Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
…and start to tone it down with all the glorification of prophets.
Yes… Please.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:…without the Church completely falling aparty…
I guess that’s it for me… I don’t feel that the church would completely fall apart.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the Church came out with the following hypothetical Official Declaration 3:
“In the early days of the Church, Joseph Smith attempted to coalesce the doctrine of eternal marriage with the reality that many would be married more than once in this life. He came to believe and to preach that eternal marriages could be performed between a righteous man and more than one woman. Later prophets, including Brigham Young, followed the teachings faithfully, and polygamy grew to become a major characteristic of the Church. In 1890, the Church officially ceased the practice of polygamy. We now declare that while Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other faithful leaders of the time tried to mesh their lives with the principles that they learned from God, that polygamy itself is not a doctrine of the gospel. We declare that a man should have one spouse and that a woman should have one spouse, and that it will be so in the eternities.”
If the church came out with the above statement, I do not believe that the church would collapse. On the contrary, I believe there would be a collective sigh of relief. In addition, I think such a position would help to stop the bleeding that the church will otherwise continue to experience, as members grapple with supposedly infallible leaders practicing such abhorrent “doctrines”. I can’t think of a single person in today’s church that is glad for the still-existing doctrine of polygamy.
I point out the restriction on the priesthood (and temple) which ended in 1978. There were many who believed, supported and defended that principle with fervor, because they perceived it as coming from God. But now-a-days, it’s pretty common belief, even among TBMs, and even unofficial position of the church, that we aren’t sure why it started, but we have a feeling that it wasn’t specifically ordained of God… that it was a practice, rather than a doctrine. That has completely relegated the once embarrassing doctrine to nothing more than an embarrassing history, which we don’t have to apologize for (as much), because it really is in the past.
Quote:
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
For he that is not against us is on our part.
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
— Mark 9:38-41
Welcome, loon810. I liked your description of joining the church “joyously”. You know, for me, that’s one of the reasons I can’t be too critical of the church. People find joy in it. If it brightens their lives, then it has an immeasurable value. I’ve been a part of the joy that the church/gospel can bring, both for myself and for others. In that sense, tests of faith against fact are rendered inconsequential. If you find joy, don’t mess with it. One of the things I like about this site is that the community of people here tend to be much less black-and-white about the gospel… They find what they can still believe in, and frame their spiritual selves on that foundation. loon810 wrote:And on a somewhat seperate topic. I’d like clarification on one thing about being a “middle” mormon. I can understand doubhting some things about the church, but staying with the hope those things will get resolved. But I think at least some on StayLDS actively disbelieve most or at least most major things about being LDS yet stay for reasons completely removed from the gospel (e.g. community, family, etc) Do I have that right? People find reasons to stay even though they no longer feel the church has any real connection to Christ or God?
Yes… but I would venture to guess that most here have some level of faith. I’m on the extreme end of the spectrum… I’m not a believer. But I can’t deny that there is much good in the church. There are many problems, but even more goodness. Sure, there are some wackos in the church, but they are a minority. Sure, there are some strange doctrines, but many more wonderful ones. I occasionally buy a lottery ticket, even though I know there’s no real chance of winning. Along the same lines, I sometimes think… heck, maybe there is a God, and if there is, maybe he’ll forgive my lack of belief, as long as I don’t burn any bridges – lol. Seriously, though, there are a lot of reasons why I stay, and in many ways I can’t put my finger on it. Family is an obvious one, but also community and a draw towards spirituality, even if I don’t “believe” in it. I Kind of like being around people that are believers, with the inner strength that they derive from it… it sort of bleeds over to me, and I find myself being inspired/strengthened by association.
The RLDS or Community of Christ evolution on the topic of polygamy is fascinating to me, and a good model for what COULD happen in the LDS Church. The early RLDS Church’s most distinguishing characteristic, in my mind, was its opposition to and even denial of polygamy. To me, lineal descent was second in their agenda. Yet, today, they are open to the idea that it did take place, and simply separating the practice from the doctrine. If you look on the Community of Christ website, you can find the following beautifully worded statement on polygamy (that I wish the LDS Church would absorb into its own language): Quote:Community of Christ takes into account the growing body of scholarly research and publications depicting the polygamous teachings and practices of the Nauvoo period of church history (1840–1846). The context of these developments included a time of religious and cultural experimentation in the United States and the emergence of a system of secret temple ordinances in Nauvoo that accented the primacy of family connections, in this life and the next. The practice of plural marriage emerged from that context and involved a small group of key leaders entering into polygamous marriage rituals and covenants. Research findings point to Joseph Smith Jr. as a significant source for plural marriage teaching and practice at Nauvoo. However, several of his associates later wrote that he repudiated the plural marriage system and began to try to stop its practice shortly before his death in June 1844.
Good historical inquiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes from ongoing study. Community of Christ, in its ongoing quest for truth, remains open to a more complete understanding of its history. Through careful study and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church is learning how to own and responsibly interpret all of its history. This process includes putting new information and changing understandings into proper perspective while emphasizing those parts that continue to play a vital role in guiding and shaping the church’s identity and mission today. In this way, we can genuinely affirm the prophetic vision of Joseph Smith Jr., while acknowledging how God’s Spirit works in the lives of imperfect, but highly dedicated people to shape a faith movement that continues to play a vital role in God’s unfolding purposes today.
Over time Community of Christ has moved away from an identity rooted in battling polygamy and charges that Joseph Smith Jr. was somehow involved to focus on pursuing our mission to proclaim Jesus Christ and promote communities of joy, hope, love, and peace. —
http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp EQ is the most boring forum for a class in the church. Plain and simple. It’s the equivalent of General Conference’s statistical report. While I attend Sacrament Meeting regularly, I rarely attend EQ. You could try to volunteer for a calling in Primary or YM. Depending on your age, perhaps try going to HPQ for a change. At least those guys have real (not theoretical) life experiences. If you really want to stir the pot, don drag and try attending RS. Mike wrote:no to “sucker punch”. Yes to “bitch slap”.
Ha ha… yeah, probably should have.Mike wrote:I wonder how many times I’ve said something similar to this conversation. Fortunately, I got better.
Yep, that’s exactly it. I’ve been on the other side, too. At that time in my life, it seemed logical and right. But now I look back on it as narrow-minded. The reality, though, is that there are probably things I think and do now that I will look back on later in life and wonder, “what was I thinking?” I’ve got to be tolerant of people that are currently stuck where I was once stuck… if not, I’m just a hypocrite.
Silent Dawning, It’s a good warning and reminder for us all. I’ve had good luck talking to some, not-so-good talking to others, but the outcome is always unpredictable. I’m sorry that your confidence was negatively rewarded.
Some thoughts on potential ways ahead… One way to look at this is that your friend may have felt betrayed by HIS close friend… even a little attacked. He might be out on church-friendly forums right now talking about how disheartened he was that such a good friend could turn his back on everything that he holds so dear. I can tell you that, in my case, If the old me had met the current me, the old me would have been shocked. So, while your friend didn’t react well, I would actually suggest an attempt at reconciliation.
It can be very difficult to understand motives of people with different opinions. Case in point, recently, I was sitting in an airport and a nearby couple was having a philosophical conversation about how levels of caring about others are affected by how closely-connected you feel about them. Their argument was that the plight of people with a different way of living, or in a far away land (Syria) didn’t affect people here as much. At one point, the woman said that she still did care. When challenged by the man about why, she said it was because of her Christian values. So, he proceeded down the line of, ‘but what if you were an Atheist?’ and his argument was that Atheists have no motivation for any level of morals, or human compassion. I was tempted to go over and sucker-punch the guy, but let it go, because I’m not out to force anyone else to my way of thinking, but it was very irritating. As I’ve said here before, while I stay involved in the church and find much good in the church, I myself am an Atheist, true blue, through and through. This example was a reminder to me that frame-of-reference is everything. To this man and woman, Atheism is unapproachable. It is so foreign to their way of thinking that they cannot wrap their brains around the concept, and just paint a mental picture of Atheists as people devoid of every good quality that they perceive as having come from God.
An example that we’ve probably all seen to some degree: I’ve had a few people wonder out-loud about me and basically assume that I am in the position I am because of SIN on my part. As annoying and offensive as that is, I understand it. They come from a position where they simply don’t understand how any person can turn their back on the church/gospel voluntarily, without being driven away by their own poor actions. Again, it’s just a simple matter of frame-of-reference.
Perhaps your friend is in the same dilemma. It probably made his head spin to learn that you had such radical views. If you do decide to talk to him about it, I suggest staying away from causes for your position, and just say that you don’t love the organization of the church like you once did (or something along those lines). Also, IMO, it’s critically important to be at least as respectful, understanding, and supportive of his position as you expect him to be of yours. While I loved Mike’s comments about finding close friends at AA, I must respectfully disagree about writing your friend a letter. I do think it would be a good idea to write down some of your thoughts, but then eat the paper and go talk to your friend. My guess is that he feels just as hurt and confused as you.
Just like faith, fact comes in degrees. Sure, I take evolution as a fact, but what about less approachable topics like the motives of Joseph Smith, for example. Was he a swindler or a visionary leader or a prophet of God?
Apologists claim JS was a great human being, a good man with a charming personality and affection for all of God’s children. Anti-mormons describe him as an adulterous child-molesting con-man, out to gain as much power and wealth as possible. Even people that knew him disagree. Edward Partridge, initially skeptical, traveled from Ohio to New York to meet Joseph Smith in person before deciding to join the new religion, and he became an ardent follower; faithful until the end. The Law Brothers published in the Nauvoo Expositor, that JS was “pernicious and diabolical”. It’s too dismissive to say that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, because the middle is too vast. People pick and choose the “facts” that they want to about him, sort of like faith.
Gerald, Thanks for sharing your story. I know it helps to vocalize… er… type out… things that have caused pain, it is incredibly therapeutic… and I think that is what I love more than anything else about this site, because much of what we share here has no other forum. I get what you are saying, too. I bet that if you had had your trip in the 70’s, that there would have been more interest and/or concern for absence. Sadly, I believe the membership of the church is finding it more and more difficult to connect in that way. People often seem to be filling the gap, or going through the motions with glazed-over eyes. I’m not sure it’s an LDS Church issue as much as a societal one. Everyone is so busy now. I’ve lived in the same house for nearly two decades, yet I don’t know the people that live 150 feet from me. It’s easy for us to become so busy with the mechanics of our lives that we bypass the things that make us alive. I think this really underscores the importance of family bonds, because there is just no substitute. I have a stronger bond with members of my ward than I do with people at work… but I have a stronger bond with friends, than with people in the ward, and stronger with family than with friends, and stronger with my spouse than with other family members. So many, now, live as ex-patriots from broken families. I’m glad you have a strong family… your family is more important than any other concern, even ward members that fail to rise up when needed.
Brain, Glad you started this topic. In many ways, family associations have been the most difficult aspect of the transition. I’ll start with what didn’t work (for me)… 2 – What didn’t work…
I held back too long. I talked to my wife fairly early, but didn’t really open up all the way… I left her thinking I was “struggling” or that my “testimony was not as strong”… stuff like that. So, for a long time, she had a concept that I was just working through some things. In addition, my kids were younger then, so I didn’t talk to them at all about it. The result was continually building false expectations that I was going to get through it, and even thinking about it again makes my chest tighten as I type this. I don’t mean that this was somehow my wife’s or family’s fault, but that I was burying it down inside me too much. Depression and therapy followed. Eventually, I was more open with my wife, that I wasn’t just struggling, and there was no hope of a return. By that time I was an atheist, something I was more comfortable telling strangers than my own wife. But I did eventually get past that, was able to be more clear with her, and it was a big help emotionally. After a long time, I came to a cross-roads. One of my kids was going to be married in the temple. I hadn’t attended the temple for more than a decade, and had no intention of doing it under false pretenses. Feeling trapped, and depressed, I turned again to therapy. I got some great advice there, that family secrets aren’t good… which leads me to what did work…
1 – What worked…
Here, I’ll just paraphrase from a prior post of mine from another topic:
= = =
On talking to your wife… and later, with your kids… Family secrets aren’t good. I encourage you to be open. However, I think you are wise not to “unload” on her. I am very very glad that I took a stance early on, that I wasn’t going to try to convince anyone else to believe like me. I had my “faith transition” (a term that Brian uses, and which I find very satisfying and soothing
back in the 90’s… I’ve been able to walk the tightrope, and my wife is still a fully believing member. Had I tried to force her to “see the light” I think that would have been very damaging to her, and likely would have resulted in a much less favorable situation. I’m open with her (and my adult kids) that I don’t believe, but I never ever ever try to convince them. That is their decision. We do talk about cultural issues. I don’t like the marginalization of women, and we talk about that freely. But I don’t get into matters of doctrine or past faults of the church… like polygamy, because that could only serve as an argument why she should break with the church, and that’s not something I want for her, because she doesn’t want it for herself. I try also, to be respectful of the church and her beliefs. I’m married to her… I live with her… I love her… so there is no other way I can be, but to be accepting of her faith… One trick I use on myself is to remind myself that I’m the one who changed, not my wife, so the burden should be mine, not hers.= = =
To that, I’ll add that talking to my kids, once they got older, was a huge relief. Turned out that they still love me, and still respect me. I support them… missions, temple marriages, church activity… Again, I don’t get into the question of why, I just don’t believe, and that is sufficient.
Featherina, I appreciate you references, and I agree with every one of them, but I could come up with an equal number of references to argue that the purpose of the church is to keep the sabbath day holy. You are talking about characteristic behaviors, rather than the purpose for the existence of the church.
In fact, the purpose of the church, according to the church itself, is to 1) proclaim the gospel, 2) perfect the saints, 3) redeem the dead. The church primarily spends its money, including money gained through investments, on those stated goals.
In addition, I believe that the church and its people do a lot of good in the world, more than most, and far more than you are giving credit.
For example, according to this report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jan/14/haiti-quake-aid-pledges-country-donations#data and this article:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700009189/Mormon-church-provided-425M-in-Haiti-relief.html The LDS church provided more in disaster relief to Haiti than the countries of Germany, France, Italy, and Switzerland, combined.
But, as I said earlier, the church does far more in non-dollar-amount support for the poor, in the form of education, donated labor from local ward members, and spiritual support.
First of all, cwald, I laughed out loud when I read your posts. Thank you sir. On the issue of wearing of the cross, it’s a bit of a split personality thing for me. There are two ways to look at it (for a person attending the LDS church).
First, it is a wonderful way to connect with Jesus. The term “take up the cross” used in the NT, is meant to be an aligning with Jesus and his “Kingdom of God” lifestyle. Wearing a cross is a way to show awareness of and acceptance of the atonement. It’s a way to show that the atonement is stamped onto your life. In that way it is really cool and wonderful.
On the other hand, it’s an OUTWARD symbol. You can’t even see it while you are wearing it, but everyone else can. I have the same view of garments as Roy. I view them as a private reminder of the wearer’s devotion to God, like a cross or ash on the forehead or a burka, but worn in a way that no one else will see or notice. It’s between God and the wearer. Wearing any outward symbol is often meant to show others that you believe certain things, rather than reminding ourselves what we believe. In that vein, I’d probably be more likely to wear a cross under my shirt, than to wear it in a way that is visible to others. In addition, cwald’s protest aside, I probably wouldn’t wear a cross at church, simply because I’m not trying to challenge people at church. I think of myself as a guest there, and it’s a custom of the LDS church not to wear one, so I adhere to that custom, in the same way that I close my eyes during the prayer, even though I don’t think anyone is even on the other side listening.
Scooter, Welcome. I found this site not that long ago myself, and like you, it was just such a relief to feel like I wasn’t the only one. I enjoyed your perspective, and hope to hear from you on an ongoing basis.
Couple of thoughts.
On talking to your wife… and later, with your kids… Family secrets aren’t good. I encourage you to be open. However, I think you are wise not to “unload” on her. I am very very glad that I took a stance early on, that I wasn’t going to try to convince anyone else to believe like me. I had my “faith transition” (a term that Brian uses, and which I find very satisfying and soothing
back in the 90’s… I’ve been able to walk the tightrope, and my wife is still a fully believing member. Had I tried to force her to “see the light” I think that would have been very damaging to her, and likely would have resulted in a much less favorable situation. I’m open with her (and my adult kids) that I don’t believe, but I never ever ever try to convince them. That is their decision. We do talk about cultural issues. I don’t like the marginalization of women, and we talk about that freely. But I don’t get into matters of doctrine or past faults of the church… like polygamy, because that could only serve as an argument why she should break with the church, and that’s not something I want for her, because she doesn’t want it for herself. I try also, to be respectful of the church and her beliefs. I’m married to her… I live with her… I love her… so there is no other way I can be, but to be accepting of her faith.On wading into the previously-forbidden actions with gusto… This is a tough one. I would suggest that you resist the urge to go do all the things you’ve kept yourself away from because of the church. You may eventually do them, but I wouldn’t do it on an impulse. Let your mind/spirit settle to where you are comfortable, and see where you land. I believe what you’ll find is that many things make sense and are worthwhile apart from the church dictating it as a commandment from God. If you drink coffee now, it doesn’t matter, but if you start smoking/drinking/getting tattooed, and having sex with your coworkers, you might find that where you land isn’t where you would have chosen to land. That’s the self-centered way to look at it (what’s best for you), but an equally, maybe more, important way to look at it is how this affects your family. I would venture to guess that your wife didn’t sign up to be married to someone that throws back a couple of beers every night after dinner. Is drinking evil? No. But if it will make your wife uncomfortable, then you shouldn’t do it out of love/respect/deference to her. One trick I use on myself is to remind myself that I’m the one who changed, not my wife, so the burden should be mine, not hers.
