Who is LDS purely for social reasons?
Justin Rhodes
have been inactive for about 5 years now. I think the church is essentially
good, but in personal beliefs I tend to lean more toward agnostcism. I've
started going to church again because I realized that in a mormon town, it
sucks to not be a mormon. If I was in a different town, I would not have
anything to do with the church. Anyway, I'm just interested to find out who
is in the same boat. Who associates with the mormon church, not because they
believe in it, but because it's the "cool" thing to do?
Charney Hoffmann
Welcome to SRM, and welcome back to church! I'll guess that you'll
find a lot of people who feel as you do. I have been an active member
of the Church all of my life; and for most of my life, I was what most
people on SRM would call a TBM (Truly Believing Mormon). About 3
years years ago, I had a horrifying epiphany (I call it epiphany
because it felt like one) of the illusory nature of my faith.
EXTREMELY long story short, my "belief" now is a choice, rather than
an inevitable consequence of my circumstances and experiences. I
think of my present belief as ACTIVE belief as opposed to PASSIVE
belief, which, to passive believers is simply belief. It has taken
some time to be comfortable with ACTIVE BELIEF, because for so long, I
had just believed, naturally, easily, inevitably.
For me, Mormonism is no longer a foregone conclusion. However,
Mormonism, like Agnosticism, is non-conclusive, unlike other gnostic
-isms. ".... We believe all things, we hope all things..." and "We
believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we
believe he will yet reveal many great important things..." are both
snippets from the Mormon articles of faith.
Like I said before, you will surely find in the community of Mormons
many people like yourself. However, I think you will find great
satisfaction in the Church if you explore your own beliefs WITHIN
Mormonism, rather than defining Mormonism as separate from, or
fundamentally incompatible with your beliefs.
As a non-conclusive religion, Mormonism can be an extremely inclusive
philosophy that purveys much more than social convenience.
Charney
Scott Marquardt
>As a non-conclusive religion, Mormonism can be an extremely inclusive
>philosophy that purveys much more than social convenience.
Does Mormonism conclude to anything at all? Does it exclude anything?
- Scott
father of peace
>As a non-conclusive religion, Mormonism can be an extremely inclusive
>philosophy that purveys much more than social convenience.
While I agree that Mormonism CAN be extremely inclusive, i
find that people who believe that tend to be cast out of the
church, figuratively if not literally. There seems to be so
much dogmatism and definitive pronouncements from
the orthodox LdS.
Love,
Absalom
Charney Hoffmann
> Charney Hoffmann wrote:
>
> >As a non-conclusive religion, Mormonism can be an extremely inclusive
> >philosophy that purveys much more than social convenience.
>
> Does Mormonism conclude to anything at all?
I haven't reached a conclusion regarding the extent to which Mormonism
is non-conclusive. Therefore, I cannot conclusively answer your
question. I'll suggest, however, (not conclude), that Mormonism's
non-conclusivity is not absolute.
> Does it exclude anything?
I'd hate to exclude the possibility that Mormonism excludes some
things. Hmmm.
Charney
Charney Hoffmann
Can you clarify your meaning? Do you mean those who DON'T believe are
cast out? Or do you mean those who "truly" believe? I'm interested
in your thought, but I don't quite understand.
Charney
Fool Speck
I have become active again solely because it is so agonizing for my
wife to be a spouse to an inactive husband. She felt she was treated
differently because I was inactive, both by the membership and by the
leadership. She was treated with well-meaning pity, but along with it
came an unfortunate lessening of esteem in the eyes of her fellow
members.
I knew it was going to be conspicuous for me to return to activity.
It was brought to everyone's attention by a very public welcome back
and hugs in the opening exercises of priesthood meeting, and it took a
month for the attention to taper off to normal. Their intentions were
very good, so I could not blame anyone for what I had to go thru; I
just knew that it was something most unpleasant I was going to have to
endure and just slogged thru it.
Nobody likes to be forced to play the role of the returned prodigal.
But part of my credo is "only a fool is offended when no offense is
intended."
Also my daughter went thru some counseling because she was so upset
about my inactivity. My return has been a great comfort to her. I am
still bored to tears and aggravated by the pervasive denial and
shallowness of the Sunday experience.
Steve Lowther
Mike
not a religious person which means I don't go to church at all. I still live
with my parents, so I can't stay in Cali. I'm also scared because i'll need
to go to high school. Damn it... SLC wouldn't be that bad for me since there
are lots of non-mormons living there. But Orem is a city of mormons :-( At
least, that's what people say. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions on
this one.
"Justin Rhodes" <jrh...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:v71656o...@news.supernews.com...
father of peace
>> While I agree that Mormonism CAN be extremely inclusive, i
>> find that people who believe that tend to be cast out of the
>> church, figuratively if not literally. There seems to be so
>> much dogmatism and definitive pronouncements from
>> the orthodox LdS.
>Can you clarify your meaning? Do you mean those who DON'T believe are
>cast out? Or do you mean those who "truly" believe? I'm interested
>in your thought, but I don't quite understand.
My experience has been that LdS members who believe
that the gospel is inclusive rather than exlcusive, tend to
get excommunicated from the church. Or they get
so much pressure and coersion thrown against them
that they stop attending meetings.
There seems to me to be two types of Mormons.
The majority are what I call orthodox LdS. Who tend
to believe that a person will lose their exaltation for
drinking a caffeinated soda. They tend to be very close
minded and intollerant, and almost fascist in their
zeal to protect their way of thinking from being
contaminated with any outside idea.
The minority are what I call Mormons, who drink
coffee, or use real wine with the sacrament, etc...
These people tend to read the Koran, and the Irrantria
Book, and the Keys of Enoch, and they take the good
from wherever they happen to find it and incorporate
it into their religious beliefs.
I think that the first group are that way in opposition
to the scriptures and history of the church. Church
leaders almost universally tend to be in the first group,
much to the detriment of the church.
President Hinckley has tried to help the church be
more inclusive, but for the most part his efforts have
fallen on deaf ears.
Love,
Absalom
--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon
Robert Perkins
wrote:
>I'm also scared because i'll need
>to go to high school.
If you're a teen, you don't need to be in Orem to feel that.
>Damn it... SLC wouldn't be that bad for me since there
>are lots of non-mormons living there. But Orem is a city of mormons :-(
There are lots of Mormons in Orem, true. I don't think it's outside
the realm of possibility that if you're different enough from the norm
there, there will be people who will treat you poorly. If that's the
case the fault will be theirs and not yours. If you treat others
poorly without floating a chance their way you'll have made your own
pile of stuff to sit in.
> At
>least, that's what people say. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions on
>this one.
If you don't sweat it, and aren't bitter towards people, I don't think
you'll have a problem finding some good friends. The one thing I'd
recommend is to try not to build your circle of friends around
reacting to Mormons or stuff you think you don't like about Mormons.
People will likely ask you to do things you're not willing to do,
presumably that includes various firesides and church meeting. If you
don't want to do that kind of thing, then politely decline or suggest
something else. You'll quickly recognize the people who *really* want
to be your friends that way.
Rob
Charney Hoffmann
> "Justin Rhodes" <jrh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<v71656o...@news.supernews.com>...
> > In the town where I live, the vast majority of the population is LDS. I
> I have become active again solely because it is so agonizing for my
> wife to be a spouse to an inactive husband.
On the bright side, you'll have an opportunity to properly educate
folks when they say things that simply aren't true. About a month ago
in Elder's Quorum, the teacher claimed that new DNA evidence revealed
that American Indians were Hebrew descendents. I was too shocked to
correct him, but I looked around to see if anyone else looked
surprised. No one even flinched.
In any case, I was somewhat bored in my new ward too, but I got
calling as a Sunday School teacher and Elder's Quorum "Executive"
secretary. Even though the 14 and 15 year old kids in my class seem
extremely bored, at least I am not. Anyway, maybe the Bishop will let
you teach or something.
Charney
Michael
> On the bright side, you'll have an opportunity to properly educate folks
> when they say things that simply aren't true. About a month ago in
> Elder's Quorum, the teacher claimed that new DNA evidence revealed that
> American Indians were Hebrew descendents. I was too shocked to correct
> him, but I looked around to see if anyone else looked surprised. No one
> even flinched.
> Charney
The lack of response may well be the customary lack of response when the
men are thinking about fishing, golfing, four-wheeling; or if more
intellectually disposed, thinking about their computer or digital camera.
They may just be dozing. They might even simply not be concerned
whether American Indians have Hebrew DNA.
One of the favorite stories that I am aware of came to my attention when
I was a teenager. The Stake President at the town of Nephi, upon
detecting a particular lack of consciousness in the congretation,
announced intention to move Mount Nebo to the other side of the valley.
All in favor show hands. Reportedly, it was unanimous -- people tune in
to certain phrases "all in favor" and the hands shoot up. I confess to
sometimes not "being there" when I am at church.
The cure, or at least mediation of it, is to ensure that the talk is
pointed, starts abruptly and ends when done, contains some leavening, and
never mind if 3/4 of the people just are not interested in that
particular topic. It happens.
You do not need to be on the fringes of activity to correct a teacher. I
do not consider myself on the fringes of activity, but I will correct a
teacher that is either teaching something incorrect, or something that is
true but substantially not the whole applicable truth. For instance, one
teacher was saying that a testimony of the First Vision was crucial to
faith in the church. I challenged, saying many reasons exist that lead
to faith in the church as established -- in my opinion, the Book of
Mormon is the keystone that must be true. If the Book of Mormon is what
it claims to be, then it doesn't matter much how much of the story of the
First Vision is factual. That was then, this is now and we still have
the Book of Mormon so it had better be substantially true. Having said
this, the room of High Priests, up until then in their usual state of
suspended animation (more or less, often me too) came alive and started
discussing what indeed was the motivation for each of us, and to no great
surprise, found a wide diversity of motivation and I am not sure that the
First Vision was anyone's strong motivator.
The most important advice in that regard, is to be knowledgeable -- you
don't even have to believe (but it helps a lot if you do). If you are
going to argue with the teacher, be knowledgeable and let charity guide
your argument (is it possible?).
Sincerely,
Michael
John S. Colton
[snip]
>The Stake President at the town of Nephi, upon
>detecting a particular lack of consciousness in the congretation,
>announced intention to move Mount Nebo to the other side of the valley.
>All in favor show hands. Reportedly, it was unanimous -- people tune in
>to certain phrases "all in favor" and the hands shoot up.
[snip]
I'm fairly sure this is a J. Golden Kimball story...
...and reportedly, after the hands went up, he continued, "OK, now
that you've raised your hands, what are you going to do about it?"
John
*****
John's new usenet motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****