- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I had an interesting conversation with my brother the other day. He hasn’t always been active and is currently semi-active but still has his core Mormon beliefs. He said it is only when we can truly accept the possibility that the church is not true that we can really be open minded. There are so many who claim to be open-minded but when you present them with the possibility of the church not being “the only true church” that is where they draw the line. It was interesting to me that he has developed this concept as a believing Mormon. His addition to the statement was for someone to be able to say: “yes the church may not be true but I decide to believe it anyways”. When I first came to the realization that the Church wasn’t all I thought it was (and had more to it then was taught) the real possibility of it literally being “true” was challenged. DH and I had talked many times before about what we would do if we found that the church was not true but I never really thought it was even a possibility (our answer would always be one of saying that we still want to be members because of the good in it BTW). My “feelings” told me it wasn’t a possibility but now my “mind” tells me otherwise. When this happened I felt like a veil had been taken from me and my eyes had finally been opened. I was finally free to really be open minded. I have found myself to be less judgemental, more accepting, and best of all I feel good about myself instead of always critical. I was just wondering what others thought about this.
My only comment right now would be that I agree with the general concept, but I would add that those who have reached the conclusion that the Church ISN’T the “only true and living church” face the same challenge – to allow for the possibility that they are wrong and, in some way, the Church IS the “only true and living church” (at the very least, for some people, and at the very most, universally). For example, one of our points here is that we can’t feel superior to those who don’t question, especially if that approach works for them – if it gives them value and meaning and self-worth and empowerment that ambiguity would steal from them. Someone can’t be truly open-minded if they only consider the side of the coin on which their minds are etched, regardless of which side that is. However, “being
totallyopen-minded” isn’t good, healthy or right for some people. Some people truly need security FAR more than they need to explore. Well, I think it stretches the limits of reason to think that some particular party has the golden key. I guess what I’m saying is it’s probably reasonable to have some level of certainty that we all stand to gain something from each other. Where I would agree with Ray is that it’s probably unwise to imagine we have nothing to learn from traditional believers. In other words, the above paragraph applies all around the table.
I have concluded that to find truth you must be able to admit you are wrong. Otherwise you will forever be trying to fit all your experience in life into a narrow and ridged world view. When I was totaly TBM everything had to fit into the reality the doctrine of the church created for me. Until I was able to break free of the fact the church did not hold all truth I was going nowhere. In reality the view of the church is very narrow in relation to what is actually going on in the world. It seems large when you are inside and believing everything. You can not imagine there is more. But once you can make that leap the wonders of the universe grow exponentially. So yes… I do not believe the church is true. The evidence I can put together tells me that, but I also believe I do not really know and it could be totally or partially true. I am waiting for further understanding. I hope that is an open mind
Cadence, I agree with almost everything in your last comment, but I want to use one sentence to illustrate what I am trying to say about being open-minded. I hope you don’t mind: Quote:In reality the view of the church is very narrow in relation to what is actually going on in the world.
This is a very black-and-white statement, and it doesn’t represent how I would describe my own perspective on “the view of the church” and “what is actually going on in the world”. I agree totally that it fits many members and leaders, but I disagree strongly that it fits “the church”. I see the big picture of what can be found and actually is taught in “the church” as some of the most consciousness-expanding, mind-blowing theology that exists in the world.
Becoming like God? All ever born as children of God and equally able to gain godhood? Grace (Atonement) that covers all? etc., etc., etc.
Sure, there also are cultural and currently “commonly doctrinal” aspects that are narrow, but, overall, to me “the view” isn’t narrow at all – especially when compared with what is actually going on in almost every other segment of the world.
You don’t have to agree with me to be open-minded – but I think we do have to be very careful of how we over-generalize and stereotype and speak in absolutes in order to be truly open-minded (and charitable).
Old-Timer wrote:Cadence, I agree with almost everything in your last comment, but I want to use one sentence to illustrate what I am trying to say about being open-minded. I hope you don’t mind:
Quote:In reality the view of the church is very narrow in relation to what is actually going on in the world.
This is a very black-and-white statement, and it doesn’t represent how I would describe my own perspective on “the view of the church” and “what is actually going on in the world”. I agree totally that it fits many members and leaders, but I disagree strongly that it fits “the church”. I see the big picture of what can be found and actually is taught in “the church” as some of the most consciousness-expanding, mind-blowing theology that exists in the world.
I was referring to more of a temporal view. I think as far as theology goes the LDS church is way ahead of other religions for the most part. But when it comes to the way the world actually works they tend to have a view that everything that ever happens in the world revolves around the church, and they must fit everything into their doctrine or prophecy. It leaves us with blind spots when we can not fit every situation into our world view. I think this attitude is created by very black and white thinking in itself. We believe that God is involved in every little aspect of our lives so when something good happens it is of God. When something bad happens it is of the devil or we are suffering a test. We have to ascribe everything to a divine or evil influence. IMHO this does not allow us to critically look at the real issues surrounding events and deal with them accordingly or even accept the reality that s#$%^t just happens. I have found it much more liberating and productive to take events in my life… good or bad… and deal with them from a non divine point of view and then incorporate God when needed. This way I can solve problems without the additional issue of trying to figure out what God wants me to do all the time. Again in my opinion I really believe this is truly the way God intended us to react to life experience.
I believe I got off the subject to this post somewhat. I apologize
Old-Timer wrote:My only comment right now would be that I agree with the general concept, but I would add that those who have reached the conclusion that the Church ISN’T the “only true and living church” face the same challenge – to allow for the possibility that they are wrong and,
in some way, the Church IS the “only true and living church” (at the very least, for some people, and at the very most, universally). For example, one of our points here is that we can’t feel superior to those who don’t question, especially if that approach works for them – if it gives them value and meaning and self-worth and empowerment that ambiguity would steal from them. Someone can’t be truly open-minded if they only consider the side of the coin on which their minds are etched, regardless of which side that is. However, “being
totallyopen-minded” isn’t good, healthy or right for some people. Some people truly need security FAR more than they need to explore.
I think these are very wise words. I definitely could not have said it better. Spot-on Ray! This is something I work very hard to keep in balance (with varying levels of success).And indeed, I even agree that for some people it isn’t necessarily the best thing for them to be open-minded. However, I do think that a great deal of growth comes from pushing the limits of our security (whatever those limits are, which will be different for each person). Though for some it may be that their security gives them what they need to simply “hang on.”
I like Louis L’Amour books as brain candy, as I have said in the book section. One thing he says in multiple books is that leaving the eastern cities and moving west across the plains had an enormously different effect on different people. It empowered some, by freeing them of the constraints in which they lived previously; it crushed some, who couldn’t handle the endless expanse and never-changing scenery; it strengthened some who had never had to care for themselves and others; it drove some crazy out of constant fear of attack and the lack of law and order. People need what people need, and people tend to construct their lives to provide them what they need – and want. Being open-minded to me means, at least in part, not demanding that settlers be exploreres – even as the typical settler mind-set is to be wary of and restrain the explorers. Often, explorers can explore in confidence largely because they know there always will be settlers waiting to welcome and feed and praise and provide security for a season when they return from their explorations.
Remember, too, that a kite is not just the thing that flies through the wind. It also is the string that keeps it safely grounded. I value my wife-string as much as my me-kite.
Quote:Remember, too, that a kite is not just the thing that flies through the wind. It also is the string that keeps it safely grounded. I value my wife-string as much as my me-kite.
Thanks, Ray. I love this image!
One of the most challenging tests to open mindedness to me is the challenge from the more orthodox core members in our Church. I mean this in the best way. It is GOOD for me to be challenged by their ideas and their more literal faith. Even though it can be uncomfortable and stretch both my patience and love, those are the exact types of experiences that make us grow the most. Like Ray said, the resistance keeps us from flying too far off uncontrolled. I would add that it also gives us something to push against, a foundation from which to explore new things, to be able to compare and contrast against something in our life. I don’t think I can be open-minded if I turn around and think those that don’t think like me are close-minded. That just means I am still close-minded. If we take this idea towards Fowler’s stages of faith, I would say that stage 3 is pretty close minded to believe that their faith is the “right” faith, and to believe otherwise is wrong.
If you then discover something and choose to discard that faith and now think those that are still in the faith (TBMs, other religions, non-athiests, or whatever) are all wrong and misguided…that doesn’t mean you’ve left stage 3 thinking, just remained in stage 3 but changed sides of the argument.
Stage 4 is the struggle of realizing you have opened your mind to other possibilities, and can’t reconcile them with the faith you have always been taught or understood. The open-mindedness allows the struggle of faith, which is why some feel better holding on to stage 3 faith and never letting go. And that should not be viewed as “wrong”, even if it manifests itself as close-minded in some ways. It serves their purpose and well-being.
For me, however, I was thrust out of stage 3, and finally came to embrace doubt as a way to reconcile my beliefs and find peace again.
For me, I felt:
Quote:“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” Rene Descartes
However, I’m not close-minded enough to think everyone else has to follow that formula. It is a personal journey, and there are many paths to enlightenment.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.