Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Marduk wrote: (Seriously though, ties. They are the wierdest thing ever. We don't think about it because we are so used to them, but why is hanging a strip of fabric from your neck a thing?)

I don't know, but I really hate them. The second I have a chance to get it off, I do. What really sucks is that I spend half my life wearing ties.

Marduk wrote:I suppose my complaint is a little more complex than that. I find it problematic to use culture as a reason to eschew those norms. For instance, a poly showing up in a lava lava is unique and different, were I to do it, I'd just be a poser. So it almost seems like privileging one culture over another.

So, what do you prefer as an alternative? Get rid of the lava-lava / kilt "exception" because it's an unequal privilege? Embrace more culturally-specific dress standards? Another alternative? (I'm particularly curious about your opinion regarding US or North American wards, but I you could also address this on a global scale.)

Marduk wrote:I think it is significantly more extensive than you give it credit for. That being said, I think altering church dress standards to better reflect the native cultures is a great idea. And guess what the native culture is here?

native americans?

Not anymore. We genocided them good.

That settles it. I'll wear a loincloth and headdress next time I attend church.

Slightly off the current topic but still relevant to this thread, I just realized that I can no longer fully support one of the articles of faith. I mean, those things are terribly simplistic and therefore far from ideal, but still, to realize I no longer really believe it that much...

bobtheenchantedone wrote:Slightly off the current topic but still relevant to this thread, I just realized that I can no longer fully support one of the articles of faith. I mean, those things are terribly simplistic and therefore far from ideal, but still, to realize I no longer really believe it that much...

Are you willing to share which one?

Well first off it turns out kinda never mind because after talking to Marduk about it I realized that I was not interpreting the article correctly or something. But it was... number eight, I think? "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly." I'm struggling with that because I keep coming across all of this stuff that I absolutely don't agree with (Paul's opinion of women, for example) that cannot all be explained with "mistranslation" and I don't want my other option to be that it must be the word of God. However, Marduk reminded me of something I said recently - we cannot fault people for not following commandments/doctrines they don't know about, and these people were not in a culture or time period able to handle things like equal rights.

In conclusion, I still feel uncertain about the Bible, but I'm okay with it.

It should also be noted that there are things in the Scriptures that are the opinions of righteous men rather than divine and eternal doctrines. In the Book of Mormon, for instance, Alma is pretty good about specifying when he's talking about speculative doctrine rather than revealed truth (although if I recall correctly, he was right at least once after he gave that disclaimer). I kind of suspect that the things Paul said fall into that same category, and the distinction may have been lost with time (or it may have never existed, since the epistles were letters by Church leaders on the level of General Conference addresses, and I think most members would agree that there are opinions of righteous men as well as divinely inspired doctrines stated in Conference). We also need to remember, like you said, that Paul lived in a very different time and culture, and norms and values were vastly different from those we hold today. Personally, I'm inclined to give Paul the benefit of the doubt but let modern scripture take precedence over ancient scripture on the subject.

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=651 <-This is a really marvelous talk given by the then-president of then-Ricks College. Talks about ambiguity and skepticism and all sorts of good stuff that was good for me to hear. And here's a quote that doesn't necessarily give a feel for the whole talk, but it's relevant to other discussions we've had on this board about art and movies and literature, and I thought it was worth sharing:

"We will not always have the security of knowing whether a certain idea is "Church approved," because new ideas do not always come along with little tags attached to them saying whether the Church has given them the stamp of approval. Whether in the form of music, books, friends, or opportunities to serve, there is much that is "lovely, . . . of good report, [and] praiseworthy" (Article of Faith 13) that is not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction. Those who will not risk exposure to experiences of life that are not obviously related to some well-known Church work or program will, I believe, live less abundant and meaningful lives than the Lord intends. We must develop sufficient independence of judgment and maturity of perspective that we are prepared to handle the shafts and whirlwinds of adversity and contradiction that are so likely to come along in our lives. When those times come, we cannot be living on borrowed light. We should not be deceived by the clear-cut labels some may use to describe circumstances that are, in fact, not so clear."

"...not Mormon enough to stay cooped up in an overheated, stifling building for three hours when Zadie Smith and autumnal sunshine called," is the answer. "Mormon enough to spend my entire week and take many many hours off work to attend a Mormon deathbed, viewing, graveside service, etc." is also the answer, I suppose.

Zedability wrote:

Dead Cat wrote:

Giovanni Schwartz wrote:Slightly tangentially relevant: In the Taiwan temple, everyone removes their shoes just inside the door, as is the culture when entering any house in Taiwan. So I think there is already some evidence of this.

A tangent to your tangent: there's a whole room for shoes in the Anchorage, Alaska temple. I've been raised to think that not removing your shoes at the door of someone's home is weird, but that's probably because wearing boots (or even just shoes tracking up who knows what) inside is not among the brightest of ideas.

I was going to say exactly the same thing about the Cardston Temple

Yeah, I remember going to the Provo temple for the first time after having grown up going to the Cardston temple to do baptisms and being shocked that people didn't take their shoes off until they got to the change rooms!!

krebscout wrote:http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=651 <-This is a really marvelous talk given by the then-president of then-Ricks College. Talks about ambiguity and skepticism and all sorts of good stuff that was good for me to hear. And here's a quote that doesn't necessarily give a feel for the whole talk, but it's relevant to other discussions we've had on this board about art and movies and literature, and I thought it was worth sharing:

"We will not always have the security of knowing whether a certain idea is "Church approved," because new ideas do not always come along with little tags attached to them saying whether the Church has given them the stamp of approval. Whether in the form of music, books, friends, or opportunities to serve, there is much that is "lovely, . . . of good report, [and] praiseworthy" (Article of Faith 13) that is not the subject of detailed discussion in Church manuals or courses of instruction. Those who will not risk exposure to experiences of life that are not obviously related to some well-known Church work or program will, I believe, live less abundant and meaningful lives than the Lord intends. We must develop sufficient independence of judgment and maturity of perspective that we are prepared to handle the shafts and whirlwinds of adversity and contradiction that are so likely to come along in our lives. When those times come, we cannot be living on borrowed light. We should not be deceived by the clear-cut labels some may use to describe circumstances that are, in fact, not so clear."

Thank you for the quote and link!

Soooo, hopefully not going to dredge up this discussion too much, but over at the BCC blog they have a bunch of polls today, one of which is about their readers' levels of Mormonness. These are the options:

Not a Mormon but interested for whatever reason 2.88% (10 votes)
Mormon in name only 2.88% (10 votes)
I darken the doors of the church once in a while 3.17% (11 votes)
I'm there virtually every Sunday (stake conferences don't count) 29.11% (101 votes)
Temple recommend holder 40.35% (140 votes)
I'm a church officer like YW pres, bishopric, etc. 17.87% (62 votes)
I teach gospel doctrine and come here for lesson ideas from Kevin Barney 2.88% (10 votes)
I'm in Steve Evans ward 0.86% (3 votes)

I'm not sure who Steve Evans is, but anyway, there's another way to categorize folks. I still don't love it, but just thought you all might like it.

Oh man, I wish we would dredge up this discussion. I just re-read the entire thread because I have found it fascinating.

As someone who has read the Board since the Pa Grape days -- 8 years and running which is shocking to me -- and read TheBoardBoard since its earliest days, I definitely think the discussion here has changed to being more critical of the Church or its policies. I don't think we had anyone who openly discussed leaving the Church or criticized it on major issues, even just 5 years ago. I think that today the majority of BoardBoard members openly state that they disagree with some church policies. I think the shift has been gradual, but is a stark change from its beginnings.

I don't know how much the Board is causing change rather than reflecting it. It seems there is a broader movement toward including members of all stripe within the Church proper. We've gone from LeGrand Richards' style "If you don't believe every claim about the Book of Mormon, then get out of my congregation" to Jeffrey Holland "If you don't believe every claim about the Book of Mormon I hope you'll still come to Sunday School to add what good you have to our's." I think that sense of inclusion is even stronger in young Mormons.

It's interesting for me to see how my own development has caused some personal dissonance. I am sad when people leave the Church. I like the Church. I believe that for all its members' imperfections, it's still the place that provides the most good. So when I hear about people here leaving the Church, I am disappointed. At the same time, I recognize why some people leave the Church. For example, gay members receive largely unsatisfying answers about one of the things that the Church itself teaches is one of the most important aspects of our existence and religion - family. I have no good answer for what to do about that. My belief that the Church ultimately has the most good has to give way to my observation that a gay member of the Church would largely feel rejected in our community. Do I expect (as in, explicitly advocate for) the Church to change its position? I have just a hard time doing that believing that church leadership is inspired even if totally human and fallible. So just as I cringe when I hear a comment that, though with no ill-intent, would likely alienate gay members, I also get a sick feeling when members openly deride Church leadership for being homophobic.

And like Craig Jessop (who as near I can tell, most closely matches my own intellectual position with regard to the Church and its history, by the way) I do not think less of people who decide to leave the Church. I may disagree with their reasons, but I value them just the same.

I don't believe in God anymore.
There. I said it.

katydid wrote:I don't believe in God anymore.
There. I said it.

Say it three times and God disappears forever.

katydid wrote:I don't believe in God anymore.

What do you believe in now?

S.A.M. wrote:

katydid wrote:I don't believe in God anymore.

What do you believe in now?

http://youtu.be/mSy1NQx2bJE?t=29s

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she's Pastafarian.