Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, filovirus said:

People can be good while believing in any number of things. And truth can be found in every corner of the earth, not just inside the LDS religion. However, the CoJCoLDS offers things that no other religion or place on earth offers at this moment. Namely, the sealing power from heaven in the form of priesthood, and a method to make sacred covenants with God that lead to blessings in the hereafter. Many people are actively or even subtly trying to thwart people's access to these promises by creating an atmosphere of doubt and denial.

Another possibility is that the things you say the church uniquely offers are just constructs of men.

I don't think a good god would require belief in themself. It feels coercive to my spirit. I do not want to subject people to manipulation. I do however think people will tend to be happier when they're good to each other so I want that for people.

30 minutes ago, Rain said:

It definitely matters, especially if you are talking about the resources the church just put out.  If you label unbelieving people as thwarters when they are family members, friends fellow ward members you automatically set up walls which breaks down relationships completely going against these new resources.

Yep, it really stinks that despite sticking to my conscience, there is a separation between myself and my believing family which the church created and maintains. I am grateful for the more radical members who recognize their chosen path might not be the only one. I had a friend like that visit recently--a BYU professor--and our chats were some of the most edifying I've had in a long time. I was her visiting teacher and relief society instructor at uni, and it was wonderful feeling like she still respects and loves me even after my change in path. 

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yep, it really stinks that despite sticking to my conscience, there is a separation between myself and my believing family which the church created and maintains.

Do you mean a separation because of the doctrine or are you talking about a separation because your family isn't treating you very well since you've left?

[Rain]

48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Another possibility is that the things you say the church uniquely offers are just constructs of men.

I don't think a good god would require belief in themself. It feels coercive to my spirit. I do not want to subject people to manipulation. I do however think people will tend to be happier when they're good to each other so I want that for people.

Yep, it really stinks that despite sticking to my conscience, there is a separation between myself and my believing family which the church created and maintains. I am grateful for the more radical members who recognize their chosen path might not be the only one. I had a friend like that visit recently--a BYU professor--and our chats were some of the most edifying I've had in a long time. I was her visiting teacher and relief society instructor at uni, and it was wonderful feeling like she still respects and loves me even after my change in path. 

I think it's natural to have some separation with anything. I gave up scrapbooking a long time ago and there is even separation between me and people I used to scrapbook with.

So it makes sense that with the church there is separation since the beliefs are so important to members.  One side is giving up a common thing that is huge in the other person's life. That's going to be a seperative thing and it takes understanding.

On top of that you often have the side giving up the church being very critical about the beliefs and practices and often the other side making judgments.  There is defense on both sides. And yes, that stinks.

[Meadowchik]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you mean a separation because of the doctrine or are you talking about a separation because your family isn't treating you very well since you've left?

My LDS family members are relatively radical and very well to nurture good relationships with those of us who have left. My mom's funeral, which she planned with my dad, beautifully included all of us and was very edifying.

The separation in the doctrine is simply wrong. No family should fear or mourn separation from each other in this life or the next based on relationship with the church or belief in god. Reason and love revolts at the thought.

[Meadowchik]

37 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think it's natural to have some separation with anything. I gave up scrapbooking a long time ago and there is even separation between me and people I used to scrapbook with.

So it makes sense that with the church there is separation since the beliefs are so important to members.  One side is giving up a common thing that is huge in the other person's life. That's going to be a seperative thing and it takes understanding.

On top of that you often have the side giving up the church being very critical about the beliefs and practices and often the other side making judgments.  There is defense on both sides. And yes, that stinks.

 

38 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think it's natural to have some separation with anything. I gave up scrapbooking a long time ago and there is even separation between me and people I used to scrapbook with.

So it makes sense that with the church there is separation since the beliefs are so important to members.  One side is giving up a common thing that is huge in the other person's life. That's going to be a seperative thing and it takes understanding.

On top of that you often have the side giving up the church being very critical about the beliefs and practices and often the other side making judgments.  There is defense on both sides. And yes, that stinks.

I shouldn't have to worry about my 98 year old grandma thinking I won't be okay in the afterlife just because I left the church. There's a much better way which doesn't involve saying the church is the only way.

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

My LDS family members are relatively radical and very well to nurture good relationships with those of us who have left. My mom's funeral, which she planned with my dad, beautifully included all of us and was very edifying.

The separation in the doctrine is simply wrong. No family should fear or mourn separation from each other in this life or the next based on relationship with the church or belief in god. Reason and love revolts at the thought.

Thanks for clarifying.  My family has a lot of members who have left and they've never been treated any differently.  I've never thought of that as being a radical stance since it's just normal in my experience, but I'm really glad that your family is doing the same.

We'll have to disagree about the rest, but I really do appreciate the explanation.   

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

I shouldn't have to worry about my 98 year old grandma thinking I won't be okay in the afterlife just because I left the church. There's a much better way which doesn't involve saying the church is the only way.

To be clear, there are a lot of things I have lost faith in.  I'm sure my parents would be worried if they knew the extent of that. But I don't think this is a church thing.  It's a life thing. Family and friends will naturally worry when they feel you have made choices that are not the best for you. With most things you have to teach yourself not to worry because it doesn't help anything.  With the church, people need to trust God that their loved one was his child first and let him take care of it. If someone is worried it is not the church which teaches people to trust God. It's that they haven't learned to not worry/trust.

Edited January 8, 2024 by Rain

[filovirus]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Are "many" trying to "thwart" that or do they just not believe in them? Thwart suggests they do believe, but don't want other people to have those blessings. I would guess there are few people who fit that.

Here is the definition of thwart: prevent (someone) from accomplishing something. Not sure where you got the idea that it means they believe. And yes, I do think many people are trying to "thwart" the CoJCoLDS from accomplishing its goal to bring all unto Christ. They sow disbelief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its power to save (covenants and all). They sow discord among many within the church so that there is internal conflict. They sow distrust in the prophets and their testimony of Christ.

And then when a believing member starts to have doubts, previously there have not been a lot of options to turn to. Bishop? Maybe. Church Essays? They don't go into depth. Many of these questions are not discussed in the church setting. So they go to tik tok. Mormon subreddit. Youtube. All to try and find answers. And there are more anti-LDS posts on all of those sites than pro-LDS posts. So the fact that the church is teaching how to help people who have fallen prey to the insidious nature of many is a good thing.

[filovirus]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Another possibility is that the things you say the church uniquely offers are just constructs of men.

Are you claiming the scriptures are just the constructs of men? God has a history of covenanting with his people. From the OT, to the NT, to the BoM. I'm not sure why he would suddenly stop now. I guess if you don't believe the scriptures are the word of God, you have a point.

Quote

I don't think a good god would require belief in themself. It feels coercive to my spirit. I do not want to subject people to manipulation. I do however think people will tend to be happier when they're good to each other so I want that for people.

Can people within the church not be good to each other? I'm not sure what you mean by this. I believe that there will be more people in the highest kingdom of heaven who were never LDS, or even Christian, than vice versa. But eventually, every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord and acknowledge his authority.

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 1/7/2024 at 10:47 AM, california boy said:

Church leaders told me that if I just get married, I would no longer be gay.  I asked them if that was just their opinion or if God was making that promise to me.  They told me that it was a promise from God.  Choosing to marry was a huge decision for me.  I wasn't marrying because I wanted to have sex.  I was marrying because I was told that is the will of God.  I hated being gay.  I would have done almost anything to be straight and not have to carry that burden.  The decision to marry was built on a false promise. Should Church leaders bare any responsibility for my failed marriage?  I have a feeling that those Church leaders are going to have more to answer for in the deception they practiced using his name than me leaving my marriage.  That is quite a different reason for leaving a marriage than my wife got fat.   If God would have kept his end of the covenant, and  I did become straight, then I would still be in my marriage.  Yes being LGBT is definitely a different situation.  

Even that false promise being set aside, I don't think you have any idea what it is like to live your life as a total lie.  During my whole marriage, people including my family would tell me they loved me, that I was such a great guy, a good friend.  But in my mind, I would always wonder "If they knew I was gay, would they still think I was a great guy?  Would they still want me to be their friend?  Would they still love me.  It made me not trust anyone's love because they didn't know how I really was.  When I came out, those fears all proved to be true.  While I was very prominent in my ward, including being in a bishopric and high counselor, only 4 people in my ward ever talked to me again.  My siblings and father didn't invite me to any family events including baptisms, missionary farewells of my nephews, family reunions, for 13 years.  Those scars are still very deep.  I still have a lot of difficulty trusting other peoples love.   Do you think the situations you mentioned are similar?  

ETA

I want to add, my situation is not unique to me.  If it was, I probably wouldn't bother even posting on this discussion group.  There are thousands of these marriages that happened.  I remember reading an article in "Sunstone" about a BYU professor that did research on these mixed marriages.  I haven't ever been able to find the article, but if I remember right, he followed 500 mixed marriages.  After 5 years, only a handful were still married.  It was this study that finally pushed President Hinkley to say "Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices."  That was a game changer and finally put an end to this practice.

Thanks for your honest response to my question!

I debated whether to even ask the question, since I am sure you could have construed it as offensive. But it's a lingering question I've had (and I am sure I am not the only one) and I have found that you are willing to answer point-blank and poorly formed questions without attacking.

Even though I don't always agree with you @california boy on everything you post, I really appreciate your participation and feedback on the board because it helps me better understand how my family and friends who are LGBT feel and where they are coming from.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

there is a separation between myself and my believing family which the church created and maintains.

Unless this separation is in most families in your situation, I don’t see how you can assume the Church is the one who created and maintains it.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've never thought of that as being a radical stance since it's just normal in my experience, but I'm really glad that your family is doing the same.

I have my doubts about it being radical as it seems pretty common in my experience. My husband’s family is traditional over all (my sister in law went on a rant about wearing Jean skirts to church quite awhile back, when I had one in my closet just for that purpose—I haven’t worn a skirt or dress for everyday since junior high—so I didn’t have to wear hose to church and everyone else were nodding their heads and agreeing, it was at the after the funeral of her dad’s gathering, so kept my mouth shut and figured she was extra stressed) and have a number of the grandkids who have left the Church (there are 8 very active siblings), a few have gone anti for awhile and yet by all accounts I am seeing them treated the same.

Since separation is common with any loss of shared experiences, even when there is no criticism of former participants, I believe research comparing different situations should be used before accusing the Church given there are also traditional doctrines that contribute to long term connections among family even with differences.

Not saying there isn’t a significant number that do the separation bit from mild to extreme, just not seeing it that heightened overall, especially these days (I did see it quite a bit with LGBT siblings in the past, but from the stories most of these were mutual separation once they came out to the family and there was little chance to act on any beliefs, so I believe if the Church contributed there, that it was what was said while they were closeted…but again, I would be interested to see comparisons between families in and out of the Church to see if teachings and practices had a significant negative impact).

Edited January 9, 2024 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless this separation is in most families in your situation, I don’t see how you can assume the Church is the one who created and maintains it.

It tells people they will be separated eternally. So families who had nothing between then now have this conflict created by the church. And then the well-being of family members is assessed by the church based on their relationship with the church. 

Imagine none of that was there. 

Without the church there was no reason to think you will be separated from your spouse, sibling, child, etc.... forever. Now you're told there is and you must do things about it. Without the church there was nothing necessarily wrong with their well being but now there is, simply because they are not participating or not participating enough.

Imagine if there was no automatic need to cope with or worry about inactive or unbelieving family members because that is irrelevant to the relationship and irrelevant to our perception of their well-being.

 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It tells people they will be separated eternally. So families who had nothing between then now have this conflict created by the church. And then the well-being of family members is assessed by the church based on their relationship with the church. 

It is not the only thing it tells them though.

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It tells people they will be separated eternally. So families who had nothing between then now have this conflict created by the church. And then the well-being of family members is assessed by the church based on their relationship with the church. 

Imagine none of that was there. 

Without the church there was no reason to think you will be separated from your spouse, sibling, child, etc.... forever. Now you're told there is and you must do things about it. Without the church there was nothing necessarily wrong with their well being but now there is, simply because they are not participating or not participating enough.

Imagine if there was no automatic need to cope with or worry about inactive or unbelieving family members because that is irrelevant to the relationship and irrelevant to our perception of their well-being.

 

You are correct about that kind of separation. Even though those that are in the CK can go to other worlds to see their loved ones, it's still a separation. It's odd to me that the church will emphasize families being together forever as if they are the only ones. I recently heard someone non LDS say they will live eternally with their spouse. It's like the church is not really understanding the civil marriage right. They think once the married couple dies they won't be together, but that's not what the rest of Christianity think. 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You are correct about that kind of separation. Even though those that are in the CK can go to other worlds to see their loved ones, it's still a separation. It's odd to me that the church will emphasize families being together forever as if they are the only ones. I recently heard someone non LDS say they will live eternally with their spouse. It's like the church is not really understanding the civil marriage right. They think once the married couple dies they won't be together, but that's not what the rest of Christianity think. 

It depends on who you talk to. I know quite a few people who believe they will not be married after death, though they do believe that they will be with the people that they love, just not a familial relationship.  My friend described it as being with, and knowing the people you knew and still caring about them in the next life, but not feeling any different towards them than you feel about anybody else in Heaven.  Your dad will not be your dad. Your spouse will not be your spouse. You will all be brothers and sisters in Christ and everyone will love everyone else in the same way. 

And we also can’t discount that for a long time, and in some ceremonies still, the marriage ending at death was/is right in the vows and was a prominent part of Christian belief.

The church is (rightly) not concerned about what other people believe is true or not though.  They are concerned with what they believe God has declared as doctrine.

There are many people that don’t even believe in God at all, and the church rightly ignores that in their teachings.  I don’t know why other beliefs about what happens after death should be treated any differently.  It wouldn’t make sense for Catholics to change their teachings based on what protestants believe.   Same for Protestants changing their teachings because Catholics don’t agree with them.

Why would the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints change their teachings or beliefs based on what other churches teach?

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It depends on who you talk to. I know quite a few people who believe they will not be married after death, though they do believe that they will be with the people that they love, just not a familial relationship.  My friend described it as being with, and knowing the people you knew and still caring about them in the next life, but not feeling any different towards them than you feel about anybody else in Heaven.  Your dad will not be your dad. Your spouse will not be your spouse. You will all be brothers and sisters in Christ and everyone will love everyone else in the same way. 

And we also can’t discount that for a long time, and in some ceremonies still, the marriage ending at death was/is right in the vows and was a prominent part of Christian belief.

The church is (rightly) not concerned about what other people believe is true or not though.  They are concerned with what they believe God has declared as doctrine.

There are many people that don’t even believe in God at all, and the church rightly ignores that in their teachings.  I don’t know why other beliefs about what happens after death should be treated any differently.  It wouldn’t make sense for Catholics to change their teachings based on what protestants believe.   Same for Protestants changing their teachings because Catholics don’t agree with them.

Why would the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints change their teachings or beliefs based on what other churches teach?

They shouldn't, except when the members in LDS families make it a separation that will doom them. There are definitely situations that I read about all the time when someone stops belief in the LDS church how worried they are about what their family will do, it does happen, they are in another dimension after that, figuratively. Scores of these stories I read on reddit or elsewhere. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

They shouldn't, except when the members in LDS families make it a separation that will doom them. There are definitely situations that I read about all the time when someone stops belief in the LDS church how worried they are about what their family will do, it does happen, they are in another dimension after that, figuratively. Scores of these stories I read on reddit or elsewhere. 

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part.  Can you explain a little more?

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded part.  Can you explain a little more?

I totally didn't come across well, just had to edit myself again here. Meaning they are doomed because they aren't in the celestial kingdom with God or their loved ones that believe or are endowed, since even the believers may not live worthy enough to get a temple recommend. So the temple to me, becomes more an idol, IMO. Sorry if that offends. But I believe there are many that are believers in Christ yet not so much in an organization who according to the church won't live with God and family. 

Edited January 9, 2024 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I totally didn't come across well, just had to edit myself again here. Meaning they are doomed because they aren't in the celestial kingdom with God or their loved ones that believe or are endowed, since even the believers may not live worthy enough to get a temple recommend. So the temple to me, becomes more an idol, IMO. Sorry if that offends. But I believe there are many that are believers in Christ yet not so much in an organization who according to the church won't live with God and family. 

Thanks for explaining.  I don't agree with that perspective (that a belief in the need for making covenants with God in a sacred space is a form of idolatry) but it doesn't offend me.   

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for explaining.  I don't agree with that perspective (that a belief in the need for making covenants with God in a sacred space is a form of idolatry) but it doesn't offend me.   

Not at all, the way you put it, I don't either. I guess when the temple is put forth above the Saviour, then I do. I remember a RS lesson or maybe it was a women's conference they spoke about idols even being what we wore. Or such things that we focus too much attention to. Sometimes I feel that happens with temples. 

[california boy]

21 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Thanks for your honest response to my question!

I debated whether to even ask the question, since I am sure you could have construed it as offensive. But it's a lingering question I've had (and I am sure I am not the only one) and I have found that you are willing to answer point-blank and poorly formed questions without attacking.

Even though I don't always agree with you @california boy on everything you post, I really appreciate your participation and feedback on the board because it helps me better understand how my family and friends who are LGBT feel and where they are coming from.

Thank you for responding.  i was actually thinking about why I post here and stay with our little community.  (I watched a movie called Jesus Revolution last night.  If you have seen it, you would understand my thoughts). My goal here is to exchange ideas and get a better understanding.  I know there are many LGBT people in the Church that are desperate to stay connected to the Church community, but just feel like it can't work for them when the only option is to give up on loving someone and finding that important bonding that is so much about what makes us human.  I don't think anyone believes that is a path that leads to happiness in this life, even TBM.  The fact that the policy is pure speculation and has no foundation in revelation makes it especially troublesome to those that actual have to make that kind of decision.  

And here is the big rub.  So many of those that are LGBT desperately need a spiritual connection in this life.  It is a shame that the Church can not offer that kind of inclusion without getting cut out completely because of that policy.  I think there are many that see this, especially parents of LGBT children.  The biggest compliment you or anyone could give me is to not necessarily agreeing with me, but to get a better understanding on why this policy is so harmful if you are LGBT.  Can you imagine living your whole life struggling to never have that kind of human connection and finding out when you die that it wasn't Gods idea at all and you wasted your entire mortal life missing out on the very thing that makes us human.  These are things I thought about when I was making that decision, a decision I have never regretted.  I love my partner.  In a month we will have been together for 15 years.  I can't imagine a life without him.  I have found spirituality on my own.  Not everyone is so lucky.

[Analytics]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not at all, the way you put it, I don't either. I guess when the temple is put forth above the Saviour, then I do. I remember a RS lesson or maybe it was a women's conference they spoke about idols even being what we wore. Or such things that we focus too much attention to. Sometimes I feel that happens with temples. 

Your comment reminded me of what it was like to be raised in the Church in a part-member family. Teachings about eternal families gave a powerful sense of purpose, belonging, and legacy. Growing up my ward was in suburban Salt Lake City, and the vast majority of people there were from families that checked all the boxes. But to the extent the Church teaches that being sealed to your parents is an important blessing, it is simultaneously teaching that not being sealed to your parents is a terrible thing. Sometimes my mom came home from church crying. When there were lessons in relief society about the importance of making sure your kids didn't date non-members because you end up marrying who you date, she felt the unspoken next sentence in everybody's mind was, "and then you'll end up like Analytics's mom, not be eligible for the top level of heaven, and not have your children sealed to you."

Growing up in that environment where most of the kids around you were sealed eternal families and you weren't made my siblings and I all feel second class, and we somehow felt guilty about it. For us, the explicit goal we learned at Church was to grow up and get married in a wedding ceremony our parents were ineligible to attend, because that was the way to please God. 

Edited January 9, 2024 by Analytics

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

simultaneously teaching that not being sealed to your parents is a terrible thing.

That's interesting.  I also grew up in suburban Salt Lake and am not sealed to my parents.  I was never taught this. 

 

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Growing up in that environment where most of the kids around you were sealed eternal families and you weren't made my siblings and I all feel second class, and we somehow felt guilty about it.

We moved around a bit and I attended 3 different wards during my primary and YM days.  I never felt anything but love from the leaders and adults in the wards we lived in.

Edited January 9, 2024 by ksfisher

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

That's interesting.  I also grew up in suburban Salt Lake and am not sealed to my parents.  I was never taught this. 

To be clear, I was never explicitly taught that not being sealed "is a terrible thing." But I was taught that being sealed was an incredibly important thing. A good thing. A very good thing. I vital thing. 

And it was a blessing that everybody around me had, but I didn't.

That was my impression. Was I wrong? How did you deal with it? Did you feel you were missing out on something important by not being sealed?   

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We moved around a bit and I attended 3 different wards during my primary and YM days.  I never felt anything but love from the leaders and adults in the wards we lived in.

To be clear, the vast majority of of my ward members and youth leaders were wonderful people that i greatly respect, and I did in fact feel tremendous love from them. And if anything, they went out of there way to be extra kind to me to make up for me lacking the blessings of the priesthood at home. I may have felt a bit of pity. But I always felt loved.

And, of course, my future was wide open so that even though I couldn't be sealed to my own parents, I could hopefully find a lovely young lady to take to the temple and start my own eternal family without my parents, and of course there was always the possibility of my own parents finally getting their act together someday.

It reminds me of a particular Sunday school class on Father's day when I was about 14. The teacher decided to use the second half of the class to have everybody bear their testimony about their father. There were about 20 girls and boys in the class. Very quickly the checklist of what you should say about your dad developed: bearing your testimony there meant saying how much you loved your dad, how thankful you were that he taught you the truthfulness of the Church, how thankful you were that you had the priesthood in your home, how thankful you were to be sealed as a family. Everybody said almost the exact same thing, and those things were what it was all about. I remember one guy who happened to be a jock wanted to shake it up, and added to the standard checklist that he was also thankful for his dad teaching him about sportsmanship. 

So when it was my turn, what in the heck was I supposed to say? How the heck was I supposed to feel about this?