Are you cynical…whose fault is it?

[Anonymous]

Read this article in the Deseret News by Daniel Peterson. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765612287/Too-many-credible-gospel-witnesses-to-believe-they-all-lied.html” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765612287/Too-many-credible-gospel-witnesses-to-believe-they-all-lied.html

Even worse…I was foolish enough to read the comments.

This is the perfect example of why I am so cynical and skeptical of the church. I don’t want to debate Peterson, or trash talk the guy here at stayLDS. But surely, faithful members, leaders and family members have to understand why so many of us are like this? My god, reading stuff like this article and the comments…is it any wonder that NOMs like myself, and so many of you, are so cynical and skeptical? Should TBMs be surprised at all…I mean, can’t the church acknowledge and accept any of the blame or credit for making me this way?

This conference…once again…it’s always the doubters fault. It’s always the one who falls away fault. And once again this conference, I got told I was never converted to begin with, and that I just need to toughen up and live the gospel and quit wanting to sin.

-sigh-

Question: Is the church to blame for it’s members cynicism? And if so, does it need to acknowledge and accept any of the blame or credit for making me cynical and skeptical?

[Anonymous]

So a demonstrator had a sign saying Joseph Smith had lied. I would interpret that to mean the demonstrator believed that JS told BIG lies regarding important issues and the whole church must be false. When Daniel Peterson writes “Now, I don’t buy this for a second,” I don’t think he is saying that JS was 100% honest his whole life. No one goes through life without telling some yarns. Chad, what’s the big deal about this article?

Quote:

And once again this conference, I got told I was never converted to begin with, and that I just need to toughen up and live the gospel and quit wanting to sin.

Who said that in conference?

[Anonymous]

Different question, to stay in line with our mission:

What can we do as members to avoid or lessen cynicism, regardless of whose fault that cynicism might be in our individual situations and regardless of whether or not the party at fault publicly accepts any blame for it?

Seriously, simple “yes” or “no” answers to the original questions won’t go anywhere – as important as the topic itself is. Let’s focus on what we can control – and, frankly, part of what we can control, imo, is how we deal with cynicism and contribute to its spread or diminishing in others.

Absolutely, there is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to cynicism – but not everyone experiences the Church in the same way. That means, in some cases, it really is the individual’s “fault” for being way over-sensitive and creating conflicts where none need exist, while, in other cases, there is almost no way to avoid deep and soul-eating cynicism. Most of us live somewhere in the middle of those extremes, however, and have to live our own lives constructively no matter how others act. We have to work on our own cynicism regardless of our situations – and that means acting in very different ways from each other, in many cases.

So:

What have you done to reduce or eliminate cynicism despite your own struggles with the Church, whatever they might be?

[Anonymous]

Ray…excellent post. And I mean that.

Nephite…are you me?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I do not wish to debate the merit of Daniel’s article at staylds. Nothing good will come from that.

If you want to do so, there is at least one thread at MDB…and I suspect there will be multiple threads on NOM by tomorrow?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Question: Is the church to blame for it’s members cynicism? And if so, does it need to acknowledge and accept any of the blame or credit for making me cynical and skeptical?

Is the church the one who has done things worthy of blame?

Yes, of course, but it’s a little difficult to specify exactly who (which members of the church) are to blame and exactly for what.

That’s one of the draw backs of herd-mentality – no single person can be identified as the scapegoat, usually… and often as in the long history of the church, countless people have made mistakes in many different ways – & much of it is based on tradition.

There is strength in numbers though! Did you ever sing along with +21,000 in the conference center? I thought the Mormon Tab Choir was impressive!

In order to keep “members” of the church united, the church leadership traditionally has established a metaphorical barbed wire fence in the form of ostracizing anybody who crosses the line of accepted, unified beliefs (ie: that the GA are infallible and to not be questioned & never blamed).

I do think that the church leadership needs to realize that many members are starting to realize cognitive dissonance in what they teach and what they do. Otherwise, eventually, as scriptures say, “all things (including the church) will fail except charity” – unless they come to grips with true charity, which is based on light, truth & integrity.

[Anonymous]

There is a karmic reality, or perhaps newtonian physics, that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Some might say what goes around comes around.

I have listened to DCP several times — he’s actually kind of entertaining. The reality is that he is completely in his own middle-way, selecting from the various aspects of LDS belief in order to cobble together his own version of mormon reality. He knows, as much as anyone, the flaws and deceptions that have taken place, but chooses to defend mormonism by whatever means necessary. So on one side, someone puts up a sign, a value judgment, that “Joseph Smith lied”, and DCP chooses to use a completely bogus defense saying that too many people were involved — it couldn’t have been a lie. His argument is disingenous, almost to the point of cynicism, because he knows much better than to pose such an argument — he is neither stupid nor deluded; but his moral compass (my value judgment) allows him to dissemble because such deception is justified in defense of the Church.

So, yes, when DCP swings the cynicism pendulum to the right, the natural reaction is cynicism to the left. Or is it?

I recently learned of the death of someone I home taught years ago — at 54, a tragic end of a tragic life. HIs name was Charlie. His wife sang in my choir, and they had the perfect family 25 years ago, except that he was involved in one fraud scheme after another. He was a vivacious, fun guy, but he also was a schemer, high-end drug dealer, and tragically flawed when it came to any sense of honesty. And this was 25 years ago. His family moved to Utah — the “Geographic Cure” to his problems, and eventually split up, because he never could keep out of trouble. After his wife left, she remarried, and fortunately is doing very well. He, on the other hand, conducted one fraud scheme after another, eventually serving hard time for his schemes, and over a period of the last 10 years, was arrested 9 times for various offenses. His last, in december of last year, was for shoplifting. To look at his mugshots over time, you see a person going into oblivion. Totally tragic.

Why do I bring this up? Because, shockingly, his guest book on his funeral website is full of the kindest loving comments — he was loved, and he was lovable — this I knew. In spite of all his chronic lying, he actually did love and was loved. Does it excuse his pattern? No, but it also shows that completely discarding an individual because they’re not on the right path doesn’t work either. Charlie’s consequences are of his own making — he doesn’t need my condemnation.

To me, Joseph Smith is a bit like Charlie. Maybe more than a bit. From a lot of evidence, Joseph was a complex person with a creative disposition regarding the truth. HIs view of the world allowed for magic and deception to be ‘right’ in many ways, and as a result, the line between reality and his own self-deception was blurry. Yes, one could say, definitively, that “Joseph Lied”. Or, one could say that “Joseph Told the Truth”. He did both. Either statement is simultaneously true and false, and as a summary judgment of everything the person is, is inadequate to express the real Joseph. Joseph loved and was loved…maybe too much! Joseph had vision, amazing vision, amazingly unreal vision, and yet he was able to recognize that he didn’t know and neither did we. When I read his statements in the last year of his life — this is a many that knows, but doesn’t know, and knows that he doesn’t know in ways so complex that others have a hard time with him. He said, accurately, “no man knows my history”, and even if they did they wouldn’t believe it, because he didn’t believe it either. He said he was a “rough stone rolling” and a HUGE sinner, unworthy of the praise he so often received.

So Ray asks, what do we do to not be cynical? The answer is to seek the truth, and by knowing both sides of the story, realize that extreme positions simply don’t work. It should be no surprise to Ray and others that I would say the answer is the Middle Way, especially the one of Confucius that seeks balance in the emotions: get off the swinging pendulum and quiet the rages of the emotions so that we can objectively THINK about all this. Once I do, the harsh, rejecting and nullifying statements by Oaks, Cook, or DCP, or even those who are trying to say the opposite in return, simply are background noise — the swinging of a pendulum upon which I have no need to ride. It doesn’t matter, once I really think about it. they’re merely opinions.

I don’t think the position of being in the MIddle is easy. I see that some of our company here, doug, SD, cwald off-and-on, decide its time to leave this position in the middle. Maybe it’s too darned hard, I don’t know. It is lonely, very lonely, when people abandon this quest of staying in the middle. I think it’s worth it — it is my authentic path, but to see that others cannot stay here makes me sad.

[Anonymous]

What wayfarer said.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Nephite…are you me?

Brother Chad, I am totally serious. Daniel Peterson’s article does not affect me. When you saw the headline, you knew the article would tick you off, but you read it anyway. Am I right? He’s just a guy writing about people who had a witness of the Restoration. It doesn’t matter if 120 people testified that they witnessed Brigham Young’s transfiguration or not. That article is as relevant to you as you make it. I read a thread about it on MDB and I was disgusted. YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT. If I spent a lot of time on MDB and/or NOM, I’d become a whiny little wench. If I were to hang out with a group that continuously trashes on Mother Teresa, I would learn to hate her. What a load of rubbish those sites are.

I am assuming you were referring to Elder Cook’s talk “Can Ye Feel So Now?” He said local leaders “seek counsel about how to help members to follow the Savior and achieve a deep and lasting conversion.” Did you take that to mean that some were not converted to begin with? I think people can can achieve a deep conversion for the first time, and again after being disenchanted. Let’s look at some more:

Quote:

Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment…

There are many who lack commitment now – perhaps after having a faith crisis. He did not say that anyone entered into a spiritual because of a lack of commitment. If you think he said people like you were never converted or committed, then you are being overly-sensitive or just plain misinterpreting it.

Quote:

…have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions,…

There he acknowledged that you have not necessarily committed major sins. He understands that people may become disaffected while keeping the commandments.

Quote:

…but they have made unwise choices.

Can you really say you have not made any unwise choices? Was is wise to start drinking beer? Was it smart to get involved with MDB and NOM? What other faith-demoting sites have you visited? Take some freakin ownership, man!

Quote:

Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants.

I’ve read all sorts of examples of this around here. I am casual in many ways. Many, but not all, of us are.

Quote:

Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes.

NOM, MDB, podcasts, golf, football, and many other things could apply here.

There’s more in the article, but I don’t have all day. Let’s skip to this:

Quote:

When our commitment is diminished for any reason, part of the solution is repentance. Commitment and repentance are closely intertwined.

Is this offensive to anyone? If so, have you forgotten that one of the first principles of the Gospel is repentance? We told a hundred times in the scriptures to repent. Everyone has something to repent for. It’s a blessing to be called to repentance! How could it hurt?

Elder Cook did not say you were never converted to begin with I(maybe someone else did, but I haven’t found it), but he did say that part of the solution is repentance. Isn’t repentance at least part of the solution to many, many problems of all sorts?

Brother Chad, quit feeding yourself crap. I don’t care how this might be moderated. I love you and I felt the need to say it.

[Anonymous]

Feel better Shawn?

I actually like your post…at least you have the guts to speak up and say what you truly believe…call it the way you see it…even if it is a stage 3 “loyalty” to the church dagger.

I hope you don’t get moderated….just say what you believe and if others don’t like it, well the hell with em.

As an apostate NOM…seeker of the middle way, I don’t have that luxury much.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Oh yeah…it also helps make my point about why I am so cynical.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

“What other faith demoting sites have you visited?”

MADB (Mormon apolegetics and discussion board)

Lds.net

FAIR

Meridian

Lds.org

Staylds

Mormon stories

Mormon Expression

Mormonthink

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

While I don’t regret what I wrote, I don’t feel better because I can tell it didn’t affect you.

[Anonymous]

There is nothing in Shawn’s comment that would need moderating.

I also agree that repentance is a necessary part of continual conversion – and I’m positive cwald feels the same way. The issue is in the details – how each person defines repentance and what needs repenting – what each person defines as command vs. general counsel – what each person believes can be done according to the dictates of their own conscience – etc.

I have no problem with the concept of “calling someone to repentance” – and I don’t have a problem in some cases specifying the actions I believe need to be changed, but, generally speaking, I have no right to call someone else to repentance with regard to specifics. I just don’t know enough of their circumstances, perspective, ability, etc. to make that call for someone else. I’m not sure I know enough of myself to make that call perfectly for myself.

Bishops have that responsibility for individuals as part of their calling; apostles, interestingly, do not. Their calling is to the world, as a whole, and the Church membership, as a whole. Thus, when they “call to repent” they necessarily must speak in general terms. Again, I’m fine with that – but mistaking their admonitions as applicable directly to every individual causes all kinds of problems. I give everything they say extra weight and try not to dismiss it out-of-hand ever – but I also believe that, ultimately, I have to live in accordance with the dictates of my own conscience – even if that means I have to disagree with an apostle or even President on occasion.

That is true in practical terms of our apostles (not agreeing with each other on lots of things) from the earliest days of the Restoration, and I believe it true for all members, as well.

[Anonymous]

Never mind.

Not really appropriate for the mission of this site. 🙂

[Author]

Posts