It's OK to resign.

[Donuthole]

It's different from du jour, dummy.

[Moliere]

I was at a friends house today who had sent in her resignation letter last week. Today, she received a very short letter in reply from the church membership office stating that these things were now handled on a local level, and either her bishop or stake president would be contacting her. Is this new is resignation usually handled like this?

She needs to lawyer up

[Moliere]

It's different from du jour, dummy.

How can I post that Simpsons clip of the guy saying "that's the joke" using tapatalk?

[Donuthole]

How can I post that Simpsons clip of the guy saying "that's the joke" using tapatalk?

Like this:

[Katy Lied]

after thinking about it for some seconds, I think you can be pregnant and also not pregnant. You hear about these ladies whose fetuses stop growing in the womb, and then calcify.

[Solon]

Please enlighten this sheltered soul.

I've gone through several reactions to reading this.

The first was that it was a satirical troll, and not worth a reply.

The second was that grappling with these kinds of questions is usually a solo job, and that we must each do our own heavy lifting.

The last is the off-chance that it was a sincere query, and so - in that spirit - I will give a sincere reply:

I am no apologist for the Book of Mormon. In fact, I very much think it (or, at least big parts of it) to be the product of 19th century religious impulses.
On the other hand, I am in no position to declare that Joseph Smith invented the entire thing. I highly doubt that possibility.
Finally, I ascribe to the belief that God can do whatever God wants to do. If that means imbuing a 19th century book with inspired messages of hope, then that's what God can do.

It takes a good deal of hubris to lay out an assertion like, "Joseph Smith was either a liar or a prophet", as if to claim authority over the various avenues open to God. God has a lot of options. It's lazy and disrespectful to allow for only 2.

As I have aged, these kinds of questions interest me less and less. Besides the obvious leap of logic in the opening premise that spring-boarded this discussion (after all, there are plenty of people who accept Jesus as Lord, and Joseph as prophet, but don't recognize the current version of the LDS church as having "God-given authority to perform saving and eternal ordinances" nor being "where the true Gospel is taught more so than anywhere else"), there is more than enough about the current LDS climate to keep us busy pondering and studying. After all, I don't spend gobs of time wondering about how to reconcile the conflicting versions of the same story told in Judges 4 & Judges 5; nor do I spend much time anymore worried about how Ammon could be caring for horses and chariots in a geographically impossible context. I love the Bible because it is a record of an ancient people, not because I think it tells me how to live my life. It has some good ideas, some inspiring stories, some fine moral tales - and I will take the good & ditch the bad.

On the other hand, Today's Church (whether LDS or other denomination) deserves our scrutiny and criticism (using that word in its most benign form), since it is still capable of changing. Its policies, doctrines, teachings, etc. reflect the will of still-living people. This is where our efforts and attention should lie.

As much as correlation wills it, nobody can change the Church of the Past. All sorts of things (including God, I suppose) can change the Church of the Present.

In reference to the original post, I don't doubt that some people latch on to "faddish causes", or "what's trending in society" in order to boast of their own virtue. As I wrote earlier in this thread, they have their reward.

On the other hand, I imagine some people are genuinely trying to make informed moral decisions within their own religious contexts. If the roots of the LDS church have taught us anything, it is that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. I have a hard time criticizing people who are honestly and sincerely re-examining their own backgrounds, biases, and beliefs, whatever the source of the impulse to do so.

As I have taken time here to offer a sincere reply, I expect that we can take the time to offer these kinds of people at least the benefit of the doubt that they might be trying to act in accordance with the dictates of their consciences. As Luther noted, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.

Good luck, Crockett. Peace.

[Crockett]

I have a testimony of the BoM as the word of God, same as you do. Whether there were actual gold plates or not isn't really important to me. It's also not important to me whether there was actually a burning bush on Sinai, or whether Lot's wife was literally turned into salt, or whether John really saw an actual "dragon".

I believe the BoM comes from God. Because I believe the BoM is of God, the delivery vehicle for the book, whether it came from literal plates of gold written on by ancients that lived and breathed, or whether it came from the inspiration of Joseph's mind, and I suspect it's the latter, is not important to me.

Thank you for your sincere response.

Honest questions to understand where you are coming from: So if you have a testimony of it coming from God, why do you not accept its own claims of its origins and of Joseph Smith's explanation? What do you make of the witnesses that handled the plates? Is it because you have a difficult time reconciling these claims with the current challenges to the authenticity of the BoM? A bridge too far for your scientific mind? If you believe in God, and a God that created this world and inspired Joseph, then why do you not accept these literal claims? Joseph Smith is relatively recent with a lot of documented history. This is not a handful of verses in the OT thousands of years old.

[swampfrog]

Please enlighten this sheltered soul.

I posted this link in another thread that I believe applies here.

[Bo Diddley]

On the other hand, I imagine some people are genuinely trying to make informed moral decisions within their own religious contexts. If the roots of the LDS church have taught us anything, it is that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. I have a hard time criticizing people who are honestly and sincerely re-examining their own backgrounds, biases, and beliefs, whatever the source of the impulse to do so.

As I have taken time here to offer a sincere reply, I expect that we can take the time to offer these kinds of people at least the benefit of the doubt that they might be trying to act in accordance with the dictates of their consciences. As Luther noted, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.

Love it.

[Topper]

I've gone through several reactions to reading this.

The first was that it was a satirical troll, and not worth a reply.

The second was that grappling with these kinds of questions is usually a solo job, and that we must each do our own heavy lifting.

The last is the off-chance that it was a sincere query, and so - in that spirit - I will give a sincere reply:

I am no apologist for the Book of Mormon. In fact, I very much think it (or, at least big parts of it) to be the product of 19th century religious impulses.
On the other hand, I am in no position to declare that Joseph Smith invented the entire thing. I highly doubt that possibility.
Finally, I ascribe to the belief that God can do whatever God wants to do. If that means imbuing a 19th century book with inspired messages of hope, then that's what God can do.

It takes a good deal of hubris to lay out an assertion like, "Joseph Smith was either a liar or a prophet", as if to claim authority over the various avenues open to God. God has a lot of options. It's lazy and disrespectful to allow for only 2.

As I have aged, these kinds of questions interest me less and less. Besides the obvious leap of logic in the opening premise that spring-boarded this discussion (after all, there are plenty of people who accept Jesus as Lord, and Joseph as prophet, but don't recognize the current version of the LDS church as having "God-given authority to perform saving and eternal ordinances" nor being "where the true Gospel is taught more so than anywhere else"), there is more than enough about the current LDS climate to keep us busy pondering and studying. After all, I don't spend gobs of time wondering about how to reconcile the conflicting versions of the same story told in Judges 4 & Judges 5; nor do I spend much time anymore worried about how Ammon could be caring for horses and chariots in a geographically impossible context. I love the Bible because it is a record of an ancient people, not because I think it tells me how to live my life. It has some good ideas, some inspiring stories, some fine moral tales - and I will take the good & ditch the bad.

On the other hand, Today's Church (whether LDS or other denomination) deserves our scrutiny and criticism (using that word in its most benign form), since it is still capable of changing. Its policies, doctrines, teachings, etc. reflect the will of still-living people. This is where our efforts and attention should lie.

As much as correlation wills it, nobody can change the Church of the Past. All sorts of things (including God, I suppose) can change the Church of the Present.

In reference to the original post, I don't doubt that some people latch on to "faddish causes", or "what's trending in society" in order to boast of their own virtue. As I wrote earlier in this thread, they have their reward.

On the other hand, I imagine some people are genuinely trying to make informed moral decisions within their own religious contexts. If the roots of the LDS church have taught us anything, it is that ultimate responsibility lies with the individual. I have a hard time criticizing people who are honestly and sincerely re-examining their own backgrounds, biases, and beliefs, whatever the source of the impulse to do so.

As I have taken time here to offer a sincere reply, I expect that we can take the time to offer these kinds of people at least the benefit of the doubt that they might be trying to act in accordance with the dictates of their consciences. As Luther noted, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.

Good luck, Crockett. Peace.

I always appreciate your thoughtful responses, giving me pause for reflection. Thank you for taking the time.

[OceanBlue]

In the past year our Stake President has sent the letter of resignation back to our Bishop to have him meet with member again for a talk.

[CardiacCoug]

Good stuff as always Solon.

I totally agree that the issue of literal truthfulness of religious history or abstract theological concepts is really not that important or interesting. Also agree completely that sincere decisions to abandon a religion should be respected. Everybody is doing their best and there isn't one correct answer for everybody.

I think of LDS theology as a useful metaphor for me: Life hard? Be patient and focus on how you can learn and grow and become a better person, become more like "God." Some dude piss you off? Think of him as a Child of God and your brother and you won't be as mad. Have goals in life that pertain to helping others rather than just getting more money and you will be a lot happier and feel better about yourself and everybody around you.

Like Dieter said last month, people who do this stuff are happier and more impressive than those who don't. A lot of what is in Christianity and other religions is psychologically and emotionally true but no way is the weird stuff literally true and that's OK.

David Foster Wallace summed it up well in his This is Water speech although then he killed himself I suppose.

[BigFatMeanie]

Thank you for your sincere response.

Honest questions to understand where you are coming from: So if you have a testimony of it coming from God, why do you not accept its own claims of its origins and of Joseph Smith's explanation? What do you make of the witnesses that handled the plates? Is it because you have a difficult time reconciling these claims with the current challenges to the authenticity of the BoM? A bridge too far for your scientific mind? If you believe in God, and a God that created this world and inspired Joseph, then why do you not accept these literal claims? Joseph Smith is relatively recent with a lot of documented history. This is not a handful of verses in the OT thousands of years old.

I hope the literal claims to be true but, using the brains God has given me to reason it out on my own, I conclude the literal claims are the least likely explanation, out of several possible explanations, for the book's existence. I conclude a more likely explanation is that the book is a modern invention rather than an ancient record. That doesn't preclude it from being inspired by God, which I believe to be so. I have never stated I reject the literal claims, simply that they are the least likely and the least rational. Also, that they aren't terribly relevant to me. What I do reject, which Solon and Lebowski and others have already articulated, is the false choice of "either literal truth or pernicious fraud".

Witnesses? There is some documentation that points to them "seeing" the plates with their "spiritual eyes". I hope they literally saw and physically handled the plates but, again, it's more likely that they didn't and, again, it doesn't really matter to me if they did. If I die and go to the spirit world, and the 3 and 8 witnesses are there, with Joseph and Moroni and the gold plates, I'll certainly rejoice.

I believe in God. I believe in a God that created this world although not in 6 literal 24-hour days. I believe God inspired Joseph. But your resulting question based on those premises, "then why do you not accept these literal claims?", doesn't have any relationship to those premises. Go watch How Rare A Posession. Di Francesca believed the book to be the work of God and he had never heard of Joseph Smith or the origins of the book. Clearly those things aren't necessary to either know or believe in order to gain a conviction that the book is from God.

[clackamascoug]

I enjoy reading thoughtful comments on these matters.

Like Solon, the older I get nothing matters except my ability to continually close the gap between my beliefs and my actions. Books (any book really,) are only true if the application of its teachings brings about the desired outcome. The BOM only becomes true to me through a process of behavior modification and reaping the blessings of obeying principles that pertain to the desired outcome. The hard part is deciding whether or not the carrot at the end is real or not, but in real time the joy is in the journey, and ultimately the life you've led ends up being the best reward when it's all over.

[CardiacCoug]

The core items I mentioned before are black and white. Even SU gets it. They are like pregnancy -- you either are or you aren't. It's my main point and you keep side-stepping it.

Exactly. SU and other ex-mos agree with you completely. You're doing their work for them. Trust me they love this argument that either everything happened EXACTLY like Joseph Smith said and if it didn't then Joseph Smith was a fraud and liar and Mormonism is totally bogus. That's a great anti-Mo and ex-Mo argument.