Elder Oaks

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am so discouraged. I have tried so hard. I know most of you don't believe that, because if I had really tried and really prayed, I would have seen the light. So even, for the one like me who remains so confused, you can only assure me that I am less than , wrong, or I misunderstand. How can I possibly understand the vast array of answers that come out of this forum? You seem to prefer to banter among yourselves about hermaphrodites! Is that the best you can do?  It seems like this is all a fun game to most of you. You banter, mock, tease, and demean each other, all in good fun. It isn't fun to some of us who are truly and openly trying to understand and who are in trouble from all sides for having done so. Some of you have taught me that being a Mormon is something I never want to be.

 

In a post of mine near the bottom of page 6 I said, "But we're all in this together and striving to help one another achieve the ultimate goal. And that includes doing our best to understand those who currently are going through their own trials of faith."

This forum here is not an official Church website and people here generally mean well but, yeah, sometimes they just like to talk. And sometimes people don't always think about how their words may affect others. I was just watching some of last night's Women's Session of General Conference with my wife and President Nelson praised women for generally considering first how their actions might affect others. I guess that's not so common with guys.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Bold added.

So the Missourians were right to murder Mormons at Haun's Mill, right?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre

Wars are never one sided   Your comment is highly offensive.

Yes 22 people were killed in those events and some related, but 17 of those were Mormons.

My responses are plucked from BYU scholars and General Authority statements, not MY arrogant self assurance.

We call these kind of repeated statements of belief "doctrine" and your opinion that I plucked it out of thin air is completely unfounded.  I cited my sources.  And NONE of it was ad-hominem.

Yes my tone was snarky and I apologize for responding to you in kind.  I should have been kinder  and not responded in kind.

So if teaching you Mormon beliefs is "scripture twisting", so be it.  That is your opinion- don't blame me for how you interpret scripture.

How you can be so confident of your interpretation over ours while maintaining your beliefs are not "better" in some way and therefore "extraordinary" is beyond my understanding.

Indeed if this is your opinion of Mormonism, there is nothing I can do to change that.

 

You folks are simply amazing! I have only tried to understand LDS beliefs. I don't believe I have ever held that I am more confident of my beliefs than yours. Please point to a post where I have indicated that. If I have done so, then I have a blind spot as well. I actually don't believe that I have ever shared "my beliefs" in any post. I have not gone point -counterpoint on any doctrines, have I?  I have asked many questions; and asked them again and re-asked them again if I didn't understand the answers. Not because I don't agree with them; because I don't understand them, or because it seems that several of you provide contradictory answers; that confuses me, especially after you are so confident in the apostasy because of the confusion and different positions taken by different Protestant group. Much of the basis for your claim of restoration is the homogeneity of your doctrine; yet this one forum testifies to its heterogeneity. I have never told you how I interpret Scriptures. I have indeed said in the past week after asking questions and being provided isolated verses that I believe that is proof-texting or scripture twisting. I do believe that to be the case. Then someone assures me that you don't need hermeneutics because you just go to God and ask Him and He explains things to you. That is an effective way to quiet me! How can I ask more questions after that? I have repeatedly commended those in our ward and Mormons in general as fellow Christians on the tree of Christianity - not the only branch on the tree, but a genuine one. That isn't good enough - perhaps that is offensive when I think I am saying something that is conciliatory. This is simply too hard. If I don't read the Book of Mormon once, pray about it and get baptized in a week I am not listening, or understanding, and I am offensive. How else can I understand if I don't keep asking questions until I understand? How can I overcome what seems to me to be the parts of Mormonism that keep me from signing up if I don't bring them up? I bring them up, then you tell me I am being offensive and that I should read something I read 10 or 20 years ago. You treat me like you just rang my doorbell when I have been here for over a year! Sorry, I have said it before and I will say it again, I need to let it go. I have great respect for Mormonism and many of my Mormon friends, especially in MHA and in our ward.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If you don't mind my saying so, you do come across as having more of a fixed opinion that you want to get across to us than really wanting to know more.  Which isn't unusual for this place; we get that sometimes.  If one asks questions, one gets answers to questions.  But if one provides one's own take on answers (because one has already studied up on it and has definite opinions to express), then one is more likely to get responses, and not necessarily answers.

Be that as it may, I will admit to being insufficiently humble, forbearing and conciliatory too frequently, and I am sorry for that.

You're like the rest of us addicts, I guess!

 

Captures it perfectly

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's ok Stargazer, I guess when I met the little girl I've worked with for many weeks that has Down's Syndrome, I guess in my heart I believe that she is perfect in every way. Except maybe there are things she'll need and want in the hereafter that would ease her life more. But in my mind's eye and heart again, I believe it's in her chromosomes that she is how she is, and that's how I believe the gays are as well, or bisexuals. Some have varying degrees of Down's. So there is that also, and some have varying degress of sexual attraction to the same sex or opposite sex. I guess we just need to love, love and love some more on everyone and not do as Oaks did in making the people who choose to be who they are as gays and love who they love, and make them feel like they don't belong in the eternities with the rest if they don't change. That's all, and I thank you for your apology, that was very kind. 

I read the letter you posted. Interestingly, I thought it was going to express how Elder Oaks shows hate, but I was struck with the descriptions of love he has for his grandson. It shows a real side to him that I think many do not realize he has.

I think those who are talking about his hate may feel somewhat similar for him as I once did about Nephi. I didn’t hate him, but he annoyed me because he seemed a little self righteous. Then at one point I read a passage that made me understand how dearly he loved his people and if he seemed kind of hard on them it was because he loved them so.

And that's how I understand Elder Oaks to be especially after reading that letter.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Rain

[CMZ]

I was having lunch one time at some restaurant at the top of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building (The Roof? The Garden?) and Dallin H. Oaks came in with three other people for lunch. The other people with him didn't seem to fit the typical church mold and maybe seemed a touch on the worldly side but Elder Oaks seemed to just be having a good visit with them without a hint of being judgmental towards them. Now I wonder if the young man in the group was this grandson I'm hearing about.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You folks are simply amazing! I have only tried to understand LDS beliefs. I don't believe I have ever held that I am more confident of my beliefs than yours. Please point to a post where I have indicated that. If I have done so, then I have a blind spot as well. I actually don't believe that I have ever shared "my beliefs" in any post. I have not gone point -counterpoint on any doctrines, have I?  I have asked many questions; and asked them again and re-asked them again if I didn't understand the answers. Not because I don't agree with them; because I don't understand them, or because it seems that several of you provide contradictory answers; that confuses me, especially after you are so confident in the apostasy because of the confusion and different positions taken by different Protestant group. Much of the basis for your claim of restoration is the homogeneity of your doctrine; yet this one forum testifies to its heterogeneity. I have never told you how I interpret Scriptures. I have indeed said in the past week after asking questions and being provided isolated verses that I believe that is proof-texting or scripture twisting. I do believe that to be the case. Then sometime assures me that you don't need hermeneutics because you just go to God and ask Him and He explains things to you. That is an effective way to quiet me! How can I ask more questions after that? I have repeatedly commended those in our ward and Mormons in general as fellow Christians on the tree of Christianity - not the only branch on the tree, but a genuine one. That isn't good enough - perhaps that is offensive when I think I am saying something that is conciliatory. This is simply too hard. If I don't read the Book of Mormon once, pray about it and get baptized in a week I am not listening, or understanding, and I am offensive. How else can I understand if I don't keep asking questions until I understand? How can I overcome what seems to me to be the parts of Mormonism that keep me from signing up if I don't bring them up? I bring them up, then you tell me I am being offensive and that I should read something I read 10 or 20 years ago. You treat me like you just rang my doorbell when I have been here for over a year! Sorry, I have said it before and I will say it again, I need to let it go. I have great respect for Mormonism and many of my Mormon friends, especially in MHA and in our ward.

I am trying to understand you but I am beginning to think it is futile.

Quote

I don't believe I have ever held that I am more confident of my beliefs than yours. Please point to a post where I have indicated that. If I have done so, then I have a blind spot as well. I actually don't believe that I have ever shared "my beliefs" in any post. I have not gone point -counterpoint on any doctrines, have I? 

You don't see it, I am sorry.

You say we hold ourselves out as "exceptional".   Fine

That means you BELIEVE we hold ourselves out as exceptional.  That is your BELIEF.  You are confident of it because you say it in every post

EVERY POST you make shows your beliefs about us with extreme confidence!!

Your blind spot fills the horizon!

And every post goes point counter point!!   Why are we not getting along on these stupid issues? Because we are going point counter-point!!

I don't mind doing that.  That is exactly what I do- I refute anti-mormons.

You apparently think it is wrong to do that for some reason, you think it is wrong to think of oneself as "exceptional" and yet you do just that BECAUSE of your belief that it is "wrong" TO BE "EXCEPTIONAL".  

That is the basis of the disagreement.  I think it is wonderful to be exceptional and you think a priori that clearly being exceptional is wrong.

You have shown no evidence of that- and had you done that, you would be contradicting yourself because you said 

Quote

I have ever held that I am more confident of my beliefs than yours.

OBVIOUSLY you are more confident that one should NOT be exceptional than we are.   That is being more confident of your beliefs than  ours, because we most heartily endorse being exceptional

I just don't get it at all.  It seems obvious to me you deny doing exactly what you do.  Sorry I am stumped.  It's like saying the lights are off when they are on.

How do you argue with that?

 

[mfbukowski]

Incidentally  everyone what does this entire thread have to do with Elder Oaks talk?

Hermaphrodites and Mormon exceptionalism?

Really?

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Captures it perfectly

Perhaps I need now to clarify a difference that is very important to me and that may be confusing to you all. None of you know me and that isn't fair - maybe I should give you all some General Authority's names as references! That might confuse you even more. I have very strong thoughts from having read and studied original sources, books, diaries, journals, etc by both Mormons and non-Mormons for 30 years about LDS history. It is that extensive study of history that prompted my interest in Mormon doctrine - that and a few wonderful LDS folks I met back in the 80's. I have strong opinions (beliefs) about the "innocent persecution" construct that Mormons have built up over the years. I have written about it. I have tried to avoid anything but light-hearted bits and pieces about Mormon history here  so as not to offend anyone. Then like today, I get ticked at you all for mocking me and I let it fly. So contrary to all of you, at 69 there are still some imperfections in me! 😃 My whole interest in Mormon exceptionalism stems from my studies in Mormon history and sociology. So today and this past week  I offended you. I think we may be even on that count!  I am sorry. I was upset, feeling marginalized and I was frustrated at getting different answers, especially in my heavenly mother and the Virgin of Guadalupe thread. I also get irritated because of the pat "you just misunderstand" LDS stuff. I want to shout, maybe if that is true (I am not conceding It), I don't understand it because it is not understandable! See the different answers point. So, yes I have strong beliefs on LDS history, probably more in line with what is sometimes known as "new Mormon history." 

I have very different perspectives on LDS Doctrine. I mostly just find it confusing. It goes like this: 1. We believe this; 2. We believe it because God told our prophet this and we don't need no stinkin' principles of interpretation or doctrinal formulation! 3. Then five of you tell me three different things; 4. I remain confused and ask again; 5. You tell me I just don't understand - go read a source I have read 3 times; 6. I ask a senior elder in our chapel why the Mormon encyclopedia says this or that and he looks at it and answers my question by saying "I don't believe that!" Ok . . . back to 1.   I am not you typical investigator who is unhappy in my faith or who has no faith and jumps because a 19 year old kid wants to baptize me because he has the priesthood and I don't.  He says I can only have the Holy Ghost if he baptizes me because he has authority - I ask him what that means and he hesitates and we are back at 2.  So yes, I can be confusing I am sure. I will play Mormon history jeopardy with any of you anytime. But Mormon doctrine is not a game to me. I once said on this forum that my past year attending an LDS ward has been a "Lonely Walk" I think either that went right past you all, or your really are an insensitive bunch of lunkheads. I now believe more of the latter than the former. 😎 I am tired; I don't feel particularly well; and I am struggling whether or not to continue this journey, or simply go back to LDS history and my work on the study of religion and conflict and be done with it.  As I said a couple of hours ago, I am discouraged.

Now back to Hawn's Mill (it has a w not a u). Jacob Hawn was probably a Mennonite who did not convert to Mormonism. His brother did. Within a year or so after the Hawn's Mill episode he migrated to Oregon where he established mills in what are now Mennonite colonies there. I am researching his lineage to perhaps find evidence that he was indeed a Mennonite from Pennsylvania, as I think. Alex Baugh is the leading faithful Mormon historian on the Missouri period. Steven LeSeuer is the leading new Mormon history historian on Missouri. I recommend both their books. In fact, their studies are a wonderful example of Mormon history at its contrasting best. That kind of research really challenges me because at some point the facts will lead me to a conclusion. This Mormon doctrine stuff; I am not quite so sure where it is leading me. I feel worse about Mormonism today that I did ten years ago. I think coming here (to this forum) was a mistake. You all are a tight-knit slightly schizoid group designed to provide entertainment and intellectual stimulation to each other. I mean that genuinely, but I hope not offensively. Maybe I should simply stick to wowing LDS audiences with my Mormon history trivia knowledge  and forget the doctrine!  Did you know about Junius Romney's ..........oh never mind!

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, CMZ said:

I was having lunch one time at some restaurant at the top of the Joseph Smith Memorial Building (The Roof? The Garden?) and Dallin H. Oaks came in with three other people for lunch. The other people with him didn't seem to fit the typical church mold and maybe seemed a touch on the worldly side but Elder Oaks seemed to just be having a good visit with them without a hint of being judgmental towards them. Now I wonder if the young man in the group was this grandson I'm hearing about.

And how do we answer that?

[Calm]

Quote

And I cannot figure out the temple rites if the Savior does not have His wounds.  They make no sense.  I see all Adams as Thomases.

What do you think will happen to the temple when we have performed all the endowments and moved on to live the promised blessings?  (Serious questions, I am wondering if you view the purpose of the temple ceremony differently than I do).

I am not suggesting the Saviour has no wounds at this time as humanity has certainly not reached the point of seeing God as clearly he sees us, I just don't see them as inherently eternally needed if humanity all moves on to the stage where we can know who he is and what he did for us through a full spiritual awareness.  Are symbols or signs needed after the destination has been reached?

[CMZ]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And how do we answer that?

No need to. I'm just wondering out loud.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps I need now to clarify a difference that is very important to me and that may be confusing to you all. None of you know me and that isn't fair - maybe I should give you all some General Authority's names as references! That might confuse you even more. I have very strong thoughts from having read and studied original sources, books, diaries, journals, etc by both Mormons and non-Mormons for 30 years about LDS history. It is that extensive study of history that prompted my interest in Mormon doctrine - that and a few wonderful LDS folks I met back in the 80's. I have strong opinions (beliefs) about the "innocent persecution" construct that Mormons have built up over the years. I have written about it. I have tried to avoid anything but light-hearted bits and pieces about Mormon history here  so as not to offend anyone. Then like today, I get ticked at you all for mocking me and I let it fly. So contrary to all of you, at 69 there are still some imperfections in me! 😃 My whole interest in Mormon exceptionalism stems from my studies in Mormon history and sociology. So today and this past week  I offended you. I think we may be even on that count!  I am sorry. I was upset, feeling marginalized and I was frustrated at getting different answers, especially in my heavenly mother and the Virgin of Guadalupe thread. I also get irritated because of the pat "you just misunderstand" LDS stuff. I want to shout, maybe if that is true (I am not conceding It), I don't understand it because it is not understandable! See the different answers point. So, yes I have strong beliefs on LDS history, probably more in line with what is sometimes known as "new Mormon history." 

I have very different perspectives on LDS Doctrine. I mostly just find it confusing. It goes like this: 1. We believe this; 2. We believe it because God told our prophet this and we don't need no stinkin' principles of interpretation or doctrinal formulation! 3. Then five of you tell me three different things; 4. I remain confused and ask again; 5. You tell me I just don't understand - go read a source I have read 3 times; 6. I ask a senior elder in our chapel why the Mormon encyclopedia says this or that and he looks at it and answers my question by saying "I don't believe that!" Ok . . . back to 1.   I am not you typical investigator who is unhappy in my faith or who has no faith and jumps because a 19 year old kid wants to baptize me because he has the priesthood and I don't.  He says I can only have the Holy Ghost if he baptizes me because he has authority - I ask him what that means and he hesitates and we are back at 2.  So yes, I can be confusing I am sure. I will play Mormon history jeopardy with any of you anytime. But Mormon doctrine is not a game to me. I once said on this forum that my past year attending an LDS ward has been a "Lonely Walk" I think either that went right past you all, or your really are an insensitive bunch of lunkheads. I now believe more of the latter than the former. 😎 I am tired; I don't feel particularly well; and I am struggling whether or not to continue this journey, or simply go back to LDS history and my work on the study of religion and conflict and be done with it.  As I said a couple of hours ago, I am discouraged.

Now back to Hawn's Mill (it has a w not a u). Jacob Hawn was probably a Mennonite who did not convert to Mormonism. His brother did. Within a year or so after the Hawn's Mill episode he migrated to Oregon where he established mills in what are now Mennonite colonies there. I am researching his lineage to perhaps find evidence that he was indeed a Mennonite from Pennsylvania, as I think. Alex Baugh is the leading faithful Mormon historian on the Missouri period. Steven LeSeuer is the leading new Mormon history historian on Missouri. I recommend both their books. In fact, their studies are a wonderful example of Mormon history at its contrasting best. That kind of research really challenges me because at some point the facts will lead me to a conclusion. This Mormon doctrine stuff; I am not quite so sure where it is leading me. I feel worse about Mormonism today that I did ten years ago. I think coming here (to this forum) was a mistake. You all are a tight-knit slightly schizoid group designed to provide entertainment and intellectual stimulation to each other. I mean that genuinely, but I hope not offensively. Maybe I should simply stick to wowing LDS audiences with my Mormon history trivia knowledge  and forget the doctrine!  Did you know about Junius Romney's ..........oh never mind!

History is irrelevant to spiritual matters

Eyewitnesses to the crucifixion rejected him as savior and now it is 2000 years later.

Trust me.

You are as much an enigma to us as we are to you.

[Calm]

Quote

I don't understand it because it is not understandable

I don't think it is in the sense of a one size fits all definition except perhaps at a very simple level.  We interpret our beliefs through our experiences and we all have different experiences.  We (the Saints on the board) see ourselves as Christians, but what that means to each of us is likely different as soon as you get past the simple "follower of Christ" definition.

And from what posters have said, most come to the board because they want to see how others understand and live life and share their own views, not to coorelate understandings into a group response.  So questions bring out variety, not conformity.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Calm

[Navidad]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am trying to understand you but I am beginning to think it is futile.

You don't see it, I am sorry.

You say we hold ourselves out as "exceptional".   Fine

That means you BELIEVE we hold ourselves out as exceptional.  That is your BELIEF.  You are confident of it because you say it in every post

EVERY POST you make shows your beliefs about us with extreme confidence!!

Your blind spot fills the horizon!

And every post goes point counter point!!   Why are we not getting along on these stupid issues? Because we are going point counter-point!!

I don't mind doing that.  That is exactly what I do- I refute anti-mormons.

You apparently think it is wrong to do that for some reason, you think it is wrong to think of oneself as "exceptional" and yet you do just that BECAUSE of your belief that it is "wrong" TO BE "EXCEPTIONAL".  

That is the basis of the disagreement.  I think it is wonderful to be exceptional and you think a priori that clearly being exceptional is wrong.

You have shown no evidence of that- and had you done that, you would be contradicting yourself because you said 

OBVIOUSLY you are more confident that one should NOT be exceptional than we are.   That is being more confident of your beliefs than  ours, because we most heartily endorse being exceptional

I just don't get it at all.  It seems obvious to me you deny doing exactly what you do.  Sorry I am stumped.  It's like saying the lights are off when they are on.

How do you argue with that?

 

I won't argue with that or with you. I will simply reiterate what I have said (you are correct, so why argue) that Mormon exceptionalism, is I believe a construct that comes from Mormon sociology, group identity and history. You see it as an attack on your doctrine. I don't. In fact, I wish we really could have a thread where I could share those thoughts, then maybe I wouldn't do it in every post! I also think you may be confused (I can say that since you always say I misunderstand!) about how I use the word exceptional. As I think about it I think it is 1. A group psychological and sociological construct; 2. It comes out of LDS self-perception as to its history and 3. I am not the first to maintain or hold this perspective. I also bring it up so much because it is one of the key factors influencing me not to convert. So I guess I am "confessing" my belief (not doctrinal belief) but, more an observation of LDS writings, speeches and history. It has very little to do with things like the LDS doctrine of salvation or exaltation, although that is completely foreign to me, I admit. Perhaps I have a narrower view of doctrine than you do. That is why I don't connect when you and others infer I am arguing doctrine in my posts. To me doctrine is the great ologies - my concept of exceptionalism might fit into anthropology, psychology and sociology, but those aren't doctrines. The nature of Christ, the salvific effect of baptismal waters are all doctrinal and I have judiciously avoided any of that. Those things are not something I want to, or will debate on this forum. They aren't my reason for being here. I hope that helps; but it might just confuse things more.  For the fifth time tonight I will say, sorry!

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

You don't have to feel bad for having a strong reaction or opinion. I might be wrong, and in my post to you just a minute ago I mentioned that maybe they will want to return to a different body or have their problems fixed.

Yes, I saw that.  If I ever acquire a perfect knowledge of the matter, I will try to convey what I know, so we can both be enlightened.  Don't hold your breath, however! 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

My niece is a Medium, don't know what you think of them, but she was given a gift of having the spirits communicate with her. She said that my mom still has some affects of her Alzheimer's disease in the afterlife, but that it's not as bad as it once was, so I'm so hoping it disappears completely. I am a skeptic sometimes, but I can't imagine my niece lying.

I'd be skeptical, too, but of course, even if she is wrong, she needn't be lying.  None of us are so perfect we cannot be deceived.  And for all I know, Alzheimers does continue into the Spirit World but eventually retreats until gone.  Apparently those who are addicted to cigarettes still feel the addiction after death (or so I've heard), so maybe there's something to that.  Though I beg leave to doubt it.  I shall not mention this to my current lovely wife, in any case.  Her mother had Alzheimers and she was comforted by the notion that when she passed she shed the Alzheimers, too.  Myself, I can't abide the thought of being all fogged up when I pass on to the next stage that I don't recognize that I've done it.  I've always said that when I die (if I do), I want to do so while awake and aware of what's happening, so I don't suddenly wake up and shout "WTF!?"  It might be a smidge embarrassing.  I spent 8 years in the Army, and if I don't watch myself I can sometimes break into barracks language upon being surprised.  The hymn “School Thy Feelings” (No. 336) may have been written just for me.  

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

But that's a topic for a different time. Anyhow, did you read the post on Stiff Neckedness before making these apologies? (lol, just kidding!)  

No, I didn't see that post (where was it? here?).  My apology was entirely self-motivated! 🙂  There I was, typing away on one of my very awesome posts* when I suddenly got the feeling that I was being a big blowhard about it all.  Actually, it was more like "You are starting to sound like an insufferable pr***."   Hate it when that happens.  I don't know if it was the Spirit telling me that (does the Spirit use indelicate language?), or my own self-awareness belatedly kicking in.  In any case, I felt like I needed to dial things back a few turns.  And start thinking a bit more before spouting off.  My dad used to be fond of the expression "bull in a china shop," and that also occurred to me.

*Still not being sufficiently humble btw.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, and I like you posting here, so don't go for long, are you heading back to England soon? And BTW, I feel as if you're a friend, ever since your posts when your late wife was dying, God Bless her soul.  Take Care!

As you can see, I still haven't taken a break.  I might go to bed soon, though, so there's that hope at least.  I shall be here in the Great State of Washington for a total of 3 weeks.  Then it's back to Ye Olde Countree.

I still own the the house where she passed, and that is where I am now.  Her passing is never far from me, but though it evokes sadness, it also evokes triumph because she endured to the end, never compromising her principles or dreading her end.  I should hope that if I die, I will be as courageous and triumphant as she was.  I greatly appreciate your tender thoughts on this subject, Tacenda!  

One of the reasons I end up responding to you here is that I feel as if you're a friend as well.  And I'm a typical guy. You know, the kind who feels he has to fix things?  Not that you need fixing, but if there were some way to help you feel more confident about the gospel and the Church, I've love to find it and do it.  So I go about clumsily trying to help you understand that things are all right.  But of course that isn't my job, necessarily, even assuming I knew how to do it! Which I obviously don't.  And then the "bull in a china shop" thing occurs to me.  🙂 

I will take care, and may you do so as well.  Have a good week, dear sister!

 

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Captures it perfectly

Especially the part about me "being insufficiently humble, forbearing and conciliatory"!

Edited to add: "and full of myself," let's not forget that one.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Stargazer

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I won't argue with that or with you. I will simply reiterate what I have said (you are correct, so why argue) that Mormon exceptionalism, is I believe a construct that comes from Mormon sociology, group identity and history. You see it as an attack on your doctrine. I don't. In fact, I wish we really could have a thread where I could share those thoughts, then maybe I wouldn't do it in every post! I also think you may be confused (I can say that since you always say I misunderstand!) about how I use the word exceptional. As I think about it I think it is 1. A group psychological and sociological construct; 2. It comes out of LDS self-perception as to its history and 3. I am not the first to maintain or hold this perspective. I also bring it up so much because it is one of the key factors influencing me not to convert. So I guess I am "confessing" my belief (not doctrinal belief) but, more an observation of LDS writings, speeches and history. It has very little to do with things like the LDS doctrine of salvation or exaltation, although that is completely foreign to me, I admit. Perhaps I have a narrower view of doctrine than you do. That is why I don't connect when you and others infer I am arguing doctrine in my posts. To me doctrine is the great ologies - my concept of exceptionalism might fit into anthropology, psychology and sociology, but those aren't doctrines. The nature of Christ, the salvific effect of baptismal waters are all doctrinal and I have judiciously avoided any of that. Those things are not something I want to, or will debate on this forum. They aren't my reason for being here. I hope that helps; but it might just confuse things more.  For the fifth time tonight I will say, sorry!

You're doing fine. You just got entangled in the peculiarities of this board, that, as I said before, really is not the official way to learn about the doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What do you think will happen to the temple when we have performed all the endowments and moved on to live the promised blessings?  (Serious questions, I am wondering if you view the purpose of the temple ceremony differently than I do).

I am not suggesting the Saviour has no wounds at this time as humanity has certainly not reached the point of seeing God as clearly he sees us, I just don't see them as inherently eternally needed if humanity all moves on to the stage where we can know who he is and what he did for us through a full spiritual awareness.  Are symbols or signs needed after the destination has been reached?

Well it says there will be no more need for "church"

But Givens says in his new book and presents a good case that ordinances are not signs or symbols or at least that that is the paradigm we accept.  We are more Catholic than Protestant in "Feed my Sheep" and see ordinances themselves as making in some sense a physical change in us.

I think they are right.  That view deepens the doctrine considerably, with the notion that there is no immaterial matter and the changes are real as opposed to symbolic

I would add to that that they are real because that is the way they are experienced directly- that makes them "real".  If you feel nothing after an ordinance I think nothing happens.  But I think it is the experience itself that leaves a mark- quite literally- in the spirit.

Hasn't the experience of an ordinance changed you?  It has for me.  

Givens does not make it that specific but that is my view as a paradigm for making it all work better.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Unless God is secretly Rush Limbaugh?

Or Rush Limbaugh is secretly God?

In any case, thanks for the laugh! 

 

[Navidad]

2 minutes ago, CMZ said:

You're doing fine. You just got entangled in the peculiarities of this board, that, as I said before, really is not the official way to learn about the doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

 

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

You're doing fine. You just got entangled in the peculiarities of this board, that, as I said before, really is not the official way to learn about the doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

Thanks for your post. I am not sure what "the official" way is . . . I have faithfully attended, participated in an LDS Ward with all the meetings, parties, picnics, fellowships, and have had two senior elders in our home talking with my wife and I on numerous occasions. I skip the dances because Mennonites don't dance! We are also against pre-marital sex because it leads to dancing (that is a Mennonite joke!). So, I decided to come here to try and learn. I have enjoyed much of the discussions, but certainly others have just confused me. I guess I am easily confused!

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

We are also against pre-marital sex because it leads to dancing (that is a Mennonite joke!).

You just reminded me of one of my favourite websites: http://www.mennonitegirlscancook.ca/!

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I won't argue with that or with you. I will simply reiterate what I have said (you are correct, so why argue) that Mormon exceptionalism, is I believe a construct that comes from Mormon sociology, group identity and history. You see it as an attack on your doctrine. I don't. In fact, I wish we really could have a thread where I could share those thoughts, then maybe I wouldn't do it in every post! I also think you may be confused (I can say that since you always say I misunderstand!) about how I use the word exceptional. As I think about it I think it is 1. A group psychological and sociological construct; 2. It comes out of LDS self-perception as to its history and 3. I am not the first to maintain or hold this perspective. I also bring it up so much because it is one of the key factors influencing me not to convert. So I guess I am "confessing" my belief (not doctrinal belief) but, more an observation of LDS writings, speeches and history. It has very little to do with things like the LDS doctrine of salvation or exaltation, although that is completely foreign to me, I admit. Perhaps I have a narrower view of doctrine than you do. That is why I don't connect when you and others infer I am arguing doctrine in my posts. To me doctrine is the great ologies - my concept of exceptionalism might fit into anthropology, psychology and sociology, but those aren't doctrines. The nature of Christ, the salvific effect of baptismal waters are all doctrinal and I have judiciously avoided any of that. Those things are not something I want to, or will debate on this forum. They aren't my reason for being here. I hope that helps; but it might just confuse things more.  For the fifth time tonight I will say, sorry!

Of course it is sociological, and so are your views that exceptionalism is wrong.

And?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonites

Quote

In contemporary 21st-century society, Mennonites either are described only as a religious denomination with members of different ethnic origins[4][5] or as both an ethnic group and a religious denomination. There is controversy among Mennonites about this issue, with some insisting that they are simply a religious group while others argue that they form a distinct ethnic group.[6] Historians and sociologists have increasingly started to treat Mennonites as an ethno-religious group,[7] while others have begun to challenge that perception.[8] There is also a discussion about the term "ethnic Mennonite". Conservative Mennonite groups, who speak Pennsylvania German, Plautdietsch (Low German), or Bernese German fit well into the definition of an ethnic group, while more liberal groups and converts in developing countries do not.

Sounds like a tad of sociology there too.

Quote

There are about 2.1 million Anabaptists worldwide as of 2015 (including Mennonites, Amish, Mennonite Brethren, Hutterites and many other Anabaptist groups formally part of the Mennonite World Conference).[1] Mennonite congregations worldwide embody the full scope of Mennonite practice from "plain people" to those who are indistinguishable in dress and appearance from the general population. 

And so you have a sociology of being UNexceptional apparently unquestionable as a doctrine of some sort and we have a sociology of being exceptional apparently unquestionable as well.

So what more is there to talk about?

And don't worry about our doctrine- that will remain a mystery to you.

I happen to believe we have to all create our own worlds from matter unorganized as God has, by finding what works for Him and his Children.  No more "doctrine" is necessary  I am not trying to convert you or anyone who has definite beliefs.

Stick with them.  You understand the sociology and it is inside you.  We are so different my personal opinion is that if your present beliefs work for you, stay with them.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Or Rush Limbaugh is secretly God?

In any case, thanks for the laugh! 

 

Gosh I thought there was nothing secret about it!! 

 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Especially the part about me "being insufficiently humble, forbearing and conciliatory"!

Edited to add: "and full of myself," let's not forget that one.

Everyone is insufficiently humble I guess except them.  I don't get it 

I guess they brag about being humble.  Go figure.

[Stargazer]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 

Thanks for your post. I am not sure what "the official" way is . . . I have faithfully attended, participated in an LDS Ward with all the meetings, parties, picnics, fellowships, and have had two senior elders in our home talking with my wife and I on numerous occasions.

So, you're a "dry Mormon" then?  

How much of the regular discussions or lessons have you become familiar with in all this activity?  

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I skip the dances because Mennonites don't dance! We are also against pre-marital sex because it leads to dancing (that is a Mennonite joke!).

Maybe I'm part Mennonite, because I don't like to dance!  I don't know if that's as good a joke as yours there, but there it is.   

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

So, I decided to come here to try and learn. I have enjoyed much of the discussions, but certainly others have just confused me.

Well, you could have picked a worse place, for sure, but I wouldn't characterize this as the best!  Earlier you mentioned feeling discouraged, and I have to tell you that some of the topics on this board have not only confused and discouraged me, but made me want to stay very very far away from them.  Occasionally I am reminded of the saying "Contention is of the devil," and this sometimes happens when I've been contending rather ill-advisedly.

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I guess I am easily confused!

That used to be my line!