- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been a devout Mormon since I was baptized at age 9. I have loved the Church and I readily ate what it fed me. Last year, I was able to baptize my friend and participate with him as he took the discussions. It was great and I have never felt the Spirit stronger than in that experience. However, doubts have surfaced in my mind about the origins of the Book of Mormon, women’s roles in the Church, and the Church’s stances on gay marriage and homosexuality.
As first assistant in my priest’s quorum, I feel an obligation to be an example to the other priests, teachers, and deacons, and also to the friend whom I baptized. At times I feel ridden with guilt that my doubts and loss of blind faith in the Church is somehow inhibiting my ability to perform my calling, and I don’t feel worthy of the honor of being an example. What should I do?
You have indicated that you have been upfront about your concerns with your YM president and bishop. Leave the decision of your calling up to them. Welcome. The difference between faith and knowledge is an area called “not being sure.” Doubt may be part of the learning process toward more balanced, mature faith. Doubt is the admission that you don’t know. It is the first step in critical thinking that helps you attain truth.
Never, never feel unworthy because you doubt.
Paul said that we know in part, and we prophesy in part. As we learn the more complete truth, them that which is in part is cast away. Doubt is simply the mechanism you use to improve your understanding of reality.
So it is with our testimony. It grows over time, as we mature, but it also changes. Things we once were sure about turn out to be not literally true, so we need to refine our beliefs. Most importantly, we learn that something does not have to be literally true if it points to a higher reality. Myths, parables, allegories, and fables teach profound truths without being literally true.
So it is with the church. Line upon line, precept upon precept, we as members gain an understanding of eternal truth. That which lies beyond is not to be found in the literal stories of the church, but in the personal experience with the divine.
Welcome!
What wayfarer said, word-for-word. There’s nothing wrong with not knowing. There’s nothing wrong with questioning. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to understand better. There’s nothing wrong with seeing things differently than others.
Period.
I’ll just add that perhaps you AREactually a good example for the other priests in your quorum. Show them how to be a good person, to love others, to serve and be served, to be a positive part of your community … while having doubts or seeking for more clear and important truth. There’s a good chance that others might feel as you do right now, but have not voiced it so that you are aware. And most certainly there will be those who will experience what you do in the future.
Joseph Smith was a doubter and never satisfied for long with the status quo. I’d feel comfortable saying that he never got over that in his lifetime. That’s why he constantly sought answers. It’s a different way of looking at doubt, but in a positive way.
Brian how is everything you write on this forum so profound? It’s uncanny. bc_pg wrote:Brian how is everything you write on this forum so profound? It’s uncanny.
it’s because he is god. think about it. he is, but not as ‘brian’. as bagger vance said, “he is but he isn’t”.We coined the term “Brianesque” a long time ago here. Looks like we should resurrect it. :shh: Brian Johnston wrote:
Joseph Smith was a doubter and never satisfied for long with the status quo. I’d feel comfortable saying that he never got over that in his lifetime. That’s why he constantly sought answers. It’s a different way of looking at doubt, but in a positive way. Yeah.
And welcome to stayLDS.
I have almost 3,000 posts. It’s more like the Infinite Monkey Theorem. I’m bound to accidentally type something coherent now and then. 😆 wayfarer wrote:Things we once were sure about turn out to be not literally true, so we need to refine our beliefs. Most importantly, we learn that something does not have to be literally true if it points to a higher reality. Myths, parables, allegories, and fables teach profound truths without being literally true.
This is a really profound idea. I’ve been reading fiction as a source of inspiration and truth for years, and the fact that it was not true in a literal sense never bothered me. It was really hard for me to try and see the LDS scriptures the same way though. I’m coming to embrace the idea that the Book of Mormon can still be ‘true’ because of what it teaches even if it never happened historically. It is helping to feel more at peace with the church. It’s a strange paradoxical idea, I know, but truth often seems that way at first.
leavingthecave25 wrote:This is a really profound idea. I’ve been reading fiction as a source of inspiration and truth for years, and the fact that it was not true in a literal sense never bothered me. It was really hard for me to try and see the LDS scriptures the same way though. I’m coming to embrace the idea that the Book of Mormon can still be ‘true’ because of what it teaches even if it never happened historically. It is helping to feel more at peace with the church. It’s a strange paradoxical idea, I know, but truth often seems that way at first.
You are describing a vital and difficult shift in thinking that is key to truly living peacefully in a religious environment once a faith transition has begun. I don’t think we can actually think our way through this, it has to be LIVED. But books and spiritually mature mentors (Guru’s) can help us. If there’s one name I can’t recommend enough, it’s Joseph Campbell. He wasn’t Mormon or even particularly religious at all, but he GOT IT! It was his life’s work to explore this exact paradox.
The works of Dr. Joseph Campbell, in order of usefulness and ease of reading:
The Hero with a Thousand Facesseeker wrote:…It was great and I have never felt the Spirit stronger than in that experience. However, doubts have surfaced in my mind about the origins of the Book of Mormon, women’s roles in the Church, and the Church’s stances on gay marriage and homosexuality.
As first assistant in my priest’s quorum, I feel an obligation to be an example to the other priests, teachers, and deacons, and also to the friend whom I baptized. At times I feel ridden with guilt that my doubts…
Remember when you felt the Spirit! There was a good reason for you to have that experience.I agree that you should not feel guilty.
Do you have specific concerns about the origins of the Book of Mormon?
The role of women issue has bothered me before, but I’m cool with it now. I witnessed a sealing in the temple yesterday and the sealer said to the groom “You are the head of a
co-equalpartnership” and he really did stress the co-equal part. I don’t think holding the Priesthood makes men better than women. I see it as a responsibility and it just makes roles different. Regarding the stance on same-sex marriage, I think the Church is resisting changes being forced on us rather than being the one trying to force others. “…a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.” Here is a source that may shed some light on the issue:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage Seeker…I think you have some valid concerns. Good luck on your journey. What do you do? You do what is best for you and your family….what the spirit tells you to do. And that might not be what you’ve been told to expect, or what many of your church leaders are going to tell you you should do.
Shawn wrote:The role of women issue has bothered me before, but I’m cool with it now. I witnessed a sealing in the temple yesterday and the sealer said to the groom “You are the head of a
co-equalpartnership” and he really did stress the co-equal part. I don’t think holding the Priesthood makes men better than women. I see it as a responsibility and it just makes roles different. I never really understood why some folks struggled with the patriarchy and male priesthood issue…until I was banned from participating in so many church activities. I’m a male, and I am not allowed to serve in most callings, or participate in most priesthood functions and ordinations…because I am an “apostate.”
Women can’t hold most callings or participate in most priesthood functions and ordinations because….because…they don’t have a penis?
Yeah, I get it now. Sorry women. Sorry jwald. I understand the pain that patriarchy is causing some of the members.
seeker wrote:However, doubts have surfaced in my mind about the origins of the Book of Mormon, women’s roles in the Church, and the Church’s stances on gay marriage and homosexuality.
Here’s the ‘staple’ answer: The gospel is perfect; the church is not.
You may be surprised to know that many of the things we have in the church are man-made or inspired by other member’s examples.
I was reading a post on the other forum asking if the Sunday School President has to be a man/priesthood holder. I don’t recall anything in the D&C about that, but others were quick to point out that ‘yes, it does’. Yet, Sunday School was organized by members and then ‘adopted’ as an official auxiliary later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_School_(LDS_Church) Quote:The first formal Sunday School in the LDS Church was held on December 9, 1850 in Salt Lake City under the direction of Richard Ballantyne, a former Sunday School teacher in the Relief Presbyterian Church in Scotland. Lacking a suitable building to hold the meeting in, Ballantyne invited his students into his own home; approximately thirty Latter-day Saint children between the ages of 8 and 14 attended. The local congregation that Ballantyne belonged to—the Salt Lake City Fourteenth Ward—quickly adopted Ballantyne’s Sunday School program and integrated it with regular Sunday meetings. Other LDS congregations followed the Fourteenth Ward’s example and adopted Sunday School programs based on the Ballantyne model. At this stage, each Sunday School was completely autonomous and under the sole direction of the local bishop.
So, in my mind, the Sunday School could be led by anyone who was called by those in authority.
As far as origins of The Book of Mormon… well, I encourage you to get out of it what you need and continue to grow your faith.
For gay marriage & homosexuality, it’s a difficult subject. I do know that it is a sin for those who are exposed to the laws of the Lord. I know we need to treat everyone with pure love and kindness. I love all people as individuals, but I must admit to not liking the LGBT political movement. I have a childhood friend who is now in a civil union with another man. He’s a good person, but no longer active in the church. I was glad for his decision and told him that I wish everyone to find happiness where they can find it – and that I simply don’t like the political movements. He seemed to appreciate that sentiment – to show that I’m not a ‘LGBT hateful LDS’ person that the media could make us out to be, yet I stand in the faith of how I choose to vote for the laws of the land.
On this particular topic, my stance is this: Don’t change the definition of marriage. However, if there are ANY laws that show more favoritism towards ‘married’ couples versus civil unions, I will help and vote to change those laws. Just don’t change the definition of marriage. Well, that seems to be where the LGBT movement wants to go – to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. I can support everything up to that point.
That’s just me – and I don’t know if that helps, but I hope it does.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.