Changing in activity since participating in CUF?

[beefytee]

Here's what I think is interesting: Goat is a stalwart defender of Mormonism and the traditional testimony. He has testified to me that the church is completely true and that to doubt is weak and foolish. His actions, on the other hand, hardly reflect the teachings of Christ.

My favorite part of Uchtdorf's talk was his story about the seasoned members who looked down on the postwar canned food converts. In his story, the longtime members assumed they were better followers of Christ because their testimonies were superior. I might be wrong, but sometimes it seems like the CUFers who work hard to defend the church and "testimonies" sit on false thrones and frown down upon those of us who raise questions. Their words defend Christ, but their behaviors hardly demonstrate a commitment to living a Christlike life.

I don't really know why some people are so threatened by doubt and questioning, but IMO it might sometimes have more to do with their own insecurity about the church than it does with what they read here.

That was a really good talk. It goes along with ETB "Beware of Pride" talk pretty well.

I especially think this part rounds out Elder Uchtdorfs message:

Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves. Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. (See 2 Ne. 9:42.) There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up. It is manifest in so many ways, such as faultfinding, gossiping, backbiting, murmuring, living beyond our means, envying, coveting, withholding gratitude and praise that might lift another, and being unforgiving and jealous.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...004d82620aRCRD

[Goatnapper'96]

Here's what I think is interesting: Goat is a stalwart defender of Mormonism and the traditional testimony. He has testified to me that the church is completely true and that to doubt is weak and foolish. His actions, on the other hand, hardly reflect the teachings of Christ.

My favorite part of Uchtdorf's talk was his story about the seasoned members who looked down on the postwar canned food converts. In his story, the longtime members assumed they were better followers of Christ because their testimonies were superior. I might be wrong, but sometimes it seems like the CUFers who work hard to defend the church and "testimonies" sit on false thrones and frown down upon those of us who raise questions. Their words defend Christ, but their behaviors hardly demonstrate a commitment to living a Christlike life.

I don't really know why some people are so threatened by doubt and questioning, but IMO it might sometimes have more to do with their own insecurity about the church than it does with what they read here.

LOL! I just prefer thongs, but I dig you bringing in Elder Uchtdorf's reference to canned peaches. Certainly he is above such gutter humor and street slang so I won't attribute the reference to "canned peaches" to Elder Dieter, but I know zactly what you are getting at, girlfriend!

[Jacob]

Sometimes, I'll get to feeling that the church is outdated, the scriptures are fables, the prophets are just nice old men, God probably doesn't exist, and the polygamists were sexual deviants.

Then I come visit CUF and read a perfectly rational and blistering, take-down of the mormon church, its leaders, or its members by Seattle or Robin, and suddenly I feel a stronger desire to pay, pray, and obey. I want to do everything I can to be worthy enough to not fall into the eternal damnation that a prolonged association with those souls and their like would be. I feel more Mormon than the day before.

[Babs]

I thought you were born and raised L.D.S. and that changed when you got married.

yes, but that's a closely-guarded secret.

[Babs]

It's BO's option, but you're welcome to borrow it.

I WAS HERE FIRST!!!

[byu71]

The only thing that has changed by my participating on CUF has nothing to do with religion.

I have mellowed in regards to my feelings towards intellectuals. I no longer consider them a-holes, just asses.

[ERCougar]

Easy there, sparky. I suggested no such thing. I simply said I was curious about the effects of any that CUF had on testimony. I would define testimony as a faith-based belief, but I'm kind of a simpleton, so y'all can debate the meaning.

I suspect that CUF has affected people's beliefs, and I suspect that the effects have gone both ways. I didn't state, nor did I mean to imply that reading CUF would destroy anybody's relationship with God.

We all know you're no simpleton so you can drop that card.

I apologize if I misread you, but I'm probably recalling previous hints you've made about the foyer not being the healthiest place to hang out. Really, I was asking for clarification about what you meant by testimony. I think when it really gets down to things, we probably mean the same thing, but too often the word is thrown around as having a sure knowledge of the truth of everything about the church. If it really means "faith-based belief", a definition that I can buy, then I'm not really sure how reading something can affect that at all. So the poll becomes much less interesting. The second part of your original question, how has CUF affected opinions of the church, is much more interesting.

Maybe if I share my personal experience, people will understand why this issue is important to me and believe that I'm really not trying to be overly analytical. About two years ago, I was feeling less and less like everyone else in my ward. I was experiencing a number of questions and doubts while it seemed like everyone surrounding me was completely sure of everything. It got to the point where I wondered if I belonged at church at all.

I was hesitant, even fearful, to search the internet because of what I figured I would find there. I knew CB had a religion section but I wasn't a donor so I had no idea what they discussed there. I posted something on CB about whether there was any interesting discussion going on and Archaea directed me to CG through a PM.

CG was a godsend to me. I realized that there were other Mormons who didn't "know" everything was true, who had plenty of questions and doubts, but despite them all, kept going to church. They even liked to think about things and discuss them. They were like me. Maybe I wasn't so different from the private sides of the members at church.

CG literally kept me going to church. However, as part of these discussions, I started to find out things that were a little tough to process. Probably my biggest crisis came as a result of a discussion on the priesthood ban. I knew BY had said some quirky things in his life, but I had always written them off as personal musings and not church policy. So in response to one of these things someone posted, I asked for an example of something that was said in an official capacity. SU responded with a link to one of BY's conference addresses discussing the curse of Ham and the flat bridge of the Negro and other nonsense.

This completely shook me. If I can't trust what's said over the GC pulpit by a prophet, then what exactly can I trust and why exactly do we have a prophet? I wasn't happy with the response that it's obviously no longer doctrine because we don't talk about it any more--do I have to wait 100 years to validate every teaching over the pulpit? Institutionalized racism is perhaps one of our greatest failings as a country and society and our prophet (series of prophets) and church completely whiffed on it. You might try to claim that BY harbored no hatred for black people, and I can't really prove that he did, but whatever his personal feelings, his statements as a prophet of God have justified thousands, perhaps even millions who looked to him for moral guidance, in harboring racist feelings. I didn't want to fall in that kind of trap.

I didn't leave the church, but I considered it. I guess my "testimony" was shattered. The more time and prayer I devoted to it, however, the more I started to feel that this was a blessing to me. For years, I had depended on GC and my church leaders for moral guidance, as the end-all source. Well, now, I was going to have to figure it out on my own, and work it out between me and God. If I heard something that didn't feel right, I'd give it the appropriate weight as coming from a wise leader, but I was going to have to figure out if I agreed with it. God would hold me accountable for going against something that I knew was true, just because the institution told me to, just as Stapley will have to face God about his racist statements. I'm accountable to God and God only for what I do. Everything else is a guide to me on how to find God, but it's up to me to find Him. I'd finally found my testimony, and it didn't have much to do with blind acceptance or obedience.

So now, when I face institutional racism/sexism/homophobia (as I see it) in our Church, I'm no longer obligated to support it as a means of supporting my "testimony". I'll certainly give weight to TSM as a called leader and "prophet" (I'm still working out what that means), but my ultimate source of truth is God, as I understand Him. Hopefully, those two figures overlap, but if they don't, I know where my loyalty is. I don't believe in a God who will punish me for doing what I feel is right.

Sorry for the rant, but I hope that helps you understand me better. I'm really not trying to nitpick or overanalyze or get in to a discussion of "is"--these are important distinctions to me. I also don't mean to imply that you're blindly following anything of anyone. I'm just trying to explain myself a little better.

[Babs]

We all know you're no simpleton so you can drop that card.

I apologize if I misread you, but I'm probably recalling previous hints you've made about the foyer not being the healthiest place to hang out. Really, I was asking for clarification about what you meant by testimony. I think when it really gets down to things, we probably mean the same thing, but too often the word is thrown around as having a sure knowledge of the truth of everything about the church. If it really means "faith-based belief", a definition that I can buy, then I'm not really sure how reading something can affect that at all. So the poll becomes much less interesting. The second part of your original question, how has CUF affected opinions of the church, is much more interesting.

Maybe if I share my personal experience, people will understand why this issue is important to me and believe that I'm really not trying to be overly analytical. About two years ago, I was feeling less and less like everyone else in my ward. I was experiencing a number of questions and doubts while it seemed like everyone surrounding me was completely sure of everything. It got to the point where I wondered if I belonged at church at all.

I was hesitant, even fearful, to search the internet because of what I figured I would find there. I knew CB had a religion section but I wasn't a donor so I had no idea what they discussed there. I posted something on CB about whether there was any interesting discussion going on and Archaea directed me to CG through a PM.

CG was a godsend to me. I realized that there were other Mormons who didn't "know" everything was true, who had plenty of questions and doubts, but despite them all, kept going to church. They even liked to think about things and discuss them. They were like me. Maybe I wasn't so different from the private sides of the members at church.

CG literally kept me going to church. However, as part of these discussions, I started to find out things that were a little tough to process. Probably my biggest crisis came as a result of a discussion on the priesthood ban. I knew BY had said some quirky things in his life, but I had always written them off as personal musings and not church policy. So in response to one of these things someone posted, I asked for an example of something that was said in an official capacity. SU responded with a link to one of BY's conference addresses discussing the curse of Ham and the flat bridge of the Negro and other nonsense.

This completely shook me. If I can't trust what's said over the GC pulpit by a prophet, then what exactly can I trust and why exactly do we have a prophet? I wasn't happy with the response that it's obviously no longer doctrine because we don't talk about it any more--do I have to wait 100 years to validate every teaching over the pulpit? Institutionalized racism is perhaps one of our greatest failings as a country and society and our prophet (series of prophets) and church completely whiffed on it. You might try to claim that BY harbored no hatred for black people, and I can't really prove that he did, but whatever his personal feelings, his statements as a prophet of God have justified thousands, perhaps even millions who looked to him for moral guidance, in harboring racist feelings. I didn't want to fall in that kind of trap.

I didn't leave the church, but I considered it. I guess my "testimony" was shattered. The more time and prayer I devoted to it, however, the more I started to feel that this was a blessing to me. For years, I had depended on GC and my church leaders for moral guidance, as the end-all source. Well, now, I was going to have to figure it out on my own, and work it out between me and God. If I heard something that didn't feel right, I'd give it the appropriate weight as coming from a wise leader, but I was going to have to figure out if I agreed with it. God would hold me accountable for going against something that I knew was true, just because the institution told me to, just as Stapley will have to face God about his racist statements. I'm accountable to God and God only for what I do. Everything else is a guide to me on how to find God, but it's up to me to find Him. I'd finally found my testimony, and it didn't have much to do with blind acceptance or obedience.

So now, when I face institutional racism/sexism/homophobia (as I see it) in our Church, I'm no longer obligated to support it as a means of supporting my "testimony". I'll certainly give weight to TSM as a called leader and "prophet" (I'm still working out what that means), but my ultimate source of truth is God, as I understand Him. Hopefully, those two figures overlap, but if they don't, I know where my loyalty is. I don't believe in a God who will punish me for doing what I feel is right.

Sorry for the rant, but I hope that helps you understand me better. I'm really not trying to nitpick or overanalyze or get in to a discussion of "is"--these are important distinctions to me. I also don't mean to imply that you're blindly following anything of anyone. I'm just trying to explain myself a little better.

I think this is cool. There were clearly concerns that were going to have to be confronted eventually. If you had done it on your own you might have just left the church. Your faith now is unorthodox, but at least it still exists, and it's one that you're comfortable with.

[scottie]

... I don't believe in a God who will punish me for doing what I feel is right.

...

That's my philosophy as well, and if there is such a thing as a judgment day, that's the defense I'm going with.

Good post, ER.

[Goatnapper'96]

That's my philosophy as well, and if there is such a thing as a judgment day, that's the defense I'm going with.

Good post, ER.

Also if there is a judgement day and if/when you get there it is probable you will have cool hair. That has gotta count for something. In all pictures/depictions I have seen of Deity, from the aluminum foil wonder twins in the original First Vision to any Euro art of the Christ, they seem to have a healthy appreciation for luscious locks!

Bald guys like me are screwed on that front.

[Rosebud]

I am NOT threatened by doubt and questioning! I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not!!!

And don't you dare suggest I am insecure about anything!!!

No, you're not threatened. You're the best. I hope you had a great Easter. Thanks for always treating me with respect despite our disagreements.

Now as for insecurities......

[Pheidippides]

We all know you're no simpleton so you can drop that card.

I apologize if I misread you, but I'm probably recalling previous hints you've made about the foyer not being the healthiest place to hang out. Really, I was asking for clarification about what you meant by testimony. I think when it really gets down to things, we probably mean the same thing, but too often the word is thrown around as having a sure knowledge of the truth of everything about the church. If it really means "faith-based belief", a definition that I can buy, then I'm not really sure how reading something can affect that at all. So the poll becomes much less interesting. The second part of your original question, how has CUF affected opinions of the church, is much more interesting.

Maybe if I share my personal experience, people will understand why this issue is important to me and believe that I'm really not trying to be overly analytical. About two years ago, I was feeling less and less like everyone else in my ward. I was experiencing a number of questions and doubts while it seemed like everyone surrounding me was completely sure of everything. It got to the point where I wondered if I belonged at church at all.

I was hesitant, even fearful, to search the internet because of what I figured I would find there. I knew CB had a religion section but I wasn't a donor so I had no idea what they discussed there. I posted something on CB about whether there was any interesting discussion going on and Archaea directed me to CG through a PM.

CG was a godsend to me. I realized that there were other Mormons who didn't "know" everything was true, who had plenty of questions and doubts, but despite them all, kept going to church. They even liked to think about things and discuss them. They were like me. Maybe I wasn't so different from the private sides of the members at church.

CG literally kept me going to church. However, as part of these discussions, I started to find out things that were a little tough to process. Probably my biggest crisis came as a result of a discussion on the priesthood ban. I knew BY had said some quirky things in his life, but I had always written them off as personal musings and not church policy. So in response to one of these things someone posted, I asked for an example of something that was said in an official capacity. SU responded with a link to one of BY's conference addresses discussing the curse of Ham and the flat bridge of the Negro and other nonsense.

This completely shook me. If I can't trust what's said over the GC pulpit by a prophet, then what exactly can I trust and why exactly do we have a prophet? I wasn't happy with the response that it's obviously no longer doctrine because we don't talk about it any more--do I have to wait 100 years to validate every teaching over the pulpit? Institutionalized racism is perhaps one of our greatest failings as a country and society and our prophet (series of prophets) and church completely whiffed on it. You might try to claim that BY harbored no hatred for black people, and I can't really prove that he did, but whatever his personal feelings, his statements as a prophet of God have justified thousands, perhaps even millions who looked to him for moral guidance, in harboring racist feelings. I didn't want to fall in that kind of trap.

I didn't leave the church, but I considered it. I guess my "testimony" was shattered. The more time and prayer I devoted to it, however, the more I started to feel that this was a blessing to me. For years, I had depended on GC and my church leaders for moral guidance, as the end-all source. Well, now, I was going to have to figure it out on my own, and work it out between me and God. If I heard something that didn't feel right, I'd give it the appropriate weight as coming from a wise leader, but I was going to have to figure out if I agreed with it. God would hold me accountable for going against something that I knew was true, just because the institution told me to, just as Stapley will have to face God about his racist statements. I'm accountable to God and God only for what I do. Everything else is a guide to me on how to find God, but it's up to me to find Him. I'd finally found my testimony, and it didn't have much to do with blind acceptance or obedience.

So now, when I face institutional racism/sexism/homophobia (as I see it) in our Church, I'm no longer obligated to support it as a means of supporting my "testimony". I'll certainly give weight to TSM as a called leader and "prophet" (I'm still working out what that means), but my ultimate source of truth is God, as I understand Him. Hopefully, those two figures overlap, but if they don't, I know where my loyalty is. I don't believe in a God who will punish me for doing what I feel is right.

Sorry for the rant, but I hope that helps you understand me better. I'm really not trying to nitpick or overanalyze or get in to a discussion of "is"--these are important distinctions to me. I also don't mean to imply that you're blindly following anything of anyone. I'm just trying to explain myself a little better.

I'll say this sounds an awful lot like me, with a couple of difference. I haven't really considered leaving the church, and my testimony hasn't been "shaken." But my testimony has certainly evolved. Being around CG/CUF has helped me realize that there are many people like me who have questions and yet participate fully. And that there are people who don't really have questions and yet are willing to acknowledge those of us who do with a friendly and not condescending eye (I'll single out Art and LAUte here as two people who have helped me greatly, even though they don't know it). And that there are people who don't believe anymore and yet are willing to interact with those who of us who do (on whatever point of the spectrum) without criticism or scorn.

All three of these groups of people have helped me as I've personally shifted from being caught up in the weeds of finer nuances (even though it may seem like I'm still in them here) to small and simple gospel principles: faith, repentance, love, charity. I have become a better person because of that and am more at peace with my beliefs and my religion than I have been in perhaps a decade. Although my activity level hasn't changed at all - I've been going to church every Sunday the whole time.

As a side note, I took a trip over to CB today and realized that I have very little in common, theoculturally, with those folks.

[ERCougar]

I'll say this sounds an awful lot like me, with a couple of difference. I haven't really considered leaving the church, and my testimony hasn't been "shaken." But my testimony has certainly evolved. Being around CG/CUF has helped me realize that there are many people like me who have questions and yet participate fully. And that there are people who don't really have questions and yet are willing to acknowledge those of us who do with a friendly and not condescending eye (I'll single out Art and LAUte here as two people who have helped me greatly, even though they don't know it). And that there are people who don't believe anymore and yet are willing to interact with those who of us who do (on whatever point of the spectrum) without criticism or scorn.

All three of these groups of people have helped me as I've personally shifted from being caught up in the weeds of finer nuances (even though it may seem like I'm still in them here) to small and simple gospel principles: faith, repentance, love, charity. I have become a better person because of that and am more at peace with my beliefs and my religion than I have been in perhaps a decade. Although my activity level hasn't changed at all - I've been going to church every Sunday the whole time.

As a side note, I took a trip over to CB today and realized that I have very little in common, theoculturally, with those folks.

I'd agree with this, particularly with the bold statement. That's kind of my point in posting and requesting a definition of testimony. If testimony means my complete and total acceptance of all church teachings and of TSM as the infallible mouthpiece of God, then my testimony's certainly weaker. I no longer count the argument "it was said at GC" or "<insert prophet> once said ..." as the trump card that I used to. However, I think my adoption of these statements was somewhat superficial anyway.

But I don't think that's a useful definition of testimony. More later.

[LA Ute]

If testimony means my complete and total acceptance of all church teachings and of TSM as the infallible mouthpiece of God, then my testimony's certainly weaker. . . . But I don't think that's a useful definition of testimony. More later.

I don't either. It may be for some people. Like everything in life, there are gradations. For example, if President Monson says something, I pay close attention. If he says it emphatically, I pay even closer attention. I don't sit up straight and say, "Yes, master," but his comments are very significant to me. I suspect most believing members are the same, and the differences among us regarding responses to the prophet's statements are differences in degree. (I think I could say this better but I'm out of time this morning.)

[Portland Ute]

I don't either. It may be for some people. Like everything in life, there are gradations. For example, if President Monson says something, I pay close attention. If he says it emphatically, I pay even closer attention. I don't sit up straight and say, "Yes, master," but his comments are very significant to me. I suspect most believing are the same, and the differences among us regarding responses to the prophet's statements are differences of degree. (I think I could say this better but I'm out of time this morning.)

Would you argue that there are not plenty of members that say, "Yes, Master"?