- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Excellent thread thank you! I would add some to this:
1) BOM
– Cumorah location as defined in the book is clearly not in upstate NY
– Barges that carried the Jaredites seems impossible (a years supply of everything, sanitation, space, etc)
– Text changes (deemphasis on racial issues and slight changes to doctrine)
2) LBGT
– Push towards mixed orientation marriages is dangerous
– Financial/Tithing assistance to Prop 8 and challenges
3) Racial issues
– Slavery support (divine institution)
– Modern denial of reasoning
– Support for apartheid
4) Finances
– Mall/BYU costs (worldwide church)
– Humanitarian Aid fund sitting idle in UK church account for years (2004-2011)
5) Masonic connections
– Huge overlap in ceremony and details
– Changes over the years to cover this up
6) Political opinions
– Right Wing opinions seen as truth (guns, abortion, capital punishment)
– Anti-Communism from Apostles and prophets
7) Academia
– Supression of academics at BYU
– Attempts to censor
– Excommunication of academics
TL; DR. Hope this is of interest
thanks for the input….. this gives me a lot to chew on. It is quite impressive how we all see these things differently. Kumahito wrote:brit-exmo wrote:I remember a big thing that initially caused me to think the church possibly not inspired in all things was the perpetual education fund.
For years I had been taught in church that we should stay out of debt, and avoid it except for house purchases. Then here is the church setting itself up as a loan company! They even charged interest and asked for members to donate to the initial capital.
What would happen if someone defaulted on the loan? Would the church send the baliffs round to turf someone out of their house, and take their possessions as repayment???
Thinking all these things through made me think the leadership had a case of ‘do as i say not as i do’
It’s funny how we all have different perspectives on things. When I heard about the PEF, I thought “This is one of the best ideas I’ve heard from the Church in a long, long time” and promptly donated to it. Perhaps I have a little more faith in it because I know quite well the guy the Church has running it. Anyway, some say “to-MAY-to” and some say “to-MAH-to.”
I’d agree with this one (sorry, don’t want to thread derail DB). PEF is something I like the sound of. I think the principle of a low interest load actually gives more self-accountability than just another grant. My father-in-law has lent us big sums of money in the past to help with house and business ventures. He always asks for a small (2-3% interest payment). It helps us remember we owe it back. It also means his money isn’t sat depreciating.
Not wanting to go off on a PEF tangent, but more thinking about how things bother people more than others.
For me, and I’m not sure why, Polygamy is not a big, big issue for me. Sure, I think it’s a bit odd to marry other people’s wives and teenagers. But I don’t think it was viewed the way 21st C look back and view it. Besides, if he was called as prophet in 1820, then the polygamy can claim some validity.
I think that’s why I’m currently obsessing about the first 10 years (1820-1830). If I find that the evidence suggests that he’s self-appointed rather than chosen, then it changes my perspective on everything that follows.
Current issue–acknowledging homosexuality is not a choice on one hand and calling it a moral issue on the other hand. Canucknuckle wrote:I have several but at the core my biggest issues surround:
Cultural norms that are treated as doctrine.
Bingo. I would love to hear a whole series of podcasts on that one.Eman, I’d have to agree that one of the bigger barriers in our house is trusting emotion as conveying truth. I believe in the Holy Ghost. I’ve had experiences that are hard to explain. But I think we too often use emotional manipulation to evoke a response. And then we jump to conclude that if something brought strong feeling, it’s obviously ALL true. Does that make sense? How do we trust feeling as a source of knowledge? I struggle with exclusivity claims, the “one and only true church,” need for temple ordinances, etc. Why priesthood authority and restoration?
The role of women in the church and our unknown role in the eternities troubles me. Why are we silent on Heavenly Mother? Gender issues in general are big-including homosexuality issues.
Joseph Smith and polyandry. Even though polygamy doesn’t particularly bother me, the possibility of coercion does. Also any type of Ecclesiastical abuse or misuse of power.
The way we teach chastity. I am in FAVOR of chastity.
😮 ) But I think we do a lousy job teaching people this topic. And really is ALL sexual sin next to murder? I have a son entering adolescence soon and I’m scared for him. I will not tolerate the inquisition into his bedroom habits when he’s a teen. Don’t get me started on how we teach the girls…I struggle with punitive policies that may not be doctrinal but are enforced, and that hurt people. Like the 1 year waiting period for sealings after a civil marriage. Why can’t we be like Europe and spare parents missing the marriage of their own kids? Also dress and grooming norms. Policies that limit the contributions unmarried men over 30, or mothers with children, etc can make in the temple, seminary teaching, bishoprics, etc.
A God who seems totally non-interventionist, but then helps us find our missing car keys. I still struggle with that one. Not that you have to answer all of my personal questions.
Darn. Somehow I’m always posting twice. [
Fixed. I would have deleted this one, but it already got a response.
Thankful wrote:Darn. Somehow I’m always posting twice.
It just means what you’re saying is twice as important!
:clap: Can we cobble this together into some kind of list please, I see a lot of repetition? As I say, I think there is an overemphasis on history and intellectual issues. These don’t enter the realm of many members, active or not, or are peripheral. I think the roles of various groups, especially women, are extremely important, but whether Joseph Smith used a hat, an elephant or a kaleidoscope to translate the Book of Mormon is of little interest to me… it’s what I get out of that book which matters.
SamBee wrote:Can we cobble this together into some kind of list please, I see a lot of repetition?
As I say, I think there is an overemphasis on history and intellectual issues. These don’t enter the realm of many members, active or not, or are peripheral. I think the roles of various groups, especially women, are extremely important, but whether Joseph Smith used a hat, an elephant or a kaleidoscope to translate the Book of Mormon is of little interest to me… it’s what I get out of that book which matters.
And that’s what I love about this board. Beautiful in its diversity.
The church assumes inactivity results from personal offense. We assume historical stuff. When I speak to inactives here, neither of these tend to be the case.
It’s because they don’t like the lifestyle/think it too hard, have mental health issues, think women should have another role, dislike the uniform, pressure to be whatever, tithing, or simply like to sleep on Sunday morning. Also sexual and WoW issues.
Not once have the likes of treasure digging, Fanny Alger, Mountain Meadows or Freemasonry ever come up.Prove it. Do not make claims you can not substantiate with more than a feeling. If there was a shred of real evidence I would make the trip back on bended knee SamBee wrote:The church assumes inactivity results from personal offense. We assume historical stuff…When I speak to inactives here, neither of these tend to be the case…
It’s because they don’t like the lifestyle/think it too hard, have mental health issues, think women should have another role, dislike the uniform, pressure to be whatever, tithing, or simply like to sleep on Sunday morning. Also sexual and WoW issues… Not once have the likes of treasure digging, Fanny Alger, Mountain Meadows or Freemasonry ever come up.I’ve never assumed that the majority of inactive members fell away from the Church primarily because of historical problems. I agree that most inactive members whether in the UK, Utah, Idaho, South America, etc. simply didn’t like the active LDS lifestyle for various practical everyday reasons (the WoW, tithing, chastity, time consuming callings and boring meetings, etc.). However, I don’t believe that just because the majority of Church members whether active or inactive are probably not aware of most of these issues and don’t worry that much about the ones they are aware of that means these issues are not important or worth paying attention to at all.
I listed this many obscure issues simply because that’s what it took for me to finally write off the Church’s moral authority without much hope of ever looking at it the same way again instead of continuing to give the Church the benefit of the doubt time after time. In fact, I think many of the NOMs and ex-Mormons whose primary issues were historical problems, inconsistencies, and lack of testimony like this are much more significant than their relative numbers simply because so many of them are the type of members that had already accepted the LDS lifestyle and in the past would have generally continued believing in the Church and serving in the high council, bishopric, stake presidency, etc. as long as they felt like that’s what they were supposed to do.
However, now many long-time active members have left or are hanging on by a thread and probably will not strongly encourage their children to go on missions, get married in the temple, etc. the same way most of them would have done in the past because the combined weight of all the different issues quite often effectively shatters the why behind much of traditional Mormonism as we know it. So my point is that there have always been large numbers of inactive members of the type you mention as long as I can remember but before the internet it was much less likely that members that had already been active for years would suddenly lose their testimony over issues like this. You don’t need to be an intellectual, feminist, etc. or particularly interested in issues like this nowadays to stumble onto some website that will quickly expose serious problems with the Church’s story that are hard to deny even for completely average members.
I think SamBee and DA both have a point. It’s unlikely there’s a ‘fix this one’ issue for a lot of people. There are certainly problems that can be discussed and played down in significance, but deep down, there’s some disenfranchisement with the whole thing.
I can only really speak for myself, but I’m aware that I’d read some negative stuff before, but it only really stuck and hurt when I was also less emotionally engaged with church (a recent move, less connection at church). I was certainly not looking for an ‘out’ or a justification. I still want every reason to stay.
I also object to the conclusion drawn by some active members that people only cite intellectual issues “after they have decided to break their covenants.” (Midgeley etc). But just like very few people join the church when they are fully comfortable with life (preach my gospel instructs people to even go finding people in an emotionally fragile/vulnerable position), I would imagine very few people seriously consider the issues against (whether intellectual or other) at a time when church life is entirely secure, comfortable and fulfilling.
mackay11 wrote:But just like very few people join the church when they are fully comfortable with life (preach my gospel instructs people to even go finding people in an emotionally fragile/vulnerable position), I would imagine very few people seriously consider the issues against (whether intellectual or other) at a time when church life is entirely secure, comfortable and fulfilling.
I love it Mackay…If I still carried around paper scriptures in a tote I’d print this quote out and put this quote in there. It’s spot on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.