- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I posted this in a facebook group I belong to. I don’t think we have quite as broad a demographic here, but I thought it applies and would be interested in your thoughts. Open, Hopeful Agnosticism as a Key to a Pluralistic Community
So Miriam decided that 5am was a good time to play and then my thoughts would not let me go to sleep. So here is the doozy of a question that was keeping me up. I can think of no better group to pose this to.
Can this group and groups like it really work?
Namely, can everyone from near-TBMs to atheists really dialogue without destroying the faith of the faithful? Can we post all our questions without irreparably shaking the faith of those who do not naturally question? Can we have so many red pills around and expect some not to go down the rabbit hole, or stop half way down? Or do we really need to quarantine ourselves into our respective levels of (dis)belief? And if the answer is no, what does that mean, specifically about the nature of faith and religion?
I posted early on about this and will see if I can find that link when I am done writing this one.
The only way that I know of that I think has a chance of working is what I am calling “Open, Hopefully Agnosticism.” There are three parts to my approach to spirituality:
1) Belief in the Symbol
2) Openness to Multiple Possibilities
3) Conviction that Spirituality works within several of those possibilities
1) I have faith in spirituality. I really believe that SOMETHING is going on, though I am agnostic about what it is. Clearly spiritual experiences are real. People really do have dreams and visions, precognition, connections to others, etc. I fully believe there are scientific explanations for all of these, but why shouldn’t there be? The idea of miracles as violations of natural laws is very Newtonian. Our current understanding of the universe is so complex that we know laws work differently in different parts of the universe and on different levels–this is why the smartest minds in physics are working on Unified Field Theory, because the laws of the universe seem to work differently on the largest and smallest levels.
So I see religion as a symbolic language that accesses these transcendent principles of which most are not consciously aware. I do not know what the referent is, but I have faith in the symbol. So I pray and live by faith, and this approach allows me to be an agnostic active Mormon.
2) The part of my approach that is absolutely essential for groups such as this is Openness. I am open to multiple possibilities being true. Granted, I think that some options are more likely than others, but I maintain openness to being wrong. This is the gentle, humble, teachable side of Agnosticism. The hope. So I have reasons not to believe in Jesus as a Savior, but I am open to being wrong. If I die and appear before Jesus, I will worship him in gratitude. And I think that my life will be pleasing to him. Similarly I will be pleasantly surprised if the Book of Mormon really is historical. But again, I am *open* to it being historical. And this is why I not only can but enjoy talking to active members. I am open to evidence and arguments that will adjust my way of thinking.
So how this works for me is that I figure out the maximal position I can responsibly believe. I feel that evidence precludes certain points of view… that the Book of Mormon was translated with rigid control, or that the Bible is inerrant for example. But I am open to the Book of Mormon having a historical core that was filtered through Joseph Smith’s worldview resulting in most of the content belonging in the 19th century, but also being theologically what the audience needs today. So there are gold plates, but those gold plates are radically different than what we have in the Book of Mormon.
Then I am open to all answers and possibilities from my maximal responsible positions to atheism.
3) Another critical point to my approach is that I sincerely believe IT WORKS EITHER WAY. Again, going back to point #1, I very much believe in spirituality, so the details are less important than the function. Even if the details of religious myth and explanation do not correspond to scientific, reality, they still have meaning. So whether Jesus as Savior is really a tangible figure that we will someday embrace or merely a metaphor for the different aspects of our soul, of the Savior who forgives and transforms the Sinner within us in the cosmic drama within us, the idea of Savior WORKS.
Another part of my approach is that some approaches to religion really should die, such as the ones that make people think their spouses are going to hell, the ones that prevent productive communication and exploration. But that is not directly applicable to the question at hand. And I really do think that Mormonism has the theological flexibility to adjust and grow and be more open.
So here is my question. Is this enough? Does this approach truly allow believers to take things literally while the skeptics question? Is there room for all of us to dialog together and still respect and maintain our individual beliefs? Should this be possible? Should that dialog not shift our positions?
I appreciate your thoughts and input.
They can’t get along if the disaffected are truly open about their feelings. In sharing their true feelings, the disaffected will become renegades, labelled apostate, considered a deleterious influence on the church, and will feel socially ostracized. Some may even be disciplined for apostasy. The only way I’ve found for the disaffected to get along with TBM’s is to keep their mouth shut, and get their therapy on sites like these. For example, if I was to share my true thoughts (below) over the pulpit, how do you think the average TBM would react?
1. I find the Church in the past has tended to expect huge sacrifices of time, effort and money, yet doesn’t trea the giver with respect or compassion when they become mentally and physically drained in their callings. You get called to positions in an instant, but it can take 6 months to get released when the calling is doing more harm than good. This has happened more than once in my lifetime.
2. I find there is a tendency for the Church to take member’s free labor for granted.
3. I find leaders claim descisions are inspired, when often, they are not, and are not good for the person being extended the calling.
4. GA’s give conflicting advice at times, which makes me question the extent to which their comments are always inspired. Always worth listening to, but are they always inspired? Not convinced.
5. The emphasis on tithing and material substance-donating as a TR requirement tends to make the Church look like a corporation. And when Church members find themselves in dire financial straights due to no fault of their own, having given away the equivalent of their mortgage to the Church, I have found the Church to be rather tight-fisted in helping them. Again, from experience. There have been many examples of generosity, but enough of the tight-fistedness that it disturbs me.
6. There are times when I feel policies are in place to ensure the growth of the Church rather than the growth of individuals.
7. Our culture is so strong it tends to alienate people who are not following textbook life patterns.
8. For all its wealth, not a lot of resources flow back to the Wards to improve the experience of the members.
Now, if I shared those major causes of my inward disaffection with TBMs, it would not be kindly accepted. I would be labelled apostate.
So I keep those things to myself. No one really knows about those thoughts I have locally, and therefore I’m still largely accepted.
This is not to downplay, however, the benefits of being in the Church:
1. Association with good people who want to live clean lives.
2. A safe community no matter where you go in the world.
3. Greater answers to life’s important questions not found in other religions.
4. Strong commitment to youth’s spiritual development.
5. Lots of training in how to do your callings when asked to do one.
6. Lots of opportunities to serve meaningful if you want them.
7. Strong resources and support for families raising children.
8. Pretty good humanitarian aid systems that make many of us proud of the Church.
9. Opportunities to work alongside talented people, and have a parallel career that can help you in your full-time job.
However, in stating the positives along with the negatives, I think the average traditional believer would still that wasn’t good enough, and would consider the dissaffected apostate.
Case in point, I have a very good friend in another country to whom I do share my deepest darkest thoughts about the Church, above. He called me once and asked if he could use me as an example of someone who went apostate (he actually SAID THAT) and had me review the progression of activities and beliefs that led me to the point I sit right now. I was shocked he would go so far to want to use me as an example in his talk (not mentioning my name). Talk about feeling ostracized by him personally even though we don’t live in the same ward or even country any more.
I agree with you, SilentDawning. Speaking about these things in public doesn’t mix well with simple faith. And though some might think my next example is on the opposite side of faith, I’m not sure about that.
I think there is a similarity here with how those who know the mysteries of the Kingdom, say that they cannot share what they have been taught by God, with the public. That’s a nasty sentence. Hopefully the commas will help.
How can there be a personal, glorified Man who is God if there is no anthropomorphic God? Or maybe there *is* a personal God, but He doesn’t seem to act they was we believe He would have to act, if He were really God. It’s a mystery.
HiJolly
Thanks for bringing this up. This hits close to home, literally, for me. In attempting to carve out a path that I can live with intellectually, I find that I am alienating family members. Probably that’s due more to the way I express myself than anything else, but sometimes I despair of ever finding a middle way that we can all live with. doug wrote:Thanks for bringing this up. This hits close to home, literally, for me. In attempting to carve out a path that I can live with intellectually, I find that I am alienating family members. Probably that’s due more to the way I express myself than anything else,
but sometimes I despair of ever finding a middle way that we can all live with.It’s becoming all to clear to me that MANY of my TBM family members are not going to accept any kind of middle way arrangement. It’s not an option for many faithful, orthodox members.
I know it’s crucial to live happily. Bad things happen if we don’t live happily. Given that, maybe quiet exit is better than dogged persistence in many cases. I think we all acknowledge that here.
Tom Haws wrote:I know it’s crucial to live happily. Bad things happen if we don’t live happily.
Given that, maybe quiet exit is better than dogged persistence in many cases. I think we all acknowledge that here.
Yes, well said.
Thanks for the comments. SilentDawning, I was very moved by your itemization of costs and benefits of activity. My heart is breaking today over the pain the Church causes and over a few friends, AMAZING advocates for the Church who have done so much good but who have felt pushed out and so who have become inactive.
For the record I am not talking about sharing in a ward context, but whether people of a range of beliefs can discuss issues productively even in forums such as these or whether we need to quarantine ourselves according to levels of belief, as I said.
I think perhaps – in time the two could get along. Will it take a while, yes. Is it impossible no. In my mind some of the choice for that success or improved outcome may come from us. I am the TBM/MBM of my relationship. I also know I presently have the benefit of being miles away from family and that they only know a little bit of my husbands struggle. I also know they have assumptions as to what it is. I also choose carefully what I say because I love both sides. I value both points of view. I may not succeed but I am willing to work to build a bridge. Here some things I’ve used over the years with people from both walks-
1. Don’t download your entire knowledge base. Carefully select a thoughtful singular item.
2. When you deliver the information choose carefully the tone and words you use to deliver it. All of us love an inspirational insight. Try to present the idea as an “idea”.
3. When communicating with LDS people use their resources as your resource. For instance – the eleventh article of faith.
It’s hard for a committed member to respond, and if delivered using #1 and #2 you might open up their hearts and minds. Maybe not in that moment but over time.
4. Last of all if you can help them feel loved – no matter if they do the same for you- you will be living The Golden Rule to it’s fullest (references to Karen Armstrong’s book about God). And love really can break down barriers.
A small example of how I have used this recently happened during RS two weeks ago when we were talking about WoW. My husband and I have been seminary teachers for 5 years. My life of church talks had afforded me a reliable platform as an authority on WoW. I used the open door carefully. I even made fun of myself by stating “Wow you consider me an authority – this could be fun.” Everyone laughed, but it helped them be more relaxed. I then went into it’s entire history with out animosity. Just orderly information. After I spoke the lesson moved on. Somewhere in the lesson the “big questions” of green tea, etc. came up. It bantered back and forth, then I raised my hand and gently said, “We need to be careful. Not everyone has the same knowledge or experience. We also need to know that different cultures use items differently.” I then shared a couple of stories about Pres. McKay and his experiences with rum cake, and island culture drinks. (Because I referenced him it helped my point be taken credibly and without offense.) My final play of the day came with alcohol. Somehow energy drinks, coffee, etc. were in the discussion. I again waited. At what seemed a good time. I raised my hand and explained that coffee was a staple on the pioneer wagons. Also that Elder B.H. Roberts wrote in his landmark series “The History of The Church” (which Dallin Oaks references and has read) the Joseph Smith drank port to calm his nerves in Carthage jail. There was a bit of silence after that, but I also noticed a few heads nodding.
I have 3 or 4 more of these types of examples that I have tried to use in building (and that is my desire) is to build the relationships between the 2 worlds. I believe in the possibility enough to try. I don’t expect to change a GA, but I can help the little world I am in.
Enoch wrote:The only way that I know of that I think has a chance of working is what I am calling “Open, Hopefully Agnosticism.” There are three parts to my approach to spirituality:
1) Belief in the Symbol
2) Openness to Multiple Possibilities
3) Conviction that Spirituality works within several of those possibilities
I think that if you are suggesting these as starting points for open discussion with someone you would describe as TBM, that you are way more idealistic than I am. Which isn’t really saying much at the moment, but I digress …
Allow me to contrast your points with what I heard in general conference. I admit that I am a bit sensitized to the difficulties (possibly imagined) and that my outlook at the moment is pretty cynical, so I welcome differing opinions, especially if they are convincing.
🙂 You propose belief in the symbol. I heard an overwhelming majority of talk about concrete, factual, real and tangible objects and historical certainties.
You propose an openness to multiple possibilities. I heard that there is only one possibility.
You propose that spirituality can be found even within the differences that we share. I heard that spirituality can be found only through the authorized channels.
I am over-generalizing, I know.
I think that using these as a basis for dialogue presupposes a level of open-mindedness (on both sides) that I, in my admittedly cynical view of things at the moment, just don’t see on display amongst the vast majority of the people that I am able to interact with at church. They have been warned repeatedly against entertaining thoughts which are outside the box, and interacting with those that espouse such thoughts.
To use a specific example, if I were to propose to a typical believing LDS person that there is value and power in the myth and symbol of Jesus Christ, and that through it I can attain salvation, but that I was unsure of or doubted the historical value of the gospels, I imagine that I would receive a shocked silence or a horrified gasp in response. Am I being unfair?
And certainly, you would have to keep the word ‘agnosticism’ under wraps. Of course you know that.
Yes – IF they both are willing to love each other despite their differences. It happens; it just doesn’t happen enough – and the “blame” is on both sides in many, many cases.
My solution? Don’t be the blame – ever. I don’t always succeed in that effort, but it’s a noble goal.
Yes, they can get along! The key is: – don’t get hooked. Strong emotional reactions cloud your ability to think, hear, and speak clearly.
– let go of being right. Controlling behavior has no place in a loving relationship.
– the person with the most awareness has the most responsibility.
That’s the key for both sides, but guess what? If the other person is set on getting stuck on the first or second one, then you’re the person with the most awareness, and it’s your responsibility to maintain the relationship. You have to stay neutral and cool-headed. It’s tough sometimes to do, but it’s the only way to listen clearly to what the other person is saying and what they are not saying. Often people use a polemic argument because they are afraid of ambiguity.
My parents are very TBM, although as converts to the church their minds are not totally closed either. Some of my siblings have left the church. I have a BIL who was excommunicated. They have never badgered anyone about the church nor tried to exert guilt. They believe that people have the right to choose. They meet people where they are, not demand that others meet them where they are. To me, they are a great example of the way to handle family members whose beliefs differ, but they have also been the odd ones out their whole lives since both their families were from non-LDS faiths and considered joining the church ill-advised.
The church has done an excellent job of convincing it’s members that there is only one way and there is no compromise once it comes from the pulpit. It seems at least half of the church’s activities are centered around the reinforcement of that principle. So it is not surprising that many TBM have a hard time considering that this may not be entirely the case. I can understand why some get irritated with those trying to step out of line and not swim with the school. Just do what you are told and get in line, right? That’s what we are supposed to do, so why can’t you thick headed stubborn mules get with the program? The most inspiring bit of tolerance I heard was years ago when I had my first issue with disaffection — after a failed adoption through LDS Social Services and the way it was handled. Really rocked my commitment and testimony. My wife said she wasn’t sure if she wanted the relationship anymore if I wasn’t going to be an active priesthood holder. That hurt. I shared it with a mutual best friend who my wife really respected, and she said:
“I think marriage should transcend the Church”.
She was married to a non-member, and a good one too. So, she was living what she was preaching. I was impressed with that, and shared it with my wife, who then changed her tune.
I think acceptance, love, and kindness should transcend the Church too. It’s funny how we even have to talk about virtue transcending the Church — it’s as if the Church gets in the way of virtue — an odd paradox.
I hear you Doug. Again, my audience for these thoughts was not TBMs. It was even for groups like these and other internet forums. I was asking and exploring the limits and possibilities of encouraging dialogue between those of differing beliefs. I am part of an amazing facebook group that has everyone from near TBMs to atheists. It has been incredibly positive and respectful so far. I was just thinking through how to keep it that way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.