Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
AmyJ wrote:
I have had a few interesting conversations when I pose the question as to whether it is possible to invert the order of the statements, to love others in order to get to know God better…I had always wondered why people were startled by the concept as a possibility. I was taking the words at face value and not assigning additional meanings to that.
That’s a great thought, Amy. I believe the reason we “feel good” when truly serving/helping others is actually the Holy Spirit “connecting” with us. I do indeed agree with you – loving one another is probably the best way to love God and come closer to God.
FWIW, Jesus gave the Pharisees the “Sunday school answer” when posed that question. He was repeating what all Jews then and now hold as their deepest core belief. While they are ranked in both the OT and the NT, in some respects I wonder why – surely God must understand that which we do, and which King Benjamin also seems to have figured out.
I was very inactive and still in my angry phase when most of my sons came of age for the priesthood (both), but I did not have a family line to pass along. My family did attend church and as in almost everything else I was supportive of what my children did and desired. My oldest son was ordained without me, but it was what he wanted and he was getting ready to serve a mission (which he did, along with both brothers). I think you’re probably in the right spot Roy. FWIW, none of my children are currently active and they for the most part have lost belief.
Yes, my experience as a missionary was that it was very sales oriented. The “best” (“most successful”) missionaries were the best salespeople. It is not my forte (I used to say I couldn’t sell a prostitute in Boys Town 
Like you MM, I will talk about the church if asked, but I will not sell it. I will also not gloss over the truth, and I shy away from the dogma.
SilentDawning wrote:
That’s for another thread, and I think I mentioned it before about the difficulty I have reconciling what my heart is telling me (that’ it’s not as true as everyone says Mormonism is), and the spiritual experiences I had, particularly as a missionary.
It might be for another thread and if this starts to derail too much we can do that. I think however this is related to the conversation.
So here is a perspective on those spiritual experiences or feelings many of us have had as missionaries or in leadership or teaching positions. I believe God or the Holy Spirit or whatever can witness of truth or help us to recognize truth. I won’t deny that I have had such experiences, and some of my very limited LDS testimony is related to such experiences. Maybe God witnesses to us even when there is a partial truth being taught/discussed/pondered? As an example, what if God is witnessing that Joseph Smith had a very powerful spiritual experience, but not necessarily that he saw God and/or Jesus (because reading the multiple accounts, its’ really not clear what or who he saw)? Or what if God is witnessing that there is truth in the Book of Mormon, but not that every word is actually gospel or the word of God? I suppose there could be myriad examples. For what it’s worth, I think this is a plausible theory, but don’t necessarily completely buy into – primarily because of other factors like confirmation bias. But it could be so.
I do believe religion in general and the LDS church* specifically complicate things. If you read the Bible (or the Book of Mormon for that matter) there isn’t anything akin to the “covenant path.” Faith (belief in God/Jesus) and repentance (change) are recurrent themes, baptism is mentioned**, and something like the gift of the Holy Ghost is mentioned even less. I’m not totally convinced of Jesus’s role at Savior/Redeemer or that Jesus is a God or any more of a son of God than the rest of us. Jesus/Messiah/Savior/Redeemer is a great idea, but is open to a great deal of interpretation and is understood very differently among different religions and different churches. The Jewish idea of the coming Messiah is very different from what Christians have defined, reinterpreting scripture through a Christian lens. I do believe there is Creator God, and I like to think and hope that same God has some measure caring or compassion or love for us (as a father might). If there is some semblance of a Savior/Redeemer, I hope that if it’s necessary it’s true and I hope to benefit from it (and believe that it should and would apply to all humanity and not necessarily only a “chosen” few). If there is a plan I too wish that God would have made it more clear, but maybe we’re meant to use the brains we have and figure it our for ourselves. *The LDS church is far from alone – all churches seem to complicate things to some extent.
**It’s very debatable whether baptism is “required” and it seems heavily reliant on one’s point of view. My own point of view is that it is not, but is a gesture of belief or faith.
I agree with Nibbler. In one way I appreciate that a GA (and in this case one of the highest) even spoke about Heavenly Mother, and with a bonus – Heavenly Mothers. I doubt we’ll hear anything similar in October, but that would really give it the credence it deserves. As to the polygamy aspect of it, Nibbler’s also right. This is nothing new. I guarantee we all have people in our own wards and stakes where the man is sealed to multiple wives and whole heartedly believe they will be with all of them for eternity (and many of the wives buy into this as well). This is theology that goes back to at least the late 1830s and Joseph Smith and other church leaders. From that point of view, polygamy has always been very much alive and well in the CoJCoLDS.
AmyJ wrote:
I just think that he was ad-libbing his thoughts and at that time he thought about the numerous woman in his life who had “Mothered” him – and this came out sloppily as “singular man, multiple women” in his language. I don’t think he was trying excavate theology (at least any more than usual) and I don’t think he meant what he said the way it is being taken in terms of theology.
Honestly, if this were almost anyone else besides Oaks I would agree. But Oaks does not tend to speak off the cuff, and his public statements are always backed up with multiple scriptural and other references to prove he’s “right” in a very lawyer like fashion (not surprising at all given his background). While this particular statement might be open to some interpretation, I think he meant exactly what he said, and his view is exactly as most people are interpreting it. And while I am not a believer in polygamy nor that polygamy in the early church was “ordained of God,” his statement is theologically very sound from the LDS perspective.
Minyan Man wrote:
As I’ve mentioned before, we have recently moved into a new ward. This is a new experience for us.We were members of our old ward for almost 50 years. This week a member of our new ward took me
out for lunch. It was a very good experience. We asked questions about each of our lives, our families
and experiences inside & outside of church. The conclusion for both of us was, that even though we haven’t
lived a perfect life (problems & challenges) we can still apply the basic principles of the gospel as best
we can. We don’t have to be perfect. It was an interesting experience.
I wish I could have more experiences like that in the church & outside.
One of the conclusions I’m coming up with in this life is: living a superficial life is a waste of time. I believe
that God wants us to be close, emotionally & spiritually within the limits of the time we have on this earth.
And within the limits that we are comfortable with.
Everything I read in the scriptures about Jesus Christ is that’s what he tried to do in the personal relationships
he had in his short life. Or, am I reading too much into the scriptures?
I agree MM. There is very little of the gospel I’m pretty sure about. Loving one another is one of the things I’m pretty God wants us to do.
Coming from a predominantly Protestant area (Catholicism and Judaism are not absent) I observe that some Protestants regularly “church shop.” Often it has to do with the minor differences in doctrine, teachings or belief, sometimes it’s just not liking the current pastor. The recent split in the Methodist church led to a bit of an increase (not all stayed with their old congregation whether or not it changed). The local Nazarene church seems very popular (hundreds at multiple Sunday services) I think for the most part because of activities and inclusiveness which includes a vibrant youth program. I have also observed over the years that the majority of people who join the LDS church here seem to have not necessarily been looking for another church and often weren’t part of any other church. I suppose there could be several reasons for this, including that missionaries at least explain the main beliefs of the church to prospective members (although in my opinion this could be much better explained, particularly in regard to commitments). I pretty much agree with Nibbler’s assessment of the LDS church in regard to the 10 questions. I think that we do well in some of those areas compared to the few others I have been to here. Just a couple notes about that:
1. Doctrine/belief. I agree with Roy here:
Quote:The broad strokes are good. Jesus gave his life for us to lay claim upon us as his children and family. Just don’t take all the minutia too seriously.
I think many churches have trouble with the last bit, but the LDS church seems to focus on some of the minutia a bit more than some others (covenant path and all).
2. Worship style. I haven’t been to a Sunday service of the Nazarene church, but a few of our neighbors go there. It’s actually also streamed, I should check it out. From what I gather, while it’s not necessarily loud music, there are regularly more musical instruments than the organ or piano and the sermons are a far cry from the average SM talk. The Methodist church my sister-in-law goes to has two services – one very traditional and the other more modern. She and her husband go to both (and he frequently plays his guitar in both). While I get that people born in the church and those who have been members for a long time are accustomed to our meeting style and sometimes have difficulty adjusting to other styles, I am not especially fond of ours and do find it mostly boring as Nibbler points out.
3. Community involvement. Going back to the Nazarene church I’ll use a recent example. We had some flash flooding last week that affected a small nearby community and necessitating that some people leave their homes for a few days. The Nazarenes immediately mobilized opening their building and sharing. People had a safe place to stay, and they were fed 3 meals per day, etc. The Red Cross was their partner, but the church itself already had much of what it needed on hand and at the ready. They asked for specific donations (mostly clothing) and asked for anyone willing to volunteer to come help. They even had a webpage set up with available times and needs so it was easy for people to help. From the news reports it seems like lots of people turned out. Of course this wouldn’t work in our building because someone might actually want coffee. The Nazarenes also host the local farmer’s market in their parking lot twice a week all summer long.
4. Leadership/governance. Many Protestant churches have a great deal of latitude in how things are done locally. Catholicism is more like the LDS church. Both have their advantages. I would prefer a little leeway.
9. Financial transparency. I’ll use the local Methodist congregation for this one. At the front of the chapel on a sign similar to the hymn board (which are similar to ours) there is a board spelling it out in general terms – what their expenses were last month, what they took in last month and what their expected expenses are this month. Every time I have been the income has outpaced the expenditures. I’m not sure exactly what they do with the excess, but I am sure they don’t have hundreds of billions in investments (I would doubt more than a few thousand in savings).
Summarizing my own status, I am not of the mindset that of the church isn’t true then no church is. The church is my community/tribe even though I don’t currently attend anything other than an activity here and there. I am also not especially eager to participate in any other church either.
I do think it’s sad that some people (although likely a very small minority) make money off their “testimonies.” I know a pretty well placed guy (former mission president and area authority) who out and out calls that priestcraft. He also says some books fall into that category (I won’t name the books or authors but I bet if you think about it you’ll get what he’s saying). I know that’s just his opinion and he’s not speaking in any official capacity, but there might be something to what he says. That the church (and many other churches, organizations and corporations) pays Google for certain placements when doing searches isn’t a secret. I would like it if they used supposed investment gains to pay these fees but I bet not (and the church doesn’t really seem to differentiate except when they’re called out and event then it’s very ambiguous). At the same time, the church has in the past paid for television ads, and in more recent times Youtube ads. I can’t say I’ve seen a church ad recently, but I’d be surprised if they don’t exist. I think it’d be great if such ads were more along the lines of the “He Gets Us” ads (I know some people hate them, but I like them because I think they’re right).
I have struggled with things people “testify” about in the past, and were I more active I’d probably still struggle. That’s partly why I say that if I were to attend church I’d only stay first hour. But I’d also probably skip F&TM (as Nibbler says). Minyan Man wrote:
. Do something else that makes you happy or inspired.This is what’s working for me at the moment. It has worked in the past as well. Doing something else doesn’t necessarily mean not attending, it could be just going to your happy place in your mind. More often though I would just occupy my mind some other way with a tablet or phone or whatever. I’m not talking about playing Candy Crush, although that’s certainly an option of it works for you. What I have tended to do is “write my own talk” in my mind, or research something I am interested in. Just plain reading scriptures has worked for me also.
Minyan Man wrote:
I have to ask myself: What would Jesus do?I think Jesus demonstrated what he might do – he did his own thing. He was probably more open and blatant about it than I would be.
Reiterating what Nibbler said, yes, there is a training for all people who work with children and youth. The bishop gets a report when it’s completed and you’re technically not allowed to actually serve until it’s done (there’s a short grace period). The training is also for all adult ward and stake leaders (SP, EQP, RSP, etc.). I did take it once (it has to be repeated every so often if still in a calling that requires it). It’s fairly short and not as in depth as the kinds of similar trainings I had as a mandated reporter, but hits on the main points (it’s more similar to the Scout trainings that were required of Scout leaders). It’s purpose is to protect youth (and the church, of course). The church link is here, with answers to questions:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/callings/safety/protecting-children-and-youth?lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/callings/safety/protecting-children-and-youth?lang=eng I’m glad it went well. Can You Hear the Music? is also a favorite talk of mine because it resonates with me. nibbler wrote:
One thing that I often hear that I fear is detrimental to the discussion is when leaders focus on how we’re all god’s children. They typically frame it as something thatsupplantsa LGBTQ+ identity rather than it being an identity in addition toa LGBTQ+ identity. I fully understand that leaders are looking for something that unifies all of us, I just caution that it’s not either/or, it’s and/also. You are LGBTQ+ anda child of god. I agree, like so many other things in the church I’m not sure the black and white type thinkers can grasp Mormon
andgay. Of course there are a fair amount of LGBTQ+ folks who maybe tried to be Mormon and gay and it wasn’t working – so now they’re not Mormon, just gay (and I fully support them as well). Quote:DJ, I think you’re in a more rural area, correct? It’s interesting that you’re having this discussion because I usually make an assumption that more rural communities typically lag behind more urban communities on being more welcoming of people that are LGBTQ+. Maybe something to do with relative isolation and limited exposure.
Yes, I do live in a rural area that leans pretty conservative. In society in general here, just like other places, there is much more tolerance than there was 10 or 20 years ago. The mayor of our little town is lesbian and since it really is a place where everybody knows everybody it’s no secret she’s gay. She has been the mayor for quite some time. And we have a couple other gay couples in town and rainbow flags are not especially unusual (not nearly as common as a certain president’s flag though). My small ward does not have any active LGBTQ+ members, but we have adults who grew up here who are openly gay (I’m not sure of any of their current membership status other than they are not active and mostly don’t live here). That said, we do have a small city college town within the stake which is very liberal. It should be no surprise that’s the ward where all of the panelists are from, but the fireside is at the stake center and not their ward building. I do believe that ward has some at least quasi active LGBTQ+ members, as does one other ward.
AmyJ wrote:
I would add the additional concern that those who are facilitating these conversations may show up on the radar for those issuing church discipline.
It is stake sanctioned, billed as a stake fireside, and sent out through the church system. Most of the panelists are known in the stake (having had previous stake callings, etc.). So I don’t think there’s a concern about discipline in this case. Were it just a group of folks doing this on their own I’d be more concerned.
