Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Funny. I’m still active but I don’t have any memories of church experiences that I particularly cherish. My first scout camp experience was so abysmal that I never went to another one again. (I still hate camping). I remember the one temple trip I took as being crowded into a hotel room with a bunch of adolescent boys who watched TV until 1 in the morning. I don’t remember it being particularly spiritual. I have a couple of nice memories of seminary and one particular Sunday School teacher when I was about 14 or 15 who I remember well. He wasn’t a very good teacher as I recall but he LIKED us and we could tell. So much so that he kept teaching our class for a month after he moved out of our ward boundaries. I remember a Primary teacher who was the kindest woman I think I ever met teaching us lessons that rendered up rapt in attention. Hmmm. I guess I do have a few good memories. Just took a little searching to find. Quote:In her mind, you are still the vulnerable boy she raised for the past 19+ years. She wants to protect you.
Sometimes parents try to protect their children by scaring them. Her imagination is probably racing to the
various extremes that she thinks your life may become. She has no point of reference of how to handle this
situation. There is no General Conference talk, no SM talk, no SS or RS talk that fits this situation.
She then goes to the scriptures & found references to the “SofP”. The ultimate extreme.
I agree with Mike. Having a 19 year old child myself, I understand her reaction. When your children make what you perceive to be bad choices, one predictable reaction is panic. You panic because you see the end of the road they’ve set foot on. You panic because historically children don’t forecast that well and you do. You panic because you fear their lives will be unhappy and one of the hardest things for a parent to see is an unhappy son or daughter. You panic because you have no idea what to do to fix the situation and as a parent you’re used to being able to fix things for your child.
No, you will not become a son of perdition as your mother fears (panic talking again). There is very little information on this state but what little I’ve heard focuses on those who not only reject the gospel but then actively fight against it, KNOWING all along that it is true. In addition, it would seem that only those who have reached the highest pinnacle of spirituality (e.g. apostle) are at risk for becoming a son of perdition. This is my understanding, at least, and whatever problems or struggles you may have in the future, this will not be one of them.
Quote:It’s not really Jesus that is the key, in any real, material, practical way. It’s the specifics of the devotion of the different followers – the path each took in crafting their devotion, if you will. It’s not the founder; it’s the follower. Iow, it isn’t the “founder” of the religion that is paramount; rather, it’s what followers individually and collectively make of the founding in their own lives.
I don’t know much about Eastern religions or philosophy but this resonates with me. Maybe I spend too much time trying to solve the “problem” of our religion and not enough time simply experiencing it (apologies to Kirkegaard). A calm(er) acceptance of the things that usually bother me and a focus on humble worship and service may be a change in the right direction (for me anyway). Definitely food for thought.
Quote:I want to apologize for not being more forward or blunt with all of you. It’s never been something I’ve liked to discuss very much because I feel like I’m just misunderstood when I do. At the time, I didn’t feel like it was an active part in all of the issues I was dealing with so I didn’t mention it here. I can see things more clearly now though and realize that it is all connected
Speaking for myself, no apologies necessary. I am glad your family is supportive and thanks for the update!
Quote:There are plenty of reasons that might contriubte, even among those that are “religious” in nature – and some of those reasons are ones I see as positive reasons
Yes, let’s be careful with our interpretation of this statistic. For example, the western states (including Utah and Idaho) lead the nations in suicides. That has less to do with depression and more to do with the availability of guns in the Western states. Suicides using such means are generally successfuly as opposed to slitting the wrist or overdosing on medication. A look at the statistics regarding suicide attempts (which I haven’t seen) may yield something very different. What I’m saying is that a population high in anti-depressant use does not AUTOMATICALLY make it the most depressed population. It could be related to prosperity. People in some of the poorer states (say West Virginia) may be just as depressed but unable to afford the medication (which can be costly in some instances).
I am NOT trying to attack the stance that Mormonism leads to depression (I’ve personally felt those effects) but let’s just take care with some of these numbers that get thrown about.
Ray, I think you’re right. We just don’t know what other people think. Forums such as this are good but I could be communicating with my elder’s quorum president via this forum and not ever know it. It would be nice to be able to sit down with a friend or family and discuss these kinds of issues face to face. But it seems like the expression of even the smallest doubt is discouraged in the Church at large. Quote:He told us to continue as we are doing for now and he will get more direction from the SP together with the other ward bishop. He told us that the ultimate decision may be to attend where we are zoned and if that is the case then DW will just need to rely on others for help during the meetings that I cannot attend due to work.
I find this discussion fascinating…fascinating in that this issue is completely different in my part of the world (the Mormon Belt). No one around here gets “permission” from their Stake President to attend a different ward. They just go. In fact, I remember a number of years ago finding a new young couple in our ward that was just “visiting.” I found out later that they were “ward shopping.” (Our ward did not meet their criteria, I guess, because I never saw them again.) In fact, we call traveling from ward to ward “ward-hopping.” (It’s a common enough phenomenon that we have special WORDS for it.) One family in my present ward lives just outside the ward boundaries but attends our ward. The stake realigned our ward boundaries a few years back and an elderly couple who had been attending the same ward almost their entire married life ended up in a different ward. The husband was visited by his new bishop and stake president but flatly refused to attend the new ward. He didn’t bother to get “permission.” We have a brother in our ward boundaries who is the BISHOP of his selected ward (which is not our ward). Another family drives twenty miles to Church each day to attend the ward they like (in an area where one town of 2000 can have four LDS wards you can see the significance of this).
My own view on the topic…it bugs me. If the Church is a church of order then we should attend where we live. (I think On Our Own brought up some good points). My wife and I have always followed that policy. (The hypocrisy of our stake pressuring this little old couple to attend a different ward while calling a man OUTSIDE his ward boundaries to be bishop also bugs me…but that’s a separate issue.) HOWEVER, not all wards are created equal and if the choice is between attending a different ward and not going at all then, if I were the bishop or stake president in question, I would say go to the other ward with my blessing. So I guess I’ve softened by personal stance on this over the years. I think there is plenty of precedent churchwide for attending a different ward. As others have said, do what works best for you and your family.
A few years back, my wife and I attended a workshop on parenting sponsored by the Church. The presenters were a senior missionary couple. The information presented was relevant, useful, and while religion was mentioned, most of the techniques were practical ones, not spiritual. In addition, a family member of mine went through the employment training provided by Deseret Industries. I was pretty skeptical that it would be of any utility but this individual has really benefitted from the program. Both of these experiences surprised me because, while I had heard of these kinds of programs, I was rather dismissive of them. I’ve since revised my opinion. I don’t think the LDS Church has a corner on the market of good social programs but my experience has been they do pretty well with what they have. It’s a brave thing to leave (and equally brave to stay). My own missionary experience is not one I wish to repeat and there was much that was negative (though I have good memories, too). I’m afraid that I don’t know much about you or the area where you’re working and so hopefully you’ll take what I say with a grain of salt (and discard anything that’s irrelevant). I hope you are making your decisions with your eyes wide open. I hope this isn’t a reaction to one bad experience or one bad companion (I had a few of those on my mission). Coming home early (under any circumstances) WILL have social and psychological ramifications for you and your family. They aren’t insurmountable and they won’t ruin your life but there will be consequences. Even if you question the doctrine you are preaching, remember that the gospel doesn’t have to be about believing in Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon but about changing your life for the better (e.g. stop smoking, be kind to family and neighbors, provide service to others). You have the opportunity as a missionary to be an agent for that change and there will be people you’ll interact with who will remember you for the rest of their lives.
Whatever your final decision is, I hope you will strive to make it work for you. Best of luck!
Missions are INCREDIBLY stressful even under the most ideal circumstances. While I am glad I went, I would never want to repeat the experience. To have any kind of health problem (mental or physical) while on a mission would render the experience almost unbearable. I came across this article some time ago that might be useful: http://ldsliving.com/story/63954-when-a-missionary-returns-early One of the ideas I like most from the article is that we should view missionary service like military service. If a soldier is “wounded” and sent home, his service is still celebrated. We should do the same with our missionaries who may return home early (though honorably). ANY service provided should be acknowledged as worthwhile. There is nothing particularly magical about “two years.” In fact, I sometimes wonder if the church shouldn’t allow all missionaries to choose their length of service. Perhaps more would go if they had the option of a six month mission or twelve month mission or perhaps even a three year mission. Such choices MIGHT remove the stigma of coming home early. (Doubt it will happen though as it would require some major restructuring of the administrative organization of missions).
On a more personal level, I’ve known a number of men who have not gone on missions. A good friend of mine decided not to but got married instead. He’s still a faithful member of the church and his oldest daughter recently married (in the temple). My brother decided to return home early. Not for any sin on his part or for health reasons, he just HATED his mission. I didn’t agree with his decision at the time but with the perspective of years can see that coming home was probably just as hard as staying and he made the choice that worked best for him. Despite all that, when he stopped by my home for the first time after returning from the mission, I gave him a hug and told him I was glad to see him. It was the impulse of the moment but, in retrospect, I can see it was the right thing to do. He is now married to a nice LDS girl and has two children.
It is wrong for anyone to pass judgment on missionaries who have come home early. And it is even more wrong to assume that they can’t be good and faithful men, husbands and fathers without a complete missionary experience. If afterall’s son is rejected by any young woman for not being a “true” missionary, all I can say is “good riddance to her.” Those relationships should be about who you “are” not what you’ve “done”.
I don’t think we are the only church that makes such claims. Quote:Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”.[7]
The above quote came from a statement issued by the Catholic Church (and ratified by Benedict XVI). Perhaps other churches don’t use the statement “The Church is true” in quite the mantralike way that we do but belief in the truth of your position is not unique to the LDS. Even atheists offer fairly “ritual like” statements about their own philosophical positions (e.g. all religious people are deluded and ignorant). In this complex world of shifting ideologies and information surfeit, is it surprising that people of all cultures and religions want to hold on to something concrete? Maybe they are not taught the way our children are to utter their statements of belief in such a regular fashion but you can bet that, if prompted, nearly everyone could fill in the statement “The __________________ is true” with something.
That said, I do agree in part with Featherina:
Quote:I agree and I also think “believe” or “feel strongly” is more appropriate than “know” in testimonies.
God ONLY knows!
I’m not sure why we have to say “know” when what we probably really mean is a feeling of intense belief with that everpresent element of doubt. And “Doubt” in this case meaning “aspects unknown” as opposed to ” a skeptical attitude”. I’m not sure why we have to “KNOW” anyway except that human beings tend to have a hard time with “ambiguity.”
Quote:Another question is how does the Church measure performance or effectiveness as an organization? It looks to me like they value extreme loyalty and commitment to the organization and strict conformity to its rules above all else. Personally, I think this way of measuring success is fundamentally flawed and it would probably be better for them to try to retain more members and if that is not possible then at least try to avoid leaving so many of them with such a negative impression of the Church. Basically, it seems like they have adopted a scorched earth policy where they don’t care about the way all the members that leave feel about the Church as long as there are still enough members left that are willing to believe and do whatever they say.
I think compliance IS one way the Church measures its performance. I know that information regarding convert and children baptisms are sent to the COB. They also collect information on attendance at sacrament meeting and attendance at other meetings. However, I think it would be a mistake to assume that all they are concerned about is having enough members around. The “powers that be” at the COB level are fairly aware of issues regarding activity (particularly the activity levels of youth) and temple attendance. Now whether what they DO about these things is effective or not is probably up for debate. But I do believe things are DONE.
Quote:How does this apply to church? Zero stress or anxiety regarding our eternal reward or salvation leads to no action. We don’t care. TOO much, on the other hand, inhibits our church performance or ability to function and participate and contribute as a church member. A little amount of anxiety and stress about our salvation would then be better to maximize optimum performance.
Amen! In any organization, some stress (or conflict) is necessary. We may not like it but it gets us moving. I doubt the upper hierarchy of the church is aware of this principle (called the Yerkes-Dodson law) but they certainly utilize it.
This is an excerpt from Elder Bednar’s talk on taking offense. Quote:In many instances, choosing to be offended is a symptom of a much deeper and more serious spiritual malady. Thomas B. Marsh allowed himself to be acted upon, and the eventual results were apostasy and misery. Brigham Young was an agent who exercised his agency and acted in accordance with correct principles, and he became a mighty instrument in the hands of the Lord.
I have mixed feelings about his perspective. On the one hand, I agree that sometimes this attitude is quite dismissive of those who struggle with these issues. I don’t know that being offended is a sign of spiritual malady but rather the condition of being human. Not just that but being a human that comes into contact with a great many other unthinking, unaware, and sometimes even uncaring humans. I also don’t know that it is really a choice. To be offended is similar to being attacked and when attacked, our body and mind have some automatic actions built in. What we choose is the behavior that we will engage in as reaction to the offense.
On the other hand, some people are simply too prickly. We have probably all known individuals in our wards, families, workplaces that seem ready and poised to take offense at the most innocent of remarks. My wife and I have had to really work with our own children on this. (They have a tendency to be both provoking AND prickly leading to far too many altercations). So in some respects, I have to agree with Elder Bednar. It does seem a trifle foolish to cut yourself off from the Church just because the bishop didn’t say “hello” to you when you walked into sacrament meeting (and yes I’ve known of individuals who have left the Church over something this minor).
That’s not to imply that all offenses are minor. Some are huge. One family I know became inactive because the bishop of their ward, when informed by the parents that a young man in his ward had sexually abused their son, did nothing about it. In fact, the young man blessed the sacrament the next Sunday. Maybe the answer is that the issue isn’t as black and white as we’d like it to be.
The article is compelling. Unfortunately,even if a general authority came over the pulpit and said something similar (and I don’t think any of the G.A’s would disagree with the basic theme) few members of the Church will ever look upon sexual sin with anything but utter abhorrence. Many of us don’t understand alcoholism, drug abuse, or violent behavior. So we admire the reformed alcoholic or take pleasure in hearing about how someone overcame their drug habit precisely because these problems are so foreign to many of us. When was the last time you heard a reformed sex addict talk in Church (or in any church context)? How about someone who committed adultery? Nearly everyone has felt passion, desire, and the kinds of temptations associated with sexual sin. Those desires are programmed into our physical bodies and can be expressed at appropriate times and in appropriate ways. There is no point when drinking alcohol is okay or smoking or gossiping about our neighbor etc. But sex! It has to be turned off and then turned on depending upon your marital status, partner willingness, and context. It hits close to home. It strikes at something deeply personal and private. And it can never, never, EVER be discussed with ANYONE (not even your spouse). If those desires stray into the “unnatural”, the isolation will be even more profound.
