readstoomuch Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 6 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: All that one is required to get a TR is to answer the questions in the interview honestly and in a way that follows the intent of the questions. Having an intellectual difference of view on things while personally complying with the law of chastity is not a problem. For example I think prostitution should be legal but I don't have anything to do with prostitutes. Moral cleanliness issues is what you personally do. No what you think generally about a certain issue or topic. I am the one asking the TR questions and I have some questions about history and doctrine that I haven't quite answered completely in my head. I think if someone started asking about the nuances of the question I am asking, I would probably just clarify that unless there is some type of sin, it is ok to have some beliefs that you are unsure about. That would include the fact that thinking about them in your head is different than teaching them in front of a class. 2
Amulek Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, changed said: Different areas and cultures carry different impressions - I feel most where I live have a few negative views of Mormons. I want someone new I meet to know I will not judge them if they are LGBT. I want them to know I do not think myself better than them due to any titles or religious beliefs. I do not want them to think I do not support equality, or any of the myriad of things many think when they first hear the word "Mormon". I used the NOM title just this morning with someone, and it worked - they smiled, asked me to explain what a NOM was (they already knew what a Mormon was - or at least they thought they knew), and I was then able to have a great conversation with them void of all the strange or controlling preconceptions many have for Mormons... I was able to present myself not as a sheeple mindless drone, but as an individual who thought for themselves while still appreciating some things from a religious community. I invited them to watch the celebration that is going on right now, I was actually a missionary. It sounds like you had a good experience. That's cool. However, do you know who else are "not...sheeple mindless drone(s), but...individual(s) who [think] for themselves"? Mormons. Plain old everyday Mormons. And by trying to identify yourself as a 'special' kind of Mormon, you're really just perpetuating the stereotypes that you, yourself, are trying to avoid. Edited June 2, 2018 by Amulek edited for formatting 3
changed Posted June 2, 2018 Author Posted June 2, 2018 8 hours ago, Amulek said: It sounds like you had a good experience. That's cool. However, do you know who else are "not...sheeple mindless drone(s), but...individual(s) who [think] for themselves"? Mormons. Plain old everyday Mormons. And by trying to identify yourself as a 'special' kind of Mormon, you're really just perpetuating the stereotypes that you, yourself, are trying to avoid. If you are not a sheeple - which doctrines do you disagree with then? Where do church teachings end, and your own mind begin? Sadly, the stereotypes do exist because a few people in the church do... have issues with LGBT, are scriptural literalists, are racist, do think women's place is in thehome etc. etc. etc. that is who many members are.
Eek! Posted June 2, 2018 Posted June 2, 2018 (edited) On 5/31/2018 at 11:35 AM, changed said: What group best fits me do you think? On 5/31/2018 at 12:57 PM, changed said: We are all labeled by what groups we affiliate with, and it is important to define yourself correctly I think. I understand and respect your desire to correctly choose which label(s) fit you, so that you can define yourself accurately. I put some thought into how I'd like to be labeled, and finally made up my own, it's right above my avatar picture. 20 hours ago, changed said: I used the NOM title just this morning with someone, and it worked - they smiled, asked me to explain what a NOM was (they already knew what a Mormon was - or at least they thought they knew), and I was then able to have a great conversation with them void of all the strange or controlling preconceptions many have for Mormons. Great that you found a label which rings true for you! Feels good, doesn't it?? 20 hours ago, changed said: I was able to present myself not as a sheeple mindless drone, but as an individual who thought for themselves while still appreciating some things from a religious community. I invited them to watch the celebration that is going on right now, I was actually a missionary. 1 hour ago, changed said: If you are not a sheeple - which doctrines do you disagree with then? Where do church teachings end, and your own mind begin? Imo the word "sheeple" is a demeaning label. And imo just because someone agrees with church teachings doesn't mean they aren't using their own minds. Apparently the right to choose your own label(s) matters a great deal to you. It matters to me too. I don't think very many people would warm up to having the label of "sheeple" applied to them. Edited June 2, 2018 by Eek! 1
mfbukowski Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 It seems odd to need a label to show one is not a "sheeple" To me, labels MAKE sheeples. I prefer to think for myself and not worry about what others think of me. Like Popeye, I am what I am, if they judge they are the fools. It's kind of like judging people for the color of their skin and I am not going to participate in that by perpetuating stereotypes 1
changed Posted June 3, 2018 Author Posted June 3, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Eek! said: I understand and respect your desire to correctly choose which label(s) fit you, so that you can define yourself accurately. I put some thought into how I'd like to be labeled, and finally made up my own.. I like your label, and also like the idea of everyone coming up with their own label - so when asked about beliefs, everyone can share their own, personal belief. ... hopefully everyone's beliefs are related to the church they attend, but not 100% dictated by anyone else. Sorry about the sheeple comment... guess I am just anti-establishment. Edited June 3, 2018 by changed 1
Tacenda Posted June 3, 2018 Posted June 3, 2018 On 5/31/2018 at 10:05 PM, RevTestament said: I am going to intervene here because I think I may be of some help. Testimony in the restoration. I am a convert. I joined the church on the strength of my testimony in the Bible. The Church is the only Church with the full organization of the original Church Christ set up - with apostles and seventy. But more important to me was the Biblical teaching that Christ visited the spirit world to teach them as well and give them a chance to accept this gospel. How else can God be fair to those who have never even heard of Him? Peter obviously understood this, see 1 Peter 3&4, but somewhere along the line the Church lost most of this teaching, and in the fifth century held a council which banned baptism for the dead. The current LDS Church is the only Church which retains all these principles. Was anything else restored? The priesthood had to be restored. The bishops in the Bible were married. 1 Timothy. That was departed from, and indeed warned that the day would come when men would depart from the gospel and forbid to marry. Baptism in the Bible was by immersion. That was departed from. As I have understood you, you believe more will be revealed. I don't count that as "restored." Not all was made manifest in Christ's day, and much that was was lost. Not everything was revealed - otherwise the two witnesses of Revelation would not prophesy, die, and be resurrected. ie a resurrection. I believe scripture and even Christ Himself reveals there would be an apostasy. Yeshua said the day would end, and the night would come in which no man could work. Why wouldn't they be able to do God's work? The only way is if they lost the priesthood. The scriptures say that Christ would only return when there was a restitution of all things. Acts 3:21. Restitution means restoration. For there to be a restoration there must be a loss or apostasy. I believe Daniel 7 and Revelation also reveal many specifics regarding the events of the apostasy. I am willing to talk about these at length if you wish, but in short the Lord restored His church at the time specified in scripture. Sustaining leaders I am somewhat like you. I do not always agree with everything all the leaders have said. Heck, not even they always agree, and Kimball expressly disagreed with a teaching of BY. However, I do not think we have to believe everything the leaders have said. Christ taught this principle when He said do what the priests tell you for they sit in Moses' seat, but do not do what they do. I am not saying the Church President's should not be followed, but am just showing the principle of sustaining. I sustain my leaders unless I have reason that should disqualify them from being in a position of authority. I personally have never encountered that. To sustain your leaders to me means i support them as being in their position of authority. Being in authority doesn't mean I will always be on all 4s with them. I do not agree with everything past Presidents have said, as regular posters on this board know. I have heard things like receiving revelation means thoughts come to your head. Well, I disagree with that as well, and believe that could be why I believe some past Presidents have gone a little awry imho. Except in rare instances where I know the thought was not mine, I do not accept this as a trustworthy means of revelation. I much prefer spiritual confirmation, and generally seek such. Anyway, sustaining your church leaders does not mean you agree with all past leaders - I think it is a reference to present leaders. It also doesn't mean complete agreement with them. It means you do what you can to support them, and follow what they say unless you have good reason not to. I think this is the essence of what Jesus was teaching. I feel bad for my comment about some of the prophets of the Bible possibly having ingested things and then saying God told them some crazy things afterward, sorry Rev.
RevTestament Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 6 hours ago, Tacenda said: I feel bad for my comment about some of the prophets of the Bible possibly having ingested things and then saying God told them some crazy things afterward, sorry Rev. Thank you., Tacenda. I just feel compelled to defend God's word, but I do admit that to us, He told them some pretty crazy sounding stuff. God can be a little graphic. I am not going to repost my defense, because as you know we got censored.
Recommended Posts