Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

I Am So Torn


stevedallas

Recommended Posts

An update.....now have 85 Firesides in 7 states....  Since Covid, several Firesides have been cancelled, so I have done them by Zoom, including another 2 states and a foreign country. I have a few other scheduled now, including Liberty, Missouri and NYC.   Can't wait until I can do them live again.  Add to that the Magazine article and book and this has been such an incredible journey.

Link to comment

Teeeeeexxxxxx!

Long time no hear!

I want to buy the book!  By any chance, is it available via Kindle?  (If not, no biggie: I'm not allergic to paper or anything ...  But if I buy a physical copy, I want your autograph ...)

Link to comment
On 10/26/2011 at 6:57 PM, stevedallas said:

I feel like the biggest fool. Here I am, 51 years old. I am a managing attorney. I was an officer in the Army. I am used to making decisions and sticking with them. I do not waffle. Yet, here I am. I am pulled so much to the LDS Church, but so many issues keep me away. I love the present LDS Church, but have many issues with the past. I love what appears to be current doctrines (or most of them), but have problems with older doctrines (or what they appear to be).

All I want to do is be where God wants me. Some days it almost seems like it is tearing me apart.

Not sure why I posted this. I expect folks will mock me, but there it is

Why would anyone mock you, stevedallas, or your heartfelt concern for your relationship with the church.

I am conflicted the other way: I have little trouble with the problems of the past (look at the Anglican or Catholic histories).  People, including Mormons, are often horrible to each other.

I love the Book of Mormon, although the historicity is off to me. It's a wonderful, inspired book, the most accurate of all books as someone described it. :)

The knuckle-headed decision making of the last five years drives me batty. As a senior churchman, a relative of mine, tells me, "They have little concept of certain doctrines and no concept of PR. They must have driven Rick Turley bat crap crazy."

I feel the same way.

Edited by JamesBYoung
Link to comment
3 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Why would anyone mock you, stevedallas, or your heartfelt concern for your relationship with the church.

I am conflicted the other way: I have little trouble with the problems of the past (look at the Anglican or Catholic histories).  People, including Mormons, are often horrible to each other.

I love the Book of Mormon, although the historicity is off to me. It's a wonderful, inspired book, the most accurate of all books as someone described it. :)

The knuckle-headed decision making of the last five years drives me batty. As a senior churchman, a relative of mine, tells me, "They have little concept of certain doctrines and no concept of PR. They must have driven Rick Turley bat crap crazy."

I feel the same way.

Ahem.  You're unlikely to find in the OP the kindred spirit for whom, perhaps, you are searching, JamesBYoung.   stevedallas's, aka UtahTexan's, views have evolved quite a bit in the last almost ten years since he started this thread.  (Hint: While dissidents, the disaffected, or those facing the sort of faith crises which occasioned the opening of this thread who are committed to being civil and to not creating disruptions are welcome to attend his firesides, the book, the magazine article, and the firesides tell a story of faith rekindled: they don't cater to the disaffection of the disaffected or to the dissidence of the dissident.)

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ahem.  You're unlikely to find in the OP the kindred spirit for whom, perhaps, you are searching, JamesBYoung.   stevedallas's, aka UtahTexan's, views have evolved quite a bit in the last almost ten years since he started this thread.  (Hint: While dissidents, the disaffected, or those facing the sort of faith crises which occasioned the opening of this thread who are committed to being civil and to not creating disruptions are welcome to attend his firesides, the book, the magazine article, and the firesides tell a story of faith rekindled: they don't cater to the disaffection of the disaffected or to the dissidence of the dissident.)

Did the start of the bold counteract the second part? Confused, but that's normal, haha. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

I love the Book of Mormon, although the historicity is off to me. It's a wonderful, inspired book, the most accurate of all books as someone described it. :)

Are you doing humor or did you make a mistake as the original quote was “most correct” rather than “most accurate” (since there is a significant difference in what that can mean which is often the focus of discussion about the quote, I am thinking you were having a bit of fun, but I need to have the actual word even so as there are those who get confused in my experience).  Not sure if the smilie indicates humor or friendliness.

https://rsc.byu.edu/living-book-mormon-abiding-its-precepts/most-correct-book-joseph-smiths-appraisal

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did the start of the bold counteract the second part? Confused, but that's normal, haha. 

If you're confused, that makes two of us, because I don't understand your question.  What do you mean when you say "counteract [sic; perhaps the word you're looking for is contradict, but, whatever; I'll let it slide] the second part"?  If you believe that dissidents or the disaffected should be able to disrupt firesides intended for an audience composed of the faithful with impunity, certainly, we part ways there. At a minimum, if anyone who may be bent on disrupting a gathering of faithful Latter-day Saints persists in his disruption, he could be charged with Disorderly Conduct in Utah or with a similar crime under a similar statute in another state. 

When I say that his firesides "don't cater to" dissidents or to the disaffected, that's exactly what I mean: they're not intended to reinforce dissidence or disaffection.  If one wishes to have one's dissidence or one's disaffection reinforced, there are plenty of fora to which he can resort for that: Radio Free Mormon, anything produced by Bill Reel, John Dehlin's podcast, et cetera.  Faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are under no obligation to provide a forum, a platform, or even a hearing to those who have dedicated their lives to eviscerating the faith of the Saints.

Link to comment
Quote
22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you're confused, that makes two of us, because I don't understand your question.  What do you mean when you say "counteract [sic; perhaps the word you're looking for is contradict, but, whatever; I'll let it slide] the second part"?  If you believe that dissidents or the disaffected should be able to disrupt firesides intended for an audience composed of the faithful with impunity, certainly, we part ways there. At a minimum, if anyone who may be bent on disrupting a gathering of faithful Latter-day Saints persists in his disruption, he could be charged with Disorderly Conduct in Utah or with a similar crime under a similar statute in another state. 

When I say that his firesides "don't cater to" dissidents or to the disaffected, that's exactly what I mean: they're not intended to reinforce dissidence or disaffection.  If one wishes to have one's dissidence or one's disaffection reinforced, there are plenty of fora to which he can resort for that: Radio Free Mormon, anything produced by Bill Reel, John Dehlin's podcast, et cetera.  Faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are under no obligation to provide a forum, a platform, or even a hearing to those who have dedicated their lives to eviscerating the faith of the Saints.

 

Sorry, I skipped over this part: being civil and to not creating disruptions

I guess I could have come up with a better word than counteract, but when I look up the definition it means to cancel out. So that was what I was getting at. Thinking that you welcomed dissidents and then in the same moment you wanted them gone. Sorta tired, after babysitting my one year old granddaughter for 9 1/2 hours. Let that be my excuse, haha.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ahem.  You're unlikely to find in the OP the kindred spirit for whom, perhaps, you are searching, JamesBYoung.   stevedallas's, aka UtahTexan's, views have evolved quite a bit in the last almost ten years since he started this thread.  (Hint: While dissidents, the disaffected, or those facing the sort of faith crises which occasioned the opening of this thread who are committed to being civil and to not creating disruptions are welcome to attend his firesides, the book, the magazine article, and the firesides tell a story of faith rekindled: they don't cater to the disaffection of the disaffected or to the dissidence of the dissident.) 

Ahem, I am concerned not with what anyone thinks about this, but rather my own reaction to the topic. One can be concerned about the issues in doctrine and with leadership, yet still be the Church's and leadership's number one fan.

Edited by JamesBYoung
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you doing humor or did you make a mistake as the original quote was “most correct” rather than “most accurate” (since there is a significant difference in what that can mean which is often the focus of discussion about the quote, I am thinking you were having a bit of fun, but I need to have the actual word even so as there are those who get confused in my experience).  Not sure if the smilie indicates humor or friendliness.

https://rsc.byu.edu/living-book-mormon-abiding-its-precepts/most-correct-book-joseph-smiths-appraisal

Be sure of this that I wrote exactly what I meant.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Ahem, I am concerned not with what anyone thinks about this, but rather my own reaction to the topic. One can be concerned about the issues in doctrine and with leadership, yet still be the Church's and leadership's number one fan.

Okay!  Keep on tryin' to win 'im over ta yer side, then, there, Jimmy Boy!  Never give up!  Never give in!  Never say die!  It might work ... someday! :rolleyes:<_<

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay!  Keep on tryin' to win 'im over ta yer side, then, there, Jimmy Boy!  Never give up!  Never give in!  Never say die!  It might work ... someday! :rolleyes:<_<

:rolleyes:<_< Hang in there, Kenngo. Like one of my friends!  , Kenny Boy, among the GAs said, "That darn proclamation! We'll see where that goes."

 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

:rolleyes:<_< Hang in there, Kenngo. Like one of my friends!  , Kenny Boy, among the GAs said, "That darn proclamation! We'll see where that goes."

 

Oooh, you all but name-dropped there!  I'm sooooo impressed!  I should genuflect! :rolleyes:<_< (If the "one of your friends among the GAs" isn't The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, his opinion on such things matters about as much as yours or mine does.)  If you're "Church leadership's number one fan," then, certainly, the Church of Jesus Christ doesn't need any enemies.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 9/4/2020 at 2:46 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Oooh, you all but name-dropped there!  I'm sooooo impressed!  I should genuflect! :rolleyes:<_< (If the "one of your friends among the GAs" isn't The Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, his opinion on such things matters about as much as yours or mine does.)  If you're "Church leadership's number one fan," then, certainly, the Church of Jesus Christ doesn't need any enemies.

Who cares if you are impressed or not, kennyboy. :)  His opinion matters far more than yours or mine.  That's the point.  If you don't care what leaders in the church think, then you and I are much the same in that vein.

Link to comment

 

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Who cares if you are impressed or not, kennyboy. :) 

You must.  That's the only reason I can think of why you're doing all of this almost-name-dropping. :rolleyes:<_< "Look at [listen to] me, because I have friends among the GAs."  All I was trying to do by engaging you in this conversation in the first place is to save you from embarrassment of thinking you'd found some sort of a kindred spirit in the OP when, in fact, his views have evolved greatly since he started this thread, but if you don't care, then doing so is obviously above my paygrade, so I'll bow out.  Thanks.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
On 9/4/2020 at 10:39 AM, JamesBYoung said:

Ahem, I am concerned not with what anyone thinks about this, but rather my own reaction to the topic. One can be concerned about the issues in doctrine and with leadership, yet still be the Church's and leadership's number one fan.

 

1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

Who cares if you are impressed or not, kennyboy. :)  His opinion matters far more than yours or mine.  That's the point.  If you don't care what leaders in the church think, then you and I are much the same in that vein.

These two statements, both purportedly from you unless you're going to resort to the old "someone-hacked-my-account" excuse, seem directly contradictory to one another, but, whatever. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JamesBYoung said:

In fact, those two statements support one another within the context of our discussion. That you disagree is immaterial.  Several  of the GAs and many active members/lower-level leaders in the Church do not support the November 2015 proclamation.

What proclamation?

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

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