Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Reel Infants- Should We Stay or Should We Go?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think that is what I was saying.
Or maybe it was. 

Got a minor case of whiplash from that. :)

:::my admission of stiffneckedness::: ^_^

I just don't see how an organization wouldn't be better off without those among its number who are working against said organization.
After all, there was a reason the 1/3 part of the host had to leave heaven and weren't allowed on earth.

Weren't allowed? As I read things, they *were* allowed on earth, and were specifically cast *to* the earth.

 

The broader question of some of today's posts is, *why* are some people doing what might be deemed to be working against the organization? And is it really *against* the organization? Or are most of them just venting, as extroverts *will* generally do?

Unless we genuinely care about the actual root cause....about the people who supposedly "work against"....we offer little value to those who are most deeply wounded. If they're "working against", then what harm is there to simply *find out why*, and to patiently reach out to help them pivot and instead *work for* the kingdom fo God? (says the hypocrite)

 

I personally need to draw from this: 

The only time I saw Lehites/Nephites withdraw from those who differed from them was when the lives of those they loved were *literally* in imminent danger.

a) either because their enemies had sworn to end their lives

b) or because the wickedness of the people had become so bad that their society was ripe for destruction, and they were told to withrdraw to escape those judgments.

(Kindly tell me if I've overgeneralized Lehite/Nephite realities.)

Are you of the opinion that we've reached *either* state of crisis? If not, what then?

 

You mention 1/3 that were said to be cast out. Who did the casting?

Eve and Adam/Michael...said to be involved in that struggle...likewise said to be cast out of the garden/God's presence. And, as Nephi said, we are to liken scripture unto ourselves.

Book of Mormon title page.

 

Back to the OP: Should we stay or should we go. 

Link to comment

As I've mentioned, I do not know what I would qualify as. I'm not NOM, I don't think, but I do hold ideas and beliefs that go against the grain of the mainstream. So I probably am a little unorthodox. But I'm also in other ways pretty freaking Mormon, both in beliefs, spiritual direction, and actions. 

If I don't fit and you prefer my comment be removed, feel free to do so.

First...I want to make it clear: i would not at all like to see NOM's leave the church. That is definitely NOT middle ground that I hold with ex's. If someone wants to leave that's their choice, but I wouldn't be pushing for it. Even the ones who may irritate me. The church is bigger than myself and my preferences. Who am I to decide who stays and goes. 

Second I disagree with the premise to the idea that harm in staying if you're unorthodox, nom, or any other form of different Mormon will happen and make the problem worse. I've met plenty where that's just not the case. I think the idea that this ascribes is something that I feel can happen more in both very orthodox and ex-Mormon communities - rigidity, black and white thinking, and excess idealism. This specific ideal (that those who don't fit the mould should leave) is particularly dangerous, IMO. It leaves people more divided and creates echo chamber narratives. You can see this problem with how the nation does politics, race relations, internet communities, etc. where there can't be a balance in varying ideas, there's blind spots, division, and growing/continuing misrepresentations from both sides. I also think it's misplaced to place the ideal community as the one more devoid of interrelational discomfort/pain. I think the value is generally to the community at large and an acceptance that there's different flavors of Mormonism. I reject the notion that only one sort of Mormon is allowed a space to worship. It still astounds me how adamant certain people can be about what mormons are when what they describe is just one type of Mormon (one I don't fit neatly into). Some of my ex-mormon or nomos have assumed some massive level of dissonance or rebellion on my part that's really more about the preconceptions about Mormons than it is about me. 

I was somewhat talking to a guy friend of mine about this as well. He loves the temple but is currently living in a way that would not really allow him to get a temple recommend. He kinda realized that a little more while we discussed it (not by me, he just looked up the questions). He had this moment where he realized that getting a recommend just as is probably won't happen. I do think that at some point there may be boundaries as to what one can do or say in certain formats (like callings or attending the temple or such, depending). And that may entail a bit of sacrifice or restriction on things...it may entail thinking about what participation and interacting will look like....including things that we may really love to do. And that likely isn't easy. I also think there will need to be a learning of patience and compassion both by NOM's/others like it and those who are more orthodox. I find that how we talk to each other can make all the difference. If we do so, it can open us to new thoughts or perspectives. Because I was calm and non-shaming about this guy's experience I could also talk about my differences in experience about this. By his reaction I could tell he had never really thought of it in that specific way. This wasn't the first time that's happened. Likewise when I've held views that sometimes differ from the average mormon view I've found gentle opportune moments to express these also in calm non-shaming ways. These have also generally been well received. 

 

likewise, over time it can change dialogue in good ways. I don't think that ALL the things that I or another see will come to fruition. Some of their vision v mine v more orthodox are contradictory. Just by that, someone at some point is going to be wrong. But it can move dialogue. I think a number of the way we discuss and have softened on certain messages...the fact that I've had Heavenly Mother openly discussed more than once is because of voices and people that saw things differently who were Mormon. If they were all outside the church, those voices can be ignored. In it they can contribute to the overall tapestry of the church. 

 

Again, I hope this is not intrusive. If you feel this breaks your desired rule to your thread, please feel free to ask for it to be removed. Or tell me and I'll delete it myself. I want to honor your set boundary.

 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Again, I hope this is not intrusive. If you feel this breaks your desired rule to your thread, please feel free to ask for it to be removed. Or tell me and I'll delete it myself. I want to honor your set boundary.

 

A couple have expressed similar thoughts.

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 If you don't fit this criteria, please don't participate...Just kidding. We like you here. You can comment on this thread if you like :) 

 

Am I reading you wrong? I got the impression you didn't care who answered as long as it stayed on topic. Correct?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

While that's affirming for you and others like you, it sometimes only deepens the wound for those who have temporarily gone without such light...and especially for those who have *never* felt such companionship.

When I was young, one of my closest friends *never* felt the presence of God. Never felt the Spirit. (Otherwise served a mission as faithfully as he could.) His gift, in that time at least, was to believe in the testimony of others.

Those who have to take a few (or many) steps iwthout such light/companionship..might not take solace in your claim to always have such. Sacrament prayer understood. Some won't realize whose footprints were in the sand until the end. Even the greatest of all had to experience some time when he at least *felt* forsaken.

Fair 'nuf?

Yes, of course, and I didn't always understand who the Lord was, nor how fortunate I was (despite myself), except in retrospect.  But He was always there, just the same, keeping me from harm (despite myself).  None of us is offered a pain-free life, and why would we even want that?  We can revel in the challenges, or become depressed.  It is really our choice, without which there is no growth.  Sometimes the "dark night of the soul" is essential to progress, and "necessity is the mother of invention."  Joseph Smith always found that revelation came in answer to fervent prayer, was always initiated by problems.  We need to "cast our bread upon the waters," and see if it will return to us.  "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."  Words to live by.

Link to comment

I started not to reply to this topic because I am a TBM because of visitations from the Holy Ghost and life experiences, but I ran across an excerpt from a talk by Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin and I looked it up. I would like to post a longer excerpt without any further comment and hope that someone will find it beneficial.

"The Church is not a place where perfect people gather to say perfect things, or have perfect thoughts, or have perfect feelings. The Church is a place where imperfect people gather to provide encouragement, support, and service to each other as we press on in our journey to return to our Heavenly Father.

Each one of us will travel a different road during this life. Each progresses at a different rate. Temptations that trouble your brother may not challenge you at all. Strengths that you possess may seem impossible to another.

Never look down on those who are less perfect than you. Don’t be upset because someone can’t sew as well as you, can’t throw as well as you, can’t row or hoe as well as you.

We are all children of our Heavenly Father. And we are here with the same purpose: to learn to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves.2

One way you can measure your value in the kingdom of God is to ask, “How well am I doing in helping others reach their potential? Do I support others in the Church, or do I criticize them?”

If you are criticizing others, you are weakening the Church. If you are building others, you are building the kingdom of God. As Heavenly Father is kind, we also should be kind to others."

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/the-virtue-of-kindness?lang=eng

Glenn

Link to comment
8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread is intended for non-TBM's who are trying (or have tried) to engage in middle-way Mormonism. This is for the NOM's, the un-correlated, internet Mormons, for the borderlanders, for the StayLDS and A Thoughtful Faith types who are critical in some ways but also find some value through engagement and perhaps even hope to help the church become a better version of itself by becoming more open, welcoming, accepting, and less judgmental. If you don't fit this criteria, please don't participate...Just kidding. We like you here. You can comment on this thread if you like :) 

I'm a podcast listener during my daily commute and today I listened to a new episode of Infants on Thrones in which, Glenn, Matt, and Tom interview Bill Reel. It's a fascinating podcast and I recommend it for other podcast junkies. But this thread is not about the podcast participants. Any attempts to make it about the personalities instead of the ideas will be reported to mods for ejection from the thread.

The basic idea came to this... One of the infants whose name rhymes with Cat, claimed that Bill, and others like him who try to stay engaged in the church by finding some kind of middle way, are really a major part of the problem they say they are trying to solve. He claims that from the ex-Mormon perspective encouraging people to stay and engage thoughtfully harms the people and causes trauma when they should simply rip of the bandage and leave Mormonism in their rearview mirror. He argues that those experiencing faith crisis or transitions are harmed by having a safe landing spot where they might feel a level of comfort, acceptance, and validation (note the 3 pattern) when they should simply get out. Bill argued against this perspective.

It occurs to me that many from the TBM, chapel Mormon, correlated, orthodox (however you wish to label yourself) perspective may wish for the same thing. Instead of having people struggling to hang on with their unorthodox views, it would be better for them just to get out so they don't taint the rest of the congregation/church with their criticisms and doubts. We even saw this position play out in a thread on this board a week ago.

Both of these (simplified) positions (both orthodox and Ex) seem to share some common ground of desiring the middle-way folks would just get out, even if the reasoning is different. They seem to think and/or act like a middle way is a fools errand and that it serves no positive purpose and actually does more harm than good.

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

 

http://infantsonthrones.com/bill-reel-and-spiritual-abuse/

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."  I think Jesus agrees with Matt I mean cat I mean...loved this podcast.  

Link to comment
13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am not sure where I fit on your spectrum. I characterize my wife as TBM - she believes and does what the GAs say. I would characterize myself as currently unorthodox, although I believe I would fit right in with Joseph Smith. The more time that passes, the more I find to disagree with. So maybe I'm the orthodox one, and the TBMs are the unorthodox members ;) 

Speaking from my perspective, I love the restored gospel, have a testimony of the prophet-hood of Joseph Smith, and the truth of the BoM, D&C, etc. I know there is no one else exactly like me, but I believe there are a good number who have some similar feelings. What am I to do? How do I find fulfillment in the Church? To some extent I find it here. I find it in my family. I find it living the gospel. Should I leave? Is the Church better off without me? I spent much of my life worrying whether someone would be better off without me, and I won't do that anymore. I give them the respect to make that decision for themselves, so I will leave that decision to the Church. I know I benefit from the restored gospel, and that my ancestors benefit from it. I searched high and low and found nothing as complete and as beautiful as the restored gospel, and I desire to live it.

For the most part I do not find myself in disagreement with practices of the Church, and I don't believe I really speak against any of them. Where I hold differences is in interpretations of scripture made by various GAs over the years since the days of Joseph Smith - starting with BY. I have my belief and the members of the Church body have their's. I hold no ill will towards them, and no anger towards the Church for their differing interpretations. I think we are all doing our best in that regard to understand the scriptures. However, I do see people online that I believe are angry at the Church. These are the people who I believe get themselves in trouble with the Church for speaking against its practices or openly speaking against the Church - Joseph Smith, and principles of the restored gospel. I think Smac covers these categories pretty well in his post so won't repeat them.

While I might be at the extreme end of the spectrum, I suspect there are many persons such as myself which have varying interpretations from those previously spoken by GAs. If they were all kicked out, I suspect the Church would lose perhaps even a majority of its members. I believe such members wish to live the gospel and harbor no ill-will toward the Church. They are just trying to understand the gospel and live the scriptures. I would hope the Church would not marginalize such members nor shun them, but I do see that happen. While I would like to get more acceptance and validation, I accept that being outside of various correlated teachings puts me at least in the "caution" category, so-to-speak, so I don't expect to get validation. In fact I truly doubt I will. For some people that may cause them to feel too much on the outside. I guess I just became used to that over the course of my life. I have learned to deal with that, but I certainly understand people that are hurt or leave over it. I hope the Church never resorts to kicking them out. Indeed, the Church seems to be instructed never to persecute its members - that seems to include for varying beliefs. So long as members are not trying to lead other members after them, or to otherwise harm the Church, or are not living in open defiance/sin, I believe such people are valuable members of the Church in various stages of belief and doubts. So to any reading this who feel they are in this latter category, I only wish to say that I hope they have no fear in presenting their doubts or feeling that they are alone or unworthy or other such things, and I hope that like me they can find joy in living the restored gospel.

While I no longer share your orthodox views about the restoration I can respect your position. This morning I listened to a podcast on Year of Polygamy wherein a member of the restoration/remnant/Snuffer movement is interviewed. Although I couldn't accept his views about the restoration I could definitely empathize with his feelings that the church has moved away from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the original restoration movement. It's worth a listen if you're interested in that kind of thing. http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of-polygamy/episode-128-denver-snuffer-the-remnant-movement-and-polygamy/

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."  I think Jesus agrees with Matt I mean cat I mean...loved this podcast.  

It's getting hard to give rep points. So in lieu of the official point I will just say :) 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Had a chance to listen to the podcast last night and have some observations.  

1. I think Bill is right that he can have more of an influence on the inside than he can on the outside, and I applaud his efforts.

2. I think Matt has experienced a lot of pain and hurt from his experience in Mormonism, and for him I think getting out and staying away are probably the most healthy choices.  

3. I think that Matt makes a mistake when he advocates that people like Bill give cover to the institution.  To me, Matt sounds like he's in such an angry space that he can't appreciate the good that is done by the church and how the church works for many people.  The bad outweighs the good in his mind, and his thinking on this issue sounds very binary to me.  Something I try to remember is that there are many religions in many cultures around the world that have outdated and backwards traditions and worldviews.  Some of these traditions are worse than others, and some of them are unhealthy, unfair and even dangerous.  But does that mean the whole of these religions should be eradicated?  

Even if it were possible to eradicate a religion entirely, would it be responsible or a benefit to society to do this?  What happens when the structure of that religion suddenly disappears?  Will whatever replaces that structure be better than what existed before it?  

I guess I have an optimism about people and about life.  My optimism tells me that over time people generally get more informed and people generally evolve to be more thoughtful of others and we generally become a more enlightened society.  This process takes a long time, and there are often setbacks along the way.  There are many things about many religions around the world that are disturbing, but I don't think its possible to make those religions disappear, and I don't think we even know whether or not what replaces that religion would necessarily be better for society.  Reform, education, awareness, these are the tools to change the world, and its a slow process but worth the effort.  

Well said.

I see Bill as trying to hold the middle ground for people who want to stay engaged whereas Matt has simply shifted his black and white thinking from a true believing perspective to an ex (everything is awful, burn it to the ground) perspective without really allowing for variability in personality, family life, levels of good vs harm experienced, or stages of faith. It's all one way for him and anyone who suggests differently is stupid, naïve, and even complicit in any harm that is done.

Matt seems to fit the angry ex-mo trope very well and I appreciate those who try to allow space for variety of experiences and beliefs.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."  I think Jesus agrees with Matt I mean cat I mean...loved this podcast.  

I don’t think this saying has so much to do with being for (hot) or against (cold) Jesus, but of registering with Him at an appropriate level of engagement or valiance for the demands at hand (per the light we have).

Some food is best served cold (milk) and some hot (meat). When we reflect it back to Him lukewarm, we’ve messed with it way too much, waited too long to use it, etc. He spews it out, because He only gives more to those who receive it and use it well. That doesn’t mean we can’t try again. But we mustn't get insulted when He spews it out, either.

He is actually very tolerant and patient, so I think He is saying He doesn’t want us to make His ways unappealing. I believe this is how he sees those who wish to remain connected to the Church.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread is intended for non-TBM's who are trying (or have tried) to engage in middle-way Mormonism. This is for the NOM's, the un-correlated, internet Mormons, for the borderlanders, for the StayLDS and A Thoughtful Faith types who are critical in some ways but also find some value through engagement and perhaps even hope to help the church become a better version of itself by becoming more open, welcoming, accepting, and less judgmental. If you don't fit this criteria, please don't participate...Just kidding. We like you here. You can comment on this thread if you like :) 

I'm a podcast listener during my daily commute and today I listened to a new episode of Infants on Thrones in which, Glenn, Matt, and Tom interview Bill Reel. It's a fascinating podcast and I recommend it for other podcast junkies. But this thread is not about the podcast participants. Any attempts to make it about the personalities instead of the ideas will be reported to mods for ejection from the thread.

The basic idea came to this... One of the infants whose name rhymes with Cat, claimed that Bill, and others like him who try to stay engaged in the church by finding some kind of middle way, are really a major part of the problem they say they are trying to solve. He claims that from the ex-Mormon perspective encouraging people to stay and engage thoughtfully harms the people and causes trauma when they should simply rip of the bandage and leave Mormonism in their rearview mirror. He argues that those experiencing faith crisis or transitions are harmed by having a safe landing spot where they might feel a level of comfort, acceptance, and validation (note the 3 pattern) when they should simply get out. Bill argued against this perspective.

It occurs to me that many from the TBM, chapel Mormon, correlated, orthodox (however you wish to label yourself) perspective may wish for the same thing. Instead of having people struggling to hang on with their unorthodox views, it would be better for them just to get out so they don't taint the rest of the congregation/church with their criticisms and doubts. We even saw this position play out in a thread on this board a week ago.

Both of these (simplified) positions (both orthodox and Ex) seem to share some common ground of desiring the middle-way folks would just get out, even if the reasoning is different. They seem to think and/or act like a middle way is a fools errand and that it serves no positive purpose and actually does more harm than good.

So this is my question--What is the value of staying engaged as an unorthodox, non-believer, critic, NOM, (however you might identify yourself) and would the church be better off if all NOM types simply left?

 

http://infantsonthrones.com/bill-reel-and-spiritual-abuse/

I might end up listening to this podcast.  We'll see.  Them infants and I had a falling out a year or so ago.  But I'm curious, I've heard infants, and I'm not sure which one it was, suggest things very similar to the view you mention--that it causes more problems for people to stay then to leave when they aren't exactly orthodox.  But, I don't find that perspective useful.  It represents to me the view that is the Church's position.  It is an effort it seems to me to shut down personal opinion and personal path-taking--thoughtful dialogue.  

I've argued here so many times that the Church is so much better off in the long run if it treated all members as those who contribute and participate.  The Church is much better off if it regarded the principle of letting the chips fall where they may as superior to the current, "control the information and fear thoughtful dialogue" approach.  The truth need not fear open and thoughtful dialogue and discussion--and yet in my estimation the Church certainly acts as if there is tons to fear in allowing members room to explore and think.  I find the Church's position and practice on this detrimental, overall, to the members and also, or thus, detrimental to the org.  I assume the podcaster is thinking along these lines in order to think it is harmful for the unorthodox members because they are contributing to the problem.  But in the end, in a way, no matter what we all do we are contributing to something that has hurt or will hurt someone.  I find it a weird kind of controlling attempt to say members should stop participating because the organization has hurt people--mostly because it also has helped people.  Such is the complexity in life, though.  NO matter how much we want to help another, a side effect is that we might hurt more than help or hurt someone else in the process.  But that shouldn't keep us down, as in keep us from doing anything, because doing nothing also will hurt someone else at some point. 

There is so much to explore, in terms of the way we think, the way we perceive things.  I think it silly the Church holds the position of creating a oneness that seems to fight against exploration into these areas.  It's a "we must conform" attitude that is assumed is needed for oneness.  I disagree with that.  Diversity of thought is needed for oneness in a weird way.  of course to me oneness is not about finding some absolute truth, so much as joining together for a good cause.  From my perspective the Church detests diversity of thought.  But, without it, we don't move forward.  We get stuck and end up with where we are now--treating dogmatic politically sounding moral positions as if they are God-ordained--treating the membership as those who need something from superiors--and holding discussion to nothing more than repeating propaganda or repeating and treating platitudes or other trite sayings as if they settle things.

Thanks for the thread, with that said.  I remain wishy washy in a sense.  Should I stay or should I go?  I think it'll remain a question for me forever.  If I leave at some point I'll most likely seriously contemplate whether I should go back, if possible.  SOmehow I think we'll start doing Church a little better, so I continue to show up--often in the face of what feels like resentment from others. 

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nice, Tacenda.  But why won't they let me give you a rep point?

Back to limited status. No rep points and only twelve posts a day. But it's all good. Thanks Robert, it's the thought that counts.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While I no longer share your orthodox views about the restoration I can respect your position. This morning I listened to a podcast on Year of Polygamy wherein a member of the restoration/remnant/Snuffer movement is interviewed. Although I couldn't accept his views about the restoration I could definitely empathize with his feelings that the church has moved away from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the original restoration movement. It's worth a listen if you're interested in that kind of thing. http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of-polygamy/episode-128-denver-snuffer-the-remnant-movement-and-polygamy/

Whenever the Lord brings forth anything new, it seems the devil has a field day. With Joseph Smith many others claimed to receive revelation. I do not accept Denver Snuffer as the head of a new dispensation, nor did the Lord appear to him. To make Jesus a second comforter is just weird. If anything in Church parlance He would be the first Counselor to the Father or first begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, the second Counselor. We also have someone claiming to bring forth the sealed portion of the plates. And there are other such apostates who are seeking to lead Church members away. Just because I do not always agree with everything Church leaders have said over the last 160 years doesn't mean that I don't believe Yeshua is not in His Church, or that it doesn't have the true priesthood. One inconsistency in Denver Snuffer is that he alleges the Church went astray after Joseph Smith, and that He is restoring revelations. But from whence comes His authority if he believes the Church lost the priesthood? Don't revelations of Joseph Smith reveal that the gift of revelation will only be received through him? If the Church didn't lose the priesthood, then Denver lacks authority to lead members away. So for the benefit of anyone reading this, don't follow after Denver Snuffer. He is either deceived or is a deceiver. Whoever his second comforter is, it isn't Christ. 

Link to comment

I listened to the podcast. I was a bit disappointed. I was hoping the conversation would be more about what good the church offers people that are in that Middle Way category. Instead it was a lot of ranting about how the church is awful and should be shut down. The only discussion point was on whether or not someone who thinks the church is bad should stay to help others that are getting hurt. That line of thinking I think is pretty narrow and doesn't describe most of the people in the Middle Way, who are attending because it's good for them.  I stay primarily because it enriches my life. The desire to help be a part of positive change within the church is an important one to me, but secondary in terms of why I stay.

 

 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Rain said:

You have told us how you told various people in your ward how you don't want to talk. We've discussed  this before. Are you saying that you have gone back to these people, told them that you have changed your mind and do want contact and they still have nothing to do with you?

The only thing I told them is that I don't need visiting teachers. But I am still a visiting teacher and it's going well but back during my questioning phase, I spoke to my visiting teachers (this was several years ago) and had asked them if they had heard that JS had several wives. All I got back from one of them was that they didn't want to know. That was when I knew I needed to shut my mouth, and after that it felt like I was tainted or something. Then I got new ladies and they would drop things off instead of actually coming in for a visit, it got expensive for them so I just told the VT'g supervisor I didn't need visits for now. 

Hey, but things changed last night when my RS president texted about wanting to visit and hear about my plans to move. My husband never should have told someone in the ward because news travels fast. I'm not lying when I say that it was the first contact about visiting me or even a call to check on me, for a few years. I know I asked that I not get visits from VT'rs but didn't say the RS president couldn't call or visit. I know the protocol because I was in a RS presidency. If a sister hasn't attended Relief Society for a month or maybe it's more, the president will reach out by visiting or calling them to see that they are doing well. That's what I don't understand, why I wasn't. But maybe I'll ask one day. The old RSP and the new one. 

Now back to the OP, I need to save my posts...

We are always told to work on our testimonies, I use to wonder why because I thought mine wasn't in need of that. So if we're told this, doesn't that mean that there should be plenty that have wavering testimonies? And that would mean people that may not believe, still attend. It certainly stands to reason that the church would understand and allow those members to participate. 

And the fact that Bill Reel is still being given a TR and the calling that he has, tells me the church allows people that struggle to attend actively. It's just that sometimes attending can cause some discontentment if issues aren't covered and acknowledged somewhere or if the bishop doesn't get involved and have some empathy of what the member is going through. My bishops never did, but maybe in other wards they do. 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I listened to the podcast. I was a bit disappointed. I was hoping the conversation would be more about what good the church offers people that are in that Middle Way category. Instead it was a lot of ranting about how the church is awful and should be shut down. The only discussion point was on whether or not someone who thinks the church is bad should stay to help others that are getting hurt. That line of thinking I think is pretty narrow and doesn't describe most of the people in the Middle Way, who are attending because it's good for them.  I stay primarily because it enriches my life. The desire to help be a part of positive change within the church is an important one to me, but secondary in terms of why I stay.

 

 

This for me too.  I feel such joy in serving and being served and the safety I feel as a result of obedience to the commandments.  Even if the truth claims were dubious to me, I can't deny the 'blessings' of good associations, safety, and peace I have had as I have lived an LDS life

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Whenever the Lord brings forth anything new, it seems the devil has a field day. With Joseph Smith many others claimed to receive revelation. I do not accept Denver Snuffer as the head of a new dispensation, nor did the Lord appear to him. To make Jesus a second comforter is just weird. If anything in Church parlance He would be the first Counselor to the Father or first begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, the second Counselor. We also have someone claiming to bring forth the sealed portion of the plates. And there are other such apostates who are seeking to lead Church members away. Just because I do not always agree with everything Church leaders have said over the last 160 years doesn't mean that I don't believe Yeshua is not in His Church, or that it doesn't have the true priesthood. One inconsistency in Denver Snuffer is that he alleges the Church went astray after Joseph Smith, and that He is restoring revelations. But from whence comes His authority if he believes the Church lost the priesthood? Don't revelations of Joseph Smith reveal that the gift of revelation will only be received through him? If the Church didn't lose the priesthood, then Denver lacks authority to lead members away. So for the benefit of anyone reading this, don't follow after Denver Snuffer. He is either deceived or is a deceiver. Whoever his second comforter is, it isn't Christ. 

I'm not sure why making Jesus the 2nd Comforter is weird. From lds.org

Quote

 Comforter 

See also Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ

The scriptures speak of two Comforters. The first is the Holy Ghost (John 14:26–27; Moro. 8:26; D&C 21:9; 42:17; 90:11). The Second Comforter is the Lord Jesus Christ (John 14:18, 21, 23). When someone obtains the Second Comforter, Jesus Christ will appear to him from time to time, will reveal the Father, and will teach him face to face (D&C 130:3).

             https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/comforter

I wasn't trying to suggest you were a Snufferite, or should be a Snufferite, but to me there seems to be some similarities between Snufferites and others who harken back to the early restoration days.

I don't see that as an inconsistency. If he had a visitation from Jesus I would fully accept that Jesus could give whatever authority he wanted. While I don't personally believe he had such a visitation I stop short of proclaiming with certainty that Jesus didn't visit him. How in the world could I (or you) know that for sure? I didn't know much about this movement so the podcast was interesting to me but in no way is enticing.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While I no longer share your orthodox views about the restoration I can respect your position. This morning I listened to a podcast on Year of Polygamy wherein a member of the restoration/remnant/Snuffer movement is interviewed. Although I couldn't accept his views about the restoration I could definitely empathize with his feelings that the church has moved away from the teachings of Joseph Smith and the original restoration movement. It's worth a listen if you're interested in that kind of thing. http://www.yearofpolygamy.com/year-of-polygamy/episode-128-denver-snuffer-the-remnant-movement-and-polygamy/

I just listened to that one as well.  Very interesting to see this kind of a movement happen.  I think at one stage in my life I would have been potentially intrigued by this movement.  It was shortly after I served a mission and I was looking for more information about deeper doctrines of calling and election and the second comforter.  

Mormonism is quite fascinating in its many different flavors that have cropped up in less than 200 years. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure why making Jesus the 2nd Comforter is weird. From lds.org

I wasn't trying to suggest you were a Snufferite, or should be a Snufferite, but to me there seems to be some similarities between Snufferites and others who harken back to the early restoration days.

I don't see that as an inconsistency. If he had a visitation from Jesus I would fully accept that Jesus could give whatever authority he wanted. While I don't personally believe he had such a visitation I stop short of proclaiming with certainty that Jesus didn't visit him. How in the world could I (or you) know that for sure? I didn't know much about this movement so the podcast was interesting to me but in no way is enticing.

Its all very interesting.  I do tend to think that the movement to get people to have a personal experience with God is at its root the core movement that Joseph and the earliest followers were getting at.  The problem with this flavor of fundamentalism in my mind is that Joseph Smith was radical with respect to his theology, constantly changing and evolving.  His early 1830s ideas are very different than what culminated in Nauvoo.  

As for having a visitation of Jesus, I have no doubt that Denver and others have had these experiences.  I also don't doubt that current LDS members and leaders have had these experiences.  I don't think of these experiences as objectively verifiable, or that these experiences have any actual correlation between the man Jesus and the subjective experiences of the believer.  

I have family members who've seen angels, spirits and deceased family members.  I have no reason to doubt that those experiences were very real for the person experiencing them.  I think all these experiences are subjective, and personally believe they are happening within the mind of the individual experiencing them.  I hesitate to call these hallucinations because some people find these experiences amazingly transformative, and since we currently don't have enough evidence to help us understand what is happening inside their brain I think its best to just trust the individuals that this is what they experienced.  What I believe they are experiencing is essentially a currently non scientifically verifiable subjective and personal experience.  

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not sure why making Jesus the 2nd Comforter is weird. From lds.org

Let's just say I do not believe Jesus would call Himself the second comforter. If He is referring to Himself as a comforter, He would be the first. I think the term is used more as a revelatory term of art in regards to a key of Noah. Noah means comforter. 

Quote

I wasn't trying to suggest you were a Snufferite, or should be a Snufferite, but to me there seems to be some similarities between Snufferites and others who harken back to the early restoration days.

I don't see that as an inconsistency. If he had a visitation from Jesus I would fully accept that Jesus could give whatever authority he wanted. While I don't personally believe he had such a visitation I stop short of proclaiming with certainty that Jesus didn't visit him. How in the world could I (or you) know that for sure? I didn't know much about this movement so the podcast was interesting to me but in no way is enticing.

I don't know much about Snuffer either. I did listen to some of the podcast. I have not read any Snuffer books, and don't plan to. His followers seem to view him as the head of another dispensation. He apparently rewrote John to accommodate his Jesus-as-second-comforter theory. According to D&C Joseph Smith was in the sixth seal. The millennium starts with silence in heaven for a half hour which is about 21 years. This means Jesus did not talk to Snuffer in this time period. There may be revelation through the Holy Spirit and other means, but Snuffer didn't hear Jesus talk to him back in 2005-6. Not only that but he is teaching others that Jesus will appear and talk to them.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...