Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Arrakeen wrote:
It’s not about the LDS church, but I found it pretty interesting and it relates to one of the main questions I currently have about my place in the church. I’ve been wondering if there’s any place in the church for someone like me who is past the doubting stage and now does not believe. There has been some talk about people with questions and doubts but what about people who no longer have questions, but have new beliefs or conclusions? Is there a place for us in the church if we no longer have even a “desire to believe”?
So, is there room in our church for non-believers? People who don’t need answers or faith, but just friendship and community? Do you think the church leadership recognizes that there are non-believers who still want to participate for other reasons? If so, is there any desire to make it more welcoming for those who do not believe, and remain non-believers?
In my opinion (and that’s all it is), as long as the ward members know you no longer believe, they may be accepting of you and even friendly, but you will always be a potential “project” for someone. The members will always be hoping that you’ll see the light and their interactions with you will be influenced by that hope. I wish that weren’t how it is, but I believe that’s pretty much the case.
SamBee wrote:To be honest, I’m not a fan of the Endowment. It’s my least favorite thing in the temple. I like the Celestial Room and the Baptistry, and I even like the film, but the Endowment. Hmm…
Yeah, I’m with you. I really don’t particularly like the endowment. Back in the day, I used to absolutely refuse to participate in initiatories. With the changes of a few years back, I now quite like it. Baptisms, though, are my favorite, but it seems that adults are kind of discouraged from doing them.SilentDawning wrote:I think we get more criticism for the “secret” parts of the temple even though we consider them sacred, not secret.
I’ve always hated the phrase, “sacred, not secret.” Of course they’re sacred, but they are also most definitely secret. The phrase, “sacred, not secret” makes it sound as if the words “sacred” and “secret” are mutually exclusive. Obviously, they’re not. “The Book of Mormon,” for example is “sacred” to us, but it’s certainly not “secret.” We want everybody in the world to read it, for crying out loud. I think we need to stop using that phrase, and just admit that there are certain things about the temple endowment that we have been told not to discuss. If that makes them “secret,” then we need to acknowledge that instead of just dancing around it.
SamBee wrote:
Katzpur wrote:
nibbler wrote:
You can hold a temple recommend and still feel rejected by your community.
Tell me about it.
But… If you didn’t hold your TR, then you wouldn’t get your calling in the prison. From what you tell us you do some great work there with people who need repentance and redemption even more than many others. So there is a posiive outcome from it.
Keeping this calling I have is the main reason I want to have a temple recommend at this point.
nibbler wrote:
You can hold a temple recommend and still feel rejected by your community.
Tell me about it.
DarkJedi wrote:
Please note there is another thread about this here:https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9945 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9945 Because it’s a little difficult to combine them at this point we’ll leave both.
I’m sorry! I must have missed that! It’s okay with me if this thread is closed. I didn’t mean to duplicate another one.
Arrakeen wrote:Unfortunately I see the church spending a lot of time arguing literal truth of the history and teachings and I wish they would focus more on just living a good life.
Me too!
I think one thing that jumped out to me was this paragraph (and the parts I’ve bolded, in particular): “The Book of Mormon is a problem right now. It’s so baffling to so many that Joseph was not even looking at the gold plates [to translate them]. And
there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th centurythat there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text.That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be.” I’ve honestly never heard of any “faithful church scholars” who have found 19th-century material in the text. And all of the LDS scholars I’ve ever heard comment on the authenticity of The Book of Mormon, just emphasize that it’s “clearly” an ancient record. If it really does have all these 19th century elements in it, I find it intriguing that this doesn’t seem to bother Bushman in the slightest.
Now I’ve only read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover once — back about 100 years ago when I was in 9th grade seminary. It was honestly all I could do to get through it, and when people talk about how much they love it, I honestly can’t help but wonder if they’re really serious or are just saying that to impress. Being told that there’s so much in it that comes right out of the 19th century… well, that would make me even less likely to find it compelling (from a historical account anyway) than I always have.
Bushman is probably the only LDS scholar I’ve ever heard that doesn’t say “The Book of Mormon is true.” And yet he can get away with having doubts that admitting to would keep me out of the temple. I wonder how he does it.
He talks about the gold plates as “an imaginary object,” and says, “They’re one of our great fantasies, one of the most fabulous and unbelievable parts of our history.” I mean how do you get to say that and end up being held in such high regard by Mormons in general and even by the Church’s leadership?
I also like how he says, “We can see how Mormonism looks from a global view. And as soon as we do that, then the way we treat women becomes problematic in terms of the way the educated world in general is looking upon women and race and LGBTQ issues and so on. We have to find ways of couching our message so that it makes sense to the world at large.” The General Authorities don’t seem to think that they world’s view of us is problematic at all. I found his admission that it is to be kind of refreshing.
SamBee wrote:No offense to your good self, but I didn’t like the paywall. I only got as far as the bit where he talked about his childhood then it blocked my view. The press is really commiting slow suicide these days. I don’t visit SLT to justify a sub.
I have a little trick to get past paywalls but it may have to take a few minutes. 🤫
I think I may have just ended up disabling my ad blocker at some point. For a long time, I couldn’t get in to their page, and I know I’m not paying for it.
Wow! It sounds like things went remarkably well. I’m happy you have the bishop you do. I’ve had bishops like that before but I’ve also had bishops who would probably have instigated a church court the minute I walked out of their office. I bet it felt good to just get all of that stuff off your chest, didn’t it? DarkJedi wrote:Oh, dear, maybe I’m not communicating as well as I thought I was!
😳 I did not end up saying that in my text to the missionaries.
No, I totally got that. There was no misunderstanding as to what you actually said.
I just didn’t know you felt that way. I figured most posters on StayLDS were here because of disagreements with actual doctrine. Since I’m mostly in agreement with the doctrine and just find the policies and culture to be annoying, I found it nice to hear that I’m not alone in that.
DarkJedi wrote:I don’t really have many issues with doctrine per se (at least what I consider doctrine) my issues are more with church culture and policy…. “There are some cultural aspects of the church that trouble me and I disagree with some policies, such as the treatment of LGBTQ people.”
I didn’t realize that was the case for you, Jedi. That’s exactly how I feel. The culture and the politics just drive me stark raving mad. On the other hand, I’m pretty much on board with all of the doctrines.
