[DarkJedi]

I hope for that as well, Roy. I can be negative and pessimistic, and that shows in my post and reaction. I’ve been stewing on this for a few days which probably also doesn’t help.

I forgot to mention that I think it is interesting (and positive) that this is happening during Pride Month.

And I also didn’t mention that while I don’t know any of the panelists really well, and a couple of them not at all, of what I do know they tend to be on the more progressive side of things. :thumbup:

[DarkJedi]

Minyan Man wrote:

Quote:

What is the covenant path? It is the one path that leads to the celestial kingdom of God. We embark upon the path at the

gate of baptism and the “press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and

of all men. The two great commandments to the end.” Matt 22: 36-40

I want to cut out: It is the one path that leads to

the celestial kingdom

Is it fair to do that? Or, I can modify it to my own definition using similar verbiage. I won’t credit the GA with the quote.

It’s still a work in progress.

I do believe it’s fair to cut that out and that in doing so it is still an accurate description of the covenant path.

[DarkJedi]

Roy wrote:

AmyJ wrote:

The powers that be decided to create a “best practices” timeline checklist because that works for their worldview (and doesn’t work for a lot of other worldviews) and called it a “Covenant Path.

That is the traditional LDS view and understanding of covenant path.

You might take it into another direction and talk about the path of the covenant as the path of discipleship to Jesus.

The old testament or covenant was one of making regular sacrifices individually and communally to become cleansed our our weaknesses and sins.

The new testament or covenant is that Christ Jesus made a single sacrifice to forever atone for these things and bring us into alignment with God if we would but follow him. This is the “new covenant” and “good news” of the gospel.

What does it look like to walk the path with Jesus? What does he ask me to do? What does he ask me to see? Whom does he ask me to love?

You might share some parables and some personal stories of how you have struggled in you own walk with Jesus. The beauty of the “good news” is that Jesus accepts your faltering, imperfect steps and covers you with his grace and mercy.

I really like this Roy. :thumbup:

My initial thought on reading the question was that the covenants the covenant path refer to are symbolic of expressing our beliefs and following Jesus. Your thoughts expanded that idea in a way I might not have without that inspiration.

That said, I really dislike the covenant path idea because of how the church uses it as a club. I might just have taken a pass on that “opportunity” to speak.

[DarkJedi]

Before reading any of the responses my first reaction was what the responses say – all of this blames the individual leaving and puts no responsibility on other factors – the church itself (teachings/doctrine, etc.) or individuals in the church. While I think things like “being offended” are often used as excuses (because it’s easy) years of experience here would indicate that such is hardly ever the real reason. But the church and membership doesn’t want to hear – and can’t handle – the truth of why people really leave. Additionally, underlying in the article is the message about that which has generally failed most of us – more prayer, more reading the BoM, more temple. Those are not the answer to our problems.

[DarkJedi]

Yeah, despite making some progress on the grace front of late, the majority of the leadership (hence the membership) isn’t there yet. Small steps. I think it’s hard for people to look at something differently when they have been taught the same thing for decades and/or their whole lives

I’m really not sure if grace and works are another of those things that gets posed as either/or when it’s really and. The doctrine/teachings allude to the idea some (grace after works). I believe it’s very possible some of us will get way more grace for very little work (perhaps only believing). I believe and hope we each get the measure of what we need, not what we might deserve (or others think we might deserve).

[DarkJedi]

Minyan Man wrote:

The reason I ask this is because when I joined the church, I thought if you stayed active, pray, read scriptures, paid your tithing,

did missionary work, etc, etc. God would protect you & your family. If God didn’t provide protection,

God would give you answers & strength to continue. When the challenges came, and they always do. all I seemed to get was silence.

In the silence, I found anger & it stayed with me for a time. (I won’t go into details.) I feel like I’ve moved on.

My challenge (my dark night of the soul) was with LDS doctrine/belief/teachings/dogma. It was just as you describe here, the belief all would be well and the complete silence.

And the moving on was also similar. I had no one to talk to, and just needed someone to listen without judging, offering apologetics, or arguing. That is how I ended up here after some time searching. It was this place that “saved” me. I have since found a few people I can talk to, but generally not as openly as here.

[DarkJedi]

nibbler wrote:

…GAs, and anything above GAs can’t have beards.

I don’t know – in the temple video they have beards.

Side note: I’m pretty sure we don’t look like we do here when we’re spirits (just based on my understanding of biology and genetics). Jehovah and Elohim look very much alike in the video – I hope we don’t all look like that. Perhaps the others (Peter, James & John) are some indication we don’t.

[DarkJedi]

This is another of those things I think the church needs to get over.

[DarkJedi]

AmyJ wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m traveling at the moment but just wanted to throw out that when we’re trying – and most of us are – we are probably all doing that we can do. I think many people, including many non-members, are going to be very surprised at how loving and merciful our God really is. Again, I would reference the parable of the prodigal son.

I applaud the church for opening the grace door more. There may be other reasons in play here, but I also believe RMN gets it, as do several others among the Q15.

I expect that there will be a lot of surprises about the nature of God:)

I agree that the church is opening the “Grace” door more for the average member. I don’t think that the leadership is opening the “Grace” door to the intellectuals, the feminists, and those who do not meet gender-based performance expectations in terms of actual actions taken. I see RMN as a primary talker for “conditional Grace” here when he codes dissenting individuals as “lazy learners”. It might be his age showing and that he is a regular centenarian rebel.

I might be the problem because I expected more “Grace” (and less judgement) from the leadership on a variety of issues.

I do agree that the church/church leaders are not especially graceful toward the marginalized segments of the church membership (with some exceptions of course). And yes, RMN is still jaded by his own misunderstanding, or maybe just hasn’t reconciled the whole concept yet. Just to clarify that in the sense of this thread I am referring to grace/mercy/God’s love in the eternal aspect of redemption/salvation/exaltation/whatever. I believe/hope in the eternal sense we are all redeemed and will all ultimately be forgiven and go to heaven – every knee will bow and every tongue confess…. That’s universalist me speaking.

[DarkJedi]

I’m traveling at the moment but just wanted to throw out that when we’re trying – and most of us are – we are probably all doing that we can do. I think many people, including many non-members, are going to be very surprised at how loving and merciful our God really is. Again, I would reference the parable of the prodigal son.

I applaud the church for opening the grace door more. There may be other reasons in play here, but I also believe RMN gets it, as do several others among the Q15.

[DarkJedi]

I agree with Nibbler that at least in some sense scripture can be whatever inspires or moves me. “Out of the best books” sort of stuff, but in 2025 books has to include other media. And of course there are Latter-day Saints who also consider words of modern prophets scripture, and some who even consider all that is said in GC or all that is printed in the Liahona scripture. I’m definitely not there with those because they don’t all (or even mostly) inspire me or move me or speak to me.

But I think you’re mostly referring to the LDS standard works. I think the standard works are mostly allegorical, and very much like later fables – they’re mostly stories with a moral. Some of them much more so than others. Here’s my view (since you asked):

The Bible (OT & NT): I agree that the King James people did a pretty good job in “translating correctly.” From what I understand modern scholars mostly agree with that assessment. Like you I find the Bible more engaging than the others, and I am particularly fond of the four gospels. If we’re supposed to feast upon the words of Christ, that’s where they are. There are definitely passages from the KJV I like because of their poetry, but I mostly prefer newer translations because of the more modern English which does affect understanding (some words have different meanings now than in King James times, and carrying that even further some word have different meanings now than Joseph Smith times). I am particularly fond of the New Revised Standard Version and that’s generally my go-to (often the New Oxford Annotated Bible). I also reference Young’s Literal Translation, Adam Clarke’s Commentary, and a direct translation from Greek that I have. Bottom line here is I think the OT is mostly just stories (some based around historical events) with some moral objectives – but I generally do not like the OT version of God (or some of the writer’s interpretations thereof). I believe the NT to be embellished and while some of the stuff probably happened, most is again the interpretation or desire of the writer. I hope Jesus at least did and said some of it. The Acts are probably mostly like the OT, and the epistles are opinions and interpretations of the writers which I don’t always agree with.

The Book of Mormon: Again, a collection of stories with a moral purpose. I do not believe it is what it’s claimed to be, no Nephites or Lamanites, no real ancient Americans. I’m not sure the gold plates were real, but I am pretty sure Joseph never “read” them. I am open to the idea that Joseph was inspired, but I’m also open to the idea he made it up (I believe he was a genius). Nevertheless, it is a good book about God and Jesus Christ which can and does bring people closer to them. I haven’t read it in years, although I do read from it sometimes. I rarely reference it in talks, particularly if the same or similar reference is found in the Bible (which is almost always the case).

Doctrine & Covenants: As a new church member long ago I liked the D&C because of its readability. It’s more likely that some of that stuff really happened, but I also see a theme of Joseph wanting something to happen or someone to do something and that coincidentally becomes “Thus saith the Lord.” The stuff about how the church should be organized and run is fine for reference, and I think Joseph developed most of that himself with minimal Devine inspiration (although as we’ve previously discussed, inspiration can come from many places). I also believe Joseph was somewhat deluded into believing all or most of his thoughts were God’s thoughts.

Pearl of Great Price: This one has a lot going on. I have Terry Givens’ book about it but I have not read it. I don’t believe the Book of Moses to be anything more than Joseph’s commentary/interpretation of stuff. I don’t consider it scripture. The Book of Abraham clearly isn’t what it’s claimed to be. Joseph could have been inspired, but I toss it in with the Book of Moses – not scripture and not worth my effort. Matthew, again Joseph’s interpretation, and again not scripture. Joseph’s history is OK, although I prefer an earlier version (1832). I do believe in the first vision at least to some extent, although it is what it’s claimed to be – a vision (and probably very open to Joseph’s interpretation). The Articles of Faith are also fine, but I do believe they are actually a creed and I don’t necessarily agree with all of them.

[DarkJedi]

If we believe the last supper was a sedar, Jesus didn’t use white bread! Of course he also had wine.

[DarkJedi]

That really depends a lot on you and what you’re willing to do. I was asked once to do that talk (post faith crisis) and politely declined, but it sounds like you’re past that point. From the “focus on what you do believe” standpoint, what do you believe? My own point of view makes this very difficult because I don’t especially believe in the Holy Ghost/Spirit (or the opposite supernatural mind influencing). If you have some belief in the Holy Ghost, go with that. There’s also the sort of fall back “We’re taught….” or “We believe….” if that works for you.

[DarkJedi]

My ward uses gluten free bread. The initial thought apparently was that then the teachers/deacons didn’t have to make sure there was some in the appropriate tray for those who needed it. (I won’t go into the hypochondriac faction in our ward, but we seem to have more than our share.) I don’t like the texture or taste of it and it distracts from my experience with the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. I did discreetly share that once and was essentially poo-pooed. Since I don’t go to church it doesn’t matter at the moment.

We did just get a new bishopric who may give this some thought because I believe it was the now former bishop who supplied the bread (his wife and adult daughter are both part of the above mentioned faction, neither diagnosed with gluten intolerance).

I had never heard the white bread thing before. It’s probably akin to only taking the sacrament with the right hand and wearing a white shirt to bless or pass the sacrament – not official policy but believed by the more “righteous” among us.

[DarkJedi]

I’m pretty much of the same mindset as you are Didge. I first went to the temple in 1983 (prior to my mission) when we were naked during initiatory and there were “penalties” that went with the promise not to reveal the signs and tokens (more or less “I’d die before revealing them” then symbolically demonstrating a death ritual – gruesome actually). I also didn’t know much going in because no one dared talk about anything, even though all we ever really promised is not to reveal the signs and tokens. My initial reaction was “That’s what all the hullabaloo is about? Wow!” My reaction has not changed much 40+ years on, and much like you I haven’t been in several years (over a decade) and have no desire to go. My more orthodox wife would like to go, and she has gone on RS trips here and there, but not with any frequency. The closest temple is about 2 hours away so it pretty much uses a day, and its hours are very limited (and I just noticed that the website no longer publishes the hours for temples without signing in and then clicking on each date – hmm). I don’t hold a recommend, although other than church attendance I’m “worthy” of one – I just don’t see the point in having one if I don’t plan to go.

On the initiatory: I do like the wording associated with the initiatory, there are some beautiful blessings there. I dislike the rest of it, even though these days one is actually fully clothed.

On the endowment: Again, I haven’t been in years, and I understand there have been some significant changes which include more than mentioning Jesus as a co-creator (with Adam also!). I was really never all that much into Jesus as a God (neither were early Christians, that seems to be a later invention) and I was definitely not into Adam in a role like that. Anyway, I do think more mention of Jesus is generally good because I don’t think the temple was really all that Christ focused before. I’m obviously not sure it is now either (because I haven’t been) but it needs to more than just mentioning his name either way – there needs to be focus on his role as Savior and Redeemer to make it really Christ centered (maybe at some point I’ll find out). The rest of it is a bit weird and cult like, even with the changes where there’s not as much changing or standing/sitting. Also my understanding is the endowment is no longer a live action film, which I’m also not sure how I feel about.

Proxy ordinances: Like Nibbler, I’m not convinced baptism is necessary for salvation, the argument could be made either way from the Bible (although I think there’s more evidence against than for). I also don’t believe the sealing ordinance is required for families to be together in the afterlife if that’s what they want. Generally I believe going to the temple to do proxy ordinances is a church ruse with the purpose of just getting people to use the very expensive building (among other things, control included). I don’t think any of it is necessary, and I don’t believe these tokens and symbols are actually used to enter heaven or the CK.

Blessing for going to the temple: Just like other supposed blessings for obedience (paying tithing for example) I fail to see any real blessings, at least tangible ones. If it bolsters your belief, great, but that’s not my idea of a blessing. I truly don’t believe God blesses or punishes any of us here, and Mormons aren’t as special as some think they are.

End rant for now.

[Author]

Posts