Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What a wonderful response, Ray. I myself have come to the conclusion that there is no need for a literal substitutionary atonement by Christ–when I stopped accepting the paradigm of the church and examined what I personally believed about God, the Christian atonement as I understood it just didn’t make sense. That’s precisely why I no longer consider myself a Christian.
But I love the atonement-as-parable concept. It’s not, of course, what any Christian churches that I know of mean when they say Atonement, but it’s an interesting concept.
I still feel “the spirit” when I listen to my favorite sacrament meeting songs and am moved by the concept of a person who “cared for me enough to die for me,” even though I don’t believe Christ’s crucifixion was necessary for my return to God.
Yeah, there are a lot of things in the Old Testament that I take issue with because they’re part of the spiritual history of the church. It’s easier to excuse things I think are wrong if I don’t have the issue of, “My church believes God was involved in organizing this type of religion?” On the one hand, I think there are things that are wrong (lack of personal responsibility and intentionally hurting self or others are really my only basic moral imperatives). Yet at the same time, I also believe that people are largely a product of their environment. I guess I really come down on issues in the past as, “That was wrong, but I understand why they did it;” that’s applicable to both imposing modern morality on the past and to imposing my current morality on others (in terms of what I believe is wrong, not in terms of actually trying to make everyone have the same morals I do). Guess this is kinda fence-sitting, but I’m a fairly moderate person.
I really like what Ray said here
My personal belief is that we are judged by God according to how we live what we know / understand / believe – not what others know / understand / believe. I don’t want to construct a paradigm that is stricter or harsher on people than what I believe God uses, so I try intentionally – very hard – to err on the side of charity and compassion. I also want that from others, so I try to give it to others. In short, I believe Matthew 7:1-3 and try to follow it as fully as I possibly can.
In the words of my good friend, “Most people are just doing the best they can.” So it doesn’t pay to be harsh on yourself or others. Love em all and let God sort it out.
Wow, it was really great to read everyone’s affirmations of God, love and goodness. I have recently stopped attending church, but I still frequent this site because it helps me feel spiritually connected to the church I loved so much; maybe someday I’ll really reach stage 5 and decide I can go back, but for now, I’m doing my own thing. Anyway, I realized that while right now I can’t actually testify of much. I no longer believe in Christ as Savior like I used to (though I wholeheartedly believe in the goodness of his teachings as my own moral code), nor of any specific church doctrines I used to testify of, particularly as a missionary. But what this topic made me realize is that for years, even when I was on a mission and was expected to bear my testimony every month in sacrament meeting, the bulk of my testimony was ALWAYS, “I know that God lives and loves each and every one of us.” It wasn’t that I didn’t believe the other stuff at the time (and I would make references to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, etc), it was just that God’s love is the only thing that was so very important to me. For that matter, my prayer to God to ask him to help me and tell me he loved me (back when I was about 15 and going through a hard time) was one of the only times I’ve ever received what I still consider an answer to prayer. Now I’ve changed what I feel about religion, Christ, and the LDS church, but I found that despite everything I feel I don’t believe anymore, I still can say “I believe that God exists and loves each one of us individually.”
A lot of you mentioned that you don’t feel comfortable enough to bear your testimony in church. It sure can be a touchy subject–I have a friend who recently decided to leave the church. A month or so before she did, she decided to bear her testimony in Relief Society, but could only muster up saying that she believed in God and believed there was goodness, and she was hopeful she’d be able to work out the rest, or something along those lines. She meant it to be an uplifting experience for her, but instead, someone told the Bishop who called in her and her husband to talk about her “issues.”
Yeah, I always thought the WWJD phrase was a bit weird, but I always figured it was because I am just too literal-minded. What would God (or Jesus) want ME to do is always how I formulated it to myself, so I like seeing it here too–after all, Jesus could do a LOT of things I can’t do, so there’s no way I could actually do exactly what he would do in my situation. I understand the sentiment behind it, but I think the wording is too loaded for me. It’s kind of along the same lines as “Would you do/wear/say/eat that if Jesus/President Monson were here?” Well no, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. As an 18 year old, I wouldn’t even hold hands with my boyfriend if my parents were in the room, but I certainly did not think we were doing something immoral or inappropriate. The Chad Hardy thing was very unfortunate, in my opinion. From what I’ve read (which he wrote),I agree with those that have posted that he both expected and kind of welcomed being excommunicated. Showing guys in bathing suits was not specifically the issue (I too know a ton of models who do not get excommunicated for their choices, nor actors and actresses for their betrayal of some behaviors, such as drinking and implied extramarital sex). My thoughts about the calendar (a fellow missionary from my first area appeared in the first issue, and a friend from high school in the second issue) are “Tacky!” Taking actual missionary pictures of those men as missionaries and juxtaposing them with those same men topless would have been weird, but at least real–most would have looked pretty different in the before and after shots, I suspect. Having those men get dressed up as missionaries and once more put on their nametags, I think was inappropriate. However, I haven’t seen anything about those men from the first calendar being excommunicated (except for Chad Hardy)…anyone else know whether there were disciplinary councils involved for them?
I think it would have been less weird if the calendar had been more focused on “hot LDS men” or even “hot RMs” (without focusing on fake photographs of them as missionaries). Just my opinion.
Many authors/actors/directors, etc. have characters (Mormon or otherwise) that do immoral things, with or without getting retribution for it, and those artistic creators are not categorically disfellowshipped or excommunicated (Orson Scott Card is one that readily comes to my mind).
Yep, I’m with all of you that think this was a really good article and the type of thing that would be nice to see in General Conference (I say after reading half a dozen of the talks from the most recent Conference). Thanks everyone for your comments on Elder Holland’s talk. I felt (when I listened to it) and still feel that the talk was a put down to those like me who have sincere, grounded doubts about the church. However, I recognize, particularly after reading these posts, it is not viewed of as a universal put-down. Two sides to every coin and all that.
I think he did sound angry, and instead of feeling the Spirit (which apparently most TBMs did, since I have heard multiple comments on how powerful and undeniable Elder Holland’s talk was), I felt sick and heartbroken. I think that feeling was really triggered by this quote:
“I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest—and last—hour of need, I ask you: would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book (and by implication a church and a ministry) they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?”
I recognize that some detractors to the church do try to play the “intentional fraud card.” I for one am more than willing to believe that Hyrum and Joseph believed the Book or Mormon was true, but does that really provide “evidence of its truthfulness”?
I was watching Conference alone, since my spouse no longer believes the church is true, and when he heard this quote, he was especially upset: “For 179 years this book has been examined and attacked, denied and deconstructed, targeted and torn apart like perhaps no other book in modern religious history—perhaps like no other book in any religious history. And still it stands.” It seemed to him (and I admit to me as well) that it only “stands” to those who are determined it is true. The fact that it stands is of course very important to those that believe the church is True, and perhaps should be lauded, but the statement seems, overly optimistic, or possibly even disingenuous. (But then, he believes it, so I guess “disingenuous” can’t be strictly true). I assume Elder Holland means that the Book of Mormon stands solidly in the religious community, because I don’t actually know of any non-Mormon scientists or archaeologists who believe the Book of Mormon to be history.
I guess this talk just hurt so much because it gave me the same feeling I had when my BYU Book of Mormon teacher told us that The Simpsons was an evil show, and when he heard it, he could “feel the spirit drain out through my feet.” Then he proceeded to say that he might offend some by saying that, but “the wicked taketh the truth to be hard.” I know that Elder Holland (instead of my teacher) as a General Authority has WAY more right to speak powerfully about the Book of Mormon (rather than a television show) since it is an important part of the gospel. But the feeling I got from both was the same, which at least explains why the talk rubbed me the wrong way.
As an individual who fluctuates in her certainty that it’s really a good idea for me personally to “Stay LDS,” take my words with a grain of salt.
Mostly, I just wanted a place to be able to state what I thought of the talk without being reprimanded for it (as I would be if I had mentioned this in church today). I appreciate the thoughtfulness and openness of this board so much.
Thanks to everyone for your comments! Even the short ones are useful, cause it’s nice to know someone is listening…er…reading. Mostly just rambling, but I figured this was a good Sunday afternoon activity, and I wanted to say thanks to those who took the time to respond to me. I’m off to catch up on some other posts here.
Just a side note, I’m sure the Word of Wisdom thing depends on your mission. I served in Japan recently and was not allowed to drink green tea. It was also a mission rule that we were forbidden from drinking ANY caffeinated soft drinks, just so we wouldn’t have to try and explain the Word of Wisdom as it relates to caffeine.
