[grobert93]

Roy wrote:

Setting high standards with no safety net is great for some. It might help them to achieve more than they would be able to do otherwise – knowing that quitting really isn’t an option.

For those that fail to meet those high expectations (for whatever reason) it can be brutal.

I have also heard said in SS (quoting BY) that it is better to die resisting a rape than to submit and live. It is a similar do or die, make it or brake it, false dichotomy. Thankfully, the person making this claim was challenged my more moderate voices.

I have not heard this type of rhetoric over the pulpit in my lifetime. This represents an old school approach that has fallen out of favor.

To me, if a parent has this attitude toward their child serving a mission, it shows the parent values the church and the child’s reputation in the church than the health of the child. Many of my friends had to come home early from their missions, mostly for medical or anxiety purposes. The ones who had open armed families and a ward that treated them as a full time missionary were able to treat their issues and slowly become active or healthy again. The ones whos parents were displeased, tried to send them back, or otherwise made it clear their choice to come home early was bad, ended up going less active and getting worse health.

Like you said, for those who like that military like focus of quitting isn’t an option, great. But I think it’s one of the big things that separates the boomer and older generation from my and gen z’s generation. Mental health wasn’t taken seriously back then. People often asked why everyone is being so soft and weak now. I think we are actually opening up to problems we used to ignore or dismiss.

[grobert93]

Roy wrote:

grobert93 wrote:

Juts don’t go to my or my children’s face and say that we are disappointing God. Let God be the judge of that one.

Yes, part of my effort to stayLDS has been visiting with my bishop once or twice a year and feeling like a deadbeat dad for non payment of tithes. Nobody has called me that. That is my own analogy to describe how it feels to me. I am reminded that I made covenants to pay and that I am welching on my commitment. I am reminded that tithing is a commandment and that I am disobedient by not paying. Lastly, I have been reminded how much it would mean to my wife for me to take her to the temple and do sessions. I know that my bishops have good hearts and mean well. They really do believe that paying tithing will somehow bless me and my family. I am humble, non-combative, agreeable, and display a hopeful attitude that my faith struggles may improve in the future. I feel that my continuing to put myself in this uncomfortable and somewhat ego bruising interview situation is a personal sacrifice that I make for my family. I want for them to grow up with the support and structure that the church community helps to provide and my enduring a yearly check-up with my bishop is just part of the package.

My deacon son paid a full tithe this year (or close enough that he felt comfortable declaring a full tithe). My 13 year old, young women class president daughter paid a partial tithe. She did not want to go to tithing settlement because of how little she had set aside for tithing. I praised her and told her that for a 13 year old to be contributing financially to her faith community was really an impressive thing to be proud of. At the Tithing Settlement, she was admonished/encouraged to make changes such that she would be a full tithe payer next year. I do wish that there was more positivity and praise for contributions that fall somewhere below 10% – especially for our youth. However, I recognize that this is not our way.

When i first got married, i was still fully believing and had not done a deep spiral study in church history or politics. So being unaware, i was convinced that our family’s financial situation would improve if we paid tithing first. I was following the way i was taught both as a youth and on my mission. Yet, we suffered a lot. We tried to be active, we tried to do the “right things” but our situation became worse and worse. We had to live with in laws for over two years and suffered emotional trauma that is irrelevant to this topic, but makes my point. After finally saving enough money to live on our own, we moved and i discovered history in the church concerning tithing that disturbed me. I felt robbed, lied to and still expected to be okay with it and carry on faithfully. We stopped paying tithing a few months ago and while finances haven’t been wonderful we have seen positive change. Being less active and thinking on our own has been the best blessing for us.

So when i read that you visit your bishop who reminds you of things i am certain you are already aware of, and then reminds your children the same, it makes me sad and feel less willing to see my local bishop. Each bishop is different, but i’m not obvious to how the church has historically dwelt with tithing and i don’t feel comfortable giving up my own hard work for something i don’t believe in.

You are right; bishops need to be more encouraging, they need to love more and follow protocol less. They need to realize that not everyone wnats to risk their fiances like the recent conference talks have stated.

[grobert93]

DarkJedi wrote:

I don’t really have more to add to what Curt, Gerald and Roy have said. I pay tithing on net and also consider paying on increase from time to time. I don’t pay with the expectation of benefit but I do benefit from having a warm building in the winter and cool building in the summer, a picnic in the summer and party in the winter, and being able to go to the temple if I choose to. I strongly agree with Roy about not promising personal temporal blessings for paying. I also disagree with the idea of paying tithing then your other obligations, especially in times of financial stress.

Yes, temples are paid for by tithing, including construction and upkeep and the beautiful gardens. The same is true for Temple Square and all other visitor centers and sites. Tithing also pays for maintenance of buildings, including groundskeeping and snow removal. Employees of the church are paid from tithing as is general/area authority travel. Translation and publication of scriptures is paid from tithing, as are teaching materials and other manuals and media. There is probably other stuff I’m not thinking of.

If the church / my leaders growing up taught that tithing is a symbolic way to demonstrate dedication to the church, similarly to accepting and fulfilling a calling, attending the temple or even getting baptized, i think it would be way easier for me to intentionally be willing to pay what is asked for and even more.

But the attitude and culture is that you are shamed, disappointing your family and risking your salvation if you don’t pay exactly what modern day brethren suggest. They even publicly said that you should pay tithing before bills, groceries and rent. This attitude argues that if you’re financially struggling, you should depend on the church to help you. I’d rather avoid a middle man in any situation, and if that means i don’t pay my tithing at all, then so be it. Juts don’t go to my or my children’s face and say that we are disappointing God. Let God be the judge of that one.

[grobert93]

I think part of what makes the word of wisdom (and most other commandments) become toxic is not just the strictness of the rules but the membership judging and becoming un-Christlike to others based on their obedience or perception of faithfulness in regards to obedience. If family, friends, or leadership learns that someone drinks tea, or has a coffee once in a while, they could act in love to understand their situation and figure out if they can help, or they can be completely judgemental. Oh, that member DRINKS? They should KNOW that is against the word of wisdom, so they must be SINNING really bad.

Often enough the membership trying to police one another against a set of commandments is more toxic than the commandment itself.

[grobert93]

nibbler wrote:

‘The Correct Name of the Church’ talk was rough.

Part of the challenge is what a speaker intended to say, what a speaker actually says, and what the listener hears are all distinct and different things.

I don’t know about blame, but Nelson didn’t mince words, it was a rebuke. Tossing in a simple, “Even leaders of the church have been careless in the direction they have provided in the past.” would have helped to soften the edge but a rebuke is a rebuke. When people get rebuked they feel guilt. When people feel guilt they feel like they’re to blame.

SilentDawning wrote:

I think the problem is for people like me who, as young adults, believed everything so wholeheartedly and literally — as taught in my Wards and by the missionaries.

This. The very next Sunday you had That One Guy™ going around policing everyone for saying Mormon.

Now, I can interpret the talk as being strictly limited to when referring to the official name of the church, but lots of people took it a step further. Mormon became a bad word to many overnight.

He addressed the issue with the tone that as members, it was our own agency/fault that we used mormon so much and now satan is victorious and God is displeased. Now, i dont expect a public apology directly addressing the previous PR stunts of mormonism that the church itself used sacred tithing money to create. But i also find it toxic and dismissal that he seemed to direct his concern toward us as members for “using it too much”. His little jab of “satan is victorious” just angers me as a grumpy old man itching for drama. Did he imply that satan was in control of the meet the mormon and im a mormon PR work from the church? If so, then what else is satan taking over? WIll we as members get blamed for things we don’t know about and cannot control? This is where my mind wanders as i hear talks from Nelson like this one.

And That One Guy is the other reason why things like this really irritate me. Hinckley gave his infamous talk about too many earrings and im sure the Molly Police was quick to judge, criticize and socially separate from members in their wards and stakes who didn’t “faithfully” follow the “commandment/counsel”. Likewise, i still say mormon when i would naturally do so. I’ve been corrected before, but i just remind them that if the Lord is this worried about me saying Mormon in context on occasion, then He should investigate some other internal church and external third world issues that are also currently at play.

This is why what the prophet says can often challenge their credibility. They have literal mind power over thousands of active faithful believing members who will never questions a word from their mouths, and will do anything to “defend the truth”, even if it means becoming the local “@#$”.

BJE wrote:

President Nelson, then Elder Nelson, first spoke about the correct name of the church at the April 1990 general conference. He essentially said the same thing then as now. I remember it causing a stir back then but I think it was quickly forgotten. Then in October 1990 General Conference then Elder Hinkley while praising Elder Nelson’s April talk went on to say that it was pretty much impossible to get people to use the correct name of the church therefore we should add luster to the name Mormon. He went on to say want a great man Mormon was and how The Book of Mormon bears his name and that you couldn’t find a better nick name for the church.

After this President Hinkley and President Monson lead the church through a period of unprecedented use of the name Mormon. Including Mormon messages, Mormon.org, I’m a Mormon, Mormonandgay.lds.org, Mormon Helping Hands and probably others.

Fast forward twenty eight and a half years after his April 1990 address President Nelson finally has the authority to change church policy and end any and all use of Mormon and LDS in the church including the 171 year old Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Makes me wonder if theses changes will stick when he no longer here.

This whole Mormon thing started with The Book of Mormon so maybe they should change that name too.

And if these changes are reversed or modified when he is gone, will Satan continue to be victorious, or is Satan no longer relevant because new prophet = previous prophecies are no longer valid/active/doctrine? This is where the credibility is challenged. If the prophet is called of god and if God directs his church then either these are his humorous trials for us to endure through or imperfect opinions are sneaking into these leadership decisions. Either way, it makes it tough for me to put my whole self into having faith and following the leadership of someone who is inconsistent.

In other news, i have “derailed” a thread and do apologize. i guess i found one of the things that for me challenges the credibility of the church.

[grobert93]

LookingHard wrote:

But there is a bit of risk with doing some of this. I remember just in the last week reading/hearing on a podcast where a woman was really bitter that she had been told her education was not important. She married early, didn’t finish college, had lots of kids, and really felt like she had not done most of what she wanted in her life. Then she looked at the Q15 and realized that few of the wives of the Q15 checked all the boxes she felt were “required” (they had fewer kids, advanced degrees, life lone careers). She felt really bitter about that.

But this is a really good thing.

When the church has setup a cultural expectation that if you follow, believe in and sacrifice the way that the leaders teach that the Lord asks, you will be happy and your problems solved, answers given and life improved to where one day you will be as happy and live as long as the apostles, prophets and other leaders. When this cultural expectation becomes a standard of living and as members we find ourselves not receiving the same results as the miracle stories taught over the pulpit suggest, the dismissal of “have more faith”, or “wait longer” or “ask God what you’re doing wrong/lack” becomes toxic and yet we are taught to accept that as the reality of the plan. This was my experience. To live the way God wanted me to, i had to follow verbatim what the prophets and apostles taught.

My issue is, despite all claims of this church being God’s church, and revelation coming from him, we sure have a cultural attitude of “follow the prophet” to the point where as you said, we compare our lives to that of these leaders and wonder what we are personally doing wrong. We assume they are happy, and are living life perfectly. It’s harmful, toxic and disgusting. And so im glad when occasionally the church tries to open up and show that maybe some of these leaders are not as perfect and ready to meet God as we think they are.

[grobert93]

BJE wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

If I were a prophet, and I didn’t have an actual visitation commanding me to write a revelation (or a compelling vision), I would be reluctant to publish anything.

First, it’s weird in current society for a prophet to say they had a revelation and put it into scripture. We’re already marginalized enough. it’s way easier to believe in old revelation than new revelation when given formally like this.

Second, I’d feel this great responsibility to make sure what I eventually end for publication was internally consistent with the scriptures as a whole.

Third, I’d be concerned about unintended consequences of people going off the deep end with the scripture by taking parts literally, or justifying bad things with it. We already see the FLDS church and what they have done with some of our scripture.

Those are just a few reasons I wouldn’t do it — and I wonder how current prophets would be influenced by such practical concerns.

The prophet doesn’t just decide to add revelations to our scriptures. Here is the process by which revelations are added to our standard works of scripture as outlined on lds.org

In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.

The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:

“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.

“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:

“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’

“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138.

If this lengthy, spiritually uplifting process is the case consistently, then it just seems odd to me and I’m sure many others, why the Lord would influence so many leaders to produce, support and promote multiple variations of “Mormon” in advertising and media for years (conference talks spoken at the pulpit, proud to be a mormon campaigns that were used in temple visitor centers around the world, meet the mormons being created and promoted as a faith building movie…), just to have the whole experience wadded into the trash and “new” revelation come forth that the entire experience was a “win for Satan” and that “we need to be better” from another prophet. The misuse of lose wording is something that bothers myself. I am fine if our prophet is uncomfortable with nicknames we have used since Joseph Smith’s time (when JS and GBH themselves said mormon meant more good), but to denounce us as members for accepting a previously supported-by-the-church campaign seems low. Telling us Satan wins when we promote a church-produced youtube series, movie and talk from a previous prophet is a hard cry to suggest that modern revelation triumphs older. What if after Nelson, the next prophet says “The Lord is pleased with our efforts to get rid of mormon. Because we passed the test, He now wants us to promote Mormon again. I encourage you to share these new church materials with mormon in them. Don’t let satan stop you from sharing them!” What if we are to not let satan stop us from promoting mormon. People will argue it’s what the lord wants. I would say well. the Lord sure does seem wishy washy.

Anyway, this is just one example where the modern prophet dismisses responsibility and seems to shift the “blame” on the members for “following” previous revelation given from previous prophets. Which challenges their credibility.

[grobert93]

Gerald wrote:

RIght before conference there was a flurry of rumors that the Word of Wisdom was to be adjusted in some way. I was surprised how much that bothered me and how relieved I was when such a change did not come to pass. The odd thing is I don’t feel particularly invested in that particular commandment. My faith certainly doesn’t hinge on it. I also recognize that even if the Church eliminated that principle, it doesn’t mean I have to run out and start smoking. I came to the conclusion the change is what was really bothering me.

I see the benefit of two hour church but still miss the old schedule. The combining of priesthood quorums makes perfect sense (I even advocated such a change on this forum a while back) and yet I still sometimes wish for separate quorums. I still haven’t quite figured out what “ministering” is supposed to look like (even though I was never enthused by home teaching). (For the record, I feel the elimination of the waiting period is a very good thing!) There is something reassuring about consistency even if it isn’t ideal.

I’m not sure the Church loses credibility as a result of change but it does stress certain members out (like myself) with these changes (as positive as they may be). Whether such stress results in loss of members remains to be seen. My guess is it probably won’t. For some members, the answer to the question “Where else would you go?” is too frightening to contemplate. Thus far, none of the changes are really doctrinal. It would be interesting to see the response to a truly doctrinal change (e.g. women receiving the priesthood, validation of gay marriage, rejection of the historicity of the Book of Mormon etc.) The Reorganized Church (now Community of Christ) made many of these kinds of changes years ago. I think they lost a significant percentage of their membership as a result.

Interesting that these changes have brought more stress to you. I say that because for me, one less hour of structured social church is a good thing. That’s one less hour for bishops, clerks, leaders and so on to be fulfilling a stressful calling that usually requires spending time away from family. Ministering is what home teaching should have been, IMO. We seemed to need a set of rules and regulations in order to serve others. I believe HT was meant to be a way to make sure our brothers and sisters were doing ok, not to force read through a first presidency message and twist it to be relevant to our family’s situation. It’s learning to rely on the spirit more and our leader’s programs less. IMO ministering is closer to what and how Jesus taught and lived. When i hear people (not just you) still bring up how they are still unable to understand ministering, i tell them that ministering is less of a program with check marks and more of an act of love and service to members of the church.

Church is a stressful ball of anxiety and programs, IMO. So many callings require so much sacrifice and discipline, often time away from family consistently. It’s no wonder they are modifying the church programs for Sundays, we are told to keep the sabbath day holy but bishops and other leaders are too busy in meetings from dawn to dusk to even have time to observe it for themselves and their family. Anyway, my point is that yes, not everyone will understand, agree with or enjoy these changes (i am not happy with some of the missionary changes, and some of the changes i feel could have happened sooner for my benefit, etc), but it’s in a way trying to enable us to learn to rely on ourselves to come unto Christ more than just attending several long hours of church, socializing and feeling anxious. This is my own personal experience, at least.

[grobert93]

SilentDawning wrote:

One catch-22 I find the church faces is the need to change versus the need to stay credible. On one hand, the church leaders often need to make sweeping changes that improve the experience of being a Mormon. On the other hand, when these changes reverse deeply held policies, practice, and even doctrine formerly evangalized as a revelation, this hurts their credibility. People start questioning whether current doctrine or policy (whose line is often blurry) is accurate given the now-reversed mistakes of the past.

These reversals are often perceived as an admission of a mistake. And mistakes, coupled with divinely inspired leadership, don’t go together very well. They hurt testimony, and they encourage the posture that church policy, culture, and sometimes even previously designated doctrine all needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Thoughts? Just how much can a church change without losing all credibility in its inspired/revelatory status and prophets who the Lord said will never lead us astray? Should we expect, given divinely led leadership, that there should be an absence of decades-long mistakes in policy, and a largely static set of doctrines and policies that transcend changes in world culture, trends, and membership growth patterns?

In my opinion, we have made a really big mistake in the church. We have taught to have blind or no hesitation obedience and faith toward the prophet and apostles. We have hymns and primary songs dedicated to following the prophet, to Joseph smith being perfect and the world evil. The church website constantly promotes the prophet’s travels and speeches. As a church we often view the modern day prophet’s words as scripture equal to the bible and book of Mormon. We have tied ourselves up as unique because we have a prophet. The problem with this is that when you convince millions of people to just believe in and follow the words of someone who is a prophet, now they have to make the right choices every time or you break shelves.

If parents teach millions of children about Santa and he pays a visit once a year, the person representing him has pressure to consistently bring alive the dream that children have. If he makes a mistake; it’s revealed he’s fake or Santa is revealed to not be a real person, millions of hearts are crushed and children now are not sure what to believe anymore. Is the tooth fairy or Easter bunny now fake too? what else are my parents not telling the truth about?

Reliance on someone creates problems. this is why i like the changes the church has been making recently, especially the talk that Bednar gave. It really helped me to make peace with the church, since i have been struggling to know where i fit in the gospel. We are to have a family centered gospel study and worship home. We are to not rely on the prophet for every question and struggle we have. we are to use the holy ghost and use the priesthood to bless our lives. While the church has not been very good at self-dependence talk, at least now they are finally trying to make it as clear as possible that we need to stop only just following a figure head in the church and actually learn to connect with the Lord himself.

So i think the church’s credibility and the gospel’s credibility are separate things. The church IMO is a vehicle or “handicap” for members to use as a way to give service, to share insights and to create social bonds. I do not believe that you need an organization of people in order to receive revelation, bless a sacrament and give service. However, as humans it is easier for us to do so if we have a leadership, if we have a place to meet. It is human nature ot have a “club”. With that said, policies are part of it. They will come and go. Leaders may say they are revelation, and until recently it’s been an issue when they’ve been revoked as just policy. but trying to be optimistic, if the church says XYZ about something, i now know that they want me to not assume it’s the Lord’s will or that it’s 100% revelation after weeks of humble fasting and prayer in the temple, maybe it’s just one or two of the men’s opinions being put into practice.

Because my testimony is now in the gospel, in Christ and in what i personally learn and feel, i am finding myself less bothered spiritually by the church’s choices and more hopeful that the church can continue to be restored according to the Lord’s will and will be done so righteously.

[grobert93]

Roy wrote:

I agree that we are backing away practices that might categorize us as a “doomsday prepper” church.

grobert93 wrote:

What i’d like to see is an expansion of food storage. we are told to become self-reliant, which implies and to me means to avoid depending on other companies to produce and provides the services that we use and take for granted. Food is the common one. Growing a garden.

I honestly believe that this is what the church does not want. Members that make their own clothes, grow and can their own food, anything that says that we are getting ready to detach from society and go off the grid had a decidedly cult like feel.

I believe that most every reference to self-reliance that I have heard in the last decade deals almost exclusively with not being dependent on government assistance or welfare. It is about acquiring the skills to get and stay gainfully employed at a level that will financially support yourself and your family. At least that has been the perspective from my neck of the woods.

For sure, and becoming self reliant to where you do not depend on government assistance or the church’s welfare programs is what i believe the most important thing to live by. I think my idea of “off the grid” would be for those who have mastered the self-reliance and/or are independently interested in avoiding the corporation as i previously mentioned. my examples were meant to be on the extreme side, so i apologize for mis communication.

[grobert93]

SilentDawning wrote:

In another thread, it was mentioned that food storage might be de-emphasized now.

I would like to explore this further. Is this true? How do we know this, and what would be the rationale for it, if true, given the recent statements that the second coming is night? (it’s always nigh)…

Interested in what people have to say.

On a semi-related note, i noticed the church producing youtube videos concerning the bishop store house, showing the process of making different foods and who they are for.

Seems emergency preparedness has always been a topic of concern, but with so much social media coverage in the past ten years and less, it’s harder to focus on all the important “established member” topics such as food storage, family history etc.

What i’d like to see is an expansion of food storage. we are told to become self-reliant, which implies and to me means to avoid depending on other companies to produce and provides the services that we use and take for granted. Food is the common one. Growing a garden. But i see other uses for “being prepared”. I remember on my mission in texas we had a literal sunday school /combined hour lesson that consisted of an emergency prepardness video of the city, how to prepare for weather and natural disasters as well as medical emergencies. It talked about car breakdowns and other things. It was really cool to see the ward encourage it’s members to not just think spiritually.

With all of that said, i think we have all become caught up in dependency of other companies and businesses and perhaps growing a garden can be a good start to a more minimalist lifestyle?

[grobert93]

nibbler wrote:

I guess this could be a win-win. It serves as a “GI bill” of sorts to sweeten the pot for people on the fence about serving a mission (more missionaries for the church) and the pathway program has a heavy church activity focus (addressing the issue of RMs going inactive).

Five or so years ago returning missionaries were placed into a “My Plan” program that treated them like children, all with the end goal of retention. The pathway program can achieve the same goal without being as infantilizing as the My Plan program.

When i came home from my mission in 2014 i was basically put into my local ysa ward and told to date casually and find a job or go to school. Not being from Utah, i chose a community college that was super liberal with their education (having gone from testifying of Christ daily to discussing the evidences of sexual assault in education and the work force [one of my classes]) and it really threw me off my rocker. it was hard to adjust. the YSA ward was difficult to fit in with. having served a unique language mission i was unable to find opportunities to use it post-mission. eventually i ended up with a job or two, and went to byu idaho. but it was a super rough, unplanned and non-supported journey that lasted two years. it’s still affecting my education technically (won’t graduate when all my friends do, no real job experience etc) but at least i can know that things are going to get better for others.

[grobert93]

SamBee wrote:

Codependent wrote:

Sorry this may not be terribly relevant. I remember right after the revelation granting black people the priesthood the Church News editorial (Mconkie, I believe) was about the folly of interracial marriage. I don’t remember how often or long such counsel persisted, or even that it did publicly. But there was obviously concern by some about controlling the long term impact of the shift. Now interracial marriages may not be overtly encouraged but neither is it overtly, publicly discouraged. I think given time some sort of hybrid wedding will evolve for many. It will be interesting to see what the definitions of simple and extravagant become.

Why should interracial marriages be encouraged (or discouraged)? People should marry the person they’re comfortable with, not the one someone else prescribes.

There has been rumors, scriptures and prophetic talks floating around about not mixing races as it was considered a sin or blasphemy in the bible. I understand the medical concerns with two people from different countries mixing their genes and therefore any diseases that each other’s bodies may not have the immunizations for, yet. A lot of it is also just racism. It still takes people time to accept someone of darker skin. I have family that is still racist despite laws and cultural changes that have accepted people for their skills and personality over their skin color. I guess it’s just church culture mixed with sudo-doctrine that has resulted in no racial mixed marriages.

[grobert93]

SamBee wrote:

Jesus exhibits doubt and fear in Gethsamene and on the cross. “Why have you forsaken me?” and “take this cup away from me,” tell us that. Jesus also arguably had a temper on him.

However I do not think it is helpful to see Jesus as flawed. All other scriptural characters (except HF), yes, but Jesus no. In this case, Jesus should be an ideal to aspire to, not someone to be dragged down to our level.

Didn’t Christ come down to our level, though, in order to understand our experiences, pains and guilt? After all, he was born in a manger and outcasted by friends and family. Shouldn’t he have gone through the worst of the worst if his atonement was going to mean anything to the rest of us?

I also think that having someone who we can relate to on a personal level also means that they aren’t perfect and are prone to mistakes. We are told to love and trust in Jesus, but if he’s some mystical being who’s perfect and never did wrong, i’d feel intimidated to meet him as i am an imperfect being who has thoughts on a daily basis that would likely disqualify me for the highest kingdom. If he truly loved me, if HF truly loved me, wouldn’t they want to related to me, to interact on the level that i understand? Plus, if we are to become as HF currently is, that must mean he was once imperfect and flawed in our human like way at some point.

I just don’t know why i should worship and love and believe in a God and Savior whom are above my level, unrelatable and seem to be busy creating worlds and governing churches.

[grobert93]

rrosskopf wrote:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Please educate yourself or at minimum, don’t assume you know more than real women who have women’s bodies.

I have nothing against designing more comfortable garments. I have a wife. She is going through menopause. You don’t think I know the issues? I’m pretty sure that all those men who designed women’s garments had wives as well, and I’m not entirely sure they weren’t designed by women. I can’t picture men doing the sewing in 1840. So please – fill free to explain how it is all the fault of ignorant men.

I believe the message that is trying to be expressed is that men have the final say in church related resources, such as the garments. Keep in mind that the majority of the men in the first presidency and quorum are of several generations past when cultural expectations and historical events were a lot different than they are now, and likely have forms of biases influencing the imperfections we observe today. Some women are comfortable or can deal with the garments, some women cannot. Same with men. I think that the problem is less that we as members should be faithful to a design and material flaw that causes medical issues, and more that we should encourage each other to determine for themselves how they wish to display their commitments to God, be in the form of underwear or otherwise. Many other (and even members in the lds church) Christians wear cross necklaces to represent their commitments. I think the Lord is less concerned about the physical abilities of man and more of their intentions to demonstrate their commitments.

[Author]

Posts