[doug]

Sometimes when we feel frustrated or backed into a corner we say things that we don’t really mean. Sometimes we mean them — in a way and at some level — but in other circumstances we would have kept them to ourselves and worked it out on our own, and nobody would ever have been the wiser. Sometimes those things can be really hurtful when they come out.

Do your best to chalk it up to human nature and try to ignore it. Your husband is struggling as well, it sounds like, and it’s not easy for any of us. Building a relationship can be an important and difficult part of your spiritual journey.

I find myself walking a thin line way more than I should or would like to, and there’s never a good ending when I slip up. Keeping it bottled up doesn’t help, and I guess that’s why, for many of us, having a place like this to vent can be really helpful.

[doug]

Old-Timer wrote:

It’s been a LONG time, for example, since I’ve heard a talk by a general authority that lists what should and should not be done on Sunday.

And so whoever got the last word in set the standard for the teaching/doctrine/policy, or whatever you want to call it, on what should and shouldn’t be done. There is no half-life on prophetic pronouncements. The ones that aren’t so useful or get past the “use by” date just kind of turn moldy. Nobody ever bothers to throw them out.

[doug]

DBMormon wrote:

when the (LDS Church/ Jeff Lindsay / FAIR )tells its own story its motives are to _________ faith. While (MormonThink) tells a story about the LDS Church with the Motives of ____________ faith.

The way you pose the question seems a bit leading to me, especially given the loaded nature of the word “faith”. I would say that anyone, including the two groups you specify, will craft their message, if they have one, with the purpose of reinforcing their own position and encouraging others to “believe” the way they do.

Maybe it’s the motivation for doing this that we should be talking about. To help others to find joy and/or happiness. To teach “truth”. To make oneself feel better because “I’m not alone in thinking about things in a particular way”. But I think all of these motivations (and probably lots of others) could be ascribed to those on both sides of the issue.

[doug]

I hadn’t heard of such a “crackdown” (I actually thought that was part of a joke when I first read it) but that would be disturbing news indeed if it were true.

[doug]

Cadence wrote:

So maybe this is not the place for me anymore. I am just disruptive I guess.

FWIW, I am wondering the same thing, though perhaps I am more annoying than disruptive. The problem is, I have nowhere else to go, so I personally appreciate hearing your perspective from time to time.

[doug]

InquiringMind wrote:

He puts on his black leather jacket and rides his Harley to the orphanage …

I shared that with my college-aged daughter. She laughed, but seemed slightly abashed. In other words, I think you nailed it.

[doug]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

In another thread it was hypothesized that the BoM does not claim to be a historical work, and further, that the “these things” referred to by Moroni in his promise do not necessarily encompass the entire book.

I’d like to read the actual statement and see how it is worded. I agree totally that it isn’t meant to be primarily a “traditional history” – but it certainly does claim to be a “historical work”. Can you find it again and excerpt it into this thread?

It was this one, though to be honest, in re-reading the entire thread myself, it doesn’t appear that any one person was making those claims … that’s just what I got from the composite. You guys are too quick for me sometimes, and perhaps I was taking some statements out of context.

[doug]

DBMormon wrote:

This is not a site about informing people of little known facts…. there are many little known facts that members do not know, both positive and negative.

– How many members know … [list of interesting stuff]

Thanks for sharing those random tidbits, DBM. It turns out I was already aware of those things, but it was fun to hear about them again nevertheless.

Quote:

Why don’t we share this info too if it is essentially exposing new info to members? Why did this site only share negative new information? Their agenda is one sided, that is my issue.

The Church News and the Ensign have a one-sided agenda as well. Do you have an issue with them?

I think I looked at the MT site once a year or so ago, but since the information was pretty much well-known to me already, and I didn’t feel the need to re-hash it all, I left it alone. The bias was fairly obvious and it wasn’t really what I wanted to hear at the time. I could say the same thing about the Church News. Not particularly news, and not really what I need to hear.

Since this thread piqued my interest, I had another look at MT yesterday, and ended up learning something new (though I actually got it somewhere other than the MT site — I don’t recall where exactly). I had always been under the impression that Parley Pratt was murdered while returning from a mission to Arkansas by a mob of people who were opposed to the Gospel — that he died a martyr, in other words. While that may have been true, what I hadn’t been told was that the person who committed the murder was the legal husband of the woman that Parley had recently made his twelfth plural wife … and I am genuinely a little bit upset about it. I have read a lot about Pratt. I admired him. He was, I think, a remarkable person. But I’m not sure what to think about him now because I know that the sources I read way back when had an agenda to withold some basic relevant facts that they were, no doubt, aware of, or at least should have been. If I had the energy and interest to do a full-scale reconstruction of PPP’s life, I know that I would have to be certain to include sources other than those that are approved by the church. This is certainly not a new or profound observation, but I’m certain this is what a lot of church members go through — once they become aware that certain information has been deliberately withheld from them, they become suspicious of everything.

Obviously I don’t know for certain, but perhaps the people at MT have had experiences like the one I just related. And perhaps they feel that there are plenty of sources of half-truths that church members can access directly from the church, and they feel an obligation to provide the other half of those half-truths for those with enough interest to look into it. Is that such a bad thing? I agree that it could be done a little more kindly.

Quote:

We would have welcomed any sort of discussion about issues relative to that situation.

That’s kind of hard to do when the post is deleted before anyone has had a chance to look at it. If it’s the same thing that GBSmith posted, it hardly seems all that subversive or controversial to me. His main point seemed to be about “making the tent bigger”, and we talk about that all the time.

Quote:

This is not “THE (global) CHURCH” doing this; it’s “the (local) Church”.

I wasn’t aware there was a distinction. How does one make such a distinction? Can I join that global church?

[doug]

Brown wrote:

How many 30 year olds would have been unmarried in those times?

Only those who wanted to be a menace to society. So who knows?

[doug]

Old-Timer wrote:

It also tends to eliminate the vast majority of prophets in our canonized scriptures as “real” prophets.

Personally, I’m okay with that. Actually, more than okay. I think that coming to the realization that the mythos of scripture is just that — an idealization that was never intended to be taken as literal fact, but instead to get across a principle of spiritual value. So maybe the question to ask is was there ever such a thing as a Prophet with a “P”, and if not and we have to move beyond that, what are the implications for our own prophethood.

[doug]

InquiringMind wrote:

1) All 15 of them are delusional. The have been led through some neurological process to believe that they are Prophets even though they aren’t and they believe that they posses extraordinary gifts they do not have. They ignore evidence indicating they are not Prophets.

2) All 15 of them are lying. They know they are not Prophets, seers, and revelators, but they say they are anyway, maybe because they don’t want to destroy the faith of literal believers.

There is at least one other possibility that I can think of. While some may be delusional or dishonest, I like to think it’s more likely that most have come to an understanding, forced upon them because of their many experiences in the church over the years, and the observed experiences of others, that being a Prophet with a “P” isn’t all it’s made out to be in Primary — that it’s a title and a position more than anything else, and that having a good heart and sincere desires to do the right thing qualifies them for the position that they have found themselves in. They only admit that occasionally (and very obscurely) because, as you point out

Quote:

they don’t want to destroy the faith of literal believers

and are unwilling to disabuse them of what they’ve been told all their lives — the potential cost it too high. I am willing to term that “deception” because I think it matches the definition pretty closely, but perhaps there’s a better word for it. This site is full of people, myself included, who do precisely the same thing. Only the scale of the deception is different.

[doug]

SilentDawning wrote:

That a common set of beliefs tend to marginalize those on the fringe?

Yes, the one-size-fits-all mentality works great, except for those for whom things don’t fit. My wife attended ward council the other day and I was looking at the agenda that she brought home. Among other things, it listed the ward goals, which were specific enough that if certain people didn’t do certain things (attend the temple, serve a mission, renew a recommend, etc) then the ward council will have failed in its goals. It all seemed a little perverse to me … like the “gospel” is a hammer and the ward members are nails.

[doug]

Kumahito wrote:

An organization that feels a need to keep too many secrets is on shaky ground, IMO. If they really think that members can’t handle the truth, then they really aren’t the types of members worth having, are they?

That statement could easily be turned ’round the other way …

Quote:

If an organization feels that its members can’t handle the truth, then it isn’t really an organization worth belonging to.

… and the result would be just as true.

[doug]

Quote:

But oh! the blessing it is to have a friend to whom one can speak fearlessly on any subject; with whom one’s deepest as well as one’s most foolish thoughts come out simply and safely. Oh, the comfort — the inexpressible comfort of feeling safe with a person — having neither to weigh thoughts nor measure words, but pouring them all right out, just as they are, chaff and grain together; certain that a faithful hand will take and sift them, keep what is worth keeping, and then with the breath of kindness blow the rest away. — Dinah Craik

[doug]

Welcome, Kipper.

Kipper wrote:

I thought I was making progress for awhile but I’m not.

That depends entirely upon your point of view — and your definition of progress. Sometimes getting there from here is painful, and quite often it’s not clear that progress is being made until later. But as others here can tell you, it does get better. Hang in there.

I’m not sure where you’re at, exactly. Perhaps you’ll share more later as has already been suggested. But for me, having kept doubts and questions bottled up for so long, it seemed natural for me to react negatively in much the same way that you describe. Sort of like a dam bursting. As the anger passes, it becomes easier to address those same issues that may have at one time even made you feel physically ill with a little more objectivity, or even humor sometimes.

[Author]

Posts