Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I think we are living in different worlds (meaning we see the world quite differently). I don’t get into semantics about words and not true and lie mean the same thing to me. Also maybe you are saying an unintentional lie is not a lie? How about stating things as fact when it is only your opinion? I think we see a lot of this and it is as destructive as a full outright I know it is wrong lie. To me it seems pretty clear cut that there is a delta between the church story and the science story. I feel that if I tried to use semantics to see it another way then I am really just deceiving myself. Thank you for your pov. I like when people disagree with me (my wife is good at that too). As a side note we are visiting the Mayan ruins soon near Cancun. There are a couple of lds themed tours still trying to claim those ruins are from the nephites. I may have to suffer through one of these with my tbm family. Do you think the Mayan ruins are from the bom? I don’t and it will be hard to hold my tongue while they try to make scripture fit the ruins.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:(meaning they didn’t realize the church was saying we lost. it was a lie. the nephites didn’t come from Israel.)
The change in the ancestry wording didn’t say any of those three things, especially the “lie” comment. I can make a strong argument against all three of the statements above, despite the change in the wording – since I can make a very good argument that the primary ancestry is Jaredite and not Israelite and since there is plenty of reason to believe that Joseph believed the original wording. The change simply said that the Native American population isn’t “primarily” descended from the Nephites – that the prior assumption was incorrect. The Book of Mormon itself never makes the original claim, so the change says nothing more, in practical terms, than: “Our prior assumption, taught and believed by prophets, was wrong. Our prophets are not infallible and were wrong about the principle ancestry. They extrapolated too much from what’s not in the book itself.”
Seriously, that’s all the change said. Everything else is extrapolation and further assumption – and, to say this directly and not sugar-coat it in any way, it’s important to understand that what I quoted above is exactly the same type of extrapolation as the original wording – an assumption based on perspective that isn’t backed up by the actual wording in the Book of Mormon itself.
Teaching that you are a prophet and you talk to god and he tells you things (Joseph Smith) and then teaching that Indians are Jews that escaped from Israel and were cursed to have dark skin is a lie. Where is the wiggle room here? You said you received revelation from the ultimate authority (God) and yet you are wrong. Somewhere in there is a non truth (lie). It is dishonest to preach something that is not true as revelation.
Making the claim they are Jaredites? Sure if the Jaredites were from Asia and travelled across the Bering strait. No if the Jaredites are people coming from a tower in a story meant to explain why people speak different languages. The primary ancestry of the Indians has been proven by DNA science.
Unfortunately Joseph Smith had no way of knowing this was a possibility.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Imagine if the leaders fessed up about some major historical issues to the membership at large and just admitted some things were flat out wrong?
Like the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Pretty much nothing happened. Like changing Elder Packer’s statement implying that God would not make people be born gay – although he never said that explicitly in his talk? Pretty much nothing happened. Like stating unequivocally in the Seminary and Institute manuals that Joseph Smith instituted and practiced polygamy? Pretty much nothing happened. Like changing the “primary ancestors” wording in the intro to the Book of Mormon? Pretty much nothing happened. Those are four instances that are fairly “major” – and they came to mind immediately with no real thought to try to think of lots of examples.
Sure, there are other examples where more might happen, but I don’t think the result would be nearly as drastic as you think.
Also, I can’t expect anyone to “fess up” to anything if they don’t believe like I do. They have to be lying intentionally to “fess up” to sometihng, and I just don’t see that.
Good point. Maybe I just can’t understand how tbm’s think anymore. They seem to be at a place where facts and truth don’t matter. I know I used to be there but I can’t even comprehend it anymore.
I also don’t think the change to the intro in the bom was understood by the typical member and I think their not understanding was intentional. (meaning they didn’t realize the church was saying we lost. it was a lie. the nephites didn’t come from Israel.)
Ray, I agree that the internet is affecting all churches but I also think the potential is there for our church to be affected more. Maybe something like what happened to the RLDS church? That is why I think the future might hold more pain for the lds church. Imagine if the leaders fessed up about some major historical issues to the membership at large and just admitted some things were flat out wrong? What would happen? HSAB wrote:I’ve found that many more of the people I’ve shared my doubts with have a lot of the same doubts. My husband and I were talking about it the other day, wondering if it was just our generation or if it was the availability of info or both. We have a lot of older single/divorced friends and it seems like the only ones who we’ve talked to who haven’t had similar doubts are the ones who got married young, stayed married and ‘haven’t ever thought about those things before.’
I love this comment. I think the church works well for those who are in this category. They go on missions get married have kids and are busy with work church and family. There is no time to question faith. The church is a different experience for people who are single or divorced. It really doesn’t provide a lot of things that those people want or need.
As far as the church goes. The internet is a game changer. It is like the printing press killing the dark ages and the Catholic church’s grip on Christianity. Once people have access to information they cannot go back to the way it used to be. When I was a kid in the 90’s the only access I had to material critical of the church would be from “whackos” demonstrating at Church events. They had absolutely no credibility. Now I have access to well thought out arguments full of facts with references from respected people on my phone. The church will never be the same. It won’t die but it will either be reduced to the hardcore tbm’s and the people in the third world without internet or it can adapt.
How would you like to be a missionary in the us now and teach people about Joseph Smith and the first thing they do when you leave is Google him? The church’s model is broken and it doesn’t even know it yet. How would you like to explain why you can drink energy drinks but not coffee or tea? And yet you claim to have revelation?
It’s not the church alone that is having these problems. All of religion has similar issues. It’s just that other religions can help people be spiritual without requiring as much sacrifice from members so they will fare better in this new world environment.
I have always had an interest in this from a psychological perspective. Even as a TBM I was suspicious of polygamy. I have always wondered how this election being made sure and that no other sins you do outside of murder might play into a guilty conscience regarding polygamous sex. I think there is some insight into the psyche of the prophet there but I’m too much of an engineer to figure that stuff out but my intuition tells me there is something fishy going on. Anyone have any insight? I am not well read on this and have only studied it on my mission 10 years ago…
I first heard about the 2nd endowment on my mission. They called it “calling and election made sure”. There’s some scriptures in the d&c that mention this I think. It always seemed like someone trying to justify their current sins because they did some good things before. I don’t like it at all – what’s wrong with relying on grace? Why does the church need to give salvation. let god do that. I think it means that at the time the bom was “translated ” JS felt like preachers shouldn’t be paid. I don’t take it any deeper than that. I could not give a talk on tithing. I’ve always thought it a little weird how much it gets stressed in church. Maybe you could give a talk that is about reality. How you don’t only get blessings when you pay tithing (I have the same blessings if I do or don’t pay). Maybe you could talk about tithing in part member families or where the main money earner won’t pay what does the tbm spouse do?
In all honesty I would just give a talk about one of Jesus teachings and not even mention tithing and then if they ask about it just say you were inspired by the spirit to change the topic.
Welcome I liked your NOM and staylds comment. I visit them both but I feel that it is more positive here. I visit NOM on days when I’m more angry at the whole situation.
I am in a similar place where I don’t really know what I believe. I found that I could not believe anything blindly and I’m starting all over and trying to understand what I want to believe.
I had similar experiences with my wife when I first came out to her. Things have gotten better with time but thinking we might get divorced was painful. You have my sympathies.
rebeccad wrote:I came to this point by:
-I decided I wanted it to end up this way. I did start with a bias toward there being a god, despite a long time of uncertainty. I have finally decided that I am comfortable choosing to believe in God
I’m leaning toward this as well. I think I will decide to believe in God just cause I want to. It is the same thing that most people do. They want to believe in the church they are raised in so they do. They also get good feelings about this decision to confirm their belief.
It is nice to know that it is your decision though and that you are making it with your eyes open.
mackay11 wrote:
(It could be worse, we could be under Noah’s era and having to learn to swim… but only in a limited geographical area)Thank you for making me laugh at work!
Hello. I did misunderstand the point of question 5. I apologize. It is just a topic that has done some harm to me so I feel very strongly about it. I did not mean to offend. I am sure I felt similarly to you about it absolutely being a sin at some point in my life as well.
I do not think it will send you to the Telestial kingdom (i am not sure i believe in such a place btw) as long as you repent. It sounds like you are doing this. My best advice based on my own personal experience with quitting masturbation during my mission is:
1. Don’t beat yourself up when you have a relapse. Relapses are part of the recovery process.
2. Try hard
3. Never give up
I have followed those steps when trying to do anything difficult and it seems to work. You will probably also want to pray a lot.
Good luck
I loved your comment on Brother Monsoon. I know in my head he is probably a good guy but my intuition screams at me “be careful with this guy!” I loved your post and loved your insight into mission life. (I didn’t like the MP wife either.)
Welcome!
Hi. I just wanted to weigh in on question 5. I don’t think masturbation is wrong in any way. If you do it then you are a normal 18 year old man like 99.99% of the worlds 18 year old males. I think the way the church treats the subject is immature and eventually (hopefully) it will change. In the meantime just know that many people are going through the same guilt cycle that you are going through. You do not need to feel guilty for it! Your body is wired to do this. I think you will be much happier if you can truly see that it is not a sin. If you still cannot see it then go to a non lds counsellor and they will be able to help. Welcome, God bless and good luck on your journey.
