[Roy]

Cwald,

My heart goes out to you.

I am trying very hard to keep my personal beliefs out of the conversation. Perhaps I would have said something about how belief in the literalness of the Jonah and Noah stories shouldn’t be a litmus test for church membership. I know it sounds alot like being a Mormon politician, “I can neither confirm nor deny my views on this subject,” but for me, I choose to remain in the shadows.

I am in no way suggesting that you should have done this, I am just reminding myself to remain ambigious about my convictions for my own reasons.

Good luck!

[Roy]

Butters wrote:

I didn’t understand how non-LDS people could be so amazingly happy in their life and marriages. I thought the gospel only brought that kind of happiness.

Heber13 wrote:

Butters, I have experienced the same thing as you, in that some people outside the church are such good people and as I’ve become friends with them, respect them and accept they have spiritual experiences that are real all the time. In fact, my good buddy outside the church is probably the most Christ-like person I have come to know, and I strive to follow his example. It has made me ponder about the church’s claims also, and I have come to accept the following:

1) I should not judge – that means I should not give LDS members more credit than is due, and I should not underestimate those of other religions, including Buddhists, Hindu, Muslim, atheists, or anyone. In realizing this, I feel I have understood better some of Jesus’ teachings. Not just tolerate or refrain from thinking bad things about others, but truly respecting them as much as I respect GA’s or other righteous people. I can accept that good is good, wherever it comes from and it actually makes more sense for a loving God to work with all His children than to think He only blesses Mormons.

I love this line of thinking. My best friends are a married couple that have proven themselves as true friends despite the time and distance that separate us. These friends are not LDS. Some years back a common LDS acquaintance who knew of our long and close friendship wondered aloud how it was that after all these years I hadn’t managed to be a better influence to convert them. This hurt my feelings. Not just because it was insensitive but because I worried about having that “why didn’t you tell me?” confrontation with my friends in the afterlife. I worried about failing my friends. In the intervening years, I hope my views have matured: Sure these friends would make great Mormons, but they remain fine examples of children of God regardless of their religious affiliation.

More recently I was studying the story of the Good Samaritan for the Sunday school lesson and I saw it in a whole new light. Rather than just the “help others” and “when you are in the service of your fellow men” lesson, I focused on the history of the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans. Not only were the Samaritans inbred heathens from the Jewish perspective, but they were also blasphemous in claiming that their corrupted forms of worship were actually the true form accepted by Jehovah. The good Samaritan would have actually been trespassing on Jewish land in the story. It made me wonder who might be a modern example of this, an antithesis to the established accepted and “divine” norms.

For me it made me laugh out loud and have an 💡 moment to imagine Jerald and Sandra Tanner as the modern rendition of the good Samaritan. They are anti enough to have been the subject of a book called Career Apostates yet from all accounts they seem to be nice enough people.

To echo Heber13, this perspective has helped me to understand new messages in the teachings of Jesus. He truly was a radical teacher. The characters in his story so often go against type.

Welcome Butters, to you specifically I would recommend that you supplement your spirituality from other sources (good books, music, hiking, etc.). With your spouse try to emphasize that you are still the same person and are equally dedicated to your family. As others have said, what follows is your personal journey. This can be frightening to you but also to those that love you. There can be a very real fear that now that you are not necessarily tethered to some of the norms in the church, there’s no telling what direction you may go next. When you think about it, for many people, there is a comforting predictability in Mormon life.

Again welcome, you are among friends.

[Roy]

Welcome Gulp…,

Gulp… wrote:

How does one take those good things and implement them into their life and let others know that’s how it is going to be with out getting too much persecution?

I see two parts to this question: 1) How might one approach becoming a “buffet” Mormon?

2) How might one “buffet” Mormon avoid getting persecuted?

In answer to the first question, it might help to view things as symbolic or metaphorical, that way you can retain the good lessons without the problems of true/untrue. I know you mentioned appreciation for the ethics, morals, and culture. For me I have also come to re-evaluate what true/untrue means. Is there a definitive Plan? How would I know? There are many resources here to help with this. (Fowlers Stages of Faith being a good place to start)

In answer to the second question about not getting persecuted, I think it is important not to become combative, not to see all the TBM’s as being wrong per se. If you sit through a lesson and receive unique insight based upon your symbolic perspective you may or may not want to share it based on if that perspective would challenge a more literal interpretation. Try to leave room for multiple interpretations. We believe that scriptures have multiple meanings and prophecies to have multiple fulfillments, so there is usually some room for differing opinion. Finally, be educated and wait for the right moment. I remember a person in one of my Sunday school classes quoting some restoration prophet (Brigham Young?) in saying that it would be better for a raped woman to die fending off her attacker than to lose her virtue. That, for me, was the right time to counter with more recent statements from the brethren and with the overall gospel theme of our individual worth as children of God.

I’m still working out all the details, the overall goal is not to kick the hardliners out of the tent- but to expand the tent so there is room for us… and them.

[Roy]

I had heard that President Monson had to approve all the talks in advance, but I can see how that could be impracticle.

It is possible that this rumor was begun to help bolster the old idea that “everything said in conference is scripture.”

[Roy]

Ray, I have come to a similar understanding of the word “endure.”

Quote:

Roy wrote:

Prior to reading “Believing Christ,” I had been struggling with the visualization of “enduring to the end” as a perpetual handcart journey. Where only if I pulled until I literally fell over dead would I measure up. ….(Snip)….

I could now interpret that to “endure in faith on his name to the end” (D&C 20:29-30) is an exercise in maintaining a “broken heart and a contrite spirit.” This was much easier for me to swallow as my heart was never in question, just my fortitude.

If “to endure” can mean “to remain,” the then I can paraphrase all the “endure to the end” verses as saying:

“Come what may- Remain hopeful, remain with faith, remain with love.”

And that, for me, has made all the difference.

[Roy]

Quote:

1 Cor. 15: 10 … by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain

To me, this verse speaks to a thought that is sometimes expressed here. That our differences may be intended to fulfill the measures of our own personal creation in our own unique way and that our uniqueness does not translate well into a tier structure.

[Roy]

I sympathize with how you feel,

Though I have had a death in the family, an assumptive world collapse, and bouts of attending an evangelical church, I remain in a leadership calling. I’m sure it all could be very humorous, “What does it take to get released anyway?” 😆

My Bishop is recovering from cancer. In talking to him about the potential release of my wife from her very demanding calling, he relayed a conversation that occurred between him and the SP.

The SP was musing about how much adversity and pressure is enough to justify asking for a release from a calling. My dear Bishop asked if the SP was insinuating that given his limited health he should step down as Bishop.

Our SP reportedly said that he actually had been referring to himself. His wife was very sick with a terminal illness (she has since died and our SP has been released). But his conclusion for himself could also apply to the Bishop, or to my wife; only the individual can really know when it is appropriate and good and God sanctioned to ask for a release.

So- I deal with my struggle by being semi-active, fulfilling some parts of my calling and not worrying about the others. The SP was released. But my Bishop is still there plugging away despite his ill health. It makes we want to give him a big hug.

We are all human. Sometimes in our humanness, we hurt each other.

Stealth Bishop wrote: “I’m sure we would all be shocked to learn what goes on in the hearts and minds of the people we come in contact with. I would hope if they knew what I was going through they would be compassionate and see that I am trying to do the best I can.”

[Roy]

bridget_night wrote:

His address refers to “leaders’ and “priesthood lines” in general and not just the “prophet.” In short, he is stating that if you have any personal revelation that is not in harmony with the “counsel” or “commandments” of your priesthood line then I am declaring that your personal revelation is from “another source” aka the “devil.”

So, if I or other priesthood leaders refuse to follow the counsel to “exterminate” dissenters within their ranks and go on a looting/mobbing of innocent settlers in Gallatin and Millport OR if someone tells his SP and JD Lee they will not support their commandment/counsel to join them in MMM OR if someone will not deliver up their wife or daughter to someone in priesthood line, THEN they are receiving inspiration from the devil?

I am reminded of an Interfaith Gospel Study Group discussion that had some similarities. The subject was Romans 13:1-7 where it says that the government is ordained of God and you should obey it or face God’s wrath.

I expressed how I would feel more comfortable with the phrase “the authorities that exist are permitted by God” rather than “the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” That did not go over well with the Bible inerrancy crowd 😮 😯

What followed was a pretty good discussion where I did not get burned at the stake

The meat of it was that if you personally disagree with some government action then you should appeal. This appeal can take many forms but the most productive involve voting, writing congress, starting petition, file a lawsuit, etc. If you get no satisfaction at one level you can usually appeal to the next. Your disagreement however, does not justify you in open rebellion and defiance of law.

That is all well and good for people who live under a democratic government with avenues for appeal, but what about dictatorships and others that oppress the citizenry. Think Nazi Germany!

If there are no avenues of appeal and your conscience goes against the establishment, there remains one last appeal- one that can never be stripped of you. Appeal to God. This is what I think some few Christians did in refused to become accomplices to the holocaust, some of which even lost their lives in helping their Jewish brothers and sisters.

So to bring it full circle…

If your priesthood leader (or anyone else) instructs you to do something that goes against the whisperings of the Holy Ghost and the Light of Christ within you, Appeal!

And if that fails… Go with the Light of Christ!

[Roy]

In attempting to define pure Mormonism, my spirit resonates with the Sunstone article by Don Bradley in April 2006 titled “the Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism.” (I am not experienced in providing links 😳 , so if anyone else wants to provide one that would be appreciated.)

[Moderator: Link to Article = http://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/141-32-41.pdf]

Don reviews the attempts to define Mormonism from D & C 20 to the Wentworth letter and some other stuff in between. I am reminded of various passages from Rough Stone Rolling that spoke of Joseph’s reluctance to codify or to set down in creeds what the heart of Mormonism is.

Quote:

“But Joseph had an aversion to creeds. Later he criticized the very idea of them. They circumscribed truth when he wanted expansion. Revelation overturned old ideas and was forever evolving.” RSR 172 “Even near the end of his career, he resisted any attempt to stanch the spring of inspiration. ‘The most prominent point of difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints & Sectarians,’ A clerk later recorded him saying, ‘was that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing any thing not contained therein; whereas the L. D. Saints had no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time.” RSR 285

(Emphasis in original)

This, IMO, is similar to the feelings expressed by the Dunkers from Benjamin Franklin’s recollection.

Quote:

Silent Dawning Wrote:

I’ve been reading Ben Franklin’s autobiography, and I came across this little gem of an idea. He was conversing with a man who belonged to a newly formed religious group called the Dunkers, who was commenting on how others were distributing Anti-Dunker propaganda about his new sect. Franklin, (a printer) suggested he codified their beliefs for distribution to clear up the matter. Franklin reports this….

He [the man from the persecuted sect] said that [codifying their beliefs] had been proposed among them, but not agreed to, for this reason: ‘When we were first drawn together as a society,” said he, “it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors; and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths.

From time to time, He had been pleased to afford farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing.

Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confined by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive farther improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done, to be something sacred, never to be departed from’.”

In Don’s analysis, Joseph’s final and most mature attempt to distil pure Mormonism boils it down to three principles.

1) “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may.”

2) “Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism.”

3) With less clear source documents, Don argues for “Relief“as the third principle.

Quote:

“I teach tem correct principles, and they govern themselves.” JS

Quote:

“The rule is…Live the Principle. If you refuse this rule, more rules will be created.” Anonymous

This is what I had always thought Ray was referring to in mentioning “pure Mormonism.”

[Roy]

Thanks for the article Bridget.

For me, I am working on showing love, understanding, and forgiveness to the first two classes of people.

Thankfully, I don’t have many (if any) of the latter class of people in my life. And if I did, I think my reaction to them would be predominantly unloving. I hope I would be able to temper this reaction with patience, but I don’t see any danger of my pendelum swinging so far in the other direction as to love them too much.

I look similarly on the grace vs. works argument. I suppose there are some that would see grace as a justification to do all sort of hurtful things – that is not me. For me grace gives me permission to love myself, and not to give up.

So in summary- my natural inclination is to fullfill my responsibilities. I tend to expect the same from others. I am trying to temper this predisposition with grace and forgiveness for myself and others.

God loves me, God loves you, Isn’t that cool?

[Roy]

Quote:

Luke 6:27 “But I say unto yo, love your enemies, do good to those who spitefully use you.”

Luke 6:35 “…and your reward will be great, and you will be (children) of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.”

Luke 6:36 “Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful”

Matthew 5:48 (Orson’s translation): “Love ye therefore perfectly, even as your Father which is in heaven loves perfectly.”

Amen Bridget,

When you have it all figured out and are about to be translated, come and show me how

[Roy]

Bridget, I am sorry your experiences in your new ward haven’t been very rewarding. I think we are in a similar situation where we get visits from the visiting teachers whenever we take a break from the church (though not otherwise). 🙄

In trying to familiarize myself with the group and read old postings (mostly in introductions), I have acquired a mental picture of many of the participants here. (they even have their own voices, I realized that Mr. Curie speaks in my head with an Austrian accent- :ugeek: very scientific like :ugeek: )

Quote:

Roy previously wrote about Bridget: “In learning something of your own “Hero’s Journey,” I am impressed at what a harrowingly beautiful path you have walked. I truly admire the person you are and how you have used your gift to help others.”

I guess it is just a little startling that this same thoughtful and courageous Bridget can be dismissed as someone who is living beneath her potential simply because she isn’t occupying a pew in the LDS chapel on Sunday.

Quote:

Bridget wrote: “Many members cannot handle questioners like us because they don’t want their own faith shaken so they distance themselves from you. They do not know what to do with people like my husband who never got the answer to Moroni’s promise in the BofM or had negative experiences in the temple, or when giving priesthood blessings. They only want to hear the success stories and don’t know what to do with those who have not had success with the formula. It’s like with this new bishop we have now that told my husband that it was not possible that he did not get an answer to the promise in Moroni. To most TBM’s there is only one right answer.”

Yet, I see myself in these TBM’s Bridget is dealing with. I too have grumbled about helping people to move out of our ward that I had never seen at church. When someone’s kids fell away or did foolish things, I remember trying to lay the sin at the foot of the parents. What had they done to send their kid off course? Is that a Christ like attitude for me to have? No! Can it be hurtful? Yes! Have I learned? I am working on it. I am trying to be more understanding of people whose life-experiences have them seeing the world differently than I do.

“If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each person’s life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.”

-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Quote:

Stealth Bishop wrote: “I’m sure we would all be shocked to learn what goes on in the hearts and minds of the people we come in contact with. I would hope if they knew what I was going through they would be compassionate and see that I am trying to do the best I can.”

I loved so much how Poppyseed phrased this thought.

Quote:

Poppyseed wrote: “There are painful people in my life whose own issues seem to give them permission to persecute. And too often I am one of those painful people too as I spend too much time in painful thought processes whether it is perfectionism or controlling others and outcomes or unloving reactionary judgments. I guess from a more global view I think there are all kinds of racisms that happen when people haven’t learned all the lessons of love… loving themselves first and then loving others too. But then I look at myself and I know I have my own configuration of enlightenment and ignorance and then I somehow feel empathy for all of us as we try to navigate this earth existence. I know I need patience. I guess I believe everyone else does too. Love yourself and take care during this time of emotional upheaval. Maybe if we all tried to love each other without focusing on all the weakness we would be inadvertently healing them.”

[Roy]

Like Rix, much of my reaction to this book is influenced by where I was mentally and emotionally at the time. So this is not so much a review of the book as a description of how I ricocheted off of the book in my own faith journey.

Prior to reading “Believing Christ,” I had been struggling with the visualization of “enduring to the end” as a perpetual handcart journey. Where only if I pulled until I literally fell over dead would I measure up.

I wrote in my introduction:

Quote:

Roy Wrote:

In reading, I have been seeking “The Answer.” When I read “Believing Christ” I was floored with “The Answer.” 💡 “Wow, of course God doesn’t expect me to be a saviour for those dearest to me- He loves me in my weakness and accepts my offering as long as my heart is in the right place. Why didn’t I know this before?” 💡

I had been working out my relationship with God. “Believing Christ” comes along and confirms many of my “God loves me in my imperfections” feelings/revelations and presents these theories as core (if underemphasized) Mormonism. Here I was wondering if my new beliefs were compatible with the church, and suddenly – through this book – I felt that my new beliefs were the new true doctrine.

I could now interpret that to “endure in faith on his name to the end” (D&C 20:29-30) is an exercise in maintaining a “broken heart and a contrite spirit.” This was much easier for me to swallow as my heart was never in question, just my fortitude.

It was one last grasp at binary thinking. This lasted for two or three weeks and then came the second portion of my introductory post:

Quote:

Roy wrote:

In attempting to answer some questions by a very sweet and sincere missionary as to how I could believe in “easy grace,” I looked up some of the relevant scripture verses in my institute manuals. I found that the interpretation and emphasis given these verses in the institute manual are not the same as that given in “Believing Christ.”

I looked up “grace” in the bible dictionary and found the following definition:

Quote:

It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means. This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do”

Now I was back to my visualization of the perpetual handcart journey only now “grace” seemed to be that extra little shove to keep you going when every muscle is screaming at you to stop…until of course, you fall down dead in mid-step. 😥

I was not so sure of myself to think that the church authorities quoted in these institute manuals and the editors of the bible dictionary were somehow in error while I was enlightened. Nor could I dismiss the differences as S. Robinson seems to dismiss those differences in his students’ understandings as being “a function of age and maturity” or being “soft in the middle.”

In the end the viewpoints presented in “Believing Christ” fell from the pedestal where I had placed them. Instead of being “the way,” they became “a good way.” In the end I received a healthy dose of hope at an important time, some permission to forgive myself, and at least a realization that this is a tenable position to take in the church and not an apostate or degenerate one. I am very grateful for these footholds.

In summary:

Quote:

Roy Wrote:

What I have found in my searching is a breadth of answers from lay-members to General Authorities. I have been intrigued in pondering what these answers mean for those individuals and what makes them resonate for them. I have also found that we, as LDS, are not so different in this regard as people of other faiths, each seeking answers that add meaning for them.

[Roy]

Hi Cwald,

I’m new here. Maybe I will someday be where you are now.

I can appreciate that there are certain mental structures and paradigms that serve us in this life. Sometimes they become less helpful and can even become a hindrance as time moves forward.

I think the church represents a paradigm or a group of paradigms and the more radically your paradigm differs from the center of the bell curve the more difficult and isolated things will be for you.

StayLDS for me represents another group of paradigms with perhaps a much larger standard deviation in the bell curve. Yet even this group of paradigms might someday outlive their usefulness for the individual.

Unfortunately models do not always apply cleanly to real interpersonal interactions. In the cost – benefit analysis, how much value can be assigned to a loving spousal and parental relationship.

I admire that your wife is able to give you a pretty wide berth of freedom to pursue your happiness while still holding strong to her own perceptions and ideals. I feel that wherever your path takes you, you have a good heart and it will be OK.

Though new here, I have read through the introductions and I can see that you have been helpful and supportive to the journeys of others. What more can be expected than that?

I recognize that what I write is heavily influenced by my own perspective filter and may have limited application to you.

May God be with you till we meet again-

[Roy]

I read this book and found the Lafferty brother’s metamorphasis very interesting.

This was also my first glimpse of the FLDS community and it was not favorable.

I was troubled by the lack of more notes, several times I went looking for the source only to find there was none or that it was ambigious. The one I remember most was about Joseph’s trip to retrieve the plates. The passage said something like, “following the age old traditions of necromancy, Joseph went to retrieve the plates in a black carriage being pulled by a black horse.” No Reference!

I had put this one up on my mental shelf as it didn’t fit with anything else I had heard. But the more I have read the more I question this. It would appear that Joseph took Emma with him and borrowed a horse and wagon from a farmer/guy he was staying with or was visiting. But the point is this- Where did Krakauer get the black carraige, black horse, necromancy thing :

So this makes me wonder if my unfavorable view of the FLDS has been similarly distorted.

[Author]

Posts