Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for sharing LH. Very interesting article. I recently came across this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdo69Nhv_WAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdo69Nhv_WA” class=”bbcode_url”> To Nibbler’s point, I completely agree, especially the part about looking at the past through the lens of the present. So profound. When I think about my own faith transition and wonder why it happened when it did, I have no real good answer. I have known about the problems with the church for years and was able to maintain a TBM perspective through it all. At some point, I got a new pair of glasses and I suddenly saw all that same exact information through a completely different lens to the point where I almost have a hard time understanding my previous perspective. The point is that it’s not WHAT information is presented but where we are when we look at it and what set of lens we have on. Someone exposed to the gospel when they don’t have the right lens will never see it as a motivating factor to convert, and similarly, those that look in depth at aspects of church history may not see at as damning, depending on what lens they have on.
I think we can all try to be more accepting of other viewpoints, recognizing that if we were wearing a different pair of eyeglasses at the time (acquired through a series of life experiences), we might see things the exact same way. Trying to force others to see through our lens would be the equivalent of forcing someone to take off their glasses and put on ours, but if their eyesight and prescription is different, they still won’t see what we see, neither will we see what they do. 20/20 vision is relative after all, which is a beautiful thing. So many viewpoints and perspectives, and unlike actual eyesight, they can all be “correct” even if they are wrong for me right now. Who’s to say my eyesight won’t change in the future and I’ll need a new set of lenses? I certainly hope that’s the case – makes the future much more exciting!
Part of the issue too is whether the SP or Bishop truly believes that God intervenes on a daily basis in the everyday things of life or not. ( http://www.zionsbest.com/people.htmlhttp://www.zionsbest.com/people.html” class=”bbcode_url”> That was a bit of an aside, but my point is that some leaders truly feel that God intervenes in their daily lives and daily decisions, while I have never felt that way – that all these little decisions have a right/wrong answer. I do feel that we can self meditate and come to personal inspirations about what is best for us or or kid’s lives, but for me, that’s not necessarily communication from God but merely good introspection and insight into our own and other’s lives. Anyway, for those that think God directs everything, that may be comforting, but also can be paralyzing when God’s will is not manifest, or also lead to judgmental responses when they make a decision or remark that is truly offensive, but they felt it was what the spirit told them to do.
Sorry, that felt like rambling, but I don’t have time to fine-tune those thoughts. Hopefully makes sense.
Funny but true story (I think). This came from my dad when he was serving as SP. The story either comes from his own stake or a story told him by another leader. There was a bishop in the stake denying temple recommends if people drank caffeinated soda. At a stake leadership meeting during stake conference with bishops and the SP, Elder Nelson was the visiting apostle. During the luncheon, Elder Nelson asked for a coke. Some eyebrows were raised but he was told there was no coke. Apparently he asked someone to go get him a coke. When it finally came he set it down in front of him but apparently never drank it. The message was clear though, caffeinated sodas are not prohibited.
But to the point of the OP, I agree this type of story is unhealthy and breeds the unquestioning, don’t trust your conscience mentality that is severely problematic for so many reasons already enumerated by others on this post. Thanks for sharing.
I agree with Kate, especially if you are sick and tired of the program. I don’t even think you need to meet with your bishop. Just tell your EQP or HGL when you report that you visited just one family and that’s all you plan to do. If he is not ok with that, he can reassign. Doesn’t need to go through your bishop, in my opinion. And thanks for the feedback about being tired and weary about the prioritizing. Sometimes I feel like I’m trapped between what leaders ask of me and what I actually think is best. That was my compromise, but for me personally, I agree the program should just go away.
For those who are true believing, even that isn’t enough to motivate most of the time. And for those of us who are somewhere else with our faith, the only motivation might be teaching a child a lesson or maybe true opportunities to really serve. Showing up to give a canned lesson is not service, despite what they say about “serving in the church.” Most of that “service” is nothing but fruitless busywork and time wasting (again, my opinion).
Syme, so sorry you’re going through this. I can only imagine but know that you are not alone and everyone here can relate to your story in many ways even if not everything. I personally think the church is just flat out wrong on its stance towards gay marriage. There needs to be a place in this church where gay marriage is accepted and even encouraged as a way to find fulfillment. The same principles of fidelity and monogamy apply and same-sex marriages can be every bit as fulfilling as heterosexual ones.
Listen to Mormon Stories interview of Dr Bradshaw if you haven’t already (
http://www.mormonstories.org/william-bradshaw-a-life-of-science-service-and-compassion/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mormonstories.org/william-bradshaw-a-life-of-science-service-and-compassion/ Especially where he talks about his son coming out as gay and attending his son’s wedding. I think his wife said “every Momon mother deserves to have a gay son.” What a wonderful and loving attitude.
I remember years ago when I was fully a TBM, having discussions with my wife about how hard it would be if one of our sons came out as gay. That attitude, I realize now, was not my own conclusion or feelings, but a culmination of the church’s closed-minded teachings. Once I explored for myself and had my faith transition, I realized the only thing that would be hard for me having a son come out would be knowing how the world, and especially the church, would treat him. It would be hard only because of my deep love for him, but I would be glad and welcome he is gay as much as any other sexual preference. Funny how as my faith in the church waned, my feelings of love and acceptance for others increased…
I wish you the best in your journey and faith transition. You may not have a reason to stay in this church as your faith transitions, but if you end up with enough social reasons to stay like so many of us have, know that most of us completely disagree with the church’s stance on same-sex marriage and look forward to the day when that changes.
Here’s my thoughts (as a current non-believing EQP). First, ever since Elder Holland’s talk Oct 2016 about HT, our stake has interpreted that as every one in the ward needs to be assigned a HT. I am in the process of getting that assigned, but a couple months ago I gave a lesson in EQ preparing the quorum for longer lists. This is basically what I said:
– Prioritize your lists into widows, homes without a father in the home, struggling families, active families, etc.
– Widows, those with specific needs, etc get a monthly visit if possible. I try to make the lists so no one has more than 2-3 of those types of names.
– Active families that may still have some needs try to get a quarterly visit.
– Active families in active positions get a yearly visit (Bishopric, ward council members, etc)
– Otherwise the main thing is to know how your families are doing and check in with them from time to time (at church, email, text message, phone call, facebook, etc)
– Elder Holland said that it “all counts so report it all”
– I tried to stress that I don’t care about the numbers reported at all (because I don’t), but that you should be able to report on how the familes are doing at least each quarter and stressed the principle is watching over each other and providing service when needed
I think the lesson went over fairly well. Still, our quorum will hopefully get to 10-12 assignments each max. And even then, most of those names will not be visited. Some will be email/text/ only. Some will be annual or quarterly. Only a couple would be families or households with real needs that should be visited with any sort of monthly regularity.
My advice for you, if you decide to actually keep the assignment is first, continue to laugh out loud because it is ridiculous. Then, look at the list and prioritize. If you have more than a couple that should be visited regularly then it needs to be changed. For the others, email, text, or check in at church and call it good.
But another perfectly reasonable action would be to throw in the towel. I hate that I have to even make so many assignments and have a lesson about it, but I hope my approach at least made it more palatable and reasonable for the members of the quorum.
Welcome to the forum Molly! I’m also brand new here and looking forward to getting to know you and everyone else. One thought of mine on the WoW – something I’m sure has been stated elsewhere. But clearly when the WoW came out it was a guideline and not binding upon the saints – also I’ve always seen it as the spirit of moderation in all things. The WoW itself seems to include hard drinks (liquor?) more than softer drinks (beer or wine?). I’m no history expert, but I believe most of the saints included drinking alcohol (hopefully in moderation) after the revelation. JS ordered wine to help revive their spirits in Carthage. Brigham Young continued to drink. It wasn’t until much later that strict prohibition became a temple recommend requirement. But was that truly revelation of God’s will or just a policy change? I’ll leave that up to you decide.
My thought is that if you can honestly say to yourself that you follow the spirit of the word of wisdom as you understand it, and if you truly feel that temple attendance blesses your life, then you should answer the recommend questions accordingly. They are yes/no questions on purpose, because essentially WE get to decide if we are “worthy” or not, and not some arbitrary “judge.” So my advice – stay true yourself and do what you think and feel is right. Follow your own moral compass and if that includes continuing to attend the temple, that will only bless you in your life.
If I didn’t have a TBM wife so opposed to any and all alcohol I’m sure I would be toasting champagne at our anniversaries. Since I’ve never had any, I don’t really miss it but I also don’t think God could care less about whether or not we drink. (Jesus drank wine afterall, so clearly alcohol itself is not the sin). To me, the principle is maintaining our agency and health and also moderation.
I would argue that most in the church say they can’t tell a difference (between powerful emotional vs spiritual experiences) at least from my experience. However, there’s a select few I’ve encountered that maintain there is a difference, and that explaining it is only possible in emotonal terms because that is the closest we can get to describing a metaphysical thing, but that spiritual communication is something distinct, a sort of sixth sense that you only know when you experience it. Apparently it takes time and practice to develop (never mind what to say to converts), but the spiritual communications are distinct, according to those who make that claim. But for me, it’s all emotional and subject to influence by expectations, hopes, desires, culture, experiences, etc. Until I experience something that I can clearly say, “ok this is different. Now I understand,” I just don’t think I’ll accept that there is a difference that only some get to experience and not someone like me who’s dedicated over 30 years to this church and trying to feel those things.
Can’t wait to try and tackle this tonight if I can. Knowing the church has a historical tendency to fall on the wrong side of culturally important issues, I continue to hope that LGBT and women’s priesthood will someday be shown to follow the same trend. Maybe this article will become the Lester Bush article on blacks and the priesthood. That article certainly moved the needle in the right direction quite a bit. That would be exciting if this article proved to do the same! Heber13 wrote:Do you do a lot of studying on your own, or do you use websites and podcasts and into many online forums? Just curious.
I do try to do a lot of studying when I can between a busy job, 4 kids, and a smoking hot wife that I love spending quality time with haha.
Right now I’m reading through BH Roberts Studies and it’s enlightening. I read Rough Stone Rolling many years ago when it first came out and plan to read again with a new faith viewpoint now. I have a fairly small library of books including JS first vision accounts, a history of the temple changes, and other such books that i was somehow able to read with a faithful persepctive. Now that my shelf has crashed down, it’s hard for me to imagine really how I could have clung to my belief with everything I knew about the church. I guess the mental gymnastics required finally came to a head.
I used to spend a lot of time reading through critics online (CES Letter, MormonThink, etc), fact checking the sources, and reading apologetic responses (FAIR and FARMS), but I tend to spend less time doing that now. I think I’m settling into my current faith and less exploring, although church history continues to fascinate me and I will continue studying I’m sure.
Now I spend a lot of time catching up on Mormon Stories podcasts during my commute and runs. I also started listening to MyBookofMormon podcast (hilarious and refreshing viewpoint) and want to tackle the Year of Polygamy podcast as well.
Any recommedations are certainly welcome. I am still a little hesitant to purchase some of the books I’d like to read as I fear how my wife will react to me having them in the home. Even though I already have a number of books that bring up questionable history, I had those before I lost my faith so it seems different somehow. Maybe she’d be fine with it so I should just do it. Some books I’d like to read are Grant Palmer, Fawn Brodie, Leonard Arrington biography, Mormon Enigma, In Sacred Loneliness, among many others.
I am only active so far on this forum. I sometimes browse some of the reddit forums, but don’t feel like joining those right now. This seems like more of the community I’m looking for.
So that’s a long answer but the short answer is yes, I love to study and learn more and any recommendations are more than welcome!
Funny, I have the same problem in EQ with finding people willing to teach. A number have just flat out told me “no,” and these are supposedly those with testimonies (unless they are quietly harboring doubts like myself), and yet I am the one willing to lead and teach, despite myself questioning and actively disbelieving nearly everything (as traditionally taught anyway). I agree that I could definitely learn to appreciate it by putting in more effort. Part of the problem for me is that the more I learn about the history, the more I see some of the deceptive practices with the origins of the opera, including certain falsehoods that were spread, possible plagiarisms from other sources, racist nd sexist practices that continue to influence the cast to this day, etc. that it makes it difficult to just sit and listen to the supposed beautiful arias without also hearing undertones of the origins as well. But at the very least, I can try to decide what I want to get out of the opera (as selfish as that may seem at times), and go to continue to spend time with my wife, while also trying to make the whole effort not be totally worthless for me. And if I can somehow be a positive voice for change, that would be great, but I’ve never had much of a loud voice that is capable of swaying others. dande48 wrote:
For me, I do everything I can to avoid “explaining” the reasons for why I believe what I do. Your personal journey and relationship with God is yours alone. Arguing religions beliefs is silly. They would not convince me, and I would not take away anyone else’s faith even if I could.As for your SP, try not to be too hard on him. He believes in the Church with all his heart and soul. He means well.
This is good advice. Thanks. I’m relatively new into my faith transition and feel like I’ve had a sort of awakening. Sometimes that feels exciting and new, despite how I know those around me in the church will react to it. It’s almost like I feel like sharing with others why my views are changing, but you’re right, it’s a personal thing, and I also don’t want to take away other’s faith, especially when it does so much good for them. Every person needs to find what works for him or her, and what helps give life meaning, and that journey is immensely personal, especially when you start to venture outside the carefully constructed confines of what the Church officially teaches into the wild wilderness where literally anything is possible.
