[grobert93]

Old-Timer wrote:

I have said this previously, but I do believe the principle of the Word of Wisdom (being aware of conniving people who use addiction for personal profit and then us using that wisdom properly) was and is inspired. I believe it goes WAY beyond the narrow constraints of how we have interpreted and applied it – both by ignoring other addiction gravy trains and by making it an entrance requirement into the church.

I work with a LOT of people whose core problems stem from or were magnified by substance abuse – many of whom didn’t have much of a chance due to starting so young. One of the greatest blessings of my life was being raised in a family and culture that allowed me to avoid classic substance use completely – so I never had to cross a line to realize where it was and, perhaps, not be able to cross back. There is an extremely fine line between many people we see as “addicts” and many “normal people” who actually have serious addictions. There is a fine line between those who are jailed for substance abuse and many who are not. “Adapted to the weakest of the weak” is an amazing concept when you see the impact daily on the weakest of the weak when it comes to substance use.

Seriously, I see the blessing every day with so many of the people with whom I work. It is heartbreaking.

Giving up some things I don’t need (truly don’t need) to avoid potential dire consequences AND provide a safe community for others who are prone to addiction is not a sacrifice to me – but, if it was, it would be one I am willing to make.

I have issues with the way we have interpreted and applied the WofW, but I have come to love and honor the core principle in it.

I’m with you. the principle is genius. It’s smart. It’s responsible. It’s the interpretation and thus excuse to police others over silly things like coffee and tea vs energy drink and donuts that makes it look bad. Essentially, the word of wisdom’s principle gets overshadowed by cultural interpretation and thus justification for abuse and neglect toward others over choices.

I grew up with my dad teaching me how the word of wisdom was NOT about coffee and tea but about medicine, addiction and caring for our bodies. If this was the main teaching point at church and conference, then I’d give the church much more respect. It’s actually critical to realize how addictive things can be for our bodies, how overdependent we can be over substances and how easily we can forget how miraculous our bodies are.

So yeah, you’re right. Take away the policing cultures and the word of wisdom has a lot of wisdom. Enough to justify as pseudo-commandment to prohibit membership into temple? Maybe not.

[grobert93]

nibbler wrote:

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again.

Frankly it’s shocking that in the year 2020 the church still considers consumption of tea or coffee as something that has any bearing whatsoever on people’s worthiness.

I thought that matter was settled in the New Testament like 2000 years ago. “Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man…”

But it’s long been my opinion that, in our zeal to restore the fullness of the gospel, we inadvertently restored some Old Testament stuff that was meant to go away.

If you convince enough people to trust in their feelings more than their minds, you can convince them to believe a lot of things. I truly believed as a former missionary, that the word of wisdom was inspired from god and that satan was using the world to challenge the truth of the commandment. I was convinced that we as members needed to stay strong during the difficult and challenging last days. I was sure that coffee and tea were invented by the devil to tempt us to stray off the straight and narrow.

Yet… a few years later and you probably wouldn’t even call me a mormon anymore. I’ve “lost” so much “faith” that one could call me “fallen”. It’s certainly not how I feel about myself, but the old me would view the current me as such.

I think as humans we strive off of rules, a leader to follow and a cause to be proud of. For mormons, it’s their prophet and commandments. If nelson did one day adjust the word of wisdom, everyone would praise him for revelation even if the adjustments were in line with science and medicine. But for now, they defend him as a prophet of god, the word of wisdom as inspired for our day and will continue to enjoy their sugary factory produced beverages because god still finds those drinks ok enough.

[grobert93]

LookingHard wrote:

grobert93 wrote:

It’s too bad this is likely just a PR stunt.

If this is a PR stunt, then the church needs to hire a REAL PR firm. This is more like shooting yourself in the foot. Fairly soon there will be no more feet to shoot at.

Haha, the church seems to be shooting itself in the foot since the internet became accessible to their members. Recent talks on doubting your doubts, not looking under the hood, staying in the boat and “trust us, we’ve seen all the anti material and there’s nothing truthful out there”. It’s like they think sharing their opinions on these alternative sources is validation for believers to not actually do research. In either case, there are still plenty of members who believe in the church. I have friends who still insist the church is true regardless of all the issues. They keep the gospel and the church as one picture, and that’s their choice. I just can’t do that anymore.

[grobert93]

Roy wrote:

I was discussing with a friend about the definition of addiction (he was using the term addiction very broadly to include things that we might do as coping mechanisms and strategies like comfort eating, video games, or Netflix) and he referred me to the church manual on addiction.

I was surprised to find the following:

Quote:

Addictions can include the use of substances such as tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and drugs (both prescription and illegal), and behaviors such as gambling, codependency, viewing pornography, inappropriate sexual behavior, and disorders associated with eating. These substances and behaviors diminish a person’s ability to feel the Spirit. They harm physical and mental health and social, emotional, and spiritual well-being.

https://addictionrecovery.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/arp/content/manuals/ARPGuide_English_36764.pdf?lang=eng

I was quite surprised that the consumption of tea was included in this definition. After some preliminary research it appears that tea can/does contain caffeine. Still, it seems strange to single it out when there are energy drinks and other substances with greater addictive power. I surmise that tea was included because of the tradition of having it as a prohibited substance from the early interpretations of the WoW but I am certainly not an expert in this arena.

I love bringing up this “problem” to my believing friends. You’re telling me that the one true church in 2020 will refuse to issue me a temple recommend and allow me to enter the temple even to view my friend’s wedding because I drank tea or had coffee that calms my anxiety, but meanwhile the rest of you can guzzle down energy drinks, McDonalds and bing watch Netflix the night before and be “qualified” to enter? They always say the lord’s ways are higher, or we don’t understand all things.

[grobert93]

It’s too bad this is likely just a PR stunt…. I mean bYU really screwed up the past two weeks after the church did their PR stunt with the “new” handbook. With it being 2020 and anyone having access to church history, politics and more, it’s harder than ever to convince our generations to not research beyond approved church websites, to not just depend on faith and feelings. So, when things like this happen in the 21st century (saying gay affection is wrong on campus), the church needs to remember that the rest of the world, for the most part, views homosexuality as socially acceptable and while we may have all been “anti-gay” 50-75 years ago, the church is one of the few entities left that is “behind” in this social matter.

So, while I appreciate Ballard (especially it being Ballard, oaks nelson etc) being “open” about loving our “misunderstood” friends, it’s a shame the timing and location of such an important talk seems to be targeting a blow for students trying to recover, rather an an open public church statement about our social delays.

[grobert93]

DarkJedi wrote:

First, my own beliefs are not that the temple recommend will get you into heaven and neither will the signs and tokens. It’s all symbolic.

As to the temple itself, I also don’t get much out of it either. To those people who say they learn something new every time they go there I say BS (not out loud unfortunately). I agree with you, the Emperor’s New Clothes story is a very good analogy – and it works for lots of other things too (“I know the church is true” “I know the Book of Mormon is true” etc.) because people are too afraid of not knowing even though they really don’t.

Interesting! I find myself agreeing with you a lot.

It’s funny how we ask what a recommend means. I wonder what our answers would have been 50 or 100 years ago when the recommend questions were way different. Makes me wonder how many more people the church would have let through if they loosened the questions.

[grobert93]

Old Timer wrote:

I personally do not hate the term (I don’t mind it, generally.), but I understand that LDS, like Mormon, makes it easy for other Christians to claim we aren’t Christian.

The website stuff seems picky, but, overall, I have no negative feelings about focusing on the Jesus Christ in our church name.

I just wish the church focused on more Jesus when it wasn’t Christmas time. April is going to be about Joseph smith. Members seem more interested in what changes the prophet Nelson will make, instead of how to change ourselves to become more like Christ.

It’s been really hard for me as an inactive to see why or what the church brings that’s unique to the table, especially with all of the culture that isn’t about Jesus.

[grobert93]

DarkJedi wrote:

1. Sort of related, and this is breaking news. Starting now wifi access at church is changing. The network will be known as liahona and the password is alma3738. Users won’t need to reenter their password each time they access it, but will need to do the user agreement each day. LDSaccess will remain active for a few more weeks during the transition and then will cease. The stated reason for the change is the proper name of the church. The stated reason for doing the user agreement each day is to protect bandwidth.

2. We had a GA Seventy at our last stake conference. Frankly he loved to drop names, and bragged about how often he meets with the prophet and how much high level stuff he is involved in (although when his name was announced a couple weeks before the conference I had to look him up, I’d never heard of him). He shared a story about the new website address. As is common, especially with businesses, all of the things that could have been used had been bought a long time ago by an individual/company and were not available without paying a high fee for the name. But lo and behold, somehow this entity didn’t pay the annual fee for churchofchrist.org and it became available for a song. Interestingly, he also shared details about how the church used a foreign shell corporation to actually buy the name. Are we clever, now?

3. I agree with you both. I also fear too much “praise to the man” in the coming weeks, especially where I live. I can’t say we are more focused on Christ since the name emphasis, but I think we were already ahead of many areas because of the influence of our SP who I do admire. He is very Christ centered himself. I still don’t see outsiders changing their use of Mormon, nor do I see that the general membership is more focused on Christ than before.

Didn’t holland say something about being too involved in the thick of thin things? I see this branding to be one example of that. BTW, if we are truly concerned about having the church be represented by Jesus, why are we about to have a general conference that is going to ‘worship’ Joseph Smith?

2. I’m glad to know stake conferences are being used to share the successes of the political and business structure of the church, instead of on Jesus Christ and the unique blessings the church claims to provide of the priesthood, eternal life and salvation.

3. My mission president was an awesome man, somehow he found ways to show us how to be like Christ more than teaching it. He always gave Christ credit for achieves and goals met, he always reminded us to pray and form a relationship with God. It was never about building a testimony of Joseph Smith or even reading the BOM. Great man.

[grobert93]

DarkJedi wrote:

grobert93 wrote:

I just fear that people are so dependent on a digital or paper Manuel and on approval from priesthood leaders that they can’t think for themselves.

I think this is a legit concern. It definitely is a culture shift from the spoon feeding “this is what you’re supposed to believe” most members are used to. A similar fear is that people will stick to the old ways just because they don’t want to change, or heaven forbid think for themselves. It is my hope that we are able to make the transition, but I think it will take beyond the current church president’s remaining life span and will need to be as supported by his successors. The good news is I think the majority of the Q15 are in agreement.

Not only that, but we’ve been told if we DON’T follow the prophet’s counsel or follow our leaders, we will be led astray or lose blessings. This cultural toxicity is part of what’s “led me away” from being an active believer. I have felt the spirit while in nature more than in a 3 hour conference. because the past few decades have been pounding at the pulpit to do as we are told, the idea of being independent will seem rough for the older generations. My parents are struggling with the “third hour”, saying it feels like FHE on a Sunday. While my friends my age and I have found ways to be happy outside of this structure.

I’d say it will take 20-30 more years before the cultural demand shifts pressure in the church and we seem even more relaxation. I remember one time my wife and I were sick and surprised to see two deacons show up at our door with the sacrament. They blessed it and gave it to us. Now imagine if we allowed the priesthood to be used in every home regardless of gender. We could have the sacrement performed every Sunday by families instead of all gathering into a building. Just imagine the savings! IDK, it’s wishful thinking in a church with interesting cultural traditions.

[grobert93]

SamBee wrote:

I honestly find Stake Conference the most boring thing we do on a regular basis in the church. I used to make a point of missing it, but I have to attend due to my calling now.

Occasionally there will be good speakers but a lot of it consists of sustaining, stake business and a bit of being told what to do.

Invariably I don’t even know who half of the people I’m sustaining are.

Another pet peeve. I occasionally visit other branches/wards while on vacation and more than once I’ve found the building abandoned because they’re apparently away at stake conference.

I always found it odd that the way we worship God as mormons is by gathering together in a freeing or boiling hot room for 1-3 hours and listen to people give college or even high School level messages about either Jesus or something in the mormon culture. While certainly mentioned in the mormon scriptures as a commandment to gather often, it seems that in 2020 (and especially since my growing up years) that it’s become a robotic tradition. I’d ask my mom after conference what shed think and she would always say it was inspiring, I felt the spirit or some other such thing. I’m sure a lot of other people would say the same. My dad would complain about a speaker being boring or note the strange topics spoken on.

I like that the church “introduced” the home study program so we could depend less on dressing up and sitting in an uncomfortable chair for hours listening to people, and more on our personal ability to connect with god. I just fear that people are so dependent on a digital or paper Manuel and on approval from priesthood leaders that they can’t think for themselves.

[grobert93]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

SamBee wrote:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

To put it in a simpler way, I don’t need a man to explain to me what it’s like to be a woman, and every time they try, they demonstrate their utter failure to comprehend what they are talking about.

It cuts both ways. I keep on being told what it’s like to be a man by women. Not a clue either.

Fair enough, but in the LDS church 99% of the speakers in GC are men, and men run the women’s organization. I’m not aware of any speaking or leadership platform in the church that puts men under women or gives women a microphone and tells them they should opine about the role of men.

And when a woman is allowed to speak on the microphone, they need the approval of a priesthood leader to validate what they say.

[grobert93]

Old Timer wrote:

Bullying is “natural” – and it needs to be understood better and addressed more comprehensively.

This makes me realize, there needs to be a bit more to utchdorf’s advice.

To those who wish to bully, stop it. To those who witness bullying, love the bully.

No one is born with a desire to murder, steal or hurt. The environment you grow up in, the support or lack thereof, and the people you associate with influence what you do and how you think and feel.

I’m sure many bullies are only out there to feel something, because they didn’t growing up, or felt it themselves from family or “friends”.

[grobert93]

Minyan Man wrote:

Roy wrote:

I believe that it can be intensely comforting when things go terribly wrong to believe that God is in control and that He must have a very specific purpose for things happening that way and that you will one day understand and rejoice in God’s wisdom.

I understand what you’re saying Roy. I also think there are people in this world who may justify their behavior based on the idea that “if God

didn’t want me to commit this terrible act (whatever it is) then He would of stopped or prevented me from doing it”. I have a difficult time

understanding God’s purpose for the holocaust. (This is carried to the extreme, I know.)

And this is what bothers me about the culture that isn’t being fought against, but seems to be embraced by leadership. Speaking as a man and if it’s God’s will to me are justifications for human error that has hurt pained members for decades. Most recent example is the Sunday school print mishap this year. A teaching that has been accepted for a very long time is suddenly “misunderstood” and they church is fixing it. I’m sure it was just men speaking as men for decades? I don’t want to ramble more than I want to, I just fear that these statements of justification and ignorance of reality will continue to hurt those who are trying to honestly stay and believe in the church. Imagine if the church one day decided to allow gays to get married in the temple? Imagine Ballard saying “church leaders don’t know where these teachings [gays can’t get married] came from”. He said it about PMG.

[grobert93]

Cadence wrote:

it just seems a little hypocritical to me. The leaders teach to pay tithing above all else and rely on the lord to provide. To exercise faith that you will be taken care of. But sitting on a hoard of money seems opposite of that. If the leaders lived by faith they would funnel that money back into some worthwhile endeavors every year. Then rely on the lord to provide for the future. I can imagine that would seem scary for the leaders to rely completely on the lord to provide, but that is exactly what they ask us to do.

Plus you are required to (at least claim to) be a full and honest tithe payer to enter the temple, attend byu schools and get employment with church owned businesses.

[grobert93]

nibbler wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

…especially comments like “if you don’t have money for food, pay your tithing.” That feels to me like forcing lower-income people to be dependent upon the church. If you pay tithing THEN we will give you food from the bishop’s storehouse.

Piggybacking on this.

I don’t think having a rainy day fund is at the heart of any question over morality, it’s perhaps more related to how that rainy day fund is obtained.

To take the morality over having a massive rainy day fund out of the equation, let’s say that having a rainy day fund is best practice and given the nature of anxiety people have over the uncertainty of future events, it’s also okay to have a rainy day fund in any amount; no amount is too large. Individuals and organizations alike should have and attempt to build up a rainy day fund.

When leaders preach that members should pay tithing even when they have no money for food in a way they are putting their rainy day fund ahead of a member’s ability to meet their current basic needs. The church truly doesn’t need the money. What’s more important, growing a $100 billion portfolio so the church can take care of themselves in the event of a decades long emergency, or a member dealing with an emergency they are currently facing?

Preaching that tithing should be paid before the basics also creates an environment where it will be very difficult for the member to build up their personal rainy day fund. It can set up a system where the church’s already enormous rainy day fund takes priority over a member’s rainy day fund.

This is why i think it’s a bigger deal for those of us who are mentally out.I “don’t care” how much the church makes from tithing, we can chose to pay or not to pay. The problem for me, which has been pointed out, is that those who are trying their best to do what they think is right in the church are being “hurt”. The church did indeed publish statements through general conference that “tithing before bills”, “tithing before rent”. The church in certain areas has been pounding the idea that if you don’t pay your tithing not only do you “lose blessings” and aren’t worthy to enter the temple, but your choice will affect others. This attitude was put in my mind on my mission. I was taught to assume it was my responsibility, and thus fault, if I didn’t say the right words to an investigator who ended up not getting baptized. We’d hear the stories of the one person we didn’t try to contact “meeting us in the afterlife and asking why we didn’t tell her if it was all true”. This toxic culture has expanded into the commandments. But worse of all, in my opinion, is the denial and/or “confusion” the church has claiming to have when these issues become public.

For example, president Ballard earlier this year stated “Church leaders don’t know where these practices began” when referring to a quote in preach my gospel that instructed missionaries to consider inviting investigators to baptism after just the first encounter / lesson. Ballard said to avoid that. This “controversy” wouldn’t have been anything if he had simply said “we have mentioned in the past to find opportunities to invite investigators to baptism during the first lesson, but we have learned that this is not effective. We now ask that you avoid doing so unless the spirit specifically prompts you otherwise”. Instead, they jabbed at not just the currently serving missionaries but those of us who HAVE served in the past -raises hand- and were told to do just that. “Church leaders don’t know where these practices began” is a way to say “it never happened, this was your imagination and you are wrong for thinking it’s right. stop it and repent.”

Another example of this was when Nelson spoke at BYU’s fall semester devotional. For some reason he felt the need to remind everyone about the church’s ugly November policy conflict and controversy. But for me what really sold the attitude was when he said “We knew that this policy created concern and confusion for some and heartache for others. That grieved us. Whenever the sons and daughters of God weep—for whatever reasons—we weep.” The for whatever reason statement seemed to say that the number of youth lgbt suicides in the church, in utah and in general (many as a reaction to the policy) either never happened or were irrelevant to the policy. He could have said “we are mournful for those who have identified in the community and have chosen or felt otherwise to leave us from this earth. We recognize that recent policies have created separations in families and we wish to find a way to honor and obey god’s commandments while avoiding these terrible tragedies.” instead, he said “for whatever reasons”.

I guess my point is, as someone who was fully active and believing most of my life, i now see problems with the way that the church responds to controversies that end up worse than they should have been. While i really don’t care about how much the church has collected, i do wish that the church were to realize that they have told struggling families and individuals to “pay tithing before…” and when these faithful struggling members see the church holding onto so much money, and feeling unable to get the help they personally need because “tithing before…”, but to then see the church deny that there is anything wrong with what they have done (in their recent videos where they tried to defend their spending procedures), just makes me realize why there’s emotion in this.

We are taught to confess our sins and repent. But i just have not seen the church admit as much as i think they should, that they have made mistakes, said the wrong things and hurt families.

[Author]

Posts