- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I forgot to post this from last week. I was ruminating on the reasons why, as a progressive who’s long been clamoring for changes like the recent sealing policy change, why is it that I’m suddenly freshly bothered when the changes occur. I know more orthodox members like to say a couple of things regarding these progressive changes that irk me:
1) It’s always been this way (hard for them to claim with some of the changes)
2) This change is because some members (not them!) find the “higher law” too hard (utterly ridiculous that barring families from their child’s wedding is a higher law or that prohibiting the innocent children of gay couples from being baptized is a higher law).
3) The church is caving to progressives who are still not grateful, complaining even now!
The third thing is kind of true in my case, and I was trying to figure out why progressives are finding the changes troubling. I did a post on it here:
https://wheatandtares.org/2019/05/08/the-progressive-fallout/ Some of my conclusions relate to the problem of Sunk Cost. For many of us, we want progress, but we’ve been putting up with things for a long time.
Quote:Sunk cost: “In economics and business decision-making, a sunk cost is a cost that has already been incurred and cannot be recovered. Sunk costs are sometimes contrasted with prospective costs, which are future costs that may be incurred or changed if an action is taken.” (from Wikipedia)
It’s no wonder that church leaders would make decisions based on avoiding future costs rather than addressing the sacrifices that have already been made, the embarrassments and inconveniences suffered, the relationships harmed. Better to move forward. We can’t change the past, right? We can’t unfeel racism or sexism in temple practices. We can’t get back the hours of church meetings we’ve already attended. We can’t go back and undo the hurt feelings of converts’ families who had to wait outside of weddings. Water under the bridge. But it stings, like getting an expensive speeding ticket the day before the speed limit is raised.
Without any sort of acknowledgement or public statement of apology, those who sacrificed the most–or who feel those sacrifices most keenly–may be feeling a second type of pain: that their sacrifices were arbitrary and in vain. For some policy changes, the pain is more acute than others, particularly since some people were impacted more than others. The revised policy around gay parents was one, temple verbiage changes another, and this week’s announcement about no longer delaying temple sealings for civil married couples is another.
And that brings up another big problem, disassociation from the organization, skepticism of whatever it’s doing that doesn’t feel right. We begin to rely more on our internal compass and to view the organization with a look of distrust. What else are they getting wrong?
Quote:Once you conclude that the church’s institutional policies have caused you unnecessary pain with what feel like arbitrary man-made policies that are easily reversed, it’s not a long walk to putting all existing and future church policies on the table for reevaluation. For progressives who have long clamored for these changes either publicly or privately, this sense of vindication reduces the influence of church authority in personal decision making. That may be a good thing, perhaps long overdue, maybe inevitable for progressives in a conservative faith, or maybe it’s one of those new problems Kissinger talked about.
These feelings are exacerbated when the person has chosen the church over family members in the past, choosing to beat others up for their perceived lack of righteousness–now those individuals feel guilty and complicit in upholding something the church has just easily set aside.Quote:The lack of acknowledgement carries another pain point: personal regret at past actions for those who upheld those policies, who now see themselves as having behaved callously, chosen the institution over family, or felt smugly superior for following church counsel, souring relationships in the process.
“I regret it everyday. The exclusion and moral superiority I felt at that time, now disgusts me and makes me feel horrible. This change is fantastic, but IMO, too little to late.” Church member regretting following a now defunct policy.
That last bit’s not me, but I was surprised at how unhappy I felt about the sexism being (mostly / at least on the surface) dropped from the temple. I’m glad it’s gone, but I have literally had to endure a lot because of the decades of its existence, and apparently I was right all along, even though I was called faithless and told I just didn’t understand. No, I understood only too well. And I don’t trust the organization, partly as a result.
Good post, Hawkgrrrl. I think what perturbs be the most (I can’t think of a better word), is that policy doesn’t make the Church more or less true. Policy is symptomatic of doctrine. Even IF the Church had the “correct” policy all along, that wouldn’t change the underlying truthfulness of the Church. As an extreme example, take the Mosaic Law: there’s a LOT of “bad policies” in there, we no longer follow. Thank goodness! But the trouble is… we either believe in a God who issued those policies, or Moses was a false prophet, because he said those policies were from God. There’s really no middle ground. Pick your poison.
The Church is either redefining past revelation to “personal opinion”, “best judgement” and “we never said we were perfect”… or are maintaining that it was revelation, which was later overwritten. We still have the doctrines of polygamy. We still practice it, at least as far as the law allows. We are still affected by it. But to come out and denounce the former revelation would be Church suicide. Or with blacks in the priesthood… It was racist times and early Church leaders made a mistake. Please ignore all the racist stuff they taught.
I agree and I liked the article. I think that at least for me, there is almost a visceral reaction to what I feel are the unstated prospective expectations of me by my family members.
Example: I had issues with the temple wording previously, and that was part of why I was not interested in more fully engaging with the church. Now that that the policy has changed, I feel like others in my family expect me to become more involved and enthusiastic about the church (or be labeled as “prideful”). I honestly don’t know how to process it all, and my feelings towards the church are more complicated and nuanced than that…
While the changes are huge and positive (and may have been issues balanced on the rubble that was my shelf), I don’t know how to respond to the unspoken expectation (and if I brought it up, it would be very uncomfortable). I am not entirely certain that this unspoken expectation is only in my head (as would be the next logical argument), but I am fairly certain the expectation is unconscious and unspoken.
Great article. I have been generally pleased with the changes as well, but have had a lot of the reservations you’ve so eloquently expressed here. Quote:And that brings up another big problem, disassociation from the organization, skepticism of whatever it’s doing that doesn’t feel right. We begin to rely more on our internal compass and to view the organization with a look of distrust. What else are they getting wrong?
That’s been my reaction. If I was right on these things all along, why would I rely on the organization to dictate how I wear my underwear, what I can and cannot drink or how I choose to spend my time on Sunday?
dande48 wrote:
Good post, Hawkgrrrl.I think what perturbs be the most (I can’t think of a better word), is that policy doesn’t make the Church more or less true. Policy is symptomatic of doctrine. Even IF the Church had the “correct” policy all along, that wouldn’t change the underlying truthfulness of the Church. As an extreme example, take the Mosaic Law: there’s a LOT of “bad policies” in there, we no longer follow. Thank goodness! But the trouble is… we either believe in a God who issued those policies, or Moses was a false prophet, because he said those policies were from God. There’s really no middle ground. Pick your poison.
It’s not necessarily either/or God did it or Moses was a false prophet. There are certainly other points of view, one of which is Moses wasn’t speaking as a prophet then and/or the things recorded are his (or the recorder’s) opinion.
Quote:The Church is either redefining past revelation to “personal opinion”, “best judgement” and “we never said we were perfect”… or are maintaining that it was revelation, which was later overwritten. We still have the doctrines of polygamy. We still practice it, at least as far as the law allows. We are still affected by it. But to come out and denounce the former revelation would be Church suicide. Or with blacks in the priesthood… It was racist times and early Church leaders made a mistake. Please ignore all the racist stuff they taught.
I don’t actually have a problem with this. I also don’t have a problem with “new light and knowledge.” Both of these could be in play as well as other things. I get out the idea of continuing restoration every chance I get (which tends to be at least almost every Sunday).
Unlike others, I don’t have a problem with the changes and eagerly await more. As I have studied the very early church, I think I would have liked that church and would like it to be that way again. Some of the changes have brought us close to that.
AmyJ wrote:
I agree and I liked the article.I think that at least for me, there is almost a visceral reaction to what I feel are the unstated prospective expectations of me by my family members.
Example: I had issues with the temple wording previously, and that was part of why I was not interested in more fully engaging with the church. Now that that the policy has changed, I feel like others in my family expect me to become more involved and enthusiastic about the church (or be labeled as “prideful”). I honestly don’t know how to process it all, and my feelings towards the church are more complicated and nuanced than that…
While the changes are huge and positive (and may have been issues balanced on the rubble that was my shelf), I don’t know how to respond to the unspoken expectation (and if I brought it up, it would be very uncomfortable). I am not entirely certain that this unspoken expectation is only in my head (as would be the next logical argument), but I am fairly certain the expectation is unconscious and unspoken.
This is kind of what I love. I can now safely say “X was wrong.”
hawkgrrrl wrote:
why is it that I’m suddenly freshly bothered when the changes occur.
I can’t speak for anyone specifically, but I do believe that one cause of bother is that when the Church makes these changes, they do it in a way that does not address or acknowledge past pain. There is no lamenting of the what was; and certainly no apology. I’m mostly OK with that, but it does somewhat bother me, and I can see that this would be a source of concern for many.I’ll give one example where I am truly bothered.
We’ve been talking a bit recently about the MMM. When GBH dedicated the reconstructed monument there 1999, he tried to leave it with the thought that “Let the book of the past be closed.” He explained that we don’t really know what happened, that BY wasn’t responsible, that all we can do is come to peace, but that it is our “christian duty” to memorialize the site. As much as I loved GBH, and that is a lot, I have to say that his words leave me bothered. I support GBHs view that BY wasn’t directly responsible, but I also believe that the Church shares some of the blame for its attitudes and teachings. GBH couldn’t have admitted that if he wanted, because it would leave the Church open to having to pay reparations to descendants. I get that. But I wish he had at least acknowledged that the perpetrators were members of the Church, and that even though they acted without the direction of the Church, we feel deeply saddened that some of our own people could have done this terrible act, etc. And that would have set up a nice concession that after that awful massacre, we in the Church take it as a sacred duty to counter extremism and violence. That because this happened in our midst, we are more aware and conscientious than ever, and ask others to join with us in this vigil. Yet his words were: let’s let bygones be bygones.
Long example, but I hope it illustrates what I think is the source of angst when these changes occur. Of course we are glad for future generations, but what about the family members who were shut-out from April weddings? Ouch.
This blog post was yet another one of Hawkgrrrl’s posts that made me thing, “Dang she is insightful.” I agree 100% with her assessment and I “felt” it (i.e. very frustrated), but the way she detailed the WHY was spot on. Some years ago I had decided to live by my own moral compass. I no longer give the leaders much if any consideration. I do not believe they talk to god any more than I do, which is not at all. I stay a member because it is still who I am and I like my friends in the church. That said I welcome positive changes. I do not think we should feel resentful if something good happens. Yes it affected us negatively in the past, but moving forward it can be positive.
I can’t change the past, just live in the future. I would hope we choose to live the best we can.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DarkJedi wrote:
It’s not necessarily either/or God did it or Moses was a false prophet. There are certainly other points of view, one of which is Moses wasn’t speaking as a prophet then and/or the things recorded are his (or the recorder’s) opinion.
It wasn’t his opinion that it was his opinion. It might be your opinion. But it’s a shady authority who calls what they claimed was “truth” to be “opinion”, the moment it’s proven false.
Quote:It wasn’t his opinion that it was his opinion. It might be your opinion. But it’s a shady authority who calls what they claimed was “truth” to be “opinion”, the moment it’s proven false.
Or it is an example of someone who sincerely believed something and then, for some reason, realized it was not truth and merely an incorrect opinion.
Generally speaking, I place the vast majority of LDS Church leaders into that category and not “shady”. I believe they believe what they teach, and I also believe they believe they receive revelation when they make changes, and I also believe they then believe differently than they believed previously.
That isn’t really any different than what has happened to me both with regard to church-related issues and non-church-related issues. There are plenty of things I used to believe that I no longer believe – things that I once thought were truth but now see as my previous opinion. I hope that continues until the day I die. If I realize 20 years from now that my current truth did not change in any way, even important ways, over those two decades, I will be sorely disappointed.
The difference between me and most religious leaders is that I expect to have my beliefs change, while they don’t. It is frustrating in a very real way, but I am glad that, by and large, those leaders are able to change their perceptions from truth to opinion – and, while sometimes it probably is shady, most of the time it simply is a change of belief.
Old Timer wrote:
Or it is an example of someone who sincerely believed something and then, for some reason, realized it was not truth and merely an incorrect opinion.
The main difference between them, and you or me, is that they claim authority, and use that authority to convince others of their correctness of what they taught. My wife might believe our kid has an ear infection, but she doesn’t claim she “knows”. A doctor, on the other hand, who is the “authority” on illness and infections, is expected to “know” whether our kid has an ear infection. If he were to claim he “knew”, and it were later proven flase… I’d say that calls the doctor’s authority into question. Enough mistakes, and the doctor will have their authority rescinded. My wife, on the other hand, would’ve just been using her best judgement, no matter how confident she was.
Updating your beliefs based on new evidence is one of the most admirable things a person can do. Continuing to make truth claims on the basis of authority, after former claims have proven false… that’s what I find “shady”.
I am with dande48 on this – and this is one of my main points pushing me away from the church. When I hear the, “oh he was just speaking as a man” pushed over and over – eventually to me it feels like, “the prophet is just like any of us – just a man”. The older I get the more examples I see of past prophets being countered with new prophetic sayings. I then have to think, “one of the strong tenets of the church is that they are led by a prophet of God. I look over my 1/2 century+ of life and consider how being in a church with a so-called God led prophet has helped me. At this point I actually am seeing more negative than positive. I think of the thousands of dollars I have spent on food storage that has just been thrown out as it spoiled. I should have had a good 72 hour kit and invested the money or even stuck it in my mattress. I think of how messed up I have been for decades with overwhelming shame for normal stuff. I see it nudging me to feel superior while holding on to homophobic and racists view way too long.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I forgot to post this from last week. I was ruminating on the reasons why, as a progressive who’s long been clamoring for changes like the recent sealing policy change, why is it that I’m suddenly freshly bothered when the changes occur.Hawk — this is exactly what I was going through in the One Year Waiting Period Discontinuation thread a while ago. Yes, I was happy they changed it, but it really ticked me off at the same time for all the reasons you gave. Until I dealt with it and reached equilibrium again.
Some here made comments like “so, you complain about this policy for years and when they change it, now you complain about the fact that they changed it! Nothing the church does will ever make you happy because you’re just out to criticize!”. Well, there are a host of reasons contribute to this backlash, even though its a welcome change.
You encapsulated all the reasons:
1. What else aren’t they getting right?
2. After all the sacrifices I made, believing you were right, they just set it aside like that?
3. What about all my relationships that are in tatters as a result of the past policies I followed like a good soldier — care to apologize?
4. What a dufus I was to be so callous and arrogant toward others over those policies that were ill-formed in the first place. Boy do I ever regret that.
5. How can I trust the church organization anymore? Time to get on my own clock about EVERYTHING, and I guess that means I feel less and less a part of this organization.
I want to add one more —
Quote:So, the one-year waiting period was fine when the only “cost” was to individual members family relationships, and not to the church institution as a whole. But now that the same-sex marriage agenda seems to be proliferating our society, this threatens the church. So, THAT motivates you to separate civil form temple marriages. How ego-centric of you and uncaring toward your membership!
It’s kind of like growing up. As a kid, you think your parents and Santa Claus (the church) can do anything. They know it all. Then as you get adult brains and eyes, you see warts on your parents. Eventually, you learn what your parents are good at, and what they aren’t. There is a period of massive deflation when you realize there is no Santa Claus. Only a fat guy in a white suit with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, trouble controlling his or her eating habits, sometimes bad advice, and a limited scope of expertise. But still possessing a certain amount of experience or benefits to you nonetheless. But nothing like what you thought he was prior to taking off the suit and seeing him for what he really is. Then you find you can make your own happiness, but keep the adult relationship within certain boundaries to stop it from disturbing your inner peace or encouraging you to make bad decisions.
It becomes a mixed bag.
One thing I know for sure — when traditional believers get to the other side and
IFthey find there isn’t one true church, or that all the sacrifices they made in this life were not necessary, you’re going to have a lot of TICKED people in Zion. Not saying that will happen, (and I still have some faith that our church is mostly what it says it is) but if this does happen on the other side, watch out for a wave of discontent and feelings. Feelings a lot like the ones I and others experienced over the discontinuation of the one-year waiting period policy.
1) I think the top leadership know and understand some things differently than the average member. For example, I believe that they understand that revelation even at the top is often more nuanced than some may suppose. I believe that they are intimately aware of some differences of opinion among some of the top officers and are privy to the discussions that help to shape policy and even doctrine at times. 2) I believe that top leadership also understands that they are playing a role as defenders of the faith. I assume that they are not to discuss details of whether or not they have seen Jesus lest they weaken the faith of those that feel such is a requirement for the office. I understand that once a decision is made it is the duty of each member of the quorum to present a united front. I understand that the Q15 are not to keep journals lest they later shed too much light on the inner workings.
Our church is a mixture of truth and error. We are largely man made and man directed – men following mostly their best judgement and most pure intentions – combined with that divine spark and lightning flashes of inspiration. In this we are very similar to many other churches.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.