IAmTheWork

I have experience of 'angels' as people call them, but you must believe what you will, as your reality is your reality. What our culture in general knows and says of them is so wrong as to be mind boggling. I will just say that you can find out for yourself though. And also, as others say, they are not here to 'save' us from everything, else there'd be no point in existing, would there..?

I would think this happens more within concentrated Mormon communities, perhaps? Or at least, to a greater degree in such communities. As to New Order Mormons, my question would have been better put as; what does the phrase actually mean?

I know - makes you wonder about everyone saying their church is the only true one on earth, doesn't it..?! :)

Oh I did; it's around twenty years since we divorced and she moved a long way away. My kids are all adults now, and the one from the fire testing incident went on to blow things up for a living! But he's very respectful to others in the area where things need blowing up. :)

Why? I guess those words must mean something I'm not aware of..? It's obvious that the n-word is not always used in a derogatory way. But it is used in a nasty way by both white and coloured people (in various ways), and is used by some coloured people to ensure separation of culture, enforced social peer control, etc. George Orwell was right about social mind control - he just got the date a bit out.

This is the kind of point I find very interesting, as we can see things in so many different ways. It's also obvious that people often struggle to know whether they're feeling selfishly absorbed in their pain, or 'godly sorrow', or if in fact, there is a quantifiable difference. For myself, I've grown to see 'commandments' in the same way that many see the Old and New Testaments. One tends to be fire and brimstone, and the other tends to be more gentle and healing. As an attempt at an example, I once watched one of my young toddlers burn his hand and let him do it. Before your hand hits your mouth in surprise, let me add that he was old enough to understand perfectly well what I was telling him, and the electric heater he was about to touch had a guard, and had not been switched on for long enough to be dangerous. He did the 'kiddie dare' thing as soon as I told him to come away from the heater; he stood his ground and reached out to touch it while staring me down as a challenge. I again told him to come away, and said it would hurt if he touched it, but he continued to challenge me. After a few tries to make him come away from it, I left it to him and said, "Ok, you touch it if you want, but it WILL hurt!" He touched the guard, and of course threw a screaming tantrum, giving me dirty looks in the process as though it was my fault. My wife, naturally, threw a fit at me, but our son was quite unharmed. My point? Well, I could have gone all 'Old Testament' and shouted loudly that he would surely burn, etc., and his fear of father yelling would have driven him away from the fire. I could also have considered that my child had broken MY commandments, 1) to not touch fires, and 2) to obey father at all times. But I left it up to him, and he learned a simple lesson. I know there are no perfect analogies, but it occurs to me that if I as an ordinary human father have no wish to push my ego onto my children and have them follow like robots, then how much more free of such power trips are heavenly beings? So, I'm sure that when we learn lessons our spiritual parents don't think, "Aha, you need to feel suffering for that!" More like, and with a loving smile, "Ah, you understand a little more, yes?" So is 'committing a sin' something which entitles us to punishment alone, or learning alone, or both..? And what does that make of 'repentance'..? I've never heard of the 'New Order Mormon' thing. Is that a phrase of your own, or one currently used by church members? In answer to your other questions, I'd say that; ~ I feel comfortable with my spirituality and very tangible spiritual experiences. ~ I think my feelings about the church are not hugely relevant, as I'd have to define how I feel about members in general, local members (who I haven't met), the church as an organisation in the world, the church as a spiritual organisation, etc. In many cases members have internal conflicts regarding these different aspects, and often suffer somewhat through such. ~ I wouldn't say that I'm looking for renewed 'full fellowship' in terms of ordinances, callings, etc. ~ I certainly don't want to attend any church for purely social reasons, as I can socialise anywhere. I think what I said earlier is the best I can put it at present; a) To fulfil my inner wish to be of service and commune with others who have similar moral outlooks to myself, and... b) To gain something from such community too, eg., decent friends and companionship, a little more structure to life, and a sense of belonging. I obviously don't have any concrete answers, which is why I'm taking my time, considering options, and feeling grateful for the thoughts you're all offering. 'On your own terms'. I guess this is the clincher for many, if not all of us in some respect. Also, I do think that geographical location matters with regard to 'falling away'. Living in somewhere like the UK, where your branch or ward members are likely to be scattered amongst the general population is very different to living in an area of Utah where almost everyone is a member. In the former case, leaving church means no real change in life around you, whereas in the latter, leaving church can often lead to huge changes in your life, including how the neighbourhood treats you, whether you're considered for employment, and so on. As I've said elsewhere, I don't for a minute think that such changes are always wholly negative, but they can be to some degree, and are completely in some cases, with families having to move to another state to feel accepted as 'normal' and ok. That brings up questions about Mormon societal culture as well as its role as a church, and without getting into all that, it seems to me that its impact is very different in predominantly Mormon towns and cities. Here in the UK, as elsewhere, you can leave the church behind very easily (at least once you're over the initial pain of feeling abandoned, as many do).

One of the problems with such a statement is that while church members may accept it as a 'given', non-members will probably not. I like your points, but beginning with a statement which many will simply not agree with means that they may not bother to consider what you say in the larger sense. The topic being about 'proof', this is probably quite important. :)

True, I may have done, but neither of us need get our socks in a twist, eh? As to "Shades of Bert", well, that's a bit of an unkind comparison perhaps, being that you don't know me (though I have no idea as to whether you know Bert personally). But lumping people together as though hinting that one is at fault, so another must be too, is, umm... well, not helpful I'd say. Yes, yes, I know what we have in the case of Santa. All I was suggesting is that Santa is the last part of the old tribal belief in the shaman's journey, ie., returning with gifts. Maybe we should go right to the source here, and email Santa. And I wish he'd have come to my house and thrown gold down the chimney, darn it! :)

Wow, Bert, I had to respond to your post. I hope I don't sound like I'm 'having a go' at your thoughts - I find what you've said genuinely interesting. The part I quoted above seems to say that the moment any man and woman decide to live together then their marriage is 'okayed' by god. Are you hinting that this is so of any union, within a church or not? Just curious. The bit about children born into such a union being seen as 'holy before the lord' could also be taken to mean that other children are not 'holy before the lord'..? That sounds reasonable, though I wonder how anyone would know (if they split up) that god would/had 'un-joined' them..? I like that as a definition, and would say that it applies to my own past experience. While I lived with my next partner for a short while before marrying, and have lived with a few others over twenty years (though not many, and usually for some years), I see from experience that the ideal benefits of a male/female relationship was in fact 'diluted'. In other words, without quite clear 'ground rules' and realistic expectations, emotions and desires can so easily become demands which lead to the relationship breaking down.

The wonderful thing about life, volgadon, is that I don't have to show anything. :) We all discover what we discover for ourselves. Without getting into a protracted debate about it, I was merely hinting about shamanic practices of flying up to 'heaven' by the shaman, usually entwined in smoke, as smoke having ethereal qualities it's been seen for thousands of years as a conduit or helper in spiritual things. The shaman then came back via the same path taken heavenwards, the smoke being the unmissable trail to stop him from getting lost 'up there'. He returned with treasures for the tribe, though of course in the form of healings, predictions, etc. When I began shamanic training years ago, with the assistance of a Native American who lived in southern Canada, I had such journeys quite naturally and without the use of any drug or alcohol. Shamanic practices are not always the same, but it's interesting that even Buddhist sects in the high mountains of Tibet/India continue some quite amazing shamanic practices which have been passed down since Mongol times (ie., the famous khans). A friend of mine who's a vicar in a mainstream church tells me of this, as she goes over there once every year for at least a month. It's an interesting topic, but even many shamans say that the age of the shaman is long gone, and much is lost. Tracing such things in the academic sense is to miss much of what it's all about, and I'd say pretty much a waste of time except to record aspects of human tribal behaviour and ritual.

Haha - this has always been something which comes up in my life. I'm a tall and fairly well built guy, have close cropped hair, and look very much like a guy's guy. But in fact, as I said, I love the company of women, having grown up with just my mother and grandmother, sisters, aunts and mainly nieces, etc. It can cause minor problems. Some women think I must be gay because I have a strong feminine side (though I certainly don't sound effeminate), and unfortunately so do some gay men. I get propositioned by such usually about once or twice a year, though it doesn't bother me. Three reliable psychic people, two of whom are well known, and one of whom helps the police find bodies and such (seriously), upon meeting me for the first time said almost exactly the same thing; "You are balanced, male and female in power, neither one being stronger than the other. You have achieved wholeness". Sounds great, but hasn't made any difference to my life being much the same as anyone's. :) When I first went online more than ten years ago, a lesbian friend talked me into joining her favourite chat room. Nobody asked if I was a man, so it was assumed I was a woman. I wrote little poems for fun at the time, which chat members then kept requesting. When someone discovered quite by accident that I was a man, there was an uproar! You'd have thought I'd broken into a sheik's harem or something. Silly, but amusing now.

I can see your point, but in this case we're talking about super-intelligent, incredibly powerful beings who have what I can only call 'purified versions of human emotions'. In my experience, they suffer no consequences of our mistakes or pain, as human parents would. Heck, if they did, they'd be constantly unhappy due to the actions of their children - no way to spend eternity! A very good question, and one I'm trying (slowly and with due consideration) to answer for myself. I'd say perhaps two general things; a) To fulfil my inner wish to be of service and commune with others who have similar moral outlooks to myself, and... b) To gain something from such community too, eg., decent friends and companionship, a little more structure to life, and a sense of belonging. As is no doubt plain, I'm weighing things up to see how I feel within myself before 'jumping in', as I know from experience that attending church brings various pressures to conform, and to 'progress' in various ways. Church structures which do this can be seen as either safety from the world, or in the case of many non-members, routine to keep the member busy and brainwashed. We take our pick. :) That's a really interesting response slamjet, though not how I saw the question at all. I think one of the most awkward things about forums and email, etc., is that so much is lost between mind and mouth, and more lost between ears and another mind. The problems of being human, eh?!

Yes Suzie, I'm male. I grew up around almost all women though, so I chatter on and prefer the company of women in general.

Many thanks for the responses folks. As far as being excommunicated, and having to repent, of course I have probably quite different views to active church members as I've been away for almost twenty years. No close contact with members or missionaries, either. I was ex'd a couple of years after getting divorced, because I moved in with my new partner. I met someone and we got a house together, intending to marry (which we did after about six months). Somehow the church knew where I'd moved to. Secret street cameras and covert operations by missionaries dressed in combat gear to hide in gardens..? :) Anyway, I got a knock on the door from a very embarrassed old quorum friend, who said he didn't know why the bishop had asked him to deliver a sealed letter, etc. (Mormon's are rubbish at lying!) So, I was ex'd, but not too concerned about it. I don't know what happened with my ex-wife, but she moved a few hundred miles away to be away from me and the church (yes, it's just possible in the UK). Since leaving church in the throes of divorce, everyone - and I mean everyone - cut us off cold. All old friends we'd known for years, people who said we had such close bonds; gone without so much as a sigh. In case any non-members reading this think, "Aha! I knew Mormons were like that!" well, no you don't. I've heard other tales of people being looked after, friendships carrying on for years, and even huge obstacles overcome with the help of members. I think in our case, as with others, they were all embarrassed to 'chose sides' and so dumped both of us, or as happens with some members (and indeed whole wards) they band together so they feel safe from 'infection' by ex'd members. Anyway, the other point is repentance, and by all means chuck in your own feelings and perspectives on this - I'd love to have them. To me, repentance is not a matter of grovelling and obeying rules, sack-cloth and ashes and all that, but simply making restitution where you can (emotionally in the main), and making the decision to change your behaviour because it didn't work out well. Personally, I don't feel that I offended the lord by having a few relationships over twenty years which were not in marriage, mainly because I don't think any of us can offend or hurt him or HF/HM. By all means chuck in a couple of scriptures saying otherwise if you want, but that's just my feeling. The lord gives us guidelines to follow for our own good, and when we don't, we reap the consequences of our actions. I think what I'm doing here is trying to clarify the reasons why I've considered going back to church, and looking at whether I'm being more selfish than serving, or more serving in the way of a doormat, as so many do (and I once did) in church.

Some advice from active members would be useful regarding what a retuning non-member (ex'd years ago) would be asked or able to participate in. For example, you wouldn't be asked to give talks, and certainly not offered a calling until baptised, obeying all the rules, etc..? All advice most welcome.

(Bold added in the quote above by me). Interestingly (without going back and reading every word) we generally talk of porn in relation to men. I know from experience with women friends, pal's partners, etc., that women are in general very much into porn too. They just keep it under wraps, like many other things. But stand near an Anne Summers shop and count the genders... A bit OT but related, is paedophilia. On a psychology and sociology course some years ago we looked at government figures for various things, and compared them to media and public representations. In the case of reported incidents of child sexual abuse in the UK were people were arrested, 33% of such crimes were committed by females. That's recorded incidents only, ie., where police arrested someone and so had to complete paperwork. It's estimated that more than half of women suspected of sexual abuse on children were 'dealt with at the scene' by police, who refused to believe accusations, or didn't want to become involved in case of a backlash. In other words, it's always been hushed up. I'm not trying to paint a dark picture here, but I do feel it's somewhat short-sighted, if not unfair, to say 'him' and 'his' constantly with reference to various sexual practises and/or excesses. All in all, regarding who we sin against, the one you hurt the most when you hurt another is yourself, though many just don't see that.

Thanks for the information, which is one good reason for forums, I think. It's most helpful when people pull together information, saving others many hours of digging through sites and Google. As to qualifications, peers, and so on; I grew up amongst professors and scientists, one or two of them very well known, and I then went on to train at a high level myself. Having seen what goes on behind the scenes over many years, I wouldn't trust the most qualified, best known, and even best loved scholars if butter genuinely didn't melt in their mouths. So much is hidden 'for the public good' that it's actually quite astounding. That doesn't stop what we can find out being uninteresting, though.

An old post I just came across, but it brings back so many memories. My wife, when we were both in the church, left me 'for no reason' about thirteen years after our temple marriage. It turned out after talking about it a while later that the main reason was control. She wanted to be alone and do what she wanted with our children, as she saw them as hers alone. That was very strange to me. Also, while she hadn't wanted to go on a mission, she said she had always wanted as a young girl to go on a Medical Aid mission to a foreign country. She was left, after marrying and having children, with the feeling that she should never have got married. I'm sure there are many who end up divorced who've said this about both men and women. How would you know, being blinded as you are by love, wanting to be together forever, and so on? Back when I was aged twenty my then Mormon girlfriend and I wanted to marry for various reasons. Looking back, I think our six month engagement was way too short, and our reasons for marrying included avoiding missions, amongst other things. Seems so 'wrong' now, but at the time...

Ha, that was quite fun - thanks for the link! I came out as basically Zen or Hindu, with LDS at only 34%. Oh well. OT, but one of my favourite stupid jokes; What's a Hindu? Loys iggs. (Think Australian).

Nice catch! Yep, I should have looked back a bit further for the red coat there. Mind you, regarding the reindeer, I was referring to shamans of the Laplands. The reindeer there specifically seek out and gorge on hallucinogenic mushrooms, though it's not clear from what I've read whether they go off on trips like shamans have done in the past. Your whole post was lovely, and pretty inspirational, I thought. Thanks for that. And thanks to those who've mentioned the Batcreek Stone, amongst other things. I had a read elsewhere and found it very interesting.

WHAT? There is no Santa Claus?! (I know, old joke reaction). But actually, on that point and very OT, Coca Cola's red Santa was an advertising change from the old guy being dressed in green. He was in green because he was Hearn, or Cerrunos, the Green Man; the old 'pagan' god. He has twigs in his hair and beard, and ruled creation quietly from behind the scenes with his goddess. This was central to shamanistic practises. Him coming 'down the chimney', or more accurately, down through the Yurt opening, and returning again, was symbolic of him appearing to the shaman. Reindeer or horses took him back to the heavens, depending upon the times and where tribes lived. Anyway... To consider your points Jamie, I think there are many dichotomies or paradoxes in the church. Members are told to accept without concrete evidence, yet told also to think for themselves. The glory of god is intelligence, yet when someone comes up with an unanswerable question or topic, they're said to be confused, or 'looking beyond the mark', or 'not yet ready for the meat', and so on. I've heard seemingly wise people say that everything is revealed in secret, yet years later they leave the church and say they were smugly fooling themselves. So, as in everything, what we perceive and feel is true is up to us - and us alone. I'd say that wise church members know this, and many others don't want to consider it; they want to feel safe. Nothing wrong with that though. As to divine revelation, again we have a bit of a paradox. On the one hand, church doctrine teaches that we can all have revelation by the spirit, and even see angels and more. Yet we're also told that if anything we perceive seems not to be in line with official doctrine then we're being fooled by the adversary. (In this sense, let's put aside inter-family feuds in the church's past, who should be prophet, etc., and think about what it means to us as individuals). I don't try to tell things as I see them, but I think the questions are very interesting. In fact, the questions often lead to revelations we may not have expected, or ever have considered. Oh, secular evidence of Christ in the Middle East. Yes, I've read of some things, and there's even some evidence of him travelling to the Far East. However, even such evidence could be tinted by myth, so I neither believe nor disbelieve it. On the subject of paradoxes, as I mentioned it, I like an expression a poet/author made in one book; "A paradox does not mean that something is irrefutably wrong, simply that we don't yet understand what we're seeing".

Sure, I will have a look, though I personally don't hold 'peer reviewed' as meaning too much. It depends entirely upon who the peers are, who funds them, what the agenda (innocent though it may be) behind their work is, and so on. I doubt I'll get any questions posted in another thread as I intended to, as I have online work to do as well as all this reading(!) and am also not sure I really need to ask some questions. :)

I've just posted elsewhere regarding logical debate (Prove it first! - Page 2 - LDS Social Network Forums), and I think the same thing applies here in many ways. If someone is convinced that the church in its entirety is true because of the feelings they have upon investigating, then they may, as many members do, ignore any evidence which appears to be contrary. However, neither missionaries nor anyone else can know what the person actually felt, and it may have been fleeting but enough to convince them at the time that what they were being told was true. Later, they may discard such feelings in the light of evidence, or lack of it, for the truth of church claims. DNA evidence being one major bugbear as far as I can see, along with archaeological, too. I can understand someone saying, "Well, I feel the church is true, and the lack of obvious archaeological does bother me, but it doesn't shake my testimony". No problem. What we have there is someone who has fervent beliefs, or knowledge as they'd call it, built upon testimony of the spirit. But also, a person who isn't brain dead, but considers other matters as still relevant and important. From a non-member's point of view though, and certainly one who's going to look for more earthly 'proof' first, they want evidence that seems impartial and accurate. I don't worry too much about archaeological evidence of Christ in America, because as far as I know there's none of him in Israel either. But to say that looking for, or having, hard evidence of might "take away from their agency to seek divine revelation of their own" makes no sense to me. It seems completely illogical and erroneous for us to think things have to be extremes of either one thing or the other, don't you think?

Yes, I think so too. One of the problems human beings face is a mind which thinks a lot, but which wants answers up front often without any effort at all. The statement, "Prove it!" says it all. My answer to that these days tends to be, "We have to learn for ourselves, you, me, all of us, and no proof I offer will be good enough". I can't remember who said it, but I like the quote; "That which is learned is of far more value than that which is simply given". However, on the subject of logical discussion or argument I have a point to share (having studied logic formally at degree level). I don't attempt to be perfectly logical in all I do and say - how boring a life that would be! - but it's useful for noticing when a convincing argument actually is not as purely logical and true as it sounds. I hear and read statements made by people (not just church members or authorities) all the time, and others nod in agreement or turn away. In the case of the church, members naturally 'see the sense in it' and (generally) agree. They too easily decide that those who disagree are doing so because either they're ungodly, don't have their eyes opened to truth yet (which, if I may say so, can be a very condescending viewpoint), or are just too lazy or dumb to get it. People tend to think that they understand and use logic well, and yet take things to be logically true or false when in fact they're not. And in this case, I'm not trying to disprove the truth of the quoted statement with regard to scripture as such, NOR trying shouting "The church isn't true!", so bear with me. :) The false religionist argues that the Bible contains all revelation. ~ This may or may not be true of course, but let's go with true and agree that most (assumed false religionists) do/will say this. not realizing that since the Bible makes no such a claim for itself ~ Debatable, and not 'set in stone' true as claimed. There are scriptures in the bible saying things like (generalised), "I have given you god's word, and you should follow it". Saying, "Ah, but it doesn't specifically say there will be no more revelation" is adding something in, or leading to doing so. the only way they could know this would be by revelation. ~ The above line is not categorically true, and this final part of the statement is certainly not. Revelation is not the only way to know truth, and revelation has not been given on every single point and question humanity ever had or now has. Thus men and women find themselves in the awkward position of claiming a revelation to say that there is no revelation. ~ This is the logical clincher, and it's worth church members considering why this kind of statement puts so many people off before they even consider the missionary's message; they've seen the logical error and think, "Well, if this is how it all holds together, I prefer string and glue!" "Thus..."? No, not at all. "Thus" in this sense essentially means, "What I have stated is absolutely true". Other men and women who claim that (as far as they have been taught) the bible contains all they need, do NOT find themselves in the position of claiming a revelation which says that no more can be given - that is implied ONLY by the illogical statement made above! Again, I'm not bashing the church here, but I do take to task the methods used and which often twist things around so that those claiming absolute truth appear to be correct. Non-members hate this with a passion, because it looks so false. In fact, it looks like missionaries and church leaders are deliberately lying to them, so they turn away. The scripture to, "Avoid the appearence of evil" is often used for various reasons, yet it doesn't occur to those preaching the gospel that this kind of thing looks evil to others? I do hope this doesn't seem a daft point to labour, because I think it is important in the church's dealings with the world in general. I've watched some church videos (or rather LDS produced videos) lately, and one of them is an inspirational talk given by a mission president. Sadly, I can't find the link now. Anyway, he's telling missionaries how to handle questions from non-members such as, "Is it true that your church teaches that we can become gods, man and woman together?" The way this mission leader swims around the question, saying that non-members need 'milk before meat', is astounding. He uses false logic to show that what the missionaries should be answering is not the person's question, but the question they should have asked! (Addition). He then goes on to tell the missionaries what question the investigator should have asked, as though that person has no brains or right to ask questions they feel are relevant. I can see where he's coming from, but wow does that look like twisting the truth to non-members! Continual debate about any doctrinal or logical point can go around and around, and scriptures can be found to support almost any kind of argument of course, and I don't want to over-do it. However, it should be clear to anyone that when scriptures along the lines of, "My words are plain, and I give you truth" are quoted to people, yet they then see missionaries and members obfuscating things so they don't have to directly answer something (for whatever reason), it has the appearence of deception. That's the first part of your opening post tubaloth, and while I don't have all the answers, I'd suggest seriously considering what I've said, because you and others may be missing some very important reasons why people reject your pleading: to them, many Mormons can look like liars because they aren't direct about things. (Addition). It may be worth mentioning that while I left the church almost twenty years ago (as mentioned elsewhere), one elder who taught me was very direct, and openly answered every question put to him. If someone asked him about temple garments - a major point to avoid in those days for missionaries - he'd say, "Yep, I'm wearing them" and explain roughly what they were all about. If someone asked to see them he'd say, "Sorry, can't do that: as I said, we consider them sacred". I don't remember one person ever rolling their eyes or giving any other negative reaction because he may appear to be squirming out of answering something. I do remember seeing his companions squirm though! :)

If you mean the prissiness, it was not just the ward, but the whole stake. Maybe it was just England at the time. There has to be a reason someone made a film called "No Sex Please, We're British"!