- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
wonderingcurrent wrote:
Personally, this is why I say, “Yes” to the questions. Honestly it isn’t the questions on the TR interview that bug me. Its the assumption that everything is doctrine and of the Lord. That excuse was used up at School on more then one occasion for things to happen. (I went to BYU-Idaho, have graduated), It just doesn’t make sense to me. No not everything is of the Lord in a Church, in which the Lord gives men agency to do as they see fit so long as they follow certain commandments.
You’re better off saying yes to the questions that involve testimony, relying on the “shades of belief” concept — that the questions which say “do you believe” can be interpreted at multiple levels.
If you think about it, the Church has little claim on us except the embarrassment of not being able to participate in certain ordinances, as well as the cultural stigma. The general approach of “I have a testimony but I have commitment problems due to [insert near unsolveable problem here]” held me in good stead many years ago. And after I got my commitment back, it didn’t limit me one bit in terms of cultural and ordinance-related priviledges when my commitment finally caught up with my beliefs at the time.
They will quote scripture at you — whatever applies, and some of the hard nosed leaders will threaten you with losing your salvation (that has happened to me twice, once in a general statement at Stake Conference, and once to my face from a HC in a meeting), or snub you, but that is the price of the freedom to progress and grow at your own pace. You need to have answers to the scripture-quoting that are personal, not rebuttals using our scriptures lest you be labelled apostate.
At least I know that every time I served in an official capacity after my commitment crisis ended, I did so with integrity and authenticity — and only when I had the commitment and belief to be real. And when I wasn’t full of commitment, I was also full of integrity in acting at a level that matched my current state of mind.
And I continue with that today.
I’ve been away for a few days and I have’t read the entire thread, especially in detail. I do want to make some points that might have already been made. Baptism is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance. It does not require a temple recommend which implies it does not require temple worthiness.
Go look at chapter 20 in handbook 2. It’s on the Church website and is available to all. You don’t need an account. You can find the handbook under serving in the church.
Thoreau wrote:I’ve been away for a few days and I have’t read the entire thread, especially in detail. I do want to make some points that might have already been made.
Baptism is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance. It does not require a temple recommend which implies it does not require temple worthiness.
Go look at chapter 20 in handbook 2. It’s on the Church website and is available to all. You don’t need an account. You can find the handbook under serving in the church.
it appears like the SP was trying to weed out some apostasy, and used the opportunity of a father wanting to baptise his child as a way to put a lever on a confession. It doesn’t seem that the SP was following the manual on this one.wayfarer wrote:Thoreau wrote:I’ve been away for a few days and I have’t read the entire thread, especially in detail. I do want to make some points that might have already been made.
Baptism is an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance. It does not require a temple recommend which implies it does not require temple worthiness.
Go look at chapter 20 in handbook 2. It’s on the Church website and is available to all. You don’t need an account. You can find the handbook under serving in the church.
it appears like theSP was trying to weed out some apostasy, and used the opportunity of a father wanting to baptise his child as a way to put a lever on .… I would say this is exactly true. EXACTLY. My own family and church leaders tried to use jwald and my kids against me. When they made me choose, and jwald choose, and we decided that WE were more important than the church, all this church pressure and discipline kind of went away. I think my family and leaders were surprised – almost like they expected jwald to “put me in my place” and “get my act together.” Unfortunate, all too often the church uses family against family to protect their own interest. That is wrong. That is not god-like or christian-like in any sense of the term. It’s just flat out wrong and needs to end.
The sorry part of this kind of crap, is I should never have had to choose. jwald should never have had to make the choices in regards to her husband and church. And Strebor and his wife should not be put in this place where they have to make these choices in regards to faith and family. This is ecclesiastical emotional and spiritual bullying and it needs to end.
I experienced the same feelings of betrayal when a priesthood leader, who lives around the corner from me, and sees me regularly, thought it best to go behind my back to pump my wife for information about my commitment-loss. SD, I just spewed coffee all over the counter. I get what you are saying but you may want to change some of your wordage. 
cwald wrote:SD, I just spewed coffee all over the counter. I get what you are saying but you may want to change some of your wordage.
😆 careful, you might be thought to have a👿 mind…cwald wrote:The sorry part of this kind of crap, is I should never have had to choose. jwald should never have had to make the choices in regards to her husband and church. And Strebor and his wife should not be put in this place where they have to make these choices in regards to faith and family. This is ecclesiastical emotional and spiritual bullying and it needs to end.
indeed. religious abuse and harrassment is perfectly evil.I’m glad someone else caught that wording, cwald. 😳 😳 Yeah, it’s good to put a little light-heartedness in this crappy thread. Thanks SD – whether it was deliberate or not. It wasn’t intentional. I only got it when I read it a second time. I had a follow-up re-wording to post here that only reinforced the hidden meaning but i took it down as it was too risque. It made me laugh SD —- thanks. wayfarer wrote:Since church leaders often cannot handle doubt and nuance, then the only way to answer these questions if you have faith is in the confident affirmative, ‘Yes I do, absolutely’. Don’t go into any further details, because you don’t need to. Faith is a personal thing.
To which I would add:
Quote:But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Matthew 5:37
I don’t know if they still do this, but at one time BYU students were required to periodically fill out a questionaire or write an essay (can’t recall which) to their ecclesiastical leader explaining why they were worthy to continue in attendance. A friend of mine would write “Yea, yea” on his and send it in. They called him on it.
doug wrote:Quote:But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Matthew 5:37
I don’t know if they still do this, but at one time BYU students were required to periodically fill out a questionaire or write an essay (can’t recall which) to their ecclesiastical leader explaining why they were worthy to continue in attendance. A friend of mine would write “Yea, yea” on his and send it in. They called him on it.
Ecclesiastical endorsement — not an essay, but something filled out between student and BP. Required confessional as a prerequisite for continued enrollment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.