Jump to content

Taking a break from Church.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

God is not silent to me. Not at all. I probably have an easier time talking to God than most. I am more tired of a lot of the guidance going nowhere.

Good for you, and that's probably why God isn't listening to me, I don't speak to Him anymore like I use to. Thanks for the kick in the pants. ❤️

You got this Nehor. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Yep, when I didn't marry my 2nd grade sweetheart it was because of abuse.

 

 

I don’t understand this. What does this have to do with breaking marriage covenants? Please explain.

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:
Quote

You seemed to be citing it as an example of God authorizing/commanding someone to break a commandment.

I wouldn't use the word authorizing/commanding. 

Nor would I.

"Allowing," perhaps?

44 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

But rather something akin to kids with a curfew.  I want my son home by midnight on weekends.  But there have been times where he's come later than that, but there were reasons for it.  As a dad, I'm not going to be mad at or implement consequences for my son for being late. 

How do you reconcile this with Alma 45:16 and D&C 1:31 ("the Lord cannot look upon sin with least degree of allowance")?

I reconcile it with . . . the Atonement.  "For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved."  (Alma 42:24.)  However, the very next verse makes it clear that the Lord does not, in exercising mercy, look the other way: "What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God."  (Alma 42:25.)  Alma 42 is a really good synopsis on the interplay between justice and mercy:

Quote

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?
18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.
19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?
20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.
21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?
22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

I don't think the Lord ignores our transgressions of the law.  That appears to be a necessity ("if so, God would cease to be God").  So payment/punishment for each and every sin comes due, hopefully through the Atonement and the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.  But for those who refuse this great gift, well, see D&C 19:

Quote

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

I don't think the Lord lets sins slide ("I'm not going to be mad at or implement consequences...").  

44 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

I didn't "authorize" it, but I'm not upset by it either.  I'm also not going to change the general curfew rule. 

I guess I come back to Alma 42 (emphases added) :

Quote

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.
19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?
20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.
21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?
22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

Someone has to pay for each and every sin.  I don't think a "no harm, no foul" approach works.  I don't think a "Ah, well, do better next time" approach works.

Where a law is given, it must be obeyed.  Where obedience varies, repentance is allowed.  Where repentance is made, mercy claims the penitent.  Where repentance is not made, "justice claimath the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment."

The Lord allows us to break the commandments, as that is part and parcel of the whole "mortal probation" thing.  But does He authorize the breaking of commandments?  Does He command it?  I ... don't think so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

How do you reconcile this with Alma 45:16 and D&C 1:31 ("the Lord cannot look upon sin with least degree of allowance")?

I would never think God would look upon sin with any degree of allowance.  But I can see him giving a sinner some slack.  And I think that is a very important distinction here.  No one is suggesting that "sin" itself be redefined to accommodate sinners or change the standards that God has set.  Rather, that there may be times when someone who commits sin may be given some allowance.

Consider something like the current opioid addiction problem.  Are addicts sinning by abusing heroin or fentynyl?  Surely.  But they are also victims of a corrupt pharmacutical industry that knowingly sold these drugs as not addictive when they knew they were extremely addictive.  After perhaps one mistake of taking a hit of the wrong drug and you can be literally enslaved by the drug.  Knowing the physiological impact of that immensely massive dopamine uptake, there must be some level of compassion for addicts as victims. This doesn't mean we change the standard about not taking drugs.  Shooting up is still a sin.  But I imagine that if someone was lied to the nature of opioids and then over-prescribed because of corrupt pharmaceutical sales tactics and then dies of an overdose, God would understand these factors and judge accordingly.

And yes, there is a punishment affixed for sin.  I don't disagree with that.  But I do think Jesus' sacrifice paid the price for those sins.  Justice & mercy etc. 

Link to comment
On 6/16/2022 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

It is said there are generally three types of motives: 1) Fear of Punishment; 2) Hope of Reward; and 3) Love.

Fear is the most base and least noble motive, but it clearly has a role to play.  Hope has its focus on the benefit of self, but it too has a role.  The third, obedience out of love for God and each other, is the ideal and pinnacle.

This ties back to the foregoing motives.  Punishment (avoiding it), Reward (receiving it) and Love (expressing it).

Covenants bind us to our duties and obligations, particularly at times when we are least inclined to stick with them.  In other words, they are there to strengthen us during moments of weakness, anger, forgetfulness, selfishness, and so on.

I think we're talking a little past each other on this point. I'm talking more personal nuanced "why's" moreso than abstract conceptual "why's." For example my personal why started as a deep sense that I was missing something and then a knowing of God as I tried to seek what I was missing. My covenants became innately personal at a fairly young age. 

Fear has a role to play, but it's generally a pretty weak one and one of last resort in the scriptures. That fear only works with some form of personal knowledge or assumption of God. 

But none of these are exactly how I've seen some of the people I'm picturing when I talked above. Many were doing church due to routine, social assumptions, and misplaced loyalties. A simple example: one I know enjoyed the experience of being praised and went through the motions of covenant making without understanding much more past the expected social stage related to the rite. If it were just that, it may have been workable, but there was more going one. Stuff that takes years of therapy to work through. And without it, many of these rites would get sucked into a space in them not ready to really receive them. I would argue that though both of us went through the same rite, we did not experience or make the same covenant. I made further covenants mindfully, fully committed to God, and with a firm sense of God in my life. They made it out of social expectations, with a strong desire to look good, and with a sense of God but a difficulty really understanding themselves, the experiences they've had, and who God really is. 

Note, I'm simplifying this. These stories that I'm thinking of are usually complex. There's layers to unpack and these layers often can get enmeshed in seriously unhealthy ways with their religiosity. While in this state, the abstract motivations get warped. They may hyper-focus on fear of punishment, which ends up making any form of love (expressed or received) difficult and tenuous, and hold only tentative hope that they may one day be rewarded for honoring their covenants. They may hope for earthly reward, love praise by their peers, and constantly worry about social punishment. Grief, trauma, social expectations, etc have crowded out healthy spiritual connection to God or the church community. Some to a point that interaction causes severe psychological distress and unhealthy coping behaviors. And in that place covenants can bind them to their dysfunctions, not to God.  

On 6/16/2022 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

 

From the Church:

See also D&C 130:

The Lord is not a tyrant.  He is not arbitrary.  His commandments all have purpose, which is to help us.  He wants us to succeed.  But He also recognizes that eternal progression can only arise through agency.  Volitional choice.  The Plan of Salvation, the Atonement of Christ, faith, repentance, saving ordinances, behavioral requirements, and so on are all intended to facilitate these things:

  • “My work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.” - 2 Nephi 29:9.
  • “Men are, that they might have joy.” - 2 Nephi 2:25.
  • “Eternal life … is the greatest of all the gifts of God.” - D&C 14:7.
  • "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." - Moses 1:39
  • “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” - John 17:3.

I think, then, that it is better to help them remember the purposes of covenants, and improve their understanding of those covenants.

When these haven't been warped, when there are less drastic soul/mind corrections needed, this advice can work. When there isn't, this advice can fall flat at best and accidently exacerbate problems at worse.

On 6/16/2022 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

That can be a starting point, I suppose. 

"And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me." - Moses 5:6

I would argue that wasn't actually Adam's starting point. Their starting point was knowing God and being able to differentiate between the Godly and ungodly to a basic degree.

On 6/16/2022 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  Obedience to God, save for improper motives, will never be "good for nothing" or "meaningless."

This underlined part (among other things) is somewhat what I'm talking about. There are experiences and contexts where Obedience is done in a way that is not good for people. Scrupulosity comes to mind. Some can rearrange this without leaving or "taking a break" from the church. Some can't. 

On 6/16/2022 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I don't view blinkered/finite obedience, obedience without fully remembering or comprehending its purpose, as bad.  There must be a reason why the "Law of Obedience" is in the temple:

As Elder Stapley put it back in 1977:

I'm not assuming full comprehension, but I'm expecting at least healthy pre-reqs to obedience, as I mentioned with Adam and Eve.

On 6/16/2022 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

Obedience is better than disobedience.  I cannot invert this.

Okay.  I can't get on board with the idea that premeditated and calculated disobedience to what are fairly basic commandments is preferable to obedience, even if it is more out of a sense of obligation than love. 

I can. 

On 6/16/2022 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I think it is.  The "context" is . . . the covenant.  Covenants are, by design, intended to bind us to obedience when wee are in our weakest moments, when we are the least likely to want to obey.

I disagree. The context is what we are bring to the covenant. Easy example is cain and able. Able made a covenant in sincerity or faith. Cain....not so much. I'm definitely not saying the people I'm thinking of are pulling a Cain. I'm just pointing out that the context can shift the meaning and impact of a covenant. For example, I've met people who married for definitely the wrong reasons. Just because they were sealed does not mean that the act suddenly shifted the innate problems in the relationship. I would contend that without serious changed in the dynamics (if possible) the act is fairly vacant of promise and meaning. 

On 6/16/2022 at 11:31 AM, smac97 said:

I've been a father for 24 years now. I can't imagine "taking a {premeditated and deliberate} break" from my obligations to my children.  If I need "healing," I need to find it in ways other than abandoning obligations to them....

I love my children, but there have been times when all the duties I have as a father have been a big burden.  It is precisely in that context when I rely on my covenants the most.  When my sense of duty and obligation compensates for a temporarily-waning sense of willing and loving fulfillment of my obligations.

Funny enough, I've given the advice to mom's especially to "take a break" from the kids. Usually because they've become so wrapped up in child care that they've lost a sense of self and other aspects of their lives are struggling. So it's pretty easy for me to think that one may need to "take a break" from the kiddos and give at least some of the obligations to another for a while. Depending on the depth of dysfunction, that may need to be a longer break. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

But none of these are exactly how I've seen some of the people I'm picturing when I talked above. Many were doing church due to routine, social assumptions, and misplaced loyalties.

So there may be a fourth motive? 

1) Fear (of punishment),

2) Hope (of reward),

3) Love (of God and man), and

4) social and familial pressures/expectations, "going along to get along," etc.?

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

A simple example: one I know enjoyed the experience of being praised and went through the motions of covenant making without understanding much more past the expected social stage related to the rite. If it were just that, it may have been workable, but there was more going one. Stuff that takes years of therapy to work through. And without it, many of these rites would get sucked into a space in them not ready to really receive them. I would argue that though both of us went through the same rite, we did not experience or make the same covenant. I made further covenants mindfully, fully committed to God, and with a firm sense of God in my life. They made it out of social expectations, with a strong desire to look good, and with a sense of God but a difficulty really understanding themselves, the experiences they've had, and who God really is.

These are fair points.  I think they demosntrate the importance of following prophetic counsel regarding scripture study, seeking personal revelation, repentance, obedience, and so on.

When I married my wife, I cannot say I was fully cognizant of everything that would be required of me.  I cannot say that I was fully prepared to be a husband and father.  I cannot say that I had no further room to grow and develop.  But it seems that while much of being a good husband and father requires pre-existing attributes, even more is to be found in, shall we say, on-the-job training.

So it is, I think, with being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  I don't think we are supposed to wait on the outside of discipleship and spend indeterminate amounts of time and effort in preparing for it.  I think we are supposed to commit to discipleship, live according to its precepts, and surf the waves of change and growth and improvement (repenting all along the way).

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:
Quote

I'm not sure about that.  Obedience to God, save for improper motives, will never be "good for nothing" or "meaningless."

This underlined part (among other things) is somewhat what I'm talking about. There are experiences and contexts where Obedience is done in a way that is not good for people. Scrupulosity comes to mind. Some can rearrange this without leaving or "taking a break" from the church. Some can't. 

This is a very good point, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.  I will give it some real thought and consideration.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:
Quote

 

Obedience is better than disobedience.  I cannot invert this.

Okay.  I can't get on board with the idea that premeditated and calculated disobedience to what are fairly basic commandments is preferable to obedience, even if it is more out of a sense of obligation than love. 

 

I can. 

I'm okay with that.  Ours is a reasoned and principled disagreement.  Even where you have not fully convinced me, nor I you, I think this discussion has been productive and meaningful. 

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:
Quote

I think it is.  The "context" is . . . the covenant.  Covenants are, by design, intended to bind us to obedience when wee are in our weakest moments, when we are the least likely to want to obey.

I disagree. The context is what we are bring to the covenant. Easy example is cain and able. Able made a covenant in sincerity or faith. Cain....not so much.

I can't quite split that hair.  "Covenant" v. "what ware bring{ing} to the covenant."  The latter is a subset of the former.  

I am currently working on a lawsuit involving five siblings.  Two brothers have sued their three sisters, who have countersued.  The dispute centers on a contract they all signed 20+ years ago regarding a jointly-owned parcel of land in Utah.  The three sisters have recently started telling the brothers that they (the sisters) no longer intend to follow the terms of the contract.  In deposition, one of the sisters said that she probably did not read the contract before signing it, and another sister said (also in deposition) that she read it but did not really understand it.  All of the sisters acknowledged that they signed the contract voluntarily (no coercion, etc.).  Broadly speaking, a person cannot avoid a contract by claiming he did not fully understand it when he entered into it, or that he did not read it.  The sisters' attorneys know this, and so have tried mightily to avoid these portions of the sisters' depositions.

I think the Lord is far more compassionate and understanding than the civil law.  I believe a person who joins the Church at age 8, but then drifts into inactivity therafter is going to be "judged" by the Lord (relative to covenant-keeping) very differently from, say, a lifelong and active member of the Church who served a mission, married in the temple, served in callings, and so on.

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm definitely not saying the people I'm thinking of are pulling a Cain. I'm just pointing out that the context can shift the meaning and impact of a covenant.  For example, I've met people who married for definitely the wrong reasons. Just because they were sealed does not mean that the act suddenly shifted the innate problems in the relationship. I would contend that without serious changed in the dynamics (if possible) the act is fairly vacant of promise and meaning. 

I think we are saying the same thing, just in different ways.  The covenants are still central, and our duty to keep them remains, but the individual's circumstances will, in the end, have a big impact on how the Lord adjudicates the life of each person.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So there may be a fourth motive? 

1) Fear (of punishment),

2) Hope (of reward),

3) Love (of God and man), and

4) social and familial pressures/expectations, "going along to get along," etc.?

These are fair points.  I think they demosntrate the importance of following prophetic counsel regarding scripture study, seeking personal revelation, repentance, obedience, and so on.

When I married my wife, I cannot say I was fully cognizant of everything that would be required of me.  I cannot say that I was fully prepared to be a husband and father.  I cannot say that I had no further room to grow and develop.  But it seems that while much of being a good husband and father requires pre-existing attributes, even more is to be found in, shall we say, on-the-job training.

So it is, I think, with being a disciple of Jesus Christ.  I don't think we are supposed to wait on the outside of discipleship and spend indeterminate amounts of time and effort in preparing for it.  I think we are supposed to commit to discipleship, live according to its precepts, and surf the waves of change and growth and improvement (repenting all along the way).

This is a very good point, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.  I will give it some real thought and consideration.

I'm okay with that.  Ours is a reasoned and principled disagreement.  Even where you have not fully convinced me, nor I you, I think this discussion has been productive and meaningful. 

I can't quite split that hair.  "Covenant" v. "what ware bring{ing} to the covenant."  The latter is a subset of the former.  

I am currently working on a lawsuit involving five siblings.  Two brothers have sued their three sisters, who have countersued.  The dispute centers on a contract they all signed 20+ years ago regarding a jointly-owned parcel of land in Utah.  The three sisters have recently started telling the brothers that they (the sisters) no longer intend to follow the terms of the contract.  In deposition, one of the sisters said that she probably did not read the contract before signing it, and another sister said (also in deposition) that she read it but did not really understand it.  All of the sisters acknowledged that they signed the contract voluntarily (no coercion, etc.).  Broadly speaking, a person cannot avoid a contract by claiming he did not fully understand it when he entered into it, or that he did not read it.  The sisters' attorneys know this, and so have tried mightily to avoid these portions of the sisters' depositions.

I think the Lord is far more compassionate and understanding than the civil law.  I believe a person who joins the Church at age 8, but then drifts into inactivity therafter is going to be "judged" by the Lord (relative to covenant-keeping) very differently from, say, a lifelong and active member of the Church who served a mission, married in the temple, served in callings, and so on.

I think we are saying the same thing, just in different ways.  The covenants are still central, and our duty to keep them remains, but the individual's circumstances will, in the end, have a big impact on how the Lord adjudicates the life of each person.

Thanks,

-Smac

Using your current case as an example on my experience in the temple 48 years ago, I feel like I had no choice because I didn't know what I was signing up for when first making covenants in the temple.

I was given zero information on what I was going to promise to do while in the temple before the session. I was told before it began with a room full of people, that if I'd like to leave I may, but I didn't know whether I wanted to stand up in front of family and leave the ceremony because I didn't know beforehand what was to be taken place or that I would be making promises that I wasn't aware of. Unlike these sisters in your current case who had a chance to read over what they were signing or promising to keep the rules to.

And once the ceremony started I couldn't stand up and leave, I was unsure but felt it must be right, everyone in my husband's family and 4 of my family were there, speaking of when I took out my endowments.

So I followed the teachings and lived over 30 years keeping my covenants made in the temple that day. Until I was given more information, so like your current case, I wonder if the one sister should have not done what I did and she should have stopped the proceedings and found out more what was in the contract but one important difference between the sisters and myself, reiterating here, is I couldn't stop the proceedings and ask questions on what I was covenanting to do, it was not allowed. If I chose to leave before it started, there would have been zero people to help me know what I would be covenanting to do, because it wasn't allowed to be spoken outside of the temple, and I highly doubt a temple worker would have taken me and privately told me what I was about to do. 

I did live a pretty fulfilled life in my activity and while keeping the covenants made, but feel that I wasn't given the full picture. Maybe one day the temple will be more open to describing to pre-endowed members, what they will be asked to covenant to do before even attending the temple. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

what they will be asked to covenant to do before even attending the temple. 

The principles of covenants, what we promise to do are all taught outside the temple and have been since the beginning, I believe, though not always explicitly. The penalties and consequences were not in the past, but my memory says with them removed, it is all found in scripture and talks as part of the commandments, though put into a new structure for the temple.  Law of Obedience; Law of Chastity; Law of Sacrifice; Law of Consecration; we take on a new name, Christ’s, in baptism, etc.

I agree the penalties you and I were instructed in when first attending could be shocking if you weren’t familiar with that type of ritual and symbolic language, I was so it was no big deal to me, so I am not saying that part of it wouldn’t be troubling to many.  But the rest, including the husband being the one who presides if righteous shouldn’t have been a surprise, imo.

For example, the temple covenants are discussed with our other covenants here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng

And they are becoming more explicitly taught in the Handbook now that it is open to all.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2021-01-11/general-handbook-temple-updates-endowment-covenants-201095

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Calm said:

The principles of covenants, what we promise to do are all taught outside the temple. The penalties and consequences were not in the past, but my memory says with them removed, it is all found in scripture and talks as part of the commandments, though put into a new structure for the temple.  
 

For example, they are discussed with our other covenants here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2012/07/understanding-our-covenants-with-god?lang=eng

Sort of.  My husband and I were just discussing this. And what they have been more open with recently didn't help those of us who went in the past.   And you don't get a lot of time to bring to remembrance what they were before being asked to commit to them.  Then there are some of us who sat so shocked we didn't really know what we were doing at that point.  

My husband, daughter and I had totally different experiences.  The covenant meanings are very different each of us.

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Rain said:

Sort of.  My husband were just discussing this. And what they have been more open with recently didn't help those of us who went in the past.   And you don't get a lot of time to bring to remembrance what they were before being asked to commit to them.  Then there are some of us who sat so shocked we didn't really know what we were doing at that point.  

My husband, daughter and I had totally different experiences.  The covenant meanings are very different each of us.

I can see how that can be. I did add more about the penalties. I have always understood that could be very shocking to many. And overwhelm them for the rest of the presentation so that even feels like it was the focus rather than just supports of the central pillars.
 

I think one of the most problematic issues we have with the temple experience is we have minimal ritual (or at least it is labeled minimal) in our daily and weekly worship with very few trimmings.  I remember we never talked about it as ritual. In my local communities, I would say there was even prejudice against ritual and a lack or recognition by most when they saw it.  Ritual is what other churches mired in superstition did according to some I have known (when I referred to the ritual of the sacrament, there would be blank looks from many, yet the sacrament is full of symbolism and ritual language, though some was lost by moving to water…though one can now pull in the living water of the gospel).  Talking about baptism is kept pretty simple and taught as a washing of sins and not so often as the natural man being buried in a grave and lifted out of it by God (or his stand-in), reborn, or prefiguring the resurrection, coming forth the new spiritual covenant being.  We completely ignore the significance of number symbolism in scripture and ritual…

Anyway, my point is when you walk into an endowment and you have wall to wall ritual language, the way we speak, the way we move, the way we appear…all dripping with symbolic language; it is hardly surprising for those new to the temple to be shell shocked, especially if they had picked up the hints of bias against using symbolic language in our more commonplace worship, for example the rejection of the cross. 
 

I am not surprised that people are uncomfortable in temple or that it doesn’t register at first what is being taught is familiar because of all the unfamiliar trappings.  But the principles of the covenants, the laws, IOW, and the idea of taking on of new names…we should have been exposed to them over the years if taught the basic lessons. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 6/17/2022 at 6:10 PM, Ipod Touch said:

Indeed  These rare exceptions actually reinforce the rule of commandments.

We advance line up line, precept on precept, until we transcend all Law and I can finally get away with sin for there will be no more sin.

Oh wait…….I think you said the opposite of that.

Link to comment
On 6/13/2022 at 9:00 AM, Thinking said:

I recently found out that a nephew of mine and his wife are "taking a break from Church." As I understand it, they want to see what their lives are like without the Church. Both were raised by very active parents and they have known nothing but life in the Church. I don't know if this is a cover for "we don't believe anymore."

Do any of you know somebody who "took a break from the Church?" Did they come back or stay away?

It is difficult to discern what is actually taking place but several families did not return to church after covid. They remain aloof and have avoided contact since then. Only time will tell.

Link to comment
On 6/13/2022 at 11:59 AM, bluebell said:

I think it's one of the reasons that members are sometimes not very good at mourning with those that mourn.  We have a very short list of things that people are allowed to mourn or be hurt by.  A very short list.

And anything not on that mental list is not an acceptable reason to be hurt, so mourning with them doesn't apply.

 

 

 

I suggest that in many wards there is no true fellowship. People are isolated, aloof and withdrawn from one another and unable to trust in anyone in order to share the pain and suffering they may be experiencing. There is an enormous pressure to "be perfect". The health and wealth disease has infected the church in a significant way. I heard a man say in church that "poverty is the result of sin". I confronted him with the fact that there are millions of very faithful saints that will never attain the financial position we enjoy in this country while making greater sacrifice and enduring privation and persecution which are unknown to us in America. 

People are mostly self absorbed and disconnected. We come to church on Sunday and Wednesday for a couple of hours, smile as a matter of protocol and go home and to our own world. People move from ward to ward chasing financial opportunities for their families wile diluted thinking that "we prayed about it". God does not care where you live and work but where you are to be more useful to the building up of His Kingdom. Moved to the new ward, spent 5 years and did nothing, really, and on to the next.

I think covid provided the proverbial scape hatch for a lot of people. It's been over a year since we went back to church and there are a number of families that remain unaccounted for by choice. Again, it is hard to discern what is actually taking place.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We advance line up line, precept on precept, until we transcend all Law and I can finally get away with sin for there will be no more sin.

Oh wait…….I think you said the opposite of that.

Indeed.  This is how human beings  behave.  Regardless of our wishes.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...