Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In light of my post that sounded somewhat negative earlier, let me share a part I loved and find helpful and therapeutic. ‘When I spoke to a friend recently who is questioning his faith and no longer feels comfortable at church or in the temple, I suggested that he find his own sacred grove and nurture spiritual feelings while the faith issues work themselves out.’
I have recently found this sort of counsel tremendously helpful. I have trouble knowing what is really truth anymore in the church, and as a result, I find my spirituality diminishing. But I have found that poetry and music (particularly well written lyrics) speak to me on a ‘spiritual’ level and feed me in much the same way CES devotionals and scripture study used to feed me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think I agree with you both, but I think there is some nuance here. To clarify or emphasize my point/question, do you think the punishments fit the crime? In so many other religions, disobedience or non orthodox living doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. In my world, when people who know I’m Mormon see me holding a Starbucks cup (regardless of its contents) they inevitably comment “I thought you were Mormon”.
I use this simply as an example of the expectations placed on Mormons, for better or worse, by members and otherwise. I feel sometimes like our culture of strict obedience and orthodoxy and the social consequences for disobedience STRONGLY COMPEL me to obey, regardless of what I ACTUALLY WANT TO DO. In this sense, I often feel like I have no agency and it makes me have animosity toward the institution (whether it’s warranted or not).
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ray, Thanks for sharing. I did enjoy reading this and took some items to heart. But I didn’t love all of it (like you assumed some wouldn’t)
I have no problem accepting that the leaders of the church aren’t perfect and that they have made mistakes. She says it is naive to assume that “all was revealed in the early days of Mormondom” and I agree with her. I hold on to the belief (kind of) that many great and wonderful things are yet to be revealed (or changed).
The frustrating part comes where the rubber meets the road. If the brethren have been and continue today to be fallible, how do I know what teachings today are correct, and which ones are incorrect and will be changed, modifies, or corrected in 15 years?
I don’t NEED this certainty. I don’t struggle trying to decipher where they are right and where they are wrong. I try hard to just not live the letter of the law and I am OK with that. But I don’t think the church likes that mentality. I think the church expects absolute fidelity to the brethren. It is OK to
ask questions, but I don’t think they are OK with us questioning(there is a difference). Or at least their behavior toward the likes of Kate Kelly and JD have shown us it isn’t OK to question. Great post and thank you for sharing. In order to avoid hi-jacking your post, I will post a question in the support forum regarding the consequences of ‘coming out’. Thanks for this update though. I hope more and more local leaders develop the compassion and understanding to be able to deal with ‘the crazy ones’!
Joni wrote:It’s really hard to feel good about garments when I consider that, as a woman, my daily underwear choices are determined by a committee of elderly men whom I have never met.
I was thinking the same thing last night, only about how it relates to my wife’s underwear. I had never ever thought about it before but a bunch of old guys sitting around a conference table have determined what my wife should be wearing in front of me and in private for the rest of her life. It’s kind of a weird, angry feeling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know ‘liar’ is a strong word. I like how Ray calls it ‘creative honesty’. But does anyone really argue that the institutional church (as run by the 1st Pres and the Q12) has been totally honest with the rank and file?
I don’t feel like they have.
The problem is that is a tough thing to say to a TBM. It’s not anything they have the ability to hear and process.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Old-Timer wrote:It’s not just leaders who take things out of context. Humans generally crave simplicity in a complex world, so we look for the easiest, shortest, most easily digestible explanations we can find that will give us contrived simplicity. The concept of a “cafeteria” isn’t limited to religion.
We are supposed to rise above the natural (wo)man, but it isn’t easy to do.
Ray, you’re right and thank you for pointing it out. It’s probably unfair to always criticize the leaders for their orthodoxy.
Since my loss of testimony, I have a tendency to walk around with a chip on my shoulder. It’s unfair and inappropriate.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We had our Stake President teach EQ and RS this Sunday (like every other ward I’m sure) and he spoke about the ordain women movement and all the hype surrounding Kate Kelly. I can’t remember specifically what verse he used to defend his position on only men receiving ordination, but I do remember is was a verse from Section 132. I wondered how often church leaders use scripture verses that are taken completely out if context. What constitutes as truth in one verse is independent of any other gospel principles. I don’t know that it is appropriate to use verses from a section of the D&C outlining the practice of polygamy to enforce one’s stance on women rights when church leaders (Hinckley) have denounced the practice as not doctrinal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t know how well it would be received if she is a TBM but one books that has done a great job helping me and my wife is “The God Who Weeps” by Terryl and Fiona Givens. He teaches that sin isn’t really about God, its about us. We often feel guilty or unworthy because we are taught that our sins offend/hurt God. His eternal growth, progression, and further exhalation depend on our returning to live again with him and that somehow when we sin, he is angry with us because it has somehow lessened his exhalation and is somehow less perfect than had we made better choices (these are my words and interpretation, not necessarily taken from any CES manual
Givens helped give me the perspective that my sins hurt me and that God is sad to see us hurt ourselves in the same way we feel sorrow for our kids when they do something that is not in their own best interest. What it does for me is helps me think every time I watched a rated R movie or used foul language, those acts didn’t cause Christ to bleed another drop. Those things hurt me, not God. It makes me feel more responsible for my actions, rather than indebted.
This is a difficult idea to subscribe too though with the traditional (Packer) view of understanding the the atonement is a debtor and borrower relationship.
Ann wrote:On Own Now wrote:“I now say – That Joseph Smith is the one to whom all men must look in this day to learn the truth about Christ and his gospel.” I don’t know how to get around my discomfort with this one, too.
I feel your pain Ann. I teach EQ and love my calling. It is probably the only reason I stayed in the church there for a while. This sounds terribly arrogant and prideful but I really felt that the only spiritual nourishment I got all week was from the lesson that I was teaching. (again, might sound arrogant but it is truly the way I felt).
This year I was excited to teach from JFS. I have enjoyed gradually testing the waters in class then slowly ratcheting up what I was and wasn’t willing to share in class. Last week it bit me in the butt when the EQ Pres jumped in and made a very canned, TBM response to a mildly controversial comment about the nature of God that I made (putting me in my proverbial ‘place’).
I would love to use this quote in my lesson but swap out the words so is reads “Joseph Smith is a man to whom men should look in this day…” then say “But who else can we look to to learn about Christ?”
I don’t dare though. I can only imagine the commotion that would result of me insinuating that Pope F has been effective of late at teaching the truth about Christ.
I apologize if this is a common metaphor. I am relatively new to this forum but when I read posts related to behavior within the church that seems strange or old fashion, I can help but think about this story (which verily likely never actually occurred). Quote:A group of scientists placed 5 monkeys in a cage and in the middle, a ladder with bananas on the top. Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water. After a while, every time a monkey went up the ladder, the others beat up the one on the ladder. After some time, no monkey dare[d] to go up the ladder regardless of the temptation. Scientists then decided to substitute one of the monkeys. The 1st thing this new monkey did was to go up the ladder. Immediately the other monkeys beat him up.
After several beatings, the new member learned not to climb the ladder even though he never knew why. A 2nd monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The 1st monkey participated in the beating for the 2nd monkey. A 3rd monkey was changed and the same was repeated (beating). The 4th was substituted and the beating was repeated and finally the 5th monkey was replaced. What was left was a group of 5 monkeys that even though never received a cold shower, continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder.
If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they would beat up all those who attempted to go up the ladder … I bet you the answer would be … “I don’t know — that’s how things are done around here” Does it sound familiar? Don’t miss the opportunity to share this with others as they might be asking themselves why we continue to do what we are doing if there is a different way out there.
I think that mormons try their best to live the sprit of the law, but love the letter of the law and can’t help but cling to it. I think people in the church try to ‘out-righteous’ each other and they do that by inventing commandments to follow (facial hair as a sin and coca-cola as a forbidden fruit).
I wonder if this whole 1-year waiting period could fall under this category. It seems like there should be more room to interpret the spirit of the law but local church leaders are products of their training and their upbringing by the hands of their predecessors who, like the monkeys, are just doing what was done before them.
Nibbler, The Bert and Ernie one is priceless. Also, I don’t know if I should be proud or ashamed that the coffee one also seems to resonate with me….
Curtis wrote:I don’t think efficiency has anything to do with temple work.
Just saying.
🙂 Curtis,
You have done a great job playing ‘Devil’s Advocate’ here. It is easy to gang up on aspects of mormon life that are irritating or inconvenient and I appreciate some of the perspective you have brought to this thread. I especially like where you said something to the effect that temple work probably has less to do with the dead than it does with us (even though it really is about the dead). I think the whole process is terribly inefficient and quite frankly, impossible to accomplish, even considering the millennium (which is an aspect of mormonism and christianity that I have not really analyzed post faith crisis yet). With this task being seemingly impossible to accomplish, I am left to believe that temple work is really intended to benefit the living (and also the dead… kinda….
:think: ) and that I need to find a way to participate in a way that I can find that value.
