- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This week I have given the church some thought again. I haven’t been to church now for five months. It’s been a nice break. I have found that having some time to myself has been a source of personal exploration. Though I find peace staying inactive I still feel a sense of obligation for my children to attend, though they haven’t since I stopped. I carry too much guilt and baggage from my experiences with members in the church that I don’t enjoy the relationships. I tend to get into relationships with members only to be criticized and judged when discovered that I don’t think the way they do. For fun, what would you suggest not to do in church or with members? 😆 How can I be authentic in a uniformed society?
Hi godlives…good to hear from you again. I have found little value in talking about tenets or doctrines or historical “facts”. They think the way they do, I think the way I do, any number of scriptures can be quoted on either side…it just arouses emotion and I haven’t found it worthwhile. Until they walk in the shoes I had to walk in, they just won’t get my point of view.
I find it of value to focus on common ground. God’s love, mostly. Family peace and happiness. Service. I also felt a great feeling while watching the youth play basketball…and thought how grateful I am for an organization to provide my youth with wholesome activities…and so I was reminded that I do want to stay connected with the church, and let my family be blessed by it.
I just don’t care to correct others in GD class and feel my view will be received well, so I hold it sacred to myself. I travel my own path, and find in the most important things in life, it really isn’t that far from the Iron Rod anyway. I’m still moving in the right direction.
I hope that helps.
godlives wrote:How can I be authentic in a uniformed society?
Well to be quite blunt, you can’t be authentic if you are different, not really in most societies.
Even highly “informed” societies like high academia are very guarded about their own version of the status quo. I’ll give you just one example that always comes to my mind. That is the story of Dr. Peter Duesberg.
http://www.duesberg.com/ He is a very prominent molecular biologist and researcher who pioneered research into the genetic makeup of retroviruses. What was his horrible sin against the status quo of academia? He does not believe that HIV causes AIDS and has published books critical of the HIV=AIDS theory. Believe me, he doesn’t get invited to the high priest socials (high priests of biology)
Anyway, my point is this. Transmitting to people that you are different, especially that you are a threat to their cherished way of thinking, will cause people to throw up walls of defenses and man the towers. Like Ray and Hawkgrrrl mention a lot, you can only get away with being different if you also build up the social capital and respect necessary within the community. It’s far easier for me to bring up controversial questions in my EQ classes when I have personally showed up to most of those guy’s houses to break my back helping them move. The love bond comes first, then I can express myself more. Let’s face it though, some topics are just not appropriate to discuss with people who are completely uniformed.
I just thought of another great example, a personal hero of mine — Rumi, the famous Persian poet. His poetry and ideas are at times extremely edgy and radical for Islam, but he is cherished the world over, especially in Iran (who seem pretty hardcore at times). The reason he got away with it was because he was also a great teacher who ran a formal school. He was an amazing Islamic scholar in addition to his Sufi – whirling dervish practices.
So my direct answer to your question is this:
Do NOT say controversial things in Church until you have found a way to also say 5 positive things. I’m just throwing out that 5:1 ratio. Make 5 good and positive comments from your new and deeper knowledge of Mormon history, then you can make 1 controversial comment. But leave that controversial one in the form of “wondering” or “isn’t it interesting” tone, instead of a new absolute conclusion that nobody can escape from with doing battle against you.
Fwiw, my personal ratio is 7:1 – and that’s from human psychology stuff I’ve read and heard. (and the 1 can’t be an atom bomb) The 5:1 or 7:1 ratio works great when dealing with kids too.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.