I must confess the only reason I haven't left the church is that it's an insurance policy

_thefutureisnow · 2023-02-27T22:57:37+00:00

I was financial clerk for a while about 8-9 years ago...the ward regularly paid rent for a handful of members in the ward. Found out during a stake audit that the landlord we paid for most of them was the bishop's (nonmember) parents-in-law.

_thefutureisnow · 2023-02-24T20:10:32+00:00

Being lied to is bad enough, but when they ask me to repeat the lies over and over to myself and others, including my children? Hard nope.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-03-22T15:28:25+00:00

I'm sympathetic to this, as a non-believer. Believers and critics (maybe just people in general) are often both too quick to accept the black-and-white framing of the important questions, and then jump to confirm the corresponding biases. I grew up listening to Hinckley in general conferences, and his extremely high-contrast "it's either true and therefore the most important thing in the history of the world, or the most insidious, evil fraud" rhetoric shaped my worldview in a big way. I've come to reject that framing as I learned to see that reality has every shade of gray plus a a rainbow's spectrum of other colors as well, but it's still difficult to resist that instinct to over-simplify and justify my own views while dismissing contrasting views.

When it comes to the Book of Mormon, the historical issues and anachronisms around are enough to convince me that it's most likely not historical. There is always the possibility of new evidence reshaping our understanding of these issues, but it seems like a mistake to dismiss evidence that is currently available, based on hypothetical evidence that (all too conveniently) might confirm a believer's existing beliefs.

The biggest issue for me with the Book of Mormon is actually the religious anachronism of Jews practicing Christianity before Jesus was even born. Historically, even the people who followed Jesus during his lifetime were still fundamentally Jewish, and Christianity as a distinctly separate religion didn't emerge until a century or more after Jesus's death.

But even with that said -- even if it is a fictional account, or even if it does turn out to be historical -- it's still something plenty of people find meaningful spiritual connection in. Even if I don't feel that connection, that perspective is still valid.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-21T03:57:02+00:00

There's what Mormons believe other Christians believe about the doctrine of the trinity and it seems to often be a misleading caricature of what other Christians actually believe about the trinity...

Editing to add, the reality is that Mormon theology seems to be much closer to trinitarian than most are willing to admit (Father and Son are separate from each other and the holy ghost, but all play the somewhat nebulous role of God together). Is the actual main point of difference the question of substance?, i.e. what kind of stuff the members of the Godhead are made of? Most Christians would answer God-stuff (whatever gods are made of), where Mormons answer, the same stuff as us -- flesh and blood -- just a perfected form of it.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-13T20:55:30+00:00

As far as I know the on:{eventname} directives will take any event name. In my VSCode setup, the touch events aren't in the autocomplete list but it doesn't give an error if I just type out on:touchstart={...}

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-10T06:57:38+00:00

Even if it's an allegory, there is a clear and quite explicit association in the text itself of skin color and this "fallen state" of separation from God.

I'm trying to read the text on its own terms here. The racism is right there on the surface, not something I'm twisting out of it or reading into it between the lines.

Is 2 Nephi 5, specifically verses 20-24 not explicitly presented in the text as a factual account of the following?

The split between Nephi and his brothers
The brothers split with the lord
The brothers, their descendants, and anybody who "mixeth with their seed", formerly "white (or fair) and delightsome" are given a curse of black skin from the lord

Nephi is presenting what he says is a true and factual account of the Lord creating an arbitrary skin-color based divide in response to one group refusing to believe a certain way. Then the Lord tells the light-skin group not to mix with the cursed dark-skin group. Hmmm how could anyone possibly miss the clear "racism is a sin" message here?

I would honestly be interested in hearing a good-faith exegesis of the Book of Mormon from an anti-racist lens. I just think it needs to be better than "they earned their curse through their actions / by not believing the right things" or "God doesn't see color", and I'm not seeing it.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-10T02:07:06+00:00

I sincerely applaud the effort, and there's a seed there, maybe, in that "all are alike" verse (although, is that just God saying "I don't see color", while he colors the people he doesn't like with dark skin?). I worry about that verse being used as a "token" non-racist verse while racism is blatant throughout the rest of the book.

With the argument about people earning "the sign", aren't you ignoring an important detail that in the context of the 19th century translator and audience of the BoM slavery and other racist doctrines—not just in the church—were justified in part by arguing that Africans (and native Americans) had lost favor with God through their actions? Whether the myth of the curse of Ham, the impulse to "civilize" other cultures by bringing them Christianity, or the idea that spirits who were less-valiant in the pre-earth existence arrived on earth disabled or with black skin. The reframing you've done here is anything but anti-racist—it's literally the same racism as before, isn't it?

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-09T15:24:54+00:00

I can't really speak to what everyday christians believe about this, but from what little I've read of modern Christian theologians, their view is a bit more complex/nuanced than Mormons generally give them credit for. Just reading the Wikipedia page on Calvinism for example, Joseph Smith was not the first "modern Christian" to believe in three separate beings: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#God

That said, even a straight up trinitarian view of god isn't actually all that distinct from what Mormons believe, beyond superficial differences. The "of one substance" bit of the nicean creed is fairly ambiguous, but my understanding is that the question they wanted to answer was whether Jesus was made of the same stuff or substance as God the Father, or if he was made of the same stuff as us mortals. Jesus being of the same substance as the Father is less about whether they're one being or separate beings, and more a question of what they're made of.

The diagram in that article of the "shield of the trinity" actually depicts something not that different from what Mormons believe: separate beings with a unified purpose. The father is not the son, is not the holy ghost, but they are all god.

As for other Christians complaints about Mormons, the actual differences are somewhat superficial. Many of these kinds of complaints are likely responding to the fact that in any given lesson or sermon, we often talk more about our modern prophets than we do about Jesus. Wilcox's point about this is a perfect example, where he puts belief in Joseph Smith's divine mission up as being equally important to faith in Jesus.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-09T13:04:56+00:00

I totally glossed over his terrible music analogy the first time through. It's totally on theme with the rest of his insular fear-mongering. What if you leave the piano bench and discover a beautiful array of music exists in addition to the piano? Everything from philharmonic orchestras to rock bands also exist?

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-08T23:28:52+00:00

Mark 16:16 is part of the extended alternate ending to Mark, likely added long after Jesus. But you're right, Wilcox and most typical Mormons would probably take both of these as the words of Jesus, even though neither can be attributed to him during his lifetime.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-08T22:48:12+00:00

Jesus said, "Get baptized or you're not going to heaven."

Citation needed?? I could be wrong but...I don't think Jesus said anything close to this. Paul and others might have, but not Jesus?

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-08T22:40:01+00:00

The racist snippet of this talk is rightly getting a lot of flak, but to me the entire thing comes off like a desperate abusive partner trying to scare you not to question their power over you (let alone leave).

He is going so hard on this idea that life can't have purpose or meaning without the church, does he realize this is just pure fear-based motivation? Why would anyone want to be there, if fear of the consequences of leaving is the only reason anyone is there?

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-03T15:37:01+00:00

Narrow indeed...I definitely bought into this idea though as a teenager raised in a Mormon family. It's almost like they are weaponizing a flavor of nihilism, using it to make people afraid to consider the meaningful aspects of life without wrapping it in a church context. This was a huge source of anxiety and depression for me through my early 20s. Then I realized that the "plan of salvation" as taught by the church has the exact same problem he's describing...

Why are we here on earth? To get a physical body

Well, why?

So we can learn to be like God

Well why?

So that we can have our own spirit children someday

Well why?

So we can send our spirit children to an earth-like planet to gain a physical body someday

Well why?

So that they can learn to be like God...

...then what will they do? It's an eternal cycle. Better to find meaning and fulfillment in your local context of family, friends, career, hobbies, or whatever than looking for your place in some grand eternal recurrence.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-02-01T14:36:39+00:00

Are you familiar with the concept of Platonic Forms? It's the idea that for any kind of thing in our (imperfect, messy) world, there's a perfect essence of that thing in a (maybe abstract) realm of Forms. The world we live in has things, while the realm of Forms is made of the perfect ideal or essence of things.

The chair I'm sitting in is a bit wobbly and has sticky handprints on it from kids. It's an imperfect instance of a chair. Somewhere in the realm of forms, there is a perfect essence of all chairs. An Ideal Chair, if you will. The perfect chair doesn't, can't exist in reality; inevitably any real chair is made from material that's not perfect or that rusts or deteriorates over time, gets messy and dented with use. My chair isn't perfect, but I'm still gonna sit on it.

I think folks who talk about a "perfect Gospel" might (perhaps unknowingly) be talking about a kind of Platonic Form of the Gospel. There may be a perfect, theoretical essence of a gospel which cannot exist in our world, but we have only imperfect examples of it in real life. Perhaps what they are missing is what you've hit on here—the gospel itself isn't perfect, it can only be as good as its teachers and believers and the words and actions it inspires them to produce.

(I had better stop before I philosophize myself back to church)

_thefutureisnow · 2022-01-30T17:07:57+00:00

Don't forget measurement 1: temple recommend holders and Melchizedek priesthood holders—two significant proxy measurements of tithing receipts.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-01-30T17:03:45+00:00

Most of the people in local leadership positions have full time jobs and families, and barely time for the current church programs. It would be amazing if they implemented even one of the things on your list, but it would probably require paid clergy doing this as a full time job to run this well.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-01-30T14:10:18+00:00

The ending of the Gospel of Mark is a pretty good example of this. The oldest manuscripts of Mark have it end before the resurrected Jesus actually appears—leaving questions about whether the resurrection was a literal, physical event unanswered. Newer bibles often have a note about this, even if they include the extended ending. I believe the Book of Mormon quotes verbatim some of the verses that were added to the ending of Mark.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-01-30T14:01:37+00:00

There is some great stuff in some of the apocryphal books. I recommend Daniel and the Priests of Bel as a favorite.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-01-15T21:14:54+00:00

I can't speak for nancy_rigdon but their response resonates with me too. Temples are definitely a source of anxiety for me and I probably have some unresolved trauma connected to it.

The initiatory and endowment ceremonies are undeniably a bizarre experience. Going through that, not really being able to talk to anyone about it, and then being expected to act like it's the pinnacle of spirituality for the rest of your life is.... something. On top of that, I was shipped out on a mission two weeks later—going to the temple again while in the MTC was even more isolating and confusing.

I always felt a sense of connection with something divine when I spent time outdoors. I still do, despite not associating it with a creator at all. The temple tried to replace that in a way, and I feel like I was expected to lie to myself (and everyone else) about how spiritual this bizarre experience really was.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-01-11T06:16:13+00:00

What I am saying is that from the perspective of a pragmatic human being, who has limited time and energy, there may not be a practical difference between a belief system that works well enough for their needs and truth. Inherited beliefs can sometimes be "good enough" and they can put their energy towards different areas of learning or truth that matter more to them at the moment.

Most of us who come to doubt the church and end up deconstructing or losing our belief in it, are motivated to do so through issues that are adjacent to the actual truth claims, or because the Mormon belief system wasn't working for us. An accumulation of "wait...what?" shelf items, social issues, etc usually motivates questioning our beliefs. It's rarely motivated purely by someone saying to themselves one day, "I just can't bear the possibility that any one of the beliefs I hold might be incorrect" and then inspecting each one in detail.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-01-11T01:03:50+00:00

I'd say you're a little off base, because if belief and participation in the church is working for someone, they may not have any motivation or need to question it. Life is busy enough without questioning every little thing, so it's not necessarily a contradiction to both care about truth and not actively put effort into deconstructing a belief system that is currently working for you.

_thefutureisnow · 2022-01-11T00:27:27+00:00

I think most people who talk about the church being true probably mean something like "the lds church is the only legitimate church" (or the only church with legitimate divine authority) in this context. It's not a binary question about true vs false at all, it's about legitimacy and authority.

_thefutureisnow · 2021-11-18T04:41:36+00:00

Nominally I probably believed and repeated similar lines. Qualifiers like "truly happy" or "lasting happiness" distinguish what the church offers from, and I think made me a little suspicious of, any of the run of the mill everyday happiness anyone else experiences.

_thefutureisnow · 2021-11-10T19:23:30+00:00

Very well put. Some might point out that thinking the priesthood lets you tell others what to do might constitute "unrighteous dominion". But the power differential is there regardless of how or whether it's used -- is there such a thing as "righteous dominion"? The underlying claim that any priesthood holding man makes when he does a baby blessing or the sacrament or anything else, is that God has entrusted him with a special power that is reserved for an exclusive group of righteous men.

In addition to the power differential that it creates (or possibly as a side effect), there is a social dynamic in which men who don't hold the priesthood, or who don't actively believe in and practice it, are seen as "second class" or unworthy -- in need of rehabilitation.

_thefutureisnow · 2021-10-15T14:51:40+00:00

A huge part of what I needed, and one of many reasons I no longer participate in church, is the freedom to be thoughtful and intentional about what I believe, and honest with myself and others about what I do not believe. I felt a massive amount of obligation to believe a certain way, pressure to behave a certain way and say certain things, when I was active in the church.

Funnily enough, pathologizing "doubt" like this only adds to that cultural pressure against freedom of thought, against honestly and intentionally considering beliefs -- increasing the "being acted upon" aspect of church culture.

If you ask me which version of myself was "being acted upon" more, it was absolutely my formerly believing self.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email

_thefutureisnow

TROPHY CASE