What do you believe is the current narrative for most LGTBQ members of the Church?

[The Great Pretender]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

I guess my question then would be to ask why would the perception of cosmic order necessarily indicate the existence of deity? 

 

 

 

 

 

Given an infinite amount of time and space, mathematical probability informs us that, if an event occurs once, it will occur an infinite number of times. Thus, if life exists now, life has always existed and will always exist. 

Yet space is sterile. 

Chaos should see all cosmic movement eventually slow to a stopping point and all life die out. But there has already been an infinite passage of time before this current moment, and life still exists. The movement of the universe, what came before it, and what came before that ad infinitum is therefore a perpetual motion machine, yet science says that's impossible. Something beyond our wildest imaginations is keeping it going.

And what we understand as God doesn't actually have to be a glowing guy in white robes, even if God is presented to us in that way to accommodate our limited understanding. I mean, really, why would God wear clothes? Who would make them? What would they be made from? It's better not to ask. 🤭

[The Great Pretender]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Given the strong emotional aspect to this, I think your particular situation might benefit from professional therapy. There are reliable practitioners that help people figure out how to meet their needs within marriage within the context of their faith. I understand folks want to focus on what the Church can do programmatically or systemically, but individuals can do much for their particular circumstances, leveraging the three areas you listed as priorities (emotional health, the martial relationship including the happiness of your wide, and testimony).

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. I visited a Church-member hypnotherapist for several sessions about 20 years ago, but while skirting around the issue I felt so ashamed that I had to leave it be. 

I don't actually want to dredge up all my ugly garbage. It also feels so self-obsessed. 

[The Great Pretender]

21 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I think we all strive to have our needs met through our marriages, no?   Maybe it's just me.    Note:  I'm not downplaying the struggles of others.

I certainly do. We spend a healthy amount of time together. Only last weekend, we went away together for two days and left the kids at home (even the youngest drives a car, so they are fully capable of being independent). I love our time together, but it doesn't meet all my emotional needs. And my wife has accepted that I need male interaction to help find balance. Sadly, finding the right type and intensity of male interaction is proving to be a challenge. 

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. I visited a Church-member hypnotherapist for several sessions about 20 years ago, but while skirting around the issue I felt so ashamed that I had to leave it be. 

I don't actually want to dredge up all my ugly garbage. It also feels so self-obsessed. 

This is 20 years later, I suspect you have more experience and maturity, and it seems you are not skirting around the issue anymore. The right therapist and the right mode of therapy, will address your concerns about garbage, self-obsession and any fears about getting therapy up front. 

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, BRMC said:

I think we all strive to have our needs met through our marriages, no?   Maybe it's just me.    Note:  I'm not downplaying the struggles of others.

I think the answer to that question, and the significance and meaning  of the "needs", "meeting needs", and "marriage",  are all over the board. I was addressing his specific situation and comments.

[BRMC]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the answer to that question, and the significance and meaning  of the "needs", "meeting needs", and "marriage",  are all over the board. I was addressing his specific situation and comments.

I know, I was just broadening it.  I probably should have as it sounded insensitive.

[Canadiandude]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

Given an infinite amount of time and space, mathematical probability informs us that, if an event occurs once, it will occur an infinite number of times. Thus, if life exists now, life has always existed and will always exist. 

Yet space is sterile. 

Chaos should see all cosmic movement eventually slow to a stopping point and all life die out. But there has already been an infinite passage of time before this current moment, and life still exists. The movement of the universe, what came before it, and what came before that ad infinitum is therefore a perpetual motion machine, yet science says that's impossible. Something beyond our wildest imaginations is keeping it going.

And what we understand as God doesn't actually have to be a glowing guy in white robes, even if God is presented to us in that way to accommodate our limited understanding. I mean, really, why would God wear clothes? Who would make them? What would they be made from? It's better not to ask. 🤭

There are however some assumptions here though, and I’m still unsure of why your argument necessarily or better substantiates the existence of god, relative to other possible explanations that are more grounded upon what claims and methods that are so far, more reliable and better validated.

We don’t know much about this ‘infinity’ that you speak of, nor has our perception of space or time necessarily been all that keen, or even lengthy in a temporal sense to substantiate its sterility. 

I’m also not sure that science ‘says’ any such thing. The sciences are based upon what we limitedly cab understand and explain currently using methods that while imperfect, are as valid and as reliable as we can make them.

It’s quite a leap from we don’t know but these are the theories based on what we know so far- to god.

~
 

Our conscious human existence is but a blip, and I’m not convinced that the argument being presented here necessarily substantiates the existence of deity, or even whether extraterrestrial life has existed or does exist. I’m not even certain why latter necessarily even matters to the subject in question.

 

Why would the evidence  of extraterrestrial life or lack thereof so far necessarily demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of deity? Especially given the short temporal window and limited means by which we can even substantiate the possible existence (past/present/future) of terrestrial life.

Moreover- one would still need to substantiate that god as a patron of Christianity, specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 
 

~

I’m an agnostic-atheist. I admittedly find the possibility that extraterrestrial life can, could, and/or could’ve existed as requiring fewer skyhooks than deity.

But even then, I don’t make the claim that there is extraterrestrial life out there, or that there necessarily ever has been or could be.

There’s a lot to the origin of the universe and life in earth that we still don’t know. But I admittedly think it more reasonable to develop our theories re: existence through the means, and knowledge claims that we can substantiate so far. 

This is especially true when we consider how religious truth claims are used to not only shape one’s personal life, but others’ lives as well. Neither societal values, norms or laws necessarily require the existence of deity, but when they are in fact based on such grounds… I need valid and reliable evidence. 
 

~
 

For myself and many others, we need much better explanations and evidences if we’re going to consider rejecting the validity of our sexual orientations- and expressing these in a safe, sane, and consensual manner. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by Canadiandude

[Hamba Tuhan]

53 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Sadly, finding the right type and intensity of male interaction is proving to be a challenge. 

For me, the Church is the perfect solution for this. I belong to a quorum, many of whom I have served intensively with in previous callings. We minister together, serve together, worship together, and labour together. We have organised quorum activities of various kinds (badminton and a hike were our two most recent). Back in the autumn, my former bishop and I took off for two days of backpack camping in a remote gorge. I have similar activities lined up with various brothers from the Church over the next several months. I remain in frequent contact with former missionaries who served in our ward, both local and international. (I've been helping one navigate a messy divorce.) Many of my former Young Men are still heavily in my life, including one who may sometimes spend up to ten hours/week in my home getting help with university assignments. I have monthly interviews with my stake president. I have an elders quorum president who checks in on me regularly and engages me in deep conversations. I'm still in contact with a number of former missionary companions. I teach our stake mission prep class and have loved developing intense relationships with our current crop of soon-to-be missionaries.

I could go on and on. I can literally think of no other social setting or organisation in the 'modern' world that provides men more sustained or more meaningful interactions with other males.

Historically, many societies were organised so that men enjoyed most (or even all) of their intellectually and emotionally intimate relationships with other men. There has been a strong trend away from that for some time, influenced in large part by improvements to marriage roles between men and women, but the data are clear: stable, intimate male/male relationships are an important protective factor in the lives of men, including married ones. Men who lack these relationships are at far higher risk of self-harm, to pick just one important facet.

In my experience, the Church is almost perfectly organised to facilitate the development and maintenance of fulfilling, protective male/male interactions.

[Canadiandude]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For me, the Church is the perfect solution for this. I belong to a quorum, many of whom I have served intensively with in previous callings. We minister together, serve together, worship together, and labour together. We have organised quorum activities of various kinds (badminton and a hike were our two most recent). Back in the autumn, my former bishop and I took off for two days of backpack camping in a remote gorge. I have similar activities lined up with various brothers from the Church over the next several months. I remain in frequent contact with former missionaries who served in our ward, both local and international. (I've been helping one navigate a messy divorce.) Many of my former Young Men are still heavily in my life, including one who may sometimes spend up to ten hours/week in my home getting help with university assignments. I have monthly interviews with my stake president. I have an elders quorum president who checks in on me regularly and engages me in deep conversations. I'm still in contact with a number of former missionary companions. I teach our stake mission prep class and have loved developing intense relationships with our current crop of soon-to-be missionaries.

I could go on and on. I can literally think of no other social setting or organisation in the 'modern' world that provides men more sustained or more meaningful interactions with other males.

Historically, many societies were organised so that men enjoyed most (or even all) of their intellectually and emotionally intimate relationships with other men. There has been a strong trend away from that for some time, influenced in large part by improvements to marriage roles between men and women, but the data are clear: stable, intimate male/male relationships are an important protective factor in the lives of men, including married ones. Men who lack these relationships are at far higher risk of self-harm, to pick just one important facet.

In my experience, the Church is almost perfectly organised to facilitate the development and maintenance of fulfilling, protective male/male interactions.

There’s a lot of assumptions here, particularly normative assumptions as to what qualifies as fulfilling, and the reasons as to why a man might pursue and prefer intimate relations with another man.

if it works for you then great, but as for myself, the kinds of male-male interactions that make me fulfilled as a man are quite different.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

I certainly do. We spend a healthy amount of time together. Only last weekend, we went away together for two days and left the kids at home (even the youngest drives a car, so they are fully capable of being independent). I love our time together, but it doesn't meet all my emotional needs. And my wife has accepted that I need male interaction to help find balance. Sadly, finding the right type and intensity of male interaction is proving to be a challenge. 

Do you have meetup groups where you live? They have them in every town near me. You could even create a meet up group for companionship but celibate ones.

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

There’s a lot of assumptions here, particularly normative assumptions as to what qualifies as fulfilling, and the reasons as to why a man might pursue and prefer intimate relations with another man.

I don't think you've read many of my posts on this topic. I don't do normative assumptions.

In the Church, I enjoy intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and physically intimate relationships with other men.

Because I swore an oath to God, I have zero interest in adding 'sexually intimate' to that list. Temporally and spatially diverse societies certainly have (and still do), but even then, they have constructed that element in a dizzying variety of different ways, most of which would not be immediately recognisable to a 21st-century 'gay' male.

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

For me, the Church is the perfect solution for this. I belong to a quorum, many of whom I have served intensively with in previous callings. We minister together, serve together, worship together, and labour together. We have organised quorum activities of various kinds (badminton and a hike were our two most recent). Back in the autumn, my former bishop and I took off for two days of backpack camping in a remote gorge. I have similar activities lined up with various brothers from the Church over the next several months. I remain in frequent contact with former missionaries who served in our ward, both local and international. (I've been helping one navigate a messy divorce.) Many of my former Young Men are still heavily in my life, including one who may sometimes spend up to ten hours/week in my home getting help with university assignments. I have monthly interviews with my stake president. I have an elders quorum president who checks in on me regularly and engages me in deep conversations. I'm still in contact with a number of former missionary companions. I teach our stake mission prep class and have loved developing intense relationships with our current crop of soon-to-be missionaries.

I could go on and on. I can literally think of no other social setting or organisation in the 'modern' world that provides men more sustained or more meaningful interactions with other males.

Historically, many societies were organised so that men enjoyed most (or even all) of their intellectually and emotionally intimate relationships with other men. There has been a strong trend away from that for some time, influenced in large part by improvements to marriage roles between men and women, but the data are clear: stable, intimate male/male relationships are an important protective factor in the lives of men, including married ones. Men who lack these relationships are at far higher risk of self-harm, to pick just one important facet.

In my experience, the Church is almost perfectly organised to facilitate the development and maintenance of fulfilling, protective male/male interactions.

This is also my experience!

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Given an infinite amount of time and space, mathematical probability informs us that, if an event occurs once, it will occur an infinite number of times. Thus, if life exists now, life has always existed and will always exist. 

Yet space is sterile. 

Chaos should see all cosmic movement eventually slow to a stopping point and all life die out. But there has already been an infinite passage of time before this current moment, and life still exists. The movement of the universe, what came before it, and what came before that ad infinitum is therefore a perpetual motion machine, yet science says that's impossible. Something beyond our wildest imaginations is keeping it going.

And what we understand as God doesn't actually have to be a glowing guy in white robes, even if God is presented to us in that way to accommodate our limited understanding. I mean, really, why would God wear clothes? Who would make them? What would they be made from? It's better not to ask. 🤭

That appeal for the existence of God works on an emotional level but not a logical one. Don’t get me wrong. That kind of awe is probably healthy once you believe in God but it is not a good argument for God’s existence.

[The Great Pretender]

9 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

There are however some assumptions here though, and I’m still unsure of why your argument necessarily or better substantiates the existence of god, relative to other possible explanations that are more grounded upon what claims and methods that are so far, more reliable and better validated.

We don’t know much about this ‘infinity’ that you speak of, nor has our perception of space or time necessarily been all that keen, or even lengthy in a temporal sense to substantiate its sterility. 

I’m also not sure that science ‘says’ any such thing. The sciences are based upon what we limitedly cab understand and explain currently using methods that while imperfect, are as valid and as reliable as we can make them.

It’s quite a leap from we don’t know but these are the theories based on what we know so far- to god.

~
 

Our conscious human existence is but a blip, and I’m not convinced that the argument being presented here necessarily substantiates the existence of deity, or even whether extraterrestrial life has existed or does exist. I’m not even certain why latter necessarily even matters to the subject in question.

 

Why would the evidence  of extraterrestrial life or lack thereof so far necessarily demonstrate the existence or nonexistence of deity? Especially given the short temporal window and limited means by which we can even substantiate the possible existence (past/present/future) of terrestrial life.

Moreover- one would still need to substantiate that god as a patron of Christianity, specifically the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 
 

~

I’m an agnostic-atheist. I admittedly find the possibility that extraterrestrial life can, could, and/or could’ve existed as requiring fewer skyhooks than deity.

But even then, I don’t make the claim that there is extraterrestrial life out there, or that there necessarily ever has been or could be.

There’s a lot to the origin of the universe and life in earth that we still don’t know. But I admittedly think it more reasonable to develop our theories re: existence through the means, and knowledge claims that we can substantiate so far. 

This is especially true when we consider how religious truth claims are used to not only shape one’s personal life, but others’ lives as well. Neither societal values, norms or laws necessarily require the existence of deity, but when they are in fact based on such grounds… I need valid and reliable evidence. 
 

~
 

For myself and many others, we need much better explanations and evidences if we’re going to consider rejecting the validity of our sexual orientations- and expressing these in a safe, sane, and consensual manner. 

Infinity is a concept that few humans are able to grasp on account of the entire lived experience being governed by boundaries. There is always a beginning, end, top, bottom, etc. Even if space were a form of Mobius strip that bent back on itself so the visible universe were all there were out there in the incomprehensible vastness—even just what we can see, let alone what is beyond that—which is extraordinarily unlikely, there is no beginning or end to time. If you believe in the Big Bang, there will have been an infinite number of them in an infinite sequence in the past. If you believe in a spontaneous, magical creation event, there must have been an infinite sequence of them in the past. At the risk of insulting your intelligence, I appreciate that you may be unable to grasp that.

If chaos is the master, and planetary life is extinguished by the depletion of energy from its nearest power source (a dying star), there is the possibility of life simultaneously dying out everywhere. And then, nothing. An infinite nothing.

That is impossible, however, because the existence of anything at any given time means it has happened an infinite number of times before and will continue that way forever. If everything were going to stop by virtue of chaos allowing a random end, it would have happened an infinite amount of time in the past.

Instead, something or "someone" governs the apparent chaos. We call that entity God. Simply because we claim that we look like God doesn't mean that is the eternal truth. It may well be that God has presented "itself" to humans in recognisable human form to reassure them and provide a human-understandable pattern. That doesn't make religion any less true or faith any less valid. Parents tell their children about Santa long before they share the truth.

Humans questioning the existence of "extraterrestrial" life is breathtakingly conceited. We are approaching the point where humans plan to send multiple tiny craft in the direction of our nearest neighbouring star, Alpha Centauri—that will arrive there in approximately 30 years and perhaps be intercepted by life there. Given the accelerated rate of our technological advancement, this should logically be happening all over the universe. And there are estimated to be 100 thousand million stars in our galaxy alone—a vast number of which will have planetary systems just like ours. Allow a few more thousand years in the absence of God, and the universe will be filled with intergalactic life. And we think we're the only ones. Sheesh! So conceited.

And this must have happened an infinite number of times in the past. The mind boggles.

Edited December 3, 2021 by The Great Pretender

[The Great Pretender]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In my experience, the Church is almost perfectly organised to facilitate the development and maintenance of fulfilling, protective male/male interactions.

Let me just pick myself up off the floor and control my laughter.

I served as a full-time missionary in the Canada Halifax Mission back in the early 80s. At that time, it was the last place on the North American continent to have no stake because there were so few members. There were no wards and stakes, only districts and branches. In at least one area, a missionary served as the Branch President. Sometime after I completed my mission, the rules were relaxed to allow the area to have its first stake.

No matter how hard you try, you can't imagine what life is like for those members. Any defining statement about the Church being one thing or another may ring true for some pockets of concentrated membership, but it is decidedly untrue for more than 50% of Church members worldwide who don't live in Utah or its adjoining areas.

It seems like your entire Church experience will be different from mine—from cradle to grave.

Last Friday, I helped to run a stake youth activity. We had seven stake youth leaders—and two youth. That's right, TWO youth attended our well-publicised stake activity. That's funny, right?

And all those healthy interactions? Impossible here. We are all maxed-out trying to keep the Church from imploding. I currently serve on (1) the Stake High Council, (2) as a member of the Stake Young Men Presidency—and therefore (3) as a member of the Stake Youth Leadership Committee, (4) as the High Councillor responsible for the Stake Young Women programme (so I attend all their meetings and help run their events), and (5) I also serve on the Stake Activities Committee, so I am part of the planning and running of all stake activities.

We don't have the luxury of developing meaningful relationships. There are too few of us, we are too busy, and aside from the Church we have almost nothing in common (on account of there being so few of us). Even so, I have repeatedly attempted to get my so-called church peers to participate in activities. For a few months, I ran a Saturday-morning badminton activity until everyone drifted away (so I ended up joining a couple of local community clubs instead). A couple of years ago, I set up an Elders Quorum Activity WhatsApp group and organised two hikes before the group was hijacked for quorum business and inane comments. The first hike was attended by two others. The second hike by one other. I still organise a Friday-evening Elders Quorum table tennis activity. At best, there are five of us who attend (and we represent the three strongest wards in the stake). It's like a lesson in how to become demoralised.

Seriously, you cannot imagine it. Everyone is invited to everything. Almost everyone says, "Um, no thanks, I'm busy."

In the North Star LDS married men's group, I occasionally read posts from individuals getting together to hang out, go bowling, or whatever. I find it insensitive that they ask if anyone wishes to go for a hike in some canyon in Utah when the group is meant to be international. If you lived in a remote corner of Vermont or a small place in Alaska, you'd get why it's so frustrating.

So, yes, I'm sure the Church is "almost perfectly organised to facilitate the development and maintenance of fulfilling, protective male/male interactions" in some well-populated areas of membership. Not where I live, though. Not a chance. For this reason, I must expose myself to risk by fraternising with groups with spurious agendas. I guess I'll have to lie about that in my next temple recommend interview.

Edited December 3, 2021 by The Great Pretender

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

No matter how hard you try, you can't imagine what life is like for those members. Any defining statement about the Church being one thing or another may ring true for some pockets of concentrated membership, but it is decidedly untrue for more than 50% of Church members worldwide who don't live in Utah or its adjoining areas ...

It seems like your entire Church experience will be different from mine—from cradle to grave.

I don't live anywhere near 'Utah or its adjoining areas'. I don't even live in North America. My stake contains five organised congregations and one dependent group. We cover an area 400km from north to south, 150km from east to west. Last month, I travelled to attend a unit conference. It took me 4.25 hours to get there, 3.75 hours to get back.

Edited December 3, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Great Pretender]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't live anywhere near 'Utah or its adjoining areas'. I don't even live in North America. My stake contains five organised congregations and one dependent group. We cover an area 400km from north to south, 150km from east to west. Last month, I travelled to attend a unit conference. It took me 4.25 hours to get there, 3.75 hours to get back.

That's weird. Are you in Indonesia? I spent a couple of weeks in Jakarta back in the 90s. So how do you qualify your suggestion that the Church is "almost perfectly organised to facilitate the development and maintenance of fulfilling, protective male/male interactions"?

To form such connections, it is necessary to have access to other willing people. We don't.

[The Great Pretender]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do you have meetup groups where you live? They have them in every town near me. You could even create a meet up group for companionship but celibate ones.

I am aware of the meetup website, if that's what you mean. I even convinced my ward to use it in an attempt to get the local community interested in family history after an American acquaintance suggested the site to me. However, awareness of the site in the UK is very low. We had no interest at all.

A year ago, I used Facebook to create a "walk and talk" group for men in my local area—then I advertised it in Facebook groups covering a total population of about 200,000 people, all within about a 10-mile radius. I had just over 50 men sign up, but no one actually wanted to participate. I don't know why they signed up.

There seem to be some vast cultural differences between Brits and Americans.

[Canadiandude]

7 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

At the risk of insulting your intelligence, I appreciate that you may be unable to grasp that.

I appreciate your concern but I can assure you, nothing you have said so far has caused me to doubt my intellect.

I don’t know what caused the Big Bang; yet I remain unconvinced that the cause is necessarily deity; or that the arguments and evidences you’ve brought thus far sufficiently validate deity’s existence- let alone that deity’s characteristics, doctrines, or patronage.

I don’t understand why order and disorder are necessarily defined in the manner in which you coach these, nor why the presence or absence of one or the other is necessarily valid evidence of the existence of deity- let alone demonstrative of any of the other specificities regularly attached to theist arguments.

For the church, one of its many theological positions about this so-called god is that such forbids homosexual relations between consenting adults- despite the church’s inability to substantiate its claims in a valid and reliable manner

~
 

Once again, how you decide to interpret your own sexuality, and act regarding it, remains a decision that’s  yours and yours alone.

I remain however unconvinced that theist-based arguments for the existence of any god, let alone a homophobic Christian god, are at all rational and/or substantive. 

 

[Canadiandude]

I used to participate in an online  North Star group or something similar.

The guys were friendly enough but I once my understanding of myself, the church, and my orientation changed, it no longer seemed appropriate.

Most understood my position, though a few did their best to convince me otherwise. I sometimes wonder where they are at in life these days.

[The Great Pretender]

32 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I remain however unconvinced that theist-based arguments for the existence of any god, let alone a homophobic Christian god, are at all rational and/or substantive. 

So why are you subscribed to a denomination-specific, faith-oriented discussion group? I'm sure you mean well, but your stated position seems at odds with the identity of this group. Are you here simply to challenge everyone?

[Canadiandude]

5 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

So why are you subscribed to a denomination-specific, faith-oriented discussion group? I'm sure you mean well, but your stated position seems at odds with the identity of this group. Are you here simply to challenge everyone?

I don’t know about everyone, but yeah, I’m here to challenge.

As a former member myself, I was originally content to merely read and try to understand the current thinking of church members, particularly in response to our current socio-political environment. 
 

After reading some of the comments and seeing how critical perspectives/ actors are often misrepresented, I thought I might as well join in.

Lately I’ve decided to pull back, and for the most part only respond to people who I believe would wrestle with me in good faith. Most users here aren’t the kind that will change their mind, and I’ve been trying to find a healthier balance in my relationship with this site.

The truth is- if my position re: the church’s truth claims are correct, I don’t know that I need to do a whole lot in countering its policies and effects. At least not here in Canada.

 

 

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Are you in Indonesia?

No.

Quote

So how do you qualify your suggestion that the Church is "almost perfectly organised to facilitate the development and maintenance of fulfilling, protective male/male interactions"?

Because that has been my overwhelming experience. I have also experienced some of the opposite. It really all depends on how engaged an individual member is. My current assigned ministering brother (whose companion is his son) is completely disengaged and therefore plays no meaningful role in my life -- which I would certainly welcome! His loss. The organisation is there. The assignment is there. The opportunity is there. The training and inspiration and need are there.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

On 12/3/2021 at 3:08 AM, The Great Pretender said:

Infinity is a concept that few humans are able to grasp on account of the entire lived experience being governed by boundaries.

Thanks for condescending to us in our ignorance o benevolent sage of the incomprehensible.

[The Great Pretender]

On 12/4/2021 at 1:41 AM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Because that has been my overwhelming experience. I have also experienced some of the opposite. It really all depends on how engaged an individual member is. My current assigned ministering brother (whose companion is his son) is completely disengaged and therefore plays no meaningful role in my life -- which I would certainly welcome! His loss. The organisation is there. The assignment is there. The opportunity is there. The training and inspiration and need are there.

I'm happy to hear you have enjoyed positive experiences. I'm someone who likes to get things organised, but the culture in my area/country seems to have become increasingly insular (and has definitely been made worse by the pandemic). It's why I find myself with no alternative but to look outside Church groups to meet my needs.

Edited December 6, 2021 by The Great Pretender