[marty]

LookingHard wrote:

I follow your logic.

Reminds me about an item I wrote a while back … just the one comment I made, not the entire thread)

Wow, that’s interesting.

[marty]

Roy wrote:

We are spiritual beings, having an earthly experience” – Gay people can be thought of as “Spiritually straight beings, having an earthly gay experience.”

Yes, perfectly put. I think most people would agree with that statement, but I don’t think people chase it down to it’s logical conclusions, which is in a word, weird.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marty]

Roy wrote:

If we take as literal that God will not do anything without communicating with His prophets, then we might end up with a much expanded definition of “prophet.”

Yeah, interesting. I like that.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marty]

We had a death in the family recently. That person was cremated, and the Church even helped pay for it.

I will be cremated (after I donate any good organs I have left). Maybe make myself into a brick.

One common tradition is for people to be buried in their Temple clothes. Pretty sure there’s nothing doctrinal about that, but is common enough that some might wish that.

Personally, I think the idea of ashes swirling in a whirlwind and reconstituting a resurrected being is a heck of a lot cooler than a stinky zombie in temple clothes clawing its way out of a coffin.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marty]

Roadrunner wrote:

…imperfect vessels like … Wagner

+10 for cool topical music reference

+5 bonus points if you pronounced it ‘Vagnuh’ when you typed it out

[marty]

NightSG wrote:

And?

We’re not here to gain society’s approval. Christ’s own words, and for that matter, His life in general made that pretty clear.

The short answer to your question (and?) is that it makes it harder for me to stay LDS. I probably could have chosen better words.

I figured that this forum has a lot of people trying to cobble a different version of what it means to be LDS. I’m definitely on the fringe, and while I don’t believe that society is always to be trusted, I do believe that society’s sense of care and equality is a pretty good barometer. Historically when that’s clashed with the Church, the Church has eventually changed their stance.

[marty]

Roy wrote:

We might let inactives live a “life of sin” but we seem to draw the line when they try to call their lifestyle choices good and acceptable and thus muddy the waters for anyone else (especially subsequent generations) trying to choose between right and wrong.

I’m all for dealing with apostates. It just makes sense. And it’s in the Church’s prerogative to declare what things are important to weed out of our congregations.

When you declare mandatory disciplinary councils for a group that’s built a massive amount of sympathy from the general public; a group that’s successfully branded themselves as a discriminated class… When you do that you are absolutely begging for a long and painful PR nightmare. This policy change is going to drone on and on and on. Every time we’ve forgotten about it, another story like this will pop up. The Church will be tried in the court of public opinion over and over and is going to lose every time.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marty]

This is a bit tough for me because everything feels up in the air. There are a lot of good teachings, but I’m not sure if I truly believe them. But, I love the focus on the good, so here’s mine:

Music: (Not the actual music, but participating and bonding through music)

* Youth: I think the Church tends to produce upstanding, responsible, respectable youth. The Church helps develop leaders

* Welfare: The Church has a very effective welfare system

* Evolution: The Church is evolving by definition (we believe God will yet reveal…) – that gives a possibility that things can change and get better

* Leaders: I tend to focus on leaders that bother me, but there are many inspiring leaders, like Elder Renlund, Uchtdorf, Monson, Eyring

* Education: Members are encouraged to educate themselves. Somewhat paradoxically, the more educated a member becomes, the more likely they are to remain an active member

* Self-reliance: Taking care of yourself and family; accepting help when you need it, but also lifting others

* Families: spending time together, raising kids to be leaders and teachers, intentional parenting

* Service: helping other ward members

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[marty]

Heber13 wrote:

I think of Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey, or floods in New Orleans, or areas where disasters happen and LDS people respond in a very organized way. That says something about what prophets are teaching us.

Hopefully my comment didn’t come across that I don’t think the apostles and prophets are contributing to the betterment of society and enriching the lives of members (and non-members).

This is very subjective (measuring good), but I was thinking of really huge things that were inspired or created outside of the Church:

[list]

[marty]

On Own Now wrote:

Anti-mormonism has always been rooted in some form of truth but very frequently exaggerates for maximum effect.

If you remove the “Anti-” from the beginning, it’s still a true statement.

On Own Now wrote:

Just think of how we feel about the FLDS Church and its practices: it’s a ‘corruption’ of what we hold so dearly.

There are women who leave the Warren Jeff’s cult, and then dedicate their whole lives to helping rescue other young impressionable girls. They are angry and frustrated for what happened to them. They are anti-Mormon, just a slightly different flavor — yet we applaud their efforts.

Many see Mormon missionary work as anti-Catholic, anti-[insert religion here]. We send young men door to door to “convert” people, which is essentially the process of knocking down parts of their current beliefs and replacing them with ones we like better. We applaud this “conversion” process and support it, even when the person is disowned by family members.

This whole conversation is an interesting study in group dynamics. In a way, we all react to opposition exactly the way human beings are programmed to react. We give labels to the opposition, discredit them, spread fear about them, avoid them, and always always speak in general terms: things like “most of what they say is a lie”, “they are just bitter and unhappy”, “they left because of X,Y,Z”, “they are deceived, misguided, brainwashed”. Because if we actually got to know them as a person, we might actually like them and realize that they are reasonable people with reasonable arguments. It goes both ways.

[marty]

Ann wrote:

I agree. Let’s have real discussions. Like if a teacher would asked, “Which prophet ended the North American slave trade?” – we would have an interesting discussion. We could agree that God’s will was done there, but how did it get done?

This. Assign all good on the earth to God’s hand and then observe the mechanisms and vehicles God uses to bring about good. When you look at the things that have effected the most good: (increased comfort, peace, health, life expectancy, equality, etc), it’s hard to argue that God works much through anybody except scientists and engineers. Oh, and those pesky social activists. I’m not trying to be standoffish about Church leadership, but this is real world where these things can actually be measured and observed over time. How has God worked through prophets in the last 100-150 years to brings joy, love, and peace to his children?

[marty]

I support the topic of this thread. Church got infinitely more peaceful and enjoyable when I realized that I was in control.

My current challenge is two-fold:

[list]

[*] The Church categorically rejects cafeteria Mormonism. Yes, I understand that I can reject their rejection of my cafeteria style, but it doesn’t help the social status of my family

[*] Certain “food” choices prevent a person from having a Temple Recommend

[/list] In other words, if you’re okay not having a recommend, and you’re okay dealing with the social consequences (some of which your spouse has to bear), then it’s a much better position to be in.

[marty]

When you speak up in a productive way, it connects you to the Church in a powerful way, and it opens doors for people who might be in a similar position and are struggling to feel like they fit in. Kudos for the courage to speak up. I think change only comes “by a thousand duck bites”.

[marty]

I’ve already replied twice, and maybe my responses haven’t been super supportive. I want OP to know that I really honestly do hope he finds peace.

I want to respond to a question that was posed – this isn’t in a competitive way, it’s just interesting to see how people view things differently.

The question is (paraphrased): Is intimacy cheapened when we have to “share” it with people from our partner’s past? To me, the answer is a resounding NO (bolded and capitalized). Here’s why:

When I fell in love with my wife, that meant I fell in love with everything in her past; not because it was perfect, but simply because it was her. If I were able to go into her past and erase mistakes she made (and do the same for me), she would cease to be my wife. Take this magic eraser to it’s ultimate end, where you erase every bad thing you and your spouse ever did – where you erased every intimate moment (physical or emotional) they ever had with someone else, and only kept the “desirable” part. You are left with a shell of a person… not even a real person. Because you also remove guilt, repentance, resolve, all things that eventually make a person “more” in my opinion.

Past relationships give color and meaning to current ones. Our spouses and partners shared intimate moments with other people, but then moved on, eventually to us. There’s way more power in that thought than there is in “My wife was the first date I went on”. I get that there are other people that would rather be their spouse’s first everything (date, kiss, light petting, whoot-whoot), but that’s just not me. My spouse introduced me to sushi; one of her past relationships was half-Japanese (which is where she was introduced to it). When we went the first time, she explained about how this person’s mom (Japanese) taught her certain aspects of Japanese cuisine and dining. Sushi is still a place we reach for if we want a romantic date night. I try to imagine erasing all of that and it seems extremely subtractive.

My parting advice to OP would just be to love your wife. Think about what she’s feeling right now more than yourself, serve her and understand her, and I guarantee you’ll find yourself in calmer waters.

[marty]

mfree6464 wrote:

I feel like I lost something that gave me comfort. It’s not a possessive thing in my opinion.

Those statements are at odds with each other.

mfree6464 wrote:

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong. It is part of the plan to be your spouse’s one and only. That is how it is designed and how it is supposed to work. When that changes the plan is disrupted and this has caused me great heart ache for 4 weeks now

Based on your understanding of the Gospel, you were entitled to virginity (which you got, by the way). You already settled for something less than virginity when you got married (virginity minus third base), and by her having or giving oral sex 14 years ago, she has disrupted God’s plan which has forced unspeakable heartache onto you. Now, and for all eternity, you’ll have to suffer with the thought of her past misdeeds. I know you don’t think so, but it’s an extremely sexually possessive mindset.

[Author]

Posts