What can you openly not believe in?

[2bizE]

When I had a vasectomy, a well-meaning and otherwise lovely fellow at church asked me why I would mutilate myself like that (actually I had a surgeon do it - while I lay there pretending to play tough but they could tell by my wincing eyes and curling toes that more anaesthetic was needed)

Thew point to this story is that even something like a vasectomy can be frowned upon by the old guard

Why does religion feel so compelled to completely control our sex lives?

[Anon70]

I'm it seems I can openly disbelieve in just about all of it. They just ignore me yet say they still love our family and want us there.
By openly disbelieving we are still wanted yet have become untouchables.

This works for me too. I have to attend. So I just straight up say "oh no I can't believe X." Then I smile or laugh. Sometimes people agree and I make NOM friends! Mostly people ignore it or bear their testimonies.

Edit: I should also say I appear active, hold callings, recently got my TR so I think people choose to think it's minor issues for me and I'm a TBM. Or I'm just joking. Not sure but no one delves too deep when I do it.

[Charlotte]

I would offer that given statements that "The Book of Mormon isn't a historical document" there's an opening to simply place it in the pile with Noah, Jonah, and other "allegorical" stories there is a growing opening to let the Book of Mormon veracity slip. This is a slowly growing section of the active Church--the "There's no DNA evidence because, well, the DNA never got here BUT the story of faith and obedience is more important than the historicity.

Give it 10 years.

I''m serious.

Do you really think so? It is SO needed.

[deacon blues]

I would offer that given statements that "The Book of Mormon isn't a historical document" there's an opening to simply place it in the pile with Noah, Jonah, and other "allegorical" stories there is a growing opening to let the Book of Mormon veracity slip. This is a slowly growing section of the active Church--the "There's no DNA evidence because, well, the DNA never got here BUT the story of faith and obedience is more important than the historicity.

Give it 10 years.

I''m serious.

Do you really think so? It is SO needed.

I'd say give it 50 years, but I hope you are right.

[Fifi de la Vergne]

The only thing that I was able to be open in my disbelief while Mormon was polygamy. Everyone seemed to agree with me except for a few very orthodox types.

My SIL, who has been 100% inactive since her early teens, wanted to talk with me about my disaffection shortly after it happened. I was eager to talk to someone, but still cautious, so I chose my objection to polygamy as the safest place to start. I was really surprised when she defended it with the "but in heaven we'll all be so different we won't mind" argument. I listened incredulously as she delivered the whole spiel, and then changed the subject.

It depends a lot on the person you're talking to, but I don't think you can openly disbelieve in any of Mormonism.

[Corsair]

A year or two ago Gospel Doctrine was doing the Old Testament and covered Numbers 22 which has the story of Balaam and his talking donkey. I mostly used my comments to use the word "ass" and mention that Balaam might have been talking out of his ass. The moral of the story is once again to follow God's commandments, but it's hard to see this story as anything but a cheap fable due to Balaam's verbose ass.

I absolutely missed my opportunity to ask the class if they thought that this was a historically "real" account or if someone might have embellished it a bit. Do we have to have a firm testimony of Balaam's talking donkey? Could we not at least have some healthy skepticism of this incident since it's not a situation that we can replicate? I deeply regret not making that comment, but it's mostly because I got distracted by the juvenile, immature pleasure of using the word "ass" in a church setting.

[2bizE]

A year or two ago Gospel Doctrine was doing the Old Testament and covered Numbers 22 which has the story of Balaam and his talking donkey. I mostly used my comments to use the word "ass" and mention that Balaam might have been talking out of his ass. The moral of the story is once again to follow God's commandments, but it's hard to see this story as anything but a cheap fable due to Balaam's verbose ass.

I absolutely missed my opportunity to ask the class if they thought that this was a historically "real" account or if someone might have embellished it a bit. Do we have to have a firm testimony of Balaam's talking donkey? Could we not at least have some healthy skepticism of this incident since it's not a situation that we can replicate? I deeply regret not making that comment, but it's mostly because I got distracted by the juvenile, immature pleasure of using the word "ass" in a church setting.

I suppose there are a number of magical stories in the bible like this:
Adam and eve. The rib, the garden, the snake
Noah and his ark. Symbolism or did he really stick all the animal species on earth on it.
Abraham and the angel stopping him from killing his son
Moses and the plagues. Do you think that story ever changed over a few thousand years.
Jonah and the fish. Really, did this happen?
Job
The more I think about it, the whole bible builds up in magic to a climax with Christ and his magic healings, magic birth, etc.

Come to think of it, the whole bible has more magic than David Copperfield.
Maybe the story of Jonah would not stir too many people if I said I didn't believe it.

[Bloodhound98]

I like the 10 years historical authenticity of the BoM. Anyone with any knowledge of any science can't really debate DNA.

You can see what % neanderthal you have in your DNA surely we can see if the Natives have Jewish DNA.

There is a sub on Reddit with an African tribe that has Jewish decent about 3000 years ago and they can spot it! But yet we can't see any Jewish DNA in any Native Americans.

Of course the theories of limited geography will come into play and maybe the Lamanites are somewhere in the Amazon Jungle still. Lol

[Brent]

I like the 10 years historical authenticity of the BoM. Anyone with any knowledge of any science can't really debate DNA.

You can see what % neanderthal you have in your DNA surely we can see if the Natives have Jewish DNA.

There is a sub on Reddit with an African tribe that has Jewish decent about 3000 years ago and they can spot it! But yet we can't see any Jewish DNA in any Native Americans.

Of course the theories of limited geography will come into play and maybe the Lamanites are somewhere in the Amazon Jungle still. Lol

There's a whole new career for someone: The Search for the Nephite/Lamanite DNA. Of course it's all faith promoting and stuff because it is out there we just gotta find it. Sounds Kickstarter-ish to me.

[MalcolmVillager]

Good question, it depends one the crowd, the setting, and my mood.

One on one, where I can properly position, I can be pretty bold. In large meetings with TBM's I am pretty cautious.

Using phrasing like "I feel" or "I believe" is generally where I am most comfortable since the TBM "I know's" drive me crazy!

[moksha]

A year or two ago Gospel Doctrine was doing the Old Testament and covered Numbers 22 which has the story of Balaam and his talking donkey.

When I was a kid, I really enjoyed the Francis the Talking Mule movies. Besides starring Francis, the movies also featured Donald O' Connor. Perhaps the talking mule bit ended up in the story because people enjoyed that part of the oral tradition. It is a shame that the story of the talking spider and pig did not make its final inclusion into the Old Testament.