Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Curtis wrote:
The only defense I can give, and I think it’s a reasonable one, is that
the meeting you mentioned is NOT meant to be a worship service. It is, by nature, more of an administrative meeting. I see your point and agree but I don’t think this is one of those scenarios. This was a priesthood meeting, not a leadership training. I realize this is a large organization and leadership training and the discussing of administrative topics is necessary and I hold no fault in anyone for doing so.
My concern centers more around the inability of so many people to address their assigned topic and spiritually nourish the congregation. It isn’t story time. It isn’t open mike night at the improve theater.
What is really encouraging however is the idea that this is a cultural problem and one that can be corrected. I look at this area as one within the church where I might be able to evoke change. I hold a stake leadership calling and am motivated by this problem I see to work on training the members of the stake to focus on what’s important. I have an opportunity and a responsibility to help raise the bar of spiritual teaching that goes on in our worship survives. It is truly motivating and gives me reason to continue to navigate my faith crisis and always reming myself WHAT IS IMPORTANT.
SilentDawning, Thank you for sharing. Your comments help me remember on of the Thoughtful Faith podcasts with Adam Miller where he talks about his unpublished book “Letters to a Young Mormon”. In it, he uses a metaphor of a map to describe the gospel. You graduate from youth into adulthood and you are handed a map (the gospel) and as long as you follow all the instructions on the map, you will find yourself with a wonderful family, you will be called as a bishop, your kids will all serve missions, yadda yadda yadda (hint of sarcasm).
He then says something interesting, and that rings true. He says that you will be tempted to sit around and gossip about how wonderful and perfect the map is and then call this religious living. Although it may be religious, it is not really living for even the best maps are no substitute for real roads.
I think this is brilliant. We (the church as a whole) spend an awful lot of time talking about “Churchism” as you call it. A lot of time is spent discussing the nuances of the church and settling into its culture without critically thinking about what is really important as it relates to THE GOSPEL and God’s plan.
Reflexzero wrote:One thing to consider is that Gender is not an absolute. It is a spectrum, and you may fall anywhere along the male or female side.
Thank you for making this distinction. I often compartmentalize my questions regarding sexuality strictly to the topic of LG (Lesbian/Gay) but leave the rest of lgBT (Bi/Trans) out and rarely consider it. Once you open your mind to one area, you need to seek understanding and empathy for the other parts of this topic as well. It isn’t fair to simply say there are two sides, either straight or gay. There is an array to the spectrum and knowing that helps (maybe not help in understanding what it is or even help with explaining it, but at least it help with empathy, at least for me).
Old-Timer wrote:1) Homosexuality is NOT “against nature”. There are lots of species where homosexuality exists, and even the LDS Church now acknowledges explicitly that homosexuality (“same-sex attraction”) is not a choice for many people. It absolutely is “natural” for many people.
Let me clarify my comment (as well as play devil’s advocate). If I were to approach this issue from a scientific basis, one could argue that it ISN’T natural.
Evolution teaches us about natural selection and that the desire to have sex and the reward for having sex (orgasm) is a very ‘reptilian’ and subconscious motivation to produce offspring and expand your progeny. (This is of course assuming that the theory of evolution and natural selection are accepted as truth)
Combine that with the fact that [explicit descriptions deleted] homosexual sex in many cases is harmful to the anatomy (which I believe is a primary cause for the spread of HIV amongst the gay population).
I hate to sound crude or irreverent. I don’t mean to belittle or offend. These are (in many cases) the arguments used against me in my small sphere of advocating for gay rights. But I am tempted to give the arguments validity.
Can anyone help me punch holes in this argument?
DarkJedi wrote:Just a side point. The church makes that announcement every four years specifically related to elections. It’s part of the very misunderstood separation of church and state, and is actually rooted in IRS rules. Religious organizations that become involved with elections could indeed lose their tax exempt status, and campaigning in churches is expressly forbidden (I know it happens).
This is something I didn’t know anything about. Very interesting and thank you for sharing.
Hello new6 (and all). I wish I would have read this thread months ago, although I don’t know that I would have done anything differently. I feel like your post is about as identical to my own situation as possible. The problem is that it just got to a point with me that I couldn’t fake it anymore. My wife had no idea that I was questioning EVERYTHING including even the existence of God. My disinterest in attending church (I did so but spend most of my time watching NFL Sunday Ticket on the iPhone) was interpreted by her as laziness and disobedience. I delayed as long as possible telling her my doubts, and when I did, she used the old “that is just Satan working his evil on you” defense. In order to really defend myself and show her that this has been a very deep, dark, and thoughtful period in my life, I had to disclose to her some of the hard historical truths I was struggling with. I wanted to say something that would hit home with a thud for her, so I laid polygamy and polyandry on her explaining the true method by which JS practiced and implemented. My wife has always had a great admiration for Emma and as I expected, it hit her hard. I used this approach out of self defense and I don’t know that it was the right way to handle it. But I also don’t know how else to show her that my doubts were actually founded on something other than “satan working hard on me”.
In the end, she had a hard couple of weeks but is a much more faithful person than I and worked her way through. But it has been a real blessing because now she knows and understands that I stay despite the dark stuff. I stay because of the good stuff and as Ray said above, I follow and believe according to the dictates of my own conscience, and for her, that is not only enough, but it seems to be very powerful and satisfying for the both of us.
Brian Johnston wrote:What do you do when science can separate a function from a form? (a cigarette that acts like tobacco, or perhaps doesn’t, and it doesn’t contain the forbidden substance named in a 180 year old revelation)
It’s kind of fascinating to watch as the advancement of technology blurs the lines where religion refuses to adapt to the context of the people trying to live it.
Thank you bringing this up Brian. I am the EQ instructor in our ward and I taught chapter 1 from the JFS book this week. In it, he starts the chapter by describing all of the technological advancements of the time and how “All of these discoveries and inventions have not drawn men nearer to God!”
When I read that, I really had to chew on it for a while and figure out how I though about the phrase. I would like it better if it said “have not necessarily drawn men nearer to God!” or perhaps that these technological discoveries have not ‘explained away’ God. I have a biology degree with a chem minor. I view scientific discovery as a way of strengthening my testimony of God as the all powerful all knowing biologist/chemist. IT HAS IN FACT DRAWN ME NEARER TO GOD!!!
With regards to the topic at hand, as technology ‘blurs the lines’, it helps me understand that the ‘prophets’ and church leadership today are just as handicapped and reliant on their own cultural and societal biases as early (cough…racist…cough) leadership were to theirs. I know that sounds terribly disrespectful, but I only say it to make the point that sometimes I wonder if I am better off improving my own personal relationship with God and try to ‘interpret’ his rules as they apply to me, my maturity, my understanding, and my situation rather than listen to and obey the commandments from the brethren who seem to quite obviously manage to the masses.
Old-Timer wrote:It means to avoid evil no matter what it looks like, NOT to avoid anything that someone else might see as bad. That makes a HUGE difference, and it’s an important one.
I had to laugh out loud when I saw this then quietly say “THANK YOU” that someone other than myself interprets this common phrase this way. Thank you for making this distinction!
This topic really stuck in my craw last night. Thanks for your reply Ray. Your response is essentially how I responded to him as well but he had an answer that (at the time) seemed valid. He replied that through a civil union or domestic partnership, gay couples are not denied any legal rights afforded a married couple (this is not true, more to follow). I then brought up the civil rights movement and how the federal government finally had to integrate schools in the south at gun point. The vote of the majority was overturned. Legally, the government was justified because (I believe) it was the supreme court that finally came in and laid down the hammer. In the case of SSM, the supreme court does not see it as a civil right necessarily and has left if up to the states to decide. I don’t really know how to reply to this. I am not a legal or political expert and wonder if anyone has any insight to help clarify. As for my point above about the rights of a civil union being equal to that of a civil marriage, I found some pretty good sources to refute this and I thought I would share. It is interesting to note that less than 5 states even allow for a civil union and domestic partnerships hold very little legal equality with marriage.
This is very interesting to me and helped shed light on how unfair and ridiculous staunch conservatives are being to their fellow men and women.
http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-versus-civil-unions-domestic-partnerships-etc http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/from-why-marriage-matters-appendix-b-by-evan-wolfson http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf This is my first reply to any post. I hope I don’t embarrass myself 
I got into an argument with a really good (open minded) friend today. He has really been my sounding board as I have gone through my FC. We both support SSM (I support it, he simply doesn’t oppose it) but he made a comment today related to the churches publication today as well as the legal back and forth between state and fed that I couldn’t really respond to. He isn’t upset about SSM being allowed. He is more upset about the vote of the majority being overturned by an appeals judge in another state. I REALLY DON”T MEAN TO GET POLITICAL HERE but he made a valid point.
I believe in equality for our LGBT brothers and sisters but I also believe in democracy. In a state that clearly opposes it, should I be OK with the will of the majority being overturned by the will of the minority? I don’t live in Utah, but I’m sure that Idaho is just around the corner and I don’t really know how to respond to this rebuttal.
Who has any opinion they could share with me?
