Uncomfortable at church - any suggestions?

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

Honestly there are more crazy beliefs on the fundamentalist side of the house that attend church weekly, than those of us on the liberal/progressive side.  Is anyone calling for censoring these people or policing what callings they can have, and is anyone worried about the way they teach the kids?  Its a blind spot for people like Bernard Gui.  These people are out there, but for whatever reason he's learned to happily co-exist with them.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

 Remember Issues and Ideas Leading People Away from the Gospel?

 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Honestly there are more crazy beliefs on the fundamentalist side of the house that attend church weekly, than those of us on the liberal/progressive side.  Is anyone calling for censoring these people or policing what callings they can have, and is anyone worried about the way they teach the kids?  Its a blind spot for people like Bernard Gui.  These people are out there, but for whatever reason he's learned to happily co-exist with them.  

Well I think he is them.  The scariest prominent element of Church to me is fearing the other.  I see that as the main area of agreement for all those who might fall on a more fundalmentalist (granted may not be the best term) side of things

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 Remember Issues and Ideas Leading People Away from the Gospel?

 

Ahh yes, the bubble chart.  I forgot about the colors on that.  

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

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.

 

Gay society believes that "gayness" is equal to a husband and wife relationship and is without fault or error. It labels everyone who disagrees with their assessment as "homophobic".

[LittleNipper]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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. 

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.

Some translations (e.g. NIV, NLT) change "40,000" to "4,000" in 1 Kings 4:26 due to a perceived scribal error. 2 Chronicles 9:25, which appears to be a parallel account, says "4,000". Along with the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, ESV and HCSB uphold the inspired Hebrew text which says, "40,000".

The passages describe different types of stalls

1 Kings 4:26 says:
“Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:
“Solomon had 4000 stalls for (combined) horses and chariots, and 12000 horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different configuation of stalls.  The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were "of horses" which were used for chariots and by horsemen.  Nothing in this verse says that these stalls housed  chariots.  On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 housed both  "horses and chariots".  Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses.  In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots.  Hence it makes sense that there would be less stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

2 Chronicles 9:25 describes the purpose of the stalls, 1 Kings 4:26 describes the purpose of the horses.  In saying that the purpose of the horses was for Solomon's "chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" (interpreting the "twelve thousand horsemen" as part of the conjunctive list belonging with "chariots"), 1 Kings 4:26 effectively links the horses to items of which we know the numbers.  If these horses were for 1,400 chariots (2 Chronicles 1:14) and 12,000 horsemen, the number of horses would have been considerably large.  Even with the conservative assumption of 2 horses per chariot and 1 horse per horseman, the number of horses needed for 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen is 14,800 horses.  If there were one reserve horse for every horse on duty, that would already be 29,600 horses.  Hence, 40,000 stalls would have been a reasonable number to accommodate this many horses.

 

In conclusion, there were 40,000 stalls that were for housing horses, and 4,000 stalls that were for storing horses and chariots.  The two numbers could be harmonized if each of the 4,000 stalls with the space to house a chariot had 10 subdividing stalls for individual horses.

 

This is why kids today lack reasoning. They are being fed negativity on all sides. They are told the Bible cannot be true, and the Bible should be excluded. On the other hand, like Pi and the Temple sea, there is mathematical logic that is being IGNORED!  There is a rational answer if one is willing to study and sort it out. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by LittleNipper

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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 ...

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.  

 

8 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The scariest prominent element of Church to me is fearing the other.

Does it make you feel powerful when you assume that people are somehow afraid of you?

[LittleNipper]

10 hours 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?   

People have used Darwin to suggest that Blacks are more primitive than the White folks. My response to you is that the only interpretation that matters is the one the Holy Spirit bestows. I am interested in what people think but I do not suppose that the the Holy Spirit fully agrees with them!.

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

People have used Darwin to suggest that Blacks are more primitive than the White folks. My response to you is that the only interpretation that matters is the one the Holy Spirit bestows. I am interested in what people think but I do not suppose that the the Holy Spirit fully agrees with them!.

I’d rather not make claims that the Holy Spirit is the reason for my beliefs one way or another.  In our culture people are responsible for their decisions and I call that personal accountability.  

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

My response to you is that the only interpretation that matters is the one the Holy Spirit bestows. 

Hey, you are starting to sound like a Mormon!  Good for you!  Enough of this sola scriptura nonsense and give room in your heart for the Holy Spirit too.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Some translations (e.g. NIV, NLT) change "40,000" to "4,000" in 1 Kings 4:26 due to a perceived scribal error. 2 Chronicles 9:25, which appears to be a parallel account, says "4,000". Along with the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, ESV and HCSB uphold the inspired Hebrew text which says, "40,000".

The passages describe different types of stalls

1 Kings 4:26 says:
“Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:
“Solomon had 4000 stalls for (combined) horses and chariots, and 12000 horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different configuation of stalls.  The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were "of horses" which were used for chariots and by horsemen.  Nothing in this verse says that these stalls housed  chariots.  On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 housed both  "horses and chariots".  Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses.  In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots.  Hence it makes sense that there would be less stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

2 Chronicles 9:25 describes the purpose of the stalls, 1 Kings 4:26 describes the purpose of the horses.  In saying that the purpose of the horses was for Solomon's "chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" (interpreting the "twelve thousand horsemen" as part of the conjunctive list belonging with "chariots"), 1 Kings 4:26 effectively links the horses to items of which we know the numbers.  If these horses were for 1,400 chariots (2 Chronicles 1:14) and 12,000 horsemen, the number of horses would have been considerably large.  Even with the conservative assumption of 2 horses per chariot and 1 horse per horseman, the number of horses needed for 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen is 14,800 horses.  If there were one reserve horse for every horse on duty, that would already be 29,600 horses.  Hence, 40,000 stalls would have been a reasonable number to accommodate this many horses.

 

In conclusion, there were 40,000 stalls that were for housing horses, and 4,000 stalls that were for storing horses and chariots.  The two numbers could be harmonized if each of the 4,000 stalls with the space to house a chariot had 10 subdividing stalls for individual horses.

 

This is why kids today lack reasoning. They are being fed negativity on all sides. They are told the Bible cannot be true, and the Bible should be excluded. On the other hand, like Pi and the Temple sea, there is mathematical logic that is being IGNORED!  There is a rational answer if one is willing to study and sort it out. 

It's not negativity. It is historical realism. Even if you include 12,000 stalls for the 12,000 horsemen, there is no way to reach 40,000 stalls realistically. If you use your literal interpretation then you would add another 4000 for the chariot horses. That's 16,000 total stalls. In itself a huge number, but nowhere close to 40,000. We have found Egyptian stalls, and they did not have 40,000 stalls for horses, and they were a much richer nation. 

But since you are going to persist with this unrealistic analysis, I will add another example. Psalms has many acrostic chapters. In acrostic chapters each verse starts with a Hebrew letter of the alphabet - in order. 

Psalm 145 is an alphabetic acrostic, the initial letter of each verse being the Hebrew alphabet in sequence. However, in the Hebrew Masoretic text there is no verse beginning with the letter nun (נ), which would come between verses 13 and 14. A very common supposition is that there had been such a verse but it was omitted by a copyist's error. If so, that error must have occurred very early. By the 3rd century of the Christian era, Rabbi Johanan Ha-Nappah is quoted in the Talmud (Berakhot 4b) as asking why is there no verse in Psalm 145 beginning with nun, and the explanation is given (presumably by the same Rabbi Johanan) that the word "fallen" (נפלה, nawflaw) begins with nun, as in the verse of Amos 5:2 ("Fallen is the Maiden of Israel, she shall arise nevermore"), and thus it is incompatible with the uplifting and universal theme of the Psalm.

However, the Syriac Peshitta, which has an early version of the Tanakh mostly aligning with the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QPs-ɑ)(which shows some affinity with the Septuagint, e.g., the inclusion of a 151st Psalm), the Septuagint itself, and the Latin Vulgate (which is largely based on the Septuagint), all provide a verse at this point which commences (in Hebrew) with nun—נֶאֱמָן  Either all these versions made up a verse, or the Masoretic text omits it.
I am not an enemy of the Bible, but any scholar who is an honest student of the scriptures will recognize that the Masoretic text is not "inerrant."

[california boy]

9 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Gay society believes that "gayness" is equal to a husband and wife relationship and is without fault or error. It labels everyone who disagrees with their assessment as "homophobic".

Sorry, I can't derail this thread to talk about gay marriage.  But I will say this. Gay couples that are married are just as equally married as any other couple in this country.  If you wish to talk about this further, you will have to open up another thread about gay marriage.

Edited May 9, 2018 by california boy

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Does it make you feel powerful when you assume that people are somehow afraid of you?

Of course not.  The opposite, in fact.  last year I was asked to teach in Elder's Quorum.  I was asked to teach on President Uchtdorf's talk from the previous conference.  

Quote

Historically, fear has often been used as a means to get people to take action. Parents have used it with their children, employers with employees, and politicians with voters.

Experts in marketing understand the power of fear and often employ it. This is why some advertisements seem to carry the implicit message that if we fail to buy their breakfast cereal or miss out on the newest video game or cell phone, we run the risk of living a miserable life, dying alone and unhappy.

We smile at this and think we would never fall for such manipulation, but we sometimes do. Worse, we sometimes use similar methods to get others to do what we want.

We talked about what were the source of our fears.  Without realizing it soon everyone in the quorum had identified the Church as a main source of their fears.  Their fears for things like, talking about difficult issues, or having someone who is not correlated teaching their children was because the Church put that in them.  It was a good chat until fear overtook the EQP who stood up about half way through and with tears in his eyes expressed his fears about the fact that we had identified the Church as a main source of using fear to manipulate.  

[stemelbow]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Does it make you feel powerful when you assume that people are somehow afraid of you?

Sorry...I know I commented.  I can't start a thread here, but I found this article from the SL trib an interesting aside to our little conversation here:

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05/09/new-collection-of-leonard-arringtons-vast-journals-shows-battles-the-mormon-historian-had-with-lds-leaders-over-telling-the-truth-about-the-churchs-past/

 

Quote

“It is clear that President Benson will not stand for our ‘real’ history. And since he is next in line, and president of the Twelve, we are in a powerless position, and no one wishes to consider our own rationale,” Arrington wrote Sept. 6, 1976. “ ... The question for me is shall I retain the job ... and try to write history which will be approved by [the church’s] Correlation [Department] or shall I resign and continue to write ‘real history.’”

 

Quote

• On Sept. 22, 1976, Arrington wrote that “Elders Benson and [Mark E. Petersen] … want glorious stories of the Restoration [of the gospel], unsullied by discussion of practical problems and controversial evidence. They want prophets without warts, revelation direct from high in pure vessels. The want faith-promoting stories and moral homilies. They feel strongly and will oppose all our books, written as we understand history.”

 

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sorry...I know I commented.  I can't start a thread here, but I found this article from the SL trib an interesting aside to our little conversation here:

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/05/09/new-collection-of-leonard-arringtons-vast-journals-shows-battles-the-mormon-historian-had-with-lds-leaders-over-telling-the-truth-about-the-churchs-past/

 

 

 

Its a very good article and the Arrington diaries are an amazing resource for a look into this time period.  I've read Greg Prince's biography on Arrington where he uses these diaries as source material, and that was an amazing book and very interesting.  I'm not sure if I'll ever try reading the diaries that Signature is publishing, just too many other books on my reading list, but I'm sure there are a lot of interesting things in there.  Thanks for sharing.  

[smac97]

On 5/8/2018 at 12:16 PM, hope_for_things said:

Honestly there are more crazy beliefs on the fundamentalist side of the house that attend church weekly, than those of us on the liberal/progressive side. 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by bifurcating the Church into "fundamentalist" and "liberal/progressive" "sides."

I wonder if this is a question more about perception of devotion to and support of the Church and its doctrines / mandate / mission / objectives (or, more specifically, a perceived lack of these things).

Quote

Is anyone calling for censoring these people or policing what callings they can have,

I think such things are better left to local leaders.  They know the individuals involved in a given situation, and have authority and stewardship over them.  

Quote

and is anyone worried about the way they teach the kids? 

Again, I don't understand your "fundamentalist" and "liberal/progressive" bifurcation.  I don't know what you mean by it.

That said, I have encountered many people online who A) profess to be members of the Church, B) hide behind pseudonyms and carefully mask their IRL identities, C) regularly speak stridently against and malign the LDS Church and its leaders, doctrines, policies, practices, etc., and D) seem to relish and enjoy the idea that they are "getting away with it" by separating their online conduct from their IRL interactions with members of the Church (including, notably, local leaders).  

I can understand why faithful/observant members of the Church could feel ill at ease at the prospect of people like this ending up as teachers in Sunday School.

Ephesians 4 comes to mind:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

And Matthew 7:15:

Quote

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

And this remark by Pres. Lee (emphasis added):

Quote

“We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. … There will be inroads within the Church. There will be … ‘Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men’s bones.’ We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead the people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church. …

“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory’ (D&C 21:6).” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1970, p. 152.)

I see this sort of thing (the bolded part above) online all the time.  On this very board, in fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 9, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by bifurcating the Church into "fundamentalist" and "liberal/progressive" "sides."

I wonder if this is a question more about perception of devotion to and support of the Church and its doctrines / mandate / mission / objectives (or, more specifically, a perceived lack of these things).

I think such things are better left to local leaders.  They know the individuals involved in a given situation, and have authority and stewardship over them.  

Again, I don't understand your "fundamentalist" and "liberal/progressive" bifurcation.  I don't know what you mean by it.

That said, I have encountered many people I online who A) profess to be members of the Church, B) hide behind pseudonyms and carefully mask their IRL identities, C) regularly speak stridently against and malign the LDS Church and its leaders, doctrines, policies, practices, etc., and D) seem to relish and enjoy the idea that they are "getting away with it" by separating their online conduct from their IRL interactions with members of the Church (including, notably, local leaders).  

I can understand why faithful/observant members of the Church could feel ill at ease at the prospect of people like this ending up as teachers in Sunday School.

Ephesians 4 comes to mind:

And Matthew 7:15:

And this remark by Pres. Lee (emphasis added):

I see this sort of thing (the bolded part above) online all the time.  On this very board, in fact.

Thanks,

-Smac

I made a couple posts where I talked a little more about the fundamentalist definition, and I also said I was over generalizing for the purpose of making a point.  The fundamentalist side in my example are people that might be extreme preppers, or end times believers, or superstitious etc.  The liberal/progressive side are unorthodox people like myself.  

Its funny that you quote the wolf in sheeps clothing scripture because I recommended to another poster who called me disingenuous that he should also consider calling me a wolf in sheeps clothing as an additional slur, but this time with scriptural support.  

Since the other poster hasn't responded yet to my query about whether people that find my perspectives dangerous, are ignoring the dangerous perspectives on the more fundamentalist side of actively participating Mormons.  In other words, do you have a blind spot towards those more common dangerous ideas because you've somehow learned to coexists and accept those other perspectives?  I'm curious about this.  

 

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I made a couple posts where I talked a little more about the fundamentalist definition, and I also said I was over generalizing for the purpose of making a point.  The fundamentalist side in my example are people that might be extreme preppers,

I think "extreme preppers" can pretty much do what they like, until and unless they try to misappropriate the Church's services to present opinions and ideas that are alternative and superior to the teachings we receive from the general authorities of the Church.

Extreme preppers may be looking "beyond the mark" as far as taking the Church's teachings to an extreme, particularly if they do disturbing things like stockpile weapons/ammo, engage in or advocate the violent overthrow of the government, break the law, etc.  That stuff is, of course, wrong and concerning.  But to be honest, this seems to be a fairly rare thing.  I have been in my stake for 12 years, and I have never heard of any issues pertaining to "extreme preppers."

In contract, however, I go online (including coming to this board) and regularly see people who A) profess to be members of the Church, B) hide behind pseudonyms and carefully mask their IRL identities, C) regularly speak stridently against and malign the LDS Church and its leaders, doctrines, policies, practices, etc., and D) seem to relish and enjoy the idea that they are "getting away with it" by separating their online conduct from their IRL interactions with members of the Church (including, notably, local leaders).  

Extreme preppers are kind of hard to miss.  But duplicitous members as described above are - by intent and design - using their online anonymity and "secretly [] plotting and trying to lead the people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church."

Quote

or end times believers, or superstitious etc. 

Yes, I would have some concern about extremists of any stripe misappropriating church programs and meetings to advance their views.

Quote

The liberal/progressive side are unorthodox people like myself.  

"Unorthodox people like [your]self" doesn't clarify much.

Quote

Its funny that you quote the wolf in sheeps clothing scripture because I recommended to another poster who called me disingenuous that he should also consider calling me a wolf in sheeps clothing as an additional slur, but this time with scriptural support.

I didn't call you anything.

Quote

Since the other poster hasn't responded yet to my query about whether people that find my perspectives dangerous, are ignoring the dangerous perspectives on the more fundamentalist side of actively participating Mormons. 

I don't know what "perspectives" are referring to here.  I have a generalized perception of you, based on your remarks on this board.

Quote

In other words, do you have a blind spot towards those more common dangerous ideas

No, I don't have such a blind spot.

Quote

because you've somehow learned to coexists and accept those other perspectives?  I'm curious about this.  

I can co-exist with people with "other perspectives" because either A) such people keep their "dangerous ideas" to themselves, such that I am operating in ignorance, or B) they tell me about their "dangerous ideas," which puts me on notice and allows me to proceed accordingly.

In contrast, the wolves-in-sheep's-clothing folks, particularly the current iteration who are members of the Church but use deception and online anonymity to slander and oppose and attack the Church while hiding such things from their fellow church members and leaders, those are a different concern.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 9, 2018 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/4/2018 at 11:14 AM, hope_for_things said:

Yet over time I kept having this gnawing feeling that I wasn't doing this for the right reasons.  I began to increasingly feel like I was being disingenuous.  I've had this idea creep into my mind and I can't seem to shake it.  Who am I to feel like I should be teaching people information that isn't part of their correlated Mormon world view?   Why do I think that my alternative perspectives are wanted or needed? 

I am simply agreeing with you and affirming your doubts. 

Your persona here is one who has lost his faith and is constantly very critical of the doctrines, history, practices, scriptures, members, and leaders of the Church, but are trying to remain connected in some way. Why should I fear or be offended by that?

I have repeatedly but unsuccessfully advised against misconstruing my comments. I have said nothing about your interactions with adults in the Church. I have absolutely no objections to alternative perspectives if they are shared in the appropriate times and places. Primary is not that place. With other people’s children is not the right time. The Gospel Essentials class would also be inappropriate as a venue for sharing your “unorthodox” perspectives.

On the contrary, I have focused on these and other comments about Primary:

Quote

I've always loved it when I've had the opportunity to serve in primary.  It can be a much safer place for sure! .... Well, I was thinking its safer to be away from the dogma and judgey behaviors that are sometimes exhibited in adult classes, as I've found that kids typically don't try to police orthodoxy as much, and are usually more open minded when it comes to learning things.  .....

Etc.

I listed earlier what I consider the foundation that children should be taught in our Church, which you dismissed and ridiculed......”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.”

If one were to accept a calling to teach children (or investigators and new members) the very things that one personally rejects, and then to pretend to believe them, that is the very definition of disingenuous. To accept the calling but then to insist on teaching one’s personal perceptions is the definition of presumptuous.

Quote

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?  

Well, yes. Accepting such a calling given your oft-and fervently expressed oppositional views here on this board and the confliction you have expressed in this thread, teaching children (or investigators and new members) would be inappropriate. If you intentionally subvert the given lessons, that would be a blatant wolf in sheeps clothing behavior. We send our kids to Primary classes trusting they will reinforce, not undermine, what we are teaching them at home. It would be odd to accept the calling, given the many basic things you adamantly reject here. 

You also observed...

Quote

Before correlation from what I've read about early Mormonism, church was very diverse and not at similar to how it has developed today.

There are a few of us here who grew up pre-Correlation. I was part of a trial program in a BYU stake before it was implemented. You and others appear to have some false notions of what it was like. For example, Jesus the Christ, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Articles of Faith, any of the earlier Church curricula, and the original 6 missionary discussions will give you a better idea about what was considered orthodox by me, my parents, and grandparents. 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[LittleNipper]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I’d rather not make claims that the Holy Spirit is the reason for my beliefs one way or another.  In our culture people are responsible for their decisions and I call that personal accountability.  

Once one accepts Christ, one is owned by Christ. That is what being a Christian is all about. Christianity isn't about being a regular church attender --- though such is certainly important towards one's Christian growth. Responsibility and accountability are certainly  good things but Christ saves and not one's works --- though such go a long way in making for good witnesses to the rest of the world...

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/8/2018 at 9:59 AM, stemelbow said:

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 over 60 years of my cognizant activity in the Church, I have never “pushed back” against people that had questions about the Church in such a way that, as you describe, would suggest I think they are “dangerous” or should be shunned and censored. Well, with the exception of the leader of the local Ed Decker- affiliated Ex-Mormons for Jesus who was pretending to be something in public that he was not. I “pushed back” because he was indeed dangerous in more ways than one. My concerns here have concentrated solely on teaching children, but I would even expand my concerns to youth classes and Gospel Essentials.

 Perhaps we don’t agree on what disingenuous means.

Here is what I think it means in the context of my concerns about a disaffected member teaching Primary children:

“lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere”

It seems to me that there are three possibilities. 1. The disaffection will become a covert part of the instruction,  2. The teacher will reject the provided curriculum and substitute his/her own, 3.The teacher will condescend to teach principles and doctrines he/she actually rejects. None of those situations would involve testimony building through the Spirit. I would not want my children to be placed in those situations. They all involve a measure of presumption and disingenuousness. Maybe even a betrayal of trust. Seems to me it would be best not to put kids or disaffected members in this situation.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I can co-exist with people with "other perspectives" because either A) such people keep their "dangerous ideas" to themselves, such that I am operating in ignorance, or B) they tell me about their "dangerous ideas," which puts me on notice and allows me to proceed accordingly.

In contrast, the wolves-in-sheep's-clothing folks, particularly the current iteration who are members of the Church but use deception and online anonymity to slander and oppose and attack the Church while hiding such things from their fellow church members and leaders, those are a different concern.

Thanks for your response.  My impression from my interactions with people is that those of us on the more liberal end of the spectrum theologically (I don't love the term liberal, but can't think of a better one) are tolerated less and viewed with suspicion more by the more conservative orthodox types.  The reasons you give for your suspicions are understandable from a certain view point, but I also more critical towards certain sets of beliefs because of where you personally identify on the spectrum. 

In honestly, I likely have some preference towards those that more closely align to my beliefs even the extreme segments, and I probably am less tolerant of those on the other end of the spectrum, this is human nature after all that we're dealing with.  

Ultimately it does make me sad to hear you and others use the language of suspicion and fear to describe people like myself.  While I appreciate the honesty with how you feel, I personally think this is part of the problem for why it makes it hard for people like myself to be comfortable at church. 

 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Once one accepts Christ, one is owned by Christ. That is what being a Christian is all about. Christianity isn't about being a regular church attender --- though such is certainly important towards one's Christian growth. Responsibility and accountability are certainly  good things but Christ saves and not one's works --- though such go a long way in making for good witnesses to the rest of the world...

You're entitled to your views about what Christianity is about, but my views are very different.  I don't look at salvation or judgement in the same way that many traditional Christians or Mormons do.  

[juliann]

On 5/8/2018 at 11:16 AM, hope_for_things said:

Honestly there are more crazy beliefs on the fundamentalist side of the house that attend church weekly, than those of us on the liberal/progressive side.  Is anyone calling for censoring these people or policing what callings they can have, and is anyone worried about the way they teach the kids?  Its a blind spot for people like Bernard Gui.  These people are out there, but for whatever reason he's learned to happily co-exist with them.  

And there needs to be time for the majority mindset to learn to happily co-exist with liberals. There are certainly enough high level quotes to deal with this. The best defense is to have them printed and at the ready for stupid comments. Unfortunately, lived Mormonism happens on the local level and we can't pick our congregations. Mine has come out of a horrific take over of fundamentalist thinkers a couple of decades ago to be something truly wonderful. Intolerant and unkind statements (and that is what we are really talking about, which is why it is a universal problem not a fundy problem,) are quickly but gently corrected in classes. But it takes someone with social capital to be willing to be the front man and it takes a long time. It is a skill to be able to pierce through unkindness, dressed up as "standing your ground" type nonsense, without being unkind yourself. I think that is why so many "progressives" are beside themselves. They don't have that skill and aren't interested in learning it or making the time investment. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I listed earlier what I consider the foundation that children should be taught in our Church, which you dismissed and ridiculed......”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.”

I haven't dismissed or ridiculed these ideas to my knowledge.  I likely have different perspectives on many of these topics, as I'm sure you can find a different points of emphasis from just about every average church member.  I think part of your problem with my position is that you're assuming I'm taking a subversive perspective that is openly trying to undermine, which is not at all what I've done.  I've never tried to do that, which should be apparent in my OP, but because my perspective is somehow threatening to your world view then you assume the worst.  

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

If one were to accept a calling to teach children (or investigators and new members) the very things that one personally rejects, and then to pretend to believe them, is the very definition of disingenuous. To accept the calling but then to insist on teaching one’s personal perceptions is the definition of presumptuous.

Another example of making assumptions that are very uncharitable.  How do you know what I "reject?"  You don't seem to know me, or where my heart is or how I interact with others or what my interactions at church have been like.  You aren't giving me any benefit of the doubt, you are casting judgment and suspicion.  I think this is a good example of what happens sometimes when a strictly orthodox person encounters different perspectives  

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

There are a few of us here who grew up pre-Correlation. I was part of a trial program in a BYU stake before it was implemented. You and others appear to have some false notions of what it was like. For example, Jesus the Christ, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Articles of Faith, any of the earlier Church curricula, and the original 6 missionary discussions will give you a better idea about what was considered orthodox by me, my parents, and grandparents. 

I'm not saying there weren't groups of very conservative Mormons pre-correlation.  Do you think your personal exposure in your family is representative of the entire church?  I've read enough LDS church history to know that many other opinions have existed in the history of the church, and from my reading there was more diversity prior to correlation.