LDS believers and ex-mos

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

You're leaving out the smartalecky stuff.  And the accusations of evilmindedness and whatnot.  I don't find much lovely on such boards, or at brew/wine/shots in the sacrament cups, or at "I'm sure glad I'm not Mormon" parties on conference weekends, and such.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

You're leaving out the smartalecky stuff.  And the accusations of evilmindedness and whatnot.  I don't find much lovely on such boards, or at brew/wine/shots in the sacrament cups, or at "I'm sure glad I'm not Mormon" parties on conference weekends, and such.

Oh yeah, there's a lot of hostility and negativity, which really isn't very Mormon (although one finds similar rancor from some Mormons against any number of targets, discussed ad infinitum on this board).

But even the "I'm sure glad I'm not Mormon" parties are a mirror image of the "I'm so blessed to be a member of this church (#soblessed)" stuff one finds among LDS people.

[Duncan]

11 hours 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?

if you do things tactfully then I don't see an issue, like "what do you think about the idea of....." or "some people say....." when I taught the WOW someone asked about the history of it which wasn't what I was planning on but we generated good discussion about it. If you don't do things in a respectful manner discussions in any setting, church, school, job can fall apart quickly

Edited July 18, 2017 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

Yes this.  I was sitting with a friend not long ago who is ex-Mormon.  he told me of others who have left and how they say how blessed they've been, how it's helped them in their lives to have left.  I reminded him that is a very Mormon thing to do.  That at the time we had just had testimony meeting and most of the testimonies shared expressed how the Church had blessed their lives.  We mused on it a minute realizing that each individual needs to embrace their path, accept that another's life and experience is no measure of our own.  No other's basis for happiness, existence or purpose is our own basis.  It's nice to realize how closely we are all aligned though, aside from labels, even if some out there are Trump supporters.

[CV75]

2 hours 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. 

In scripture, the “welfare of our souls” is a uniquely Book of Mormon reference, and is used in the following contexts:

Redemption and agency (2 Nephi 2); the ministry of Christ, the restoration, the Lord’s atonement, the gathering of the Jews, the resurrection and judgement, latter day prophecies and their fulfillment (2 Nephi 6-10); consecration (2 Nephi 32:9); persuading to believe in Christ, proper attitude toward material things, chastity, more on the previously mentioned subjects (Jacob 1-6); avoiding sin and pollution (Mosiah 25:11); and knowing God (Alma 6:6).

So when Moroni 6:5 speaks of how “the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls,” I think it has more to do with these matters covered in the Book Mormon than it does with accommodating various individual’s nuanced beliefs and discussing and sharing varying, dissenting, and unique points of view.

Edited July 18, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes this.  I was sitting with a friend not long ago who is ex-Mormon.  he told me of others who have left and how they say how blessed they've been, how it's helped them in their lives to have left.  I reminded him that is a very Mormon thing to do.  That at the time we had just had testimony meeting and most of the testimonies shared expressed how the Church had blessed their lives.  We mused on it a minute realizing that each individual needs to embrace their path, accept that another's life and experience is no measure of our own.  No other's basis for happiness, existence or purpose is our own basis.  It's nice to realize how closely we are all aligned though, aside from labels, even if some out there are Trump supporters.

It's also a very ex-smoker or new vegan thing to do...

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I've only read bits and pieces of the CES letter, and that is not my primary source for exploration by any means.  I try to read scholarly books by historians, essays published in various Mormon studies journals, and more rigorous work.  I don't particularly like the CES letter approach myself.  

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

I've read a few of his books, listened to him live a couple times.  One thing I like about him is I think he's personally open to critique and he's willing to critique some of the old school apologetic arguments as well.  I appreciate that he even came to Sunstone last year and that he's trying to have dialogue with the community.  He's putting himself out there and trying to be thoughtful, and that is something I highly respect, even though I don't agree with many of his conclusions, I can really respect his approach.  

As for other respectable and reliable discussions, I attended a conference on Joseph Smith's translation of the plates up at USU this year, it was sponsored by Faith Matters - a new foundation, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Jared Hickman, Samuel Brown, Rosalynde Welch, Jana Riess, Phil Barlow and others participated in the panel.  Very interesting stuff about translation theories. They've posted some videos of the discussions.  

https://www.faithmatters.org/

 Personally, I would love to see some more recent books written on BoM historicity arguments.  From a more critical perspective New Approaches to the BoM as well as American Apocrypha are two important collections of essays, but getting a little dated.  

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I thought you were originally saying that a more serious study of the BoM is necessary to make a conclusion about its historicity, but after reading your response I'm not sure that's what you're saying.  I have heard that before from many defenders of BoM historicity, they want to set the bar so high for someone disbelieving in it, that you'd have to dedicate years of your life before making a credible argument against it in their mind.  

I don't find that kind of standard to be fair because we don't require a high standard for belief in BoM historicity, so why should we require that kind of high standard for belief against BoM historicity.  If someone can merely pray to have a respected belief in BoM historicity, then someone else's belief against BoM historicity should be likewise respected as valid regardless how much they have studied about the subject.   

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours 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. 

Then you don't know me as well as you think you do.

I'm not an apologist for Ally Isom, who, in this instance, misspoke when she was giving off-the-cuff responses on a radio talk show.

Big whoop.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

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.

"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.

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!

I am sorry you misunderstand my philosophy of language as metaphor. All language is metaphor because words are symbols. All of reality and every thought and feeling of mankind cannot be contained by 26 squiggles rearranged on a page. Nothing we read is in our personal direct experience unless God permits us a revelation.

Full reality as it is cannot be "translated correctly" into squiggles, so all language is in some sense metaphor 

I also know that scripture is as true as the squiggles will permit, but they are absent the immediacy of being there, unless God gives us that vision. Then it all becomes real to us.

All my comments are about the philosophy of language and how it cannot represent reality, not about the reality itself, because my comments themselves are in language 

I am sorry for the misunderstanding because I also see you as a friend.

[Meerkat]

21 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems like when you say faith promoting, you're saying only the kind of faith promotion that is approved for primary ages.  

Why can't we have more messy faith promotion at church, something for adults, a process to help those struggling with the challenges we see in a secular science based world.  I worry that if we can't find ways to talk about these things in church, that people like myself and stemelbow will be pushed out, and thats sad to me.  

There is a place for a more messy faith.  Perhaps it is here. And I believe Church is also such a place when it is done in a cordial way.  The challenge is keeping it cordial.  When discussion turns to debate or contention, our worship can be adversely impacted.  People do make decisions on whether they will be pushed out of Church.  It is sad whenever that happens.  It is particularly sad when a spirit of contention takes over and people who attend Church to find peace decide they are not receiving the spiritual nourishment they came for. I appreciated Stemelbow's sensitivity to that issue and how he backed off in his quorum discussion rather than cause offense.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours 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. 

In my view, the Sabbath Day worship services and classes are sanctuaries where revealed truth is taught and upheld, contrary to worldly ideologies, philosophies and attitudes, if need be; where testimonies are bolstered and where the faithful receive encouragement and admonition to righteousness. They are not to be given over to debating tournaments in which error is placed on an equal footing with truth. There is plenty of opportunity for that outside of Church venues if that's what one is seeking.

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then you don't know me as well as you think you do.

I'm not an apologist for Ally Isom, who, in this instance, misspoke when she was giving off-the-cuff responses on a radio talk show.

Big whoop.

 

She misspoke?  Are you sure?  She seems to be pretty clearly saying Church is a very good place to have these discussions.  I see no evidence of misspeaking here.  She seems pretty confident in her answer and never retracted. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

3 hours 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.

 

3 hours 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. 

You didn't pay close enough attention to his post. He's talking about putting others at risk, not oneself.

He and I seem to be in perfect agreement on this. Again, Church should be a sanctuary, not a debating tournament.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In my view, the Sabbath Day worship services and classes are sanctuaries where revealed truth is taught and upheld, contrary to worldly idologies, philosophies and attitudes, if need be; where testimonies are bolstered and where the faithful receive encouragement and admonition to righteousness. They are not to be given over to debating tournaments in which error is placed on an equal footing with truth. There is plenty of opportunity for that outside of Church venues if that's what one is seeking.

 

Well I think you're being dramatic.  no one advocates for debating tournaments or any such thing.  I'd advocate for a safe place where people can actually discuss the welfare of their souls.  Repetitive dogma practices is all the classes are.  There's no revealed truth in such practice, if you ask me. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

You didn't pay close enough attention to his post. He's talking about putting others at risk, not oneself.

He and I seem to be in perfect agreement on this. Again, Church should be a sanctuary, not a debating tournament.

On such a view anyone is putting at risk their happiness and peace of mind by interacting with other people each day.  Wishing away issues that people are dealing with is just silly. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Well I think you're being dramatic.  no one advocates for debating tournaments or any such thing.  I'd advocate for a safe place where people can actually discuss the welfare of their souls. 

Hijacking a Church venue to Indulge one's pet heresies is not promoting the welfare of souls.

Quote

Repetitive dogma practices is all the classes are.  There's no revealed truth in such practice, if you ask me. 

Revealed truth is what it is. If you regard it as "repetitive dogma," I'd say the problem is on your end.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

On such a view anyone is putting at risk their happiness and peace of mind by interacting with other people each day.  Wishing away issues that people are dealing with is just silly. 

I recognize it happens every day. I'm saying let us have those three hours on Sunday as a sanctuary from worldly error and opposition, where revealed truth can be discussed without contradiction, where the devil can be shut out for a while.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

There is a place for a more messy faith.  Perhaps it is here. And I believe Church is also such a place when it is done in a cordial way.  The challenge is keeping it cordial.  When discussion turns to debate or contention, our worship can be adversely impacted.  People do make decisions on whether they will be pushed out of Church.  It is sad whenever that happens.  It is particularly sad when a spirit of contention takes over and people who attend Church to find peace decide they are not receiving the spiritual nourishment they came for. I appreciated Stemelbow's sensitivity to that issue and how he backed off in his quorum discussion rather than cause offense.

I'm going to push back against this.  Why can't church be a place for more messy faith?  People can learn to discuss topics in respectful ways, and teachers can learn to facilitate difficult topics and creating an environment where respect is given to various differing views.  I do this all the time in a school setting when we go over and talk about controversial current events.  

It takes a little ground work, and guidance by a good facilitator, but the rewards for authenticity and the learning from the perspectives of others outweigh all the risks that you mention.  Think of these Uchtdorf quotes and how they can be applied to this discussion:

Quote

The Church is not an automobile showroom—a place to put ourselves on display so that others can admire our spirituality, capacity, or prosperity. It is more like a service center, where vehicles in need of repair come for maintenance and rehabilitation.

Quote

And are we not, all of us, in need of repair, maintenance, and rehabilitation? We come to church not to hide our problems but to heal them.”

I think many people going through faith challenges do "hide their problems" at church, precisely because of the environmental issues you express concern about.  How can a person who's questioning God, questioning the church's dominant narrative, not hide their problems at church.  I think Uchtdorf is calling us to a greater vulnerability, to a community where we discuss the problems, not where we hide them.   

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

She misspoke?  Are you sure?  She seems to be pretty clearly saying Church is a very good place to have these discussions.  I see no evidence of misspeaking here.  She seems pretty confident in her answer and never retracted. 

If I'm obliged to acknowledge that Church leaders are not infallible and, on occasion, can err, then I must be allowed to affirm in the same breath that Church functionaries, whose employee positions are not ecclesiastical callings, are at least as fallible as the ordained Church leaders whom they serve.

And yes, I'm sure. The idea that someone may appropriately turn a Church class into a debating tournament flies in the face of what I've heard in a lifetime of experience in the Church of Jesus Christ.

You were wise to back off when you did, and that is to your credit. But if I had been the instructor or the elders quorum president, and you had tried to press your point, I wouldn't have allowed it to continue.

If I were an attendee in the class and it had been allowed, I would at some point have walked out in protest.

 

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well I think you're being dramatic.  no one advocates for debating tournaments or any such thing.  I'd advocate for a safe place where people can actually discuss the welfare of their souls.  Repetitive dogma practices is all the classes are.  There's no revealed truth in such practice, if you ask me. 

In scripture, the “welfare of our souls” is a uniquely Book of Mormon reference, and is used in the following contexts:

Redemption and agency (2 Nephi 2); the ministry of Christ, the restoration, the Lord’s atonement, the gathering of the Jews, the resurrection and judgement, latter day prophecies and their fulfillment (2 Nephi 6-10); consecration (2 Nephi 32:9); persuading to believe in Christ, proper attitude toward material things, chastity, more on the previously mentioned subjects (Jacob 1-6); avoiding sin and pollution (Mosiah 25:11); and knowing God (Alma 6:6).

So when Moroni 6:5 speaks of how “the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls,” I think it has more to do with these matters covered in the Book Mormon than it does with accommodating various individual’s nuanced beliefs and discussing and sharing varying, dissenting, and unique points of view.

[Johnnie Cake]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I recognize it happens every day. I'm saying let us have those three hours on Sunday as a sanctuary from worldly error and opposition, where revealed truth can be discussed without contradiction, where the devil can be shut out for a while.

 

 

I love these "nuggets" that Scott posts from time to time that let's us see into the world of Scott Lloyd.  I respect Scott and the depth of his faith...I just have to wonder how many more years will pass until his kind of Mormonism becomes untenable.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm going to push back against this.  Why can't church be a place for more messy faith?  People can learn to discuss topics in respectful ways, and teachers can learn to facilitate difficult topics and creating an environment where respect is given to various differing views.  I do this all the time in a school setting when we go over and talk about controversial current events.  

It takes a little ground work, and guidance by a good facilitator, but the rewards for authenticity and the learning from the perspectives of others outweigh all the risks that you mention.  Think of these Uchtdorf quotes and how they can be applied to this discussion:

I think many people going through faith challenges do "hide their problems" at church, precisely because of the environmental issues you express concern about.  How can a person who's questioning God, questioning the church's dominant narrative, not hide their problems at church.  I think Uchtdorf is calling us to a greater vulnerability, to a community where we discuss the problems, not where we hide them.   

Discussing and healing are not akin to placing error on an equal footing with truth in a contentious debating environment, which I perceive is what is being advocated here.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I love these "nuggets" that Scott posts from time to time that let's us see into the world of Scott Lloyd.  I respect Scott and the depth of his faith...I just have to wonder how many more years will pass until his kind of Mormonism becomes untenable.

Don't hold your breath.

And why did you put "nuggets" in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In scripture, the “welfare of our souls” is a uniquely Book of Mormon reference, and is used in the following contexts:

Redemption and agency (2 Nephi 2); the ministry of Christ, the restoration, the Lord’s atonement, the gathering of the Jews, the resurrection and judgement, latter day prophecies and their fulfillment (2 Nephi 6-10); consecration (2 Nephi 32:9); persuading to believe in Christ, proper attitude toward material things, chastity, more on the previously mentioned subjects (Jacob 1-6); avoiding sin and pollution (Mosiah 25:11); and knowing God (Alma 6:6).

So when Moroni 6:5 speaks of how “the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls,” I think it has more to do with these matters covered in the Book Mormon than it does with accommodating various individual’s nuanced beliefs and discussing and sharing varying, dissenting, and unique points of view.

Thank you a hundred times for putting that phrase within its proper scriptural context.

[ttribe]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I recognize it happens every day. I'm saying let us have those three hours on Sunday as a sanctuary from worldly error and opposition, where revealed truth can be discussed without contradiction, where the devil can be shut out for a while.

 

 

I completely understand where you are coming from on this, and certainly agree the Church has every right to control the narrative in its meetings to be faith promoting.  I guess my one word of caution (to anyone) is that having a significantly negative reaction to people who are struggling through these issues, even openly at a Sunday meeting, will only drive them further under ground and out of attendance.  There needs to be a more compassionate way to respond than simply shutting down the discussion or stomping out in an angry huff.