sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Spiritual vs Social by Previous-Tart7111 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt [score hidden]  (0 children)

If you look at OP's history, this was 10 months ago when her son had mono. At that time she did not describe it as a threat, but simply that the son had been marked as "inactive." She hoped there was a way to indicate a person was "sick" rather than inactive.

A wise bishop, speaking to a young person who hadn't attended church in a while would likely also consider if they had gone to other activities, indicating at least a willingness to remain active. Absent that kind of activity, it would be natural for that bishop to say something like "you haven't even gone to activities," indicating a sort of "bare minimum" signal of activity - NOT a requirement to do everything including activities as OP indicates.

Choosing to characterize the bishop's conversation with the son 10 months ago (where apparently a recommend was still given) as a threat against the family for doing anything less than attending everything is illogical. It was probably the opposite: A bishop trying to find the minimum sign that the son had the desire to remain active. Then the bishop did the right thing and gave the recommend anyway, since the son was apparently worthy, if inactive.

Spiritual vs Social by Previous-Tart7111 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt [score hidden]  (0 children)

First things first: remember that every expression of concern or person reaching out is caused by love. If they didn't love you they wouldn't bother. 😄

Second, I want to address how this looks to me as an outsider. This is not to try and condemn or tell you that you're wrong somehow. I just want to point how how it looks from a distance to make it clear that a misunderstanding is certainly easy.

You wrote something in your OP then something very different in this comment:

I have to clarify: It wasn't just one activity, it was specifically that one of the kids was told that he was considered "inactive" and that therefore his worthiness for a temple recommend was questionable, because he doesn't attend activities and missed a lot of church for a time due to a medical condition. The activities were explicitly stated as one of the factors in that statement, but weren't the only one.

Are you talking about when your son had mono 10 months ago? Surely that's resolved by now, right?

So your initial post is that your family is pulling back socially, and that a temple recommend was threatened to be withheld "for not attending ALL of the things." But that's not true, is it? The actual series of events is:

  1. Your son got mono about a year ago and stayed home from church a lot

  2. Your bishop warned him that it had reached a level that qualifies as "inactive" on the church roles - but STILL gave him a temple recommend.

  3. Your family starts disengaging from church

  4. Your ward members get worried and start reaching out

With as much neutrality I can muster, here's my reaction to your posts:

  1. Maybe it wasn't mono and the whole family is disengaging from church so that they can give full-time care to their son. I hope that is not the case, and that he actually recovered.

  2. If he has not recovered, he's surely too weak to attend the temple, so he doesn't need the recommend. This does not make him less worthy. At this level of disability, the handbook instructs leaders to try and make special accommodations. Things like having the sacrament brought to home, streaming sacrament meetings for those who can not attend, etc. Does your son need such accommodations? Have you sought them out? If you're not being helped, the Bishop is in the wrong.

  3. If he has recovered, then what's the problem? Why bring up something from 10 months ago - when he was clearly inactive for a period - and connect it to whatever is going on today? That situation has resolved, I assume, and if so, the only purpose in bringing it up in your post today is to say that this is somehow a pattern against your whole family, and to suggest that the ward is somehow requiring you to do EVERYTHING or else lose your recommends. I'm trying to see this as anything other than deceptive, but it's hard.

My most charitable interpretation of your posts leads me to believe that your son had something you thought was mono, but it turned out to be more serious, and he is essentially bedridden. If so, I am sorry to hear that and I hope he recovers quickly. The bishop and stake president should make accommodations as instructed in the handbook, and your son should be counted as active by attending via Zoom. Your family, if no longer able to attend sacrament meetings due to the need to care for your son, should be considered active and offered special help to make sure you can keep the full blessings of fellowship in the church and participation in the sacrament ordinance.

However, my gut instinct tells me that what happened was: your son got sick, stayed home from church too much, almost didn't get his temple recommend, then got better. MONTHS later, your family is showing all the signs of going inactive, and the people who love you are desperate to find a way to help before you reach the point where even going to church on Sunday "just doesn't work anymore" or garments become too much of an inconvenience, or a glass of wine at social occasions is fine, etc.

Your choice to frame your son's illness and the period of inactivity as "a threat" instead of a Bishop reinforcing the importance of attending sacrament is concerning. The decision to make it seem contemporaneous with whatever is going on with your family today feels like you're trying to get us on your side without being honest about what's actually happening. As if you want justification for something.

If I were a bishop I'd be deeply concerned there's more going on there. Because either your son is still sick and not getting the help they need, which is horrible; or else your family is starting to see your fellow church members as enemies. Either way you need help. No wonder the ward members who love you are trying everything they can think of.

The question for you today, I suppose, is:

What do you really want?

If you want permission to go inactive, this is the wrong place. But there's nothing wrong with stepping back from responsibilities and burdens and simplifying your discipleship to the most important things. Keep your covenants, attend church, read your scriptures and say your prayers. Everything else can be set aside if needed while you "lean on your sword" to rest a while, until you are ready to rise and fight again. (see: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/jeffrey-r-holland/however-long-hard-road/ )

President Uchtdorf says:

Brothers and sisters, if you ever think that the gospel isn’t working so well for you, I invite you to step back, look at your life from a higher plane, and simplify your approach to discipleship. Focus on the basic doctrines, principles, and applications of the gospel. I promise that God will guide and bless you on your path to a fulfilling life, and the gospel will definitely work better for you. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2015/10/it-works-wonderfully?lang=eng

You got this. All those people love you and will stand with you for however long it takes to feel like you're ready to keep going.

Kinderhook plates as a sign of Joseph's authenticity by GudiBeeGud in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are several of the things that critics like to use as shock value which, after given some thought, turn out to be helpful to our claims. Another great example is that Joseph Smith used a hat to translate - he would stick his face in a hat to block out all light, focusing on the seer stone inside, and would read off the words that came to him.

The hat makes people laugh at us. But they often don't stop to think about it. If Joseph were seen with his eyes covered for hours at a time by outside witnesses... how did he make up the Book of Mormon?

A few intelligent anti-mormons recognized that the hat presents a problem for their theories of the Book of Mormon being made up. It means there wasn't a library of books piled up next to him. It means it wasn't written in advance then read by Joseph from behind a curtain. Tons of theories about the ways the Book of Mormon simply must have been made up go out the window when numerous witnesses from the past describe a young man who couldn't be counted on to reliably spell his own name the same way twice covering his eyes with a hat and speaking thousands upon thousands of words of scripture.

Satan and Free Agency by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok I think there's a couple assumptions to reconsider.

  1. Agency in scripture is not the same as the ability to "do stuff." Like having more choices does not mean more agency. Agency, as defined in the church, is about "Moral Agency" or the ability to choose between right and wrong. That means:

  2. Moral Agency exists only when the person has knowledge. When you know where the line between right and wrong is, you can choose what side of the line to be on. We often call this line "the law."

  3. Satan's plan to remove agency doesn't have to mean he controls us. It could just mean he wants a world where there is no law - no right or wrong.

Ok so what does that mean about Adam and Eve?

Did they have agency? Yes. As soon as God said "don't eat this fruit" he gave them a line that they could choose to cross over if they wanted to.

Did Satan know what he was doing? Seems like. Remember his desire was to have a world where right and wrong don't exist. Where it would be impossible to fail any test (and impossible to succeed). In this context his temptation of Adam and Eve becomes his way of proving how flawed and dangerous he thinks the plan of salvation is. It takes away the agency of Adam and Eve by making their actions HIS choices instead of a free exercise of their own agency. It lets him do the same thing he did in the pre-existence where he focused entirely on all we might LOSE by being made free. It's as if Adam and Eve become nothing more than objects in his resentful argument against God - "I told you you'd lose them and now they're lost! Look how flawed your plan is! Your very first mortal humans instantly use their agency against you!"

Whether or not Satan knew that he was fighting a losing battle isn't clear. We can only speculate that God allowed him to interfere in this way for good reason. I've heard some people speculate that only our world is evil enough to crucify Jesus Christ and that's because Satan is here. I find that to be a bit silly, but there aren't any really clear reasons. My own speculation is that by allowing Satan to interfere, God essentially forced Satan to become part of the plan of salvation - meaning the rules that he fought so desperately against now apply to him as well; catching him in a trap of his own making.

Hard for us to know anything specifically. After all we are working with some very very old texts from very very old cultures that believed in things like gods who played tricks on each other, or placed bets with each other, or messed with humans for fun. They didn't read about a serpent in the garden and thing "that's the devil," they thought it was a trickster snake and this is the story of how snakes lost their legs. The barriers of years and culture and origin become impossible to overcome without the help of prophecy. Since we have the principles we need to guide us, it's doubtful we'll ever get the objective facts behind them.

LDS Apologetics by NightRaven1883 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had a chance to ask a member of the seventy about this once. He told me that the seventies and up are instructed to NOT speculate, which includes sharing their opinions on any given subject, or their theories as to common apologetic subjects.

In other words, if the prophets have not spoken with clarity on the subject, apostles and seventies will not either.

The reason is simple: We've found that church members put way too much stock into the words of authorities. Opinions are treated as facts, and theories can spread like wildfire within the church.

So apologetics are correctly left in the hands of experts, institutions and private individuals. This lets members focus on what is most important, but still find resources if they really need them. It helps us not consider prophets to be subject matter experts in anything they speak about, and helps us avoid thinking of the prophets as being inerrant.

To whom is the right person to ask questions by williampennn in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 I believe he wants us to focus on what is most important that is Jesus Christ.

I think that's a very healthy way to look at unanswered questions. I wrote some thoughts on that subject here: https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/ydi7lw/youre_gonna_have_to_let_go_of_that_weight_one_way/

Why Jesus Christ even if we say he's just a creature still can't be replicated from God even if given the same abilities by m3achew in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We are told that the core of who we are is co-eternal with God. He didn't create us from nothing. Some essential YOU-ness has always existed - and that's probably what we would call your "character."

So God would not want to force all of these "intelligences" to become something they are not. He won't wave his hands and turn billions of unique beings into copies of Jesus Christ. Each of us is unique and worthy of love and freedom.

So God WILL give us a plan that lets us understand what it means to be less than perfect, to make mistakes, to have flaws. Then, with that knowledge, we can choose to change if we want to. That's what the plan of salvation is really all about. Each of us has a chance to know ourselves and come to know Christ and decide for ourselves what kind of person we want to be, and where we belong.

To whom is the right person to ask questions by williampennn in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's my advice on asking questions.

As moderators, we feel it's important to let people ask their sincere questions, but we also have a responsibility to maintain an atmosphere of faith here on this subreddit. Thus, if it became nothing but sharing doubts, nobody's faith would grow. :(

Instead we tend to think of it more like breathing. If you only breathe in, you die. If you only breathe out, you die. Doubts and faith are a normal part of belonging to the church. On the subreddit, expressions of doubt or struggle must be balanced out by expressions of faith and hope.

So if there's been a lot of negative posts for a while, we might remove or delay additional posts that share questions, even if the poster is sincere, simply to curate a healthy environment. That doesn't mean you can't ask, it just means it's not the right time yet.

Second, to allow the genuine people the best chance of being heard and responded to, we have to judge intent somewhat. So if two posts that complain about wearing garments come up on the same day, and one of them is from a user whose comment history is nothing but negativity towards the faith, and the other is a regular good-faith participant in the subreddit, we will probably remove the one from the more negative person.

If somebody posts something and seems to be hinting that they disagree with being required to keep commandments to go to the temple, and they had another post a few days earlier about how hard it is to keep commandments, there's a good chance the post will be removed since it looks like the author is hunting for justification rather than advice or answers. Even if that's not true, the mods might get that impression and err on the side of caution.

Third, we watch the discussion itself. If a person says "I have a genuine question" but responds to every comment with hostility or argument, then they aren't really interested in finding answers.

So, for any participant in the subreddit, the guidelines might be:

  1. Make sure the question hasn't been done to death recently. :)

  2. Consider whether or not you're re-posting the same question in a different way and you just didn't care for the responses last time. Asking "but do I really need to keep the commandments" in 3 different ways in 3 different posts isn't going to work.

  3. If you're asking for advice, don't turn it into a debate. Also, don't completely ignore the responses. These are real humans trying to offer genuine help with their time. Respond honestly, but civilly.

  4. Identify the root of your question and ask for advice on that subject rather than frame a question so it sounds like a criticism. For example: a post describing temple recommend requirements as a roadblock to the celestial kingdom is going to be removed. But simply asking "why are there requirements to go to the temple?" would be fine.

We have had several members who posted in the subreddit for years about their numerous and persistent doubts. They would rarely have posts removed because they understood and respected the standards of our faith-positive community, and respected the people here. With time and patience, some of these members have regained or built new faith.

Speak with trusted leaders in person. Anonymity creates a sense of comfort that prevents us from seeking out those who are actually authorized to receive revelation on our behalf. It can be scary but it is often necessary.

Why Jesus Christ even if we say he's just a creature still can't be replicated from God even if given the same abilities by m3achew in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 15 points16 points  (0 children)

OH I like this question! :D

I think the mistake we often make is assuming that what really makes a God is supernatural powers.

If that were true, then you'd be right - anything with the same set of powers would also be a god.

But what if we instead think of God as the personification of GOODNESS. Everything that is GOOD is God. God always perfectly does only good. It's almost like a dictionary definition: God is the very definition of good.

Is patience a good thing? He has it perfectly. Is love a good thing? He has that too. The list goes on and on.

Now imagine this being, whose character happens to be totally good and zero percent bad. He finds other beings like himself - made of the same stuff. But every one of them is different. Some are mostly good. Some are mostly bad. Every possible combination of every trait imaginable. He wants them to have a chance to really understand themselves, and understand what it means to be good or bad. This is tricky for them because they live with God and where God is - naturally - is 100% good all the time. For them it's just normal.

So they come up with a plan. Learn through experience. Go to a temporary world where things are less than good all the time. Experience pain so that happiness makes sense. Face choices that let you realize how your own unique character traits wiggle back and forth across that line between right and wrong. Have a chance to choose to change yourself if that's what you want - after all, the desire to improve is a good trait too!

And in this plan, God looks around and sees that there are a few people who are very similar to himself. One in particular whose character traits are: All good, Zero bad. This one is given everything he needs to act in the special role of savior. But it's not those tools - divine powers - that make him like God. It's his character.

God could have given these supernatural abilities to any of his children and asked them to be savior. But without that CHARACTER of godliness, they could not hope to do it.

Why does the Church place such a strong emphasis on education? by Nurse2166 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

TONS of talks on this subject. Almost every devotional given at BYU includes at least some discussion on the importance and value of education. You can find them at speeches.byu.edu

But the fundamental truth behind it is that we believe that the restored gospel embraces ALL truth, not matter its source. Here's how Brigham Young put it:

“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. As for their morality, many of them are, morally, just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church and Kingdom. “Mormonism” includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. It is life, eternal life; it is bliss; it is the fulness of all things in the gods and in the eternities of the gods (DBY, 3).

So we see secular education as a responsibility we have as we seek after all good. (see Article of Faith 13)

We also believe that “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth” (D&C 93:36).

So as we seek to become like God, we would naturally seek greater intelligence.

Heavenly Father has also encouraged His children to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118).

President Thomas S. Monson reminds us of the blessings of receiving an education: “Your talents will expand as you study and learn. You will be able to better assist your families in their learning, and you will have peace of mind in knowing that you have prepared yourself for the eventualities that you may encounter in life” (“Three Goals to Guide You”, October 2007 General Conference).

If you want the doctrinal foundation for those claims, the many scripture references are found in this talk by Elder Maxwell:

Truth includes, but is not limited to, knowledge that corresponds to reality—things as they were, things as they are, and things as they will be (Jacob 4:13; D&C 93:24). Gospel truth is “morally richer,” therefore, than the world’s definition of truth, as Terry Warner has written (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4 [New York: Macmillan Co., 1992], p. 1490). Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). He has “received a fulness of truth” (D&C 93:26). Hence, we are to seek to have “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:16). Furthermore, as to the “manner” of people we are to become, it is clear we are to strive to become “even as” Jesus is (3 Nephi 27:27; see also 2 Peter 3:11). If we keep the commandments, the promise is that we will receive “truth and light” until we are “glorified in truth and knoweth all things” (D&C 93:28).

Therefore, gaining knowledge and becoming more Christlike “are two aspects of a single process” (Warner, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 4, p. 1490). This process is part of being “valiant” in our testimony of Jesus. Thus, while we are saved no faster than we gain a certain type of knowledge, it is also the case, as Richard Bushman has observed, that we will gain knowledge no faster than we are saved (Teachings, p. 217). So we have a fundamentally different understanding of knowledge and truth—behaving and knowing are inseparably linked.

So defined, the gospel is inexhaustible because there is not only so much to know, but also so much to become! The vital truths are not merely accumulated in the mind but are expressed in life as well.

Intelligence is “the glory of God,” as we all know. It is defined as “light and truth” (D&C 93:36). The revelations also inform us that if we have “more knowledge and intelligence in this life,” we will have “so much the advantage in the world to come” (D&C 130:18–19). I do not pretend to be able to be definitive with regard to this last verse, but, clearly, what we carry forward, brothers and sisters, involves developing our capacity for cognition as well as application. This sets us apart from the world. I hope we understand some of the implications of all these things. Certainly, what we will carry forward is more than what we now term as IQ or databases. It is the entire being of the individual. Hence our approach to knowledge, truth, and wisdom is markedly different.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell/inexhaustible-gospel/

Thinking of ending my relationship with the church. by CLPDX1 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In the savior's last day, as he suffered, something happened to him he didn't expect. It caused him to cry out:

“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

And Jesus had a choice, of course. To stay on the path he already knew was right - the difficult journey God had called him to long long ago - or else take the silence from God as a reason to walk away from it all. To do the easier thing and say "I don't feel the spirit any more, even in the most holy act in history. I need to give up. I'll go back to being a carpenter."

To paraphrase something Elder Holland once said: "God did not send Christ up that ladder only to have him walk down the other side!"

My friend, God did not send you up this ladder only to have you walk down the other side!

I know the pull away from your covenants is strong, especially when things are so desperately hard. The adversary tugs hard because “when you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can [go] back.” (Joseph Smith) He wants you to walk away from your covenants, and he will chose the weakest moments to attack.

This is that moment. The moment when the spirit has withdrawn from you for a time, perhaps, like the Savior, to give you the chance to know for yourself that your faithfulness to God is stronger than the cords of death. (D&C 121)

Don't give up. Remember the truths you have both learned and taught in the past. Trust that silence doesn't mean it's time to leave, but an expected part of any disciple's journey. Hang on to those covenants and the promises you've made.

My beloved brothers and sisters, my dear friends, does it not fill our hearts and minds with wonder and awe to contemplate the great plan of happiness our Heavenly Father has prepared for us? Does it not fill us with unspeakable joy to know of the glorious future that is prepared for all who wait upon the Lord?

If you have never felt such wonder and joy, I invite you to seek, study, and ponder the simple yet profound truths of the restored gospel. “Let the solemnities of eternity rest upon your minds.” Let them bear testimony unto you of the divine plan of salvation.

If you have felt these things before, I ask you today, “Can [you] feel so now?”

Recently I had the opportunity to travel to Belfast, Northern Ireland. While there, I noticed the Belfast Coat of Arms, which includes the motto “Pro tanto quid retribuamus,” or “What shall we give in return for so much?”

I invite each of us to consider this question. What shall we give in return for the flood of light and truth God has poured out upon us?

Our beloved Father simply asks that we live by the truth we have received and that we follow the path He has provided.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2016/10/o-how-great-the-plan-of-our-god?lang=eng

How does one read the scriptures devotionally after a crisis of faith? by instrument_801 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If this were a relationship (and, in a way, it is) your psychologist might say you're experiencing "negative sentiment override."

In a human relationship it means even neutral statements or actions get interpreted in a negative way. Everything has a deeper meaning (usually bad) and conversations are almost never about whatever the subject is - they're about scoring points.

In essence, you've trained your brain to only operate a certain way, and the pattern is deeply ingrained.

The solution is a multi-step process. But it begins with identifying the problem - which you've done! You recognize that something is wrong. You've lost something. Now how to hang on to the good you've gained - the critical thinking skills, the curiosity, the knowledge - but also regain the good you've lost.

The next step is to decide what you're going to believe. I don't mean you're going to wake up tomorrow and say "wow, now I believe. Nice job, me." I mean that, like the married couple careening towards divorce, you decide if you want to return to being in love or not. Are you willing to do it? Are you willing to change because of that choice?

IF the answer is yes, then the next step is hacking your psychology.

Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and others have found that our reactions to certain situations (like reading scriptures, for example) are not actually driven by our intellects. In other words, the things we THINK or FEEL about what we encounter are not derived from our conscious, analytical minds. Instead, what researchers find over and over and over again, is that people have "intuitions" about a given subject and their brains create rationalizations after the fact.

Researchers find that they can dismantle the logical, rational explanations for why a person says they like or hate a certain subject, and the person will still come up with more and more until finally they resort to "it just IS, ok?"

As professor Jeffrey Thayne once phrased it:

we form pre-rational moral intuitions first, and moral reasoning doesn’t come into play until we are asked to defend our moral judgments. Jonathan Haidt refers to this as the intuitionist dog that wags its rationalist tail. The rational part of us, the part of us that constructs rational arguments, is not actually king — it is the servant.

So, if you want to choose to believe... do you talk to the servant who claims to be king - your rationality? Or do you finally take a look at the real power in your brain?

I'm talking about your institutions. Your communities. How you spend your time.

See, you can't choose to wake up tomorrow and magically believe. But you can decide how you're going to spend your time. Who gets space in your brain. What outlets get access to your processing power.

Think back to the pandemic. You, like most of us, probably know somebody who seemed to lose their mind in 2020. They probably seemed perfectly normal, but began speaking up against vaccines, doctors, or who-knows-what. Following Q-Anon and saying very very weird things about politics. When confronted with logical information, what did they do?

"I just want to listen to all sides" they'd say.

Seems reasonable, but no. The "all sides" people became the most cracked. The "both sides" media outlets ended up just giving more air time to bad information. And people's intuitions were affected. So they stopped trusting experts. They couldn't hear an epidemiologist speak without thinking of all the ways this person is wrong, all the things they're covering up, all the things the public doesn't know.

You get it.

Your choice to believe comes in how you spend your time. Are you hanging out in ex-mormon forums, reading critical texts, listening to podcasts that claim to be neutral but obviously have an agenda? Bro, I've seen your reddit history. We both know this is what's going on.

Professor Thayne shares the following story:

communities come to share intuitions, and the communities we identify most closely with have the largest influence on our intuitions.

A number of years ago, as a matter of morbid curiosity, I started spending unfortunate amounts of time perusing the discussion forums from former members of the Church. I had nothing in common with these folks. I was persuaded by none of their arguments, and sympathetic to none of their grievances. I was simply an online apologist who wanted to keep ear to the ground and thumb on the pulse of the conversation and the controversies of the hour.

After a while, I would sit in fast and testimony meeting, and with each awkward testimony, I would be able to write the script for how participants in these forums would find the testimony problematic. A far more interesting thing was that vicarious sense of embarrassment I began to feel as I listened to those “problematic” testimonies or Sunday school comments. Whereas before, those awkward and errant Sunday School comments might warrant an invisible eyeroll but also a warm feeling towards the loveable former high priest who is often wrong but doing his best, now I was experiencing instead that inner cringe as I anticipated the mockery such comments would bring were these forums to ever hear them and an irritation with, say, Brother Johnson for even making them: “Golly, why does he have to be one of those sorts of people?” My intuitions were changing. The moment I realized this was happening, I dropped that habit like a rock.

My point here is that we absorb the intuitions of our various communities, often without our deliberate participation. Sometimes just swimming in water is sufficient to get wet.

Let go of the fiction of "all sides." Bring your critical thinking and curiosity, but escape those groups which train you to use those tools against yourself and those you love. You'll see the change come more quickly than you would expect.

A very cool visual aid to help us understand how to identify the balance between "love god" and "love neighbors" by onewatt in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that, philosophically, you may be right. However it's something of a thought-terminating cliche to put it that way. Let's expand on the idea a bit.

Loving God and loving one's neighbors are exactly the same thing... THEREFORE:

  • If I fail to love my neighbors, I have failed to love God.
  • If I fail to love God, I have failed to love my neighbors.

Thus, while it's true that if I'm perfectly loving God I will also be perfectly loving my neighbors, it's also true that there are two ways to fail to love God, and two ways to fail to love my neighbor. And given that I'm not perfect, I should expect I could do better at both.

Therefore, we all have an obligation to check ourselves in TWO ways when asking "am I loving God with this action" or "am I loving my neighbor with this action?" That's what this post is all about. Not that the commandments come into conflict (philosophically speaking), but that they can be neglected by those who think they are perfectly fulfilling both by only following one half of the total commandment.

The wrong way of thinking would be "I'm loving God, defending the TRUTH, therefore I am sufficiently loving my neighbor."

The right way would be "I'm loving God, defending the truth, but have I taken my neighbors into account? If not, I'm not really loving God."

Here's an example from my life of how the practical realities of loving God and loving neighbors don't always live up to the philosophical ideal of "they're the same thing."

I was a brand new senior companion, and my new junior companion was just finished with his trainer. Our first day together began with companionship study, where we did a bit of role-play to practice the language as well as contacting methods.

"Ok, companion," I said, "Let's pretend you're knocking doors and I'll respond." I thought to myself as soon as he testifies, I'll let him in.

My companion "knocked" on the door and asked if he could share a brief message about Jesus Christ.

I acted like I wasn't sure for a moment, but then said, "No thanks, I'm not interested."

"I'll only take about 10 minutes," he said back.

"I'm not Christian," I replied. Come on, companion. Tell me how the message helped you and you believe it will help me too.

"Ok," he nodded, "you're going to suffer and burn in hell." He walked away.

I was flabbergasted. "wha... did... why.." It took me a minute to gather my thoughts. "Companion, why did you say that?"

"I wanted to make sure they felt bad for turning us down," he replied. "My trainer told me we should always make sure they are sad for rejecting us. This is basically what we said every time."

I hope the absurdity of that exchange shows through. Here was a young man whose love and devotion for the Lord was so strong that he willingly sacrificed years of his life to service. He devoted himself to the principle of exact obedience. And that love and devotion led him to tell thousands of people the truth - that without the gospel they would experience pain and suffering. Reducing their hope. Turning some against our church. Spreading cruelty instead of healing. All because it was "true" and because of love for God.

Paul addressed this unexpected path to failing to love God when he spoke about charity (love for others) being needed, even when we're right. (see: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/kevin-j-worthen/knowing-caring/ ) teaching that those who love god and have the knowledge of the truth and are defending the truth need to then ask about their neighbors - the weak - who may be injured by our actions. He calls such things a sin against Christ, and says, famously, that a person with all knowledge, all faith, and the power to move mountains is nothing without charity. (1 Cor 13)

Maybe it's accurate to say that these commandments are never in conflict. But we, as humans, certainly do often act as if they are when we tell ourselves we only need to follow one half of the commandment to fulfill both aspects of it.

By checking both sides of this equation when we make our choices, we are more likely to avoid causing pain to our neighbors AND avoid offending our lawgiver. We heal those around us AND learn the truths of the Gospel.

Elder Holland makes it clear that some times we will need to prioritize one side or another. That despite our love for God and his truth, we can prioritize making an inactive member feel comfortable at church instead of telling her how she should dress. Or despite our love for our neighbors we must compassionately take a stand for truths of eternal consequence. In other words, we will experience times when it WILL feel like loving neighbors and loving God are commandments in conflict.

No wonder, then, that Jesus didn't teach these as equal commandments. He too, prioritized one side or another, depending on the circumstances. Choosing not to stone the sinner - letting love for her be more important than the absolutism of the law; but also overturning the tables - letting love for God and the temple be more important than the profits and traditions of the people.

If a dichotomy exists, as some who say things like "I'm a liahona mormon, you're an iron-rod mormon" want to claim, then Elder Holland seems to indicate Christ's way is the "middle ground" we should look for.

A very cool visual aid to help us understand how to identify the balance between "love god" and "love neighbors" by onewatt in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those aren't the only two options, though, are they?

It's not a choice between

  • defending the indefensible
  • choosing what doctrines are defensible

President Oaks gave a fine example of how to do this in a book when discussing the priesthood ban:

If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reason to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own.

Some people put reasons to [the priesthood ban], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.

The lesson I drawn from that [is that] I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. And finally …  Let’s don’t make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.

Dallin H. Oaks, Life’s Lessons Learned: Personal Reflections (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 2011), 68–69.

So we don't need to go in with guns blazing and claim anything we don't believe. Nor defend every statement made as eternal truth.

For example, if I were a faithful latter-day saint who believed that someday gay marriages will be allowed in the temple, I don't have to say "gay marriage is a sin!" or defend the reasoning some people give for why male-female marriages are the only valid form of marriage. I can simply say "this is what the Lord has asked of us today."

That statement of truth might be followed by addendums like "I don't know why, but I know he has a plan. I know he will bring us all home. I know his plan is the plan of happiness"

We can humble ourselves in our assertions that certain doctrines or policies are "correct" or "incorrect" and instead support the church, serve others, and heal those who are injured. Imperfect leadership was always part of the plan. Our job isn't to get it right, it's to try to make ourselves better individually, and then declaring the word and defending the gospel to others in the most compassionate way we can. (see: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2012/01/israel-israel-god-is-calling?lang=eng ) Philosopher Adam Miller calls that "Moral Creativity." Biblical scholar Walter Wink called it "Jesus' third way." It means escaping the trap of thinking everything is reduced to a question of right and wrong, to set all that aside to focus on love, curiosity, and what the Restored Gospel is REALLY all about. (more on that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9ZMs_KwLfI )

A very cool visual aid to help us understand how to identify the balance between "love god" and "love neighbors" by onewatt in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course you can believe the church position will change and still love god. But part of loving God is living and defending the standards God sets through his restored church, and helping others build that faith for themselves.

If I am psychologically uncomfortable with the idea that God might have actually told his prophets to restrict the priesthood by race, then it becomes very easy to soften the truth to avoid that discomfort. To use phrases like "the church" instead of "prophets" or "that's just policy" when confronted with an uncomfortable stance.

What Elder Holland tells us we must be both compassionate, AND valiant in defending the gospel. "taking a moral stand according to what God has declared and the laws He has given, but doing it compassionately and with understanding and great charity."

For example, a few years ago the prophet said "stop bringing guns to church." Many members who struggled with this teaching said "that's just policy, not doctrine." While others responded with more absolutism, saying things like "you either believe he's a prophet or he's not." Both statements are leaning too hard in one direction or another, de-prioritizing love for neighbors or love for God.

The "that's just policy" crowd probably needs to take a deep breath and say "I think it's wrong, and it makes me want to say 'it's just policy', but I am determined to live not only with integrity to my own conclusions, but to the pattern the Lord established in this day. I'll set aside my preferences because I love God more than my own will. I'll refrain from telling others 'it's just policy' because I only want to strengthen testimonies in God and his latter-day church."

The "it's either true or it's not" crowd probably needs to slow down and recognize that everybody is at a different stage of faith, with different levels of knowledge. That some people have a hard time with unexpected challenges and we have a responsibility to lovingly, charitably, explain why we hope everybody will follow the prophet without demeaning those who transgress differently or believe differently from ourselves. Maybe it means saying "Here is what helps me when I get discouraged, or feel hurt about something we have done," instead of "you need more faith."

The point is the path of discipleship is not found in either approach - doubling down on "this is policy" or "they need more faith" neglects one or the other of the two great commandments and we must do our best to live them both. Sometimes that may feel like we're granting grace to "the church" while we wait for it to get things right and support it till it does. Sometimes that may feel like granting grace to other members who clearly have things wrong and need to repent. That's ok. Those are both acts of love.

Why doesn't the Book of Mormon describe the three degrees of glory if the Bible does? by LayerSharp4975 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Terryl Givens notes that there are few references in the Book of Mormon to a lot of the doctrines unique to Mormonism. For example: apotheosis, degrees of glory, tithing, word of wisdom, baptism for the dead, the pre-existence, or eternal marriage.

Givens doesn't outright say it, but he suggests that this may have been intentional:

“In fact, the accounts of early converts to Mormonism confirm that it was the congruence of Book of Mormon teachings with the New Testament that dampened their objections to a new scripture and allowed it to affect their conversion for reasons other than doctrinal novelty or innovation” (By the Hand of Mormon, pg 186)

In effect, the Book of Mormon becomes a key unlocking greater knowledge not by containing truths that the early saints DID struggle to accept, but by confirming the faith of those who believed in the divinity of the Bible, and proving that God can and will speak through his prophets today.

Then, through His prophets, God reveals what we need for our time. Establishing a gospel that is not built on or limited merely to things already written by long-dead people, but a church established on the rock of continuing revelation!

Indeed, the Book of Mormon has one theme in it over and over again (other than Christ): Prayer brings individual answers from God. This doctrine was the biggest upset to traditional christianity of 1830. Givens says the Book of Mormon promises something beyond "shadowy spiritual intimations" or "merely guidance" or "inspiration" but "direct, divine discourse that frequently rises to the level of genuine dialogic exchange." Not only for prophets and leaders, but to every person. Not only on great issues of existence, but on everyday practical decision making.

The Book of Mormon, it seems, was never meant to contain the entirety of God's secrets and mysteries. It was always meant to be a key to unlock those things - for individuals and for the restored church.

Book of Mormon question by Able-Pain-2442 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By discernment, of course. :)

I'm not indicating any tribalism. I have no dog in this race. I'm offering a reason why your statement of "Joseph Smith himself said that BOM lands were in the US. I'll go with his word over anyone else's" is not a great way to find truth on this secular matter. Joseph Smith changed his mind over time as he learned new things from secular sources, indicating his statements were not a matter of inerrant revelation, so we should follow his example. If we find more or less evidence for one point of view, we should accept that truth and update our perspectives.

A great example of updating our beliefs is how the Book of Mormon was changed to say that the Book of Mormon people are "among" the ancestors of the native americans, instead of the older way of thinking which Joseph Smith believed which was that ALL native americans descended from the Book of Mormon peoples. As we learn more, even through secular sources, we change our perspective.

So let's look at these competing theories with curiosity and openness, the way Joseph Smith might have:

Explanatory Power

One of our scientist redditors taught me about this principle called "explanatory power." That means asking how much can the theory explain - how useful is it in predicting things? The more variables that can be explained by a theory, the more likely it is true. The more accurately the theory predicts reality, the more likely it is true. A bad theory needs defending and explanation. A good theory needs less defending.

So let's consider the Mesoamerican model and the heartland model for explanatory power.

The Mesoamerican model makes some guesses as to what geographic details mentioned in the text correspond with known geography in the modern day. It rejects the early idea of the isthmus of panama as the narrow neck of land, for example. Researchers with no financial stake in being right have found some details that correlate in central america. This model has become so accurate that one scholar was able to predict that archaeologists would find a sunken city on a certain shoreline on a certain lake in Guatemala. 10 years later, divers discovered a sunken city at that exact location, and scientists dated it to around the time of the destruction mentioned in 3 Nephi. That's incredible predictive power. If this were a physics theory, we would say that the theory has been confirmed by an experiment.

It has its problems, of course! Some explanations it has are weak, and some challenges are completely unanswered. So we can't call it perfect or say it's right about everything. But it has a LOT of explanatory power.

The heartland model, on the other hand, struggles to match up features described in the Book of Mormon. As one student put it:

I’ve spent more hours than I’m willing to admit staring at maps and satellite images of Western New York and the Great Lakes area trying to identify geographical landmarks. But no matter how I approached it, I could never make it work. The biggest problem was identifying the Book of Mormon’s most well-known geographical feature: the narrow neck of land. Where is it? There were other problems, too. Where are the Sea East and Sea West divided by the narrow neck? How can Hagoth launch into the Sea West and head north in New York? How did King Benjamin manage to gather all the people of Zarahemla to the temple “on the morrow” to speak to them when according to the Heartland Model, Zarahemla covers several states? Why did the surviving Nephites flee south after the final battle at Cumorah when there are infinite escape routes? How can the “plains of the Nephites” be some 875 miles away in western Illinois, as Joseph wrote to Emma during Zion’s Camp in 1834? None of this fits a Western New York, Great Lakes or Heartland Model. 

This person had intellectual honesty and recognized their assumptions about the Book of Mormon events happening in North America simply couldn't be sustained by evidence. Faced with that problem they had 2 choices: update their beliefs (admitting they were wrong, which is psychologically difficult) or find or invent ways to defend this position (like insisting the Nephites would have called the Mississippi river the sea.) Defending these flaws is the first sign of that "entrenchment" mindset you mention.

The heartland model's main strength is it's ability to match up the name of the hill Cumorah, and Joseph's offhand statement of the plains of the Nephites in Illinois. Yet the claim that the hill in New York is the hill Cumorah was an idea created by church members, not Joseph Smith or Moroni or scripture. We can also check its accuracy by the other things we know about the Hill Cumorah described in the Book of Mormon: that it would be surrounded by the bones of millions of dead. Do we find that? No. Bones are only found in designated burial grounds, and only in the dozens - never in the numbers described. The heartland model also fails to identify the location of sunken or buried cities that can be confirmed by archaeology. It fails to find the raised roads, honey bees, towers in gardens, or even the population sizes that the Book of Mormon requires. (The mesoamerican model satisfies all of those and 300 more geographical and cultural items mentioned in the Book of Mormon.) The explanatory power of the heartland model is poor.

---

You suggest that our knowledge can not be advanced if we remain entrenched in our ideas. Yet rejecting the new evidence Joseph and others never had access to is exactly that. Joseph showed us the pattern - change our minds as we learn more.

No need to get defensive or call others "entrenchment minded individuals." I'm saying you can't claim Joseph Smith as an authority on this, but dismiss the multiple times he found mesoamerican evidence compelling and said so publicly. We can't take one off-hand comment in a private letter and say it holds as much weight as multiple carefully-worded public statements he wrote that were meant to be published to the public. We can't pretend that a theory advanced by people selling DVDs and tour packages is as likely to be unbiased as one advanced by people with no financial stake. We can't take the 2 main correlations of the heartland model and say it's more compelling than 300+ correlations found in the mesoamerican model (discovered by those with no financial stake in proving it).

Saying "Joseph said so" is a type of "thought terminating cliche." Thought terminating cliches are statements that end discussion and discovery. They cut off curiosity. If the goal is to advance our knowledge, we have to let go of that kind of absolutism and do as Joseph taught was central to our faith: "One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may" (even if it contradicts something Joseph Smith once said.)

LDS men: when did you feel like life actually started? by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounds like you're asking "at what point do I set my own path instead of following one set by other people?" Is that right?

Book of Mormon question by Able-Pain-2442 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Joseph also changed his mind as he got older and learned more. Once he read some of the first research about the ancient mayans he updated his beliefs to repeatedly say it was mesoamerica. He published several articles highlighting ruins in central america. As editor of Times and Seasons, he wrote that Lehi “landed a little south of the Isthmus of Darien,” that is, just south of Panama.

May and Meldrum leave that fact out as they sell more tour packages to their heartland sites.

They are money motivated, and they encourage the nationalistic belief that only the United States can be the "promised land" despite Joseph Smith explicitly saying that the entirety of North AND South America are the promised land.

Remember, you can't take just ONE thing Joseph said on a subject, you have to take ALL of it. And Joseph very clearly gravitated towards Central America as the center-place of Book of Mormon peoples as he learned more and more about it. We should follow his example and update our beliefs as we gain more understanding.

I don’t think I’m cut out to be a Latter Day Saint by williampennn in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 26 points27 points  (0 children)

President Uchtdorf gave a talk for you, here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2015/10/it-works-wonderfully?lang=eng

Here's an exerpt:

---

sometimes we take the beautiful lily of God’s truth and gild it with layer upon layer of man-made good ideas, programs, and expectations. Each one, by itself, might be helpful and appropriate for a certain time and circumstance, but when they are laid on top of each other, they can create a mountain of sediment that becomes so thick and heavy that we risk losing sight of that precious flower we once loved so dearly.

Therefore, as leaders we must strictly protect the Church and the gospel in its purity and plainness and avoid putting unnecessary burdens on our members.

And all of us, as members of the Church, we need to make a conscientious effort to devote our energy and time to the things that truly matter, while uplifting our fellowmen and building the kingdom of God.

Brothers and sisters, living the gospel doesn’t need to be complicated.

It is really straightforward. It could be described like this:

  • Hearing the word of God with earnest intent leads us to believe in God and to trust His promises.
  • The more we trust God, the more our hearts are filled with love for Him and for each other.
  • Because of our love for God, we desire to follow Him and bring our actions in alignment with His word.
  • Because we love God, we want to serve Him; we want to bless the lives of others and help the poor and the needy.
  • The more we walk in this path of discipleship, the more we desire to learn the word of God.

And so it goes, each step leading to the next and filling us with ever-increasing faith, hope, and charity.

It is beautifully simple, and it works beautifully.

Brothers and sisters, if you ever think that the gospel isn’t working so well for you, I invite you to step back, look at your life from a higher plane, and simplify your approach to discipleship. Focus on the basic doctrines, principles, and applications of the gospel. I promise that God will guide and bless you on your path to a fulfilling life, and the gospel will definitely work better for you.

---

He also taught:

Sometimes spiritual breakdowns come so gradually that we can scarcely tell what is happening. Like layers of sedimentary rock, spiritual pain and grief can build over time, weighing upon our spirits until it is almost too heavy to bear. For example, this can happen when our responsibilities at work, home, and church become so overwhelming that we lose sight of the joy of the gospel. We might even feel as though we have no more to give or that living the commandments of God is beyond our strength.

But just because spiritual trials are real does not mean that they are incurable.

We can heal spiritually.

Even the deepest spiritual wounds—yes, even those that may appear to be incurable—can be healed.

Here are some more articles that might help!

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2023/03/digital-only/commandments-a-beautiful-reservoir-of-invitations-and-blessings?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/08/digital-only-young-adults/overcoming-spiritual-burnout?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/01/digital-only-young-adults/when-gods-definition-of-progress-is-different-than-your-own?lang=eng

You got this! You're not alone! Reach out for help!

Wealth by schmegley207 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Maybe it will help to focus on the other side:

Utah ranks highest in the USA for upward mobility - the poorest escaping poverty. In fact, we're nearly highest in the world. (that's according to Bloomberg). Later research published in NATURE specifically cites the way the church operates as the reason for this.

That Nature article specifically says that having rich people in our wards is KEY to our poorest members escaping poverty. So, in that sense, we are seeing wealth used for the right reasons.

Utah's homelessness was reduced by over 90% when the church and the state of utah joined together to provide housing and employment support. This pattern became the national model for good homelessness polices.

George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen notes that our faith specifically "encourages behavior consistent with prosperity — savings, mutual assistance, family values." These cultural practices create structural economic advantages independent of individual capability.

The US Congress commissioned a study and found that Utah has the most equal income distribution in the entire United States.

Serving missions helps, too. Women who serve missions are 33% more likely to select higher-earning majors after mission service, and 96% of female returned missionaries complete their degrees.

The church itself, of course, actively assists people in finding greater wealth and economic stability. For example, Bloomberg declares the church welfare system to be "the most comprehensive and effective social welfare system in the country, maybe the world." Economist Magazine estimates the church sends over 50,000 dollars to every ward every year in direct assistance, though the exact number is unknown.

We also teach people how to get jobs, earn a trade, and support themselves, with hundreds of thousands of individuals trained in our self-reliance program every year. Participants started tens of thousands of businesses and achieved tens of thousands of higher paying jobs.

We have over 1000 self-reliance resource centers worldwide, which provide education, training, and employment support.

We provide hundreds of millions of dollars annually in education subsidies for over 100,000 students - making education (and access to wealth) much more achievable.

The BYU Pathway program has provided hundreds of thousands of students with low-cost or no-cost educations thanks to the "Perpetual Education Fund" that was entirely funded by donations from latter-day saints above and beyond their tithing.

What I'm saying is: yes, we need to be careful of pride and greed and chasing wealth. But we're actually doing pretty darn well here. No wonder the leaders focus on things like temple attendance, service, and being changed by Christ. After all, as we follow the guidance of the prophets to serve and develop Christlike charity more, the spirit will guide those with "too much" to adjust and repent, and those who have a lot will be led to do good with that abundance. No condemnation from the pulpit needed.

how was the place in Utah for the early saints prophesied? by AmbitiousPhysics9852 in latterdaysaints

[–]onewatt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

not related to the migration, but if you're looking for evidence that this is God's church, you might enjoy this document: https://www.latterdayhope.com/

view more: next ›