- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think Tom has it pretty much right. You can choose to believe in something or anything or nothing. It’s all what one decides. There are certain “wisdoms” that are eternal, and all of the truly great scriptures of times past touch upon them, usually with a simple lesson–do unto others as you would have them do unto you–a concept that is, arguably, not religious based at all. It’s when religions decide that they are the only true one that problems, historically, seem to occur. We have learned this but we’re still dealing with it obviously, esp in the case of Islamic fundamentalism. The Protestants and Catholics have generally put aside their differences and the Mormons even have given up some of their most egregious claims on that, as in the changes to the temple ceremony. For me, though, all of it just waters down the whole entire thing and leads me toward agnosticism if not atheism. It kind of gets boring at some point. Ha. But I can’t get away from it because it is all too interesting.
History is not a single piece of evidence it is a puzzle. You have to put the pieces together and then look at it as a whole. At that point if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then most likely it is a duck. Some people get hung up on this point of history or that. It was never that for me. It was when I stepped back and looked and the entire puzzle I had to conclude the church has a serious problem with its credibility.
Cadence wrote:It was when I stepped back and looked and the entire puzzle I had to conclude the church has a serious problem with its credibility.
I think there are two components to this:
1. Is the Church what it claims to be?
Actually this involves a reification error in that “The Church” is an abstract concept. It can not make claims or act. People who claim to represent the abstract concept make claims and act, pretending that “The Church” is a concrete entity they speak on behalf of.
But for the sake of our discussion, let’s agree that “The Church” represents an concept of being a one-and-only acceptable church on the face of the earth, to have been formed perfectly under direct micromanagement of God, that it has special authority, and that it only represents historically and factually correct viewpoints or perspectives of the divine.
That can be problematic compared to what we see in history.
2. Is the Church what I thought it was?
This is similar to item #1 above, except that nobody really agrees on all the details of the falsely reified abstract concept. What “The Church” means to me might not have been what I expected or what I thought “The Church” claimed to be. That will impact our view of credibility.
I take this one step further — Now that I see the Church isn’t what I expected, or what I thought it claimed,
WHAT IS IT?I think too many people walk away from the problem before this point. It may not be what we thought it was, but it still is something. So what is it? It might be something I still want, or receive value from, as long as I change my expectations. It might still be a good thing. It might not. That is the next step: Take a fresh look and move forward. Brian — I have a bit of an issue with the idea that the Church can’t speak for itself, etcetera. Granted, it’s simply an entity on paper (a corporation, as far as I know), and an abstract concept, however, there are commonly held beliefs about its nature that are perpetuated by its leaders and members over time that we can turn to. So, I look at the reification error as an academic question really. The fact is, the people that align themselves with this entity make strong claims about its history, its truthfulness, its divine commission, and those widely believed and promulgated claims are what defines it and gives it meaning and and a status that is an extension of deity. The fact that its simply an abstract concept isn’t really relevent in my view. SD, I think that’s why Brian emphasizes that it’s important to determine (at any given time) what you think “The Church” is – but also be open to the idea that “The Church” actually is different and often competing (or even opposite) things. “The Church” really is an amoeba in many ways. For example:
“The Church” is global – but, in a very real way, “The Church” is local even more so than global. More people leave “The Church” due to things that happen at the local level than things that are taught at the global level – and they make claims about “The Church” that mystify members who have not experienced those things in their own local “The Church”. Others leave due to statements from the pulpit of General Conference, but others live in a local unit where those statements just don’t represent “The Church” – so members in those units who feel exactly the same way about the statements usually don’t leave their “The Church”.
For some people, “The Church” is the hypocritical Bishop or RS President who preaches love and respect from the pulpit and attends the temple regularly but abuses spouse and kids in the privacy of their home – while, for others, “The Church” is the Christlike Bishop or RS President whom they love and revere. “The Church” is the overly-strict and controlling parent AND the mean drunk who changed his life completely after conversion and became the astounding parent who is an example of redemption and repentance.
SilentDawning wrote:The fact that its simply an abstract concept isn’t really relevent in my view.
That’s exactly the clever shell game people play (unconsciously most of the time). They say: Look over there! Yes, at that abstract concept. It is not abstract really, it’s very concrete and real. Not only that, these are the properties it has: x, y and z. Now that
YOUknow that too, do what THATreal entity over there tells you to do. It has a life of its own, or better yet — it is God (an expression of God’s will). What really happened there with the pea under the shells on the performer’s table? They just told you what THEY want you to do, or how to act, or how to think. But they blamed it on some imaginary abstract concept that spoke to you (“The Church”). It’s not their fault. They are not to blame. The Church wants you to do those things.
SilentDawning wrote:The fact is, the people that align themselves with this entity make strong claims about its history, its truthfulness, its divine commission, and those widely believed and promulgated claims are what defines it and gives it meaning and and a status that is an extension of deity.
Maybe those people are wrong? We can’t ask that question if we accept the falsely reified construct. If we accept it, then we have to argue with something that can not engage in debate — because it isn’t real.
The same sort of thing happens in the economic world with corporations and concepts, like “Wall Street.” Wall Street caused the economic meltdown, not individual people with power and influence who made real concrete decisions with real concrete consequences. If it were real people that did it, they would probably have to go to jail. So let’s just all pretend that “Wall Street” did it. Then there’s nothing we can really do about it (just like the Church, we can’t do anything about it).
Brian Johnston wrote:Cadence wrote:It was
when I stepped back and looked and the entire puzzle I had to conclude the church has a serious problem with its credibility.I think there are two components to this:
1. Is the Church what it claims to be?
Actually
this involves a reification error in that “The Church” is an abstract concept. It can not make claims or act…2. Is the Church what I thought it was?
This is similar to item #1 above, except that
nobody really agrees on all the details of the falsely reified abstract concept. What “The Church” means to me might not have been what I expected or what I thought “The Church” claimed to be.That will impact our view of credibility.
To me, thinking of the Church as some kind of vague abstract concept doesn’t really solve the credibility problems with the story we typically hear from Church members and publications. Basically, we have high-ranking Church leaders re-emphasizing the 14 fundamentals without anyone at the top saying it’s alright to take some of this with a grain of salt. We also have published lesson manuals and Ensign articles that are very specific and it seems like most active members either believe most of these doctrines and policies or outwardly give the impression that they agree with them. I don’t see many active members openly saying they’re not so sure that temple marriage and temple worthiness are really that important. Well where did all these entrenched doctrines come from if not “the Church” abstract or not? If you simply substitute “current Church leaders and publications” for “the Church” we are right back where we started with a whitewashed story that doesn’t really match the evidence we see in many cases.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Basically, we have high-ranking Church leaders re-emphasizing the 14 fundamentals without anyone at the top saying it’s alright to take some of this with a grain of salt.
I remember in a stake priesthood training meeting a visiting general authority gave specific instructions and warnings to our stake that we must not keep asking for specific policies to be handed down from on high in order to take actions to love and serve others. We should be able to let the spirit guide us. We should be able to let go of some letter of the law commandments and allow for more spiritual minded direction.
I remember how refreshing it was … but to be honest, the stake leaders didn’t know what to do with that guidance. How do you train people for that? How does it get applied across the board fairly? How do you not let that go so far that people stop counting Home Teaching numbers and just go with “spiritual ministering to home teaching families”?
I don’t know if the problem is the masses keep asking for clarification, so the leaders provide it, or if it is just not easy to institutionalize the spiritual teachings. I just remember thinking the higher up the chain it went … it seemed there was more compassion. The closer to the ward level it got, the more the obedience drum was beat over and over and over.
I think regarding history, a lot of members are lazy, and they just want the movie version to tell them what it is… they don’t want the education of having to go sort out what the history is to them. The result is Sunday meetings that are more shallow, and everyone just say, “Don’t ask questions, just obey. Everyone gets along better that way!”
As I have read all of the posts on this particular thread I just don’t understand how anyone, who has studied the issues, remains a member any longer. I just can’t get it. Save it is like belonging to the American Legion or something. Sorry. curt wrote:As I have read all of the posts on this particular thread I just don’t understand how anyone, who has studied the issues, remains a member any longer. I just can’t get it. Save it is like belonging to the American Legion or something. Sorry.
I guess some people like belonging to the American Legion, and others like belonging to a church. Emotionally, for me to make a statement like this is a HUGE deal. But really, if we can ever forgive the past and all the people who led us (for their own selfish or innocent purposes) to believe it was a big deal, then it isn’t a big deal how or whether we choose to be Mormon or LDS. Like my signature line says, “Sure, any religion would do. But I’m LDS.” If you see some reason to call yourself a Mormon or to help out with the local ward, go ahead and do it. If not, then step back.
Brian is right. He was channeling Jesus. “If they say to you that Christ is here or Christ is there, don’t follow them. The kingdom of heaven is not coming with signs and observations. Here’s the real truth: The Kingdom of God is right here right now.”
By the way, last Sunday I went with my two sons for the first time in months to the Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Chandler. The theme was “War: what is it good for?” Afterward, we all felt like, “That was my kind of church!”
Brian Johnston wrote:I take this one step further — Now that I see the Church isn’t what I expected, or what I thought it claimed,
WHAT IS IT?I think too many people walk away from the problem before this point. It may not be what we thought it was, but it still is something. So what is it? It might be something I still want, or receive value from, as long as I change my expectations. It might still be a good thing. It might not. That is the next step: Take a fresh look and move forward. That is a good question “What is it”? If I had to go by my interpretation of the evidence, it is a global organization built upon a false premise that a boy of 14 saw and spoke to God and God gave him and only him divine direction on the management of his kingdom on earth. It may be a great organization that does many good things and that may be enough for me and many others but it is still an organization built upon a foundation of sand, and I have to acknowledge that.
Cadence wrote:
That is a good question “What is it”? If I had to go by my interpretation of the evidence, it is a global organization built upon a false premise that a boy of 14 saw and spoke to God and God gave him and only him divine direction on the management of his kingdom on earth. It may be a great organization that does many good things and that may be enough for me and many others but it is still an organization built upon a foundation of sand, and I have to acknowledge that.Based on the “accepted” history it appears that the “church” was actually founded on the fact that JS translated the BOM and not the first vision account. I would however agree with your analogy of it being built on the sand, and I think what I see a lot of people doing however is attempting to dig out the sand until the can reach the rock in order to build their foundation.
If anyone is interested in the idea of sand and rock and how both can co-exist, I wrote the following back in 2009 here: “My Marriage as a Metaphor for My Church” (
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=238&hilit=metaphor Feel free to comment on that thread, if you want, and bump it up for active discussion again.
sundance wrote:Based on the “accepted” history it appears that the “church” was actually founded on the fact that JS translated the BOM and not the first vision account. I would however agree with your analogy of it being built on the sand, and I think what I see a lot of people doing however is attempting to dig out the sand until the can reach the rock in order to build their foundation.
I actually think the church was built on Joseph having authority to start a church, not on the BoM or on the 1st Vision. The D&C was added because those things were not in the Book of Mormon.I think the foundation is relevant to the individual, which is hard to carry the sandy/rocky metaphor to make that work, but I think it does. The institution itself isn’t going anywhere. It has survived, and will continue to survive.
Individuals may find the foundation solid or sandy for them to build testimonies on. For some people, it just doesn’t hold up to their storms in life, for some people it completely holds and is immovable in their lives.
I do not think my brothers and sisters firmly in their faith are all duped and will someday find out what they thought was rock is really sand. All I can speak of is my experience, and my foundation, and what happens during my personal storms in my life. So it really is relative.
I respect Cadence’s opinion for him. I just don’t share that same opinion for me.
From my reading and I’ll admit limited knowledge of the early history of the Mormons it was the actual existence of the BOM itself, not its not contents and not even Joseph Smith, that was preached and why people converted. It wasn’t until later that the Joseph Smith, The Prophet, and then later the first vision became significant in the proselyting efforts. At least that was my take away from Rough Stone Rolling, and one Jan Shipps books I read many years ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.