- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have thought about introducing this topic for some time. I finally decided to after Enoch’s post on ‘getting along’ and Brown’s on ‘getting out.’ It is my feeling that much progress can be made toward the goal of honest personal expression in church or with members as we learn to speak a dialect of common ground. Learn the words and phrases that will be less offensive to a simple absolutist faith, while still pointing toward the depth of your personal understanding. Yes, much of your personal depth will be misunderstood, that is the price. I think we all understand there are some areas where you just won’t receive personal validation at church. In my mind part of maturing spiritually is learning to be at peace with that. But I also think it is MUCH easier to feel “at home” in the church community when you learn to say things in ways that more honestly represent your heart.
My basis for this idea is Ammon’s discussion with King Lamoni. When Ammon asked if he believed in God he replied “I don’t know what that is.” Did Ammon feel the need to immediately correct Lamoni’s belief in “a great spirit” and teach the “true” principles of the Godhead? [don’t even start with the trinitarian BoM view – just go with my point] Likewise Joseph Smith said ~ it does not prove that a man is a bad man if he errs in doctrine. So I think we have a little wiggle room to lean on the core of what we see as common ground, and not feel the need to point out all the little differences in personal belief.
I wanted to address some specifics on how I do that.
There are too many possible scenarios to address with one post, so I’ll start with the thought of being “nailed down” on what I “really” believe. Personally I don’t have any fear around that type of situation, because I feel I can express myself in an acceptable way — even if the interrogator leaves thinking I’m a little ‘off track.’
In my view I believe. I believe everything that God has revealed to me. My understanding may not equal that of other members, but everyone has knowledge based on their ability to comprehend. There are scriptures that back that up.
To me the BoM is scripture and contains revelation and wisdom from God. I couldn’t tell you that it’s historical, in my mind that is not the spiritually based question. The physical historical reality is a physical question, to be addressed by history and science. I don’t think that type of answer comes through spiritual means such as prayer. …obviously I don’t share all these details unless specifically pressed… but if need be I will explain my understanding is that spiritual truths are revealed spiritually, and physical truths physically. I don’t look at scripture as a historical or scientific work, and I don’t view science as having any bearing whatever on spirituality.
I am willing to amend my opinions and understanding at any time if I gain new insights. That is what continuing revelation means to me.
The church is true and right for me personally, and that is the only question that matters in the application of my life. I won’t try to receive revelation for any other person, my understanding of the gospel says I have no right to revelation for others. In my view if I say they need to join my church – that is synonomous with saying I have received that revelation for them. I can’t do that. I don’t understand revelation and personal truths, spiritual truths, to be universal. Everyone has unique circumstances, simple logic says they will receive revelation based on their situation and the wisdom of God for their life – and the opportunities they will present to others. I stand on the 11th article of faith.
I see Jesus as the savior of mankind. Again I don’t claim a perfect understanding of physical realities, but spiritually there is no question in my mind. The gospel of love that he taught would literally transform the world if everyone embraced it and lived the “higher” law. I still have much to learn in this area, but the words “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, Savior of the world” ring true to my ears; even if I don’t comprehend the physicality of the resurrection. I simply don’t worry about the limitations of my understanding. I have yet to meet a member who will condemn my lack of certainty on some of these subjects and say I don’t belong in the church. As far as my bishop is concerned if I’m open to whatever is in reality truth, and I don’t have a mission to demonstrate any errors of the church, he has no problem giving me a TR. Everyone is on their own path, humility runs in line with the gospel.
The basis for my personal “Language of common ground” is to express my views “as far as has been revealed to me” personally. With humility that says I don’t claim to have universal answers, I’m not trying to convert anyone to “my” way of thinking. I love and appreciate the church for many reasons, I would be crushed if I got pushed out. If need be I’ll plead for mercy for my heresies, I think honesty goes a long way. I’m doing the best with what I have as far as gospel understanding goes. I don’t know how to believe things before they are revealed to me. The standard logic that praying about the BoM confirms every last conference talk skips a few steps for me, but am seeking out my way within the church. What member will fault me for that?
I’ll also admit it has taken a long time after my initial crisis to be comfortable expressing this degree of belief. Many hours of contemplation on what things mean to me, and letting “the spirit tutor” has helped me get to this point.
What other examples of “common ground language” have you found helpful?
I almost never speak in absolutes. Ben Franklin would do similar things as you suggest Orson. He would preface his comments with “As far as I can tell”; “Unless I’m mistaken” to avoid being confrontive and inciting others. While this might invite counterpoint from the person you are talking to, it’s fair to let them have their opinion. Speaking personally, I use phrases such as “I find
there can be a tendency toward [insert objectional behavior here].” Or, I might say “I used to believe it was that way, but repeated experiences such as [insert repeated experience here]…..keep prompting me to view it differently”. I intend to use Ray’s rejoineder — “I believe that ideally, it should be that way, but in practice, I find that….”. Or, “I think history has shown us that we can tolerate questionable policies as a Church for a long time until we receive enlightenment. For example…..[insert blacks and the priesthood reversal, polygamy reversal, no-RS Presidents at PEC reversal, only-count-actual-HT-visits reversal, Adam-God Theory reversal].”
For me, stating counterpoint to TBM’s has to pass through several “stage gates” which I seem to apply sort of unconsciously.
Stage 1: Should I say this at all? Is it is core doctrine or cultural belief that has been receiving huge amounts of reinforcement at conference or in general lately? Should I even tackle this one? Many things I think to say don’t make it out of this stage gate because they are countering deeply held beliefs that are too entrenched in our culture.
Stage 2: Can I say this in a way that also respects the opinions of others? If I can’t think of a way of wording it that isn’t riddled with innuendo, or that may be taken offensively, then I don’t say it.
Stage 3: After saying it using the gentleman’s language Orson has proposed, I then have to decide — how hard do I push in case the TBM disagrees with me? Most of the time, the answer is — get out of the conversation using a soft landing approach.
I like what cWald said to someone earlier. “We can disagree and still be friends”. Sometimes simply listening respectfully and then just bringing the whole thing to a soft landing is the best way to go. Say “Isn’t it interesting how different life experiences can lead to differing conclusions, both of which may well prove to be valid when we know for certain?”.
This is a skill that I lack — but I am getting better at it. I really think we need to create an article with this kind of stuff — like the suggestions that you guys had with how to discuss conflicts one has with the prophets counsel etc where Ray and SD listed off a whole page of ideas of how to approach it with members without offending etc.
Good stuff.
Orson – Uplifting and useful topic. Before I knew about StayLDS/NOM type people I found myself doing the things you suggest. I was lucky I watched some very astute women perform the act of “polite disagreement” in Relief Society. They were an example to me before I realized how deep the water would be. In nearly all the situations I’ve encountered it really works, because no matter what the general conference definition of “cafeteria mormon” was – there are more people in the church who have gently differing tunes. They just don’t know how to play them.
One tip I have also added to my arsenal of gentle rebuttal is to use supporting statements from scripture, past prophets/leaders, “authorized places”, even explaining something that has changed i.e. how church auxillieries functioned before the present block style. That also helps.
Lastly I listen during conference for references to ideas I support. For instance this past conference Dallin Oaks in his talk used the word vision to describe the image Aron Ralston had before he chose to amputate his arm. That’s a talking point I can use to suggest that God reveals to many types of people. I noted that one of the speakers referenced the book American Grace- A religious study. In fact he called it landmark book. There again you add the D&C reference to studying out of the best of books – and you can lay a case for a point of view.
In conclusion. I am not trying to be sneaky. I study the gospel and mormonism to enrich my spiritual life. I see many honest, Christlike ways to help grow the conversation. Maybe my ideas can help others. Thanks again Orson. I loved the topic.
Thanks for your comments and yes I agree, all good points. It is helpful to demonstrate how you place your views within the context of church teachings. I do much of the same things – remembering talks and references that point in directions that I seem to travel. I find I get MUCH better responses from people when they can see my angles from that context. And really, when you tend to bring everything back home to the gospel being founded on love (all the law hangs on the two great commandments, charity never faileth and is the greatest of all, etc.) who is going to take issue with that?
The other thought that crossed my mind is the issue of exclusive authority. I really like the way “RT” handled it in the early “Finding our way back home” podcast. Like him I have no problem with the church leaders having authority to administer ordinances and direct the church. I have no problem calling that authority divine and seeing inspiration/revelation in the church. I don’t often feel the need to specify a difference between divine authority and exclusive authority, but the latter to me falls back to receiving revelation for others. If I understand the authority of my church as being exclusive for the whole earth I feel I must have received revelation in obtaining that view that dictates what other people in the world must do. I just don’t feel entitled to that form of revelation. As a side note I see this line of thought being a source for division and contention in the world, when it is expressed as “my way is the only correct way, so I don’t need to listen to you – but you do need to listen to me”. I know there has been much said to support the exclusive authority idea, but I don’t know how to reconcile it with the whole of my understanding. So, I try to avoid the issue in church.
Orson- I agree on the exclusive authority portion. Even when an authority figure speaks we all hear what we need/desire to hear. For some what they hear is directly applicable. For others it’s a good reminder, example, suggestion. Like you I have trust in the intent of the leaders. Some may direct it different than I might. My use of an authority name or reference is to bridge the discussion. If an authority uses a reference that helps with my point and softens the idea – which then allows us all safe passage.
Again thanks for the topic, and your experiences they really encouraged me today.
[cwald, the admins will discuss putting together something like what you suggested. It really is a good idea.] I seek “common linguistic ground” all the time when I am talking with non-members. Rather than talk about the gift of the Holy Ghost, I will talk about the in-dwelling of the Spirit. Instead of talking about obeying the commandments, I will talk about following Jesus. Rather than talk about doing missionary work, I will talk about witnessing and testifying of the Gospel.
There are so many examples, and the basic concept applies just as much to other LDS members as it does to others.
Orson wrote:I have thought about introducing this topic for some time. I finally decided to after Enoch’s post on ‘getting along’ and Brown’s on ‘getting out.’
It is my feeling that
much progress can be made toward the goal of honest personal expression in church or with members as we learn to speak a dialect of common ground. Learn the words and phrases that will be less offensive to a simple absolutist faith…The basis for my personal “Language of common ground” is to express my views “as far as has been revealed to me” personally. With humility that says I don’t claim to have universal answers, I’m not trying to convert anyone to “my” way of thinking…What other examples of “common ground language” have you found helpful? My approach to this is simply to not share my honest opinions about the Church with TBMs in most cases unless I really feel like there is a good reason for them to know where I stand. For example, even though I honestly believe that Joseph Smith made a lot of things up but acted like it all came directly from God I just don’t think there is any good way to say this to TBMs and ever expect it to go over very well so I don’t even bother trying to explain myself in cases like this. In other words, there is no common ground in many cases even though I would think there should be more because I’m not an atheist and I already like Christianity but there are so many other doctrines that are likely to come up when dealing with Church members that it’s hard to avoid conflict without feeling like a faker sometimes.
Even if I do feel like I need to say something contrary to what is expected such as that I don’t really want to pay tithing at this point I still try to say it in a way that my wife, bishop, etc. hopefully won’t feel like their beliefs are under attack. If you’re not careful all they will probably hear is that you think the Church is completely wrong and that you think you know better than they do and then they are likely to get defensive. That’s why I don’t talk about the Church with my wife much anymore other than if she brings it up because I don’t really want to fight about it. If I had much interest in trying to rock the boat and expose certain TBMs to unorthodox opinions rather than saying something like “I think this” I would just ask some honest questions to try to get them thinking about it on their own such as, “If the WoW is really so important then why did Jesus and Joseph Smith drink wine?” That way if they really have any interest in considering it they can look for their own answers.
DA, yes of course. Important clarification. This thread was intended to address situations where staying silent is not the best option – which is a relatively rare situation. Of course it also depends on the subject matter and personal position. Sometimes we can make friendly comments in classes without causing much of a fuss.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.