Individualization

I have an idea of how to, maybe, look at that talk and see a way around it. What if my personal revelation is valid, so long as it fits in some way with priesthood revelation. Maybe I don’t have to agree 100% in every aspect, just be able to see what they are saying. Maybe what God means is that we should come to him asking for guidance on priesthood revelation so that he can build us up.

We had that talk in the Pathways class I took earlier this year. The only way I got through it was using an analogy from Chieko Okazaki to illustrate how I rely on personal revelation – and that I don’t expect it to look like everyone else’s.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/baskets-and-bottles?lang=eng” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/04/baskets-and-bottles?lang=eng

As a woman, when it comes to family decisions, I encounter this dilemma whenever my husband and I aren’t on the same page. My options are usually a) smile sweetly and explain my reasoning one more time, b) complete a mental cost-benefit analysis to see if going in a different direction really matters OR is a safe opportunity to learn from failure, c) insist on going back to the drawing board, or d) have a persistent, stubborn fuss about it.

But then, I am not the best person to talk about authority issues… 😯

Defining the line between what an organization is, does, teaches, and expects and what an organization’s members are, can do, can say, and should expect is perhaps the most foundational and controversial aspect of individual identity within a communal structure. It isn’t just religious; it applies just as much and just as centrally to any group of people, including a marriage and family.

At the heart, it is a question of who decides what to do and how to do it. It is an issue of authority.

In the end, all healthy human interaction requires compromise to some degree. Sometimes, that compromise is formal and mutual; sometimes, it is informal and unilateral. Most often, it is a complex combination of all of that.

For me, the effort is to live a balance where I can “be authentic” in such a way that I “do no harm” to others around me who are being their authentic selves in ways that do not harm me unduly – or harm me only in ways that I can handle without serious damage. The unique thing about the LDS Church is that the worst they can do is take away my formal membership – but, for example, they can’t stop me from attending meetings and associating with the membership, unless I become bitter, argumentative, aggressive, etc. If I were to be excommunicated and continue attending and fellowshipping with the membership, as the same person I am now, it actually would reflect worse on the Church than if I remained a member – since everyone would see I hadn’t changed a bit, and many would question my excommunication.

That actually has happened to me in my professional life. Twice, I have been forced to leave a job, once over unethical practices by the company and once because of a change in ideological focus within the top leadership that made me an inappropriate fit for my position. In each case, my departure made other employees question the organization, since they knew I was a good, loyal, successful employee and a good, honest, moral, diligent person. Each organization had the absolute right to want me gone. I understood and accepted that. It was difficult each time, but I was at peace knowing I had done my absolute best to make it work.

That is my objective within any organization: Be the best me possible **within the organization**, so it doesn’t matter, in the end, what any organization does to me. Their actions won’t change me, and everyone who knows me will see that simple fact.

I only will add that I actually like the Church’s more recent focus on apostasy being limited to actively fighting the organization in ways that are public – meaning actively trying to pit others against the Church. Of course, local leadership roulette means some members get disciplined for nothing more than quiet disagreements, but the Church’s standard is open battle. I understand and can respect that.

I liked that talk, thank you for sharing. I guess Elder Oaks is entitled to his opinion as well. Maybe it’s just that, his spirituality, How he sees things.

One of the things I have learned in my current path is that everything is how someone perceives something.

I can see what President Oaks was trying to say when he was imparting part of his faith narrative – the way the process works for him and the principles that weave it together.

But he loses nothing and I lose nothing when I authorize myself to receive inspiration for circumstances I have jurisdiction in, and to request clarification from leadership and/or God as appropriate for the times when leaders say something that doesn’t fit with my narrative and priorities.

At the end of the day, I’m the one who has the most to lose if the leadership inspiration doesn’t work out. It’s up to me to follow the best path I can see, and listen intently to those whom I perceive as wise and/or having authority of being worth listening to.

Amy, perception does seem to be crucial. I just really struggle to perceive that talk in what I am sure is the spirit of what Elder Oaks is saying. It’s just so foreign to me as a father.

I can relate – I am not a fan of that talk in part for that reason.

I have many thoughts on this but I’ll keep this comment brief. Your personal relationship with God is between you and Him. Your ability to receive personal revelation for your life has nothing to do with “worthiness.”

I know for a fact that receiving revelation and having deeply meaningful spiritual experiences is not tied to being worthy or even to a belief in God. How do I know this? Because I (currently) don’t believe in God. And yet, even in my moments of quiet disbelief, I have continued to have profound experiences and deeply meaningful insights that are identical experientially to those when I was a “worthy” fully believing member.

So whether those sorts of revelations actually come from God through the Holy Ghost (as I used to see it) or there is a more naturalistic explanation that invokes what we currently know about human psychology and neuroscience (as I currently see it), it doesn’t particularly matter to me. I will believe what I currently believe and live according to what I feel right about and let those amazing and wonderful spiritual experiences happen as they will, without regards to my relationship to the church.

The church as an institution can decide how they want to distribute church authority and run their ship, but they cannot dictate the terms under which you experience your relationship with divinity. Whatever your beliefs or actions, that relationship is for you to experience and it is beautiful. There is danger in tying that personal relationship to your church relationship. From the church’s viewpoint it makes sense, but from a personal growth viewpoint that sort of attitude is damning to the soul.

I have many thoughts on this but I’ll keep this comment brief. Your personal relationship with God is between you and Him. Your ability to receive personal revelation for your life has nothing to do with “worthiness.”

I know for a fact that receiving revelation and having deeply meaningful spiritual experiences is not tied to being worthy or even to a belief in God. How do I know this? Because I (currently) don’t believe in God. And yet, even in my moments of quiet disbelief, I have continued to have profound experiences and deeply meaningful insights that are identical experientially to those when I was a “worthy” fully believing member.

So whether those sorts of revelations actually come from God through the Holy Ghost (as I used to see it) or there is a more naturalistic explanation that invokes what we currently know about human psychology and neuroscience (as I currently see it), it doesn’t particularly matter to me. I will believe what I currently believe and live according to what I feel right about and let those amazing and wonderful spiritual experiences happen as they will, without regards to my relationship to the church.

The church as an institution can decide how they want to distribute church authority and run their ship, but they cannot dictate the terms under which you experience your relationship with divinity. Whatever your beliefs or actions, that relationship is for you to experience and it is beautiful. There is danger in tying that personal relationship to your church relationship. From the church’s viewpoint it makes sense, but from a personal growth viewpoint that sort of attitude is damning to the soul.

^This. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

The thought occurs to me to “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s”. For those of us that wish to continue within the active Mormon community there are some minimum standards to meet. In addition, sometimes what you say can be less important than how you say it.

Baptising my children is important to me in being an honored part of an important rite of passage. This is a church ordinance and the church has every right to determine who can and cannot perform it. I have tried to be prudent (not fake or dishonest but not unfiltered either) in the things I say and do in order to maximize the chance of being able to meaningfully participate in such events.

The church has authority over my church actions and church behavior (again at least as far as setting minimum standards goes).

Agreed — it’s their right to behave as they wish by instituting policy, revelation, denying privileges. They are constrained, somewhat, by the invisible hand of member opinion, but not very much.

Church (both as an organization and as a concept) can easily overreach and assume more authority over your personal life than it has any right to.

Part of my process to StayLDS has been to identify between my personal responsibility to prayfully chart (together with DW as equal partners) my own life course on one hand and those areas of church authority on the other. Once I identify the “demarcation line” that I feel comfortable with it can be important develop and maintain healthy boundaries in this area.

Totally perfect statement. They CAN and WILL try to overstep their boundaries — particularly those leaders who really buy into the power they have as religious leaders. Some are simply misguided or lack judgment. It’s up to us to decide just how much they can push us. I have been pushed too far, and have my own demarcation lines. I think I probably pushed too far when I was a TBM leader years and years ago, so I can’t fault them. Most are doing what they think is best.

This is probably not what Elder Oaks meant in his talk. I claim the right to interpret anything he or anybody else says to determine applicability to my life and my circumstances.

Yep — that is what I was saying above. You might even find that something he said years and years ago that he no longer believes!.

To bring this full circle, I do not broadcast that I might reject parts of Elder Oak’s talk in SM or EQ. To do so might get me in trouble with local leadership. I quietly take charge of my life decisions. I am not in revolt. I am just a person trying to navigate life’s competing relationships, demands, and responsibilites the best way that I know how.

Again, I could have written this post above. It reflects my own approach, and it is one that has helped us find a certain measure of peace amidst the distress our church membership has caused some of us, leading to faith/commitment crisis.