People leave the church because of a "trust gap"

[Rain]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I also find it interesting that members of this board...when given the reason for leaving the church by the very people who are leaving the church...don't believe their reasons and instead offer up their own reasons for why these people are leaving the church.  Why not just accept what the people who are actually leaving are claiming is their reason for leaving?

I do think we should listen to people.  I do think we should often trust the the reasons they give, especially if we don't know them well.

I think though, sometimes we know well a person who: has problem A. Has problem  A. Has problem A. Over and over again. Leaves the church and now states they left over problem B. 

If you personally know several of these people it starts to get difficult to believe people are leaving for the reasons they say they are leaving. How someone believes in this study may be very affected by how many people in theirs lives are like the one described above. There are other reasons, of course, that are personal blinders, but my personal opinion is that experience is a major factor of why many do not trust the reasons. 

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by Rain

[Johnnie Cake]

7 minutes ago, Rain said:

I do think we should listen to people.  I do think we should often trust the the reasons they give, especially if we don't know them well.

I think though, sometimes we know well a person who: has problem A. Has problem  A. Has problem A. Over and over again. Leaves the church and now states they left over problem B. 

If you personally know several of these people it starts to get difficult to believe people are leaving for the reasons they say they are leaving. How someone believes in this study may be very affected by how many people in theirs lives are like the one described above. There are other reasons, of course, that are personal blinders, but my personal opinion is that experience is a major factor of why many do not trust the reasons. 

 

I can only speak for why I left...and it wasn't solely over the trust gap...but that certainly was one of my reasons

[Tsuzuki]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Honest question - do you find the figures in the Bible less problematic? If so why? Or is it just that they lived long enough ago that the sorts of things Abraham or Moses did don't bother you as much? 

That depends on which figures. I'm sure there are kernels of truth to a lot of things, but anything before kings David and Solomon have as much historical validity as Greek and Norse mythology.

The New Testament is more problematic, though, because the Romans recorded the events of that time and place, and a "Jesus of Nazareth" is conspicuously absent. It would be like if Joseph Smith was never mentioned by any of his contemporaries, and Mormons suddenly appeared in Utah out of nowhere.

[SamIam]

 

My Apologies, when I read your post I thought you were implying that the leaders of the church were uninformed of the types of history that people now-a-days are claiming has rocked their boat.  I thought maybe that the claim was something like David O McKay didn’t know about Fanny Alger, or Joseph’s practice of polygamy or perhaps some other that has served as a member of the Quorum of the twelve was not aware of the history of the stone in the hat for translation etc.  Nonetheless, I’ll respond to the perspective you actually meant and have provided.

Elder Stevenson’s story was provided for the specific intent of illustrating a principle that the Holy Ghost Guides us.  His talk can be found here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/how-does-the-holy-ghost-help-you?lang=eng

He was NOT providing an official accounting for all of  the missionaries in all Japanese missions which include the:Japan Fukuoka Mission, Japan Kobe Mission, Japan Nagoya Mission, Japan Sapporo Mission, Japan Sendai Mission, Japan Tokyo Mission, Japan Tokyo South Mission(s).

However, the person, the mission President at the time President Tateoka’s did provide a full accounting for his stewardship and that is found at this link: http://www.mission.net/japan/sendai/page.php?pg_id=5268.  There’s all kinds of details and facts relative to what occurred on March 11, 2011. The common thread of the experience being a brilliant example illustrating how the Holy Ghost guides us is common to Elder Stevenson’s talk and President Tateoka’s full accounting. Note the first sentence of President Tateoka’s account:

 

Quote

 

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On Friday, March 11th, 2011 in the Koriyama, Japan chapel at approximately 2:47 p.m. our Heavenly Father once again taught his missionaries the importance of relying on the Spirit.

 

 

It is very important to note that the mission home is actually located in Sendai which is also the name of the mission. I located a map that showed the areas most affected by the earth quake in purple and the areas affected by the secondary damage of the tsunami in yellow and it just happens to be almost a perfect overlay for the Japan Sendai Mission.  I think what is most important to note is the location of Sendai relative to the degree of flooding resulting from the flood.  Had they held their Zone meeting in Sendai at the Mission Office, a common and reasonable expectation, I suspect there would have been greater need to find a missionary who could play “Nearer my God to Thee” on a flugelhorn. 

In Elder Stevenson’s talk he states:

Quote

 

During this time, I worked closely with President Reid Tateoka of the Japan Sendai Mission. As part of his usual mission routine, President Tateoka planned a meeting for missionary leaders in the southern portion of his mission. A few days prior to the meeting, President Tateoka had an impression, a feeling in his heart, to invite all missionaries of that zone to the leadership meeting, instead of the prescribed small number of elder and sister leaders.

 

In another section of his talk Elder Stevenson essentially reiterates a similar delineator on the scope of the missionary population included in the single narrative (of many chronicled in President Tateoka’s accounting) of where the Holy Ghost guided the process.  He states:

Quote

However, setting convention aside in order to follow the prompting he had received, he invited all missionaries serving in several coastal cities, including the city of Fukushima, to the meeting.

Twice now in his presentation Elder Stevenson has defined the scope and intent of the word ALL. Each time it is ALL of subset of the total number of missionaries in the mission.  The entirety or ALL, if you will, is the scope of his focus.  However a couple of paragraphs later he states:

Quote

Although the meetinghouse where the missionaries were meeting that day was damaged by the earthquake, through following the promptings of the Holy Ghost, President and Sister Tateoka and all missionaries were safely assembled. They were out of harm’s way and miles from the devastation of the tsunami and the nuclear fallout.

 

It appears that this failure to restate the precise scope of the word ALL is where the naysayers and critics want to cast their dispersions.  Among those engaging in the commentary are Bill Reel whose podcast can be found here:

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/04/april-2017-general-conference-review-pt-1/

and here:

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/04/april-2017-general-conference-review-pt-2/

However, even if one does not feel like being generous, by inference it can only be deduced that this phrase is again limiting “All” to those who were invited “of that zone” “serving in several coastal cities”. The phrase is, “Although the meetinghouse where the missionaries were meeting that day” should be interpreted in no other way than to be inclusive of “ALL” those missionaries attending the Zone meeting.

For myself he has defined the context of the very well and criticisms are unfounded. It is evident in President Tateoka’s observation that he also does not see the need to delineate repeatedly “ALL” means that the group was inclusive of Koriyama missionaries as well as others along the coastal regions…

The next paragraph following in the President’s letter begins an accounting of “ALL” others who were in a different subset of “All” as in a subset of the Total number of missionaries:

Quote

However, everyone reporting back was alright. We received word that the Koriyama zone missionaries would not be able to return home. Fortunately, they were all safe in the evacuation center in the fire station. The Lord had protected our missionaries by keeping them in Koriyama, had they returned home, they would have been placed in harm’s way.

 

Finally in his letter he begins to account for others:

Quote

 

By evening, after six hours of calling, thirty missionaries were accounted for and were all well. We received no contact from forty-two missionaries. That evening I was still not able to call out. Our mission has switched to cell phones, but the cell phone service was so limited and overwhelmed that only about one call in one hundred could make it through. (However, later I learned that phone service to one of our remote areas, Miyako, was only available through our carrier. Again, a tender mercy of the Lord allowed us to eventually contact our missionaries.)

We drove for over six hours. Because the freeways were closed and many of the roads were damaged, we could not make back home to Sendai. We drove until we reached a bridge that was out. Although we wanted to go back home, the Lord knew that we were needed in Koriyama so He would not let me make the mistake of going home. Instead, He guided me to return to Koriyama where the largest concentration of missionaries was staying safely in a evacuation center. We drove another two hours to return to Koriyama to be with our missionaries. We arrived at back in Koriyama around midnight.

 

Note that he was not able to return to the mission home in Sendai.  I include this note from a timeline of events surrounding the Fukushima catastrophe:

Quote

March 11, 2011 - At 2:46 p.m., an 8.9 magnitude earthquake takes place 231 miles northeast of Tokyo. (8.9 = original recorded magnitude; later upgraded to 9.0, then 9.1.) The Japanese government declares a state of emergency for the nuclear power plant near Sendai, 180 miles from Tokyo. Sixty to seventy thousand people living nearby are ordered to evacuate to shelters. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/world/asia/japan-earthquake---tsunami-fast-facts/)

 

So I ask is there reasonable cause to accept that Elder Stevenson told the story accurately and fulfilled his intent of sharing a story, one of many, concerning an event that easily could have been a much different story but for the guidance of the Holy Ghost?  I think he did fine.  The primary thing that one might conclude that is being missed is that everyone negatively commenting that I ran into on the net is missing the fact the Fukushima is not the focal point of the story – it is never really pointed out but the focal point is Sendai, the location of the mission home, which experienced flooding second to none and far more extensive than most according to the map provided.  All though even if the flooding was not a big issue in the city of Fukushima the radioactivity more than made up for the difference.

All this said, I invite anyone to review the links provided and determine if my interpretation is adequate.  I think we should take him at his word and accept he meant what he said instead of looking for weak opportunities to criticize by suggesting he meant something for which there is no evidence of merit.

 

Edited April 21, 2017 by SamIam

[Garden Girl]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well perhaps church leaders should not make promises that they say came from God himself when in fact it was just their opinion.  That was the deception.  If they had told me it was their opinion, I would have taken their advice as their opinion and not as a promise from GOD.  Do you see the difference?  They weren't basing their promise on known science at the time, so what was understood by science is irrelevant to the promise they made to me.  They told me they were basing their statement on revelation.  It was a promise from GOD.  Not an expression of their own opinion.  And not current scientific understanding.

What I sadly learned is that when church leaders tell me they have received a revelation from God, it may not be true.  When a church leader tells me they know the will of God, it may not be true.  When a church leader asks me to make life changing events based on their inspiration, it may not be true.  I was a 20 year old kid that believe in revelation and that church leaders spoke for God. That the prophet was His mouthpiece on earth.  That was not true either.  

Basically what you are saying is that I should trust in science and not any claim of divine knowledge from church leaders.  Yeah well, after decades of trusting church leaders,  I certainly learned my lesson.  I would clearly say this to anyone. If you are making life changing decisions do not think for one moment you can trust a church leader when he tells you he knows what God wants you to do.  They don't.  

 

No, not really CB, what I'm saying is that the widespread general feeling at that time, including within the Church, was that homosexuality was a choice... a position that has changed, yes, because of the subsequent science, thus altering the way the Church now addresses the issue... however, this does not change the basic position of the Church in regard to homosexuality, but I'm glad that the Church has become more inclusive of our homosexual members.  I do believe in continuing revelation, in church leaders' inspiration, and in our prophets, seers and revelators.   Again, I'm sorry for your experience... this is a difficult and sensitive issue.  But based on my own experiences, I will continue to trust,

GG

[bsjkki]

23 minutes ago, SamIam said:

It appears that this failure to restate the precise scope of the word ALL is where the naysayers and critics want to cast their dispersions.  

Thank you for your detailed analysis. I greatly appreciate it! The validity of this retelling seems vindicated and the naysayers were being excessively nit picky. You and Calm have made a convincing case.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

What I sadly learned is that when church leaders tell me they have received a revelation from God, it may not be true.  When a church leader tells me they know the will of God, it may not be true.  

That's definitely true although I'm surprised it came as a shock to you. Leaders being imperfect, even in sometimes discerning God's will seems pretty much a part of our religion. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, William Jones said:

I think your response shows why there is a trust gap. I am sure the leadership mismanagement is never talked about at the various trek outings every year - it would kill the miracle/testimony purpose behind telling the one-sided story.

I've never been to a trek outing but it was discussed in every lesson that touched on the subject I've attended at church. It was also discussed in the Ensign articles I looked up.

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This pretty much explains why nearly all people believe what they do.

I'm a professional historian by training. I perfectly understand that 'history' is a storytelling exercise, almost like a parlour game on steroids: here are a whole bunch of data points; create a narrative that includes all of them and makes sense. The reality is that literally an infinite number of sensible narratives can be crafted that include all the data points. So how do we decide which is 'true' ... or even which are/is sensible? We pick what best aligns with our current understanding of our personal experiences.

Give me a break.  This isn't about the Church trying to create a narrative that fits all the data points.  The problem is that the Church created and taught a narrative that purposefully excluded the data points that were undesirable.  Now they've been caught and have lost trust because the narrative itself establishes (or seeks to establish) their authority. 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I can only speak for why I left...and it wasn't solely over the trust gap...but that certainly was one of my reasons

Right. I'm just sharing why some people can't automatically accept or doubt the reasons given sometimes.  I can't say anything about you.  I wouldn't even try because I didn't know you before and I don't really know you now. 

[bsjkki]

I reread over all the reasons the study gave for people leaving. (Non-millennial answers) 

1. » “I could no longer reconcile my personal values and priorities with those of the church.” (38 percent)

2. » “I stopped believing there was one true church.” (37 percent)

3. » “I did not trust the church leadership to tell the truth surrounding controversial or historical issues.” (31 percent)

4. » “I felt judged or misunderstood.” (30 percent)

5. » “I drifted away from Mormonism.” (26 percent)

6. » “I engaged in behaviors that the church views as sinful.” (24 percent)

7. » “The church’s positions on LGBT issues.” (23 percent)

8. » “The church’s emphasis on conformity and obedience.” (21 percent)

9. » “Lack of historical evidence for [LDS scriptural volumes] the Book of Mormon and/or Book of Abraham.” (21 percent)

10. » “The role of women in the church.” (18 percent)

My faith issues don't fit neatly into any of these categories. I had a "trust gap" but it wasn't because I didn't think the leaders would tell the truth about controversial topics. It was because I no longer trusted my leaders to do the right things or make the right call about issues that effected me and my family. I lost trust in my local leaders which led to an entire reexamining of my faith. It also led to concerns over women's issues, which I never viewed as a problem before, becoming a big problem now.  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

You do realize you are moving the goal post.  The question was, why protestant religions don't spend much time on their church history.  And why is Mormon church history so important to be taught and understand.  The answer to that is in my post.

If you want to discuss the believability of Jesus Christ compared to Joseph Smith, that is another thread. And one I would gladly participate in.  

Well I don't think I'm moving the goal post although I didn't realize you meant the origin of the particular protestant sect. Although some groups do focus on that but since the protestant divisions are now seen as less important they do that less than they did in the 19th century. I think most protestants spend a lot of time on early Christianity though and the history. Not just of Jesus, but of Paul and then the early creeds. Those are the key moments of their history.

So I guess I agree with what you're saying, but I think it gets at why there are differences between groups. To the degree those differences matter to them they focus on them. Mormons are exactly the same in that regard. The only issue is what periods of history those key factors take place.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Tsuzuki said:

The New Testament is more problematic, though, because the Romans recorded the events of that time and place, and a "Jesus of Nazareth" is conspicuously absent. It would be like if Joseph Smith was never mentioned by any of his contemporaries, and Mormons suddenly appeared in Utah out of nowhere.

I was less thinking of evidence for Jesus' reality (which given how minor a figure he was in his life, the limited literacy, and the paucity of texts that survived from that region/time isn't that surprising). Rather I was thinking of how these major figures are portrayed in the texts. If you assume most OT figures are mere myths that's fine, but then what does that say about what's being taught with them? After all I'll criticize stories of Zeus raping women as justifying rape which seems to undermine the entire religion. Don't Abraham's actions undermine Christianity if Joseph's actions undermine Mormonism?  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

No, I did not miss the point of your questions. Your questions are geared towards believing various aspects of church history in response to my post about how the adversary works to get doubts into people - attack he messenger. If you were not responding to me, then why did you quote me? I am merely pointing out that there are plenty of reasons to believe JS was a prophet, and that the BoM is a record of God, etc. Of course people can fall to the ad hominem type of attacks on JS, but I can't stop people from choosing to believe or not believe on that kind of basis. It is a faulty approach. I am merely pointing out that on that basis, people wouldn't believe the denier, Peter, or just about any other prophet. Again you're asking if people should leave if they disbelieve some part of the narrative, and my response is no. I believe why they don't believe is critical. Again, choosing not to believe based on the common ad hominem attack on Joseph Smith is not a wise approach, but many believe character assassinations. If they decide that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God, because he made no true prophecies in their interpretation, and did not receive a response to an earnest prayer about the BoM, nor believe any of my many points of veracity in the BoM, then yeah, I'd say they cannot really be a true member of the Church.

To figure out whether the claims of Mormonism are true statements, you have to know and understand the history of how those events happen.  Some believe the accounts of those events.  Others do not and question the credibility of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.  There is no claim that the doctrine of Mormonism came from Joseph Smith.  The claim is that the doctrine of Mormonism came from God.  If how that doctrine came about is not believed, then the doctrine of Mormonism can not be believed. 

Lutherans have only one historical fact.  Did Martin Luther nail a proclamation on the door of a church of his beliefs.  There is no history of claiming to be a prophet, no claim of being given and translating a scripture by looking at a rock , no claim to having been given the writings of Abraham himself that he translated.  You either believe in Martin Luther's ideas or you don't.

The history of one sect is critical to the truthfulness of the doctrine.  The history of another sect has nothing to do with the truthfulness of their doctrine.  This is why the history of other Christian religions is really not as important to believing the doctrines that are taught. So they don't spend time discussing it.  That was what my post was about.  I think we are discussing two different issues.

[SamIam]

16 hours ago, california boy said:

I can't even tell you how angry I am with this comment.  It is the sams BS That i was told when I was 20.  After 30 years of "hanging on" I think it is pretty safe to say that I will always be gay.  You have no idea the fasting and prayer. The years of service and doing what ever church leaders asked of me.  At what point can you deliver on your promise if I just hold on?  10 more years?  20? 50?  

I really feel sorry for your son. You have no right to offer that kind of hope to someone who is gay.  Nor do you have a right to tell me 'if I just held on".  You do not nor can you speak for God. 

Oh the challenge of the online world for communication.  While it may still make you angry my original thoughts were  that then "over time" is a pretty sure bet could be taken to mean if you held on until time ran out ie. you died then it was a pretty sure bet that you wouldn't be gay anymore.

That said your response reveals a certain tendency to conflate meanings to the things people say beyond what they actually said. You ask at what point can I deliver on my "promise" - reread my response.  Did I promise you anything? The point being that it is not uncommon for people who tend towards subjectivity and overt emotionalism have a tendency to magnify the degree of their emotional truth and overly into objective situations.  Whatever your Bishop said to you may or may not have been imbued with the meaning derived from the emotional nature of your recollection.  I don't think you are lying in anyway but for a primarily objective/logical person such as myself it makes it difficult to discern actual objective intent of the individuals whom you quote.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

No, not really CB, what I'm saying is that the widespread general feeling at that time, including within the Church, was that homosexuality was a choice... a position that has changed, yes, because of the subsequent science, thus altering the way the Church now addresses the issue... however, this does not change the basic position of the Church in regard to homosexuality, but I'm glad that the Church has become more inclusive of our homosexual members.  I do believe in continuing revelation, in church leaders' inspiration, and in our prophets, seers and revelators.   Again, I'm sorry for your experience... this is a difficult and sensitive issue.  But based on my own experiences, I will continue to trust,

GG

If church leaders were relying on widespread general feelings at the time to give me advice, why didn't they state that?  Instead, they chose to tell me that their advice came from God Himself.  And that I could rely on what they were saying because it was God that was giving me answers.  That was the deception.  The truth is, as you pointed out, church leaders were relying on wide spread general feelings at the time.  There was no promise from God that if I married I would become straight.  What I learned is that church leaders will claim to know the will of God when in fact, they are relying on general feelings at the time.  

This false belief that their direction comes from God has caused grief for literally decades within myself and my family.  Issues that I am still dealing with to this day.  Thousands of gay men were told this promise came from God himself.  That promise did not come from God, as you pointed out.  That promise came from widespread general feeling.  There was no revelation from God Church leaders completely relied on the thinking of men and not God at all.

So when church leaders claim something came from God, that could just as easily have come from widespread beliefs at the time.  It is how we got the Priesthood ban as well.  As a result thousands of black people were barred from the priesthood and access to the temple.  

When church leaders make claims of revelation, it may or may not have actually happened.  Hence, for me and many others, there is a credibility gap.

[SamIam]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I reread over all the reasons the study gave for people leaving. (Non-millennial answers) 

1. » “I could no longer reconcile my personal values and priorities with those of the church.” (38 percent)...

My faith issues don't fit neatly into any of these categories. I had a "trust gap" but it wasn't because I didn't think the leaders would tell the truth about controversial topics. It was because I no longer trusted my leaders to do the right things or make the right call about issues that effected me and my family. I lost trust in my local leaders which led to an entire reexamining of my faith. It also led to concerns over women's issues, which I never viewed as a problem before, becoming a big problem now.  

You are only specific concerning one point and that is concerning women's issues and that doesn't really tell us which women's issues.  So it makes it a bit difficult to see clearly the nature of what has caused you difficulty.  Nonetheless, I am wondering about what I have observed as a common thought process that individuals who claim such discomforts go through that always troubles me.  Presuming that women's issues can be related to the various efforts of society to define some state of womenhood which resembles manhood I marvel that people do not step back and logically conclude that many of societies direction are predicated upon conditions unique to our current era of time.  This means that society has become the voice of direction, and one of confusion.  However, for those so inclined does it never occur to them that truths sustained by current societal standards were not societal standards 70 years ago and for the most part from that point back in time. So as that is the voice which has captured their attention, that which is defined by society, do they not realize that these seemingly compelling issues (truths if you will) did not exist as part of societies radar from the fifties and before?  Presentism is a very real phenomenon but it seems to fail to move anyone to reconsider their position.  If you were a Mormon back then these compelling issues would not move you in the least and based on the predominate voice of the time you would actually be repulsed by them. 

You would not think the church misguided.  The leaders would seem less out of touch. Does it not concern you that the voice of dominant persuasion is a voice that obviously in so many ways is departing completely away from correct understandings?  It not like we can say they got 90 % wrong but they are right in this one thing or that one thing.  What are your thoughts on this issue?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That's definitely true although I'm surprised it came as a shock to you. Leaders being imperfect, even in sometimes discerning God's will seems pretty much a part of our religion. 

I once believe that church leaders did receive revelation from God.  Now I know they make that claim, when no actual revelation has occurred.  Hence, credibility gap caused me and others to leave the church.  

If you can't trust the word of church leaders that Mormonism comes through revelation from God, then what to you have left?  A group of men giving their opinions on what people should believe.  They may be great opinions, but they are just that.  The opinions of men.  Their dogma may or may not be true, just like every other sect.

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, SamIam said:

Oh the challenge of the online world for communication.  While it may still make you angry my original thoughts were  that then "over time" is a pretty sure bet could be taken to mean if you held on until time ran out ie. you died then it was a pretty sure bet that you wouldn't be gay anymore.

That said your response reveals a certain tendency to conflate meanings to the things people say beyond what they actually said. You ask at what point can I deliver on my "promise" - reread my response.  Did I promise you anything? The point being that it is not uncommon for people who tend towards subjectivity and overt emotionalism have a tendency to magnify the degree of their emotional truth and overly into objective situations.  Whatever your Bishop said to you may or may not have been imbued with the meaning derived from the emotional nature of your recollection.  I don't think you are lying in anyway but for a primarily objective/logical person such as myself it makes it difficult to discern actual objective intent of the individuals whom you quote.

 

Well once again, you want me to put faith in YOUR BELIEFS.  And I should have "hung on" because when I die, I will become straight?  And you base that belief on what?

My point is, you have no right telling me or anyone else what I should do and what I should have done.  You have no knowledge that I made the wrong decision.  That is what my response reveals.  Anyone, including you, Including church leaders have no idea what God will do or what God will not do.  I may very well be gay throughout eternity.  I hope you keep that in mind when you are talking with your son.

 

[Calm]

"...you died then it was a pretty sure bet that you wouldn't be gay anymore."

Samlan, do you believe when you die you will no longer be straight?

[bsjkki]

50 minutes ago, SamIam said:

current societal standards were not societal standards 70 years ago

Thank goodness! I am grateful to live in this day and the opportunities my daughters have. I am grateful I was not raised when racists views were common and acceptable. I am grateful the church no longer encourages gay men to marry straight women because they have realized this approach fails and causes undue hardship on gay men, their ex-wives and their children. I'm not a Bible scholar but God has always had to work within the framework of societal norms and culture and sometimes that meant his chosen people had to wander around for 40 years waiting for ingrained, false, cultural habits to die off. From my understanding, the Priesthood ban would have been rescinded sooner if the Prophet and Apostles would have been able to all agree but they could not. Culture can be a hindrance for the development of a righteous people. 

I won't go into detail on my issues--I've hashed them out a bit here before and I am moving forward. I've seen some progress on women's issues in the church and I have no doubt, improvements will continue.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf  

Edited April 21, 2017 by bsjkki
added source and I am awful with grammar

[Tsuzuki]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I was less thinking of evidence for Jesus' reality (which given how minor a figure he was in his life, the limited literacy, and the paucity of texts that survived from that region/time isn't that surprising). Rather I was thinking of how these major figures are portrayed in the texts. If you assume most OT figures are mere myths that's fine, but then what does that say about what's being taught with them? After all I'll criticize stories of Zeus raping women as justifying rape which seems to undermine the entire religion. Don't Abraham's actions undermine Christianity if Joseph's actions undermine Mormonism?  

You'll have to ask a Bronze Age Middle Easterner what they get out of their mythology. We're actually not the intended audience for those stories. As for Joseph Smith's actions undermining Mormonism... I'm a student of Aleister Crowley, the "Wickedest Man in the World". I know how to separate a person's actions from their philosophy. I think the only thing undermining Mormonism is the Christian foundation it's built on.

And by the way, the Roman Empire was pretty big on literacy, and the Library of Alexandria was in full swing right around the corner. Someone would have mentioned something if a whole bunch of dead people started rising from their graves in the middle of an earthquake (Matthew 27:51–53).

Edited April 21, 2017 by Tsuzuki

[SamIam]

I realize this is going to be too long for many.  However the scriptures have a wonderful story that illustrates a key element of what is causing people to leave the church.  For those few who may read this through I promise you, wait... wait... California Boy I am going to back off on that word "promise"  Let's just say that for those who love the scriptures it will be an enlightening read that will give pause for consideration.  I leave out a lot of detail just to make it as brief as possible.

The backdrop to the story of Uzzah is in essence your scriptural pattern. We all pretty much know the story of his reaching up to steady the ark and then taking a hit. However, how did he get there? Well the scriptures provide the backdrop to this scenario which is actually more important than the part we are most familiar with.

Twenty years before Uzzah makes his fatal mistake is the story line that sets the stage for his failure. I'll try to be brief and leave out as much of the scripture as possible for brevity's sake. To set it up I will provide a reminder of parts of the story. The essence is that the Philistines are danged excited that they have captured the Ark of the Covenant from Israel but it is a short lived excitement.

They observe that every where the ark is put in their land there is pestilence, suffering, and even death. So they decide to send the ARK back to Israel. This is the key verse:
 

Quote

1 Samuel 6:7

7 Now therefore make a new cart, and take two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie the kine to the cart, and bring their calves home from them:

The Philistines are symbolic of all those who know not God. The scriptures define their role and symbolic purpose of why God left them alive when Israel reclaimed their lands:
 

Quote

Judges 3:1
1 Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan;

2 Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof;

3 Namely, five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon, from mount Baalhermon unto the entering in of Hamath.

4 And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.

Thus absolutely true to scriptural form the Philistines have swooped in during a time of Israel’s wickedness and plague them now by embarrassing the heck out of them by capturing their national treasure - the ARK of the covenant. But this puppy is one hot potato and it has to go back to the Israelite's for all of the harm its presence is doing to the Philistines. So they prepare to move it.

They do not know there are God given rules for moving the ark. They do not know there is an place in the procession where the ark is supposed to be when it is transported. They do not know the ark is to be moved by men separated out of the House of Israel and dedicated to the service of the Lord. They know absolutely nothing about how to cover it in blue cloth when outside of the tabernacle.

However, God tolerates all this because they are ignorant. So in the sincerest effort and with respect, they do what they, ignorant of the Lords expectations, would consider the right thing and so as the verse above states they create a NEW cart. This new cart will be made of the best materials. They will send it will gifts of gold and fine tapestries and it shall be pulled by animals valued by the Philistines – milk producers. They will spare no effort to create something that to them would be considered quite wonderful and desirable.

And so they hitch up the kine (cows) to the NEW CART and send it on its way back to Israel...uncovered, led by cattle, sitting in a Cart. Well without all of the detail that is Chronicled in Samuel 6 the ark causes quite a stir when it comes back to the first community just over the border and the Israelite's there are not cut any slack for ignorance as they know better and many are stuck dead for even looking upon the Ark.

So they called the men of Kirjath-jearim, who removed the Ark to the Levite home of Abinadab where his son Eleazar was sanctified to the proper care of the Ark. Here it remained for 20 years during the final years of Saul’s reign in Israel.

Twenty years later we introduce Uzzah. The story of the Ark’s return 20 years earlier was a tale of great renown in Israel. Surely, the tale of the Philistines return of the Ark with offerings in a “new cart” of splendid construction and quality was a well-known tale of honor that was told amongst the Children of Israel. The power of the Lord was manifest in its miraculous return and a source of pride to the Israelites. Still it had been 20 years since the Ark had been recognized by the people as a whole as the sacred relic it was and time had dulled their recollection of the terms of honoring the Ark properly. However, the tale of the “new cart” was the freshest memory in recent history of the Ark transport and so became a focal point of this new effort to relocate the Ark to the royal city of David.

So, the people of God who should have known better allowed themselves to be swayed by the things they had observed of those who were not even the Children of the Lord. These people of worldly ways, and who knew absolutely nothing of how to properly handle the sacred things of God became the influencing agents in determining how to handle sacred things. Without even realizing it, the people have been placed exactly where the Lord said they would if they failed in obedience – and by very subtle means they shall now be proved by the examples set by the Godless and how they respond to those examples.

A key connecting piece is found in the description of David's efforts when he first starts moving the Ark:
 

Quote

2 Samuel 6:1-3

1 Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand.

2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the Lord of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.

3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart.

To a Jewish Rabbi the repetition of terms is generally regarded as a key factor of scripture interpretation. This term here used in Second Samuel is precisely there to inform us of the connection between these two related narratives. We now connect the narrative of the Philistines and their creation of a "New Cart" to David and his creation of a "New Cart".

In the remaining verses of 2 Samuel 6:4-7 it seems just a narrative of how they hit the road to carry the Ark down to David’s home in the City of David. However, if one was to look up all of the restrictions and rules governing the transporting of the ARK it actually turns out to be a list of offenses. And each of these offense takes place long before Uzzah becomes the capstone offense as he reaches up to steady the Ark. However, truth be told this whole process had been misinformed because they sought for their patterns the ways of a worldly people – the Philistines in how to conduct the affairs of the ARK. Here is a list of several things concerning the handling of the ARK:
 

1.) Exodus 25:12 references the rings on the sides at each corner.

2.) Exodus 25:13 references the staves of shittim wood

3.) Exodus 25:14 references that the staves were to be inserted into the rings and never
removed “that the ark may be borne with them.”

4.) Numbers 3:29-31identifies the Kohath line of the Levites as the only ones authorized
to handle Ark requirements.

5.) Numbers 4:5,15 Aaron and his sons must cover the Ark before the Sons of Kohath do
their part. They are not to touch any of the holy things or they will die.

6.) Numbers 4:15 Aaron and his sons were the only ones to ever actually see the ark
uncovered. When they were completed they were to tell the Sons of Kohath who were
to never see any of the things uncovered.

7.) Numbers 4 The Ark was to be covered at all times except when in the Tabernacle.

8.) Numbers 10:33, Joshua 3:6,14 The Ark was to always go before the people.

9.) Joshua 6:6 Unless the Shofar was to declare its arrival or the Army of the Lord was to
proceed it into battle.

10.) 1 Chronicles 15:12-15 Levites were required to be sanctified before they carried the Ark.

11.) 1 Chronicles 15: 16 The Levites were the designated musicians for events of moving the Ark.

I don’t know if this is an exhaustive list as it was some years ago that I did this little study but it seems like it was everything I could find.

The critical symbolism for us is that in our day, there are many “new carts” constructed to deliver the sacred in a more modern and societally acceptable fashion. This NEW CART is the symbolism for how the world repackages the things of God according to the understandings and standards of the world. It has to do with the children of God taking instruction from those who are unfamiliar with sacred observances who may present a broader less correct interpretation that is perfectly suitable from their level of understanding but which falls short of a spiritually correct understanding. The sacred roles of mothers and wives, of fathers and husbands have been taken from the scriptural pattern and sent back to the saints in new carts with different trappings and expectations. Marriage, perhaps the most sacred ordinance for a man and a woman is constantly being redefined and the “new cart” of SSM and its delivery seems to be gaining acceptance even amongst the members of the church. Without a deep appreciation of the sacred nature of the eternal union of a righteous man and women it is to be expected that the world will change things to suit their level of understandings.

In our efforts to justify behaviors or standards that oppose the churches standards as acceptable behaviors of righteousness are as Uzzah. For some we have been dulled to the proper definitions of correct standards as taught by the Lords servants and over time have borrowed from the Philistines of modern Babylon all sorts of constructs to justify the positive benefits of a much more liberal lifestyle. The freedom the world offers and the appearance of a healthier attitude towards liberal standards are the wheels of this NEW CART. We can be lulled by the promise of a better society which composes other aspects of the Cart and it is fine and it is fancy and it satisfies the ambitions of a Godless people who do not know that they are drifting ever further way from the God defined paths back to his presence because they are ignorant.

Well the story of UZZAH would not be complete with touching upon King David’s final observations and how they finally moved the ARK with no further incidence. This is found in 1 Chronicles:
 

 

Quote

 

1 Chronicles 15:1-4, 12-16, 23, 24-28

1 And David made him houses in the city of David, and prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched for it a tent.

2 Then David said, None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the Lord chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him forever.

3 And David gathered all Israel together to Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the Lord unto his place, which he had prepared for it.

4 And David assembled the children of Aaron, and the Levites:

12 And said unto them, Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it.

13 For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.

15 And the children of the Levites bare the ark of God upon their shoulders with the staves thereon, as Moses commanded according to the word of the Lord.

16 And David spake to the chief of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers with instruments of musick, psalteries and harps and cymbals, sounding, by lifting up the voice with joy.

23 And Berechiah and Elkanah were doorkeepers for the ark.

24 And Shebaniah, and Jehoshaphat, and Nethaneel, and Amasai, and Zechariah, and Benaiah, and Eliezer, the priests, did blow with the trumpets before the ark of God: and Obed-edom and Jehiah were doorkeepers for the ark.

27 And David was clothed with a robe of fine linen, and all the Levites that bare the ark, and the singers, and Chenaniah the master of the song with the singers: David also had upon him an ephod of linen.

28 Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps. (underlining added for emphasis of points of conformity to the laws required for handling the ark.)

 

Again we will note that this list aspect of the story actually addresses practically all of the offenses found in 2 Samuel 6:4-7 which I did not include for brevity's sake.

The key to all of this and the reason for the condemnation of Uzzah is clearly found in verse 13:

13 For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order. (see D & C 107:84)

Uzzah was the end of a long line of abuses concerning moving the Ark.  It had become more than apparent that the Israelites who should have known these things had breeched law after law after law of what it is to handle the sacred things of God.  At some point it became obvious to the Lord that he was going to have to refocus their reverential attitudes and ultimate the final offense was Uzzah touching the Ark an act for which he was expressly forbidden. However, the Lord got David's attention.

The World has absolutely no idea of what the “due order” is and many of the saints, dulled in their recollections, find themselves climbing on the "new carts" of Babylon. Sometimes they are walking beside, pushing the cart, or simply and laughing and dancing enjoying the reduced restraints of the uninformed as they travel in the parade of life. Some find that the restraints of of a religious culture reduces their ability to be open and free and at one with one another so they also rejoice with the revelers.

However, I do hope that it is plain to see how tragic that anyone should forget and fail to seek for God “after the due order.”

 

[SamIam]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

"...you died then it was a pretty sure bet that you wouldn't be gay anymore."

Samlan, do you believe when you die you will no longer be straight?

No, however I have it on good authority that there is great potential that I will not be tempted to engage in sinful behaviors.  Please consider:

Quote

The advantage of this Priesthood that Brother George A. Smith has been talking about is that when persons yield obedience to it, they secure to themselves the sanction of Him who is its author, and who has bestowed it upon the children of men. His power is around them and defends them; and when they pass into the spirit world they are out of the reach of the power of Satan, and they are not liable to be tempted, hunted, and chased as the wicked are, although the wicked may rest and enjoy far more there than here; but a person who obeys the Priesthood of the Son of God is entirely free from this. Where the pure in heart are the wicked cannot come. This is the state of the spirit world. (Young, Brigham, Journal of Discourses, 14:229)

 

Quote

 . . . when we go beyond this vail, and leave our bodies which were taken from mother earth, and which must return; our spirits will pass beyond the vail; we go where both Saints and sinners go; they all go to one place. Does the devil have power over the spirits of just men? No. When he gets through with this earth, he is at the length of his chain. (Young, Brigham, Journal of Discourses, 3:94)

 

Quote

Is a Saint subject to the power of the Devil in the spirit world? No, because he has gained the victory through faith, and can command Satan, and he must obey. How is it with the wicked? The Devil has power over them to distress and afflict them: they are in hell. (Young, Brigham, Journal of Discourses, 7:174)

[SamIam]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well once again, you want me to put faith in YOUR BELIEFS.  And I should have "hung on" because when I die, I will become straight?  And you base that belief on what?

My point is, you have no right telling me or anyone else what I should do and what I should have done.  You have no knowledge that I made the wrong decision.  That is what my response reveals.  Anyone, including you, Including church leaders have no idea what God will do or what God will not do.  I may very well be gay throughout eternity.  I hope you keep that in mind when you are talking with your son.

 

No, what I really want is for you to put your faith in Christ.  Fact of the matter is that if you consider upon LDS teachings your state is overall not different from my own.  If I do wrong, I repent.  If I do wrong again I continue to repent and I don't stop repenting and hope to conquer my tendencies to do wrong.  At any point in time an open door awaits you and if I knew where to go I would be the first in line to welcome you with an open embrace.  I hold no issues with you what so ever but understand what needs to be accomplished for the Lord to extend his hand in your direction. I can't change the clear directives of prophetic utterance on these matters.