- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
wordsleuth23 wrote:
Stem cells are used from 3 day old embryos–that would be thrown away otherwise–that have 150 cells at this point. A fly has 100,000 cells. It is not the same thing as an abortion. Yet because people with influence and authority have some irrational beliefs, we have sadly postponed a great chance to reduce human suffering.
I almost think it has more to do with “what will this lead to next” rather than if the 150 cells is really a big deal or not as it is. It just seems to be tinkering with things that could become scary to some people, and they don’t like it.I’m not suggesting that is a good way to make decisions that impact suffering…it just seems to be a factor.
wordsleuth23 wrote:Without delving into Suroweicki’s analysis, some things are obviously dumb. I’m not so concerned with what everyone else is doing and thinking, to a point. When people believe stem cell research is equal to killing babies, I have a problem. We’ve delayed massive funding in this area for nearly a decade. Stem cells are used from 3 day old embryos–that would be thrown away otherwise–that have 150 cells at this point. A fly has 100,000 cells. It is not the same thing as an abortion. Yet because people with influence and authority have some irrational beliefs, we have sadly postponed a great chance to reduce human suffering. This is an example of beliefs mattering. They can be extremely harmful. Another one is the treatment of gays. So many people hate gay people. Why? Because they believe gays are vile sinners. I’m not implying that the Mormon church hates gays, but they are full of it when they say the care about them. They fought prop 8 as hard as they’ve fought for anything, all the while, they kept saying they are for gay rights. Not long after prop 8, the Utah State Legislature brought up the idea of Civil Unions–a fair compromise to some. The Church was mum while the Bill died. The Church is the most powerful player in the State, and if they truly cared, they could have done something. No offense, but there arguments are hollow and bigoted. These kinds of beliefs matter. They hurt people unnessecarrily.
I understand what you’re saying and I am in 100% agreement (I think I keep saying that). I still say you’re preaching to the choir. I am in your camp, on your side, and agree that we would do well to have more rationality. I am in agreement with you on stem cell research, and on the gay issue. What I don’t understand is what you propose to do about it? I would like to hear from you what ideas you have to combat this? You came to staylds.com for a reason (to stay LDS I presume), and you have said that many here are simply loosening the terms. What do you want to get out of this discussion?My solution is to do the best I can with what voice I have. My solution is to do my part to make the crowd wise. My solution is to do the best I can to draw my own independent conclusions after doing the best research I can, and then share with people what I think in a respectful way. Sometimes that means loosening my meanings of words like “true” in order to help people understand my point without dropping an atomic bomb on their worldview.
jmb275 wrote:….What I don’t understand is what you propose to do about it? I would like to hear from you what ideas you have to combat this? You came to staylds.com for a reason (to stay LDS I presume), and you have said that many here are simply loosening the terms. What do you want to get out of this discussion?
My solution is to do the best I can with what voice I have. My solution is to do my part to make the crowd wise. My solution is to do the best I can to draw my own independent conclusions after doing the best research I can, and then share with people what I think in a respectful way. Sometimes that means loosening my meanings of words like “true” in order to help people understand my point without dropping an atomic bomb on their worldview.
Maybe I’m attempting to do my part, possibly to make this crowd more wise–not that I’m all that wise. To me, the key word you use is respect. What do you mean by respect? You’ve said you work in a nuclear physics lab. Do you “respect” colleagues if they start basing their research off of bad reasoning? The scientific method is brutally honest–peer reviewed papers humble the best scientists. I’m saying that less respect, and more directness/honesty, is needed when it comes to religion in the public realm. If people want to use religion to defend half-baked ideas about ID, stem cell research, gay marriage, or any other “hot button” issue, then their reasoning should be challenged. If I say the holocaust didn’t happen, and I’m attempting to get that taught in history classes, I should have very good evidence, and if I don’t it will get torn to shreds by the history community (as it should). It’s this culture of respect that we grant religion that is part of my problem. People shouldn’t be given a pass in this one area if they want to enforce their beliefs on others. No one forces me to go to Church and listen to “cleansed” church history, but I can’t choose whether the government funds stem cell research. I can’t choose whether the Church funds a massive campaign to take away gay rights. That’s what bothers me. I also wish the kind of frank discussion found on this website could be found at church. Ray has mentioned that he has built up “capital” so he can get away with saying some controversial things. Why should I need “capital”? Should I cork it and listen to the crowd for 10 years, with an occasional stray comment, just to keep things peaceful? If religion was accorded a bit less respect, I think everyone would benefit. Instead of seeing people fight the government over stem cells and gay marriage, they would choose to make a difference in those areas by not contributing. They would know that if they tried to take their stances public, they would have to have good/rational reasons. Instead, they might not try invitro, or they might not donate their leftover embryos. They might not be gay themselves, but they won’t worry about their gay neighbor. The only way for this kind of change to take place is for people to speak more bluntly about religion publicly. Read some of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Danniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. While they may be overly blunt, they are trying to prove a point. They are trying to get religion in the public realm to be treated like everything else. In my own way, I’m trying to do the same thing. I’m not a world renowned scientist or philosopher so I’m not going to write a book about it, but maybe questioning things in Church or on this site helps…I don’t know. It’s also a good place for me to let it out and get reasonable responses. I can’t say much at Church without being verbally stoned. I try and hold my tongue, and for the most part I do because I don’t enjoy tension and I know even well spoken comments can create that in an extremely conservative gospel doctrine class. Everyone on this site is trying to “staylds” by coming here and venting/philosphizing about their religion. Why can’t this be done in Church? Why don’t we have some real discussions for once? Primarily because of the culture of respect we’ve granted religion. I’m not trying to “staylds”, I’m trying vent/cope since I still go to Church w/my family, and hopefully someday, I’ll be able to speak more openly in Church. I don’t hope to see religion abolished, but I do hope to see it treated less respectfully and more honestly in the public realm.
Valoel said, 3. Reinterpret and find a new personal meaning. This option sort of says the above statement about God is true and not true at the same time. You decide it is a metaphor pointing to a transcendent idea, one that can’t be so plainly explained by humans except through the symbolic language of religion. What is so interesting about this topic and every one’s response is it reminds how hard “truth” is to come by. It simply is a personal matter, and yet we were put on this planet to experience this very thing, diveristy of thought. We search for meaning, understanding, truth, trying to come up with answers to a ga-zillion questions. I have satisfied myself on many questions, yet know as soon as I share my “little” insight with someone, they will show they have a different take on the same question and answer. God knew this, we agreed to it, it’s exasperating, and it will not change untill the thousand years of peace arrives, hope I make it.
wordsleuth23 wrote:Maybe I’m attempting to do my part, possibly to make this crowd more wise–not that I’m all that wise.
I think one of the base assumptions of this community is that those who are here are “wise” to the issues. If you have wisdom to share regarding how I can share, serve, and love more effectively in the church, I am all all all ears. I want to do better. But the cold, hard fact is that if I violate the rules of the clan regarding dialogue and discourse, they will marginalize and demonize me. If I can’t see that, I am going to be out on my ear very soon. No amount of wishing or arguing the rules to be different is going to buy me air-time in the church. Only playing by the rules will do it. And it turns out, surprise of surprises, that my own spiritual growth needs that same exercise.
Our peers (bless their hearts) who used the scorched earth approach have become our sad examples.
Tom Haws wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:Maybe I’m attempting to do my part, possibly to make this crowd more wise–not that I’m all that wise.
I think one of the base assumptions of this community is that those who are here are “wise” to the issues. If you have wisdom to share regarding how I can share, serve, and love more effectively in the church, I am all all all ears. I want to do better. But the cold, hard fact is that if I violate the rules of the clan regarding dialogue and discourse, they will marginalize and demonize me. If I can’t see that, I am going to be out on my ear very soon. No amount of wishing or arguing the rules to be different is going to buy me air-time in the church. Only playing by the rules will do it. And it turns out, surprise of surprises, that my own spiritual growth needs that same exercise.
Our peers (bless their hearts) who used the scorched earth approach have become our sad examples.
Tom, you validate my point. Because of the close-minded clan, you get marginalized and demonized for speaking out. If religion, in general, was accorded less respect–and expected less respect–this might not be the case. Whether it’s on this website or with a friend, I’m trying one by one. No, I’m not bold enough to be outspoken at church, but I’m going to find areas where I can try. And I disagree with your thought about our peers. I don’t think they’ve become sad examples, I think they’ve moved on and given up because of the Church’s response to people that dare speak out. That says more sad things about the Church than it does them.
[Commenter hat] wordsleuth, I am going to say this directly but gently:
All organizations MUST have rules and common standards. It is unavoidable and in no way is exclusive to religion. Communal respect is vital to survival. Period.
[Moderator / Admin Hat]
Our stated purpose is to find ways to grow spiritually and in all other ways – to find happiness and joy – INSIDE the LDS Church. That ‘s the purpose of this site. We want to stay LDS, and we want to do so in a joyful manner. Some of us have found our own way to do that; others still are trying to figure it out for themselves. Lowering “respect” for the LDS Church is not part of that mission, at all. Lowering expectations to be more realistic absolutely is. There is an important difference, and understanding the difference is a big part of reconciliation and peace.
I am going to bold this, even as I try to say it gently:
We don’t need ANYONE to come here and make us “wise”. Been there; done that; have no interest in it.I guarantee you there is NOTHING you have read or studied or considered that I have not. I’ve seen it ALL – and I’ve considered it ALL – and I’ve reconciled it ALL – and I remain actively LDS. I even hold highly visible callings of leadership. I am at peace with it ALL.
I respect your perspective, but if you are going to remain a productive part of this community, you also need to accept the rules of this community. They are simple – and the most basic one is to respect our desire to stay LDS and find a way to be HAPPY in doing so. We discuss our concerns openly and freely – but always in the context of finding peace and reconciliation and joy. That’s who we are. Please understand that.
Ray may have indulged in a bit of hyperbole, but his basic point is sound. Our community envisions positive permanence within the LDS community. Likewise, I probably waxed overly poetic in saying, “they are our sad examples”. You are absolutely right that if they have left, that is okay. I am wrong to fall into the trap of feeling superior to them. I hope you can forgive me.
There is (in my humble opinion) nothing about the LDS Church that makes it particularly important to stay or particularly sad to leave. We just happen to have felt that for us, it’s meaningful to try to stay.
Tom Haws wrote:Ray may have indulged in a bit of hyperbole, but his basic point is sound. Our community envisions positive permanence within the LDS community.
Likewise, I probably waxed overly poetic in saying, “they are our sad examples”. You are absolutely right that if they have left, that is okay. I am wrong to fall into the trap of feeling superior to them. I hope you can forgive me.
There is (in my humble opinion) nothing about the LDS Church that makes it particularly important to stay or particularly sad to leave. We just happen to have felt that for us, it’s meaningful to try to stay.
Tom, thanks for the validation; good point.
Old-Timer wrote:I guarantee you there is NOTHING you have read or studied or considered that I have not. I’ve seen it ALL – and I’ve considered it ALL – and I’ve reconciled it ALL – and I remain actively LDS. I even hold highly visible callings of leadership. I am at peace with it ALL.
Ray, I think misunderstood my “wise” comment, it was in response to jm275’s point about the wisdom of the crowd. An no offense Ray, but if you honestly think you’ve thought of EVERYTHING, I–or anyone else on this site–has thought of, you are wrong. We all have angles that are unique–isn’t that what this site is about? Different Perspectives? Being more open-minded? Are you really here simply to share wisdom, and to gain no insight?
wordsleuth23 wrote:What do you mean by respect?…I’m saying that less respect, and more directness/honesty, is needed when it comes to religion in the public realm.
You bring up a very good point wordsleuth. When I talk about respect, I’m talking about respect for individuals. I actually really don’t respect religions much at all. I find the methods they often use for determining truth to be sub-par in relationship to the method used in scientific inquiry. But I do respect the people who choose to affiliate themselves with a particular religion. And I respect the ideas they come up if they have practical application for me, even if in terms of reality, they are nonsense.I’m not going to say anything about stem-cell research, gay marriage, ID, history, or the other issues you raise because I feel I’ve made it clear that I agree with your complaints, and I think we largely have the same view of things. I’m largely libertarian, don’t care much for organizations, love science (even with all its baggage), skeptical, and Mormon!
wordsleuth23 wrote:If people want to use religion to defend half-baked ideas about ID, stem cell research, gay marriage, or any other “hot button” issue, then their reasoning should be challenged.
I see what you’re saying. But realize that you’re talking about the public arena here. If this were a site discussing politics and religion, I would be saying the same things. I am in full agreement with separation of church and state. I don’t think ID should be taught in science class, and I was not for or against Prop 8 (libertarian remember) although I was against the church’s involvement. But alas, this isn’t about politics and religion, it’s about you. It’s about you, and me, and others who find dissatisfaction, or have complaints, or have been offended, or are atheist, or agnostic, or anything else, but still want to remain LDS for something other than simply cultural reasons.wordsleuth23 wrote:The only way for this kind of change to take place is for people to speak more bluntly about religion publicly.
I politely disagree. This is one way to do it. Are there others? Would this be the way Christ would do it (whether you believe in the literal one, or the metaphorical one)? Why don’t we ask ourselves how He would do this? Well, it turns out that this is exactly what the New Testament is. It is a single heretic who comes to completely turn his community upside down by challenging conventional wisdom. But note the method, that’s the key. Love, patience, charity, those are the things that promote change in human beings. Admittedly some will be persuaded by rational arguments, but not many if they are conveyed without love. More of them will reject your arguments altogether. Since 50% of people are SJ personality types, they cling to tradition, rules, and loyal to their heritage. No rational argument will have a chance without some serious love and patience. We’re talking about changing people here, because that’s how organizations change.wordsleuth23 wrote:Read some of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Danniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. While they may be overly blunt, they are trying to prove a point. They are trying to get religion in the public realm to be treated like everything else.
I understand the point they are trying to make. But you know what? No one not already on his side likes Dawkins. He is the enemy of almost all religions. How much success do you really think he’s having in his approach? He’s simply adding to the polarization. I don’t like him and I understand and sympathize with his points. He’s arrogant, rude, and condescending. I haven’t read the others, so I can’t speak about them.wordsleuth23 wrote:I can’t say much at Church without being verbally stoned. I try and hold my tongue, and for the most part I do because I don’t enjoy tension and I know even well spoken comments can create that in an extremely conservative gospel doctrine class. Everyone on this site is trying to “staylds” by coming here and venting/philosphizing about their religion. Why can’t this be done in Church? Why don’t we have some real discussions for once? Primarily because of the culture of respect we’ve granted religion.
Yes, I feel this too. I am still learning how to gently make small incremental rational arguments that aren’t atomic bombs on people’s worldview. I haven’t perfected that art yet, so I remain quiet most of the time in church. But when I’m one on one with someone, I make my views known in a respectful manner. I want people to know that someone can have these views and still remain in the church. You asked why it can’t be done in the church. I’m sure the answer is obvious. It’s culture, it’s exactly what you’ve said. But the important point is that it doesn’t matter why, or whether or not it’s a valid reason. What matters is people.wordsleuth23 wrote:I’m not trying to “staylds”, I’m trying vent/cope since I still go to Church w/my family, and hopefully someday, I’ll be able to speak more openly in Church. I don’t hope to see religion abolished, but I do hope to see it treated less respectfully and more honestly in the public realm.
Well, I’m not sure what to say here. If your only intent is to stay for cultural reasons the newordermormon.org site has this express purpose. I actually didn’t even try them out because I had heard they were so negative. I don’t need people to feed my negativity, I’m already good enough at that on my own. I don’t need people to validate my ideas and claims because that doesn’t help me learn and grow. I chose to come here (probably as one of the most unbelieving of the bunch) because here they give me new ways to think about things. They challenge my ideas, and lengthen my understanding. Nobody ever grew personally by associating with a bunch of people they already agree with. We learn and grow by being challenged. The LDS church is a great place for me to be challenged in this way since I already have almost completely opposite views of most people. I’m okay with treating religion less respectfully if it doesn’t merit my respect because it is inferior, but not okay with treating people less respectfully. But even having said that, I think religion has a place in life, I just don’t think the place is what it has become. It’s as I’ve said before, the purpose of religion is to help me spiritually. Not to dictate my political views in real life. Unfortunately, in our society the lines have been blurred.We keep having these discussions and are detracting from the threads a bit. If you’d like to talk offline about this a little more, feel free to send me a private message. I like discussing it with you, but want to stick to the point of the thread.
Quote:Tom Haws said….Sure, any church would do. But I’m LDS.
Any church would not do.
Most mormons with some knowledge of what we believe, if they had to attend church in some bible belt area, say for six months, would on the spiritual level, starve to death.
Milk and water is OK for those who have nothing more than milk and water. But thank God for the restoration. For those who think they might not have a testimony. Attend church at some bible belt chapel, I would just about bet you would want to get out of kindergarten fairly quick, and get back to the greater light and knowledge.
jeriboy wrote:Tom Haws said….Sure, any church would do. But I’m LDS.
Any church would not do.
Most mormons with some knowledge of what we believe, if they had to attend church in some bible belt area, say for six months, would on the spiritual level, starve to death.
Milk and water is OK for those who have nothing more than milk and water. But thank God for the restoration. For those who think they might not have a testimony. Attend church at some bible belt chapel, I would just about bet you would want to get out of kindergarten fairly quick, and get back to the greater light and knowledge.
jeriboy,I disagree, although I admit I find fulfillment in the LDS Church, personally. I attend other church’s services from time to time. I can ‘feel’ their spirit, and only a handful of times was it less than what a Christian would hope for. Usually, I feel the Spirit of God present there. With that, nothing is lacking, even if ‘meat’ is not apparent.
This happened when I took my 15 year-old (a couple of years ago) daughter to the local Methodist worship service. We loved it. We recited the Lord’s Prayer with them, and sang with them. I even managed a passable tenor on the memorized hymn (no books! Yikes!).
As we left to go to our own Church meetings, we discussed feeling the Spirit present. She was amazed that I knew so much from their liturgy. I was a proud dad— proud of her, proud of myself. What a teaching moment!
Earlier this year I was in the Roman Catholic cathedral for a few days. The last time I had attended (back in the 80’s) it did not feel good at all to my spirit. This time, it was wonderful. I really enjoyed the beautiful edifice to God’s glory. It was very special.
HiJolly
I have to second what Hi Jolly said. I made an analogy elsewhere that going to church is like brown-bagging it. You eat what you bring with you. If you bring milk, you eat milk. If you bring meat, you eat meat. Just because they only serve milk, doesn’t mean that you can’t discern more through the spirit. I believe very strongly that all churches provide enlightenment, and sometimes the contrast is the most illuminating. At Christmas time, I attended an Anglican Evensong service at Westminster Abbey, and it was very uplifting because it was such a contrast, so my senses were heightened and I was more aware of what was taking place. Had this type of service been my weekly staple, I do not doubt that I would have found it tedious, obscure, repetitive, and pageantry without practicality. But as a special occasion, it really added to the spirit of the season, and I will not forget that experience, surrounded by the graves of the great men and women of England. The church isn’t synonymous with the gospel. Sometimes it hits, and sometimes it misses. That’s life. Tom Haws wrote…..I am a spark of God. In me, God is a man. To God I will return. Thus the Father will be again glorified. As I now am, God now is. As God now is, I now am. Division is illusion, and all is one. I prefer the simple ” As man now is God once was, as God now is man may become.” Why complicate things, simplify, simplify, simplify.
HiJolly wrote:Earlier this year I was in the Roman Catholic cathedral for a few days. The last time I had attended (back in the 80’s) it did not feel good at all to my spirit. This time, it was wonderful. I really enjoyed the beautiful edifice to God’s glory. It was very special.
Thanks for sharing. I love your Methodist story. But about that Catholic story, I’m afraid you are mistaken, HiJolly. That wasn’t your experience. That was mine. You aren’t allowed to tell my stories as though they happened to you.
😆 Anyway, I thought I might go in and do confession. The priest said he couldn’t hear my confession because I wasn’t a catholic. Bummer.jeriboy. There is something to be said for the beauty and compactness of the LDS couplet. I love it!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.