"If I Were To Switch Religions Mormonism Would Be At The Bottom Of My List!"

[williamsmith]

Don't take this wrong. I wouldn't put it at the top of the list just yet because I'm working things out. I think a Universalist church would be nice. One that excepts everyone and honors agency (Gays in particular). I think Joseph Smith was a universalist at one time and may have integrated some ideas at the beginning of restoring the church. But I think leaders after him made our church less so. More legalistic. Like telling you what to wear (modesty), & eat (WoW), never feeling good enough because we are to become perfect, etc. So if we could go back and undo some things and concentrate on the big things, then mormonism would be my favorite.

Mormonism is actually a "universalistic" religion. But, yes, we are not so universal that our brains fall out. We do have standards. And whether you want to admit it or not, homosexuality is banned by God. And who says we don't respect free agency? You can do what you want, in or out of the church, but if you're in, then there are some basic standards required. If mormonism were a "legalistic" religion, we would have "cult ministry's", telling others that if they don't believe the same as our interpretation they are not Christian or are a cult. But, we are quite secure within ourselves and allowing others to do the same.

[BlueDreams]

I'd ask why?....sometimes the answer will be funny. Like "I couldn't drink coffee anymore!"

But overall, my sense of curiousity always wins in the end. I'd want to know the reasoning.

Personally, My last choice would be southern baptist, fundamentalist christian, and evangelical. Reasoning: teen years as a mormon in TX.

With luv,

BD

Edited October 3, 2012 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

Don't take this wrong. I wouldn't put it at the top of the list just yet because I'm working things out. I think a Universalist church would be nice. One that excepts everyone and honors agency (Gays in particular). I think Joseph Smith was a universalist at one time and may have integrated some ideas at the beginning of restoring the church. But I think leaders after him made our church less so. More legalistic. Like telling you what to wear (modesty), & eat (WoW), never feeling good enough because we are to become perfect, etc. So if we could go back and undo some things and concentrate on the big things, then mormonism would be my favorite.

4 things

- Honoring agency does not entail equity in all choices. In other words just because someone can choose to act (whatever the reasons that exist for that choice) does not mean that each choice is equally good or bad.

- Joseph was not a universalist. I think it could be said that he had some influences, but the beliefs that could be attributed directly to JS's time (ie. most of the D&C) don't jive with Universalism

- Believing you're never good enough is not based on modern or past LDS thought, but on poor understanding of LDS doctrine. To me, it shows little understanding of why we do what we do, what it means to be perfect, and what is "good enough" anyways.

- There are very few groups that I know of that don't have an expected set of acceptable behavior. I haven't met too many people who can "accept everybody" in the way that I see you infer (everybody's view/choices is equally valid....as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (being the usual clause))....if the following is too personal, I don't mean to be. It's my opinion and you can take it or leave it as you please: I personally feel that you're idealizing other people's belief structures within your own dissatisfaction and uncertainty that you currently feel within your own. I also mean this in the best way possible: but I've read many of your posts and there seems to be a good amount that you do not understand or have incorrect assumptions about the LDS faith that are feeding this dissatisfaction. I really don't mean this to be anything but concern. In your own struggles I would hate to see you leave, not really grasping what it is you actually left. The way you've described some of your understanding of mormonism I would also not want to be apart of it....and yet I am and love it...I wouldn't want to be anywhere else though I don't think the church/culture is without fault. The problem isn't entirely the LDS church but your personal understanding of it.

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

4 things

- Honoring agency does not entail equity in all choices. In other words just because someone can choose to act (whatever the reasons that exist for that choice) does not mean that each choice is equally good or bad.

- Joseph was not a universalist. I think it could be said that he had some influences, but the beliefs that could be attributed directly to JS's time (ie. most of the D&C) don't jive with Universalism

- Believing you're never good enough is not based on modern or past LDS thought, but on poor understanding of LDS doctrine. To me, it shows little understanding of why we do what we do, what it means to be perfect, and what is "good enough" anyways.

- There are very few groups that I know of that don't have an expected set of acceptable behavior. I haven't met too many people who can "accept everybody" in the way that I see you infer (everybody's view/choices is equally valid....as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (being the usual clause))....if the following is too personal, I don't mean to be. It's my opinion and you can take it or leave it as you please: I personally feel that you're idealizing other people's belief structures within your own dissatisfaction and uncertainty that you currently feel within your own. I also mean this in the best way possible: but I've read many of your posts and there seems to be a good amount that you do not understand or have incorrect assumptions about the LDS faith that are feeding this dissatisfaction. I really don't mean this to be anything but concern. In your own struggles I would hate to see you leave, not really grasping what it is you actually left. The way you've described some of your understanding of mormonism I would also not want to be apart of it....and yet I am and love it...I wouldn't want to be anywhere else though I don't think the church/culture is without fault. The problem isn't entirely the LDS church but your personal understanding of it.

With luv,

BD

I have a problem with the way we exclude family from the temple ceremony, an old topic no need to hash this one out again though. The way tithing is played out. It should be what is described in the D&C. Pay on what is leftover after the bills etc. This would keep couples out of unnecessary debt if they need to pay tithing with a bank loan. The nondisclosure of where the money is being spent or other information. Most charities provide this info. I would like to see service missions not be clerical. Where these may have been paid administrative jobs at one time. I have a friend that struggled after being sent with her husband on a service mission in England where they were stuck in an office doing some kind of clerical work. She really wanted to proselyte. I long for more social programs in the church. That's enough complaining for now. But thanks BD for the nice way you approach me. It doesn't go unnoticed!

[Calm]

It is your choice how you calculate your tithing. I have a friend who does it in the way you describe and has never been told he is wrong or not given a temple recommend.

[williamsmith]

Yep, I pay on my "increase", which is after my major bills.

It's like if I had a heard of sheep. Yes, when I first got all the sheep I would pay, but when I'm living off the sheep I don't keep paying on the full herd, I pay tithing on the extra sheep I get, etc. For example, if I get 10 more sheep it's an "increase", so then I give one sheep to the Church.

Of course, I only do this because of my current income level to remain faithful and obedient. If I made more, I would pay more because I would feel like I had a fuller increase, then I would pay 10% of my income plus, because to live would be much less percentage wise, thus my blessings should go to God.

[BlueDreams]

I would like to see service missions not be clerical. Where these may have been paid administrative jobs at one time. I have a friend that struggled after being sent with her husband on a service mission in England where they were stuck in an office doing some kind of clerical work. She really wanted to proselyte. I long for more social programs in the church.

Just because I've seen the other end of things, it is extremely helpful to have them in the office. From the other end, often the elders would have transfers spent in the office. This limited contact and teaching experiences severely for these young men during their assignment to the office. When our mission president decided to pull out all the elders from the office and place senior couples, I feel it was often a great service to this younger generation where the work done with people would be an invaluable oppurtunity to change the course of their lives and shape their future experiences. Service is not always all that glorious. Heaven knows I've had plenty of calls that left me struggling or antsy. Plus it is fairly indicative of just how careful the Church is with their money in the first place. Sure it could be done with paid administrations, but it's unnecessary cost. That was one thing that I was impressed with on my mission. The money spent was heavily tithing money and so it was used very judiciously and with a strong sense of its sacred nature. It's probably why I don't worry about the church's nondisclosure. I've seen enough to know it is used as wisely and prudently as possible. Besides, we're not a charity.

Overall, your concerns appear strongly cultural or policy based. On the cultural, it's not to hard to find acceptable exceptions. It's not set rules, it's just what is for the group. If you break or bend cultural taboos (which I do, on a regular basis ) there's nothing wrong with that. Policy, it should be remembered, entails the weighing of multiple options. Each one has it's own list of benifits and limitations. There is no ideal policy format. It's what works best for our assorted goals, concerns, and problems in this time. I don't know what would be best overall. The church is far different from what it was in 1830, because it needs to be. We're an international entity that spans over various peoples, nations, legal restraints, immediate goals, projects, etc. The multiple dimensions that go into each option is well beyond my own experience and honestly most people's range of experience that I'm aware of.

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

It's difficult for me to see church leadership ask the seniors to leave their grandchildren (talk given in conference recently) and serve missions. Even pay for their missions to serve a type of mission that is in a for profit business. I should have specified clerical. I think a service mission involving the other missionaries is great! It's the other that seems wrong. I've checked on a service mission for myself &my husband to see the kinds there are. I was shocked. Just go to lds tech and look up service missionary opportunities.

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

Older couples volunteer just like the young missionaries. If you can't "leave" your Grandkids in the capable hands of your grown children. There isn't much the Church can do. If you can't financially afford a mission as an older couple. Don't volunteer for one. I know of some older couples that served a mission by going to the Temple on a regular basis. If you have a special skills set I believe a service mission can be a wonderful opportunity to help others, even if it isn't a proselytizing one.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda:

Older couples volunteer just like the young missionaries. If you can't "leave" your Grandkids in the capable hands of your grown children. There isn't much the Church can do. If you can't financially afford a mission as an older couple. Don't volunteer for one. I know of some older couples that served a mission by going to the Temple on a regular basis. If you have a special skills set I believe a service mission can be a wonderful opportunity to help others, even if it isn't a proselytizing one.

I've no problem with them going on a mission if it is indeed because they want and can afford and are aware of the kind of mission. They deserve to know the kind of work they'll be asked to do. Some missions can be a choice but not all.

They were admonished to go on a mission in that gen. conf. And they would feel obligated to do what a prophet of God has asked them to do.

[bluebell]

I've no problem with them going on a mission if it is indeed because they want and can afford and are aware of the kind of mission. They deserve to know the kind of work they'll be asked to do. Some missions can be a choice but not all.

They were admonished to go on a mission in that gen. conf. And they would feel obligated to do what a prophet of God has asked them to do.

My grandmother served a mission, and i helped her a bit with the process. This was about 4 years ago, but at that time at least, she was the one who said what kind of mission she would be willing to do, and where she would be willing to go. It was completely up to her and she could not be sent anywhere that she did not approve first.

Have things changed that much in four years that senior missionaries are now sent places against their will?

[Duncan]

My grandmother served a mission, and i helped her a bit with the process. This was about 4 years ago, but at that time at least, she was the one who said what kind of mission she would be willing to do, and where she would be willing to go. It was completely up to her and she could not be sent anywhere that she did not approve first.

Have things changed that much in four years that senior missionaries are now sent places against their will?

I know two couples put in to be senior missionaries and they got called to be mission presidents! which they hadn't in the slightest had in mind!

[bluebell]

I know two couples put in to be senior missionaries and they got called to be mission presidents! which they hadn't in the slightest had in mind!

Well, that would be a shock!

There was a senior couple in our old ward that ended up serving a mission in India. It was nothing that the wife especially was excited about but they marked the 'we don't care what we do or where we go' box on their application so knew anything was a possibility. Their mission after that they ended up in

Germany, which was also a surprise, though one easier to adjust to i think.

I know when i served, the senior couple which served in the office were invaluable to us. We loved them like grandparents and they are still treated like valuable members of the team more than ten years later. Some people are called to 'tarry back by the stuff' but that doesn't make their service any less important.

[Duncan]

Well, that would be a shock!

There was a senior couple in our old ward that ended up serving a mission in India. It was nothing that the wife especially was excited about but they marked the 'we don't care what we do or where we go' box on their application so knew anything was a possibility. Their mission after that they ended up in

Germany, which was also a surprise, though one easier to adjust to i think.

I know when i served, the senior couple which served in the office were invaluable to us. We loved them like grandparents and they are still treated like valuable members of the team more than ten years later. Some people are called to 'tarry back by the stuff' but that doesn't make their service any less important.

very true, very true!! There is a couple here from Texas that apparently wanted to go to someplace cold and they got their wish and then some!

[thesometimesaint]

Duncan:

When my wife retires we're thinking about putting in our papers. But no cold places please.

[Calm]

I've no problem with them going on a mission if it is indeed because they want and can afford and are aware of the kind of mission. They deserve to know the kind of work they'll be asked to do. Some missions can be a choice but not all.

They were admonished to go on a mission in that gen. conf. And they would feel obligated to do what a prophet of God has asked them to do.

So they had a choice and could have said no, but choose not to.

[swfarnsworth]

If she said it while looking directly at me, I would like to believe that I would have handled the situation well, but I probably would end up shouting something puerile like "You have terrible social skills! Oh, wait, you don't have ANY!" and stormed out.

Just kidding, I can't make myself shout at all. This makes conducting very difficult when most of the people in the room are youth.

[EllenMaksoud]

If I weren't Mormon, I'd be finished with religion, and here is why. I faced unimaginable brutality and hypocrisy as a child. So much so that I did not address Heavenly Father until my late 20's. I started out Baptist then several others because I wanted to find a place that was loving and tried to do what Jesus Christ said to do. I eventually got so disillusioned that I became Muslim for 7 years.

Then in March of 2011, I encountered some Sister Missionaries after being rather pointedly directed to them by the Holy Spirit. It took a long time but I finally wanted to become Mormon. It took a very long time to adjust to having men around, but now I am good with them. Some may think that the LDS religion is too restrictive, but you should try Islam, then you will know restrictive. This church is the church of Jesus Christ and I know it is because of what has happened to me.