- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
* I have decided to delete my original post for now… I hastily posted it… without thinking of some of the repercussions it might cause. [Moderator note: Too much information, including personally identifying details. We edited content in the best interest of the user and for compliance with the rules of this message board.]
Hi Daniel, Welcome to the community. Thanks for sharing your story with us. It sounds like you have a lot on your mind, some things to sort out for yourself. We all struggle with that at times. It might be on different issues.
Don’t read the Miracle of Forgiveness
Seriously though, it sounds like you need to come to terms with this stuff and find some peace and resolution. It sounds like it bothers you a lot still. Are things going good with your marriage? How is your wife dealing with the same story? It sounds like she is coming from a very traditional background and might have similar concerns. Do you guys talk about it?
To some extent, what’s done is done. We all make mistakes and do things we regret. That is a fundamental element of our experience in mortality. Nobody gets out without some bumps, scrapes and bruises.
You sound like you could really use some exploration of the atonement. You might want to seek out other sources. It’s something you have to take ownership with and chart your own path. I recommend getting a cheap, short book called “Believing Christ” by Stephen E. Robinson. He is an LDS religion professor at BYU. I thought his more compassionte perspectives on the teachings of Christ and the meaning of the Atonement were refreshing.
Welcome, Daniel. I believe in honest and open communication here, so I appreciate your candor. I hope you don’t mind mine.
When I read your introduction, I get a pretty clear picture of someone who really never internalized the basics of the Gospel. I don’t think that’s going out on a limb, but it needs to be said, imo – since it translates into you being a “cultural Mormon by birth” but never really a “believing, practicing Mormon”. That’s important, since it highlights a need to decide what course you want to pursue in your effort to stay LDS.
I see two basic options:
1) Treat the Church like any other Protestant denomination – a place for social interaction and general inspiration and Christian service. In my own mind, if you take that route, you’re pretty much excluding yourself from the temple – since I don’t advocate lying to attend, ever. I say this mostly because I just don’t believe that lying is a good foundation for anything. It can become habitual and justifiable for all situations, and I have seen what happens to nearly all habitual liars. It isn’t pretty. I think not attending the temple is a legitimate option, but I think you need to tackle that issue head-on to begin to find peace. If you can see yourself (and confidently present yourself) as someone who wants to participate in the community but not attend the temple, much like the non-member spouse of an active member who attends with no desire to be baptized, you can find a degree of peace – again, if that’s what you really want.
2) Tackle the task of determining for yourself if you are interested in trying to accept the LDS Church as the Restored Church of Jesus Christ – understanding that there are LOTS of iterations in how that belief could take shape. You don’t have to believe everything others believe, but you will have to tackle the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, the temple requirements, etc. in some form or fashion and reach a personally acceptable perspective. In many ways, at the most fundamental level you are no different than an investigator – since you haven’t lived the standards and teachings of the Gospel and don’t really have a testimony, per se.
That’s my basic input at this point, not having had a chance to read comments and get a feel for you yet. I think you have to decide at the foundation level what you want from religion and how you can achieve that within Mormonism – if you really want to stay LDS. I hope we can get to know you better as you participate more.
Valoel wrote:Hi Daniel,
Welcome to the community. Thanks for sharing your story with us. It sounds like you have a lot on your mind, some things to sort out for yourself. We all struggle with that at times. It might be on different issues.
Don’t read the Miracle of Forgiveness
Seriously though, it sounds like you need to come to terms with this stuff and find some peace and resolution. It sounds like it bothers you a lot still. Are things going good with your marriage? How is your wife dealing with the same story? It sounds like she is coming from a very traditional background and might have similar concerns. Do you guys talk about it?
To some extent, what’s done is done. We all make mistakes and do things we regret. That is a fundamental element of our experience in mortality. Nobody gets out without some bumps, scrapes and bruises.
You sound like you could really use some exploration of the atonement. You might want to seek out other sources. It’s something you have to take ownership with and chart your own path. I recommend getting a cheap, short book called “Believing Christ” by Stephen E. Robinson. He is an LDS religion professor at BYU. I thought his more compassionte perspectives on the teachings of Christ and the meaning of the Atonement were refreshing.
Funny that you mention “The Miracle of Forgiveness”, I’ve actually read that book in both Spanish and English a few times. Books related more to doctrine are actually the only church books that I really do enjoy. I’ve read the Doctrine of Salvation series, Teachings of Joseph Smith, Mormon Doctrine (only recently did I realize I had the first edition, ha). I’ve of course read all the missionary approved books… read the BOM a slew of times, haven’t read much of the bible… probably the new testament a few times.
About 5 years ago I was more curious about Joseph Smith and went to the book store but at that time was still weary of the “anti” books so I played it safe and Joseph Smith a Biography by Dewey. While that book was pretty forthcoming I don’t think I was blown away by anything that it had to say… it still painted JS in a pretty positive prophetic spotlight.
Not until recently my wife was reading Stolen Innocence and started asking me lots of questions about polygamy and the early church… Blood Atonement, Re-baptism, the 3 wive theory etc. I really didn’t have many answers nor did I know about it much myself. My dad has always been into the history of polygamy so he suggested she read A Mormon Mother by Tanner. Needless to say I started to read it and really started having questions in my head about the church… because what appeared to be believed and practiced in the late 1800’s seemed to be vastly different than how the church is presently. I was always taught that “The Church is Perfect” or “The Gospel Doesn’t Change” and had an idealistic view of the church in those regards.
By this time I was really interested in church history, specifically Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I found “No Man Know’s My History” in my dad’s library and sneakily put it into my bag. I still had the view that it was a dangerous book written by an apostate to destroy your faith. So I tucked it away in my back drawer and decided not to get into it, besides that I was afraid that my wife would find out and be very concerned. Anyway, I searched the internet for a book that I felt was more un-biased but still presented many of the facts that many books you’d find in Deseret Book gloss over. I picked up An Insiders View of Mormon Origins by Palmer… by the end of it I found myself in almost agreeing entirely with Palmer.
My wife found out I was reading it and was more than concerned that I was reading “anti” literature. I tried to explain her that the label “anti” didn’t really apply and that I thought that label has been used to often in the church as a scare tactic. This led into a conversation about my testimony and if I actually had one. I told her that I wasn’t sure, that I wanted to have a testimony but at this point I really didn’t know if Joseph Smith was a prophet and if the Book of Mormon was true. I told her that I believe it is all good and that the church is good and is something that I want in my life and I think the teachings are good. This still did not sit well with her, after running to her room and crying… she came out and said that she actually was proud of me… that even though I have questions I am still willing to go to church and try to find my testimony. I think she still wrestles with my viewpoints and worries about me but so far so well.
I’ve still yet to read Brodie’s book in it’s entirety but I have read chapters here and there, and must say that I agree a lot with that book as well. The next book on my list is Rough Stone Rolling, and thanks to you I will definitely pick up Believing Christ. I’ve also been really interested in Palmer’s book written on Christ but have a hard time finding it. Funny to mention, I was in Deseret book and asked if they had it… they didn’t but it was in their system and they could order it.
Back to the relationship between my wife and I… it’s actually really good. I think in the back of our heads we both worry about the choice that was made and how that is going to affect us in the future. I think she is more scared than she lets on. I get scared as well. I look back at the times I was dating and think that maybe I should have been dating non-members, that maybe I would be happier as a man that had total freewill and didn’t have to account for anything related to my religion. But I love my wife and the thought of having a family with her makes me happy. I don’t know what the future holds but I can only hope for a happy ending.
Old-Timer wrote:Welcome, Daniel.
I believe in honest and open communication here, so I appreciate your candor. I hope you don’t mind mine.
When I read your introduction, I get a pretty clear picture of someone who really never internalized the basics of the Gospel. I don’t think that’s going out on a limb, but it needs to be said, imo – since it translates into you being a “cultural Mormon by birth” but never really a “believing, practicing Mormon”. That’s important, since it highlights a need to decide what course you want to pursue in your effort to stay LDS.
I see two basic options:
1) Treat the Church like any other Protestant denomination – a place for social interaction and general inspiration and Christian service. In my own mind, if you take that route, you’re pretty much excluding yourself from the temple – since I don’t advocate lying to attend, ever. I say this mostly because I just don’t believe that lying is a good foundation for anything. It can become habitual and justifiable for all situations, and I have seen what happens to nearly all habitual liars. It isn’t pretty. I think not attending the temple is a legitimate option, but I think you need to tackle that issue head-on to begin to find peace. If you can see yourself (and confidently present yourself) as someone who wants to participate in the community but not attend the temple, much like the non-member spouse of an active member who attends with no desire to be baptized, you can find a degree of peace – again, if that’s what you really want.
2) Tackle the task of determining for yourself if you are interested in trying to accept the LDS Church as the Restored Church of Jesus Christ – understanding that there are LOTS of iterations in how that belief could take shape. You don’t have to believe everything others believe, but you will have to tackle the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, the temple requirements, etc. in some form or fashion and reach a personally acceptable perspective. In many ways, at the most fundamental level you are no different than an investigator – since you haven’t lived the standards and teachings of the Gospel and don’t really have a testimony, per se.
That’s my basic input at this point, not having had a chance to read comments and get a feel for you yet. I think you have to decide at the foundation level what you want from religion and how you can achieve that within Mormonism – if you really want to stay LDS. I hope we can get to know you better as you participate more.
Ray,
I’m not sure that it’s that I was never a “believing, practicing Mormon”, I think I was… but I just wasn’t ever that spiritual or truly inspired by “The Church”. I think what I want within in Mormonism is the ability to view it as a place to spiritually edify me and my wife, a place to learn how to better myself, a place to learn how to have more compassion for others, and a place to be happy. I’m not sure I want any emphasis placed on “The Truth”. Does that make sense? I guess that pretty much places me in your Option 1. I totally agree with you that lying is not good. That lying to get married in the temple wasn’t necessarily the right thing to do. At this point I’m not sure what to think about the whole thing. I felt spiritually gratified at the Temple and have since..? I feel like it is a place and activity that my wife and I can attend and become spiritually closer. So that comes back around to the point of lying. I mean if we were to tell the truth right now… it’s my belief that we would be excommunicated. Maybe not, but I think at this point any chance of that occurring would tear us more apart than bring us together. Also, I feel like if I were totally truthful about my past and my testimony that I would probably forever estrange myself from the church. I’m not sure I would ever come to the point necessary for being baptized. So as I see it, to a point I sort of have to live within a lie. Of course as they say… “The Truth Will Set You Free” but there is so much at risk in my opinion for that to be a viable option at this point. I don’t know. Anyway, thanks for your input… it’s allowed me to reflect more on these things.
Dan
Welcome Dan! I hope you find the support and spiritual insights here that you seek. daniel wrote:I think what I want within in Mormonism is the ability to view it as a place to spiritually edify me and my wife, a place to learn how to better myself, a place to learn how to have more compassion for others, and a place to be happy. I’m not sure I want any emphasis placed on “The Truth”. Does that make sense?
I could have written this myself, and have written similar things many times. In my struggle over the past couple years I have decided to put “The Truth” on a shelf so to speak. I am currently in the process of “building a new relationship with the church” (as a quote from Richard Bushman referred to). There are many angles to, and varying degrees of “truth”, I am content to let the whole thing reveal itself in time. I, like you, prefer to focus on the positive elements – learn to be happy, have compassion, grow patience – and continually ponder what truths are of God.
I look forward to hearing more from you.
Daniel, have you read John Dehlin’s temple recommend interview stuff? If not, I would recommend it HIGHLY. I am a firm believer in not lying to get into the temple, but I’m also a firm believer in creative honesty and the principle of KISS. (Keep it simple, stupid.) I know that sounds deceptive to some people, but if you can construct a reasonable way to answer the questions in your own mind such that you aren’t lying but you are able to give the answers that the interviewer expects to hear (“yes” or “no”) – I have NO problem with that. For example, if you have lower expectations of prophets than many members, it’s perfectly fine, imo, to answer “Yes” to the question about accepting and sustaining the prophets and apostles. Read what valoel has said here about how he looks at prophets. I think he is honest, consistent, and totally within acceptable parameters for temple attendance on that question – but his take is radically different than many who hear a simple “Yes” would assume.
Any assumption is not your problem and should not be your concern. There’s no reason whatsoever to feel like you have to justify or explain a “yes” or “no” in the interview; if someone asked me to elaborate, I probably just would repeat the original question in statement form. (“Yes, I accept and sustain Pres. Monson, the FP and the 12 as prophets, seers and revelators. Yes, I do.”) That is supposed to be good enough.
Old Timer wrote:Any assumption is not your problem and should not be your concern. There’s no reason whatsoever to feel like you have to justify or explain a “yes” or “no” in the interview; if someone asked me to elaborate, I probably just would repeat the original question in statement form. (“Yes, I accept and sustain Pres. Monson, the FP and the 12 as prophets, seers and revelators. Yes, I do.”) That is supposed to be good enough.
Great strategy Curt! I personally like those people. I wish them the best, and would certainly give them consideration if they said they had an important message for me (or for the Church in general). In that sense, I “sustain” them as prophets, seers and revelators. I want them to be the best representatives for God they can be. That is what “sustaining” means to me — to support and nourish with good intentions. My hope is for them to fullfill their story and mission in this life as best as possible. They are acting out the story of being a leader in the LDS Church. It doesn’t mean I think they are perfect. They could get things wrong. They may not fully understand the messages they deliver. We all interpret them to fit our circumstances. I am ultimately responsible for myself as my own prophet, seer and revelator. I can’t blame anything on them. I can take what they give me and find uses for it. Or I might not. Either way, I acknowledge them as leaders of our Church.
It’s better not to elaborate. That isn’t lying. It is just keeping it simple. We all have our views. Not everyone is really comfortable with that knowledge though. A lot of people incorrectly assume that everyone believes and thinks the same (like we do, of course, hehe).
Quote:I was always taught that “The Church is Perfect” or “The Gospel Doesn’t Change” and had an idealistic view of the church in those regards.
That’s a tough one because there is no such thing as the church without people, and people are far from perfect or unchanging. Idealism is also problematic because it begs the question “whose ideals?” God’s? Jesus’? the prophets? average people growing up in Utah? “The church” is like any other organization, hopefully more inspired and inspiring than others, but prone to human failings, including a failure to comprehend its own ideals at times.
Regarding some of the books you mention, I find them all of differing quality. Brodie’s books are usually criticized (not by the church, but literary criticism) for her devotion to promoting her own psychological theories into the characters of her biographies, several of which have fallen out of fashion in the world of psychology since her day. So while many of her facts are right, there’s reason to question the assumptions she makes about psychology (motives). She makes some leaps of logic.
Grant Palmer’s book is an interesting and easy read, but it is not very original material. Actually, the stuff that is original is the least plausible (the Golden Pot is pretty far-fetched). He also leaves a lot out, but he is a sincere, genuine person. He genuinely believes what he says, even if these are not his own theories.
Bushman’s RSR avoids these biases fairly well; he’s less inclined to assume motives and is much more passive in interpreting as a result. The one criticism I hear of Rough Stone Rolling is that those who like Brodie’s more charismatic Joseph don’t find Bushman’s bewildered Joseph very appealing. To me, Joseph fits this mold best – someone who is trying to understand grand things and almost able to at times.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:I was always taught that “The Church is Perfect” or “The Gospel Doesn’t Change” and had an idealistic view of the church in those regards.
That’s a tough one because there is no such thing as the church without people, and people are far from perfect or unchanging. Idealism is also problematic because it begs the question “whose ideals?” God’s? Jesus’? the prophets? average people growing up in Utah? “The church” is like any other organization, hopefully more inspired and inspiring than others, but prone to human failings, including a failure to comprehend its own ideals at times.
Regarding some of the books you mention, I find them all of differing quality. Brodie’s books are usually criticized (not by the church, but literary criticism) for her devotion to promoting her own psychological theories into the characters of her biographies, several of which have fallen out of fashion in the world of psychology since her day. So while many of her facts are right, there’s reason to question the assumptions she makes about psychology (motives). She makes some leaps of logic.
Grant Palmer’s book is an interesting and easy read, but it is not very original material. Actually, the stuff that is original is the least plausible (the Golden Pot is pretty far-fetched). He also leaves a lot out, but he is a sincere, genuine person. He genuinely believes what he says, even if these are not his own theories.
Bushman’s RSR avoids these biases fairly well; he’s less inclined to assume motives and is much more passive in interpreting as a result. The one criticism I hear of Rough Stone Rolling is that those who like Brodie’s more charismatic Joseph don’t find Bushman’s bewildered Joseph very appealing. To me, Joseph fits this mold best – someone who is trying to understand grand things and almost able to at times.
I understand the whole “The church is perfect but the members are not” phrase that is commonly heard, and I guess that’s more what I was referring to. I think when the church says that it is “THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH” it’s putting itself on a dangerously high pedestal… a pedestal that only calls for critiquing. It’s one thing to not think too much about something weird that a Stake President said than to pass over what Prophets have proclaimed. We’re are taught from an early age the the General Authorities are testifiers of christ and what they say is scripture. So it just comes as a shock to learn about what Prophets have done and said in the past that are quite contradictory to the things that are taught now. Am I making myself any more clear? Probably not… haha. It’s been a rough day with the Fanatical Mother-in-law calling me leaving voice mails about her ungrateful daughter.
Back to books… are there any that you suggest that I read. As far as Brodie goes, I don’t really buy into her psycho-analysis of Joseph… I do think it’s important to read from various sources and try to come to one’s own conclusion about JS.
daniel wrote:I understand the whole “The church is perfect but the members are not” phrase that is commonly heard, and I guess that’s more what I was referring to. I think when the church says that it is “THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH” it’s putting itself on a dangerously high pedestal… a pedestal that only calls for critiquing. It’s one thing to not think too much about something weird that a Stake President said than to pass over what Prophets have proclaimed. We’re are taught from an early age the the General Authorities are testifiers of christ and what they say is scripture.
I totally know what you mean about those assumptions. Most of us were raised that way. The reconciliation strategy many of us come to is that you can’t separate “the church” from “the people” on
ANYlevel. So you mentioned a Stake President saying something wierd. Well, were going that next step and saying that “the people” all the way up to the prophets get it wrong at times. What they say is scripture, and not even scripture is literally perfect. Imperfect people make imperfect interpretations of the divine. The prophets pass along ideas, but are limited by their own humanity. Not only that, but we as imperfect people might compound fuzziness by our own personal interpretations of what the prophets have said or written. I know it seems hopeless in a lot of ways, and that thought makes a lot of people nervous. It does make for a way to still accept inspiration from God within the context of some of those messages not enduring the test of time or being “perfect” in their clarity.
It is plain that things change. We can embrace that, and decide that we all (even as a church) grow in clarity towards perfection. We can also decide it is flawed, and that means it is all a false. Both decisions are painful. One salvages what we like. The other throws the baby out with the bath water, as they say.
Quote:Back to books… are there any that you suggest that I read. As far as Brodie goes, I don’t really buy into her psycho-analysis of Joseph… I do think it’s important to read from various sources and try to come to one’s own conclusion about JS.
I liked Mysteries of Godliness about the temple, Strangers in Paradox, also the sections about the temple especially, and my DH has been reading David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism without yet finishing it, but he thinks I would like it. I liked Mormon Enigma except for the writing style. It was thorough and informative, but I thought it was a little too dry for my taste. RSR has so far been my favorite on JS, and I really liked John Dehlin’s interviews with Richard Bushman as a complement.
I also really liked A Thoughtful Faith. You might enjoy that one, too, although I could only find it used.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.