AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I merely speak of an impossible "possibility." i don't want to see the church back down from gay marriage or the Ordain Women micro-schism. They will never do either, so my membership is safe.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mormon/Ex-Mormon Thread of 3 hour blocks and salvation flowcharts
- Thread starter ronito
- Start date
I merely speak of an impossible "possibility." i don't want to see the church back down from gay marriage or the Ordain Women micro-schism. They will never do either, so my membership is safe.
Oh?
The church will change as it always has, it will just be a generation instead of a decade. They have backed away from asking married couples about blowjobs, penalties in the temple, asking youth about masturbation, folk doctrines about blacks in the pre-existence, the book miracle of forgiveness is banned from most missions, there have been doctrinal schism every single decade. The church changes with society, it's just slow.
Brianemone
Member
The talk on Mental Health literally said people with Mental Health issues like depression should seek out professional help and that squaring your shoulders and thinking happy thoughts is not the solution. The entire point of that talk was that "Faith Will Fix Everything" is not the stance of the Church on depression and other Mental Health issues.
Much of General Conference seemed geared to address concerns I have heard voiced in this thread, in fact.
On a final note of this nature, I don't know where I would stand if the Church began to wed gays. I don't expect that, because it stands rather opposite what I have grown understand Church doctrine to be. I hope the Church distances itself from groups staunchly opposing it, but that's all the more I'm really expecting from this. If things should change over the course of my life, though, I'll still consider twice before declare the Church itself in apostasy, because of the people I've known who lived through other, similar events.
Moving on, Rexburg today was a ghost town. It's really quite incredible how nothing at all was moving outside during Conference today. I had to step out for a minute to get something, and couldn't, cuz there wasn't anywhere to get anything. It was pretty impressive. Last place I'd seen like this was Brazil during the World Cup.
I really do love Conference, though. Elder Nelson's talk especially contained a lot of things that I felt I needed to hear. There always seems to be that one talk that was geared most specifically to my needs. And of course, there is something comforting which I cannot put into quantifiable terms about the just hearing the voices of Pres. Monson and Pres. Uchtdorf. Pres. Uchtdorf's probably that well tailored German accent, but Pres. Monson's just got the pipes.
Most interesting thing about Conference for me though was that no Temples were announced (although I missed the first half of this morning's session, so maybe they announced them then.) I was also ecstatic that Ulisses S. Soares and Claudio M. Costa spoke (well, Elder Costa gave the prayer). Always good to have more involvement of the Brazilian Church. I actually met Elder Costa on my mission. That was really good experience for me.
It's felt like a Holiday weekend here, and I really appreciate that a lot. Going to Priesthood Session in the I-Center was great, even though it was dang near empty since they broadcast this year's session.
Conference Weekends remind me of the positive benefits of living in a heavily Mormon area (which is good, because sometimes things round these parts can make me question my decision to attend here.)
Laurentius
Member
That's good to hear.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I am aware of those changes and many more, but the church is never going to start performing temple marriages for gays. Not going to happen. They are never going to stop saying that the best place for a woman is in the home, and they are never going to ordain women.
I can see ordaining women before the others but never is a long time. Ordaining women, has historical precedent, is easy to justify doctrinally, and priesthood power is already exercised by women in the temple.
We'll see faster more aggressive changes sooner rather than later with regards to women and roles, since agitation has already affected some change. Equality for women would be nice. People who are equal don't need to be told they are equal. And a pedestal restricts just as much as any cage, the fall is harder though.
1. The church has conceded (even if Packer has not) that you can be born gay.
2. Men have been sealed to other men in the past. And a splinter group was created around this idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_adoption
3. If under the same penalties and strictures that hetero couples are what is wrong with a gay couple engaging in sexual bonding after marriage? I cannot begrudge another person from experiencing the same sort of loving relationship with their partner that I have with my own wife. If you believe it is an abomination because it cannot create life then I have some orifices and contraception to ban from heterosexual relationships.
4. Lets flip this around and pretend that being heterosexual was considered deviant. Your son is in love with a girl and this girl is in love with him. They want to share a life together, but they cannot because society frowns on it. What would you want for your son, to follow along with society and stay away from the girl he loves, never to marry, hold, cherish, or grow with, or would you support him even in the face of society's displeasure.
Thaedolus
Member
"Doubt your doubt..."
What if I already have doubts of my doubt? Should I doubt the doubt of my doubt? Is that enough doubting? I could doubt the doubt of the doubt of my doubt...
To me this is a veiled way of saying "don't worry about anything, the church is true. Question? Nope, the church is true. Faith-promoting material? Yes, yes the church is true."
I've doubted my doubt. And I found that the doubt of my doubt is sourced to the manipulation I was subjected to growing up.
It also amazes me how people like Oaks can get up and proclaim the will and laws of God as unchangeable, while the church has been changing its doctrine and policies for its entire existence. But alas, I don't know what I should expect. Part of me wants to see the church become a more progressive institution that is healthier for my friends and family who are members. Another part of me sees the hardline, unchanging stance as further proof of its true nature and vindication...meh
I'm just glad my facebook feed didn't blow up into nonsense this time around.
What if I already have doubts of my doubt? Should I doubt the doubt of my doubt? Is that enough doubting? I could doubt the doubt of the doubt of my doubt...
To me this is a veiled way of saying "don't worry about anything, the church is true. Question? Nope, the church is true. Faith-promoting material? Yes, yes the church is true."
I've doubted my doubt. And I found that the doubt of my doubt is sourced to the manipulation I was subjected to growing up.
It also amazes me how people like Oaks can get up and proclaim the will and laws of God as unchangeable, while the church has been changing its doctrine and policies for its entire existence. But alas, I don't know what I should expect. Part of me wants to see the church become a more progressive institution that is healthier for my friends and family who are members. Another part of me sees the hardline, unchanging stance as further proof of its true nature and vindication...meh
I'm just glad my facebook feed didn't blow up into nonsense this time around.
Brianemone
Member
Its a very positive step in the right direction if that's the case. From personal experience though the church was very forthright in teaching that wickedness=unhappiness. It was one of the main reoccurring themes of the Book of Mormon (other than being righteous will make you white, and the pridecycle)
If you are able to overcome homosexuality with faith then surely depression is something you should be able to "fix" as well through righteous living. Priesthood blessing, fasting, prayer.......
Why not skip all of those things and recommend cognitive behavioral therapy first and foremost. Forget the rest of the religious stuff, don't even mention it, its like fasting away cancer or aids, it just doesn't happen and suggesting anything other than seeking qualified medical help is an abuse of authority/status. I'll wait to read the talk in full before passing any further judgement though.
It goes hand in hand with the churches lay clergy and the social services that it offers. When my Wife and I were having issues with our relationship (because I was leaving the church) the constant drive (from all parties) was to speak to a bishop and church counselor. Its efforts to deal with things internally is damaging because 99% of the time the people involved do not have even an iota of relevant knowledge or qualifications, and beyond that, are also fettered by their belief.
This is my first conference after having finally decided to dig into the hard truths about the history of the church (thanks to a final push from ronito's link to the Hans Mattsson NYT article) and coming to grips with the fact that the church's history is much different than what it proclaims.
I felt a little perturbed about this talk and the way they seem to be trying to sweep some seriously disturbing information under the rug and invalidate the concerns of those of us that have done the research.
It's kind of insulting, really.
Thaedolus
Member
What really grinds my gears is how it adds to the things I haven't done which my believing friends and family will point out in the future. Add it to not reading my scriptures enough, not praying hard enough, not attending the temple enough..."Well, did you doubt your doubt?"
I shouldn't even have to formulate a response to that, but I know I will.
Yeah. I did think the church did take two steps forward by stating that "We keep saying these people are sinful or lazy or are easily offended but it's not that simple." Yay! FINALLY!
Then to follow it up with "Doubt your doubts before you doubt your church." Undid all the good.
Because essentially it now makes it that if you're no longer mormon, well it's because you didn't doubt your doubts. And it's really condescending too.
"Did you not doubt your doubts?"
"Bitch I doubted my doubts for nearly two decades!"
Every person that I've met that's left the church had severe doubts of their doubts. It's a huge, painful, process. Trite things like this do way more harm than good.
Of course I think it's also a dangerous card to play to be like "yeah, we make mistakes all the time, we're wrong on many things."
Someone with a curious mind would be like, "Mistakes like what? Wrong on what?"
Some still do. Though its technically against the rules. What I don't get is that question gets a lot of raised eyebrows and "Really?"s in response. Yet when you bring up the "Do you touch yourself?" questions asked of the teens/singles everyone's like "Well that's different..."
I always doubted my doubts.
Until I had deconstructed the spirit in the face of emotional turmoil and analyzing the actual mistakes of the church (mainly Prohibition of Priesthood to the blacks) and was then able to turn around and still make someone else feel the spirit and make myself feel it while lying through my teeth.
If anyone ever meets me I'll show ya Give me a little bit of time to prepare and a nice reverent environment and I'll make you feel the spirit while lying.
Until I had deconstructed the spirit in the face of emotional turmoil and analyzing the actual mistakes of the church (mainly Prohibition of Priesthood to the blacks) and was then able to turn around and still make someone else feel the spirit and make myself feel it while lying through my teeth.
If anyone ever meets me I'll show ya
Give me a little bit of time to prepare and a nice reverent environment and I'll make you feel the spirit while lying.This...this is pretty funny:
Not a fan of the photoshopped finger but this did make me laugh.
It always makes me laugh when the church brings up the "immutable" or "unchangeable" stuff.
I mean come on, the church now is very different than the church I grew up in and very very different from the church my parents grew up in. And I'm not just talking about the culture.
With Elizabeth Smart doing the rounds and publishing a new book I'm reminded and filled with such righteous indignation that I can't help but post something.
Guys who are still in and believing I suggest skipping this post.
Spencer W Kimball wrote in Miracle of Forgiveness.
This along with the church's lessons on "virtue" (chastity) and the emphasis on pre-marital sex as the sin next to murder is positively vile, damaging, and the most soul destroying aspects of the church. There is real damage being done to young men and women.
Honestly this one single issue is the only one that makes me feel like I would like to spend every waking moment tearing everything down. I have three daughters, if any man were to say anything that makes them feel like their most valuable attribute is their virginity, or that if they were sexually assaulted they might share the blame, he would find himself bleeding at my feet.
Quite a bit of sexual response is involuntary. It is possible for a woman to lubricate and even orgasm during the rape, that doesn't make it any less of a rape and in many cases the misunderstanding that this shouldn't or can't happen makes many victims question their own victimhood. In the same sense a man could be raped, or forcibly coerced by a woman.
A little personal history. A relative married the eldest daughter of the McCallister family. Her younger brother was molested by the man who was his bishop over the course of 4-5 years. (The brother and his wife bought my parents old house).
You can read the entire thing here.
http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/part2/v1p2c09.htm
The story is accurate from my own direct connection with the family. Direct relatives of mine were molested and still exist in conflict with Spencer W Kimball's quote, his quote is a source of pain and self loathing even though the molester was their father/brother (This shit happens more than some people think.)
The only regrettable part about my lack of belief is that I cannot rest with assurance that Spencer W Kimball (and any who have contributed to blaming victims and equating the value of women to whether or not they've had sexual contact with their value as a person) will suffer at the hands of the adversary for the pain they have caused victims.
Guys who are still in and believing I suggest skipping this post.
Spencer W Kimball wrote in Miracle of Forgiveness.
This along with the church's lessons on "virtue" (chastity) and the emphasis on pre-marital sex as the sin next to murder is positively vile, damaging, and the most soul destroying aspects of the church. There is real damage being done to young men and women.
Honestly this one single issue is the only one that makes me feel like I would like to spend every waking moment tearing everything down. I have three daughters, if any man were to say anything that makes them feel like their most valuable attribute is their virginity, or that if they were sexually assaulted they might share the blame, he would find himself bleeding at my feet.
Quite a bit of sexual response is involuntary. It is possible for a woman to lubricate and even orgasm during the rape, that doesn't make it any less of a rape and in many cases the misunderstanding that this shouldn't or can't happen makes many victims question their own victimhood. In the same sense a man could be raped, or forcibly coerced by a woman.
A little personal history. A relative married the eldest daughter of the McCallister family. Her younger brother was molested by the man who was his bishop over the course of 4-5 years. (The brother and his wife bought my parents old house).
You can read the entire thing here.
http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume1/part2/v1p2c09.htm
The story is accurate from my own direct connection with the family. Direct relatives of mine were molested and still exist in conflict with Spencer W Kimball's quote, his quote is a source of pain and self loathing even though the molester was their father/brother (This shit happens more than some people think.)
The only regrettable part about my lack of belief is that I cannot rest with assurance that Spencer W Kimball (and any who have contributed to blaming victims and equating the value of women to whether or not they've had sexual contact with their value as a person) will suffer at the hands of the adversary for the pain they have caused victims.
Laurentius
Member
We're at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Yorimoto, I'll get to your post. I just need more time to think it over. I just listened to an hour long interview with Smart on Fresh Air yesterday so I had a similar set of thoughts in my head. But I need more time to put it together in my head.
Now for something that doesn't require much thought:
One of my friends is a mormon feminist and she posted some stuff on Facebook about the women trying to attend Priesthood session. Personally, I don't see the big deal. My mother in law used to listen to it the moment it was available on the internet (which was a few hours after they actually had it) and the whole thing is printed in the Ensign. It's not like its a secret or anything. It's a big deal because the church makes it a big deal. If a guy chooses to go to Relief Society (and I've known a few) he'll get strange looks but they don't make a big deal of it, so it isn't.
But it's strange hearing the reasons why people think the "protestors" (they don't call them women) . It went from being "Those protestors would've taken a seat from a man who desparately needs to go to priesthood session." Then when I pointed out that according to reports there were lots of empty seats someone (a woman I might add) dropped this gem:
"I think women are distracting the same way that children are distracting."
I just don't get it
Now for something that doesn't require much thought:
One of my friends is a mormon feminist and she posted some stuff on Facebook about the women trying to attend Priesthood session. Personally, I don't see the big deal. My mother in law used to listen to it the moment it was available on the internet (which was a few hours after they actually had it) and the whole thing is printed in the Ensign. It's not like its a secret or anything. It's a big deal because the church makes it a big deal. If a guy chooses to go to Relief Society (and I've known a few) he'll get strange looks but they don't make a big deal of it, so it isn't.
But it's strange hearing the reasons why people think the "protestors" (they don't call them women) . It went from being "Those protestors would've taken a seat from a man who desparately needs to go to priesthood session." Then when I pointed out that according to reports there were lots of empty seats someone (a woman I might add) dropped this gem:
"I think women are distracting the same way that children are distracting."
I just don't get it
peaceiscloser
Member
There was a thread on /r/LatterDaySaints (Reddit) that apparently had heard from a GA that the new missionary push has been the single greatest expense and administrative headache on the church, and pretty much all other building projects have been slowed down because of it. It of course is just a passed-down message, but I wouldn't doubt it. I mean, multiply the 80,000 (add one for this guy) missionaries and what the church has to subsidize, and that's a hefty chunk.
Yeah, we'll have to see if they get some return on that investment. According to the numbers there hasn't been an increase in new membership with the increase in missionaries. But then the mission program was never entirely about converting others anyway. For many their mission is was cements them into the church and sets them on the path to church leadership. So the ROI question here isn't so clear cut. But I've heard grumblings of the same. However, I am sorta surprised about no new temples. Usually the land the church owns and sells around it after it appreciates is no small amount.
A lot of that happens because it reduces injury. Sadly, rape isn't a new thing among humans.
Laurentius
Member
Why did the number of missionaries increase so much after the age change? Was it just the amount of missionaries going early combined with the number of missionaries going at their regular age? I would assume that would mean that the higher numbers would drop off again after a year or two.
A lot of women went, now that they could leave earlier, and lots of 18-year olds want to serve and after a year of freedom at college they often choose not to. Now you have kids who have their papers in to serve while still seniors in high school, so they leave just a couple of months after graduation, before life's distractions creep up on them and make them question whether or not to go.
I do think that the numbers of sister missionaries has to be much, much higher though. Even in the church, few women are married at that age. Very few.
Ronito, any more info on this? For some reason I thought it would be associated with conference, but nothing came out that would fit this bill.
Laurentius
Member
Apparently he was going to present it at some Ex-Mormon conference, but that got cancelled for some reason. Last I heard he was working on getting it ready to present to the media.
I still highly doubt it will be anything significant, at least to those still in the church.
Could it be that guy's claim that he has proof that Jesus never existed and that the Romans invented him to control the populace? If so, that's hardly going to matter.
I wouldn't put much stock into that guys claim. As someone who had a very faith based testimony and was well aware of all of the historical issues, it would have taken something HUGE to affect it.
Like finding a manuscript the was BoM source material. Taped conversations of prophets conspiring and explicitly stating they didn't believe. Claiming that basketball was a tool of satan, potatoes were against the word of wisdom, and testimony shout outs were a precursor to homosexuality. These are about the only things I think that could affect a true believing member with a faith/spirit based testimony.
Like finding a manuscript the was BoM source material. Taped conversations of prophets conspiring and explicitly stating they didn't believe. Claiming that basketball was a tool of satan, potatoes were against the word of wisdom, and testimony shout outs were a precursor to homosexuality. These are about the only things I think that could affect a true believing member with a faith/spirit based testimony.
Actually I called him out on reddit a few weeks ago saying it was nothing
He replied with:
"There are still just over 5 weeks until end of October. Be patient."
We'll have to see. Personally? I don't expect a thing. And honestly I'll rub it in everyone's faces if nothing percolates. But I will say if anyone that had left the church was going to have some dirt on it this guy would.
I guess it's just wait and see.
Is this an actual thing? I can't tell if you're joking.
Interesting. He certainly seems like quite a vocal dissenter and if he had some damning evidence, I wonder why he'd wait until now to share it. Guess we'll see.
No, I'm just stating what it would take to have the effect anointedone is claiming it will have.
None of those things have happened and will probably never happen.
Haha, gotcha. You threw me off with the manuscript thing because I thought it might be a View of the Hebrews reference.
Actually that's the one thing that makes me think he might actually have something. If he were to expose something financial or confidential he'd need that much time to make sure it's all legal/legit because if he didn't he would easily find himself in court.
Of course though, I don't believe that he has/will show anything.
If he were to do something I'd bet it's got something to do with money laundering or something like that. If it is something like that then it'll just be batted away as a "few bad apples"
Then he wouldn't be giving cryptic notices, hed keep his mouth shut.
The only reason to wait is a blackmail deadline.
Oooh I like that. It's dramatic.
So there's this interview that sorta touches on what you've been talking about Yorimoto.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...iage-made-her-an-outcast-in-her-own-community
I think it also goes with a lot of the mormon feminist stuff going around right now as well. I know from personal experience that the mormon sexual repression (especially of women) is probably the worst thing that the church does.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/bl...iage-made-her-an-outcast-in-her-own-community
I think it also goes with a lot of the mormon feminist stuff going around right now as well. I know from personal experience that the mormon sexual repression (especially of women) is probably the worst thing that the church does.
FYI, Called the guy out again. No reply this time.
Yeah I know. I love rubbing their faces in it.
Say what? If someone is sexually repressing my wife, we're not aware of it.
My beloved Jeff, what have you done?!
Probably way too much.
Laurentius
Member
So you guys may have seen this video/article floating around about the guys that destroyed a rock formation in Goblin Valley:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57012279-78/rock-goblin-valley-formation.html.csp?page=1
There was this interesting sentence in the article:
Boy Scout troop. Utah. "Prompted" to move the rock -- pretty obviously Mormon. The only reason I bring it up is that it's interesting how often the "prompted" phrase comes up within Mormon culture. I think it's often a quick passive aggressive way to end an argument -- I was "prompted" to do x and y. If you argue with me, then you are denying my ability to listen to the spirit. (Oh boy, and getting into "promptings" battles is a nasty thing indeed. Happened a few times on my mission, where one missionary would argue that he was prompted to do something completely different from another.) I think it's part of the danger of a doctrine that essentially tells you to rely on your emotions and feelings that pop into your mind when making decisions.
Anyway, I think what these guys did was pretty bad and absolutely moronic, but the vitriol about it going around the internet is just insane. On Reddit people are practically calling for their public lynching. Yes, it is pretty sad that nobody will be able to see that formation again, but Goblin Valley is absolutely full of awesome stuff like this. I think they should certainly face consequences, but felonies? Life in prison, like so many people seem to be suggesting? I certainly don't want anybody having their lives ruined forever because of a rock. Some nasty fines, maybe a short sentence seems in order. I just don't understand the absolute hatred being directed towards them.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57012279-78/rock-goblin-valley-formation.html.csp?page=1
There was this interesting sentence in the article:
Boy Scout troop. Utah. "Prompted" to move the rock -- pretty obviously Mormon. The only reason I bring it up is that it's interesting how often the "prompted" phrase comes up within Mormon culture. I think it's often a quick passive aggressive way to end an argument -- I was "prompted" to do x and y. If you argue with me, then you are denying my ability to listen to the spirit. (Oh boy, and getting into "promptings" battles is a nasty thing indeed. Happened a few times on my mission, where one missionary would argue that he was prompted to do something completely different from another.) I think it's part of the danger of a doctrine that essentially tells you to rely on your emotions and feelings that pop into your mind when making decisions.
Anyway, I think what these guys did was pretty bad and absolutely moronic, but the vitriol about it going around the internet is just insane. On Reddit people are practically calling for their public lynching. Yes, it is pretty sad that nobody will be able to see that formation again, but Goblin Valley is absolutely full of awesome stuff like this. I think they should certainly face consequences, but felonies? Life in prison, like so many people seem to be suggesting? I certainly don't want anybody having their lives ruined forever because of a rock. Some nasty fines, maybe a short sentence seems in order. I just don't understand the absolute hatred being directed towards them.
I'm 32. I've lived in Utah for 30 of those 32 years and I've never heard anybody use "prompted" in an argument. It can't possibly be common, at least anywhere here in Utah.
I love Goblin Valley. My wife and I went camping there a couple of weeks after we got back from our honeymoon. The sights are incredible, and there's some nearby slot canyon hiking that is downright incredible.
Laurentius
Member
I've seen it used plenty of times as a passive aggressive way to prevent discussion on a subject. So perhaps argument was the wrong word. It's an argument prevention mechanic, in my experience.
I mean, when somebody says "I was prompted that we should do this", how many people are going to argue? Because if you say, "actually, we shouldn't do that" you are specifically calling them out and claiming that what they see as their personal revelation is false.
So yeah, not really used IN arguments that much, but certainly used as an argument prevention. You can tell people that they misinterpreted their "prompting", but that can lead to conflict and Mormon's generally dislike conflict.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll