[MisterCurie]

I’m sorry to hear about you and your husband’s struggles. I hope that you are able to find the support you need here. It sounds like your husband could use some professional counseling to work through the pain and trauma he has experienced. I have not heard many positive stories about LDS family services, especially when SSA is involved. I would suggest finding an outside medical professional.

I have heard that the group, Affirmation, is useful for SSA mormons. I have not had any direct experience with them, but you may want to check them out for additional support.

[MisterCurie]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

It used to be on ogdenkraut.com but the website is down for construction right now…I’m not sure if there is another link or not…if I find one, I’ll pm you.

Thanks. One question on this topic. You said:

Bruce in Montana wrote:

We don’t proselyte nor desire/reject membership growth…

Given the listing of 95 differences between the early church and the current LDS church, how do you reconcile the early church’s focus on proselytizing with your group not proselytizing now?

[MisterCurie]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

http://www.4thefamily.us/files/Kraut%20 … Theses.txt

The link only has the first half of the differences. Is there a link for the last half? I was interested in reading about particularly some of the later points.

[MisterCurie]

So, I had a whole post almost completed on this book with a chapter by chapter summary, but my computer died and I lost the whole thing. Lame!

Basically, I agree with the things others have written. This book is very interesting and was a relatively quick read. It helped me to better place the temple into LDS theology and understand the historical perspective. It made me consider new things about the endowment, understand the symbolism better, and obtain a great appreciation for the temple. There were lots of interesting historical facts and historical tidbits that I didn’t know previously. I highly recommend this book for a better understanding of the temple. It actually seemed like a very respectful treatment of the temple, although I suspect some places would make TBMs uncomfortable.

[MisterCurie]

Chapter 5: Family Relationships

An interesting discussion of “dynastic appointment” in the church hierarchy (what might otherwise look like nepotism). It seems that nearly all of the GAs are related to each other, either directly or through their wives. Much of this comes from polygamous relationships, which interrelated many early Mormons. While most of the chapter is related to the historical hierarchy, Quinn also examines the current leaders of the church (as of 1996) and shows that extensive family relationships still exist within the hierarchy. There is also an appendix in the book on family relationships and one can look up most of the more recently called apostles and see their relationships to other apostles (they are still related, except Elder Uchtdorf).

Chapter 6: Church Finances

A fascinating analysis of finances within the church, including little discussed facts, such that our lay ministry not receiving pay is relatively recent development (for a long time Bishops and Stake Presidents received money based on how much tithing they collected). The chapter does make me wish the church published a detail report of their use of funds (like they used to).

Chapter 7: Post-1844 Theocracy and a Culture of Violence

A very disturbing chapter on violence in the church, including blood atonement. The “theocratic ethics” are frightening and what lead to my belief that JS may have founded a cult that has developed into a church. Blood atonement sins included adultery, apostasy, covenant breaking, counterfeiting, “many man who left this Church”, murder, not being heartily on the Lord’s side, profaning the name of the Lord, sexual intercourse between a white person and a black person (also for the offspring of such a union), stealing, and lying. That list is much lengthier than I’d ever heard before.

Chapter 8: Priesthood Rule and Shadow Governments

A discussion of the theocracy in Utah and the Council of Fifty. The information in this chapter sets the stage for the rest of the book, as Quinn explores the church’s use of political power. An interesting read to help understand the foundations and beginnings of the church’s role in things such as prop 8.

Chapter 9: Partisan Politics

More historical bases for the church’s political arm in things such as prop 8, including a discussion of “Follow the Prophet” and prophet worship, a relatively new phenomenon in Mormon culture.

Chapter 10: A National Force, 1970s-1990s

Primarily an analysis of the church’s role in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment. However, the methods used have an uncanny resemblance to tactics used in the Prop 8 fight in CA. In fact, the church largely used a disinformation campaign against the ERA, labeling ERA leaders as lesbians and building on homophobia to defeat the ERA. If you are upset about the church’s role in Prop 8 and other political battles, this is a must-read chapter. Unfortunately, it also lays out the case as to why the church is not likely to back down from such battles in the near future.

Overall, this seems to be a well-researched book. I like that Quinn largely deals with the more modern church (where the references are more abundant and less ambiguous) but also where I recognize the names as leaders within my lifetime.

[MisterCurie]

Rix wrote:

“taking simple things and confusing them enough to ensure nobody understands!”

This is largely how I see many apologist arguements, particularly in the field of genetics, where I have enough background to see where they are overly confusing the field.

Rix wrote:

Quote:

But I feel the absolute opposite, as far as the first 40 pages are concerned. The “sailing” to the new world, the Liahona, Lehi’s Dream/Joseph Sr.’s Dream, killing Laban for the plates, bringing Ishmael’s family, Nephi’s relationship with his brothers, overt obsession with riches/gold/family status. It all screams Joseph Smith, Jr.(in my mind) I think a more fascinating examination is the possibilities that the first 40 pages were mostly Joseph’s and the rest of the BoM was more collaborative/plagiarized/inspired. That makes a ton of sense to me.

Quote:

Me too. I think there’s enough evidence that it is just that. (or a collaberation of works by a few authors, like Spalding, Rigdon et al).

I’m still struggling with my views on the historicity of the BoM, but I know it is a good book. While I can’t testify as Elder Holland did that alternative theories are “pathetic”, I can testify that I have seen the BoM change lives and touch peoples hearts. I cling to that goodness. . .

[MisterCurie]

seanhess wrote:

Now, I’m taking your advice to heart, but to be thorough, here’s one more thing I’m thinking. I definitely don’t want to burn any bridges (remove my name from the records of the church, or announce my apostasy to my family), but in general I learn things about life by trying them. When I couldn’t pick a major in college, I just tried some until I found one that worked. I just quit my job because I think starting a business is a good next step. I’ll know whether or not it was after I try it for a while. But it’s not like I’m going to drive myself to ruin because I’m trying it. The worst thing that can happen is I will be poor and get another job in a year (no debt/capital needed).

So when I say I’m considering stepping away from the church, it’s not like I couldn’t change my mind. I might even continue to make an appearance at church. Might doing that be the same as trying out a job or career? Things aren’t as permanent as they sometimes seem.

I think that it is wise to avoid burning bridges, as that only serves to limit your future options. Only you can decide what is the best course of action for you. If you aren’t sure, I think it is valid to experiment on it and see what works and what doesn’t. I’m trained in the scientific method and I think experimentation is a great way to discover all sorts of truth. As long as you don’t burn bridges, the changes you make definately do not have to be permanent.

[MisterCurie]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

That has got to be a tough one for you guys to reconcile. Hopefully you can all find an explanation that works for you without turning the Church into an institution that bows to social mores (sp?).

On the contrary, this is very easy to resolve. With an understanding of the apostles and prophets as humans who are trying their best, but are subject to their own cultural biases, they are bound to be highly influenced by their upbringing. Many could not see past their own views of the world and those that truly desired to obtain a revelation to alter the church policy put an unnecessarily high bar on what level of revelation was needed in order to change the policy.

[MisterCurie]

Poppyseed wrote:

I hope its not too bold to say that I see it as a waste of energy to become offended.

Not at all. Well said. Rather than waste time on being offended, I think its much better to remember that we can be cafeteria mormons and choose to dine on something more to our liking.

[MisterCurie]

Bill Atkinson wrote:

The key suggestion always is, take it slow, don’t make any drastic changes, there is so much that is good in the Church and your family life is currently built around that so messing with the Church is messing with a loving and effective marriage so be very careful and thoughtful.

Yes, I neglected that very useful advice – go SLOW! I whole-heartedly endorse such suggestions.

I regularly have to tell myself, “You don’t have to make any concrete decisions today.” Some days I want to drop everything and run from the church, but I keep trying to remind myself to take things slow. Seven weeks ago I was TBM, and it’s only been about 4-5 weeks that I’ve actually been struggling with things, so I may not be the best example of taking things slowly. Of course, sometimes it seems things are conspiring against me, as my temple recommend just expired and I need to make a decision about what to do . . .

[MisterCurie]

I understand where you are coming from with these questions. I think most people on this site try to view the challenge to their faith as an experience from God designed to help them eventually develop a stronger faith (using Fowler’s Stage of faith as one paradigm in which to understand this journey). Reread the essay on how to stay on the front page of the StayLDS blog. Those are the principles espoused by this forum.

During the early parts of stage four it is common for a person to feel the “dark night of the soul”, where a person frequently feels the need to question all of the underlying tenants of their faith. On the podcasts discussing Fowler’s stages of faith (linked on the StayLDS blog) they discuss a journey through athiesm and agnosticism. Once entering Stage 4, your journey becomes a very personal thing and it is up to you to take responsibility for it. No one can tell you what to do on that journey. You shouldn’t find much judging of your decisions on this site. You will need to decide what, if anything, in the church is impairing your progression on your faith journey. I think its important to mention that your faith journey doesn’t have to lead you back to your LDS faith, even in Stage 5. Many people decide to disengage with at least aspects of the church, if not the whole church, for a while to better understand what about belonging to the LDS faith helps their faith journey and what hinders it. I personally have definately felt some desire to disengage with the church some, but I also recognize that completely disengaging from the church will not necessarily simplify my life. By disengaging completly, there are a lot of other factors (family, social, etc.) that will become very complicated. I currently feel that a complete disengagement will hinder my journey do to all of those other complicating factors. But you should feel free to do whatever will help you on your faith journey. I think many on this site would suggest that you replace or supplement areas of your faith when you are disengaging from the LDS faith. Suggestions from the “How to Stay” essay include seeking God in nature if you are not seeking God through worship services, using tithing money for charities if you feel it is a hinderance to your faith to pay tithing to the LDS church, etc.

I think there are so many Stage 5 people on this site that some of these practical suggestions from the “How to Stay” essay are forgotten in the forum. There’s a lot of great advice in there for the Stage 4 people. Do what you feel will help you most, and don’t be afraid to experiment.

[MisterCurie]

I can understand your frustration with some of the tactics and motivations some groups have to deny marriage to same sex couples.

Do you have a list of what groups are in the coalitions against same sex marriage. I must admit that I do not know much about the coalition.

[MisterCurie]

The problem is that frequently the issue is confused to make what one may reasonably assume is knowable into something that cannot be knowable. The apolgists frequently confuse the issue when the facts appear to be against their preconceived notions, therefore it must not exist within the realm of the knowable because the answer is against their “truth”. DNA evidence is one such example. I do not expect DNA evidence to ever prove the BoM true, and apologists will always find ways in which the answer science is giving us is incorrect and addressing something unknowable. Apologists started seeking out DNA because it would answer question in the realm of the knowable, when the answer wasn’t what they wanted, it suddenly became unknowable.

[MisterCurie]

Valoel wrote:

My personal opinion only: Part of a solid Stage 5 point of view in Mormonism, if that is the direction someone is drawn, is to give one’s self permission to be immersed in the idea of being a “true” religion (even if that takes a redefinition or adjustment) AND at the same time being comfortable with the fact that is only a symbolic element in our LDS mythology. The LDS Church, as a concept, has a need to be “True” in order for a lot of it to work.

That is the “conjunctive” faith development, combining the recognition of the symbols as mediating a transcendent thought with the ability to be in them, working with them at the same time. It is a new combination of our conscious rational self with our unconscious, intuitive (irrational) self. It is a “willful” or “second” naivete’.

Valoel, I hope one day to be able to understand what you wrote and rejoice in its clarity. However, I am definately not in Stage 5 right now.

Unless I am mistaken, Seanhess, you are not in Stage 5 either (check out Fowler’s Stage of Faith on this forum to see what everyone is talking about, it comes up very frequently) but you are coming to grips with your disaffection and begining to question everything you have been taught in the church. At this point on your journey, I think it is perfectly acceptable for you to say the church is not true, not like you believed it was, but it is good. And you can hold onto the goodness and allow it to sustain you in your struggles with your faith.

Valoel and Ray, correct me if I’m wrong, but even in stage 5 you cannot honestly say that the church is true in the same way you believed it was when you were in stage 3. Can you? Perhaps you can, but if you have to redefine what “true” is, then something must have changed between Stage 3 and Stage 5.

[MisterCurie]

just me wrote:

Now, I don’t necessarily believe this story is even literal, but my brothers and sisters in the church do. That is why I choose to use literal interpretations to put this principle to rest.

I think this is a good point. We need to engage with the rest of the church on their level. Perhaps teachings of the prophets will help to emphasize these points, but the scriptures you have compiled may also be helpful. It is not helpful that modern “prophets” have spoken poorly of blacks and it is not helpful that the church continues to refuse to admit that the priesthood ban was a mistake and instead perpetuate the belief that God did not want blacks to have the priesthood until 1978.

just me wrote:

Who is in charge of the manual?

The Church Correlation Committee. It it is still in there, it was carefully read and vetted by dozens of individuals and deemed in accordance with accepted church doctrine. Sad, huh . . .

[Author]

Posts