Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The thing I like about this website is the privacy and the freedom. On Facebook there is neither. In fact, I have friends in Alcoholics Anonymous who regularly get friend suggestions based on who attends. Facebook works out who knows who, and location tracking software does the rest. Which undermines the whole concept. As do online Zoom/Skype meetings, which have been going on over the past year, so I’m told.
Big tech has zero understanding of privacy and that is disturbing.
Minyan Man wrote:
It is my understanding that for along time, pictures of the interior of the temples were not seen by the members or the general public.Then someone took some pictures & then offered to return them to the church for a ransom. As the story goes, the church decided to
make pictures of temple interior public. Has anyone else heard that story? Or, can you refer me to a source?
Secrets whether they are sacred or not are dangerous, IMO. Imaginations can run wild.
I think the church basically pre-empted them and published some pictures before the blackmailer could do anything. Which I think was the best way to get rid of them.
When much of England was occupied by the Vikings over a thousand years ago, they used to pay them money called “Danegeld” to stop them attacking them. But as the poet Rudyard Kipling once wrote, “Once you start paying the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.” If the church had paid the money, it would never stop and the amount would probably keep going up.
The church did fall for this later and it ended up with the Hoffman trouble.
By the way, as someone says above, the secrecy is part of the problem. I know temple ceremonies have changed, within my time and before it, but there have been a lot of inaccurate things said about it. However, there is evidence that the FLDS temples have been used in other ways – authorities found beds in the upper level. Something tells me those were not for tired temple workers.
Katzpur wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:I think we get more criticism for the “secret” parts of the temple even though we consider them sacred, not secret.
I’ve always hated the phrase, “sacred, not secret.” Of course they’re sacred, but they are also most definitely secret. The phrase, “sacred, not secret” makes it sound as if the words “sacred” and “secret” are mutually exclusive. Obviously, they’re not. “The Book of Mormon,” for example is “sacred” to us, but it’s certainly not “secret.” We want everybody in the world to read it, for crying out loud. I think we need to stop using that phrase, and just admit that there are certain things about the temple endowment that we have been told not to discuss. If that makes them “secret,” then we need to acknowledge that instead of just dancing around it.
I’ve always despised that phrase as well. All it is, is a play on words. I agree with your BoM analogy. Something can also be secret but not sacred, like a criminal act.
I think we throw people at the deep end when it comes to the endowment. I made the mistake of looking up temple stuff online before I went. I say “mistake” because the info I found was misleading and a mixture of fact and fiction. Then there’s the garbage Ed Dekker has come out with, like we’re all worshipping Satan in the temple (we’re not, despite the pentagrams on the outside).
To be honest, I’m not a fan of the Endowment. It’s my least favorite thing in the temple. I like the Celestial Room and the Baptistry, and I even like the film, but the Endowment. Hmm…
Roy wrote:
The BoM is Christ centered from the first page to the last. It is a thoroughly Christian work.
Yes, despite what the critics say!
One thing that really brings this home is if you have a copy of the BoM and highlight every mention of his name. You can also highlight all his other titles -savior etc.
I think the important message that comes out of the BoM other than Jesus himself is rise and fall. It talks about two societies (and a few others) which flourish, become too comfortable and, end up becoming rotten, and then return to God after this fall has taken place. We experience that a lot in our own lives.
nibbler wrote:
Good point Sam. I’ve experienced that as well.
Thanks. It’s often worst in groups which are idealistic and promote forms of equality. People can’t stop being people – good and bad. They drag all that through the door. In that sense, it’s worth comparing these religious groups with secular ones. They can have great aims and teachings, but once you’re in there, you see all the usual social dynamics in play.
nibbler wrote:
Limhah wrote:
I think if it’s an authentic pull that one feels, towards a particular manifestation of what seems most “true” to you, then it’s a powerfully positive phenomenon, but if it’s enacted superficially or without full investigation it can be just as dysfunctional as any other group project.
You didn’t say it was bad but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dysfunctional projects.
Several years ago I spent some time “vacationing” in other religions, I’d attend services one or two weeks then move on. Some interested me more than others, in fact I ended up spending a year or so with one of them. I went into each experience with eyes wide open.
Everyone’s different but for me I purposely avoided the full investigations when visiting with other religions, I wanted to keep it superficial. The theory was that a superficial investigation allowed me to skim off any good elements, hopefully before experiencing/internalizing any bad elements.
I contrast that with my full investigation (to the point of obsession) of Mormonism. At several points along the investigation of Mormonism it became difficult to see any good at all because it felt like the bad was shouting at me, demanding attention. Granted, it’s different when there’s a long established relationship. Maybe it was more about rooting out bad things that I had internalized when immersed in orthodoxy.
When visiting with other religions I didn’t want to focus too much on the correct way to be in religion xyz, that would feel like moving from one orthodoxy to another. It was more about discovering and adhering to
myspirituality than discovering how to adhere to someone else’s defined spirituality. But it’s a conundrum. It might not have been a dedicated investigation of a particular religion or belief system but it was a dedicated investigation of self.
One thing I notice is how communities end up so much like each other. Even the right-on egalitarian ones where everyone gets a say (allegedly). There are usually dominant figures or a figure. Who these people are and what they are like makes a big difference to how toxic a community becomes, but you don’t want to fall out with them.
All the other usual human traits end up in such communities too. People trying to raise themselves up the social hierarchy. Rivalry between people (which is often personal and nothing to do with the group’s aims)
Funnily enough, I have found LDS to be one of th easiest groups to get on with. Far easier than some societies I have been in, political orgs, business environments, extended family, schoolfriends etc or other religions. Quarrels happen but not as often among them. Both my parents’ family fought with each other. Two of my cousins who are siblings have not spoken to each other within my lifetime (and I am no spring chicken)
Katzpur wrote:
nibbler wrote:
You can hold a temple recommend and still feel rejected by your community.
Tell me about it.
But… If you didn’t hold your TR, then you wouldn’t get your calling in the prison. From what you tell us you do some great work there with people who need repentance and redemption even more than many others. So there is a posiive outcome from it.
I am totally sympathetic. I have been there myself. Receiving the Aaronic Priesthood is not a big deal unless you’re a young boy – you can’t do much with it. The Melchizedek Priesthood is the bigger deal. It mean more important callings. The Aaronic Priesthood is basically what every male teenager and adult gets if they hang around for more than a couple of weeks after their baptism. Here’s the thing. You don’t have to say yes to everything. I haven’t. Just tell the truth – say you’re only just in and say you want more time to acclimatize before you take something.
I have said no in the past. Now I sit on our ward council, which is pretty important and I have an input into how it is run. But I did it in my own time. I felt overwhelmed after my baptism partly because they wanted me do home teaching/ministering and go on a mission. I never did, and went inactive for years. A mission would have been too much for me. But now I play an integral part in our ward and know my way around the church.
nibbler wrote:
Traditionally we’ve derived value from the BoM because of a belief that it is a historical record. The challenge, take away the historicity of the BoM and what’s left to prop up the book’s value? That answer is going to be different for everyone. Some may decide it has no value, that’s okay too.It’s even more challenging when acceptance by your tribe hinges on acceptance of the BoM as being rooted in actual history. When even your perceived worthiness hinges on accepting the ancient historicity of the BoM.
An individual may move beyond a reliance on finding value in the BoM
becauseit’s historical but they still have to find a way to survive in a culture that issues loyalty tests based on that historicity.
Thing is that for the majority of “sympathetic” readers, the history is not the main interest. They read it for spiritual stimulation/inspiration in the present day.
There is an interesting piece I read about early Maori interpretations of the Book of Mormon. For some of them, they could view the book as a tribal conflict etc, and may have even believed their ancestors traveled to New Zealand or other Pacific islands with Hagoth, but that is not the experience of most readers.
Today we were talking about the missing 116 pages. We have an idea what was in them – Lehi’s journey etc. More or less found in 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi. When most of us read that story, we don’t think about questions like whether their tents were square or round, or what kind of shoes they wore. For many people, if historicity enters their heads, in my view, it is more a case of whether it is true or not, and not much beyond it. The days of Indiana Jones style expeditions seem to be over.
When “sympathetic” people read the Book of Mormon, there is the literature aspect, i.e. the stories etc, but the big questions tend to be – “How does this apply to me?”, “How can I gain a testimony of this?”, “What does this word mean/isn’t this language old fashioned?”, “What is God saying here?” and “How am I getting to the end of this chapter?”
Katzpur wrote:
I think one thing that jumped out to me was this paragraph (and the parts I’ve bolded, in particular):“The Book of Mormon is a problem right now. It’s so baffling to so many that Joseph was not even looking at the gold plates [to translate them]. And
there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th centurythat there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text.That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be.” I’ve honestly never heard of any “faithful church scholars” who have found 19th-century material in the text. And all of the LDS scholars I’ve ever heard comment on the authenticity of The Book of Mormon, just emphasize that it’s “clearly” an ancient record. If it really does have all these 19th century elements in it, I find it intriguing that this doesn’t seem to bother Bushman in the slightest.
Now I’ve only read the Book of Mormon from cover to cover once — back about 100 years ago when I was in 9th grade seminary. It was honestly all I could do to get through it, and when people talk about how much they love it, I honestly can’t help but wonder if they’re really serious or are just saying that to impress. Being told that there’s so much in it that comes right out of the 19th century… well, that would make me even less likely to find it compelling (from a historical account anyway) than I always have.
The Book of Mormon walks a tightrope. It is not written to look like the 19th century at all, but it is written to speak to the 19th century.
The most obvious influence on the BoM is the KJV. And that is definitely not 19th century.
* I couldn’t go on a mission if I was agnostic. I didn’t go on one but I had very heavy pressure put on me which made me go inactive. * Brigham Young and race – I feel he dances around this issue too much.
* I’m not sure where he’s going with the plates thing. The plates are not that important to me.
Katzpur wrote:
Here’s a great article that was published in the Salt Lake Tribune a little over a month ago:https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/31/agnostic-believer/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/31/agnostic-believer/
No offense to your good self, but I didn’t like the paywall. I only got as far as the bit where he talked about his childhood then it blocked my view. The press is really commiting slow suicide these days. I don’t visit SLT to justify a sub.
I have a little trick to get past paywalls but it may have to take a few minutes. 🤫
nibbler wrote:
Supermarkets are places where the virus will be transmitted, just like any other place where people gather, but what’s the alternative? Shut down supermarkets to be fair to churches?I know small businesses who are being bankrupted by our lockdowns (which are much stricter than the USA). I can’t help thinking this crisis is being used to force them out and put everything online. (And the main person driving this internationally happens to be someone with millions invested in computers – conflict of interest much?) Debt coplectors are still out there, collecting money people are banned from making.
I know people who go to the supermarket SEVERAL times a day during the lockdown. I’ve pulled them up on it. There is no excuse for that. The supermarkets are full of people here, close together, no masks half the time etc it’s horrific. And yet the media won’t talk about it at all. But they do blame churches.
The LDS are right, food storage is a good thing just now. They can’t even shut the supermarkets here a day or two a week. They used to within living memory. When I was little, shops were closed Sundays in many places, half day on Wednesday and Saturdays and some shut on Mondays. 24 hr shops were unheard of, except one or two gas stations.We survived.
I have inside sources about Amazon too. And guess what? They don’t clean their warehouses any more than usual now. Meanwhile every church and small business has been cleaning to OCD levels.
Quote:
Churches are probably at the receiving end of more ire because your average person probably sees churches as not being as essential as a grocery store. It probably comes down to: Grocery store? Gotta take the risk. Church? It can wait.They are soft targets. There is substantial anti-religious bigotry in this country and religions do not have the power they do in the USA.
Quote:The local grocery store could be spreading the virus more than the local church but it’s all about optics. People have to go to the store and the store isn’t trying to skirt the rules.
Small shops are not the problem. They are being slowly killed off by this. Big supermarkets flout al the rules here and no one questions them.
Quote:Churches could also be engaging in riskier behaviors that creates a bad impression among the public. Not requiring masks, not adhering to indoor gathering limitations, singing, rites that go against safety guidelines. All could contribute to bad optics.
LDS churches here have had far stricter guidelines than cafes. The only time people’s masks have come off are a) special exemptions or b) to take bread and water. Then they go back on. Much much more hygienic than most places I see.
We have a tiered system here. We were allowed fifty, then twenty, now it is banned altogether until Easter at earliest.
I think religion is the canary in the coalmine when it comes to freedoms. It doesn’t look like many of ours are coming back soon. The only way most people will be able to support themselves here is dependence on government money.
My family were Protestants. Attendance is way down on my childhood, and mostly elderly. They often meet in places built at least a century ago with leaky roofs. They have next to no.youth retention. LDS attendance here is *good* compared to most of them. The RC numbers are up mainly due to.immigration. Not many immigrants go to the state church. Pentecostal churches are like mushrooms here. We have a few African churches – they too come and go.
The media where I am definitely does. We have low church attendance (across denoms), except perhaps RCs. A lot of old people. It is easier for the media here to pick on churches than supermarkets which advertize with them. Supermarkers are never implicated, yet every time I’ve been in a large one it’s horrific. No distancing at all, folk coughing on goods. It has been so bad I took an anxiety attack once.
I’m afraid to say though I wonder if it would have been cheaper and easier to isolate vulnerable or elderly people than do what we’ve done. The entire global economy is being collapsed ,which will end up killing millions by itself.
