- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yep, the challenge used to be for heterodox members. Now it is for traditionally orthodox members. I think the experience serves as a good example of how doubts can come about for reasons other than the often assumed laziness or sin. In fact one of the reasons for such doubts may very well be a level of obedience to a policy or principle that compels one to openly defend it in public only later to discover that it was a simple philosophy of man. Or in other words it is a legitimate doubt because it is the result of obedience and proactiveness applied toward an incorrect principle. Add a “how long have you known about this?” to the equation and it further complicates the matter. In his story I see that he obtained a similar blessing that I obtained as a result of having a faith transition. One I commonly see referenced by members on this site. He came away with an increased love and tolerance of people and their beliefs. If there’s ever a conflict between church policy and being charitable towards someone the choice is now unbound, unrestricted, and clear.
I too was caught off guard about the face in the hat and the peep stone. In the article he says:
Quote:What am I now to make of the ‘truth of the matter’ when it speaks neither to my heart nor my soul. What am I to make of a story I find confounding and frankly bizarre?
To me finding gold plates and using a “urim and thummim” was about as bizarre as it got, yet I still had to shelve an issue when I found out about the peep stone. Why? Ii was seen as foreign to a narrative that I had accepted as truth. That and going back to the apparent secrecy. Why was it a secret? It was a difficult chore back in the day to read anything about Joseph’s peep stones. I had to search high and low and there still was little clear information to go on.
That’s probably why the church finally took action. The Pandora’s box that is the internet has been opened and I’m sure they figure it’s best to remove the secrecy element and if they are going to ask people to believe a bizarre narrative it might as well be the one that includes the peep stones. Bite the bullet now so they won’t have larger issues in the future, of course the time to do that would have been a long time ago but they’ve got to start sometime.
Quote:As we discussed these issues in class, some High Priests were visibly mortified, others bewildered, and a few exhilarated.
Frankly I think it’s amazing that the material was brought before a class. I’d like to see more of that if nothing more than to assuage the problem he cites, an us vs. them between the people that hold to the traditional stories and the people that are armed with the “facts” of today. I know that if I shared the info from some of the recently published articles on lds.org in church next Sunday I’d probably be harshly corrected and branded an anti. People have believed the false version for generations, it has shaped their mindset. This info has got to be better disseminated at some point but I realize that the change won’t happen over night.
About Uchtdorf’s talk. Most of the time GC talks have a takeaway, some small message that stick with people. I could be very,very wrong but I fear that the TBM takeaway from Uchtdorf’s talk was “doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith” which from some perspectives can be taken to mean “don’t believe the information you are discovering, believe the church.” No one remembers the portion of the talk related to making room for those that doubt. I think the talk was seen very differently by different people. Like everything I guess.
Shoe’s on the other foot. The chickens are coming home to roost. Quote:As we discussed these issues in class, some High Priests were visibly mortified, others bewildered, and a few exhilarated. Maybe this signals a return to the kind of lessons where plenty of heated discussion, peppered with rampant speculation was the order of the day. The kind of high priest’s banter that occurred before correlation and before our lively discussion were suppressed by our rigid adherence to a strict curriculum.
That would be interesting, unlikely but interesting. It would be nice to be able to discuss these things without being seeing as a troublemaker or apostate but the reality is, essays on LDS.org not withstanding, people like things to be the way they’ve always been and when they find out something different, things don’t always go well. A good example recently is the guy from England that’s suing TSM. Given he’s had his second annointing, that’s a long way for a shelf to fall.
I loved this post. I could have written it. He states exactly what my issues are now, and I love the parting comment: Quote:
Isn’t it interesting that today’s challenge to our faith is coming directly from the church?
It’s interesting how different the reactions to this are across the net. I read them and wished they had gone even further with the detail and the candour. For others it’s rocking the boat.
I so related to this post. I wish most members comprehended the depth of this challenge so as to at least support others DBMormon wrote:I so related to this post. I wish most members comprehended the depth of this challenge so as to at least support others
Great to see you with us DB.
I agree, sometimes it seems we get treated like the “broken” ones or the even the “rebellious” ones. “
If you could just have more faith…“ I think the church realised it was between a rock and a hard place. People were clamouring for the church to be more open and join the discussion. In doing so, they’ve brought people into the discussion who had no interest in it and, as long as it was not being held in an official LDS space, would have most likely continued avoiding it.
There will of course be people who continue avoiding joining the discussion or dismiss these new websites and articles (a friend believes the mormonsandgays website does not truly reflect the views of the brethren at all and that they are “lying for The Lord” to protect the church).
But… These essays are also a gift to us. It means that we can talk about some of the issues openly and confidently.
mackay11 wrote:DBMormon wrote:There will of course be people who continue avoiding joining the discussion or dismiss these new websites and articles (a friend believes the mormonsandgays website does not truly reflect the views of the brethren at all and that they are “lying for The Lord” to protect the church).
Really, “lying for the Lord?” I’ve not heard that one before. I have many doubts and I think I just gained a new one – I doubt the Lord would have us lie or condone us lying. I do understand that many members choose to ignore or just plain really don’t know about some of the church’s stances on some things. As is said here fairly frequently, the ship is turning.
DarkJedi wrote:Really, “lying for the Lord?” I’ve not heard that one before. I have many doubts and I think I just gained a new one – I doubt the Lord would have us lie or condone us lying. I do understand that many members choose to ignore or just plain really don’t know about some of the church’s stances on some things. As is said here fairly frequently, the ship is turning.
I’ll share one story I heard a long time ago. A member told the story of how they were blessed when someone came by collecting the monthly rent.
Rent collector: Do you have the rent this month? Oh wait, did you already pay it?
The member was short on money and did not have enough to pay the rent. The member then related that the spirit told them to lie to the rent collector. They didn’t want to lie but the spirit insisted, and that was how they were blessed to cover the rent that month.
So yes, Nephi kind of set a precedent.
nibbler wrote:
I’ll share one story I heard a long time ago. A member told the story of how they were blessed when someone came by collecting the monthly rent.Rent collector: Do you have the rent this month? Oh wait, did you already pay it?
The member was short on money and did not have enough to pay the rent. The member then related that the spirit told them to lie to the rent collector. They didn’t want to lie but the spirit insisted, and that was how they were blessed to cover the rent that month.
So yes, Nephi kind of set a precedent.
Just wow. Of course the property owner must have been widely known as a tyrant so it was no injustice to rob from him.
DarkJedi wrote:I doubt the Lord would have us lie or condone us lying.
We know who the father of all lies is. This was a big one for me in the beginning and helped to form my conclusion that polygamy as practiced could not have come from God.
I also see the ship turning, and I think it is a glorious thing even if it doesn’t happen as fast as we would like.
nibbler wrote:
I’ll share one story I heard a long time ago. A member told the story of how they were blessed when someone came by collecting the monthly rent.Rent collector: Do you have the rent this month? Oh wait, did you already pay it?
The member was short on money and did not have enough to pay the rent. The member then related that the spirit told them to lie to the rent collector. They didn’t want to lie but the spirit insisted, and that was how they were blessed to cover the rent that month.
So yes, Nephi kind of set a precedent.
That is a sad, disturbing and unfortunate story, and one that I’m sure isn’t entirely unheard of. However, we have to be careful not to generalize this type of occurrence. Are there members of the Church that would feel comfortable with the idea of doing this because they “felt the spirit” reassuring them that this was some divine providence? Sure. But given the same scenario (landlord says, “wait, did you already pay this month?”) and taking into account the total body of members of the Church and the total body of non-members of the Church, I believe the scale would tip heavily in favor of the members to be more honest. I guarantee you that there exists a significant percentage of the general population who would retell that story and how they said, “Yeah, I already paid” and there would be no remorse or justification needed. They would tell the story with a triumphant laugh.The vast majority of members of the Church I know are fine citizens that would never consider cheating someone out of what was rightfully theirs, even if they could “get away with it”. I also think that the majority of the general populace would fall into the same category, but I wouldn’t consider it the “vast” majority.
DarkJedi wrote:mackay11 wrote:DBMormon wrote:There will of course be people who continue avoiding joining the discussion or dismiss these new websites and articles (a friend believes the mormonsandgays website does not truly reflect the views of the brethren at all and that they are “lying for The Lord” to protect the church).
Really, “lying for the Lord?” I’ve not heard that one before. I have many doubts and I think I just gained a new one – I doubt the Lord would have us lie or condone us lying. I do understand that many members choose to ignore or just plain really don’t know about some of the church’s stances on some things. As is said here fairly frequently, the ship is turning.
I actually think the Lord on some rare occasions would condone our lying and perhaps even ask it of us. Take for an example if a perpetrator broke into your home and asked where your kids were? Would God be ok and perhaps even want us to lie about there whereabouts? how about hiding a jew in your home in WW2? if the Nazi came to your door are you required to be honest to them?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.