Evolving Views Since Joining Mormon Dialogue

[LoudmouthMormon]

33 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I understand it to come from a story of a missionary confronted by an anti-Mormon mob when asked if he was a "Mormon" instead of denying it, he proudly proclaimed, " Yes siree, true blue, through and through!"

Ah yes - Joseph F. Smith.   Googled this up:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-05-0603-preparation-of-joseph-f-smith-true-blue-through-and-through?lang=eng

But yeah, the critics turned it into a slur, and are probably responsible for 80% of folks understanding what it means. 

Unlike the name "Mormon", which started out as a slur, but we reclaimed the crap out of it so hard, every handful of years our prophet tries to get us to use it less. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

I joined this board 20 years ago, just six years removed from the idealism of my mission, newly married but without children.  I can identify how my faith has deepened and matured in those 20 years, but I can't really put my finger on those areas of growth that resulted from my interactions here and which were just an inevitable outcome of growing old, raising children, experiencing life.  But I do know that this board has been an important component of my faith journey, so I'm grateful for all the interactions I've had here.  

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did my best. Sorry.

Make the topic about whatever you want.

Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy!!!

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy!!!

☢️☣️⚠️

[MrShorty]

With the permission to reinterpret at will, I chose to reinterpret as representing my overall faith journey without necessarily limiting it to participation in this discussion group. I started out TBM, served a mission and married in the temple. Ran into some issues that brought doubts to my mind. Through discussion groups like this one, I've tried to make sense of those doubts, and then, as I noted earlier, just don't seem to be finding good resolutions, so I voted "used to be TBM but now have doubts." This discussion group and others have been part of that shift away from TBM status (which I choose to interpret as meaning someone who generally accepts all of the church's truth claims without significant doubts or questions).

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I joined this board 20 years ago, just six years removed from the idealism of my mission, newly married but without children.  I can identify how my faith has deepened and matured in those 20 years, but I can't really put my finger on those areas of growth that resulted from my interactions here and which were just an inevitable outcome of growing old, raising children, experiencing life.  But I do know that this board has been an important component of my faith journey, so I'm grateful for all the interactions I've had here.  

My sojourn on this board coincided with my graduation from law school and the commencement of my career as an attorney.  I have spent most of that time as a litigator, so I regularly examine disputed factual issues, often involving rules of evidence, differentiating opinion from fact, seeking clinical assessment over emotional histrionics and conclusory assertions, and so on.

Critics certainly have some valid points to make, but not in an "at the end of the day" or "when all is said and done" context.  For that, the Restored Gospel, and the institution that houses it and administers its ordinances, withstand scrutiny pretty well.  The Gospel is beautiful despite our lack of a perfect understanding of it, and the Church is wonderful, despite our cumulative flaws and weaknesses.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

With the permission to reinterpret at will, I chose to reinterpret as representing my overall faith journey without necessarily limiting it to participation in this discussion group. I started out TBM, served a mission and married in the temple. Ran into some issues that brought doubts to my mind. Through discussion groups like this one, I've tried to make sense of those doubts, and then, as I noted earlier, just don't seem to be finding good resolutions, so I voted "used to be TBM but now have doubts." This discussion group and others have been part of that shift away from TBM status (which I choose to interpret as meaning someone who generally accepts all of the church's truth claims without significant doubts or questions).

I have tried to empathize with what you are describing: another's effort to make sense of faith-related doubts created in response to all the things we come across each day, intentionally and not. I've gotten so far as experiencing the feelings and forecasts associated with religious or spiritual doubt, but I have also discovered many other alternative responses than doubt and faith.

What is the least significant truth claim that provokes doubt? I ask in part to understand what qualifies as a truth claim with an example that meets a minimum requirement. You can offer the most significant if you want, but I would rather discuss a threshold of tolerance; I won't discuss the merits of the claim.

Edited May 13, 2024 by CV75

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

After seeing the discussions here, I am genuinely curious about the influence of the discussions here on people's religious views.

Was TBM and hobby apologist. No longer believe.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

I was in major doubt when I joined and am now strong in my testimony. 

That is to bad. 

Just kidding.  I just know others will cheer you on so I thought I would be the vocal rabid apostate.  If you are happy then good for you. 😁

 

[Calm]

I see TBM/True blue Mormon as someone who is all in when it comes to the Gospel. I see myself that way and so happily call myself a TBM when it stands for that.  

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

For others, "TBM" just means someone who is a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint.

I always thought it meant just that. A true believing Mormon. Of faithful observant Latter-day Saint. I do not view TBM as a pejorative. Simply an easy way to identify believers.

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

After seeing the discussions here, I am genuinely curious about the influence of the discussions here on people's religious views.

I go way back to the Zions Lighthouse Message Board.  That board arose when a bunch of is defenders of the faith, including some rather well known apologists, all were kicked off the Utah Lighthouse Ministry Board-the one that was started by Gerald and Sandra Tanner.  One person-Pacumeni, decided to start another board. That board had quite the life and was a very robust discussion board.  But eventually it ran its course and overlapping its time, this board came to be.

This and other message boards I guess did have an impact on me. As noted, I was an avid hoppy apologist.  But for me, the argument and defenses of what ultimately seemed indefensible, won out and my belief in Mormonism unraveled. It took quite a few years and I desperately tried to make it work but alas, here I am where I am now.  I even attended the first few FAIR conferences.  The first one, organized by Daryl Barksdale, had maybe ten or twelve people attending and 70% of then were speakers.  Kerry Shirts was one. Dan Peterson another. Kerry Shirts is no longer a believer in Mormonism as well, and is actually quite a vocal critic. Others that have been here that are now non believers and even public with their criticism includes Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon who used to post here as Consiglieri. I think Consig was on ZLMB as well.  Oh and Kevin Graham.  Another ZLMBer who migrated here then became a non believer and was quite strident for a long time opposing the church. I know Kevin outside this board. He has I think mostly moved on from Mormonism though his wife is active. I rarely see him bring it up.  All this for me goes back the the late 1990s and early 2000s.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I understand it to come from a story of a missionary confronted by an anti-Mormon mob when asked if he was a "Mormon" instead of denying it, he proudly proclaimed, " Yes siree, true blue, through and through!"

Yes that I believe is a story about Joseph F. Smith. 

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is the least significant truth claim that provokes doubt?

Difficult to say, since every doubt about a truth claim ends up being about the process of receiving and discerning revelation. In a church that claims to be built on the rock of revelation with a foundation of apostles and prophets, anything that casts doubt on that process of revelation is pretty important.

For example, probably the earliest issue was the question of biological evolution. I grew up with Elder McConkie's understanding that evolution was a "deadly heresy." Then I ended up in a BYU evolution class (required as a bio-ag major) and ended up spending a solid week studying the "evolution packet" and a few weeks later on studying hominid evolution. At the end of that class, I had determined that Elder McConkie was just wrong to call it a deadly heresy. Which naturally leads into the question of how an apostle, who one would tend to believe has an accurate understanding of how to seek and receive and recognize revelation, could make the kind of mistake that led him to call something a deadly heresy that the church never wanted to even call a heresy.

Another minor issue that came up more recently involves the "Apr 6th as Christ's birthday" issue. In April 2014 GC, Elder Bednar declared that "we know, by revelation, that this is the accurate date of Christ's birth" with footnotes referencing three presidents of the church who said something similar. Do we know this by revelation? If not, was Elder Bednar mistaken to claim revelation? It seems significant to me that an apostle can be mistaken about what is and is not revelation.

The priesthood and temple ban figures prominently here as an example of teachings that 19th and 20th century prophets and apostles declared to be revelation that 21st century prophets and apostles (indirectly through the Gospel Topics essay) have disavowed. So much of the history of that particular issue seems like a solid case study in how we receive revelation and how mistake what is and is not revelation.

I think Ben Spackman has captured the heart of my issues in his Gospel Doctrine/Come Follow Me lesson materials dealing with slavery in the Bible (using the book of Philemon as his jumping off point). He writes

Quote

The problem, then, neatly encapsulated in Philemon, is that scripture fails to live up to a standard we see as ethically and morally cut-and-dried, and presumably eternal. Scripture simply doesn’t reflect the eternal ideal, as we understand. How do we account for this? What model of scripture, revelation, and prophets allows “God’s word,” God’s prophets, and Jesus himself to do or allow something so… inhuman?

https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/

I know that this isn't the first time this topic has been discussed by me, with me, for me, and it seems that previous discussions have never adequately answered the question of how and why prophets and apostles can call "revelation" something that is not revelation or call something "not revelation" that is revelation. I'm no longer optimistic that a resolution will ever be found, so it is mostly a question of how much confidence to place in the church's declarations and picking and choosing which ones I accept and which ones I don't.

[Damien the Leper]

One thing that I felt was juvenile and condescending was when my bishops would hear my doubts and then tell me to put them on some silly metaphorical (?) shelf. Then when I would speak to other exMos they would ask me what broke my shelf. Ugh! I never had a shelf!

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

One thing that I felt was juvenile and condescending was when my bishops would hear my doubts and then tell me to put them on some silly metaphorical (?) shelf. Then when I would speak to other exMos they would ask me what broke my shelf. Ugh! I never had a shelf!

I don’t do shelves, lol, except for displaying things.  Shelves make things accessible to me so the analogy doesn’t work at all.

If I have a problem with something, it will be percolating in my brain until solved or if unsolvable, it gets delegated to ‘pursue in the next life’ like certain “what were you thinking”questions for various prophets.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Calm

[3DOP]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

I go way back to the Zions Lighthouse Message Board.  That board arose when a bunch of is defenders of the faith, including some rather well known apologists, all were kicked off the Utah Lighthouse Ministry Board-the one that was started by Gerald and Sandra Tanner.  One person-Pacumeni, decided to start another board. That board had quite the life and was a very robust discussion board.  But eventually it ran its course and overlapping its time, this board came to be.

This and other message boards I guess did have an impact on me. As noted, I was an avid hoppy apologist.  But for me, the argument and defenses of what ultimately seemed indefensible, won out and my belief in Mormonism unraveled. It took quite a few years and I desperately tried to make it work but alas, here I am where I am now.  I even attended the first few FAIR conferences.  The first one, organized by Daryl Barksdale, had maybe ten or twelve people attending and 70% of then were speakers.  Kerry Shirts was one. Dan Peterson another. Kerry Shirts is no longer a believer in Mormonism as well, and is actually quite a vocal critic. Others that have been here that are now non believers and even public with their criticism includes Bill Reel and Radio Free Mormon who used to post here as Consiglieri. I think Consig was on ZLMB as well.  Oh and Kevin Graham.  Another ZLMBer who migrated here then became a non believer and was quite strident for a long time opposing the church. I know Kevin outside this board. He has I think mostly moved on from Mormonism though his wife is active. I rarely see him bring it up.  All this for me goes back the the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Oh wow, Teancum. Kerry Shirts. The back yard professor. Affable guy. I saw him leaving before he did. Against "organized religion". I think only because "disorganized religion" never had any influence.

Consiglieri had this picture of that actor who had lots of TV roles, and was a bad guy in The Natural. The name won't come. Darren McGavin! There it is. I am for anybody who opposes vampires. Are you in favor of vampires Teancum? I think we are on the same side.

Kevin Graham caught me once in "my cups". Are you inebriated?, he asked. This was 20 years ago, less or more. On the ZLMB, if I can remember right. I was happy. Mormons HATE any kind of booze, or gambling. But I believed in God...and more...then even, much more now. I haven't bought a lottery ticket in a very long time. I still take some liquid courage now and again. But I have never thought a drop was necessarily sinful since I left the Baptists.

Late 90's and early zeroes?  Never LDS, but my wife and now grown kids would bother me with taunts about "That's Daddy's Church", whenever we passed the local temple, stake, or ward. ( I have never learned the jargon of LDS local or regional communities,"). 

Heh. The kids know I am Catholic. And so are they. The LDS claims are no part of their journey, only mine.

I have great affection for Dan Peterson. He gave one of his sons the middle name of Thomas, after the Angelic Doctor. God bless you Teancum, and Dan, and all my brothers and sisters in Jesus,  in the LDS and Catholic and other communities, and the ex-LDS atheist, from whom there is now some bit of dissension. May we be one.

3DOP

 

Edited May 14, 2024 by 3DOP

[MiserereNobis]

Catholic when I joined in 2012, still Catholic now. I check in every day or two, but I tend to enjoy reading threads more than starting them, and my posts are usually short now. I enjoy knowing who everyone is, more or less. 

[Calm]

Consig…it was the Nightstalker…surprised it only lasted one seaso, must have seen late night reruns when I couldn’t sleep.  Pretty campy iirc.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071003/

[Peacefully]

I found this site a few years ago when I was searching for General Conference rumors. Yeah, I’m that person. I don’t think this site makes me more or less TBM, but it does give me a place to listen to a lot of different opinions about topics that aren’t discussed at church. I can also voice my opinions and it is very freeing not to be constrained by what is and isn’t appropriate to discuss at church. I love the input of members of other faiths because I learn a lot from them. I also enjoy hearing from those who have left our church and those who have come back. And I can’t forget those who are atheist or agnostic. They also bring thought-provoking ideas to the table. In short, I came to this site for rumors but I found substance. 

[3DOP]

31 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Catholic when I joined in 2012, still Catholic now. I check in every day or two, but I tend to enjoy reading threads more than starting them, and my posts are usually short now. I enjoy knowing who everyone is, more or less. 

You have read the City of God I suppose? One should not wait until they are nearly 70, and the short term memory is gone. I am in a section where Augustine opposes Plato, while Plato seems more...I'll let you guess. I might start a thread...i dunno.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm no longer optimistic that a resolution will ever be found, so it is mostly a question of how much confidence to place in the church's declarations and picking and choosing which ones I accept and which ones I don't.

Spiritual choices/resolutions have to be a personal decision, something you work through yourself in order for it to be truly satisfying imo. No one else will likely cover all the details that matter to you, even if they are obsessive compulsive nitpickers like me. I think this is like a good pair of sheepskin slippers…to get really comfortable with them, you have to get them a little tight to begin with, so only wear them a short time to begin with.  You have to wear them around for awhile so they stretch in the areas you need more room in and stay snug in the areas that are good at the beginning. If you break them in by letting someone else wear them, deal with the discomfort, they won’t match your needs, but theirs. 

[The Nehor]

Still believe in God but have much less trust in God than I used to. Too many broken promises.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Difficult to say, since every doubt about a truth claim ends up being about the process of receiving and discerning revelation. In a church that claims to be built on the rock of revelation with a foundation of apostles and prophets, anything that casts doubt on that process of revelation is pretty important.

For example, probably the earliest issue was the question of biological evolution. I grew up with Elder McConkie's understanding that evolution was a "deadly heresy." Then I ended up in a BYU evolution class (required as a bio-ag major) and ended up spending a solid week studying the "evolution packet" and a few weeks later on studying hominid evolution. At the end of that class, I had determined that Elder McConkie was just wrong to call it a deadly heresy. Which naturally leads into the question of how an apostle, who one would tend to believe has an accurate understanding of how to seek and receive and recognize revelation, could make the kind of mistake that led him to call something a deadly heresy that the church never wanted to even call a heresy.

Another minor issue that came up more recently involves the "Apr 6th as Christ's birthday" issue. In April 2014 GC, Elder Bednar declared that "we know, by revelation, that this is the accurate date of Christ's birth" with footnotes referencing three presidents of the church who said something similar. Do we know this by revelation? If not, was Elder Bednar mistaken to claim revelation? It seems significant to me that an apostle can be mistaken about what is and is not revelation.

The priesthood and temple ban figures prominently here as an example of teachings that 19th and 20th century prophets and apostles declared to be revelation that 21st century prophets and apostles (indirectly through the Gospel Topics essay) have disavowed. So much of the history of that particular issue seems like a solid case study in how we receive revelation and how mistake what is and is not revelation.

I think Ben Spackman has captured the heart of my issues in his Gospel Doctrine/Come Follow Me lesson materials dealing with slavery in the Bible (using the book of Philemon as his jumping off point). He writes

I know that this isn't the first time this topic has been discussed by me, with me, for me, and it seems that previous discussions have never adequately answered the question of how and why prophets and apostles can call "revelation" something that is not revelation or call something "not revelation" that is revelation. I'm no longer optimistic that a resolution will ever be found, so it is mostly a question of how much confidence to place in the church's declarations and picking and choosing which ones I accept and which ones I don't.

Thank you, and yes, these all have in common our assumptions and responses to human fallibility, and not necessarily the content of the subject at hand (evolutionary science, correct dates of birth, policy and teachings). I also think the term “presumably eternal” is key, since our assumptions about ethics and morality are also fallible in that all we can go by is what the Holy Spirit perfectly instructs, to the degree we can receive it.

I would think if the content of any of the examples you gave makes sense, it is reasonable to adopt it no matter what an apostle says. In the right spirit, of course. The testimony of the apostles is another thing, and this needs to make spiritual sense.

I would say that the “truth claims” mentioned above are among the least significant and meet a minimum requirement because their power hinges on our management of human fallibility. In contrast, I would say the most important “truth claims” are as Joseph Smith described (copied below); their power hinges on our discipleship (our management of divine potential). The restored keys delegated by the ascended Lord enable each of us to do this as we possess the gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost and become new creatures.

The Joseph Smith’s quote: “The fundamental principles of our religion is the testimony of the apostles and prophets concerning Jesus Christ, “that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended up into heaven;” and all other things are only appendages to these, which pertain to our religion.

“But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” (Elders’ Journal, July 1838, p. 44).

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Oh wow, Teancum. Kerry Shirts. The back yard professor. Affable guy. I saw him leaving before he did. Against "organized religion". I think only because "disorganized religion" never had any influence.

Consiglieri had this picture of that actor who had lots of TV roles, and was a bad guy in The Natural. The name won't come. Darren McGavin! There it is. I am for anybody who opposes vampires. Are you in favor of vampires Teancum? I think we are on the same side.

Kevin Graham caught me once in "my cups". Are you inebriated?, he asked. This was 20 years ago, less or more. On the ZLMB, if I can remember right. I was happy. Mormons HATE any kind of booze, or gambling. But I believed in God...and more...then even, much more now. I haven't bought a lottery ticket in a very long time. I still take some liquid courage now and again. But I have never thought a drop was necessarily sinful since I left the Baptists.

Late 90's and early zeroes?  Never LDS, but my wife and now grown kids would bother me with taunts about "That's Daddy's Church", whenever we passed the local temple, stake, or ward. ( I have never learned the jargon of LDS local or regional communities,"). 

Heh. The kids know I am Catholic. And so are they. The LDS claims are no part of their journey, only mine.

I have great affection for Dan Peterson. He gave one of his sons the middle name of Thomas, after the Angelic Doctor. God bless you Teancum, and Dan, and all my brothers and sisters in Jesus,  in the LDS and Catholic and other communities, and the ex-LDS atheist, from whom there is now some bit of dissension. May we be one.

3DOP

 

This!