- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My wife expressed that one of her frustrations of the church is half truths. The church tends to use portions of interviews, images of translation etc. that do not reflect accuracy. Kind of like the news media. She grew up living up to all the standards of the church. She didn’t have sex until marriage, lived as honest as possible etc. She recognizes she is not perfect or the church, but why not just show things how they were and are? Why not open dialogue with members, allowing us to share in the way this forum does? Why not admit that blacks were kept out of the church due to racism not a curse etc.? Now we realize that religion, just like people, don’t like to admit when they are wrong. Especially when you are the “only true church.” But the church teaches the children in their own manuals to do what they are not trying to do. One of her issues with the church is the use of stories out of context in order to make a point. Now she has many issues beyond this but it was an interesting point and I’m sure most of us here have thought about this. I am contemplating taking my son back to church. Not because I want to go but because he has asked me if he could go. He doesn’t know this ward and hasn’t had any direct contact from the ward yet, other then the neighbor who he hasn’t talked to him without me present. Part of me wants to just be honest with my family and even the local ward where I stand. What is concerning to me is that I don’t know this ward and am unsure of how the bishop will respond if he finds out my wife doesn’t believe and I don’t believe the gospel even remotely the same way as the TBM does.
Today I feel and care a lot less about what others think of me and a lot more about what I think. It feels very freeing and is the first time in this experience/journey that I’ve felt this way. I think it stems from my conversation with my son last night. (I made this in a new post because I feel incredibly free today. I mean I really feel GOOOOD.)
The Church is an organization engaged in promoting a religious ideal. Most active members, and certainly leadership, truly believe in the ideals. They think they are living them. It isn’t something they are often very conscious of. As Dr. Fowler would say, they are living in the moving stream of their faith story and don’t have a conscious recognition of the fact they are in a story. We’re sitting off on the banks watching them float by, realizing and seeing that they are floating by in the stream. It’s a radical shift in our world paradigm to make this transition towards sitting on the shore. The ideals in the LDS faith are generally great concepts. We encounter problems and friction with people who don’t get that ideals are something we are all working towards (the positive way of saying it), which means in another view that we are all failing to achieve on some levels. But I say the message is there in Mormonism, what Ray likes to call “Pure Mormonism.” The message of compassion, repentance (change), grace and enlightenment are there. Active membership doesn’t always equal people “getting it” though. The message is not seen nor understood by some people. So does that mean I quit and leave, not wanting to be associated with an imperfect organization? I decided that was not the best answer for me. I stay involved, but conscious of what is going on. I am far from perfect. The Church is far from perfect. I hope we are both evolving towards beautiful ideals, even if that means we are going to be failing at times.
The specific example of blacks and the priesthood, that being a good example, is there really isn’t a single correct answer for the Church (or in general)? I personally think your conclusion is the most likely reality of what happened, but I can’t say that is “the Truth” any more than I used to be able to say that I knew what was “True.” I observe that most people in the Church who are still TBM-ish and are aware of that particular issue think somewhere along the lines of it having been a mystery, but that God must have had a reason. So is the Church engaged in a conscious effort to hide half the truth? I think it isn’t so clear cut as that. I don’t think they really know what the truth is, or are not in a position in their faith structure to contemplate such an error. They just can’t go there. And any organization, especially a Church, is going to push the most positive aspects about them self, and probably not talk about the more uncomfortable things even if they are aware of them (which I think a lot of members are not aware of).
Another good example: When I meet someone and tell them about my wife, I will tell them the things I like about her, that I am proud of or admire. I talk more about my ideal image of her. I don’t spend equal time telling someone I just met all of my wife’s faults in order to be completely honest and balanced.
I agree godlives. I also hope and optimistically feel that the church IS moving toward a position of greater candor. People resist change, the broader membership of the church will resist “changing” to a more accurate version of some of these historical items such as translation. I know of some things that have been clarified more recently by top church leadership (like we have no good reason to explain the priesthood denial) – but everyday members perpetuate the old myths (seed of Cain). I heard this very example in Sunday School just 2 or 3 weeks ago. It will take time. The best we can do is remain positive and promote truth and education, in the most friendly and faithful way possible.
I am not saying this in the spirit of trying to push the Church or tell leadership what to do. But I see in the future a tipping point. I think the Church is at a crossroads in history that will be looked back upon as significant. The world is changing dramatically in so many ways due to the effects of the “information age.” This “age” is just as significant as any other major shift in technology that changed the world. Information is no longer controlled like it was, and there is an avalanche of it. I can’t help but think of the Mormon concept of “the fullness of times” in an almost prophetic sense. It may turn out much different than past generations expectations of that idea 
Anyway, back to my point. There will be a tipping point. When? I don’t know. But at some point when maybe 20% of the members become aware of all this information we talk about here, things will have to change. Maybe it is more, or maybe it is less, but at some point there will be a critical mass of enough peoples’ awareness of the issues that it will become very difficult for the conservative elements to hold their ground without open question and discussion. I can’t even say I know what the changes will be or how they will happen. I just know that for example, no teacher will be able to say old and outdated wacky things based on misconceptions of the past and dysfunctional LDS culture when half or a third of the class knows a lot of this stuff. They will quickly be “corrected” in quorum
😮 I have no intention to armchair quarterback it. I see it coming though. There will be a point where answers, and I mean realistic and thoughtful answers, will have to be created for a lot of these big questions. What will the Church eventually do when my children, the generation that never knew what life was like without Google and the internet, and who naturally search for information there, come across all the websites out there when preparing a lesson as a teacher for a Church class? I handle these things myself quite comfortably for my family, but what about all the others unaware? The time is coming and can not be avoided, only delayed slightly.
I think this is an exciting time. Really.
I agree completely with Brian. My family may be a precursor of the broader church direction. I think that the tipping point is also about the emotional health of the members. An unnaturally large percentage of the sisters in the church are prescribed depression/anxiety drugs. An unnaturally large percentage of the brothers in the church are addicted to porn. I actually think there is an emotional component that is the same in both of these examples. At some point, the church is going to have to address it in a real way, not just the old, PH session smack-down. That could precipitate a “tipping point” as well. As for the OP, as others have said here, religious organizations survive and thrive on the large percentage of humans that are most interested in being right, being better, being chosen. They buy in and show up. They’re necessary for the organization to evolve, grow, etc. That’s the upside of blind faith. We all know the down-side, as godlives’ wife expressed to him.
I have been dying to know for a while.. what does TBM stand for? Does it have more than one meaning. I think it meant The Book of Mormon once and then I thought maybe it was To Be Mormon.. well there are lots of things I can guess but I don’t know.
You know, I have always loved the Apostle Paul (formerly Saul of Taurus). He refers to the sinners, “of which I am chief”. I love the way that he uses the present tense instead of the past tense that we here so much about today. Paul reminds us that everyday is a new battle and that repentance is a life-long process, not a once-in-a-lifetime, episode.
Paul’s humility brings a certain reality or realness to the scriptures. He speaks of being present at the crucifixion of Christ, not as a believer, but as a persecutor!
He sets about to destroy the Church and the Saints, then meets the Savior on the road to Damascus. Many times, I have felt my own personal “road to Damascus”.
I have often wondered how one can know Christ when one does not really even know himself. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us”. Those who truly know and understand themselves will acknowledge that they are not perfect, that they are sinners – and they will yearn for the Savior.
It is so much easier for me to follow someone like Paul, who can admit his own mistakes, confess that he took the wrong road and humble himself than to follow someone like JS who the Church claimed was guilty of only minor folly.
mormonmom wrote:I have been dying to know for a while..
what does TBM stand for? Does it have more than one meaning.
TBM stands for “True Believing Mormon” or “True Blue Mormon.” There are a few other plays on words with that, but the general idea is a broad label to describe someone who generally believes the Church is true — an orthodox Mormon. The definition and boundary on what makes someone orthodox or not is an endless debate, so it tends to be used in relationship to the person who labels someone else with that term. I guess it is almost a replacement for the word “orthodox.”
Here is a reference link in our forum to the common acronyms and abbreviations in the world of Internet Mormonism:
MWallace57 wrote:It is so much easier for me to follow someone like Paul, who can admit his own mistakes, confess that he took the wrong road and humble himself than to follow someone like JS who the Church claimed was guilty of only minor folly.
I agree on the presentation at Church about JS. But as far as how JS presented himself, there’s an awful lot of examples of JS telling everyone he is a screwup. It’s in everythig from the First Vision to his final sermons. “Mormons teach that their prophets are fallible, yet none will believe it.”
I agree with your overall point though. I also love celebrities, for example, that show up for a cameo and play along on “The Soup” after Joel McHale makes fun of them.
Thanks… Fwiw, I have found it easier to relate to, accept and love Joseph, the man, than Joseph, the historical figure. 2 Nephi 4 also is one of the reasons Nephi is one of my favorite BofM prophets. I like Moses, the stutterer, more than Moses, the Lawgiver. What I’m saying is that I believe many, if not all, of the prophets of our past are looking at us saying, on a regular basis, “That’s not me!!”
Consider it took the Catholic church almost 400 years after Galileo to admit the earth revolves around the sun. It was only after the evidence became so overwhelming and accepted by 99% of the population that an official declaration was made. We may want to believe we live in an more enlightened age and we do to some respect but cognitive bias is so strong in the church that to consider that there are egregious errors probably does not enter into the equation for most members or leaders. There is this very nice sister in our ward who is very well read and articulate. She is a self professed expert on church history, yet she would never accept any of the negative aspects of church history to be accurate. It simply does not fit her world view. The real question may be how much do the church leaders really know. We may want to assume they know everything. Maybe they do and maybe they don’t, I have no way of knowing. But as long as you have leaders such as Elder Packer who view history as not relevant I believe not much will change. And since it tends to be self perpetuation in that these men select other men like themselves to lead the bias gets passed along. I do agree very much with Brian’s comments. The tipping point will come when enough members overcome their bias and start to either require more honesty and change or they leave the church in droves. Either way it will cause the church to adapt to the new reality it finds itself in.
I’m assuming that the leaders of the Church have something to do with proof reading and approving the end result of new manuals for all of our classes each year. I believe either the leaders believe the inspiration and past inspiration they have recieved as being “true” or “good” or “of God” in the ways that “They” (being The leaders of the whole organization and its present literature) interpret historical accounts, or they “know” or are very aware of “false” or “not the best” or “not completely honest” interpretations of historical accounts and chose to keep it “faith promoting” for the “good” of the members, or the well being of the organization itself or maybe to keep the right “sprit” they desire to teach. Maybe there is a big mix of everything going on.
I believe the information we are given in manuals today is “simple” and “clean” for the benefit of new members and also for all of the many many members that seem to except the “simple” history as is.
However this “white-wash” situation gets very muddy when on one side you have a Church, or leaders, or manuals or other members telling you(with a struggle or not) to live and study the Gospel and History as it is given in revelation to us today and then having classes with manuals continually teaching the history of the Church, the history of individual prophets and history of certain revelations/doctrines.
Personally I have a very hard time listening to it in meetings. This is something I am currently working to either ignore or increase my participation in, without “rocking the boat”.
I didn’t like my comment here so I deleted it. Instead I want to post this quote and get others thoughts on it: Quote:“Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately.”
– Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, Feb. 1987, page 68
I don’t debate to a “full” degree mainly because of DH(for now) and because I’m pretty shy. He has already seen some “bitter” or “angry” emotions come out of my new change of faith. I am honestly nervous about being controversial in public (Church, members houses) b/c I have a feeling that he will take it personally and subconciously or openly connect my “rocking the boat” with being a bitter apostate, which is not my vibe at all now, but it could have rightly been assumed that way a few months ago. I guess you could say I do care a little about what people think. This is something I am also working on in my life .. being patient and loving towards groups with robotic traits..I’m still working on respect and love for people who I would label close-minded. This includes having no fear of group or individual rejection of any sort .. being able to ask questions, correct others if needed and sharing personal beliefs/advice and answers with confidence and humility knowing that I myself also need these things from others.
The line about the spirit only working right if everyone is in unity kind of bothers me but I understand it. Boring but safe and spirit worthy I guess.
:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.