Church members who leave the church

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/23/2024 at 2:58 PM, The Nehor said:

There are some members who leave who strive to make that change obvious. I told the story of one friend who was obnoxious about it.

I also see some people who sometimes break old taboos deliberately in an almost ritualistic break from the past. A kind of shift representing the death of their old self and the arrival of a new one.

Would that be the rebirth of the natural man?

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why would I do that? I wouldn't know where to start.

Coffee breath and the smell of coffee make me want to retch. We won a war with the Brits, so I don't have to drink tea. 😀

Tea has never appealed to me except I would love to partake in an authentic tea ceremony sometime.  Even herbal tea…tastes like dirt if bad and grass if good in most cases.  And unfortunately while I love, love the smell of mint, don’t like the ‘coolness’ of the taste.  Hibiscus and fruit teas are the exception, love those.  And of course, my favorite double or triple strength ginger tea.  But green tea is tempting for health reasons.   If there was strong evidence it did help, I would take it now as an extract or in a capsule just as I currently take a mind altering, habit forming drug for medicinal purpose.  Since the Church approved the use of marijuana for medical reasons, it solved the question for me as to using green tea or even coffee medicinally (one doctor recommended it for a child of my friend who they suspected had ADHD, if it worked likely would switch to am ADHD drug…I never did find out, come to think of it).  For someone who didn’t want to take the stronger drugs, coffee might be useful if they didn’t want the sugar that comes from soda or high energy drinks.  I love the smell of coffee, but mocha ice cream and a few other coffee flavor things I have eaten have not made me tempted to have it stronger, a hint of coffee is about as much as appeals to me….plus there is the whole sleep issue thing.

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

On 9/23/2024 at 1:24 PM, Rain said:

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I live in Arizona. It's still hot. I'm currently only wearing tank tops at home, largely in part because I don't want to be the subject of gossip. Chances of me wearing them anytime soon on instagram are not great (though I do have a picture from my workout class from 5 years ago). 

I also just posted several pictures of me and my husband in Hungary. I had not a single thought that I was inviting conversation about my black sleeved shirt or his ball cap. I thought I was just sharing this great experience and the things I was learning.

So if on my next vacation if I'm wearing a tank top have I suddenly opened up the conversation to that too?  Obviously, I'm a little worried that I am because I already don't want to be gossiped about. But is it really an invitation?  

Rain, this is the post Bluebell wrote to clarify, which makes a lot more sense imo.  Just in case you missed it,

 

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Why would I do that? I wouldn't know where to start.

Coffee breath and the smell of coffee make me want to retch. We won a war with the Brits, so I don't have to drink tea. 😀

(it was a joke...)

[Rain]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

You missed my first post which gives this one context. I clarified to Seeking, so maybe that post can help explain. I don’t have it in me to retype it. 

I didn't miss it or the context.  Like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that it is an invitation to talk. Like I'm really not sure.  It doesn't really matter to me if it's something small or if someone has completely overhauled their actions. I imagine either way feelings are complicated. Maybe the thing is I'm just not like the people ypu describe so maybe they really are posting things like that to get the talking going.  I just have a hard time fitting myself into the shoes of someone posting to get the talk going.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

You missed my first post which gives this one context. I clarified to Seeking, so maybe that post can help explain. I don’t have it in me to retype it. 

I didn't miss it or the context.  Like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that it is an invitation to talk. Like I'm really not sure.  It doesn't really matter to me if it's something small or if someone has completely overhauled their actions. I imagine either way feelings are complicated. Maybe the thing is I'm just not like the people ypu describe so maybe they really are posting things like that to get the talking going.  I just have a hard time fitting myself into the shoes of someone posting to get the talk going.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would that be the rebirth of the natural man?

The death of the second birth from baptism and coming forth a new creature in…….depravity….or something.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

That's only assuming they left faith altogether. Nothing of the sort had been asserted in the telling of the story.

No, I find the loving God commandment to be the hardest.

[Dario_M]

Nice that everyone has such a good time in my topic and i'm reading the comments with interest.👏 Go on go on. 👍

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

I just have a hard time fitting myself into the shoes of someone posting to get the talk going.

I would have a hard time assuming motivation unless they came right out and said it. It’s not like I don’t speculate a lot, my mind is always bouncing around wondering what if and I can come up with a half a dozen reasons why someone might do something easily. I just don’t feel a need usually to settle on one if it doesn’t affect me.

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[gopher]

On 9/24/2024 at 11:55 AM, Peacefully said:

Ok, I thought you were unhappy that there weren’t more faith promoting stories about Joseph Smith on this board. I think asking people to say why they now think Joseph Smith was a fraud could be very close to breaking the board rule of  not discussing specifics of why people left the church. 

Nope, and I didn't mean to give the impression I was unhappy.  I'm curious to hear from those who claim to have received a testimony from God that JS was a fraud.  I don't think that is breaking the rules.  For example, the poster in this thread who accused JS of being a fraud says he no longer believes or trusts in God.  That's not as interesting as someone who believes God has revealed to them that JS isn't a prophet.

[gopher]

22 hours ago, Frank11 said:

I'm one of them. 

See, that would be an interesting discussion.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

I didn't miss it or the context.  Like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea that it is an invitation to talk. Like I'm really not sure.  It doesn't really matter to me if it's something small or if someone has completely overhauled their actions. I imagine either way feelings are complicated. Maybe the thing is I'm just not like the people ypu describe so maybe they really are posting things like that to get the talking going.  I just have a hard time fitting myself into the shoes of someone posting to get the talk going.

You misunderstand me. Don’t think it’s an invitation to talk. I don’t remember saying that even (that it’s an invitation to talk) but maybe I did and I just communicated my point badly.

When we post stuff other people are going to think about/have an opinion about it (not saying the opinion needs to be shared or will exist anywhere but the person’s head or will be any deeper than a fleeting thought or question).

They’ll think it’s a pretty picture, or that the food looks good, or that someone must be busy, or happy, or sad from the context. They might think it’s a good picture or a weird picture, or wonder why they choose that picture to post. They’ll “like” the post or they won’t agree with a thought shared or they’ll think any one of a million other different things because that’s how human brains tend to work when they receive input.

We process the input, evaluate it, and have a view about it.  It’s part of how our senses work.

None of it has to matter, or should matter, to the person posting the Facebook post. I was just acknowledging that that is generally what happens when people look at Facebook posts (or look at anything).

 

[Teancum]

On 9/22/2024 at 8:24 AM, Dario_M said:

That Joseh Smith was a polygamous  is something i don't believe.  

WAIT WHAT?!  You cannot be serious. It is beyond question that Joseph had plural wives and introduced the doctrine and practice in Nauvoo. He even practiced polyandry and married other men's wives. You really should read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling.

[Dario_M]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

WAIT WHAT?!  You cannot be serious. It is beyond question that Joseph had plural wives and introduced the doctrine and practice in Nauvoo. He even practiced polyandry and married other men's wives. You really should read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling.

Like i allready have said (a few times) i'm not interested in gossip media. I hope you understand?

Edited September 26, 2024 by Dario_M

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Like i allready have said (a few times) i'm not interested in gossip media. I hope you understand?

Dario, there are some that don't believe it either and I think are solid LDS. But the leaders and many before them, know that Joseph did live polygamy. This is straight from the church's site, no hearsay. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-and-plural-marriage?lang=eng

[Dario_M]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Dario, there are some that don't believe it either and I think are solid LDS. But the leaders and many before them, know that Joseph did live polygamy. This is straight from the church's site, no hearsay. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-and-plural-marriage?lang=eng

Yeah this i will read. This is a reliable source. 🩵😉

[Frank11]

6 hours ago, gopher said:

See, that would be an interesting discussion.

I would almost have to tell my life story and everyone would evaluate it differently.  It's not that the angel Moroni came twice, once he said yes and the other time he said no.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t remember saying that even (that it’s an invitation to talk) but maybe I did and I just communicated my point badly.

It was a bit confusing because you were responding to Bernard and it may have appear you were agreeing with some of his descriptions when you weren’t. That was my initial impression of your post to Bernard…and then I thought that doesn’t sound like Bluebell, details must be missing. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

us. It is beyond question that Joseph had plural wives and introduced the doctrine and practice in Nauvoo.

And yet so many are right now. It’s really interesting to me.  I get why Dario assumed this because he was not versed in the history, but those who dig deep into the history to look for ways to reject polygamy by Joseph and manage to do it for themselves and others…this does surprise me. 
 

The only way I can see it is to assume Brigham and others ran a massive conspiracy  and that would likely trash my faith in the Church as God’s vehicle as it now stands as that pushes fallibility over into intentional dishonesty for practically criminal reasons imo, so not seeing how active members manage to stay active believers when they are convinced this and yet seeing some claim this. I probably should investigate but I don’t want to deal with the actual arguments at this point having in the past not been impressed by them overall (some are decent points, but not enough), just find how they reconcile belief. 

Edited September 26, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

It was a bit confusing because you were responding to Bernard and it may have appear you were agreeing with some of his descriptions when you weren’t. That was my initial impression of your post to Bernard…and then I thought that doesn’t sound like Bluebell, details must be missing. 

Sometimes I think that posters on here know me well enough to know the kind of person I’m not. I guess I need to stop assuming that.

Edited September 26, 2024 by bluebell

[manol]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet so many are right now [questioning whether Joseph had plural wives and introduced the doctrine & practice in Nauvoo].

My understanding is that Joseph having been sealed to multiple women other than Emma is a matter of record. 

In your opinion (which I consider to be an educated and unbiased one), were those sealings marriages in the same sense as Brigham's plural marriages? 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Sometimes I think that posters on here know me well enough to know the kind of person I’m not. I guess I need to stop assuming that.

That's why I wasn't sure about how I felt about what you said.  It didn't seem to fit your words.  Then it felt like you were doubling down.  It was a bit confusing for me.

[MustardSeed]

On 9/25/2024 at 7:48 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Ah....the old  "more about us than them" tack. Doesn't that seem a wee bit.....censorial? 😉 

I believe in what I shared- for me as much as anyone. 

[JVW]

10 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Like i allready have said (a few times) i'm not interested in gossip media. I hope you understand?

Hey Dario, Rough Stone Rolling was written by an LDS member and it attempts to take an unbiased view of Joseph's life and provide a well-sourced history of the prophet. It's an incredibly good book and people who believe in Joseph and those who don't can both thoroughly enjoy. It's probably the best book about Joseph Smith for the lay person to read. (It is around 700 pages though, so it's not a quick read!) If you wanted anything more comprehensive you'd have to read the Joseph Smith Papers project, which is very dry and pure historical documentation.

Joseph was sealed to many women, but whether he consummated any of his marriages is up for debate. The sealing doctrine was brand new, and back then they believed that every member needed to be directly sealed to the prophet in some way in order to obtain the highest degree of exaltation. There was a lot of confusion and misinterpretation as the new doctrine got settled in.