The First Feebles

[Limnor]

I knew someone in Scotland whose family was strongly Catholic. When he joined the Mormon church they held a requiem mass for him.

Yikes. As far as I know I’ve not been requiem’d.

For me it is important to not have some human between me and God, whether it be Joseph, or getting through the veil because I proved to the fellow on the other side that I could remember a ritual, or Nelson or whoever the prophet is now, or a Catholic priest and the magic incantation that only he can can utter to achieve transubstantiation.

I suppose I’d be willing to lose everything over that personal access, but I’ve never really been tested on that.

If my family said it was the Catholic Church and continued familial access or never talking to them again, it would be a difficult decision.

That situation and the personal impact, as I’ve known to be experienced by some ex-Mormons, has my empathy.

[I Have Questions]

I knew someone in Scotland whose family was strongly Catholic. When he joined the Mormon church they held a requiem mass for him.

Yikes. As far as I know I’ve not been requiem’d.

For me it is important to not have some human between me and God, whether it be Joseph, or getting through the veil because I proved to the fellow on the other side that I could remember a ritual, or Nelson or whoever the prophet is now, or a Catholic priest and the magic incantation that only he can can utter to achieve transubstantiation.

I suppose I’d be willing to lose everything over that personal access, but I’ve never really been tested on that.

I think that’s an interesting point. For a Mormon, if personal revelation conflicts with Church revelation, teaching, policy, etc. which wins as far as the Church is concerned?

[Gadianton]

If my family said it was the Catholic Church and continued familial access or never talking to them again, it would be a difficult decision.

Right, I forgot to say that this particular way of having a model that sorta works over generations has its own success built in if it intentionally sabotages the lives of anybody who questions it. So when Dan says that religious people are happiest -- giving him the benefit of the doubt here as he'll cherry pick his study -- if you're looking at a part of the world where that religion is the norm and that religion vilifies dissidents, well then, it's not such a miracle, is it?

[malkie]

Yikes. As far as I know I’ve not been requiem’d.

For me it is important to not have some human between me and God, whether it be Joseph, or getting through the veil because I proved to the fellow on the other side that I could remember a ritual, or Nelson or whoever the prophet is now, or a Catholic priest and the magic incantation that only he can can utter to achieve transubstantiation.

I suppose I’d be willing to lose everything over that personal access, but I’ve never really been tested on that.

I think that’s an interesting point. For a Mormon, if personal revelation conflicts with Church revelation, teaching, policy, etc. which wins as far as the Church is concerned?

Even in the case where the official revelation conflicts with the person's conscience, the person is expected to pray etc. until they can accept the official "word". What I sometime call the outsourcing of one's conscience to the organization.

[Limnor]

this particular way of having a model that sorta works over generations has its own success built in if it intentionally sabotages the lives of anybody who questions it.

This is a horrible byproduct, and if intentionally built in (as I suspect along with you that it is) all the more so.

[MG 2.0]

Personally, I've come to doubt if there is even such a thing as faith. Relying on so-called faith as an explanation for the 'why of things' is a lazy way out to avoid thinking about those same things.

I agree that the word is meaningless. If I'm sitting in a Mormon Chapel believing all that I hear, neither looking left nor right, then how great is my faith. If I'm sitting in a Catholic Church believing all that I hear with an eye single to the message of the Cardinal, then I'm bound to the foolish traditions of my fathers. If I question the Church and inquire seriously about another religion, then it's a faith crisis. If I'm Catholic and question the Pope and talk to the Mormon missionaries, it's a triumph of faith.

Faith, just like much else, is malleable.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think that’s an interesting point. For a Mormon, if personal revelation conflicts with Church revelation, teaching, policy, etc. which wins as far as the Church is concerned?

Even in the case where the official revelation conflicts with the person's conscience, the person is expected to pray etc. until they can accept the official "word". What I sometime call the outsourcing of one's conscience to the organization.

Not everyone receives an answer that 'official revelation' is always right in every instance. They may even have a stupor of thought and be confused. I would imagine it happens more often than you might think.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I think that’s an interesting point. For a Mormon, if personal revelation conflicts with Church revelation, teaching, policy, etc. which wins as far as the Church is concerned?

Even in the case where the official revelation conflicts with the person's conscience, the person is expected to pray etc. until they can accept the official "word". What I sometime call the outsourcing of one's conscience to the organization.

That is an excellent way to phrase it.

[malkie]

Even in the case where the official revelation conflicts with the person's conscience, the person is expected to pray etc. until they can accept the official "word". What I sometime call the outsourcing of one's conscience to the organization.

Not everyone receives an answer that 'official revelation' is always right in every instance. They may even have a stupor of thought and be confused. I would imagine it happens more often than you might think.

Regards,
MG

I seem to remember a lot of people experiencing a "stupor of thought" with the November 2015 policy - as in wondering how the church could issue such a cruel statement. I know that it broke some people's testimonies, and that the following attempts to explain, and subsequent revisions, only made things worse.

An how could it not? How was it possible that:
1. Mormon god was so cruel and heartless
2. He couldn't say clearly what he mane the first time
3. He didn't mean what he said the first time
4. He had to walk back parts of it a couple of years later?

I thought that Elder Christofferson's part in the whole fiasco was abominable.

[sock puppet]

Not everyone receives an answer that 'official revelation' is always right in every instance. They may even have a stupor of thought and be confused. I would imagine it happens more often than you might think.

Regards,
MG

I seem to remember a lot of people experiencing a "stupor of thought" with the November 2015 policy - as in wondering how the church could issue such a cruel statement. I know that it broke some people's testimonies, and that the following attempts to explain, and subsequent revisions, only made things worse.

An how could it not? How was it possible that:
1. Mormon god was so cruel and heartless
2. He couldn't say clearly what he mane the first time
3. He didn't mean what he said the first time
4. He had to walk back parts of it a couple of years later?

I thought that Elder Christofferson's part in the whole fiasco was abominable.

Maybe for Oaks, that's how DTC got his bona fides and now the 2d Counselor slot in the new First Reebs