Uncomfortable at church - any suggestions?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s the attitudes of fundamentalist Christians that are similar to some of the more orthodox strands of Mormonism.  A deference to authority, the Bible for fundamentalist Christians and the hierarchy for Mormons. The literalist interpretations of scriptures, the millenarian views, the fear of science, the strict policing of sexuality, patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, aligning with the extreme right politically.  There are many similarities between the two groups.  I honestly don’t fit into the fundamentalist mindset.

 It has nothing to do with specific theological interpretations and everything to do with culture and ideological parallels.  

I do not see fundamentalism as "orthodox" at all 

It is sectarian Protestant culture invading a church based on personal revelation.  Remember Joseph had a little problem with the fundamentalism of his day. 

There are so many Protestant sects arguing with each other precisely because they are NOT "orthodox"- if they were, they would be unified.  There's new doctrine on every street corner!

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So if I attended and brought up Evolution there would be no problem right?

Absolutely not, if the Sunday School class involves the  Genesis creation story. But certainly Jesus also referred the Creation of marriage and Noah, and so there could be possibilities for the topic to come up.

Edited May 8, 2018 by LittleNipper

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not see fundamentalism as "orthodox" at all 

It is sectarian Protestant culture invading a church based on personal revelation.  Remember Joseph had a little problem with the fundamentalism of his day. 

There are so many Protestant sects arguing with each other precisely because they are NOT "orthodox"- if they were, they would be unified.  There's new doctrine on every street corner!

Christian Fundamentalism is based solely on the authority of inerrant scripture and its interpretation as provided to saved individuals from the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit. There are of course various denominations  that were enlightened at various times in various countries to highlight various devine aspects of the Holy Scripture or reawaken spirituality which had grown cold... Joseph Smith visited the Methodist church. He may have become a Methodist minister; however, he had greater aspirations for himself leaving orthodoxy behind. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by LittleNipper

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Nothing disingenuous from my vantage point.  I’ve always tried to teach principles that resonated to be true to me.  Most teachers I’ve met over the years do the same, they emphasize principles that they feel strongly about.  Orthodox believers do this as well.  

I’m not sure why this puts me into some dangerous category that you or anyone should fear.  Heck, I know that my kids are much more likely to be taught shallow black and white thinking at church and I still allow them to attend.  People should encounter a diversity of opinions in life, thats much better than a group think echo chamber.  

As I said, don’t misconstrue what I said. Dangerous is not my word. Disingenuous is the better word. Presumptuous comes to mind. Group think is an interesting term.

Faith, repentance, charity, prayer, scriptures, preparation for baptism, covenants, family, Priesthood, obedience, resurrection, honesty, respect for life, the Articles of Faith....not my idea of black and white shallow thinking. More like the firm foundation. I expect these things to be emphasized when my kids are taught in church, not a diversity of private opinions. There’s plenty of room for that later. And you are more than welcome to take that course with your own family, of course.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

would hope that  too, but unfortunately in my experience that  is not the case.

These callings often go to new converts or  people who are perceived to  be unable to "handle anything else".  Teenagers perhaps, young adults, but in my experience seldom "spiritually mature".

Yes the leadership will be in that category, but not necessarily  the "primary workers"

Of course. On the other hand, I would not appreciate the teacher undermining or subverting at church what we are trying to teach in our home.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s the attitudes of fundamentalist Christians that are similar to some of the more orthodox strands of Mormonism.  A deference to authority, the Bible for fundamentalist Christians and the hierarchy for Mormons. The literalist interpretations of scriptures, the millenarian views, the fear of science, the strict policing of sexuality, patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, aligning with the extreme right politically.  There are many similarities between the two groups.  I honestly don’t fit into the fundamentalist mindset.

 It has nothing to do with specific theological interpretations and everything to do with culture and ideological parallels.  

The Biblical truth is that GOD CREATED Adam and EVE. Far from promoting sexlessness, GOD embraced the differences between men and women HE instilled. There is nothing wrong with a man being a man or a woman being a woman. The problems arise when one insist that men and women are exactly the same and all one needs to do is teach that men and women are the very same. Homophobia is a term quoted by those who wish to redirect sin they imagine society invented. Science is the friend of everyone open to freedom of investigation, thought, and discussion; however, that involves freedom of religious considerations as well. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

The Biblical truth is that GOD CREATED Adam and EVE. Far from promoting sexlessness, GOD embraced the differences between men and women HE instilled. There is nothing wrong with a man being a man or a woman being a woman. The problems arise when one insist that men and women are exactly the same and all one needs to do is teach that men and women are the very same. Homophobia is a term quoted by those who wish to redirect sin they imagine society invented. Science is the friend of everyone open to freedom of investigation, thought, and discussion; however, that involves freedom of religious considerations as well. 

I am trying to understand your point.  Gay people don't think that men and women are exactly the same.  Obviously if men and women were exactly the same they wouldn't be attracted only to their own sex.  It has nothing to do with being homophobic.

 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Christian Fundamentalism is based solely on the authority of inerrant scripture and its interpretation as provided to saved individuals from the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

So which scripture is right?

2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for ^ahorses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty ^athousand stalls of ^bhorses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

1 Kings 10:26 And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen: and he had a ^athousand and four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen, whom he bestowed in the cities for chariots, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Not even Egypt had 40,000 chariots or stalls. That is a huge number, and contradicts other scriptures. There are some other examples of errors. 

Quote

There are of course various denominations  that were enlightened at various times in various countries to highlight various devine aspects of the Holy Scripture or reawaken spirituality which had grown cold... Joseph Smith visited the Methodist church. He may have become a Methodist minister; however, he had greater aspirations for himself leaving orthodoxy behind. 

I think Joseph's greatest aspiration is that he wanted to worship God in truth. "Orthodoxy" despite meaning "truth" can't seem to decide what that truth is - it varies from denomination to denomination. Probably my greatest connection to Joseph is that I share this aspiration. There is a scripture on point. 

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Joseph was willing to search out truth with God, rather than to accept teachings of man. That truth is imbedded in my signature below. The concealed things of God cannot be found within Methodism. It accepted too much of the old theology rather than scriptural truth.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not gonna argue BUT there is nothing wrong or untrue about metaphors BEING THE "rule book for life"

Everything that is written to me IS a metaphor anyway.   If it's written it is not "things as they are" because words themselves are metaphors. 

Things as they are are directly as we experience them.  I suppose we could write RED  BLUE  GREEN or ORANGE and them NOT be metaphors but it's a little hard to do that with "chair" or "God"!

They don't fit very well into being letter-sized.

The only bad OR good is in the interpretation of the metaphor- and you get to create your own interpretation anyway,  so that bad you put into it OR the good you put into it is all inside your noggin anyway, just like the color is!  

Not saying there are not bad metaphors that lead you in the wrong direction but I think they are not found in the scriptures or else humankind would not have defined them AS scripture.

Kind of like the rules of morality

We may want to tweak the 10 commandments contextually but even followed by the letter of the metaphor they won't lead you astray.  They have evolved as the rules for humanity because they work- OR you can see them as God breathed if you want- both views are metaphors but both will lead us to a better life, not a worse one.

Commit adultery and you just might run into a jealous husband or your wife who will not help you have a happy life.  Steal something and end up in jail.  Society just cannot tolerate that stuff.

Worship the wrong God (put your faith in action into a worthless pursuit) and your life will be wasted.

Just sayin'. 

Now THAT is pure Pragmatism.    Follow the plan and be happy.  Don't follow it and get messed up.  Pretty simple stuff.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I would make a distinction between the kinds of metaphors that I was talking about (stories about the experiences of life that have meaning and value in a practical application) vs. how you're extending that word metaphor to mean virtually any subjective description in language.  

It ultimately does come down to interpretation, I agree with you, but most religious followers would not agree with that.  They want to hold to something more objectively real and not tied to a subjective interpretation.  People on this board want to assert objective truth for the religion of their tribe (Mormonism), and they not only want to claim that their tribe is the best religion for them, but that it has some kind of universal superiority.  

I'm down with the pragmatism, but pure pragmatism doesn't play favorites along tribal lines, and many people here are so engrossed by their tribal instincts to the point that they only see these things that you're describing on those terms.  

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not see fundamentalism as "orthodox" at all 

It is sectarian Protestant culture invading a church based on personal revelation.  Remember Joseph had a little problem with the fundamentalism of his day. 

There are so many Protestant sects arguing with each other precisely because they are NOT "orthodox"- if they were, they would be unified.  There's new doctrine on every street corner!

I would agree with you technically its not orthodox to the early Mormon church.  I see Mormon fundamentalism as the dominant strain for active LDS in the late 20th century.  This is an overly simplistic description and I'm admitting that there is much more diversity within Mormonism, however, I see this as the dominant driving enforced through correlation and exhibited by the top leaders of the church.  For whatever reason the more conservative voices seem to have had their views take center stage, (McKonkies, JFS, Benson) while less conservative elements are present yet seemingly not as influential on mainstream active members.  

I also agree there are a gazillion different orthodoxies out there in Christianity, however they seem to have enough unity despite their differences to have a major influence on elections in the USA.  

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

As I said, don’t misconstrue what I said. Dangerous is not my word. Disingenuous is the better word. Presumptuous comes to mind. Group think is an interesting term.

Faith, repentance, charity, prayer, scriptures, preparation for baptism, covenants, family, Priesthood, obedience, resurrection, honesty, respect for life, the Articles of Faith....not my idea of black and white shallow thinking. More like the firm foundation. I expect these things to be emphasized when my kids are taught in church, not a diversity of private opinions. There’s plenty of room for that later. And you are more than welcome to take that course with your own family, of course.

One mans firm foundation looks like a pile of sand from a different perspective.  Ultimately this all comes down to what people like yourself want to do with us heretics.  I'm not calling you out and saying your voice as an orthodox member should be silenced or saying that your motives are disingenuous or treating you with any kind of suspicion or disdain. 

It seems to me that the gospel message tells us how we should treat others including those we disagree with and have differences of opinion with.  I wish you the best, but I don't want this message thread to become about how you view my perspectives and whether you think I'm a threat to people at church because of my views.  

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

The Biblical truth is that GOD CREATED Adam and EVE. Far from promoting sexlessness, GOD embraced the differences between men and women HE instilled. There is nothing wrong with a man being a man or a woman being a woman. The problems arise when one insist that men and women are exactly the same and all one needs to do is teach that men and women are the very same. Homophobia is a term quoted by those who wish to redirect sin they imagine society invented. Science is the friend of everyone open to freedom of investigation, thought, and discussion; however, that involves freedom of religious considerations as well. 

Your interpretation of what you think about God really has very little to do with what the many authors who wrote sections of the bible were trying to say or what their perspectives were of their experiences with God.  

People throughout history have used the idea of God and interpretation of scripture to justify all kinds of morally problematic behaviors including wars, slavery, murder, torture, destruction, misogyny, rape, racism, discrimination, etc.  The list is very long and it will continue.  Is God the source of all this evil?   

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

One mans firm foundation looks like a pile of sand from a different perspective.  Ultimately this all comes down to what people like yourself want to do with us heretics.  I'm not calling you out and saying your voice as an orthodox member should be silenced or saying that your motives are disingenuous or treating you with any kind of suspicion or disdain. 

It seems to me that the gospel message tells us how we should treat others including those we disagree with and have differences of opinion with.  I wish you the best, but I don't want this message thread to become about how you view my perspectives and whether you think I'm a threat to people at church because of my views.  

hope_for_things, I think you are wise to accept Bernard's voice, though.  In my greatest years of struggle in the ways you describe in this thread, I got tremendous push back from voices like Bernard.  It took me a while to realize that they didn't just disagree (which is the way I was viewing it) but they saw me as far too dangerous to tolerate (I realize Bernard prefers to use disingenuous over dangerous, but I can't help that's the impression I get from this).  In truth he has the backing of the general leadership in his position because no matter the genuineness of your view it still conflicts, when you get down to it, with the majority message coming from the top leadership.  I'm not at all saying you have no place, because somehow and in some way I think there is some place, but I am saying the realization my wife and I came to was too many didn't want to tolerate us.  I mean no one would stop us from coming, but the degree to which we were unwelcome was too high for us to tolerate (seems like a fair way to put it--since I mentioned the intolerance from the other perspective).  

[mfbukowski]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would agree with you technically its not orthodox to the early Mormon church.  I see Mormon fundamentalism as the dominant strain for active LDS in the late 20th century.  This is an overly simplistic description and I'm admitting that there is much more diversity within Mormonism, however, I see this as the dominant driving enforced through correlation and exhibited by the top leaders of the church.  For whatever reason the more conservative voices seem to have had their views take center stage, (McKonkies, JFS, Benson) while less conservative elements are present yet seemingly not as influential on mainstream active members.  

I also agree there are a gazillion different orthodoxies out there in Christianity, however they seem to have enough unity despite their differences to have a major influence on elections in the USA.  

I agree completely

I think it was a combination of the fact that virtually all the converts brought their Protestant culture with them and half of it stuck- I have seen many LDS converts from Mexico bringing with them Catholic practices.  I heard a story recently about a bishop in a Spanish ward who dedicated a grave with arms outstretched in a Catholic-like gesture while he said the LDS formatted prayer perfectly in Spanish but of course the gesture was not LDS at all.  It happens- when you grow up with certain things they remain

Besides cultural factors, there was persecution by self-styled "Christians" with their "orthodoxy".  We see that right on this thread from Little Nipper.

And of course we want to be "Christian" because we ARE the true church of Christ on the earth but they have co-opted the word.

We are so interested in being like them that we have arguments about being saved by faith or grace just to convince then that we ARE "Christian" but it is futile.  But slowly it ends up in comparing ourselves to them so we end up thinking about the similarities and differences and try to resolve them.

THAT I think was the problem in the late 20th century- we were trying to RESOLVE our "Christianity" because the word was dead.

Christianity is dead, long live Christianity!  But the problem is the word- we need unfortunately to forget the word because it no longer represents the true church of Christ

The dogmatism of fundamentalism and hellfire preaching was never the church of a forgiving Savior and loving Heavenly Father and is the church that Neitzsche declared dead, and its god as well, but that never was the true church or the true God.

So we have the cultural aspects and the desire to be like sectarians that have brought us to this point and it is time to give up childish things and grow into the church based on personal revelation that understands that theistic humanism based on the freedom to choose one's destiny and create our matter unorganized into our own world is what can be the church which will roll forward to fill the earth.

But unfortunately we have to acknowledge that the word has been stolen from us and we will probably never get it back.

We ARE the Church of Jesus Christ here on earth today and the other "C" word is no longer relevant to humanity because it hates humanity and always has.

Edited May 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

One mans firm foundation looks like a pile of sand from a different perspective.  Ultimately this all comes down to what people like yourself want to do with us heretics.  I'm not calling you out and saying your voice as an orthodox member should be silenced or saying that your motives are disingenuous or treating you with any kind of suspicion or disdain. 

It seems to me that the gospel message tells us how we should treat others including those we disagree with and have differences of opinion with.  I wish you the best, but I don't want this message thread to become about how you view my perspectives and whether you think I'm a threat to people at church because of my views.  

No, it has everything to do with teaching our children in our church. It’s sad you don’t get that. No one has said you are a threat. Please. Disingenuous, presumptuous yes. Haven’t you made your disaffection and dislike of the Church a center piece of your participation here, yet here you are proposing to teach your perceptions to our children in Primary? That’s very conflicted. Why would you even entertain the idea?

Edited May 8, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Your interpretation of what you think about God really has very little to do with what the many authors who wrote sections of the bible were trying to say or what their perspectives were of their experiences with God.  

People throughout history have used the idea of God and interpretation of scripture to justify all kinds of morally problematic behaviors including wars, slavery, murder, torture, destruction, misogyny, rape, racism, discrimination, etc.  The list is very long and it will continue.  Is God the source of all this evil?   

Exactly.

That god is dead- or more accurately, never lived.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, it has everything to do with teaching our children in our church. It’s sad you don’t get that. No one has said you are a threat. Please. Disingenuous, presumptuous yes. 

I understand threat here, but not disingenuous.  Seems like a hefty tag to put on someone.  If the Bishop knowing 'hope_for_things perspective calls him to teach in primary, why jump to the conclusion of him being disingenuous?  He's wanting to help.  He's likely going to be monitored, as men can sit in a classroom alone with the kids.  I'm not seeing a legitimate concern on this.  

Now if you feared he'd mislead the kids or something, that'd make more sense.  

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

One mans firm foundation looks like a pile of sand from a different perspective.  Ultimately this all comes down to what people like yourself want to do with us heretics.  I'm not calling you out and saying your voice as an orthodox member should be silenced or saying that your motives are disingenuous or treating you with any kind of suspicion or disdain. 

It seems to me that the gospel message tells us how we should treat others including those we disagree with and have differences of opinion with.  I wish you the best, but I don't want this message thread to become about how you view my perspectives and whether you think I'm a threat to people at church because of my views.  

Ah think what we have heah is a fail-ure to commun-icate

Ain't nobody wrong, jest not commun-icatin.

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

hope_for_things, I think you are wise to accept Bernard's voice, though.  In my greatest years of struggle in the ways you describe in this thread, I got tremendous push back from voices like Bernard.  It took me a while to realize that they didn't just disagree (which is the way I was viewing it) but they saw me as far too dangerous to tolerate (I realize Bernard prefers to use disingenuous over dangerous, but I can't help that's the impression I get from this).  In truth he has the backing of the general leadership in his position because no matter the genuineness of your view it still conflicts, when you get down to it, with the majority message coming from the top leadership.  I'm not at all saying you have no place, because somehow and in some way I think there is some place, but I am saying the realization my wife and I came to was too many didn't want to tolerate us.  I mean no one would stop us from coming, but the degree to which we were unwelcome was too high for us to tolerate (seems like a fair way to put it--since I mentioned the intolerance from the other perspective).  

Stem,

This has been my experience as well, and honestly is one of the key contributing factors that causes a struggle with feeling comfortable at church.  Here is reality as I see it, and why I don't think Bernard or others of similar opinion should be voicing concern. 

1.  There is already a diversity of thought at church, and more of it is on the fundamentalist side of things than where I'm coming from.  I have concerns about the ultra orthodox extremists in church with respect to my kids and what they are exposed to.  I mentioned this earlier, but it wasn't taken seriously, and it should be.  There are a lot of crazy people in our wards, whether its end time preppers or deep doctrine/polygamy sympathizers, or science deniers who eschew medicine, or superstitious fanatics, I've encountered more of all these kinds of people than I've ever encountered the liberal/progressive types like myself.  

2.  In point #1, I'm not calling for extreme policing measures or litmus tests to solve the problems of extreme views people have and share in church.  Quite the contrary, I think freedom of thought is a core value we need to embrace.  People just need to wake up and realize that they can't control the message tightly, that there is a diversity of thoughts out there, and that a cafeteria approach to Mormonism is the way everyone does Mormonism, its just that some people are honest and aware they are approaching things cafeteria style and others either have no clue or are frustrated by that description so they deny the obvious.  

Lastly, if a core principle of the gospel is to love and include and serve others, then we need to show that principle with our actions.  That seems to be the most pressing message of Jesus, to bring all the marginalized into the fold.  Do people want the Valjean approach or the Javier approach?  If I'm wanting to be a part of the group, and I'm contributing in thoughtful and positive ways, then both a certain amount of trust and of tolerance needs to exist.  

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I understand threat here, but not disingenuous.  Seems like a hefty tag to put on someone.  If the Bishop knowing 'hope_for_things perspective calls him to teach in primary, why jump to the conclusion of him being disingenuous?  He's wanting to help.  He's likely going to be monitored, as men can sit in a classroom alone with the kids.  I'm not seeing a legitimate concern on this.  

Now if you feared he'd mislead the kids or something, that'd make more sense.  

We don’t send our kids to Church to be instructed by folks who oppose the Church. That’s not too hard to understand. Disingenuous describes the attitude of someone who would do such a thing. That would be an unwise move by a bishop. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah think what we have heah is a fail-ure to commun-icate

Ain't nobody wrong, jest not commun-icatin.

I’ve been talking about non-believers or critics teaching our Primary kids. Something not right about that. I can eat 50 eggs.

[hope_for_things]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree completely

I think it was a combination of the fact that virtually all the converts brought their Protestant culture with them and half of it stuck- I have seen many LDS converts from Mexico bringing with them Catholic practices.  I heard a story recently about a bishop in a Spanish ward who dedicated a grave with arms outstretched in a Catholic-like gesture while he said the LDS formatted prayer perfectly in Spanish but of course the gesture was not LDS at all.  It happens- when you grow up with certain things they remain

Besides cultural factors, there was persecution by self-styled "Christians" with their "orthodoxy".  We see that right on this thread from Little Nipper.

And of course we want to be "Christian" because we ARE the true church of Christ on the earth but they have co-opted the word.

We are so interested in being like them that we have arguments about being saved by faith or grace just to convince then that we ARE "Christian" but it is futile.  But slowly it ends up in comparing ourselves to them so we end up thinking about the similarities and differences and try to resolve them.

THAT I think was the problem in the late 20th century- we were trying to RESOLVE our "Christianity" because the word was dead.

Christianity is dead, long live Christianity!  But the problem is the word- we need unfortunately to forget the word because it no longer represents the true church of Christ

The dogmatism of fundamentalism and hellfire preaching was never the church of a forgiving Savior and loving Heavenly Father and is the church that Neitzsche declared dead, and its god as well, but that never was the true church or the true God.

So we have the cultural aspects and the desire to be like sectarians that have brought us to this point and it is time to give up childish things and grow into the church based on personal revelation that understands that theistic humanism based on the freedom to choose one's destiny and create our matter unorganized into our own world is what can be the church which will roll forward to fill the earth.

But unfortunately we have to acknowledge that the word has been stolen from us and we will probably never get it back.

We ARE the Church of Jesus Christ here on earth today and the other "C" word is no longer relevant to humanity because it hates humanity and always has.

I agree with just about everything.  I'm by no means well read on Neitzsche, but I would expound on his view and say that the religion and God that is dead is the God of supernaturalism, of tribalism, of exclusive truth claims, of corporatism, of superiority, of classism, of racism, of sexism, of genderism, etc.  These Gods are dead, and we should bury them and leave them buried.  

The label of Christianity has been used and abused and misused so much, its hard to try and just use it today when it has so much baggage.  It means something entirely different to me than it does to so many others.  I think sometimes that we need craft new symbols so we can leave the cankers on the old symbols behind.  There is much good from our history, but we need to sort out the good from the bad so that we don't keep repeating the mistakes of the past.  

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, it has everything to do with teaching our children in our church. It’s sad you don’t get that. No one has said you are a threat. Please. Disingenuous, presumptuous yes. 

So because my views are "disingenuous, presumptuous," then you should restrict me from teaching the kids by all means.  

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We don’t send our kids to Church to be instructed by folks who oppose the Church. That’s not too hard to understand. Disingenuous describes the attitude of someone who would do such a thing. That would be an unwise move by a bishop. 

Ok.  That was my bishop's attempted solution too (calling me to the primary).  I declined the calling though for reasons you state--but with different descriptors.  To me those who worried I'd be teaching their kids had fear, saw a threat.  I don't know if they would describe it that way or not, but the messages I got was exactly that.  I get that to many members the world is black and white (the counselor in our bishopric just after all of this clarified, "it is all black or white...there is no gray").  To me, I never saw myself as opposing the Church, even now.  I might not agree with certain teachings, practices or policies, sure.  But it seems to me everyone I've ever met has disagreed to some extent or another too.  

Anyway, I can appreciate that for many there is a very strong need to remain exclusive...to bottle up and close up.   But, I just wanted to point out, that seems more out of fear than it is the level of genuineness of those who disagree and see things working out differently.  

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We don’t send our kids to Church to be instructed by folks who oppose the Church. That’s not too hard to understand. Disingenuous describes the attitude of someone who would do such a thing. That would be an unwise move by a bishop. 

Another description for people like me would be a wolf in sheep's clothing.   Gotta keep me away from the kids.  Apparently my temperament is so "disingenuous" that I've been moved into the "oppose the Church" category now.  

I wonder if the Strengthening the Members Committee has different threat levels kind of like the DHS.  Am I an orange threat level or should I be moved up to red?