Truth as Explained By Ghandi

So, how do you reduce your angst, and stay at peace with your Church membership without hurting others at the same time? A related question — how do you live the gospel, and align yourself with an organization that has principles you don’t entirely believe, while still being authentic at the same time?

Excellent question, and the asking of it shows you are walking the road of personal growth. For me it becomes a process of aligning my purpose with those things that I know I can accomplish. I can grow me, my understanding, my love for others. When this is my purpose my participation at church becomes very very easy. My goal is to learn to not fight the things I don’t completely understand, and all things spiritual are difficult for me to completely understand. I hope to offer charity and forgiveness to my human brothers and sisters. I try to remember that we are both imperfect, and I look for the beam in my own eye before I get too concerned with the mote in my brother’s. I try to remember that black/white thinking is convenient and easy, but full color is worth the effort. I hope that in the end I will be loved, understood, and forgiven as much as I try to love, understand, and forgive.

Perhaps I’m reading your comments and question wrong. What do you mean by all this? Are you suggesting that you and I need to just “suck it up” and accept and go along with the LDS the church the way it is, because we may cause harm to others if we don’t?

Essentially, but without the suggestion that we just “suck it up”. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last few years and it only creates the angst I’m talking about avoiding. I’m talking about keeping quiet about it while coming up with substitute reasons for doing the things we’re expected to do. Ones that really matter.

For example, in Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl (a jew in a Nazi concentration camp), Frankl is quoted as saying that he survived the camps by finding meaning in his experience — when meaning was lacking. To exprapolate my understanding of what he said, perhaps when he felt like running against the wires and attracting bullets from the guards to end his suffering, he found meaning in his continuing to live as an act of service to his family. FAmily who he thought might still be alive. So he continued in his life rather than committing suicide or going into despair. A different reason than mere survival, which may well have lost its allure to him — but it motivated him to look at his suffering as something he was doing for his family eventually, so he could bless their lives later.

I’m suggesting a similar approach with irritating Church commandments, although I recognize you and I are in far better circumstance than Frankl ever was.

I’m suggesting that one can try to find reasons for doing those things that cause us angst, which kill the angst and help us do what people in authority ask of us willingnly. Find meaning in the things we’re asked to do, which is a different meaning/reason/motivation than the SMA given for doing it. Meaning that you actually believe in. I already explained my Blue Shirt reasoning. I also might even obey a priesthood leader in the future as an act of servce to the priesthood leader, and for no other reason. Not because I believe that if I don’t do my home teaching, I’m going straight to hell, or that the almightly priesthood leader is inspired, but because it will ease the frustration of the priesthood leader and thus improve his life. Not because I believe in obeying the never-wrong priesthood authority, but because it’s a way I can develop compassion and charity toward that priesthood leader in that situation,. I can put myself in his shoes, as I once was a priesthood leader myself, and do my home teaching for that reason — as an act of service to that person. One way to ease the pain/frustration of someone who is a good man. Do onto him as I would’ve rather’d people had done onto me when I was a priesthood leader. And thus live that principle that Jesus put forward of doing unto others as we would have others do onto us.

None of these are common reasons for doing home teaching or doing what priesthood leaders say. They are my own after reflection and they are motivating to me.

HOpefully you’re not looking at what I’m saying as criticism of your own approach to the angst. You’ve said you’re pretty vocal/open about which commandments you will or will not get behind. I’ve thought of doing that (and even started down that road a few times in the last 8 months to the point my leaders told me they were ‘giving me space’ by not calling me to anything) but now I feel that it could hurt others — my family, and the very priesthood leaders I’m rebelling against in the process. The local priesthood leaders don’t have much choice either about authority, by the way — that Handbook of Instructions gives them very little wiggleroom, as does the long hairy arm of the Stake found in the High Council presence on PEC, the Stake Presidency’s all-watchful eye, as well as the expectations of all the true blue members in the Ward.

I read it over — that article. It seems that the point of Ghadi-ism is different from the point of my parallel to his nugget of truth. Both cwald and your article seem to discuss whether his non-violent, “don’t-hurt-anyone” philosophy would be effective in spurring change.

That wasn’t my application of his truth. My application of his truth as in how one tries to gain peace given their angst with the Church. Some feel peace when they stand up against those aspects of the Church they disagree with. I’m suggesting that speaking out can hurt others spiritually (and hurt yourself by forcing priesthood leaders to deny you priviledges within our religion). My suggestion is to take Ghandi’s non-violent approach to preventing spiritual hurt, while still maintaining your goal — learning to be Mormon without necessarily accepting everything the Church teaches.

Ghandi’s goal was changing the establishment without physically hurting others; my goal is inner peace without hurting others spiritually or emotionally. I believe that just as violence hurts others physically, grandstanding and open rebellion at Church also hurts the faith of new members, priesthood leaders, friends and family. And there is nothing wrong with their faith.

Also, I don’t believe I can change a darn thing in the overall doctrine of the Church as a rank and file member. I’m only one small piece of the pie, and have little influence to change doctrine. But as a local leader, you CAN help change the experience of people in your stewardship.

If you appear to be getting with the program (for your own reasons,not the ones espoused in SMA’s) you can at least be in a position to influence your own portion of the stewardship. You can lighten up on home teaching and protect your flock from the Stake, for example. You can’t do that very well as a rank and file person in the quorum. As leader, you count HT when the home teacher has done hometeaching in the best way possible, and if that means counting a phone call or facebook contact as a visit, so be it. No one will usually call you out on the carpet about it unless they do a lot follow-up on you as a leader or you start grandstanding that you counted it.

As a leader you can also stop the harping on HT in meetings, stop telling everyone self-styled ideas are inspired so they better get with the program, etcetera. You can do a lot to lessen your own angst and the angst of others on smaller matters when you’re a leader; and you won’t ever be one if you label yourself as rebellious by openly refuting principles the local leaders hold dear……

But as a person in open rebellion, you don’t get those opportunities; no priesthood leader will take a change on calling you!!!

I hope no one takes this as criticism — it’s just my opinion as I’ve considered being open and rebellious after my trial of faith 8 months ago…..by being more conformist, while silently serving for reasons other than the ones given at Church, I still have a calling, am still trusted to teach others, can avoid reinforcing local attitudes I don’t believe in, etcetera. I can even sometimes provide alternate perspectives on topics that people accept — my bit of power in the Church. I’d lose it if I started teaching that priesthood leaders arent inspired, or some of the other ideas I’ve developed that are different than the status quo.

I’m a cynic in some ways. One of these is that I believe that the promotion of Gandhi and MLK actually suits those in power. It’s much easier to shoot and crush people who are “non-violent”. While Gandhi’s actions may undermine British colonialism, which was entering a more compassionate phase, it’s useless in the face of tanks in Budapest or Tienanmen Square. We keep on getting shown that picture of the man with his bags standing in front of the tanks in Tienanmen – what did he achieve? Nothing. If his head was not crushed by the tank, he probably spent much of the rest of his days in a prison with electrodes attached to various parts of his body, and getting a daily beating. The PRC has modernized for economic reasons, not because of the man in front of the tank.

The truth is, however, that the British were terrified by the prospect of the Indians “waking up”, and realized they wouldn’t have a chance of controlling the place if hundreds of millions of Indians turned on the 100,000 Europeans in India. Likewise, it wasn’t MLK that terrified the American authorities, but the prospect of 20 or 30 million black Americans (or whatever the figure was) turning Black Panther or Nation of Islam (and the American secret services did their utmost to try and undermine those movements)

The middle class liberals love this kind of politics, because it fits in with their cosier views of life, and lack of experienced poverty and violence.

Non-violence has done almost nothing for the colonized people of Tibet whose country is being destroyed as we speak. The Tibetans are now a minority in their own country, their language cannot be used in most official circumstances and there are concentration camps right outside their capital city, Lhasa. Yes, the Dalai Lama is wise and cute, but he is on the outside. His negotiations are with the outside world, they have failed to achieve even local government for the Tibetan people.

My point is that while I have admiration for Gandhi and MLK, I realize that it is the display of power that changes things, not non-violence on its own. Non-violence is essentially the gloved hand, the withheld threat, the idea that you have enough power not to use it. But invariably, if that is unsuccessful, the other kind of protest starts happening.

Added as a post-script… how does this relate to the church?

Obviously there is little or no prospect of violent protest against the church (and I’d hope not). Nor do I think that our GAs are evil in the same way that the Chinese authorities are. I’d better make that clear.

However, the prospect of large numbers leaving, withheld tithing or finance, or negative coverage in the media all probably feature in the private conferences of the GAs. I think some elements will remain inflexible, but others will see

In the case of polygamy and the priesthood ban, it was quite obviously external forces which acted upon the church. One of these being the American government, and the other being the actions of some of the aforementioned 20 million black Americans. This may well happen again with the homosexual issue, but I find it hard to work out how it can be squared with our current focus on family, since homosexual relationships are naturally sterile. Perhaps a comparison will be drawn with childless couples, and adoption shall be drawn into the question.

Sam — I was keying in one small part of Ghandi’s philosophy — acting in ways that met his objectives without hurting others physically. My parallel was this —to try to be different in one’s beliefs, and deal with personal angst about the Church without hurting the testimony of others. End of parallel.

I actually think a discussion of how effective Ghandi’s techniques would be in other contexts is fascinating, but it’s not really the point of this particular thread topic. If you wanted to open one up as a different discussion topic in the General secton, I’d participate. I have my own ideas on Ghandi’s philosophy of civil disobedience…..

SD, I’ve heard that interpretation – but it certainly isn’t the only option available from the passage.

As I read the entire allegory, it seems clear to me that the bitter fruit that keeps encumbering the vineyard is teachings and actions and practices – not necessarily people. That’s the only meaning that makes sense to me – again, based on the entire allegory. It might or might not be the original intent – but we have no way of knowing the original intent, so I use the meaning that makes the most sense to me.

Cwald — there are still things I won’t be doing, by the way — not to make it sound like I’m just going to tow the party line and do everything.

For example, if they want to call me to something time consuming eventually, I do intend to kindly share, privately, my concern with how slowly the Stake moved on releasing me when I was suffering a while ago. I may share that as a misgiving and then ask to be given time to pray about that newly extended calling they extend (if they do). Unless there’s a compelling reason to take the calling, I’ll probably follow-up with some kind of reason for not being able to accept such a calling; I may even cite concern that if the calling stops working for me, they will treat a request for a release with indifference. Perhaps locally, this will encourage them to drop the “you’ll stay in our calling until I’m ready to release you” mentality that hurts people and testimonies, like it did mine. But there wont’ be any grandstanding anymore. I think I’ve learned my lesson on that one.

HOwever, you won’t see me leading a brigade to change those aspects of the Church that I don’t agree with…..as I said earlier, those things only seem to change when unorganized individuals spontaneously stop living a particular commandment on a large scale because so flawed even TBM’s won’t do it. I don’t think there’s ever been a mass demonstration or coordinated movement against a Church policy that has been successful…Can anyone cite one? I think it tends to end in Church discipline, like some of the leaders in the Sunstone group experienced a few decades ago — and that wasn’t even a demonstration or attempt at change, that I’m aware of (perhaps others can fill in the details on that one).

Also, the leaders at the top CAN’T appear to cave to pressure from members, because of the teaching that they are inspired, installed by God, an extension of God’s will on earth etcetera — that is the TBM interpretation. They can’t act like a democratic governing body, or else the perception of the LDS Church as God’s Only True Church directed by Him is suspect given our authoritarian culture and all the surrounding doctrine.

The only place I see true listening happening is in councils. PEC, Ward Council, High Councils, and then, it’s usually only on those issues where there is local control — these tend to be operational issues that don’t affect the big picture issues that are the biggest flies in the ointment for most people.

Now, we have seen the Church “cave” on certain big issues in the past, but it seems that threats to property and the Church’s existence/growth matter the most. A case in point was polygamy. The Church resisted the law. They still resisted the law after people were sent to prison over it — it was only when the government threatened confiscation of property that the “revelation” actually came to stop the practice. In that sense, I sometimes feel disappointed in our organization; just how important temporal wealth is to the Church.

Blacks and the priesthood opened up when it became clear there wasn’t enough priesthood to grow the Church in other areas of the world.

So, perhaps I’m in a state of “learned helplessness” but I don’t see any one of us here being able to effect change in the Church on most issues that bother us. Best to find reasons you really believe in for doing the commandments; and if no such reasons exist, then quietly avoiding them until you find such reasons.