- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
For quite a while, I’d say I was a heavily orthodox TBM. I really wouldn’t say humans are that different from one other. The main difference, is our experiences and environment, but at our core I like to think most people hold the same values and desires. I like to think there are many factors which go into one’s affection or disaffection with the Church. There’s the amount, type, and length of investment. There is social and familial influences/pressures. There’s trust, whether in the Q15, GAs, local leaders, scriptures, historical records, or third parties. There are certain policies (both historical and present) which can support or go against some of our core beliefs, dependent on our perspective. And I think for everyone, there comes a tipping point between classical orthodoxy and unorthodoxy (in its many varieties).
But I think we all want to be happy and fulfilled. We want to avoid pain and suffering. Secondary, most of us love our families. Most of us value objective truth. Most of us value justice and fairness. Most of us want to be praised and commended. Most of us want to be loved. But as we branch down in what we value, our differences in views become more and more defined. Socio-political differences are very different for us here at Stay-LDS, than for most orthodox members. LGBT rights, feminism, abortion, gun rights, environmentalism, climate change, nationalism/globalism, capitalism/socialism… in all those issues, those in the “StayLDS” demographic tend to be more “liberal”, while orthodox members tend to be more conservative. But in the end, I think all our aims (of happiness and a just social order) are the same.
Roy wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
I have been AMAZED at the things that motivate my wife sometimes. One in particular I won’t mention, but when she tells the story of what a doctor said that motivated her to do something I never would have expected, I realized how incredibly unique we are.
As I mentioned about my wife’s depressive episode after the stillbirth. She had been blaming herself as I am sure is common for a mother that loses a pregnancy or a child. The RSP came to visit. She said that she feels the spirit telling her that my wife might be blaming herself and that she (the RSP) feels impressed to tell her that DW is not to blame. This was very meaningful and was retold by DW for years afterwards. I had been trying to tell DW that she was not to blame to no effect. In this instance, having a church authority claim reassuring revelation was exactly what was needed. I am very greatful for this RSP. I do not know if she was feeling the spirit or just woman’s intuition that day, but I do know that she became as a light in a very dark tunnel for my wife and me.
The trouble with this is that in some cases the woman’s choices are the cause of child loss… So even if this isn’t the case, it feels as if it is.
My mother lost a baby when she fell into a small hole in the ground. She probably argued with herself whether she should have been out walking that day, or could have avoided that spot or whatever, but what happened, happened and despite this being a result of choices she made that day, she never decided to go out that day and kill her baby.
dande48 wrote:
in all those issues, those in the “StayLDS” demographic tend to be more “liberal”, while orthodox members tend to be more conservative. But in the end, I think all our aims (of happiness and a just social order) are the same.
Stop right there! This liberal/conservative thing in the States seems to be part of your social division. It is a false dichotomy that relies on a kind of bizarre inversion of the political spectrum. Both parties in the USA are in fact neoliberal. The US revolution was liberal. But then you guys go and say socialists are liberal which is not the case at all (in fact I could go on all day about the US misdefinition of socialism as well).
I don’t identify as either liberal or conservative in the American sense.
SamBee wrote:
The trouble with this is that in some cases the woman’s choices are the cause of child loss… So even if this isn’t the case, it feels as if it is.My mother lost a baby when she fell into a small hole in the ground. She probably argued with herself whether she should have been out walking that day, or could have avoided that spot or whatever, but what happened, happened and despite this being a result of choices she made that day, she never decided to go out that day and kill her baby.
I recognize this the fact is that everything that we do or don’t do leads us to the place where we now are. If I get into a car accident on a particular road – would the accident have happened if I took and alternate route? or if I had purchased the expensive new tires with the extra stopping power? Of course, if I was driving while intoxicated I would very much be to blame and should make life corrections to avoid a repeat occurance. However for most situations where someone we love and have responsibility to care for dies, the only way to prevent the tragic loss would be to foretell the future. One of the scariest things about losing one child was the realization that I could not prevent losing another. There are some things I can do to help increase the chances but ultimately nothing I could ever do can guaruntee that my children will survive into adulthood. That’s why the concept of “binding the lord” was so appealing for my TBM self, to control (in a fashion) the uncontrolable of fate and death itself.Old Timer wrote:
After a conversation behind the scenes, I am adding an Admin Note.[Admin Note]: Devil’s Advocate intentionally misquoted the original comment he excerpted to create his post.
He intentionally deleted ONLY one part of one sentence– the sentence that would have shown his conclusion was not close to what was said in the original comment. It obviously was intentional, since he used ellipses in his excerpted version to omit 10 important words.There is no doubt the deletion was deliberate. I am providing the entire quote below, so everyone can see the exact context, not the altered one in the post. I am highlighting the sentence that includes the deleted words. Quote:Satisfied people want change they can understand and that doesn’t shock or anger them. When that sort of change happens, satisfied people are happy. Happy people stay where they are.
It really is as simple as that.
President Nelson is giving satisfied members what they want: non-threatening change at a pace that excites and energizes them.These sort of changes (non-shocking and non-anger-producing for satisfied people) aren’t going to make satisfied people leave the Church. Those who leave the Church will be already dissatisfied people who don’t see the changes as revelatory and are disappointed they aren’t “bigger and better” – and those people were the most likely to leave in the first place.”
The deleted part (the one replaced by ellipses in the post) is:
Quote:non-threatening change at a pace that excites and energizes them. I was not trying to intentionally change the meaning of your comment. I left these few words out simply because they weren’t particularly interesting to me. But if you think it is essential to the meaning of the whole comment in context then I’m glad to have it added back into the discussion for everyone to see. I wasn’t deliberately trying to misrepresent anything you said; this was simply how it sounded to me the first and second time I read it. Like I said before the comment was completely baffling to me. Usually even if I disagree with something I can at least understand why people would think that and where it came from. But in this case it didn’t really make sense from the outset because there were so many counter examples and questions that came to mind that it was hard to try to articulate them all. But overall, to me it seems pretty clear to see that people change their minds all the time for many possible reasons regardless of how happy they are or not compared to others. It just doesn’t look anywhere near that simple at all to try to explain or predict when people will change their minds or not in real life based on happiness alone.
For example, look at evolution. People don’t need to be relatively unhappy to adopt it as a new learned belief; it seems like they typically just hear the general idea, see evidence like pictures of fossils, etc. and it makes sense to them so it isn’t that hard to just accept at face value. I don’t see why it should be that different for other more LDS-specific beliefs as new evidence or questions come into focus. For the recent changes under Nelson some of them actually make sense to me and seem like a step in the right direction for the Church and even for the ones that didn’t make sense to me I can still admit that they won’t necessarily be that hard to accept for many typical TBMs on an individual basis. Where I think it will start to get some members thinking about what it means is simply the sheer number of changes made so quickly because it draws attention to Nelson as the common denominator. Basically it looks like the proverbial new sheriff in town shaking things up which normally would not seem so unusual but given the relative lack of changes under Hinckley and Monson as well as the Church’s heavy emphasis on revelation/prophet claims it stands out more due to the contrast between different LDS prophets.
Quote:Where I think it will start to get some members thinking about what it means is simply the sheer number of changes made so quickly because it draws attention to Nelson as the common denominator.
My mom brought this very thing up.
Her exact words were, “It’s not like we need a course correction like the Catholic Church and it’s predator scandal. So why all the shifting.”
My mom is nearly 80. Change isn’t something most 80 year old’s do well. She is worried about her 80 year old friends and the loss of the world they have known the past 30+ years.
Nelson has been unleashed. :angel: mom3 wrote:
My mom is nearly 80. Change isn’t something most 80 year old’s do well. She is worried about her 80 year old friends and the loss of the world they have known the past 30+ years.
This is exactly why the changes exite me. We have become so complacent, so sedentary, and status quo as to assume that the church already has all the answers. This has carried on for so long that sometimes individuals feel that revelation is needed to change things that began as simple church policies (hint, hint, Priesthood and Temple restriction).
The church needs to change in order to stay relevant and I do not think one or two major changes every 50-80 years or so will be enough.
That is precisely why I believe that these changes are exciting. They get people used to seeing changes incrimentally that they do not necessarily disagree with so that they will be less shocked if a larger change happens.
In church history discussions we talk about “innoculation”. The current changes could be a form of innoculation to prepare the current membership for the types of moves the church will need to make in the future.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.