Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
This doctrine is a large reason why I remain LDS and why I don’t think I’d find a good home in any church where it is absent. turinturambar wrote:I believe the BofA is 19th century pseudepigrapha–i.e., an inspired story about Abraham written by a 19th century mystic. I don’t think Joseph knew anything about hieroglyphics, Egyptian culture, history, or religious beliefs. I think he saw the papyri, and like a jazz musician, “riffed” on the themes he saw and knew from the Biblical record. I am becoming an amateur Egyptologist. The more I learn about Ancient Egyptian language, writing systems, history, religious beliefs, and practices, the more uncomfortable I am with the party line about the BofA. If it weren’t for the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and the facsimiles, I might tend more toward literal belief, but as it is, I am currently leaning toward the ‘inspired literature’ interpretation.
^^^This. A big “me, too.”
Doesn’t mean I don’t value it or learn from it, just means I perhaps view it differently than a TBM might.
Old-Timer wrote:The underlying / over-arching theology
The fellowship with people I love, even though I don’t agree with everyting all of them believe
My Bishop – a truly wonderful man
+1 on all of this
I may gripe and complain too much at times on forums like this and NOM, but deep down I’m just a Mormon. Not doctrinally, not in all my actions, but in my heart. I just like going to church (albeit not every Sunday!) with other Mormons. No other religious “scratch” gets to my itch.
Jazernorth wrote:Kumahito wrote:Financial transparency would be a great start.
I hear this all the time and I don’t understand why people want a church, which is a private entity, to give financial transparency.I completely agree when it is a publicly held company to its stockholders or a government agency to its citizens, but not from a
privateentity. To me this is the same thing as me asking a person on the street, whom I may or may not know, for their personal financial records. That is my libertarian coming out in saying that private entities (people and otherwise) have a right to their privacy.
Now that said, if you want to see a private (especially charity) entity’s finances before you donate money and they “choose” to not give it to you, then you do not need to donate money to that entity. If that makes sense. <=== My 2 cents on when to donate money. Enjoy!
Two simple reasons, one of which was covered by cwald. First, I am expected to give a lot of money to the church, and I do. I’d like to know where my money is going and to what uses it’s being put. And that relates to point number two: if you believe the D&C to be the “bylaws” of the church, then the church is supposed to have financial transparency. First, D&C 26:2 states that all things in the church are to be done by common consent. That means that both you and I get a vote. D&C 104:71 requires the same, specifically relating to donated monies. Speaking of money donated to the United Order, it states that donated money shall “not be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by voice and common consent.” And this was the church’s practice, up until 1959. Before 1959, during GC a church auditor would get up and announce how much money the church had taken in by various means, and how it was being spent in general terms. The members would then vote to sustain these decisions. Not any more. The cynic in me thinks that the Big 15 fear that if the members hear of the billions coming in, some percentage of now-faithful tithe payers will figure the church doesn’t need their widow’s mite.
I’m fairly libertarian myself, and I’m fine with the church not needing to submit financial disclosures to the government – but I think the owe one to me if they want a five-figure donation from me every year.
Very insightful. I think sometimes the church is a bit tone deaf on things like this. I think the big Facebook push might similarly backfire – it’ll result in lots of LDS folks being un-friended by their friends who don’t like being preached to on FB. As Ray pointed out, the Gospel is intended to heal the wounds in our souls. The whole need no physician, indeed. I think it should be obvious, too, that we do not all suffer from the same maladies of spirit, and therefore we do not all need the same type of therapy. The Book of Mormon may be the perfect medicine for you at a given time in your life, but it may not be as useful in another time in your life. It may be of great benefit to my soul, but you might find more solace in the NT, or Abraham, or from the stories of Buddha’s life. In that way, I think what several folks here have expressed – that at one time the BoM was very meaningful but it’s less so now – is perfectly understandable. To carry out the therapy analogy, aspirin is great for headaches, but won’t do anything for nausea. Dax wrote:That’s great thanks for sharing! Now if we can just start teaching this at church.
^^^ This. Thanks, Ray. That’s right on target.
As many here have said in other posts, it really is a crap shoot when it comes to local leadership and their open mindedness. You might have a bishop, RS president, visiting teacher or just a good friend who will be very non-judgmental and helpful. Those people might also be total narcs who betray your confidence in Ward Council and “out” you as unorthodox. IMO, you’re better off on anonymous forums such as this, or if you have a BFF that you are 100% certain wouldn’t snitch on you, you might venture there. Otherwise, better not to gamble with local leadership or members. Ann wrote:
Richard Bushman in “On the Road with Joseph Smith: An Author’s Diary”“I am coming to envision a new persona for the Church as humble followers of Jesus Christ. Instead of speaking triumphantly of the gospel sweeping the earth, could we think of ourselves as the leaven in the lump, standing for righteousness and serving others? I wish we had a long track record of kindness and friendship to fall back on, with less stress on proselyting. Then when the storms break around us, we would have friends to turn to. Our covenant with God is to bless the people of the earth. That should be our motto. Establishing Zion does not mean sweeping vast masses of people onto our membership records but creating a people of God dedicated to blessing others. Joseph and his early followers came forth with lots of triumphalist rhetoric, but I think we need a new voice, one of humility, friendship and service. We should teach people to believe in God because it will soften their hearts and make them more willing to serve.”Ann, a thousand “thank yous” for that quote. It’s going on my board. I wish someone would cross-stitch this and frame it for me. This is my new credo.
Live off campus; only go to campus for classes; study at home or a public library; go to a non-BYU ward; make friends up in SLC and go up there often; don’t go to devotionals or ward prayers on campus. In short, root as much of your life off campus as possible. Is it just me, or is the number of these “special” meetings growing exponentially? Every stake conference, every fireside, every youth activity – they’re all so damn “special” that none of them are actually special. 👿 Great, great thread by everyone. This is why I check in here every couple of days. Good stuff. My two cents:
Because of the complexity of the gospel, and of life, doubt is invariably going to be a part of anyone’s experience. There are aspects of the gospel that I have an almost-certain belief in – I believe in God. There are other things that I don’t have a certainty, but I’m willing to take on faith – probably more akin to hope. I hope there is an after life with our loved ones. I’m not certain there is, but I choose to have hope that there is. And finally, there are aspects of what is taught in the church that I doubt are true – I doubt that JS translated papyri into the BoA. I doubt that God really cares whether I enjoy a mild barley drink, or how far down my thigh my undergarments extend.
Because I think we all deal with doubts, it would be more healthy to address the reality of them. We ought to be teaching that it’s okay to be less than certain. We should actively fight the idea that if the brethren speak, the thinking’s been done. We are all capable, individually, of determining whether we believe something, whether we hope, whether we question, whether we doubt.
