One of the best things about no longer believing is you can realize that some of the ideas you had were not only wrong but downright harmful to yourself or others.
No one deserves to get married. Full stop.
You can't deserve another person. They have choices. You don't deserve a virgin because you're a virgin. You don't deserve higher income when you pay your tithing. You don't deserve happiness because you pray. You don't deserve blessings for being righteous. You are suffering from the idea of mormon entitlement. It is faith breaking and detrimental to interpersonal relationships.
Mormons have such a tangible hold on their belief and the idea that the righteous are prosperous is so ingrained in them that people begin feeling bad about themselves when they're not hitting goals that are hugely outside of their control. The biggest is getting married, and that's mainly because someone has to love you, decide to spend eternity with you, then marry you.
While I don't understand Feminist or Black mormons, having been a latino mormon in the 80s I can sorta get it.
But being gay and mormon is cognitive dissonance defined. I don't get it AT ALL. I don't see what the church has to offer them. I know some stay in the hopes that the church will change its mind and allow gay temple marriage. It wont. I just really don't get it. The church is openly hostile to many gay ideals. I mean just last conference Packer said children with same sexed parents are "disadvantaged". Not to mention all the vitriol Kimball and others aimed at gays. I don't get it.
I mean it's one thing to be a member of a church that thought you were second class once. But I mean the church makes no qualms about how gay issues are wrong and need to be "cured". I wouldn't want anything to do with an organization that claimed to love me but wanted to "cure" me. We all sin and have bad habits. But it's not the same thing as this. This is "There is something wrong with you. You need to be cured". Not "You need to stop your sinning."
One of the best things about no longer believing is you can realize that some of the ideas you had were not only wrong but downright harmful to yourself or others.
No one deserves to get married. Full stop.
You can't deserve another person. They have choices. You don't deserve a virgin because you're a virgin. You don't deserve higher income when you pay your tithing. You don't deserve happiness because you pray. You don't deserve blessings for being righteous. You are suffering from the idea of mormon entitlement. It is faith breaking and detrimental to interpersonal relationships.
Mormons have such a tangible hold on their belief and the idea that the righteous are prosperous is so ingrained in them that people begin feeling bad about themselves when they're not hitting goals that are hugely outside of their control. The biggest is getting married, and that's mainly because someone has to love you, decide to spend eternity with you, then marry you.
I don't really think of it as a right. It's a goal shared by lots of members of this community, and we all have frustrations when we do not meet our goal in the time or manner we want to meet it. I just don't think we ought to be laying the blame at either side's feet. Ronito's wife makes good points that I was being too harsh on the sisters, and that's not unfair, but I think that all around, LDS young adults ought to barb one another less over this issue.
Best way for me to find someone was to become content with being single and happy with who I was and where my life was going. Almost exactly when being single stopped being an issue, I stopped being single. Not giving a damn is like putting a bright beacon of "come unto me" to the ladies. Or guys.
For a young Mormon girl or guy who feels pressured to start popping out the babies...seems almost like a catch 22
This has kind of become my way of looking at things now, too. After several of my friends who wed told me "I wasn't even looking for anyone" it kind of dawned on me that that was sort of the better way to go about it. It'll happen when it happens, so why waste time fretting or sweating it?
The other thing I've come to realize is that there's a great deal of truth in the stuff the Church leaders or at least my Church leaders have taught me concerning "If you want to get married, you ought to first be the kind of person you'd want to get married." It made sense on my mission to be the kind of missionary I'd want to teach my family, and it makes sense to me to be the kind of person I'd want to marry, inasmuch as I take that to mean an incentive for self-improvement. Which is something I really love about the Church, that it constantly pushes us to improve ourselves.
If I may, Ronito, I think you might have it a little wrong. I can't speak to the older generations or the things that went before, but I can speak for the younger generations of the Church, especially outside the Mormon corridor. It's my experience that the younger generations seek to incorporate the world around them into the Church's framework. They strive to find a way to reconcile scientific teachings with LDS doctrine, to take a more soft-line approach to gays than those who've gone before. Homosexuality and the Church is a big, weird issue that I as someone who has never had to feel the sting of being a minority cannot fully comprehend, but while I see full well why someone who is gay would find the Church's teachings a barrier, I also can see why the Church Leadership of today is making an effort to reach out to them.
That's the great thing about the Church: it learns and grows and changes. If it didn't, what would be the point in making a claim to having continued Revelation?
That's the great thing about the Church: it learns and grows and changes. If it didn't, what would be the point in making a claim to having continued Revelation?
Forgive my laziness and allow me to repost something I've written earlier that touches on this subject, explaining why I felt the changes posed a problem to discussing mormon doctrine to a non-mormon.
The first reason I describe it as a problem is simply that it makes discussion a bit more difficult. One could talk about a certain aspect of mormon doctrine then somebody can come in saying, "hey we don't teach that!," and be correct in the present tense. The second reason is a little tricky to explain. Granted, one of the mormon church's central tenets is modern-day revelation and likes to say that God still speaks with his children. Indeed, they pride themselves on being a living religion. However, they also make a variety of claims and place a great deal of importance on those claims being factually accurate, because, after all, they are the one true church(this point is so important that they devote every first sunday of the month for members to get in front of the congregation to say how they know this). The mormon church doesn't just claim its doctrine is spiritual truth, it is also literal truth. If you put aside the various additions to scripture, mormonism is a largely fundamentalist form of christianity. It allows itself interpretation when it chooses, but where the Bible says that God struck down the Tower of Babel and diversified everyone's language, it isn't just literally true, but also an important plot point for the Book of Mormon.
Forgive my laziness and allow me to repost something I've written earlier that touches on this subject, explaining why I felt the changes posed a problem to discussing mormon doctrine to a non-mormon.
And I don't deny that that could be seen as problematic. The changes are most definitely a double-edged sword. But a religion capable of correcting itself via change, even if that same change generates confusion and inconsistency in the ranks, is better than a one that does not change at all.
I think, too, that certain moments in Church history occur so that they become a test to anyone inside or outside the Church. Proposition 8 was not something I agreed with and not something I felt the Church should have endorsed, but I can certainly see it being permitted to happen as a means of permitting the Saints to learn and be tested. The Lord did not step down and stop the Nephites from becoming vain the many times they did. He permitted it to happen, and let it be a lesson to future Saints.
Any church explicitly led by god and claiming to direct itself with a prophet who is guided by direct contact with god should not make mistakes in the governance of said church.
The most egregious mistake probably being the priesthood ban that lasted until 1978. It was not a lifting of a curse but a straight up mistake. Anyone who believes that there was curse based on pre-mortal activities is fundamentally racist.
Then there are 2 narratives.
1. There was a curse that was lifted in 1978.
2. The church made a huge mistake, starting with Brigham youngs reaction to interracial relationships in the late 1840s.
Bruce R McConkie's comments regarding the 1978 revelation indicate that number 2 is probably more correct.
There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They dont matter any more.... It doesnt make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year
Any church explicitly led by god and claiming to direct itself with a prophet who is guided by direct contact with god should not make mistakes in the governance of said church.
The most egregious mistake probably being the priesthood ban that lasted until 1978. It was not a lifting of a curse but a straight up mistake. Anyone who believes that there was curse based on pre-mortal activities is fundamentally racist.
Then there are 2 narratives.
1. There was a curse that was lifted in 1978.
2. The church made a huge mistake, starting with Brigham youngs reaction to interracial relationships in the late 1840s.
Bruce R McConkie's comments regarding the 1978 revelation indicate that number 2 is probably more correct.
Which means the church was led by man and not god for at the very least 126 years.
I don't know how you get the Church being lead by man and not God from that statement at all. As I said above, I'm of the opinion that God does not stop man from making mistakes when it provides a useful lesson to future generations. Which about sums up what happened in that time.
And I disagree that a Church claiming to be lead by God cannot make mistakes in the governance on those same grounds. Peter made mistakes. Paul made mistakes. Moses made mistakes. All three of them had to be corrected. The Doctrine and Covenants has the Lord chastise Joseph Smith repeatedly. The Book of Mormon is full of examples of large-scale mistakes being committed both by prophets and the Church.
God is infallible, and His Church, when run His way, is perfect. But Prophets are mortal men who sin and err, as are Apostles, and all the members of the Church. It would be inconsistent and suspicious if this Church NEVER made any mistakes. That it errs and is corrected is in line with what we have been taught of all past dispensations.
Consider the end of plural marriage. While not considered by the Church a mistake, it's an example of a time when the Church changed its stance, of all things, on marriage. The prophet said that the Lord would not let him lead the Church astray, but nowhere did he say that the Lord had made him perfect or free from error. The Church will never go again into a full-scale, needs to be burned and started over apostasy, that's the promise. But Prophets make mistakes just like you and I, and always have, and to think that they would never do so, especially when in the Presidency of the Church is inconsistent with Mormon doctrine.
And I would think, it is obviously so. Why else would they constantly ask the members of the Church to pray for the Prophet, if he was already incapable of erring? How would we ever explain half the stories in the Old Testament, and Peter and Paul's interactions, if not through the understanding that Prophets and Apostles are mortal men who make mistakes, sin, and must repent as we all do?
In the Book of Mormon, Nephi, the prophet at the time of the coming of Jesus, is chastised for not having recorded the teachings of Samuel the Lamanite. Mormon himself confesses that his prayers for his people are without faith.
There is simply no good reason to believe that a Church professing to be lead by God and a Prophet in communication with God cannot err when the grand total of scriptures states the contrary.
What good is a prophet if he makes mistakes large enough to ban an entire group of people from receiving ordinances of exaltation based on the color of their skin? If BY was speaking as a man then why did it require direct revelation from god to rescind the ban? If Brigham Young was speaking as a prophet then was he basing it on false revelation? If it was based on false revelation then God should have removed him.
Either the ban was inspired of god or it wasn't. If it was not inspired of God then the church has some apologizing to do and what things are they teaching now that aren't inspired of God?
Here's a good one that sums up some of what you were referring to.
What good is a prophet if he makes mistakes large enough to ban an entire group of people from receiving ordinances of exaltation based on the color of their skin? If BY was speaking as a man then why did it require direct revelation from god to rescind the ban? If Brigham Young was speaking as a prophet then was he basing it on false revelation? If it was based on false revelation then God should have removed him.
Either the ban was inspired of god or it wasn't. If it was not inspired of God then the church has some apologizing to do and what things are they teaching now that aren't inspired of God?
Here's a good one that sums up some of what you were referring to.
Haha, but I am one of the believing Mormons, and I'm posting. But we can table discussion for the time being since I have class in half an hour.
I will conclude my remarks (speaks for another half an hour while everyone in Stake Conference slowly dies inside.) by saying that it's the official position of the Church that there is no documented beginning of the ban on blacks having the Priesthood. I've expressed surprise before that an organization which has been obsessed with documentation since its inception should not have records of this, but I can't speak beyond that. Anything beyond that point is conjecture for me, and it would be unsafe, unwise and foolhardy of me to make conjectures about a period of history with which I am ill acquainted.
But I do continue to assert that errors exist for the purpose of teaching, both on the micro personal scale and on the macro scale of the Church itself. That's a stated point of the plan of salvation.
I have a talk this Sunday on D Todd Christofferson. Anything of note in his last few conferences? Nothing jumps out at me from memory. I guess I'll just read all his talks for the past 5 years.
I have a talk this Sunday on D Todd Christofferson. Anything of note in his last few conferences? Nothing jumps out at me from memory. I guess I'll just read all his talks for the past 5 years.
If I may, Ronito, I think you might have it a little wrong. I can't speak to the older generations or the things that went before, but I can speak for the younger generations of the Church, especially outside the Mormon corridor. It's my experience that the younger generations seek to incorporate the world around them into the Church's framework. They strive to find a way to reconcile scientific teachings with LDS doctrine, to take a more soft-line approach to gays than those who've gone before. Homosexuality and the Church is a big, weird issue that I as someone who has never had to feel the sting of being a minority cannot fully comprehend, but while I see full well why someone who is gay would find the Church's teachings a barrier, I also can see why the Church Leadership of today is making an effort to reach out to them.
That's the great thing about the Church: it learns and grows and changes. If it didn't, what would be the point in making a claim to having continued Revelation?
As much as I love you, my little raven, I don't agree. What use is having the truth if it can change at any time?
Here's the statement on the site though:
"Marriage between a man and a woman, and the families that come from those marriages thats all central to Gods plan and to the opportunities that He offers to us, here and hereafter. So homosexual behavior is contrary to those doctrines has been, always will be and can never be anything but transgression. Its something that deprives people of those highest expectations and possibilities that God has for us. That being said, its important to remember a few things that people dont always understand or remember. And that is that homosexual behavior is not the unforgiveable sin. The atonement and repentance can bring full forgiveness there, and peace. And secondly, Id say though we dont know everything we know enough to be able to say that same-sex attraction in and of itself is not a sin. The feeling, the desire is not classified the same as homosexual behavior itself. And the third point I would mention is that when people have those desires and same-sex attractions, our attitude is stay with us. I think thats what God is saying: Stay with Me. And thats what we want to say in the Church: Stay with us. Lets work together on this and find friendship and commonality and brotherhood and sisterhood, here more than anywhere. Its important that there be love, and that there be hope. Love is not to say acceptance or endorsement, but it is to say inclusion and not ostracism. We want to be with you and work together.
Here's my whole point. I learned the hard way that love doesn't mean accepting someone so long as they change this or that nor was it ever. But accepting them as they are, where they are, right now. And this is very clear. "We love you, but you're broken and need to change." How can you be loved but not accepted?
I'm not asking the church change its doctrine. To them being gay is a sin and that's that. I do say, trying to get them through this narrative of "Let's work on your problem together." Is not good it's condescending. It'd almost be better to leave it where it is now. You're not going to get gay people back in your fold, because you teach that they're broken. So don't try. Preach tolerance and be done with it. No need for this. Damage is done, move on.
But you touch on something that's been infuriating to me lately. When I was a kid there were plenty of things that I wasn't entirely comfortable with (like polygamy returning, the millenium, Kolob, man becoming like god, race, gender and a lot of other stuff) but I accepted it and lived with it. Back then that was part of the deal. The line upon line thing was very true then. Because you got a new line didn't mean the old lines didn't matter.
I don't feel it's that way anymore and it's gotten "wishy-washy". I get the continuing revelation bit, that's supposed to be for huge exceptions like Blacks and Priesthood, and such. But I feel it's gone from additive to anything's on the table. I speak often with a baptist pastor and he hates mormons because "You can't pin them to any beliefs." And he's right. More and more there's acceptance of things that were totally not ok earlier. People like Joann Brooks being like "Well the nephite thing might not have happened but the rest is good." Someone recently asked "what is doctrine and what are just guidelines?" and flippantly I said, "Things you agree with are doctrine. Things you don't are guidelines." But I fear it's a bit true. The church I grew up with was anything but wishy-washy. But now? I just keep getting this feeling that anything's up for negotiation. Mastrbation? Eh who knows. Polygamy? eh, who knows. And so on and so on. What use is having a prophet if the only thing he's around for is to tell you how the prior prophets were wrong?
This actually worries me a bit.
I really want to establish a connection/community between active members and prior members. Given the nature of the church, and how it really is a large part of your life. Sorta like Spanish or German gaf.
But I feel that many are just offput by having both here. Mormons tend to not like to post anywhere about their religion on anywhere that's not entirely mormon. And I really fear that this thread has become exmormons discussing the mormon church, with a guest appearance by Corvo and occasionally a few more.
This actually worries me a bit.
I really want to establish a connection/community between active members and prior members. Given the nature of the church, and how it really is a large part of your life. Sorta like Spanish or German gaf.
But I feel that many are just offput by having both here. Mormons tend to not like to post anywhere about their religion on anywhere that's not entirely mormon. And I really fear that this thread has become exmormons discussing the mormon church, with a guest appearance by Corvo and occasionally a few more.
Well, if you honestly, truly want to establish it, I feel like I might have some advice, however misguided.
Before that, though, I would like to say that I enjoy this thread because it challenges me. Yoritomo's question of what good a prophet is if he leads the people into problems like the ban on blacks having the priesthood is something I will definitely be considering, and mulling over until I can come up with a suitable answer.
And I disagree that the truth is what is being changed. The Church does not change its doctrines, but its practices in my viewpoint. The only place, frankly, I ever seem to hear that these doctrines have changed is in this thread. Prior to this thread the idea that the Church didn't teach its members that exaltation meant becoming Gods was laughable, because Church issued manuals from 2010 still plainly state that.
But it is no secret that the Church is yet struggling to come to grips with the issue of how to treat homosexuals. And I must insist, or at the very least we will have to agree to disagree, that the Church is doing the best it presently can, and that its practices represent an honest effort by the Church leadership to do something. I cannot see Christ turning away people because they were gay, but I most certainly can see him calling all, regardless of sexual orientation, to repent. Remember that it is on the heads of the Church leaders to do this, to cry repentance to all mankind, lest the blood of this generation come upon them at the last day, and at the very least, they preach this repentance with a message more softened than many a church in our times.
And I must reject that to love is to accept without change. Change is a part of love, just as much as acceptance. God loves all mankind, yes, but still asks of us to change. Everyone is a sinner at Church, and everyone has something wrong with them at Church, and if you think for an instant that someone there doesn't, you forget the entire reason anybody is even supposed to be there in the first place. Sacrifice is a part of the Gospel as surely as any other part of it, and the Sacrifice the Lord demands is our penance.
But you touch on something that's been infuriating to me lately. When I was a kid there were plenty of things that I wasn't entirely comfortable with (like polygamy returning, the millenium, Kolob, man becoming like god, race, gender and a lot of other stuff) but I accepted it and lived with it. Back then that was part of the deal. The line upon line thing was very true then. Because you got a new line didn't mean the old lines didn't matter.
I don't feel it's that way anymore and it's gotten "wishy-washy". I get the continuing revelation bit, that's supposed to be for huge exceptions like Blacks and Priesthood, and such. But I feel it's gone from additive to anything's on the table. I speak often with a baptist pastor and he hates mormons because "You can't pin them to any beliefs." And he's right. More and more there's acceptance of things that were totally not ok earlier. People like Joann Brooks being like "Well the nephite thing might not have happened but the rest is good." Someone recently asked "what is doctrine and what are just guidelines?" and flippantly I said, "Things you agree with are doctrine. Things you don't are guidelines." But I fear it's a bit true. The church I grew up with was anything but wishy-washy. But now? I just keep getting this feeling that anything's up for negotiation. Mastrbation? Eh who knows. Polygamy? eh, who knows. And so on and so on. What use is having a prophet if the only thing he's around for is to tell you how the prior prophets were wrong?
And this, Ronito, though I love you, I insist to be the product of your own fears and nothing more. Nothing is negotiable in this Church except Coke consumption. Polygamy is still coming back. The Millenium will still happen. Kolob is still the star nearest the throne of God. Race and gender are still eternal characteristics, assuming If You Could Hie To Kolob is to be trusted on the former. The Nephites still were and the Book of Mormon is still true. Masturbation is still a sin, and still must be repented of. Polygamy is still not in practice by the Church. And the Prophet does NOT spend his time telling us how the prior Prophets were wrong. I have never heard President Monson say this.
And it is this disillusionment, if you will forgive my somewhat pointed insistence, that is off-putting to the active members to hear. Because it simply is not so. You said in a recent thread about Mormonism that the best bet online of finding the truth is to take an inactive and an active and find the truth somewhere between their descriptions. Let me, then, ask of you to please do the same. I truly am sorry for how preachy this must sound, but it really is the point I'd like to drive home.
I have avery idealistic view of the Church, and I will not be swayed in that. At the same time, in this thread, I see such absolutely abysmal images of the Church painted by some of you that I really must question if you yourselves think it is that bad now. And I hate doing that, because it makes me judge all of you, and that is flat out WRONG of me to do.
But here's the great irony of it. How can you say the Church has gone milk-toast bland when you yourself have pointed that it yet continues to take a hard-line on homosexuality. It will always take a hard line on homosexuality. It has to, because homosexuality cannot be compatible with the basic idea of Temple Marriage, which is the very center-piece of the entire Gospel table. Once someone on this very board criticized the Church, perhaps even in your hearing, saying "You will never see a gay marriage take place in a Mormon Temple" and of course you will not! Why would you? What would it even mean? That defeats the entire point of Temple Marriage!
But I digress. What I am saying is that the Church is NOT diluting, and if you so believe, it certainly is not to the extent I have seen claimed in this thread. It boggles my mind the things I see and hear you guys post sometimes because it is at complete and total odds with what I actually experience in Church. I've never seen someone in Church say that the Book of Mormon's events are fictitious or anything other than historical. To do so is to undermine some of the most central foundations of the Church itself. I've NEVER heard anyone say Exaltation meant anything other than the eventual Deification of mankind, and in Brazil that's a belief that was advertised heavily across the board. Masturbation being negotiable is a claim I can't imagine ever seeing made. Oh, perhaps new strategies are being slowly worked out to work with, but I cannot ever believe that a Bishop would say that sort of thing.
This picture of the Church that is painted in this thread is absolutely THE reason you will not find active members wanting to post in this thread, Ronito. That's item number one. Why would I ever want to come and spend my time in a thread on GAF of all places talking about something that cuts so damn deeply? Because it hurts, it really does, hearing such criticism levied at something so close to the identity of so many. I can handle that, and I feel I do a damn fine job of handling it, but others don't want to, and I couldn't blame them if I wanted to. This thread has a decidedly negative tint to it that some simply aren't going to want to take, and changing it to positive is a mammoth task that defeats itself, because it would require more participation of active members, which doesn't happen because of the above, and thus becomes something of a cycle.
Item number two is that this is GAF. I like this place, think EviLore is a great guy, but I'll be damned if it doesn't take stones to say you're religious, let alone Mormon, on GAF. One of if not the single stupidest and most insulting thing I've ever seen on this board is the persistent, vicious, ignorant and hateful belief that it is OKAY TO ATTACK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND MOCK THEM FOR THEIR BELIEFS. That's not okay. That's not discussion. That's mocking, hurtful, and it generates a groupthink so insular that it physically repulses me. To the great credit of this thread, it is not that. Let me be clear on that This is the best religion thread on GAF, and the internet in general, as far as I've seen. I genuinely want this thread to do well, because a meeting place for active LDS to talk and get on politely with inactives is a wonderful thing.
Item three, though, is the cyclical nature of this thread. Why in God's name are we discussing blacks and the priesthood AGAIN? This is like a flashlight and roaches. Nothing drives Mormons out faster than this, because it is the proverbial broken record of criticism against the religion. I mean, look at me, what am I supposed to do or say about this? I don't KNOW anything about it. It was over before I was born, and my father and his father have never once said anything on the lines of it. It's foreign to me; a meaningless episode of sorrow I can do nothing about and would never have endorsed. But every time it comes up it feels, whether or not it is, that the active saints are on trial for the errors of their fathers.
And when we're not talking about the blacks, then it is the gays, which leads into Item Four, which itself will loop back into Item One: There is too much focus on what is wrong with the Church, and not enough talk about what is good. Here we are, talking about gays and blacks again instead of pursuing the line of interest in what Yoritomo's talk could be about. And I am as guilty as all for this, for behold, not but a few pages before, my rants on the negatives of the dating scene, rather than focusing on the positives. In trying to avert the idealistic flowers and rainbows version that I myself subscribe to, we've dumped the whole salt shaker into the soup, and soured it for the active members.
Please, PLEASE forgive me for saying all of this, and coming off as preachy or judgmental. I think the world of all of you in this thread
except I still wish you'd change your avatar back, Hito
, and don't want to offend any of you. I'm no one at all to judge others, and especially not you, Ronito, because you are a great guy and your efforts are genuine, but if you want my honest, no sugar added opinion on why it is, this is it.
I think that's the main thing. I don't want to mock at all. Many people I love dearly are mormon. The primary reason why my arguments are so cogent is not to convince others but the result of extensive soul searching and my own reasons for why I think the way that I do. I understand that I as a person should always be striving to be a better person, to question myself and my motives as well as finding ways to love more people without judgement. Unfortunately that goal began to be in conflict with my full belief in the only true and living church on the face of the earth. I just got to a point where I could not correlate and I then had to attack the very core of my own belief.
Unfortunately many people share my past beliefs and when explaining myself it seems I'm tearing them down. I don't want that at all.
I think that's the main thing. I don't want to mock at all. Many people I love dearly are mormon. The primary reason why my arguments are so cogent is not to convince others but the result of extensive soul searching and my own reasons for why I think the way that I do. I understand that I as a person should always be striving to be a better person, to question myself and my motives as well as finding ways to love more people without judgement. Unfortunately that goal began to be in conflict with my full belief in the only true and living church on the face of the earth. I just got to a point where I could not correlate and I then had to attack the very core of my own belief.
Unfortunately many people share my past beliefs and when explaining myself it seems I'm tearing them down. I don't want that at all.
I don't honestly think anybody in this thread wants to tear anyone else down. I really don't. But that disconnect is going to make it hard for us to more heavily populate this thread.
Also, I reaaaaaaally apologize for posting like, two major rants in two days, guys. I am so, so sorry.
I have a talk this Sunday on D Todd Christofferson. Anything of note in his last few conferences? Nothing jumps out at me from memory. I guess I'll just read all his talks for the past 5 years.
I am one of the believing Mormons on here. I am not sure exactly where my testimony is in line with every point of doctrine or supposed doctrine, but I do believe in the church and its ability to make its members better, more higher-functioning people. I am one of those people that think that, even if I didn't believe in the church, I would probably stick around because of the positive influence it has on its active members. Raising kids to believe in God, Jesus Christ, active prophecy, the principles of the gospel and eternal progression to me is so much easier and rewarding than the Nihilism that permeates society.
i still don't know if i believe. hows that for an answer. been that way for a while now. i probably just don't want to make a choice until i'm able to support myself without my parents.
I support gay marriage and still think gay marriage is "wrong."
I don't let my religious beliefs interact with my political beliefs. No country, especially a secular one, should prohibit two consenting adults from doing anything legal that two other consenting adults are allowed to do.
But that doesn't mean a church needs to consent or endorse such behavior. The church similarly condemns premarital sex and adultery while married, but nobody gets up in arms with those positions. Their position is based on their doctrine. To concede such an important piece of Mormonism to bend to today's stance on morality and sexuality would probably make me leave the church. Then I would just be a guy who supports gay marriage in all senses of the word.
i still don't know if i believe. hows that for an answer. been that way for a while now. i probably just don't want to make a choice until i'm able to support myself without my parents.
Sounds like you are gearing up to be inactive one day. Why don't you talk about it with your family and leaders? Have a frank discussion and if they can't provide you with the answers and understanding you crave, you might as well tell them what you feel and understand and leave the church. Unless your parents are terrible people, they pretty much have to respect that. You will only be wasting your own time and money, if you choose to pay your tithes and offerings.
Raising kids to believe in God, Jesus Christ, active prophecy, the principles of the gospel and eternal progression to me is so much easier and rewarding than the Nihilism that permeates society.
(Are you referring to the influences of the non-Mormon Christian majority in American society?) In any case, I don't think it's quite that extreme. There's a middle ground. I don't believe that the opposite of what you espouse is inherently nihilistic.
(Are you referring to the influences of the non-Mormon Christian majority in American society?) In any case, I don't think it's quite that extreme. There's a middle ground. I don't believe that the opposite of what you espouse is inherently nihilistic.
Definitely not. Some of the best people I have ever known to be good and moral people are not members of the church, some even are merely secular humanists. But, as I said and do believe, it is a lot easier to raise children to be good, decent moral people when you raise them in such an insular place as the church.
They hear "choose the right", "are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?", love thy neighbor, give service constantly, look out and sacrifice for the welfare of others, don't take out unnecessary loans and live within your means, plan for the future, etc, etc, etc
This is constantly drilled into any active member's brain as soon as they are old enough to be an active participant in any class.
None of this entitles someone to wealth or any sort of guaranteed financial stability, of course, but it does help shape honest, hardworking, decent people who you would want to work with, for, or hire yourself.
I support gay marriage and still think gay marriage is "wrong."
I don't let my religious beliefs interact with my political beliefs. No country, especially a secular one, should prohibit two consenting adults from doing anything legal that two other consenting adults are allowed to do.
But that doesn't mean a church needs to consent or endorse such behavior. The church similarly condemns premarital sex and adultery while married, but nobody gets up in arms with those positions. Their position is based on their doctrine. To concede such an important piece of Mormonism to bend to today's stance on morality and sexuality would probably make me leave the church. Then I would just be a guy who supports gay marriage in all senses of the word.
See? This is the stance that the church should take.
"You wanna get married? Not our problem. We wont perform a temple marriage for you. But you're free to do what you want."
So, my head having cooled some, I apologize again for the combative nature of things I may have said yesterday. I'm in Final's Week and on edge, but that's no excuse. I'm really sorry if I upset anybody, and that wasn't my intent.
Hey, did I mention in this thread that we had the Rededication of the Temple of Boise here a few weeks back? It was my first time at a Temple dedication ceremony, and it was pretty freaking awesome. The Hosanna Shout was odd, but that's par for the course. What I found super cool was when they said the building we were in was made an extension of the Temple for the ceremony, because we'd just learned about how in Islam they have these niches in their mosques that point toward Mecca and make the Mosque an extension of the holy ground. So it was pretty cool to see that.
Also President Monson looks boss decked out in white.
I have 3 daughters. I agree with the general ideas you stated but had specific disagreements with how the church or at least local youth leaders tend to impart ideas of role and sexuality within the church, especially when it relates to young women.
Plucked rose, chewed bubble gum, godly sorrow, relationship entitlement from both sexes. If a young man is righteous and virtuous he is entitled to a virtuous bride. If a young woman is righteous and virtuous she is entitled to a man of unshakable faith. Sex should be bottled up until marriage then it is unleashed upon your wife. For young women, good men should not desire it with you. Or even with regards to sex that it's some sacred sacrament. It creates a relational rift not only between young men and young woman but can be a bomb after marriage.
So, my head having cooled some, I apologize again for the combative nature of things I may have said yesterday. I'm in Final's Week and on edge, but that's no excuse. I'm really sorry if I upset anybody, and that wasn't my intent.
Hey, did I mention in this thread that we had the Rededication of the Temple of Boise here a few weeks back? It was my first time at a Temple dedication ceremony, and it was pretty freaking awesome. The Hosanna Shout was odd, but that's par for the course. What I found super cool was when they said the building we were in was made an extension of the Temple for the ceremony, because we'd just learned about how in Islam they have these niches in their mosques that point toward Mecca and make the Mosque an extension of the holy ground. So it was pretty cool to see that.
Also President Monson looks boss decked out in white.
No need. The only thing I ask is no judgement. That's really the only reason it's difficult to talk about these things with current friends or members. People make assumptions about the morality of a person who is questioning. As long as that never takes place I could have a conversation all day.
But, as I said and do believe, it is a lot easier to raise children to be good, decent moral people when you raise them in such an insular place as the church.
Why? Because you're sheltering them from reality? You don't have to explain hard questions about sexuality? I'm curious as to what exactly it is that makes it "easier" to raise "good" children under the umbrella of the church.
Why? Because you're sheltering them from reality? You don't have to explain hard questions about sexuality? I'm curious as to what exactly it is that makes it "easier" to raise "good" children under the umbrella of the church.
Why would you assume that, judging by my post history? I am going to lay everything down for my kids in a frank and honest way. It is easier to raise good kids in the church because they know and associate themselves with other good kids, parents who are concerned with their children's welfare, are taught to be kind, honest and hardworking, etc.
If you are honestly asking why it would not be easier to raise good kids under the "umbrella of the church" (would bubble or sheltered be the word you wanted to use?) then the gulf between us in this discussion is too wide to bridge.
Parents have a strong influence in their children's lives up until a certain point, at that point, friends, society and exo familial leaders have as much and many times more influence. If kids are surrounded by good and moral people, they are more apt to want that for themselves. I am who I am because I was taught by good parents, to be sure, but also due to the way I saw my leaders live their lives, as well as friends growing up around me and the choices they made.
Why would you assume that, judging by my post history? I am going to lay everything down for my kids in a frank and honest way. It is easier to raise good kids in the church because they know and associate themselves with other good kids, parents who are concerned with their children's welfare, are taught to be kind, honest and hardworking, etc.
If you are honestly asking why it would not be easier to raise good kids under the "umbrella of the church" (would bubble or sheltered be the word you wanted to use?) then the gulf between us in this discussion is too wide to bridge.
Parents have a strong influence in their children's lives up until a certain point, at that point, friends, society and exo familial leaders have as much and many times more influence. If kids are surrounded by good and moral people, they are more apt to want that for themselves. I am who I am because I was taught by good parents, to be sure, but also due to the way I saw my leaders live their lives, as well as friends growing up around me and the choices they made.
The Church doesn't have a monopoly on morality. Morality doesn't even originate from God. If god asked you to sacrifice one of your children, would you do it? If god asked you to cut off a man's head to preserve a record of your own people right before you leave Israel to travel far away would you do it? Would you hesitate? You would hesitate because fundamentally as a human you understand that it is wrong to kill. The same way you understand this you understand that it is wrong to lie, cheat, assault, intimidate, and hurt others. You understand this because of society and your own upbringing, which could have occurred without any spiritual influence. If god had a monopoly on morality and imparted it effectively we wouldn't have caste systems, slavery, dictatorial patriarchy, and a host of other things that existed when god had vast influence in our lives as expressed in the bible.
Raising children is the role of parents. How will you talk to your daughters and sons about masturbation and sex? You know, the two MAIN things that they will be confronted with in their adolescence that can have eternal consequences? The church gives almost no specifics, and is not only unhelpful but downright damaging in the way they express morality with regards to sex and masturbation.
Well, if you honestly, truly want to establish it, I feel like I might have some advice, however misguided.
Before that, though, I would like to say that I enjoy this thread because it challenges me. Yoritomo's question of what good a prophet is if he leads the people into problems like the ban on blacks having the priesthood is something I will definitely be considering, and mulling over until I can come up with a suitable answer.
And I disagree that the truth is what is being changed. The Church does not change its doctrines, but its practices in my viewpoint. The only place, frankly, I ever seem to hear that these doctrines have changed is in this thread. Prior to this thread the idea that the Church didn't teach its members that exaltation meant becoming Gods was laughable, because Church issued manuals from 2010 still plainly state that.
This comes up often. It's to be expected that when Gordon B. Hinckley twice states "I don't know if we teach that" in Time and on TV. Then to turn around and say, "Ok there seems to be confusion." And everyone's like "ARE YOU CRAZY?!!"
But it is no secret that the Church is yet struggling to come to grips with the issue of how to treat homosexuals. And I must insist, or at the very least we will have to agree to disagree, that the Church is doing the best it presently can, and that its practices represent an honest effort by the Church leadership to do something. I cannot see Christ turning away people because they were gay, but I most certainly can see him calling all, regardless of sexual orientation, to repent. Remember that it is on the heads of the Church leaders to do this, to cry repentance to all mankind, lest the blood of this generation come upon them at the last day, and at the very least, they preach this repentance with a message more softened than many a church in our times.
And I feel that's where they have a big problem. I find AlteredBeast's stance a pretty fair one. If you want to go and live that life OK. But I don't agree with it. With Prop 8 and many of the GA's talks they went beyond that line. And especially having been in California when it happened I can tell you it was downright toxic and shameful. There's a difference between saying "People shouldn't drink." and saying "They might teach your kids that drinking doesn't make you a degenerate!"
I think the church really let itself get whisked away in a lot of the rhetoric. They looked at it as a fight they should fight and I think the membership and other orgs involved took it to a level that was beyond unsavory.
That being said, I don't believe there's much for "gay and stay". If the tables were turned, and they said "You can like women but if you ever engage with one in a physical way or try to establish an intimate relationship with one. You're sinning" I certainly wouldn't put up with that.
And I must reject that to love is to accept without change. Change is a part of love, just as much as acceptance. God loves all mankind, yes, but still asks of us to change. Everyone is a sinner at Church, and everyone has something wrong with them at Church, and if you think for an instant that someone there doesn't, you forget the entire reason anybody is even supposed to be there in the first place. Sacrifice is a part of the Gospel as surely as any other part of it, and the Sacrifice the Lord demands is our penance.
When people ask why I left. It's hard to pin down. It was a long process. One that I'm still going through and will probably still be going through the rest of my life. But finally understanding what being a father was, was the final nail in the coffin. That's where you and I have the biggest disconnect. We agree that to love is to accept. Except for me it ends there. There is nothing after that, no buts, qualifiers or whatever. And that's when it all really began to unravel. Which is why I really don't understand people that leave the church and go onto another church. But I digress. I don't think anyone wants to hear my exit story, which is funny because that'll be the first thing exmos will try to tell you.
But I digress. What I am saying is that the Church is NOT diluting, and if you so believe, it certainly is not to the extent I have seen claimed in this thread. It boggles my mind the things I see and hear you guys post sometimes because it is at complete and total odds with what I actually experience in Church. I've never seen someone in Church say that the Book of Mormon's events are fictitious or anything other than historical. To do so is to undermine some of the most central foundations of the Church itself. I've NEVER heard anyone say Exaltation meant anything other than the eventual Deification of mankind, and in Brazil that's a belief that was advertised heavily across the board. Masturbation being negotiable is a claim I can't imagine ever seeing made. Oh, perhaps new strategies are being slowly worked out to work with, but I cannot ever believe that a Bishop would say that sort of thing.
Here's the thing though, I'm not taking crazy pills. Go look at some of the more liberal places online, and you'll see this "doctrine confusion". A few weeks ago someone posted about matserbation on the lds subreddit and people likened it to swearing, not advisable but not terrible. I remember one guy got downvoted to hell for saying that it was very much a sin and that no young man could be a missionary with that vice (which is something Kimball said several times when he was prophet).
Read between the lines of what media darling Joann Brooks is saying. She's essentially saying, "Yeah well all that nephite stuff might not have happened but keep on believing!"
Go to a site like feminist mormon housewives (surprisingly not as liberal as you'd think) and proclaim that polygamy is coming back. (Have fun with that btw). Actually go in any gathering of mormons of more than 20 and say "Polygamy will be coming back we only stopped because we couldn't handle it." I doubt you'll get out of there with everyone agreeing.
Hell, just a few weeks ago I saw a guy blaming the liberal media for saying that Jesus would come to Jackson County Missouri saying that it made the church look silly. It took me over a dozen posts to finally get him to a point where he saw that, no the church really DOES teach that. Out of all those posts only one active mormon posted as well. Everyone else was jumping on the "blame the media" thing. And this is for something that's in the 3rd article of faith.
This picture of the Church that is painted in this thread is absolutely THE reason you will not find active members wanting to post in this thread, Ronito. That's item number one. Why would I ever want to come and spend my time in a thread on GAF of all places talking about something that cuts so damn deeply? Because it hurts, it really does, hearing such criticism levied at something so close to the identity of so many. I can handle that, and I feel I do a damn fine job of handling it, but others don't want to, and I couldn't blame them if I wanted to. This thread has a decidedly negative tint to it that some simply aren't going to want to take, and changing it to positive is a mammoth task that defeats itself, because it would require more participation of active members, which doesn't happen because of the above, and thus becomes something of a cycle.
But this goes back to that whole thing I keep on talking about. You do a damned fine job, better than anyone I know at taking any criticisms on the church. However, who owns this conversation? Who owns the "online" conversation in general? Exmormons. Because the exmormons are willing to discuss these things in a sphere that isn't totally pro-mormon. If you look where active mormons post about their religion it's almost exclusively on sites where they keep a very positive take on the church.
I get that. But it's a chicken/egg problem. Why is the internet in general so negative on the church? Because mormons don't like to post about their church on sites that aren't primarily non-mormon. Why don't mormons like to post on non-mormon sites? Because those sites tend to be very negative about the church.
I'm certainly not saying that if you post more stuff this will suddenly turn into a puppies, sunshine and ice cream land of happiness. But it's a problem you and I have discussed.
Many times the only people that are left to defend the church in threads about mormonism are the exmormons and while I try to be fair I also have no qualms pointing out blemishes/wrong doing.
It's problematic. Really you complain about us not talking about Yorimoto's talk. Really think back to when was the last time someone asked such a question here? All it's been is me posting news stories (which to be honest if the church is in the news 50% of the time at least it's not going to be positive) and exmos talking about their experiences.
I'd be all over talking about more things. But leaving it up to a bunch of exmos, well, you get this.
Item number two is that this is GAF. I like this place, think EviLore is a great guy, but I'll be damned if it doesn't take stones to say you're religious, let alone Mormon, on GAF. One of if not the single stupidest and most insulting thing I've ever seen on this board is the persistent, vicious, ignorant and hateful belief that it is OKAY TO ATTACK RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND MOCK THEM FOR THEIR BELIEFS. That's not okay. That's not discussion. That's mocking, hurtful, and it generates a groupthink so insular that it physically repulses me. To the great credit of this thread, it is not that. Let me be clear on that This is the best religion thread on GAF, and the internet in general, as far as I've seen. I genuinely want this thread to do well, because a meeting place for active LDS to talk and get on politely with inactives is a wonderful thing.
So we want the same thing. There really isn't a single site that I can think of where active mormons and inactive/exmormons really come together. There's a few that try but they sorta fall into the whole "New Order Mormon" or as I call them "Security blanket mormons" category. Perhaps it's too much to ask.
Item three, though, is the cyclical nature of this thread. Why in God's name are we discussing blacks and the priesthood AGAIN? This is like a flashlight and roaches. Nothing drives Mormons out faster than this, because it is the proverbial broken record of criticism against the religion. I mean, look at me, what am I supposed to do or say about this? I don't KNOW anything about it. It was over before I was born, and my father and his father have never once said anything on the lines of it. It's foreign to me; a meaningless episode of sorrow I can do nothing about and would never have endorsed. But every time it comes up it feels, whether or not it is, that the active saints are on trial for the errors of their fathers.
And when we're not talking about the blacks, then it is the gays, which leads into Item Four, which itself will loop back into Item One: There is too much focus on what is wrong with the Church, and not enough talk about what is good. Here we are, talking about gays and blacks again instead of pursuing the line of interest in what Yoritomo's talk could be about. And I am as guilty as all for this, for behold, not but a few pages before, my rants on the negatives of the dating scene, rather than focusing on the positives. In trying to avert the idealistic flowers and rainbows version that I myself subscribe to, we've dumped the whole salt shaker into the soup, and soured it for the active members.
So a few things.
Of course people want to talk about blacks and the priesthood. It's unresolved. The church has never given a reason nor an apology. It's hanging and open. It's understandable that if you left it open and say "Let's not talk about it. We weren't right there." People are going to talk about it. Especially those that don't have a filter to not care about it. Especially when it comes to gays because the church was very much in the wrong before on a similar issue. Sorry, cholo it comes with the territory.
And I get you about the focus on the wrong of the church. But again, look at who mainly posts here. Certainly you can't expect me and others that have left the church to post positive testimony building stories here. I will post stories about the church that call out when the church has done some notable thing (such as the humanitarian relief stuff a few pages back).
I'd like to think I'm a fair dude. If you posted something positive that I could discuss I'd like to think that we could discuss it. As to Yorimoto's post about his talk, I sadly don't know anything about that guy, so I can't help. But if you wanna talk about talks about talks, I got great stories.
Please, PLEASE forgive me for saying all of this, and coming off as preachy or judgmental. I think the world of all of you in this thread
except I still wish you'd change your avatar back, Hito
, and don't want to offend any of you. I'm no one at all to judge others, and especially not you, Ronito, because you are a great guy and your efforts are genuine, but if you want my honest, no sugar added opinion on why it is, this is it.
You're right to be frustrated. I'm frustrated. But then I guess it's what makes this thread work in some way. We can have this discussion without resorting to attacking each other.
As Yorimoto said, we're not here to tear anyone down. We still have family that's still mormon and our lives are still very much intertwined with the church in many ways. But certainly we're not going to paint a bright sunshiney pic of the church. As you pointed out many times the pic is abysmal and that's because for many of us many parts of the experience were just that, abysmal.
We all bring our perceptions to this thread. I get that it skews towards a negative way. I'd say any thread about mormonism on the internet that's not on a pro-mormon site will. But can't we all just get along?
As Yoritomo said, we're not here to tear anyone down. We still have family that's still mormon and our lives are still very much intertwined with the church in many ways. But certainly we're not going to paint a bright sunshiney pic of the church. As you pointed out many times the pic is abysmal and that's because for many of us many parts of the experience were just that, abysmal.
We all bring our perceptions to this thread. I get that it skews towards a negative way. I'd say any thread about mormonism on the internet that's not on a pro-mormon site will. But can't we all just get along?
On that note. Talk went well. It was too dense in places and my usual off the cuff style might not have flowed well with the overly dense prose I had written out for portions of the talk. Elder Christofferson seems to really go after the personal progress and responsibility bit so I gave the whole talk with that idea in mind. Here's a little snippet.
James E. Talmage said Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto. The entire constitution of nature is founded on system and order. (End Quote)
So what is the best way for God to work a miracle? The best instrument God has to work miracles is the body and soul of a righteous man. If we look at the situation of any man as the result of his own doing and just reward for unrighteousness, without lifting a hand to help, we neglect the ability of God to reshape the lives of others through us his greatest instruments, and in so doing we deny and show our own lack of faith in God.
(snipped portions of D. Todd Christofferson's latest talk, specifically the part about a man having lost his job.)
Faith can move mountains, but while some erroneously wait for God to rebend nature I and my brethren will wield our shovels and God will help us move it one shovel full at a time.
On that note. Talk went well. It was too dense in places and my usual off the cuff style might not have flowed well with the overly dense prose I had written out for portions of the talk. Elder Christofferson seems to really go after the personal progress and responsibility bit so I gave the whole talk with that idea in mind. Here's a little snippet.
LOL.
That reminds me of something I always said, "Faith can move mountains. Bring a shovel."
Glad the talk went well for you.
I've given many talks in my life but the one that got the biggest reaction was one where they asked me to give a talk about Elder Oak's talk from conference that year. I told them that was a bad idea as I hated talks about talks, especially since I didn't agree with the talk. They insisted. I gave the talk and talked how in large part Elder Oaks was wrong. Actually it made a real hubbub throughout the ward. One person even wrote a copy of what I talked about and sent it to me. Here's the intro:
Hi. I'm Ron and my problem is that I'm honest. So in being honest let me say this. I've never been very good with dealing with the whole giving a talk based on...well....a talk. It's so meta, it's like watching a movie about people watching a movie. The whole concept of it blows my mind much like Wayne Newton and golf. I know people really like it for some reason, and they swear by it, but, try as I might my mind just can't grasp it. That combined with the fact that I'm not a very good public speaker., and frankly I'm even worse at talking in church, plus the fact that you've already watched this talk on conference, read it in your Ensign, discussed it with friends and family and further most likely discussed it in priesthood and relief society. Therefore it's very probable that you've already heard it 4 times before I even came up here to talk more about it.I can hope for little more than being a bad echo.
Given this I will mainly use the talk a springboard to principles in the talk but in a different way. I can hardly say what Elder Oaks meant better than Elder Oaks himself when he himself said it. So if you're hoping for a recap or a summary, I'm sorry. Feel free to nod off, contemplate the mysteries of the universe, or read your scriptures. Consider this free mental break. For the rest of you still listening, I've already told you I'm not a good public speaker so I guess I forewarned you. Anyhoo, while I do not miss the irony in not sticking to the text from a talk that itself decries the evils of not sticking to the source material, I find it no more ironic than me getting to talk about any conference talk, let alone one as notorious as this one. Besides, it's a delicious kind of irony and I can appreciate that.
The rest of the talk meanders as to why Oaks was wrong, a story about a chicken, and loads of other stuff. Really I'm amazed that anyone even listened let alone wrote it all down. I was just rambling. Still, good times.
I guess that does speak to a good thing about the church. I was able to get up and talk about how an apostle was wrong and wasn't stoned or even hurt in any way. In fact, most people came up to me to discuss how they agreed with me that he was wrong. You wont see that in many other churches.
Ronito, I promise to go over what you said in more detail later but I have FHE like now so I can't, haha.
Anyway, I just want to repeat that I think this is a great thread and you're all great people and I'm super ultra sorry if I judged any of you because that's plain wrong of me to do.
Also: My sister is going through the Temple this winter break to get her endowments and I am going with her and am super ultra hyper stoked about that.
Also: Finals week sucks.
LIKE HARD CORE SUCKS.
EDIT: DUDE, post below so long I worried it would crash the page, hahahaha.
I loathe being the guy to make the last comment almost as much as I do lengthy quote-filled posts, so for my part, this is the end of this line. Not because I dislike the conversation, but because I dislike long posts in general.
OK Corvo, i figured it's time I replied to your reply to my reply. I know it bugs me when I put out a long reply and it gets ignored. Ergo...
This comes up often. It's to be expected that when Gordon B. Hinckley twice states "I don't know if we teach that" in Time and on TV. Then to turn around and say, "Ok there seems to be confusion." And everyone's like "ARE YOU CRAZY?!!"
Today I found out the Soviet Union fell when I was a boy, and not long before I was born, which is my anecdotal way of saying that there is a lot I am unaware of. For myself, I don't remember Pres. Hinckley saying these things, but that doesn't mean he didn't. I do know, though, that there's never been any wringing of hands about what the doctrine of exaltation entails to me.
I'm not certain when that was made clear to me, though. I mean, as a young man I have the faintest inkling of these things, but I'll be forward in saying that I truly don't think I was a very religious person until I hit the MTC. Then I sort of woke up to these things and it all clicked. I also wonder if perhaps my experiences are not out of the normal at times, because even here at BYUI and in distant Brazil, I've never heard anybody question it.
And I feel that's where they have a big problem. I find AlteredBeast's stance a pretty fair one. If you want to go and live that life OK. But I don't agree with it. With Prop 8 and many of the GA's talks they went beyond that line. And especially having been in California when it happened I can tell you it was downright toxic and shameful. There's a difference between saying "People shouldn't drink." and saying "They might teach your kids that drinking doesn't make you a degenerate!"
I think the church really let itself get whisked away in a lot of the rhetoric. They looked at it as a fight they should fight and I think the membership and other orgs involved took it to a level that was beyond unsavory.
I've been thinking about this one a lot and I think, Gospel according to the Crow, that the idea is really to help the people, however few, who are gay but have a testimony. I know a few people who are gay and joined the church, and I don't deny that my thoughts are more in line with yours than I'd expected, Ronito, in that I can't much say why someone who was gay would want to join the Church. But I imagine that if I were gay, but still retained the same testimony I have now, I would find myself in a very deep emotional conflict, and would look to the Church leaders for direction on what to do. To me, then, it makes sense that the Bretheren would ask that they not discard their testimonies over this issue.
Moreover, I agree that I do think the Church caught its hand in a monkey trap with Prop 8, and it's noteworthy that they moved nowhere near as much in Washington (leastaways I haven't HEARD anything to suggest they have.) I will be forward in saying that 1) I disapproved of the Church's involvement in a political matter and 2) I disapprove this same sort of thing when it spills over into the BSA. It is my sincere hope that for the remainder of my life the Church abstains from any further political undertakings of this magnitude, as its my opinion that the Church and politics have always had a rather awkward relationship.
When people ask why I left. It's hard to pin down. It was a long process. One that I'm still going through and will probably still be going through the rest of my life. But finally understanding what being a father was, was the final nail in the coffin. That's where you and I have the biggest disconnect. We agree that to love is to accept. Except for me it ends there. There is nothing after that, no buts, qualifiers or whatever. And that's when it all really began to unravel. Which is why I really don't understand people that leave the church and go onto another church. But I digress. I don't think anyone wants to hear my exit story, which is funny because that'll be the first thing exmos will try to tell you.
Well, far be it from me to judge another, but I would like to explain, perhaps more calmly than I last did, what I meant. I think that love and acceptance are intensely linked, and I've seen that from my parents as well as in my own life. However, I find it distressing, at times, that to love and accept without condition is taken to mean that one should not change. But ultimately, that is because I feel that we all must change for the better, and that a loving relationship is the ultimate place to foster that change, if done properly. Just as you don't want to bog this down with exit stories, I don't want to spend all day talking about my mission, but I do think that because of loving companions who were unafraid to point out some of my faults and work with me on them, I genuinely became a better person.
So I think that, like you said, we do agree. To love is to accept without conditions, and certainly God loves us all, regardless of what we've done. But I would add to that that love, if sincere, is the perfect means and reason to implement change. I . . . am not sure if I'm being clear.
Here's the thing though, I'm not taking crazy pills. Go look at some of the more liberal places online, and you'll see this "doctrine confusion". A few weeks ago someone posted about matserbation on the lds subreddit and people likened it to swearing, not advisable but not terrible. I remember one guy got downvoted to hell for saying that it was very much a sin and that no young man could be a missionary with that vice (which is something Kimball said several times when he was prophet).
Read between the lines of what media darling Joann Brooks is saying. She's essentially saying, "Yeah well all that nephite stuff might not have happened but keep on believing!"
I don't know who Joann Brooks is, so I guess there's some homework to be done there. I would like to speak, if only momentarily, on the subject of masturbation. This is a problem (if you will permit me to discuss it as such within the context of it being a violation of Church commandments) which has become very pervasive in the Church today, or is at least perceived as being more pervasive now than previously. Here on Campus, though, I've seen something for which I applaud the Church, because when I was young I did not see.
That is to say, as a young man, the Church did not discuss masturbation. It gave young men a manual told them to talk about it with their dads, never followed up, and then beat them over the head about it for the rest of their young adult ways in the most hamfisted of ways. Here at BYUI I've seen more genuine attempts to address the issue, to discuss it in a way that is geared toward offenders to come forward privately without the fear it once had. The Church still takes a line against it, but I approve of the attempts at revising the dialog in such a way that young men are not afraid of whatever when they seek help from their ecclesiastical leaders.
Now if only we could do something with all this pent up sexual frustration other than have serial huggers, hahaha.
no but seriously serial hugging is weird as heck.
Go to a site like feminist mormon housewives (surprisingly not as liberal as you'd think) and proclaim that polygamy is coming back. (Have fun with that btw). Actually go in any gathering of mormons of more than 20 and say "Polygamy will be coming back we only stopped because we couldn't handle it." I doubt you'll get out of there with everyone agreeing.
Hell, just a few weeks ago I saw a guy blaming the liberal media for saying that Jesus would come to Jackson County Missouri saying that it made the church look silly. It took me over a dozen posts to finally get him to a point where he saw that, no the church really DOES teach that. Out of all those posts only one active mormon posted as well. Everyone else was jumping on the "blame the media" thing. And this is for something that's in the 3rd article of faith.
I'd like to put this in a wider context, though, and say that not all of Mormondom is American, and not all of it is in the Mormon Corridor. In Brazil, nobody ever contested that Adam Ondi Ahman was going to happen in Jackson County Missouri. Especially not when it's right there in the Gospel Principles manual. Sometimes, people's fantasies and ignorance are of their own making, nothing more.
I did have people claiming that at least part of Eden had been in Brazil, though. Then again, Brazilian saints have a few of their own idiosyncrasies, too. For instance: in the most bizarre of racist beliefs, they honestly think that it's some kind of doctrine that Utahns, principally those of Prophetic and Apostolic descent, cannot mingle with the daughters of Brazil.
It was . . . disconcerting to hear.
But this goes back to that whole thing I keep on talking about. You do a damned fine job, better than anyone I know at taking any criticisms on the church. However, who owns this conversation? Who owns the "online" conversation in general? Exmormons. Because the exmormons are willing to discuss these things in a sphere that isn't totally pro-mormon. If you look where active mormons post about their religion it's almost exclusively on sites where they keep a very positive take on the church.
I know that, I do, but when I look at threads like that ridiculous, outlandish, and offensive thread on "Mormon Church suddenly changes its policy on gays" which was 1)wrong because as we all know that's been Church policy for some time, 2)ignores such current events as the Mormons who marched in the gay pride parade in Utah and 3)was so crude, offensive, and hurtful that I had to turn away lest I say or do something that got me banned, I cannot fully blame them.
Because ultimately, Ronito, not everyone is as willing to discuss Mormonism in so rational, calm, and polite a way as you, hitokage, Yoritomo, et al have been. So many, on this site alone, would sooner quip, ask loaded questions, or mock, that it is discouraging. It is so often a waste of time to discuss Mormonism because the people criticizing are not interested in hearing the other side or criticizing at all, just mocking.
If everyone could be as polite, as thoughtful, as civil as the people in this thread, it would do a great deal, but I think I speak for many an active Mormon when I say I would rather spend my time cheerfully chatting about FHE and how young the new Elders look with people I can expect to take my statements seriously than to kick against the pricks that so often online conversations about the Church are.
I get that. But it's a chicken/egg problem. Why is the internet in general so negative on the church? Because mormons don't like to post about their church on sites that aren't primarily non-mormon. Why don't mormons like to post on non-mormon sites? Because those sites tend to be very negative about the church.
I'm certainly not saying that if you post more stuff this will suddenly turn into a puppies, sunshine and ice cream land of happiness. But it's a problem you and I have discussed.
Well, I don't think anybody wants it to be JUST sugar and rainbows, but I agree that it is a Chicken and Egg problem. I come here because I truly want to know. Because I believe that this thread actually makes me a stronger Saint by allowing me to see problems I never would have on my own, and assess them, ponder them, pray about them, and draw my own conclusions about them with the Lord. But there's a marked difference between this thread and the one I've described above. Here I can expect everyone to be civil to me, and I can be civil to everyone. I am not so good a Christian that I can turn the other cheek to the types of threads I've already discussed. Logic be damned, in threads like that either I must spit the same fire I'm receiving, or I must turn a blind eye to the whole thing, and save myself the pain of such a Sisyphus task.
After all, what good does it do me discussing the Church in threads like that? I can point out "Hey no this isn't a shift in policy and here is why I think that from an LDS stand point it isn't so bad a thing." And what do I get in return? Without the slightest exaggeration, I can expect to be shouted down and brow-beat for my beliefs, and nothing, not even the misleading and wrong thread title.
It's problematic. Really you complain about us not talking about Yorimoto's talk. Really think back to when was the last time someone asked such a question here? All it's been is me posting news stories (which to be honest if the church is in the news 50% of the time at least it's not going to be positive) and exmos talking about their experiences.
I'd be all over talking about more things. But leaving it up to a bunch of exmos, well, you get this.
That's fair enough. I admit I post in this thread only at my convenience, and I don't do my part in contributing to discussions aside from the perennial topics. I did not mean to cast the burden of blame on you, and for that I apologize.
So we want the same thing. There really isn't a single site that I can think of where active mormons and inactive/exmormons really come together. There's a few that try but they sorta fall into the whole "New Order Mormon" or as I call them "Security blanket mormons" category. Perhaps it's too much to ask.
Of course we want the same thing . I like this thread, and want it to do well. Especially if it could somehow influence how religions in general are treated on GAF.
So a few things.
Of course people want to talk about blacks and the priesthood. It's unresolved. The church has never given a reason nor an apology. It's hanging and open. It's understandable that if you left it open and say "Let's not talk about it. We weren't right there." People are going to talk about it. Especially those that don't have a filter to not care about it. Especially when it comes to gays because the church was very much in the wrong before on a similar issue. Sorry, cholo it comes with the territory.
I know, I don't mean to sweep it under the rug. I think it is a good discussion to have. We had a discussion last semester on this because there was a sister in the class who was from Africa and had never heard about it and was honestly distraught (She works in the testing center now and I see her fairly often. If she's there again next semester, I am so working up the stones to ask her out.)
I do think we talk these things to death, though. Like, I dunno, all I feel my non-Mormon friends ever wanna ask me about the Church is 1)Gays and 2)Coffee (Washingtonian.) And I dunno, sometimes I'm like, "Hey, aren't you in the least bit curious about anything else? At all?"
I'd like to think I'm a fair dude. If you posted something positive that I could discuss I'd like to think that we could discuss it. As to Yorimoto's post about his talk, I sadly don't know anything about that guy, so I can't help. But if you wanna talk about talks about talks, I got great stories.
You most definitely ARE a fair dude, Ronito, and I legitimately am sorry if any of this has made you feel that I think otherwise. You're a great person and are doing an excellent job of keeping this thread somewhere civil and happy. But I feel like there's so much more to Mormonism we don't talk about, and I think we all lose out for it, and I am willing to be the very first to say that that's not something I've done to help with. I need to step up to the plate on that, because it isn't fair to make it seem like this is JUST you that needs to think about this.
You're right to be frustrated. I'm frustrated. But then I guess it's what makes this thread work in some way. We can have this discussion without resorting to attacking each other.
As Yorimoto said, we're not here to tear anyone down. We still have family that's still mormon and our lives are still very much intertwined with the church in many ways. But certainly we're not going to paint a bright sunshiney pic of the church. As you pointed out many times the pic is abysmal and that's because for many of us many parts of the experience were just that, abysmal.
We all bring our perceptions to this thread. I get that it skews towards a negative way. I'd say any thread about mormonism on the internet that's not on a pro-mormon site will. But can't we all just get along?
Absolutely we can all get along, and that commitment should be the foundation upon which this thread is built. Contention, not disagreement, is evil. We can disagree and criticize without hard feelings or hurt, and that we have done such a good job of that so far is to this thread's everlasting credit. I want you to know that I really do like everybody in this thread, and I actually feel all excited when I'm wandering GAF and bump into someone I recognize from here.
Like in the Anime thread, sometimes I see Hitokage post and I'm like "Hey! I know Hitokage from the Mo/ExMo thread! He's a pretty great guy! Or I'll be on gaming side and go "Oh dude, it's AlteredBeast! I know him!" I get all schoolgirl when I see you guys around.
This is a good thread, and I think we can make it even better without alienating either side. And I'm glad to have someone like you onboard, too, Ronito.
Is it just me, or does every woman in the Mormon Corridor go Super Saiyan as she ages? They all start with hair around their shoulders and it gets all Paula Deen the older they get.
Sounds like you are gearing up to be inactive one day. Why don't you talk about it with your family and leaders? Have a frank discussion and if they can't provide you with the answers and understanding you crave, you might as well tell them what you feel and understand and leave the church. Unless your parents are terrible people, they pretty much have to respect that. You will only be wasting your own time and money, if you choose to pay your tithes and offerings.
yeah i already have talked with my parents and they know i don't believe. i don't even like the environment at the family ward because it feels like everyone is judging me for being home/not going on a mission. they probably aren't and it's all in my head but i don't like it. i haven't been to singles ward yet, but some of my friends are trying to get me to go...so maybe i will.
thing is, i had to work yesterday and missed all of church for the first time because of work and i didn't care one bit. hopefully once i join the military i will be able to support myself. i also hope i don't go crazy with the "freedom".
yeah in hawaii when i was 18. nothing drug or alcohol related, but i got in some big trouble, which i think i have divulged on gaf, stupidly enough. what i'm saying is i hope i don't start swearing out the wazoo, binge drinking, drugs, that kind of thing.
yeah i already have talked with my parents and they know i don't believe. i don't even like the environment at the family ward because it feels like everyone is judging me for being home/not going on a mission. they probably aren't and it's all in my head but i don't like it. i haven't been to singles ward yet, but some of my friends are trying to get me to go...so maybe i will.
thing is, i had to work yesterday and missed all of church for the first time because of work and i didn't care one bit. hopefully once i join the military i will be able to support myself. i also hope i don't go crazy with the "freedom".
Well, you know, there are military wards too. My sister goes to one off and on at times. Check out singles ward, though. They're hit and miss, but sometimes it helps being in one, especially if you don't live in Utah/Idaho, because you meet lots of guys who didn't go on missions and turned out fine, and there are fewer stodgy old folk to judge you about anything.
My singles branch back home is a great place. The Elder's Quorum president is a really nice guy and he never served a mission. It doesn't matter to me that he didn't because I'm pretty sure he's still an awesome guy. Lots of great members of the Church didn't serve missions. Like Donny Osmond (hahahaha) and President Monson, who served in the military instead.
Here in Rexburg . . . well it has its ups and downs here. When its good its good when its bad it's irritating.
And even though I think going on a Mission is totally rad and awesome, I think if you don't want to go, you really shouldn't, because nothing sucks more than spending 2 years doing something you really don't want to be doing.
yeah in hawaii when i was 18. nothing drug or alcohol related, but i got in some big trouble, which i think i have divulged on gaf, stupidly enough. what i'm saying is i hope i don't start swearing out the wazoo, binge drinking, drugs, that kind of thing.
Well, you don't sound like the guy to go off the deep end into drugs, so I wouldn't worry about that. Leaving the Church does not magically transform most people into evil monsters. On that note, I have a friend who went through similar circumstances to you, having elected not to go on a mission, was ostracized by our ward, joined the military, and isn't a member today. He and I don't have the chance to talk much anymore, but he visited recently and I went to visit him because we're still friends.
Which is just my way of saying that you shouldn't be afraid, whatever your choice.
yeah in hawaii when i was 18. nothing drug or alcohol related, but i got in some big trouble, which i think i have divulged on gaf, stupidly enough. what i'm saying is i hope i don't start swearing out the wazoo, binge drinking, drugs, that kind of thing.
It's easy for those that lived in a sheltered life to suddenly freak out.
Remember, moderation.
Many of the people you're going to hang with have had years to figure out how alcohol and sex and stuff affect them. Too many decide they have to run when they don't even know how to crawl yet. Or most often, they feel they need to run as well. They are who they are. You are who you are.
Moderation and limits (and strategically placed exceptions)
yeah in hawaii when i was 18. nothing drug or alcohol related, but i got in some big trouble, which i think i have divulged on gaf, stupidly enough. what i'm saying is i hope i don't start swearing out the wazoo, binge drinking, drugs, that kind of thing.
LOL. Mormons who want to leave the church think of such funny things when leaving the church. "swearing!"
Swearing doesn't matter one bit to anyone in the real world. Not even most Mormons I know. As long as you don't take the incredibly stupid route by taking the Lord's name in vain, swear all you want. In essence, not of it means anything and if it doesn't offend the sensibilities of those around you and isn't stupid vile stuff, it probably couldn't classify as swearing.
I used to swear like a sailor before my mission but cannot remember one single time in my entire life that I took the Lord's name in vain.
EDIT: And don't get a tattoo or some sort of stupid piercings or gauges. I will make fun of you hardcore. That stuff is as juvenile and pretentious as it gets.
