Dismayed

[teddyaware]

If it weren't for Mormons the Church would be great.  It sometimes feels like that; at times it is incredibly difficult to be around some Mormons.  Within every faith group is found a wide range of people and each individual has their own way and degree of progression.  

 

Your group is not one where I would find a high degree of comfort.  Each of us has to learn to adjust and sometimes it can be a real up hill slog. I have had leaders and other members that have not been favorites or even likable.  I try to keep the situation in perspective; it is my responsibility to adjust to them and to accept only as much as I must to retain my sanity.  I have had occasion to move around for most of my life so I have never felt stuck with a specific congregation or leader.  I am not sure how well I could have handled some of the congregations I have been in for a long term.  

 

This may be an opportunity for you to learn more about love and patience for...not enemies, but those who may abuse you.  I do believe that most things happen for a reason and you may be right where you are for your own benefit.

Even though I'm one of those deep doctrine/speculative theologian Latter-day Saints, I think it's highly likely I would be perfectly comfortable in the congregations where others on this thread seem to have difficulties. I myself used to be an overly zealous young man with an ax to grind, and as a consequence of my self-important behavior members would occasionally get upset with me. But now that I've emotionally matured and grown up a bit, I've come to realize there is virtually never a need to wax controversial when speaking or teaching in Church settings. Rather, I now use the manner, style and comportment of the General Authorities as my exemplars when it comes to how one should speak or teach the Restored Gospel in Church.

It should also be understood that If a member's behavior and activities have caused him to gain a reputation as an iconoclastic, controversy propagating type of individual, it's likely fellow ward members will be aware of that reputation (people talk) and will therefore be on guard, always on the lookout for some statement coming from the man that will validate their wariness and concerns. The Apostle Paul counseled the saints is to avoid this kind of confrontational approach to teaching the Gospel in favor of a back to the basics approach:

3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;

4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings. (1 Timothy 6)

 

So in accord with Paul's counsel, teachers and speakers should ask themselves the following three questions:

 

1  Are my words going to focus on the words of Christ (i.e. the scriptures)? 

 

2 Will my words cause others to think I am proud, arrogant or boastful rather than meek and humble?

 

3 Rather than ministering peace and edification, will my words cause a spirit of ill will or perplexity to sweep over the class or the congregation?  

Edited May 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[wenglund]

I hear so much lately about how the church doesn't hide any of it's history and about how truthful and honest they are. Then I see something like today's BYU channel program on church history and I just have to shake my head.

 

The topic was regarding some of the early formal and informal historians, record keepers and diary keepers, one of which was Horrace K. Whitney.

 

They gave a little of his background and then proceeded to inform us of his "classic love story" with Helen Mar Kimball.

 

It was mentioned how they were "children of the restoration" and that they had been practically raised together and had gone to school together in Kirtland. They were considered "childhood sweethearts".

 

It went on to say that they were married and then the story turned back to how faithful Horrace had kept a record of the great trek to the west. Etc., etc.....

 

If I had been a non-member or an (heaven forbid) uninformed member, I would have come away from that telecast having absolutely no clue as to the real status of Helen Mar Kimball, her marriage to Joseph Smith, or plural marriage in general.  As far as I could tell from the information given, Helen and Horrace were simply high school sweethearts that fell in love and got married and were good ol' faithful saints for the rest of their days as all good saints should be. Ain't it wonderful? 

 

This is why it's difficult to keep a straight face when apologetic TBMs attempt to say that the church is upfront and forthcoming with their history. It just doesn't wash.......

 

I see what you are saying. If a documentary is about record-keeping, and it happens to mention a love story had by one of the record keepers, then unless every relationship that record-keeper ever had was also mentioned, or every relationship ever had by the women the record keeper loved was also mentioned, then one may reasonably consider the documentary as hiding and "white-washing" things.

 

Yes...in a straight-faced way, that makes perfect sense. 

 

Is there an award on this board for gnat straining? I have an unrivaled nominee. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[seed]

You keep adjusting your story. Things apparently are not as generalized or all-encompassing as you led us to believe at first since there are "over 55" individuals who don't "oppose" you.

 

Perhaps that's why when you make statements such as "...the Church prefers to allow these members to continue to stay uninformed.", they're looked at skeptically since they're obviously hyped.

 

Edit:

 

I still suspect that if the way  you've phrased things on this thread is the way you phrase them in your ward, there are valid reasons why you experience conflicts there.

 

objectively,  what can be proposed to solve the situation where members deeply disagree on truth.

 

a.  the new ideas should be squashed ( and they should get back in line with the org )

b.  the old members should consider what/why and apply wisdom.

c.  church split.  this is what has occurred over and over across all faiths.

d.  other ????

[stemelbow]

objectively,  what can be proposed to solve the situation where members deeply disagree on truth.

 

a.  the new ideas should be squashed ( and they should get back in line with the org )

b.  the old members should consider what/why and apply wisdom.

c.  church split.  this is what has occurred over and over across all faiths.

d.  other ????

d. Accept that there are differences of opinion on certain matters and find use for such differences.

[jwhitlock]

objectively,  what can be proposed to solve the situation where members deeply disagree on truth.

 

a.  the new ideas should be squashed ( and they should get back in line with the org )

b.  the old members should consider what/why and apply wisdom.

c.  church split.  this is what has occurred over and over across all faiths.

d.  other ????

 

You're limiting your options.  Members of any church, including ours, are going to disagree on various detailed points about such things. Even those who consider themselves "orthodox" are going to disagree. It needs to be realized that there are differences of opinion, and those differences of opinion simply need to be respected on both sides.

 

Note that I am not inferring in any way that there be disunity on the foundational doctrines, which are fairly general anyway. This would include such things as the existence of God, Jesus Christ as Savior, the reality of the resurrection, Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, etc. Though there might be differences in opinion about the details of such things, there should be unity in such foundational doctrines.

 

Everything outside of foundational doctrines is subject to opinion and personal interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can present an opinion, as long as they're respectful in doing so. I haven't found that to be the case in some instances on this thread, and hence the conflict.

Edited May 13, 2014 by jwhitlock

[seed]

You're limiting your options.  Members of any church, including ours, are going to disagree on various detailed points about such things. Even those who consider themselves "orthodox" are going to disagree. It needs to be realized that there are differences of opinion, and those differences of opinion simply need to be respected on both sides.

 

Note that I am not inferring in any way that there be disunity on the foundational doctrines, which are fairly general anyway. This would include such things as the existence of God, Jesus Christ as Savior, the reality of the resurrection, Joseph Smith as a prophet called of God, etc. Though there might be differences in opinion about the details of such things, there should be unity in such foundational doctrines.

 

Everything outside of foundational doctrines is subject to opinion and personal interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, anyone can present an opinion, as long as they're respectful in doing so. I haven't found that to be the case in some instances on this thread, and hence the conflict.

 

makes sense.    i will love to hear the apposing side view on this same.

[mfbukowski]

Assume what you will, but the Doctrine bothers me not at all, I have very little if any issue with the Doctrines of the Church.  I am in a place where Church history - Seer Srones, Book of Abraham, Polyandry do not bother me.

 

What I can't stand is the culture of nonsense.  While I understand and grasp that the Church has no official stance on Evolution, whether tithing is gross, white shirts and ties for all, age of the earth, the date of Christ's birth... etc...   I am bombarded every Sunday by a group of older members who tell me my stances that such are not Doctrines are apostate, out of line, not following prophets etc...  -  In my ward maybe 1-2 others grasp the nuance and flexibility, 60 % simply don't know enough to decisively take a stance on most issues and don't even think about them or care to seek out answers and delve into Church history (more power to them though I wish we were all more active in seeking), and the rest have been taught a mormonism that simply doesn't hold up to reality, but they have been been taught it so long, and had it re-enforced at all levels, and have had others around them to hold them up in their nonsense that they know and enforce the status-quo rather than even allow for the possibility they are wrong.  In doing so they create an evironment where either I simply suffer through the bullcrap allowing false doctrine to be taught every week or I speak up and have the "older" "wiser" members get frustrated with me because I am letting the room know this old viewpoint is not the only way to see the gospel.

I can't fathom even bringing this stuff up in church.

 

Why would anyone?  Honestly- church is there to help those who are new to the faith or not very doctrinally wise. 

 

I have never ever even heard this kind of stuff being discussed in church.  Wrong place, wrong time.

 

Get out of Utah.  Too many dogmatists on both sides of the issue.  Neither are right.

Edited May 13, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski - Not ignoring you in any negative way.  I simply disagree with your position and any effort to hash it out will simply re-enforce both our stances to ourselves.  I absolutely agree that I don't know it all and that I still hold bad assumptions.  That said I am absolutely sure I know more church history and historical narrative than anyone else in my ward.  That may seem like pride or boasting but I also see it as not debatable.   So if a person in the ward is the most informed and a group of "older" "wiser" members still push him away as "misinformed, mentally off, or intentionally trying to deceive" simply because what the person is saying is different than what they learned or how they understood it, than I have a big problem with that.

Just saw this.

 

OK.   I really wish you would look at alternative views that would perhaps enable you to see things differently, but you appear quite firm in your decision to see things as you do now.  Honestly, I wish you good luck and hope you can work it out.

 

Disregard previous post.

[Calm]

I think that the BYU channel is a media channel operated out of BYU. 

The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes is on BYUtv tonight.

 

http://www.byutv.org/schedule#1399960800000

 

I am curious if anyone feels the Church is responsible for this?

Edited May 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

objectively,  what can be proposed to solve the situation where members deeply disagree on truth.

 

a.  the new ideas should be squashed ( and they should get back in line with the org )

b.  the old members should consider what/why and apply wisdom.

c.  church split.  this is what has occurred over and over across all faiths.

d.  other ????

 

How about just have a discussion and you hang on to your, in some ways, incorrect beliefs and let the others worry about their own beliefs.  One has enough to do studying, praying and correcting ones own path to perfection.  We in no way have the right to dictate or censor what someone else believes.  We do have the opportunity to teach by patience and long-suffering.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes is on BYUtv tonight.

 

http://www.byutv.org/schedule#1399960800000

 

I am curious if anyone feels the Church is responsible for this?

ROFL.

[ERayR]

The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes is on BYUtv tonight.

 

http://www.byutv.org/schedule#1399960800000

 

I am curious if anyone feels the Church is responsible for this?

 

They have to be.  After all nothing happens at BYU that the brethren doesn't approve.  Department heads are just rubber stamps.

[seed]

How about just have a discussion and you hang on to your, in some ways, incorrect beliefs and let the others worry about their own beliefs.  One has enough to do studying, praying and correcting ones own path to perfection.  We in no way have the right to dictate or censor what someone else believes.  We do have the opportunity to teach by patience and long-suffering.

 

not sure i get you on this.   would you explain further as it didn't translate well.

 

It sounded like you are telling me that I have incorrect beliefs.  By the way,  that is just fine if that is what you mean I would no be offended.  I am sure there are millions of ppl that would disagree with what I believe.  Perhaps you believe your beliefs are more correct ?  But of course,  that is why they are beliefs.

[EllenMaksoud]

I hear so much lately about how the church doesn't hide any of it's history and about how truthful and honest they are. Then I see something like today's BYU channel program on church history and I just have to shake my head.

 

The topic was regarding some of the early formal and informal historians, record keepers and diary keepers, one of which was Horrace K. Whitney.

 

They gave a little of his background and then proceeded to inform us of his "classic love story" with Helen Mar Kimball.

 

It was mentioned how they were "children of the restoration" and that they had been practically raised together and had gone to school together in Kirtland. They were considered "childhood sweethearts".

 

It went on to say that they were married and then the story turned back to how faithful Horrace had kept a record of the great trek to the west. Etc., etc.....

 

If I had been a non-member or an (heaven forbid) uninformed member, I would have come away from that telecast having absolutely no clue as to the real status of Helen Mar Kimball, her marriage to Joseph Smith, or plural marriage in general.  As far as I could tell from the information given, Helen and Horrace were simply high school sweethearts that fell in love and got married and were good ol' faithful saints for the rest of their days as all good saints should be. Ain't it wonderful? 

 

This is why it's difficult to keep a straight face when apologetic TBMs attempt to say that the church is upfront and forthcoming with their history. It just doesn't wash.......

It all seems elusive does it not?  I know that my Mother's side of the family were Mormons around 1860 and yesterday, my half brother said that his fathers side has a woman that was one of the wives of Joseph Smith. I've always felt that herritage does not make much difference if the inherritors do not live honorably and faithfully.

 

That's why the geniologies in the Bible are of so little value to me.

[mfbukowski]

All I know is that I am older than 55 and I make DB look like a literalist sola scriptura fundamentalist.

 

Go figure.

[ERayR]

not sure i get you on this.   would you explain further as it didn't translate well.

 

It sounded like you are telling me that I have incorrect beliefs.  By the way,  that is just fine if that is what you mean I would no be offended.  I am sure there are millions of ppl that would disagree with what I believe.  Perhaps you believe your beliefs are more correct ?  But of course,  that is why they are beliefs.

 

Read the bit in scripture about motes , beams and eyes. It goes something like this:  Seek not to cast the mote out of thy brothers eye until you have first removed the beam from thine own.

[Palerider]

I see what you are saying. If a documentary is about record-keeping, and it happens to mention a love story had by one of the record keepers, then unless every relationship that record-keeper ever had was also mentioned, or every relationship ever had by the women the record keeper loved was also mentioned, then one may reasonably consider the documentary as hiding and "white-washing" things.

 

Yes...in a straight-faced way, that makes perfect sense. 

 

Is there an award on this board for gnat straining? I have an unrivaled nominee. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

"I see what you are saying......"

 

Uh, No......., No you don't............... 

[Palerider]

The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes is on BYUtv tonight.

 

http://www.byutv.org/schedule#1399960800000

 

I am curious if anyone feels the Church is responsible for this?

 

 

Oh yeah....! I want to see that!

 

And "The God Makers" is on right afterwards.  I'm SO glad BYU parameters are no longer determined by the "church".

Edited May 14, 2014 by Palerider

[Palerider]

I think that the BYU channel is a media channel operated out of BYU. I don't think that the lds church has much to do with its programming. What is said about Helen and not said, it up to BYU. I don't know why that everying that is produced on BYU radio or TV and for that matter is always the church leadership's fault. I would say that the best thing to do is to write to the station about your concerns or to write to the producers of the program.

 

I disagree in part. I'd like to see how long the BYU channel would survive broadcasting interviews with Richard Dawkins. I believe heads would roll........... 

[canard78]

Do you know the exact wording used in the sealing ceremonies back then for each type of sealing?

No. Educate me.

[canard78]

How much did it matter in their daily lives? Do we have evidence it was a major part of their relationship (Horrace's and Helen's)?

As you said a few posts back... Mind reader

[SamIam]

mfbukowski - Not ignoring you in any negative way.  I simply disagree with your position and any effort to hash it out will simply re-enforce both our stances to ourselves.  I absolutely agree that I don't know it all and that I still hold bad assumptions.  That said I am absolutely sure I know more church history and historical narrative than anyone else in my ward.  That may seem like pride or boasting but I also see it as not debatable.   So if a person in the ward is the most informed and a group of "older" "wiser" members still push him away as "misinformed, mentally off, or intentionally trying to deceive" simply because what the person is saying is different than what they learned or how they understood it, than I have a big problem with that.

 

DB - I presume this response may apply to my last post as well. Yes? No?

Edited May 14, 2014 by SamIam

[seed]

Read the bit in scripture about motes , beams and eyes. It goes something like this:  Seek not to cast the mote out of thy brothers eye until you have first removed the beam from thine own.

 

ha ha.  and which of us should do that,  you or I.

 

btw:  I do and did pray for you on a different topic that you commented on a different thread. 

 

On this thread you have it all wrong.  very very wrong. 

 

But I still would like to know what believe you think I have that is in error.  if you can't specify it,  then you should not make such a comment.  If you can then I would love to discuss it.  If a case is sound I will always consider it,  and even adjust my own opinion at times.

 

There appears to be a sub debate on this thread where ideas are suggested against the culture. I believe there is work in that area that could be done that would result in a lot of good.  To me it looks like there is division,  and deep division on culture matters.  My guess is that you are very far on one side of that.

 

Bring it on ERayR...  tell me !!!

[jwhitlock]

Oh yeah....! I want to see that!

 

And "The God Makers" is on right afterwards.  I'm SO glad BYU parameters are no longer determined by the "church".

 

You're not very good at understanding concepts such as "micromanagement" and the grey areas involved, are you.

 

It's either one extreme or the other. While that panders to those who don't tend to think things through (as you've done here), it's not a particularly accurate way of looking at things.

 

On the other hand, as the OP demonstrates, you're not particularly concerned with accuracy. At least you're consistent.

[wenglund]

"I see what you are saying......"

 

Uh, No......., No you don't............... 

 

Okay...since you seem humor/sarcasm impaired, let me rephrase it:

 

I see the absurdity of what you said even if you evidently do not.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-