[doug]

This quote says that the intersection of the sets of people that 1) lack faith, and 2) keep the commandments is the empty set. Like many religious concepts, it’s an assertion of someone’s opinion — easy to defend/confirm on the one hand, since even though “keeping the commandments” is a fairly subjective idea, by any reasonable definition, nobody can do it perfectly, so if someone lacks faith I can always point to their shortcomings in keeping the commandments. This notion is fairly common in the church and has obvious negative consequences.

By the same token, it’s easy to reject for the simple reason that there is no rational basis for making such an assertion, except maybe that others have made the same assertion. From my own experiences I know that the set in question is not empty, so although I do sometimes get a bit annoyed when I read things like this, I can recognize that it’s just someone’s opinion, likely well-intentioned, but that I have no obligation to pay any heed to it.

[doug]

The only truth I can know is the truth that works for me … that’s how I view the world. Yes, that implies that truth is subjective, but life has taught me that I have no other choice than to embrace that idea. I know that some people like to hang on to the notion of an absolute truth, but for me that is an idea that cannot be tested, and is therefore of no value to me.

[doug]

SilentDawning wrote:

One would have to have been present in the Sacrament meeting where the SP “asked for support” to judge if it was a simple plea given with reasoning …

Good point, SD. It’s difficult to get a feel for the nature of the appeal by reading a newspaper account, but it sounds to me like it could easily have been construed as “undue influence”, regardless of the legal definition of the term. It seems doubtful the SP was acting on his own.

[doug]

Good luck, Brian. I wish I could be there to see it, but look forward to the podcast.

[doug]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Investments that seem to draw the bad PR:

Polynesian Cultural Center (theme park)

City Creek Mall / mixed use development / high-end condos

Investments in companies that sell products counter to Mormon cultural norms (Coca-Cola, etc.)

Banks

Insurance companies

Department Stores

Let’s not forget hunting preserves.

My personal “stick in my craw” is those hideous fiberglass steeples, but I’m probably the only one bothered by that.

[doug]

I kind of get why people become offended when someone of their faith or family has temple work done for them without their permission, but I think that what it boils down to is that they are really offended about the fact that “we” think our faith/church is better or truer than theirs, and that won’t be changing any time soon. If the LDS religion isn’t really “true” then there is no meaning, much less power of coercion associated with the rituals in this life or in any other. It’s just people saying words.

[doug]

Heber13 wrote:

Doug, if I could figure out how to get it to ya, or meet you somewhere…I’d totally pick one up for ya and meet you somewhere we could visit and catch up!

Well, if you’re still in town this weekend, I’ll take you up on it. :thumbup:

[doug]

Heber13 wrote:

… therefore voting against Prop 8 is God’s will.”

… just to avoid confusion for those who aren’t familiar with Prop 8, I think you meant to say

Heber13 wrote:

… therefore voting for Prop 8 is God’s will.”

Quote:

They go from “If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph was a prophet and the restoration was true and prophet’s today have the priesthood power to speak for God …”

And in this they are amply justified by any number of GC talks, Deseret Book publications, fervent missionaries and their mission presidents, SS lessons, SM talks, etc.

[doug]

Is there an easier way to what? Was this an indiscretion on your part, or were you trying to teach your daughter something?

[doug]

Brown wrote:

Featherina wrote:

What has been good about this mall is helping others see it & helping me realize the lengths some will go to justify leaders’ actions.

What lengths?

I think she meant “stretch”, as in logically, and I think it’s a valid observation, particularly if it helps her to better understand the world. I’m much better at dealing with some things others say when I keep in mind that there are valid ways of seeing things that I may never be able to understand or agree with. It’s all good.

I could use a beer right about now, Heber.

[doug]

If Brian harbors any anger, I’m guessing it’s not because he believes people set out to deliberately mislead him, but rather because they told him they “knew” when they were really just shooting from the hip.

[doug]

Welcome. I hear ya. Hang in there.

So how’s your wife dealing with the whole thing?

[doug]

Welcome. As others have said, you are definintely not alone, and here you are among people who understand what you’re talking about. I’ve had similar feelings and questions about the BoM both during my mission and throughout my church experieice. I am in the middle of giving the church a “chance” as well, for the sake of people that I love. I have zero hope (or desire) that church will end up being what it once was to me, but I hope that it can still be meaningful and good. In some ways I wish I had gone through the journey you are experiencing at your age instead of ten years later. Oh, well. It is a journey, and it leads to a good place as long as you are honest with yourself.

[doug]

My first reaction: :thumbdown:

This is why I rarely read the Ensign any more. Equating questioning with confusion, and doubt with darkness is a favorite theme. I actually find hope and meaning in questioning, so for me it’s often a struggle to read these kinds of things. It sounds to me like the article in question was written for the benefit of those that have never seriously had to deal with doubt and need an easy answer as to why others do.

[doug]

Well, there is having a filter, which I understand, and then there is

Quote:

… to testify using the same words but [to] mean something completely different …

which I’m not sure I do understand, and which was the comment that caused me to ask the question in the first place.

If I were taking the oath of some high office, say President of the US, is it okay to say the words but to mean something entirely different? My first thought would be to say that’s not okay. Is there some understanding that, at church, nobody can be sure what they mean anyway, so it’s okay to play loose with words?

[Author]

Posts