[doug]

GBSmith wrote:

It’s like fingernails on a blackboard.

I understand exactly what you mean.

Quote:

It didn’t happen then and I don’t think trying to spin it by saying the the historicity or whatever doesn’t matter will make it any more believable now.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I am ambivalent about the book. I have a very good friend who has shared in my struggles (though from a slightly different perspective — he’s an Idealist) but who is able to find truths that work for him in the BoM. I lean on his experience and hope that I’ll also be able to find those things that inspire and uplift. I’ve no doubt I will, and when I do, I expect I will take them at face value only. But I think there are times for me when the only thing to do is to put it aside, as you seem to have done. Lately, I concentrate ‘scripture reading time’ on the NT. Interestingly, with my new-found perspective, the NT seems to be much more full of meaning than it used to be. Not sure why that is yet.

[doug]

SilentDawning wrote:

I also made the mistake of HPGL of asking people if they wanted their name removed if they didn’t want any more contact with the Church.

I think there are cases when asking that question is entirely appropriate, even to the point of having a form letter and a stamped/addressed envelope ready for them to sign and mail in. People who get sick of being contacted will either become angry, abusive, or elusive. Other times I have run into people who were friendly but who were long-time members of another church, and simply had no use for further visits. They were too polite to simply say ‘get lost’, but were genuinely grateful for information on how to dissociate themselves from the church formally and finally. I firmly believe that they all have a right to know what their options are. Refusing to give people that information when it is clearly called for, in the hope that they will eventually rejoin the fold, is silly in my opinion. I’m not suggesting anyone here is saying that. It’s just been my observation that people feel like it’s the nuclear option and should almost never be contemplated, and preferably kept secret.

[doug]

SamBee wrote:

Psst… over here in Aisle 7, just near the door.

[doug]

Personally, I’d like to see the government get out of the marriage business, and stick to civil unions. People would then be free to solemnize their union in whatever way they see fit, rendering to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.

As I recall, this is the way it is done in many parts of Europe. Has it been a problem?

[doug]

Personally, I wouldn’t call it being ‘disillusioned’ as much as ‘disabused of certain notions for which there is no compelling evidence or other reason to believe’. I guess disillusioned works as well, but to me the word has other negative connotations. Though I consider myself as someone who has had a spritual experience about the book, I am now free to accept or reject the BoM, or parts of it, as I see fit, always looking for the good and learning to appreciate how it can be meaningful to me. Recently I have thought it would be instructive to take a page out of Thomas Jefferson’s book (pun intended) and excise the parts that either don’t speak to me or that I have a real problem with, and see what I end up with.

Brian, I really liked your analysis, and how you pointed out that the logic that we so often use on converts, and on one another, is not the only way to see things. We have so many notions that are quite often nothing more than traditions, and it can be really exciting to recognize them for what they are and then ask ourselves if we want to keep them as part of our worldview or not in the happy knowledge that we can answer either way.

Conversely, I wonder how many people would allow that some honest folks have sincerely read and prayed about the BoM but have never been given the answer that Moroni promises. The SMA that they either weren’t sincere enough or didn’t pray hard enough is frustrating to me.

[doug]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Eyring – as a scientist, I have to imagine he’s an INTP or INTJ.

As an INTP, I have a hard time believing someone with that personality type could hack it in that position. At work I interact with a lot of engineers/scientists, and there are several NFs and SJs among them.

[doug]

allquieton wrote:

INTP

I always thought personality tests were just cheese–until I read the INTP profile somewhere. This was maybe a year ago. It described me so exactly that I couldn’t believe it. Been fascinated by it ever since. It gave me a measure of peace about being who I am. And it helped explain other people so well–especially certain J’s in my family by whom I was constantly baffled.

I know some people just shrug at it, but for me it changed everything.

That is me to a ‘T’, even the type. Sometimes I wonder why I need someone to tell me that a) people are different, and b) those differences profoundly affect how they interpret and relate to the world around them. It seems like this should be obvious to me. Somehow, though, having it all codified and written down is a great comfort, and gives me freedom to be who I am and not feel deficient. It really does seem like magic sometimes.

[doug]

trudge52 wrote:

In a way I feel like the blinders have been taken off and I have this whole wide area to explore …

Precisely how I feel, sometimes. I am astonished at how often others here, such as yourself, express thoughts that I naively used to think were mine alone. It’s great not to be entirely alone.

I often wonder if there are like-minded people in my ward. How would they recognize me, I wonder.

[doug]

bridget_night wrote:

I would appreciate your prayers today.

Done.

Please note that Elder Packer’s talk has been edited, so his is obviously not the last word. I share your concern and angst over the other issues, but for whatever reason, today it’s not bothering me. Perhaps partially because of things like what I just mentioned. I initially dismissed redacting BKPs talk as disingenuous, but my wife’s reaction was to be excited. On further reflection, I can see that she has good reason to be. This is a tacit admission of two things: 1) some of the content of BKPs talk, in particular, was wrong, and 2) GAs sometimes make mistakes.

Of course we already knew this in spades. The exciting part is that someone in the church hierarchy seems to know it, too, and is willing to go out on a bit of a limb — just a tiny bit — to make it right. Temporarily, at least, this gives me hope that the way I view the world isn’t so at odds with the institutional church, all the time. And, while I am a part of the church, I can rest easier from time to time in that knowledge. Is this one of God’s tender mercies that we sometimes hear of? Maybe. I not sure why I am part of this church, nor, to be honest, how long it will last. Probably for the rest of my life, but who knows? In the meantime, it’s nice to get a wink and a nod from God once in a while.

Sometimes I wonder if I really want the church to conform to my way of thinking. Not that I seriously think it ever will, but just for argument’s sake. Maybe it’s really better this way.

[doug]

Excellent post, Ray. It sounds like your Dad (and you Mom) is a wonderful person.

It seems I can’t help but see these issues though my Myers-Briggs tinted lenses. My experience is that most SJs, for instance, will rarely be able to deal constructively with a logical examination of their beliefs, whatever they might be. I presume that this is precisely why sites such as these tend to attract a certain personality type — so that they can express opinions that in other venues would only lead to confusion, consternation, anger, and disapproval.

[doug]

Steve-hpias wrote:

Doug, I second everyone else’s comments and extend you a warm welcome to our forum.

Thanks for the kind words to you and all who have commented … either vocally or in your hearts. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

This is a great place to let it all hang out.

[doug]

flowerdrops wrote:

Question… what good does it do to apologize to the other apostles and GA’s but not to the thousands of BYU students this talk was given to.

Exactly what went through my head. Why on earth do they need an apology?

Quote:

Do you think the Church would ever publicly apologize for a damaging talk (ex. Packer’s talk) or just quietly make edits. I guess I already know the answer.

My guess is that your guess is the right answer.

[doug]

cwald wrote:

I was very discouraged when Costa pretty well just recycled ETB Follow the Prophet speech from 1980

Here’s an interesting take on the ETB talk referred to. Hmmm.

[doug]

flowerdrops wrote:

I am an Idealist (healer) My husband is an Artisan. From everything I have read these 2 personality types are the least compatible!

You’ve probably already seen this, but here are Kiersey’s suggestions for idealists married to artisans:

Quote:

[list]

[doug]

SilentDawning wrote:

It sounds like he was fixated on his temporal wealth …

For whatever it’s worth, he donated a sizable sum to the building of the KIrtland temple at a time when he was struggling financially. More likely, Oliver was fixated on the personal liberties so recently codified in the constitution, and in particular on a rigid separation of ecclesiastical and civil authority. I think he also displayed some passive-aggressive tendencies … another reason I like him.

[Author]

Posts