NOM's, Progressive Mormons, and other groups

[Marginal Gains]

 I think generally belief is in the eye of the beholder. It becomes less undefined if you wish to hold a temple recommend. But if you openly don’t sustain the brethren (abstain or oppose when it comes to vote time) then you’re in ex Mormon territory, in my humble opinion.

[changed]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In answer to your question, I would think engaging in strident or energetic promulgation of views contrary to the established teachings of the Church would and should place one on very shaky ground where a temple recommend is concerned. 

 

Some have said anyone can believe what they want - where disciplinary councils etc. get involved is when viewpoints are shared / taught/  I'm not quite sure where that line is - I think it is very important for everyone to share what they believe and not feel threatened or uncomfortable... 

Correct me if I am wrong - it would be fine to say "I believe xyz..." or something along the lines of "xyz causes me concern.." ... "I do not agree with ... xyz" - you know,  "I" statements

not fine to say "You should believe xyz..." or "Your beliefs are wrong because ...."... just stay away from "you" statements and everyone will be fine?

[changed]

14 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

 I think generally belief is in the eye of the beholder. It becomes less undefined if you wish to hold a temple recommend. But if you openly don’t sustain the brethren (abstain or oppose when it comes to vote time) then you’re in ex Mormon territory, in my humble opinion.

 

What is meant by sustain?    I don't know how anyone can sustain all of the leaders in the church, no one knows all the leaders in the church.  

I'm sure if you ran across a local leader who was ___(fill in the blank)___ you would not sustain them either.  It would be damaging to the organization if everyone sustained everyone without stopping abuse, or other bad situations from perpetuating.  What is the point of raising your hand and sustaining anyone if the point is not to guard the safety of members, and make sure everyone is in agreement?

Edited May 31, 2018 by changed

[changed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But question 3 gets quite a bit more specific.  More bold.  You won't really find it anywhere else outside of the LDS Church.  Question 4 also.  "Restoration of the gospel in the these the latter days" means a lot to me.  "Sustain[ing] the President ... as the Prophet Seer and Revelator ... who possesses ... all priesthood keys" is very important to me. 

Yes, 3 and 4 are the biggest problem areas for me.  

testimony in the restoration

only "sustain" (not have a testimony in) current leaders.  

When I first joined the church it was after a spiritual experience involving the plan of salvation - I thought if I had a testimony - had a witness of that - it pretty much covered everything, and I said "yes" I could go along with all of it... now that experiences have caused me to step back from sustaining all leaders, and have caused me to be very careful about who I will sustain - I find myself going back and analyzing what I have,. and what I have not, had spiritual confirmation of.  I actually never did get confirmation on the BoM, or Joseph Smith etc. only on a few personal matters (not doctrinal), the plan of salvation, and the existence of the spiritual worlds... 

To gain a testimony in something, is a spiritual manifestation required?  I thought it was... but now I have talked with others in leadership positions, one who told me they have never felt the spirit ??!!??  I did not say much in return to them, but how in the world does anyone go to the temple, serve in leadership roles, and then tell me they never felt the spirit? 

I assumed leaders were called by G-d, assumed leaders could mostly be trusted, assumed leaders were led by the spirit?  Now I am finding that is not the case at all.  I can sustain people - support them in their callings etc. etc.  but to call anyone a prophet or apostle, that is a new level.  Either downgrade what an apostle/prophet is so that anyone can be prophets and apostles, or ... ??  I don't know.

Edited May 31, 2018 by changed

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Yes, 3 and 4 are the biggest problem areas for me.  

testimony in the restoration

only "sustain" (not have a testimony in) current leaders.  

We're not asked to have a "testimony" of the leaders of the Church, just that we "sustain" them.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

When I first joined the church it was after a spiritual experience involving the plan of salvation - I thought if I had a testimony - had a witness of that - it pretty much covered everything, and I said "yes" I could go along with all of it... now that experiences have caused me to step back from sustaining all leaders, and have caused me to be very careful about who I will sustain - I find myself going back and analyzing what I have,. and what I have not, had spiritual confirmation of. 

Sustaining the leaders of the Church can be difficult.  They are, in the main, very good and decent people, but they make mistakes.  Mormon 9:31 becomes apropos: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

That said, I don't think sustaining the leaders of the Church is necessarily difficult.  

8 minutes ago, changed said:

I actually never did get confirmation on the BoM, or Joseph Smith etc. only on a few personal matters (not doctrinal), the plan of salvation, and the existence of the spiritual worlds... 

We are all at different places, I think.  I've never had any particular experience as to fasting, while my wife has had numerous profound spiritual experiences with it.  

I have received confirmation about the Book of Mormon.  I also had a singular and profound (and unexpected and un-sought) experience confirming that that Gordon B. Hinckley and his predecessors were prophets.  I have extrapolated from there that Pres. Monson and Pres. Nelson are, too.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

To gain a testimony in something, is a spiritual manifestation required? 

I think adherence to the principle, and exercising faith, is generally required.  That has worked for me.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

I thought it was... but now I have talked with others in leadership positions, one who told me they have never felt the spirit ??!!?? 

I can't speak to that.  That's an odd thing to say.  I have been in leadership positions in the Church several times.  I have felt the Spirit prompt or influence me many, many times.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

I did not say much in return to them, but how in the world does anyone go to the temple, serve in leadership roles, and then tell me they never felt the spirit? 

I don't know.  Honest.

8 minutes ago, changed said:

I assumed leaders were called by G-d, assumed leaders could mostly be trusted, assumed leaders were led by the spirit? 

I think we need more than an assumption.  We need to hope for these things.  Faith.  Then test that hope and faith.

I think your experience (with leaders telling you they have never felt the Spirit) is quite atypical.  Confirmation by the Spirit is the bread and butter of the Church.  

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Now I am finding that is not the case at all.  I can sustain people - support them in their callings etc. etc.  but to call anyone a prophet or apostle, that is a new level. 

I think the Book of Mormon would be a good place to start.  I know that sounds trite, but it's call the "keystone of our religion" for a reason.  If it is what it claims to be, then it testifies of Jesus Christ.  It also speaks to the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith and the Restoration.  

8 minutes ago, changed said:

Either downgrade what an apostle/prophet is so that anyone can be prophets and apostles, or ... ??  I don't know.

Well, we can all be "prophets."  We are all supposed to be "prophets."  Being an "apostle" is a different story.

I wish you well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jane_Doe]

23 minutes ago, changed said:

I assumed leaders were called by G-d, assumed leaders could mostly be trusted, assumed leaders were led by the spirit?  Now I am finding that is not the case at all.  I can sustain people - support them in their callings etc. etc.  but to call anyone a prophet or apostle, that is a new level.  Either downgrade what an apostle/prophet is so that anyone can be prophets and apostles, or ... ??  I don't know.

I honestly think you're fine with this explanation.  

Here's a good explanation on "What does it mean to sustain leaders"--

"We have an opportunity to sustain—support, help, pray for—each of these people in their callings."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/03/we-sustain-our-leaders?lang=eng

To sustain is to help support them doing Christ's work, and to pray for them.  It doesn't mean to idolize or assume they can never do wrong, but to help/support them when doing the Lord's work.

 

 

 

(Unrelated note: this has been a really good thought provoking discussion, thank you for it). 

[SouthernMo]

4 hours ago, changed said:

I am not a TBM, there are things I agree with and other things I do not agree with.  I would like to remain a cafeteria-style member of the church without causing too much grief to those around me, but would also like to connect with others who would be able to talk through some of my issues more openly, so have been researching some of the other internet communities and groups out there. 

Can I ascertain that the root of your question is whether or not you still belong in mainstream Mormonism,  despite your perception that your believes make you an outlier? 

Much of what has been posted here has gravitated towards the temple recommend questions. As if one’s ability to answer these correctly determines whether or not one belongs within mainstream Mormonism. I do not think this is the case. 

Although not likely, one could take issue with every one of the current temple recommend questions, and still decide that he wants to be affiliated with the LDS faith. He will have his or her own reasons for affiliation with this community, and we should welcome that person without hesitation.  If you want to belong here, I welcome you.

Of utmost importance is that each one of us individually determine why we go to church, what we are looking for, and whether or not those needs are being fulfilled.  If not entirely, then YES - I think you should pursue any group that helps you find community, answers, and peace.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, changed said:

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

• New Order Mormons
• Liberal / progressive Mormons
• Cultural Mormons
• Humanist Mormons
• New Age Mormon
• Jack Mormon

Who am I missing?  Is there a good resource outlining all of the different Mormon offshoot groups, who they are, their website etc.?

Which groups would be considered "Kosher" by TBM's, and which are considered apostate?  Would prevent you from going to the temple if you associated with them?

 

I am not a TBM, there are things I agree with and other things I do not agree with.  I would like to remain a cafeteria-style member of the church without causing too much grief to those around me, but would also like to connect with others who would be able to talk through some of my issues more openly, so have been researching some of the other internet communities and groups out there. 

What I have concerns about:

• Women's issues: Priesthood, polygamy, nurture vs. provide/protect roles
• Scripture literalism - for all scriptures, BoM, Bible, Book of Abraham etc. (flood, creation, etc.)
• LGBT issues, sexuality issues within church (masturbation, etc.)  
• Racial issues (priesthood ban etc.)

What I like:

• Genealogy, family sealing, FHE, family support
• Personal revelation
• General Christian values, be kind, serve, charity, forgiveness, repentance etc.  
• Volunteer opportunities and aspects

What group best fits me do you think?  and would affiliation with the appropriate group get me in trouble if the TBM's in my ward knew about it?  

You can't lump people together like that, it's up to individual beliefs.

Believe your beliefs and if you can truthfully pass a recommend interview, you are a TBM

Edited May 31, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, changed said:

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

• New Order Mormons
• Liberal / progressive Mormons
• Cultural Mormons
• Humanist Mormons
• New Age Mormon
• Jack Mormon

Who am I missing?  Is there a good resource outlining all of the different Mormon offshoot groups, who they are, their website etc.?

Which groups would be considered "Kosher" by TBM's, and which are considered apostate?  Would prevent you from going to the temple if you associated with them?

 

I am not a TBM, there are things I agree with and other things I do not agree with.  I would like to remain a cafeteria-style member of the church without causing too much grief to those around me, but would also like to connect with others who would be able to talk through some of my issues more openly, so have been researching some of the other internet communities and groups out there. 

What I have concerns about:

• Women's issues: Priesthood, polygamy, nurture vs. provide/protect roles
• Scripture literalism - for all scriptures, BoM, Bible, Book of Abraham etc. (flood, creation, etc.)
• LGBT issues, sexuality issues within church (masturbation, etc.)  
• Racial issues (priesthood ban etc.)

What I like:

• Genealogy, family sealing, FHE, family support
• Personal revelation
• General Christian values, be kind, serve, charity, forgiveness, repentance etc.  
• Volunteer opportunities and aspects

What group best fits me do you think?  and would affiliation with the appropriate group get me in trouble if the TBM's in my ward knew about it?  

None of those pseudo categories have assigned beliefs or criteria for entry. They are just descriptions for an utlook.

There is no membership card to any, believe what you will, associate with whom you will, learn all you can, and don't worry about it.

If you think it might be non-doctrinal do not bring it up in church. That's all.

On the other hand if you want to get into the temple you must be honest and answering the temple recommend questions as they apply to you personally not to your friends.

You're concerns sound like normal Mormon concerns to me, and your likes sound like normal Mormon likes to me

My advice is don't worry about it.

Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[changed]

3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Can I ascertain that the root of your question is whether or not you still belong in mainstream Mormonism,  despite your perception that your believes make you an outlier? 

Much of what has been posted here has gravitated towards the temple recommend questions. As if one’s ability to answer these correctly determines whether or not one belongs within mainstream Mormonism. I do not think this is the case. 

Although not likely, one could take issue with every one of the current temple recommend questions, and still decide that he wants to be affiliated with the LDS faith. He will have his or her own reasons for affiliation with this community, and we should welcome that person without hesitation.  If you want to belong here, I welcome you.

Of utmost importance is that each one of us individually determine why we go to church, what we are looking for, and whether or not those needs are being fulfilled.  If not entirely, then YES - I think you should pursue any group that helps you find community, answers, and peace.

 

"belong" vs. "attend"... I have attended for quite some time.  It would be nice to actually "belong" somewhere, but I do not want to belong if it means giving up individual beliefs, or contains expectations of following principles I do not have faith in.  

The ultimate purpose of church - to prepare everyone for heaven - for "together forever" - if I can't handle being "together" with anyone on earth, then I guess heaven is not for me - there is a limit to how "together" I would be with anyone - individuality has to be preserved, free agency has to be preserved - to support and love vs. agree with and follow... it is the agreeing with and following part that I just do not do well.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

On the other hand if you want to get into the temple you must be honest and answering the temple recommend questions as they apply to you personally not to your friends.

If my spouse cannot go (currently the case), then what is the point of me going?  I am not going to be sealed to anyone else, so yes - it is a two-person deal, and it is pointless for me to be going if it is not a place that accepts the imperfections of my spouse.

Church is a place for sinners to become better, but the temple is only a place for perfect people? or only a place for those who have some kinds of sins but not others?  What is the deal with not letting everyone into the temple?    Is that going to be like heaven too - not everyone is let in?  If everyone is not there together, I don't know that I am interested in it.

Edited June 1, 2018 by changed

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, changed said:

Church is a place for sinners to become better, but the temple is only a place for perfect people? or only a place for those who have some kinds of sins but not others?  What is the deal with not letting everyone into the temple?    Is that going to be like heaven too - not everyone is let in?  If everyone is not there together, I don't know that I am interested in it.

I empathize with you strongly here. God is not worth worshiping or following if His reward isn’t what you or I want.

A couple of years ago, the term “sad heaven” was in vogue in a few Mormon blogosphere circles. Rather than post links, google it; some articles may articulate what you’re feeling, and show you that you’re not alone.

But, again, I agree with you: Heaven makes no sense if you can’t be with the ones you love. The traditional LDS retort is that those who are “better” can visit the ones who are “worse.”  If my wife and kids end up “worse” than me, I’m staying with them “down below” - not visiting them occasionally and going back to my higher degree of glory.

The traditional kingdom idea does not sit well with me. I don’t buy it.  So, I envision something more inclusive and happier.  I don’t have it all figured out, and am willing to show some faith, but I refuse to believe in a God whose “rewards” are undesired.

[pogi]

8 hours ago, changed said:

Thinking through the questions:

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? - absolutely yes.  Also, I have a testimony in my Heavenly Mother too, I think She should be included in things like this.  

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? - yes.

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? - I do think Joseph Smith felt the spirit, although I don't know that some things from the early church were spiritually guided... the excitement of discovering spiritual guidance might have made a few people a little overly-excited, perhaps exaggerating or mixing a few things in that were not quite right...  I do not believe all things have been restored - I believe there are many things yet to be revealed.  

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? - I can sustain most of the current church leaders although I would not say I have a testimony of them - I would not follow every last thing they say.  I do not know all 8 billion people on the earth, so could not know what other spiritual leaders are living today - I do think there are many noble and great people on the earth, and will find good where-ever it comes from.  If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

I do not know all of the leaders in the church - how can I sustain someone I do not know?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

I do not have sexual relationships with anyone but me and my spouse.  We can keep it simple? or delve into what is appropriate within marriage?  hehe... 

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

No one in my family hates me, we all get along pretty well with one another.  

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I enjoy Mormon Story podcasts and the like, does that condemn me?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

Yes.  

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? yes. I'm being very honest right now.  

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?  yes.

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?  ... I do take caffeine pills.  Is that a problem? and herbal teas... otherwise I'm good?  

12 Do you have financial or other oblgations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

Nope - still on first marriage.

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

I have not been wearing my garments lately... what is the procedure for starting that up again? or is there one?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

Does my current bishop want the list again?  I don't know that anything is ever really resolved - there are things you carry with you your entire life, things that keep you humble - so what does resolved mean?  

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

If G-d does not mind imperfect people coming into his house, then great!  If he wants only perfect saints? I'm not really sure what worthy means?  I'm trying?  I'm trying to be honest?  I'm trying to be better?  How can I judge what G-d considers worthy or not?  am I worthy?  what would G-d judge me for?  how can I know?

Hi changed, I would recommend that you go to your bishop and answer openly and honestly as you have done here.  Let him fulfill his appointed role as a judge in Israel, and take that burden off of yourself.  It is our role to be open and honest with the bishop in interviews, that is it.  The rest of the burden is on him.  You will be held accountable for how open and honest you are, and he will be accountable for his judgment of worthiness.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

"belong" vs. "attend"... I have attended for quite some time.  It would be nice to actually "belong" somewhere, but I do not want to belong if it means giving up individual beliefs, or contains expectations of following principles I do not have faith in.  

The ultimate purpose of church - to prepare everyone for heaven - for "together forever" - if I can't handle being "together" with anyone on earth, then I guess heaven is not for me - there is a limit to how "together" I would be with anyone - individuality has to be preserved, free agency has to be preserved - to support and love vs. agree with and follow... it is the agreeing with and following part that I just do not do well.

 

If my spouse cannot go (currently the case), then what is the point of me going?  I am not going to be sealed to anyone else, so yes - it is a two-person deal, and it is pointless for me to be going if it is not a place that accepts the imperfections of my spouse.

Church is a place for sinners to become better, but the temple is only a place for perfect people? or only a place for those who have some kinds of sins but not others?  What is the deal with not letting everyone into the temple?    Is that going to be like heaven too - not everyone is let in?  If everyone is not there together, I don't know that I am interested in it.

Then the thread is pointless, right?  You are just complaining?

A positive atttitude would be to desire your husband to go and then work toward that.  God looks at the intentions of the heart, not what card is in your wallet.

But if you are only here to complain all that is irrelevant without a positive attitude and a real desire to move forward.

Sorry- felt a little tough love was required there.  I am trying to help.  

Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[SouthernMo]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Then the thread is pointless, right?  You are just complaining?

A positive atttitude would be to desire your husband to go and then work toward that.  God looks at the intentions of the heart, not what card is in your wallet.

But if you are only here to complain all that is irrelevant without a positive attitude and a real desire to move forward.

Sorry- felt a little tough love was required there.  I am trying to help.  

I don’t see any love in your response - only toughness.

When people are confused and seeking a sense/place of belonging, you believe the best response is to tell them to stop complaining?

I can’t speak for everyone, including @changed, but if you responded to me like that, your words would drive me further from the LDS church.  Please consider this moving forward.

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, changed said:

If my spouse cannot go (currently the case), then what is the point of me going?  I am not going to be sealed to anyone else, so yes - it is a two-person deal, and it is pointless for me to be going if it is not a place that accepts the imperfections of my spouse.

My husband doesn't go to the temple with me--- he's not LDS.

My sister's husband doesn't go to the temple her husband-- cause she doesn't have a husband.

My mom doesn't go to the temple with her husband -- my dad is LDS but doesn't hold a recommend. 

Still we all go by ourselves, to reinforce our love and commitment to the Lord.  

1 hour ago, changed said:

Church is a place for sinners to become better, but the temple is only a place for perfect people? 

Haha-- I'm FAR from perfect.  Same with my mom (who works at the temple) and every other temple going person.  

1 hour ago, changed said:

 What is the deal with not letting everyone into the temple?    Is that going to be like heaven too - not everyone is let in?  If everyone is not there together, I don't know that I am interested in it.

The temple is not a tourist destination, but rather a place we go to make covenants with the Lord.  My husband (for just one example) is not yet ready to make those covenants -- he's got commitment issues and isn't emotionally there yet.  That doesn't mean he's a bad person, that he doesn't love God, or that he won't be with me in the Celestrial Kingdom.  But his relationship with the Lord grows in his (and God's) own time, not mine.  After much prayer and contemplation, I am happy to trust the Lord here and don't fret.

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, changed said:

 

How many bishops do you think would feel comfortable giving me a temple recommend knowing:

• I disagree with portions of the family proclamation (believe women should help provide/work, believe women are protectors, and that men and women share all roles within the family)
• Do not believe in literal interpretations of many scriptural accounts such as the creation, the flood etc. 
• I disagree with church's stance on LGBT issues, and moral cleanliness issues (think masturbation is fine)  

Where is the line that most would draw?

If I were the bishop, I restrict my questioning to the temple recommend guidelines and questions that are in the CHI. They are there for a reason.  I don't think everyone has to believe in lock step. The bullet points that you have listed would not IMHO disqualify someone from the temple. 

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, changed said:

 

Thanks for the replies, you are starting to give me a bit more hope.  

My husband  has some "chastity" issues that he does not have a recommend over, has been beating himself up over for quite a few years...  if people don't think masturbation is a problem anymore that would be really great.  Honestly, I think it is a matter of being self-reliant, controlling your thoughts - you can actually have more pure thoughts, and be less tempted by others around you if you take care of your own needs... 

Thinking through the questions:

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? - absolutely yes.  Also, I have a testimony in my Heavenly Mother too, I think She should be included in things like this.  

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? - yes.

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? - I do think Joseph Smith felt the spirit, although I don't know that some things from the early church were spiritually guided... the excitement of discovering spiritual guidance might have made a few people a little overly-excited, perhaps exaggerating or mixing a few things in that were not quite right...  I do not believe all things have been restored - I believe there are many things yet to be revealed.  

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? - I can sustain most of the current church leaders although I would not say I have a testimony of them - I would not follow every last thing they say.  I do not know all 8 billion people on the earth, so could not know what other spiritual leaders are living today - I do think there are many noble and great people on the earth, and will find good where-ever it comes from.  If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

I do not know all of the leaders in the church - how can I sustain someone I do not know?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

I do not have sexual relationships with anyone but me and my spouse.  We can keep it simple? or delve into what is appropriate within marriage?  hehe... 

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

No one in my family hates me, we all get along pretty well with one another.  

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I enjoy Mormon Story podcasts and the like, does that condemn me?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

Yes.  

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? yes. I'm being very honest right now.  

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?  yes.

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?  ... I do take caffeine pills.  Is that a problem? and herbal teas... otherwise I'm good?  

12 Do you have financial or other oblgations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

Nope - still on first marriage.

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

I have not been wearing my garments lately... what is the procedure for starting that up again? or is there one?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

Does my current bishop want the list again?  I don't know that anything is ever really resolved - there are things you carry with you your entire life, things that keep you humble - so what does resolved mean?  

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

If G-d does not mind imperfect people coming into his house, then great!  If he wants only perfect saints? I'm not really sure what worthy means?  I'm trying?  I'm trying to be honest?  I'm trying to be better?  How can I judge what G-d considers worthy or not?  am I worthy?  what would G-d judge me for?  how can I know?

 

7 hours ago, changed said:

Yes, 3 and 4 are the biggest problem areas for me.  

testimony in the restoration

only "sustain" (not have a testimony in) current leaders.  

When I first joined the church it was after a spiritual experience involving the plan of salvation - I thought if I had a testimony - had a witness of that - it pretty much covered everything, and I said "yes" I could go along with all of it... now that experiences have caused me to step back from sustaining all leaders, and have caused me to be very careful about who I will sustain - I find myself going back and analyzing what I have,. and what I have not, had spiritual confirmation of.  I actually never did get confirmation on the BoM, or Joseph Smith etc. only on a few personal matters (not doctrinal), the plan of salvation, and the existence of the spiritual worlds... 

To gain a testimony in something, is a spiritual manifestation required?  I thought it was... but now I have talked with others in leadership positions, one who told me they have never felt the spirit ??!!??  I did not say much in return to them, but how in the world does anyone go to the temple, serve in leadership roles, and then tell me they never felt the spirit? 

I assumed leaders were called by G-d, assumed leaders could mostly be trusted, assumed leaders were led by the spirit?  Now I am finding that is not the case at all.  I can sustain people - support them in their callings etc. etc.  but to call anyone a prophet or apostle, that is a new level.  Either downgrade what an apostle/prophet is so that anyone can be prophets and apostles, or ... ??  I don't know.

I am going to intervene here because I think I may be of some help. 

Testimony in the restoration. I am a convert. I joined the church on the strength of my testimony in the Bible. The Church is the only Church with the full organization of the original Church Christ set up - with apostles and seventy. But more important to me was the Biblical teaching that Christ visited the spirit world to teach them as well and give them a chance to accept this gospel. How else can God be fair to those who have never even heard of Him? Peter obviously understood this, see 1 Peter 3&4, but somewhere along the line the Church lost most of this teaching, and in the fifth century held a council which banned baptism for the dead.  The current LDS Church is the only Church which retains all these principles. 

Was anything else restored? The priesthood had to be restored. The bishops in the Bible were married. 1 Timothy. That was departed from, and indeed warned that the day would come when men would depart from the gospel and forbid to marry. Baptism in the Bible was by immersion. That was departed from. As I have understood you, you believe more will be revealed. I don't count that as "restored." Not all was made manifest in Christ's day, and much that was was lost. Not everything was revealed - otherwise the two witnesses of Revelation would not prophesy, die, and be resurrected. ie a resurrection.

I believe scripture and even Christ Himself reveals there would be an apostasy. Yeshua said the day would end, and the night would come in which no man could work. Why wouldn't they be able to do God's work? The only way is if they lost the priesthood. The scriptures say that Christ would only return when there was a restitution of all things. Acts 3:21. Restitution means restoration. For there to be a restoration there must be a loss or apostasy.  I believe Daniel 7 and Revelation also reveal many specifics regarding the events of the apostasy. I am willing to talk about these at length if you wish, but in short the Lord restored His church at the time specified in scripture.

Sustaining leaders

I am somewhat like you. I do not always agree with everything all the leaders have said. Heck, not even they always agree, and Kimball expressly disagreed with a teaching of BY. However, I do not think we have to believe everything the leaders have said. Christ taught this principle when He said do what the priests tell you for they sit in Moses' seat, but do not do what they do. I am not saying the Church President's should not be followed, but am just showing the principle of sustaining. I sustain my leaders unless I have reason that should disqualify them from being in a position of authority. I personally have never encountered that. To sustain your leaders to me means i support them as being in their position of authority. Being in authority doesn't mean I will always be on all 4s with them. I do not agree with everything past Presidents have said, as regular posters on this board know. I have heard things like receiving revelation means thoughts come to your head. Well, I disagree with that as well, and believe that could be why I believe some past Presidents have gone a little awry imho. Except in rare instances where I know the thought was not mine, I do not accept this as a trustworthy means of revelation. I much prefer spiritual confirmation, and generally seek such.

Anyway, sustaining your church leaders does not mean you agree with all past leaders - I think it is a reference to present leaders. It also doesn't mean complete agreement with them. It means you do what you can to support them, and follow what they say unless you have good reason not to. I think this is the essence of what Jesus was teaching. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t see any love in your response - only toughness.

When people are confused and seeking a sense/place of belonging, you believe the best response is to tell them to stop complaining?

I can’t speak for everyone, including @changed, but if you responded to me like that, your words would drive me further from the LDS church.  Please consider this moving forward.

Good! You must follow your heart where it leads.

Glad to help.

Let people speak for themselves. Personal revelation to the right path  is God's will, and it will all work out on the other side.

Are you LDS?

Do you believe in personal revelation above all else or not?

Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, changed said:

 

How many bishops do you think would feel comfortable giving me a temple recommend knowing:

• I disagree with portions of the family proclamation (believe women should help provide/work, believe women are protectors, and that men and women share all roles within the family)
• Do not believe in literal interpretations of many scriptural accounts such as the creation, the flood etc. 
• I disagree with church's stance on LGBT issues, and moral cleanliness issues (think masturbation is fine)  

Where is the line that most would draw?

Most  of those are not even questions, they are doubts in your head!

Bishops adhere to the questions as stated.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, changed said:

 

Thanks for the replies, you are starting to give me a bit more hope.  

My husband  has some "chastity" issues that he does not have a recommend over, has been beating himself up over for quite a few years...  if people don't think masturbation is a problem anymore that would be really great.  Honestly, I think it is a matter of being self-reliant, controlling your thoughts - you can actually have more pure thoughts, and be less tempted by others around you if you take care of your own needs... 

Thinking through the questions:

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost? - absolutely yes.  Also, I have a testimony in my Heavenly Mother too, I think She should be included in things like this.  

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? - yes.

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days? - I do think Joseph Smith felt the spirit, although I don't know that some things from the early church were spiritually guided... the excitement of discovering spiritual guidance might have made a few people a little overly-excited, perhaps exaggerating or mixing a few things in that were not quite right...  I do not believe all things have been restored - I believe there are many things yet to be revealed.  

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? - I can sustain most of the current church leaders although I would not say I have a testimony of them - I would not follow every last thing they say.  I do not know all 8 billion people on the earth, so could not know what other spiritual leaders are living today - I do think there are many noble and great people on the earth, and will find good where-ever it comes from.  If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

I do not know all of the leaders in the church - how can I sustain someone I do not know?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

I do not have sexual relationships with anyone but me and my spouse.  We can keep it simple? or delve into what is appropriate within marriage?  hehe... 

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

No one in my family hates me, we all get along pretty well with one another.  

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I enjoy Mormon Story podcasts and the like, does that condemn me?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

Yes.  

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? yes. I'm being very honest right now.  

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?  yes.

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?  ... I do take caffeine pills.  Is that a problem? and herbal teas... otherwise I'm good?  

12 Do you have financial or other oblgations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

Nope - still on first marriage.

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

I have not been wearing my garments lately... what is the procedure for starting that up again? or is there one?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

Does my current bishop want the list again?  I don't know that anything is ever really resolved - there are things you carry with you your entire life, things that keep you humble - so what does resolved mean?  

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

If G-d does not mind imperfect people coming into his house, then great!  If he wants only perfect saints? I'm not really sure what worthy means?  I'm trying?  I'm trying to be honest?  I'm trying to be better?  How can I judge what G-d considers worthy or not?  am I worthy?  what would G-d judge me for?  how can I know?

In my opinion :

Question 4

Who else would have the authority of the Mormon priesthood other than the head Mormon?

5. Yes just keep it all simple.

7. Everyone enjoys those podcasts, listening does not make you support opposition to the church.

11. Caffeine is not mentioned.Most consider herbal tea as ok.

13 No proceedure for changing underware.

14. "Resolved" means "discussed with your bishop and your bishop given the ok.

15. NO ONE is perfect, just aiming for it.

[Storm Rider]

17 hours ago, changed said:

 

No one wants to label themselves with anything, but labels are part of what humans do - I want to be part of a group - not a hermit, being social is important.  I want to be known as someone who is religious because I am - but I do not want all the religious baggage that comes with many labels to be attached to myself.  

If you say "I am a Mormon" everyone jumps to thoughts of polygamy, racism, backwards-non-scientific etc. etc. things... 

I want to be religious, without all the crazy connotations that go along with it.  

What label can you use to let people know you believe in an afterlife, you believe the Holy Spirit is real, that you support prayer and faith in a heavenly family (Father, Mother, Savior)... but that... you do not condemn LGBT folks, you do not support anything that is racist, you do not support oppression of women, you do not believe the scriptures are literal when it comes to the creation etc.  that you also support evolution, that you respect other faith and religious groups and beliefs, are agnostic on some things and open to all spiritual experiences - do not hold yourself above others, and enjoy hearing all of the different faith experiences.  

Some in my family are LDS, others are not - because of my children / husband etc. if I am going to meet with a religious group, meeting with the Mormons is convenient for me - and I do enjoy listening to talks, and contemplating the spiritual aspects of life - think and agree with most of what is shared in most LDs meetings...  but I want to keep clear what I am, and what I am not, when people ask me things like "what church do you go to", or what beliefs do you hold?  ... I am a professor, and get asked these types of questions...  I want to let people know that I think faith-communities are wonderful supportive groups to participate in, but also let people know they can be a member of a faith-group without being trapped by that group, without losing their own personal understandings, without being forced to follow everything that group believes... I think it is healthy to be a member of a religious community, but to be a thoughtful member, a free member, free to think and act and believe what your conscience directs of you.  I believe everyone's testimony should be personal - with no middle-man, that it is good to meet together and share ideas with one another, but that it is not healthy to tell anyone what to believe.  I think it is possible to meet together without sharing all of the same beliefs as others.  

You tend to be focused on what others may think a Mormon is. Do you really live your life by what others think?  Do you feel that is healthy?

A Mormon is a follower of Jesus Christ and belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Members come from all walks of life and think and feel differently about a whole range of things.  Mormons are not cookie-cutter humans and God does not intend for us to be identical.  Rather, we are individuals that all strive to become like the Savior; to follow him.  On this path of discipleship, we each are at our own, personal degree of progression.  Where we are at on that path is neither good or bad - we are just progressing.  Some of us progress quickly and some of us progress slowly - no one is keeping track of our speed or lack thereof. 

If you are LDS, but terrified of what others may think of your membership then you have a personal problem that only you can find the answer.  I am a Latter-day Saint not because of what others think, but because of my commitment to the Savior.  

A bishop will evaluate each member's worthiness depending up their honest answers to each of the temple worthiness questions.  If you are ashamed of membership in the Church then you have need of clarifying why, what is true, and what is important to you.  Based on your conclusions, you may want to either repent or join another church that fits your needs and more closely aligns what you think God says is true. 

[Amulek]

On 5/31/2018 at 11:48 AM, changed said:

I feel like I need to identify myself as something different than just "a Mormon" - so that when I am with LGBT friends, or other more liberal friends, they know I am not a TBM, and would hopefully feel more comfortable talking with me.  There are some things that I would like to distance myself from, and make known that I do not agree with - while there are other things that I do agree with and do not mind associating myself with.  If someone wants to slap a label on me - I want a better label than "Mormon".  If I can find a group that gives me the freedom of being a cafeteria Mormon, I would like to use that to describe myself when others ask me what my beliefs are.

Shouldn't your friends know what kind of person you are? And if you are talking to someone new - someone who you believe would be uncomfortable talking to you as a Mormon - well, I would think you would want them to know you are a Mormon so you can show them that not all Mormons fit within the stereotype they have accepted.

Maybe I just have a different attitude about these sorts of things. Growing up in the South, I was often the only Mormon that most of my friends / acquaintances ever knew. I've had more conversations beginning with questions like, "Hey, don't Mormons believe..." or "I thought Mormons..." than I can begin to count. Each of those conversations (even the tedious ones) have been opportunities for me to show people that Mormons are more than they think we are. 

In fact, I was talking to one of my southern baptist friends a while back and he made the comment that he had always grown up believing certain things about Mormons and thought we were all crazy. However, he had made friends with a few Mormons over the years and had discovered that we are actually pretty reasonable folks.

So go ahead and relish being "just a Mormon." Let your friends see that we aren't all made from the same Jello mold.

 

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/31/2018 at 11:03 AM, changed said:

 

How many bishops do you think would feel comfortable giving me a temple recommend knowing:

• I disagree with portions of the family proclamation (believe women should help provide/work, believe women are protectors, and that men and women share all roles within the family)
• Do not believe in literal interpretations of many scriptural accounts such as the creation, the flood etc. 
• I disagree with church's stance on LGBT issues, and moral cleanliness issues (think masturbation is fine)  

Where is the line that most would draw?

All that one is required to get a TR is to answer the questions in the interview honestly and in a way that follows the intent of the questions.  Having an intellectual difference of view on things while personally complying with the law of chastity is not a problem. For example I think prostitution should be legal but I don't have anything to do with prostitutes.  Moral cleanliness issues is what  you personally do.  No what you think generally about a certain issue or topic.

[changed]

First, thank you to everyone for your thoughtful and honest replies.  I do not want to be a burden on anyone - do not want to pester an already busy bishop etc. etc. and it is very helpful to get input online.  It is free therapy for me   

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

 

I am going to intervene here because I think I may be of some help. 

Testimony in the restoration. I am a convert. I joined the church on the strength of my testimony in the Bible. The Church is the only Church with the full organization of the original Church Christ set up - with apostles and seventy. But more important to me was the Biblical teaching that Christ visited the spirit world to teach them as well and give them a chance to accept this gospel. How else can God be fair to those who have never even heard of Him? Peter obviously understood this, see 1 Peter 3&4, but somewhere along the line the Church lost most of this teaching, and in the fifth century held a council which banned baptism for the dead.  The current LDS Church is the only Church which retains all these principles. 

Was anything else restored? The priesthood had to be restored. The bishops in the Bible were married. 1 Timothy. That was departed from, and indeed warned that the day would come when men would depart from the gospel and forbid to marry. Baptism in the Bible was by immersion. That was departed from. As I have understood you, you believe more will be revealed. I don't count that as "restored." Not all was made manifest in Christ's day, and much that was was lost. Not everything was revealed - otherwise the two witnesses of Revelation would not prophesy, die, and be resurrected. ie a resurrection.

I believe scripture and even Christ Himself reveals there would be an apostasy. Yeshua said the day would end, and the night would come in which no man could work. Why wouldn't they be able to do God's work? The only way is if they lost the priesthood. The scriptures say that Christ would only return when there was a restitution of all things. Acts 3:21. Restitution means restoration. For there to be a restoration there must be a loss or apostasy.  I believe Daniel 7 and Revelation also reveal many specifics regarding the events of the apostasy. I am willing to talk about these at length if you wish, but in short the Lord restored His church at the time specified in scripture.

Sustaining leaders

I am somewhat like you. I do not always agree with everything all the leaders have said. Heck, not even they always agree, and Kimball expressly disagreed with a teaching of BY. However, I do not think we have to believe everything the leaders have said. Christ taught this principle when He said do what the priests tell you for they sit in Moses' seat, but do not do what they do. I am not saying the Church President's should not be followed, but am just showing the principle of sustaining. I sustain my leaders unless I have reason that should disqualify them from being in a position of authority. I personally have never encountered that. To sustain your leaders to me means i support them as being in their position of authority. Being in authority doesn't mean I will always be on all 4s with them. I do not agree with everything past Presidents have said, as regular posters on this board know. I have heard things like receiving revelation means thoughts come to your head. Well, I disagree with that as well, and believe that could be why I believe some past Presidents have gone a little awry imho. Except in rare instances where I know the thought was not mine, I do not accept this as a trustworthy means of revelation. I much prefer spiritual confirmation, and generally seek such.

Anyway, sustaining your church leaders does not mean you agree with all past leaders - I think it is a reference to present leaders. It also doesn't mean complete agreement with them. It means you do what you can to support them, and follow what they say unless you have good reason not to. I think this is the essence of what Jesus was teaching. 

There are two sides to spiritual life for me - there are the scriptural accounts, and then there is real life.  How much of the scriptures is real or not - I have to go through logical realities - if there is a just and all-loving G-d, would He leave 99% of the world in the dark?  Let's say you have no scriptures at all, and everything you have to go on is logic - just pure hope, followed with logic.  Hope that a loving and just G-d exists, and then logic that if such a being existed how would He deal with humanity?  Everyone has not had access to a prophet or an organized church - so what did G-d give everyone?  I would say their own conscience - all of humanity holds similar values of kindness, humility, honoring parents - http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/02/illustrations-of-the-tao/

Even if there are prophets and apostles - they are not the ones who save anyone... in the end it is a personal testimony, a personal understanding with no middleman... 

If I have learned anything, I have learned in the end it is between each of us individually and G-d... I think we are all learning more in this life than we care to admit, and hopefully we are all given the surroudnings and organizations - LDS or other - to give us what we need to progress - because that is what a loving G-d would do for everyone...

What church is true?  I suppose there is enough truth in all religious organizations to support and get everyone started on a path... but there is also enough error and imperfection in all organizations to force everyone to realize their individual accountability by the end as well.  

I'm not going to concentrate on church membership or testimony in any church... I need to just concentrate on where my conscience is, concentrate on finding the spirit, and following it, ad trusting everyone else to follow their own conscience and spirit as well.

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Then the thread is pointless, right?  You are just complaining?

A positive atttitude would be to desire your husband to go and then work toward that.  God looks at the intentions of the heart, not what card is in your wallet.

But if you are only here to complain all that is irrelevant without a positive attitude and a real desire to move forward.

Sorry- felt a little tough love was required there.  I am trying to help.  

Yin and yang - life is not all roses, it is not all blackness either... finding that middle ground, being ok talking through all of it...  sorry if I was concentrating too much on complaints, I did start out trying to keep it balanced - listing both pros and cons, not just cons.  The thread is not pointless for me and I appreciate very much everyone's input.  

22 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t see any love in your response - only toughness.

When people are confused and seeking a sense/place of belonging, you believe the best response is to tell them to stop complaining?

I can’t speak for everyone, including @changed, but if you responded to me like that, your words would drive me further from the LDS church.  Please consider this moving forward.

A few things have happened to me that I do appreciate honesty.  I know someone is being honest if they can share their thoughts without walking on egg shells - its ok, honesty is good.  

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

You tend to be focused on what others may think a Mormon is. Do you really live your life by what others think?  Do you feel that is healthy?

A Mormon is a follower of Jesus Christ and belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Members come from all walks of life and think and feel differently about a whole range of things.  Mormons are not cookie-cutter humans and God does not intend for us to be identical.  Rather, we are individuals that all strive to become like the Savior; to follow him.  On this path of discipleship, we each are at our own, personal degree of progression.  Where we are at on that path is neither good or bad - we are just progressing.  Some of us progress quickly and some of us progress slowly - no one is keeping track of our speed or lack thereof. 

If you are LDS, but terrified of what others may think of your membership then you have a personal problem that only you can find the answer.  I am a Latter-day Saint not because of what others think, but because of my commitment to the Savior.  

A bishop will evaluate each member's worthiness depending up their honest answers to each of the temple worthiness questions.  If you are ashamed of membership in the Church then you have need of clarifying why, what is true, and what is important to you.  Based on your conclusions, you may want to either repent or join another church that fits your needs and more closely aligns what you think God says is true. 

Who you are, is who you are with others... if you are kind, you are kind to others.  if you are happy / sad / angry... we are defined through our interactions.  Are you familiar with emergent properties?  Tell me, what is the color of an atom? .. truth is, a single atom has no color.  What phase of matter is a single atom?  gas, liquid, solid?  Truth is you cannot describe what a single atom is... colors, phases of matter, material properties - these only exist for a community of atoms... so too with people, our color, our properties - they are only evident through interactions.  It is about what other think a Mormon is, everything does kind of revolve around others - don't lie, love one another, honor your parents, it is all about how to treat and interact with others right?  So what is the healthy way to be with others without losing free will, without losing your individuality?  1 Cor 12:12+ I suppose... 

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Shouldn't your friends know what kind of person you are? And if you are talking to someone new - someone who you believe would be uncomfortable talking to you as a Mormon - well, I would think you would want them to know you are a Mormon so you can show them that not all Mormons fit within the stereotype they have accepted.

Maybe I just have a different attitude about these sorts of things. Growing up in the South, I was often the only Mormon that most of my friends / acquaintances ever knew. I've had more conversations beginning with questions like, "Hey, don't Mormons believe..." or "I thought Mormons..." than I can begin to count. Each of those conversations (even the tedious ones) have been opportunities for me to show people that Mormons are more than they think we are. 

In fact, I was talking to one of my southern baptist friends a while back and he made the comment that he had always grown up believing certain things about Mormons and thought we were all crazy. However, he had made friends with a few Mormons over the years and had discovered that we are actually pretty reasonable folks.

So go ahead and relish being "just a Mormon." Let your friends see that we aren't all made from the same Jello mold.

 

Different areas and cultures carry different impressions - I feel most where I live have a few negative views of Mormons.  I want someone new I meet to know I will not judge them if they are LGBT.  I want them to know I do not think myself better than them due to any titles or religious beliefs.  I do not want them to think I do not support equality, or any of the myriad of things many think when they first hear the word "Mormon".  I used the NOM title just this morning with someone, and it worked - they smiled, asked me to explain what a NOM was (they already knew what a Mormon was - or at least they thought they knew), and I was then able to have a great conversation with them void of all the strange or controlling preconceptions many have for Mormons... I was able to present myself not as a sheeple mindless drone, but as an individual who thought for themselves while still appreciating some things from a religious community.   I invited them to watch the celebration that is going on right now, I was actually a missionary.  

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

All that one is required to get a TR is to answer the questions in the interview honestly and in a way that follows the intent of the questions.  Having an intellectual difference of view on things while personally complying with the law of chastity is not a problem. For example I think prostitution should be legal but I don't have anything to do with prostitutes.  Moral cleanliness issues is what  you personally do.  No what you think generally about a certain issue or topic.

So... don't over-think and over-analyze everything?  

When I first join the church, I was over analyzing everything, wanted to read everything, was going to take years and years of study before getting baptized - then someone told me "you don't have to eat the whole cake to know it tastes good."  so I jumped in knowing that just that one little piece was good - not know what the rest of it was... I guess you call that faith?  hope?  Now I need to step back again, be agnostic on what I have not had spiritual confirmation on, not feel pressured into believing something in order to fit in... 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What is a more beautiful unity - more beautiful "be one"?

a) obligation, responsibility, conformist, fear ... to be part of the club you have to ____________ you are supposed to___ you are expected to __________________

or, who are you if there was no expectations?  who would you be if you were never introduced to the church?  is who you would be without eh church a more genuine person?  

b) unit through choice, perhaps not even covenant based - a friend who is there not because they are assigned to VT/HT/M to you - but as a genuine thing, for pure enjoyment.... 

I want to treat everyone the same - does not matter what faith, what background, what family - I do enjoy people, enjoy hearing everyone's stories, enjoy learning from everyone and think everyone has things to teach.... 

... G-d loves everyone, and under His love the majority of humanity through the majority of time was not placed into any church, why not? - perhaps we are all better off without such a church? or at least it must be better to keep church in its proper place - not taking over your life... not an obligation ... if you don't always keep the sabbath day holy (Jesus did not always follow all the rules himself - Luke 6...)  

no respecter of persons, not holding one person above another... no hierarchy.  everyone in possession of their own keys - it is the only thing I can see as being just and loving.  

[Storm Rider]

24 minutes ago, changed said:

First, thank you to everyone for your thoughtful and honest replies.  I do not want to be a burden on anyone - do not want to pester an already busy bishop etc. etc. and it is very helpful to get input online.  It is free therapy for me   

There are two sides to spiritual life for me - there are the scriptural accounts, and then there is real life.  How much of the scriptures is real or not - I have to go through logical realities - if there is a just and all-loving G-d, would He leave 99% of the world in the dark?  Let's say you have no scriptures at all, and everything you have to go on is logic - just pure hope, followed with logic.  Hope that a loving and just G-d exists, and then logic that if such a being existed how would He deal with humanity?  Everyone has not had access to a prophet or an organized church - so what did G-d give everyone?  I would say their own conscience - all of humanity holds similar values of kindness, humility, honoring parents - http://www.scifiwright.com/2013/02/illustrations-of-the-tao/

Even if there are prophets and apostles - they are not the ones who save anyone... in the end it is a personal testimony, a personal understanding with no middleman... 

If I have learned anything, I have learned in the end it is between each of us individually and G-d... I think we are all learning more in this life than we care to admit, and hopefully we are all given the surroudnings and organizations - LDS or other - to give us what we need to progress - because that is what a loving G-d would do for everyone...

What church is true?  I suppose there is enough truth in all religious organizations to support and get everyone started on a path... but there is also enough error and imperfection in all organizations to force everyone to realize their individual accountability by the end as well.  

I'm not going to concentrate on church membership or testimony in any church... I need to just concentrate on where my conscience is, concentrate on finding the spirit, and following it, ad trusting everyone else to follow their own conscience and spirit as well.

4

If this is the case then why belong to any church? Just call yourself a Diest and move on.

In what you wrote I don't find any mention of Jesus Christ.  What you did state was that "they are not the ones who save anyone... in the end it is a personal testimony, a personal understanding with no middleman".  Yes, it has always been personal.  Prophets and apostles don't save you, but God was the one that set those positions up and he did so for a purpose.  What is funny is that so many say they believe in God, but just not interested in his prophets - it is like saying, "I like God just as long as he doesn't talk to me through any of his mouthpieces".  There is a high degree of arrogance to this position. The logic is if God cannot talk to me then he is not worth listening to. 

It is LDS teaching that there are degrees of truth in all religions - that is just fundamental to what we believe.  However, just because the truth is found elsewhere does not negate the possibility or reality that God has sought to have his church on the earth through which the keys of Exaltation are found and exercised.