Meadowchik Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I'm in no position to assess or even comment on what you 'used to believe about revelation'. But please note that my post didn't even mention beliefs; instead, I shared some examples of my personal experiences with revelation. (And I have hundreds more I could have shared.) Unless your past experiences with revelation have been very similar to mine, then you can't possibly understand revelation as I understand it. There is a fundamental difference between believing something without having experienced it and believing something because one has experienced it. No one, not even the faithful, have exactly the same experiences, but I can say I had experiences very comparable to the ones you described throughout my life. 6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: And that's where the whole 'I used to be just like you' mantra from the disaffected leaves me perplexed. If you genuinely experienced what I mean when I discuss revelation, and then you walked away from it, you are either crazy or evil. I can understand that conclusion and might have thought similarly as a believer, but that doesn't make it correct. 6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I really don't think most people who leave the Church are either of those things, so the only conclusion I can reach is that our experiences have not been the same. No one's experiences have been the same, and our comparable experiences with revelation do not represent all our experiences.
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted January 13, 2020 Popular Post Posted January 13, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Meadowchik said: No one, not even the faithful, have exactly the same experiences ... No. And yet there is such a tight bond of shared experience in the community of the Saints. Our elders quorum lesson yesterday was on revelation, and the discussion was so lively that the teacher's only role was to call on the next person. As my brothers in faith shared their personal experiences, it was obvious that we all knew the veracity of what each other was saying. Words and anecdotes rung true specifically because they were so familiar to each one's own lived experience. Physical nods of acknowledgement and statements of recognition occurred across the diverse group of men -- so different in ethnicity, language, national origin, educational levels, income levels, and length of time spent in the Church and yet so perfectly unified in the realm of shared experience. I have witnessed this phenomenon over and over and over again, including in a branch so remote that it existed outside of any stake or district. The branch president, his elder brother, and their families formed the core of this branch. Not one of them had ever met a missionary, seen a session of General Conference, attended a branch or district conference, or even read a copy of the Liahona. My first Sunday in the branch was a Fast Sunday, and I was interested to hear what testimonies might sound like in such circumstances. The branch president shared his first, and he told a story as part of it. It sounded exactly like a story I could have told. His experiences sounded just like things I had experienced. His interactions with God sounded exactly like mine too, and the ways in which God had responded to his prayers were identical to responses I had obtained. In short, his testimony sounded exactly like mine, not because someone had taught him to say the same words but because his experiences had given him the same knowledge and understanding. Quote ... but I can say I had experiences very comparable to the ones you described throughout my life. And yet absolutely nothing you have posted to this thread has been even vaguely familiar to me. At all. In fact, it's been the very opposite to what I experienced at church yesterday and in the independent branch I described above. I can detect no evidence whatsoever in your words to support what you claim here. You have shared zero personal experiences that sound or feel 'comparable' to me. So I hope you'll please forgive me if my innate response is a healthy dose of disbelief. Quote I can understand that conclusion and might have thought similarly as a believer, but that doesn't make it correct. And there it is again: 'As you now are, I once was'. It sounds nice. I'm just not buying it. Edited January 13, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan 5
Meadowchik Posted January 13, 2020 Posted January 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: No. And yet there is such a tight bond of shared experience in the community of the Saints. Our elders quorum lesson yesterday was on revelation, and the discussion was so lively that the teacher's only role was call on the next person. As my brothers in faith shared their personal experiences, it was obvious that we all knew the veracity of what each other was saying. Words and anecdotes rung true specifically because they were so familiar to each one's own lived experience. Physical nods of acknowledgement and statements of recognition occurred across the diverse group of men -- so different in ethnicity, language, national origin, educational levels, income levels, and length of time spent in the Church and yet so perfectly unified in the realm of shared experience. I have witnessed this phenomenon over and over and over again, including in a branch so remote that it existed outside of any stake or district. The branch president, his elder brother, and their families formed the core of this branch. Not one of them had ever met a missionary, seen a session of General Conference, attended a branch or district conference, or even read a copy of the Liahona. My first Sunday in the branch was a Fast Sunday, and I was interested to hear what testimonies might sound like in such circumstances. The branch president shared his first, and he told a story as part of it. It sounded exactly like a story I could have told. His experiences sounded just like things I had experienced. His interactions with God sounded exactly like mine too, and the ways in which God had responded to his prayers were identical to responses I had obtained. In short, his testimony sounded exactly like mine, not because someone had taught him to say the same words but because his experiences had given him the same knowledge and understanding. And yet absolutely nothing you have posted to this thread has been even vaguely familiar to me. At all. In fact, it's been the very opposite to what I experienced at church yesterday and in the independent branch I described above. I can detect no evidence whatsoever in your words to support what you claim here. You have shared zero personal experiences that sound or feel 'comparable' to me. So I hope you'll please forgive me if my innate response is a healthy dose of disbelief. And there it is again: 'As you now are, I once was'. It sounds nice. I'm just not buying it. Of course my perspective now is different than it was as a believer, and yet I tried to engage by working off common ground that we share now. You are welcome to peruse my posts here from 2016 and before, when I was a believing Mormon, yet, I don't think such an exercise is necessary to discussing revelation and gender in the church. If personal common ground is not found, there are plenty of other sources (church scripture, history, and policy) that can provide productive context for discussion.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 20 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Of course my perspective now is different than it was as a believer, and yet I tried to engage by working off common ground that we share now. You are welcome to peruse my posts here from 2016 and before, when I was a believing Mormon, yet, I don't think such an exercise is necessary to discussing revelation and gender in the church. If personal common ground is not found, there are plenty of other sources (church scripture, history, and policy) that can provide productive context for discussion. The earliest of your posts I can find is from August of last year.
Meadowchik Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The earliest of your posts I can find is from August of last year. I'm not sure what you're missing in your search attempt and I am a bit rushed, but here's a thread that Calm pulled up a couple days ago and posted on SMAC's recent thread on Loss of Faith, etc...: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67314-church-disciplinary-councils-regarding-disputes-between-members/ 1
smac97 Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) On 1/12/2020 at 8:45 PM, Hamba Tuhan said: I'm in no position to assess or even comment on what you 'used to believe about revelation'. But please note that my post didn't even mention beliefs; instead, I shared some examples of my personal experiences with revelation. (And I have hundreds more I could have shared.) Unless your past experiences with revelation have been very similar to mine, then you can't possibly understand revelation as I understand it. Well, perhaps she and others can understand some aspects of it. Quote There is a fundamental difference between believing something without having experienced it and believing something because one has experienced it. I quite agree. Quote And that's where the whole 'I used to be just like you' mantra from the disaffected leaves me perplexed. If you genuinely experienced what I mean when I discuss revelation, and then you walked away from it, you are either crazy or evil. With respect, I can't agree with that. I have known far too many people who have had genuine spiritual experiences, and thereafter "walked away," but who are very good and decent people throughout this process. Consequently, "either crazy or evil" seems like a false dichotomy, as there can be quite a few more choices than just these two options. There are all sorts of things that can drown out or otherwise supersede the "still, small voice," or that can slow, stop, and/or reverse the process described in D&C 50:24 ("That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."). Quote I really don't think most people who leave the Church are either of those things, so the only conclusion I can reach is that our experiences have not been the same. Well, not precisely the same, but close enough for jazz. I am really, really grateful to be a member of the Church. I have been interacting with critics and dissidents on message boards like this for nearly 25 years. I have read considerable amounts of literature, watched many YouTube videos, and otherwise have given a lot of consideration to dispositive arguments against what we believe. I have come away with a strengthened and enlarged appreciation of the truthfulness of the Restoration. However, these efforts are all ancillary. In the end, it is the Spirit that counts, that predominates. But for the spiritual experiences I have had and built upon, but for me remembering and reminding myself of these things (and having a strong community of Saints around me to help me remember, and to strengthen my faith), I could see myself turning away. Forgetting or re-assessing and discounting those experiences. I could see becoming alienated from my fellow Saints. Thanks, -Smac Edited January 14, 2020 by smac97 2
Meadowchik Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The earliest of your posts I can find is from August of last year. And here's another one, from 2015, but another one that Calm posted for reference previously. It also dealt with the same topic, but was very early on, the first scary confrontation with our tenants: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65533-our-little-story-of-the-success-of-pastoral-care/ I joined the board in 2015, and I remember posting frequently on a range of topics, but unfortunately it appears that it is hard to find anything older than a year I guess. Without Calm's help, I would have had no better luck than you.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: And here's another one, from 2015, but another one that Calm posted for reference previously. It also dealt with the same topic, but was very early on, the first scary confrontation with our tenants: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65533-our-little-story-of-the-success-of-pastoral-care/ I joined the board in 2015, and I remember posting frequently on a range of topics, but unfortunately it appears that it is hard to find anything older than a year I guess. Without Calm's help, I would have had no better luck than you. Googling with site search is easiest. Board search function gets worse with time. Last time I used it I was looking for a specific post with a specific word in the one thread and even though I could see the word in several posts and the word should have been long enough, it claimed there were no hits. Don't even have a guess why it didn't register.
rockpond Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 I stepped away from this thread for a while but I am curious if there was any discussion of the following: Exhibit D and G of Nielsen's "Letter" identify one of the purposes of the investment fund as collateral for church purposes/operations. I'm still curious why we would need collateral if we don't ever take on any debt? 1
Meadowchik Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: Googling with site search is easiest. Board search function gets worse with time. Last time I used it I was looking for a specific post with a specific word in the one thread and even though I could see the word in several posts and the word should have been long enough, it claimed there were no hits. Don't even have a guess why it didn't register. I tried on Google and Bing without joy Thanks for your skills!
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 4 hours ago, Meadowchik said: I'm not sure what you're missing in your search attempt and I am a bit rushed, but here's a thread that Calm pulled up a couple days ago and posted on SMAC's recent thread on Loss of Faith, etc...: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67314-church-disciplinary-councils-regarding-disputes-between-members/ I tried going to your board profile and tapping “past content.” Obviously the utility of that board function is limited.
ksfisher Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 55 minutes ago, rockpond said: I stepped away from this thread for a while but I am curious if there was any discussion of the following: Exhibit D and G of Nielsen's "Letter" identify one of the purposes of the investment fund as collateral for church purposes/operations. I'm still curious why we would need collateral if we don't ever take on any debt? Could it have to do with the church being self insured?
smac97 Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I tried going to your board profile and tapping “past content.” Obviously the utility of that board function is limited. If I want to find a prior post of mine, I try to think of a distinct word or phrase I used in the post (such as one in which I mentioned Elder Holland speaking at Harvard), then I use the following google search: mormondialogue.org: "smac97" AND "harvard" AND "holland" The first result is the one I was hoping to find. This boolean search usually works quite well. Thanks, -Smac
rockpond Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 15 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Could it have to do with the church being self insured? Is the church self-insured? Property? Liability? Everything? If so, and if that was the case, wouldn't an EPA slide deck describe it as such? Collateral (when used as a noun) means something pledged as security for repayment of a loan. Would a group of financial advisors use "collateral" to describe money held aside as self-insurance?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 32 minutes ago, smac97 said: If I want to find a prior post of mine, I try to think of a distinct word or phrase I used in the post (such as one in which I mentioned Elder Holland speaking at Harvard), then I use the following google search: mormondialogue.org: "smac97" AND "harvard" AND "holland" The first result is the one I was hoping to find. This boolean search usually works quite well. Thanks, -Smac I understand Google searches fairly well. But if I wanted to peruse, say, all of Meadowchik’s pre-2016 posts, it would seem there’s no convenient way to do that.
Meadowchik Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I tried going to your board profile and tapping “past content.” Obviously the utility of that board function is limited. I read my old private messages and found some: Commenting: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66219-1-million-members-have-left-over-gay-marriage/page/6/?tab=comments#comment-1209549203 Posts: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66427-is-faithful-dissent-possible/page/4/ http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68113-yw-virtue-lesson-legos-version/page/2/ 1
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I tried going to your board profile and tapping “past content.” Obviously the utility of that board function is limited. If you get into the profile through google for an older post, it will give you access to older pages. Meadowchik, did you use site search? As in site:mormondialogue.org. It just may be all my years of searching this site has tuned google history to not wandering as much for me as others, so I have less clutter to wade through...or I just have a knack for choosing useful keywords to search for.
Calm Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I understand Google searches fairly well. But if I wanted to peruse, say, all of Meadowchik’s pre-2016 posts, it would seem there’s no convenient way to do that. Try site:mormondialogue.org meadowchik 2016 profile. This pulled up an older content profile page and you can then move around there to find her posts by date. http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/30039-meadowchik/content/page/57/?type=forums_topic_post
Calm Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 6 hours ago, rockpond said: the church self-insured? Property? Liability? Everything? Last I heard, yes.
rockpond Posted January 15, 2020 Posted January 15, 2020 34 minutes ago, Calm said: Last I heard, yes. Interesting. But if you’ve got $100b in semi liquid assets, it makes sense. The collateral statement, on the other hand, does not make sense for a church that says it has no debt.
Tacenda Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) Thought some of you might want to listen to this interview with D. Michael Quinn. https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/ Church has $100B in reserve, but one historian says its global expenses are steep | Episode 114 Edited January 16, 2020 by Tacenda
bluebell Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 On 1/14/2020 at 6:00 PM, rockpond said: Interesting. But if you’ve got $100b in semi liquid assets, it makes sense. The collateral statement, on the other hand, does not make sense for a church that says it has no debt. Unless the church has it in case it ever is forced to go into debt again. Could that be a possibility?
rockpond Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 19 minutes ago, bluebell said: Unless the church has it in case it ever is forced to go into debt again. Could that be a possibility? Since the church has a $100 billion investment fund it won't be forced to go into debt. If it loses the $100 billion then it wouldn't have the collateral anyway.
bluebell Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: Since the church has a $100 billion investment fund it won't be forced to go into debt. If it loses the $100 billion then it wouldn't have the collateral anyway. You could be right. Without knowing the future though, I’m not sure anyone can state as a fact that the church won’t be forced to go into debt.
rockpond Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 35 minutes ago, bluebell said: You could be right. Without knowing the future though, I’m not sure anyone can state as a fact that the church won’t be forced to go into debt. Correct. My point was just that if they have the $100 billion dollar investment fund, which the slide claims is "collateral", then they don't ever need to go into debt. It would have to be a choice. If they were to lose the fund and need to go into debt, then they wouldn't have the collateral. The implication of the slide is that the Church is choosing to go into debt and this fund serves as collateral for that debt (among other things).
Recommended Posts