Not a TBM?????

[Xru]

Be astounded, then. I am not judging a person's status before God, only He does that. However, like it or not, there ARE people in the Church who do not, or no longer, believe some or most of the things I listed. Those things comprise a core testimony as it has been outlined by our leaders. And the term, TBM just so you know, is not some official "status" like a grand master of the order or something like that. It is just something coined by some people to make a distinction between those who believe, and those who no longer accept those things as true. And the Church does not have some police force standing by to seek out non-TBM's and kick them out of the Church. They are welcome to remain and be nurtured and helped along in their faith as long as they choose to, and I encourage them to stay.

So it's not like in Big Love that if ya get too out of line in your beliefs you may be charged by another, brought up before some kind of Church "court" and kicked out of the church?

[One Bad Pig]

So it's not like in Big Love that if ya get too out of line in your beliefs you may be charged by another, brought up before some kind of Church "court" and kicked out of the church?

If a Mormon gets out of line, they can lose their "temple recommend" - which is apparently a pretty big deal. IIRC you pretty much have to reject the LDS church to get excommunicated (kicked out).

[Xru]

If a Mormon gets out of line, they can lose their "temple recommend" - which is apparently a pretty big deal. IIRC you pretty much have to reject the LDS church to get excommunicated (kicked out).

oh . .. maybe that's what she lost. I'll have to watch that episode over again.

[OtherCheek]

Hmmmm......

NONE of those was a problem, to my knowledge.

Let's try this...

Let's say, for example, that you are a member of my Church, and I present to you the "artist's rendering" of the building we're going to build.
We talk about it, and look over the various features, and we're both excited about it.

THEN I have a meeting with developers and real estate people, and I discover that my plans won't work, due to certain non-negotiable deed restrictions.

INSTEAD of coming back to you and saying, "Hey, we have a small problem, and we need to make some changes", I put on a "Spiritual Air", and say "After an all night prayer meeting, I received a revelation from the Lord that we should move some things around, relative to the plans, because God will get the GREATER GLORY!"

I have no reason to doubt you, and I'm even MORE excited about the plans, and can't wait for construction to begin.

THEN, through no fault of your own, you are talking to a friend in the commercial real estate business, and you share your excitement, and he looks totally dumbfounded. You ask what's the matter, and he happens to know the persons involved, and the deed restrictions, and the re-negotiations concerning the plans, and all you're doing is "comparing notes". One thing leads to another, and you assume there must be a misunderstanding, so you come back to me and INNOCENTLY ask why the discrepancy.

Now, if I were really sharp, I could say, "well, yes, there were some problems with the deed restrictions, so we PRAYED about it, and came up with an alternate plan that would work even BETTER!" But, for reasons we'll never understand, I, instead, get angry that you would confront your leadership, and pretty much accuse you of causing division. You've been a TBB for quite some time, but that doesn't seem to matter -- I'm HACKED that you would come and challenge my honesty or my spiritual leadership.

Mind you, you did NONE of those things, you were simply wondering, and you asked, because you knew this might come up in other conversations, and there were OTHER business deals in that same area that hinged on this one.

Would you begin to wonder what ELSE was misrepresented?
Would you just blow it off as "well, that's physical or financial stuff, and doesn't impact the spiritual at all"?
Would you get mad at the guy who actually showed you the documents proving HE was telling the truth?

Would it cause any kind of crisis of faith at all?

Mind you, this is probably just a hypothetical.

I would have serious questions and concerns for sure. And I would seek answers, and I would make prayer a part of it, and I would also try to forgive the person, and not let things fester and destroy my faith and testimony which is NOT based upon or dependent upon the degree of perfect behavior (or imperfect behavior) that I witness in others including the prophet himself.

This example speaks to the issue to taking offense or being offended, or giving offense. There are people who leave the Church all the time because they felt offended by a doctrine, or a policy, or something someone said, or someone's behavior, etc. The list could go on giving reasons people have for taking offense. I know some members in name only in my neighborhood who will never speak on friendly terms to anyone who IS LDS because they were offended. If I were to say "hi" to them, they would take offense.

This may shock you too, I don't know, but I think that being offended is a choice people make to justify themselves and feel better about some of their other choices. I can honestly say that I have never been offended by any person in the Church where I have let it fester for more than about a day. Taking offense at something is probably one of the last things I want to do where my faith is concerned.

[OtherCheek]

So it's not like in Big Love that if ya get too out of line in your beliefs you may be charged by another, brought up before some kind of Church "court" and kicked out of the church?

Big Love is something that I have honestly never seen. (I don't even have cable or satellite). But I've heard it mentioned a great deal and I know it's premise. It is a gross misrepresentation of our beliefs and traditions, IMO. It provides entertainment for an evening, but otherwise is of little or no value, in my TBM opinion and does not represent or present a correct picture of the LDS faith. Some people consider me austere but we only allow the TV on on weekends and holidays, and even at that the kids are limited to 2 hours a day. My wife and I follow the same rules pretty much, (unless my Alma mater is playing football or basketball). And we don't have cable or sat. because we find the content to be something we don't want in our home. The kids are entirely entertained on the weekends by watching old episodes of Bewitched on DVD. And last night we saw a family movie (dolphin tales) together and had a great time.

Back to topic, we do have Church courts, but those are serious offenses. And two witness are required.

[Cow Poke]

I would have serious questions and concerns for sure.

I should hope so.

And I would seek answers, and I would make prayer a part of it, and I would also try to forgive the person, and not let things fester and destroy my faith and testimony which is NOT based upon or dependent upon the degree of perfect behavior (or imperfect behavior) that I witness in others including the prophet himself.

Well, that's mighty magnanimous of you, but if you were TRYING to seek answers, and I treated you like you were accusing me of lying, and got all upset about it, and then gave you the "cold shoulder" every time I saw you after that, maybe you'd think differently.

This example speaks to the issue to taking offense or being offended, or giving offense.

Actually, it speaks more to creating doubt by not being totally honest, and then refusing to do the Matt 18:15-17 thing.

There are people who leave the Church all the time because they felt offended by a doctrine, or a policy, or something someone said, or someone's behavior, etc.

It was about cold hard fact. Blueprints. Documents. In my example, I could be seen as being less than honest. I'm telling you things happened a particular way, and putting a spiritual spin on it, and you're discovering, without even TRYING to discover, that I'm not being honest. You approach me, and I rebuff you and insult you for even asking.

The list could go on giving reasons people have for taking offense. I know some members in name only in my neighborhood who will never speak on friendly terms to anyone who IS LDS because they were offended. If I were to say "hi" to them, they would take offense.

You're not allowing your dog to poop in their yard, are you?

This may shock you too, I don't know, but I think that being offended is a choice people make to justify themselves and feel better about some of their other choices.

Actually, OC, it doesn't shock me at all --- my Tweb Mormon friends seem to take offense quite often whether it is intended or not. Are you telling me that's why "they" do it? Can my Mormon friends choose NOT to be offended just as easily as they can choose TO BE offended?

I can honestly say that I have never been offended by any person in the Church where I have let it fester for more than about a day. Taking offense at something is probably one of the last things I want to do where my faith is concerned.

You know that's gonna go in the quote bin, yes?

I think you're missing the point, OC. It wasn't any of the "TBM" things you mentioned that caused him to doubt, so I'm a little surprised you jumped to that conclusion without understanding the situation more carefully.

He saw an inconsistency with what he was told, vs. what he saw on paper.
He did the CORRECT BIBLICAL THING, assuming there must be a good explanation, and went "one on one" to resolve the matter.
He was rebuffed, which genuinely confused him.
He went back to his outside sources to verify the information, and it was unimpeachable.

This caused him to doubt OTHER things that he was told, and the whole issue of "Truth" and "seek truth wherever you can find it".

[OtherCheek]

I should hope so.



Well, that's mighty magnanimous of you, but if you were TRYING to seek answers, and I treated you like you were accusing me of lying, and got all upset about it, and then gave you the "cold shoulder" every time I saw you after that, maybe you'd think differently.



Actually, it speaks more to creating doubt by not being totally honest, and then refusing to do the Matt 18:15-17 thing.



It was about cold hard fact. Blueprints. Documents. In my example, I could be seen as being less than honest. I'm telling you things happened a particular way, and putting a spiritual spin on it, and you're discovering, without even TRYING to discover, that I'm not being honest. You approach me, and I rebuff you and insult you for even asking.



You're not allowing your dog to poop in their yard, are you?



Actually, OC, it doesn't shock me at all --- my Tweb Mormon friends seem to take offense quite often whether it is intended or not. Are you telling me that's why "they" do it? Can my Mormon friends choose NOT to be offended just as easily as they can choose TO BE offended?



You know that's gonna go in the quote bin, yes?

I think you're missing the point, OC. It wasn't any of the "TBM" things you mentioned that caused him to doubt, so I'm a little surprised you jumped to that conclusion without understanding the situation more carefully.

He saw an inconsistency with what he was told, vs. what he saw on paper.
He did the CORRECT BIBLICAL THING, assuming there must be a good explanation, and went "one on one" to resolve the matter.
He was rebuffed, which genuinely confused him.
He went back to his outside sources to verify the information, and it was unimpeachable.

This caused him to doubt OTHER things that he was told, and the whole issue of "Truth" and "seek truth wherever you can find it".

It seems to me that this is a matter between two people.

As to a different question, would you rather that we DO inform you, or DON'T inform you when you seem to be giving offense?

[Cow Poke]

It seems to me that this is a matter between two people.

Cool.

[Cow Poke]

As to a different question, would you rather that we DO inform you, or DON'T inform you when you seem to be giving offense?

Neither -- just make the choice not to get offended. You don't even need to let me know!

I think that being offended is a choice people make to justify themselves and feel better about some of their other choices.

[Xru]

Big Love is something that I have honestly never seen. (I don't even have cable or satellite). But I've heard it mentioned a great deal and I know it's premise. It is a gross misrepresentation of our beliefs and traditions, IMO. It provides entertainment for an evening, but otherwise is of little or no value, in my TBM opinion and does not represent or present a correct picture of the LDS faith. Some people consider me austere but we only allow the TV on on weekends and holidays, and even at that the kids are limited to 2 hours a day. My wife and I follow the same rules pretty much, (unless my Alma mater is playing football or basketball). And we don't have cable or sat. because we find the content to be something we don't want in our home. The kids are entirely entertained on the weekends by watching old episodes of Bewitched on DVD. And last night we saw a family movie (dolphin tales) together and had a great time.

Absolutely, it was good entertainment. However, it was about a bigamist family that rejected the current teachings of the LDS church and were trying to live in the true spirit of the original teachings of Smith. I never assumed it ever accurately depicted LDS it just got me curious.

I have some pretty strong opinions on the corrupting influence of TV, not so much the programs but the product propaganda, ie, advertizements which has the sole purpose of creating in the viewer a perceived need to purchase a product, or manipulate in some way the opinion of ht viewer. So I'm happy you limit the TV in your house.

[Cerebrum123]

Absolutely, it was good entertainment. However, it was about a bigamist family that rejected the current teachings of the LDS church and were trying to live in the true spirit of the original teachings of Smith. I never assumed it ever accurately depicted LDS it just got me curious.

I have some pretty strong opinions on the corrupting influence of TV, not so much the programs but the product propaganda, ie, advertizements which has the sole purpose of creating in the viewer a perceived need to purchase a product, or manipulate in some way the opinion of ht viewer. So I'm happy you limit the TV in your house.

That kind of stuff is EVERYWHERE Xru ,there is no real way to avoid it (even if you limit tv) ,unless you want to go and be Amish. You can't even drive down very many roads without being bombarded by advertisements ,and the like. I understand your opinion ,but it just isn't really possible to avoid this stuff ,especially if you want to stay informed on what's happening in the world.

[jo7241974]

OC, can you please explain "the test" to X, so I don't misrepresent it?

And I'm not sure what a TMP is, but a TBM is a "True Blue Mormon" (or "True Blooded Mormon") -- apparently a name Mormons reserve for the "real" Mormons.

Nah....it's not a term reserved for the "real" Mormons in the way that you are interpreting it. It's more of a distinction, in my mind, as to who is more active - no matter what. For instance, I think it would be safe to liken this to Christians who only go to church at Easter and Christmas times. As a kid (and still Lutheran), through a child's eyes, actions spoke louder than words (and this still does, though I also now know there may be many unapparent reasons for someone to not be able to get to church and honor the Sabath on every Sabath day), I thought it was rather insincere of my folks for several years to go only on the holidays. As I got older I realized that they were still good people who were believers; also, their pattern of attending church more often was made manifest throughout the years. They just didn't exercise their personal choices to include going to church every Sunday. Also, I think my father was bothered by the fact he was excommunicated from the RCC for marrying my mother when she refused to sign any type of paperwork making the promise to raise any children they would have in the RCC. This hurt him immensely, and also frightened him, because he still loved God - but the RCC had pretty much damned him. So sometimes he would go with us; and sometimes he wouldn't.

By the way, this is also a "way" (if you will), for us to understand that someone has become less active. It does not have the negative spin which you seem to be wanting to give it. Someone who is less active could have many reasons for becoming so. Since we are all part of the same flock, we follow Christ's example of trying not to let any of the flock stray. If you want to find a negative "spin" - then look up a "jack" Mormon....sort of Christendom's version of a previously active member who has now basically become agnostic and uncaring about their relationship with God. They still believe; but for whatever the reason, it just doesn't seem to matter much right now in their life. Or even worse, they still believe; but no longer believe God is the loving and caring God they once believed in.

Love,

jo

[Cow Poke]

Nah....it's not a term reserved for the "real" Mormons in the way that you are interpreting it.

WHAT? Maybe you should talk to OC. It wasn't ME who interpreted it, Jo, your beef is with OC.

It's more of a distinction, in my mind, as to who is more active - no matter what. For instance, I think it would be safe to liken this to Christians who only go to church at Easter and Christmas times.

That's so far off what OC is talking about, it doesn't even sound like the same thing. OC even made a LIST of things that a TBM is required to believe, and if somebody is even THINKING about leaving Mormonism, it appears to be prima facie evidence that they're NOT a TBM.

Love

CP

[One Bad Pig]

They just didn't exercise their personal choices to include going to church every Sunday. Also, I think my father was bothered by the fact he was excommunicated from the RCC for marrying my mother when she refused to sign any type of paperwork making the promise to raise any children they would have in the RCC. This hurt him immensely, and also frightened him, because he still loved God - but the RCC had pretty much damned him. So sometimes he would go with us; and sometimes he wouldn't.

So your father valued marrying your mother over staying faithful to the RCC? Your hubby doesn't think much of that:

And what of Sofia?

"On 14 May 1962 Princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark married Infante Juan Carlos of Spain, whom she met on a cruise of the Greek Islands in 1954, in Athens at the Catholic Cathedral of Saint Dennis. In doing so, she relinquished her rights to the throne of Greece and converted to Roman Catholicism from Greek Orthodoxy, an act of convenience in order to become more palatable to Catholic Spain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Sof%C3%ADa_of_Spain

Some strong faith there.

[Cow Poke]

So your father valued marrying your mother over staying faithful to the RCC? Your hubby doesn't think much of that:

We were always warned as teenagers that "missionary dating" never pans out.