Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I loved his talk. I thought it was the best one of the entire conference and one of the best I’ve ever heard. (He isn’t hard on the eyes either!) Old-Timer wrote:Baptist preacher? If he accepts the account of John as traditionally understood, he has to accept the possibility of the Three Nephites – at least in theory. If not, not.
This is one of those things that won’t have a satisfactory conclusion, imo. He has a built-in objection no matter what.
But what is the account of John “as traditionally understood”? If I could show this guy that there is such a tradition, it would be helpful. Obviously, though, he is not exactly listening with an open mind to anything I have to say, and consequently I don’t expect the Spirit to be guiding the conversation. It was just that when he brought up the subject, all I could think was that I’d heard a few stories in the past about the Three Nephites but they had always struck me as more like folklore than anything else. And since it is clearly a canonical teaching, I wonder why it has not been addressed much by our leaders.
bridget_night wrote:Chrisitan bookstores have whole walls with anti-Mormon, JW, 7th Adventist, and Cathoic books, and phamhlets.
Oh, I know! We’re always in the “Cult” section. Imagine a “Cult” section at Deseret Book. Pretty hard to do, huh?
Quote:Anyway, afterwards we stayed and talked to the woman and her husband who sponsered this movie. They were wearing the temple garb with the apron’s.
You know, when I hear something like this, I can’t help but think that these are the kinds of people that the statement “and God will not be mocked” refers to. If this couple were former members of the Church who were endowed, I feel really, really sorry for them. I’m kind of assuming they were. When a person makes a promise to God, as is done in the temple, a change in beliefs down the road does not justify breaking the promise. The promise is that we will not reveal that which we will be told in the temple. Anyone making that promise does so of his own free will and choice. If I were to ever leave the Church, I can’t even imagine daring to break such a promise, even if I no longer believed in the things that I once believed in. To break a promise of that magnitude is pretty serious and is, in fact, mocking God.
This whole thing actually backfires on them as they find many of their members turned off by this kind of thing.[/quote]I know. There really are people who can see through that kind of thing. I’m sure there have been quite a few converts to the Church whose first exposure to it was through “The Godmakers.”
Quote:If our church were to show a movie on Christmas day about the horrors of the Catholic church and popes during the dark ages, I would never come back to church again.
I’m with you 100%.
asha wrote:1topen wrote:It doesn’t sound like your daughters wish to get married somewhere her grandparents can attend has anything to do with your own issues. Most likely it is just down to her love for her grandparents and a desire for fairness.
Actually, I think it has everything to do with me. My daughter has long been curious why I do not attend the temple, and why I stopped renewing my temple rec a few years ago. I answered her honestly that I felt unhappy every time I went to the temple because it brought back painful memories of my wedding. I also completely disagree with the rules surrounding who can and can’t attend temple sealings. I will no longer attend the temple until they change those rules. We live in Canada, but the rules here are basically the same as in the U.S. I am the only member in my family, so my parents were unable to attend the wedding of their only daughter. They were so hurt they didn’t even come to Toronto, and I can’t say that I blame them. We DID have a big reception a couple of weeks after the temple ceremony in a chapel in Montreal (where I was living as a student at the time), and about 300 hundred people from my parents’ family came to that. We tried to make it like a wedding for them, but our bishop was a real stickler for rules and read us a whole list of what we could and couldn’t do with regards to a “ring ceremony” following a temple sealing. Basically the rules are designed to make the ceremony seem nothing like a wedding so as to not detract from the temple wedding, i.e. no walking the bride down the aisle by her father, no vows in the traditional sense, bride and groom must enter together as husband and wife, etc.The result was a total mess, and relatives sat in the chapel totally confused as to what they were witnessing. I still get a pit in my stomach when I think about how much I hurt my dear parents with that whole fiasco.
1topen wrote:One more thing,I know this is a bit of a thread jack… In the Uk we all get married at church, big ceremony followed by reception full of nonmembers.
We then ( has to be the same day or else wait one year) drive down to the temple with a small group of temple worthy friends and family to get sealed. It is very down played a nice spiritual end to a great day.
I understand that legally the Uk and EU does not recognize temple marriages as binding so the church has no choice, but they certainly don’t seem to have a big problem with this allowing full on chapel weddings prior to the sealing on the same day. I hear so many people get upset about the situation in the U.S, surely this is one area that the church could change its strict ruling on since it does so in Europe?.
Would that this were so! Oh what a difference that would have me to me and my family.My temple experience would have likely been so different and my parents would have been far more accepting of the church if this had been an option in Canada. Instead, the only option is to wait a year if you are married outside of the temple. The worst part of that is that when my parents found out about that option, they were even MORE hurt because they couldn’t understand why we wouldn’t wait a year for the temple sealing in order to have a traditional church wedding that all my family could attend. In their eyes we were being very selfish. This is where church culture comes into the equation: when couples get married in the church and wait a year to get sealed in the temple it is immediately implied that there are issues of worthiness involved. To my inlaws this wasn’t even an option to consider because it “wouldn’t look good”. They actually laughed off the whole idea when I brought it up. I have found that many hard-core members of the church are very concerned with appearances when it comes to temple worthiness. For example, if my daughter was totally worthy but chose to marry outside of the temple, people would conclude it was because of one of two reasons: she is marrying someone unworthy/nonmember, or she herself is unworthy. Nowadays of course I could care less what my inlaws think (I think the temple wedding also permanently damaged my relationship with them) but back then I was a naive 22-year-old who had only been a member of the church for 1 year. In my mind this was the only way I could marry the man that I loved.
Anyway, I am clearly carrying A LOT of baggage where the temple is concerned, so it is inevitable that some of it would have rubbed off on my kids. Many members of the church who do not have nonmember family have no clue what a big deal this can be. My best friend is from pioneer stock on both sides, and she said she never gave the issue a second thought. I am guessing that is why church headquarters does not think it is something that needs to be addressed. I for one am one of those people who just doesn’t see the need for exclusiveness when it comes to the temple. There is no need for secrecy (you can google the entire ceremony if you are a curious nonmember), and I don’t see how ostracizing nonmember parents from attending the wedding of member children is preserving the “sacredness” of the temple. If someone is unworthy to attend the temple and decides they are going anyway, it is not very hard for them to get in – I have seen it happen many times. If letting an unworthy person enter the temple was going to desecrate it in some way, then that would have happened years ago. I think the rules surrounding temple marriage in Canada and the U.S. create divisiveness and pain in nonmember families, which is exactly the opposite of what a wedding is supposed to do.
There is nothing remotely spiritual about that for me.
(end of rant)
Asha, would you consider doing a copy and paste of this entire post and starting a new thread on the subject of “Marrying Civilly When Temple Marriage is an Option”? I could do so for you, but I just don’t feel right in using your entire post to start a new topic. It’s one that I really, really want to discuss though.
bridget_night wrote:Hey Heber,
Thanks for your comments. I used to be the type of person that would have normally reacted by your first reaction. But since I have struggled so much with my own faith and do not feel so sure anymore that what is right for me, would be right for someone else, I just followed my gut reaction. The way she said it made me feel she really did not want to hear about Mormonism. So, doing the Christian thing felt more right than doing the Mormon thing in this incidence. I have found when I have done this in the past and the person hears negative stuff about Mormons later, that they end up standing up for Mormoms. In fact, one of my customers in Oregon, did just that in the middle of her church when they were bashing Mormons. She simply said, “My hairdresser and other Mormons I have met are some of the finest people I know and God says, “By this shall all men know ye are my disciples…” Our example is so powerful.
I did have a customer once who did the strangest thing. I had just pulled her hair through a frosting cap for a heavy highlighting. I rarely tell anyone my faith because I want them to ask me by seeing my actions. Anyway, this customer, whose hair I had been doing for years, suddenly says, “Ooh, I look like a Mormon.” At first I thought she said ‘Moron.” But asked again and she pulled the strands of her hair through the cap and said, “I look like a Mormon.” I then asked, “Why do you say that?” She said, “because everyone knows Mormons have horns and are a devils cult.” I then asked her where she heard that. She said in her church. (This was when I lived in Tampa Florida and they had been advertizing full page spreads to come see the “Godmakers” movie on Christmas Day!!!) So, then I causally said, “Wow, you know, I have been a Mormon all my life and I never knew that.” Of course, she was embrassed and apologized. But, I then asked her if she would go to a Lutheran to learn about the Catholics? She said no. I just said that if she wanted to get to know about someone or a church I would go to the horses mouth (an active Mormon) to find out what they say they believe. So, it seems God gives us these opportunities, and inspires us how to use them.
Wow, Bridget! That is quite a story! I’m like you; I don’t tell people my religion but hope they will find something in me that impresses them enough to ask. What I want to know is did she ever go back to you, or was she so embarrassed that she didn’t want to ever have to face you again?
Doesn’t it just irritate you to death to think that people are actually taught stuff like that in their churches? I mean what kind of Christian ministers would stoop so low?
I had never given this issue a whole lot of thought, but in reading through this thread, I can really understand why it’s such a source of concern. I’d just like to share my daughter’s experience in hopes that it may be of some value here. My daughter is now 27 and divorced. When she was about 18, she began having sex with the man who is now her ex-husband. They met in high school and started dating when she was about 16. Both were raised LDS, although her ex was from a family where neither parent was particularly active in the Church, despite having been married in the temple. My daughter was extremely active in the Church growing up. On school holidays, she and her girlfriends used to go downtown (we live in Salt lake) and do baptisms for the dead and then go over to the Joseph Smith Building and see whatever movie was showing in the Legacy Theater. She wanted to serve a mission and get married in the temple. Then, along came her boyfriend. The day after they slept together for the first time, she called the bishop for an appointment. (I found out about all of this quite a while after it happened.) She was overcome with guilt for what she’d done and knew that she needed to confess to him. I can’t even imagine how difficult it must have been for her. She hadn’t said a word to me or her dad. She just knew what she had to so and made up her mind to do it. Well, I guess the bishop did not exactly react calmly. He demanded that she tell him the name of “the boy” so he could contact his bishop. She refused, and said that if he wanted to confess to his bishop, he would. (As it turns out, that was the furthest thing from “the boy’s” mind.) He talked to her for quite awhile. I don’t really know much about the conversation, other than that she left his office feeling no sense of comfort or support. He told her that she’d need to return for a follow-up interview on a date sometime the next week. All week she dreaded it. Finally, the evening came when she was supposed to meet with him again. Well guess what? He never even showed up. She was relieved in a way, but devastated at the same time. He never bothered to contact her again, to apologize for forgetting or for having something else come up or whatever it was that prevented him from meeting with her.
That first meeting plus what she had been taught in Seminary led her to believe that she had committed a sin second in seriousness to murder and that she could never be forgiven. In her mind, the sin had been committed and she couldn’t turn back the clock, the bishop didn’t care enough about her to truly provide her with compassionate counseling, and her eternal fate was cast in concrete. Once I found out that she and her boyfriend was continuing to be sexually intimate, she didn’t even care enough to bother trying to repent. There was absolutely nothing I could say to change her mind. Well, to make a long story short, she ended up getting on birth control (fortunately) and marrying him. I truly believe she just considered herself “damaged goods” and felt that no one worth having would want her. They were married in a civil ceremony and have not set foot in a church since. The marriage lasted just under 5 years and it was bad from the start. I’m really glad she’s not with him anymore, but she grows further and further away from the church every day. If she were ever to become active again, I’d be surprised. When I think of what she threw away, I am devastated. I know that what she did was wrong, but I also strongly believe that it was our bishop who reinforced the idea in her mind that she had done something so terrible that her Heavenly Fathera could never love her again. Oh how I wish I’d known about that “sin” before the bishop did. I’d give anything to have been able to have some input before he did. I’m sure he’s a good man, but I believe he contributed in a big way to my daughter having left the Church.
Rix wrote:I think a more helpful approach is to not get defensive about doctrinal issues, and deal with the family diversity. Can she/they really love and respect you (and vice versa) if you believe different things?
I find stage three-ers to be stuck in dogma. Most religious zealots are there. In my mind, and particularly after you gave us a bit of her history, I don’t think you will ever win a doctrinal argument with her…and it will just serve as an issue to divide you. Work on the commonalities you have, love her as an EV, and revel in her happiness she has found there.
Excellent advise. I read something once by Marjorie Hinckley that really struck me as inspired. I can’t even remember the context in which she said it, but it was said with respect to conflicts between parents and children. She said, “Above all, save the relationship” (or something very close to that). Your daughter obviously is not at a point in her life right now where she has any desire whatsoever to hear you try to convince her that the teachings of the Nicene Creed are nothing more than “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.” I hope there will come a time when she is more receptive, but for now, there is nothing more important than your relationship with her.
(On the other hand, if you are determined to discuss this doctrine with her, you might ask her if she thinks the Christians prior to 325 A.D. are going to Hell along with you?
Hi, silentstruggle. I’ve just read your intro and thought I’d just let you know how much of what you said I could relate to. It’s getting late and I was just about to turn in, so I won’t comment further tonight. I will try to get back to you by the end of the day Sunday, though. I think we have quite a bit in common. Bruce in Montana wrote:INFP here…
Only 4.4% of the population….no wonder I feel strange….
Well, given the fact that there are 16 possible types, none of them constitute a huge percentage of the population. Perhaps hawkgrrrl can give us a breakdown by type. That would be interesting.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Katzpur – ISFJs are also known as the shyest of the types, the most likely to want to not be the center of attention. My mother is an ISFJ as is my assistant at work. Although my mother has been auxilliary presidents (all 3) during her time in the church, she is always nervous addressing crowds, and doesn’t like to be the one out visiting. She’s not crazy about bearing her testimony in front of people because she doesn’t want to become a spectacle if she is crying. She prefers to be on her own turf, and she definitely likes to have everything “just so.” Once when they were visiting us, she refolded all my towels in the linen closet because she said they fit better. I don’t know how much of that resonates for you. ISFJs tend to gravitate toward jobs where they can follow rather than lead, where they can do “behind-the-scenes” work, especially administrative tasks that require organization and attention to detail. ISFJs are also typically the most loyal of the types.
That’s extremely interesting. This whole subject fascinates me, even though I really don’t have a whole lot of knowledge about the individual types, including my own.
I don’t consider myself shy, actually, but your statement about us being the shyest of all the types leads me to ask you another question. (I hope you don’t mind; I have a lot of them!) I find that I can strike up a conversation with a total stranger quite easily. If I’m standing in line next to someone I’ve never met, for instance, I can get a good conversation going with very little effort. On the other hand, I actually find it more difficult to start a conversation with someone I feel I should know but don’t — like a relatively new ward member or a fellow employee I don’t often have occasion to interact with.
Like I said, I actually love to teach adults. I’m not nervous in front of a group, but I absolutely have to be well-prepared. I don’t do well leading a discussion that may or may not go the direction I want it to. Consequently, I do much better at giving a talk where I can know in advance exactly what I’m going to say than I do teaching a lesson where the class members don’t end up saying what I want them to say! I’m generally very focused on what I want my class to get out of my lessons, and the comments have to go where I want them to go or I get flustered. Obviously, when you open up a topic for discussion, you lose some control and that’s really hard for me. This might be one reason why I really don’t like teaching children. Let’s say I’m teaching a Primary class. I say, “Heavenly Father has given us our parents and our grandparents. Do you like to go visit your grandparents?” One of the kids responds by saying,”I went to my grandma’s house and I saw a big bug. My brother stepped on it and smashed it and got its guts all over my grandma’s carpet!” Before I can think of how to respond, another one says something equally unrelated and my whole train of thought starts to unravel. Typically, I’m terrible with children.
It’s interesting that ISFJ’s typically like to follow rather than lead. That’s where I’m comfortable. My job requires an immense amount of attention to detail, and that’s one of the things I like most about it. I am most happy being left alone to do my job PERFECTLY. I am comfortable being part of a committee, but I would rather die than chair a committee. And the idea of being “the boss” just doesn’t appeal to me at all. I just have no desire to boss anyone else around. Maybe I just don’t want to have to be the responsible party. Maybe I’m just insecure.
And yes, I am loyal. I am so loyal it isn’t even funny. I guess that’s one of my best qualities. You’re lucky to have an ISFJ mother. We ISFJ’s are neat people!!!!
I have a question about my Myers-Briggs type for anyone who may have an answer. I was talking to my husband tonight about my church calling and about my position at work and noted that I seem to be a follower rather than a leader. With respect to church callings, I love teaching either Relief Society or Gospel Principles. I would absolutely hate serving in the presidency of any of the organizations — ward level would be bad enough; stake level would pretty much be unbearable. At work, I’m a computer systems designer and senior programmer. I make a good income and it’s a position of some responsibility. But the last thing in the world I would aspire to would be the Director of IT. I feel as if I am intelligent and competent and yet I simply do not have any leadership interests or potential (at least not that I’m aware of!). I’d say that this particular trait plays pretty predominantly in my overall personality. How does it tie into my Myers-Briggs type, which is ISFJ? bridget_night wrote:Have you all heard about this:
http://latterdaymainstreet.com/?p=741#more-741 And what are your thoughts…. I have mixed feelings.Wow! No mixed feelings here. I absolutely love the changes. I wonder if it’s also available in Spanish already. My husband and I are assistant ward missionaries with the Church’s “Hispanic Initiative” and attend the Gospel Principles class in a Spanish-speaking branch here in Salt Lake. I’d love to see them start using the new manual. I’m going to check into it.
I guess, on second thought, I do have reservations about one thing. The elimination (or minimalization) of the “doctrines” that were listed will just give the anti-Mormons more fodder. They’ll be saying, “Well, the LDS Church used to teach its members that (as an example), Jesus and Lucifer are brothers. They don’t teach that any more. They’re always changing their doctrines so that they’ll appear to be more mainstream.” Oh well… the heck with them. The changes are good.
What a neat parable! I love collecting stuff like that to use for lessons and talks. I loved that so much that I almost want to volunteer to give a lesson or talk on tithing! Rix wrote:I found that the only people I craved being with were my family — not because of some afterlife togetherness paradigm, but because there was a natural, present connection that was evident. I came to love them absolutely unconditionally. I rejoiced in their happiness…however they found it. I stopped trying to change them from living what worked for me, and enjoyed seeing where their spirits took them, and each of them was unique.
I found a new circle of friends — people that stimulated my mind and soul. They were also unconditional. We don’t need to talk daily…we can go months and then meet for lunch and it seems we are still best friends. But if I ever need help, I have dozens of people there for me — and I for them.
My life since then has been indescribably ecstatic. When you don’t need others to tell you you’re okay, there’s no reason not to be!
Rix, I loved your post! It really resonated with me. Thank you for sharing it!
wordsleuth23 wrote:I don’t think it’s dishonest, because people that say that often feel that way. Just because they think they know doesn’t mean they do, but its semantics. How do people define “know”; a lot of people say it out of habit when they are really saying something like belief or confidence. Katzpur, what is the difference between saying you “know” things about God, and saying you know the Church is true? They are both claims of knowledge that are based off of faith, not evidence. They strike me as being in the same category.
As long as a person “believes” that he “knows,” I’d say there is no difference.
I have no problem with anybody claiming to “know” the Church is true as long as that person is sincere.I just don’t think all that many of them have really given it all that much thought, especially the ones who, by the time they were 6 or 8 years old, had already said it a couple of dozen times in testimony meeting to the delight of their parents. I seriously think that a lot of people who say, “I know the Church is true” have been saying it so long that it’s just second nature to them to say it.
