Didge here

Welcome.

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith would have made a decent fantasy writer had he been born at a time when writers got paid for writing and had some actual training. For his worldview, I think that theology, philosophy/ethics, traumatic past experiences, and his imagination sparked the creation of something – part community & tribe, part religious writing, part trauma-processing to help himself make sense of the world and feel better.

Writing doesn’t have to be “factually accurate” to inspire change in people and generate hope. Charles DIckens’ A Christmas Carol plays fast-and-loose with Christian themes and symbols (being based at Christmas, with Christmas dinner, and holiday generosity), but actually doesn’t reference God (at least as we envision God culturally). Even if you associate the 3 “ghosts” as angelic variations – they speak to Scrooge with their own authority in their own right – there is no reference to a direct higher being.

I don’t know a lot about physics to identify the advances in science have shaped how creation could be defined. The closest that I have come is that I enjoy astronomy – and the scientific narrative that makes sense defining how different planets ended up in the orbits around the sun that they include lists Jupiter and Saturn as the “major players” with Jupiter invading towards Mars and Earth and being gravitationally pulled back enough by Saturn’s movement out of the solar system. The lay-person narrative was that the interplay between the planets was more Mafia-family culture (yes, it’s “clickbait” and the gore of proto-planets being smashed by Jupiter enough to create the asteroid belt and a bunch of moons is pretty destructive). This doesn’t fit well with the “benevolent Divine intent” to create a world for us narrative that we get at church. I also don’t know how JS would deal with the scientific understanding that our solar system is one of many and is on the edges of the galaxy (that is also one of many) with a 5 billion year time bomb attached.

I think the biggest shift is one that “defines accuracy”. We have made a ton of scientific advancements and measurement advancements – to the point where our factory error rate is “parts per million” – we expect and design our machines to surpass human limitations to create “flawlessness” (and our machines can do that to a limited degree). That makes it so that we have a more literal-taking perspective that JS’s pre-industrial era understanding (the personal best is “good enough” if it does the job) does not.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have shared doubts with a couple of disaffected members among my acquaintances, but I’m careful about that. My wife has a few heresies of her own, but on the whole she is fairly orthodox. Fortunately, she isn’t big on temple attendance, but I don’t feel that I should reveal all my doubts to her. My caution is not just a fear of repercussions for myself; I don’t want to plant seeds of doubt in others. Some people depend heavily, for example, on their belief in the historical veracity of the BofM, and it would be unkind to undermine that. I wish I had time to write more now, but I have an appointment soon.

Finally some time to write … One example I wanted to offer regarding my reluctance to undermine the beliefs of others was that of an acquaintance in my ward many years ago. We became good friends, and he opened up and shared with me some of his deep, dark secrets. He told me that before he joined the church some years previously, he was leading a dissolute life of drinking, drugs, and womanizing. Then he added that if anyone could prove to him the Joseph Smith was a fraudster and that the Book of Mormon was not true, he would immediately go back to his old lifestyle. In response, I asked him even if JS and the BofM were proven not to be what they claimed, didn’t his testimony also include Jesus Christ, and aren’t New Testament teachings also against that sort of life? He just shrugged his shoulders and had no answer. He moved away long ago and I haven’t been in contact with him, but I just hope for his sake that he continued to believe fervently in all of the LDS stuff, because Jesus’ teachings were obviously not a big enough part of his testimony to sustain his moral balance. And what might have happened if I had shared with him my skepticism? I think that would have been evil of me.

I have shared doubts with a couple of disaffected members among my acquaintances, but I’m careful about that. My wife has a few heresies of her own, but on the whole she is fairly orthodox. Fortunately, she isn’t big on temple attendance, but I don’t feel that I should reveal all my doubts to her.

Does that mean that you pay tithing and have a calling?

For me personally, I accept callings but have not paid tithing or held a TR in about 15 years. Although I have shared general struggles with my former Bishop, I presented it as struggles with the tithing for blessings model and that my faith is a work in progress. I was careful not to appear as anti, or a danger, or wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Do you attend SS and Priesthood and participate in class?

I had contributed in SS class for years and I think that my responses did not follow the party line. Nothing contrarian, I asked if the church of the lamb that Nephi saw in vision could represent multiple Christian denominations (similar to how the church of the devil represents many different things) and I was rebuffed and told that was not possible. As another example, when young Jesus became separated from his caravan on his family trip to Jerusalem, I asked if boy Jesus could have just been thoughtless and inconsiderate in not telling his parents where he was going to be. We believe that Jesus learned line upon line so it doesn’t seem to be unreasonable that boy Jesus could have had some of the distractions, daydreams, and thoughtlessness common to children. That too was rebuffed because JS has said that even as a small child, Jesus would have been capable enough to run the government.

Anyway, that really killed my motivation to attend SS because it seemed that there was not any room to discuss possibilities even within our own LDS framework. It seemed that already settled and established dogma was much more comforting to those assembled – IOW the prophets have already given us all the answers that are expedient for us to have.

Sounds like you generally check all the boxes to avoid extra attention from your ward leadership. You attend church, have a calling, pay tithing, and hold a TR. In my experience, if you are doing these things there is not much need or desire on the part of leadership to delve into your beliefs.

In another thread you mentioned that you are on the older side. The church is changing some of its former stances but the changes generally happen by de-emphasizing or quietly discontinuing past teachings. Thus the former teachings can take a really long time to work their way out of the system.

I also have a calling, one that I hope they let me keep for a long time because I like it, and it doesn’t require me to compromise my beliefs/unbeliefs. Again, we don’t get to pick and choose callings; we just get marching orders. The standard line about callings is that they’re always inspired and that one should never turn them down.

I think that the idea of never saying “no” to a calling is one of these that is being quietly discontinued. I still hear the part about “always inspired.” On the other hand, “inspired” does not necessarily mean revelation from God. There can be many sources of “inspiration” and in most wards it seems to often be desperation and/or a process of elimination. A large percentage of people are saying “no” to certain challenging callings. So many that I don’t think it is tenable to attach a sin-like guilt (as though God is giving you an assignment and you refuse) to the act.

A bishop in a ward I attended decades ago told of a sister who was called to be Primary pianist based on mistaken information that she could indeed play the piano. Well, it turned out that she could not, but that faithful sister, convinced that the calling was inspired, spent several days furiously learning basic piano skills. My bishop held that up as an example of what our responses to callings ought to be.

When I was a boy in the 1980’s, the entire bishopric came over for a visit. Early in the conversation they remarked on what a beautiful piano we had in our living room and asked who played. A few of my older sister’s were taking some lessons but nobody in our household was proficient. The conversation continued with small talk for an additional 20 or 30 minutes and then they excused themselves and left. After the door was closed, I asked why they had come. My mother laughed and said that it must have been to extend her a calling to play piano. Someone must have seen the piano in our home and assumed that my mom did know how to play. I am thankful that this bishopric collectively decided to abort extending my mother that calling. I think that “inspiration” (gained from asking the question of who played the piano prior to extending the calling) saved my mother from an embarrassing situation.

I strongly oppose the story that your old bishop shared. To me, that is like promoting a story of someone that pays 20% tithing because they want double blessings or someone that is never absent from church (even when they are sick) because they are striving for perfect lifetime attendance. Those examples are extreme and, I believe, not doctrinally sound. Can we really buy extra blessings by paying double tithe? Is the person trying for “perfect” attendance trying to earn their way into heaven based on a poor understanding of the atonement. Similarly, I don’t think someone willing to sacrifice their mental health for a calling that they are woefully unprepared to to fulfill is an example that we should highlight or idealize.

For what it’s worth, there was a talk about callings during general conference. I forget who gave it on what day but I don’t remember any language being employed to insinuate that people can’t say no to callings. I would have picked up on that.

The speaker did ask bishops to review the list of people that don’t have callings and find something for them to do, so the calling-less people out there may be getting a call from their bishop soon.

You can still remain calling-less after your discussion with your bishop though. 🙂

Callings can work both ways. I’ve seen some callings turn out to be a disaster for the called, leading to their inactivity, but being without one can be alienating also. Some years ago, my wife and I held a calling together and then were released from it without being called to anything else. We assumed something would be coming down the pipes and just waited. But after six months had passed, I finally wrote an email to a bishopric member with whom I was on friendly terms and asked him what gives. Had a disciplinary court been held on us without our knowledge? Were we still members? We were attending, paying tithing, I assured him that I wasn’t surfing porn or consuming forbidden substances (I was a bit sarcastic in my message). Was it because we had let our TR lapse? One of the reasons not having a calling bothered me was that I knew from a painful earlier experience how gossipy Mormon wards can be, and I imagined everyone speculating about what “problems” we might have since we had no calling. At the same time, I hesitated to lobby for a calling, because you never know what you’ll end up with. So I can empathize with your dilemma, Dark Jedi. I hope things work out to your satisfaction.