ADAM - Slow Down and Enjoy the Ride

[SeattleUte]

Slow down, you move too fast
You've got to make the morning last
Just kickin' down the cobble stones
Looking for fun and feelin' groovy!
(La,la,la,la,la,la, feelin' groovy)

Hello, lamp post, whatcha knowing?
I've come to watch your flowers growing
Ain't ya got no rhymes for me?
Doot-in' doo-doo, feelin' groovy!
(La,la,la,la,la,la, feelin' groovy)

Got no deeds to do, no promises to keep
I'm dappled and drowsy and ready to sleep
Let the morning time drop all its petals on me
Life, I love you, all is groovy!
(La,la,la,la,la,la, feelin' groovy)
(La,la,la,la,la,la, feelin' groovy)

[Sleeping in EQ]

Dan, I share your sentiments and perspective. I too am someone who has been at the crossroads.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Dan, I share your sentiments and perspective. I too am someone who has been at the crossroads.

Haven't we all? And who's to say there won't be more?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Haven't we all? And who's to say there won't be more?

Indeed.

[Mr. Incredible]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Wow, I thought Dan was very careful not to sound condescending. To me, it sounded like he was trying to simultaneously commiserate and encourage Adam.

Some people just hear what they want to hear.

[smokymountainrain]

Originally Posted by Mr. Incredible

Some people just hear what they want to hear.

While some people just like it in the rear.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Adam

I have just this morning quickly browsed this thread for the first time.

Dan, I am not offended or bothered by your thoughts. I appreciate them. It would no doubt benefit me to spend more time around men like you.

You are correct that I am at a crossroads and I appreciate hearing about your personal process and decision regarding your coming to peace inside the church.

In my case I am not bothered so much by the history, sure it is sick and wrong in many instances, but I have a testimony of Joseph Smith that transcends the ugly history. History I take in stride and with history I have made peace.

I am greatly bothered by some current policies of the Church. My conscience seems to be telling me the church is not a healthy or righteous (ala DC 121) organization. My testimony tells me it is the only place to partake of the ordinances.

Fundamentally I believe that for evil to flourish all that is needed is for good men to stay silent (cite omitted). But the church policy is that even if the church is wrong, we must stay silent. If the church abuses people (typically either over some disagreement over doctrine or some criticism of current policy), we are to shut-up and stay in line.

I don't know how to handle it--my constitution at present doesn't allow me to just shrug my shoulders and say, oh well, too bad for those who suffer from the evil, not my problem. So I come on here and vent.

I suspect we all would have our line that the church could not cross, someplace where we would say, no more church, I won't stay silent and allow you to do THAT.

I am deciding if my THAT, my line in the sand that I can't countenance the church crossing includes forcing, upon threat of excommunication, members to refrain from speaking their sincerely held doctrinal beliefs (even if wrong) or expressing opinions regarding current church policy or actions.

What do I love more, access to the eternal ordinances or the right to honestly and fully express my thoughts and feelings regarding this earthly organization? I don't think it would be a selfish or superficial choice to choose freewill and agency. I tend to think God values principles over symbols, compassion expressed over aqua-immersion. But symbols are what bind the community together and leaving the ordinances means leaving the community.

And you are right, there is much to love. Much greatness in Mormon community and Mormon practice. I would mourn the loss were I to leave.

So I sit at the crossroads, in pain. Somewhat publicly here on this board. Thank you for the kind effort to help.

Adam, for the first time in my short period on this board, you've posted something I nearly completely agree with.

IMO, the fundamental issue you bring up in this post that we differ on is the proper place to 'express opinions regarding current church policy[, doctrine] or actions'. I don't think a letter to the editor is the proper place to do so. Then again, I'm not sure what the proper place IS.



I considered discontinuing my perusal of this board a few weeks ago, when several of the posts bringing up the church's 'historical inconsistencies with the doctrine of Christ'. I was afraid it would shake my faith...something I don't need at this point in my life. As time has gone on, I've actually found it to be the opposite - the thoughtful pondering of these issues, and discussion thereof, has strengthened my testimony.

And for that, Adam, I truly thank you for your contributions to the board.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by Adam

1. Very, very rarely does God reveal something to anyone who is not pondering upon the subject. Your hypo of someone learning via revelation that another man would be the bishop almost certainly means that person was pondering on who the next bishop would be--I admit there is the possibility that God interrupted his bowel movement or racquetball game uninvited, but it isn't likely.

You can do the math and figure out where I am going with this line. Is it wrong to ponder on things you don't have stewardship over?

2. Your example of learning who the next bishop would be is too easy. What if you learned via revelation that the Bishop systematically was exercising unrighteous dominion over the YW. a) Is your duty to remain completely silent? b) Can you talk to the Bishop about your concern? c) If the Bishop doesn't budge and gets retaliatory (by say releasing you from your calling with the YM and puts you in the nursery), can you go to the Stake President? d) If the Stake President chooses to take the Bishop's word for it and does nothing and the YW continue to suffer and submit to the Bishop's heavy hand, are you entitled to speak out to the YW directly and tell them to tell the Bishop to go to hell?

I suspect you would think B is the proper course. Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough based on the specific facts, you might go for C. I suspect you would never countenance D.

The difference between you and me is that I tend to think that while the Church is clear that D is never acceptable bureaucratically, it might be the right choice morally if the abuse was bad enough. You want to believe that the abuse would never be bad enough and I would agree that it rarely is, but I allow for the possibility based on history. You call my possibility allowance apostasy.

You would opt to silently watch the abuse to happen if uncorrected by the presiding authority and call this noble faithfulness. I am, right now, unable to say I could join you in that pew.

If I could interject...in the unlikely situation you've presented, and option c hasn't netted any results, I think option d would be acceptable ASSUMING:

-You have prayerfully pondered what action to take.
-You have separated yourself emotionally from the issue, so that personal feelings don't get in the way of the Lord's direction.
-You receive direction to take an active stance on the issue from the Lord.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

My mission president once humbly related a story of a revelation he received about who someone in his ward (not himself) who was to be called bishop. He kept it to himself, and the calling was extended as it had been revealed.

My mother (bless her heart) gets these "revelations" all the time. On all sorts of topics ranging from church to weddings (who will marry whom) to births (boy vs. girl) to the outcome of sporting events. "I had a strong feeling...", "Something told me...", "I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt...". Funny thing is, she always shares it with us after the fact. Last time she was bragging about her special insight on BYU sports, I invited her to start informing me of the outcomes prior to games so that I could place some wagers. She didn't think that was too funny.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

1. Very, very rarely does God reveal something to anyone who is not pondering upon the subject. Your hypo of someone learning via revelation that another man would be the bishop almost certainly means that person was pondering on who the next bishop would be--I admit there is the possibility that God interrupted his bowel movement or racquetball game uninvited, but it isn't likely.

You can do the math and figure out where I am going with this line. Is it wrong to ponder on things you don't have stewardship over?

Nope. And I don't think I've had problems with your musings, really. It's your tone that's the problem.

Originally Posted by Adam

2. Your example of learning who the next bishop would be is too easy. What if you learned via revelation that the Bishop systematically was exercising unrighteous dominion over the YW. a) Is your duty to remain completely silent? b) Can you talk to the Bishop about your concern? c) If the Bishop doesn't budge and gets retaliatory (by say releasing you from your calling with the YM and puts you in the nursery), can you go to the Stake President? d) If the Stake President chooses to take the Bishop's word for it and does nothing and the YW continue to suffer and submit to the Bishop's heavy hand, are you entitled to speak out to the YW directly and tell them to tell the Bishop to go to hell?

I suspect you would think B is the proper course. Maybe, if the abuse was bad enough based on the specific facts, you might go for C. I suspect you would never countenance D.

The difference between you and me is that I tend to think that while the Church is clear that D is never acceptable bureaucratically, it might be the right choice morally if the abuse was bad enough. You want to believe that the abuse would never be bad enough and I would agree that it rarely is, but I allow for the possibility based on history. You call my possibility allowance apostasy.

You would opt to silently watch the abuse to happen if uncorrected by the presiding authority and call this noble faithfulness. I am, right now, unable to say I could join you in that pew.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

My mother (bless her heart) gets these "revelations" all the time. On all sorts of topics ranging from church to weddings (who will marry whom) to births (boy vs. girl) to the outcome of sporting events. "I had a strong feeling...", "Something told me...", "I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt...". Funny thing is, she always shares it with us after the fact. Last time she was bragging about her special insight on BYU sports, I invited her to start informing me of the outcomes prior to games so that I could place some wagers. She didn't think that was too funny.

I figured it would lead to this. Adam, at least, took the adult road.

Far be it for me to put bounds on the Lord on what he will choose to reveal, and to whom. But it seems to me the doctrine is that he reveals these things for the personal strengthening of the person to whom it's being revealed, and not with the expectation that said person would act on it (or even retell it).

I don't know that God has much reason to subvert his own priesthood authority. He created the mantle for a purpose.