[convert1992]

Ann wrote:

This is kind of a side question, but I also wonder about an apostle’s family. Seems like there is sort of a gentleman’s agreement to keep non-believing children and extended family out of the picture, but that seems less likely in the future. Will the next to join the Q of 12 need to be men who are on very good terms with any of their ex-/inactive-/middle-way-LDS family, so that investigation or attention drawn to them doesn’t reflect badly on the man and the church? Seems like a good thing.

No desire to get off topic, but Ann’s question is very important. The Brethren are extremely cautious about how who they choose to be in Q12, and for good reason–can you imagine the harm if someone like Paul H. Dunn were an apostle? Today’s leadership is very stable and composed of enlightened men (not everyone in the Church actually understands the Gospel, but the apostles do), but it wasn’t always that way if you go back to the late 19th century. The Church is socially very intimately connected if you are talking about the members of pioneer heritage who live in the Corridor, and so it is possible to know someone’s character in a way that is not possible if the person is a convert or comes from outside the mainstream. Uchtdorf came from a tiny strand of Mormons so there was a safety factor there. I believe this explains why the Church hasn’t invited Latin Americans to be apostles, and not some kind of nefarious racism or racial order at work.

So, yes, Ann … I can imagine one of the unofficial criteria being the character and relationship of close family members.

[convert1992]

Trying to figure out anything logical about the leadership of the Church is an exercise in frustration due to the secrecy of the Church, but it started to make sense once I borrowed an ex-mo friend’s copy of D. Michael Quinn’s “The Mormon Hierarchy.” This book should not be read as Gospel (it should be read critically, as with any other writings), but I learned a very important reality about the Church. It is not run, or even “led” in any sense that we conventionally think of organizationally, by the President of the Church. The Church likes to give off the impression that it is led by one man, but that is not true. It is much more complicated than that. President Monson is not analogous to the President of the US, not a prime minister, not even a CEO. Not like the Pope.

So that means there is good news and bad news. The good news is that not so much depends on one man as is commonly assumed which should allay your fears of succession (remember ETB and how he didn’t undo anything Kimball did?). The bad news is, the way the Church is actually governed makes it extremely conservative and very likely to keep falling behind the times until perhaps one day it’s a tiny organization publishing writings no one reads. I hope that does not happen but the only way to stop it, I am afraid, is for faithful members (not exmos) to take the initiative and start changing our beliefs on our own.

The Church does change and is changing in response to outside pressure. They just like to make it seem as if nothing is changing. The problem, we don’t have much time left; too much damage has been done already by their inaction.

[convert1992]

smplfy7 wrote:

I just need something in my life to help with my spiritual growth. I’m not getting that from the church right now, but maybe I will in the future as I better learn to interpret things figuratively rather than literally. I think that’s everything. I’m looking forward to participating in the great discussions here.

Welcome! You are in the right place, and you are still in the right church/religion. What you’ve stumbled upon is the same thing the rest of us have–the limits of the language that the Church uses to describe and teach spiritual truths that are very real. It is an overly legalistic language. Your wife’s concern is understandable but it basically comes from a misunderstanding about eternal salvation. There is more and you will find it.

[convert1992]

QuestionAbound wrote:

I can also tell you that many of these families have expenses that make me want to vomit…martial arts instruction for a child with low self esteem…monthly online gaming subscriptions…cruises

The duty of bishops to be the judge of whether someone is deserving of help has got to be one of the hardest roles, made harder by the fact that unlike the SP, the bishop doesn’t have the luxury of being socially disconnected from the people he may have to turn down or counsel. He has to see them and their kids every Sunday.

Shortly after I joined the Church, there was a family who had their son enrolled in an elite private school. I think the dad was EQP at that time. They got cash payments from the bishop to cover some expenses and then cleaned the building to make up for that help. A lot of people disagreed with that but I think it was done because it was a temporary bridge for them. Later I ran into the mother who was working as a cashier at Home Depot so I knew they were doing everything to get extra money but didn’t want to disrupt their child’s friendships at school (plus you don’t get your tuition refunded if you withdraw).

So my best guess is that a judgment was made that this family you are talking about has a temporary situation rather than a structural long-term problem.

[convert1992]

Roy wrote:

convert1992 wrote:

Sexting is so destructive that it isn’t even really a classic law of chastity issue, but instead borders on anti-social behavior (depending on what is being texted and other factors).

I’m not sure what was written or how long the pair have known each other but I don’t believe that I could support a statement that all sexting is destructive and anti-social. Would it be better in your estimation if such statements were written in a note, or said on the phone, or in person. I’m trying to better understand your position.

Thanks.

Assuming that two teens are exchanging texts that are explicit in nature, it can’t be good for the normal development of relationship skills. It would not be a giant leap to sending photos or videos that could float around forever. I think it temporarily satisfies a risk-taking impulse that teens would find thrilling but where they would quickly become bored. A lot of “deviant” practices involve the excitement of something that is taboo or even illegal. This is not to say that all deviant practices are wrong because by that measure many things we do today were considered deviant by Victorian society. I had to do a mental self-check on myself at Church today to make sure I wasn’t turning into Elder Callister.

[convert1992]

It’s good to see that you’re moving beyond the very limited, non-contemplative style of prayer taught in the LDS Church. If you haven’t already done so, try praying silently and gradually holding thoughts in your head without the use of language. In other words, try to achieve a level of contemplation where you aren’t even thinking in words of any language. There is a way to picture in your mind those things such as your family that you are praying for without using words or even thinking on an intellectual level. You will find that many times, the form of prayer will become pointless and there will be no need to close the prayer when you’re coming out of a period of deep reflection.

[convert1992]

DarkJedi wrote:

And while I do believe the church’s stance on porn is too rigid (actually I just think they talk about it too much and less youth would look at if they didn’t), I also believe sexting is not a good thing.

Having deconstructed a lot as you have, I will concede that there are a few areas of life where the Church is right to assert traditional values; and these are areas of honesty, being a law-abiding citizen, and basic law of chastity principles. Sexting is so destructive that it isn’t even really a classic law of chastity issue, but instead borders on anti-social behavior (depending on what is being texted and other factors). In these situations even liberal Mormons have to apply traditional values even though it may seem like you’re going backwards philosophically. Being in the mission field, I see this kind of situation with liberal parents outside the Church, and I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t revert back to good ol’ traditional principles.

I agree that the stance of porn is too rigid, but that is primarily an issue of the Church applying it too broadly for mature adults. For example, there is no reason why mature, spiritual Latter-Day Saints can’t go into an art gallery and view nude or erotic art. Enlightened people naturally find hard-core and commercial porn to be offensive and lacking in artistic merit.

[convert1992]

scthomas34 wrote:

Why is praying to locate car keys associated with Mormons history. Are we the only church that believes in prayer and that God answers them? Good grief. When I was working at the tire factory in college, my boss who was religous and not LDS and happened to be black. He could not find his keys and had searched the whole factory. I suggested he pray about it and he did and then found them.

I think you’re missing an important nuance here. Many Mormons believe that the Melchizedek Priesthood gives a worthy man actual power to command the physical world. Other churches just pray and ask God to do it for them. I used to believe there was a difference and I would on occasion actually command things to happen, and oftentimes it would work. One time, pain went away suddenly. Fortunately, none of this kept me from deconstructing, because regardless of how many seemingly miraculous things happen, the BOM and JS myth stories just don’t make sense.

Remember when Monson gave a talk where he told the story of a Mormon who was shot down over the Pacific and used his priesthood to command a US submarine to surface?

[convert1992]

mom3 wrote:

I hope this won’t come off as a brag post, my intent is really to express joy in the spiritual things that happen unexpectedly.

I don’t feel this comes across as a brag post all. I live in the Southern United States where this kind of story inspires evangelicals all the time. We Latter-Day Saints aren’t taught to do random acts of kindness like this–especially in your case it being socially unconventional (some would say beyond the call of duty) for a woman to give a ride to a strange man. No, we get all sorts of stories about giving out BOMs and doing something good so we can sneak in a mention that we’re LDS, etc etc, and I find it to be a blast of fresh air to hear a simple story like this not connected to anything overtly Mormon.

[convert1992]

Kipper wrote:

So many of my issues are addressed, I can’t begin to express all my appreciation for you time. So I need to read thoroughly thru your posts and reply thoughtfully.

Hi Kipper, my name is Tom; I’m a 46-year-old member of the Church and I can personally identify with a lot of the issues you raised. I agree with everything that everyone else has said, especially about getting professional help, but there is one issue that I can specifically speak to.

On the feeling of regret over what you’ve given up for the Church: coming from a Chinese-American background, my decision to join the Church at age 24 greatly complicated my life, and that is why I am still not married. In fact, being LDS complicates the lives of many single adults because it limits your compatibility with people you meet. Add to that differences in race or culture or intellect, living in the mission field, and lingering misperceptions about Mormons. So I know how it feels to think that your life was wasted trying to live for the Church.

The Church is stinkin’ awful at teaching the flip side of any truth. For example it teaches the virtue of education and vocational training, but never talks about the blessings that may come from not finishing your education (except when praising women for dropping out of college to become stay-at-home moms). I know a priesthood holder who would remind people that you can have too much education and end up being overqualified for jobs. The guy who introduced me to the Church made a Spirit-inspired decision to quit graduate school; he now works for CES, lives in relative poverty with his wife and several kids, and fancies himself a writer. And he is very happy!

Today I am happy with the way my life turned out. I do not regret joining the Church. But I did not come to this conclusion through LDS teachings. I had to turn to a non-LDS, holistic way of looking at life to come to this. The truth is, there are lots of people who are able to see life in this way, including many traditional Christians. We Latter-Day Saints have a much harder time understanding this because our Church chooses to keep playing the same A-side over and over again like a broken record. This is why I think it’s a good idea for you to get help from counselors or a group support because it will help get you out of the limitations of LDS-think.

[convert1992]

NewLight wrote:

I live in Utah and for the “training”, they read and discussed the January 10 letter the church released about gay marriage (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-instructs-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage). They then spent a chunk of time talking about how we as leaders were not following the prophet if we didn’t conform and adopt the church’s position.

NewLight, can you elaborate on what they expect of leaders? How would a HP group leader have anything directly to do with defending the Church’s position on same-sex marriage? I’ve never thought of HP or EQ leaders as doing anything other than running home teaching and teaching lessons and coordinating service projects. Since Utah’s such a conservative state, what difference would it make if you disagree as long as you’re teaching the basic tenets of the Gospel? It’s not like you’re going to be able to peel off a lot of members to support same-sex marriage anyway.

[convert1992]

Years ago, I let go of the anxiety I had whenever I faced the possibility that the Temple’s origins were in Freemasonry. I am one of those people that did benefit spiritually from going to the Temple. It’s been years since I last attended, but I believe that it is the environment of the Temple that has the potential to spark a deeper level of spiritualism, and not necessarily the words or rituals per se. For that reason, I am not bothered if it has an origin that is not really rooted in antiquity.

A few years ago, I was hanging out at the local bookstore, browsing through a book on freemasonry. It had pictures of what are believed to be the gestures from that era, and to me it was obvious that the modern post-1990 endowment ceremony has superior symbolism that better reflects the progression of spiritual enlightenment. So whatever the origin of the endowment ceremony, it’s not dishonest to say that the Temple today has no substantive connection to Freemasonry.

[convert1992]

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

phycologist had thought if you don’t like what is being taught, just walk away. As many of us know, it’s not that simple, many get conflicted with bout the good and the dogma experienced. … Apparently blaming self for nearly 30 years was not abnormal in my situation. Apparently it is quite common for people to do this especially when reinforced to do so. … Going to church is like Russian roulette. It’s exhilarating when all goes well. … having another hot button talk before your even over the first trying to get it out if your system will pile it up and poke the stress and anxiety before it can be dissipated.

First of all, many thanks to church0333 for your service to America. (I am a Republican FOX News patriot even though in the Church I’ve been called a Communist–that’s how skewed LDS culture is.)

Psychologists and other shrinks, if they’re not LDS, they will not understand that this is not just a religion, not even a way of life. Not for me as a convert, but for those who have grown up in the Church and are culturally LDS and whose extended families are all TBMs, it is a whole different identity plus way of life plus religious dogma. Walking away from it is not that easy, any more than someone who is Jewish could just stop being Jewish. This is not like a Protestant joining another denomination or a Catholic converting to Episcopal. This is why I believe that if it is at all possible, one should stay engaged with the Church on some level because to start all over, like a lonely immigrant in a foreign country, is much harder.

All religious/spiritual systems have this problem with blaming someone because they can’t succeed at whatever the system is teaching. In secular things, if you take a class in something that is talent-based and you can’t pick it up, you just acknowledge that you don’t have that talent and move on. However, if you are teaching something that purports to be universal and someone cannot pick it up, the instinct is to blame the student for doing something wrong.

The truth is that what the Church is trying to get its members to do (have some kind of spiritual/mystical experience that would then “confirm” that the Church is true) is not that easy to derive. The Church teaches a sort of “color by the numbers” approach to spiritualism which is misleading. The people who get it, get it because they had the brain chemistry to feel these kinds of things plus the right environment plus they did a lot of other things correctly. None of this has anything to do with eternal salvation–I am talking rather about spiritual method.

Probably the biggest “lie” is that tithing has anything to do with this beyond the fact that there is a sort of selfishness that a person must overcome in order to be spiritual. This is like the roulette that Forgotten Charity is talking about: yes, paying tithing might be rewarding, but for some it could also exacerbate financial problems which leads to stress and marital conflicts which lead to problems like divorce which then leads to being ostracized in the Church because everyone else is deathly afraid of divorce–the classic vicious cycle.

[convert1992]

There is definitely a difference between the members of the LDS Church and the institution of the Church. Latter-Day Saints are the consistently nicest people you’ll find anywhere. Now, you might find a congregation here or there in another religion that is a bunch of nicer people, but in the LDS Church every ward has lots of them. Many Saints are also deeply spiritual–again more than you would find in other churches. This is my opinion coming from my observations living in the Bible Belt but I think it’s accurate.

But the institution of the LDS Church is different. Its organization (at least at the ward level) is highly inefficient and dysfunctional. It puts a lot of pressure on people to carry out arbitrary objectives like home teaching numbers or baptism goals that can fly in the face of personal inspiration. Good people are turned into hammers to compel others to do the bidding of unseen higher-ups who have no clue what is happening at the local or personal level. None of this criticism is about the Temple; this is about the hierarchical nature of the Church, the callings (many of which are dysfunctional by nature–who wants to be called to “coordinate” things that half the ward doesn’t want to do).

One day I was in a ward member’s kitchen helping her during a party. I told her that in these kinds of events, people always seem so different than when they’re at church. She replied that that is because on Sunday everyone is stressed out trying to get to their next class, their callings, track down people, and do whatever else they’re assigned to do. Our church is a high-stress church especially on Sunday. Outside of sacrament meeting, there is no peace. You are lucky to be able to enjoy a few minutes in the hallway with some of the members who are not confined to the primary, nursery, library, or clerk’s office.

There are a lot of psychological ailments evident in many of the members. You don’t have to be a shrink to tell when someone suffers from depression, anxiety, OCD. Some of this may be due to the teachings of the Church (e.g., trying to rationalize every contradiction in OT/NT/BOM/POGP/JS), but I think for the average believing member it comes from where the rubber meets the road, where the abstract teachings are translated into the activity of the Church. So I think the analogy to PTSD is quite appropriate.

[convert1992]

science_saint wrote:

Not to go too far afield, though there is a rich literature describing natural explanations for *myriads* of miraculous experiences … So don’t be surprised if there is a naturalistic explanation for everything we hold sacred …

I agree with you; there are no miracles in the sense that religious people often imagine. One of the huge problems with the Church today is that most TBMs in America are intellectually products of 20th century scientific civilization. They are often espousing traditional LDS myth while unknowingly applying 20th century skepticism. This is why there is a palpable difference between the way American TBMs talk about BOM/JS stories and the way African TBMs talk about the same thing.

If you can, I’d appreciate it if you can point me in the direction of some literature about these “miraculous experiences.” Some I already know about–like the white light that has been debunked as a near-death experience. I have read very good debunkings of UFO abductions and that sort of ilk. But that is not what I need to read about. The things that concern me are about consciousness or states of consciousness. There are other topics but we have to start somewhere. If you need me to be more specific, I can, I just don’t want to inadvertently attract the kinds of “kooks” that invariably take an interest in anything that sounds mystical or new agey (I’m sure Curtis would be really thrilled with me).

[Author]

Posts