carlimac

Two separate issues that I'm trying to address in my true-to-form confusing stream of conciousness style of posting. I'm not completely against the ads. They're really Ok and nicely done but I think the motive behind them will seem a little suspect to the world viewing them. Why does a church feel the need to identify itself in this way? What are they trying to sell us? What's the point? What's the message here? Why should we care if this cute surfer girl or funny artist mom is a Mormon? I think insiders (members of the Church and those well aquainted with us- some of my old Minnesota neighbors included) will recognize that the ads are simply trying to send the message that we're regular people and not fundamentalists or polygamists or gun-packing hoodlums ready to blast anyone crossing our paths like in the Mountain Meadow Massacre. And that's an OK message to send. It will probably be received pretty neutrally by most. Some may think, "Cool." Some may become educated. Some may even want to investigate the church because of it. But we already know from the feedback on lots of these websites that a large number of people think it's really strange to see this kind of ad on national TV. They think we're trying too hard. I think maybe we are trying too hard myself. I also wonder about a possible perceived message that we think we're "all that and more" and want the world to know it. I've never been one who feels comfortable tooting my own horn. I think we should be more focused on the message of the atonement and Christ than what public image we're putting across. JMO I AM concerned about the really mean and nasty stuff people write about the church. Apparently they have done this for a long time and always will. I just think this particular way of trying to sell ourselves to the public (the ads) will only give the anti Mormon groups more ammunition and fodder for the criticism grist mill. If we're going to go so public with trying to paint our image, the antis will feel more emboldened to say whatever they think without filtering in public forums and settings. And that may cancel out a lot of the good these ads could do.

It's not the ads that bother me. I watched a couple of them online and they are OK. It's the language used to describe church members in the comments that gets to me now and then. I've read comments on the whole Prop 8 whoop-dee doo and lots of other topics on KSL.com or Desnews.com and what people say against the church is tame compared to some of the national media sources. The one I was looking at was salon.com. I guess church sponsered media is going to edit and censor comments more than the national sites or SLtrib.com. does. Those get pretty nasty, too. I can rise above this. More than anything it just makes me sad that there is such a coarse element of naysayers are out there. I pity them. They are so off base and so negative toward something that could bring them the most joy.

I guess you're right. That makes me smile.

I've always thought the old Mormon ads were great...the messages that made you think about how you were living your life and how if you were treating people as Christ would. These new ads just seem a little more (maybe too much) focused on us rather than on our message and Christ. Oh well.

I've always known it was bad during the earliest days of the Church. But it's only been in the last few years that I've realized it's just as bad now. I guess I've lived in a bubble for 40 or so years. Back then the assaults were verbal and physical but very out in the open and in your face. Now they are mostly just verbal but can be spread insidiously to millions via the internet. The rumors and lies and poison can be spread much faster and further. But then, hopefully, so can the good. For every 10 negative comments there are only 1 or 2 positive. HOpefully people reading the comments will be touched by the spirit when they read the good. I'm not blaming the ads for anything other than perhaps being unneccessary. I don't think they are doing harm other than bringing out the creepy commentors.

I'm not sure they are really making me angry. More just sad that people have such a messed up view of the Church and what we're all about. The claims of ongoing polygamy don't bother me because it's so far from the truth. But the rumors of wife and kid beatings, the big headed general authorities who are only after money, and the whole racist and homophobic claims, etc. are troubling at best. There was some guy slamming the church for not giving enough money to help third world countries. Some tried to put him straight on that but he twisted it to say that what we do is puny and selfish in comparison to other organizations. Sheesh. I guess my point is not so much that I'm personally offended but that I'm just shocked to realize that there are people out there with such a distorted view and that they are so vocal and mean spirited about it. I've always known there were opposers to the church- the protesters at General Conference, the people passing out pamphlets at Nauvoo- whatever! They were generally just peaceful and misinformed and twisting the truth for their own advantage or for sport or who knows why. But it's this lynch-mob mentality that comes out on the internet that is really sickening. Honestly- if they don't believe our doctrine or don't want to participate with us, why do they even care? Sigh!

Anyone heard about the "Mormon ads" being shown in a number of states? I haven't seen them but I suppose they are nice- professionally done and create a good feeling for other Mormons. But I'm afraid it's having the opposite effect hoped for among the general public. I've been reading some of the responses about them and (whistlling) they are nasty!! Crude, mean, just awful. First of all, I'm not sure why the Church feels the need to put these ads on TV. Really, if we're doing the Lord's work and living the Gospel, why do we care if we make a good impression or not? It's almost embarrassing to me that we're so caught up in our public image. But aside from that, hopefully, the truly elect and pure of heart will be touched by the spirit when they hear the Gospel (whether or not they have seen the ads). Some have conjectured that the ads are priming the public for Mitt Romneys potential run again in 2012. The Church publicity team denies this. Who knows? Anyway, I'm feeling fairly upset by all the vile comments about the Church. Normally I can shrug this all off like water off a duck. But for some reason it's getting under my skin. It's not our public image of being weirdos that bothers me. (I think it's the genuinely weird and bizarre folks that think WE are weird.) But the completely false information and all the misunderstandings people have about us- the perpetuating of lies and ugly stuff about us is getting to me. The bold and blatant rotteness that is being flung at us. I'm appalled at how it's PC to beat Mormons to a pulp.: Anyone else having a problem with this? And any suggestions for what to do about it? (Besides quit reading it? LOL) Someone help me put this in perspective.

Well, how about we start with the example I gave earlier of no man seeing God and yet Moses spoke with him face to face? And then the grace/faith/works problem. That's a real stickler! Ephesians 2:8-9 vs. James 2:14-24 Which is it? Works or no works? Some of them on that list are just a matter of timing and semantics. As in the 4 gospels, they are different accounts from different witnesses that don't really affect doctrine. But there are some, like the faith/grace/works problem that are buggers. If you can sufficiently explain all of those (there are 700 or so) and still prove that every word of the Bible is the word of God and that there are no inconsistencies, you'll be able to do what most Bible scholars and leaders of Christian churches can't seem to do. My point of hitting the Bible inconsistencies so hard is simply to point out again that the word of God is contained in the Bible but not every word in the Bible is in the form God wanted it to be. It has been changed and distorted over many thousands of years. Next- we believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, that he spoke with Him, that he saw Him and was given special powers and authority and keys from God to do important things during his relatively short time on earth. One of those important tasks was to clarify parts of the Bible that are confusing. Here is an explanation of what the Joseph Smith Translation is all about - LDS.org - Liahona Article - Joseph Smith Translation So in order to believe that Joseph Smith corrected and restored parts of the Bible, you would first need to believe that he was truly a prophet called of God... the founder of God's most correct and restored church on the earth in the last few centuries. And that is the crux, the most critical aspect of our beliefs (in my opinion). Joseph Smith (through the power and authority and inspiration from God) also restored doctrines, that had been changed or lost, but that are necessary for salvation. If you don't pray and receive a personal witness that this is true- a burning in your heart, then you'll never be able to understand the presentations of certain stories or doctrines that we as Mormons believe but that seem different from the Bible. You can and probably will argue till you're blue in the face. And Mormons will very confidently say "but we believe differently". And it might make you agitated and frustrated. But there you have it.

CHowell- don't mean to pick on you. I agree with some things you're saying, especially that last line about getting thrown out of the Synagogue. That was a great touche. But I'm still curious about how you will explain all the inconsistencies the Bible has with itself. How do you know which is God's word or which is the absolute literal truth and which isn't in that long list of inconsistencies? Why would the "inspired" writers of the Bible be led to write things that contradict and confuse? That doesn't sound like something God would do. Does He frequently change His mind and the story just to test our faith? Just curious.

A link to inconsistencies in the Bible- Inconsistencies I post this not to challenge your faith, but to point out the imperfections of the Bible. Please read the "introduction" page. It has some really good points to make about our attitudes toward the Bible. This isn't an LDS website. I don't even know who innvista is but what they say rings true, especially this statement- "There are Christians who are aware of the inconsistencies. They do not place the book on a high pedestal, yet gain the message it contains. The challenge to search for truth lies before you. " I'm not dissing the Bible. It contains the keys to our very spiritual survival. But it's only one part of the recipe. We need to be selective and objective as we read it and search it out for truth. And then realize that if God loves us He won't leave us with only this awkward, handicapped version of His will for us. He has given us modern prophets and modern scripture to add to the mix to give us a complete guide back to Him.

Why throw the baby out with the bath water? Yes, God is perfect. His word is perfect. But the Bible isn't all about God. It's also about men and their fumblings and blunders. And how they overcome those mistakes (some do and some don't) And it wasn't written BY God. It is a book written about God by men. The parts where men are writing about what God has told them or done speak of a perfect, all knowing God. They teach us of God and his ways so that we can hopefully apply them to our lives and return to Him. But men on this earth all have different perceptions. We are all unique. Some of those perceptions the Bible authors have written about may be wrong or conflict or were simply written from their own personal perspective. It doesn't make the Bible bad or wrong. But it is an imperfect and perhaps inaccurate book. That doesn't make God imperfect. It simply means God allows men to use their free agency and that He doesn't always direct us like robots in everything we do. Is the Bible inspired? Absolutely. Were the prophets of the Bible his true prophets? Yes indeed! Can we learn about God and His will for us from the Bible? Of course! But is every word of the Bible His word? No. They were words of men. Good men. Men of God. Inspired but imperfect men. One book I recently read is "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J Jacobs. Amazon.com: The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Pretty entertaining and insightful book. I think the point of the book is that so many people these days hang every scrap of their faith on "The Bible". But there is so much of the Bible that if taken and applied to our lives today would be pretty silly. This is not to say that the truths about God in the Bible aren't still true. But that it was a book written thousands of years ago. Man's understanding of life and what God expects of us has refined and changed over the years. Some aspects of human hearts and spiritual lives are and should be the same. Some parts of the Bible are eternal truths and applicable now. But our outward, external lives are different than they were thousands of years ago. So in this way, much of the Bible is irrelevant to us today. This doesn't make God irrelevant. Our job is to read and search the Bible to find the parts that speak to our hearts, that instruct and teach us priciples to live by that will help us draw closer to God. And realize that the rest of the Bible is a historical account to be read an appreciated but not neccessarily lived by literally right now. And this is also why modern day revelation, through a prophet- currently Thomas S. Monson- relevant to us in 2010 is so vital.

How do you then resolve the conflicts that the Bible seems to have with itself? For instance, in John 1:18 it says "No man hath seen God at any time". But in Exodus 33:11 it says, "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." Also, the four gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke and John) don't line up exactly chronologically. I would assume there are countless other examples. So to say that the Bible is 100% the word of God would make God seem contradictory or at the very least, confused. We know He is not. Hence our belief as stated in the LDS 13 Articles of Faith, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." In no way is this slighting the Bible as not being an inspired work. It's simply stating a fact. God didn't write the Bible. Men did. And men (and women) are imperfect. It's as simple as that.

My hair wouldn't be glorious if it were long. It doesn't grow well at all. I've always looked and felt better with shorter hair. I think it's a cultural thing and I don't think the Lord cares if our hair is short or long. He probably cares more about how much time we waste trying to make it glorious.

To MOE Yes I probably am reading more into what people are saying. I've been in this discussion for quite awhile now and have picked up on bits and phrases throughout and have come to my own conclusions. In NO way did I criticize the discussion. I was only adding MY perspective. You don't seem to get it. Oh well.

From Gwen as for the experiences i mentions the sweet 16 and makeout couch that has everything to do with the church. the thing that happened to me was in a yw's meeting on a wed night. if i had injured myself the church would be "responsible" how is that any different? the other was from leadership in that position. But what happened was not "the Gospel". THere is a vast difference sometimes between the gospel and the "culture of the church" . Too bad but it's often true. If any church leader did something inappropriate or offended a youth, they should be approached by the offendee first of all, and if it can't be resolved then it should go to higher ups like ward and stake leaders, and on up. If it was never reported, "the church" cant take responsibility for it. "The Church"- meaning the general leadership of the church can't possibly keep tabs on all the teachers and ysa bishops all the time. My guess is that they would have put the kabosh on the things you've mentioned if it were ever reported all the way up to say ...President Monson. Hopefully it would never have to go that far and would be resolved much lower down the totem pole of leadership. I don't know who your yw leader was or what her motive was, but I would hope that if she knew she had hurt you, she'd be mortified!! I'm going to have to watch what I say to yw and ym. Sometimes we older flolks forget how sensitive and impressionable youth can be. By the way, I was Sweet 16, too! LOL Just my two cents.

Thank you soulsearcher for clearing that up. I don't really think I missed the whole point of the thread though. I'm understanding it quite well.

To MOE- I don't have time to figure out how to quote just a few lines. If you'd like to instruct me I would appreciate it. What you call "cultural behavior among church members" is not church wide. I've never before heard of a yw leader calling a girl "sweet 16" in a tone of voice that hurts the girl. I can guarantee it's not in the YW maual. Nor has that kind of thing gone on with any of my 3 yw age daughters. What Gwen was describing really can't even be called "cultural behavior of the church". It's just "people behavior". The doctrine of Jesus Christ should be our focus. What does Jesus say about dating, kissing, physical intimacy? Don't know that he's said anything specifically. So I guess it's one of those things we need to figure out on our own with the help of the Holy Ghost. We shouldn't need to be commanded in all things. We know if we're getting aroused and we're not married, or even if we are married but it's not an appropriate time or place, then it's time to back off!! I beg to differ that the boundary is going to be the same for those in the same circumstance. Some people have a short fuse. They may not even be able to kiss or hold hand with someone without getting inapporpriately aroused. They need to set their own standard. There are cultural differences, too. As someone mentioned, the Latin American culture kisses casually a lot! Those same kisses are going to mean differnt things depending on a person's background and what they've learned it means. Though boys and gilrs double kiss all the time in Argentina and it's just simply friendly, we were instructed as missionaries not to do that with the opposite sex, even though it may not mean anything more than friendship. If an aquaintance in America came up to me and double kissed me, I'd go "Holy cow- he's coming onto me!" So the worldwide church can't possibly set a world wide standard. We're to use the spirit (or simply our concience if we're not worthy of the gift of the Holy Ghost) to determine if we're overstepping our own personal boundary. I have to say MOE that you come across as really uppity and full of yourself sometimes. I'm trying not to be offended by being talked down to by you. Not doing so well at that, though. Sheesh! If you don't think I have anthing "substantitive" to say, please feel free to bypass my posts. ANd finally- let me spell this out...Gay saint said: "I don't think anyone would argue that someone who wants to remain a member of the church should not form a gay celibate relationship - because it would be even more difficult to abstain forever than it would be for a celibate person to do the same. So are gays somehow less able than a celibate person (meaning a single straight person , I assume??) to remain chaste? Do they lack self restraint when it comes to physical relationships? Do they lack that whatever it is in their minds that tells them they are getting too aroused? Why would it be harder for them to remain celibate than a straight person? Fair question!

To GaySaint- (I'm on your case again ;-) I don't think anyone would argue that someone who wants to remain a member of the church should not form a gay celibate relationship - because it would be even more difficult to abstain forever than it would be for a celibate person to do the same. Why is that? Do gays also lack a "stop" button that heteros have? Once the horse is out of the barn, "Whoa Nellie" doesn't work?

since gays can never go to the temple and aren't striving for that higher covenant it's "safer" for them to risk that temptation. Did you really mean that? Gays can go to the temple as long as they are worthy. On another note, I believe the wording we need to think about is "sexual relations". I think we and the Lord know when we've crossed the line into sexual relations. The boundary is not going to be in the same place for everyone. That's probably why the church leaders don't spell it out, aside from the broad brushstrokes of necking, petting , etc. . We need to determine our feelings and intentions and not allow ourselves to get into physical relations that take us past those boundaries. And on another note without quoting the whole paragraph, your examples of a leader calling you "sweet 16" and the "makeout couch" have nothing to do with the church. Those are simply examples of people being imperfect and insensitive human beings. The church doesn't instruct it's leaders to say or do those things. Gotta separate out what is "the church" and what isn't.

We tried that for a little while in our ward but some weeks you get to church early, but other weeks are a disaster and you get there late and end up sitting wherever there is an empty bench.

The church teaches what it does about sex because it's God's commandment. Has nothing to do with any other power but God's.

Well back to the OP... I wouldn't handle a change in the word of wisdom very well unless it were to restrict a few more things that aren't but should be restricted. (Excessive amounts of fat) I'm always hopeful that the Sunday block will be shortened to 2 hours. I thought "no R rated movies" was merely a suggestion and not really a commandment. I know lots of members who watch selective R rated shows. It might be nice if there were an equally strong suggestion from our leaders to check out movie rating sights online (such as screenit. com or kids-in-mind.com ) before watching any movie- even PG-13 rated movies. ESPECIALLY before watching PG-13with teenage daughters.

My daughter has Celiac Disease. There are two others in our ward with it too. Since the one family is the most "with-it" and in the habit and most like ly to remember, they always just bring the gluten free bread. My son is a priest so he knew how to handle it. With clean hands, first break the gluten free, then move on to the regular bread. One deacon was assigned to pass that tray to the three members who needed it. I'm not sure what you mean by the lack of "communion". When my daughter was first diagnosed, (at age 9) she was a little self concious about it but now it's no big deal(she's 13 now). Everyone in the ward is used to the special tray and no one stares and wonders anymore. BUT- we're moving to a different state in 3 weeks and we'll have to start all over again in our new ward. Since this will be a lifetime thing for her, she just has to get used to explaining it everytime she's in a new ward. Hopefully she'll have priesthood holders who don't balk at it. Celiac Disease is becoming more acknowledged all the time. In fact, my guess is that there are probably at least a dozen in every ward who should be gluten free but don't know it.

Just heard about a divorced 25 yr old gal who has filled out her papers and is waiting for her call right now. I know she was married because I went to her reception. She was single again about 2 yrs later. I don't know any more than that.

You gotta be kidding!