LDS believers and ex-mos

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

" Even if I rejected the possibility of their position that doesn't mean there is nuance in their view. That wouldn't make sense."

This is an example of what I mean.  You are refusing to see their view as potentially nuanced.  How is that any less rigid than their rejection of your view as a possibility?

I'm not refusing them anything.  Define a nuanced view and we can talk.  You seem to be trying to talk past me.

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

The vast majority of people in my experience see their own views as quite nuanced no matter how someone else sees them.

Let's define it then.  

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems to me it boils down to you saying "they won't be convinced by me" and them saying "he won't be convinced by us".  You appear to be as certain and confident in your view as they are.

Not at all.  I did not express that at all.  I reject that i thinking in fact.

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you don't accept what the book purports to be, you don't accept it as true. It's that simple.

If we hold the Old Testament and the Book of Abraham to that same standard, the Church is in serious trouble.

 

Newsflash: the Church is in serious trouble.

Edited July 18, 2017 by cinepro

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you don't accept what the book purports to be, you don't accept it as true. It's that simple. 

Sounds like the members of your elders quorum were spot on. 

Oh, and a Sabbath day class in Church is no place to debate doctrinal fundamentals like the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. 

Per Ally Isom with Church Public Relations:

Quote

 

Just a couple minutes after her statement that public affairs does nothing in isolation from the church leaders, there was this surprising exchange (Doug Fabrizio in italics & Ally Isom in bold):

How and where may a member express doubts or opinions in good faith? It seems like what you were saying before is ‘do it wherever you want, but use the right tone, use the right questions… What if you believe, as some women do, that it’s time for the church to give women the priesthood? Where do you express that?

 

There are many avenues to express that and discuss that.

 

Where? In public?

 

No one is questioning your ability to discuss it in a congregation, in a Sunday School class, or in a Relief Society class.

 

In a congregation a woman can stand up and say that?

 

She can certainly have the conversation. In my Relief Society we can. I love what Sister Burton just said this very last Sunday when she talked about women.

 

Now remind us who Sister Burton is.

 

Sister Burton is the Relief Society General President. She’s a wonderful example. She travels the world. She meets thousands of women and has very personal conversations with them. She says in this really personal way “Women shoulder burdens. We come from so many backgrounds, but we have to be each others’ safe space.” It has to be through one another that we can have these conversations.

 

So it’s ok for a woman in a Relief Society meeting to stand up and say… you know within the proper context of the lesson or whatever it might be

 

Yeah, respectfully…

 

…respectfully…

 

of course.

 

“Hey sisters! Let’s talk about the possibility that it’s time now for church leaders, like they did with the priesthood and blacks, to change that? I mean, there were lessons from history where women reportedly gave blessings and we did have this power and it sort of went away from us. Let’s talk about that.” The church is cool with that?

 

The conversation is welcome. We’ve had a similar conversation in my Relief Society in Kaysville, Utah. We had a similar conversation about gay marriage in our Relief Society. My daughter in Palo Alto just had a very interesting conversation this very last Sunday. We have those conversations. It is a safe place.

So looks like Ally Isom thinks its perfectly okay to have such a discussion in Priesthood meeting. Do you disagree?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

So the question is, why all this lamentation and worry about the inadequacies of human language when the gift of the Holy Ghost makes truly effective and life-changing communication with God possible? In the gift of the Holy Ghost God provided the answer to those who worry that human language is inadequate to the task of effectively communicating the deep things of God to the human mind. Paul's focus was on the profound spiritual enlightenment that comes through revelation from the gift of the Holy Ghost. You don't hear Paul going on and on about how we're all trapped in a morass of ineffective communication and clumsy human language that dooms us to remain mostly in the dark. Or is it that the prophets don't "get it" either.

 

It's called "missionary work" to those who have no idea what you are talking about because they are secularists.  I have even said it formally and will again.

Do you realize most of what you quoted says that we should not trust language without the spirit?  That is exactly what I am saying.

In fact I am working on something about Paul preaching the "Unknown God" to the secularists of his day, in Athens.

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

Quote

 

So again we return to the beginning.

Just as Jacob in his wrestle with his angel was persistent in his struggle to receive a blessing and though injured in the process, still “prevailed” through submission to divine law, so too must we struggle in the organization of our world from matter unorganized and seek the Lord’s blessing on our adventure.

And how are we to handle the use of scripture to tangle with the philosophies of men? Givens gives us a perfect example in this wonderful book.

We must place first the filter of what we know from the spirit on our discernment, and then see the philosophy for what it is — as faith promoting or not — and act accordingly. Too often we reverse the process, throw away the spirit, and proceed without guidance. For those unacquainted with philosophy, that can be a recipe for disaster.

 

So are you seeing the spirit or a recipe for disaster?  Perhaps that has to do with the subject matter with which you are unacquainted.

I short, I don't write for people like you, I write for people who give me rep points, who understand my stuff and like it, and there have been a few.  You don't have any need whatsoever for what I have to say.

So let it go!  

Edited July 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've read some books, but I don't consider myself a scholar on the subject, at the same time I've researched enough to feel pretty comfortable.  I just haven't found the arguments in support of historicity to be as compelling as those against when you weight the balance between the two.  Also, I find the naturalistic explanations for just about everything to be more compelling than the supernatural ones.  While I leave the door open for the unexplained, I tend to think there will be explanations in the future for those things too. 

Since I believe in an entirely naturalistic universe, and completely reject a supernatural one, you and I may be operating on separate wave lengths here.  If your approach is to take the fanciful nonsense of Jeremy Runnells seriously, then of course we are not talking about a serious examination of the BofM.

Quote

I can respect those that find the evidence compelling for them, like Brant Gardner and his work.

What is it about Gardner's approach which you find respectable?  Is it his professional academic approach, citation of reliable sources, logical argument, along with his academic qualifications?  Can you cite a similarly respectable and reliable discussion of the reasons why the BofM is non-historical?

Quote

My question to you is how seriously should a person examine the evidence before coming to any conclusions about this subject?  Is a few years and multiple scholarly books serious enough?  I'd like to think I've studied it many more hours than Joseph Smith did, and he dictated the book.  

I know of no evidence which would indicate that Joseph Smith was a BofM scholar -- he never read the BofM with scholarly acumen.  His belief was a matter of personal testimony, based on his alleged encounters with Moroni, his own alleged handling of the plates and other sacred relics, his alleged contact with members of the Godhead, and the like.  The alleged experiences of the witnesses are of the same sort, and do not constitute forensic evidence (though some of their descriptions can be used in an analytic vein).  For those moved to make a serious examination of the BofM, I do suggest that they do so in a standard forensic manner.

I do not recommend that anyone try to master this or that discipline in order to make a professional examination of the BofM -- unless they really want to, and are prepared to invest the requisite time and energy into that very complex endeavor.  Most BofM believers need have no more than a personal testimony gained through prayer and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  In a subjective world that should be quite enough, same as it is enough for believers in the Resurrection., or in the Exodus.  It is absurd to demand that everyone become a scholar.  Most people simply don't have the time or inclination.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Per Ally Isom with Church Public Relations:

So looks like Ally Isom thinks its perfectly okay to have such a discussion in Priesthood meeting. Do you disagree?

Yes.

[USU78]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes.

Moi aussi. Compassion for others compels nothing less than this: keep silent on issues unfit for time and venue.

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes.

Did Scott just disagree with an official spokesperson of the Church?  Wow.  I didn't think I'd see the day.  But, then again, considering what he's disagreeing with I can't possibly be surprised.  I'm so torn. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Moi aussi. Compassion for others compels nothing less than this: keep silent on issues unfit for time and venue.

I'm curious why Church meetings wherein we are in the graces of our fellow saints is an unfit place to discuss the welfare of our souls?  I thought that was a main purpose of Church. 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm curious why Church meetings wherein we are in the graces of our fellow saints is an unfit place to discuss the welfare of our souls?  I thought that was a main purpose of Church. 

We have in our hands the welfare of our fellows. Should we, to indulge our fancies as well as our doubts, put at risk their happiness and peace of mind? There's time and place and opportunity enough for that.

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We have in our hands the welfare of our fellows. Should we, to indulge our fancies as well as our doubts, put at risk their happiness and peace of mind? There's time and place and opportunity enough for that.

Well there's hardly sacrifice for each other if we are unwilling to put at risk our own happiness and peace of mind.  In the end, the truth will win out.  I'm not sure why we fear our journey to something true. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Did Scott just disagree with an official spokesperson of the Church?  Wow.  I didn't think I'd see the day.  But, then again, considering what he's disagreeing with I can't possibly be surprised.  I'm so torn. 

As he eloquently posted here:

Quote

What you call the Church's "PR Department" doesn't freelance. It functions under the direction of Church leaders at the highest level. So you don't know what you're talking about.

 

ETA:

Here is what Ally Isom said earlier in the same interview:

Quote

Well first let me be clear that public affairs does nothing in isolation or insulation from our church leaders. We act at their explicit direction. In fact, we have a number of them who chair a committee who sit in counsel with us regularly. They are well aware of our efforts. They are well aware that I’m here today. They are well aware of what the message would be going forward. We do nothing in isolation… [Public Affairs work] is actually a First Presidency assignment and we work in concert with them very closely.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As he eloquently posted here:

 

ETA:

Here is what Ally Isom said earlier in the same interview:

 

 Personal insults removed

[USU78]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well there's hardly sacrifice for each other if we are unwilling to put at risk our own happiness and peace of mind.  In the end, the truth will win out.  I'm not sure why we fear our journey to something true. 

How is it useful or kind to share concerns about baptism for minor children of polygs, practicing homosexuals and other apostates with five to eleven year old children in sacrament meeting? Let's start there.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

How is it useful or kind to share concerns about baptism for minor children of polygs, practicing homosexuals and other apostates with five to eleven year old children in sacrament meeting? Let's start there.

5 to 11 year olds listen to sacrament talks?  Well, that's news to me.  Talks in my experience are geared toward adults. 

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

5 to 11 year olds listen to sacrament talks?  Well, that's news to me.  Talks in my experience are geared toward adults. 

Don't be coy. How is it your or my job to educate others on the details of our doctrinal or historical or other concerns? It's, first off, none of their concern, and second, if it's potentially damaging to others' peace of mind, cruel to inflict on others without proper contextualization. Especially if we are incapable constitutionally or situationally to provide appropriate context.

It is, in my view, selfish and arrogant and, especially, unkind to do such a thing in that setting at that time in that venue.

Edited July 18, 2017 by USU78

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

But why would you be pushed out? Is anyone in your home ward suggesting that you maybe go into a less active state? Or is it that you would feel marginalized because no one or very few wish to discuss things the way you wish to discuss them?

I'm not planning on getting pushed out, but as you can read from some of the comments on this thread, there are those who don't want to have open discussions about challenging topics, they feel like its not appropriate, and I think we're all aware of leadership roulette.  

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Now what do you think would really happen if the lessons were to be opened up to such a free fall type of discussion? Everywhere? People do not come to church prepared to defend their faith. Many do not have the time to research all of the topics that might be presented and challenged. (From my own experience a lot are not even prepared to discuss the current lesson.)

It would take a skilled teacher to create a more vulnerable and open discussion, but it could be envigorating and might actually keep people awake.  I wouldn't envision an environment where traditional orthodox believers have to "defend their faith".  No need to defend something that wouldn't be under attack, I'm not proposing that people with different perspectives attack everyone else's perspective.  And yes, I agree that people don't come prepared to discuss the lessons, but what if a different teaching style actually inspired people to do some outside study on their own.  Lots of possibilities.  

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

What do you really mean by adults? I do believe that we have a lot of adults that participate on this very board. Yet I also seem to recall that oftimes the discussion get heated and some are even asked at times to refrain from posting for a bit.

You're right about the risks of letting people discuss, but what are the risks of the status quo?  Continued apathy, continued group think, continued boring lessons regurgitating the same old things.  Sounds like a dying faith, not a true and living one.  

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Read Gray's response to my first post. Those are the type of questions that could be posed. Discussing that would take more than one time block. Just think about how involved such discussions get here, with people who take time to look up stuff and then get back to the fray. This would not work for classes that meet once a week.

Sorry, I just don't accept this argument.  I hear it all the time as an excuse, but until someone tries the experiment and can prove to me that it doesn't work, I reject this as an unfounded fear to change.  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Don't be coy. How is it your or my job to educate others on the details of our doctrinal or historical or other concerns? It's, first off, none of their concern, and second, if it's potentially damaging to others' peace of mind, cruel to inflict on others without proper contextualization. Especially if we are incapable constitutionally or situationally to provide appropriate context.

It is, in my view, selfish and arrogant and, especially, unkind to do such a thing in that setting at that time in that venue.

Well, I'm not sure how to proceed in this discussion.  I'm suggesting Church is a great place to share the welfare of our souls with each other--which includes doctrinal and historic concerns.  There simply isn't anything selfish in such a proposed effort in my view.  We need not fear thought experiment and discussion.  If we fear others will be lost because we introduce them to that which is troubling, then perhaps we don't have much worth sharing in the first place.  If what we have can't handle a bit of scrutiny, or critical thinking, then perhaps we are lost anyway. 

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, I'm not sure how to proceed in this discussion.  I'm suggesting Church is a great place to share the welfare of our souls with each other--which includes doctrinal and historic concerns.  There simply isn't anything selfish in such a proposed effort in my view.  We need not fear thought experiment and discussion.  If we fear others will be lost because we introduce them to that which is troubling, then perhaps we don't have much worth sharing in the first place.  If what we have can't handle a bit of scrutiny, or critical thinking, then perhaps we are lost anyway. 

Once again I ask:  how is it your or my job to introduce such topics.  We both know well pretty much who in our respective wards would be angered even to broach the subjects.  Are such persons unworthy of our patience and forbearance?

[Johnnie Cake]

On 7/17/2017 at 8:05 AM, stemelbow said:

In another thread Gray had said:

I'd agree.  I dont' know how many discussions I've had with some exmos who only want to argue against their old selves rather than discuss with someone else.  Their old selves seem to often be those believers that I can't quite understand myself. 

yesterday in EQ, we had a lesson on chapter 16 from GBH manual.  https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-16-the-power-of-the-book-of-mormon?lang=eng

many stories were shared in the group about how the BoM is true.  So I had to ask what was meant by true, and in that question asked if there was room in the minds of those in the room to see the BoM as scripture but not accept it as historical.  that it is but a story, or set of stories, to give us different lessons.  that if there were  people who conjured up the book in time, that the stories were largely fabricated or embellished to offer certain teachings.  As we went around, I learned the concensus for everyone but me of course, was that one must accept the Book as authentically ancient that it's writings came directly from God through Alma, or Nephi to Joseph Smith. 

Additionally I added, perhaps we're missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it as myth, metaphor, or not historical.  They weren't pleased.  I realized discussing this was a bother to everyone else, so I ended and let them have their discussion.  There felt to be no room to discuss possibilities  It felt really limiting and really stagnant.  I'd hope for more open discussion, of course.  But it made me realize just as I can't convince a believer that there is room to believe but see it all differently, I can't seem to convince an ex-LDS who feels like the counterpart, as Gray mentioned, to accept that I am  believer and yet see it differently.  The common opinion of both seems to be I can't.  There's no place for such nuance.

I'm curious as we proceed inlife how this will all play out.  Thoughts? 

There's an interesting thread on the exmormon reddit page on this very subject...an actively attending,  non-believer shared this...

Quote

 cross posting removed.  Go to exmormon reddit to discuss specific posts on exmormon reddit. 

Seems like you're not the only one having difficulty with expressing nuanced Mormonism...the new effort by the church to inoculate members with a new church history is, at least in this ward, back firing and impacting the faith of members.  This seems to becoming more and more widespread first outside of Utah and now along even the Wasatch front.  

I think the President Uchdorf nailed it in a conference address when he told members that Faith is a choice...and urged members to choose faith and belief...but for some that is just another way of saying members should just fake belief.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Once again I ask:  how is it your or my job to introduce such topics.  We both know well pretty much who in our respective wards would be angered even to broach the subjects.  Are such persons unworthy of our patience and forbearance?

Those who would be angered by thoughtful dialogue need to fix their anger issues.  I mean I sympathize to an extent.  it's not easy to be challenged.  But it'll be worth it in the long run.  I am just one person among many.  I have no special privilege in my view.  I'm quite quiet overall and very respectful, even if the same attitude is rarely returned. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

There's an interesting thread on the exmormon reddit page on this very subject...an actively attending,  non-believer shared this...

Seems like you're not the only one having difficulty with nuanced Mormonism...the new effort by the church to inoculate members with a new church history is, at least in this ward, back firing and impacting the faith of members.  This seems to becoming more and more widespread first outside of Utah and now along even the Wasatch front.  

I think the President Uchdorf nailed it in a conference address when he told members that Faith is a choice...and urged members to choose faith and belief...but for some that is just another way of saying members should just fake belief.

Thanks for sharing.  Very interesting experience.  Comparing to my ward--we are worlds away.  He probably lives in Bountiful or something. 

[Gray]

Another very Mormon thing that some exmos seem to like to do is missionary work - that is, take opportunities to talk to Mormons that they meet about how leaving the church has blessed their lives. Then they'll tell stories about it in their forums. It's like fast and testimony meeting complete with missionary moments stories.

Oh, and of course there are also stories about how they took the time to try out some new alcoholic drink, or something at Starbucks, or whatever. Reverse word of wisdom stories.

I don't want to bag on exmormons - I find that there are a lot of lovely people on both sides. But I admit I'm a little amused by how Mormon many exmormons really are.

[Meerkat]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Remember that their way of seeing it is not invalid it's just their way of understanding it all and let it go.

Anything we say must literally be metaphor.

If I am reading you correctly, I think your description of scripture as metaphor goes too far.

I am one you speak of in your first sentence above.  I would reverse your statement and say that calling the Book of Mormon, Adam and Eve and other scriptures merely "metaphors that probably lack historicity is your way of understanding, and let it go."  To my thinking, your description undermines the idea of faith.

When I say I know the Book of Mormon is true, that statement is not a metaphor because evidence has confirmed it to me. Therefore Your statement "Anything we say must literally be metaphor" is not accurate.  God does use metaphors and parables to teach Gospel truths. He also uses facts.

Quote

We have not lived the lives of those in the Book of Mormon so therefore any lessons derived from those people are metaphors for us and our reality. They could never be our reality because we did not live them.

And the fact of the matter itself is that it is unknowable at this point as to whether they existed or did not exist.

"Unknowable?" When Christ said in Matt.18:16 "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established," he was not using metaphor.  He was stating a pattern of evidence by which a thing may be known.  Three prominent men in their community saw the plates the Book of Mormon was translated from.  They signed a statement that an angel appeared to them and showed them the gold plates and the engravings thereon. Would you sign such a statement for all your friends and relatives and the rest of the world to see if it had not happened? Eight other men stated "we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it."  This is not metaphor.  This is factual evidence that millions of people have corroberated for themselves through other means including, but not limited to, the Holy Ghost.  It is the kind of evidence that would we persuasive in a court of law.

Quote

There is no need to shake the testimony of the literalist if that is what their mind requires of them. Teach the principle as it applies in your life and suddenly everything is metaphor anyway.

At the risk of sounding prickly, I must take exception to your characterisation of the literalist "if that is what their mind requires of them" as prideful, condescending drivel.  No offense intended, my good friend-- and I do consider you a good friend and enjoy much of what you usually have to say. But your thoughts in this post seem self congratulatory of a "new" way of teaching that has the potential to diminish faith, in my opinion.  Perhaps that is too strong of a statement.  I wouldn't want anyone suggesting such a thing of my writing. So if I am wrong, I apologize.  Please clarify what you mean. Thank you!

Edited July 18, 2017 by Meerkat

[USU78]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Those who would be angered by thoughtful dialogue need to fix their anger issues.  I mean I sympathize to an extent.  it's not easy to be challenged.  But it'll be worth it in the long run.  I am just one person among many.  I have no special privilege in my view.  I'm quite quiet overall and very respectful, even if the same attitude is rarely returned. 

Hmmm.  We really have nowhere to go on this.