- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hmmm. I’ve had three or four interactions in the past week that I think are trying to teach me something.
I have some very close friends in the church, two of which and me make up the ‘token democrats’ in our ward. In both cases, I have had conversations with them this past week where some aspect of the accuracy of church history came up, and I pointed out some of the relatively minor flaws in the standard version of historical truth. I didn’t even broach some of the more disturbing stuff. It didn’t go over very well, in spite of our friendship and what I thought was their fairly liberal position.
Between those two conversations, my daughter, who has been teaching relief society, confronted me with my belief (or lack thereof) in the signs of the times, second coming, and the millenium, all of which seem to be at the end of the Gospel Principles manual being used to teach RS and priesthood.
She said, “But you don’t believe in the second coming!”
I said, “Uh, well, dear, it isn’t that I don’t believe it, it’s that I don’t think it’s relevant to my life.”
Then she said, “I shouldn’t talk to you before I have to give a lesson on this stuff.”
Yeah, well, ok. I tried to say that she needs to teach the basics of the manual, because that’s what is expected, but not go into any sense of definitive knowledge of these things, because we don’t know. She decided to use a puzzle metaphor in her class, showing that there were missing pieces we just don’t know about the millenium, and try to come back into the present for how we ought to live today… Bless her heart, I think she got that right.
But it raises some interesting observations for me:
1. Most people who attend regularly, even if not purely TBM, don’t want to focus on the historical and doctrinal defects.
2. The literal nature of the myth is alive and well.
3. For most in the church, they don’t want to hear that church doctrine is largely mythological and speculative.
4. Even if you point out where the “brethren” speaking in general conference, are wrong (just take most of JD for example), active members take comfort in the idea that whatever is spoken across the pulpit is the word and will of the lord, and don’t want to consider anything else.
it would all be fine, i guess, but in a sense, certain teachings may not be so benign, and I feel that blatant falsehood and harmful teachings ought to be challenged, albeit gracefully, when pushed at me. To me, it’s a moral imperative to fight against tyranny over the mind, to quote Jefferson. But more and more, I feel that people don’t care, and resent having their perception of church perfection altered in any way. It seems a bit like charging at windmills in the deserts of Spain.
Ah well, what to do, what to do…
I love Don Quixote and Man of La Mancha, fwiw. There is great wisdom in that book – and in the concept of dreaming the impossible dream. I think finding peace with our inability to convert others to our way of seeing (notice, I didn’t say “believing”) is one of the central elements of peace for those who never will be “mainstream”. I understand the angst over things that we view as harmful, but it’s just so stinking hard to know what actually is harmful to some while being comforting and security-enhancing to others.
Tangential, I know, but when I read early American history (especially journals from the westward movement of the 1800’s), I am struck over and over again by descriptions of how leaving established cities and moving into the vast and undeveloped lands affected people differently. Some “grew” immeasurably and went from “commoners” in their previous environments to “leaders” in their new locations. The challenges they faced caused them, literally, to become different people, when viewed from a practical standpoint. Others, however, shriveled and figuratively died – or literally fled back to the safety they had left. The challenges they faced (or just the sheer expanse of the new world that spread before their eyes on a daily basis) caused them, literally, to become different people – only in the exact opposite way of those who were “magnified” by the change.
I try to keep that in mind as I decide what to say to whom. I won’t know if I have given them an opportunity to grow or forced them to retreat and shrivel until after they react, so I am very careful not to force retraction just so I can have company in the great expanse through which I love to wander.
For me it’s the same as walking up to someone who is proud of their painting and then picking out its weaknesses — unless they are looking for divergent feedback, it’s not well-received. People will get defensive, and then the Church culture which marginalizes unbelievers takes over, and next thing you know, you are labelled apostate. And that label will take some shaking. For example what would it take to convince our SP you are believer again? A lot. Best be as diplomatic as possible, and try to avoid the subject of belief as much as possible.
Quote:But more and more, I feel that people don’t care, and resent having their perception of church perfection altered in any way.
Because I want to stay in the community, not change or criticize the way things work in the community, I have been trying to better understand others and their views before worrying about discussing or clarifying the issues, topics or truth as I see it.
Tho I try to remain hopeful and positive, I find your statement very accurate…I think most are protective of their testimonies and see anything attacking what they have faith in with emotion.
I think that is because life has challenges and questions. They look towards the church as their source of unchanging truth and steadfast comfort and certainty. I often hear comments by people at church that they sometimes feel sorry for those who don’t have the church as a guiding light and the missionary work needs to take the sure message to them. They also often talk about those that go astray, and need to be brought back to the fold to help them enjoy blessings and happiness found in the church. Those ideas providethemtheblanket of confidence they seek in their life.
If they are content and comforted with that…they will fight to keep that peace, even not caring to search out things that shatter that image.
The way I see it, that approach can be like burying their head in the sand and failing to develop thinking and reasoning skills. However, it can be unkind of me to share ideas I have that they do not want to hear or that threaten their peace and security they cling to. It takes charity, discernment, and discretion to know how and when I share my views. I also keep an open mind that they may be 100% right, and I may be wrong. Not about facts…facts are facts, but interpretations and framing the facts can vary greatly based on our point of view.
I too find a few things totally irrelevant and difficult to listen to. You listed some: the imminence of the second coming, speculation about what we’ll be doing in the millenium, and the reality of a literal Satan who is messing with our lives on a regular basis. Early church members believed the second coming would happen in their lifetime, which is why they were gathering to Zion. But it didn’t. People in the church love to imagine they will be alive for it or when it will happen or if a particular political action is a sign of the times. To me, these things seem like seeking for a sign, and they take the eye off the prize, living the gospel. Spending too much time idealizing life in the millenium seems to me like an excuse to not make things better in the one we have or to think they are worse than they are. And assigning blame for all the evil in the world to Satan as a mastermind doesn’t give nearly enough credit to the evil lurking in the hearts of men and the consequences of our own ill-advised actions. I think self-development is more useful than putting blame outside of ourselves and others by pinning things on Satan. Just because I don’t see those things as useful doesn’t mean they aren’t motivating or useful for other people. Maybe there is a progression of thought that has to take place – I find that the newer the person is to the church, the more they find these topics comforting. Also people who relish black and white simplistic thinking find comfort in these things. Apparently God doesn’t mind since (s)he’s seen fit to have many types of people in the world.
Before the Internet, there was no such thing as a New Order Mormon I was aware of…since then, we’ve had these different terms spring up, describing people who have challenges being active in the Church, but want to maintain some kind of connection to it. But it seems like the local leaders don’t want us very much. It’s a tough situation…
SilentDawning wrote:Before the Internet, there was no such thing as a New Order Mormon I was aware of…since then, we’ve had these different terms spring up, describing people who have challenges being active in the Church, but want to maintain some kind of connection to it.
But it seems like the local leaders don’t want us very much. It’s a tough situation…
I don’t know of the name existing before recently on www. the name never came up on internet mormon discussion mailing lists (listserv) and usenet newsgroups (alt.religion.mormon, and its moderated spinoff soc.religion.mormon) i participated in from the early 90s. might be interesting to trace the etymology.although the internet has made the information more readily available, people living and believing as NOMs go way back. Very clearly, BH Roberts and J Golden Kimball were NOMs. BH tried to stay within the system, and allowed formal supression of his true beliefs. J Golden took his views public and often deviated from script, to the embarrassment of his heritage family. his celebrated cursing was only the surface.
Looking back over my mormon heritage, my parents, grandparents, and before were all borderlanders of sorts. they all had their private deviations from the party line, but stayed for cultural and other reasons. These NOMs did some really fantastic things, for which i am proud of my ancestral mormon heritage. i believe they were effective precisely because of discretion–they didn’t let their views and private practices to interfere with their testimony or official duties.
a note on hypocrisy here. hypokrinein in greek means those who judge (krinein) from beneath (hypo), meaning underhanded judgment. later, certain greek theater had a hypocrite — someone not part of the play making comments on it, or a pretend-actor. from this latter sense, modern use of the term hypocrite tends to mean a pretender. from the modern use of the word, it is hard being a discrete NOM without the potential of feeling like a hypocrite.
however, the Gospels were written before the modern meaning. Jesus did not condemn the pharisees because they were pretenders, but rather, because they judged others without moral authority – they required of their disciples a higher standard than they were willing to do. So, if a NOM judges and condemns another person for which the NOM him or herself is guilty, s/he is a hypocrite. On the other hand, NOMs who do not judge others for that they are unwilling to abide, and who sincerely live according to their understanding spirit of the gospel, cannot be defined as hypocrites.
suspicion about NOMs goes beyond local leaders. The Strengthening Church Members Committee actively monitors what we say here, referring cases of potential active apostates to local leaders for further investigation and action. I may not like this fact, but I understand why the brethren see the necessity: to preserve the integrity of the official doctrine and ordinances as exclusive provenance of the priesthood.
Discretion is the better part of just about anything. It’s important to recognize and acknowledge that.
I can’t say everything I might want to say in any group with whom I associate. I weigh my words all the time, both to consider their effect on me and to be careful of their effect on those who hear them. I try not to be misunderstood, even if I’m not fully understood. (I don’t succeed all the time in that effort, as witnessed by the current thread about the next life, but I try.)
That’s just part of life. Anything else is selfishness and lack of charity.
It’s easy to forget that and think that church life is or should be different. It’s not, and it can’t be – since it’s a gathering of people who are just as short-sighted and weak as I am.
I’m not looking to carve out any “otherness” in the Church for any group of people. I’m looking to be a Old Timer Mormon – for wayfarer to be a wayfarer Mormon – for SilentDawning to be a SilentDawning Mormon – for Heber to be a Heber Mormon – for Roy to be a Roy Mormon, etc. That’s all, but it’s vitally important to me – and discretion is the better part of that – just as it is for our apostles, I would add.
Does anyone think that isn’t true of them – probably even to a greater degree than of anyone here?
In theory, it sounds great. However, the “no one’s perfect” stance can’t be a panacea for repeated incompetence, double standards when they should not exist, acting consistently without love, or ignoring the needs of individuals when they conflict with the goals of the organization or the personal interests of the leaders. I think in many wards, this is not a problem. However, in some it can be a big issue. I also think you have to know your followers and your leaders very well. Leaders need to do their best to be sensitive to the needs of their followers even when based on isolated experiences. Followers need to be sensitive to the leadership styles of the ward leaders and adapt to the situations they create.
But as an entity which makes big claims as to its divine commission, I think anyone in a leadership position should feel a great weight of responsibility to do their best NOT to be a stumbling block to others. Followers should try to act in ways that builds the faith of their leaders and as supportive as their circumstances allow.
I agree, SD – and I think leaders really do try to accomplish that well over 90% of the time. Even in cases like we’ve discussed here in some threads, with decisions and actions that leave us scratching our heads in bewilderment and cause people involved real pain, most of the time the leaders involved really are trying to do the best they can. They’re human – and “claims” of any kind can’t change that (and, in fact, those claims don’t refute that). Life is pain, because we inflict pain – because even our best efforts are undertaken as we see through a glass, darkly.
That’s all I’m saying – that, given our collective humanity, discretion is the better part of everything we do, in all situations, among the people in all of our associations. I can’t control them; I try to control me, to the best of my ability; I hope that I will not be held to a higher standard than I can reach, so I try my hardest not to hold others to a higher standard than they can reach.
That’s easy when I like the others and they aren’t hurting me and others in any significant way; it’s not so easy when I don’t like the others and/or they are hurting me and others in real, significant ways. Sometimes, I need to bite my tongue; sometimes I need to speak out; always I need to exercise discretion and think before I act – including before I speak.
this is why I feel drawn to Buddhism. To seek to reduce suffering, we often need to look inward and our discretion…not outward and demand the changes from others.
Old-Timer wrote:Discretion is the better part of just about anything.
:thumbup: I feel it is the same in the Church, or family, or my work, or the PTO or any other group of people that have to work things out.
wayfarer wrote:… I feel that blatant falsehood and harmful teachings ought to be challenged, albeit gracefully, when pushed at me. To me, it’s a moral imperative to fight against tyranny over the mind, to quote Jefferson. But more and more, I feel that people don’t care, and resent having their perception of church perfection altered in any way. It seems a bit like charging at windmills in the deserts of Spain.
Ah well, what to do, what to do…
I have a hard time keeping quiet when something is said that is not only wrong, but I can see how it has & can motivate harmful beliefs & behavior (ie prejudice, close-mindedness, denial). Visiting with all TBMs for Thanksgiving went better than I thought, but I still sensed that they pitied me for doubting the church & they’ve kept a bigger distance from me since I’ve been more open about my religious/spiritual perspectives. I thought, as you did, that they don’t care about TRUTH. I wonder if they’ll go to their grave still believing lies, that hurt them & others. Yet, if I am too blunt, it seems to always backfire. I guess I need to almost always sugar coat – loads of sugar – on just a little bite at a time.😆 I’ve tried to take the missionary approach… lol… & keep to basics, building on common beliefs. But I really need to work on holding my tongue sometimes. I just feel so passionate about some issues! I also need to remind myself that we can only handle so much truth at a time… line upon line. When a friend told me some troubling things about the temple, my first reaction was to think she was being influenced by the adversary. It took some time for me to digest things… to question things… & I’m still trying to find my way. So, I really need to be patient with them, even when they treat me rudely – like kids who don’t know better yet.
Heber13 wrote:this is why I feel drawn to Buddhism. To seek to reduce suffering, we often need to look inward and our discretion…not outward and demand the changes from others.
:thumbup: Good & needed reminder, Heber. Thanks.Featherina wrote:wayfarer wrote:… I feel that blatant falsehood and harmful teachings ought to be challenged, albeit gracefully, when pushed at me. To me, it’s a moral imperative to fight against tyranny over the mind, to quote Jefferson. But more and more, I feel that people don’t care, and resent having their perception of church perfection altered in any way. It seems a bit like charging at windmills in the deserts of Spain.
Ah well, what to do, what to do…
I have a hard time keeping quiet when something is said that is not only wrong, but I can see how it has & can motivate harmful beliefs & behavior (ie prejudice, close-mindedness, denial).
I honestly think there is a moral imperative to correct harmful teaching or advice. Two examples are the mandate to be perfect, and the degrading condemnation of natural autoeroticism can lead people to internally condemn themselves, years without end. The problem is that people don’t talk about how talks and interviews creating the context of condemnation have adversely affected them, and thus live a life of shame very privately.How does one fight against this? I really don’t know. When a harmful teaching comes out at GC, I guess I can protect my family by addressing it then and there. In SM, it might be a one-shot deal to stand up and object when some really bad garbage is being spoken. I really don’t know how to address blatent falsehood without quickly marginalizing myself.
Featherina wrote:I also need to remind myself that we can only handle so much truth at a time… line upon line. When a friend told me some troubling things about the temple, my first reaction was to think she was being influenced by the adversary. It took some time for me to digest things… to question things… & I’m still trying to find my way. So, I really need to be patient with them, even when they treat me rudely – like kids who don’t know better yet.
as we all are trying to found the Way, or at least navigate it the best we can. thanks for your post.wayfarer wrote:I honestly think there is a moral imperative to correct harmful teaching or advice. Two examples are the mandate to be perfect, and the degrading condemnation of natural autoeroticism can lead people to internally condemn themselves, years without end. The problem is that people don’t talk about how talks and interviews creating the context of condemnation have adversely affected them, and thus live a life of shame very privately.
How does one fight against this? I really don’t know. When a harmful teaching comes out at GC, I guess I can protect my family by addressing it then and there. In SM, it might be a one-shot deal to stand up and object when some really bad garbage is being spoken. I really don’t know how to address blatent falsehood without quickly marginalizing myself.
I can relate with “marginalizing” myself as a result of addressing blatent falsehood.The truth is… we tend to not like the truth, especially when it’s uncomfortable.
I’m beginning to get a sense of what Jesus taught… how he did not come to bring peace, but a sword (of truth). Then he went on to say anybody who does not hate his brother, mother, etc. is not worthy of him… basically I think he’s saying that TRUTH/GOD/LIGHT has to be more important than “agreeing” with our own family.
This is also why I can see how – broad is the way to destruction – many go that way – but narrow is the way to truth.
What you mentioned about shame, I feel so passionette about! I’ve suffered with depression most of my life – & I also have been in various capacities to council others. Shame & fear are probably the biggest causes of mental illness. Actually, I read in an LDS book (about Near Death Experiences, Glimpses Beyond Death’sDoor I think it’s called- Authors: Top)… The root cause of most mental illnesses are misunderstandings of Judaic or Christian doctrines. Suicide kills more than war. The essence of sin (esp. against self) & mental illness are: harmful thoughts (& related feelings & behavior). So, I think it is important to fight against shameful, fearful – & otherwise harmful beliefs. As Joseph Smith taught, the most significant battles are not on the battleground – they are about principles.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.