Jeanne Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, changed said: The most common disagreements now I think are: LGBTQ issues Women's issues, women and the priesthood, women's roles supporting the prophet (testimony in just God needed or testimony in the current prophet? The current prophet has 2 wives, the current prophet does not agree with evolution etc.... ) Older issues: Blacks and the priesthood Agreement over some aspects of history (like polygamy) Book of Abraham All of this...should we forget...has everything to do with belief in prophecy. Period.
Jeanne Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 2 hours ago, changed said: The entire gospel does not rest on Joseph Smith - it rests on the Bible, it rests on Jesus Christ. Leaving Joseph Smith's church is very different from leaving the Christian faith. I agree - no need to throw the baby out with the bath water - there is a need to throw out the bath water though. My current understanding of all the different faiths out there - I think God gives everyone an imperfect group to take us the first few steps (does not really matter what group it is - Muslims, Hindu, Jewish, Christian - does not matter) some group takes all of us the first little bit, but then hopefully we see imperfections in the group - learn not to trust in the arm of flesh, and by the end it is not about faith in any human group - it should become an individual journey, individual testimony, accountable to your own conscience - a very personal journey by the end. In the end, there is no one to answer - only yourself, We all must find our own answers, and not look to others to do the thinking for us. It is a little scary - finding your own answers, learning not to rely on others, knowing the answers you come up with for yourself might be as wrong as the answers your neighbor came up with for themselves - dealing with uncertainty, learning to become your own authority figure, standing on your own two feet - and then trying to come up with appropriate answers for the little ones who might look up to you... that is what growing up is I guess. I have found most who cannot "leave" are trapped by other family members who are members... you cannot "leave" because your parents / spouse / kids / loved ones are TBM's, so you have to deal with it. I have stopped going to church because I do not want to appear "contentious", and it would be really hard for me to keep my big mouth shut through some discussions... so "if you want to avoid a bar fight, don't go into the bar.." haha, trouble is, my kids are going to church - I do not mind, I do think community is needed in the initial stages of a faith journey... although I would rather my kids not be too brainwashed I brainwash the kids at home... others brainwash them at church... my 12yo's last interview with the Bishop was quite .... entertaining... to watch a grown man take on a little 12yo girl who does not believe JS was a prophet - haha... I've never seen a grown man squirm so much. .... one thing for an adult to question... another thing for a sweet little girl to bring up the problem areas. proud mama moment. To your first paragraph...I so agree. So much of any gospel that I have heard does not rest on Joseph Smith. This is what separates so many. That so much of what Joseph Smith is said to bring forth in restoration...in some very key ways...separated the Bible and the very love of Jesus Christ. 1
rockpond Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, CV75 said: Those are just general topic areas. I’m looking for a more concrete and specific example where someone had a question, received what they felt was an inspired answer that disagreed with the Brethren’s answer, and realized he should have kept it to himself. I'll provide an example but is it obviously anecdotal and I do not have any kind of "reference" to back it up. So if someone is going to be tempted to hit me back with a CFR, just stop reading. A friend of mine, during her temple recommend interview, told our bishop that she did not agree with the Brethren's position on LGBT issues (her beliefs are the result of personal inspiration on this question). He signed her recommend but reported the conversation to our stake president. When she interviewed with the stake president he told her that he wouldn't sign the recommend because her beliefs were not in alignment with the Brethren. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 12 minutes ago, changed said: Thanks. As I talk with others, it seems many who leave the church have "legitimate" reasons. It is often not a lack of faith in God, or "sin", or not reading scriptures etc. etc. there are some really really rough trials going around right now - it would be great if friendships/families/relationships could survive someone "leaving" or questioning the church. I do think the spirit is real - have had spiritual experiences before, and just assumed others had too. I am learning that I can only trust my own experiences though, and cannot trust the guidance or experiences of anyone else. There are some things about the church I still love - love the word of wisdom, love the idea of personal revelation.... other things, like gender roles (I cannot rely on the priesthood to protect and provide, I do not like the idea of relying on the priesthood for my eternal salvation - for ordinances - do not like relying on the arms of any flesh and think that is wrong) ... just getting sooper independent through this, redefining a few things. I completely agree with you about the reasons people give for leaving, and not attributing bad faith or sinful behavior towards those that leave. People are what matter most in this world, in my opinion, and we ought to respect and show love to others even if they make choices we personally wouldn't make. As for the spirit, I didn't say it isn't "real". I do think its real, but I don't think it is a superpower. In other words, whatever is happening with respect to the spirit, is not a supernatural phenomenon, but rather a natural process, I believe an evolutionarily selected phenomenon. There are benefits to living a life by the spirit, but one of those benefits is not an expectation that spiritual experiences give people access to special powers that are beyond natural human perceptions. If interested, this is a great book on the science of God in your brain, and its written in a way that is not antagonistic towards believers. https://www.amazon.com/How-Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist/dp/0345503422/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540837842&sr=1-3&keywords=god+and+the+brai 2
hope_for_things Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'll provide an example but is it obviously anecdotal and I do not have any kind of "reference" to back it up. So if someone is going to be tempted to hit me back with a CFR, just stop reading. A friend of mine, during her temple recommend interview, told our bishop that she did not agree with the Brethren's position on LGBT issues (her beliefs are the result of personal inspiration on this question). He signed her recommend but reported the conversation to our stake president. When she interviewed with the stake president he told her that he wouldn't sign the recommend because her beliefs were not in alignment with the Brethren. But the apologists keep telling us that blind obedience isn't taught in our church.
CV75 Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'll provide an example but is it obviously anecdotal and I do not have any kind of "reference" to back it up. So if someone is going to be tempted to hit me back with a CFR, just stop reading. A friend of mine, during her temple recommend interview, told our bishop that she did not agree with the Brethren's position on LGBT issues (her beliefs are the result of personal inspiration on this question). He signed her recommend but reported the conversation to our stake president. When she interviewed with the stake president he told her that he wouldn't sign the recommend because her beliefs were not in alignment with the Brethren. I think anecdotal is fine for a message board. Any idea what the particular issues were? For example, she can agree with their position on housing, employment, marriage, etc. while not agreeing or behaving in accordance with their position on chastity or the membership policy for their children. Does she regret having shared her position, and what has she done since?
CV75 Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: But the apologists keep telling us that blind obedience isn't taught in our church. But you keep telling us that blind obedience and agreement are the same thing, LOL. Do you ave an example to share? 2
hope_for_things Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 1 minute ago, CV75 said: But you keep telling us that blind obedience and agreement are the same thing, LOL. Do you ave an example to share? https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/ata-do-mormons-believe-in-blind-obedience I agree
CV75 Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/ata-do-mormons-believe-in-blind-obedience I agree Cutting and pasting a link without explanation when asked for an example seems like blind obedience to me! Do you have a real example where someone had a question, received what they felt was an inspired answer that disagreed with the Brethren’s answer, and realized he should have kept it to himself? Do you have an example where blind obedience and agreement are the same thing?
pogi Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 2 hours ago, changed said: Do you think my reason is legitimate? (left after HP - year after year, calling after calling abused child after child) Kind of hard to believe that callings come from God, that HP's are there to "protect" that "leaders will not lead anyone astray" after something like that... when you lose faith in the priesthood, everything else starts tumbling down as well. I know that leaders have abused children, but I have a different perspective to what you frame as an irreconcilable problem. From God's perspective, are you confident that your reason for leaving was legitimate in His eyes? Isn't that what really matters? Maybe it was, I don't know. I think he is compassionate and understanding of our lack of perspective. Having said that, while accept that you had a legitimate reason to leave from your perspective, I think you have a legitimate reason to return from my perspective, but ultimately all that matters is God's perspective. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 On 10/28/2018 at 12:56 PM, bluebell said: We had a regional conference this morning and Pres. Ballard was the last speaker. At one point he stated that he hated to hear of members with honest and sincere questions who are made to feel as if they are lacking faith for asking them. He said that that is not appropriate and that there is nothing wrong with asking questions. In fact, he said that asking questions is good (and inferred to JS asking his question in the grove). He did end that portion of his talk by reminding everyone that while it is good to seek for knowledge and learning, we can never forget that we are a religion of faith and sometimes we will be required have faith and hope rather than receive actual knowledge of something gospel related. I just wanted to share that because I think it's important for us to remember that having sincere questions and asking them is not bad. Nor is it a sign that someone needs to repent or 'have more faith'. Hugh Nibley publicly decried the lack of questions at BYU. People who think that they have got all the answers don't ask questions, and hence don't learn very much. 3
rockpond Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 41 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think anecdotal is fine for a message board. Any idea what the particular issues were? For example, she can agree with their position on housing, employment, marriage, etc. while not agreeing or behaving in accordance with their position on chastity or the membership policy for their children. Does she regret having shared her position, and what has she done since? She is a heterosexual married woman so it isn't a matter of behavior. Let's just say that she disagreed with the Nov 2015 policy. I don't know if she regrets it and she is continuing as an active member of our ward. I'm not sure what that has to do with it. I provided the example. And this is the problem with the OP's quote: The Brethren are find saying that questions are acceptable and that we should pray for a confirmation of their teachings. But, the answers you get need to be aligned with the Brethren, or you need to keep them to yourself.
pogi Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I largely think someone's personal perspective is all that matters to qualify as legitimate, and I'm using this term in a subjective sense. I'm pretty egalitarian when it comes to people's expressions of choice when it comes to religious expression. There are some exceptions obviously, when this crosses over into abuse or infringes on the rights of others. But this is primarily a freedom of expression and speech issue for me, and in that way its legitimate if the person believes it is legitimate. If all that is required to legitimize a person's actions is their own perspective, then how can there be exceptions to that rule? You state that there are "obvious" exceptions in cases where the rights of others are infringed upon. What if a person's perspective denies that people have God given rights and that their actions of abuse are not an infringement of any pretended or make-believe "rights". Why is your perspective legitimate but not theirs? You also need to explain what you mean by "legitimate" - as in legitimate in who's eyes? Edited October 29, 2018 by pogi
Storm Rider Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 Some of the statements here (Changed comments are an example) are prime examples of relying on the arm of flesh and choosing to walk in the mists of darkness. Relying on the arm of flesh is believing that "I" can do it better than God can; my thoughts are the ultimate in all thought. Changed states that (s)he rejects relying on the arm of flesh while actually choosing to do just that. Relying on the arm of flesh is an unwillingness to be humble and/or to follow. This is very different from the need to gain one's own spiritual witness to the reality of Jesus Christ as our Master, Savior, and King. God created us as social creatures; he recognizes the need for political structures to govern his children in the same way that he has organized his children with spiritual guidance through those he calls. It is pretty clear that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches its members to be subject to a broad range of political structures. The Church also teaches that there are those on the earth that are called to govern the temporal organization of the Church. I believe that some of these individuals are gifted leaders and prophets/apostles of Jesus Christ. I think others are just good administrators and for me or not often inspiring. I expect that they also might be very inspiring to others. I also think that we are inspired by truth wherever we find it or teaches it. We have been taught to seek these out and accept them for our own. A whole lot of pride and misunderstanding often leads to personal apostasy.
cinepro Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/ata-do-mormons-believe-in-blind-obedience I agree "Blind obedience" is really just another name for "faith". And I'm pretty sure the Church believes in faith.
CV75 Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 18 minutes ago, rockpond said: She is a heterosexual married woman so it isn't a matter of behavior. Let's just say that she disagreed with the Nov 2015 policy. I don't know if she regrets it and she is continuing as an active member of our ward. I'm not sure what that has to do with it. I provided the example. And this is the problem with the OP's quote: The Brethren are find saying that questions are acceptable and that we should pray for a confirmation of their teachings. But, the answers you get need to be aligned with the Brethren, or you need to keep them to yourself. I asked about any regrets because I was wondering why one would need to keep her answer to herself as you suggested, implying that harm would be done by sharing. I’m not finding the OP’s quote as you’ve summarized it. The OP does say that honest and sincere questions are good; judging those with such questions is not; sometimes the answers (or lack thereof) require faith… nothing about confirmation, alignment or self-censorship. Am I missing a quote? I've heard elsewhere plenty of counsel about confirmation and alignment with the Brethren and sustaining them, and additonal counsel about finding answers to questions and faith, but not about self-censorship.
CV75 Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 12 minutes ago, cinepro said: "Blind obedience" is really just another name for "faith". Is that why Alma refers to "looking forward with an [not the] eye of faith"?
JAHS Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 2 hours ago, changed said: It is not just one HP - it is everyone who put them into leadership positions, sustained them year after year after year in leadership callings and callings with children. Even if others are not evil - they certainly did not have the spirit with them - were not able to protect anyone, were not warned by the spirit of anything... No one stopped it no one had the spirit people supported this abuser.... raised their hands and supported him, year after year after year. trust that everyone in leadership is being led by the spirit??? that callings come from God??? read your scriptures go to the temple and you will be protected?? the church did not take care of this issue - the guy was turned in by his employer, not the church. they knew - this guy's first temple marriage was ended because of his problems (sure, no one believes a cranky angry ex-wife), he was going to addiction recovery groups - the church knew, and did nothing. Even so you are still talking about a few members and local church leaders who made some mistakes. Even Joseph Smith himself once said the spirit was not with him and he was unable to translate because of that. Just because one has the priesthood does not mean they have a continuous direct channel to God and the spirit. Sometimes decisions are not made by inspiration. But for the most part and from what I have experienced the system works. I have a testimony of the gospel confirmed by the holy Ghost several times and I am not willing to give up my eternal life because of the mistakes of a few imperfect individuals.
Ouagadougou Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 8 hours ago, changed said: Perhaps it is the "answer" which is at fault. Good answers are not casually dismissed. I think you make a good point here. IMO, some of the apologetics and even essays provide pretty ridiculous answers to some valid questions. Just a few quick examples off the top of my head: Horses are tapirs (BoM historicity) Two Hill Cumorahs Book of Abraham problems/issues Polygamy Kinderhook Plates And the list goes on. If you look at the compilation of various reasonable concerns/questions some people might have, and then look at some of the answers that are provided, IMO, it's easy to see way some answers are easily dismissed. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, CV75 said: Cutting and pasting a link without explanation when asked for an example seems like blind obedience to me! Do you have a real example where someone had a question, received what they felt was an inspired answer that disagreed with the Brethren’s answer, and realized he should have kept it to himself? Do you have an example where blind obedience and agreement are the same thing? It wasn't clear to me what you were asking for, I thought you wanted evidence for my claim that apologists are frequently denying the teaching of blind obedience. As for examples, I do have personal ones. Like the time that I told my bishop that I felt inspired to take a sabbatical from church and he told me that I shouldn't because I would risk losing the spirit and falling away from church. Or there's the time that I felt inspired to tell the bishop that he needed to implement a two deep policy for all the primary classes even the ones taught by women, for the protection of the leaders and the children and he told me it wasn't required in the handbook and that he was going to stick to the handbook requirements. Lastly on a more positive note, there's the time when I first started along my path of faith journey study of church history and I asked a counselor in the stake presidency about attending Sunstone and whether that would put me in trouble with the church and that counselor said it would be no problem and that he encouraged me to study and seek answers to questions, as long as I considered honestly both sides of an issue. This was a really good counselor. As for blind obedience and agreement, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, you said I was advocating that position earlier, but I don't recall where I've said that exactly.
SouthernMo Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Hugh Nibley publicly decried the lack of questions at BYU. People who think that they have got all the answers don't ask questions, and hence don't learn very much. I’d encourage anyone to attend an LDS Sunday school or priesthood/RS meeting and take note of what a raised hand means. The vast majority of those hands are openings to statements/comments, NOT questions for the instructor. Mormons seem to be bad at asking questions, which is ironic (considering our origins with Jospeh Smith’s catalyst question. I think one’s closeness to God is better measured by one’s questions, rather than one’s answers. 1
hope_for_things Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, pogi said: If all that is required to legitimize a person's actions is their own perspective, then how can there be exceptions to that rule? You state that there are "obvious" exceptions in cases where the rights of others are infringed upon. What if a person's perspective denies that people have God given rights and that their actions of abuse are not an infringement of any pretended or make-believe "rights". Why is your perspective legitimate but not theirs? You also need to explain what you mean by "legitimate" - as in legitimate in who's eyes? I mentioned freedom of speech as an exception because I think it is a prime example. Freedom of speech in the US constitution is the corollary example of where freedom is respected, but only up to certain limits where that freedom starts to threaten or infringe on the freedom of others. Its also part of the social contract and I don't think we need to rehash these age old arguments. As for legitimate, I already explained that I think its legitimate in the eyes of the individual making the choice, in a subjective sense, and that we as outside observers should honor their identity and their religious preferences. I'm starting to wonder if you perhaps come from a different country than myself, and maybe weren't raised with the American values that I thought were pretty ubiquitous in western culture. Is this the case? 1
hope_for_things Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 59 minutes ago, cinepro said: "Blind obedience" is really just another name for "faith". And I'm pretty sure the Church believes in faith. I agree that this is what many people think of as faith. I think its a misappropriation of the term. I think faith is more about trust and that trust needs to be backed up by reason and logic. Unlimited trust is dangerous and that is what blind faith is.
rockpond Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 56 minutes ago, CV75 said: I asked about any regrets because I was wondering why one would need to keep her answer to herself as you suggested, implying that harm would be done by sharing. The harm that was done by sharing was that she was denied a recommend. 57 minutes ago, CV75 said: I’m not finding the OP’s quote as you’ve summarized it. The OP does say that honest and sincere questions are good; judging those with such questions is not; sometimes the answers (or lack thereof) require faith… nothing about confirmation, alignment or self-censorship. Am I missing a quote? No. I am suggesting that what he's not saying is that if you ask an honest and sincere question and your study and prayer leads you to an answer that doesn't align with the Brethren, you need to keep it to yourself. Sharing it is not advisable. 58 minutes ago, CV75 said: I've heard elsewhere plenty of counsel about confirmation and alignment with the Brethren and sustaining them, and additonal counsel about finding answers to questions and faith, but not about self-censorship. All true.
SouthernMo Posted October 29, 2018 Posted October 29, 2018 1 hour ago, pogi said: You also need to explain what you mean by "legitimate" - as in legitimate in who's eyes? This is key. We often use the term legitimate in an objective manner when it really is quite subjective.
Recommended Posts