A conversation I had with my sister...

[_Moniker]

Ren, I'm going to reply later to your post, yet want to reply to one point you've made.

I've said before that my vision has been terribly skewed by viewing the boards! I recognize this. Should have used qualifiers!

[_Ren]

Someone should start a thread on MAD and ask them. Or here -- what of the ex-Mos -- would they have moved?

I wonder if it's less about the prophets, yet the community that exerts this group think? Both in tandem?

I think often it's like steering a massive ship.
If the leadership at a certain point in time think that 'disobedience' is rife, then they might get 'tough' on always following anything leaders say, no matter what.
...taking that thought - the community might take that idea and carry it forward even further than the leaders intended - on their own momentum.

So then the leaders have to back off a bit. They can't completely backtrack, but they might just talk a bit more about agency, or using individual judgment and spiritual guidance to make decisions.

I think it can also depend on just who happens to be in leadership at the time. Sometimes you have more 'controlling' types up there than other times.

[_Ren]

I've said before that my vision has been terribly skewed by viewing the boards! I recognize this. Should have used qualifiers!

Not a problem Mon - I get what ya sayin' :)

This is the point, eh? To be apart? That "normal" is not what is desired. To hold ourselves above? That those that fornicate, drink, whatnot are actually miserable and that if they lived a "wholesome" life that there would be relief and true happiness? Is that where that stems from?

Yeap - you're definitely in the right direction. I mean, you shouldn't be prideful about it (at least that's the idea), and you're not supposed to judge (at least that's the idea). Perhaps the people who fornicate or drink 'think' they are happy, but their not happy in the same way 'we' are.

Be 'in' the world, but not 'of' it.

Sex outside marriage = murder makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Oh yeah -that's a pretty way-out comparison for sure. But again, it's one of those things that - in my experience - isn't taken that seriously by many believers. Certainly not literally.
I don't mean that their not serious about viewing sex outside marriage as 'bad'. I just mean their not 'serious' about viewing it as bad as murder.

Saying it's 'almost as bad as murder' is almost like a 'Boogy man' statement. For people who can't see what's so wrong with it...

My brother is 'living in sin' with his girlfriend right now. My mum thinks he is 'sinning. But she doesn't view him as a murderer, or anything like it.
Some relatively obscure church teaching may state that she should see it that way, but (for most people) common sense and a decent soul reject such an idea in practical terms.

[_Moniker]

Uh, I think denying yourself the opportunity to just masturbate actually INCREASES the odds that you'll be having sexual thoughts. Just orgasm and get back to whatever you need to be doing!

Actually, that's a very good point!

Thanks! I really had to put a lot of thought into that one. ;)

You've already worked out that my thinking on this has probably been 'warped' by my LDS upbringing?
...heh, no need to tell me. I already agree :)

:)

But, some of the other stuff just seems like "control" for no other purpose than to control -- why?

I'm not sure if you ask 'why' in the sense of:

"What good reason is there"?
...or...
"I just want to understand what the thinking is..."

Both!

I may not know the best way to explain it...

If the Mormons are the 'chosen people of God', and yet the Mormons 'act no better' than the 'gentiles', then their behaviour is a lie to the concept.

"By their fruits ye shall know them"

Mormons aren't supposed to act like 'everybody else'. They are meant to look different. (Earrings, dress codes). They are meant to control their sexual appetites. They are meant to 'stand apart'. That's embedded into the concept of being a Mormon. (At least a good one).
Church leaders don't want to walk into an average chapel and see a bunch of people who behave like 'everyone else'. So, they put the 'rules' in place to combat that eventuality.

Right. I understand that to a point. I think in general when you have a standard/code of conduct/etc... you want to hold yourself to a certain standard. I just am not entirely sure that so much emphasis on the "wholesome life" is really what creates good fruits. But, again -- my vision is skewed by what I see on the boards. And certainly the people that act like such asses on here more likely than not are different in their off-line demeanor -- at least I hope so! I've done searches to see if there is any studies of lack of civility positively correlated to anonymity and haven't come across anything. Yet, perhaps this is their "true nature" that they can unleash in this forum? Either way -- wanting to be different from the "world" seems pretty apparent. Yet, what the emphasis is placed upon (appearance for instance) just doesn't seem to be much with "internal" aspects of humans. I actually value a lot of Christian morals and the teachings of Christ in general -- and I'm not supposing myself to be someone that is always a perfect person. Yet, I just wonder why appearance is stressed in a Church where they are disciples of Christ -- that seems to be antithetical to his teachings -- no?

I think not having certain "behaviors" is valuable if they do increase happiness -- and there is no denying that many of the teachings (dictates? whatever) certainly can help steer people to lead lives where they can walk the straight and narrow. I see a lot of positives in it -- just some things strike me as being sort of pointless. Although, I don't REALLY care all that much about it. I mean, if there are people that are happy and fulfilled with what works for them then so be it!

Well, what occurs to those within the Church that gets a holy ghost tap on the shoulder that tells them to go against the directives?

I don't want to go putting words in the mouths of Mormons on this board, but I think by far the most common reaction to someone claiming a spiritual answer that went against official church teachings would be:

"That wasn't REALLY the true spirit", or "You read it wrong" - or something of this nature. I.e. There first reaction wouldn't be to deny that it's possible the HG could inform someone differently - they'd just argue it wasn't really the HG.

But also, bear in mind that if my sister DID have a feeling that told her to go against, or not fully accept, some church concept - I doubt her first reaction would be go telling anybody it. I mean, I don't know for sure - but my guess would be she would just keep it to herself, and try her best to avoid conflict between her idea and the church 'ideas'.

Right, I imagine that it would be fairly difficult to express doubts or confirmations that went against the Prophet. I can imagine that would infact be highly uncomfortable. When you were a practicing LDS did you ever have doubts or confirmations that went against directives?

I've seen Beastie say that she had the HG tell her that Joseph Smith was not a prophet or something along those lines. Charity has dismissed this as being from the HG -- I would imagine that would be rather status quo. For if the HG actually DOES contradict the Prophet then who precisely is speaking for God? That just seems like a big mess!

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to believe that the Prophet "speaks for God" and yet this other Godly ghostly particle thing that can enter your mind tells you that the Prophet who also "speaks for God" is wrong.

Why are you under the impression that any of this has to make sense?! LOL :)

Haa... hmm.... :)

I think Mormonism can 'bring out the worst' in some people. But I also think that attitude has to be in them in the first place...

You're right! This board has brought out the worst in me! I get snippy! I get frustrated dealing with people! There are some people I absolutely despise! etc... and this is not something I come across in my everyday life. I suppose after years and years of this it may certain make an impact. I certainly have to walk away at times and reflect upon how I'm reacting to words on a screen.

[_Moniker]

This is the point, eh? To be apart? That "normal" is not what is desired. To hold ourselves above? That those that fornicate, drink, whatnot are actually miserable and that if they lived a "wholesome" life that there would be relief and true happiness? Is that where that stems from?

Yeap - you're definitely in the right direction. I mean, you shouldn't be prideful about it (at least that's the idea), and you're not supposed to judge (at least that's the idea). Perhaps the people who fornicate or drink 'think' they are happy, but their not happy in the same way 'we' are.

Wait! You're not supposed to judge? Well, this is confusing for me! I thought that Christians were not supposed to judge -- that's what I've heard from mainstream Christians mostly (of course that's not possible!) -- yet, I think the sentiments really are that you are supposed to be loving to those that are different then you are, have empathy for them, compassion, and not treat them as second-class. THAT is admirable to me! I respect those sentiments! Yet, do LDS believe they are not to judge? I saw some LDS recently on this board (not Charity) say they do judge. It would seem to me that there is a lot of judging for if they look on those on the outside as being "lesser" somehow that this in and of itself elevates them. Of course believing that they have the path to salvation and that it is important to spread their message is juxtaposed against this as well. I imagine, it's rather complex, really, and I'm simplifying it.

Sex outside marriage = murder makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Oh yeah -that's a pretty way-out comparison for sure. But again, it's one of those things that - in my experience - isn't taken that seriously by many believers. Certainly not literally.
I don't mean that their not serious about viewing sex outside marriage as 'bad'. I just mean their not 'serious' about viewing it as bad as murder.

Saying it's 'almost as bad as murder' is almost like a 'Boogy man' statement. For people who can't see what's so wrong with it...

My brother is 'living in sin' with his girlfriend right now. My mum thinks he is 'sinning. But she doesn't view him as a murderer, or anything like it.
Some relatively obscure church teaching may state that she should see it that way, but (for most people) common sense and a decent soul reject such an idea in practical terms.

Well, that is reassuring that it is not taken literally. I was rather surprised to find out fornication was a sin to begin with then when I learned that it was equated to murder I wasn't sure what to make of it.

Yet, it seems that to impress that sexual sin is an extreme form of sin really does impact thinking -- I mean if you truly understand that this is a vile sin it's back to controlling your own impulses to be perfected. Sort of makes sense from a control perspective.

[_Ren]

Thanks! I really had to put a lot of thought into that one. ;)

Geez! Touche...!
I did say it was crazy logic! :D

Yet, what the emphasis is placed upon (appearance for instance) just doesn't seem to be much with "internal" aspects of humans.

I agree.
...I think as long as Mormon's 'come across' a certain way, then (to a certain extent) job done. If a rule does nothing more than make Mormons look good, then that's its own inherent 'worth'. The 'inside' bits can not only be worked on separately, but there is a view that doing the right things on the outside gets you in the 'right frame of mind' to work on the inside too.

So 'win-win'. (At least I'd say that's the thinking).

I actually value a lot of Christian morals and the teachings of Christ in general -- and I'm not supposing myself to be someone that is always a perfect person. Yet, I just wonder why appearance is stressed in a Church where they are disciples of Christ -- that seems to be antithetical to his teachings -- no?

Well, I remember having a conversation like this on MADB with somebody. I think their response was "Well, we have no reason to believe that Christ didn't dress 'conservatively' according to the time and the culture".

I personally don't get the feeling that Christ would give two hoots about how people dress - I agree. Wouldn't seem to go with his general 'flow' I'd have thought. But.... *shrug* There is always wiggle-room available when reading scripture I suppose.

I think not having certain "behaviors" is valuable if they do increase happiness -- and there is no denying that many of the teachings (dictates? whatever) certainly can help steer people to lead lives where they can walk the straight and narrow. I see a lot of positives in it -- just some things strike me as being sort of pointless. Although, I don't REALLY care all that much about it. I mean, if there are people that are happy and fulfilled with what works for them then so be it!

I pretty much agree.
Let me be clear on what my belief is... I think Mormonism has plenty of things that are worrying. These include doctrines, ideas and practices that range from the irrelevant to the preposterous to the downright scary.

...but in my experience, most members have 'some' kind of filter in place. They don't all take everything that's thrown at them as automatically equal. The 'intolerant' will latch onto intolerance. The tolerant will find some way to twist out of it, or around it. The 'kind' will latch onto the teachings of kindness. The 'judgmental' will latch onto the judgmental elements. etc. etc.

I believe that all members - to some extent - reach their hands into Mormonism, and drag out what they want to find in it. There are enough contradictions to allow plenty of individual choice.

When you were a practicing LDS did you ever have doubts or confirmations that went against directives?

Hmmm - now that's a good question.
I can't think of any things that I thought were ever flat out 'wrong' - but as I was saying above, I'm sure I tended towards the more 'live and let live', relaxed aspects of the religion. And while I knew the more 'extreme' elements were there, I wouldn't gravitate towards them...

I'm gonna have a bit more of a think about that - it's an interesting question...

et, do LDS believe they are not to judge? I saw some LDS recently on this board (not Charity) say they do judge. It would seem to me that there is a lot of judging for if they look on those on the outside as being "lesser" somehow that this in and of itself elevates them.

Yeah - hard to see how talking about being 'separate' from the world can't be seen as literally 'judging' the world. You're not supposed to judge, and yet the very concept judges. *shrug*

[_Moniker]

Thanks! I really had to put a lot of thought into that one. ;)

Geez! touché...!
I did say it was crazy logic! :D

Well, as you know I'm not so good with logic (as I've been told a number of times on the board!) and was so pleased I got one correct! A+ :)

Yet, what the emphasis is placed upon (appearance for instance) just doesn't seem to be much with "internal" aspects of humans.

I agree.
...I think as long as Mormon's 'come across' a certain way, then (to a certain extent) job done. If a rule does nothing more than make Mormons look good, then that's its own inherent 'worth'. The 'inside' bits can not only be worked on separately, but there is a view that doing the right things on the outside gets you in the 'right frame of mind' to work on the inside too.

So 'win-win'. (At least I'd say that's the thinking).

Beastie once told me that so much of how we view the world is shaped by our adolescence -- I don't know for others, but that certainly rings true for me. I was never impressed with the clothes, the cars, the outward facades -- I was always intrigued with actions. What people do, in essence. It doesn't resonate with me that a man that wears a tie and jacket is any better of a father or a man than one in overalls with his name stitched on his tag. The emphasis on external appears very shallow to me. Of course I put a lot of emphasis on my external (you know why? I think) yet, understand that it means naught for if I'm not who I desire to be internally I am disappointed in myself.

I think that Jesus is emphasized in the Church is a good thing! I can't see that this wouldn't be. Yet, Jesus looked past the "sins", the outward appearance, even the scorn that others heaped upon those that were essentially "untouchables" of the world and embraced them. This is why it's so shocking for me to see Christians of any stripe emphasizing appearance. It makes me uneasy -- it just does.

I've seen on MAD where they think a certain dress shows respect for the Lord. Is this something you heard when you were LDS?

I actually value a lot of Christian morals and the teachings of Christ in general -- and I'm not supposing myself to be someone that is always a perfect person. Yet, I just wonder why appearance is stressed in a Church where they are disciples of Christ -- that seems to be antithetical to his teachings -- no?

Well, I remember having a conversation like this on MADB with somebody. I think their response was "Well, we have no reason to believe that Christ didn't dress 'conservatively' according to the time and the culture".

I personally don't get the feeling that Christ would give two hoots about how people dress - I agree. Wouldn't seem to go with his general 'flow' I'd have thought. But.... *shrug* There is always wiggle-room available when reading scripture I suppose.

Oh! Ha! I always do this with you. See my above reply. Well, what scripture would be available to buttress the position that Christ cares about outward appearance?

I think not having certain "behaviors" is valuable if they do increase happiness -- and there is no denying that many of the teachings (dictates? whatever) certainly can help steer people to lead lives where they can walk the straight and narrow. I see a lot of positives in it -- just some things strike me as being sort of pointless. Although, I don't REALLY care all that much about it. I mean, if there are people that are happy and fulfilled with what works for them then so be it!

I pretty much agree.
Let me be clear on what my belief is... I think Mormonism has plenty of things that are worrying. These include doctrines, ideas and practices that range from the irrelevant to the preposterous to the downright scary.

...but in my experience, most members have 'some' kind of filter in place. They don't all take everything that's thrown at them as automatically equal. The 'intolerant' will latch onto intolerance. The tolerant will find some way to twist out of it, or around it. The 'kind' will latch onto the teachings of kindness. The 'judgmental' will latch onto the judgmental elements. etc. etc.

I see that there are very unique individuals on MAD and even that participate here that are LDS. Certainly they each find what fits for them. I think you're absolutely correct with what you state above. I know, that I actually respect those that seem to filter to a degree.

I believe that all members - to some extent - reach their hands into Mormonism, and drag out what they want to find in it. There are enough contradictions to allow plenty of individual choice.

Well, that's reassuring. What sort of things are you talking about specifically here? I see on Jason's thread that others are very black and white on their thinking. That if you don't accept the whole kit-n-caboodle that you need to leave. Is this seen from both ex-Mos and current LDS alike? Or is there more tolerance within the Church?

When you were a practicing LDS did you ever have doubts or confirmations that went against directives?

Hmmm - now that's a good question.
I can't think of any things that I thought were ever flat out 'wrong' - but as I was saying above, I'm sure I tended towards the more 'live and let live', relaxed aspects of the religion. And while I knew the more 'extreme' elements were there, I wouldn't gravitate towards them...

I'm gonna have a bit more of a think about that - it's an interesting question...

Yes, get back to me on that. I know we've discussed some things in the past that you did take quite literally. You, in fact, had difficulty living up to standards and I know it was a trial for you. I wonder if that experience was in someway positive for you? To attempt to live up to something that was quite hard to meet? I imagine we all do that at some point in our life. Does that make one more dedicated? Patient? Forbearance?

et, do LDS believe they are not to judge? I saw some LDS recently on this board (not Charity) say they do judge. It would seem to me that there is a lot of judging for if they look on those on the outside as being "lesser" somehow that this in and of itself elevates them.

Yeah - hard to see how talking about being 'separate' from the world can't be seen as literally 'judging' the world. You're not supposed to judge, and yet the very concept judges. *shrug*

[/quote]

Yes, it is very judgmental. Yet, of course I'm not saying that to judge is wrong. I do it continually and so does everyone. We see admirable qualities that appeal to us (I'd think most of us?) and attempt to follow that example and steer clear of those that set a bad example. I just see such extremes coming from within the LDS culture that I'm startled that often I'm seen as a bad person? Perhaps I am? Yet, don't know it??? :)

[_Moniker]

Oh! Just thought of this. I believe the thread that I started on MAD (about prophets) is why SleepingWillow was banned. He replied to me in that thread and was banned. I feel horrible about that! :(

[_Ren]

I think that Jesus is emphasized in the Church is a good thing! I can't see that this wouldn't be. Yet, Jesus looked past the "sins", the outward appearance, even the scorn that others heaped upon those that were essentially "untouchables" of the world and embraced them. This is why it's so shocking for me to see Christians of any stripe emphasizing appearance. It makes me uneasy -- it just does.

No arguments from me on this. At all.

I've seen on MAD where they think a certain dress shows respect for the Lord. Is this something you heard when you were LDS?

Yes. You don't go to church on Sunday wearing jeans and T-shirt. That was how I was raised and that's how I saw it at the time.

But maybe this is another little facet on this...
When I was a believer, I would hold myself to certain standards (Like - for example - dressing 'appropriately' on Sunday etc.). I thought that was the 'right' thing to do. But that didn't mean that I was looking around on Sunday, trying to spot people who WEREN'T wearing what I would wear. That's an entirely different thing - in my mind. Just because I decided that I was gonna do X or Y, that didn't equate in my mind to thinking less of people who didn't do X and Y. Maybe I had a higher likelihood of thinking that way having been bought up in the Mormon church - and there is no doubt at all that there are plenty that DO think like that.
But it's not some kind of Mormon 'requirement' to think in that manner. Some will choose to. Others won't.

Well, what scripture would be available to buttress the position that Christ cares about outward appearance?

I can't think of a single one, personally!
...I think the counter-argument is more "There is nowhere that Christ makes the definitive statement that it doesn't matter what you wear". I think anyway. I can't say for sure - it's not my counter-argument :)

What sort of things are you talking about specifically here?

Well, the kind of contradictions we've been talking about thus far.

You are not supposed to judge, and yet Mormons are 'apart' from others.
I was taught plenty of times to not care so much about outward appearance and care about whats on the inside at the same time as being told that the outward appearance - in many cases - IS important.
Jesus critisised those who were about to stone a sinner, yet he'd spent the last few thousand years finding all kinds of inventive ways of slaughtering them!

Mormonism isn't the only religion that deals with internal complexities and contradictions.

I see on Jason's thread that others are very black and white on their thinking. That if you don't accept the whole kit-n-caboodle that you need to leave. Is this seen from both ex-Mos and current LDS alike? Or is there more tolerance within the Church?

Ask 10 different Mormons (or ex-mo's), and you are likely to get 10 different answers to questions like that.
Personally - when I was a believer - I'd have thought that it's better for someone with doubts to still be involved. I wouldn't see the 'positive' in trying to banish them in some way just for having honest concerns...

You, in fact, had difficulty living up to standards and I know it was a trial for you.

Well, depends what you mean by standards I suppose. When I believed in the church, I had absolutely no problem living up to standards. I mean, if you've been raised in them, you are used to them. I really didn't find them a big deal to live - I wanted to live them.

But when I LOST belief, that's when things became difficult. It wasn't because of standards that I couldn't live up to. It was because I no longer believed it was true. And extracting yourself from the belief system is also - to a certain extent - extracting yourself from your life-long social structure. Your life-long sense of right and wrong.

It's essentially turning your world upside down.

I wonder if that experience was in someway positive for you? To attempt to live up to something that was quite hard to meet?

Even though some aspects of it can be damaging, I think that the idea of 'personal standards' must be a potential positive. I think the trick is to not let that turn into self-righteousness.

Does that make one more dedicated? Patient? Forbearance?

Maybe. To a certain extent. But it can also make one more judgmental of others. Or more of a 'stickler' for rules. Like most things, I think it has it's up sides and down sides, and it brings out different things in different people.

I just see such extremes coming from within the LDS culture that I'm startled that often I'm seen as a bad person? Perhaps I am? Yet, don't know it??? :)

I think you should know better than to take the 'judgments' of LDS too seriously by now! Heh.
You're a great person. If you don't know that yet, get with the programme!

[_Moniker]

I think that Jesus is emphasized in the Church is a good thing! I can't see that this wouldn't be. Yet, Jesus looked past the "sins", the outward appearance, even the scorn that others heaped upon those that were essentially "untouchables" of the world and embraced them. This is why it's so shocking for me to see Christians of any stripe emphasizing appearance. It makes me uneasy -- it just does.

No arguments from me on this. At all.

Well, where's the fun in that?

I've seen on MAD where they think a certain dress shows respect for the Lord. Is this something you heard when you were LDS?

Yes. You don't go to church on Sunday wearing jeans and T-shirt. That was how I was raised and that's how I saw it at the time.

But maybe this is another little facet on this...
When I was a believer, I would hold myself to certain standards (Like - for example - dressing 'appropriately' on Sunday etc.). I thought that was the 'right' thing to do. But that didn't mean that I was looking around on Sunday, trying to spot people who WEREN'T wearing what I would wear. That's an entirely different thing - in my mind. Just because I decided that I was gonna do X or Y, that didn't equate in my mind to thinking less of people who didn't do X and Y. Maybe I had a higher likelihood of thinking that way having been bought up in the Mormon church - and there is no doubt at all that there are plenty that DO think like that.
But it's not some kind of Mormon 'requirement' to think in that manner. Some will choose to. Others won't.

Well, I think "Sunday best" is something that goes across denominations. I'm not supposing that LDS Christians are the only ones that want to be spiffy on Sundays. I just think some of the directives that come from the prophet that go beyond what your appearance is like on Sundays is what I was alluding to, mostly. I know Charity mentioned that you follow these directives (clean cut, piercings, tattoos, etc...) because it shows that you are dedicating yourself to the Lord. I've mentioned on MAD that I don't understand this? There are other cultures where tattoos and piercings are just a part of their cultural heritage and I find it odd that the "clean cut" version of God somehow lines up with those that sit in Salt Lake City, America. :)

I understand the need for missionaries to be presentable so that they get in doors. Yet, I just don't really understand some of the other directives that empahsize appearance. If people are happy with it, then so be it. Yet, I just see it as rather pointless? I can see a parent wanting their children to refrain from certain things in order to be successful in life (for instance tattoos on your face might lessen your chances at some job opportunities:) and see some of these common sense things passed down from Prophets. Is there anything in the Bible that refers to bodies as a temple? I'm thinking I've heard that from some EV neighbors a long time ago that clucked their tongues at my first husband. He did think of his body as a temple and adorned it with beautiful artwork that was inked into his skin. He was a walking piece of art -- to me. I just see more of this as attempting to press "common sense" worldly dictates of the "wholesome American life" into the idea of God. Was that a rant?? Does that make any sense?

What sort of things are you talking about specifically here?

Well, the kind of contradictions we've been talking about thus far.

You are not supposed to judge, and yet Mormons are 'apart' from others.
I was taught plenty of times to not care so much about outward appearance and care about whats on the inside at the same time as being told that the outward appearance - in many cases - IS important.
Jesus critisised those who were about to stone a sinner, yet he'd spent the last few thousand years finding all kinds of inventive ways of slaughtering them!

Mormonism isn't the only religion that deals with internal complexities and contradictions.

Right. Well, so LDS aren't supposed to judge? Crockett, Wade (while telling others not to judge???!! *insert confused smilie here*), and Nehor said they do judge. What is the scripture that deals with this? I would think it would come back to what I stated before: We don't elevate ourselves above others and consider that they are not worthy of our love and patience. That we look to those that stumble and falter and have compassion for them. I would think? And if that's not the case I like it anyway!

I see on Jason's thread that others are very black and white on their thinking. That if you don't accept the whole kit-n-caboodle that you need to leave. Is this seen from both ex-Mos and current LDS alike? Or is there more tolerance within the Church?

Ask 10 different Mormons (or ex-mo's), and you are likely to get 10 different answers to questions like that.
Personally - when I was a believer - I'd have thought that it's better for someone with doubts to still be involved. I wouldn't see the 'positive' in trying to banish them in some way just for having honest concerns...

Yes, there is some diversity of opinion. Yet, in the Church can you speak out if you are unsatisfied? I'm a bit confused as to whether this is the case or not. I was under the impression that dissent is not allowed openly in the Church -- yet, see others on this board (and a few on MAD that are trying to move certain information to members in an effort of disclosure) say that some dissent is allowed.

You, in fact, had difficulty living up to standards and I know it was a trial for you.

Well, depends what you mean by standards I suppose. When I believed in the church, I had absolutely no problem living up to standards. I mean, if you've been raised in them, you are used to them. I really didn't find them a big deal to live - I wanted to live them.

But when I LOST belief, that's when things became difficult. It wasn't because of standards that I couldn't live up to. It was because I no longer believed it was true. And extracting yourself from the belief system is also - to a certain extent - extracting yourself from your life-long social structure. Your life-long sense of right and wrong.

It's essentially turning your world upside down.

Having your world heaved upside down is not fun! How long ago did you leave, Ren? I can't believe I've never asked this of you!

I wonder if that experience was in someway positive for you? To attempt to live up to something that was quite hard to meet?

Even though some aspects of it can be damaging, I think that the idea of 'personal standards' must be a potential positive. I think the trick is to not let that turn into self-righteousness.

Ah! Yes, I would agree. That if you are able to forbear that others that stumble somehow are weak or are just sinners not living up to standards? I know some that went on missions felt immense pressure and blamed themselves for their lack of success. I would think looking about at others and not wanting to fall behind their efforts certainly can create a sense of competition as well. Is there a bit of competition for "perfection" among the Saints? Just as an outsider, looking in, there does appear to be some aspect of this. I see mention of others that don't quite meet up to standards and there seems to be a bit of scorn and condemnation.