- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Yeah, this is what I mean by the “living in secret” idea. Even if we are at (relative) peace with our own beliefs, we feel like we need to hide those beliefs from family, friends, and members. Before I joined groups like this one I had only a few friends with whom I could talk through ideas. That is unfortunate. At the same time, I think we can put the responsibility on ourselves to understand where others are coming from. Understanding the many purposes of religion, such as feeling comfortable with our roles in life, having a standard of morality, feeling a sense of security in our beliefs, yes, feeling that we are “right” and “special”–our complicated views challenge all of these. Yes, the position we are in can be lonely, but we have the advantage of understanding both where we are coming from and where our loved ones are! I am going to add a few “minimums” to my post, a place where I hope we can start. The Gnostics were early Christians who went through all the same motions as the orthodox Christians, but they claimed they had “secret knowledge” of reality. So I find it ironic that in our day, we have members who have to secretly *disbelieve* core doctrines, while going through all the motions… the (a)Gnostics.
@ DevilsAdvocate, I agree with you that we need to shift the focus to faith, love, patience, tolerance and so forth. And acknowledging the humanity leaders is a key part of my step #2 of providing the framework for the complexity. At the same time, I do not feel your response acknowledges how fundamental the divide is between our historical claims and historical evidence. The identity of our institution is wrapped up in the idea that only we have the truth and authority to administer saving ordinances. Missionary work and temple work depend on this. Again, the trick is how to provide each individual what he or she needs–support the majority in their desire to continue living good lives without being aware of any of these problems, and providing room for those who are.
Great post, Enoch. I don’t accept historical evidence as absolute truth, nor do I believe in Church’s orthodoxy. I like to accept religion is something beyond facts or required laws to get to heaven. It is about building a story from many data points that help provide an inspired meaning to my life, not right vs. wrong, but good, better, best. Christ taught in parables, because they can help us find meaning in things that help us be better and love others and raise our thinking to things above this world. He did not provide facts or scientific evidence or mathematical proofs. In fact, he did the opposite and introduced more complexity and paradox, with miracles and new paradigms and religious thoughts.
I think the Church has been successful despite the many errors over time and the many statements that we get offended by, because when I listen general conference, I feel they sincerely want to try to inspire me to be better. They are not interested in going back to fix historical facts or teachings, but just want to do what helps people today. Religion is about building faith for people, and faith allows for a hope for a better future, even if we don’t understand all things now. So even if we don’t understand the details on how Joseph Smith came up with the words that became the Book of Mormon…I can still benefit from reading the pages.
I think there is a fairly good mix of thought in the church: 1) Strict orthodoxy with people that have little patience for debating anything; 2) Liberal thinkers and scholars that debate everything; and 3) Many happy people that don’t know answers to everything, but they sure try to love others, are patient and kind-hearted and are generally a happy people.
And I think there are more in the #3 group than in the #1 and #2 combined. And I think the church will continue to keep a pulse on its members to keep more in that group because their mission is to help people be more Christ-like…not to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong. I think the church can accommodate people in Fowler’s stage 3, stage 4, and stage 5 of their faith.
I don’t feel I need to “hide” my beliefs from others, but learning to control them and not need them validated by others is part of my journey to remind myself it is between me and God, and therefore, I need to learn how to be myself, yet not be contentious with anyone else and their views. I need to let others believe things their way, and be comfortable the church allows us all to go to church together, even with our differing beliefs. I may never get the high profile callings, but then again, I don’t need those to pursue my spirituality.
I do enjoy being able to be open in this forum, and feel more understood here than at church, but make no mistake, I still need to be at church and practice my faith. I’m grateful Elder Ballard encouraged me to get more involved in the Internet sphere in sharing my testimony of the truthfulness of the church, even though I accept all the historical inaccuracies I’ve come across.
Enoch wrote:@ DevilsAdvocate, I agree with you that we need to shift the focus to faith, love, patience, tolerance and so forth. And acknowledging the humanity leaders is a key part of my step #2 of providing the framework for the complexity. At the same time, I do not feel your response acknowledges how fundamental the divide is between our historical claims and historical evidence. The identity of our institution is wrapped up in the idea that only we have the truth and authority to administer saving ordinances.
Missionary work and temple work depend on this.I know that Church leaders think that “one trueness” is a fundamental part of the Church’s identity that really helps with successful missionary work and I think this is one of the main reasons that they have been so stubborn about clinging to the nearly infallible prophet myth as if everything will fall apart without it. Personally, I think that if the Church’s survival really depends on this assumption then as far as I’m concerned it deserves to die off and it will only be a matter of time before this happens anyway. Why prolong the agony for another 50-100 years or however long it takes for more people to see through this?
I’m not suggesting abandoning the Joseph Smith story, Book of Mormon, etc. entirely I just think they should tone it down with some of their preaching about living prophets and unquestioning obedience to authority. For whatever competitive advantage we gain by making these extravagant claims about prophets and one trueness we also lose quite a bit as well because making these things such a focal point is directly related to some of the main reasons that many people leave or never join the Church because they will investigate the un-sanitized history or cult accusations and on top of that these claims are also the main justification for heavy demands like tithing, voluntary service, and the WoW that are the hardest thing for many people to accept about the Church.
If we didn’t already lose so many members and have the pretentious expectation of constantly maintaining maximum possible growth statistics then there wouldn’t really be any need to burn through so many converts just to find the few that will actually stick around long enough to pass this tradition on to their children. Personally, I would rather see them focus on trying to make the meetings a better experience to help serve as a missionary tool rather than treat these as if they are just one more thing members are supposed to endure as an expected requirement. The whole system is so inefficient as far as wasting the time and effort of so many well-intentioned members just so we can turn around and alienate such a high percentage over things like coffee and beer.
Your post reflects my thinking to a great degree. IMO, missionary work is ‘succeeding’ largely with populations who are undereducated, precisely because they don’t have the data and the critical thinking skills needed to analyze the historical information about the church. We portray them as the humble and teachable, which may be, but it hides a darker side about what kind of culture we are building with new converts.
Secondly, the 20-somethings and 30-somethings are leaving in droves here in the U.S. Of course, I don’t have empirical evidence of this, but I am pretty confident that my anecdotal observations will hold. The party line is that people leave because of sin and apostacy, influenced by the doctrine of men who delude the ‘very elect’, which can be true, BUT, I think a lot of people in this generation have the education, the critical thinking skills, access to the pertinent information and are unable to accept mythological accounts that don’t make sense. I think the church is on very sandy soil here in terms of future growth here in the states.
Thirdly, I think the church has chosen to focus on very basic doctrines that are unlikely to offend and is in some measure losing its mormon-ness.
@ Silentstruggle. I am actually very concerned about this. We are alienating our younger, educated, questioning members, and as you said, the Church is growing faster in less educated areas. This has disturbing implications for the sustainability of the Church. I really hope that we address these issues quickly, because it is not like we are going to get all these potential future leaders back if we notify them things have changed! Enoch wrote:The Gnostics were early Christians who went through all the same motions as the orthodox Christians, but they claimed they had “secret knowledge” of reality. So I find it ironic that in our day, we have members who have to secretly *disbelieve* core doctrines, while going through all the motions… the (a)Gnostics.
I am also entertained by the irony. Thanks for pointing that out. My personal wording preference would substitute “prominent” for “core” in describing the doctrines. Obviously, if there is something I don’t believe, I can’t see it as a core tenet of my religion. It becomes someone else’s problem if they need to hold to “error”, but my personal religion holds to truth [implied “as I understand it”]. Yes, the whole conflict originates from differences in views — especially when some are so “prominent”, and even “traditional”!
I see many similarities between the Gnostics and, say, many folks here at StayLDS. A LOT of similarities. AND, I think it is worth mentioning that the Gnostics were not seen in a good light the last 2000 years as far as Christians are concerned. I’m not sure if that bodes well for me? 😥 I think some of the discussion by The DA and Enoch is very insightful. I also worry about the future of the church. It is part of my angst that the LDS church is losing SOOO MANY good, righteous, spiritual 30-40 years olds because of cultural and traditional beliefs, and the leadership just has not done enough to change it. I know the leadership has done some good things lately, (most of it was “undone” at GC though) and I believe they know there is problem and they address it somewhat. The CHI training was one example. But they have not done enough to stop the bleeding, and I agree, it will get worse before it gets better.
The question that I mull over at night when I go for a walk is, what will it take for the leadership to truly focus on the problems and actually CHANGE? I hear two possible scenarios on this board. 1. Moderates/NOMS/Unorthodox stick around and try to change it from within before they get kicked out, or 2. enough moderates/NOMS/Unorthodox leave the church that there is significant loss of tithing revenue and temple attendance. I’m not advocating either. I personally have made a recent commitment to stick around until they kick me out. But I really see very little that I can do to effect change here, and I have lost my faith that the church will ever “change” in my life time. I don’t see it changing if I stay in, and I certainly don’t see it changing if I leave.
I think it is a fundamental point of John D, that MANY folks leave the church because they CARE TOO MUCH. I would LOVE to be able to just walk away from it, but I can’t. I also, personally, have got quit caring so much about it because it is causing so much sadness and anger.
Great comments Cwald. The great losses of caring, educated members cannot be overemphasized… is there any way to get data on this? From anecdotal evidence it sure seems it is serious! It breaks my heart. My hope is that as many unorthodox as possible stay within the Church. The Church is better for it. I for one am in until they kick me out
This discussion makes me grateful for the online resources and for the lights such as Elder Marlin Jensen.
Should we start to get the message out there to unorthodox LDS that is being given to the homosexual community (love those ads…) “It gets better”?
I really think it will get better. One of the great strengths and weaknesses of the Church is how much influence a few well-placed individuals can have. As our generation holds more leadership positions, who knows what will happen?
Quote:As our generation holds more leadership positions, who knows what will happen?
Amen.
I tend to agree with Ray that our GA’s form a sort of bell curve in orthodoxy, which maybe indicates orthopraxy, and maybe they’ve always been that way and I never really noticed, albeit this curve is probably pretty tight, as bell curves go, and likely does not represent the range seen among members at large, which may reflect one of the reasons they are GA’s in the first place and not holding down a ward calling and looking up junk on the internet. Still, there sure seems to be more diversity in thought among our esteemed leaders, which is something I never really noticed prior to a few years ago when I started paying more attention to this stuff.
I also completely agree that to move forward as a church, we need to become more moderate and “normal”, which is why we’re probably seeing these ads advocating our normalcy and no longer embracing the “peculiar people” idea. To do that, we’ll obviously have to spend less emphasis on our challenging history and spend more energy acting Christ-like and promoting our current Christ-like behaviors.
I feel bad for Cwald hearing about his talk with his father, but that does give clues about why he might be having more difficulty rectifying and organizing these dichotomies in his own head–such as historical evidence vs church claims and beliefs. Dude, maybe the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree. I’m not saying this to condemn you in any way or even remotely suggest that you share ideas and ideals with your bigot father. Nevertheless, never underestimate the power of genetics, particularly when combined with a history of being parented by this guy who presumably gave you half of you. Maybe your own genes are holding you back. If so, is all lost? Of course not. It just means that it might be more difficult for person A to adjust and move on as it might be for person B. In the same way, Person A might have easier times with other things that really bother Person B.
Often bigotry is based on fear and a categorical world view. Assuming (for this particular example) that such things may have some genetic basis, Cwald might look within to find his neurological nemesis. It sounds like he’s way past the categorical world view (though that might still rear an ugly head time to time), so I would ask… what are you afraid of? Go your way and enjoy our church the way it feels good to you and your family. Don’t stress the rest.
Now, I probably need to apologize for any assumptions I might have made and if Cwald tells me that I’m a loon that should mind my own business, I wouldn’t blame him. I don’t assume (and shouldn’t assume) to know his mind and what he needs at any given time in his life. Also, I’m not his therapist. But, those ideas came to my mind and something told me not to erase it. Maybe it helps me sort out my own mind. I don’t know.
I sure enjoy reading messages on this board. Thanks to everyone who posts.
Hmmm. Well if I were cwald, I’m thinking I might have a negative reaction to that. I’m sure it was meant well, but I think it was just a bit over the top, and pretty much unrelated to the topic at hand. In fact, though our fathers apparently moved in entirely different spheres, it sounds like they were very similar in many respects. I like to think that thisapple fell pretty dang far from the tree, and I assume others in similar circumstances would tend to feel the same. Not that it’s not helpful to be introspective every now and then. I’ve often heard that the characteristics we find most offensive in others are quite often similar to our own. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming …
I’m not going to put any words in cwald’s mouth, but I will address the general idea of the apple and the tree – then try to tie it into the actual post:Some apples really don’t fall far from the tree, and they are comfortable and happy being that close to the tree – until they realize they don’t want to be that close to that particular tree and can’t see a way to roll farther away and plant their own tree outside the dominating shade of their genetic or ancestral tree. Their proximate tree feels overwhelming – like it blocks the sky and sun and nourishing rain from reaching the apple as it lies on the ground. Other apples who fall near that same tree never struggle in that same way – for many, many reasons.
Other apples fall FAR from the tree – and their reactions represent the other side of the coin. Many thrive far from the tree and are grateful for the space; many search for a way to roll closer to the “protection” and “fellowship” of their genetic or ancestral tree.
Talking with people who have been adopted and don’t know who their parents are is fascinating in this regard. There is a deep longing and hunger to know who they are – which is due, to a larger degree than many people realize, by those from whom they inherited their individual personality traits.
Trying to tie this back to the post, I believe it is possible to accept both historical evidence and orthodoxy – but it takes a re-definition of “orthodoxy” for a very large number of people. It takes expanding orthodoxy to include acceptance of varying intgerpretations of things – like accepting BOTH a literal and symbolic view of the idea of a Savior, Redeemer, Judge, etc. as legitimate and possible. It involves resisting the urge to narrow and confine and codify and embracing the idea of expanding and liberating and refusing to codify. It takes allowing orthodoxy to include those near and far from the tree – excluding those who are trying to cut down the tree but not many others.
It takes defining orthodoxy for one’s self and not relying on others to define it for me.I mention frequently the idea that I really don’t care about the degree of my orthodoxy, since I am much more focused on being orthoprax – but I sometimes forget to state openly and explicitly that I view myself, ultimately, as orthodox. Sure, I am heterodox when it comes to lots of individual topics, but, overall, in the end, I am orthodox in my own mind.
I only can do that since I am the one defining “orthodox”– and I do that by differentiating between “cultural Mormonism” and “pure Mormonism”, and by making “pure Mormonism” flexible enough to encompass different and even competing “doxies”.We talk about being peculiar people, but are we comfortable being peculiar persons? The more comfortable internally we are with being a peculiar person within a peculiar people, the easier it is to accept both historical evidence and orthodoxy, imo.
Old-Timer wrote:It involves resisting the urge to narrow and confine and codify and embracing the idea of expanding and liberating and refusing to codify. It takes allowing orthodoxy to include those near and far from the tree – excluding those who are trying to cut down the tree but not many others.
It takes defining orthodoxy for one’s self and not relying on others to define it for me.If by codify I assume you mean labeling something as black or white, right or wrong, true or untrue. It makes anything, religion in particular, very comfortable and easy to live with. You just have to be sure you color within the lines and all will be well. What can result is not just the tendency to rely on others to define what is orthodox but to begin deciding what is orthodox for others. Living most of one’s life trying to achieve success by being orthodox is a fool’s errand. I remember the “live the handbook Elder and you’ll have success” mantra. It made me a pharisee and at the same time suspicious of anyone who spoke about being guided by the “Spirit”. The problem is that if you can’t make the transition between rules and guidance by principle you’re SOL.
Ray, I certainly agree with your sentiment, but feel your argument is that we can be orthodox by forming an orthodoxy of one, which is heterodoxy. I am a strong advocate for plurality within the Mormon community, but this is a very sensitive issue. We can’t *talk* about our heterodox beliefs. But should we, in any circumstance? In every circumstance? I am inspired by the “meat sacrificed to idols” story in 1 Corinthians 8. The educated members knew there were no other gods, so there was no problem buying cheap meat from pagan sacrifices. Paul agrees with this, but says the enlightened members should *still conform* to the understandings of the lesser educated members, because they considered it a sin.
I want to post about sin and interpretation in another thread, but let’s move back to belief in this one. The most important principle of the gospel is LOVE. I think that what we share with whom when should always be governed by love. Yes, that means that sometimes we feel that we have to hide in our communities, but for me that is the price of being in a large community. Fortunately there are now places, like this forum, where open-minded members can share ideas. You productively touch upon ways that, if you are not orthodox in the eyes of the majority, how you can come to peace with that. I feel that peace; I am very happy with my beliefs and practices. I am very interested in how to communicate those beliefs to a general LDS audience. I wrote more about this topic on two posts over at FaithPromotingRumor:
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/07/the-hierarchy-of-truth/ http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2010/08/id-like-to-bear-my-nuancimony/ This does not change the fact that in the Church, there is tremendous pressure to believe and interpret ideas and commandments in a particular way. In this thread I was addressing specifically the idea that Adam had the priesthood and it came down to Joseph Smith.
It was interesting talking to my father-in-law about this. He is educated and thoughtful, and converted to the church at 19. He really *gets* what is important and not, can separate the gospel from mormon culture. He wore colored shirts as a bishop, which I think is cool. He has had revelation and spiritual experiences. I look up to him tremendously, but he still does not really get my position. That is ok. He loves Rough Stone Rolling, is aware of problems, but he is satisfied with the apologetic stance of “well, scholarship can’t know everything, and because of the limitations of scholarship, I can hold to whatever conservative beliefs I want to.” He is more nuanced than that of course, but that is his basic stance.
If we assume the truth of the standard answers, we can come up with all sorts of intelligent defenses of our positions. The problem is, apologists cannot adequately refute the *overall construction of history* put forth by scholars. Yes, you can say “Joseph had reasons to emphasize different elements of his vision in different circumstances, or you know, memory sure is a fallible thing.” But that does not change the fact that the model of Joseph changing the telling of his experience to conform with later theology is not simpler and more persuasive. At the same time, I am glad that there are intelligent answers for particular problems. I would not want to force deconstruction on anyone. Once again, I just want room for a plurality of views.
Enoch, I understand what you are saying – and I think if you read some of the posts here you’ll see that we agree on lots and lots of things. For example: I don’t believe in an orthodoxy of one – and I’m not diminishing heterodoxy. What I’m saying is that I define what I believe orthodoxy to be, and that I believe “pure Mormon orthodoxy” is much more inclusive than orthodoxy generally is defined by many members. I’m saying that pretty much all of us do that (define orthodoxy on our own) – but most don’t realize they are doing it. That means they don’t realize they have the power to do it differently. I’m saying the whole reason we have so many different statements about what constitutes Mormon orthodoxy is that all of us, including apostles and Prophets, define it individually. We don’t have a hard-core set of immutable creeds, so we naturally tend to try to create one. My approach is to push against that tendency and draw the orthodoxy line as flexible and much more liberal.
When I say I see myself as orthodox, I am talking about at the macro level – even as I understand that I am heterodox in many ways at the micro level. I don’t think I have to believe everything that others label as orthodox to see myself as orthodox, especially in a religion that has SO many statements expressing a belief that Mormonism should embrace ALL truth – no matter the source. In other words, I have no problem defining orthodoxy more liberally to include all who are sincere and believing and faithful “according to the dictates of their own conscience” (or striving their best to be so) – and feeling like I am solidly within the parameters of Mormonism in doing so. Of course, there are limits to that idea, but I think they are far less restrictive than many people think.
I don’t want to take a Protestant stance on orthodoxy – and, to be slightly stereotypical, that means I don’t want to exclude others from orthodoxy simply because they don’t see everything (or even “the important things”) the same as I do. I could draw the lines strictly but differently, but I prefer to draw the lines liberally and differently.
My approach really isn’t a restrictive orthodoxy of one; it’s much more an expandable orthodoxy of many. It’s in line with Elder Wirthlin’s orchestra analogy in “Concern for the One” and many of Pres. Uchtdorf’s recent statements about valuing diversity in the Church. You might think that’s semantics, but I think it’s a critical distinction of attitude – a more charitable way to view the entire issue of orthodoxy, if you will.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.