[Cylon]

Heber13 wrote:

SamBee wrote:

2 & 3 not problems in my view. Satan was a minor nuisance and trial, and the two definitions in 3 not contradictory. As regards 3, I think Joseph was seeking.

1 is the problem.

That’s interesting Sam. I see it differently.

1 and 2 seem like details, and telling accounts of events can omit or focus on different details depending on 3. To me, 3 is the important part to work through. It sets the direction for the discussions and many of the teachings of the Church, IMO.

Maybe you can elaborate more on why you think 1 is the kicker for you.

Hawkgrrrl wrote:

Since I’ve never had a vision, I don’t really know how it stacks up.

+1

I can’t speak for Sam, but 1 is a problem for me because it’s the basis for a major part of our theology. We believe God the Father and Jesus are separate beings in large part because Joseph Smith saw both of them. If he didn’t, that has pretty big implications.

Also, I want to comment about the “vision vs. actual appearance” thing. I agree that Joseph’s actual accounts of it support the view that it was just a vision, but that’s definitely not how it’s taught in the church today. It’s not what I taught on my mission. As far as church manuals are concerned, God and Jesus beamed down to the sacred grove in person. If that’s the idea that someone’s testimony is based on, how can it not be a problem that Joseph didn’t even think it noteworthy enough to mention both of them the first couple of times he wrote them down?

[Cylon]

I don’t know about the full remarks, but here’s the news story from Reuters that they did when the whole thing went public: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/31/us-mormonchurch-idUSTRE80T1CM20120131.

It has some pretty good quotes in there. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any other official GA statements saying the same thing.

[Cylon]

cwald wrote:

Cylon wrote:

…. I kinda felt bad I was actually wearing a white shirt. ….

What the hell were you thinking? 🙂

Lol, I don’t know, must have had a temporary brain malfunction when I was getting dressed.

[Cylon]

Wonderful message, Ray. Thank you for sharing that.

[Cylon]

Cwald, good to hear you had a positive experience there. I had a somewhat similar experience at church this week, too. I went and talked to my bishop yesterday, too, although for me this was the first I had told him about my doubts (here is the link to the full details if anyone is interested). He was also pretty chill about the whole thing.

As for church itself, in sacrament meeting we had a couple of really good talks and then one of the worst talks I’ve heard in a long time. Up first was a young man in our ward who has a slight mental disability, who just got called to a 2 year service mission within our stake. He just talked about service and the happiness it has brought him, and it was just good and heartfelt. The we heard from a recently returned sister missionary. She went to the Nauvoo mission as one of the tour guide type people, but also had served in California in a regular proselyting mission during the winter months. She talked about how when she first got to Nauvoo she was heartbroken because the mission rules forbade proselyting to the people on tours. She wanted nothing else but to tell everybody about the gospel, and she couldn’t. But then she said she had a spiritual experience where it just came into her head that God loves every one of those people and he’s watching out for them no matter who they are or what they believe. She then shared something that her California mission president taught them, which was basically, “Don’t teach anyone unless you love them first.” I thought it was a wonderful message and I’m glad I got to hear it.

Our last speaker, though was from the High Council, and he immediately announced that his topic was modesty. I groaned (inwardly) as soon as I heard that, and sure enough, he managed to check off every single little tiny thing even tangentially related to modesty. Bare shoulders, bare midriffs, short skirts, more than one ear piercing, beards for men, anything other than the missionary haircut. All things we must avoid to be truly righteous. 🙄 He even told us to wear the “uniform of the priesthood” (his exact words). I kinda felt bad I was actually wearing a white shirt. Next week I won’t make that mistake. 😈

But even with all that nonsense, I had a much different reaction yesterday than in recent weeks. For some reason, maybe because it was so stereotypically pharisaical, I was able to just laugh it off instead of getting upset and stewing about it. Same thing happened when I heard some unenlightened comments in Sunday School, too. They just didn’t bother me. Maybe I am getting more accustomed to the Middle Way.

[Cylon]

Aaron, thank you for being so open, I know even in an anonymous forum it’s not the easiest thing to let yourself be so vulnerable. Anyway, after reading your answers to my questions I don’t really have any more advice. I think you’re doing exactly what you need to be doing to get healthy. I’m really glad that you and your wife have backed off a bit from the divorce option. Like you said, no one can tell where everything will end up, but having that hanging over your head in addition to everything else you’re dealing with can’t be helpful for actually solving your problems. But keep on fighting the good fight. You can do it, and as much as anonymous people on the internet can help, we’re here for you!

[Cylon]

I want to echo others who have said that focusing on stopping every single instance of what you see as sin probably exacerbates the problem instead of curing it. It sounds like you’ve already come to that realization for yourself, though. It’s good to hear you’ve found a program that is helping you. I believe that programs which focus on acceptance of self are much more useful than ones that focus simply on eliminating the addictive behavior.

I also agree with others who have expressed doubt that you’re actually addicted. That’s just my default stance whenever I hear an LDS person say they’re addicted, since the vast majority of people within the church who say they’re addicted actually are not by any sort of clinical definition. I don’t think the label is helpful when it’s misapplied. But, for those who are actually addicted, their addiction is often just a symptom of other problems in their lives. The addictive behavior is used to cope with other pains in life, and if one tries to deal with just the behavior without addressing the bigger underlying issues, it’s very likely to be unsuccessful.

And one last thing, I apologize if this seems too personal, but I just don’t think issues of pornography and masturbation in marriage can be properly addressed without discussing it: how is your sex life with your wife? Just speaking from personal experience, it’s much easier to avoid things like porn and masturbation when my wife and I are getting sexual fulfillment from each other on a regular basis.

I wish you the best in your efforts to be the person you want to be. It breaks my heart to see real families face the prospect of being broken up because of teachings of the church. I cannot understand how having a husband and father who can go to the temple every once in a while is more important than having a husband and father who is present in the home and loves his family.

[Cylon]

bc_pg wrote:

>>I’m not sure that our goal for this forum should be to get more attention.

IMO, it should be to help members struggling with their beliefs.

The people will come to this site is by word of mouth.

I know that since I’ve been here I’ve told others about it.

I’m here as a result of the news article. Word of mouth is a good idea. However in this case word of mouth won’t work for some people. Within the LDS culture it’s “not cool” to put it lightly to express doubts. I think there are many who are silently have a belief crisis and don’t know where to turn. So this site having more exposure probably means the opportunity for more people to be helped by it.

Well said, bc_pg. It’s not about the publicity, it’s about the chance to help more people who are struggling.

[Cylon]

WeightyMatters wrote:

The revelations I have received, very basically, have to do with the fact that the world is evolving to fit our great father

in heaven. That the tolerance in this world is a thing of our great father in heaven. For who are we to criticize one of our

father in heavens children? Every child was born different, every child was born to fulfill a great work! That is just one of

the few things where the churches of the world are going astray from God. To caught up in what worked in older times to adapt to our father in heaven. For God is in everything and everybody. This world and his children are evolving to fit him! Christ Jesus our Saviors Crowning Church has yet to be brought forth in all its glory.

I think you’ll find many here who have also come to the conclusion that our church (and much of Christianity in general) is not tolerant enough. Whether they get there from personal revelation of just plain thinking for themselves, well, you’re not alone in that.

There are many different ways of dealing with that, though. I don’t know how specific your revelations are or whether you feel like you have some leeway in accomplishing your goals, but different courses of action could have wildly different outcomes. If you immediately start proclaiming to everyone what your mission is in the same terms you have put them here there is a large possibility that you will be disfellowshipped or excommunicated from the church. On the other hand, as church members we do have some room to exercise our agency in how we interpret doctrine, and if you start spreading your message by saying things like “I believe we should love all of God’s children and leave the judging to him,” it will be hard for them to bring any real consequences down on you.

So where is the best place for you to bring about change? From inside the church, or outside? As a large, bureaucratic institution, the church is slow to change, but it does do so. And many of the changes start with the members themselves, not with the leaders at the top. Greg Prince called it “trickle up change,” and there are many instances in church history of that kind of thing working for the good of the church as a whole.

[Cylon]

SilentDawning wrote:

Funny — right before I read Roy’s post, I had cut the exact words from the article, with the intent to paste them here.

To me, Roy’s quote from the article is the core of its meaning for me — that and the statement that this Evangelical sees, in Mormonism, God working beyond the borders of Christianity. While a bit of slap against us a Christians, I see it as at least acknowledging that we are part of God’s flock too.

Hip hip hooray for this Evangelical.

I don’t even see it as a slap. Mormons self-identify as Christians, but when have we ever claimed to be orthodox Christians? We’re proud of our differences with mainstream Christianity.

[Cylon]

I’ll limit my comments on apologetics to FAIR, since the vast majority of the stuff I’ve read has come from their website.

There have been a few things from them that caused me to look at the issues in a way I hadn’t considered before, but in general I found their arguments to rely too much on discrediting the source of the criticism, addressing only part of the issue, or flat out lying about what the critic says in order to refute a weaker argument. Additionally, there doesn’t seem to be a recognition of the big picture. They have all sorts of links to all the individual issues, and each of them seems to rely on “well, here’s a way you can look at this that doesn’t completely disprove the church is true.” And if you look at them one by one, you might be okay with that. But if you then put all of those issues together and think about the gigantic amount of mental gymnastics required to take those positions on all those things simultaneously… it hurts my brain to even consider it.

I think it all comes down to what hawkgrrrl said: apologetics start with a conclusion and find a way to justify it, instead of starting with facts and evidence and following where that leads you.

[Cylon]

Thanks, Wayfarer and Ray, for both of your replies. I’ve never known of anyone who was disfellowshipped in any of my wards (I’m sure it could have happened, I just wasn’t aware of it). Sounds like at its harshest, it can be pretty severe, but that makes sense that there is a lot of variation depending on local leadership.

[Cylon]

What are the specific things that disfellowshipping means? I assume it means you can’t get a temple recommend, but other than that I’m not sure what they allow you to do and what they don’t.

[Author]

Posts