[science_saint]

DarkJedi – I know this is super-duper naive/idealistic of me, but I see this as an awesome opportunity. You know there are tons of youth, YSA and “educated, married men” who seem to bear the brunt of faith crises (yes there are others, but the overwhelming majority are not married women). A single, calm, reflective voice for “taking it slow” and “waiting a bit” can can away the sting of the faith crisis and help the individual to cope.

Now for the really naive view – this SP has given you permission to keep actively doubting members in the Church. If the proportion of actively doubting/actually seeking truth members in any area increases at all, it can only be a boon to “reformation”. I’m not saying we should change the Church or force the Church’s hand. More specifically, the only way the Church can change over time is if the “vessels” for revelation are not of the same mind as the current generation. Some people had to die off in order to adjust the policy toward polygyny, and the same is true of the priesthood ban.

I’m not saying you’re some great reformer, blah, blah, but you’re in a position to help. That’s all. Good luck!

[science_saint]

Baptism – D

Clean shaven men – T (in the guise of GP or LP)

We call each other “Brother” and “Sister”, and use last names – T

Polygamy (polygyny) is practiced in the celestial kingdom – Q

We meet in a 3 hr block on Sunday – GP

We observe the Sabbath on Sunday – GP

Using right hand to take the sacrament – T

We don’t use the cross in our worship – T/GP

Word of Wisdom – CW

Implementation of Word of Wisdom – Q

Using right hand to sustain – GP

Bishop partaking the Sacrament first – T/LP

Wording in sustaining various calls – LP

Principle of tithing, home teaching, temple attendance, fast offerings – CW

Implementation of tithing, home teaching, temple attendance, fast offerings – Q/T

Deacons wear white shirts – T/LP

Men wear dress shirts and ties, women dresses, to church – T/LP

In the hereafter there is (no) movement between kingdoms – T/Q

God is living in (or out of) time – Q

How about expanding the list ??

---

What constitutes “serious sin” which has to be resolved with priesthood? – CW

Priesthood ban – Q/CW/GP

Women and the Priesthood – Q/CW/GP (these two are hard to nail down for me…)

Evolution is false – T (happy to share with those who are on the fence about this one)

Earth created in 6000 years and has been around for 6000 years – T (my early research was in evolutionary biology at BYU lol)

All statements by GA/Ensign articles, etc. are scripture – T (a pretty staunch one)

“The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior.” – Q/T (but it colors so much of how conventional members respond to scientific advancement)

“One declaration [from God] trumps all the opinions of the lower courts, whether uttered by psycholo­gists, counselors, politicians, friends, par­ents, or would­ be moralists of the day” – Q/T (same line of thinking as previous quote)

[science_saint]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I’m not sure what you mean by this or by what standard you would choose to judge it.

Actually I think this is the problem I have with most of…non-quantitative evidence. I love the insights the so-called “soft sciences” bring to the empirical process. Given that there are bounds on our certainty, I cannot say I am satisfied either with my comprehension of Jung’s insights nor with the current inability to seamlessly translate from quarks to atoms to brains to behaviors. I am a neuroscientist, but tinkering with the brain’s cells and genes only provides so much insight. I have to defer to those of deeper understanding in the realm of cognition and behavior. Nevertheless, I tend to find some of the early fields of psychoanalysis (vs more modern iterations) to be very…”touchy feely”…not that that is necessarily “bad”. Just not my style is all.

That being said, I really find the interpretation of Joseph’s vision to be somewhat ironic: wasn’t it the biblical Joseph who interpreted other’s dreams?

[science_saint]

Really thought-provoking and interesting.

My only point of contention is whether Jung’s work has been experimentally validated. Look, I know it’s hard to do this kind of behavioral testing, but much of what early psychoanalysts claimed as fact turned out to be better explained as neurobiology began get into behavioral studies.

Since I’ve studied epilepsy and many epileptic describe remarkably vivid “visions”, my materialistic, deterministic side says “this dude had a seizure, plain and simple”. BUT that doesn’t make it meaningless, nor does it make the Church pointless. Just like Joseph Smith was responsible for assigning the meaning he gave it, each of us are responsible for the meaning we give the universe as well as the consequences of those assignments. Just my two cents.

[science_saint]

DarkJedi wrote:

Our church is not different than any other, they all add this kind of stuff to it, and it’s not all bad. But we so easily get caught up in the commentary – the teachings of men – that we can forget how simple it really is and how little is really required to obtain salvation through the grace of Christ.”

I think DJ hits it home with this. I have been shaken up recently, and this is so close to home (long story which I might post after I’ve had time to digest). Human nature is really all there is in the church, where there is a strong incentive for the appearance of righteousness at the expense of actual righteousness (i.e., the Pharisee praying vs the Publican beating his breast admitting he is a sinner). The unfortunate truth is that all the same bullocks (I can swear in British and it won’t offend Americans) that occurs in other churches is alive and well in ours, even if we mask it with a Mormon version of doublespeak.

I’m not saying there isn’t genuine good and a unique flavor of that good in the church, but I’ve have more persecution/oppression from within the church than without – and I’m surrounded by atheist colleagues who think I’m stretching myself mentally to accept the possibility of Deity given the paucity of evidence. Even buddhist monks are political and backstabbing from time to time (Buddhist dharma is full of weird examples). We are just homo economicus, and learning to be OK with that has been a challenge. I have probably just been too naive in expecting Church members to be the “one true” flavor of good that they claim to be. Lesson (hopefully) learned.

[science_saint]

Welcome! Like you, many of the same circumstances: 31, Bishopric X2, Secretary, etc. etc..

I wish I could say that remaining an active “middle mormon” is an easy task. It is not. As it has already been stated, disclosure and honesty are two very different topics. I lean more socially liberal and have occasionally shared these opinions publicly. Those who know me let it slide and/or agree with me and take no offense. Unfortunately our current bishop is very conservative and inflexible, despite his time with me as a counselor. I have learned (“wading through trials”) that sometimes, despite your best wishes, it is best to just shut up when the older generation is running things.

I do believe much of the difficulties are a generational divide. Our generation, by and large, does not see everything as black-and-white, nor do we tend to overgeneralize from personal experience, though this is certainly taught in Church (depending on the teacher). As it has been pointed out elsewhere in this forum, even some of the Brethren take a more ecumenical stance (interestingly, they have spent a significant part of their lives outside the US, which I feel is not coincidental).

Though it has been, at times, a bitter pill, my wife and I have chosen to stay for our benefit and that of our children and relatives…and the close friends whose faith is very much tied to our support (we have a small network of like-minded…”dissidents” 😆). Participation is enriching and, let’s face it – are you really going to go out of your way to be a moral, altruistic, service-to-the-one kind of person in the absence of Church activity? This is a major concern for me, because altruism and structured service opportunities are a significant component of my moral world-view. Home Teaching and service are the two major reasons I think the Church shouldn’t be dismantled, and are one of the major reasons I stay.

[science_saint]

Old-Timer wrote:

When you quote an apostle’s talk in General Conference and say you are doing what you can to stay as involved as possible, it’s hard for local leaders to argue rationally. Some still will, but it makes them be the ones arguing with an apostle.

This. Very Yes.

I actually had this experience recently when Bishop had some “concerns” about things I posted on Facebook. Rather than argue my side, I simply indicated several scriptures and messages from apostles indicating that my position was well within bounds. Bishop relented. I don’t feel like it is a victory though, I just feel less safe sharing my thoughts publicly (I’m rather outspoken in our ward). I have opinions I want to share with those who understand me – and those people would never question my dedication, no matter how unorthodox an opinion I evinced. Thankfully, there are a few heretics in my ward and stake who make it easier to share these kinds of opinions.

[science_saint]

Obviously, a very carefully worded piece of prose. It seems like a way of stating “the Constitution says nothing about marriage, but asserts that we’re free to determine what ‘marriage’ and ‘moral values about marriage’ mean”.

As for conservative or liberal, he clearly takes a classical liberal stance (not at all a modern liberal stance), which is to say he appears to believe that people should make their own value judgements, and the Constitution is the means by which those value judgements are to be realized. In other words, the Constitution is supposed to be amoral, or neutral as to legal outcome while establishing a process of law.

I’m not a lawyer, though, and liable to be wrong.

[science_saint]

It seems like they were listen more than talking. That’s a skill few have, and is so necessary for leadership.

A very heartwarming story; may all our interactions with our leaders be as touching.

[science_saint]

My wife and I have a dish in a drawer near the front door where we put our phones when we come through the door (that is, we usually do). If our kid is awake, we don’t permit ourselves to be on our devices around her if we can help it. If there’s a text or a call, we take it and return the phones to their “homes”.

The downside(?) is I spend less time obsessing over email and text. The upside is my family gets the undivided, undistracted me. It also prevents that feeling of frustration when one spouse is trying to say something worthwhile and the other is glued to their device.

[science_saint]

I swear I remember reading that piece – hilarious!

I think the whole modesty issue would be a non-issue if we taught girls and boys that they had to “own” their bodies and their boundaries. But we don’t.

What we’ve done with modesty (and virtually every other doctrine) is supply the proverbial disease along with its antidote.

X doctrine is true, so true and essential in fact that the Lord provided Y commandment to help us understand it. And vice versa. We have this important commandment Y which becomes so obvious once you understand doctrine X, so understandable that you’ll willingly follow this rule if only you understand the doctrine.

The burden of proof is on the enforcers. Can we demonstrate – other than an appeal to conformity – that modesty is essential for feeling the spirit? If, however, our emphasis is on teaching responsibility for one’s own thoughts, actions and body, modesty might just be an easier thing to ask the youth. I think the same goes for the rest of it. Teach the actual consequences of sexual behavior. Not just the mystical justification. I know this requires the average person to read more books and it takes time, but these are our kids, right?

[science_saint]

So wonderful. There needs to be so much more of this in our world.

[science_saint]

Some religious people have accused atheists of “hate speech” for the same reason – the second you doubt the validity of another’s religious or spiritual beliefs, they attack you as though you have called them horrible names. It’s OK for them to condemn you to hell (whether or not you believe such a place exists) but your declaration that “I disagree, and here are the reasons why” is intolerant hate speech.

[science_saint]

SomeUsername84 wrote:

it made me really uncomfortable and frustrated to try to explain my concerns while he tried to “reconvert” me.

Mormon tactics 101 – If you make no effort on the part of a wayward soul, you do not love them. It is a fallacy and an unfortunate habit to decide that since we love someone, we ought to shame them into coming back to the fold. Perhaps your wife and/or the Bishop should read this Ensign article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/finding-joy-with-my-less-active-spouse?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/04/finding-joy-with-my-less-active-spouse?lang=eng. I know you still attend, etc, but the points the anonymous author brings up to not “nag, needle, threaten, or belittle your spouse” is priceless.

[science_saint]

On Own Now wrote:

I think the only worthwhile approach is to talk about WHAT and not WHO.

I agree with the sentiment and the clear distinction; however probably 80% of active members of the Church likely think that this is too fine a line to draw.

This is where I think it is easy to get into trouble and why I’m swearing off public discussion. Until I can be sure my thoughts will be shared with those who will not condemn, even if they disagree, I’ll just keep it anonymous.

[Author]

Posts