Soccer Mom's thread grabbed my attention.

[LA Ute]

I still have an overwhelming amount of hope that familes can be together forever.

I have a lot of hope about a lot of things.

But I really don't know how much I *know* or do not know.

That concept of "knowing" is a tough one. I remember when I was ward mission leader and was asked by a very sharp investigator, during Gospel Essentials class, what Moroni meant when he said we could "know the truth of all things" by the power of the Holy Ghost. The best I could do, and still can do, is to say that he means "know in your heart." To spend a lot of time and energy puzzling over what that means, in my personal experience, has been pretty unfulfilling. But I do find a lot of peace in the folksy saying that "the head-bone must be connected to the heart-bone," or that matters of faith can't be addressed adequately without both the heart and the head involved. What I know in my heart is the product of many experiences, and I choose not to deny it. I think you are saying something similar.

I've found C.S. Lewis's thoughts on all these topics pretty compelling. Here's one:

One of the great difficulties is to keep before the audience's mind the question of Truth. They always think you are recommending Christianity not because it is 'true' but because it is 'good'. One must keep on pointing out that Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and if it is true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important. (from God in the Dock)

The same can be said of Joseph Smith's mission and the message of the Church today. We're not playing bean-bag here, and so I think it behooves us (to say the least!) to consider with everything we have in us how we will respond to that mission and message.

I have a hunch you feel the same way. You just got me thinking about good old C.S. and that comment.

[marsupial]

FWIW, there have been times that I have felt an incredible sense of community at church and times that I haven't. I have known really fantastic leaders and really hurtful leaders. Likewise, there have been times that I have felt an incredible sense of community in organizations outside of the church. There are times that I haven't.

A sense of community isn't enough to keep me active and paying tithing. Community can be found anywhere. To have value, church (for me) needs to be about worship. If I'm not worshiping, why waste my time? There are friendship and growth opportunities everywhere.

In my mind, those of you who have only had positive experiences with church communities are very very very lucky. There are SO many people who have been hurt by members they chose to trust. IMO, it is unwise to believe that your community is always safe and positive -- no matter how safe and wonderful it feels on the exterior.

When I talk about church community, I don't mean just having a ward with friends in it. I feel like I have a common bond with any member anywhere. I sense that community here on this board, when I visit other wards, when I run into someone with a CTR ring or BYU shirt on.

Also, I mentioned service. The church has given me opportunities to serve others in ways that I wouldn't be able to through clubs or other organizations. It feels good to contribute.

[FMCoug]

This is a great thread. For me, the issue seems to be that most of the time, the Lord wants us to go through the motions and do what we need to without the Spirit leading us along every step of the way. And from time to time, we are blessed with spiritual experiences to let us know what we're doing is right. And this is what sustains me / keeps me going in the "in-between" times. I have had great spiritual experiences in the temple ... but not every time. I'd go so far as to say most of the time it's a chore. Same thing with the 3-hour block ... maybe even more so.

For the most part I think we are supposed to just work out our salvation on our own ... and we get little nuggets as gifts from time to time that provide testimony and spiritual growth.

That's my take on it anyway.

[marsupial]

I don't think that's a huge difference for me right now.

I'm not completely disenchanted.

I gave a talk on overcoming adversity a month or two ago. I posted it on Cougarboard. It got favorable reviews from many of my ward members and Cougarboard. I felt *something* as I prepared it. I felt *something* as I delivered it.

I still have an overwhelming amount of hope that familes can be together forever.

I have a lot of hope about a lot of things.

But I really don't know how much I *know* or do not know.

FTR, I do have a testimony in many aspects of the church and gospel. Much of my doubts and struggles stem from our church's polygamous past and the Priesthood ban. I have some issues with the general patriarchal nature of the church as well. While I struggle with these issues, I still believe in the power of prayer. I believe in a God who loves me and is concerned for me. I think Utah Dan brought up a good point. I wonder if it is easier for people in other churches to not accept all teachings from their leaders and still feel OK about worshipping there. Are we the only church that drives this all or nothing mentality?

[Portland Ute]

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you are struggling because you don't feel the Spirit like you think you should. I simply have been disenchanted and have doubts. I am not expecting to feel what I hear others talk about feeling. And it doesn't bother me to hear them talk about it.

I don't think that's a huge difference for me right now.

I'm not completely disenchanted.

I gave a talk on overcoming adversity a month or two ago. I posted it on Cougarboard. It got favorable reviews from many of my ward members and Cougarboard. I felt *something* as I prepared it. I felt *something* as I delivered it.

I still have an overwhelming amount of hope that familes can be together forever.

I have a lot of hope about a lot of things.

But I really don't know how much I *know* or do not know.

[marsupial]

Yeah, but marsupial...don't you hear the repeated talks and lessons that we SHOULD NOT just go through the motions???? That we NEED to have a testimony of our own and not just be "social" participants.

I believe you, but I am also frequently reminded, even in general conference talks, that the approach you outlined is simply not acceptable or admirable.

And that's your problem right there... I can't tell you the last time I actually managed to sit and listen to conference

Seriously though, I hear that in church. But I think most people would agree that if the choices are just go through the motions or leave the church altogether, it's better to go through the motions. Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you are struggling because you don't feel the Spirit like you think you should. I simply have been disenchanted and have doubts. I am not expecting to feel what I hear others talk about feeling. And it doesn't bother me to hear them talk about it.

[Portland Ute]

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

Here's a minor example: I think that there should be a policy against priesthood leaders discussing sex with teenage girls. I wish that I didn't feel compelled to let my bishop know that he is not allowed to talk to my beautiful teenage daughter about sex because, like Cardiac pointed out, bishops don't usually appreciate interference and I'm likely to lose credibility for sticking my nose into what he believes is his duty. OTOH, I don't believe that I should have to prep a child for a discussion about sex with an adult man who she will perceive (no matter how much I tell her otherwise) to have authority over her. I'll prep her for dealing with teenage boys, but not her bishop. I'm the adult. It's my responsibility to face him -- even if I lose credibility -- not hers.

I don't think my bishop is "crazy." I think he's a great guy. I actually doubt he'll even bring sex up. This probably won't really be an issue until my son (almost 11) hits puberty and the masturbation discussions begin. OTOH, why take chances? It IS possible to believe my bishop is probably a fabulous, honest guy without trusting him to talk to my daughter about sex alone in his office. (Why should that conversation even be on the table?) There are plenty of bishops and SPs who aren't "crazy" who are also susceptible to sexual temptation.

[Plus (being a woman) I'm with Tick's wife: I think that hard ons are a real possibility in these interviews. Maybe you'd have to have a woman's experiences with men to understand.... I don't know. And please.... no one take this as an anti-male statement. I love you guys/men in general.]

Perhaps I am naive...and maybe a bit callous...but it really seems to me that perhaps you've seen too may of those movies in which an evil Catholic Priest is taking confession from a nubile young woman concerning sexual proclivities and, behind the cloak of the confessional is assuaging a "hardon," as you put it.

Okay, that was really just an attempt at humor, but I did "half mean it."

On a serious note, do you really think there is that big of an issue? Do you really think there are a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents who are using young female confessions of sin as their own personal, real-life Penthouse Forum?

Also, what course do you advise for Bishops or SPs? Should they not ask young women if they are living the law of chastity? WHo do the young women confess to and seek guidance from if they don't feel comfortable telling mom and dad that they enjoy self-pleasure or that Bobby Neighbor Boy is really good at flicking her love bead?

It's a conundrum to be sure. One I won't have to face as we have only boys. I see your point of view, but what is the solution? Should young women's leaders and relief society presidents be given the charge of taking confession and counseling the Young Women? Maybe that's the answer...but you are going to have a lot of opposition to that idea for sure.

[The_Tick]

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

Here's a minor example: I think that there should be a policy against priesthood leaders discussing sex with teenage girls. I wish that I didn't feel compelled to let my bishop know that he is not allowed to talk to my beautiful teenage daughter about sex because, like Cardiac pointed out, bishops don't usually appreciate interference and I'm likely to lose credibility for sticking my nose into what he believes is his duty. OTOH, I don't believe that I should have to prep a child for a discussion about sex with an adult man who she will perceive (no matter how much I tell her otherwise) to have authority over her. I'll prep her for dealing with teenage boys, but not her bishop. I'm the adult. It's my responsibility to face him -- even if I lose credibility -- not hers.

I don't think my bishop is "crazy." I think he's a great guy. I actually doubt he'll even bring sex up. This probably won't really be an issue until my son (almost 11) hits puberty and the masturbation discussions begin. OTOH, why take chances? It IS possible to believe my bishop is probably a fabulous, honest guy without trusting him to talk to my daughter about sex alone in his office. (Why should that conversation even be on the table?) There are plenty of bishops and SPs who aren't "crazy" who are also susceptible to sexual temptation.

[Plus (being a woman) I'm with Tick's wife: I think that hard ons are a real possibility in these interviews. Maybe you'd have to have a woman's experiences with men to understand.... I don't know. And please.... no one take this as an anti-male statement. I love you guys/men in general.]

I agree with you partially. But the Bishop is required to go over the Law of Chastity with your daughter at least once a year. How will that be handled?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

It seems as if you discarded one straw man only to pick up another. Has anyone said that?

[Rosebud]

I agree. And most have had at least an awkward moment, if not upsetting/hurtful encounter with a Church leader. But surely at some time or another each of us have offended or felt offended by some member of the community. I suspect the same can be said for a community of any kind. Even our blessed little CUF community. I don't think this is one that can be avoided no matter how principled the members of said community presume to be.

I guess that's why I try and take LA Ute's approach. I too try and be as much a part of the solution as I can.

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

Here's a minor example: I think that there should be a policy against priesthood leaders discussing sex with teenage girls. I wish that I didn't feel compelled to let my bishop know that he is not allowed to talk to my beautiful teenage daughter about sex because, like Cardiac pointed out, bishops don't usually appreciate interference and I'm likely to lose credibility for sticking my nose into what he believes is his duty. OTOH, I don't believe that I should have to prep a child for a discussion about sex with an adult man who she will perceive (no matter how much I tell her otherwise) to have authority over her. I'll prep her for dealing with teenage boys, but not her bishop. I'm the adult. It's my responsibility to face him -- even if I lose credibility -- not hers.

I don't think my bishop is "crazy." I think he's a great guy. I actually doubt he'll even bring sex up. This probably won't really be an issue until my son (almost 11) hits puberty and the masturbation discussions begin. OTOH, why take chances? It IS possible to believe my bishop is probably a fabulous, honest guy without trusting him to talk to my daughter about sex alone in his office. (Why should that conversation even be on the table?) There are plenty of bishops and SPs who aren't "crazy" who are also susceptible to sexual temptation.

[Plus (being a woman) I'm with Tick's wife: I think that hard ons are a real possibility in these interviews. Maybe you'd have to have a woman's experiences with men to understand.... I don't know. And please.... no one take this as an anti-male statement. I love you guys/men in general.]

[Surfah]

Well, if you phrase the statement that way, I doubt anyone would make such a claim. I believe the question the other day was more narrow: bishops and stake presidents.

I agree. And most have had at least an awkward moment, if not upsetting/hurtful encounter with a Church leader. But surely at some time or another each of us have offended or felt offended by some member of the community. I suspect the same can be said for a community of any kind. Even our blessed little CUF community. I don't think this is one that can be avoided no matter how principled the members of said community presume to be.

I guess that's why I try and take LA Ute's approach. I too try and be as much a part of the solution as I can.

[smokymountainrain]

Knowing that I'm not the "only one."

Not the only one that doesn't "just love going to the Temple."

Not the only one that is bored by the 3 hour block. Not the only one that goes home from the 3 hour block MORE tired then when I arrived.

Not the only one that doesn't go to the temple regularly.

Not the only one that doesn't get great inspiration from reading a book over and over again.

I just read this for the first time. If it makes you feel any better, not only are you not the only one on these points, but based on my experience in the church, you are in the overwhelming majority of active church members. I can look at at least 80% (probably low) of the congregation on any given sunday in my Sandy, UT ward (doesn't get any more typical than Sandy, UT), and pretty much accurately describe them with what you've posted above.

[Jeff Lebowski]

In my mind, those of you who have only had positive experiences with church communities are very very very lucky.

Well, if you phrase the statement that way, I doubt anyone would make such a claim. I believe the question the other day was more narrow: bishops and stake presidents.

[LA Ute]

In my mind, those of you who have only had positive experiences with church communities are very very very lucky.

I suspect that is a very small group, if people are honest with themselves. I know I am not in it.

[Rosebud]

FWIW, there have been times that I have felt an incredible sense of community at church and times that I haven't. I have known really fantastic leaders and really hurtful leaders. Likewise, there have been times that I have felt an incredible sense of community in organizations outside of the church. There are times that I haven't.

A sense of community isn't enough to keep me active and paying tithing. Community can be found anywhere. To have value, church (for me) needs to be about worship. If I'm not worshiping, why waste my time? There are friendship and growth opportunities everywhere.

In my mind, those of you who have only had positive experiences with church communities are very very very lucky. There are SO many people who have been hurt by members they chose to trust. IMO, it is unwise to believe that your community is always safe and positive -- no matter how safe and wonderful it feels on the exterior.