[DarkJedi]

Roy wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I think sometimes it’s a little hard to recognize that faith crisis is different for everybody. We each have our own unique experience with what we consider our own dark night of the soul and I think it’s human nature to apply our own experience to everyone else who has had a similar experience. But it’s really not like that – your experience was different from mine.

I remember talking to a bishop that had gone through a faith crisis and if I remember correctly, I think he landed on the necessity of priesthood. Essentially that the LDS church has it and nobody else does. Church leaders can make mistakes and the entire institution can take an inadvisable detour now and then (priesthood and temple ban) but the priesthood remains and is essential to return and live with God in eternal families.

In a faith crisis, you fall until you hit “bedrock” and that thing is stable to allow you to rebuild.

I find it interesting that what is “bedrock” for one person is entirely shaky ground for another.

For that bishop, his “bedrock” allowed him to remain and participate in the church as a contributing (if somewhat unorthodox) member.

Not everyone that goes through a faith crisis is able to do that and they don’t seem to consciously choose what that bedrock is for them.

DarkJedi wrote:

My standard advice is take it slow, focus on what you do believe, and don’t dump all at once.

always great advice.

Thanks, Roy. I could probably use bedrock in place of foundation in my own analogies. My bedrock is certainly not what your bishop friend’s was/is, and as you say I think the priesthood is somewhat shaky. I do recognize that many people see the priesthood and priesthood authority as what sets us apart from other churches. My own bedrock is very much in common with other churches – that there is indeed a God who at the very least was a Creator. The only other thing that I am somewhat certain of is that God wants us to be nice to each other.

[DarkJedi]

OK, here I am with my view on sin. This is largely attributable to Terryl and Fiona Givens as outlined among other places in All Things News, Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between. Before reading the book my views were pretty much in line with the Givens’ thoughts, but it was very affirming and provided the religious theological and historical background for why I believe it to be true.

We can’t discuss sin without the idea of original sin. LDS theology is pretty clear on the subject in that we are not responsible nor condemned by the original sin of Adam and Eve. The theology and doctrine of some other Christian churches is quite different from the LDS beliefs, but nonetheless still have had some influence on our views of sin in general. This is in part because of what many early converts brought with them from their former churches and subtly infused into our own developing theology (and some of these people, including Brigham Young and Parley Pratt, had a great deal of influence on those developing ideas). What other churches mostly fail at is the role of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and their view of the Fall of Adam as a great tragedy that set us all up for failure. The latter of these two ideas is not totally absent from common LDS beliefs or theology, and the Atonement of Jesus Christ is often underplayed and even overlooked. The fall of Adam was the plan, God not only knew Adam & Eve would transgress or sin, God planned on it. And God planned on each of us also sinning – it’s no surprise to God – thus the plan of salvation and the atonement. The fall and the atonement are not back up plans, they are the plan.

The common definition of sin is probably that sin is anything that is offensive to God. But it is also offense toward each other, both ideas that are alluded to in the two Great Commandments. Jesus also expounded on this a bit in his teaching to love one another as he loved us. I’m not so sure how much God is really offended by us, particularly as I subscribe more to the New Testament portrayal of God as loving Father (actually Father and Mother in my view) as opposed the punishing king God of the OT and my view of the fall and atonement as noted above. While there are likely earthly (natural) consequences to sin (offenses) in this life there are not Godly punishments – NOR are there such punishments in the next life because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. His unending and unlimited atonement is expressly meant to absolve us of all eternal punishment and suffering because he took that all upon himself because of the love of God and the love Jesus has for us. Quoting directly from Givens in All Things New, pp 100-101:

Quote:

If my child disobeys my counsel, I am not (or not properly) angry. I do not react to protect my parental dignity I am not jealous for my parental prerogatives; I am not concerned with my parental authority, or honor, or standing. I am saddened because in ignoring the counsel borne of my love and wisdom, my child opens herself to harm, to pain, to disappointment. I do not stand ready to reward the child for obedience or to punish for disobedience; her decision to follow the counsel redounds to her good, and disobedience to her harm. . . Obedience drawn out of us from fear is but slavery. Motivated by blessings, it is but economic calculation. . . [W]e should think of obedience as a response to loving counsel rather than to divine command (100–101).

That brings us to the idea of repentance – change. Repentance is also widely misunderstood in the CoJCoLDS, and that misunderstanding is directly related to the theologies of other churches that crept into our own doctrines, theology, and teachings. Elder Russell Nelson in April 2007 said this (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/04/repentance-and-conversion?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2007/04/repentance-and-conversion?lang=eng):

Quote:

The doctrine of repentance is much broader than a dictionary’s definition. When Jesus said “repent,” His disciples recorded that command in the Greek language with the verb metanoeo. This powerful word has great significance. In this word, the prefix meta means “change.” The suffix relates to four important Greek terms: nous, meaning “the mind”; gnosis, meaning “knowledge”; pneuma, meaning “spirit”; and pnoe, meaning “breath.”

Thus, when Jesus said “repent,” He asked us to change—to change our mind, knowledge, and spirit—even our breath.

Theodore M. Burton, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy when there were far fewer quorums and far fewer members of the quorum, had further clarified this idea of the Greek word metanoeo in a BYU speech in 1985(emphasis added; https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/theodore-m-burton/meaning-repentance/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/theodore-m-burton/meaning-repentance/:

Quote:

Let us now turn to the New Testament which was written in Greek. How did those Greek writers translate the word “shube” into Greek and still retain its concept of repentance? They used the word “metaneoeo,” which is a compound word of two parts. The first part, “meta,” we use as a prefix in our English vocabulary. When we eat we convert food by a process of metabolism into fat, muscle, and connective tissue. When we see a crawling caterpillar stop, attach itself to a limb and spin a cocoon, the insect inside its silken case undergoes metamorphosis. It changes its form into a moth or a beautiful butterfly. The prefix “meta,” then, refers to change.

The second part of the word “metaneoeo” is subject to various spellings. The letter “n,” for instance, is sometimes transliterated as “pn,” as in the French word “pneu,” meaning an airfilled tire. We also find “pneu” in our word pneumatic, as, for instance, a pneumatic hammer or a pneumatic drill, which are air-driven tools. It is also found in our word pneumonia, which is an air sickness of the lungs. There are several spellings of this root and many meanings attached to this word which can mean air, mind, thought, thinking, or spirit, depending on how it is used.

The Greek usage of words is similar to that of English, as, for example, with the word “spirit.” To a child, spirit might mean a ghost; to you, spirit may mean influence such as team spirit or the spirit of Elijah. But to me—since I was an organic chemist during my university years—or to a pharmacist, spirit simply means ethyl alcohol. In the context where “meta” and “neoeo” are used in the New Testament, the word “metaneoeo” means a change of mind or thought or thinking so powerful and so strong that it changes our very way of life. I think “metaneoeo” is an excellent translation of “shube.” The meaning of both these words is to turn or change from evil to righteousness and God.

But trouble came when Greek was translated into Latin. Only the educated people spoke Greek. When the New Testament was translated into Latin for the use of the common people who spoke that language, an unfortunate choice was made in translation. “Metaneoeo” was translated into the word “poenitere.” The root “poen” in that word is the same root found in our English words punish, penance, penitent, and repentance. So the beautiful meaning of Hebrew and Greek was changed in Latin to an ugly meaning involving hurting, punishing, whipping, cutting, mutilating, disfiguring, starving, or even torturing. Small wonder then that most people have come to fear and dread the word repentance which they were taught and now understand to mean repeated or neverending punishment. People must somehow be made to realize that the true meaning of repentance is that we do not require people to be punished or to punish themselves, but to change their lives so they can escape eternal punishment. If they have this understanding, it will relieve their anxiety and fears and become a welcome and treasured word in our religious vocabulary.

It’s sad to me that the meaning of the word was altered by translation. And just for added clarity, earlier in that same talk Elder Burton had talked about the original Hebrew word shube (emphasis added):

Quote:

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the word used for this concept of repentance is “shube:” Let me read a passage from Ezekiel 33:8–11 and insert the word “shube” along with its English translation to help us understand what repentance is:

When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to [shube, or] turn from it; if he do not [shube, or] turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

When a person despairs and says: “There is nothing left for me!” “All hope is gone!” “I can’t be forgiven!” “What purpose is left in life?” “I might as well be dead!” God instructs the “watchman on the tower” to

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked [shube, or] turn from his way and live: [shube, shube!] turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? [Ezekiel 33:8–11]

I know of no kinder, sweeter passage in the Old Testament than those beautiful lines. Can you hear a kind, wise, gentle, loving Father in Heaven pleading with you to “shube” or turn back to him, to leave unhappiness, sorrow, regret, and despair behind and now turn back to your Father’s family where you can find happiness, joy, and acceptance among his other children? In the Father’s family, you are surrounded with love and affection. That is the message of the Old Testament, and prophet after prophet writes of “shube,” which is that turning back to the family of the Lord where you can be received with joy and rejoicing. There is an implicit message there that we in the family of Jesus Christ ought never forget. We must receive the former transgressor back into this family with open arms and comfort and bless him for making the change….

Throughout the Old Testament, a fundamental theme is forsaking or turning from evil and doing instead that which is noble and good. Not only must we change our ways; we must as well change our very thoughts which control our actions. Repentance is a turning back to God!

I know this is getting long, and my view on sin is really more complex that what I have presented. But I’ll end it here with this thought:

This life isn’t a contest to see who wins and gets the biggest mansion. We are all to be given all that the Father has. At the end there’s enough ice cream for everybody, and we all get all that we want. Our goal here is not be be mired down by our perceived misdeeds and constantly bemoaning our fallen and sinful state, but to trust that Jesus did do and will do all that he promised and to look toward God and resolve to make the changes we need to make to be better, or nicer, to each other. Like the prodigal son, God the Father is not looking to punish us (from Luke 15 NRSV):

Quote:

…while he was still far off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion; he ran and put his arms around him and kissed him. Then the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ But the father said to his slaves, ‘Quickly, bring out a robe—the best one—and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. And get the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate; for this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found!’ And they began to celebrate.

[DarkJedi]

Roy wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I also note Roy does make a good point about inspiration as opposed to revelation, something I learned about here many years ago (maybe from Roy).

Many years ago, my wife was going through some difficulties. I don’t remember the specifics but I think the bishop’s wife was talking to my wife and told her something like, “I hope you don’t mind but I asked my husband to visit you to see how he might help.” Some days later, when the bishop did visit, he said that he felt inspired to come by. My wife called him out and said that she already knew that his wife had asked him to visit. He laughed and said, “inspiration comes in many forms.” This is also a wonderful example of ministry/pastoring.

And this is why I haven’t told my wife that I might be persuaded to come to church if I had something to do there. That’s not the inspiration I’m looking for.

[DarkJedi]

AmyJ wrote:

As far as “sinning under God’s law”, we are talking about “going against what individuals claiming to speak for God” have said originally in the Bible, and transmuted across time and culture to what modern Christians (LDS folk included) understand about sexuality and religion. I am not confident that Christianity collectively got the full memo about what “God Said” and I am hesitant to assume that church leaders (non-Jewish and Jewish alike)

understand what God meant. I do think that our sexual ethics was inherited from both the Catholics and the Protestant Reformation – and that our LDS revelation hasn’t added a lot of unique features to the sexual ethics framework.

I agree, and I have more to say on this aspect but I don’t have time at the moment (I’ll come back). But what I wanted to quickly get out there is that those “speaking for God” are doing so with a very poor connection at best, and simply expressing their own ideas (and saying it’s from God) at worst. One of the main things I learned from studying Joseph Smith is that while on occasion God actually spoke to him with a voice (of some sort, it may not have been actually audible) most often it was more impressions or thoughts – much like the way we are taught to get personal revelation. In other words, Joseph’s revelations for the most part were no different than our own – no fire or thunder, just a “feeling.” And Joseph had difficulty putting those impressions or feelings into actual words, as anyone would. I also believe every bit of what we have recorded in scripture (from Joseph and any other prophet) is filtered through that prophet’s own experiences, thoughts, feelings, and even prejudices – it’s never God’s pure words (because there mostly weren’t any words).

When I get a moment to come back, I’ll talk about sin – but essentially I believe what constitutes sin depends greatly on our own point of view and which God we know – the vengeful King God to whom we are lowly servants (more like the OT) or the loving and merciful Father God to whom we are children (more like the NT). (I know LDS theology is that the OT God and the NT God are the same “guy,” but I have never been able to reconcile that and there are actually religions that believe and teach they are two very separate and different Gods.)

[DarkJedi]

AmyJ wrote:

One of the things that I have learned and re-learned over the years is that you do not have to be a Christian (a literal believer in Jesus Christ) in order to have/create radiant joy and a rich life (though it can help people to do so). I think that you have to believe in a force in the world “greater then you” (thank you AA) and that you have to be able to have good interactions with others where you give good to them and they give back good to you in a balanced and sustainable way.

At the loosest framework, this is an interpretation of the “2 Great Commandments” upon which “hang all the law and the prophets” (which is really mentorship and counsel written down as tradition and in-person guidance & support).

I have found that church culture puts LDS church membership as the requirement for ultimate happiness, Christianity as a lower (but “OK” ish) tier of happiness, a Non-Christian but “of the book” tier of happiness (ish – sometimes), and then everyone else (though grouping Buddhists with anti-religion pagans and Atheists with Agnostics and Deists for example shows how cultural stereotypical assessments can get a bit wonky).

It’s funny, I do things that are tagged as what “Good Christians” do, and my husband or my mother are like, “that’s the Light of Christ working on her” and I’m like, “No, that’s not it – Jesus Christ has nothing to do with this. I don’t see how God has anything to do with this”. And they they get a long-suffering expression and are “Sure Amy, Sure”. It’s such a weird conversational pattern because I am telling them the last thing they want to hear to their face while doing what they feel “a good Mormon” does. I don’t get mean about it or anything, but I also don’t back down in my assessment that I don’t see the influence of Jesus Christ or God in the decision-making process I went through and I don’t feel anything that I would code as “inspiration” at the time either.

There is church/church leadership rhetoric about only church members being able to be truly happy. Like you Amy, I have found this to be untrue. This probably partly comes from living in an area where church members are an extremely small minority. The truth I know many happy people of various religious persuasions, some with no religious leanings at all (or outright atheist). That’s not to say I don’t know happy Mormons, but I also know some unhappy ones. I still don’t understand how some members of the church don’t see the happiness in others, nor do I understand how some members can’t fathom how some people who leave the church can be happy. For some, leaving the church, or at least church activity, is the best thing and does indeed improve happiness or at least relieve anxiety.

[DarkJedi]

Roy wrote:

From Elder Uchdorf:

Quote:

Every day I meet Church members who are filled with a radiant joy and who demonstrate in word and deed that their lives are immeasurably enriched by the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

But I also recognize that there are some who have a less-than-fulfilling experience—who feel that their membership in the Church sometimes isn’t quite what they had hoped for.

This saddens me because I know firsthand how the gospel can invigorate and renew one’s spirit—how it can fill our hearts with hope and our minds with light. I know for myself how the fruits of the gospel of Jesus Christ can transform lives from the ordinary and dreary to the extraordinary and sublime.

The church experience really really works for some, and it really really doesn’t work for others. I believe that it works best for those that find a sense of belonging, affirmation, structure, and community in a relatively homogenous group. I believe that it works less well for people that are on the margins and can be a negative experience for groups that are excluded or othered.

You know I love Elder Uchtdorf, and if he had a fan club I’d be the president and head cheerleader. But this is another of those multitude of instances where the church/church leadership conflates the church and the gospel. The gospel (of Jesus Christ) does still work for me, I find hope in the gospel, and I can be and often am uplifted by studying and learning the gospel. I can’t say that about church attendance or participation, especially when the focus is not on the gospel of Jesus Christ. Sadly, our church worship services and other meetings are far too often focused on something else and that’s the problem. I recognize the top leadership is doing better, and even down at the ends of the some of the rows things are better than they were 20 years ago. But it’s not really at the ends of the rows yet, and, I know I’m being critical, counting the number of times Jesus is mentioned in GC as opposed to 10 or 20 years ago isn’t really it. It’s more than talking the talk, we’re not walking the walk yet.

[DarkJedi]

One of the things I love about this forum is the opportunity to “openly” discuss our questions and doubts as well as our beliefs, under the guise of some anonymity of course.

I think sometimes it’s a little hard to recognize that faith crisis is different for everybody. We each have our own unique experience with what we consider our own dark night of the soul and I think it’s human nature to apply our own experience to everyone else who has had a similar experience. But it’s really not like that – your experience was different from mine. During my faith crisis I lost a belief in God, and being very upfront about that, my loss of belief in God was directly related to LDS teachings about what/who God is and God’s relationship to me that led to that loss of belief. The God that they talked about was not the God I was experiencing. Like so many others, I was in that place where I couldn’t really separate what I held to be true from what might actually be true. I think many of the people who leave the church altogether s a result of faith crisis do so because they can’t get past the idea of “”if the church isn’t true, no church is true.” I experienced that same domino effect – one domino falls after the other – if Joseph wasn’t a prophet, the BoM isn’t scripture, therefore the church isn’t true, etc. The church sets up those dominoes and reiterates it all the time. But it’s a fallacy – it’s not that simple. Joseph could be a very flawed individual and still be a prophet. The BoM could contain errors and inconsistencies and still be a good book, even the “word of God.” The church and church leaders can make mistakes and still be “true.” I haven’t had the opportunity to give this advice to anyone new in a while because the opportunity hasn’t presented itself. My standard advice is take it slow, focus on what you do believe, and don’t dump all at once.

Elder Uchtdorf said (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dieter-f-uchtdorf/what-is-truth/” class=”bbcode_url”>https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/dieter-f-uchtdorf/what-is-truth/):

Quote:

The “truths” we cling to shape the quality of our societies as well as our individual characters. All too often these “truths” are based on incomplete and inaccurate evidence, and at times they serve very selfish motives.

Part of the reason for poor judgment comes from the tendency of mankind to blur the line between belief and truth. We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

Unfortunately, this tendency can spread to all areas of our lives—from sports to family relationships and from religion to politics.

So I was in this spot of not really believing there was a God – I call it almost atheist. Interestingly, what brought me around was Carl Sagan talking about star stuff. I came to recognize that I did indeed still believe in God, just not the way God is often described in the church. With that basic belief (foundation) I was able to rebuild some of my faith or other beliefs. I like to focus much more on belief and hope as opposed to faith, and I know, to Nibbler’s point, some of that is just semantics. But I don’t know Joseph Smith was prophet. I believe he believed he had the experiences he said he had, and he very well could have. I don’t know that Jesus actually lived and said and did all those things recorded in the four gospels, but I hope at least some of it is true and I hope God really does care about us enough for salvation and eternal life to be possible. I believe the Bible and the BoM contain eternal truths, as do other churches and belief systems, and I hope to understand those truths. I can’t say I truly have faith in any of those things, but they do bring me hope – in the absence of knowledge or faith there is always hope. If Jesus brought nothing else to the people of his time, he did bring hope.

Lastly, I hope this ramble is not difficult to read and understand.

[DarkJedi]

Didge wrote:

So I can empathize with your dilemma, Dark Jedi. I hope things work out to your satisfaction.

Just to clarify, not having a calling is not what led to me not attending church. Church services themselves not being engaging is what led to me not attending church. So, even with a calling I’d likely find church unengaging, although with the right calling I might be able to make at least part of it more engaging. Although I wouldn’t likely accept a calling that didn’t necessarily require attendance at church (for example family history – a hard no go for me) some such calling might also be within the realm of possibilities (although I can’t really think of one that fits off hand). In my personal case there might be some correlation in church attendance and a calling, but there really isn’t causation. The correlation is a coincidence.

FWIW, my ward is extremely small and struggling. They’re losing people left and right due to move outs and deaths. There are certainly opportunities and need there. That’s one of the things that perplexes me and frankly solidifies my point of view of lack of inspiration on the part of the leadership. And, yes, I think God is aware of all of this, thus solidifying my Deist point of view.

[DarkJedi]

nibbler wrote:

For what it’s worth, there was a talk about callings during general conference. I forget who gave it on what day but I don’t remember any language being employed to insinuate that people can’t say no to callings. I would have picked up on that.

The speaker did ask bishops to review the list of people that don’t have callings and find something for them to do, so the calling-less people out there may be getting a call from their bishop soon.

You can still remain calling-less after your discussion with your bishop though. 🙂

Definitely one I missed either because I didn’t see that session or wasn’t paying attention. I have been callingless for a bit now – a few years now. I also recently discovered I no longer have a ministering assignment. I was actually OK with ministering, but I haven’t been interviewed even longer than I’ve been callingless. When I was assigned it was only two families, neither of which were particularly needy, but one is pretty old school. We have a small faction in our ward who think ministering needs to include regular (read monthlyish) visits, and that guy is part of that faction. I don’t/won’t do monthly visits, and maybe he asked for somebody else, I don’t know. I’m also fine with not ministering.

I have not been to church in about as long as I haven’t had a calling (a little less). I have thought that I might go if I had a reason. Having a calling might be a reason, but of course I’m not going to take just any calling. Our current bishop has never talked to me about a calling, and his 5 years are about up (he talks about being released soon according to my wife). I have said this privately here before, but I have been waiting for some time for one of my leaders to be “inspired.” Apparently they have not been. I can get by without church if church can get by without me.

[DarkJedi]

Roy wrote:

In another thread you mentioned that you are on the older side. The church is changing some of its former stances but the changes generally happen by de-emphasizing or quietly discontinuing past teachings. Thus the former teachings can take a really long time to work their way out of the system.

Didge wrote:

I also have a calling, one that I hope they let me keep for a long time because I like it, and it doesn’t require me to compromise my beliefs/unbeliefs. Again, we don’t get to pick and choose callings; we just get marching orders. The standard line about callings is that they’re always inspired and that one should never turn them down.

I think that the idea of never saying “no” to a calling is one of these that is being quietly discontinued. I still hear the part about “always inspired.” On the other hand, “inspired” does not necessarily mean revelation from God. There can be many sources of “inspiration” and in most wards it seems to often be desperation and/or a process of elimination. A large percentage of people are saying “no” to certain challenging callings. So many that I don’t think it is tenable to attach a sin-like guilt (as though God is giving you an assignment and you refuse) to the act.

I actually came here to say this. Saying no to a calling today is not what it meant 20 years ago. I think at least part of that comes from a realization for many people that not all callings are inspired (and based on my own experiences on both sides – extending and receiving – almost none are truly revelation). I also note Roy does make a good point about inspiration as opposed to revelation, something I learned about here many years ago (maybe from Roy). Nonetheless, in modern times there are lots of legitimate reasons to say no to a calling and I think modern leadership has come to terms with that because they also know not everything is inspired (there’s the old adage of “inspiration, relation, or desperation” that’s more the latter than the former). Also, I think more people are willing to set boundaries nowadays, and some are even upfront about what kinds of things they will or won’t do. My fairly orthodox wife has come to that point after years of struggling with family and work with somewhat hefty callings. She is currently a RS counselor but they are in need of a new president because of some serious health issues with the current one. She has been very upfront with the bishop about not asking her – she’s willing to continue her current role but doesn’t feel as though she has the time or energy for the role of president (she currently works full time and recently was promoted with added responsibilities). I think a lot of younger people are more in tune with self care and life balance as well, and are quite willing to let it be known their focus is on their families and/or careers at the moment and another time consuming responsibility may be too much.

[DarkJedi]

nibbler wrote:

I assumed Bednar’s talk was intentionally aimed at non-members watching conference. That said, it’s going to be a slog if that talk becomes the subject of too many lessons on Sunday. We’ve already gone over that material so many times at church that it’s going to be difficult to make it engaging.

Conference was conference. A small number of good talks. A small number of bad talks. A whole lot of talks that just aren’t particularly relevant to me.

In the end I didn’t really hear what I needed to hear during conference. Given what’s going on in the world, most of conference felt out of touch. I’m not sure what I’m going to do with those feelings.

I “saw” 3 of the 5 sessions (Saturday morning and both Sunday). For me they were more background noise than engaging, which actually pretty much sums up where the church is in my life at the moment.

I’ve heard the old “there’s a personal message for you in conference if you’re listening” (in its various forms) for over 40 years, including this past month. I’ve found it to be mostly untrue, and it has always been so. The only time I can say a message really struck me was Uchtdorf’s “Come, Join With Us” which is dated now and while I still hold to its truths I’m not so sure the church or current top three leaders do. Nelson has become nothing more than an announcer of new temples, not much prophesying, seeing, or revelating going on that I can see. Being disappointed in GC isn’t a new feeling for me.

[DarkJedi]

Minyan Man wrote:

I agree with Old-Timer. IMO it doesn’t feel like the intentions of a loving God to create a gulf

between the generations of time like that.

Unlike most of the people in testimony meeting, I know very little (nothing really). There are a few things I’m pretty sure about though. This is one of them.

[DarkJedi]

Didge wrote:

I understand how you feel. I’m fortunate to be in a ward that includes many wonderful, caring people. But there are three or four who really rub me the wrong way: one who seems to think it’s his first responsibility to scold everyone and call us to repentance (for not reading the Come Follow Me lesson in advance, for not reporting on our ministering assignments, for not cleaning the building thoroughly enough, etc.); one who makes a point every time he gives a talk, makes comments in class, or bears his testimony, of badmouthing other churches (what might visitors from those churches think?); a former bishopric member who called me once because I hadn’t gone in to tithing settlement and pressed me about a month I had forgotten to pay (“do you want to make that up? oh, so you don’t have the money on hand right now? well then, I guess I’ll have to put you down as a partial rather than a full tithe payer”). I really had to bite my tongue during that exchange. If I had only paid 26 cents I would have been categorized as a “partial” payer, never mind the thousands that I DID pay. That was a very galling experience, because as it is, in terms of both time and money I give the church far more than it’s worth to me. Such moments can really try your patience in dealing with fellow church members. I just try to have as little as possible to do with those who irritate me. When I’m forced to deal with them, I end up feeling much like you, and wonder what on earth I’m doing in that place.

The church’s biggest asset is some of its people. The church’s greatest detriment is also some of its other people. Unfortunately some of the latter end up being the loudest and/or hold positions of leadership. Fortunately some of the former do as well.

[DarkJedi]

Chamelea wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

For me, letting go of the fear and guilt associated with the church or some church teachings was extremely freeing. Not everyone is able to do that.

What steps did you take to let go of that guilt? I’m a very easily -guilty person and need all the advice I can get on this front.

And how do I stop feeling angry about the judgmental comments surrounding the celestial kingdom, eternal families, “the covenant path” and all that? Even when I don’t necessarily believe those things, it’s still hard not to feel angry/depressed about the judgmental/exclusive remarks and how they refer to me and my amazing sister. I think I get subconsciously protective and defensive of her. At the same time, if I’m going to stay LDS like I want to, I need to figure out how to get rid of those feelings so each time I go to church isn’t miserable. (Sorry for the long ramble; it’s late and my brain is kinda all over the place; hopefully I’m kind of making some sense. 😛) Thanks again for all your input. I’ll respond to some of the other points later.

It isn’t easy, and takes some time. My own faith crisis lasted for years, and the transition following that has been many more years (and is ongoing). Minyan Man said “take what you can use & leave the rest” and others have intimated the same thing. I liken my faith crisis to the crumbling of a building (like those we can see right now on the news from Thailand and Myanmar). My faith, and to some extent my life, laid in ruins like a crumbled building. I think this is not uncommon for church members in faith crisis – it seems everything you thought was true/correct isn’t. But it’s not all or nothing – it’s not either all true or all false. Joseph Smith could have been a prophet and could have at the same time could have done some bad things (which I think actually brings hope). The Book of Mormon could not be what it claims and Joseph could still be a prophet, and so forth. When I began to transition, I began to rebuild that building of faith (starting with a basic belief in God). That pile of rubble had some good stuff that was reusable in my new faith. It also had stuff that isn’t useful. And there is stuff from other religions/beliefs that’s also useful (“new” stuff). Finally, there is some of the rubble that I haven’t figured out yet – it’s still there by the beautiful new building and not yet taken to the dump. I might someday find a place for it, or I might eventually throw it out. But that’s my faith building. As you make your own path yours will be different. You may keep things I didn’t and throw things away things that I kept. You have to figure it out for yourself with what works for you.

I am a huge Terryl Givens fan. One of the things I love about him is his ability to present different points of view in a very faithful and non-confrontational way. My favorite Givens book, and it’s not an especially long nor complicated read, is All Things New: Rethinking Sin, Salvation, and Everything in Between. I read this book the first time much later in my transition, but it probably would have sped things along a bit. For me it was very affirming. I could not recommend it more, and sincerely hope you can have the opportunity to read and ponder it. I think it will be immensely helpful to you.

[DarkJedi]

Welcome to the forum.

I agree that Joseph was not an intentional fraudster and that he truly believed himself to be a prophet and that God spoke to him. I also believe he had some difficulty separating his own thoughts and ideas from God’s inspirations/revelations, and some of the things he said and did were only to further himself. I also agree he had a vivid imagination, and I truly believe he was a genius. “Uneducated farm boy” aside, one can be a genius and be uneducated, although I believe Joseph was of average education for someone his of his age and time (formal education as we know it was practically non-existent in the US, and he could read, write, and do basic math). As an educator, I know the difference between intelligence and education. One can be highly intelligent yet lack the opportunity for education – there were/are likely thousands of genii who lived in feudal Europe, the rainforests of Africa and South America, or remote islands whose main task in life was only to survive. Likewise, I have met some of average intellect at best who hold masters and doctorate degrees.

As to the Book of Mormon, I also don’t believe it to be a historical record. Then again, neither is the Bible. I do believe that the Book of Mormon is a good book about Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father, and it can and does bring people closer to God. I also believe that of Joseph Smith wrote it later in his theological evolution it would have been a different, although still valuable, book.

And to your most recent post, I am also of the “do no harm” mindset. It is not my aim to bring people to my way of thinking, but I will share my thoughts in the appropriate settings with the appropriate people. I believe you are wise to mostly keep to yourself. One of the nicest things about this forum is that we can share openly under the relative anonymity offered here. It can be a great release.

I think many here share your felling of the church being their “tribe.” There is a culture associated with the church, and some of those things are very comfortable to us. There is no need to let them go if we don’t want to. I was a convert as a young adult and I do find some faults with the culture, but there are other aspects I don’t mind so much and do bring some measure of comfort. Regarding your old friend, I think it unfortunate that many members of the church have a testimony of the church, or Joseph Smith, or the Book of Mormon, or prophets, and not necessarily of Jesus Christ. I believe there are many members of the church (including active members) who really have no testimony of the Savior, probably because Jesus was not emphasized for so long. I think the top leadership is trying to change that (look at GC talks now compared to 10-20 years ago), but again, some of that stuff is part of a culture that is hard to change.

I like your insights as an active member and Hope you hang around for a while. I think you have much to offer those who visit. And, I’ll just point out, we have far more lurkers than active posters, and that’s OK. I think what we do has greater effect than we’ll ever know.

[Author]

Posts