[jhp33]

Well, I guess really think about the question for a minute.

All things being as they are, does historicity matter? As in, if the Book of Mormon turns out to not be historical, would that being so have a direct effect on your salvation?

To me, the answer is definitively no.

[jhp33]

I’m pretty sure Denver actually said anyone baptized under authority gained AFTER the April 2014 LDS GC must be re-baptized, not everyone.

That’s when he claims authority was wrested from the church.

That being said, I’d love to hear specifically in what manner Denver believes he was called to be a prophet. He claims to have received personal visits from the resurrected Christ. I’d love to hear more about these visits.

I’m skeptical, but I think it’s sad that I feel a twinge of excitement at the notion of someone actually and publicly claiming to have received a personal visitation from the Lord. That someone has received a literal prophetic witness and will actually talk about it without using the standard “too sacred to speak of” excuse.

[jhp33]

mikegriffith1 wrote:

Just because God loves you unconditionally does not mean he will or should reward you unconditionally.

If a parent loved his two children the same but one of those children frequently disobeyed him, that parent would not give both children the same reward, for that would be unfair.

There is no conflict between God’s unconditional love for us and his requiring us to do certain things to return to live with him. No conflict whatsoever.

This paradigm assumes several things that I’m not convinced of.

1) That living with God again is a “reward” given by God

2) That God requires us to do certain things so he will let us live with him again

3) That sin equals disobedience

[jhp33]

From a book I’m reading:

In Luther’s translation of the Bible, the word usually rendered perfect (teleioi) is rendered as vollkommen. That is, complete, whole, entire. The Atonement is not a backup plan in case we fall short in the process (as we inevitably will); it is the ordained means whereby we gradually become complete and whole, in a sin-strewn process of sanctification through which our Father patiently guides us.

[jhp33]

If it is a stake-level calling, the Stake President is responsible to consult with the individual’s bishop to determine worthiness prior to issuing a call. This is usually done through the ward’s high council rep. That is how worthiness is determined, not through the meeting where the calling is extended.

Sounds like someone hasn’t been reading their church handbook…

[jhp33]

I just read this entire thread as well. What a doozy, but so interesting and insightful.

I had an epiphany of sorts over the last few weeks. I have felt better than I have since I started my “faith crisis.”

I didn’t have words to describe what I was thinking or feeling, but when I read this thread the crux of it is that I have essentially transitioned from Stage 4 to a Stage 5 view of the world. It’s so different, so new and yet so exhilarating and liberating.

[jhp33]

EuSouScott wrote:

The frustrating part comes where the rubber meets the road. If the brethren have been and continue today to be fallible, how do I know what teachings today are correct, and which ones are incorrect and will be changed, modifies, or corrected in 15 years?

I don’t NEED this certainty. I don’t struggle trying to decipher where they are right and where they are wrong. I try hard to just not live the letter of the law and I am OK with that. But I don’t think the church likes that mentality. I think the church expects absolute fidelity to the brethren. It is OK to ask questions, but I don’t think they are OK with us questioning (there is a difference). Or at least their behavior toward the likes of Kate Kelly and JD have shown us it isn’t OK to question.

I am starting to come around to the idea that God allows fallible, sometimes fundamentally flawed people to lead the church precisely because he does not want us to put all of our trust in the arm of flesh.

You ask, “how do I know what teachings today are correct, and which ones are incorrect…”

By living them. If they bear forth good fruit, they are “true.” If they don’t, they’re not “true.”

For example, I lived the principles associated with the church’s repeated teachings about homosexuality for years, and it never bore forth good fruit. When I changed my views and adopted the teachings of Christ in a different way in regards to this issue, it started to bring forth good fruit. This new “path” is now true to me.

One of my favorite quotes from Terryl Givens is in regard to leadership. He says “We want a standard of infallibility because it relieves us of the burden of continually exerting ourself to use discernment. The way Dostoevsky put it so beautifully was, ‘We want some person to be a keeper of our conscience.’ The hard lesson is that there is never a moment where you can delegate your volition to another person — leader or lay.”

[jhp33]

DarkJedi wrote:

You brought up meeting with your bishop, that’s good. Don’t be too hard on the guy

Thanks, DJ. My intentions are actually quite the opposite. I want people to know that it’s precisely because I don’t want to become a bitter ex-mormon that I’m taking these steps. I love the people in my ward. So much. I know they want the best for me. But a lack of clear communication is exactly what leads to some of the problems I’m facing. Lack of communication causes people to jump to conclusions and assume things. I need it to be crystal clear to the people who are in charge that I’m choosing this and it doesn’t mean that I don’t love them. It doesn’t mean I want to go sin. It doesn’t mean I hate the church. It just means I need space from the structure of the church so my head doesn’t explode.

I want to go to church. But I want to go when I really want to, not because I have a job to do. I want to go to ward activities and interact with my fellow saints. I want to visit people in the ward I care about and do service, but not because it’s my duty. Because I want to.

I know there are a lot of people who are able to do both at the same time, but something in me is fundamentally broken right now that does not allow me to fulfill my duty and do it because I want to at the same time.

[jhp33]

I think perhaps we’re speaking past each other, or probably more accurately, I haven’t been perfectly clear.

I am very much willing to accept that the conclusions I come to are not absolute and don’t represent the only way to view things. In fact, I don’t have a conclusion as to what the pictures show. They just seem very odd to me, but I don’t really know what they mean.

It has been a very hard few days for me. I’m sorry if I have come across as hostile. And I do very much appreciate you all checking me against reality.

I wish I hadn’t brought up the photos at all. They, in relative terms, have very little to do with where I’m at right now, and I feel like that’s where the focus has been. That’s my fault.

Thanks for your post, Ray. I appreciate you.

[jhp33]

Old-Timer wrote:

Your situation (faith crisis / transition) is causing what you see, NOT what actually is happening in the pictures.

This is where I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

Are you saying that you DON’T see DOM’s thumb over (or in between) the knuckles on JFK’s hand??

I can understand someone saying they don’t think they’re making the token, as in they’re not doing it intentionally. I can understand someone saying it’s innocent, or a coincidence.

But if you can seriously say that you and I are looking at the same photo, and that you think that is a completely, 100% normal handshake and that no one’s thumbs are placed on or between anyone’s knuckles, then I think I need to check myself into a mental institution.

Frankly, I’m a bit frustrated by the reactions I’m getting here. Usually, this forum is about accepting the conclusions/interpretations that people come to here, because we all know that we can see the same exact things and come to different conclusions.

What I’m hearing repeatedly is that my viewpoint is invalid because I’m not handling my faith crisis correctly and that I’m only seeing what I want to see.

I’m SEEING what I am SEEING. How I am interpreting it is what I can accept might be different from others. But saying DOM’s thumb isn’t roughly in the same position it would be in the temple is like saying he’s not shaking hands with anyone in the picture, he’s actually standing on his head. Either that or I’ve been getting the temple tokens wrong this whole time.

FWIW, tonight I set up an appointment with my bishop for tomorrow to let him know I’m going to be scaling back my activity in the church and I’d like to stop receiving emails from my HP group asking me why I haven’t done my home teaching, and I’d like to stop being bombarded by my home teachers even when I’ve told them I don’t want them to visit. I don’t want a calling right now. I want to do church on my own terms, not anyone else’s.

So I am taking steps to handle my faith crisis. It’s not as if I’m spending all of my time Googling conspiracy theories. These were just a few photos I happened to come across that, combined with some stuff I’ve been reading, sparked me to take some decisive action.

[jhp33]

Orson wrote:

personally I think it takes an active imagination to make it into something more.

Personally, it couldn’t be more clear that both people in that photo are engaged in an unusual handshake (look at the position of JFK’s thumb) that seems in every way to resemble that of a temple handshake.

But I guess that’s what all this comes down to. How do we interpret the things all around us? And how do we use those interpretations to guide our decisions?

Orson wrote:

FWIW I think someone can get a genuine answer that the church is wrong or false or harmful, depending on their personal focus and definitions — one can also get an answer that it is good, uplifting, and beneficial …depending on their focus. It is ultimately up to you what you will focus on and what seeds you will let grow in your soul. There is good and bad in everything, this is the human condition.

That’s actually the very reason why I am doing it. I want to be able to tell people that I have prayed about it and received the same kind of answers I received before my mission when I prayed to know if the church was true.

Our perspective shapes our answers just as much as our answers shape our perspective.

[jhp33]

Old-Timer wrote:

My blunt answer first:

That picture does NOT show them shaking hands using a temple sign. It doesn’t. Period. There is NO objective reason why anyone should leave the LDS Church because of that picture. Period. I think (hope) you understand that

I understand that picture in and of itself doesn’t prove anything. But when you combine it with the video of Pres. Hinckley and Dick Cheney, and the picture I found of JFK and David O. McKay (http://www.fatimamovement.com/images/001_Home/JohnFKennedyDavidOMcKay-presidentoftheMormonChurchMasonicHandshake.jpg) (CLEARLY doing one of the temple tokens, whether intentional or not) it starts to move from “just a coincidence” into “is something weird going on here?

All that being said, I think I was pretty clear that I’m not using this as a reason for leaving the church. It, combined with my wife’s reaction, effectively ripped the scab off the wound that was beginning to heal around my distrust with the truth claims of the church.

That, combined with reading parts of In Sacred Loneliness and Rough Stone Rolling, combined with my fervent prayers asking God to tell me if the church is NOT true have me feeling lately like I am on my way out the door.

In what sense? I’m not sure. I don’t think it’s possible for me to leave the church altogether, nor do I necessarily want to. I really enjoy cultural Mormonism. So I’m not sure what my next step is.

[jhp33]

The weird handshake thing isn’t the real issue, it just served as a catalyst for me and all of the negative things I feel about the church and its orthodoxy and it not being “what it claims to be.”

[jhp33]

DarkJedi wrote:

I don’t think you should ignore anything – I think it just festers if you try to do that. I’m really curious to know what it is that sent you and your wife into this tailspin (if you don’t want to say publicly, I’ll keep it to myself if you pm).

I don’t mind talking about it. I feel like on one hand it’s silly and conspiracy theory-ish, on the other hand it’s very disturbing. I keep going back and forth on which I think it is. But the fact that it troubled my wife so much is what really threw me for a loop.

There is a photo of George W Bush shaking Pres Monson’s hand in what looks to be at least a variation of one of the temple signs/tokens. That sent me down the rabbit hole of Google, where I found similar photos with other past presidents of the church doing similar things. One photo is one thing. Three makes me think there’s something else going on and picks at the scab I had finally started to form over the wound of feeling like the church is very much not what it claims to be.

[jhp33]

This is all just very indicative to me of the peril of setting up humans as standards to which we should look and emulate. Whether it’s John Dehlin or the prophet, it only leads to frustration.

Of course, between John Dehlin and the prophet, one of the two has been pretty clear that he’s not asking us to follow him. The other, not so much. For that I give John lots of credit. He never asked any of us to hold him up as a standard. And yet many do. That’s not his fault. It’s ours.

To me, John personifies the very real struggle that exists in trying to carve out a non-orthodox life inside the church. His pendulum swings have made it easier for me to not get so frustrated when I think one day I have it all figured out, only to have it all come crashing down the next Sunday. I expect frustration and disappointment and a lack of resolution because that’s what I see John going through.

So while some of you may be annoyed, I find comfort in John’s story, as much of a roller coaster as it may be.

And, if we’re really being honest, John has done such great work that Mormon Stories isn’t the only outlet you have available to turn to if you’re going through a faith crisis (this board included).

So, if you don’t like what you’re hearing, just change the channel. Sometimes it really is that simple.

[Author]

Posts