[nibbler]

First off I feel the need to apologize for bumping a thread that hasn’t been posted in for over 4 years. I’ve found a wealth of information in this forum and I’m currently working my way from the back reading threads with titles that interest me. I came across this one and had a few thoughts. I’ll try not to make it a habit to bump such old threads.

Where are the people speaking in tongues, visitations by angels, and pillars of fire in our current temple dedications? I see a few possible explanations.

I don’t think anyone would argue that there are many differences in culture between early saints and saints of our day. If God wants to speak to us it’s going to be in a language we can understand and it will be within the confines of our (personal) faith – otherwise we’d miss the message completely or write it off as crazy. I don’t think God wants us to miss the message so I think we only receive communication in forms that we can understand. Early saints were fluent in the faith of burning pillars, angel visitations, and speaking in tongues so that’s what they received. The question then becomes why are we as a people no longer fluent in the faith of burning pillars, etc.? What faith are we then fluent in? Is one faith better or more convincing that the other? Maybe crying in church is all we allow ourselves to see and feel and maybe that’s sufficient?

There’s another reason that came to my mind. One that motivated me enough to comment on a long dead thread. IMO there’s one stark difference between the temples of the early saints and the temples constructed in our day. The early saints sacrificed meals, comfort, blood, sweat, and tears to construct their temples. They took shifts to aid in construction. They gave up the best of their best materials to build the temple. Their handiwork was present in the temple. Nowadays we’re several steps removed from the process. We pay tithing, never knowing whether the tithing we paid contributed toward the building and maintenance of our specific local temple(s). Most of us did not provide assistance in the physical construction of our local temple, a construction crew came along to build the temple, we went about our daily lives, and a few months later there’s a temple where there was none before.

I realize that these are different times. It’s impractical to have an Elders Quorum show up to work on temples, they’d need training, certification, etc., etc. Still the nature of the beast is that some of the opportunities to sacrifice of our time and talents is missing from the current equation. I believe that love is born and grows through sacrifice. The early saints sacrificed quite a bit to construct their temple, they certainly loved it as a result. I wrote a check and sat on my sofa watching Futurama. 😳

Perhaps there were opportunities to work on the temple and I was simply too lazy to look for them. That said, back then it was sacrifice or no temple. Now we just need a certain percentage of the community to pay tithing and attend meetings.

It’s a hard thing to suggest, but perhaps the more spiritual blessings are commensurate to our own level of effort as a community.

Another theory that I’ve seen floating around out there was that the early saints saw angels, spoke in tongues, and saw burning pillars of fire because they had fasted quite a bit… and started off the dedicatory festivities with a bit of wine. Maybe that’s just a rationalization by people of our day… an attempt to interpose the faith and experiences of our day to a time where a different culture lent itself to different faith based experiences; or maybe they were smashed out of their gourds.

Switching gears…

The Hosanna Shout – I admit, I was a bit uncomfortable doing it. I think a very large part of the culture of the church would equate reverence to dead silence. Dead silence. Now take that culture and place her people in what they are told is the most reverent environment to be found on Earth. Now tell them to shout. See how that goes. :shifty: It’s hard for us to shout for joy simply because we don’t get enough practice doing it.

Speaking in tongues – By and large I believe it became taboo because it is a form of worship that by definition is worn on one’s sleeve. Is it a real manifestation or is Brother Nibbler trying to prove how spiritual he is? It’s unfortunate the mind (or maybe just my mind) works that way because it can destroy faith in what could have otherwise been an uplifting spiritual experience. So yes, the gift has been pigeon holed into missionaries learning new languages to preach the gospel, but was there more to be had? In other words, have I limited the blessings to be had by limiting the gift?

[nibbler]

I’m not saying this is the best approach, in fact it may be a bad one, but this is how it went down with me.

fnts wrote:

I often try to think how I would feel if our roles were reversed.

That was a big one for me and that sentiment is what ultimately guided me through the process. I carefully opened up the dialogue and I felt genuine remorse… even though going through a faith crisis isn’t anything wrong or to be ashamed of. I felt terrible because I thought that I was shattering some long held dream of hers. A few observations:

[list]

[nibbler]

Roy wrote:

I remember a story of a big chested teenage girl that was told by some parents or local church leaders that she couldn’t be modest in any swimsuit because her chest was still quite noticeable (especially by teenage boys who tend to notice these kinds of things). As I remember the story, she was shamed into not swimming with her fellows at the swim party.

That story reminded me of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathing_machine” class=”bbcode_url”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathing_machine

[nibbler]

Thanks all for the input. Elders Holland and Uchtdorf did directly address the issue in the last two conferences, and yes I agree with them.

IMO it’s a good start. The rubber meets the road at the local level, and the juxtaposition of this thread with another recent thread (where someone is being barred from blessing their child because they do not believe that the BoM is a historical record) indicates to me that the culture hasn’t quite caught up with the direction the leaders are providing. Like all things I suspect it will take time.

It’s been mentioned in the last two conferences, perhaps this topic will become a staple in conferences going forward.

[nibbler]

I’ve seen a roll passed in SS a few times but not in a long long time.

I’ve seen rolls being passed in priesthood meetings all the time. You wouldn’t even have to show up on strategic Sundays to fly under the radar, they passed a 3 month roll around, you could show up once and do a lot of checking next to dates.

The funny thing is that during the time I was teaching in EQ I never got the roll. I was in front of the group giving the lesson. I suppose I was inactive during that period. :think: No one was checking my name off each Sunday. I’d occasionally see the roll and there I was… inactive.

I was always under the impression that it wasn’t so much the who but the purpose of the roll was the how many. Like a stake or ward that is a slave to the numbers for a short duration because they are trying to make the case to split into a new stake/ward. That said I think they only report SM numbers for that sort of thing. Active priesthood holders may also come into play somewhere there as well.

Back to some of the experiences shared. I’m not going to mince words… a lot of that sounds like elementary school. Seriously doesn’t seem to be any way to treat adults.

[nibbler]

Yes.

[nibbler]

Thanks for the insight. He’s not a topic of interest at all in this area, I just came upon bits and pieces of the story and thought I’d ask.

[nibbler]

brit-exmo wrote:

his take away was that the beleif in the book of mormon as history is the foundation of everything and if you take that away it all falls apart. personally i feel that says more about the precarious position of his own testimony than mine but i didn’t go there!!!

Agreed… but we’ll be here for him when he needs it. :angel:

I’m sorry you are going through this, I feel for you. This is a bridge many have to cross, keep us informed.

Edit:

I didn’t fixate on the thread title before, but it says Worthy to bless your children? I really don’t understand how whether or not someone believes in the historicity of the BoM translates over to their worthiness.

Also – I’ve said it before but in a different context, if you have enough faith to want to bless your child you have enough faith to perform the ordinance.

[nibbler]

Yeah, I think it’s complicated. For instance, you can still do HT/VT, attend all meetings and activities, hold a calling, etc. and be agnostic when it comes to beliefs – you’d just be doing it for different reasons.

For me it would be a full spectrum of what people do, things that can be observed like attendance, performing the duties of a calling, etc.

and what people believe, where without someone being open you could only guess.

In other words a member might be doing the external things but have their own beliefs/reasons for doing so or a member might not be doing the external things but be a 100% believer if you will.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Mormon” class=”bbcode_url”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Mormon

[nibbler]

QuestionAbound wrote:

I can honestly say that I am always befuddled when someone steps away from church activity and cuts off their friends at the same time. I have had a few of my friends step back from church activity…and they stopped talking to everyone. It was painful for me and those who were close to them. Not because they stopped coming to church (I don’t care what they do on Sundays), but because it felt like they threw away our friendships.

I bet some of that is them wanting to avoid what they see as an inevitable conversation/confrontation. Why did you stop coming to church? What’s wrong? etc. Whether their friends would do that is beside the point, what matters is how the person wanting to leave perceives the situation.

The culture can also play a role in this. I’ve seen people get the third degree when they decided to leave, treated as if something were wrong with them, assumed to be sinners, and made into projects. That’s one of the reasons I liked Uchtdorf’s talk, it addressed the issue head on… but if someone is in that culture and decides to leave I can see how they might feel like cutting all ties is the path of least resistance. They don’t want to be subject to a process that they’ve seen.

conflicted testimony wrote:

The members of the church have been really lovely with messages saying the door is always open and that they will pray for us. No one has unfriended me on Facebook and I still conversations with a few.

That’s good to hear. I just mention that stuff above because I’m sure that there are at least some in that boat.

[nibbler]

mackay11 wrote:

How did you all get %s? Mine was just “Unitarian universalists.” I’m a bit curious now. Do they exist in UK?

The quiz will give you your best “fit” at the end but will also send an e-mail with the percentages for all the religions on their site.

[nibbler]

I sat in on gospel principles today. Today’s lesson was on ***drum roll*** tithing. I guess because it’s that time of year and on everyone’s mind. I thought, great here’s my opportunity to maybe provide a small course correction from the hard line stance that all tithing lessons have taken in this area.

The lesson inevitably veered into the calculation realm… it always has, does, and will. The instructor brought out the pen and paper, ok here we go.

The instructor led off with:

Mark 12:17 wrote:

And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.

Placing extra emphasis on the fact that Jesus said render unto Caesar first and God afterward. For a minute there I was a bit shocked because I thought that it was leading up to a discussion about net, which would have been a first. It didn’t. It quickly veered into the traditional gross calculation method, complete with mock pay stub examples.

Unfortunately the word “increase” as in Abraham paid a tithe of one-tenth of his increase was interpreted to mean interest one earns on a savings account in the bank. :crazy: Abraham was a member of First Melchizedek S & L

I did what I told myself I was going to do from now on. I brought up the 1970 letter, which has a very small reference in the manual:

Gospel Principles manual wrote:

The First Presidency has explained that “one-tenth of all their interest annually” refers to our income (see First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970).

The manual doesn’t go beyond that to include any other information from the letter, namely

First Presidency letter, March 19, 1970 wrote:

No one is justified in making any other statement that this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.

I filled in the gap to explain how it is a personal thing between us and the Lord and how that determination would be made through personal revelation.

The teacher then said (paraphrase):

Quote:

Brother Nibbler makes a very good point. That said I have an obligation to you (referring to the class) to teach you that an honest tithe means pay on gross.

I didn’t want to argue, that’s not me. And a gospel principles class with investigators and new members isn’t the place to do it either, besides, I love the teacher. I felt like I did what I could given the circumstances and maybe that’s all I should ever do. Bring up the correct policy and let everyone come to their own conclusion. I think I’m going to include this letter in my set of scriptures so that it gets read in full for all future tithing lessons that I am a part of.

[nibbler]

Wow, that’s great news.

I’m reading all of this for the first time and I’ll say that the letter to the CES director is a doosey. In some ways the letter has a contentious undertone but that may be a bias that I read into it. Still…

Every once in a while on my mission I was paired up with companions that loved to “Bible bash.” I didn’t really ascribe to the practice myself because the fruits of such activities always (100% of the time with no other outcome) resulted in both parties walking away from the experience even more entrenched in their original views. No one changed their minds, no one came away seeing things from a different perspective, it wasn’t an edifying experience.

I don’t mean to disparage your father or anyone else that has presented this letter to someone in a challenging manner, I do see how the letter can be a great tool to explain the particulars of a faith crisis. 1) It articulates many feelings that I share much better than I could articulate them without taking a great deal of time to do so. 2) I’m not very public with my internal struggles but if I wanted to be public about them I can see the letter as being beneficial in that explaining a faith crisis over and over again can be very exhausting.

All that said I think that a certain spirit has to be held by all parties when the letter is discussed, otherwise I can see how the experience would have similar fruits as a Bible bashing session. A seed might be planted but overall people would walk away further entrenched in their original viewpoints… and it might place a strain on the interpersonal relationship as well.

I won’t comment on all of them but:

KJV errors: I thought Kumahito had very good insight into that issue. I was a translator for some time too, but not in the “big leagues.” More often than not translation isn’t a 1:1 conversion from one language to another. To borrow Ray’s word there has to be a transmission of ideas. E.g. think how someone might translate Hall and Oates’ “Maneater” a 1:1 translation would produce a very different translation than a transmission of the originally intended idea. I added this here but I think it helps with some of the other things mentioned in the letter.

BoA: I’m fatigued on this particular issue, it was the linchpin to my faith crisis, but here are some thoughts. These are from memory BTW, I could consult my notes if anyone felt like they wanted a little more concrete info. [list]

[*]The papyri were publicly displayed by Joseph Smith. Witnesses inside and outside of the church report seeing a quantity of papyri that would indicate that the rediscovered fragments and facsimiles only represent a small fraction of what Joseph Smith had in his possession. Some witnesses claim that there were rolls that were written using black and red ink, the red ink not being present on the fragments or facsimiles. The implication is that the BoA could have been translated from any portion of these other non-extant scrolls. I’m aware that there is plenty that can be debated about that implication, that’s not the point and I’d rather this not devolve into a BoA debate. I’m just offering something that can be a seed of doubt to the doubts surrounding the BoA translation.

[*]There’s a Jewish Redactor theory out there. I won’t go into that in detail, there’s plenty that can be googled. The important thing to me is the concept of a redactor. One thing to consider, and this fits into the narrative that Joseph Smith used the papyri as inspirational muse, is that perhaps Joseph was the Jewish Redactor… or in this case a LDS Redactor.

[/list]

Polygamy/polyandry: I haven’t exhausted myself in study on this issue. We all have issues that are important to us but I feel like this one wouldn’t sway me one way or the other. I include it because I’ve heard there is a book (Joseph Smith: Innocent of Polygamy by Richard Price) that makes the argument that Joseph didn’t practice polygamy. Considering what I think I know the concept is somewhat 😯 Still, it might be a good resource for people that have deep feelings about the issue.

I’m glad things are working out.

[nibbler]

Roy wrote:

There is nothing in the TR interview that would prohibit being a nude model for art.

I don’t know… I think it might fall under the umbrella of the law of chastity with many BPs/SPs. At least I tell myself that the lion share of TBMs would feel that way. I think they’d also see conflict with the spirit behind the question asking whether garments are worn at all times since I think one of the purposes behind that question is to determine whether people are dressing modestly.

[nibbler]

I’m sorry to hear you are subject to such a negative experience in church but the good news is that you’ve landed in a good spot.

Welcome to the forum. I’ve only been a member a short time but already I’ve felt like it’s been a tremendous boon to my life. There are some very intelligent and loving people here.

Your story reminds me of something I read on this site where things veered into the political in a meeting and one member here spoke up and said “Hey, some of us voted for him” referring to Obama. I don’t remember what the outcome of the comment was, hopefully it dried up the political commentary. They say don’t talk politics or religion, perhaps people in church would do well to remember that from time to time. 😆

I’ve never liked talking politics, inside or outside the church. It seems to stir up contention more than anything. It’s hard to be one and united in Christ when people’s very nature is to create groups of us vs. them… and that doesn’t mean become one within the confines of the church thus creating a them of everyone else outside of the church, I think it means unity with everyone.

With respect to the culture of suffering… would you say that the environment is being facilitated by a select few, like a teacher or leader? The good news is that we all eventually get released. You mentioned 5 years so perhaps it is a culture that has permeated the group.

Quote:

Since my sons are the only ones who attend our ward’s “rival high school” they have been ostracized, inactive and do not hold age appropriate priesthood.

😯 Very sorry to hear that. I know I have to keep my college football rivalries in cheque, but that’s crazy and sad.

[Author]

Posts