- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I love this story my brother wrote to explain his faith transition with his very confused high priest group/ward member friends. Some just don’t understand and continue to reach out to bring him back. I thought I would post a copy here in case others are trying to navigating this very sad and confusing experience. I like the idea of the story analogy – although it seemed a rather long example. I accomplish a similar purpose by talking about the fine china in the walls of the Kirtland temple and the miracle of the seagulls. Both of these stories are well known. Both are not core to our faith. Both have been exaggerated/modified to the point of being false.
I think everyone can understand and sympathize with how this happens with stories as they morph into legends.
I also believe that most people might be sympathetic to how a person might react with shock and dismay upon learning that some of the stories that we grew up hearing, were inspired by, even based our life decisions on, were not historically accurate.
I gotta say, sorry, TL;DR. I’m not dissing it, but I didn’t get halfway through. I think to reach people it really needs to be shorter and more to the point. But if he can get people to read it and learn from it, that’s great. Well, guys, I’d love for one of you to finish it. I would be interested to hear how you felt about the way he tied the characters and experiences altogether. I was quite touched but of course, I am no longer a believer. I am so, shocked at the division that I see among believers and others either nuanced or no longer believing. WAY TOO MUCH division. People very sadly live for years with all kinds of hurtful, painful wedges and many end up in strained relationships, divorces, they become outsiders with their own children, parents, spouses. So Sad! I finished it. I thought it did a fine job illustrating the difference between how the Church teaches its history and what actually happened – from a certain perspective. I’m not saying that perspective is wrong. In fact, I think it’s close to mine, though it’s (purposely) hard to tell. I’m saying that it’s a perspective, and not necessarily the only valid or even correct one. It’s perfectly possible to know all the available facts and believe that the Church has only lightly embellished its history, or believe that the facts still support its basic truth claims. Believing members might accept the essay’s main message more easily if the exposition at the end explicitly acknowledged this.
I think the essay is valuable in that it presents another way of understanding those who leave. You and your brother should definitely spread it around. Believing members need essays like this, but don’t kid yourself that it alone is sufficient. By analogy, I understand the LGBT plight mostly intellectually, and I had to read a lot of stories, explanations and analogies before it finally sank in, even with the advantage of also being a llama among sheep.
I’ll follow up with a writing critique later. The short version is that the writing is solid and engaging, but could make the same point at less than half the size. I’ll have specific suggestions on how to do this.
Reuben wrote:
I’m saying that it’s a perspective, and not necessarily the only valid or even correct one. It’s perfectly possible to know all the available facts and believe that the Church has only lightly embellished its history, or believe that the facts still support its basic truth claims. Believing members might accept the essay’s main message more easily if the exposition at the end explicitly acknowledged this.
I agree with Reuben
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.