The Official "Ask A Mormon" Thread

[bigb]

I have areas of disagreement with the church, and my belief in God has been wavering for a decade or more now, despite my mission and all that. I would say at this point I am more or less agnostic or at least agnostic-leaning. I am still more or less active in the church, but I simply do not feel anything from it like I did when I was younger or like others claim to do.

I feel good when I get emails from my daughter talking about her mission, and for father's day this year she wrote me a poem that really brought tears to my eyes, but I don't view that as the workings of the "spirit".

After quite a long hiatus (a few years really) my wife and I went back to the temple to be able to escort our daughter through, and then attended several times with her, and I have made a real effort this year in particular to reconnect and see what might be there for me in this religion. But in the temple I really just felt kind of ridiculous. I get that it is all symbolism and I studied it enough earlier in my life that I know what that symbolism for the most part is supposed to be, but in the temple with the clothes on, etc. I just kind of felt silly, and none of it resonated.

I felt like I was there with an open heart, as I had been preparing to help my daughter have a good experience there, which included reading the BoM for the first time in maybe a decade. But all I felt was silly. And frankly I was disappointed that I didn't have the same spiritual experience my wife and daughter obviously did.

Maybe I am just not on the same spiritual plane, or, as the thought that occurred to me in the celestial room in the Salt Lake temple, maybe this is all window-dressing and really is just silly. I honestly don't know, which is why I feel I relate more as an agnostic than anything else right now.

I have had experiences in my life that I cannot explain, and fit religious explanations better than anything else I can imagine. Experiences connected to my cancer, things to do with my kids, and other things that are just too perfect to have been coincidence, including a near-death experience I have spoken of here before. And it is these experiences that I feel I cannot deny, that when I try to deny them I feel just, well, wrong inside, that keep me from leaving it entirely at this point.

Don't know why I went on that ramble, but it feels good getting it out in the open. I cannot talk to my wife about this, or my parents, or my children. I have few friends that get it, and I have broached the subject with a few and all I get is either "yeah get out of that brain-washing thing" or "you just need to pray about it harder" as the standard responses in one form or another.

This is a great post and I have something to share, but it's WAY mire than I want to type on my phone. Next week sometime I'll have time at my desktop.

 

[green]

Thanks Colton. Do you have a copy of a church handbook when AA were denied the priesthood? I'd be curious as to what it says and if/how they changed the wording when the revelations came.

Anyways, thanks again.

 

[green]

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel.

Also, I find the above lines very interesting and very, very easily changed. If gay marriage is allowed, then homosexual couples could have the blessings found in family life. If gay marriage is allowed in the temple, then they can take part in the saving ordinances of the gospel. If gay marriage is allowed, and viewed as ok, then they do not violate the commandments of God when taken part in the bonds of marriage.

So, that whole paragraph can easily be sidestepped by the Church if they decide to do so.

That being said, the only bit that would be sticky is the line, "contrary to the purposes of human sexuality". That might be tough to talk your way out of, but this line shows me that they can easily just throw some old "bigoted" leaders under the bus:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

You can rewrite it to say:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that homosexuality is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that same sex marriages are a sin; or that homosexuals or people of any other LGBT orientation are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all bigotry, past and present, in any form.

Anyways, I don't see the same speed bumps towards this change as you do. But, we will see over time.

 

[green]

Here is a thought I just had:

AA people were denied the priesthood because they were born "wrong".

The Church has accepted the thought that homosexual feelings are something that some people have to no fault of their own. The doctrine right now is that those feelings can be "corrected" and denied.

As it becomes more and more accepted that LGBT people aren't choosing to be that way, but instead are born that way, then all of the sudden LGBT people are exactly the same as AA people.

They were born "wrong."

Why would you deny eternal blessings and covenants to someone who did nothing wrong, other than being born "wrong"?

You wouldn't.

 

[colton]

Thanks Colton. Do you have a copy of a church handbook when AA were denied the priesthood? I'd be curious as to what it says and if/how they changed the wording when the revelations came.

No, I don't even know if there was such a thing back then. I agree, it would be interesting to look at. There's no question as to whether church leaders taught racist doctrines with regards to people of African ancestry (many did), but I don't know of any who indicated blacks wouldn't someday receive the priesthood.

Anyways, thanks again.

You're welcome.

 

[colton]

Here is a thought I just had:

AA people were denied the priesthood because they were born "wrong".

The Church has accepted the thought that homosexual feelings are something that some people have to no fault of their own. The doctrine right now is that those feelings can be "corrected" and denied.

As it becomes more and more accepted that LGBT people aren't choosing to be that way, but instead are born that way, then all of the sudden LGBT people are exactly the same as AA people.

They were born "wrong."

Why would you deny eternal blessings and covenants to someone who did nothing wrong, other than being born "wrong"?

You wouldn't.

I disagree with the analogy. The church policy on LGBTs has everything to do with behavior, and that makes all the difference. A better analogy would be with, say, alcoholics. The church recognizes that some people are predisposed towards alcoholism, and it's very likely genetic. That doesn't excuse the behavior, though. It just means that they have a unique set of challenges they must battle. I've mentioned before that my grandfather was an alcoholic. If I recall correctly his father and several of his brothers were also alcoholics. But during the part of his life when I knew him he never touched a drop. That's what the church similarly expects from its homosexual members.

 

[b_line]

Would never happen. Or at least, It does not seem possible. Why you ask?

First, the priesthood thing is different. It's not a matter of sin but of timing. All throughout biblical history certain groups did not hold the priesthood. Consider for just a moment that for quite a while the only tribe that was allowed to have the priesthood was the tribe of Levi. Heck even the Gentiles (non Jewish) were not allowed to be taught the gospel for a while. It's all about timing.

Second, I have always been taught that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes and it is pretty clear from biblical text that it is (One of my best friends is gay and married to a man so please don't think I hate gay people. I do think it's weird. I can't imagine being attracted to a man sexually. The idea grosses me out But I still love my gay friend the way I love my straight friends. Heterosexually). At one point the bible says "thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is an abomination before me." Allowing gays to be married for time and all eternity would make no sense. God ordained marriage to be between a man a woman for the purpose of procreation, if you are looking at it from a theoretical point of view. And God does not condone sin. If the church allowed that they would pretty much be saying God has changed his mind about the nature of Marriage and that would pretty much disprove God.

The bible also says women should shut up in public and hide their faces. Does your wife ever go out in public and make any noise? Maybe we try to glean the most important things from the bible instead of taking it literally?

 

[b_line]

I hear you, and share many of your sentiments. However, I don't see why you find "God didn't want the priesthood exclusion on blacks" and "God gave a revelation ending the priesthood exclusion on blacks" to be mutually exclusive. I don't.

I do not think they are mutually exclusive. I just think that if any person with half a heart was listening to God, that person would have decided that the revelation should have never had to happen in the first place. It's just common kindness and equality for all man, which is supposed to be a major tenet of being Christian. If we profess to be followers of Christ, why does it take a "revelation" to get the leaders of christs church to not be racist?

 

[PearlWatson]

If LGBT people can get married, then they aren't sinning anymore.

Is it suddenly okay for Mormons in Colorado to smoke pot because pot is legal?

 

[b_line]

Is it suddenly okay for Mormons in Colorado to smoke pot because pot is legal?

I was actually going to pose this question. I have some mormon friends who would be fine smoking pot if they lived I. Colorado. As far as I know, there is no actual rule against it. It is not expressly forbidden anywhere.

 

[moevillini]

Is it suddenly okay for Mormons in Colorado to smoke pot because pot is legal?

Caffeine is perfectly legal everywhere - yet isn't it against the moral code for LDS to drink caffeinated beverages? Pretty much the same with alcohol.

So I don't see that the legality of something is really the determining factor.

 

[fishonjazz]

Caffeine is perfectly legal everywhere - yet isn't it against the moral code for LDS to drink caffeinated beverages? Pretty much the same with alcohol.

So I don't see that the legality of something is really the determining factor.

Yep.
Tabacco, porn, rated R movies, sex before marriage, tattoos, cursing. All legal