What Is The Solution?

[moreholinessgiveme]

On several threads there has been a smattering of discussion about what it would take to resolve the general animus between apologists and critics, as well as between member and non-member. In one of those discussion, TJane took a step in the right direction by asking critics: "What solution are you looking for?"

Another way of asking this question is: "what is your desired outcome?" or "what do you need from the other party?" or "what would bring you peace and happiness"?

I think it would be good to learn how the critics and former members answer these questions for themselves (not to be confused with apologists or members answering for them).

And, I think it good to learn what how the apologists or members answer these same questions for themselves (not to be confused with critics and former members answering for them).

What say you?

(I think it would also help this discussion were each of us to read thoughtfully what may be said by either side, and not react defensively, keeping in mind that the intent of this thread isn't to judge, accuse, and point fingers or debate opposing views or convert others to our respective ways of thinking or even defend our respective positions, but rather to get clarity and better understand the opposing view and to find that which will make us each better people and improve our relations. This will require getting more into a listening and empathy mode and being flexible.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How many people, honestly, are active posters on these boards?

You have only their input, which is not a very fair or accurate assessment of anything.

I'd say one way to settle things would be for the critics to stop. Chances are the apologists would stop as well. Matter solved.

[wenglund]

I think my desired outcome for both sides is for people to not take things so personally or be so ready to do "battle" for their cause. If people gave others the benefit of the doubt more often on both sides, we'd have a lot less drama, not just here, but in the real world.

Good point.

When I was at odds with the church, all I wanted was validation for my feelings and point of view. I didn't spend lots of time on anti boards, in fact I didn't even have a computer back then, but I tried to get people to hear me. That was the most important thing to me back then.

After the Lord changed my heart and my view, I no longer needed to be given that validation of men. Being validated by the Lord gave me peace.

I don't know there is anything short of the Peace of Christ that can really give anyone satisfaction. There will always be some shortcoming or problem that those countermos will find that they will feel needs to be validated.

This was nice of you to share. However, while this may have been the case for you, I am not sure it is the case for all critics or former members. But, I will let them speak for themselves.

You asked for "my desired outcome", or "what I need from the other party", or "what would bring me peace and happiness". Specifically, you wanted to know how I would "answer these questions for myself". All of my points apply specifically to me, and I make no claims for their general application.

The intent behind the questions about "desired outcome" and "what I need from the other party" was to resolving the animus between critics and apologists--solutions that would hopefully be within the purview of those participating here. I apologize if that was not clear from what I said, and I do appreciate your input.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

so, Wade, in your profession are you a mediator or arbitrator. You remind me of the judge in some of the legal mediations I have attended.

[cinepro]

- More stake roadshows

<snip Obiwan's thoughts on my list>

Not sure what you mean by this, but let us know. You talking about more scholarship things in it?

I think there has been a misunderstanding, Obiwan. If you carefully read the original post, you'll find that my comments and list fulfill Wade's original request. There was never a condition of probability or practicality attached, and I wasn't implying there was. My list dwells in the same fantasy land so commonly inhabited by apologists and believers, and therefore I ask for it to be taken on faith.

While I can appreciate the time and thought you put into your post, I think the only reasonable response in the context of this thread can be "Who the hell cares what you think, Obiwan?" I certainly don't, and the original poster (Wade) wasn't looking for your input either. I can only pray that with your limited vision and poorly reasoned arguments for the status quo you never rise to a position where such views can become further institutionalized and spread to other members who might have been more open to receiving revelation that could catalyze policy change on these issues.

[blueadept]

I'd say one way to settle things would be for the critics to stop. Chances are the apologists would stop as well. Matter solved.

We are given the "Great Comission" to spread the gospel and baptize. Since we disagree on what is 'God's True Church', there is a solution here?????

I would suggest everyone to stop preaching and then critics and apologists wouldn't have anything to disagree with. Obviously the Bible doesn't teach this. So there will always be critics and apologists. Trying to understand and bridge some of these issues is the only way to address a solution.

A ecumenism movement by everyone and reaching to other faiths is a starting point.

[wenglund]

Again, thanks for your attempts at civility Wade. The truth is that I do feel that bridge-building is a possibility. I've said this before (I'm sure ad nauseum to many), but I REALLY have no interest in deconverting anybody. My take (as I felt this way for 40 years) is that most Mormons feel it their duty to "warn" the world. I'm not arguing that that teaching is a good one. But I've found in my post-mo life that most never-mos and many post-mos don't feel that way. The norm is an attitude of "if it works for you and makes you happy, go for it!"

So from the TBM perspective, I see where many see our approach here to dissuade the TBMs. At least for me, it is not. Probably like Wade, I would like to see us learn how to get along, and even become friends. Many have said "I can't respect those who criticize the institution and prophets I love." I understand how difficult that is...but I think it is possible.

Simply, there is reason for many of us to disbelieve. You can disagree with us, but I think it is possible to like us anyway. Perhaps a trite analogy, but many democrats and republicans learn to get along despite their dramatic differences in belief. Can't we do the same?

So my "desired outcome" is simply learn to treat each other with respect. I live in Salt Lake City, and not a day goes by without having to deal with some degree of Mormon teaching or issue. I have a great relationship with my TBM neighbors...they understand me. I'm sure it wasn't easy for them in the beginning, but when they saw I mowed my lawn, planted flowers, played with their kids...they became quite friendly.

I hope all of us can do the same. That's all.

I don't know what your history has been with other participants here, but in addition to your neighbors, I think the recent respectful interactions between you and I give clear indication that mutually amicable resolutions are quite achievable, and that animus between former members and members is not necessary.

I think it also suggests that it takes commitment to that end from both side for things to work out fully and successfully, if at all. For that reason, I am very grateful for your efforts.

However, and generally speaking, I think that criticisms that are directed to either side are vulnerable to generating animus, though not necessarily so. It just requires a bit more finesse than your the typical chit chat, as well as clear indication that the criticism is intended to be constructive rather than destructive.

One finesse techique that seems to work for me is to, rather than being accusatory and using "you" statements that directly criticize, I find that "I" statements used indirectly (such as: "What I find helpful for me when_________") tend to take away the animus-generating sting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BishopRic]

I don't know what your history has been with other participants here, but in addition to your neighbors, I think the recent respectful interactions between you and I give clear indication that mutually amicable resolutions are quite achievable, and that animus between former members and members is not necessary.

I think it also suggests that it takes commitment to that end from both side for things to work out fully and successfully, if at all. For that reason, I am very grateful for your efforts.

However, and generally speaking, I think that criticisms that are directed to either side are vulnerable to generating animus, though not necessarily so. It just requires a bit more finesse than your the typical chit chat, as well as clear indication that the criticism is intended to be constructive rather than destructive.

One finesse techique that seems to work for me is to, rather than being accusatory and using "you" statements that directly criticize, I find that "I" statements used indirectly (such as: "What I find helpful for me when_________") tend to take away the animus-generating sting.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good suggestions! Thanks!

[Son]

Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting that the way to resolve the animus between LDS critics and apologist, and between LDS member and non-member, is for each to abandon organised religion?

If so, do you think that is practical or necessary. (I am not trying to argue, but rather to better understand you.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If that is what is necessary, Yes. The problem with that is that leaving religion to many means abandoning God.

Religions are false Idols that generate a life of their own....

Live Christ.

Seek Ye 1st the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness and ALL else will be added.

[Son]

Wouldn't it be nice, though, if all people who lived Christ could be found within one religion?

... and what is a religion, anyway?

Doesn't it all boil down to a "way" ... ?

I think it's interesting that all true followers were once known as the followers of the Way

...as if there was only one way to truly follow Christ.

Not according to Christ.

He said. "I am the way, the truth and the life" No man comes unto the Father but through ME (Christ).

[Paul Ray]

If that is what is necessary, Yes. The problem with that is that leaving religion to many means abandoning God.

Religions are false Idols that generate a life of their own....

Live Christ.

Seek Ye 1st the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness and ALL else will be added.

How do you define the word "religion", Son?

Try thinking of it as a "Way" to do something, such as worshipping God.

All the different "religions" in the world are different "ways" to do something.

The "way" you worship God is your religion.

... and not everyone worships God, or other things, the "way" you do.

[Paul Ray]

Not according to Christ.

He said. "I am the way, the truth and the life" No man comes unto the Father but through ME (Christ).

Okay, which "way" is our Lord's way, then?

... and btw, not everyone will agree with what you think is our Lord's way, and some other people also believe they are coming his way.

[blueadept]

Son,

Let me see if I understand your POV, one of the purposes Jesus had was not to establish a church.

So what was the purpose of the Apostles Jesus taught and what was the means did Jesus have in understanding his teachings if there wasn't a bible and no one tell about Jesus since he wasn't hear to establish a church?

Humbly asking.

[Son]

How do you define the word "religion", Son?

Try thinking of it as a "Way" to do something, such as worshipping God.

All the different "religions" in the world are different "ways" to do something.

The "way" you worship God is your religion.

... and not everyone worships God, or other things, the "way" you do.

We worship God in truth and in Spirit, not in buildings made with hands.

The religions of the world are proof that they don't work....

We have a perfect example of how to worship, and be.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

And if all else fails, He abides in us. That is the perfect witness. He sent the Comforter to reveal all.

It is given to abide in you, the comforter, the record of heaven, the peaceable things of immortal glory, that which quickeneth all things, and maketh alive all things etc.....

[Son]

Okay, which "way" is our Lord's way, then?

... and btw, not everyone will agree with what you think is our Lord's way, and some other people also believe they are coming his way.

The way He shows us through example and His comforter.

They don't agree now!

Let your light so shine, that them seeing your good works, will glorify your Father in heaven.....

[Son]

Son,

Let me see if I understand your POV, one of the purposes Jesus had was not to establish a church.

Christ came that we "might" have LIFE, life ever-lasting.

He who keepeth my sayings shall not taste of death. That is life everlasting.

So what was the purpose of the Apostles Jesus taught and what was the means did Jesus have in understanding his teachings if there wasn't a bible and no one tell about Jesus since he wasn't hear to establish a church?

Humbly asking.

Church is not religion, I have church everyday (mostly).....

The gospel is so that men should be left without excuse, and also so that when we fall sufficiently away, it acts as a mercy to give us new light, in order to lead us back to hearing the Spirit, that will lead us into all truth.

[wenglund]

Actually I can see no resolution to this problem. The very nature of apologetics appears to be to confound those who attack the faith. I do sometimes tire from the continuous attacks on the Church and it's leaders both founding and modern. In fact I have considered making a permanent exodus from this board and move over to the Mormon/LDS Forums which is a much less hostile environment to discuss gospel principles and did so for a while, but it did get a little boring. I guess what Lehi said about having an "opposition in all things" must be true. And yet I find these boards very tiring at times, the same old "crap" is just rehashed over and over: polyandry, the trinity, salvation by grace/works, MMM, blacks and the priesthood, evolution, and blah, blah, blah. The TBM's are convinced they are right and the exmo's, and anti-mo's, and the EV's, and the atheists all are still convinced they are right. It can be reminecent of Palmyra in the 1820's. The truth is their is no solution, you cannot be for something without being against something else. I have to wonder about these words of Paul:I think the Prophet Joseph had the same thought when he said:So I really wonder what are we doing here? What is our purpose? The problem with the restored Gospel and the Gospel in any age is that it will always be opposed and although we encourage people to "keep all the truth they have and come get more" the problem is most who think they have the truth already don't want more. While on my Mission I had convert who complained about being perscuted by a group of co-workers (that is before something like that could get you fired) surrounded her and told her to pick one of their religions and she would be saved. Apparently according to them you could believe anything but Mormonism...that was where their tolerance ended. The reason is if you are a protestant you can believe a catholic still is a follower of Christ and vice versa. But if you are a LDS--you can't, your very nature is exclusive. This is the cause for the bashings and rantings and persecuting, because if the Book of Mormon is true and Joseph Smith is a true prophet...then they are without God in the world. They only have a form of godliness a shadow of reality and pretense and a pious fraud. That is why they must attack, why they cannot include us as just another "Christian." I am sorry if what I say offends some, but you can't teach the truth without all the devils in hell rage...I try to live this article of faith:I would never compell anyone to believe as I do, but if I come on this board I will not allow a falsehood spoken against my faith go unopposed just for the sake of "getting along." One last scripture to show my position:I try to make this my guide in posting on these boards.

I can certainly understand the hopelessness that you and others on both sides have expressed. After seeing the animus occur time and time again, and almost invariably, it seems reasonable to expect things not to change.

And, if it is of any consolation, for the longest time I used to view it that same way. I was also unwilling to stand by and let my faith be attacked--certainly not just go along to get along. Truth is, I still am not willing to standby.

What changes things for me, though, was to stop viewing both parties as enemy combatents, or as victims and perpetrators, but as fellow children of God who have unintentionally picked dysfunctional ways of socializing and working out our differences. I figured out that we were going about this the wrong way, and the solution was to finding a functional means of resolution--a way that uplifts rather than degrades, edifies rather than hurts, and a win-win for all parties. I figured out that it isn't so much about being "right", but about satisfying the basic human need in all of us to love and be loved, to respect and be respected.

So, no, I am not advocating going along to get along. Rather, I am suggesting finding functional ways of resolving differences.

Now, you are certainly free to leave this board and go to where you feel your faith won't be under attach--and given your hopeless perception of things, I wouldn't blame you a bit (not that I am in to blaming anyway). But, I think in doing so you will miss out on an opportunity to be involved in changing things for the better. And, who knows? You may even pick up some conflict resolution pointers or social skills that may prove useful with family and friends, and in various other walks of life.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Ray]

We worship God in truth and in Spirit, not in buildings made with hands.

Are you suggesting we can't do both at the same time?

The religions of the world are proof that they don't work....

I'll agree with that, but our (LDS) religion isn't a religion of the world.

We have a perfect example of how to worship, and be.

Yes, I think so too, and I don't see our Lord or his disciples avoiding going into buildings.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

What wheel are you referring to?

We have examples of what our Lord and his disciples did in the scriptures.

And if all else fails, He abides in us. That is the perfect witness. He sent the Comforter to reveal all.

Are you suggesting there is no more God can reveal?

It is given to abide in you, the comforter, the record of heaven, the peaceable things of immortal glory, that which quickeneth all things, and maketh alive all things etc.....

Who do you believe our Lord was talking to when he made that statement?

[wenglund]

How many people, honestly, are active posters on these boards?

You have only their input, which is not a very fair or accurate assessment of anything.

That sound fair. However, I am viewing this as a place to start, not a place to end. I am also not attempting an exhaustive study, nor am I looking to change the world, but rather to positively influence where I live and interact. If the input of the few here proves useful to us few, then I am fine with that. And, if it finds its way to more general application, then great.

I'd say one way to settle things would be for the critics to stop. Chances are the apologists would stop as well. Matter solved.

I am grateful for your suggestion, though I am not sure what exactly you are suggesting that the critics stop. Could you clarify?

Whatever the case, I don't know that the matter is solved merely in the offering of a suggestion, nor is it solved to the satisfaction and benefit of all parties. There is still the sticky part about getting others to buy into your suggestion. But, well see. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paul Ray]

I didn't want to derail the thread, but both our comments seem to answer the OP question that there isn't always an amicable solution, but I have the time to address some of these.

Sorry, just saw this. I'll now give you the best answers I can come up with.

For LDS, it's sealing the couple for all eternity and not 'til death do you part.' We disagree that others believe that but that's what LDS believe others believe. So be it.

I was pretty much trying to ask you what you would get out of it, other than being in attendance.

Would you be able to truly share in the experience if you were there to see it?

It doesn't seem so to me.

It seems that you just want to be there to be able to be there.

It's an important step for the couple and I'm a witness along with others. 'What God has joined together, let know one tear apart'.....EVER

Yeah, but you don't really believe that, do you?

Do you truly believe that couple is literally being sealed for eternity...

... and that they will always be sealed as long as they both honor their covenants with God?

... and that it is only by the power of the Holy Priesthood of God (that we have in our LDS Church) that is making that sealing possible... aside from the commitment of the couple to each other?

yep....hurt runs both ways, but the couple have a testimony and others could have been here if they only converted....Hmmm

Yep. Just realize that you are the one who is keeping yourself from going.

Every house and organization and kingdom has rules and/or laws.

If you want to enjoy the blessings of our organization, you have to follow our laws.

So you're saying not all Christians can attend only LDS Christian????

Yes. It is a building in our Lord's kingdom, and we have to follow his "rules" to enter.

... at least to avoid getting in troulbe, later.

The exclusiveness. Being a Christian should be an inclusive thing of 'loving your neighbor'. The image the LDS church gives IMO is 'you are not worthy'

What makes you think you should be able to go just because you want to go?

Our Lord's kingdom has rules, and you are expected to follow them if you want any of the blessings.

As I said, you can go. You're simply expected to qualify yourself for an authorized entrance.

Christ is first and foremost in my life, in the different things that I do through my church. Visit the sick, elderly, shut-ins, prayer groups as well as teach the youth on Sunday. My wife and LDS kids think I do too much church stuff. So your comment seems laughable. Sorry.

Do you know what the "rules" are for an authorized entrance into a temple?

If you don't, let me know, and I will tell you... though it might be better for you to ask your bishop.

I've turned my life over to God daily and I try to live the golden rule. "Love your God with your heart, mind and soul...and Love your neighbor as yourself."

That's very commendable. I applaud you for doing all of those things.

Now you just need to do what is necessary to be able to enter our Lord's temple, with his blessing.

[wenglund]

so, Wade, in your profession are you a mediator or arbitrator. You remind me of the judge in some of the legal mediations I have attended.

That is nice of you to say. While it is not a part of my current profession (I am now into land development and related technology ventures) I have recently been studying mediation, and I hope soon to do volunteer work as a mediator in my community, and then depending upon how thing goes there, make a determination whether to take it from an avocation to a vocation.

Just as a point of clarification, though, it is not uncommon for people to confuse mediation with arbitration or litigation (I did until I learned more about mediation). With mediation the resolution is determined by the disputing parties, themselves, as facilitated by a mediator; whereas, with arbitration and litigation, the arbitor or judge determines the resolution, which is then binding on the disputing parties.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Oracle]

On several threads there has been a smattering of discussion about what it would take to resolve the general animus between apologists and critics, as well as between member and non-member. In one of those discussion, TJane took a step in the right direction by asking critics: "What solution are you looking for?"

Another way of asking this question is: "what is your desired outcome?" or "what do you need from the other party?" or "what would bring you peace and happiness"?

I think it would be good to learn how the critics and former members answer these questions for themselves (not to be confused with apologists or members answering for them).

And, I think it good to learn what how the apologists or members answer these same questions for themselves (not to be confused with critics and former members answering for them).

What say you?

(I think it would also help this discussion were each of us to read thoughtfully what may be said by either side, and not react defensively, keeping in mind that the intent of this thread isn't to judge, accuse, and point fingers or debate opposing views or convert others to our respective ways of thinking or even defend our respective positions, but rather to get clarity and better understand the opposing view and to find that which will make us each better people and improve our relations. This will require getting more into a listening and empathy mode and being flexible.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

First of all, I would like to state that I remain a member on record, but have been unbelieving for a decade and inactive for the past four years.

Here is my list of what I think it would take to soften the gap between believers and nonbelievers.

1. Must drop the "One True Church" nonsense. It serves to alienate everyone outside of it, and make those inside it arrogant and proud. It also gives birth to the less benign, polemic culture that encourages shunning if one chooses to leave this one true environment.

2. It must stop focusing so heavily on the afterlife. It is really difficult to enjoy the here and now if one is fixated on the hereafter. And hereafters that are heavily conditional upon certain works will drive any perfectionist-oriented person into the hospital with white rooms and padded walls.

3. The whole "redeeming the dead" purpose of the church. Drop it. From where I am standing, work that is being spent on the dead is NOT work spent on the living. This whole concept is limiting God. If these people die without being exposed to LDS doctrine (and less than .01% of all humanity have been exposed to it) surely God can take that into consideration without another human being having to sit and watch a movie.

4. Temples. They are so beautiful on both inside and outside. I enjoy the ambiance. They bring peace. So do the cathedrals I have visited, and the krishna temples and the buddhist temples. Why be exclusive? If one wants to experience peace and calm, why must there be a ticket price?

5. Patriarchal environment. I just can't believe that one's mortal and eternal role is incumbent upon gender. I think that all people are powerful, and should not have to defer to another in order to access greater light and knowledge. It doesn't make things organized. It makes it insulting. And it makes more sense that gender would not be recognized in any hereafter before it makes sense that a female must spend her eternities birthing babies.

There's a start.

[wenglund]

If that is what is necessary, Yes. The problem with that is that leaving religion to many means abandoning God.

Religions are false Idols that generate a life of their own....

Live Christ.

Seek Ye 1st the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness and ALL else will be added.

Again, I am unclear how this will resolve the animus between LDS critics and apologists. It is even less clear whether your suggestion is the least bit fair/feasible/realistic or not. Could you expound?

Also, while the discussion between you and Paul Ray is interesting, it is running far afield of the topic. May I kindly suggest that the two of you take that particular discussion to its own thread where it has pertinance. I would appreciate it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[blueadept]

Would you be able to truly share in the experience if you were there to see it?

It doesn't seem so to me.

It seems that you just want to be there to be able to be there.

The important people involved, 1) God, 2) The couple, 3) The person performing the sealing.

Those there should be reverent is a given, but you have to be a member to be there. The ones I feel sorry for are non-member parents. Showing love and support shouldn't be an exclusive thing for members only. Why wouldn't I be reverent at a daughter's sealing? Since I MUST convert to be present is not showing Christian love for others IMO.

Yeah, but you don't really believe that, do you?

What God has put together, let no man tear apart... Marriage doesn't end at death. The 'til death do you part' is for the surviving spouse so that they do not need to be alone in this life.

Do you truly believe that couple is literally being sealed for eternity...

I've believed I've answered.

... and that they will always be sealed as long as they both honor their covenants with God?

The covenant is between the couple and God. The priest (for me) is just a special witness. So....Yep

... and that it is only by the power of the Holy Priesthood of God (that we have in our LDS Church) that is making that sealing possible... aside from the commitment of the couple to each other?

Okay....We have a disagreement of the role of the priesthood.

Yep. Just realize that you are the one who is keeping yourself from going.

Every house and organization and kingdom has rules and/or laws.

If you want to enjoy the blessings of our organization, you have to follow our laws.

Yes. It is a building in our Lord's kingdom, and we have to follow his "rules" to enter.

As far as I'm concerned, I am following God's calling for me. I understand following the rules but what you are saying is that I'm not really following God's calling if I desire to go to my own child's sealing......okay, I guess.

What makes you think you should be able to go just because you want to go?

I expect I would need to follow the rules. A church should be inclusive to everyone especially for special occasions where you are trying to convey that families are #1. The temple guidelines DO NOT promote that and IMO that's not being very Christian.

Our Lord's kingdom has rules, and you are expected to follow them if you want any of the blessings.

I thank God for my blessings which include my family everyday.

As I said, you can go. You're simply expected to qualify yourself for an authorized entrance.

Do you know what the "rules" are for an authorized entrance into a temple?

If you don't, let me know, and I will tell you... though it might be better for you to ask your bishop.

I've heard the TR questions multiple times. Since a few of them smack in the face of my Catholic belief, I don't believe I'm going to a TR interview anytime in the near future. I would have to pretty much believe I'm not already doing God's work now....which I believe I am in my daily life.

That's very commendable. I applaud you for doing all of those things.

Thanks

Now you just need to do what is necessary to be able to enter our Lord's temple, with his blessing.

I believe the Lord consistently blesses me and KNOWS how to get my attention when he wants it.

Peace

[wenglund]

First of all, I would like to state that I remain a member on record, but have been unbelieving for a decade and inactive for the past four years.

Here is my list of what I think it would take to soften the gap between believers and nonbelievers.

1. Must drop the "One True Church" nonsense. It serves to alienate everyone outside of it, and make those inside it arrogant and proud. It also gives birth to the less benign, polemic culture that encourages shunning if one chooses to leave this one true environment.

2. It must stop focusing so heavily on the afterlife. It is really difficult to enjoy the here and now if one is fixated on the hereafter. And hereafters that are heavily conditional upon certain works will drive any perfectionist-oriented person into the hospital with white rooms and padded walls.

3. The whole "redeeming the dead" purpose of the church. Drop it. From where I am standing, work that is being spent on the dead is NOT work spent on the living. This whole concept is limiting God. If these people die without being exposed to LDS doctrine (and less than .01% of all humanity have been exposed to it) surely God can take that into consideration without another human being having to sit and watch a movie.

4. Temples. They are so beautiful on both inside and outside. I enjoy the ambiance. They bring peace. So do the cathedrals I have visited, and the krishna temples and the buddhist temples. Why be exclusive? If one wants to experience peace and calm, why must there be a ticket price?

5. Patriarchal environment. I just can't believe that one's mortal and eternal role is incumbent upon gender. I think that all people are powerful, and should not have to defer to another in order to access greater light and knowledge. It doesn't make things organized. It makes it insulting. And it makes more sense that gender would not be recognized in any hereafter before it makes sense that a female must spend her eternities birthing babies.

There's a start.

Let me make sure I understand you as well. Are you suggeting that in order to resolve the animus between LDS critics and apologist, you need LDS to change some of their fundamental beliefs and practices?

Do you think your suggestion fair, let alone feasible/realistic? And, if not, do you have a suggestion that would be fair/feasible/realistic?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Oracle]

Let me make sure I understand you as well. Are you suggeting that in order to resolve the animus between LDS critics and apologist, you need LDS to change some of their fundamental beliefs and practices?

Do you think your suggestion fair, let alone feasible/realistic? And, if not, do you have a suggestion that would be fair/feasible/realistic?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

These are a few of the things about the church that turned me off and didn't seem reasonable to me. I am only one person, but I know a lot of representative people like myself who are also turned off by these tenets of LDS living. So I would suggest that yes, if the church would like to survive, they will need to adapt to make its fundamental beliefs and practices more palatable and spiritually inviting to the average primate.

And also yes, these steps would do much to resolve the animus. And it isn't like the LDS cannot change their fundamental beliefs and practices. The whole notion of revelation entails the wonderful ability to shift the foundation if need be. You know. Polygamy necessary for exaltation! Wait. Polygamy not. Monogamy necessary for exaltation! Black people no priesthood. Wait. Black people priesthood!