[Kalola]

bridget_night wrote:

I am curious as to what the blogger you mentioned said about “Who is God?”

I can send you a PM with a link to the blog if that’s okay with you.

[Kalola]

I am overwhelmed by your responses and your willingness to share your personal stories. Every word each of you has written leads me to believe that “God” does exist.

When I post here at StayLDS, I do believe “God” speaks to me through the responses I receive.

When I think of “God,” I try to picture him as either George Burns in the movie “Oh, God!” or Morgan Freeman in “Bruce Almighty” and “Evan Almighty.” I told DH yesterday that the God I want to believe in has a sense of humor. 2 Nephi 2:25 reads: “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” Could having a sense of humor be part of “joy?”

I want to add too that I found a most amazing blog yesterday. The title of one of the blogger’s posts is “Who is God?”

Thank you for helping me find the light at the end of the tunnel.

[Kalola]

Thank you all so very much for sharing your lists of positives about staying LDS.

Tom Haws, I especially appreciated what you wrote.

And LaLaLove, I will not be leaving this site. I have so much to learn from each of you. I was feeling confused and needed to read these words of bridget_night:

Quote:

So much good stuff in the church…and good people.

And I absolutely love the hymns. DH and I have been known to entertain our DS with a rousing rendition of “The Spirit of God Like a Fire Is Burning.”

Peace.

[Kalola]

Heber13 wrote:

But I maintain my faith that I can learn truth if I keep seeking, even when I can only see through a glass, darkly for now.

Forgive me, but when I read the word “truth,” I couldn’t help but think of the hymn “Oh Say, What Is Truth?”

Then say, what is truth? ’Tis the last and the first,

For the limits of time it steps o’er.

Tho the heavens depart and the earth’s fountains burst,

Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,

Eternal, unchanged, evermore.

Text: John Jaques, 1827–1900

I do not have anything more profound to add.

[Kalola]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

There is, indeed, a division that seems to be widening quickly between conservative mormons and liberal mormons….internet mormons and chapel mormons….TBM’s and NOM’s….etc… not to mention us nutty fundamentalists.

The division probably always existed to an extent but the internet has allowed such a free flow of information that it has increased the speed of the division.

Indeed, I have also seen “a division that seems to be widening.” I have read stories of active members leaving because of something they read on the internet.

I read this comment at another site yesterday:

Quote:

I don’t understand all of these members that say they are active members of the church, yet they disagree with half of what the church teaches.

I have noticed this trend and believe that in the future (how many years in the future I do not know), the church may be split into at least two groups: Orthodox Mormons and Reform Mormons. There is Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism. Is it unlikely this will happen in Mormonism?

[Kalola]

I’ve taken this quiz in the past. It was interesting to find quite a change in my results this time around.

1. Unitarian Universalism (100%)

2. Liberal Quakers (93%)

3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (92%)

4. Neo-Pagan (90%)

5. Mahayana Buddhism (87%)

6. Theravada Buddhism (85%)

7. New Age (84%)

8. Secular Humanism (77%)

9. Baha’i Faith (72%)

10. Orthodox Quaker (72%)

11. Reform Judaism (72%)

12. Jainism (70%)

13. Sikhism (70%)

14. Taoism (64%)

15. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (57%)

16. Orthodox Judaism (57%)

17. Nontheist (56%)

18. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (55%)

19. New Thought (53%)

20. Hinduism (50%)

21. Scientology (50%)

22. Islam (49%)

23. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (43%)

24. Eastern Orthodox (38%)

25. Jehovah’s Witness (38%)

26. Roman Catholic (38%)

27. Seventh Day Adventist (38%)

[Kalola]

Jeriboy, you wrote:

Quote:

Perfection is a long way off, I think looking for ways to make things work for ourselves is better than making up an issue that may be only an issue in someone’s mind.

Can you expound on your comment? I’m trying to understand what you meant by “making up an issue.”

Poppyseed ~ I posted what I did because it appears the role of women in the early Church is different than it is today. Just an observation based on what I read. The intent of my post was to share what I read, not to advocate women receiving the priesthood.

[Kalola]

I may be digging a deeper hole for myself with what I’m going to write, but here goes anyway.

What DH and I observed while living in SLC was the condescending attitude of some members of the Church. If you were not born and reared in the Church in Utah, you were a second-class Mormon. DH found that he was looked down on because he did not serve a mission. As a couple, we were looked down on because we were not married, nor sealed, in the temple. We felt we were looked down on because we didn’t have at least two children with a third on the way. And horror of horrors … when we did have a child, I worked outside the home while DH cared for our DS. Totally unacceptable!

How do I know we were looked down on? Let’s see … when people avoid associating with you, wouldn’t that give you a clue you are obviously not worthy in their eyes?

When I observe the hypocritical behavior of active, temple recommend holding, members, I can’t help but feel confusion and, yes, bitterness, after the experiences DH and I had in SLC.

I do believe that had DH and I listened to the counsel from general authorities not to move to SLC, we would still be active today. We were on our way to becoming “gold card” (temple recommend holding) members. But here I am an ex-Mormon, while DH is a member yet only goes to sacrament meeting on the rare occasion. It’s doubtful I’ll ever be re-baptized. However, I do believe that you can take yourself out of the Church, but you cannot take the Church out of you. DH tells me that many would say I feel this way because I know in my heart that the Church is true. Perhaps … I know I struggle with my spiritual journey towards “truth.”

I found this comment on a blog that pretty much sums up what I’m feeling and trying to get across:

“…, the more seriously you take the Church [and its members], the more you’ll get hurt.” (I added the comment in brackets.)

At this time I find myself believing what the Dalai Lama said:

“My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness.”

Yikes!! Now I’m going to have the primary song “Kindness Begins With Me” running through my head. See … I do have a sense of humor.

[Kalola]

Ray ~ You know how sensitive I am. 😮

Just Me ~ I do have a problem with what I perceive as hypocrisy with some members of the Church. My DH and I witnessed it for the first time when we lived in SLC. I am a convert and my first real experience with members was in a unique ward in Queens, NY. I am a native New Yorker. Since my experience in that ward was so uplifting, I thought it would be great for us to move to SLC to be among the Saints. We found that such was not the case. I have more to share, but time is limited right now.

[Kalola]

I am sorry if I came across as self-righteous. I often get twisted in my words and come across that way. It’s unfortunate we cannot hear one another, but can only read each other’s words. I seem to have a tendency to offend people.

[Kalola]

Thank you all for your kind words and prayers. My sister passed away today. She is now free from all pain and suffering. She was a wonderful sister and will be in our hearts always. Rest in peace sweet sister.

[Kalola]

swimordie wrote:

Are you saying that the acceptance of SSA and SSM is leaning away from family values?

Yes. I believe in “traditional” family values … father, mother and children. I firmly believe in the message of The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

Quote:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

Was President Hinckley inspired when he spoke those words, or was he just speaking as a man and was merely making suggestions?

As I wrote, I am, no doubt, way old-fashioned in my thinking. I cannot help but feel that some people are wanting to change God’s laws (as far as marriage and children, not dietary laws, etc.) in favor of human desires.

If cloning becomes the norm, then I will have the answer as to whether God was also man-made. That would also, at least in my line of thinking, mean that ALL religions were indeed man-made.

The world is changing too rapidly for this old woman.

[Kalola]

Old-Timer wrote:

Like it or not, think it’s correct or not, feel it’s inpsired or not, I think it will help the church growth world-wide – and even here in the US.

Gay marriage probably is inevitable in the US, and I wish the Church would support civil unions, but I really do think it will help the missionary work world-wide. I might be wrong, but that’s my belief right now – and I think that has as much to do with it as anything. In an odd way, I’m OK with that being the case – again, as much as I wish civil unions was on the table as an option and the Church would support it.

If the Church were to support civil unions, wouldn’t it, in fact, be condoning same-sex attraction? Do you believe that one day the Church will permit same-sex couples to be sealed in the temple? If so, do you think this will cause members to be divided? I told DH that I feel there will one day be a division — there will be orthodox Mormons and reformed Mormons.

I found your comment “it will help the church growth world-wide” interesting. Does this mean you are envisioning missionaries preaching the gospel to same-sex couples? Wouldn’t the manual “Preach My Gospel” have to be rewritten? What happens to The Family: A Proclamation to the World ?

Where do the teachings in the scriptures fit in all of this? Were they merely suggestions that we are now free to ignore?

I’m realize I’m probably rambling here. I’m trying to understand why members of an extremely conservative religion are leaning away from family values. I imagine I’m way old-fashioned in my beliefs.

[Kalola]

jmb275 wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

jmb275 (and everyone else), Please be VERY careful about throwing out characterizations based on one opinion about one topic.

I say this because of the comment labeling kalola a “conservative” (actually using the words “other conservatives”).

I apologize to Kalola and everyone else. I have had this discussion with so many conservatives I had immediately labeled her as such. Sorry.

All is well. Being labeled “conservative” seems to fit me these days. For me personally it seems to have come with age.

[Kalola]

Old-Timer wrote:

jmb275 (and everyone else), Please be VERY careful about throwing out characterizations based on one opinion about one topic.

I say this because of the comment labeling kalola a “conservative” (actually using the words “other conservatives”).

“Conservative”??? 😯 I’ve been labeled many things, but this is the first time for the label “conservative.” Come to think of it … as I’ve “aged,” I have become more “conservative” in my views. So has my DH. I think Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck rock!!!! Really, I do. My DH thinks we’ve entered the “Twilight Zone” (and, no, we’re not referring to the book) or we’ve been taken over by pods (“Invasion of the Body Snatchers”). 😆

[Author]

Posts