YellowLight

I am mixing the kool aid as I type this. We can all gather around and drink it...

I heard somewhere that they were going to make these available online by using your membership number I would assume. Hmmm....who knows if it is true or not.

Gwen, Fortunately we have two small children and I am sure there will be other children there from her fiances family. So, another way that that works out perfectly. Of course then they would be associating with apostates and shouldn't enter the Temple. Just kidding

My DW spoke to her sister last night and she wants us there for the wedding. In all honesty, the sealing is only 30 minutes long, from walking in to the finish, so we figure we can just walk the grounds and make sure the camera guy is all set up for when they come out. Sounds like a good fit for everyone to be happy. Many thanks to those here who have been more than helpful. Even though I don't believe the same things anymore, I still hold you with high respect. And, see, all apostates aren't that bad after all. :)

Thank you to everyone who has chimed in on this thus far. Our temple recommends have been expired for a while and even if they were current, we could not honestly attend. Your niece’s brother must have a good character and be a very honest man. I think you are right. Unfortunately, there is usually a lot of backlash that happens when a family member leaves and DW knows that her dad will be completely devastated. DW wants to be a part of this as it is a big day for her sister. Maybe we could plan on showing up when they are planning to get out, so that way we are not just sitting around but will still be there in time for the pictures. Also, as you mentioned, the last thing we want to do is take away the focus of the wedding for us leaving. It is our decision to leave and should be respected just as it should be for every religion. Thanks again.

It has been a while since I have posted on this forum as my beliefs have changed significantly over the last year. My DW and I no longer believe the church to be true, meaning that it is the one and only way to God and that we should now be completely miserable people without it. We are surprisingly happier and enjoying life more than we ever have despite the fact that we are now “under the control of Satan” as the church would put it. The upcoming Sunday School lesson “The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy” should explain how miserable we are supposed to be. At any rate, DW and I have no quarrels with the church and we didn’t leave for the typical reasons that people like to assume…I guess it makes it seem more valid for them to assume we were offended or sinned. Both of our families are still active in the church and we have no intentions of stopping them or derailing their testimonies. That was the milk…here is the meat. My DW’s sister is engaged to be married in the fall in the Temple. DW told her sister that she no longer believes but she is keeping it a secret from the rest of her family until DW is ready to tell them. DW doesn’t know yet whether or not she wants to attend the wedding and sit outside for the 30 minutes, just attend the small open house and be seen as the apostate, or not attend at all. DW and her sister have a very close relationship, in fact when DW told her about leaving the church, they both cried together as a lot is given up by leaving the church. I know DW just wants her sister to be comfortable and try to enjoy the wedding day, so, the question is this…have any of you faced a similar situation where someone was getting married and a family member could not attend, what did you do, and what do you feel would be the best option for DW and her sister?

You may certainly ask those and any other questions you may have. I am BIC, although my parents were converts before I was born. I served a mission and was married in the temple. And, yes, I recieved a testimony just like many other people of other faiths receive testimonies of their religion, through prayer and fasting. I have even seen miracles just like others in every other religion, organized or not. Did I get worn out...absolutely not. I think if you thought your religion was THE only way to salvation, it wouldn't matter if you were worn out, offended, or any of the other reasons you hear why people leave. It is all to make you feel better and place blame on the person who left...the church is perfect, he must have done something wrong. I have not removed my name from the church records yet because of the strong hold that the church has on people's families and the stigma that is placed on them. The church has done well to reinforce this with temple marriage and such. I actually had the bishop come over today and he told us we are breaking the line of the gospel being taught to our children and their children. Good, we shall teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. The church does not hold exclusive rights on kindness, equality, happiness, or salvation. That is my .02 cents.

What about Krispy Kreme Doughnuts? I can eat a dozen in a sitting.

There are many reasons that people do not wish to engage the missionaries or be baptized. I think one of the primary reasons is that people are generally happy with their life. If someone is happy in their current life, why would they change? Why do you think the church has missionaries focus on those who have recently been divorced or been through some emotional distress...it is because they are more likely to reach out.

I am LDS on paper only. My current belief tends to lead me toward the agnostic views.

I would really like to know what shook your testimony I would have to say that the Book of Abraham was the turning point for me. Also, I feel that the character of Joseph Smith was unbecoming of a prophet. Many of the teachings and sermons are also ever changing when God is never changing. What would JS have to have been like for you to accept him as a prophet? I don't think I can. I say this because I feel like if I were to say...he should have been more honest or something, I don't think we would have started the church. What are your feelings about the BoM? I think the BoM is a good book that one can learn a great deal from. I would like to think that it has helped me build upon my character and who I am today. However, I also think that I can get teachings similar in the Koran, or from the many great philosophers of history. Doesn't mean they are true. Where will you go if you leave the church? I have not decided yet. My wife and I are still in the process of figuring things out. We have not taken our names off the records of the church and do not plan to do so only for fear of being ostracized from our families. It is sad, but true, and happens quite often. Also, I think God is more concerned with my character and how I treat my fellow man than what underwear I am wearing or if I know my secret name. Do you think you will not fall into transgression if you don't have the strength of your faith? According to the church, I am an apostate so I am not sure where that leaves me with this question. Am I Anti-mormon? No. But, I do exercise my freedom of speech with close friends as I travel on this journey. I hope this gives you a "little" insight as to where I am at in life.

Yeah...that would be a good idea. I am sure that wouldn't turn out to be biased by any means.

Know this, members will look at you and wonder how you could marry someone that you will not be sealed to. Having a relationship with different religions is possible with respect for each other and their individual beliefs. All I am saying is that it will be difficult as you may be seen as a second class citizen, maybe not. I have seen this first hand and it isn't the church's fault but that of the members.

Exactly. How do you tell people who are of another faith that their religion is wrong or does not contain all the truth when they can say the same thing to you. I have prayed about it and God told me that my religion is true and that mormonism is false. How do you respond?

Edited: No temple content. You know better than that. The next time I see a quote from you, there better bet a link to it. Seraphim

Yes, I think that was a poor word choice on my part. Your "different" is a much better terminology. Thank you. Well, I am saying that the church claims to be the one and only true church on the face of the whole earth, isn't that true? That means the others are not 100% true, they are lacking some truth. Also, in response to others, I am only saying that there are millions of other people who claim to have had prayed and received the answer that what they are practicing is true.

It does matter though. God is a God of order. This is the biggest question I have...If history does not line up or there are large contradictions with the restoration of the Christ's church, how can we know it is right. There is more evidence showing that something is wrong. However, some people say they still know it is true, no matter what evidence is shown to them. If Joseph Smith came and visited each member and told them it wasn't true, there are many that would still believe. This is due to your testimony based on feelings from the holy spirit. The question is, every other religion in the world says they received a confirmation almost identical to the one you received. Thus, how do you know you are right, and the other 6,000,000,000 people on earth are wrong?

Not ALL the oaths and their signs are still in place...think 1990.

Exactly. I guess I am trying to express myself through many of the things that I have just recently studied in church history. We all know that the past leaders of the church are not perfect. I am not saying that. Let's not even go that route and say that certain things were not hidden, but we are purely misinformed. Or maybe something just doesn't make sense to us. By searching into the history to answer these simple questions, more and more questions do come up. This happens to anyone searching any sort of history, whether it be that of the church or of something else. Why does the church not try to rectify the most prominent questions facing many of us? I have only begun to look into the history of the church and I know that I will run accross things that can be cleared up or answered with ease by those who have seen them before. I also understand that there are certain aspects that I will never understand in this lifetime. I just hope that all of you will be patient while I work through this. That is why I am here. Thank you.

Snow, You seem to be pretty good at twisting things yourself. So you are telling me that someone created a copy of a fake? Hmmm.... Yes, that sounds plausible. You also seem to be under the illusion that there is no possible way that the leaders of the church could ever be fooled by anything, is that right? Do we really need to dive into the Book of Abraham and what about the Hoffman incident? So much for the power of discernment huh? It is people like you that make crazy accusations that there couldn't possibly be anything to what millions of others are saying. You take your side and twist it however it fits your needs. I have been trying to take an objective approach to all of this. However, I can clearly discern what kind of spirit you have.

Sorry to anyone who feels as though I was being accusatory. I do not wish to cause any contention here. There are plenty of other sites out there that would provide that. Thanks.

OK, so true colors means asking questions that we should never ask. We should just let this roll right off our backs, close our eyes, and blindly follow, right? Well let's see, what was the most recent change in the temple ceremony? Was this something that was done for convenience and to speed up the process? Absolutely, there is no other reason for it. And, you should know what I am talking about. OK, seriously...is this a trap. You want examples? You are trying to get me to tell you what some of the changes are in the temple endowment ceremony. Are you sure you want to go down that route? Good. I'm glad we agree that only the first presidency can make changes to the endowment and other ordinances. :) What would be the reason for omitting certain parts of the endowment session? It's not like it made it any clearer. I think you know what I'm talking about. Maybe it was changed so it wouldn't scare people away. I don't know. You are right...overall the endowment meaning is still the same. So, why the changes?

"Now the purpose in Himself in the winding up scene of the last dispensation is that all things pertaining to that dispensation should be conducted precisely in accordance with the preceding dispensations.... He set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them." - The Prophet Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol.4, p. 208 "As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering." - W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982 However, we know that there have been some changes made in temple endowment. Some say they are minor, I disagree. These changes are being made by the first presidency. First they are not supposed to change it. Second, how do we know the changes are correct? Even Brigham Young taught false doctrine.

I don't think that has any relevance to any of my questions. But, are you saying that many members of the church on this board would trash him? Hmmmm....

OK, this is the original: William Clayton wrote "I have seen 6 brass plates... covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth." (William Clayton's Journal, May 1, 1843, as cited in Trials of Discipleship - The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, p. 117) I am not trying to beat a dead horse here but the question that still remains is that Clayton writes that Joseph Smith said "they contain the history..." Why would he say this if he knew they were fake? If he had the power of discernment he would not have said this.