- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
swimordie wrote:
In the spirit of this thread, are you saying that the “why bother” is just a residual of circumstance (“I’m in it now, so I might as well make it work”)?
I’d say there is very much to that, if by “just” a residual of circumstance you have in mind all the experience, knowledge, culture, shared sin, shared love, etc. that a residual of circumstance implies. So, not just, “I’m in in now, so I might as well make it work”, but “This is the Best Of All Possible Situations (BOAPS) for me.” (Arbinger Institute,
Bonds That Make Us Free.) No, swimordie, my comment was a reaction to your comment, Quote:in a marriage, it’s presumed that both spouses will work to make it better, overcome faults (or at least acknowledge those faults), increase respect to each other, try to minimize or avoid emotionally manipulative tactics, etc.
Again, I would argue that the marriage analogy is excellent, it just feels like the “spouse” isn’t working towards the same goal of mutual respect, unconditional love, emotional support, and real honesty. fwiw, imho, iow, etc.
I was saying that in some marriages, only one spouse works to make it better, overcome faults, etc. I will say that I have experienced periods like that in my marriage. Sometimes, it seems to me I’m trying to make it better, but my wife doesn’t seem to care any more. It can be really frustrating for the spouse who is trying to make it work, when the other one just doesn’t care any more.
Same with the church. Some people try to make the church work for them, but the church doesn’t seem to reciprocate. It can be really trying. (Vice versa is also true, sometimes the missionaires/home teachers, etc can try to help an inactive, who just doesn’t seem to care.)
So, if only one spouse is trying, does that mean the marriage should end? I say no. Even if a marriage isn’t fulfilling currently, I don’t believe that getting a divorce necessarily makes it better. The question in the thread seems to say, if the church isn’t true, is it better to “divorce” the church? Once again, I say no. It could simply be a period of a spiritual lull with the church, and things will get better if one or both partners try to make the relationship improve.
I am reminded of a marriage counselor who said that even if the other spouse is not trying, the “trying” spouse can still make improvements in the marriage. I think there are parallels with the church, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think too many people make this mistake.
I’m a better person because of the ultimate theology, and the organization allows me to serve others within that same ultimate theology. Iow, I really like believing that we really are children of God and should be treated as such. I’m not forced to be who I don’t want to be. Sometimes, the organization (global or local) doesn’t support that perfectly, but, overall, it really does. Even for those who just aren’t accepted by or accepting of the membership and the Church, the ultimate theology provides a way out – a way to not judge or be judged and let God decide. I like that.
I was BIC, gained testimonies of church principles by prayer and faith. I have a strong love and connection for the Book of Mormon. While I went through an intense experience forcing me to challenge my beliefs and truly see things differently now, I have yet to come across something that makes me feel the church is a bad thing to stay and be a part of.
Those who see the church as the only source of truth are clearly in stage 3, and those that get tripped up, hate the church, step out of the church and then believe everything about the church is evil are still in stage 3, just on the other side of the aisle. Why is it hard for some to accept that others might be somewhere in the middle and believe some of it and not other things in it, yet still want to stay?
I believe by digging deeper into these concepts and challenge beliefs, I no longer see things as “black and white” or “right or wrong”, and I did not disprove the church in my mind, but came to a better understanding of Christ’s teachings and know how to apply them in my life. I also feel it challenges me to break out of a complacent mold, and really stretch on what it means to be “Christ-like”. My prior TBM view was narrow-minded, and I think there is much to enjoy in the church, whether I agree with it all or not, and there is much to enjoy outside the church that lets me release guilt and pressure (like what Valoel expressed).
Joseph Smith conceiling polygamy does not disprove the church, IMO. It may change how I view what I was taught of him, or church history, but I have yet to find that big thing that makes me say, well the church is all false. In most cases, I just don’t understand it all yet and have more to learn (line upon line).
I have read lots of stuff on Buddhism lately, I don’t believe all of it (reincarnation makes no sense), but I sure have found lots that is of great value to any person seeking to better themselves. In my opinion, God wants to see us moving in the right direction along the continuum of truth, not saved by grace or damned by heresy. If some in the church want to draw a line and make me choose to be in or get out…I guess where I’m at right now…I’d feel that would show how far the church members have moved away from how Christ taught and established His gospel.
Heber13 wrote:Joseph Smith conceiling polygamy does not disprove the church, IMO. It may change how I view what I was taught of him, or church history, but I have yet to find that big thing that makes me say, well the church is all false. In most cases, I just don’t understand it all yet and have more to learn (line upon line).
Do most people believe that those that fall away just found one thing that they thoughtprovedthe church isn’t true? That’s not the story I read when I read about those who are disaffected. It’s not my story either. There absolutely isn’t just one thing that proves beyond doubt that the church isn’t true. As I’ve stated before it’s the entire picture that’s painted once one examines the best historical facts and compares them with other common scenarios. That’s where I get tripped up. Any single historical conundrum can be accounted for by various apologists, but when conundrum after conundrum line up, it paints a very different picture for me, and one that I simply don’t believe to be reliable enough to claim exclusivity or even absolute truth. Now I recognize that many (e.g. Bushman, etc.) will examine those facts and choose to believe and I think that’s fine. I choose after examining those facts not to believe.
Honestly, I think that the foundational issue is feeling like one needs to understand “ultimate Truth” – the whole black and white mentality that devalues faith and pressures knowledge. We’ve had this discussion in other threads, but I’m able to reconcile lots of things simply because I define “true” and “truth” so differently than many people. @Ray Today on mormonmatters we had this discussion a bit and I talked about science and religion and each of them being true by fulfilling the purpose for which they were designed. What is your take on this (if you have time to read the thread it’s hawkgrrrl’s about science vs. religion)?
I honestly don’t feel I have a black and white mentality. I wouldn’t claim with any absolutely certainty that the church is or is not “true.” I’m quite open to any number of possibilities. I simply view the historical facts as such that I don’t believe in the literal “one true church” claim of authority.
Are we on the same page, or vastly different ones? I think I have a unique view on “true” and “truth” as well.
There is a thread about “The One and Only True Church” at: http://staylds.mormonblogs.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=142&sid=f00cfd19b423cd49225be452b930b985 My summary: The LDS Church is the only church that points me personally to what I view as my own “true north” – the ultimate objective for which I personally want to strive. Therefore, it is “true” for me – while not encompassing all Truth and absolutely still being pruned of the lingering effects of apostacy (both institutionally from the Great Christian Apostacy and individually from the darkness of every member’s glass).
I decided to check out stayLDS after listening to a YouTube presentation by John Dehlin, where he suggested that members questioning shouldn’t confine themselves to deciding whether the Church was true or not, but rather whether it was good or not. I liked the way he was presenting this thought to active members- trying to get them to connect to their struggling brothers or sisters, to make them less persistent in the psychical demand that what they’ve learned and accepted about the Church is immutable. Because the longer you live and learn, you see that it’s not. Many years ago I asked friends, leaders, family, etc., to give me the option to say that I’m a 90% believer, but that I had a 10% disbelief problem (I thought for sure that the 10% would be resolved; I anticipated that God would direct the Church in a way that my consternation would soon be shed). I struggled, implored, accepted callings, but couldn’t get relief. Steadily, year from year I would warn friends that I’m now 85%, 80%, but had an idea how to rectify my situation, if they’d only concede to help me, but it fell on deaf ears (no ears to hear). I could have used an internet back then. I got down to 50% and realized, it’s either all or nothing.
You see, the narrative of our Church is that it’s either true or not. I miss the music, the history, fellowship, camaraderie. I miss having the Church true, I really do.
We all miss it, and that is why some of us become cultural Mormons. When I read the title I thought about the “bother “part. If we separate, walk away from our heritage, do we really bother to find another faith community? How easy it is to build new friendships or help our children acclimate. Hitler worked for a Jewish family as a young man and ended up trying to destroy that religion from the earth. Many who leave the church probably stay away from organized religion. I guess the answer to the question lies with the individual. Perhaps the choice of a religion is best considered as an adult. Just saying…. To me, it all boils down to how each person defines “true”. George wrote:We all miss it
I don’t know why, but I never really missed it. It was replaced by something much, much fuller, better, and more real. And I was given a sense of duty or mission to stick with the church and figure out how to fit again.
I’ve been reading Albert Camus, and found this statement resonate:
Quote:there are truths but no truth.
There’s a big difference between a principle being true and a fact being true. For a stage 3 faith, “true” usually means applying a “factual” definition of truth to things that are more like principles. People aren’t true, they are full of complexity. There is no such thing as an organization being true. It is one’s literal-mindedness that drives to conclusions like “one true church” or how so-called facts of the restoration are interpreted. Was the first vision a visit or a vision? Was the BOM translated or inspired? These nuances reflect different meanings of the word “truth”. The gospel as taught by the church has truthiness, IMO, mingled with human interpretation. But you can’t prove or disprove it is true, only useful. We really need a whole thread to talk about “True and Truth” – it comes up all the time in our discussions… I just don’t know how to kick it off…but it would probably be worthwhile to understand definitions of those words and how we use them.
The other day, my son said, “I know Joseph Smith is true.” Bless his heart…I think I know what he is saying, but that isn’t really the right use of the word. I see this often in the church…those words aren’t really used correctly (according to what I think they mean).
Anyway, if anyone feels so inclined, a good study of those concepts would be….well, truly helpful.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.