Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
wayfarer wrote:
I found that mormon guilt impairs recovery — hence any church-based recovery programs are fraught with problems — and as long as guilt and sin are part of the view of addiction, recovery is difficult. recovering alcoholics and addicts are always treated as defective by members and particularly leaders, because of suspicion and a view that the indeed are spiritually defective.
Hi Wayfarer, do you think there’s any merit in drawing a distinction between the approach often taken by untrained and sometimes un-compassionate priesthood leaders which focuses on issues of worthiness and can have a heavy serving of guilt when dealing with problems of addiction, compared to LDS family services councilors and the addiction recovery program?
I have experienced imposition of guilt and sin in the former system, but (for me… a sample of ‘one’) there was no implication of being a sinner from any of the people involved in the ARP or the councilor I had sessions with. They were far more professional and addressed my challenges from the emotional/physical/psychological perspective and never once made me feel like a ‘sinner’ – the word wasn’t even used to the best of my knowledge.
Maybe I was just fortunate with the group of people I worked with.
Ann wrote:Quote:Joseph Smith, when he was good, gave the world some really good inspiring things.
When Joseph Smith wasn’t good, he hurt people, set up a precedents and institutions that caused irreparable harm to some people.
He did both of those things. People who want to prove he was good or evil both have mountains of evidence with which to make their point.
I feel like a simpleton on this site a lot of the time, but, I’m desperate…. So, we all sin. Does “When Joseph Smith wasn’t good…” also apply to doctrine-making, as you seem to imply? What then about Joseph saying, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (I’m not asking whether he
thoughtpolygamy, for instance, was right at the time. I guess I’ll assume he did.) The only bits of Joseph’s revelation you are held to in church is the canonised stuff. The rest was part of the process of pondering, exploration and consideration. The front page of staylds has a great article on what’s doctrine and how it’s reached.
There’s no ‘floating quill’ for our prophets. Joseph, like the leaders after him, had to work hard to consolidate and distil revelation. Even Alma has moments of speculation, but we don’t villify him for it. Alma 40:20 ‘I give it as my opinion that…’ – in fact the whole chapter is pretty unspecific, but he still has a go at answering his wavering sons concern.
As a side note I think this whole chapter is a great model for dealing with people, like me, who are having faith crises.
Corianton, his son, has a doctrinal question that’s been troubling him. Alma doesn’t instantly dismiss it as a sign of faithlessness. He doesn’t know all the answer (which I think is why some people in the church bat away difficult questions, they don’t like to admit to themselves that they don’t actually know). Instead he spends time sharing his views and genuine concern for his sons doubts.
wayfarer wrote:Bruce in Montana wrote:Maybe someday the church will come clean on it’s history…but I doubt it. It seems that everyone that explores it honestly ends up leaving out of disgust.
All is not well in Zion. Its very sad.
Let me cite one example, that after learning for years all about church history, and having journeyed through most major faith traditions, that I am LDS to stay and not leaving in disgust.While there is an objective set of problems with the narrowness of church dogma today, the church is what I make of it. Recognizing that we are all humans trying to make it day-by-day in this world, the church fills a vital need for me as a community of saints: that is, those trying to seek inspiration and living by it. The humanity of the church means that like all scripture, it is a mix of the human and the divine. As we are all free agents with power of discernment, we are capable of taking what we interpret as divine, and leaving the rest behind.
I also believe, that as we share in a bit of further light and knowledge — that the church’s stories are myths meant to teach — we can rise above literalism to share our love for one another without dwelling on the pettiness that comes along with literalism.
This is Paul’s more excellent way: to love one another and to serve one another in that love. I know of no better organization for me than the church that gives every member the opportunity to serve.
We can criticize, for example, home and visiting teaching as an artificial numbers game, or we can seize the spirit of compassionate service to make a difference. We can complain that the church cuts costs for janitorial service, or we can find humility and love in cleaning toilets, anonymously serving those who will be grateful for a clean toilet.
Divinity in the church is not to be found in grand promises of eternal glory and prophetic perfection, but rather, in the mundane moments of nurturing one another.
Yeah, I need the church, now more than ever.
Wayfarer… This is a genuinely beautiful post and I really appreciate your wonderful words. What a perfect way to prepare myself on a Saturday evening to remember to look for the positives when I attend tomorrow.
Again, thank you.
deepdivered wrote:Thanks ray
So I have been thinking a lot about Joseph Smith the last couple days. I have great respect for him as a person (except I am little puzzled about what I have read about him and polygamy recently, Right now I am choosing to over look the data as I don’t know how true and accurate it is) I have been talking about him and his inspired version on the bible hear and its been softening my heart.
I have a book called something like the restoration told by thous who saw it. It brought me to tears many times back when I was reading because of how honorable a man he was. I am a softy for story’s of selfless honorable acts lol.
So this puts me with a choice if I decide I don’t believe in god then I’d have to discredit all I think about Joseph smith. I made a great study of him on my mission because like I said my family became active when I was in high school. I developed a testimony of the church and serves a mission (the details of these events are pretty Intetesting and I’ll have to shear some time. I did shear with my wife when we where friends and I learned she was interested in the church. She said its what made her want to actively investigate with the missionarys) erly on in my mission as we where teaching about modern prophets and Joseph smith I was asked ok so what has he prophest? I realized besides the first vision I have like no info about him. That bothered me because how can I testify he is a prophet if I don’t even know basically anything about him. I read anything I could get my hands on about him. A few weeks later my companion/trainer had me tell the part of the first vision and this time I felt I knew for sure it was true and as I spoke and felt more sure of what I was saying I felt the feeling I associate with the spirit very strong as I spoke to them also my body actually started to feel very hot which never happened befor or sense I started to cry as I said I knew Joseph smith is a true prophet. They where watching me very intently and the whole room was silent as they held on to every word I said. From my study’s I could shear more compelling info when questions about him came and blow my comps minds lol
So with reflecting on all this its been softening my heart.
Sent from my evo 3d using Tapatalk 2
Thanks for sharing deepdivered. I love how this forum allows us to get things off our chest. When we keep things inside our head it stays trapped and festers and poisons.
My mission president used to say ‘writing crystalises thought.’ I think that’s what this forum is doing for me.
Thanks for sharing your experience of Joseph Smith.
Here’s a question I’ve not completely considered and wanted to see what you think… (I’ll ask myself the same).
What if there is no God? What if we’re a cluster of organisms floating through an otherwise space? Would you still want to treat your family well and associate with a community that will support you in being a good, kind Father? Would you still want written sources from previous philosophers/theologians who had contemplated life’s big human balances? Would you want a group of similar living thought leaders who continue to develop those life-morals for today’s generation (with a healthy dose of aviation analogies)?
My answer used to be no-way. If there’s not deity behind it I’m better off out, doing my own thing. Now that I’ve lost some of my certainties I’m less sure I want to abandon the good I find in the organisation.
How about you?
Stunning indeed. Having experienced a little of the church’s ARP (as a recipient of its welcomed support) I’m very grateful that some in our organisation recognise that ‘just pray harder’ doesn’t cut it. It’s something I’ve mentioned the value of in a couple of priesthood meetings in the past. I get some odd looks, but I hope it will allow someone else to realise that active Mormons are subject to addictions too.
I’ve by no means had the challenges of ‘Melville’ – I’m grateful for living examples like him, who show the gospel of Christ has strengthening value.
almostgone wrote:Thanks mackay11… I am totally aware of those who are okay with justifying everything. I just can’t seem to come to those same conclusions. If I wanted to I could justify anything: any religion, any sin, etc… I am a very black and white individual, something I am trying to change about myself. For me, if I could have a confirmation from God that Joseph was a prophet than I could get past all the controversy surrounding him.
Then I hope you get your answer. I agree with you that black and white is ideal. I’ve preferred that approach to. Having gone through my recent process of investigation I’ve realised I may need to consider shades of grey.
The church creates an environment where it’s all right or all wrong that works for the majority. I’m realising that it could also work if some of it’s right and some is culture/policy/opinion.
For now, focus on the positive impact of church in your life while you decide how to reconcile your concerns.
It still seems like a crazy thing to me… but I’m starting to consider whether I could embrace the positives of Joseph’s theology, irrespective of what he actually did or didn’t see in 1820s visions.
I can appreciate that spiritual certainty of an actual visit from God and Jesus is a more comfortable starting point.
Hi Jamison. I’m glad you’ve been able to find a sense of resolution and that you feel you are on your way out of your faith crisis. That’s great news.
And thanks for an interesting topic to kick off a bit of debate. It certainly got me thinking.
:thumbup: There’s a great post over on moderatebutpassionate.com about reactions to the election. http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2012/11/talking-to-your-kids-about-election.html?spref=fb Pretty sickening that his daughter at church had a friend who quoted Heleman 5:2 at her:
Quote:
I was talking to my daughter last night. She was asking me about the election, what I thought so forth. She knew I voted for President Obama, and that her mother did as well. It’s also well known in the ward that I did. She was telling me that her friends were giving her a little bit of a hard time about it. I told her just to let it go. It isn’t worth losing a friendship because of a disagreement about politics. She then informed me that one of her friends told her that she needed to look up a scripture, Helaman 5:2 and that would pretty well explain our situation.“For their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.”
Muppets and bigots… I can do without them.
wayfarer wrote:mackay11 wrote:There’s a woman on there that has two kittens as an avatar called (I think) Tacenda. She gets an incredible among of negativity and patronising comments because she persists with quoting ‘antis’ perspective. I can only assume she’s a WUM or enjoys the negative attention.
Tacenda has been here as well. good person…but i think she does love the battle. more power to her.Cool – I’m glad to know she’s genuine. I can imagine coming over to staylds being her respite in the red corner between 2nd and 3rd round in the ring.
wayfarer wrote:cwald wrote:MDDB is one of most vile, bitter, and hate filled Mormon boards I’ve ever participated on.
While I would tend to agree, it is true to it’s original name Mormon Apologetics Discussion Board (MAD). It does not foster dialog and caters to those who see apologetics as defense of Mormonism by any means necessary. It is a fanclub made up of sycophants for the ilk of Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin.Making it appear like a site for dialog, they lure unsuspecting people who ask questions. Since the intention is the defense of Mormonism rather than support, questioning immediately brands the newcomer an anti, and a feeding frenzy ensues.
One of their most used tools is “CFR” “Call for reference” where a new poster is challenged to tell where they came up with a doubt or concern. If challenged with a CFR, site rules require you to cite where you got your information. If you cite any source that they consider anti, then another feeding frenzy ensues, attacking you and the source rather than addressing the claim.
You cannot win.
There’s a woman on there that has two kittens as an avatar called (I think) Tacenda. She gets an incredible among of negativity and patronising comments because she persists with quoting ‘antis’ perspective. I can only assume she’s a WUM or enjoys the negative attention.
On the other hand, I find it useful sometimes to get the perspective on histrocity from those who are in full faith. I still hope that one day I’m able to piece it all together and find a full, living testimony. I miss it.
Anyway – sorry OP, I’ve gone off topic.
To (sort of) come back on topic… when I’ve been on MDDB, I actually don’t feel like I can be fully honest with who I am. If I ask a question it’s under a different name and I feel like I should ask it through the lens of faith to even get some reasonable answers rather than be dismissed as an anti. I guess I should ask ‘what would donald trump do…’ – maybe not.
Reality is, the fate of a middlewayist is sometimes you need to be more subtle and understated with your POV, else risk being sidelined at church. Given a lot of people here go to church for the community and emotional support rather than the theology, being ostracised is the last thing we need.
One of my favourites: A guy walks into a bar. Ouch!
No not that one, this one:
A guy walks into a bar and orders two pints of beer. He sits in the corner, drinks them, then leaves.
This continues, once a week on Friday night, for several months. Two pints in the corner, then leaves.
Eventually the barman’s curiosity gets the better of him and, as he passes the man the two pints one Friday night he asks him why he follows such a strict routine. “Oh that’s simple,” says the man “my Brother lives in Australia. We’ve not seen each other for years. As a show of unity, every Friday night we have 2 pints each. One for myself and one for my brother.” Satisfied, the barman leaves the man to his routine.
A few more months pass and then one night, the man comes in, orders only one pint of beer and takes it to the corner. The barman struggles with what to say, but eventually goes over to the man and says, “I’m really sorry for your loss. Can I offer my condolences about your brother?”
The man looks up and says “Oh, no, no, no, it’s not that at all. Last week my wife finally convinced me to become a Mormon. So it means I can’t drink beer any more.” He pauses, raises the pint glass with a smile and says, “Hasn’t stopped my brother though…”
Hi, welcome to the forum. I’m sorry to hear that you’ve reached a point where you doubt your faith – I can appreciate it’s an uncomfortable experience. Having your prayers unanswered and feeling the heavens are closed is challenging. For certain this board has helped me to find a way of appreciating the positive aspects of being in the church.
Before writing off the church based on history, remember that there are many people aware of these elements of history and are still in full faith. Regarding the Joseph Smith stories, Jeff Lindsay has written about them – as have many others. You could start here:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_first_vision.shtml I wrote a long letter to a friend a few years back about the First Visions which, at the time, helped them reconcile their concerns. FWIW, once you start reading answers to one question, you may find other issues to wrestle with.
This forum is a great place for a supportive environment and not feeling judged for having those question.
wjclerk wrote:mackay11 wrote:(By the way, I see people say CER when asking for a quote/reference. What does it stand for?).
I think you may mean “CFR” which stands for Call For Reference(s). It means produce documented source that someone else can check for themselves as to the authenticity of a particular statement. At least, that’s what I hope it means!
🙂 Ahah, CFR, and thanks for the explanation.
I guess that’s why I see a lot of it over on MDDB (is that the right shorthand for the mormondialogue board?)
Is there a thread on MDDB? I was curious to see other’s views on it. I felt like I was considered a threat and attacked when I shared some views.
Kumahito wrote:mackay11 wrote:Should the church have spoken out against the invasion of Iraq. That was, under UN definitions, a crime.
Actually, the UN Security Council unanimously voted to find Iraq in material breach of previous UNSCRs in November 2002. Recall the now-infamous SecState Colin Powell speech. Try Googling “UNSCR 1441.” While your facts are wrong, your point is actually one worth making. At what point would an armed conflict of the United States be so egrigious that the Church would be compelled to respond against it? With the number of Mormons serving on active duty in the armed forces, that would be a sticky wicket, indeed.
This is probably neither the thread nor even forum to go into a detailed debate over the war’s legality. I think both of us have used the kind of ‘absolutist, dogmatic’ phrasing that many on this avoid at church.
With that in mind it would be better for us to say ‘some people consider the invasion illegal (such as Kofi Annan and some legal experts) and that certain war crimes were committed. Others consider the war to be legal (US/UK governments and some legal experts).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War Setting that aside as you have done. The question arises as to whether Pres Hinkley should have opposed it or not.
His October 2003 conf talk is, for me, an uncomfortable piece.
http://www.lds.org/pa/library/0,17905,4880-1,00.html Quote:The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of (the 2001) conflict. Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion.
Over 10 years later it’s still not (I appreciate that was a hope not prophecy, but brings in to question how much a seer, sees – I may use this next time someone tells me the prophet knows how the stock-market will move!).
He initially denounces war as cruel, ugly and destructive (citing the empires of history, but not any of the American wars). He then goes on to quote canonised scripture against war, but then ads what he describes as his own opinion:
Quote:…modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).
In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.
The opinion he goes on to give is that when action is taken in defence of family/home/freedom, war is justified.
Again, this is a hotly debated topic but I believe US/UK were under no immediate threat from Saddam, he had not invaded our countries. There were no WMD. This, in my view, is not comparable to Nephites having their crops burnt and cities crushed by the Lamanites and fighting to defend themselves.
In Pres Hinkley’s opinion:
Quote:When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34).
This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.
So even though we are a peace loving people, he thinks it may be that God will hold those responsible those who impede those in a contest with evil. I guess that’s the closest he can come to saying ‘I approve of the war and think you shouldn’t oppose it.
If the prophet and the church are “committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy,” then why do they stay silent over the countries where there is a very real threat to liberty (or a complete lack of it)? Is it simply that they are only willing to support the conflicts the American government consider worthwhile?
In 2001 he also said that Americans “stand solidly with the president.” I’m sure plenty of TBM American Mormons actually didn’t, but may have been made to feel unfaithful with this statement. My very faithful (British) Mum nearly walked out of conference at that statement and never came back and had to reassure herself he was pandering to the Utah jarheads. She joined marches against the war and was sick to the stomach at the thought that the church’s president was supporting the president.
I loved Gordon B Hinkley as a church president. I miss the wonderful uplifting messages and beautiful timbre of his voice.
I’m reassured that in the 2003 talk he makes it clear that he is sharing his opinion. It’s not one I agree with.
Given we are such a diverse global church I’d prefer our leaders to stay out of politics and stick to teaching the gospel.
Roadrunner wrote:Similarly, I’ve already heard grumblings about President Obama’s re-election being the will of the Lord. It will speed up the 2nd coming.
Lol. Where’s my facepalm emoticon… Given only one of them was likely to send the west into a war with the middle east (and possbly china/russia/north korea), maybe Obama’s win has actually delayed it
