LDS believers and ex-mos

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sure they catch some things and I probably did too.  It was about when I was 11, as I recall, when a stake leader came to our ward and in really dramatic and dogmatic fashion complained about science and how bad it was.  Mocked evolution and all that.  I remember thinking something like, "uh...this guy sounds upset but doesn't seem to know what the heck he's talking about".  Later that day my dad approached me and said, "I saw you during bro. So and So's talk.  You looked pretty concerned.  You ok?"  He then went on to tell me how "the Church is filled with those who have various ideas.   That it's likely the Church is going on less light and knowledge on these topics and often speaks presumptuously just as the Church does.  It's important to hear people and understand where they are coming from though."

Anyway, I like my dad's approach.  Not sure I care for this we're afraid of ideas being shared approach. 

i did a lot of scribbling and playing hangman...I listened too..but I knew the speakers that I really wanted to listen to. 

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Evidently being transgender = apostasy now.  A new Mormon stories podcast has just been release. The interview is with a former 20 year church architect who oversaw temple construction and design. She also severed as a bishop and stake president in Tooele. 

She continued to work at the COB with the full blessing of church authorities for 4 years after disclosing that she only projected a man while at work and resumed her gender away from the COB both in public and at home. 

Now she's been excommunicated 

this is a very sad but spirituality uplifting interview with Laurie Lee. She is very respectful towards her former stake councilor and the church who moved forward with her church court despite her only sin was self identifing as a female. She remains in her 34 year committed marriage to her wife

i recommend this to members of this board because she remains andlbeliever is respectful to the church and the GAs she worked closely with. I believe this is an important interview 

I am from Tooele County and familiar with the family...surprised but I can't imagine waiting until late in the years to be myself.  I hope people will be accepting and loving.  I admire that she is open and honest..many of us are not.

[stemelbow]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It's not a matter of convincing; that is clearly a personal choice. But show me where, in the scriptures, the term "welfare of our souls" is used in connection with the prophets expounding on the "difficult issues of faith," especially since the Book of Mormon was was written for our day, Moroni saw our doings, etc.

No thanks.  I'm happy to read welfare of ones soul alludes to that which reasonably can be said to be the welfare of ones soul.  I can't figure out what your hang up is here, nor does your stated objection make a lick of sense to me.  So... time to bow out

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

No thanks.  I'm happy to read welfare of ones soul alludes to that which reasonably can be said to be the welfare of ones soul.  I can't figure out what your hang up is here, nor does your stated objection make a lick of sense to me.  So... time to bow out

No one is saying that you aren’t happy with your read of it. But perhaps our exchange is an example of “missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it” as other class participants might (the “welfare of our souls” material is presented in the text a certain way, which is significant whether the book is or isn't what it claims to be), which I take to be the point of your OP. Mine was a simple request, and if this were a classroom setting, a great opportunity for you to share the Book of Mormon’s teachings on the particular matter that you think is important to your salvation, which from the OP, seems to be that someone become open to reading the Book of Mormon as myth, metaphor, or not historical.

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, its happening online, but thats not what Uchtdorf called for.  He said we should bring this to church.  Thats the missing component, local support and engagement in our ward and stake communities.  

If that is what President Uchtdorf  called for, then it will come down from the First Presidency. The manuals will be revised and guidelines will be promulgated. But I do not believe that President Uchtdorf  was talking about replacing Gospel Doctrine classes with speculation that the Book of Mormon might be better read as myth or metaphor or the like, as postulated by stemelbow. You said that was not your intent, so I would sincerely like to know what issues you would like to see discussed, what materials would be needed to be made available to everyone for their study, etc. and how you see it playing out.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

If that is what President Uchtdorf  called for, then it will come down from the First Presidency. The manuals will be revised and guidelines will be promulgated. But I do not believe that President Uchtdorf  was talking about replacing Gospel Doctrine classes with speculation that the Book of Mormon might be better read as myth or metaphor or the like, as postulated by stemelbow. You said that was not your intent, so I would sincerely like to know what issues you would like to see discussed, what materials would be needed to be made available to everyone for their study, etc. and how you see it playing out.

Glenn

You're misunderstanding me, and the message from Uchtdorf.  He's advocating for genuine expression and authenticity at church, he didn't say anything specifically about the BoM or how this should be accomplished in detail.  Will manuals be updated, etc?  I don't know.  The GAs often give talks about principles and expect members to govern themselves.  We shouldn't wait for specific marching orders to follow inspired guidance.  

As for Gospel Doctrine class, I'm planning to share that I think the BoM as metaphorical, I never said that shouldn't be shared, that is part of being authentic.  I will share it as my personal belief, and one that works for me in a positive way(this isn't speculation any more than saying the BoM is historical is speculation).  I don't like the use of the word "fiction", that is what I said earlier, as fiction is not a word I use to describe the scripture of any religious group, can you imagine how disrespectful it would be to call someone's sacred text a fiction?  That word has baggage.  

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You're misunderstanding me, and the message from Uchtdorf.  He's advocating for genuine expression and authenticity at church, he didn't say anything specifically about the BoM or how this should be accomplished in detail.  Will manuals be updated, etc?  I don't know.  The GAs often give talks about principles and expect members to govern themselves.  We shouldn't wait for specific marching orders to follow inspired guidance.  

I may be misunderstanding you, but I do not believe I am misunderstanding President Uchtdorf's message. His talk about being genuine was more about discarding facades, promoting pictures of ourselves that make us look better than we are, for the sake of appearances.

I would like to add another quote from the talk:

Quote

Whether your testimony is thriving and healthy or your activity in the Church more closely resembles a Potemkin village, the good news is that you can build on whatever strength you have. Here in the Church of Jesus Christ you can mature spiritually and draw closer to the Savior by applying gospel principles day by day.
With patience and persistence, even the smallest act of discipleship or the tiniest ember of belief can become a blazing bonfire of a consecrated life. In fact, that’s how most bonfires begin—as a simple spark.
So if you feel small and weak, please simply come unto Christ, who makes weak things strong. The weakest among us, through God’s grace, can become spiritually strong, because God “is no respecter of persons.” He is our “faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments.”

I have edited this to add a link to another talk by President Uchtdorf where he talks about building a testimony and how important it is.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/receiving-a-testimony-of-light-and-truth?lang=eng

I hope that those who think that his talk on being genuine was inspired will also believe that this talk is inspired. As always, one should not take one talk or quote out of context but rather the corpus of talks produced on such subjects to really understand a person's viewpoints.

 

Glenn

Edited July 21, 2017 by Glenn101
added a link to another talk.

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I may be misunderstanding you, but I do not believe I am misunderstanding President Uchtdorf's message. His talk about being genuine was more about discarding facades, promoting pictures of ourselves that make us look better than we are, for the sake of appearances.

I would like to add another quote from the talk:

I have edited this to add a link to another talk by President Uchtdorf where he talks about building a testimony and how important it is.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/receiving-a-testimony-of-light-and-truth?lang=eng

I hope that those who think that his talk on being genuine was inspired will also believe that this talk is inspired. As always, one should not take one talk or quote out of context but rather the corpus of talks produced on such subjects to really understand a person's viewpoints.

Glenn

Thanks that helps me understand better your perspective.  I think I get what you're saying, but I disagree with you that the principles he's espousing are prescribed in as narrow a fashion as you're interpreting.  Testimony is a broad definition, I consider myself having an expanded testimony of God today than what I used to have and this expanded testimony isn't at all certain or specific.

Context is important, but its also important to not limit a principle to certain prescriptive situations.  The most important principles are guidelines that point us in a good direction and broadly without specific conditions.  

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks that helps me understand better your perspective.  I think I get what you're saying, but I disagree with you that the principles he's espousing are prescribed in as narrow a fashion as you're interpreting.  Testimony is a broad definition, I consider myself having an expanded testimony of God today than what I used to have and this expanded testimony isn't at all certain or specific.

Context is important, but its also important to not limit a principle to certain prescriptive situations.  The most important principles are guidelines that point us in a good direction and broadly without specific conditions.  

Thanks for your input. We do disagree, but we have done so respectfully.

I am not sure I understand your last statement. The Gospel of Christ offers us some guidelines but Christ also differs with you when He said that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." And He did attach some conditions. DO you think Jesus was wrong to do so?

Glenn

Edited July 21, 2017 by Glenn101
clarified my last statement

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 4:08 PM, CV75 said:

No one is saying that you aren’t happy with your read of it. But perhaps our exchange is an example of “missing some great meaning and application of scripture by not being open to reading it” as other class participants might (the “welfare of our souls” material is presented in the text a certain way, which is significant whether the book is or isn't what it claims to be), which I take to be the point of your OP. Mine was a simple request, and if this were a classroom setting, a great opportunity for you to share the Book of Mormon’s teachings on the particular matter that you think is important to your salvation, which from the OP, seems to be that someone become open to reading the Book of Mormon as myth, metaphor, or not historical.

I'd be game, I just can't make sense of what you are even asking. 

Earlier you referenced 2 Ne 2.  In that chapter, at the end, the phrase comes up:

Quote

I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen.

You seem to be wanting to point out that the BoM doesn't say one's welfare of their souls should not include difficult topics of faith, doctrine, history so it shouldn't be discussed in Church.  But I can't tell, to be honest.  Are you saying since the BoM, when it uses welfare of our souls, doesn't talk about difficult issues of faith, doctrine, history, we should not think we can talk about that which troubles our souls in Church? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'd be game, I just can't make sense of what you are even asking. 

Earlier you referenced 2 Ne 2.  In that chapter, at the end, the phrase comes up:

You seem to be wanting to point out that the BoM doesn't say one's welfare of their souls should not include difficult topics of faith, doctrine, history so it shouldn't be discussed in Church.  But I can't tell, to be honest.  Are you saying since the BoM, when it uses welfare of our souls, doesn't talk about difficult issues of faith, doctrine, history, we should not think we can talk about that which troubles our souls in Church? 

I’m saying that whenever “welfare of your souls” is brought up in the Book or Mormon (the only book of scripture where the phrase is used), it is in relation to the essential topics that, when trusted and acted upon, ensure our spiritual welfare. I listed them a few posts ago, and none pertain to the non-essential matters such as fallibility of prophets, alleged wrongs, historicity of scripture, the nature of scripture, politics, history, societal pressures, social justice and civil rights, etc. that people find troubling.

The Book of Mormon prophets’ examples show that addressing the welfare of our souls is accomplished through a positive focus on the redemption and all the promises and prophecies that flow from it, and that understanding and applying these things will help people address their troubling distractions. Focusing on what contributes to the welfare of our souls helps settle our struggles with the things that detract from it.

An example is: The Book of Mormon has principles that help the welfare of our souls, so why discuss its historicity, the fallibility of its translator and his successors and their associates, and so forth and so on, rather than the edifying principles themselves, which are far more important and essential to live by?

I believe that talking about what troubles our souls on a personal level publicly at Church on Sunday requires good judgement as to the venue, the forum, the motive, and the relationships in the who-what-when-where-why-and-how of the sharing and discussion. Challenging people on their position on the non-essentials on the is not the way to help them focus on that which does contribute to the welfare of their souls, and everybody in the class, whether it is apparent or not, needs that.

Privately, I think it is good to let it all hang out with people you trust.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

I’m saying that whenever “welfare of your souls” is brought up in the Book or Mormon (the only book of scripture where the phrase is used), it is in relation to the essential topics that, when trusted and acted upon, ensure our spiritual welfare. I listed them a few posts ago, and none pertain to the non-essential matters such as fallibility of prophets, alleged wrongs, historicity of scripture, the nature of scripture, politics, history, societal pressures, social justice and civil rights, etc. that people find troubling.

And I say so?  That doesn't mean that which pertains to the welfare of another's soul is not tons more than those topics.  the welfare of one's soul could be nearly anything, including the essential matters of fallibility of prophets, alleged wrongs, historicity of scripture, the nature of scripture, politics, history, societal pressures et al.

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

 

The Book of Mormon prophets’ examples show that addressing the welfare of our souls is accomplished through a positive focus on the redemption and all the promises and prophecies that flow from it, and that understanding and applying these things will help people address their troubling distractions. Focusing on what contributes to the welfare of our souls helps settle our struggles with the things that detract from it.

We simply don't know what all pertains to the welfare of another's soul.  let him/her make that decision. 

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

 

An example is: The Book of Mormon has principles that help the welfare of our souls, so why discuss its historicity, the fallibility of its translator and his successors and their associates, and so forth and so on, rather than the edifying principles themselves, which are far more important and essential to live by?

Because it's just as edifying or moreso to discuss historicity, or the fallibility of the translator. 

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

 

I believe that talking about what troubles our souls on a personal level publicly at Church on Sunday requires good judgement as to the venue, the forum, the motive, and the relationships in the who-what-when-where-why-and-how of the sharing and discussion. Challenging people on their position on the non-essentials on the is not the way to help them focus on that which does contribute to the welfare of their souls, and everybody in the class, whether it is apparent or not, needs that.

 

Privately, I think it is good to let it all hang out with people you trust.

 

K.  I believe people should be free to decide for themselves whether it's good or not for he/she as the individual to discuss that which is the welfare of his/her soul. 

Thanks for the clarification.  I'm more clear on where you're coming from. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Thanks for your input. We do disagree, but we have done so respectfully.

I am not sure I understand your last statement. The Gospel of Christ offers us some guidelines but Christ also differs with you when He said that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." And He did attach some conditions. DO you think Jesus was wrong to do so?

Glenn

Quote

13 ‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

We get these words from Matthew, so remembering that Jesus didn't write anything and we don't know who Matthew was and his writings were 2-3 generations after Jesus lived, what do we know about the author.  He was likely writing to a Jewish audience, and as a synoptic he's borrowing from Mark much of the gospel narrative and that he's likening Jesus to a royal Lord with prophetic heritage, a modern Moses or Elijah, but greater than those.  He's also painstakingly connecting passages from the Hebrew Bible to symbolize Jesus.  

Here's some interesting commentary I found online about this passage.  

Quote

The Old Testament contains several references to diverging ways that force the traveler to choose between two paths (e.g., Deut. 30:15, 19; Ps. 1; Jer. 21:8). The AV translation “straight” is a bit misleading. That translation reflected the Latin strictum meaning narrow, and it probably contributed to the common idea of “the straight and narrow.” However the Greek word stene clearly means narrow as contrasted with broad. The word “small” (v. 14, Gr. tethlimmene) relates closely to the Greek word thlipsis meaning tribulation. Thus Jesus was saying that the narrow restricting gate has connections with persecution, a major theme in Matthew’s Gospel (cf. 5:10-12, 44; 10:16-39; 11:11-12; 24:4-13; Acts 14:22).[389]

The narrow road leads to life, namely, life in the kingdom (cf. vv. 21-22). The broad road leads to destruction, namely, death and hell (cf. 25:34, 46; John 17:12; Rom. 9:22: Phil. 1:28; 3:19; 1 Tim. 6:9; Heb. 10:39; 2 Pet. 2:1, 3; 3:16; Rev. 17:8, 11). Few will enter the kingdom compared with the many who will perish. Jesus clearly did not believe in the doctrine of universalism that is growing in popularity today, the belief that everyone will eventually end up in heaven (cf. John 14:6). Entrance through the narrow gate onto the narrow way will eventually lead a person into the kingdom. The beginning of a life of discipleship (the gate) and the process of discipleship (the way) are both restrictive and both involve persecution.

“Gate is mentioned for the benefit of those who were not true followers; way is mentioned as a definition of the life of the disciples of Jesus. This is why Matthew uses the word ‘gate’ (pule) while Luke employs the word ‘door’ (thura, Luke 13:24). Luke is concerned primarily with salvation. Here the King desires subjects for His kingdom, so He uses a word which implies a path is to be followed after entrance into life.”[390]

Only a few people would find the way to life (v. 14). As we noted earlier, Israel’s leaders were lethargic about seeking the Messiah (2:7-8). Many of the Jews were evidently not seeking the kingdom either.

My interpretation differs from this, but I thought it would be interesting to show.  I'm persuaded that the Jesus commonly portrayed in the synoptic gospels is not talking about heaven and hell as some kind of afterlife.  He's speaking of bringing the kingdom, right now, on earth, to this current generation, in this lifetime.  In my mind, his call to life in this scripture is a call to abundant life here on earth and he's saying that many aren't living an abundant life, because they aren't willing to sacrifice, they aren't willing to set aside the easy path and do what's hard through serving others, giving up their selfish impulses and experiencing the transformation thats found when we let go of our weakness and follow a higher path, this is the path that few find, not because few will make it into heaven in the next life (notice those scriptures say nothing about heaven or hell or the afterlife), but few find and experience an abundant life.  

That said, "this few that find it" doesn't have to be reality, I believe in a God and a Jesus that is calling EVERYONE of us to life, not saying that only a certain % can make it.   Everyone can experience it, his arms are wide open and welcoming us to live this way, there are no restrictions from God, only limitations we perceive ourselves, we can overcome these.  

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

And I say so?  That doesn't mean that which pertains to the welfare of another's soul is not tons more than those topics.  the welfare of one's soul could be nearly anything, including the essential matters of fallibility of prophets, alleged wrongs, historicity of scripture, the nature of scripture, politics, history, societal pressures et al.

We simply don't know what all pertains to the welfare of another's soul.  let him/her make that decision. 

Because it's just as edifying or moreso to discuss historicity, or the fallibility of the translator. 

K.  I believe people should be free to decide for themselves whether it's good or not for he/she as the individual to discuss that which is the welfare of his/her soul. 

Thanks for the clarification.  I'm more clear on where you're coming from. 

What is the more significant topic, or the more effective principle in overcoming a struggle, than the Lord’s redemption -- the things that one allows to stand in the way? We know how much fun that is!

Of course it is left up to the person to decide what pertains to the welfare of his soul, and what to discuss in relation thereto, but the Book of Mormon teachings are very informative on this point. And of course it is edifying to some to take a detour from those things, and to discuss them in such a way or with such expectations that they repeatedly leave such discussions complaining about not being validated, ironically to the detriment of the welfare of their souls.

[Glenn101]

On 7/21/2017 at 5:05 PM, hope_for_things said:

That said, "this few that find it" doesn't have to be reality, I believe in a God and a Jesus that is calling EVERYONE of us to life, not saying that only a certain % can make it.   Everyone can experience it, his arms are wide open and welcoming us to live this way, there are no restrictions from God, only limitations we perceive ourselves, we can overcome these.  

That is what a lot of people want to believe. You have to be selective in your scripture readings and interpretations., and reject modern day revelations and words of the apostles. Are thses the things that you are advocating discussing in LDS meeting?

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

On 7/22/2017 at 5:52 PM, Glenn101 said:

That is what a lot of people want to believe. You have to be selective in your scripture readings and interpretations., and reject modern day revelations and words of the apostles. Are thses the things that you are advocating discussing in LDS meeting?

Glenn

Honestly, everyone is selective of scripture readings and interpretations including these modern day words of apostles.  We have a rich tradition in Mormonism and in Christianity of reinterpreting and selectively emphasizing the elements that ring true to our personal sensibilities.  And I try to not be shy with respect to sharing my perspectives in a thoughtful way, at church or outside of it.