[doug]

GBSmith wrote:

… somebody is going to be upset about almost any financial move.

I can think of lots of places the church could put its money that would raise no eyebrows whatsoever, except perphaps amongst the truly wild-eyed. I am tempted to think that if I were in a position of power within the organization, I could have done a better job at it, but of course I’m not.

I’m sure that the issue we’re talking about was discussed at some point amongst the decision makers, and they decided to move ahead in spite of the possible moral repurcussions of, at some level, being involved in the sale of things that the church tells its membership are objectionable. They want to make downtown SLC clean, safe, modern and cosmopolitan — in other words, a place that regular people want to go, and I think that by and large they have succeeded in a way that they would not have if they had turned the property into a welfare cannery or another museum, for instance.

Perhaps they see in their future a time when the church won’t feel the need to make such a sharp distinction between themselves and “the world”. If so, I wish they’d tell the rest of us about it.

[doug]

Old-Timer wrote:

Obviously … it wasn’t “no big deal” then – but it isn’t a big deal anymore to … the Church.

So, how am I to know from one day to the next what is and isn’t a big deal to the church? If past experience isn’t a faithful guide, then what is? And supposing I was able to figure this out, how do I get the message out to everyone else? And if it’s not really my responsibility to get the message out, how do I manage the unavoidable conflict when I bump into someone who still thinks, for instance, that it is an offense worthy of excommunication to publicly state or publish opinions that are in direct opposition to the stated position of the church?

And is it now okay to openly contradict the church, or is it the position of the church that has changed? If the latter, what is the current position of the church on feminism? And has the church position on other matters that are important to me changed? How am I to find these things out when the church doesn’t communicate them openly and directly?

Yes, stories of reconciliation and forgiveness are inspiring and touching. But at the end of the day, a person still needs to know what the rules of the game are. To me, this kind of thing raises more questions than it answers.

[doug]

afterall wrote:

I am encouraged to hear that other people believe saying no to a calling isn’t doctrine. It is a litmus test in our area. I have seen leaders get angry when others say no. It doesn’t even matter what their circumstances are. Do any of you believe the spirit can tell someone to say no to a calling?

Absolutely. This is one of the few things I am fairly certain of. If anyone is entitled to inspiration about what’s right for you, it’s you.

I’ve mentioned this before, but when extending callings, our SP takes a different tack than what I had been used to. He first explains to the person the position he is thinking of asking the person to fill and asks how he/she feels about it. Only after the person has basically agreed that he/she thinks it would be a good idea is the “calling” actually made. I know it sounds a little like splitting hairs, but I really appreciate that this shows a sensitivity to individual needs and concerns that was previously missing in my experience. Of course, your mileage may vary, depending on the personalities and culture of your own particular unit.

[doug]

Quote:

According to the story, she was not asked to disavow her former positions and writings, and was not asked to stop writing on those subjects.

So it was all just a little misunderstanding? No harm, no foul?

[doug]

Short answer: Yes.

Myers-Briggs, anyone? My own opinion is that those that do best in church settings tend to be of a certain personality type. This seems obvious to me, but I could be wrong. I used to question whether those things were innate or learned, but I stopped worrying about it. I am what I am.

[doug]

Old-Timer wrote:

That experience isn’t relevant directly to the topic of membership, but it was one of the creepiest church experiences I have had in my life.

Often things that are unfamiliar or foreign to us seem creepy. I recall being freaked out the first time I attended a F&T meeting, particularly when there were young ‘uns being told what to testify to. But I’m mostly over that now.

Estimating activity numbers is a bit of a cottage industry, and I have read a few “studies” on it. Most estimates indicate that the numbers used by the church grossly overestimate the real picture, but without hard data they are merely guesses.

[doug]

Well, at least now I can rest easy the next time someone suggests that I need to divest myself of mutual funds that invest in RJ Reynolds, or whatever.

[doug]

I could be wrong, but I don’t think IM is suggesting that everyone ought to subscribe to a particular set of rules, but is pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of a church which preaches that its members ought to shun the very appearance of evil, and yet is hand in glove with purveyors of “evil” things. I see his point.

[doug]

Absolutely. Forgive them, if you can. In a very real sense, they are not responsible for their actions. For me, it hepls to try to recall that, in spite of all our apparent differences, we all share the two most important aspects of mortality: existence and death. In other words, we’re all on the same journey and might as well cut each other some slack along the way.

My hat’s off to you. Hanging out with the in-laws and holding it all together is a great character builder. I deal wiith the same issues, but to a lesser degree. It sounds like your wife is understanding and supportive.

I admire your combined resolve to decide what’s right for your family and to just do it. More power to you, but as you’ve found, the LDS culture isn’t kind to those who stick out, at least in some parts of the world.

Quote:

Begin each day by saying to yourself: Today I am going to encounter people who are ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, and hostile. People have these characteristics because they do not understand what is good and what is bad. But insofar as I have comprehended the true nature of what is good, namely that it fine and noble, and the true nature of what is bad, that it is shameful, and the true nature of the person who has gone astray: that he is just like me, not only in the physical sense, but also with respect to Intelligence and having a portion of the divine–insofar as I have comprehended all this, I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no one else can involve me in what is shameful and debasing, nor can I be angry with my fellow man or hate him, for we have been made for cooperation … To hinder one another is contrary to Nature, and this is exactly what happens when we are angry and turn away from each other. — Marcus Aurelius

[doug]

I didn’t like the quote, not surprisingly. It does a good job of capturing the aspects of the church that I find the most disagreeable.

Heber13 wrote:

Honestly, I cannot see the difference, I just like good people and think the LDS church is one of many sources of helping good people produce fruit.

What are your thoughts/experiences?

I can’t either. I see good, bad and in-between wherever I look. This was a huge part of my faith transition. Now, I bristle at the idea that my friends’ Catholicism or Protestantism somehow prevents those friends from being whole.

[doug]

I’m not a big fan of analogies, Heber, but I think yours was a pretty good one. Thanks for sharing.

IM, it sounds to me like you’re on the right track. I think the journey from one stage to another is as imperceptible and the changing of the seasons.

[doug]

Maybe God is Santa Claus.

[doug]

Thanks for posting this Wayfarer. Definitely food for thought. You have somehow been able to make a leap that for whatever reason I am terrified of making.

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

Is this hypocrisy to testify using the same words but mean something completely different?

Nope – not at all.

I am no linguist, but I can appreciate the beauty of many languages. I am particulary impressed by the sheer beauty and ingeniousness of the English language. So many shades of meaning that can be conveyed in beautiful and inspiring ways. I understand of course that we can never make ourselves understood perfectly … there is too much that goes on between the mind of the speaker and that of the hearer, but what is the point of such a tool if we don’t make an effort to use it to accurately describe as best we can what goes on in our heads, instead of speaking in a code that only we ourselves understand, as it were? Unless of course we mean to be disingenuous. Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but if you can’t feel at ease speaking your mind, and you’re not allowed to just sit quietly, what kind of life is that?

[doug]

Quote:

I believe it was revealed to President Hinckley that we needed to start building small temples in great numbers.

I believe that this was revealed to Pres Hinckley in the same way that it was revealed to me which way to go to work this morning. Either we are all prophets or none of us are. I choose the former. I think we have been done a great disservice by myths having been allowed to propagate, or having been actively promoted, which lead us to believe that God communicates through a hierarchy and only in that way. In my view nobody should or need allow anyone or anything to get between them and God.

Quote:

Consider this – were there periods of decades in the old testament without new revelations? Were there periods during which the prophets only reiterated important truths and called people to repentance?

Drawing any kind of definitive timeline about anything from the OT (or the NT, for that matter) is problematic. The OT is a hodge-podge of revelations put together and reinterpreted over the years by people such as you and I, who received revelation in precisely the same way you and I do. It is neither all-inclusive of God’s dealings with man, nor is it historically accurate in those dealings that it does describe.

It’s natural that church members should wonder when the next section of the D&C is going to appear. They have been taught to anticipate such things. Our history is rife with appearances and miraculous divine communications of one kind or another. The 15 talk to Jesus in the temple on a regular basis. Surely He has something important that He wants passed on, otherwise what’s the point?

[doug]

For one opinion on this topic see here.

A particularly irreverent excerpt:

Quote:

I believe the Lord inspired President Monson to announce Peter Maurik as the speaker, and that God inspired Maurik to race to the temple to get there in the nick of time. For if Maurik hadn’t shown up, it would have been a catastrophe. Monson would have had to fill another hour himself, subjecting those poor German saints to his inane and pointless stories. God can sometimes seem cruel, but he’s never that cruel.

[Author]

Posts