Support NeoGAF

[Bornstellar]

While I understand exactly where you're coming from re:"We don't know", it's an honest answer - there is no revelation on why such a ban existed. Beyond that lies speculation and opinion (the stuff which has produced this news story in the first place). I also belive that any answer would not make a difference nor be satisfactory in any way.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

While I understand exactly where you're coming from re:"We don't know", it's an honest answer - there is no revelation on why such a ban existed. Beyond that lies speculation and opinion (the stuff which has produced this news story in the first place). I also belive that any answer would not make a difference nor be satisfactory in any way.

What gets me is that the church clearly was practicing something that was horrendous. "We don't know" is a cop out. If you're going to enforce a policy, have the balls to stand up and defend it. Don't try to retcon it into a loosely understood or unofficial policy. It was church policy.

Imagine a black family attending church prior to 1978. Imagine them hearing about how wonderful the blessings of the temple are, how families can be sealed for time and all eternity, how having a priesthood holder at the head of the family was such a blessing. But those things aren't for them.

Imagine a black boy growing up and seeing all his friends get ordained Deacons as they reached the age of 12. And when he goes to the bishop to ask to be ordained a deacon so he can pass the sacrament too, he's turned down solely by the color of his skin.

To me, polygamy was far more defensible than this utter horseshit. And I don't care that there's no official revelation or doctrine on this particular matter, the racist teachings of the church ran far deeper than denying the priesthood to people who were too dark. At the end of the day Mormons are always told that a prophet would never lead them astray, and that he would be removed from his position before he could ever do that. But as far as I'm concerned the church was mostly clearly astray on a pretty big fucking issue for three quarters of its existence.

How was the policy even enforced? How dark was too dark? Did they have some sort of color wheel that they'd hold up to someone's skin to determine if they were white and delightsome enough? Would Barack Obama be denied while Sinbad would be good to go? The whole thing would sound so silly and stupid if it didn't actually have such real and sinister consequences.

 

[GhaleonEB]

we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church.

So, about Proposition 8...

 

[Barrett2]

Im' just now hearing about the Washington Post piece.

That BYU Professor's quotes are pure fucking gold.

This is like bad dialogue from an early 20th century book, or something.

“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

 

[olore]

I have a good friend who is a pretty high ranking mormon in the church here in Stockholm. As a non-mormon I found this thread interesting and shedding some light on the inner workings of Mormonism. I gave him the link but he just shrugged it of as yet another online mormon-bashing thread. Guess he didn`t really took the time to read what people are discussing here...

 

[Barrett2]

I'm just kind of sick of the church's current "we just don't know" policy. Everytime something difficult comes up in the church the official response is "we just don't know, have faith". Seriously, the church claims to be the one true church with a living prophet, and yet the church still cannot give answers to most of the difficult questions facing it. It's the church's duty to honestly respond to these things. They've caused so much heartache and suffering even among members of the church (I'm not just talking about blacks and the priesthood, but about all of the problems that people have with the church). Myself included.

I strongly agree with this. One of the things that pushed me towards atheism while on my mission was the realization that they have a bizarrely vague and undefined theology for a Church which claims to be the one true religion in the universe. For the last few decades, all "official doctrine" is in the form of vague self-help pamphlet language with zero substantive theology.

 

[CorvoSol]

We actually discussed this in class the other day. Frankly, the only thing that surprised me was that there was no record. We keep records of so much, how did no one ever record this? Granted there HAVE been studies conducted which shed some light on the history of the thing, but I still found that odd.

Beyond this, I suppose I will keep my comments to myself.

 

[Hitokage]

To me, polygamy was far more defensible than this utter horseshit.

Well, aside from the sexist wife-herding nature of how they carried it out, it also provides for one of the more illuminating scripture comparisons: Jacob 2:24 vs D&C 132:38-39. Both quotes from the same source on the same subject using the same event, time, and place for reference, but different positions.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Well, aside from the sexist wife-herding nature of how they carried it out, it also provides for one of the more illuminating scripture comparisons: Jacob 2:24 vs D&C 132:38-39. Both quotes from the same source on the same subject using the same event, time, and place for reference, but different positions.

Well, yeah, I'm not saying it was defensible really...just more defensible than outright racism for the sake of outright racism. But I understand it's like saying one form of abuse is better than the other when, at the end of the day, abuse is abuse.

In any case, it's been about two weeks since I sent my signed letter to the bishop that called me. Anyone know how long it generally takes after that to get some sort of confirmation? Just the month waiting period?

 

[GhaleonEB]

I could understand the argument of "it was just the times!" if the ban hadn't taken until 1978, well after the civil rights movement and a lot of the cultural stigma was gone. If the church had done this in the 60s that argument would make sense, even the late sixties/early seventies. But 1978? Come on, we're looking at something more systemic than just going with the tide.

I also think that the church is in a sticky spot with it. For decades they went around enforcing the priesthood ban as prophecy. But they can't really go back and say, "Oh yeah, all that stuff? It was just some dude's opinion after all!" Because then the membership will start thinking "Well if THAT was just opinion, what else is just opinion?" So the church ends up doing a tap dance around it using code words like "imperfect knowledge" or "We don't know why God made us do that." and stuff and it just looks and feels disingenuous, because frankly it is.

I'd heard that part of the reason the church reversed course when it did was because they were trying to expand into areas of Europe where the no blacks in the priesthood policy was preventing the church from expanding. Skin tones were less, um, black and white, and it's a hard sell to people to attract them to a church they are barred from fully participating in; the decision was one of financial pragmatism as much as catching up with the times.

It's been a while since I read up on this, but that's always been my impression.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Re: the Church's response.

I liked this part:



I think it's a step forward to admit that there has been racism in the church, and to try to come to terms with that.

To bad it flies in the face of this:



I'm just kind of sick of the church's current "we just don't know" policy. Everytime something difficult comes up in the church the official response is "we just don't know, have faith". Seriously, the church claims to be the one true church with a living prophet, and yet the church still cannot give answers to most of the difficult questions facing it. It's the church's duty to honestly respond to these things. They've caused so much heartache and suffering even among members of the church (I'm not just talking about blacks and the priesthood, but about all of the problems that people have with the church). Myself included.

I find that the church has caused a lot more happiness than ever did suffering. And I've seen a lot more answers given than "I don't know" response. Must be different views between us, but I rarely come by questions that didn't have an answer. The church positions and views you guys have been saying, I have never come across. And I've been in Utah for almost 20 years, and been to many wards around the world. I'm not even from Utah. It just boggles my mind that for as long as I've been here, that some of the extremes mentioned in this thread, I have never experienced, nor have any of my non-Mormon friends.

Not saying it doesn't happen, It's just weird that I have never see these things you guys talk about.

 

[ronito]

I have a good friend who is a pretty high ranking mormon in the church here in Stockholm. As a non-mormon I found this thread interesting and shedding some light on the inner workings of Mormonism. I gave him the link but he just shrugged it of as yet another online mormon-bashing thread. Guess he didn`t really took the time to read what people are discussing here...

What's that? An active mormon blatantly disregarding what non and ex mormons have to say about the church?! Surely you jest!

We actually discussed this in class the other day. Frankly, the only thing that surprised me was that there was no record. We keep records of so much, how did no one ever record this? Granted there HAVE been studies conducted which shed some light on the history of the thing, but I still found that odd.

Beyond this, I suppose I will keep my comments to myself.

This really is an important point and not only was I shocked to find I had never really heard it before I was even more shocked to hear it from an Active mormon.

But you're totally right. The church DOES keep an incredible number of records on everything. And there's that whole "my house is a house of order" stuff that we hear over and over and over. So to think that there's really no records, that tells us that either the records don't pertain to the church leaders and they do as they see fit, or that there are records and they're willfully withholding them, or, most likely, that it was just something no one really questioned and everyone just went along with it.

 

[ronito]

wow.
Yahoo posted an article yesterday where the author goes through and goes over the endowment and what it entails with the pre-text of "What's Mitt Romney keeping secret?!"

I might not be active anymore but man, show some damn respect. I had no issue with when Big Love did their temple scene. They were actually rather respectful. But to just be like "Here's everything that goes on" for the sake of attacking a political candidate? Not cool.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

wow.
Yahoo posted an article yesterday where the author goes through and goes over the endowment and what it entails with the pre-text of "What's Mitt Romney keeping secret?!"

I might not be active anymore but man, show some damn respect. I had no issue with when Big Love did their temple scene. They were actually rather respectful. But to just be like "Here's everything that goes on" for the sake of attacking a political candidate? Not cool.

Goes to show that they have nothing better on him to discuss, better bring up his religion. Pathetic.

 

[ronito]

Goes to show that they have nothing better on him to discuss, better bring up his religion. Pathetic.

Actually that's what makes it so low class.
You wanna get on Romney's case? You got tons to talk about. Talk about how out of touch he is with the middle class. Talk about how he's an heir to a dynasty that turned corporate raider. Talk about his "weather vein" morality. Talk about him and his wife having tax shelters then complaining that taxes are too high. There's a TON of stuff you can throw at Romney, to be bringing this up doesn't bring him any lower but it does lower the discourse overall.

 

[Ghost_Protocol]

wow.
Yahoo posted an article yesterday where the author goes through and goes over the endowment and what it entails with the pre-text of "What's Mitt Romney keeping secret?!"

I might not be active anymore but man, show some damn respect. I had no issue with when Big Love did their temple scene. They were actually rather respectful. But to just be like "Here's everything that goes on" for the sake of attacking a political candidate? Not cool.

So its a ripoff of some masonic handshakes, a movie, and some "blessed" clothing. Big deal. No more offensive than consuming the blood and flesh of Jesus every Sunday. The ironic part is that religious people will be the ones who care enough about that to crticize hime for it. Everyone else will just think its weird and continue to criticize him for being an awkward, unconvincing robot.

 

[Exuro]

So maybe Im misremembering things but doesn't the
gospel teach that we will all potentially become gods and rule worlds or such? I'm hearing that that's considered folklore now? I thought that was straight out of d&c.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

So maybe Im misremembering things but doesn't the
gospel teach that we will all potentially become gods and rule worlds or such? I'm hearing that that's considered folklore now? I thought that was straight out of d&c.

Not folklore from anything I heard.

 

[Exuro]

Maybe it's just me being tired. Saw this which says

Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?
Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?
No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2).

Another link I noticed. Maybe another misunderstanding from me but I just noticed some people from some other boards saying it was being changed or something.

 

[CorvoSol]

So maybe Im misremembering things but doesn't the
gospel teach that we will all potentially become gods and rule worlds or such? I'm hearing that that's considered folklore now? I thought that was straight out of d&c.

I have never heard it spoken in any manner other than plainly. The doctrine of Exaltation stipulates that, as Man is the child of God, and children grow up to be like their progenitors, Man, through adherence to the Gospel, can become like God. In other words, yes, man becomes a God if he is faithful. So yes and no. Yes, to the Godhood, no to the everyone bit.

So we just finished our unit on Evolution here at BYUI. I thought it was interesting, even if there was a bit more hand-holding than I needed. Then again, I figure someone else in class needed that hand-holding, so whatever.

Really, and I suppose I must sound like a crazy, indoctrinated nutjob, I'm enjoying my decision to go to a Church school. Oh, yes, there are restrictions I agree with, just as there are Church policies I'm not yet 100% on board with, but on the whole, this year has been pretty good for me in helping me see how I can reconcile my religious beliefs with my academic knowledge.

And I'm sure that sounds silly to some, but hey, I already believe that abstaining from coffee is a step to attaining Godhood, so I suppose the silliness is inherent, haha.

As Ronito warned, though, the dating scene here in Rexburg is NUTS. I swear I worry more about Rings than any Hobbit ever has.

But yeah, really enjoyed this semester or whatever it is the school calls them.

 

[ronito]

Maybe it's just me being tired. Saw this which says



Another link I noticed. Maybe another misunderstanding from me but I just noticed some people from some other boards saying it was being changed or something.

I can understand the confusion. I mean I think there is some outward confusion that started partially from some Hinckley quotes from a few interviews he did:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn't say that. There was a couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

(President Gordon B. Hinckley with Don Lattin, the San Francisco Chronicle religion writer. The article was dated Sunday, April 13, 1997) [1]

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.
A: Yeah
Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?
A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

That's lead to some confusion as to the whole doctrine. Because if god did not progress from man to god then how could we?

I think that the corelation committee is trying hard to get it to go away. But it's an intrinsic part of the church don't see how they can put stuff like that forward.

 

[Exuro]

Okay thanks. I grew up mormon and and just kind of went along with it as I respected and followed my dad. After highschool both my brother and I fell out and recently my brother decided to go back and is planning on getting married in the summer. To me I felt a little confused and shocked as this was pretty quick news along with him not actually telling me about it(heard it on the grapevine). Due to this I've been reading up on doctrine and history that I didn't know about when I actually attended and have been a little surprised at my findings.

 

[Bornstellar]

Didn't know where else to post this, but RE: Proxy Baptisms for Holocaust victims, etc. - the first presidency has issued a letter (read in every ward or branch) reiterating the policy of only doing work for ancestors (and not holocaust victims/celebrities) and making it clear that ignoring this policy could result in a loss of family-search (the primary means of name-submission) privileges.

 

[Bornstellar]

I can understand the confusion. I mean I think there is some outward confusion that started partially from some Hinckley quotes from a few interviews he did:



That's lead to some confusion as to the whole doctrine. Because if god did not progress from man to god then how could we?

I think that the corelation committee is trying hard to get it to go away. But it's an intrinsic part of the church don't see how they can put stuff like that forward.

The point Hinckley makes is that no where is it spelled out in scripture or revelation, however, it is a fairly logical conclusion given the doctrine that man may become joint heirs with Christ. I think the Church is trying to make it more clear what is doctrine and what is not. The doctrine itself remains the same.

 

[ronito]

The point Hinckley makes is that no where is it spelled out in scripture or revelation, however, it is a fairly logical conclusion given the doctrine that man may become joint heirs with Christ. I think the Church is trying to make it more clear what is doctrine and what is not. The doctrine itself remains the same.

Oh I totally agree, it was totally said with a "wink wink, nudge nudge" way. Still not surprising why people are now confused about it.

 

[Hitokage]

Oh I totally agree, it was totally said with a "wink wink, nudge nudge" way. Still not surprising why people are now confused about it.

Especially when he made a point in the following General Conference to assure everyone he was well aware of what the church taught.

 

[ronito]

Especially when he made a point in the following General Conference to assure everyone he was well aware of what the church taught.

Oh this quote?

"I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine. I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church."

It made me laugh heartily.

Go to an interview. Say "I don't know" no less than 5 times in one answer. Then claim misquotation.

 

[Exuro]

That quote reminds me of another thing I'm bothered with. Not church doctrine perhaps but quotes like "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." just make me feel like I shouldn't even think about/question anything in the church if it doesn't matter if somethings wrong or not.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

That quote reminds me of another thing I'm bothered with. Not church doctrine perhaps but quotes like "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." just make me feel like I shouldn't even think about/question anything in the church if it doesn't matter if somethings wrong or not.

That is completely wrong. One thing I think people in the church fail to understand is the whole "lack wisdom, ask god" thing. This includes anything said by the authorities of the church. You're supposed to question the church. That is even what you tell investigators to do during your mission, is to ask God himself if those things are true.

I'm a pretty active member, and most of it was spent questioning things I hear and finding out for myself. Brigham Young himself was adamant about this. Took him two years questioning everything about the church and the Book of Mormon before he decided to join.

 

[ronito]

That is completely wrong. One thing I think people in the church fail to understand is the whole "lack wisdom, ask god" thing. This includes anything said by the authorities of the church. You're supposed to question the church. That is even what you tell investigators to do during your mission, is to ask God himself if those things are true.

I'm a pretty active member, and most of it was spent questioning things I hear and finding out for myself. Brigham Young himself was adamant about this. Took him two years questioning everything about the church and the Book of Mormon before he decided to join.

I always find this kind of "You're completely wrong about this, you have to seek it out for yourself!" reaction sorta funny. Yes, it's very true.

But let's not forget. One of the first songs mormon kids learn is "Follow the prophet.", you are asked to sustain the leaders every year and reaffirm it every time you go for a temple recommend. We often sing "We thank thee oh god for the prophet." Yeah Brigham Young WAS adamant about finding for yourself. But he himself said if you didn't believe the Adam-God theory you were going to hell. Not to mention how many talks are there in conference about following the prophet, or that testify about holiness of the prophet and how we should listen to our leaders.

And that's just what the SLC leaders say. That doesn't even include the stuff in local wards or testimonies or mormon books or artwork or culture.

Yeah, I get it what you're saying, but there's a very good reason people hold the prophet in really high esteem and it's not entirely surprising when people take the "When the leaders speak the thinking is done." tact despite the church saying they shouldn't. Like I often say, "The catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible. And none of the believe it. The mormons are taught their prophets are fallible. And none of them believe it."

Many like to blame the culture on this, but I can't say that I honestly think the church doesn't drive it themselves. You can't show stuff like this on conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwb5UK8z4Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=180s

And then be surprised when some of the membership engage in hero-worship.

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

I always find this kind of "You're completely wrong about this, you have to seek it out for yourself!" reaction sorta funny. Yes, it's very true.

But let's not forget. One of the first songs mormon kids learn is "Follow the prophet.", you are asked to sustain the leaders every year and reaffirm it every time you go for a temple recommend. We often sing "We thank thee oh god for the prophet." Yeah Brigham Young WAS adamant about finding for yourself. But he himself said if you didn't believe the Adam-God theory you were going to hell. Not to mention how many talks are there in conference about following the prophet, or that testify about holiness of the prophet and how we should listen to our leaders.

And that's just what the SLC leaders say. That doesn't even include the stuff in local wards or testimonies or mormon books or artwork or culture.

Yeah, I get it what you're saying, but there's a very good reason people hold the prophet in really high esteem and it's not entirely surprising when people take the "When the leaders speak the thinking is done." tact despite the church saying they shouldn't. Like I often say, "The catholics are taught that the Pope is infallible. And none of the believe it. The mormons are taught their prophets are fallible. And none of them believe it."

Many like to blame the culture on this, but I can't say that I honestly think the church doesn't drive it themselves. You can't show stuff like this on conference:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwb5UK8z4Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=180s

And then be surprised when some of the membership engage in hero-worship.

I said "that is completely wrong", not "you're completely wrong", you need to stop doing that. I'm talking about the teaching, not the quote. And yes, you're taught to follow the prophet, but there is never anything wrong about questioning it and I've always been encouraged and taught to do so.

 

[ronito]

I said "that is completely wrong", not "you're completely wrong", you need to stop doing that. I'm talking about the teaching, not the quote. And yes, you're taught to follow the prophet, but there is never anything wrong about questioning it and I've always been encouraged and taught to do so.

Fair enough. But it's easy to see why so many just go with the line that Exuro mentioned. It's not even abnormal. For many it's just easy to trust in the prophet and check out.

Edit: Also, incredible avatar.

 

[ronito]

So last night on askreddit there was a thread about Impact training. These are rampant in Utah. So much so that the church put out an official statement against members attending these. Have anyone else found any experiences with this?

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

So last night on askreddit there was a thread about Impact training. These are rampant in Utah. So much so that the church put out an official statement against members attending these. Have anyone else found any experiences with this?

Never heard of it.

Edit: Holy crap these guys rape your wallets for that course. Screw that.

 

[ronito]

A few bits of news:

I don't know if MormonMessage is official church stuff, but it certainly seems so. If so this a good step forward for the church in being a little more upfront about its history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OW0f971qJLQ

They actually admit there are multiple versions of the first vision. They don't go into all the problems (like Joseph's age changing with each, or delve into the big differences in them, "Oh yeah and Jesus was there too!") But nonetheless. I think this is a far better approach than not talking about them.

Also, remember that professor that made headlines by saying publically what many held as doctrine privately about blacks and the priesthood last month? Well, he's retiring:

http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loc...cle_7839e140-3e35-5b59-bbc4-3331e6d3d4c3.html

He hasn't made a comment about it. But even if he's not being forced into retirement, it's sad to see him retire with that blemish on his career.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Got something in the mail finally:

I was always told that getting excommunicated or having records removed left a profound sense of emptiness and loss because the holy ghost is removed from you. Can't say I feel any different, except maybe a tinge of elation.

 

[ronito]

OMG! Seriously History Channel? SERIOUSLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZHxfbKVqTAE#t=329s

 

[Eight Diagram Bat Fighter]

Moroni claimed to be from the Pleades star cluster?

 

[les papillons sexuels]

OMG! Seriously History Channel? SERIOUSLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZHxfbKVqTAE#t=329s

i lolled.

 

[ronito]

Moroni claimed to be from the Pleades star cluster?

Kolob would be there.

If you could hie there that is.

 

[ronito]

Got something in the mail finally:

I was always told that getting excommunicated or having records removed left a profound sense of emptiness and loss because the holy ghost is removed from you. Can't say I feel any different, except maybe a tinge of elation.

So congrats?
I dunno, many have asked me why don't I send my papers in. But really the church was such an integral part of my life that it just doesn't feel right to me to get my name removed. I figure it would be sorta like trying to not be latino anymore. But who knows. Perhaps someday. But if that's what you want then good for you.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

So congrats?
I dunno, many have asked me why don't I send my papers in. But really the church was such an integral part of my life that it just doesn't feel right to me to get my name removed. I figure it would be sorta like trying to not be latino anymore. But who knows. Perhaps someday. But if that's what you want then good for you.

I'm actually pretty meh about it. I thought about doing it for a long time, but it didn't matter enough to me to be bothered to do it since nobody ever bothered me. Really it all came about because an Elder's Quorum President decided to call me and ask why I wasn't at church...and when I made a joke about it on facebook, I was called out for not having taken my name off after so many years. So I decided that if I could resign via e-mail it might be worth doing, and then after that all it took was a phone call from a really chill bishop and another letter.

At the end of the day I'm the same person I was before 21 March. They still have records of everything, I'm just not counted among the faithful anymore. I don't know that it makes any difference at all, except that if someone asks if I'm a Mormon I guess I can say 100% that no, I'm not. It may be my heritage, but I also don't want to support in any way the teachings of the church which I so strongly disagree with, and I feel like I can support the principles and teachings which I do agree with through other avenues.

In your case I just say: do what you want man. I totally understand where you're coming from, I considered myself a "Mormon Atheist" for a long time...so I would say don't let anyone try to persuade you to do anything you're not ready for, or outright don't want to do. If nothing else you know you've got a homey on a video game forum that supports you in what you're doing

 

[CorvoSol]

This really is an important point and not only was I shocked to find I had never really heard it before I was even more shocked to hear it from an Active mormon.

But you're totally right. The church DOES keep an incredible number of records on everything. And there's that whole "my house is a house of order" stuff that we hear over and over and over. So to think that there's really no records, that tells us that either the records don't pertain to the church leaders and they do as they see fit, or that there are records and they're willfully withholding them, or, most likely, that it was just something no one really questioned and everyone just went along with it.

I just found it strange to think that there wouldn't be records. I had always assumed that the Church had always been obsessed with documenting everything since Joseph and Brigham have extensive writings.

But I would be likely to say it was option 3, something no one ever bothered to question and just went along with. Brigham Young is oft-quoted for having said one of his biggest fears was that the members wouldn't think for themselves, and as much as the Book of Mormon talks about members dividing into groups and such, it isn't that hard a pill to swallow.

OMG! Seriously History Channel? SERIOUSLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZHxfbKVqTAE#t=329s

Oh WOW. Somebody ought to show them the little passage in (oh great is it D&C or PGP? This is what I get for pouring all my studies into BoM.) where it says Angels only minister to the worlds they belong to. On second thought it's better that they DON'T see that. Sounds like they've got enough crazy ideas as it is.

General Conference is coming up! I'm excited for it. Possibly not for the same reasons as some here, but I'm excited. Call me crazy but I love Elder Holland's talks. Guy's the right amount of Fire and Brimstone for me.

 

[ronito]

Oh WOW. Somebody ought to show them the little passage in (oh great is it D&C or PGP? This is what I get for pouring all my studies into BoM.) where it says Angels only minister to the worlds they belong to. On second thought it's better that they DON'T see that. Sounds like they've got enough crazy ideas as it is.

General Conference is coming up! I'm excited for it. Possibly not for the same reasons as some here, but I'm excited. Call me crazy but I love Elder Holland's talks. Guy's the right amount of Fire and Brimstone for me.

You know even when I was active I never got excited about conference the way other people did. Don't know why. I ALWAYS watched/listened. But I always knew that precious little new would be said. I think the most exciting thing that happened at conference was the establishment of the second 70.

I see all my mormon friends all getting excited. I just never understood. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I'm not active anymore.

 

[ronito]

If nothing else you know you've got a homey on a video game forum that supports you in what you're doing

 

[Bornstellar]

Honestly? My own experience has been that I get out what I put in. If I go into it without preparing myself with specific questions it's only going to be what it is superficially - calling and sustaining leadership and reiterating the doctrine. On the other hand if I do my part to search for those questions which are currently most urgent in my life I find that I'll almost certainly find answers.

RE: Brother Bott - he was already retiring this semester. Also, apparently when when asked in his classes about the interview, he claimed that he was misdirected (the reporter did not accurately represent what the interview was going to be about, hence why he agreed to it in the first place) and misquoted.

 

[ronito]

Honestly? You get out what you put in. If you go into it without preparing yourself with specific questions it's only going to be what it is superficially - calling and sustaining leadership and reiterating the doctrine. On the other hand if you do your part to search for those questions which are currently most urgent in your life you'll almost certainly find answers.
.

You assume that I didn't?

 

[Bornstellar]

You assume that I didn't?

It was presumptuous of me to assume that everyone should have the same experience that I have. I apologize for that. No offense was intended.

 

[Bornstellar]

OMG! Seriously History Channel? SERIOUSLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZHxfbKVqTAE#t=329s

This is probably the most hilarious thing that I have seen today.

 

[Enojado]

Honestly? You get out what you put in. If you go into it without preparing yourself with specific questions it's only going to be what it is superficially - calling and sustaining leadership and reiterating the doctrine. On the other hand if you do your part to search for those questions which are currently most urgent in your life you'll almost certainly find answers.

RE: Brother Bott - he was already retiring this semester. Also, apparently when when asked in his classes about the interview, he claimed that he was misdirected (the reporter did not accurately represent what the interview was going to be about, hence why he agreed to it in the first place) and misquoted.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are generalizing, and in the process you are effectively marginalizing the agony and pain that many have gone through in their journey out of Mormonism. I searched out what was very urgent to me, if the Mormon church was what it claimed to be. I found my answers and haven't been to chuch in over 5 years. And you know what? I am happy. I am at peace. I am comfortable with who I am. So, based off of your statement, it would seem I did something wrong, because if I hadn't I would be actively attending church. What do you mean by, "doing your part?"

As to Bott, he may have been misquoted, but what he said agrees with what I read and learned growing up Mormon.