one community. I participate a little at NOM too when I have the time. I encourage everyone to pull from any source that helps them build faith and sort out their thoughts. I also encourage everyone to provide help to others when they can. Maybe some days we need to be at NOM or even a place like ExMo or FLAK. Those last two are exceptional places to explore and express hurt and disappointment.
We’re trying to build faith back up here at StayLDS. It’s ok to talk about the Church being divinely inspired even with the flaws here. You probably will not receive as much support for that at other places that are open about the controversies.
I went to BYU for a year. That was my only experience living in an area like that. I felt out of place. It was surreal to me, living in a place where Church members where such a huge majority and Mormon culture was dominant. Hi Monkey, Welcome to the StayLDS forums! I really got a lot from your personal introduction. Thanks for sharing a part of your life journey and your perspectives. I enjoyed and connected with your process of throwing out your huge pile of baggage, and then discovering this clarity of love, peace and acceptance. Although not exactly the same journey, I feel a lot like that too these days. It’s a fascinating paradox, to gain understanding by losing surety.
Monkey wrote:I began to love other people, I began to have no need to forgive other people as I accepted them exactly as they are and exactly as they aren’t, I experienced forgiveness from myself to myself, from my spouse to me, and from many others to me, I asked for forgiveness of others and admitted my wrongs. I now believe that acceptance is the deepest form of love and spirituality available to me and those I am in contact with.
That was beautifully said.
Monkey wrote:I am now informed by the Bishop that if I do not say that I believe that God has a body of flesh and bones then God will not allow the Bishop to give me a recommend. I also answered his question, “Do you want to know?” with a definite “NO”
I agree with Ray. It is not correct procedure for the Bishop or Stake President to define the temple questions for the person being interviewed. If that is the only issue, it doesn’t seem right. I would guess that it’s all wrapped up in your unburdening to him about all your beliefs and views. That is why a lot of us don’t recommend unloading this burden to leaders, unless we are sure they are the type of person to handle them (which seems rare from people’s experience unfortunately).
I have similar doubts as you, but maybe not quite as deep in that direction. I would tell my Bishop that I believe God has a body of flesh and bones. I would end that statement right there with a period. That’s what he wants to hear. It would make him comfortable. I would also not be lying or insincere. I believe God can have an existence as a white-haired, bearded man sitting on a throne with a body of flesh and bones if He wants to. I just wouldn’t have to tell the Bishop that I think God could have many different types of manifestations. He could also be a woman, a spirit, a light, an urge towards goodness, and many other forms. But to say the He definately does NOT have a body of “flesh and bones” is limiting God in my mind. Fine. I’m ok saying God has a body of flesh and bones, and I am telling the truth when I say that. That certainly is possible. I’m not so firmly tied anymore to God being one and only one thing, which is the thing that WE want him to be.
Monkey wrote:I want to participate and not tear anyone’s faith from them. I love it that my husband and kids have complete faith and strong testimonies. For me with a literal mind my understanding of the required beliefs did not work to the best advantage toward my being loving.
This point in faith is what our community is about. If people are still too angry and sure, or they want to correct everyone else’s false beliefs at Church, they probably would not fit in so good here. The most important thing is we do not want to take anything from someone else. They can shed their baggage when it’s their time. We are trying to coexist peacefully with them. It is possible. I hope it is.
Hi Weissadler, Welcome to the forums! Wow, what a way to start the journey of questioning things. You are not alone.
weissadler wrote:After becoming more educated on racism and the history of mormonism I now understand why the priesthood ban happened. It had nothing to do with the Curse of Cain, although that was a common explanation. And it had nothing to do with being fence sitters in the pre-existence, which has no doctrinal backing whatsoever. When I read comments made by Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Mark E. Peterson, and even Bruce R. McConkie I came to the conclusion that although they were inspired men of God they were also human and were influenced by the society around them. I have since come to the conclusion that the priesthood ban was not inspired of our Heavenly Father, but motivated by racism.
People can come to different conclusions. This is pretty close to the way I see it right now. I would add that I think God let this happen. He lets us humans mess up other things in the world, a lot worse things (although I hate to really try and prioritize them). I believe this “ban” went on until *we* (the membership as a totality) were ready to accept the change. It was the imperfect Church that was not faithful and were fence-sitting, so to say. This is just my personal opinion, but it’s the explanation that I use to reconcile the past and the changes. The hard part is the length of time it took. We were quite socially progressive in a lot of ways in the 1800’s. The slow and conservative nature that followed was too slow in making much-needed corrections.
The priesthood ban IMO was a cultural artifact the LDS Church picked up. We did not invent the “Curse of Cain” and lineage of Ham idea. That predates us by hundreds of years. There were a few key individuals in the early Church formation that brought in these ideas when they converted. It also, IMO, has ties to how Masons conducted their business. They were a prominent social organization of the era, and many early members (and leaders) were Masons.
People often quote that last line from BRM’s speech. I like to quote the full paragraph. It makes a MUCH stronger statement than simply saying we got a little more light on the subject. BRM was very clear about being wrong, and that people need to *STOP* looking back to the incorrect doctrines taught in the past.
“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
-Bruce R. McConkie
Most of the time, only the last sentence is quoted. I think the whole statement is vital! Yes. People like BRM, Mark Peterson and all the others defended the past policy with a lot of zeal. They thought they were defending their faith. BRM did a complete 180 degree turn on the spot, and called all those people holding on to the incorrect doctrine to repentence. All that junk about pre-existence valiance was an incorrect defense, based on limited understanding. It was just plain wrong.
weissadler wrote:The problem with coming to this conclusion is it felt like my whole foundation was ripped out from under me. In the past I had felt such comfort in following men who were near godliness.
This showed me that even when they are over the pulpit they can say things that are not necessarily true. For some of you this may not be a shocker, but for me it caused my world to collapse and now I’m rebuilding it. It’s a shocker to anyone who cares about the Church and comes to this realization. The best I can say is to try and see how the collapse, although very painful, is a step towards a much more mature and personally responsible faith. You can not depend blindly on someone else for your beliefs nor for your salvation. The good news in all the turmoil, if you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, is that YOU can now choose what to believe and what to reject. Your faith is yours now.
weissadler wrote:Thanks for listening. I’m excited to be apart of this and sharing experiences and knowledge.
I’m really excited to have you here. Thanks for joining. I bet you can be a great resource, since a tough subject like the past priesthood ban affects your family so personally.
Hi Derreamer, For a lot of complex reasons, the creator of the “MormonStories” podcasts decided to take down the material. It is no longer publicly available. We’re discussing the possibility of having some of the material available here on this site in the near future, but probably not all of it. I think it’s important to respect the author’s wishes, and I understand a lot of his reasons.
[I’m moving this topic to the support forum section.]
Hi Shederlaomach! Welcome to the community.
I really liked this story you quoted below. I will have to remember it. I want to feel like that.
Shederlaomach wrote:Young chastised Woolley publicly and then suggested that he might go off and apostatize like so many others have done. Edwin Woolley replied “No, I won’t. If this were your church I might, but it’s just as much mine as it is yours.”
Hush! put the crazy uncle back up in the attic 😆 We don’t talk about that here!I’m just kidding.
This is most definately a tough topic for people, a lot of people. I would love to get a conversation going about it.
A big thing for me was to realize that most of these accounts are highly condensed versions for a specific audience — either for a single paragraph in a history book, for a part of a newspaper article, or for a missionary tract. The missionary tracts were written by other people who heard the story from him in parts. I just can’t build a sinister picture of deception when I read the accounts and look at the history. I can imagine that an experience took on new meanings and purposes over the two decade long “ministry” of Joseph Smith. Is that completely and 100% “honest” in a legal testimony sense by today’s standards? Yeah, I know what people are getting at.
It just seems to boil down to a basic, overall decision about Joseph that everyone has to make at some point in their own studies. Was he generally sincere about believing his own revelations and experiences (true or not is a separate issue), or was he just a secular genius who manipulated people for personal gain? You can really build up a rational case either way, and get all kinds of evidence to support your belief. I sincerely don’t fault people who take the cynical route. It is a possiblity.
I believe he that he believed though. That’s the conclusion I come to when I look at the whole.
SallyM wrote:Since then I have had many more prayers confirming to me that my dh still is the very fine person I married many years ago. I feel so calm and peaceful. So hopeful (not that he will want to be LDS again, but hopeful we have a good future together etc) and praying has given this to me. I think this is spiritual. It is to me anyway.
Hi SallyM! I really like how you said that. I’m glad you believe your own experiences. They seem to be leading you in a good direction.
I’m over at FacesEast too. I recognize your name. Welcome to StayLDS! I bet you can contribute a lot here too. I like your new-found viewpoints. I know you’ve mentioned a feeling of losing your testimony, but then I also read your comments and think that you don’t seem to be losing anything.
It seems to me like you are changing, and the new places your are going or better. It seems more like an exchange than a loss really.
The three important features of StayLDS that differentiate it in the “market”: 1. The information is public and available to anyone who comes to this site. They don’t even have to become an active participant or register. They might get all the help they need just following along in the conversations of people with similar questions.
2. The site is open to people using pseudonyms to mask their real life identity. I hope this allows a larger audience to feel comfortable participating, especially since it is open to the whole internet public.
3. The explicit mission of StayLDS.com is to help people stay in the Church — to integrate back into the faith community. That is the baseline assumption here. This encompasses a different group than some other sites that also have open and frank discussions about Church doctrine and history.
We really emphasize this experience today in missionary work. Hawkgrrrl made a good point. Back in that day, it was not a focus. They pushed the BoM. They preached new theological ideas. A big part of the early Church experience for converts and members were the manifestation of gifts of the Spirit. Lot’s of journal entries talked about speaking in tongues, blessings, visions, dreams, prophecies, etc. Our Church may now be partially the victim of our own interpretations of Joseph’s “First Vision” experience — taking meaning that Joseph didn’t even pull from it.
LYN wrote:I have to give it the meaning that God heard and answered my prayer.I totally understand what you are saying about how we can easily misinterpret meanings and so we should be careful not to put our own interpretation on things.
We have to interpret and extract meaning. I don’t want to come across too negative against that. What I have personally found helpful is not to become too attached to there being one and only one meaning to an experience. I’m avoiding the absolutes, and also accepting that I can be wrong.
It’s a bit nuanced in the fine points and confusing I admit. *shrug* It’s a tough subject.
LYN wrote:I hopeto get more input from others here yet. I am not sure how many members are in staylds. Maybe there are just a handful of us!
We’re pretty new, and just getting started.
Keep the hope and faith alive!
There are many people out there who struggle with this dilema. You are not alone LYN. You asked great questions! Some people never really get that overwhelming experience either, in addition to not getting the smaller answers to mundane prayers (like who to call to a position in Church). First let me say, I don’t know why it is like this. I don’t know why God doesn’t interact the exact same way with every single person. It is my hope and assumption that He has His own reasons, and they are good reasons. I can make several guesses, but I really don’t know the answer. That’s ok for me. I don’t believe it is completely a reward system. By that, I mean people don’t only get answers because they are worthy, and they certainly don’t because they are “better,” special people.
Some people take the lack of answers and go a step further to interpret it to mean there is no God. If God doesn’t do things the way they expect, then He doesn’t exist. I have a lot of sympathy for that line of thinking, and I disagree. They could be right, but it isn’t what my experience tells me.
I have had many profound spiritual experiences. I can’t explain them. Other people do not have these experiences. I am *NOT* some great and special person, trust me on that
My prayers have been answered. My prayers have not been answered. I used to get upset about it sometimes because it did not make sense. I think at some point I came to the conclusion that God was not consistent because He didn’t do what *I* wanted. That’s the wrong approach, in my opinion. I believe He is consistent according to what He wants. We can learn a lot from God when we accept what we experience, are patient and quiet, and watch what He does. For better or worse, we make mistakes and mess things up. I believe that’s ok with God. He understands.
Orson provided great advice in my opinion. Cherish what you have. Ponder the meaning. I would add a reccomendation not to get overly attached to meanings though. Attach to the experience and believe what happened, but stay open to the possibilities of meanings. The more I learn, the less I seem to know for sure.
I rarely pray by kneeling and folding my arms. I often pray driving my car to work, or while I am at my desk working, or while I am doing just about anything else. The answers rarely come at the same time. I also have the feeling that He just leaves us to make a decision on our own most of the time, even if we make the wrong decisions. I really think that.
This is a great topic for discussion.
One last note. I think they greatest thing to pray for is “thy will be done.” When I pray that way, sure enough, it always happens
