[GDTeacher]

I think Sally has it right. The “one true church” approach makes me feel uncomfortable. Besides my belief that the church is a well-intentioned, man-made organization, I think it is the height of arrogance to claim sole access to truth. I am comfortable participating in church as it teaches things like the Golden Rule, love, and compassion. I am uncomfortable when we hear things like:

Quote:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

[GDTeacher]

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

Hi GDTeacher.

We could probably point to conflicting quotes from BY as to the type of government that he believed would be in place among the Saints when the Savior returns. I’ve got a few I will look up if you are interested. From what I’ve read, it will be a government which allows freedom of thought, worship, and expression but the laws will be strict. Those willing to abide by them will be welcome, even if they are not of our faith. Those unwilling to abide will probably not even desire to come.

Hello to you FBT

I understand the conflicting quotes from BY, no issue with that. My reference is primarily to the experiences of people in Utah under the theocracy that was headed on earth by BY. Of course people’s experiences are varied, but my thoughts wander to the period of the reformation and the unquestioning obedience that led to atrocities like MMM, and at least my perception of the degradation of women and to some degree children under the theocratically induced polygamy. Certainly as BRM said, one can quote BY against BY. That is not my intent, but to explore the real life experiences of people under a theocratic rule.

[GDTeacher]

magicmusician wrote:

First – I CAN UNDERSTAND TOTALLY why it would be used. At the time there were certain situations where women’s husbands had passed on and then they were left on their own. And I gather property ownership could have been something of an issue – particularly for those women in the chuch. (maybe not expressed it totally brilliantly but gives you the idea)

Although there are a variety of circumstances under which this may be true, this generally held idea by church members is simply not descriptive of what actually happened. Very little of the polygamy that occurred could be framed under this umbrella. Unfortunately the idea that there were more women than men in the church as a reason or justification of polygamy has been repeated over and over and has taken on a near doctrinal “believability.” In the first several decades of the history of the church, there were always been more men than women. You can easily see that in the US census statistics for Utah. Elder Widstoe also attempted to put this rumor or myth to rest when he said:

Quote:

“The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church….

“The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utha, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United State… there was no surplus of women.”

– Apostle John A. Widstoe, Apostle, Evidences and Reconciliations, pp. 390-392

[GDTeacher]

Fig-bearing Thistle wrote:

I think that when Jesus returns to rule and reign for a 1000 years, it will be a theocracy, but with the same freedom of conscience that was intended by the Constitution.

It is interesting that the theocracy that existed in Utah under BY was so devoid of that same freedom of conscience that you mention. The reformation with its catechisms and the B’Hoys certainly made it clear that it was important to toe the line. I think that primarily because of my perception of governance under the BY time period theocracy, I have a hard time envisioning a theocratic government as providing freedom of conscience. Any thoughts on this?

[GDTeacher]

I find this concept to be fairly interesting. I understand the notion of an inspired constitution. I perceive that the constitution is fundamentally a product of The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment focused on the value of the individual and the importance of the individual and their right, effectively to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For the first time justice for the individual made a significant step towards an egalatarian standing. Although the overall religious sentiment of the Enlightenment thinkers was not consistent, it trended toward atheism over time. It seems odd to me that a document that I perceive to have come out of the The Enlightenment, with its atheistic (or at least deistic) tendency, would be considered to be inspired by God.

[GDTeacher]

LadyWisdom wrote:

We have to reframe in order to survive and stay in the LDS church at least I did, and this was the advice of my SP and new bishop. Hang on to the good and let the bad go, and just stay close to the Lord. They have been supportive of my journey as they could be and knew of the crisis of faith that I have had and I, in turn, have helped them by sharing articles with them that will help them have compassion on others in my shoes for whatever reason that brought them there.

I think your experience is fairly specific. For better or worse, local leadership can be compassionate or downright mean and ornery. I’m glad you have found support in the redefinition that you have had.

Ultimately, I think the limits of reframing come from a combination of your individual personality and the situation of the local leadership. Perhaps it might be problematic that the local leadership changes about once very five years. You may have a tolerant and compassionate bishop at one point, but the next bishop is not. You may not have changed much during the window of time, but the reaction of the local leaders may.

[GDTeacher]

Orson wrote:

I hate to give the impression that stepping back can help you move forward, ultimately we all have to admit that doing the right thing for us is the right thing to do. I’m sure you’ll make long term progress in your journey however you go about getting there. Just make sure you take care of your personal needs so you don’t self-destruct along the road. Some people can slow the pace to catch their breath while others need to sit for a minute and rest.

I think it is great to take a step back so you have time to reassess your situation, so you can move forward in a positive sense. In my opinion one of the great problems with the church is that the church activities keep people so busy that they do not have time to take care of themselves physically, spiritually, or intellectually. I’ve been lucky enough to maintain relatively low stress callings over time, but even then, it has been problematic. When teaching GD class, I would usually take about 20 hours to prepare a lesson, just because of how I approach understanding, knowledge, and being able to lead a meaningful discussion. Others prepare in 30 minutes. I think that the church has noticed that if people have callings, there are more likely to stay active. I think the reason for that is suspect however. I don’t think the primary driver is because they are closer to God, I think it is due to a feeling of obligation, and not wanting to let people down, by not filling their role and their perceived obligations to others.

I expect that sometime in the next year I will be released as the financial clerk. I will likely pass on taking another calling when this occurs. If I am not released within the next several months, I will make it known that I need to be released and then will releasey myself if needs be.

[GDTeacher]

For some it is a phase. For others, it marks a transition in life. The path is for you to decide. If you want to stay LDS, you may need to get to the point where you just disregard some of the offensive stuff and accept mythologically some of the stuff that has value. I would suggest renting or buying one of the two Joseph Campbell video series on myth, “The Power of Myth,” or “Mythos” (with Susan Surandon (sp?)).

For me, understanding the church in the context of myth, helped be greatly in blowing away the chaff and retaining the grain in a metaphorical sense. Another thing that was extraordinarily helpful was reading James Fowler’s book, Stages of Faith. It truly helped me understand my own spiritual journey and where other friends and family were in their journey. It gave me understanding, sympathy, and a forward looking path. It helped me to understand that it would be highly unlikely that my wife would ever change, and that it might be likely that my children would change if exposed to enough factual, outside information, not normally supplied to them at church. The change with my kids that I am seeking is not pushing them out of the church, but creating what I call “Eyes Wide Open” members of the church, comprehending myth and meaning and understanding what dogmatism is and isn’t.

Good luck on your journey.

[GDTeacher]

Valoel wrote:

To boil it down into a short statement, I would say this. To be LDS, someone has to want to be LDS on some level. They can’t be out to destroy and ruin the faith tradition. They have to find some enjoyment and purpose in being a part of the community. They also have to find the mythology beneficial on some level.

Whew, I was thinking for a minute I couldn’t consider myself LDS anymore. I think this comment by Voloel, summarizes my current beliefs. I consider my self LDS, really a heretic, but LDS. I don’t want to put myself on par with Sterling McMurrin, because I don’t think I’m anywhere near as smart or genteel as he, but HBL said to him something like, “Men like you can be very valuable to the church or you can be very dangerous to the church.” McMurrin replied, “I don’t want to be dangerous to the church.” I don’t want to be dangerous to the church. I want to be a member of the church, I think. I guess my struggles revolve around wanting to at least be acknowledged and not marginalized. Maybe that is arrogance on my side. I don’t like the word “pride” as used in recent church context.

[GDTeacher]

So are you interested in staying LDS? I wonder about takingthe Sterling McMurrin route and staying LDS because it is my church and it is as good as any other religion. At other times, I wonder about walking away from organized religion altogether. The day/hour I determined that the LDS church is not what it claims to be, I decided I wouldn’t join any other organized religion. If I was going to stay with organized religion, it would the the LDS church.

I’m here because I’m trying to figure out if I want to stay LDS, and perhaps just as important, do I want my kids to be influenced to stay LDS.

Like you, I am troubled that there is no place at church to talk about issues. If you raise uncomfortable questions, you are quieted or ignored, or asked to leave. I would be happy if there were places where difficult questions could be asked and discussed openly without all of the mopolgetic mumbo jumbo. The forum doesn’t exist.

[GDTeacher]

Valoel wrote:

For me, I enjoyed some of the Joseph Smith manual lessons that included Church history. Now that I have spent a larger amount of time studying Church history, I feel like I can participate a lot more. PLEASE NOTE though that I am very selective about what I include in the Elders Quorum lessons I prepare. I also feel comfortable just nudging the conversation a little when I participate. I don’t unload the whole truck full of controversy, but instead try to find creative ways to insert something small in that direction. I make it positive. This is a fun and interesting challenge for me — to be challenging without being scary.

I do much the same thing in HPG. Perhaps I push it a little further and harder than you. I am selective. I ask people to think. When they say they don’t understand how mainstream Christians believe in the Trinity, I ask them how much and what they have studied to develop an understanding. In teaching about the WoW from the JS lesson manual, I inserted a section from Mormon Enigma that gave a little more clear, more naturalistic explanation of the foundations of the WoW.

Perhaps ironically, I find that some lessons are just hard to listen to from the JS manual. If I am not teaching, I usually don’t attend when lessons are being given from the manual. Aside from that, any talk or lesson on obedience gets me a little riled up. Other topics that are hard to sit through are tithing and the “one true church” type topics.

[GDTeacher]

Old-Timer wrote:

Welcome. I’ve known too many people who appeared to be “farther gone” than you appear to be to believe you are too far gone. I hope you are benefited somehow here.

Thanks for the welcome. I hope my participation here will help me to clarify my future path.

[GDTeacher]

Orson wrote:

Do you want there to be a reason to stay engaged?

Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I see participating over the long term, becoming the elderly man sitting on the back row. Other times I see myself practicing a more personal form of “spirituality” at home. I’m certainly on the fence, wondering what would be the best course of action for me. I am open to discovery and discussion.

Quote:

A religious or spiritual experience to me is witnessing the power of love, or the strength of a common desire for good – a cause to unite. To me this entire process (in and out of church association) is a meaningful progression, a way to ‘become’ better personally. I think I hold that desire in common with the greater church body, and I cherish that common goal.

This reminds me to a degree of the Jonathan Haidt’s writings on “elevation.” The power of love, acts of compassion, helping each other, common good, are all spiritually powerful to me.

[GDTeacher]

Old-Timer wrote:

I’ve said everywhere that I would support comprehensive civil unions (with exactly equal civil rights) regardless of sexual orientation, with “marriage” reserved as a religious word for churches to confer as they desire. If some churches want to perform gay marriages, so be it; if others don’t, so be it. I see that as the only option that provides equal protection under the law, while still allowing religions to “sanctify” marriage. I see this generally in Europe, with their implementation of civil unions.

I don’t have the real history behind the word “marriage,” but I did go to dictionary.com and look it up. It said:

Quote:

the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

It seems to be a social institution which may have either a legal or religious underpinning. This particular definition holds the man/woman proposition, but it seems to me that it should represent a legal union between consenting adults.

I agree with the other comments that several years down the road the church members will regret the position that the church took in California. It will likely fall the same as interracial marriage, civil rights, racial segregation, slavery, the definition of the roles of a family patriarch, etc. To determine whether or not Prop 8 is worthy, all I need to do is take a look at the Golden Rule. Would I like if if someone prevented me from a formal union and all of the attendant legal rights and obligations, with my spouse. My kids see it pretty clearly. The church is wrong. They have gay friends and know their friends to be kind, honest, honorable people, oft times moreso than their church going LDS acquaintences.

[Author]

Posts