- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for letting me join you. I checked out the boards a few months ago but didn’t spend much time here. In the past few days though I’ve read quite a bit, particularly on the “support” board, found it very helpful and thought I would join. I’m an active high priest in the church. I’m a married father of a handful of small children. I’m trying to figure out how to come to terms with my doubts about some of the claims upon which I’ve built my religious identity, and handle it in a way that doesn’t jeopardize my relationships with my family. My wife takes a pretty traditional line on most of this business, and is quite troubled by even slight departures from that line. And I certainly wouldn’t want to do something that would jeopardize my ability to watch my children marry in temples that I want kept open to me. But, at the same time, I don’t want to lie to anyone to get in there.
For a long time I have simultaneously believed two things: (1) Joseph Smith was a true prophet called of God to restore his one true church, and (2) he did a lot of things that were wrong (as humans do, though some of his errors appear to be doozies) and made a lot of stuff up. Only recently has (2) started to give me significant heartburn as to (1).
I have dissatisfactions with certain cultural aspects of our religion as presently practiced, but I don’t think that they are rooted in our doctrine, so I try not to sweat it too much. I don’t get too worked up about patriarchy, politics, homosexuality. I understand where folks are coming from on that stuff, but they’re just not issues that I worry a lot about. My concerns are the foundational claims of our church, for the most part. If those claims are true, I’ll certainly put up with quite a lot of nonsense to stay in God’s church.
If I weren’t a Mormon, I’d probably be a Roman Catholic or some sort of Eastern Orthodox, so that let’s you know what kind of church culture I’d be comfortable in. I think this demonstrates my desire to belong to a church with a tenable claim of apostolic succession and priesthood authority. (Also my desire for better music, architecture, and scholarship.) So it’s important for me to either shore up my belief in our claims on this front, or figure out how to make that matter less to me, because the thought of blowing up my family, or at the very least causing them significant and lasting pain, to join a different church is not something that I want to entertain.
Another problem I have is my general lack of spirituality. I think that I’m an observant, religious, but non-spiritual person. I think that we as a people regard that as a failing. It might be the failing that is causing me to doubt. That is, the way we ask people to come to belief in our church is a distinctly spiritual process. I’m not good at that. But I don’t know whether it’s a character flaw, an aptitude that I lack but could develop with practice, or just the way I am and likely always will be. I’m inclined to the latter view, because I just don’t feel like it’s something missing from me. But I’m open to the other conclusions.
I’m not persuaded by appeals to the value of the Church because of the “good fruits” that it bears, such as family harmony and general happiness or well-being, because many programs that don’t make the claims or demands of our religion could produce those things, and if our religion is truly the kingdom of God on Earth it scarcely matters that it might not make me a happy, well-adjusted person. So I’m not interested in Mormonism because it’s a formula for being a happy guy, but rather because I need to be in God’s true church. So I’m struggling with the fact that God’s church appears to be founded by a highly problematic prophet, whom I just flatly don’t believe on several key points.
So, could you guys get this sorted out for me on this thread? Just leave your solution to my problems below in three sentences or less. Much appreciated.
Quote:I think that I’m an observant, religious, but non-spiritual person.
I think that describes quite a few people – and it can be hard for them in the Church.
Quote:I think that we as a people regard that as a failing.
Yes, collectively, we do – and that’s not a good thing, imo.
Quote:So, could you guys get this sorted out for me on this thread?
We can provide individual input, but we don’t own a sorting hat. Brian’s working on it, but he hasn’t found one yet.
Quote:Just leave your solution to my problems below in three sentences or less.
Sorry for laughing when I read that, but you obviously are new here. Some of us can’t answer a simple Yes/No question in three sentences or less.
😆 Anyway, welcome to this forum. I hope reading through our archives and participating here can help in whatever way you need.
Rumpole wrote:So, could you guys get this sorted out for me on this thread? Just leave your solution to my problems below in three sentences or less. Much appreciated.
We will write you back with either a Haiku, or a 144 character-limited Twitter response
😆 My Response:
Quote:Joseph was true and false and meaningless.
Pure gold from lead,
digging the deep mines of paradox.
I get where you are coming from though. I think you will find many kindred spirits here, or at least people who won’t freak out talking to you about your experiences. Welcome to the Island of Misfit Toys. We’ll love you just the way you are, and we can all work towards making our epic hero’s journey of life memorable!
P.S. We will never send your email to command HQ. They already have a small black box with a GPS transmitter attached to the inside of your bumper for tracking purposes.
😈 My response: 1. Only share your doubts among non-local people with no ties to your Ward or family. Like StayLDS. Write, listen and develop your own philosophy through writing here.
2. Interact with local people and family members in such a way that always keeps your options open.
3. Focus on the parts of the Church that still work for you. Good people, while not a standard of truth, is something to enjoy. Teach lessons, focusing on the non-doctrinal objectionable parts, hold family home evening on those topics; let the Church teach your kids the objectionable doctrine, while preventing any of the unhealthy stuff to get through. I do this one on one with my kids.
4. There are may personal matters that no one else in the Church sees. Take full liberties with them without violating your conscience.
5. Place boundaries around what you will and will not do in the Church. If you no longer believe its foundations are as claimed, then decide how much shenanigans you will put up with in your life from it, and act accordingly. There might be peace in that.
Sorry this is longer than 3 sentences. Ray warned you
Rumpole, Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you wrote. I was wondering what foundational claims of truth you were talking about and what aspects of Joseph Smith bother you? If you don’t feel comfortable going into detail then you can ignore my inquiry.
Rumpole wrote:I think that I’m an observant, religious, but non-spiritual person. I think that we as a people regard that as a failing. It might be the failing that is causing me to doubt.
I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t one reason that caused me to start down this road myself. I often referred to myself as ‘spiritually-challenged’. I do agree with Ray in that collectively, we do see that as a failing, and I think that’s really dumb. It seems in our church that there is a mould that the collective thinks everyone should fit into, and I definitely don’t. This was a mighty struggle for me on my mission.
Anyway, I’m relatively new here myself, and I’m still working through things, so I don’t have a whole lot of answers, but what Brian, Ray and SD said are good. I strongly agree with the following:
SilentDawning wrote:4. There are may personal matters that no one else in the Church sees. Take full liberties with them without violating your conscience.
Welcome to the forum! Looking forward to future conversations!
1. red1988, nice try, but I know that you are actually Boyd K. Packer, so no dice. It would be hilarious to learn that this whole site was a counterintelligence operation set up by the Strengthening the Members Committee to get our actionable heresies on the record. Brian Johnston is a paid informant. And so is John Dehlin, and he just went deep, deep cover.
2. Joking aside, let me respond seriously to red1988. I resist responding in detail, because I’m not comfortable airing all of my doubts in front of other people, even anonymously, because I think (perhaps irrationally) that it would feel like I am “bearing testimony” of my doubts. I don’t want to do that. But I will say that I share some of the common concerns about Joseph Smith’s claims about our scriptures being what he says they are. I haven’t given up on the idea that they are still inspired scriptures, but we make lots of claims about them that go beyond that. So, I suppose I can accept our additional scriptures as inspired scripture, but I think that Joseph Smith made a lot of other claims about them that don’t seem to be true. (Which, when you think about it, is not even close to being the most disturbing thing that Joseph Smith did.) Taking all that together, and I was starting to choke a little bit on the temple recommend question about the restoration. I still might reach the right answer, but if I have to “show my work” you’ll see that I get there through a different method.
3. Which takes me to SilentDawning’s first point: tell no one. Well, I already blew that. I told my bishop, probably right about the time that SilentDawning was typing his (her?) advice, that I could answer that temple recommend question about the restoration “yes” only if one accepts that I don’t necessarily believe that, say, the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith says it is. And that fact that I don’t believe that has really caused me to think a lot harder about what I believe about the Book of Mormon. The bishop is a friend and the model of discretion. After we spoke he confirmed that nothing I had shared with him would limit my ability to participate in the church in any way, which is what I expected him to say. So I’ve got that going for me. He did acknowledge that there are leaders in the church that take a different view, but he’s not one of them, and he’s got my back.
[4. This section is in brackets because I’m not sure that this idea makes sense but I want to get it here on paper.
You know, we tell people that it’s OK to doubt, and OK to have questions. Why doesn’t it feel OK? Let me propose a “ratchet theory” of the acceptability of doubting as it relates testimony acquisition and maintenance: Maybe what we mean when we say that it’s OK to doubt and have questions, we’re really just talking to new converts, young people, or people not already fully steeped in the church milieu. That it’s OK to not be 100% sold on all this business when you’re in the process of coming in, because it’s important that you get in the door, and we’re confident, or at least hopeful, that a solid testimony will develop if you can plant and nurture the seed. For 40 year-old high priests, however, it’s not OK. You’re supposed to know these things, believe them to be true, and if you doubt, something’s wrong. In other words, questions and doubts are OK in the growth phase, because we expect or at least hope that you’ll grow out of it, but not in a state of maturity. And it’s important that people in the growth phase get the message that it’s OK, because if they think that doubting is not OK, the barrier to entry looks too high. But regressive doubting by those mature in the church, on the other hand, is poison. So, the “ratchet theory”: it’s OK to have doubts so long as you don’t regress (“dwindle in disbelief,” you might say).
If it were really OK for me to doubt, why am I told to keep my doubts to myself? Here’s an illustration: Imagine a new convert says in Sunday School, “I’m still trying to get my arms around is the Book of Mormon. I have a hard time accepting that it is all that we say it is. But, I’m still reading and studying, so maybe I’ll figure it out some day.” No stake president in attendance would find that sentiment objectionable from a new convert. He’s there, he’s engaged, he’s trying to figure it out. Now put that stake president in my high priest group meeting and have me make the same statement. Now the stake president is alarmed (1) at my doubts, and (2) alarmed that I’d share them.
Now, I agree and understand that the church can’t have a bunch of people sewing doubts in their meetings. Sunday School shouldn’t be “point/counterpoint.” But I do note some dissonance when I’m told that it’s OK to have doubts, but I’m afraid to tell my bishop about them because he’s going to prevent me from seeing my kids get married. So I can only conclude that the church actually thinks that my doubting is bad, probably because at my point I should be past the doubts.]
5. I can’t share any of this with my wife. She would be very much distraught to know that she miscalculated my level of belief or commitment to belief when she decided to marry me and start a family to raise in the church. So I keep this to myself.
And I make an end of this record.
interesting point of view…welcome Your secret is safe with me. I can’t answer for the rest of these people, and frankly now you’ve got me wondering. Welcome.
:thumbup: Rumpole, this is an interesting introduction. Welcome to the group. You stated:
Quote:The bishop is a friend and the model of discretion. After we spoke he confirmed that nothing I had shared with him would limit my ability to participate in the church in any way, which is what I expected him to say. So I’ve got that going for me. He did acknowledge that there are leaders in the church that take a different view, but he’s not one of them, and he’s got my back.
It so important to have a friend like this that we can go to & know that we can feel safe to say anything.
In return, we must be willing to do the same for others.
There is nothing lonelier than thinking you are alone in your doubts.
This is a good place to express yourself. Keep it coming.
Mike from Milton.
Welcome Rum. Very interesting intro.
I chuckled about the “three sentences or less” comment to. Ha. That is funny. Unfortunately, there is no short cut to finding your own middle way path to the gods. Perhaps a middle way within Mormonism will work for you, perhaps not. But, you have to find and walk your own path and that is what is life is all about. My own mantra about JS and the LDS church is “the mormon church is a divine pathway,
one of many, that some folks can use to find peace and the gods in this life, and perhaps the next.” Good luck and welcome again.
You’re lucky your Bishop “has your back”. That is not typical. I would count yourself very lucky….your Bishop is right that most other leaders wouldn’t look at it the same way he does. Any by the way, I’m a guy.
Rumpole, you pose an interesting paradox with your ratchet theory, one thing I can say is, we are not a minority. I would suggest that all members, if they are honest with themselves, have doubts. but they quiet these doubts by leaning on their testimony, or leaning on the words of the church leaders. Those of us who wrestle with these doubts and form internet groups such as this one to discuss these doubts, are probably just the tip of the iceberg. As for wanting a confirmation as to the truthfulness of the church as the ‘ one true church’ as a means for staying. I doubt anyone here can help you with that. My doubts aren’t that different from yours and I get the feeling because you are wrestling with these doubts that you are probably more spiritual than you give yourself credit for. I also doubt my spirituality yet if I am so un-spritual why do the doubts bother me so much? It’s OK if you don’t want to give voice to the specific details of your doubts. I understand that feeling. There’s a “magic” to voicing things. OK, I know it doesn’t actually cast a magic spell. But it does very much shift our psychology and our subconscious, which is powerful. To “name” something is a form of owning it, or taking power and responsibility for it. This is alluded to in the Genesis account of the Garden of Eden when Adam gives names to all the animals, and is given “dominion” and responsibility over them. Anyway … I drift off into the esoteric and deeply philosophical. Your “ratchet theory” is a brilliant observation. I think we all intuitively understand what you are talking about, but you put it to words in a way that really spells out the obvious. This example in particular just nails it:
Rumpole wrote:If it were really OK for me to doubt, why am I told to keep my doubts to myself? Here’s an illustration: Imagine a new convert says in Sunday School, “I’m still trying to get my arms around is the Book of Mormon. I have a hard time accepting that it is all that we say it is. But, I’m still reading and studying, so maybe I’ll figure it out some day.” No stake president in attendance would find that sentiment objectionable from a new convert. He’s there, he’s engaged, he’s trying to figure it out. Now put that stake president in my high priest group meeting and have me make the same statement. Now the stake president is alarmed (1) at my doubts, and (2) alarmed that I’d share them.
We only give lip service to doubt, these days, in the church. You are right. We understand how complex our theology and social structure is, so we sort of give newbies a pass. BUT it’s completely different for someone who once displayed a strong testimony, or reached the social milestones of our expecting them to have a strong testimony (like being a High Priest), for those people to appear to be backsliding out of a testimony (regardless of their having the strength of testimony that we assumed).
I think we all have those lingering doubts in different ways in the back of our minds, and in the corners of our hearts. When someone else publicly gives voice to those doubts, it triggers a fear of our own cascading doubt. It’s the “dissenter effect” in social psychology. It only takes a couple of dissenters in a large group to dramatically shift things. This is a huge organizational fear in an group that tries hard to maintain a difficult or challenging perspective of the world (like a religion, or a strong political party, for example).
Rumpole wrote:Now, I agree and understand that the church can’t have a bunch of people sewing doubts in their meetings. Sunday School shouldn’t be “point/counterpoint.”
I understand them not wanting us to sew doubts. I get too bored though if there isn’t even a little point/counterpoint. I am notorious in my ward for bringing up alternative views or pointing out the paradoxes when lessons become too much about everyone nodding their heads in agreement and creating an echo chamber.
And if you express the doubts to the priesthood leader, their response is often to deny you opportunities that could help you at least have more positive experiences in the church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.