thatjimguy Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 It took me a year to get baptized because I kept looking at issues, but I cannot say I would be surprised that any investigator to the LDS church wouldn't take thier sweet time to join. There is a lot that can scare someone off. I certainly wanted to know what this "cult" was all about and truly understand what I was getting into. In the end, I wanted it to be true more than I knew it was true. However, I still worry about some issues (for instance right now I am looking at Eugenics and Mormonism and some hardline statements made by George Q. Cannon) and feel compelled to investigate them. I would say I may be blissfully happier by not looking these things up, but what am I supposed to do if morality means something to me?
CV75 Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Not at all.Good--because if this means that we take both individual and collective responsibility for promoting faith (in ourselves and in others), and for improving how we do it, we can continue to prevent faith crises in ourselves and others and respond properly when it arises. I think this is the message we are getting from the pulpit (the “Church”--I've linked to some talks), and we see some examples in this thread of individuals (the “church”) who have averted or met crises successfully. I think doctrinally, the most fundamental root cause of faith crisis rests within the individual, just as the root cause of testimony. Any other attribution is relatively superficial; life is full of crises but we can always choose how we respond to them. Promoting faith will always serve to both prevent and respond to a faith crisis. I don’t think our ministry to one another is a choice between a) looking at commonly cited causes of faith crises (because fundamentally there is only one) and b) blaming anyone who is or isn’t in crisis (because fundamentally we can only judge ourselves and are to forgive liberally), but rather a matter of prevention and response. I think the new Gospel Topics articles are good examples of this. 1
CV75 Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 I would say I may be blissfully happier by not looking these things up, but what am I supposed to do if morality means something to me?In line with the OP, how would you frame this question in terms of getting "hung up on the controversial topics of the church instead of enjoying the overall good?" If it isn't a matter of becoming hung up, controversial, contentious, blaming, or distracting from your relationship with God, then you can have confidence in knowing what you are supposed to do.
Tacenda Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Ah, I see! So: (1) there are tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people who resign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints every year. It is literally Hemorrhaging members. And: (2) There are millions more who want to resign, they simply haven't gotten around to it.That is a tragic state of affairs, indeed. It's a wonder that the Brethren are so blind to it. Perhaps you should write the First Presidency.CFR there are hundreds of thousands resigning. I don't see it. And maybe if you were as steeped in the wallking wounded crowd as I am via the internet or FB groups where there are thousands of people who converse you would see the ones who won't resign because they don't want to hurt family and they still love most aspects of the churchand are still active (this would be me also). They even on occasion defend it from others attacking it, oh my! But the shocking thing for me was having a member and I believe most his family change belief, I knew them well, they home taught my family, I served in a RS presidency with his wife. When he would give talks I sometimes didn't like how righteous they came off. This couple made it a point to attend the temple on several little trips they'd go on, this was a big deal for me because I was a slacker on temple attendance. So when a couple like that or like him quit going it was a shock to my system. As Stormrider has indicted, it's a huge burden on the Brethern. But my writing to them will only add to the burden besides, you know we're told to not write them but our SP or Bishop.
thatjimguy Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 In line with the OP, how would you frame this question in terms of getting "hung up on the controversial topics of the church instead of enjoying the overall good?" If it isn't a matter of becoming hung up, controversial, contentious, blaming, or distracting from your relationship with God, then you can have confidence in knowing what you are supposed to do. I would say that looking these things up is a sign of always looking toward the negative. And, at times, it distracts me from my relationship with God, or at least the church, because when I find disturbing things I question what I am involved in sometimes.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 It wasn't until after I left that I realized how unhappy I'd been in the church. Acknowledging that isn't blaming the church or absolving myself of blame, just recognizing that it wasn't all good. My, my an organization staffed by mortals and administered by mortals and you had expectations that it was all good all the time. Pretty high standards to have to live up to. I don't think you can blame anybody but yourself for being disillusioned.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 I'm starting to see the walking wounded around me, people I'd never believe it could happen to. The only reason, I believe, the church isn't getting on it quicker is because many members remain on the books and don't resign. Your sure now that this isn't a case of self projection. I have a news flash for you. There has always been members who are inactive but remain on the "books" (records). At any one time that group makes up roughly 50% of Church membership. I wouldn't make too much of it.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 CFR there are hundreds of thousands resigning. I don't see it. And maybe if you were as steeped in the wallking wounded crowd as I am via the internet or FB groups where there are thousands of people who converse you would see the ones who won't resign because they don't want to hurt family and they still love most aspects of the churchand are still active (this would be me also). They even on occasion defend it from others attacking it, oh my!But the shocking thing for me was having a member and I believe most his family change belief, I knew them well, they home taught my family, I served in a RS presidency with his wife. When he would give talks I sometimes didn't like how righteous they came off. This couple made it a point to attend the temple on several little trips they'd go on, this was a big deal for me because I was a slacker on temple attendance. So when a couple like that or like him quit going it was a shock to my system.As Stormrider has indicted, it's a huge burden on the Brethern. But my writing to them will only add to the burden besides, you know we're told to not write them but our SP or Bishop. Satire my dear satire.
jkwilliams Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) My, my an organization staffed by mortals and administered by mortals and you had expectations that it was all good all the time. Pretty high standards to have to live up to. I don't think you can blame anybody but yourself for being disillusioned. I can't believe you twisted my words like that. Very disappointing. Edited June 7, 2014 by jkwilliams
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 I can't believe you twisted my words like that. Sorry if I misunderstood but that is the way it came out to me.
jkwilliams Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Sorry if I misunderstood but that is the way it came out to me. I said I didn't blame the church but acknowledged that my unhappiness in the church was as much on me as it was on the church. How you twisted that into me having unrealistic expectations is completely beyond me.
ERayR Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 I said I didn't blame the church but acknowledged that my unhappiness in the church was as much on me as it was on the church. How you twisted that into me having unrealistic expectations is completely beyond me. By way of explanation: It wasn't until after I left that I realized how unhappy I'd been in the church. Acknowledging that isn't blaming the church or absolving myself of blame, just recognizing that it wasn't all good. Again sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. On reexamination I can see the possibility of a different connotation.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) ... I would say I may be blissfully happier by not looking these things up, but what am I supposed to do if morality means something to me?Oh, Lord. We see things, including (and especially) such things as the past, not as they are (or as they were), but as we are. You're no more or less objective (or moral, or have more integrity) than someone else, just because you reach a different (allegedly more moral) conclusion than that person based on the same evidence. We are all our own triers of fact: we decide what evidence we will consider and what weight we will give to any particular piece of evidence. Sorry to burst your bubble, Jimmy. Edited June 7, 2014 by Kenngo1969 1
thatjimguy Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 Oh, Lord. We see things, including (and especially) such things as the past, not as they are (or as they were), but as we are. You're no more or less objective (or moral, or have more integrity) than someone else, just because you reach a different (allegedly more moral) conclusion than that person based on the same evidence. We are all our own triers of fact: we decide what evidence we will consider and what weight we will give to any particular piece of evidence.Sorry to burst your bubble, Jimmy.Nah, you took this the wrong way. Im saying I would be happier not looking things up much as I might have been happier not thinking about if Santa was real or not as opposed to just beliving that he exsists. As far as the morality thing goes, somehow you took that as a dig on people. But what I am saying is that if I hear about something, im going to investigate it.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) Nah, you took this the wrong way. Im saying I would be happier not looking things up much as I might have been happier not thinking about if Santa was real or not as opposed to just beliving that he exsists.As far as the morality thing goes, somehow you took that as a dig on people. But what I am saying is that if I hear about something, im going to investigate it.To each, his own; but to me, the ultimate test is not whether this or that particular historical factoid checks out or whether this or that person actually might have been more human than I originally gave him credit for being, but whether the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ bears good fruit in my life. My life isn't perfect; it's quite complicated; there are a lot of things I don't know that I wish I did; there are a lot of situations I wonder how will eventually be resolved. But does the Gospel bear good fruit in my life? It does. What else matters? P.S.: And to me, morality is less about what one believes than it is about how he treats people. According to that criterion, a person may well believe in Santa Claus, and yet be perfectly moral. Edited June 7, 2014 by Kenngo1969
thatjimguy Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) Got ya. Thanks. Edited June 7, 2014 by thatjimguy
Palerider Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) If you go to the priesthood session of your ward meetings this coming Sunday you'll have an opportunity to hear a lesson about the keys of the priesthood and why it's important to have men who have them and use them.It would be good for you to understand that. Having had the opportunity of teaching the principles of priesthood keys, how they were supposedly aquired by Joseph and are supposedly passed on, in numerous priesthood meetings etc. I feel my understanding of the doctrine is more than adequate. I simply reject the notion that such keys were ever received by Joseph in the first place. It might be good for you to understand the concept of not judging someone's knowledge level before you know them a little better.......Ehhhh....??? Edited June 7, 2014 by Palerider
Palerider Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 I can't believe you twisted my words like that. Very disappointing. He did get one aspect right: "Staffed by mortals, administered by mortals" He said a mouthful there...........
Storm Rider Posted June 7, 2014 Posted June 7, 2014 It took me a year to get baptized because I kept looking at issues, but I cannot say I would be surprised that any investigator to the LDS church wouldn't take thier sweet time to join. There is a lot that can scare someone off. I certainly wanted to know what this "cult" was all about and truly understand what I was getting into. In the end, I wanted it to be true more than I knew it was true. However, I still worry about some issues (for instance right now I am looking at Eugenics and Mormonism and some hardline statements made by George Q. Cannon) and feel compelled to investigate them. I would say I may be blissfully happier by not looking these things up, but what am I supposed to do if morality means something to me? Morality means something to you? What do you mean by that; it has a rather sanctimonious twang to it. George Q. Cannon; hmm, do I care two twits and a carrot what he thought or said in his entire life? Why would anyone....I mean any moral person? What about what John Q Mormon thought? You know the one, down on Elm street in Florida; and the other one in Alabama; oh heck, let's be honest and use a single standard. We should be worried about what every member of the church thinks and says if we are really moral!?! I mean if we are compelled to investigate we can at least be thorough. This type of logic has serious limitations. My grandmother, a non-Mormon, was absolutely convinced that man never set foot on the moon because the moon was part of the heavens, which no man could touch according to her understanding of the Bible. Should her thoughts have merit and taint the teachings of her church? Why attempt to make the thoughts and private writings of leaders and members equivalent to scripture is beyond me. They aren't and never have been. If a thought or teaching has had merit it was added to our open canon. If it is not found therein it is obvious why it is absent from scripture. 1
thatjimguy Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 Morality means something to you? What do you mean by that; it has a rather sanctimonious twang to it. George Q. Cannon; hmm, do I care two twits and a carrot what he thought or said in his entire life? Why would anyone....I mean any moral person? What about what John Q Mormon thought? You know the one, down on Elm street in Florida; and the other one in Alabama; oh heck, let's be honest and use a single standard. We should be worried about what every member of the church thinks and says if we are really moral!?! I mean if we are compelled to investigate we can at least be thorough. This type of logic has serious limitations. My grandmother, a non-Mormon, was absolutely convinced that man never set foot on the moon because the moon was part of the heavens, which no man could touch according to her understanding of the Bible. Should her thoughts have merit and taint the teachings of her church? Why attempt to make the thoughts and private writings of leaders and members equivalent to scripture is beyond me. They aren't and never have been. If a thought or teaching has had merit it was added to our open canon. If it is not found therein it is obvious why it is absent from scripture. You're taking offense where none is intended. I was merely making a statement that I think I have to delve into things when I see an issue, like hearing a scuffle in a dark alley and going to investigate rather than walking away. I'm not comparing myself to anyone here.
Recommended Posts