- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s rather jumbled and ignores several elephants right in the room. Thankfully we have the internet where we can be honest, listened to and respected. I’m still in the church BECAUSE of the internet. Do they understand that???
Ray wrote:
Quote:I don’t like that it was published in the Ensign – but there have been numerous articles lately that actually dispute this one, and this one is from a member who has NO institutional power in the Church that I can see.
Does anyone know anyone from the Ensign’s staff? What are the procedures, connections, etc.?
Coincidentally our subscription runs out with this issue. I might write a note with our one-year-only renewal. If they want a snowball’s chance of having influence going forward they need to make some changes.
Surprisingly it didn’t hit a bad nerve for me, I think it missed because I first tried to understand the author’s definition of doubt. Offense can often come when definitions don’t align, so I first try to understand what someone really means, not just what they say. The author seemed to be saying “doubt” is an effort to disbelieve so one can disobey. I personally haven’t known anyone that fits that description, so it sounds like he may be “preaching to the choir.”
Questions are important, I like that. If he demonized uncertainty I missed it. Obedience in my mind is loving – since “all the law” hangs on the great command to love, so I read “be obedient” as “follow Jesus and love” …no problem. Covenants and ordinances are important, people take them in different ways but the underlying good/truth is good, no?
Translation is key. After my faith crisis it took tremendous effort to “translate” my way through a typical Sunday, but today I hardly think about it.
The problem is – and I understand the trouble – when traditional members read the article and don’t distinguish between the author’s use of “doubt” and the questioning/uncertainty/faith challenge that they may observe in a loved one. This CAN be a big problem. I know people close to me assumed I had cast aside all covenants and morals the moment I spoke with uncertainty. That can be an ugly situation, it all comes from wrong assumptions.
Ann asked – Quote:
Does anyone know anyone from the Ensign’s staff? What are the procedures, connections, etc.?This won’t answer all the questions, but here is some info.
[Link didn’t work. Posted in a follow-up comment.]
Ann wrote:I’m still in the church BECAUSE of the internet. Do they understand that???
Precisely. The internet had absolutely nothing to do with my FC, and for a long time had nothing to do with my transition – until I came here. “They” don’t understand that.
So poorly written. Quote:Largely because of the Internet, it is not uncommon for members of the Church to encounter ideas that challenge their beliefs.
This just opens up so many questions. Obviously, blaming the internet is dumb because the internet didn’t create the ideas. And maybe their beliefs should be challenged. Whose to say all beliefs are good and all challenges are bad? I’ve met many members who have some really kooky beliefs that should be challenged.
Quote:Some members find the questions raised to be disconcerting and wonder whether it is acceptable to have a question about their faith.
That’s not even a serious statement. That’s the friggin stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. So, a person who has a question wants to know “is it OK if I have a question?” Let me just say that we are completely screwed as a people if that’s the first thought people have when a serious question occurs to them.
Quote:However, sincere questions are not the same thing as doubts.
So doubts are insincere? Since when? And sincere questions don’t ever lead to doubts? Since when? Basically this is saying if you have a question and you’re a good person, your question will only lead you to ask if it’s OK to have a question, but not to take your question seriously, and absolutely never to doubt your beliefs, regardless of what they are, even though beliefs are assumptions at heart and many members believe things that aren’t even doctrinal. Right.
Sorry but this guy’s too dumb to continue. Waste of time. I’m losing IQ points as I go.
mom3 wrote:Here’s the link I forgot to post. Oops.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705385269/Writing-for-the-Ensign.html?pg=all ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705385269/Writing-for-the-Ensign.html?pg=all First item in “Writing for the Ensign” –
Quote:1. Read the church magazines.
“This is the number one thing you can do to learn how to write for the church magazines,” Perkey said. “But you’d be surprised how many submissions we get where it’s seems to us that the people haven’t read the church magazines.”
For example, if you want to write about a missionary or conversion experience, Perkey said pick up the last six issues and see how similar stories are presented. “I’m not saying you have to copycat it,” Perkey said. “We like unique voices.”
“Know our style and our tone and our voice and our approach,” Perkey said. “Know our audience and our purpose. Who are you writing to? Know the kinds of things we publish.”
I’d love to be a fly on the wall. I wonder if the large number of submissions
notwritten in Ensign-speak/style ever triggers a conversation. “Are people trying to tell us something?” Orson wrote:Surprisingly it didn’t hit a bad nerve for me, I think it missed because I first tried to understand the author’s definition of doubt. Offense can often come when definitions don’t align, so I first try to understand what someone really means, not just what they say.
The author seemed to be saying “doubt” is an effort to disbelieve so one can disobey. I personally haven’t known anyone that fits that description, so it sounds like he may be “preaching to the choir.”
Questions are important, I like that. If he demonized uncertainty I missed it. Obedience in my mind is loving – since “all the law” hangs on the great command to love, so I read “be obedient” as “follow Jesus and love” …no problem. Covenants and ordinances are important, people take them in different ways but the underlying good/truth is good, no?
Translation is key. After my faith crisis it took tremendous effort to “translate” my way through a typical Sunday, but today I hardly think about it.
The problem is – and I understand the trouble – when traditional members read the article and don’t distinguish between the author’s use of “doubt” and the questioning/uncertainty/faith challenge that they may observe in a loved one. This CAN be a big problem. I know people close to me assumed I had cast aside all covenants and morals the moment I spoke with uncertainty. That can be an ugly situation, it all comes from wrong assumptions.
I get what you’re saying, Orson, and I do the same thing to some extent. For instance, I understand that generally people are using a different definition of “know” than me when they get up and say they “know” whatever it is they don’t really know. For the most part I can therefore take a different understanding of what they are saying for myself. The problem here is that the vast majority of other people are interpreting “know” differently than me – it’s my own private interpretation. In your scenario of using the word doubt, the writer (Br. Kotter) would be using his own definition of doubt publicly while applying it to the whole, while the whole are using a more standard definition of “doubt” (as you point out in your last sentence). That’s what makes this article so ugly – the vast majority of readers are going to interpret doubt as bad.
FWIW, my doubts (and questions) are the result of my faith crisis, not the cause of it.
hawkgrrrl wrote:So doubts are insincere? Since when? And sincere questions don’t ever lead to doubts?
If my memory is working properly I recall a few years ago a thread where we determined that “doubt” as it is most commonly used in LDS talks and articles (also interpretations of scripture) is not based in uncertainty the way most people would think, but is actually referring to an
activeif not determined disbelief. Thus the large assumed chasm between questions and “DOUBT.” Doubt in this context is devilish, it is a fortified position of “I WILL not believe until you destroy my fortification of doubt.”
I know it is seriously messed up but the way the word has been and is being used I wonder if we should try to work with the crazy definition or try to modify it in our culture.
To illustrate how perspectives can vary I want to share my initial impressions of the segments Hawk commented on: Quote:Largely because of the Internet, it is not uncommon for members of the Church to encounter ideas that challenge their beliefs.
“The internet is bringing to light many things that a lot of members had never heard of.”
Quote:Some members find the questions raised to be disconcerting and wonder whether it is acceptable to have a question about their faith.
“Our culture is so overly focused on certainty that our members think they are in serious trouble when they encounter a genuine question.”
(This happened to me when I first encountered troubling information, I felt I was in trouble with the church for “doubting” the moment I became troubled. I assumed the discomfort qualified my questions as doubt – but I didn’t know LDS “doubt” is a “determined disbelief” and I could have benefited from the following statement:
Quote:However, sincere questions are not the same thing as doubts.
“Members be at ease, it is proper and good to question, the twisted LDS definition of doubt can cause undue concern so I guess I’ll use (and even widen) the divide in an effort to create more safe space for sincere questions.”
…I know, ultimately a small chance of being productive but everything can be approached from multiple angles.
Some things are better left ignored – originally or after exposure. Not even once!
😈 😆 I don’t feel like this article is attacking anyone. I do think it fails to address the real issues. It suggests the average follower bares a higher degree of responsibility for obedience than leaders. Those who examine the history will learn, by the words of faithful members of the time, that the founders of the church did not keep their own teachings. They acted as though there were two classes: the followers who must be obedient, and the leaders who must lead. Joseph Smith preaching the importance of honesty but lying for and to the church, and for himself. Preaching the WoW and then riding through town smoking a cigar. Even now the church puts obedience above openness, withholding the truth about the president’s mental health for the good of the followers, even while talking about how the individual has the power to speak with God and reason for themselves. I don’t demand perfection from my leaders, but I do hold them to their own words, and I don’t see the church keeping that standard.
The ideal I look for is a church that is open with its members because it knows if they doubt its actions they can pray and receive confirmation that the leaders are following God. A church that works in darkness, even for fear of being misunderstood, cannot claim its members follow in anyway but blindly.
Another example is money.
If the church believes the members won’t receive a witness that it is God’s will that they spend more money building a mall than it has on service in the last five years, either doubts the justness of their actions or the ability of the members to receive revelation.
It seems like a lot of hypocrisy on par with what you see from the governments of the world.
That said, I do keep the commandments, pray and read my scriptures. I just no longer expect that to lead to a witness of the truthfulness of it all.
The problem with that model for belief is that the more you invest the more you have riding on a positive answer, to more likely you are to perceive one. An unbiased approach would be to consider the possibilities and then pray to see if you get an answer, not devote your life to it and then use confirmation bias to convince yourself it is right.
Quote:“I will do the things the Lord has commanded, whether my questions are resolved quickly or ever, because I have covenanted to do so.”
This is not the first time I have been confronted with this response. When I first had my FC my bishop at the time said that for him it was a matter of personal integrity. He had covenanted to the LDS church and all other truth matters were secondary. If he had been born a Baptist and covenanted to that religion he would have been honor bound to stick with it come hell or high water. (he didn’t actually use the word hell
😈 )I have several problems with this.
1) There is significant difference of opinion on what “the Lord has commanded” vs. what is expected in the LDS church.
2) A covenant is a two way agreement or contract. If one of the parties does not fulfill their contractual obligations and/or there is significant reason to doubt that one of the parties had the proper authority to sign in the first place – is the other party still constrained to complete their part of the bargain? Is that the noble or honorable thing to do?
3) Legally the church defines all our tithings as donations and all our service all volunteer work. Meaning that we give it of our own free will with no expectation of return. What is freely given can be freely stopped for any reason or even no reason and this does not make that individual dishonorable or of low integrity.
Just my $.02
Roy wrote:this does not make that individual dishonorable or of low integrity
well said, Roy. Actually, all 3 of your points are spot on. #1 is a big factor to consider for me…especially when one looks at church history and the struggle to know what God commands vs what church does or expects (and later changes to be more correctly in line with God’s commandments).
I respect others who are committed in that way, and will just stick it out no matter what.
I’ve also heard others criticize such an approach as “blind obedience”. And I see why it is called that.
To each his/her own.
But like you said, I have run into this approach and it strikes me as just the story others tell themselves. It works for some. It’s a story. It doesn’t make it a fool-proof method that will benefit everyone.
It didn’t make sense to me to keep doing what I was doing and expect different results, unless I was more concerned with being honored by others than honoring my true feelings. And I determined I wasn’t.
Just like staying in an abusive, demeaning, crazy marriage just to be respected for enduring this life or hoping for benefits in the next life didn’t make sense to me. There are other options to find viable solutions than to just endure something so you don’t rock the boat. If viewed as new chapters of your life, change can be a very good thing for our experience and growing.
If the church is really truth…why is the author of the article so concerned about doubting it? “If we have the truth, it won’t be harmed.” Right?
Roy wrote:1) There is significant difference of opinion on what “the Lord has commanded” vs. what is expected in the LDS church.
Yes.
Obedience is a big theme in the article, but obedience to what or whom, god or the church? Some people don’t make a distinction but others do. If I feel that god is leading me down a certain path that appears to take me away from the LDS church then what is disobedience at that point, remaining where I am or following the path I feel god has prepared for me? Gods ways are not our ways not only when it comes to logic and reason but also when we are being divinely guided down what we may currently view as being an unorthodox path.
Other scriptures come to mind:
Quote:Now I would that ye should remember that God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also.
Quote:for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
I think the process begins with ourselves. If we can’t be true to ourselves how easy is it going to be for us to be true to outside entities?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.