Why I am here at your site.

[skippy740]

How can you love the Mormon people, and love Mormonism -- but not like the church, the organization?

I think it's a separation of the doctrines from the administration of and within the church... is my assumption?

It's like saying I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon... but I can't stand my bishop. ?

[skippy740]

I have never been an "orthodox" LDS member, and I left the morcor almost 20 years ago, and moved to VERY remote part of Oregon and attended a small branch that is/was much different type of mormonism than what I find outside of my area. We do things a little different here.

Branches in remote areas seem to have the most "excitement" too. I served a portion of my mission in Harlan, KY... and it was very different. Good little branch, but there was barely 20 people every week at church. It was very different.

I quit the church because my family in Idaho, and so many of the members made me feel so uncomfortable and "unwelcome" with all the conservative politics, authoritarianism - like the 14 fundamentals of the prophet, and focus on what I would call Pharisaical commandments. That is just my opinion.

That being said, I still love the mormon people. I think they are "true" for the most part. I still love my mormon family. I also love mormonism - the search for truth and enlightenment. I just don't like the church, the organization.

cwald, you're doing what others (I think) don't do enough of: learning HOW to think, versus being told WHAT to think. As a missionary, I always taught that the Holy Spirit is the teacher. The rest of us, including the Prophet, just preach. It's up to the Spirit to teach us what is good, true and correct doctrine to apply to our lives at this time in our lives.

For example: I believe in doing family history work. I believe in doing the work for the dead in temples. But I don't believe that it's the right time in my life to focus on that... right now. One day, sure. But not now. I have other things to focus on in my life right now. I don't feel a confirming spirit telling me to start working on my family history.

Now, with my own political views, I truly believe that if you do a thorough study of the gospel and the Book of Mormon, it will help you shape your political views. But it's not because I was "told" to think a certain way, but it changes the way I view certain political movements.

However, there are various views on political movements on this forum. Just be aware that political views are okay, but discussing candidates is not.

Welcome! We'll help teach you HOW to think... but not necessarily WHAT to think. We will discuss and emphasize the doctrines and practices of the church and to follow the commandments and repentance processes. While certain things may be discussed in detail and at length with various points of view, the stance of the website is to follow the church's stance and positions.

I hope that makes sense?

[Mamas_Girl]

I think it's a separation of the doctrines from the administration of and within the church... is my assumption?

It's like saying I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon... but I can't stand my bishop. ?

I would agree with you, but that's why we always say that "the Church is true, but the people aren't." So I'm curious why the reversal of the normal phrase. I think that's why so many of us have been confused by the term "true" in connection with the membership, it's just the complete opposite to how so many of us think. I was curious if when he says he loves the people and Mormonism, but not the church, the organization. I was under the impression that he wasn't talking so much about the actual organization (i.e. bishop, etc) as he was the literal organization (i.e. the restored gospel on a foundation of a living prophet and apostles, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone?)

I've heard many times on this discussion board people say that they like Mormons, but not Mormonism, or the LDS Church. And yet, what I am is very much due to my beliefs (Mormonism), and the Church, so I just find it difficult to seperate the three (me, Mormonism, and the Church).

[skippy740]

I was under the impression that he wasn't talking so much about the actual organization (i.e. bishop, etc) as he was the literal organization (i.e. the restored gospel on a foundation of a living prophet and apostles, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone?)

I've heard many times on this discussion board people say that they like Mormons, but not Mormonism, or the LDS Church. And yet, what I am is very much due to my beliefs (Mormonism), and the Church, so I just find it difficult to seperate the three (me, Mormonism, and the Church).

It's hard to form an impression when one hasn't been made or clarified specifically.

It's hard to hear others when we keep talking to ourselves in our own heads what we think they're saying.

This is the secret to missionary work and communication: You ask a question and listen intently. You ask further clarifying questions to be sure we know exactly what they are feeling, saying and meaning.

When a person is speaking differently than "we" do, you ask a different question. Ammon asked "Dost thou believe in God?" And Limhi responded "I do not know what thou meanest." Ammon asked a clarifying question: "Believest thou in a Great Spirit?" "Yes." "This is God."

Just because someone is communicating differently doesn't mean that we can't understand them.

[Mamas_Girl]

It's hard to form an impression when one hasn't been made or clarified specifically.

True. However, an impression is always made when a person writes to a group of people. Some may understand the speaker's intention, while others need to request clarification on what was meant so they can understand something too. To me, when someone writes I feel like they have something they think is worthy to be said, so if I don't understand them, or form an impression that doesn't make sense -- I ask for further clarification. To me, 90% of the world's problems would not be problems if people sat down and talked about them and clarified what they meant. But then again, I'm a female and we like to overthink and talk about feelings.

[Suzie]

Oh geez, is it really that some of you did not understand what he meant or is it the fact that he/she is someone that posts in a NOM site that changes the whole thing? He was more than clear in his intro IMO, I don't think there is need for Mormon paranoia just yet.

[Dravin]

He was more than clear in his intro IMO

I don't know what he meant by true, I don't think he's using it as some sort of insult but I still don't know exactly what sense he meant it since he has chosen not to clarify it. I didn't ask for clarification because I don't care that much beyond that fact he's not taking hidden digs, but just because something is clear to you doesn't mean it's clear to everyone else.

I don't think there is need for Mormon paranoia just yet.

See and I don't perceive paranoia in Eowyn's (or others) questions. I see her not sure how he's using the word because he's using it in a context that is non-standard from her perspective, one she isn't used to. And instead of just assuming what he meant she asked for clarification.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

Can I try?

Being a "true" person is in contrast to being duplicitous or "two-faced"... saying one thing and doing another. Being true is in having integrity and being more sure of themselves.

How's that?

Thank you, that helps.

[estradling75]

Communication

It has been shown that a big part of successful communication involves understanding and responding to non verbal cues. In essence while the words you say are important, how they are said makes all the difference. The exact same words said with different tone, facial expressions, and other things can change the very same words from neutral, to sarcastic, to funny to mean.

The non verbal side is so important that in the real word people who can't process them for what ever reason are seen to have a disorder or some kind of social disability. (The autism spectrum of disorders, including Asperger syndrome come to mind. Not that I mean in anyway to belittle the trials those people face by what I say next)

Now lets take that little tid bit and apply it to our situation.

We are on an internet forum that transfers exactly what we type. The words we choose. It, however, by its very nature strips out most if, not all of the non verbal cues we so desperately depend on to communicate intent and meaning. Now you might be thinking that I am full of crap at this point because I am implying that the internet makes everyone have a externally applied social disorder, when it is clear that people can, do and have, used the internet for effective communication. And you would have a good point. I see one reason for that given the clear limits of the system. People fill in the blanks with their own experiences and expectations. Writers through the ages have shown that people can use just words express themselves, those writers put a lot of time, talent, and effort in choosing their words and how to express themselves, to get the job done in guiding others to the fill in the blanks pretty closely.

But most of us aren't writers... We write the way we speak, because we know what we mean and it is crystal clear in our head. This works when people fill in the blanks or correctly or close enough. When different people with different experiences fill in the gaps differently we have problems. What appears to be so clear and simple to us, in our minds, aren't so clear to others because of this. And people then appear to us to be combative, stubborn, clueless, all because they didn't catch the non existent non verbal cues and there is a good chance if they are not understanding you then you are not understanding them. So it cycles around and around each trying to use a bigger hammer pound home their point which in their minds is perfectly clear and the other person must be too dense, stubborn, stupid or trollish not to see it, until either someone gets tired of it or the Mods shut it down.

And this is just one factor, that makes thing interesting around here. We also have legitimate trolls, and others who are just here to fight. This doesn't help with people filling in the blanks incorrectly, when such assumptions have been right in the past.

[prisonchaplain]

We had something similar to this happen in my movement. Like most LDS not knowing about the NOM site, I was not aware of the issue, until someone brought it to my attention. Basically, some of our younger pastors feel somewhat disconnected from the older generation. They've raised up modern, relevant, "relational" churches, that our movement applauds. However, when they interact with older pastors, they perceive a "top-down" mentality, and an over-reliance on title/position.

So, they did what younger, smart people do, and blogged about it during one of our recent General Councils (similar to your conventions, though more focused on clergy and leadership decisions and vision-casting). Some of the "old guard" found the blogging content abrasive, presumptuous, and, well...rude.

Our General Superintendent (similar to your President) decided to have a telecast discussion with the young pastors in charge of the blogging. He spoke warmly of what they were doing with their churches, and how they had adapted well to our changing culture. In return, the young leaders spoke of how they saw their role as "leadership by permission...daily." They were uncomfortable with past "authoritarian" attitudes. The discussion concluded with a mutual affirmation of our core doctrines.

I'm in the middle of these two generations. I see both sides. It's better if they talk, than if they just grumble amongst their own generation. It takes great Christian character to overcome being offended at "being talked down to" by the older generation, and "being disrespected and dismissed by those young and relatively inexperienced."

I realize that the NOM site and Cwald present somewhat different issues that what I've discussed. There are some powerful similarities though.

Edited November 12, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[drr456]

What is morcor? I've seen it a couple of places. Anyway welcome cwald! I'm a convert to the church for 7 years now so, I don't really know of everything you speak but I have a pretty good guess (lol)! I'm in Colorado and I've witnessed all different types of people in church I can't say that they're members but none the less they were welcomed in and took part in Sunday school etc. I say come on back a see what happens. I'm sure at one time we didn't have blacks in church but we do now. Heck on this site there's someone active in church and plays tarrot. I think that's awesome! We're all just human but we love

Heavenly Father and I know he'll be glad to see you back too (lol)!

[annewandering]

I have been in the church long time and I didnt know what morcor was either. On here I was told it means mormon corridor. Utah and southern Idaho. Its funny because I live in southern Idaho and never heard it before!

[HiJolly]

morcor = Mormon corridor = wide swath of old mormon towns up through (AZ?) Utah, Idaho, etc.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I would agree with you, but that's why we always say that "the Church is true, but the people aren't."

Um...I never say that. In fact the phrase used to really bother me. Now I say "The Church isn't perfect and neither are the people, although some of the people can be downright inspiring".

[Guest mormonmusic]

It's better if they talk, than if they just grumble amongst their own generation. It takes great Christian character to overcome being offended at "being talked down to" by the older generation, and "being disrespected and dismissed by those young and relatively inexperienced."

I realize that the NOM site and Cwald present somewhat different issues that what I've discussed. There are some powerful similarities though.

I see the similarities -- different stylist views while some consonance of beliefs. I'm sure this kind of dialogue would work in the LDS church though. So much of our beliefs point to our leaders as inspired, and we even make promises to support them regularly in various religious touchpoints that happen repetitively through our Church membership. This tends to put a wet blanket on conversations like the one you described above. It also happens at the local level. If you speak out about something you disagree with, you run the risk of being labelled apostate, which is never good for anyone's self-image.

On the other hand, this can vary widely with the leaders you get, although I find a healthy sum of them to fall into this category. I've had some other wonderful leaders who are open to concerns and relationship maintenance conversations like you describe PC, but on the whole, I wouldn't feel comfortable taking the risk.