Saguaro

Members
  • Posts

    234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saguaro

  1. Lovely12, I recently listened a series of podcasts of an interview with Darron Smith, a black member of the church and former BYU professor, I found it very informative. You can find the podcasts here: Multimedia & Writing Archive | Mormon Stories Podcast Archive They are numbers 22, 23, & 24. There are other podcasts on that page regarding blacks and the priesthood but I haven't listened to any of them. Darron Smith has also written a book about his experiences: Amazon.com: Black and Mormon: Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron T. Smith: Books and he has he has his own website: DarronSmith.com I have not read the book nor looked at his website much, but the podcasts were very enlightening.
  2. Let me clarify, I said "trying to pass laws that make it illegal to even have alochol in site at a restaurant", key word being trying. If I recall correctly, and I may be recalling incorrectly, there was poposed legislation that would require all alcohol at a bar or restaurant to be behind a non see through partition, but the bill failed, I looked but couldn't find an article about it to link to. Actually, Utah's liquor laws were recently relaxed, a rule that the bar and restaruant areas had to be separated by a partition has been done away with. Deseret News | It's (Zion) 'curtains' for restaurant booze barriers
  3. I don't think there's anything wrong with going to social events or restaurants where alcohol is served. I don't live in Utah either, and most restaurants here have bars, but I have no desire to go to places that are just bars or night clubs. Sometimes being the only one not drinking at an event can be an opportuntiy to talk about the gospel when people ask you if you don't drink. Utah seems to in a world of its own in this regard, I don't understand why they insist on trying to pass laws that make it illegal to even have alochol in site at a restaurant, it has to be hidden behind a curtain. Do they think if kids walk into a restaurant and see a liquor bottle behind the bar that they are going to want to become drinkers? Where I live every grocery store has a liquor section, we walk through it every time we go shopping to go from the bakery to the deli. Doesn't bother me or my kids at all. Actually I think it's amusing to look at the prices on some of those bottles and wonder why anyone would pay so much to drink. Alot also depends a lot on where you live. I served my mission in Spain and we would often go into bars to get a soda or use the bathroom. Families with children would hang out at bars and cafes, it's just part of the culture. I recently returned to Spain for the first time with my wife, the first town we stopped at we went into a bar to have lunch. It brought back great memories.
  4. Whether you consider someone anti or not is often in the eye of the beholder. When my mother-in-law was visiting us last year she started reading my copy of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman, she immediately began taking down notes of all the anti stuff in the book. She is very conservative and orthodox and was offended by some of the things in the book. But the book is historically accurate, it's sold by Deseret Book, and Bushman is a believer, he deals with the more difficult aspects of early church history such as treasure digging, seer stones, and polygamy, but still comes out believing Joseph was a prophet, warts and all. But my MIL couldn't look past the fact that he was even bringing up things that weren't positive and uplifting, even though they were true. Other authors of scholarly works have done far worse, arriving at much different conclusions regarding the church.
  5. Looks like the tide is slowly turning. Eventuallly those fighting against legalizaing gay marriage will realize they're fighting a losing battle, just like those who fought for slavery, prohibition, and resisted the civil rights movement of the 60s. I can be morally against something yet still allow people their agency.
  6. I don't follow your logic. Why would they not be able to attend as a couple? How do you define that? If two women walk in the door, or two men walk in the door, does that make them a same sex couple and ineligible to attend? Do we screen people at the door to make sure they're not attending as a gay couple? Anyone who wants to attend church should be able to, whether they're gay or straight, alone or together, as long as they're respectful of the others in attendance. The coming to church stoned analogy doesn't make sense either, are you saying that coming to church "gay" is the same as coming to church stoned???
  7. I was struck by the term "unknown doctrines". They were unknown because they were purely speculative and arguably false. Like you said, the simple answer is we don't know, we don't know exactly what life was like in the pre-existence or who knew who when. This quote from Spencer W Kimball is very relevant:“Soul mates” are a fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price. "Gospel Classics: Oneness in Marriage", Ensign, October, 2002.
  8. I'm currently reading David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, it's a great book so far.
  9. A publicity stunt? I agree. In poor taste? Yes. But your argument about Satan trying to trick us into revealing the ceremony doesn't hold water. The temple ceremonies are already public information, all you have to do is search the internet and you can find them posted word for word by former members of the church.
  10. For those of you who doubt that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon check out this article on LDS.org, Russell M Nelson believes it. LDS.org - Ensign Article - A Treasured Testament
  11. Regarding the 95% number, I don't know if it's that high but there are certainly people in the church who do not know that Joseph practiced polygamy, my wife was one of them. She was raised in the church, very active, attended seminary, did all the right things, but did not know until about 8 months ago that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage, so she did some research and was shocked, it really rocked her testimony. I remember hearing something about it at one time, but never really gave it much thought or bothered to look into it. Even if people do know about it, I would guess many don't know how and to what extent he practiced it. Details like marrying women who were already married, initially hiding it from Emma, marrying a girl as young as 14, claims of fathering children, etc. Those are things that we definately don't talk about at church, so people are only going to find out about them if they do independent research, and then they are often not prepared for what they find out. Rough Stone Rolling does a good job of addressing these and other issues.
  12. I recently finished RSR, I thought it was great, a little dry in some places as a detailed history can be, but very interesting and enlightening in other places. There are so many things about Joseph Smith's life that we just gloss over or don't even talk about in Sunday School/RS/Priesthood (polygamy, polyandry, BofM translation using a seer stone in a hat, Book of Abraham, etc.) and this book isn't afraid to address those issues and still come out of it believing that JS is a prophet. We tend to expect perfection out of our general authorities but they are not perfect, and JS is no exception. He was the first prophet of the modern dispensation and he was learning and stumbling along the way as he learned and grew in his role. I too would recommend listening to John Dehlin's interviews of Dr Bushman, he has a great insight and perspective on Joseph Smith and the gospel in general.
  13. I'm not sure how to respond to your post. I will admit that you are right about the penalties being associated with revealing then name/sign/token rather than breaking the covenant, my memory is fuzzy as I only attended the endowment a few times before the change, and it was nearly 19 years ago. I find the tone of your post to be rather condescending. You are assuming that I, and many others who felt the same way about the penalties were not "spiritually in tune enough", "not born of the spirit", and (this one's my favorite) "not worthy of higher blessings". I understand that each person learns different things in the temple based on where they're at in their spiritual progression, but to bring their worthiness into question is offensive. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, I hope that is the case.
  14. I went to the temple for the first time in 1990 and then for a few times when I was in the MTC, I believe some changes occurred while I was on my mission. One change that was already mentioned was 'intercourse' to 'sexual relations', the poster said it was 30 years ago but I believe it was in the early 90s as I remember hearing 'intercourse' in the temple and thinking, wow, did they just say that here? Another change was the elimination of the penalties. Associated with each covenant was a penalty, I won't go into specifics but it involved actually doing hand and arm motions that mimicked inflicting bodily injury which would result if you broke the the covenant. I think it was a good thing to eliminate that as it evoked feelings of fear and violence rather than focusing on the positive aspect of the endowment. Another change, and I'm not sure when it happened, involved the part where the women covenants with their husband, I believe the word 'obey' was replaced with 'hearken'. A good change also in my opinion. The most recent changes involve less standing up and sitting back down. As others have said the temple ceremonies are largely symbolic, the words and procedures may change over time, usually for the better, but the overall purpose and message remains the same.
  15. First, let me tell you that you are not alone, many people are going through the same thing you are or have gone through it. For my wife it started earlier this year when she found out about JS and his wives, and I too have started to learn more about our history and have looked at things with a more critical eye. Since then we have met many other people who have had similar doubts, but yet remain in the church. Doubting and thinking are natural and human, don't feel like you've done anything wrong, no one would have a testimony of anything if they never doubted, questioned, or thought about these things. Regarding Joseph Smith, I know it's hard to swallow, especially if you've never learned of those things before. Many in the church try to explain it away as not being a big deal, or say that he was sealed to them after he died. Yet LDS historians (Compton, Bushman) have documented as many as 30 or more women that he was married to during his lifetime, some under age by today's standards, some already married. Joseph was convinced that that plural marriage was a commandment from God and he was doing the right thing. Maybe he was right, or maybe polygamy was just a big mistake that brought a lot of persecution upon the church for many years. What you have to decide is can you let that go, look past it, and still see Joseph as a Prophet? I for one can. Joseph did so many wonderful things and revealed so many great things, but he was also human, prone to make mistakes. I too did not support Prop 8, here in Arizona we had a similar one, prop 102. We were asked to go door to door, make phone calls, etc., but I did not participate. The first presidency counseled us to support marriage, I believe the best way to support marriage is to make my marriage the best it can be for me, my wife and my kids, not force my idea of marriage on others through legislation. I did not speak out against the church or its actions, I quietly followed by conscience by not supporting prop 102 and voting as I saw fit, never has the church ever told us how to vote. I'm not sure any of this will help you, but I do hope your testimony can be strengthened. But you may find that your testimony may never be exactly the way it was before, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. We often say "the Church is true", but true can mean something different to each person. You could also ask if the church is "good". There are a lot of good reasons to stay in the church even if you don't have a rock solid testimony of every doctrine.
  16. The problem you are facing is that a lot of people in the church are not open to ideas other than those that they have been taught their whole life, even if those ideas are based on church culture and tradition, rather than doctrine. You're right, no one knows what Jesus looked like, you're perfectly in your right to form a well thought out opinion of what he may have looked like. In our church Jesus has always been portrayed as white, handsome, with long but clean-cut hair. Those are artists interpretations, but they have become ingrained in our culture, so by stating a differing opinion others may become defensive or offended because they can't imagine him being any different. Regarding Judas, we are quick to judge him, but only Christ can truly judge him. It's easy to blame Satan for what he did, but Satan can only tempt, Judas did what he did of his own free will, and none of us know what was going on in his head or know how he will ultimately be judged. It is frustrating when you get in this kind of situation, my advice to you is to be patient and understanding when others disagree with you, follow your conscience and follow the spirit. People get defensive when their views are challenged, so try to present your ideas in a non-threatening way. I hope this helps.
  17. This is inaccurate and possibly misleading. Harlem is not a city, it is a neighborhood in the borough of Manhattan in New York City. One could understand it to mean that it was the first meetinghouse in Harlem or the first meeting house in New York City, the former is true, the latter is not true as there have been meeting houses in other parts of New York City long before 2005.