Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If there ever is an updated virgin, er, I mean, version, I hope it encourages kids to date and stops telling them not to pair off until they are 45. CandelLight25, I wish you well in your homecoming and future. It’s tough, but I do believe that you are on the right track by being honest with yourself and others.
Jamison, Couple of thoughts.
I completely agree with you that Utah Mormonism is too all-encompassing. I think the thing I find most annoying about it (when I visit) is that there is a much lower sense of religion/spirituality being an aspect of life that brings strength, comfort, happiness to the rest of your life. Instead, it just IS life. You like the way the bass makes Truman Madsen’s Joseph Smith tapes sound in your car. You subconsciously watch KSL instead of KTVX. You don’t really know why, it just seems right. You name your puppy ‘Kolob’ because he is near to your heart. Then you feel guilty and awkward, so you rename him ‘Buck’. It’s just too much, and thereby loses the special sauce that spirituality should bring to you.
My first suggestion would be to look for the really good aspects of your ward and/or community. The truth is that you have to do that, no matter where you are. If you were in Alaska, you would find parts of Mormon culture you don’t like. I venture to guess that many (most?) of the inhabitants of these forums have had to overcome a lot of less desirable aspects of the Church and their wards in order to stay connected to all the positive. “Warts and all” is a phrase I see here a lot.
My second suggestion would be to move, if that’s an option. Seriously. My experience outside of Utah is that members of the church tend to feel more aware and appreciative of what the Church/religion/spirituality/whatever gives them. Let me use an example that isn’t exactly religious in nature, more cultural perhaps, but should illustrate the point. I have had a couple of non-LDS friends over the years that have decided not to have children at all. Just a married couple, making lots of money, and not spending it on formula, diapers, babysitters, soccer fees, doctors bills, college tuition. For them, it’s an entirely rational choice. They have nicer homes, nicer cars, more expensive hobbies and go on better vacations. I, on the other hand, had kids because that’s what was modeled to me. I didn’t know any different or give it any thought. Then came the bills… and there are days when I kind of feel sorry for myself that I can’t have a cabin in the woods, etc. But then a weird thing happens. I think of my friends who have no kids. I think of them missing out on all the joy. I think of them growing old with nobody to visit, or to take care of them. No grandchildren. Then, I start feeling less sorry for myself and realize that for me, I’m so glad that I’ve traded wealth for family. Had I never known people that consciously chose not to have children, I wouldn’t be so aware of the trade-off and contrast and how my decisions have been a blessing to me.
Hey, Roy, It’s an interesting quandary and I appreciate your sharing it. I’ve thought about attending a different ward off and on for a dozen years, so it’s nice to hear your thoughts on the subject. I just want to play devil’s advocate (no pun intended) for a minute, just to provide an alternative way to look at it. I don’t mean that this is the BEST way to look at it, just a DIFFERENT way to look at it. The LDS Church operates on completely volunteer basis, as you know. The Bishop isn’t paid for all the very real sacrifice he makes, and neither is anyone else in the ward. Yet the Church is a very busy operation. I used to know a guy that was a youth minister at a Christian church. It was his full time job. With his salary, he paid his mortgage, bought his groceries, went to movies… all the things that we all do. On Sundays he didn’t have any responsibilities, so that was his day for bike riding. I bring this up, just to contrast how there is just as much activity (more?) in the LDS Church, but it’s run by a complex and well-staffed group of volunteers.
But there is a critical aspect to how this works in the LDS Church. Although everyone works on a “volunteer” basis, in reality, it’s not “volunteer” at all. The church organization is and has always been predicated on assignment. “You are assigned to labor in the Ohio Toledo Mission” Your callings are by assignment. You can decline or accept, but you don’t choose you callings. (You can volunteer, but if you do so, you are really just making the offer, and ultimately, the bishop will decide whether or not to assign you). You are in the ward you are in by assignment, based on where you live. The Church draws ward boundaries specifically to balance ward membership as much as possible, rich-poor, stable-transient, old-young. Assignment and commitment to that assignment are the grease that makes the machinery work.
So, now here’s the thing about attending another ward. Attendance in the LDS church is much more than showing up, sitting through a meeting, and then leaving. In fact, I think it’s that “Ward Family” environment that has caused many to want to “stay LDS” even after a crisis of faith. You have home teachers. You wife has visiting teachers. Your kids (when they are older) will have YM/YW leaders, both adults and peers. There are parties. Activities, Signing up to have the missionaries over for dinner. Shoveling the sidewalks as a ward.
So, now you have to ask yourself. Does “attending” another ward mean that you expect to be part of that ward family? Is it your expectation that the other ward will invite your kids to participate in the swimming party Tuesday night at the 1st Counselor’s house? Primary Activity Day? Merit Badge workshop? Your answer may be, and probably is ‘no’. OK, but how do the leaders and class presidents know that that is your expectation? Down the road, will they have to ask themselves, “We have this boy that attends the Deacons Quorum on Sunday, but he’s not in our ward. Do we invite him to scout camp? If the ward helps cover the cost of scout camp for the young men, are we supposed to cover that boy’s costs?”
The bottom line, I think, is that you have to realize that pressing this point will create hassle for other people, because it is well out of the norm. Then you have to ask yourself how much disruption you are willing to cause others in the Church in your quest to be independent.
Roy wrote:I then asked – “If the church of the Devil is a metaphor for both a mindset and a multitude of different bad organizations, is it possible that the church of Christ (as spoken of by Nephi) is also metaphorical and refers to both attitudes and also may include (in addition to the LDS church) many organizations that can serve as stepping stones to the fullness of the gospel?”
Roy, I really liked your comment, as I suspect most on this site would. I believe the BoM is generally quite open to the idea of believers not necessarily belonging to a specific organization (Alma, the Elder, for example), so I would agree about the metaphor going both ways.
Neal A. Maxwell wrote:One important thing we can do, as Church members, is to gladly and spontaneously rejoice over how much good so many other people do and in so many good causes! Jesus so responded to offset the wonderment of His meridian disciples who were concerned over good deeds being done by some who apparently were not of Jesus’ flock: ‘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.)
Our zeal must never lead to intolerance. Nor should we restrain our rejoicing in all good deeds.
In fact, Mormon revealed that ‘all things which are good cometh of God’ (Moroni 7:12). Therefore, we should sincerely rejoice in all goodness. (Neal A. Maxwell, That Ye May Believe)
mike wrote:I remember (years ago) that when this topic was presented in the “olden” days, it meant Churches & they were specifically named.
I’m curious if this teaching was recently changed.
Does anyone know?
Your recollection almost certainly stems from Bruce R. McConkie’s declaration in the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, in 1958, that the statement referred to one certain church, which he named. McConkie was a member of the First Council of the Seventy at the time. However, it should be noted that Church leadership, especially David O. McKay, wasn’t happy about the idea an individual making statements of doctrine un-endorsed by the First Presidency. The book was published by Bookcraft, not the Church-owned Deseret Book, and at that time, Bookcraft was not owned by the Church. A minor rift grew up around the book that the FP and Q12 viewed as rife with errors. Eventually, McKay gave approval to McConkie to publish a second edition (1966) as long as certain changes were made, and the reference to the that one named church was one of those changes.
So, I’m not sure if official Church doctrine has ever been any different than it is now, but that there was definitely an unofficial doctrine running around, that has taken a while to die out, thanks to McConkie.
I do feel that the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, gets obscured within the LDS Church. We have so much dogma, that we lose sight of what a wonderful and lasting message that is. I often think of the Sacrament, Communion, Lord’s Supper, as an interesting connection to the ancient. Every Sunday, since the first reunion of Jesus’ close associates to commemorate him, followers throughout the ages have taken food and drink in symbolism of his death, and its life-giving power.
Every once in a while, I get refreshed in the Jesus story by reading the Gospel According to Mark straight through. It’s the least well-known. LDS usually know John, Matthew and Luke much better; John because of its deeper doctrine, Matthew because of the Sermon on the Mount and well-developed parables, Luke because of other parables as well as the nativity. But, for me, I find the fast-paced Mark to be the most intriguing, wonderful, compelling, tragic and triumphant of the four.
hawkgrrrl said: “How does your wife feel about all that after all this time? Everything copascetic?”
Yep, everything is fine. There was a time, early on, when we didn’t know what this would do to our marriage. But, it has all worked out. I didn’t try to bring her to the dark side; she didn’t treat me like an apostate.
[This is Ray. I don’t know why the “quote” option didn’t work in this comment. I tried to fix it, but it still wouldn’t work – so I added the quotation marks. Just want everyone to know, in case the same thing happens again.]
I have raised children in the Church after losing my faith. Same reasons as you. One thing I would encourage you on is that at some point, you have to tell your kids that you don’t believe. I kept it a secret too long, and it was a cause of too many “bad days”. I got some good advice from a psychologist that said that secrets in a family are destructive. When I finally sat down with each of my kids, it was a relief. I told them I didn’t believe, but that I supported their faith. I didn’t go into reasons why I don’t believe, because my purpose wasn’t to try to pull them away from the Church. I was pleased with their response, which was an outpouring of love. Turns out, they don’t love me any less. Part of my supporting their faith is being involved with the Church, though in an admittedly limited fashion, compared to my old days. My kids were all different ages when we had this conversation. I can’t recommend a specific age. Old enough to have maturity to choose for themselves might be a good way to look at it, but I think that’s got to be up to each individual case. Key in all this is that the Church provides a great environment and community. That’s a lot to give up. I’m happy with the choices my kids have made; If faith and membership in the Church enriches their lives (as it has), then who am I to stop it?
PS. I still have bad days, too. I venture to guess that we all do. But I have many more good days.
The Expositor was a principal factor in my loss of faith… not the only one, but a major one. At a time when I was questioning the polygamy doctrine, and looking into its implementation in the Nauvoo period, I got a copy of the Expositor. I expected to see outlandish lies. I didn’t. While it certainly exposed the secret, and not in complimentary terms, it seemed to be pretty accurate. I remember a talk by a GA, think it was Elder Oaks, that mentioned that Joseph was just carrying out the order of the council, as he was required to do. Lost in that is that Joseph himself, pressed the council on the issue. From the meeting minutes:
= = =
Mayor (Joseph Smith) said, if he had a City Council who felt as he did, the establishment (referring to the Nauvoo Expositor) would be declared a nuisance before night; and then he read an editorial from the Nauvoo Expositor. He then asked who ever said a word against Judge Emmons until he attacked this Council or even against Joseph H. Jackson or the Laws, until they came out against the city? Here is a paper (Nauvoo Expositor) that is exciting our enemies abroad. Joseph H. Jackson has been proved a murderer before the Council, and he declared the paper a nuisance-a greater nuisance than a dead carcass. They make it a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven, according to the keys of the Holy Priesthood; and he then read a statement of William Law’s from the Expositor, where the truth of God was transformed into a lie concerning this thing. He then read several statements of Austin Cowles in the Expositor concerning a private interview, and said he never had any private conversations with Austin Cowles on these subjects; that he preached on the stand from the Bible, showing the order in ancient days. What the opposition party want is to raise a mob on us and take the spoil from us, as they did in Missouri. He said it was as much as he could do to keep his clerk, Thompson, from publishing the proceeding of the Laws and causing the people to rise up against them. Said he would rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it was exciting the spirit of mobocracy among the people, and bringing death and destruction upon us.
= = =
In a sense, I sympathize with JS on this issue. Not saying he was right, but that I understand the fear that drove the response. They lived in a frontier town, where their neighbors where increasingly suspicious and potentially hostile. They’d seen this before in Missouri with devastating consequences. To me, the destruction of the Expositor press was not too unlike Israel taking out nuclear research sites within Iran. Legal? No. Endearing to nations of the Arab League? Absolutely Not. Justifiable? Well…
In my view, however, I believe it was more the Expositor itself, and less its destruction, that led to the murder of J and HS. Sure, there was righteous indignation about the freedom of the press, yada yada yada, but I doubt that issue of itself is what caused a mob to form, crying for blood.
