Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
wayfarer wrote:
2. You don’t have to believe or have faith in something that isn’t true. If the book of mormon isn’t historical, you don’t have to believe or have faith in the historicity of the book of mormon. But let me ask you a question — have you felt good about the Book of Mormon? If you have, then it is ‘true’ in a very different way than historical: it is of normative value to you, and you can so testify. Does the book of mormon testify of Christ? You bet it does — I can know this by reading it. So you see, the ‘truth’ of the book of mormon is not about history — it even says it isn’t historical — at least the small plates weren’t. But we can ‘know’ that the book is true for us, normatively, valuatively, and spiritually. What else matters?
I totally buy into points 1,3,4…..but point#2 raises a question for me. I don’t think that the Book of Mormon is historical although I do love many of its teachings. But the simple fact of me believing that the BOM is not history puts me out of line with the LDS Church. The Church leadership and lessons have all taught that if the BOM is true that it is all true (and by true they do mean historical), and if it isn’t, then it is a fraud. I can say that it is true as far as principles taught, I can’t say that it is true as in actual historical fact which in essence means that I am calling Joseph SMith a fraud. I could adopt a middle way easily, but I don’t think that the Church will let me… I cannot be a full fledged member while I believe that. They may let me in the building, but they won’t let me eat at the table as long as I believe that way.
Roadrunner wrote:Ann wrote:For me, I can’t accept polyandry, sexual or not, as a God-inspired doctrine. It is simply too easy to abuse power in my opinion. I can accept it as a desire to cement a dynasty or a particular power structure in the church. I thought we were all equals in God’s eyes…
What I find interesting is how much we are willing to accept if we think God is behind it. In Joseph’s day, as hard as it was…men and women accepted the doctrine. Today, if someone came professing the mantle of a prophet and engaging in polyandry, using the same words to persuade and convince that JS did…it would take us 2 seconds to throw him out.
Imagine the turmoil in the church if polygamy and polyandry were reinstated (we never have repudiated the doctrine and still have it enshrined in D&C132). Imagine if it was first reinstated quietly, only among a few select leaders of the church, while publicly denying that they were doing anything of the sort. And then a leader coming to you telling you that God had told him that your wife was now to be his. We would get the exact same turmoil that Joseph experienced back then. There would be thousands who would leave the Church. Someone would publish a book or put up a blog proclaiming what was going on much like the Nauvoo Expositor of old.
I haven’t listened to the whole podcast yet, just the first 40 minutes or so….but I’ll say this from reading some of the other comments on this board. I totally understand his desire to leave the world of negativity. He admits that his own faith in the Church was destroyed and he even questioned the existence of God. But ultimately, his personality is one where he seems to want to build rather than destroy. His original intent on creating Mormon Stories and all the pdocasts, conferences etc..was all about building, finding solutions providing support…and it slowly morphed into something more and more negative for him that kept feeding on itself. He reached a point where he was tired of the negativity and wanted to build. I understand and respect that.
I think his choice of words in condemning a “middle way” is unfortunate and I totally understand why many of those who followed him feel thrown under the bus. I don’t think he meant it that way (not sure, haven’t listened to the whole thing yet). However, like it or, he IS a middle way mormon and will be for the rest of his life. He will never defend JS polyandry, he will always have a different view on the BOA than your standard TBM. He doesn’t fully agree with the church on feminist issues or LGBT issues. He realizes that there is a messiness to church history, culture, doctrine and practices…and yet for his own reasons…he is deciding to go back. The only way for him to be an active member is to carve out a middle way for himself.
mom3 wrote:For myself I have ceased expecting church meetings to feed my spirituality.
But isn’t that the point of going to Church in the first place? Don’t we go to church to be spiritually fed? Our time is so precious. Why waste our worship time in something that is not feeding our soul? I pulled my son out of Sunday School last week and we went to some nearby woods and just talked about Church, about God, about spirituality….I listened to what mattered to him and how he felt. It was time far better spent than Sunday School which he has become very frustrated with. You mentioned reading Psalms and Matthew. That is something that can be done without going to church (and probably in places with far less distractions). What is it that attendance at church is actually providing spiritually? Yes, every once in a couple of blue moons there is something wonderful that happens there…but Church today is more about routine and doing your sunday duties than really connecting with our Father in Heaven. I try…but the lessons are bland covering things that have been covered ad nauseum for my whole life with the same pat answers and feelings that one has said something profound with the providing of the canned answers…I feel the spirit more and feel more like I am worshipping in my own personal study than I ever do at Church.
I agree that one cannot generalize about meetings. Some wards are better than others…some days are better than others….but as my friend pointed out…everyone was engaged at this other place….at our church, it often seems like we are just going through the motions of worship, checking off our list one more thing that got done and one less thing to feel guilty about.
thanks everyone for the welcome. eman…I loved your comment about “If I had a dime….” and as cliche and trite as that saying (“truth will withstand scrutiny) might be…it was so true for me. I started out on this journey alone…unaware that so many others were walking similar paths… But those phrases are so ingrained into as as youth growing up in the church. Stand up for the Truth! Testify of Truth! and on and on…my LDS upbringing made me passionate for truth…that now that I have been initiated into the world of Mormon Stories, NOM, StayLDS, FacesEast and so many other groups….I am not at all suprised to hear those same phrases over and over again. It is how we were raised. Honesty, integrity, omitting something is the same as lying. It is part of our DNA as LDS. Who knew that such deeply engrained teachings would actually turn on itself once we started looking under the hood in earnest.
Ray, I am like you from the standpoint is that I have no desire to destroy anyone’s faith with my questions. I think a lot of this stuff has no place at church because to me church is a time to worship and build faith, not engage in academic debate. I believe everyone should have the choice of choosing the blue pill over the red pill. (Matrix reference) I’m a red pill man myself, but not everyone is that way. I just wish that red pill people were not viewed as outcasts and apostates. The culture of the church can be quite cruel to those who sincerely question and I have a problem with that.
mackay11. Thanks so much for your empathy. The divorce cloud over issues with the Church hung over me for a long time. WE came close. But that risk is no longer there thank heavens. My wife’s position has changed and we are now far more able to talk about these issues and all matters related to faith more easily. But to be honest, I thought I would be in divorce proceedings by now. She has changed tremendously in a short period of time.
Johnh. thanks for your welcome. Ucthodorf’s quote on questioning is one that I love and often pull out among my TBM friends. The question about whether the house is worth saving is actually not as important to me personally. Why? Because I really have very little or no say on how the house is built. But I love all the people in the house. As much as I see the problems with the house…it has been my home my whole life…it’t not quite that easy to leave. At least not for me. If I can still do something good, I will. But I will no longer pretend that there aren’t problems either.
Hawkgrrl…you are absolutely right.
Basically, we just know that the BSA is considering some type of an accomdation. Nothing official has been announced yet. Apparently the BSA has been deluged by phone calls by people against the change, while some gay rights supporters are trying to marhsall their forces to call in favor of it. I will wait to see what they ultimately decide. Assuming that they do take the middle road by allowing units to decide for themselves, it takes the hook off the BSA but places it squarely on all of those organizations. I didn;t realize that even LDS wards are split on this. I read somewhere that some LDS Wards do allow gay youths in their units as well as gay scout leaders as long as they are temple worthy. I have also heard the other end where LDS units have kicked out leaders or youth who come out as gay. Legal pressure will be off the BSA, but you can bet someone will find a way to bring legal pressure upon the Church.
So how will the Church respond? Will they go to scout camps knowing that there will be gays in other troops there? Will there be tension between troops on that issue? What about board of reviews? If a scout council decides to allow gays in their leadership, you could find a gay person serving on the board of review for an LDS scout. That gay member of the board of review would be within their rights to ask about citizenship, belief in God, and other issues that may raise the issue of homosexuality and serve as a litmus test for them. It is possible that an LDS youth could be refused their Eagle for intolerance towards gays by a scout council that is “gay friendly” What a change from the youth who was not granted his Eagle Rank because he was gay. Anyways, this is all conjecture…but just serve as example of some “sticky” situations that could arise if the BSA adopts this proposed compromise and the Church leaves it stance unchanged.
Or will the church simply abandon scouting and put in its own program as some have theorized for quite some time now?
