Should I attend Church?

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Placebos don't restore one's voice. 

No science, medicine and doctors do

Quote

 

Placebos don't audibly talk to one's mind as so many have reported. 

Some call this being schizophrenic

Quote

I am sorry you have lost all faith in the church Johnnie. Speaking as one who has run the gammut of emotions, and beliefs, however, I can say that once I sat down to systematically look at how many archaeological evidences there are for the church, I was floored. I just kept finding them.

Really?  Finding an actual archaeological artifact from a BoM civilization would be a major news story on the front page of The NY Times.  I seriously doubt you have anything...but if you do please share.  What you probably have is evidence you believe is confirming...but in reality is not. Fictions don't produce artifacts...which is why none exist.

Quote

 

There is no way the BoM is fiction. There is no way JS could have gotten so many things right that he did if he was just making it up. The world will soon have to come to grips with this I believe. But where much is given, much is required.  We are in the calm before the storm Johnnie. Stay tuned...

Actually there is a way..a man puts pen to paper and writes a story not based in reality...it's called fiction.  The world will continue as it has for billions of years, with Mormonism taking up a nanosecond of the worlds existence and impacting its course to about the same degree as the impact you would have on the water volume of the earths oceans by you dipping your little finger in and then removing it...none.

 

im not trying to be offensive just shooting straight 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's been a long time since I've felt like I've gotten anything out of my attendance at Church.  I've always put the onus on me when it comes to getting something out of Church and it usually gets me thinking, while I'm there, about how I can utilize what's coming at me.  I attend the full block each week and some who are close to me wonder why I do.  It remains my method of worship--that's the main reason.  But I admit the meetings are pointless to me, other than just giving me time to sit and ponder.  I can't really contribute.  I used to try but it really just upset people, so I mostly stay silent. 

Anyway, what's your take on someone who doesn't really care for the messages shared and can't really participate?  Should he even be there?  For the most part I feel out of place, now, and don't really feel welcome anyway.  But, to be fair to me, I don't see myself doing the worship thing without Church. 

Thanks for your thoughts.  I'm curious if anyone else feels similar too. 

Stay for the worship part.  If one part is more worship to you and the other parts are less so, stay for the worship at least.

You will get the positive reinforcement and none of the negative.   That might lead you "forward".  You don't need more negativity from church.

Frankly, I go to serve AND worship- after the worship part it feels like I am going to work, and it usually does.  But the work is very satisfying. Maybe teach primary?  Family history?  I dunno what you like but serving others can be very positively reinforcing and does not require you to "give the right answers"  when you are going through a time when you don't know what the "right" answers are.

[2BizE]

I have a few thoughts on this.  I struggle with many of the same things you do, so you are not alone.

1) I think the church is a lot like the ballet. There is a culture in the church that if you do not go, you are a bad person.  Why does everyone assume everybody has to like church?  The format is rather nauseous and like groundhogs day.  Although some may like the ballet, not everyone does, especially when it is the same performance over and over.  And if you complain, then there are those who say if you put more into it then you would like it.  Just like the ballet, church isn't for everyone.  

2) The church is a temporary organization.  The purpose of the church is to help prepare us until we no longer need the church.  We eventually should reach a state of independence from the church.

3) There are too many false historical teachings in the church.  The current manuals have many inaccuracies.  The essays are a big step for the church to present a more accurate story of the church.  I'm optimistic that with the new curriculum, teachers will integrate the Essays into the lessons. The essays have even been integrated into the gospel library app many members use to access the scriptures and manuals.  This is a wonderful move church leaders have made.

4)  Find happiness.  If you do not find happiness on Sundays with religion, find something that does bring you happiness.  Perhaps it is volunteering in your community, serving the elderly at a retirement home, or teaching underprivileged children to read or to fish.  I frequently feel like I could contribute much more to my life and others lives doing something on Sunday instead of church.

I pray you will find happiness within yourself.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that getting something "out of" attendance at church often correlates with what we - individually and collectively - "put into" it.

Okay.  

I go principally to take the Sacrament.  I also go to strengthen the cohesion I have with my fellow Saints.  This usually comes through regular attendance, serving in and magnifying my callings, and socializing with and getting to know those in my ward.

Why are the meetings "pointless to {you}?"  

That seems like an odd response.  I've never seen Latter-day Saints get "upset" at people who want to "contribute" to LDS meetings.

I encourage you to keep going.

Yes.  "They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick."

Latter-day Saints should not be a stumblingblock to the progression of others, but sometimes we mess up.  Hence the need for each of us to constantly exercise our "forgiveness" muscles (on the one hand, and on the other we exercise our "repentance" muscles).

Yes.  In the LDS paradigm, compliance with the various commandments to keep the Sabbath Day holy (Mosiah 13:16 ("Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy"), D&C 68:29 ("And the inhabitants of Zion shall also observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy"), and D&C 59:9 ("Thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day")) and partake of the Sacrament ("As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [i.e., testify of] the Lord's death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26), "It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus" (D&C 20:75)) requires regular attendance at Sunday services.

I think there are more blessings given to the Saints than partaking of the Sacrament (blessings which accrue through service to others, many forms of which involve participation in the LDS community), but that is the main reason.

I think a person's relationship to "the Church" has many analogs to a person's relationship with his/her spouse.  Both relationships are voluntary.  Both have "ups" and "downs."  Both require real, consistent, concerted work to maintain.  Both require lots of forgiveness and lots of repentance.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Among the blessings that come from church attendance, according to Doctrine and Covenants 59, is "keep[ing] [one]self unspotted from the world." This depends on attitude, of course, but all other things being equal, I see this as a very real benefit. Other things -- obedience to other commandments of God, devotion to God, loyalty to the Church, rejection of harmful worldly trends -- seem to correlate with regular church attendance. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's been a long time since I've felt like I've gotten anything out of my attendance at Church.  I've always put the onus on me when it comes to getting something out of Church and it usually gets me thinking, while I'm there, about how I can utilize what's coming at me.  I attend the full block each week and some who are close to me wonder why I do.  It remains my method of worship--that's the main reason.  But I admit the meetings are pointless to me, other than just giving me time to sit and ponder.  I can't really contribute.  I used to try but it really just upset people, so I mostly stay silent. 

Anyway, what's your take on someone who doesn't really care for the messages shared and can't really participate?  Should he even be there?  For the most part I feel out of place, now, and don't really feel welcome anyway.  But, to be fair to me, I don't see myself doing the worship thing without Church. 

Thanks for your thoughts.  I'm curious if anyone else feels similar too. 

Just show up for sacrament if you still believe you need to renew your covenant each week. don't go for the whole block.

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Continuing issues or new stuff?  Sorry to hear about it either way.

Continuing. Thanks.

[Raingirl]

I haven't read all of the responses to your question and my post may be way off the mark, but....I just thought I would throw this out there.

I am struggling with attendance right now myself.  I never thought that would be the case.  I know that probably sounds holier-than-thou or snotty, but it's not meant to be.   There are just reasons that my struggle surprises me (and there's no one to talk to about it).  But tonight, reading this thread, I go back to a memory that pops up from time to time.

I remember in a class years ago, a young woman asking the rabbi (I converted from Judaism) his advice.  Being a Jew was part of who she was, and always would be, but she was struggling at that time with believing that God exists.  She asked the rabbi what she should do.

The rabbi's advice was to "act as if".  Act as if she believed.  Do those things that she would do if she did believe that God existed.   Act "as if", and then see what happens.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

No science, medicine and doctors do

Funny how that works when you don't see a doctor, and go to "give" your talk ie unintelligible blurts and can suddenly talk.

Quote

Some call this being schizophrenic

Amazing how that works for certain people in the church. I guess the church is full of schizophrenics.

Quote

Really?  Finding an actual archaeological artifact from a BoM civilization would be a major news story on the front page of The NY Times.  I seriously doubt you have anything...but if you do please share.  What you probably have is evidence you believe is confirming...but in reality is not. Fictions don't produce artifacts...which is why none exist.

They are found for the Bible too, but somehow don't seem to find their way onto the evening news. Modern society can't be troubled with truth anymore. They would have to change their lives.

Quote

Actually there is a way..a man puts pen to paper and writes a story not based in reality...it's called fiction.  The world will continue as it has for billions of years, with Mormonism taking up a nanosecond of the worlds existence and impacting its course to about the same degree as the impact you would have on the water volume of the earths oceans by you dipping your little finger in and then removing it...none.

im not trying to be offensive just shooting straight 

U sound genuinely atheist...

An atheist coming to the board to give other others "support." Just so we're clear, are you?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Continuing. Thanks.

Must be getting really old.

[Rain]

18 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Back in college my friend contemplated marrying a girl.  She was ready and wanted them to get married.  He felt pressured and decided to write out the costs and benefits.  After his analysis he went on to propose.  A week or so later, she looked in his backpack while he was in the bathroom and found his paper.  A couple of days of fighting later and they were done. 

Maybe I'm afraid to write it out because HF will see my paper and put a stop to it all.  Didn't someone compare Church to a marriage relationship? 

 

Remember though that a person, young in years, is very different than a God, who knows everything and loves you more than anyone could. 

One thing I have found is that God never tells me,  "I told you so" when I have done wrong.  He tells me always "welcome back."

So if you start making a list of whether to go or not He is not there saying,  "How could you even doubt? " He is there saying,  "my son,  I know you are struggling.  I love you."

Then when you knock and ask Him to help you make the list He will say,   " Of course. You don't have all the knowledge I do.  I still want you to work at it,  but if you will listen I will help you find things to put on it that you didn't think of before. " 

If you have a sincere heart to know He just isn't going to break things off with you.  He will understand why you are making it.  

[Johnnie Cake]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Funny how that works when you don't see a doctor, and go to "give" your talk ie unintelligible blurts and can suddenly talk.

Amazing how that works for certain people in the church. I guess the church is full of schizophrenics.

They are found for the Bible too, but somehow don't seem to find their way onto the evening news. Modern society can't be troubled with truth anymore. They would have to change their lives.

U sound genuinely atheist...

An atheist coming to the board to give other others "support." Just so we're clear, are you?

It is not my intent to be caustic or so dogmatic but you pushed and I pushed back...I don't claim to have any answers for anyone but myself.  As I've stated in an earlier post to this thread...if it works for you great, go for it...but I see no reason for someone to attend church when it doesn't work for them...why would anyone put themselves through that kind of painful and unnecessary experience.  The church is a great place for people who enjoy going...but it can also be a very damaging, painful, harmful place for those who's values are put in a detrimental place through church attendance. I understand that you do not find any offence in the church...but to many much of what the church teaches and promotes is offensive to both mind and body, both physically and mentally...and if that person is you, then I merely recommended that you not attend for your own mental health.

 

SIDE NOTE: I'm an equal opportunity offender and as a result Admin restricts my full participation on this board...I guess to protect all of you from the likes of me...because why would anyone want to be exposed to an alternative worldview...but that said...in this restricted state I can only edit my posts within a very limited time period...once past its locked...so even though I wanted to soften my earlier post I was unable to.  Note to admin...time to remove my restrictions and Merry Christmas to all

Edited (within allotted timeframe) to add:  Rev Testament...come on bro, there is no Book of Mormon Civilization archaeological sights...they don't exist.  I say that in all honesty...any such sight would be a huge news story...the mere fact that your so called claimed sight can only be seen via special insight...exposes the insanity of your claim.  If your BoM sight can only be attested by a few inside believers...who all confirm to each other the truth of what you believe without any other validation...then that attestation is worthless.  That's not how the world works my friend

Edited December 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[Five Solas]

The word "worship" is getting tossed all over this thread (at least the first couple of pages).  I'd be interested in what you mean by it, stemelbow (and others).  And why do you think it's important? 

--Erik

_______________________________________________________

For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it;
you will not be pleased with a burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.

--Psalm 51:16-17

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It is not my intent to be caustic or so dogmatic but you pushed and I pushed back...I don't claim to have any answers for anyone but myself.  As I've stated in an earlier post to this thread...if it works for you great, go for it...but I see no reason for someone to attend church when it doesn't work for them...why would anyone put themselves through that kind of painful and unnecessary experience.  The church is a great place for people who enjoy going...but it can also be a very damaging, painful, harmful place for those who's values are put in a detrimental place through church attendance. I understand that you do not find any offence in the church...but to many much of what the church teaches and promotes is offensive to both mind and body, both physically and mentally...and if that person is you, then I merely recommended that you not attend for your own mental health.

 

SIDE NOTE: I'm an equal opportunity offender and as a result Admin restricts my full participation on this board...I guess to protect all of you from the likes of me...because why would anyone want to be exposed to an alternative worldview...but that said...in this restricted state I can only edit my posts within a very limited time period...once past its locked...so even though I wanted to soften my earlier post I was unable to.  Note to admin...time to remove my restrictions and Merry Christmas to all

Edited (within allotted timeframe) to add:  Rev Testament...come on bro, there is no Book of Mormon Civilization archaeological sights...they don't exist.  I say that in all honesty...any such sight would be a huge news story...the mere fact that your so called claimed sight can only be seen via special insight...exposes the insanity of your claim.  If your BoM sight can only be attested by a few inside believers...who all confirm to each other the truth of what you believe without any other validation...then that attestation is worthless.  That's not how the world works my friend

Given that there are plenty of posters who are not restricted at all who present alternative world views, i don't think that's the reason you've been limited. 

What's that popular saying?  You can't change what you don't acknowledge?

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

It is not my intent to be caustic or so dogmatic but you pushed and I pushed back...I don't claim to have any answers for anyone but myself. 

I guess I am being a little dogmatic in asking if you are atheist, but your responses lead me to some conclusions - but I don't want to presume. Do you accept that God has a Begotten Son, who is our Savior?

Quote

As I've stated in an earlier post to this thread...if it works for you great, go for it...but I see no reason for someone to attend church when it doesn't work for them...why would anyone put themselves through that kind of painful and unnecessary experience.  The church is a great place for people who enjoy going...but it can also be a very damaging, painful, harmful place for those who's values are put in a detrimental place through church attendance. I understand that you do not find any offence in the church...

I do not find offence in calls to repentance. I am not sure what "offence" you are trying to refer to. Do I believe it is "damaging" to call those living a homosexual lifestyle to repentance? No, I do not. And I do not accept that frame of reference being thrust upon the church by those people who wish to live in sin rather than repent. Can repenting be a "painful" experience? Yes, it is painful to acknowledge that sometimes we are in the bitterness of gall, and are lost, and need help. I have been in the bitterness of gall, and found it a very painful experience which I do not wish to repeat. That was not "because" of the Church though. It was because of my own actions. It involved doing a 180 and reversing my courses - another somewhat painful experience. It involved giving up some of my own "dreams" to accept the desires of Christ. Some people find that "difficult" or "painful." 

[Gray]

I think you have to do what will best support your own spiritual growth. Only you can determine what form that might take. That may mean trying out different churches, no church at all, only attending part time at LDS services, or something else entirely. If I were you I'd try out a few different things and see what happens. Best of luck to you Stemelbow. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by Gray

[Johnnie Cake]

49 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Given that there are plenty of posters who are not restricted at all who present alternative world views, i don't think that's the reason you've been limited. 

What's that popular saying?  You can't change what you don't acknowledge?

Well I called Scott an A$$.  I later apologized for my tone...but the restriction remains. It's true I don't tip toe through the tulips...I march through. I don't dance around a topic, I tackle it in a direct frontal attack.  MD&D is a microcosm of LDS Sunday School...whose attendees slowly over time get their square edges chipped away until they fit perfectly into that round hole of Mormon conformity.  So yes I refuse to conform and in doing so I'm "restricted"  Is that acknowledgement enough for you Bluebell?

Edited December 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[smac97]

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I have a few thoughts on this.  I struggle with many of the same things you do, so you are not alone.

1) I think the church is a lot like the ballet. There is a culture in the church that if you do not go, you are a bad person.  

That has not been my experience.  At all.  Attendance at church is part of the covenant-keeping with which Latter-day Saints are charged.  We are all sinners in one way or another, or many.  We all err.  We all fall short.  Hence the need for repentance.

But the notion that less active members are categorically "bad" is just overwrought.  

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Why does everyone assume everybody has to like church?  

I think Church is supposed to be "likeable."  Nice.  Pleasant.  Spiritually uplifting.  For many (most?), it is.

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

The format is rather nauseous and like groundhogs day.  

Umm...

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Although some may like the ballet, not everyone does, especially when it is the same performance over and over.  And if you complain, then there are those who say if you put more into it then you would like it.  Just like the ballet, church isn't for everyone.  

Not a very apt metaphor.  I have never attended ballet.  I have no plans to attend ballet.  And I am getting along just fine.

In contrast, partaking of the Sacrament "often" appears to be an important, even vital and necessary, activity in the lives of the Lord's covenant people.

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

2) The church is a temporary organization.  The purpose of the church is to help prepare us until we no longer need the church.  We eventually should reach a state of independence from the church.

Could you explain what you mean here?  I'm not familiar with this notion.  The saving ordinances are only available in the Church.  We should, of course, be individually resolute in our obedience, but I've never heard of a teaching that we should be aiming for a point in time when "we no longer need the church."

We are commanded to be unified, to be part of the "body of Christ."  That seems to run counter to the idea that we "eventually should reach a state of independence from the church."

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

3) There are too many false historical teachings in the church.  The current manuals have many inaccuracies.  The essays are a big step for the church to present a more accurate story of the church.  I'm optimistic that with the new curriculum, teachers will integrate the Essays into the lessons. The essays have even been integrated into the gospel library app many members use to access the scriptures and manuals.  This is a wonderful move church leaders have made.

Agreed.

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

4)  Find happiness.  If you do not find happiness on Sundays with religion, find something that does bring you happiness.  

I submit that "happiness" is a fickle thing, too often confused with "What I want in a given moment."

In contrast, obedience to God's commandments will always lead to true happiness.  And "obedience" includes . . . attendance at Church on Sundays.

Fealty is an important thing.  To God most of all.  But there are extensions of that concept.  I cannot claim to be loyal to God but not obedient to Him.  I cannot claim to be loyal to God but disregard and defy the counsel of His servants.  I cannot claim to be loyal to God but violates the covenants I have made.

I am coming up on my 20th wedding anniversary in a few weeks.  There have been times when being a husband to my wife and a father to my children has been tough.  And yet I am glad that, in those moments of difficulty (days/weeks/months, really), I did not abandon those duties in search of "find{ing} happiness."  I instead have worked on and improved myself, and am very, very happy to be a husband and father.

Similarly, I think "happiness" in my relationship with "the Church" requires a lot of work and effort.  And while it has been tempting in moments of difficulty to abandon it, to reject or fail to fulfill callings, to refuse to serve my fellow Saints, to refuse to carry my share of the load, I think overall I am much happier having stuck with it.  I'm not saying I am perfect in my attendance, in my service to others, etc.  Far from it!  But 

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

Perhaps it is volunteering in your community, serving the elderly at a retirement home, or teaching underprivileged children to read or to fish.  

All of these are great.  None of them need to be done in lieu of keeping one's covenants.

12 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I frequently feel like I could contribute much more to my life and others lives doing something on Sunday instead of church.

Why is that?  What is it about that three-hour block of time that creates a conundrum where you have to choose between A) keeping your covenants, and B) "contribut{ing} much more to {your} life and others' lives"?  Sounds like rather a false dilemma.  We can do both, can we not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why is that?  What is it about that three-hour block of time that creates a conundrum where you have to choose between A) keeping your covenants, and B) "contribut{ing} much more to {your} life and others' lives"?  Sounds like rather a false dilemma.  We can do both, can we not?

Thanks,

-Smac

There is of course, opportunity cost. We all have limited time and resources. 

[Johnnie Cake]

35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I guess I am being a little dogmatic in asking if you are atheist, but your responses lead me to some conclusions - but I don't want to presume. Do you accept that God has a Begotten Son, who is our Savior?

I'm not an atheist.  Calling myself an atheist would suggest I KNOW that God does not exist.  I don't KNOW that.  However I live my life as if there was no god because I do not believe such a being exists...so I guess I'm agnostic.  With respect to JC...he did exist...there was a historical human being named Jesus who was a wise teacher.  Was he the creator of the world? no, humans are just that human.  Was he resurrected? No...humans don't come back alive after being dead.  You do realize that you are only Christian because you were born into a Christian culture right?  Had you been born in India...you would more than likely be Hindi.  God is a human construct and comes in thousands of forms...Humans adopt the god that is prevalent in the culture in which they are born....I wonder why?  Why is Italy predominantly Catholic rather than Mormon?  Why is Atlanta predominantly Baptist instead of Mormon? Why is Tennessee predominantly Evangelical instead of Mormon? Why is Utah predominantly Mormon instead of something else?  Human's predominantly adopt the religion they are born into. 

Quote

I do not find offence in calls to repentance. I am not sure what "offence" you are trying to refer to. Do I believe it is "damaging" to call those living a homosexual lifestyle to repentance? No, I do not.

Repentance from what?  Why would you call anyone to repentance?  Gays are sexual beings just like you are. Their sexual activities are no more wrong than your sexual activity is.  I would no more call you to repentance for being sexual than I would a gay person.  Being human is not a sin. Why would you from your lofty privileged hetro status call anyone to repentance? Pretty arrogant. 

 

Quote

 

And I do not accept that frame of reference being thrust upon the church by those people who wish to live in sin rather than repent. Can repenting be a "painful" experience? Yes, it is painful to acknowledge that sometimes we are in the bitterness of gall, and are lost, and need help. I have been in the bitterness of gall, and found it a very painful experience which I do not wish to repeat. That was not "because" of the Church though. It was because of my own actions. It involved doing a 180 and reversing my courses - another somewhat painful experience. It involved giving up some of my own "dreams" to accept the desires of Christ. Some people find that "difficult" or "painful." 

What some people call sin is not sin - Joseph Smith  <---yeah he actually said that.  But I feel its fitting here.  What you call sin is only sin because you've made it so.  What you call sin is not sin...it only become such when you make it so.  Taking more than 10 steps on the Sabbath is sin to some, it isn't to you (I'm assuming)  Eating Lobster is sin to some it isn't to you (another assumption)  You live in a small society of people who have decided that some activity is sin and call it such...but it doesn't make it so.  I'm sorry that you've allowed your culture to beat yourself up...but there is a huge difference between doing something wrong, a regrettable mistake and what you call sin.  Humans make mistakes, make stupid decisions and make regrettable choices...that's part of being human...but to assign any of those mistakes as "sin" is just collective thinking and only exists within the confines of your group.  Like Joseph said...what some people call sin is not sin.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Really?  Finding an actual archaeological artifact from a BoM civilization would be a major news story on the front page of The NY Times.  I seriously doubt you have anything...but if you do please share.  What you probably have is evidence you believe is confirming...but in reality is not. Fictions don't produce artifacts...which is why none exist.

 

The issue is not "finding" BOM artifacts -- I would assert that  hundreds have been found and are in museums today, but the IDENTIFICATION of those artifacts as Nephite or Lamanite produced.

Let us suppose someone discovers and excavates an authentic Nephite city, but how is can he identify it.  Are you looking for icons of the crucifix, pictures of the Virgin Mary.  Hopefully you are aware that virtually all of the written records, the codex, have been destroyed, so tell us PLEASE == if we find a jade necklace, how do we identify who produced it?  

 

 

 

 

 

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you explain what you mean here?  I'm not familiar with this notion.  The saving ordinances are only available in the Church.  We should, of course, be individually resolute in our obedience, but I've never heard of a teaching that we should be aiming for a point in time when "we no longer need the church."

I guess I am being "picky," but I would like the notion of "saving ordinances" explained to me. Is the endowment a "saving ordinance?" Was I saved or not before receiving my endowments? I think a more appropriate term might be "exalting ordinances," although there is probably merit to the belief that baptism has saving efficacy.  Beyond that the term kinda "rubs" me the wrong way I guess. I just don't think of "sealings" as saving ordinances. I guess I am just doomed to always think my way outside of the inclusionary box... 

Quote

I am coming up on my 20th wedding anniversary in a few weeks.  There have been times when being a husband to my wife and a father to my children has been tough.  And yet I am glad that, in those moments of difficulty (days/weeks/months, really), I did not abandon those duties in search of "find{ing} happiness."  I instead have worked on and improved myself, and am very, very happy to be a husband and father.

Congratulations Smac. I will be on my 25th anniversary in a few years. Although things have not always been "smooth" in my marriage, I have never though I could somehow find "happiness" elsewhere. My wife is very committed to relationships, and I think that is where our happiness derives from. Thinking one can abandon all their relationships, and somehow "find" happiness elsewhere is very foreign to me. Most other people "want" the same, they just have to work at the relationships they do have, and sometimes give up on some of their own "desires," idiosyncrasies, etc. Not being happy usually involves pursuit of some selfish desires. Being happy usually involves the opposite. It is really just that "simple." 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well I call Scott an A$$.  I later apologized for my tone...but the restriction remains. It's true I don't tip toe through the tulips...I march through. I don't dance around a topic, I tackle it in a direct frontal attack.  MD&D is a microcosm of LDS Sunday School...whose attendees slowly over time get their square edges chipped away until they fit perfectly into that round hole of Mormon conformity.  So yes I refuse to conform and in doing so I'm "restricted"  Is that acknowledgement enough for you Bluebell?

As long as you believe that your are restricted because you won't "conform" you'll probably continue to have problems and eventually get banned.  Like i said before, there are plenty of posters here who also won't conform but they don't have the same restrictions, which seems to imply that that's not what the problem actually is.  I think that's what the quote is saying-without accurate insight, nothing will ever improve.

But, if you're happy, it's working for you, and you don't want to change, then i guess it doesn't really matter either way.  Didn't mean to derail the thread.

[Johnnie Cake]

36 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

The issue is not "finding" BOM artifacts -- I would assert that  hundreds have been found and are in museums today, but the IDENTIFICATION of those artifacts as Nephite or Lamanite produced.

Let us suppose someone discovers and excavates an authentic Nephite city, but how is can he identify it.  Are you looking for icons of the crucifix, pictures of the Virgin Mary.  Hopefully you are aware that virtually all of the written records, the codex, have been destroyed, so tell us PLEASE == if we find a jade necklace, how do we identify who produced it?  

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah we've been down this road before...yada yada yada.  But I will add that assigning the great cities and cultures of the great American civilizations of the Maya, Aztec and other Native populations and supplanting them with the fictional BoM civilizations is offensive. BoM claimed civilizations only exist within the pages of the BoM until they don't...

Edited December 13, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[emeliza]

56 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

The word "worship" is getting tossed all over this thread (at least the first couple of pages).  I'd be interested in what you mean by it, stemelbow (and others).  And why do you think it's important?

Worship probably means various things to people.  In context of church, I go to worship in a way that is both internal and external.  It is both private and public.  

This is especially true during the Sacrament.  Publicly people can see me, but privately they have no idea what conversations I am having with God or how sacred those moments are as I reflect on my covenants and commitments.

[smac97]

23 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Hey Smac.  Thanks for your comments.  I think you've added much to the discussion.  thanks. 

To you questions:

"Why are the meetings "pointless to {you}?" "

As an example I went to EQ yesterday and the instructor started by saying, I've never had this message in Church before.  Then the whole meeting was a repeat of what we've seen for years. 

I have been in one ward for 11 years, and don't really travel that often, so I can't speak to the overall quality of lessons taught in EQ/HPG outside of my ward.  Nevertheless, there does seem to be some barbed humor in the Church about the somewhat lackluster or uneven quality of these lessons.  I heard this joke a few years back and it always gets a chuckle from others:

Quote

 

"You know you're a Mormon if you go to Relief Society and the teacher apologizes for not preparing a centerpiece and doily as part of her lesson.

And you also know you're a Mormon if you go to Elders' Quorum and the teacher apologizes for not preparing . . . a lesson."

 

My ward seems to do pretty good job in these lessons.  RS lessons and Gospel Doctrine lessons are pretty much always highly well-received and complimented.  Our Sacrament Meetings are also generally quite good.  YMMV.

Quote

Yes, service is important.  yes, sometimes our effort goes unnoticed and that's not a bad thing.  Thanks.  I honestly don't know what it is about me, but it bothers me we have so much talk in Church. 

I don't understand.  What would you propose we do "in Church" if not "talk"?

Quote

It just feels like our meetings' purpose is for us to build ourselves which feels counter-intuitive to Christ's message. 

Could you provide some examples of this?  I've never observed or heard about the content of LDS meetings being "counter-intuitive to Christ's message."

Look at your above complaint.  You object to being taught regularly that "service is important."  How is that "counter-intuitive to Christ's message"?

Quote

We need not talk about it so much, it feels like to me.  "pointless" is probably overstating it, though. 

We "need not talk about" what?  I don't understand.

Quote

"That seems like an odd response.  I've never seen Latter-day Saints get "upset" at people who want to "contribute" to LDS meetings."

It was probably around 2002.  I was asked to teach in EQ.  The topic was given to me, I believe as we discussed the priesthood.  I gave, as it turned out what amounted to, as memory has it, what was found in the Race and the Priesthood essay some 10 or so years later.  I think there was some more info that I had given that was outside of the essay. 

Hmm.  Was it possible that what you presented "outside of the essay" (to say nothing about apparently being quite "outside of" the lesson) was . . . provocative?  Accusatory?  Your personal opinion being presented to a captive audience?  A personal opinion about a sensitive and difficult and painful topic?  A topic which you apparently chose in lieu of the actual topic which was supposed to be discussed?

I know of a situation where there is a ward that has a member of the HPG who is quite devout and faithful.  He attends every week.  He serves others regularly on his own initiative.  He is a good and decent man.  But he also has strong political opinions, and on occasion he has injected those opinions into the lessons taught during the priesthood hour in Church.  This has lead to several complaints, and also some talkings-to with the bishop.  Fortunately, this good brother has largely ceased from injecting his political opinions into Priesthood lessons.

In other words, there is a time, and a place, and a manner in which political issues can and should be discussed.  There is also a time, and a place, and a manner in which extremely sensitive and difficult issues (like the Priesthood Ban) can and should be discussed.  So what I am saying is . . . is it possible that you erred in terms of time, place, and/or manner in your lesson?  

Quote

I justified the lesson because it related to the rather vague open ended topic given me. 

What was the topic?

Quote

It went well in class, but there came from it many complaints to the bishop.  He called me in and was very upset with me, claiming a number of the brethren were very upset by the happenings in our quorum. 

Upset at what?

Quote

Granted the majority view at that time was much different than when the essay came out. 

It was?  In 2002?  What was this "majority view"?  And what changes has it undergone since the essay came out?

Quote

But hopefully that gives you an idea of what I mean. 

Honestly, it does not.  You seem to be painting your fellow priesthood holders as a bunch of racists, yourself as being singularly enlightened on the subject, and your bishop punishing you because of your enlightenment.  And all of this stems from a single lesson you taught in 2002?  A lesson in which you apparently replaced the intended topic with your selection of a very sensitive and difficult topic (race and the priesthood)?  A lesson in which you apparently deviated substantially not only from the topic to be taught, but even from the information in the Church's essay published years later?  A lesson which apparently consisted principally of your personal views on the subject?  A lesson which was apparently intended to be provocative?  A lesson which was not anticipated by the members of the quorum?

Did you let the EQP know ahead of time what you were planning to do?  Did he approve it?  Did he let the class know ahead of time?  Did he review the content of your lesson?  

I'll go back to my earlier question: There is also a time, and a place, and a manner in which extremely sensitive and difficult issues (like the Priesthood Ban) can and should be discussed.  So is it possible that you erred in terms of time, place, and/or manner in your lesson?  

Quote

Since that time I've had numerous occasions of members telling on me or complaining, and numerous occasions when, in my view, being overly defensive, people spoke up to contest or argue. 

This seems like an unusual circumstance.  Why do you think this keeps happening so often?  Is your entire ward fractious and argumentative?

Quote

I dont' see myself as trying to instigate anger or anything. 

The only example you've given is when you set aside the Church's curriculum to be taught during Church services, and instead chose a highly sensitive and difficult topic (race and the priesthood), and you apparently neither sought nor received permission to do this, and you sprung this lesson on a captive audience which was caught unawares, and you apparently included a lot of personal opinion and provocative content ("I think there was some more info that I had given that was outside of the essay"), and you presented the lesson in such a time, place and manner that several members of the group were offended/angry enough to complain to the bishop about it, and the bishop was upset enough that he took you to task about it.

To be frank, it looks like you set out to surprise.  To provoke.  To antagonize.  And it worked.  And then you became upset because it worked.  But what, really, did you expect would happen?

Quote

I realize my view is often against the norm at church and I've often tried to express that as I've expressed myself in order to avoid upsetting people.  But I've still gotten people upset, I guess. 

Apparently so.  But here's the thing: there are plenty of divergent viewpoints "at church".  People vary in terms of political issues.  And social issues.  And sports teams.  And music/TV/film, etc.  And yet the vast majority of the Saints seem to be able to get along rather easily.  I submit the key to this is to remember three words: time, place, and manner.

If you want to talk about the Priesthood Ban, do so in the right time, at the right place, and in the right manner. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 13, 2016 by smac97