- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Geez, and here I was, thinking I was special. Oh well. SilentDawning wrote:Hawk if you care to expand on the following items, I’d be interested in your perspective:
hawkgrrrl wrote:I have a few of these myself:
2 – when you’re explaining, you’re losing.
9 – beware the first person who wants to be your friend.
I’m not sure what context you are making these or what they mean. That’s not your fault, it’s my lack of experiences on which to hang the statements. They are intriguing.
Hawk didn’t pick up on these questions, so I will do my best to provide an interpretation now that I’ve thought about them.
1. When you’re explaining, you’re losing.
I think this applies when someone tries to put you on the defensive, and tries to get you to defend yourself. Or when they ask questions to trap you. Take for example, Christ when the lawyers asked him where he got his authority from — the people or God. Jesus did not explain. Instead he answered the question, with a question. A question that was equally as inflammatory and controversial as theirs. When they refused to answer, he replied “Then I’m not going to tell you the authority by which I do these things”. He didn’t explain, he prevented the question from placing him in an awkward position.
2. – beware the first person who wants to be your friend.
I think this means the person probably has some self-interest at heart if they are THAT friendly. I remember on my mission, a missionary came out of nowhere to introduce themself to me. It felt strange. Later, he became my companion (a year later). At that time, I asked him why he was so friendly at that time and he said “I heard you went into leadership early, so I figured you’d be good to connect with as you might become AP”. So, his friendship was politically motivated.
That’s what I get out of these two statements.
SilentDawning wrote:1. When you’re explaining, you’re losing.
I think this applies when someone tries to put you on the defensive, and tries to get you to defend yourself. Or when they ask questions to trap you. Take for example, Christ when the lawyers asked him where he got his authority from — the people or God. Jesus did not explain. Instead he answered the question, with a question. A question that was equally as inflammatory and controversial as theirs. When they refused to answer, he replied “Then I’m not going to tell you the authority by which I do these things”. He didn’t explain, he prevented the question from placing him in an awkward position.
It is easier for me to understand this in the context of soundbites or quotes taken out of context. Imagine that someone heard you say that you believed in evolution and interpreted the Adam and Eve story as symbolic. They reported you to your bishop and he understood it to mean that you might be spreading discord with your wild ideas. Now please explain how you are not a threat to the organization and that your viewpoints are valid perspectives without losing…
Sorry I’m so late to reply. Here are a few thoughts on those statements which SD did a great job with. “When you’re explaining, you’re losing” just means you never have to explain yourself, your actions, your views, your beliefs when they don’t question you. Staying below the radar, including in the moment of being put on the hot seat, is a valuable position. Anyone who is going to put the screws to you is probably not someone you will convince anyway. If they’ve already decided you are a threat or are suspicious of you (hence putting you in a position of explaining), be prepared that you are in a losing position. It’s not to say you can’t put them at ease, but the fact is that in that moment they are not at ease. They think you are “not one of them.” That’s not a good position to be in. Also, the more you go out of your way to explain your perspective to others, the more you may be concerned with being right or being validated or being accepted, all of which are the praise of men and threaten your authenticity. It’s just a slippery slope. The other one about being on your guard for the first person who wants to be your friend is that they may be someone with an ulterior motive. Figure out what that is. It’s OK to be friends and friendly, but whenever a new person comes into a group, you have to beware of the motives of others. The rest of the group probably already knows motives and personalities; you don’t. I would say this is particularly important if you are newly joining groups that talk about disaffection. There are those who evangelize on every type of site you visit.
Kumahito wrote:Sheldon, you’ve done a great job compiling some good tips for success for staying LDS with unorthodox beliefs.
I’ve adopted many of your ideas, and have one of my own:
Don’t get too upset when you hear stuff you don’t agree with.As an unorthodox believer, I understand that I’m likely to hear something that I don’t agree with, or even that I think is blatantly false, on any given Sunday. Rather than sit and stew on it, and think “they don’t ‘know’ what they’re saying they ‘know’!”, I try and see if I can pick out how or why this belief brings some solace in their life. I don’t actually believe that Noah gathered two of every animal and built and Ark – but I don’t get upset when people relate this story in Church, because I think there are good lessons and morals that can be learned from the story. Likewise, even if I don’t agree or believe what someone may say, it doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t some greater truth that can be learned from it. This is, needless to say, not always easy, depending on how crazy the statement is. Like Sheldon mentioned, some things absolutely must be addressed and corrected. But when someone talks about God helping them find their car keys, I try not to fume about it and either mentally skip it, or try and see the comfort this brought to the person. Thank you for this (and Sheldon, thank you for your insights, too). This has been and is one of my major stumbling blocks, and I do get upset sometimes when I hear people, including GAs, say they
knowsomething when indeed I know they are wrong. I can chalk some of it up to tradition and some of it to wantingto know, but some of it still bugs me. I’m working on it, though. Thanks for pointing out that I can look deeper into the statements to find the truth that might be there – or might not. Ann wrote:Kumahito wrote:Don’t get too upset when you hear stuff you don’t agree with.As someone whose “shelf crashed” (kinda sick of that phrase) relatively late in life, I realize that I, especially, shouldn’t get that upset when I hear stuff I don’t agree with because I used to say some of the same things.
Good point. I used to “know” some of these same things. Thank you.
People are people. I don’t expect them to be more. Old-Timer wrote:People are people. I don’t expect them to be more.
I have certainly come around to that way of thinking. Try as it might, the church does not make anyone perfect. The TBM adage that the church is a perfect organization run by imperfect people is partly true, and I have learned to overlook the human frailty of church members.
Fwiw, any organization run by imperfect people can’t be perfect – whether “prefect” means “mistake free” or “complete, whole, fully developed”. However, if that wording helps some members make sense of the conflict and the imperfections they see, I’m not about to challenge most of them on it. It’s not worth it for me, and it generally isn’t productive or helpful for them. I try really hard to accept people for who they are, not whom I want them to be – since I want others to do the same for me.
Old-Timer wrote:I try really hard to accept people for who they are, not whom I want them to be – since I want others to do the same for me.
If staying sane in the Church is your objective, I think these are crucial words to live by.Old-Timer wrote:People are people. I don’t expect them to be more.
Under normal circumstances, this works for me. But the problem is that church culture puts leaders on a pedestal. Everyone is inspired. You must listen to your Bishop as he is entitled to revelation for the Ward, etcetera. This actually leads the seeds of doubt in people when in the end, you see they are rarely different from the average person who has no mantle….in my experience.
Quote:But the problem is that church culture puts leaders on a pedestal
So what? That doesn’t mean I have to do it.
The so what test says that after they fall off their pedestal, the people who believed in pedestalism often have testimony issues. Better to be realistic about what the men are, and not create such testimony issues. Amen, SD – amen. Prophets never have been perfect in our scriptural record, so I have no problem with our modern leaders not being perfect. In fact, I would say, with few exceptions, our modern leaders are much less problematic than most of the prophets described in any real detail in the scriptures. They are blander, if you will, but that means the negatives also are less extreme.
Old-Timer wrote:Amen, SD – amen.
Prophets never have been perfect in our scriptural record, so I have no problem with our modern leaders not being perfect. In fact, I would say, with few exceptions, our modern leaders are much less problematic than most of the prophets described in any real detail in the scriptures. They are blander, if you will, but that means the negatives also are less extreme.
I now believe they are not much different from average leaders trying to do their best. But you know my story — a litany of leaders who seem not to live up to our values when there is conflict with temporal interests in the church. Realizing that all the talk about inspired leaders, that the prophet will “never lead the membership astray”, and whitewashing our history and character flaws of early leaders, and holding out Bishops as oracles of knowledge to the membership made my own crisis much deeper.
Oh that I had this realism about their normalcy from the get-go. I would have felt far less betrayed than I did the first few times it happened. The first time, I was floored, deflated, and sleepless…but then accepted my friends’ perception that the SP who inflicted the pain was simply “hard nosed”. I took it as an anomaly. The second time, I accepted the anomaly argument, but also felt a strong warning signal that something was not quite right — and recovered with wounds. And the third time, landed where I am today — believing that our leaders are not what the membership is often led to believe, that they are primarily managers of church resources, and that occasionally, they have flashes of inspiration, a s we all do. But ultimately, it is the church’s interests they have at heart, and which prevail. Occasionally, I have run into leaders who truly care, and I’m thankful for them (in fact, my recovery from my first dose of harsh reality was mitigated by the actions of average members who filled in the gap the leaders’ left behind).
There are times when I believe the members who are unfettered by administrative loyalty are living waters of the church. The leadership and administrative scaffolding is the brown, wrinkled shell in which those living waters dwell — as a wise men once said (you are on this forum)…
People like Sheldon who are now free to act according to their personal conscience rather than bound by the cultural and administrative norms people confuse with the gospel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.