Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
If someone never stumbles on their journey, they are on the wrong journey.The same is true of always stumbling over everything.
I haven’t posted here in a long, long time, but I come back often to follow your updates. The few who are continuing to post on a regular basis are doing a service to more people than you know.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that the quote above is the most profound thing I’ve heard in a long time.
I just wanted to crawl out of the shadows to say that. Thanks for sharing your wisdom (all of you).
Agreed. I’ll be rewatching that one. There is so much contention in so many places in the world today. Great message. :thumbup: Minyan Man wrote:
(This really can work me into a frenzy if you can’t already tell.)
I completely understand. Nothing wrong with being careful. Admittedly, I probably don’t take the pandemic as seriously as I should.
It’s interesting to hear about the restrictions in some of your areas. It sounds like restrictions in our mission area are much lighter than in some of your areas.
My thoughts on missionaries has changed quite a bit over the past few years. I used to avoid the missionaries like the plague, for many of the same reasons (no referrals, no desire for their message, didn’t want to become a project, etc.). Over the past couple of years, we’ve had the missionaries over for dinner on an increasingly frequent basis. They had dinner with us this past Sunday night, and they’ll be eating with us again on Christmas day. I don’t have any referrals for them, and I’ve let them know that I don’t feel comfortable talking to other people about the church when I’m lacking faith in many aspects of it myself. So, they don’t ask for the referrals anymore.
I don’t need a canned message, but I’m okay with them sharing it anyway.
I agree that the church probably shouldn’t even be sending them out right now…but they are.
I feel bad for these kids. They’re stuck on a mission, away from their families, serving in a very different environment than what they envisioned. They grew up hearing all of the mission stories and how great it is to be a missionary. Now they’re stuck out there, confined to their apartments for most of their time, trying to teach people online. I can’t imagine how miserable that has got to be. I would have a hard time staying positive in those circumstances. When we were talking with the missionaries this past week about Christmas coming up, the younger companion said that a year from now, he’ll still have 6 months left of his mission. This big, stocky guy (probably 6’2″, 250 lbs) started to tear up talking about this being his first Christmas away from home. It was a good reminder to me that these guys are just kids. In that moment, it was never more evident to me that the missionaries probably need us a lot more than we need them right now. They have very little face-to-face personal contact with people, and that’s something that a lot of people really need.
Meeting with the missionaries can definitely be awkward. I’ve had a similar experience this past month. Every week for the past 6-7 weeks, we’ve been finding goodies showing up on the front porch from the missionaries. Cookies, brownies, candles, etc. always with a little spiritual thought attached. Last week, we had them over for dinner. During the dinner, my wife thanked them for the weekly gifts and gave them a gift in return with some snacks and gift cards for local restaurants. One of the missionaries had just been transferred into the area a few days prior, and had a confused look on his face. “Gifts?” The other missionary just kind of quickly told him, “They’re one of the families on the list I was telling you about earlier.” Ha! Caught them! Apparently, we’re on some kind of project list. Anyway, at the end of the dinner, they shared the usual spiritual message with us and then asked if we’d be willing to share the names of any friends that could benefit from their message. My wife said she’d try to think of somebody. I used my standard answer, “I struggle with a lot of the doctrines of the church, so I wouldn’t be comfortable referring a friend when my own testimony is lacking.” So far, this answer has always worked for me with the missionaries. They never seem to know quite how to respond. But, it’s an honest answer that puts the blame on myself, so it isn’t hostile or rude, while also giving a solid no. I don’t mind feeding the missionaries, and after I’ve given them this answer in the past I’ve continued inviting them to eat with us and they’ve always been respectful about not being pushy or forcing the issue.
mom3 wrote:
In the last hour 2 or 3 people have asked on Facebook “Are we having regular church?” – Hmm.
I’m guessing attendance will be down for a while… which means I won’t have to get there as early to get my favorite seat!
Thanks for the update, Roy! I just submitted a Paypay donation using the email address listed above. Would you be able to let us know when we have reached the target goal? Thanks! nibbler wrote:
I don’t know why we can’t go the route of saying Nephi was a product of his time, held racist views, attributed some of his racist views to god and later his thoughts became scripture that many used to justify racist/stereotypical views.But Nephi is kind of like Joseph Smith in that regard. The answer is seldom, “Yeah, Nephi/Joseph clearly screwed up in that instance. They were human after all.” and all too often the answer is an apologetic aimed at protecting the purity of a legend we’ve built up.
Yeah, I agree. I wish we could simply say that Nephi’s comments were incorrect. However, we, as a church, have kind of painted ourselves into a corner when we claim that the BOM is the most correct of any book on earth. We have Sunday School lessons practically worshiping the book, we build up the characters to the level of infallibility, teach our children to sing songs about them, etc. So, when a verse like this comes along, it’s hard to just point the finger at Nephi. It’s like saying, it’s the most correct of any book on earth…except that verse.
In full transparency, my view of the BOM is that it is a fictional book, written by Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith. I still see a lot of value in the stories and parables in the book, just like I do with the Bible. I read large parts of the Old Testament as allegorical, rather than historical, and I read the BOM in the same light. Since I started viewing the BOM from this perspective, it’s been much easier for me to accept verses like this one, and other things that I considered to be inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the BOM. My testimony no longer hangs on the truth of the BOM.
Due to this stance, it’s easy for me to picture this verse as a glimpse into JS and/or Oliver Cowdery’s personal feelings that ‘blackness of skin’ was unattractive and a curse.
For somebody that has a more TBM stance on the BOM, it may be easier just to skip over the verse to avoid the awkwardness, or to look for an apologetic response to get around the issue. But, from a TBM perspective, I would imagine it would be difficult to claim that the BOM is the most correct of any book, and then start making exceptions for various verses. It was those kinds of constant mental gymnastics that caused my initial faith crisis.
I’m glad to hear that this is being removed from church manuals. I’m sure it’s a topic that church leaders would like to distance themselves from. It’s pretty easy to find old talks from previous church leaders making all kinds of racial comments that would make people squirm in their seats today. Church leaders today can easily say that the comments that were made by previous church leaders were in error, and that our church does not teach that dark skin is a curse. However, 2 Nephi 5:21 comes right out and says that the Lamanites were cursed with black skin to make them undesirable to the Nephites. It’s a little harder for church leaders to distance themselves from that, since it comes right out of the BOM. All they can do it TRY to put some kind of positive spin on it. I’ve heard some say that it is referring to a dark countenance, and not actual dark skin, but that feels like quite a stretch since the verse actually says “blackness of skin.” I think that verse will become one of the verses that we conveniently skip over during lessons, because it’s uncomfortable to recognize that it’s there.
Thanks for all the feedback! This helps! Just to clarify, this isn’t a required program that was pushed by the ward. They didn’t sign assign every family to a group. They asked everybody whether or not they would like to be involved. I wouldn’t have signed up for it, but my wife wanted to do it. About half of the ward does it, and the other half chose not to. They tried to group families that are in similar phases of life. So, we’re in a group with other families that have teen/pre-teen kids at home, similar to us. There are other groups that have more families with primary-age kids, and other groups that are all adults. That way, each group can tailor their lessons to the general audience. I do like that we don’t have any primary-age kids in our group, so we can have some deeper discussions.
I like the points that were brought up. Especially the fact that Lehi was standing at the tree before he learned what everything meant. The irod rod (Christ) was right there beside him the entire time, and he may not have even realized that Christ was the one helping him through things. I like that. Thanks again for all the great feedback!
When is it okay to use those excuses to disallow medical attention to someone who needs it? In short, never. However, as with anything else, when you ask a question of a wide group of people, you will get a wide range of responses. There are those in the church who might respond to an emergency as you described, while there are many others who are more level-headed and would disagree with the over-zealous folks who would block an EMT from performing their job. In any organization there will always be people who are more extreme in their beliefs than others. Unfortunately, those extremists, even though they are in the minority, can do a great deal of damage.
Rich70 wrote:
I will actively teach my kids to be inclusive, loving and Christlike and not to judge others based on their beliefs. I get the opportunity to let them enjoy the standards and fellowship of the church but remove the inappropriate guilt and interview process most adults went through as children. I get to teach them equality of gender and race and sexual preference. I get live without fear of my children believing different from me or “leaving” the church. I get to teach them that character trumps religious affiliation, that it’s ok to serve or not serve a mission. This is my family and I won’t stand in the sidelines and let the church coach my kids. My wife and I get to “coach our team” Sure, we have to play within the rules of the church and our culture, but I just feel like for me and my personality, I can’t be a quiet , timid observer. I will not be an outspoken opponent, but I choose to be a respectful and kind advocate. I don’t feel the need to announce anything but when the situation arises, I plan to address it honestly. I have to remember that although I feel like I’m on the minority, I’m not. Most of the world lives with religuous uncertainty and probably half or more of the active church members do too but just don’t express it. Let me worship according to the dictates of my own conscience and I will do the same.
This is basically where I am, as well. Within the last six years, I am now on my sixth bishop, due to two moves, one ward boundary split, and three bishopric changes. I’ve been completely up front with all six of these bishops (as well as the elders quorum presidents, stake presidencies, YM presidents, and anybody else that wanted to talk about it), and I’ve never had a negative experience with that, although I recognize many here have. Like you, I don’t like feeling like I’m hiding either. I am in church every Sunday, I show up to every service project and every move, we invite members to go out on double dates on a regular basis, I actively participate in classes, I hold a calling as an assistant scoutmaster and I attend every activity and every camp, my daughter and I pick three members every week to deliver fresh cookies to. In short, I’m more active and involved than most TBM members. This can be confusing to many people when I talk openly about not having a testimony of everything that is taught by the church. Some people, the black/white thinkers mostly, want to assume that somebody who isn’t all in, must be all out (or on their way out). If people want to feel that way about me, that’s fine with me. But, most people are very respectful about the fact that there are many things that I just don’t believe. But, I’m still fully accepted into the fold. Of course, I could see this being very different if I still expected the bishop to allow me to hold a TR, or something like that. I haven’t had a TR in years, and have no desire to get one, so the bishop really doesn’t have any leverage over me. I’m also very open with the bishop during tithing settlement. When he asks if we are full or partial tithe payers, I tell him that my wife is a full tithe payer, and that I feel that I am a full tithe payer but not in the sense that the church would accept. I split my 10% tithe between 1. Fast Offerings, 2. a local women’s shelter, and 3. a local children’s cancer hospital. I believe God would be happy with how I’m donating my tithe, even if the church considers me to not be a full tithe payer.
Heber13 wrote:
Interesting…because I bet he doesn’t have a calling now and his wife still does…amIright? Which was more important that the church kept one and got rid of one:think:
Haa!!! Good point! I haven’t talked to him since they made that change.
You guys bring up a lot of great points. Change can be hard for anybody. Typically, when the church comes out with an announcement or a statement that I don’t like, he loves it. And when the church makes a change that I love, he doesn’t like it at all. When the POX came out, he couldn’t stop raving about how brave and stalwart the church leaders are for drawing a line in the sand and for standing up to protect God’s commandments without worrying about what the world thinks. When they revoked the POX, he said that it was because the general membership of the church isn’t living worthy enough to be ready for it yet, so the leaders had to revoke it, similar to how we’re not ready to live the law of consecration.
🙄 It does make me wonder, though. Are there a lot of people out there like him (as far as resisting changes, not the misogynistic nonsense that he holds onto), who want to hold onto the old traditions and secretly aren’t that excited to see the changes that have been made. I wonder if that has anything to do with why it takes so long for changes to be made. Could progressing too quickly shock the more zealous members to the extent that it would cause them to leave, similar to the split that occurred after JS dies, and the split that occurred when the church stopped practicing polygamy?
:think: I often feel like the changes aren’t coming nearly fast enough, but could the slow pace of the changes actually be strategic?nibbler wrote:
That said, I don’t know the person’s real issue. It could have been a machismo thing or it could have been related to something else entirely. For example, the man could have had an extremely deep belief that ordinances cannot change, not one iota, and it was a case where he recognized an ordinance being changed.
Unfortunately, the machismo had a lot to do with his complaints. My brother-in-law is an extremist when it comes to church stuff. He’s the young men’s president and his wife is a primary teacher, and he claims that he has a calling with more responsibility because he is living a ‘more worthy’ life, and unfortunately he sincerely believes that. If his wife or kids leave anything out of place, he yells at them because he claims the home should be just like the temple, and you never see anything out of place in the temple (he doesn’t see the irony that his yelling and bullying creates a hostile environment which is the opposite of what it should be in the temple). He sincerely believes that as the patriarch of the family, EVERY decision requires his input and approval. His wife can’t spend a dollar without his consent. And, he believes this is the true order of how things should be. So, he was irate that his wife no longer has to promise to ‘hearken’ directly to him, because he believes that a wife’s relationship to God has to go through the husband. It’s a sad thing to see, but it sounds like nobody else has come across anybody else that has had such a negative reaction to the changes, so I’m glad this is an isolated case.
When the endowment changed to no longer require women to veil their faces or to hearken to their husbands as their husbands hearken to God, etc. I was thrilled with the changes. I don’t hold a recommend, so I haven’t seen the changes personally, but it was one thing that always bothered me. Another was not being able to sit with my wife. I still don’t understand why the room has to be split by gender. Anyway, I was talking with my sister-in-law this week and she said that her husband HATES the changes. When they went through the temple and he heard the changes for the first time, he immediately went to the front desk after the session and complained about it. And he continued to complain about it to the point that the clerk called the temple president to come to the front desk. The two of them (my sister-in-law and her husband) spent an hour in the temple president’s office with her husband going back-and-forth with the temple president about this issue. I can only imagine how this must have made her feel having her husband get so upset that she no longer has to promise to hearken directly to him.
This was the first time I’d heard about anybody not liking the changes. Everyone else I’ve talked with about it has been really excited about the changes.
Has anybody else heard about anybody who was not excited about the updates?
