[Cadence]

katielangston wrote:

Here’s the rub: without going into too much detail, I’ve been personally damaged by certain church policies and teachings that, as far as I can tell, have come straight from the top. Though I’ve been able to reject the teachings as false or inapplicable in my life, there are moments that the past pain still eats away at me. These moments are much fewer and “far-er” (haha, not a word I know) between these days, but it’s still a hurdle I can’t quite see my way over.

The thought process usually goes like this: how can policies and teachings that caused me so much unnecessary agony come from God? The answer: they didn’t. So how can people who support and perpetuate these damaging concepts be prophets?

I am afraid it is inevitable the more strict the culture or doctrine is the more it is going to hurt some or leave others on the outside. Not saying it should be loose and free but the more narrow it is the more causalities there will be. This does not make things wrong or right just difficult.

[Cadence]

Euhemerus wrote:

Before, I had to fit everything into my Mormon world view, sometimes with great dissonance. Nevertheless, I was able to do it. I no longer feel bound to accept/reject things based on the Mormon worldview. For me it was most liberating.

Yes I think this is a very good way to put it. Trying to make everything fit into the Mormon World view proved very stressful and limiting at times. funny how you do not realize this when you are in the middle of it.

Euhemerus wrote:

It occurs to me, however, that this is more a function of me (and my culture growing up in Utah) than the church itself. I was highly orthodox, and very strict in interpretation. I was the type who read Mormon Doctrine and bought it all hook, line, and sinker. I was the stereotypical TBM. So it is not surprising that when I fell, I fell hard, and felt more liberated.

The only thing I would say about this is I hear many people say that much of the culture and orthodoxy is created by the members themselves. I would agree with this, but the leaders still do very little or nothing to dispel this type of devotion. So in my mind by doing nothing to alter the behavior they condone it. For example if I told a GA that I read the BoM 90 minutes a day would he say something like “you need a little more balance in your life read Tolkien”. I do not think so.

[Cadence]

katielangston wrote:

The only lingering issue is the question about whether or not I believe the Brethren are “prophets, seers, and revelators.” Because…the answer is…not really. Not in the sense that I think the question is asking. I think they are well-intentioned people with a difficult task. I believe they are doing their best with the knowledge they have. I sustain them, support them, forgive them for their mistakes, and love them for the good they do and in spite of the bad they do. But I think they’re wrong on a lot of things and doubt that they have more access to God’s inspiration than, say, other religious leaders and people.

Here is an interesting thought. If you do not believe they are prophets then it is obvious they are lying to you that they are. Why is it OK for the leaders to be able to lie to you yet you are expected to tell the truth in the interview. Even if you think they believe they are prophets yet they are not, are you not then supporting a fraud if you say they are. There is no way to win on this if they are actually just men doing a job. You can look at what the definition of what a prophet is and all the nuances, but I think it is rather clear what the expectation is in the church. You may just have to say “I believe so” or something as vague as you can get away with if you want a temple recommend.

[Cadence]

Heber13 wrote:

For me, I am trying to understand these emotional signals more, and what is emotional (me) and what is spiritual revelation (Holy Ghost talking to my spirit inside of me). I

Yes this is the essence of the question. Which is it emotion or spirit? Which begs the question…Why is it so difficult to decipher? That is what leads me more to the emotion equation. Why would god make it so difficult. It must be me who is trying to make it something it is not.

[Cadence]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Quote:

Teaching Sunday School. It is to much focused on literal interpretation of the scriptures which I believe are more allegorical.

Yes, but this is precisely what would make you a great SS teacher! There is no requirement that you teach things as literal rather than allegorical, even if there are many teachers who do like to assume everything is literal. On the contrary, we are taught to liken things unto ourselves, which makes a heckuva lot more sense if you take things as allegory and metaphor than if you assume things literally happened the way they are recorded.

Sure I would and have made a good SS teacher, but the problem is I did not like it. Especially now… I would have to hold to much back.

[Cadence]

One of the things that helped me relieve the anxiety of being an active Mormon was deciding that I would never again accept a calling I did not feel comfortable with. I can not begin to relate the anxiety I experienced over the years trying to fulfill callings I was not equipped for or desired to do at all.

Anyway to answer your question. Currently I teach High Priests. I like that because it is really just a discussion group. I throw out a concept and it is like red meat to wolfs. Our group of High Priests will latch onto anything and expound, manipulate, and interpret any doctrine. Sure some crazy stuff comes up but it is enjoyable because I get to direct the questions and discussion.

Things I will never do again would include: Anything to do with the youth. I do not connect well with them. Yes I know this makes me a bad Mormon because the truly good Mormons love the youth and love working with them. I commend those who do love working with the youth, but I am not one of them. Teaching Sunday School. It is to much focused on literal interpretation of the scriptures which I believe are more allegorical. Other than that I would have to consider what I was asked to do and make a decision. ONe thing I will not do is accept any calling without going home and thinking about it. Not going to be pressured into saying yes on the spot.

I do believe it is important to participate and help out where you can. You can not leave all the heavy lifting to others. I just feel it is a mistake to guilt people into accepting callings. Everyone should be able to serve where the can serve best. Or at lest it would be nice if you were asked where you would like to serve.

[Cadence]

I think it is somewhat biased when someones says there is no way Joseph could have written the BoM. Things like his education level, the complexity of the book and others are pointed to as proof that it had to be of divine origin. The problem is one does not prove the other. If Joseph cold not write it it does not necessarily prove it was of god. Additionally I find it interesting that we can not accept that a farmboy was intelligent enough to produce such a work, yet the same individuals will readily accept it being of supernatural origins. I mean from a purely logcical reasoning point of view it is much more realistic to conclude that it was written by men than delivered by an angel. I think this is often the case when something is unexplainable, we ascribe it to the supernatural.

Does all this mean I do not believe it is of divine origin. Honestly I do not know. I actually can accept it either way. This may be because my belief in the God and his nature relies very little on the authenticity of the BoM.

[Cadence]

Heber13 wrote:

Cadence: You say it is something you don’t know yet, if it is “all made up emotions we use to confirm our biases”. How do you think you can test for yourself the validity of spiritual witnesses? Have you decided on an approach for testing that or even if you want to? What do you think about your prior spiritual witnesses that were really poignant for you?

I’m keenly interested in how others approach this because I’m still working on my faith in this matter, and while reconstructing it, can benefit from your thinking and experience.

How can you test a spiritual witness? I am not sure you can. Maybe that is why they call it faith, but that is the dilemma. I in no way dismiss the validity of a spiritual witness in others but for myself I have more evidence that mine tend to be more emotion than substance. So what do I do? First of all I have stopped trying to force a spiritual witness or experience. I believe for me seeking for a spiritual witness so diligently created a bias in my mind that it just confirmed whatever I was seeking. Now I just ask one question. God are you there. Even that has proved difficult. But stripping all the added on stuff like, is the church true, or is the BOM history, or are there latter day prophets has alleviated me of a great burden of knowing every detail definitively. I am much better at the macro look at spirituality. and I avoid the details. Sure I want to know as much as possible that is why I study so much and come to this forum. So maybe my spirituality is more grounded in facts and intellectual reasoning than most, but I think that is OK. God gave me a brain for a reason. But like I said others may find spirituality in a different way and more through emotion and that is OK to.

[Cadence]

Euhemerus wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

Quote:

Is it really possible to get a spiritual witness of anything?

Do you agree with me that one can get spiritual witnesses and that they ARE valid? Whether they are the most reliable is a little different of a discussion based on individual faith. Yes?

Yes, one can get a spiritual witness and it is valid (I don’t think I ever disagreed with this). However, I’m not sure what Cadence intended. I took her statement to mean a spiritual witness in such a way as many TBMs get their spiritual witness that the church is true (in the one and only true church sense for everyone on earth).

Cadence is a Guy thought my Spock avatar would define that . But what I meant was are spiritual witnesses valid at all, or are they all made up emotions we use to confirm our biases. This I do not know for sure.

[Cadence]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

But I can not help but remember when I went on a mission many years ago and was in the mission home (before the MTC existed) we were grilled often and with unrelenting threats that if we did not confess everything we were doomed.

That was wrong – plain and simple. It certainly wasn’t my experience – in either the MTC or the mission field. I know it happens with individual leaders, since they have personalities and individual upbringings, but it’s not the way it should be.

As in other comments, cadence, I believe you need to separate your experiences from not just “the ideal” but also from “the norm”. What you describe happens too often, but it is neither the ideal nor the norm, imo.

Recognizing that doesn’t lesson the “suckiness” factor at all – but it can help as you move forward.

Perhaps I do not have a true perspective. I have never done anything in my life that warranted a trip to the Bishop. Perhaps others have and there is some healing that goes along with confessing that I have3 never had to experience.

[Cadence]

Old-Timer wrote:

You are right, Cadence, but that has to be an individual choice. We can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, imo – although I agree totally that too many members get caught up in the Catholic concept of confessing everything to an ecclesiastical leader. That actually is NOT the official position of the LDS Church; confession to a Bishop actually is supposed to be limited to a fairly small number of things.

In one way I wish there was more explicit direction regarding this, but I also don’t want an exhaustive, Law of Moses-like list of confession things and non-confession things. I like leaving it up the individual members, with a few major exceptions.

Yes I agree that the teaching is that only “big sins” need to go to the Bishop. But I can not help but remember when I went on a mission many years ago and was in the mission home (before the MTC existed) we were grilled often and with unrelenting threats that if we did not confess everything we were doomed. I was so scared I was confessing every minor infraction of any thing I could think of that was remotely bad. later in life I realized how damaging that was to a 19 year old who had done nothing wrong. They had thrown me in with all the bad apples, I guess assuming we were all bad to some degree. It was jut plain wrong. I guess since then I have become suspect of church leaders trying to pry perceived sins out of the members.

[Cadence]

Heber13 wrote:

Cadence wrote:

Confessing to a bishop is only one way that helps that process.

If that is what works for you or anyone else that is great. For others going to a Bishop can be more damaging than dealing with it personally.

[Cadence]

My issue is “What is Sin” In Mormodom so many things are a sin. Some are big some are little. Lots of things especially for the youth are worthy of a trip to the Bishop. My personal belief is we have way to much anxiety over this issue. So many things are sin simply because someone said it was. For me I have broken sin down into two components. If I injure or cause pain to someone else it is a sin. If I cause unnecessary pain to myself it is a sin. Since I only have those two things to think about I can avoid sin much easier thus eliminating the need to ever visit the bishop.

[Cadence]

findingmyownfooting wrote:

I think having a more liberated belief allows you to have the freedom to be who you want to be and not who you are told to be. I believe this motivation has healthier outcomes.

+1

[Cadence]

I know that coffee and tea as hot drinks is attributed to Hyrum Smith due to a statement he made, or at least that is what I recall. I am going to have to think where I read that.

[Author]

Posts