Dark_Jedi

Many teachers are actually "I"s as well. Being an introvert doesn't mean one can't socialize nor does it mean one can't be comfortable in a crowd or as the center of attention.

OK, mia culpa, mia culpa, please forgive me, I know I said I wasn't coming back to this thread. But I just reread Seth Payne's address at the Fair Conference and I believe all of you would get some benefit from it. It's not long and it's not anti-Mormon in any way. Please enjoy. 2013 Why Mormonism Matters: Pastoral Apologetics and the LDS Doubter « FAIR

Interesting. The Church has known for a long time that tracting is very unproductive if not counter productive. I think the problem always was that there wasn't something else productive for the missionaries to do when they didn't have appointments. There were many days on my mission where we tracted out of lack of anything better to do just to fill in that "full time" of the full time mission. This would seem to be much more productive than tracting, and actually going into the community and providing something of value can only be good - not to mention the people also serving who will get to know some members of the church in a way they never had before. That was off track and off topic, so I must say Gazelem I really feel for you. You came here to seek advice (it is the advice forum after all) on how to deal with your parents and your decision. It really must be awful for you to be living in that situation. I know you presented options in your OP (go anyway, got back to BYU-I, move out), but don't let people here make that decision for you - you would be better off letting your parents make it (but I'm not suggesting you do that, either). No one on this forum can recieve any inspiration or revelation for you. Each person blazes his or her own trail in life, and in your case you appear to be blazing yours based on a sincere belief in doing what you think is right. That is commendable and far above and beyond what most people your age are doing. We can take the option of going and look at it from other perspectives. What if you go anyway and absolutely hate it? Not all missionaries come back saying it was the best two years of their lives - you might be surprised how many there are actually. Or, you may go and love it. Truth is, there is no way to know unless you go, but going isn't necessarily the best option. Follow your heart - do what you think is right and what you think you are supposed to do. You are not the first guy to be in this position nor will you be the last. Almost all (there are creeps out there) young men and women come to a point where they have to assert themselves to their parents that their own lives are their own. I have kids (a 19 year old son, in fact, who is going on a mission), and I know from the other side of the issue that's hard for parents. They raised you your whole life expecting you'd go on a mission and this news is hard for them. You may as well have told them you're gay or you 're leaving the Church altogether. I don't know where you are in order (youngest, oldest, middle), but it's hard for young adults at that point in their lives also, although sometimes easier if an older sibling has already done it (easier for parents, too). In the wild momma birds push the grown young from the nest and momma bears viciously chases off their grown cubs. Humans generally do it differently, it's getting to be your time. This has to be your decision.

Thank you all for your posts. I have a few reflections and a final thought. I have reflected upon my interactions with those of other faiths, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant. My Orthodox Jewish Rabbi friend has taught me over the years exactly how tolerant most Jews are of others within their faith who believe differently. Although he is obviously a strict observant, he respects those who are Conservative and Reform and I truly believe they are no different in his eyes. Catholics are also very tolerant of each other - it is apparent that almost none of them believe everything their church teaches. My Protestant friends are likewise quite tolerant of varying beliefs. My two atheist acquaintances are not quite as tolerant, but they are respectful. Based upon a really a couple of posts, I have reached the conclusion that there probably is room in the Church for those like me as long as we remain quiet (which I would). My attendance is not going to happen this Sunday, but could within the next few months. I htink the above mentioned tolerance will have at least some impact on my attendance, because I certainly don't need to be harassed or looked down upon. That said, thank you again for your comments. I never came here to espouse my point of view nor did I come here to try to persuade anyone else to think differently. And I certainly did not come here to argue. I offer my sincere apologies for the times when I was so easily led off track from my inquiry. I have started private message conversations with a couple of you, and I am not opposed to such further conversations as long as they remain respectful. As far as I am concerned, this thread has served its purpose and lived its life - I will no longer be participating.

@estradling75: Again, my apologies if I offend, that is not my intention. I think you and I can agree to disagree. One thing I might point out in our conversation, however, is that we use the word "know" differently. I reject the LDS definition of know, and use the word believe in most instances where you might use know. Beyond that it is a matter of faith. You have faith in some things that I do not - likely based on each of our individual experiences. @FunkyTown: "I wonder you don't go into parliament." (Ebenezer Scrooge) You can spin whatever way you like, I did not come here to argue and in fact didn't even come here to express my point of view explicitly (and certainly nowhere as explicitly as I have). I am not sure we can agree to disagree because your mind is made up based on whatever assumptions you have made. I stand by what I have said and will risk one more quote (with a disclaimer that I do not equate the Church or the gospel with Star Wars): "...many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." To all, thank you for your mostly thoughtful posts, please see below.

Now that I think of it, it does sound a bit evangelical! I confess that I have not watched a TV evangelist in a long, long time, so I don't really know what they teach these days. I have come to the conclusion many of these things are not doctrinal, as you have apparently. Admittedly I have not been to church in 10 years, and maybe it's not taught as much as previous times, but those things have been clearly talked about and testified about in church meetings at least since my baptism in 1981. I have actually only been a member of three wards in that time, exclusive of missionary time, so my experiences may be limited. I do watch at least parts of General Conference (because it's on at my house, fairly loudly I might add) and I am sure I hear similar things regularly taught there. Thank you for your post.

I suppose we could have a long discussion about what it means to sustain, but I think that would get too far off topic. Suffice it to say, I'm sure you (and most people) "sustain" the president of the church in a much different way than you do the ward's Scoutmaster or a primary teacher. Sustaining is much more than raising your hand in a meeting while everybody else is doing the same thing (and a good number of them not actually even listening). There are things in which the president of the church probably is inspired and/or acted upon by the Holy Ghost. I do personally believe Joseph Smith's account of the happenings in the sacred grove, and likewise I believe in that which is set forth in D&C 138. And there are other instances not as profound in which I believe the president of the church and other general authorities may have been inspired. The point is, they are not inspired about all things, and not even all (or maybe most) words they speak in general conference. Call it human frailty or what you will, it's just plain truth. I think I may not have explained clearly enough (although I think I did) that I don't believe the GA's are wholly uninspired - but they are at least partly at least part of the time (and at least enough to make me and others question how much they are). I believe some (maybe a lot) of what they tell us in conferences, etc., is the same as the old lady in her Sacrament Meeting talk - parroting what has been taught them their whole lives. So I believe I do sustain the GA's in their "inspiration from God regarding specific elements of the Church" (which may be rare and very specific) and "in areas that are not necessarily "inspired" but policies" (I couldn't care less about the missionary age change, for instance, but also believe it's about time and see no reason why sisters, who are more mature than elders, shouldn't go at 18 and for 2 years as well). Like most people in the Church, those same GA's are sometimes involved in perpetrating myths that are not part of the gospel and are not actually doctrine, but do so in all sincerity. I would wager that my thoughtful sustaining of them in their inspiration is of far greater value than the thoughtless raising of the hand (which I obviously do not do). I don't believe sustaining the GA's (especially those other than the president) means following every word he says blindly like sheep as if it were God himself speaking - you and I both know when those moments occur. Do I sustain President Monson as prophet, seer, and revelator and the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Yes, I do. I do not believe he prohesies, sees, and revelates 24/7 - or anywhere close to that. Local leaders are certainly different, and are held to a different standard (as you admit). In my experiences (and I will remind you that I have served in two bishoprics) bishops are mostly uninspired, but some are much more inspired than others. It's easy for them to get caught up in following the directions in the handbook and lose sight of inspiration, and it is easy for them to not follow the directions in the handbook and use inspiration as an excuse. If my current bishop were truly inspired, he would do things differently in our relationship, pure and simple. I do not sustain him because his actions (or perhaps it's God's actions in lack if inspiring him) do not demonstrate to me that he is called of God. The bishop before him was much the same - as our ward has shrunk considerably, the picking have become more slim, I suppose. I can't say the bishops prior to these two have been so wholly uninspired. So wrapping up, yes, I believe one can (and I do) sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve without necessarily believing every word that proceeds from their mouths is scriptural truth. I believe people can sustain other GA's and LA's likewise - I just don't happen to.

@FunkyTown "Okay, let's go with this: What qualities do you think the 'God that the church teaches about' has that you haven't seen?" I think we covered this, too, but here it is again perhaps with a bit more explanation and clarity. From the original post (which could have been more detailed in retrospect): "I do not believe most prayers are answered (almost none, actually), I do not believe in personal revelation, I believe most local Church leaders are wholly uninspired...." A later post: "Following what Mormons are taught, it would be presumed that God knows what would bring me back to activity and would through some means bring about the "miracle" or whatever to make that happen. Whether God knows them or not, I know them, and they're not happening." Again, keeping at least some privacy, that which I seek is not a miracle at all, does not necessarily require God to influence the thoughts and/or actions of anyone, is not actually physical, and is something the vast majority of you have. I could draw an analogy (and this is not it because it is physical) to having a home or simply a place to live. It really is that simple. More importantly, it rights a wrong that I believe God was directly involved in (perhaps as part of a test which I failed, see the post above). From a still later post: "I believe that if what is taught in church is correct, God does know all and likewise would, as a loving Father in Heaven, do what is necessary...to bring back his child in response to the pleas of that child and other children.... (If) God does know what it would take...Why, then, ... does he not do so?" And saving the best for last (and besides it was later): "...it is regularly taught and testified of in LDS churches that God loves each of us, that he is intricately involved in our daily lives...that he hears and answers all prayers...that God has a specific plan for each individual, that he desires our happiness and success and is just waiting for us to ask him for whatever we need or want, and whatever is righteous and properly prayed for we will receive. Likewise...it is taught that God does allow bad things to happen to good people for whatever purpose he has or simply allowing evil people and/or Satan their agency. And of course, God always allows each individual to choose - but there are consequences to each choice, most of which are not readily apparent. So the expectations I have is that God is the God that people in the Church say he is." In direct answer to your question, I am not feeling the love and have not for a very long time (or he has a very strange way of showing love); I do not believe most prayers are answered (as stated originally) - at least mine aren't and most of what I see people testify of as answers to their prayers happen to people that don't pray as well; I don't believe God is intricately involved in our lives (again, not feeling the love) and if he has a plan I don't know what it is I am supposed to do to make that happen because this can't be it (but I doubt he has a plan); and I think the other stuff is covered in what I have already said. I can't be any more specific than that. I don't feel the love, my prayers (and the prayers relating to this by family and friends) have not been answered despite doing everything properly, if God were intricately involved with my life he would see how I have suffered, and this is clearly not the plan of a loving God as described above.

I am guilty to an extent of having followed the gospel of prosperity at one point. As I matured in thought and as that thought process as evolved, I, as you point out, have come to understand that this is not actually part of the gospel. And, in the beginning, I did see this all as a test (apparently a very long test). Nevertheless, a test I have obviously failed. Put the "F" on the paper, it is obvious at this point that I do not have enough faith. At this point I might actually believe that God is finding some perverse pleasure in seeing me and my family suffer (in truth, I don't believe God cares). Spare the comparisons to Job, he was different than me, he did have enough faith and ultimately passed the test. For me, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, there is little hope. I am clearly and admittedly not a better person because of this experience (family and friends will attest to this as well), so whatever molding is going on has not been successful. My apologies if I am about to offend you, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have no doubt that your sincerely believe what you have said, but you are really doing nothing more than parroting that which you have been taught and in fact have no more idea or knowledge of what God actually does and does not do than I do. You do clearly have faith and that is admirable.

I feel for you, and empathize with the struggle you must be going through going against the will of your parents and Bishop. I have said this many times before, here and elsewhere, that your experiences are your and yours alone and other people's experiences are theirs and theirs alone. No one else can tell you what you feel, only you know. You must always do what you believe is right. Just a couple side notes here, both related to the idea that everyone should serve a mission. That is indeed not what the church teaches, and your bishop was out of line telling you what he did, pure and simple. Secondly, Howard W. Hunter did not serve a mission.

I am both surprised at the agreement that the gospel is indeed that good news of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the dissent in the belief that it is either much more than that or not exactly that at all. As I have researched the topic on my own, I came across this quote from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." Maybe he'd heard about Hillel (just kidding). I'm not saying the "commentary" (and if you didn't research Hillel, he gave that response when asked to summarize the Torah while standing on one foot) or "appendages" are bad, they're clearly not - they teach people to do good and teach people good things. The commentary and appendages appear to be necessary. The thought I'm really trying to provoke here, though, is do we focus too much on the commentary and the appendages and not enough on the core of what the gospel is? If you sat in the foyer of your meeting house today and polled each person who came through about what the gospel is, what answers would you get? Do most members really recognize the atonement and resurrection as the gospel? Indeed, the atonement and resurrection are taught and testified of in church meetings and general conferences, but are they under emphasized at the expense of the less important appendages and commentary?

Istj

I had to ponder this one for awhile. Upfront, I freely and wholly admit that I am not temple worthy and that simply attending sacrament meeting will not make me temple worthy. Most importantly of all, I do not consider myself temple worthy (and am very far from it). That said, "Believing the prophet/president doesn't know what he is talking about; believing the General Authorities are uninspired" does not in and of itself appear to make one not worthy of the temple. The question is, If I recall it correctly (and paraphrased) if I sustain the president of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator and the only person authorized to exercise all priesthood keys; the first presidency and quorum of the twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators; and if I sustain other general authorities and local authorities of the church. Simply disagreeing with what they say (privately, I must add), does not call into question their roles as prophets, seers and revelators, or exercise of keys. Sustaining other general and local authorities is more vague (and I do not believe I do necessarily), but again, simply disagreeing with something they have said does not automatically mean I do not sustain them. I don't think I'm spilling any beans or letting any cats of of bags, but not every word that comes out of President Monson's mouth is scripture or inspired. He is as human as the rest of us and is not infallible. And just a final disclaimer here, I keep these thoughts to myself, only share them if asked, and then only if I think the asker needs to know.

Having weathered some similar storms with our own teenage (now adult) daughter, I have to agree with what some others have said on the issue of force. Forcing her to attend church will not solve the problem and may only make it worse. Every kid (and every person) is different, so what works with one person isn't going to work with every person. You need to trust in yourself that you taught her properly when she was younger - her true core values are already established and will not change, although outwardly they may appear to. She will return to those values.

Wow, not meaning to be rude, but you have made some huge jumps in psychoanalysis on very little basis. Seeking a home teacher my family and I can relate to (and let it be known the current home teacher could be that guy) that actually comes and cares about our needs is not too much to ask. The home teacher isn't really the issue - the issue is that either God or his appointed leaders are the ones who really don't care - I honestly don't know which or if it's both. I will also remind you that when this began I was very active. I think some of you have somehow gotten the idea this is about people. It's not and never was. People are not really the reason I don't go to church, and I'm sorry if I have given that impression - I know my expressions of thought about people who don't know what they're talking about being an irritant could give that idea, but that is not why I don't go to church. Finally I don't think I could make this clearer. I do have a yearning. My yearning is for the God that the Church teaches about. I have been the full gambit over these past 12-14 years, there are no surprises.

This has already been covered.

I agree that she should probably be told - apparently he hid it from her. Some sort of supporting documentation (court papers, news account) would be helpful. I ahve no problem with you doing so anonymously.

A discussion in another thread prompted this question. Our Bible Dictionary, under the heading "Gospels" defines the gospel as "The word gospel means good news. The good news is that Jesus Christ has made a perfect atonement for mankind that will redeem all mankind from the grave and reward each individual according to his/her works." I agree with that definition, although our Christian brothers and sisters may have some slight differences of opinion. Nevertheless, I believe the central message of Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice and resurrection. Borrowing from Hillel and the Jews regarding their central belief, ""That which is hateful to you do not do to others. All the rest is commentary. Now go and learn." (Shabbos 31A) I put this here not because I believe it is part of the gospel (although it may be) but because it illustrates that the gospel can be very straightforward. To Jews (and Jesus) the greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor - the rest, therefore, is just commentary. That said, if the gospel really is the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, is not all the rest of what we teach just commentary? Your thoughts.

You could not be farther from the truth.

OK, I'll buy after 10 years they may have decided I'm truly a lost sheep. I don't buy that the first couple years or in the process when I was becoming less active (I didn't just 1 day not show up). And what led them to that conclusion? It wasn't meeting with me, was it inspiration? Does God think I'm a lost sheep? Is an occasional phone call, visit, email, or meeting too much of a tax on finite time or resources? What am I giving to them? Far more than you'll ever know and far more than they have given to me. Their expectation as stewards should not require anything. I definitely know what I'm looking for (I'm not sharing that here), and yes, it will be obvious when it happens. I am willing t do whatever I need to do to get it, but whatever I have done has not gotten it - and I have done much. Let's not go with the come back to Church, accept a calling, etc. thing - that's been done in that this started when I was very active.

Admittedly at one point several years ago I was depressed and was treated for depression. I am no longer depressed, and I don't suffer from social anxiety, etc. Were I employed, my occupation deals with groups of people on a daily basis, and I am quite comfortable in groups large and small. The old home teacher guy (and he is old) would come the last Sunday of the month after calling an hour before, usually without a companion, chat about absolutely nothing for an hour (the kids hated his visits), and he'd leave and we wouldn't hear from him again until the next month's last Sunday. This went on for years, and it was the same way when I was active as it was when I wasn't. He's a nice guy, lives a couple blocks away, and he actually told me once early on that the HPGL (different from the current one) had wanted to move me from his route and he asked him not to. I think he is well meaning, but I also think his primary objective was to be able to say he visited each month. He showed no caring for me or my family and still doesn't - he lives close enough that I see him more than most members. Seriously, would anyone expect any growth from that experience? Finally, it doesn't really seem to matter what I do - get treated for depression or don't, go to church or don't, meet with the bishop or don't, get visited by home teachers or don't, pray or don't, read the scriptures or don't - things stay the same.

Your express yourself fine, I think I understand, and your point is well taken about the highly favored. I actually believe that, and I just realized I haven't clearly expressed that here. I do believe some people's prayers are answered and I do believe some people receive revelation, and that the presidents of the church and many other General Authorities are probably in the category of those that have experienced both. Likewise, I believe there are likely people within my own ward and stake who have had such experiences. At one point around 10 years ago, I, too, would have said I had experienced answers to prayers and personal revelation and I would have said so truly believing it to be so. (I can see the light of understanding burning above some of your heads right now, but that is not revelation.) I will not take away from their experiences - I believe it could very well have happened and whether or not it actually did, they believe it did. Their experiences are theirs and only theirs, mine are mine and only mine. So the problem I have with people who I refer to as not knowing what they are talking about is with those who preach, teach, and otherwise admonish that the same is true for everyone. That is clearly not so. My prayers are not answered, and any revelation I thought I received is so highly questionable as to make it unreliable. I know some of you find this offensive, but if Mountain_Trails is right (and I believe he is), when a General Authority (or the old biddy in your ward) stands before the world and preaches that he knows all prayers of everyone are answered, he doesn't know what he is talking about. There are those of us who know (yes, there are more of us out there, some LDS some not) that this is not true. Their experiences are theirs and theirs alone, mine are mine and mine alone. I do believe they are sincere in what they are saying and they believe they are correct and that they believe that what they are saying is true doctrine. But they don't always know what they're talking about because they have an entirely different point of view.

I can't say that I am offended by sin, and I don't consider hipocracy a sin. Perhaps I haven't stated my position clearly enough, or perhaps I just shouldn't have gone off on that tangent. Being offended by someone at church was never a criteria for my attendance or not (and I realize that this is different from many other less actives). You are right though, in that I never asked not to be visited, etc., and I did and do expect more than what I have gotten, most of which was initiated by me. This all ties into my belief of the uninspired nature of local leaders and answer, or lack thereof, to prayers (but is not the basis for either). Really think about that. In 10 years neither of the 2 bishops that have served during that time were inspired to make any contact with me on their own despite the activity of my family. I've had my current home teacher for a year and a half, he has visited 3 times, doesn't otherwise call, email, etc. I actually requested a new home teacher when he was assigned because throughout the years prior to that I had the same guy and I felt he wasn't getting anywhere and really helping in any way and I didn't really relate to him - although he did come most months after calling in the afternoon of the last Sunday. No inspiration, despite my prayers, that there might need to be a change there - I actually had to ask after years of waiting. Do these leaders know or care that the new home teacher doesn't come? Have they never been inspired to follow up? Maybe they have and their human frailty keeps them from doing anything. I can actually forgive that, but I have heard many times the testimony of the HPGL and his personal inspiration and revelation in helping others - he actually once prevented a suicide because he was inspired to go right then to see a man, despite the fact he was going somewhere else important and in the other direction at the time (or so his testimony goes). I believe he was likely inspired then at least, is he no longer inspired or willing to follow that inspiration? I've said too much, my apologies.

It's nice to have a non-LDS perspective, thank you. I don't believe what God ought to do is please me and fulfill my expectations, actually. (I'm not contradicting myself here - I do believe he should meet the expectations of what God is supposed to be.) And while I'm not sure that this is actually Mormon doctrine, it is regularly taught and testified of in LDS churches that God loves each of us, that he is intricately involved in our daily lives (even as stated in another post here in things like helping you find your lost car keys), that he hears and answers all prayers (but the answer is sometimes "no" and sometimes "not right now" and sometimes different than what you want), that God has a specific plan for each individual, that he desires our happiness and success and is just waiting for us to ask him for whatever we need or want, and whatever is righteous and properly prayed for we will receive. Likewise, as you state, it is taught that God does allow bad things to happen to good people for whatever purpose he has or simply allowing evil people and/or Satan their agency. And of course, God always allows each individual to choose - but there are consequences to each choice, most of which are not readily apparent. So the expectations I have is that God is the God that people in the Church say he is. Again, I'm not sure how much is doctrine and how much is teachings of men, but much of this is also spoken of by the General Authorities in general and stake conferences. I specifically waited to answer your post after the one I answered above because there is an explanation there - that feeling of deceit when I discovered God is not what those who "know" so much say God is. As assuredly as they know, I know what God is not, but as pointed out earlier, there is some I don't know - like whether or not he actually does know all things. I am interested in your "problem of evil" perspective. Please share it, because evil did play a part in my inactivity.

I do understand your point, but my agency at this point has nothing to do with it. Yes, I do choose not to attend Church and that is an exercise of my agency. However, I do my part - all that I can - on making that which I need (this is not simply a desire) happen. It was not happening when I did go to church, it's not happening when I don't either. And I honestly cannot say I am a better person for this experience (which began a couple years before these 10 years of inactivity), and I could convincingly argue that the opposite is true, and that includes the time when I was active and fully participating. Part of this, that should be explained, is that which I'm sure some of those at the FAIR conference spoke about - there came a time when I felt truly deceived and betrayed by what i knew to be true, and that feeling is still there and deeply rooted. I am now a believe guy, also, but what I believe is far less than what I used to believe (or "know"). (Differing from most of those at FAIR, however, is that my "shaken faith" has nothing to do with the history of the Church - I know - really know, not spritually know - the Church covers up much of its history and have known that for many, many years.)