- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Hi, I sent this to admin email at staylds.org and someone said to paste it here on this forum. I am new here, never posted before. So here is what I wrote with revisions to fit this forum. I’m an a former LDS member (I resigned about ten years ago) but applaud the scholarly mindedness, honesty, and transparency of all at staylds.
I am currently reading the revised 2010 essay on how to stay LDS after a challenge to your faith. Yet with me, it’s Should I go Back after Resigning around 2005.
I just watched Mormon Stories #879 where Brooke and Josh Miller paraphrase Spencer’s thoughts on different issues. What he said to them actually empowers me to think maybe I can come back to the LDS church. I then looked again at the site, staylds.com, which I had dismissed in the past, when I was more anti-MormonISM and very binary. Unlike the couple in this Mormon stories episode who have their mind made up I think I would benefit from dialoging with those like Spencer or even more liberal LDS.
I definitely fall on the spectrum of one not prone to spiritual experiences. At 17, I read the entire Book of Mormon and prayed about it and felt nothing. Soon after the Bishop spoke at church and said some were born without a pilot light or something like that. Then he appealed to peace to one’s mind, etc. That’s how I justified a mission, in part because I reasoned that God spoke peaceful silence to my mind after reading and praying about the Book of Mormon. I was young, give me a break
I realize that I would be a minority if I actually went back to the LDS church, as one who is highly intellectual and left-brained, and that is fine with me. Unlike before when I resigned, I have evolved, and I don’t need the rank and file LDS to know what I know or think like me. I can appreciate the leadership’s desire to protect the flock and those in the 1-2 range on Fowler’s Stages of Faith.
I’m interested in engaging in a dialogue that may help me reconcile some of my skeptical doubts and concerns before I consider if a Journey further into coming back to the LDS Church is possible.
I am not close-minded; while I am currently a Christian humanist/naturalist (think Marcus Borg) I am open to having spiritual experiences in the future; that may increase into a more supernaturally-based Mormon testimony. But as of right now my testimony is, if you will, that compared to the other Christian churches I’ve explored in depth, the LDS church is better in most regards and is a producer of goodness. And I don’t like being an atheist anymore after reading An Atheist Defends Religion by Bruce Sheiman.
I am an amateur scholar of sorts who has read widely, from Nietzsche to Darwin, Joseph Campbell to The Scriptural Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, etc. I am very well read and researched and have read hundreds of books on atheism, Christianity, Mormonism, philosophy, science, and all the world religions and would like to speak to a an intellectual LDS person who respects the mind and values the saying that “the glory of God is intelligence” and who would like to dialogue with me to help me see if coming back to the church from a rational scholarly point of view is doable.
I realize now that even as an LDS missionary I was a religious naturalist. I never believed in a literal devil after age fourteen. I saw the devil as a conceptual placeholder for the mob mentality and people allowing vice and selfishness to take over their being. I was always uneasy when I taught the missionary discussions that covered the priesthood restoration with John the Baptist appearing. I think Grant Palmer was right on this issue. Yet, I see Joseph Smith as much “inspired” as the New Testament authors, who according to Bart Ehrman were often forgers. When I was a missionary, I simply “believed in believing.” I thought the LDS church was a good fraternal organization with “spiritual” ideas that uplifted the human spirit.
I then left mostly because of the seed of Cain dogma and the church’s treatment of intellectuals and the lack of transparency prior to 2013 and movement to inoculate and be more transparent. I am happy with the direction the Church is now headed.
After being a secular atheist for several years I then began thinking of being a Christian humanist like Marcus Borg. But I soon realized, as I shopped around at various Christian churches, that if I applied my scholarly naturalistic lens to Christianity, I ended up with the same skeptical conclusions I did with the LDS church. So I am starting to think along the lines of what is the difference between the LDS and any organized church from a naturalistic perspective? They all appear to be human made. So my thinking now is, it’s either naturalistic atheism or Mormonism for me now. So if I don’t like being a secular atheist, my thought is, why not go back to my home, my culture, the LDS?
I have made room for nuance, ambiguity, non-binary grey area, and spectrums, and what Spencer calls “inspired eclecticism” rather than binary thinking. I have moved away from a black-and-white concept of Truth and have embraced truth more along the lines of how Jordan Peterson and Joseph Campbell describes truth. The question is, is there room for religious naturalists like me or am I deluding myself thinking this would work?
I don’t know if any of you at staylds.com are in a place to answer my questions? If not, perhaps you can refer or direct me to a person or resources who can. Books like Planted by Patrick Mason are currently on my reading list.
I used to have a laundry list of fifty reasons why I resigned, but now that I have matured and become more sophisticated and open to non-binary ways of thinking of things, these are my main issues that would impede me from coming back to the LDS and would like any help thinking through these issues or advice offered. So here are my questions before I consider a possible journey back to LDS:
> Is there room at the table for a respectful LDS humanist/naturalist; one who sees Mormonism how Joseph Campbell saw religion; who would respect the beliefs of others who hold more supernatural beliefs and not try to convert them to my point of view?
> As an ethical person, how do I deal with Smith’s polyandry, specifically telling young girls about the angel with a sword stuff, what critics call grooming by him and being a sexual predator? Is there a moral yet naturalistic defense of this (I have read Brian C. Hales says, and to be frank what he says often insults my intelligence)? What Brian often says does not fly with thinking persons in my opinion, although some of what he says is helpful. For example, how do I deal with these links:
http://www.116pages.com/2016/08/evidence-that-joseph-smith-was-sexual.html > How do I deal with the Worthy vs. Unworthy dichotomy: which can lead to elitism and pride of those deemed worthy and low self-esteem and damaging shame of those deemed unworthy. Drink coffee? Unworthy. Skipped church? Unworthy., etc. Obey = Worthy. What about the issues with worthiness interviews, like the sex questions put to teens and pre-teens, i.e. Protectldschildren.org. I went to the stake president in my 20s and said I had doubts about the seed of Cain doctrine being true. He said (to paraphrase) to just pray about President Hinckley and my questions and doubts about the seed of Cain dogma would go away and I would know the church is true. Now I see that the church comes out and validates my conscientious objection to that dogma and my healthy doubt was correct all along. So how do I deal with paying homage to priesthood authority and worthiness interviews when I have direct experience that it’s not divine and it can actually cover up immorality and encourage abuse of authority?
> The psychological research by Darrel Ray that shows that Mormons are highest on guilt, see:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/05/15/the-results-of-an-atheist-sex-survey/ > In this website letter (at
http://www.letterformywife.com/wp-content/letter/Letter_For_My_Wife.pdf Just like there are reformed Jews, I guess I could be a reformed Mormon, but can I? This is where I am at. Could I grow in my testimony? Sure, but I am looking for advice within a naturalistic framework for now.
I’m asking to pass this along to any active LDS scholar who respects those with a highly intellectual personality type who is looking for a rational-naturalistic point of view for someone like me navigating a return to the LDS Faith. I am writing to this board because apologists like Luis Midgley were a jerk to me in my exmormon days, and I dislike Daniel Peterson’s snarky immature style. You guys here at this website sound open minded and rational and fair and empathic.
To be clear, if I returned, I would not be on a mission to change people’s minds who are more supernatural. I am just seeking to balance my conscience and intellect with my heart.
Thanks for listening, any thoughts or advice or insight or resources will be appreciated
W.
Try attending church and see where it takes you. You don’t have to be a member to engage with the church. Maybe rebaptism is right for you. Maybe it isn’t. But if you find fulfillment in the church, go for it. I’m struggling with many of those same concerns myself, so I can’t help you there. Best wishes.
I have very little time right now, but I want to thank you for such a detailed introduction and welcome you to our group. We have been compared to an island of Misfit Toys (the old Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer movie), and I hope we can help each other as we make this journey.
I have no advice – but I totally welcome you. As to your hope that we are intellectual we are emotional, too. Our members have changed over the years and that sometimes shifts the style a bit. All of our archives are available. Hunt through them. Drag up one your interested in. If you don’t find something throw it out there. We will enjoy the engagement. One thing we don’t do is bashing. We can get frustrated, torqued, whiny, upset, but bashing or perceived bashing gets jumped on. One of the reason’s is we have believer’s who check it out, we want to be a balm for them, especially if they are just beginning a transition or supporting a loved one with a transition. We want to be a light in dark times. That doesn’t mean a Polly-Anna version. We will discuss painful, factual, enraging stuff from present policies to forgotten history.
The choice of name StayLDS is to cover the ability of a person to keep their connections with the LDS community solvent in the way that best suits them. Some on our board are taking time off, maybe even have resigned, but they are still connected to family or friends who are LDS. Others have chosen to stay engaged but are wrestling the very issues that someone who has left has.
Welcome to the Island of Misfit Toys. We don’t care that your gun squirts jelly or that your train wheels are square.
Hi Wonnerful, Happy you could join us! I think the wisest are willing to admit they haven’t a clue. You’re asking the blind to tell you what they see. But we’re happy to answer your questions, best we can anyways.
Personally, I think I follow closest with David Hume when it comes to religion. I think Humans are largely emotional, and for the most part try to use logic after the fact to support what they already believe. Hence, I don’t think anyone can talk someone out of their religious beliefs on reason alone. Religion is deeply personal, but not at all rational. There is plenty of goodness that comes from religion, and plenty of Truth as well. I would never take that away from another person, even if I could. But I teeter between a light atheist (I don’t think there is a God) and a light diest (There is probably a God, but it doesn’t make much of a difference one way or the other).
Wonnerful wrote:
> Is there room at the table for a respectful LDS humanist/naturalist; one who sees Mormonism how Joseph Campbell saw religion; who would respect the beliefs of others who hold more supernatural beliefs and not try to convert them to my point of view?
There is room at this table, if that’s what you’re asking. I also love Joseph Campbell, and agree with him on most fronts. No one here would try to convert you. I wouldn’t, even if I could.
At Church, you can expect to be corrected. Try not to hold it against them. Your eternal soul is on the line.
Wonnerful wrote:
> As an ethical person, how do I deal with Smith’s polyandry, specifically telling young girls about the angel with a sword stuff, what critics call grooming by him and being a sexual predator?…
The bible teaches “Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit… Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” I don’t buy it. I subscribe to Lemony Snicket’s views:
Lemony Snicket wrote:“People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.”
Joseph Smith made lots of mistakes, some of them terrible. Some of those mistakes he tried to rationalize away, and was no short on excuses. But he was also well intentioned, and honestly wanted to bring happiness and fulfillment to everyone he could. He went through some tough times, but also through some very happy times. He was perfectly human.
Many of us here subscribe to the buffet approach. I think it’s a very healthy take for all religions. Thomas Aquinas, the Patron Saint of Teachers, was revolutionary in the Catholic Church for his love of the pagan philosophers of Ancient Greece. Most other Christians at the time believed that Christianity and the bible held all the answers, and there was really nothing good to come from the Hellenists. “Not so,” taught Aquinas. He preached that there were many wonderful truths and ideas to be gained, even from those we fundamentally disagree with. Joseph Smith might’ve been a pedophillic adulterer, but he did have a lot of good to say on the sacrifice, duty, service, and the family. Most importantly, he knew how to say it very well. If it wasn’t for him, we wouldn’t have the LDS Church; and I think the world is a better place for it.
Wonnerful wrote:
> How do I deal with the Worthy vs. Unworthy dichotomy? So how do I deal with paying homage to priesthood authority and worthiness interviews when I have direct experience that it’s not divine and it can actually cover up immorality and encourage abuse of authority?
The Church’s main purpose is to help people live meaningful, fulfilling, deeply happy lives. On the surface, they say its to bring people to Christ and save their souls, but happiness and fulfillment is really the end go. The trouble is, how do we best to help people?
I believe confessions are VERY important; to be able to talk with a minister, tell him all of your deepest, most messed up regrets. And then to have them look you in the eye with the deepest compassion and say, “I understand. Everything is going to be okay.”
“Worthiness” (I hate that worth) is simply a measure on how we are doing on the path to happiness. Everyone makes mistakes, but I think it is also very comforting for most members to feel like they are “good enough”. It’s also a carrot-stick situation, setting a goal for the membership to achieve in order to gain a reward. Is it always effective for everyone? Of course not. No system is. It’s a work in progress.
As for the sex questions and abuse of authority, this is another VERY tricky situation. We live in a hyper-sexualized world. Research has shown time and again that porn and masturbation has some very devastating consequences (
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102419 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102419 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/” class=”bbcode_url”> It bothers me too that the Church has such a hard time dealing with change. People cling to religions because they answer the unanswerable, and because they provide a solid foundation in a fickle and unchanging world. No organization likes an affront to their authority, even if they were in the wrong. Beyond that, they cannot admit to not having all the answers, or to sometimes being wrong, without undermining their own authority. They need to be tactful. They can’t admit “Home Teaching is a broken system”; they have to say “God revealed a better way.”
Wonnerful wrote:
> The psychological research by Darrel Ray that shows that Mormons are highest on guilt.
True. But guilt is just a tool. It’s neither good or bad. It all depends on the situation and the magnitude. The Church and its membership could do for some recalibration.
Wonnerful wrote:
> … Tithing is one of those almost a deal breaker issues for me.
I agree. I think it’s funny how AJ Miller is 100% transparent with his own finances, as well as the use of donations for Divine Truth, yet so many people call it a cult. Why can’t we be open too?
The reason the Church hides it, is they feel the membership would be critical of their decisions. Yet, I think they have very good reasons for spending where they do. First, it is better to invest rather than let any surplus sit. It leads to greater financial security and greater wealth for the Church, which can be used to further other positive goals. The General Authorities to receive a taxable salary of 2.5 times the national average, plus phenomenal benefits, but all of them have come from very financially successful background. It’s a lot to me, and probably a lot to you, but it is not a lot for them. And comparing to other Christian ministers, it’s pennies.
The poor and needy are also very difficult to help. If you throw more money at them, their wealth spikes, but it’s only a matter of time before they are in the same position as before. You can keep throwing money, but that gets expensive and does very little good. While the Church often helps out those in a short term bind, what they’re really focused on is self reliance. The poor don’t need money. They need good jobs with good wages. They need a better education. They need addiction recovery programs when applicable, and therapy sessions. And I think the Church has a pretty strong focus in the areas. Could they do more? You bet. But all in all I think they’re at the top of their game.
Wonnerful wrote:
Just like there are reformed Jews, I guess I could be a reformed Mormon, but can I?
Definitions and categories are for other people. You can be nothing but You. I tell Mormons I’m a Mormon, Buddhists I’m a Buddhist, Christians I’m a Christian, Agnostics that I’m agnostic, and Athiests that I’m athiest. It’s all true. We might disagree on the finer points, but I find there is some religious common ground I share with just about everyone. It’s the similarities that bring camaraderie and lead to an open discussion. For my own personal beliefs and relationship with the Church…
Kenny Rodgers wrote:
You’ve got to know when to hold ’em,Know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run
For people like us, we need to be cunning and wise with what we say and do. We can’t say whatever comes to mind, or “tell it how it is”. We’ve got to be smart, often silent, taking in what goodness we can, and selectively sharing what is helpful. And sometimes, you might just have to leave class early. There’s no shame in that.
Thanks for all the comments I am going to finish reading through them all and then comment further
Welcome, I have a number of thoughts for you.
It sounds like you do not especially believe but are willing to hold the door open for possibility, nuance, and mystery. That is not an easy position for and LDS member but certainly a possibility. However, as a former member I suspect that you would have to have some sort of repentance, change of heart, and/or new found testimony to be baptized. “This is a church of my upbringing and heritage and is probably better than all the other churches for me individually” might not be a compelling reason for them to let you rejoin.
Wonnerful wrote:
I would be OK paying quite a bit, my fair share, to carry my weight, give back, etc., but not a full ten percent until either my testimony increases or my concerns are resolved about the church’s use of money? Nor do I wish to stay a second class member and not go to the temple, plus I kind of like the temple experience as a form of secular mediation of sorts.
Even if you did rejoin I believe this will be a problem for you. I believe it would be very difficult for you to do as you say and become fully embraced by the LDS leadership and community. If you are a member of the church that does not breach any major commandments or become outspoken against church policies there is not much that the church leadership can do to you. There is not a very big “stick”. However, all of this changes with the Temple Recommend. Now you suddenly have a very big carrot. The removal of the TR also functions as a stick that the bishop can use more or less at his discretion. I myself exist fairly comfortably in that gray area of a member with more hope than knowledge that does not hold a TR.
I wonder if you might get more mileage out of being an LDS conscientious observer so to speak. someone that attends for the community “rubbing shoulders” but is a non-member non-believer.
There are different degrees of church participation and membership each with casts and benefits. I do believe that the deeper/higher you go into church alignment the more expectation/control you give the church over your life.
I am a professional supervising over 100 people. I am active in my local community and I am a devoted family man. Yet, I have had to accept a certain degree of second class citizenship at church. I deal with it by maintaining boundaries and limiting how much I rely on the church for my emotional and social well being. I am in a sustainable place where I can continue to give to the church what I am giving to receive the benefit that I currently receive. I can only control myself and how much I am willing to give. I try to position my giving/contribution/participation in such a way as to make it more likely that I will receive the benefits that are most important to me.
Welcome to the group. It sounds like you would have some fascinating perspectives to contribute.
Beefster wrote:
Try attending church and see where it takes you. You don’t have to be a member to engage with the church. Maybe rebaptism is right for you. Maybe it isn’t. But if you find fulfillment in the church, go for it.I’m struggling with many of those same concerns myself, so I can’t help you there. Best wishes.
Thanks, I am going to theorize just a bit longer then attend. I was born into the church so I can imagine already what to expect.
To dande48, Your thoughts resonate with me quite a bit. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I like how you said, “I own my membership, and set my involvement by my own terms. I also do not have a calling, or accept Church assignments. But I am more than willing to help out, if its a personal favor.” I may just try that out.
You said, “At Church, you can expect to be corrected. Try not to hold it against them. Your eternal soul is on the line.” I use to be combative and binary, but after fifteen years of arguing with everyone about politics and religion, I am older and wiser and realize it’s usually a waste of energy. I like to imagine every TBM as I was when I was a TBM, how would I treat my old TBM self? That is, if, in this thought experiment I can’t whisper in his ear that it’s him from the future and not to be bothered by the seed of Cain dogma as it will be repudiated in 2013 in an essay. I’d likely just go along with his mindset and realize he can’t think any different at this point in time.
I like how you said:
I subscribe to Lemony Snicket’s views:
Lemony Snicket wrote:
“People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.”
I like that quote a lot
Your thoughts on worthiness and confession were helpful thanks. I like the way you think of worthiness, I think you meant to say you hate the word “worthy” but like the concept of worthiness as a barometer of one’s level of principle-centeredness and happiness.
You make some good points about worthiness interviews being not all bad. Food for thought. I also liked your thoughts on tithing, definitely made me rethink things. Do you know any board threads or articles that talk of LDS wealth in a positive light as you describe it. I realize that I have only read negative stuff about LDS wealth and tithing.
Great quote you gave:
Kenny Rodgers wrote:
You’ve got to know when to hold ’em,
Know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run
I really like your thought process, thanks for sharing. If I went back I would be playing a role but that may be OK. I have played binary game of needing to correct people and think in true and false binary terms all the time. That just causes tension and division. As Dale Carnegie says we are not creatures of logic but emotion, as you put it Hume was right.
Thanks Roy, You gave me a lot to think about. I think you are right that I should try rubbing shoulders first and not jump in and try to get rebaptized.
This is all very new to me. Just three months ago I would have told a person they were crazy if they said you’re gonna start playing with the idea of going back to the LDS community.
I was fine as a secular atheist for a decade. But then I read An Atheist Defends Religion and Marcus Borg’s book Speaking Christian (and other books of a similar nature) and things changed within a matter months. I then started going to churches in my area and not liking the culture or doctrine or worship style of any of the churches and there is no UU church in my town.
Add to that the new inoculation program in the church (e.g. the essays) and the being more transparent than before and I find myself less angry with the LDS like I was. In fact, after learning of other churches threatening kids with Eternal Conscious Torment, and the being LDS again as my tribe of choice, starts to look really good in contrast to the other churches from a humanistic perspective.
Yeah, my solution to StayingLDS has been to reduce involvement or “costs” to a point where the benefits make sense to me. As I reduce effort the benefits also decline. However, I do feel that I have reached a place of sustainability – where the effort I give seems like a decent trade for the benefits (including benefits like being able to connect to extended family through our shared faith tradition). Please do not be a stranger in the forum. There are many topics that I am sure could benefit from your perspective.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.