Institutionalized denial?

[Anonymous]

R4H, I think you are dead-on in doctrinal drift. But this is different from institutionalized denial. I’d say it’s more akin to adaptation.

As an Atheist, I believe there is no core Mormon or Christian doctrine that is ‘true’ in the sense that the word is used in the Church. But I’ve come to believe that religious peace comes to me by accepting that you and DAB are both ‘right’ in the way you interpret your beliefs and doctrines. No peace can come by expecting or demanding another person to come over to my religious views.

[Anonymous]

Yep, there is an important difference between drift and denial.

This has been a good discussion, even if it were for nothing more than that distinction being articulated.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I think there are many, many examples, some of which reach almost doctrinal status. Much more common and less damaging are simple statements in F&TM such as “I know this church is true (or the more grating [to me] “I know this gospel is true”)

Hi DJ, this caught my attention. Would you mind elaborating why this grates on you? I know a few people who say “gospel” just so they don’t have to say the church is true because of all the non-divine aspects of the church. For them it’s almost a way to express that they have real doubts about the church but still believe the core idea that God is real and Jesus lives.

When I hear a SP or GA say the Gospel is true instead of the Church is true it makes me think there is a tiny degree less institutional denial. I could be drastically misinterpreting them.

[Anonymous]

Roadrunner wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

I think there are many, many examples, some of which reach almost doctrinal status. Much more common and less damaging are simple statements in F&TM such as “I know this church is true (or the more grating [to me] “I know this gospel is true”)

Hi DJ, this caught my attention. Would you mind elaborating why this grates on you? I know a few people who say “gospel” just so they don’t have to say the church is true because of all the non-divine aspects of the church. For them it’s almost a way to express that they have real doubts about the church but still believe the core idea that God is real and Jesus lives.

When I hear a SP or GA say the Gospel is true instead of the Church is true it makes me think there is a tiny degree less institutional denial. I could be drastically misinterpreting them.

I see what you’re saying and agree. I failed to add the proper emphasis in my previous comment. It’s when they say this gospel is true. Our gospel is no different than any other Christian’s. Saying this gospel is true indicates not only are we superior as a church because we’re the one true church, but our gospel is even in some way better than what others have.

[Anonymous]

I’ve enjoyed this thread. I want to focus on something that might be tricky,…but might illustrate more of the “institutional denial” idea again.

Because it is recent in my mind, I need to pull from the article Greg Prince wrote about the LGBT thing RMN said. Prince said (as near as I can recollect) that the GAs hold onto a belief that being “gay” is somehow a choice–those who have those feelings, and especially those who engage, do so by choice. Now, I can understand the latter, but the former–choosing to have those feelings?…that is a stretch, particularly when I know individuals personally who have gone through utter hell wanting to figure out and conform to what the church teaches.

The doctrines of the church for decades were quite hostile to LGBT LDS People. It was likened to the sin next to murder just to have those feelings (see Bill Reel’s interview with D. Michael Quinn). There was involvement from SWK and others involving shock therapy that was, IMHO, barberic. There was counsel for gay men to “force” themselves into heterosexual marriage, which resulted in massive broken family life and trauma to generations of children born into that setting. The church now has made a statement that the behavior is the concern, not the feeling; however, there is, as far as I know, no doctrine that is soundly taught that those who are gay will somehow be “fixed” in the next life. Mitch Mayne, for example, believes he is gay through and through, and for him, the next life does NOT hold exhaultation, at least in the LDS context.

Now, lets talk about something more directly. LGBT children in Utah commit suicide as VERY large rates. They do it because they don’t feel like the fit in. Their families kick them out, austricise them, and all kinds of other things happen. And, a new policy says that if you are parented by gay married people, as a child you can’t be baptized.

Question: Does the church have any responsibility for the suicides happening? Is the culture the LDS church DOES create among members, especially in very concentrated areas like Davis, SL, and Utah county, have anything to do with these youth giving up and deciding to kill themselves than continue forward?

I believe the answer is yes. And I belive the LDS church denies at worst, or completely minimizes its involvement in this at best.

I’ve laid this out as clearly as I can.

Comments?

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Orson wrote:

For me it all goes to show the church is very human, with specks of divine. Once I fully embrace that reality I don’t have to worry about the human part, I can focus on those wonderful little specks.

Let me pick (maybe too much) at your words. “Specks” of divine to me sounds like you are saying the vast vast majority is not divine – as in very rare to see the divine.

Part of me wants to say this is equivalent of staying with an abusive spouse because they occasionally show true love. I realize that is an exaggeration as I do not see most church stuff as abusive (but certainly not saying there is some abuse and bad things). There are many benefits for being a member of the church.

A few months ago, Bill Reel used this very analogy (of an abusive father) in a post on Wheat & Tares:

http://www.wheatandtares.org/17936/does-the-church-need-an-intervention/

LookingHard wrote:

Don’t take my asking on this as just bashing. I am seriously trying to figure out if I can really do as this website is named and “stayLDS” long term. I am having great side conversations with a few of you on this site that seem to have figured out how to do that. I thank you for taking the time to help me.

Is this something I might grow out of as I continue and just try to be more patient? At one level I do feel I have passed from my “pissed at being lied to” phase and I can see good and bad in the church. But as time goes on it is less about just being patient and I feel less general desire to associate with the organization. Part of me desperately wants to find a way to stay, but I don’t feel I am going to be doing it long term. The lack of church leadership or peers in the church admitting that there is much of anything less than perfect in the church just makes it harder for me to not stand up and point to the elephant in the room.

I feel like there is something I am just not getting that some of you have. And let me thank you again for many of your efforts to help others like me see/feel/do as you do. I really appreciate this site. I do think I might have left (at least stop attending) by now if I didn’t have this place to explore (and vent).

Unlike LH, I am still in the “pissed at being lied to” phase, but I am not sure if I can do this (StayLDS) long term either. I also feel like I am missing something else that some of you have too. The good things about the church do seem like tiny specks to me right now among its glaring faults and human frailties. I do have the desire to believe, but that’s about it.

I do appreciate this site because I have nowhere else that I can go to vent my frustrations without fear of severe repercussions to relationships I have with people I dearly love. I appreciate the helpful comments I’ve received from so many of you here. It’s one of the only things that helps me keep at it a little longer…

[Anonymous]

FaithfulSkeptic wrote:

I am still in the “pissed at being lied to” phase, but I am not sure if I can do this (StayLDS) long term either.

I oscillate between the pissed stage and the nuanced stage. I can’t just accept they are flawed men doing the best they can. The idea of denial being institutionalized to me pulls me into the pissed stage faster than anything else. I’m struggling to work through that.

Does anyone have comments about the suicide thing I brought up in an earlier post here?

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

Now, lets talk about something more directly. LGBT children in Utah commit suicide as VERY large rates. They do it because they don’t feel like the fit in. Their families kick them out, austricise them, and all kinds of other things happen. And, a new policy says that if you are parented by gay married people, as a child you can’t be baptized…Question: Does the church have any responsibility for the suicides happening? Is the culture the LDS church DOES create among members, especially in very concentrated areas like Davis, SL, and Utah county, have anything to do with these youth giving up and deciding to kill themselves than continue forward?…I believe the answer is yes. And I belive the LDS church denies at worst, or completely minimizes its involvement in this at best…Comments?

Personally I think Church leaders are in denial about the institutional Church deserving any blame for any harm done in this and other cases. Before blaming themselves or the Church’s teachings it seems like they would typically blame the families of these members that committed suicide for not doing a better job practicing what we preach (“love the sinner, hate the sin”). And they would also blame the Church members that committed suicide for listening to Satan and getting discouraged when they should have supposedly just remained celibate for the rest of their lives (I.E. “same sex attraction is not a sin but acting on it is”) and tried harder than they did to live the “gospel.” On top of that, it looks like most top Church leaders are basically hardliners that don’t feel like it is their place to change commandments that supposedly came directly from God no matter what the consequences.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

On top of that, it looks like most top Church leaders are basically hardliners that don’t feel like it is their place to change commandments that supposedly came directly from God no matter what the consequences.

Yes, The alternative is to accept and make acceptable what they believe is against God’s commands AND his plan of salvation. I assume from their perspective that they feel bad about the tough choices facing LGBTQ individuals, but they cannot abandon the boundary markers as they have been set without corrupting the message. IOW, I assume that they believe that if they tow the line that a small percentage will be greatly distressed but if they change the doctrine then they risk closing the “straight and narrow” pathway to anyone and everyone.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Orson wrote:

For me it all goes to show the church is very human, with specks of divine. Once I fully embrace that reality I don’t have to worry about the human part, I can focus on those wonderful little specks.

Let me pick (maybe too much) at your words. “Specks” of divine to me sounds like you are saying the vast vast majority is not divine – as in very rare to see the divine.

Part of me wants to say this is equivalent of staying with an abusive spouse because they occasionally show true love. I realize that is an exaggeration as I do not see most church stuff as abusive (but certainly not saying there is some abuse and bad things). There are many benefits for being a member of the church.

Don’t take my asking on this as just bashing. I am seriously trying to figure out if I can really do as this website is named and “stayLDS” long term. I am having great side conversations with a few of you on this site that seem to have figured out how to do that. I thank you for taking the time to help me.

Is this something I might grow out of as I continue and just try to be more patient? At one level I do feel I have passed from my “pissed at being lied to” phase and I can see good and bad in the church. But as time goes on it is less about just being patient and I feel less general desire to associate with the organization. Part of me desperately wants to find a way to stay, but I don’t feel I am going to be doing it long term. The lack of church leadership or peers in the church admitting that there is much of anything less than perfect in the church just makes it harder for me to not stand up and point to the elephant in the room.

I feel like there is something I am just not getting that some of you have. And let me thank you again for many of your efforts to help others like me see/feel/do as you do. I really appreciate this site. I do think I might have left (at least stop attending) by now if I didn’t have this place to explore (and vent).

I don’t often single out church leadership in my mind, “the church” is the full membership and yes we are regular humans. Leaders are not extraordinary men, they are regular men with a demanding calling. I do see a lot of opinion perpetuated as something like bedrock, trusting others is one of the potential pitfalls of life. We must go to the source, and yes trust our answers even if they seem to conflict with the answer our brother received. He may have a good reason to do/believe something that I am not called to follow. I don’t pretend to see the end from the beginning. I don’t want to limit the potential of life or God.

Maybe every spouse could be called “abusive” depending on our definition of the word. Yes there is a generally accepted range and definition, but our focus and personal experience can open us up to almost any possibility. I believe for the most part we are in the drivers seat in life, we can choose our experience. “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven…”

Personal strength is the key, don’t suppress negative experiences – let them go. “Suppress” means to hang on to but hide, if we let go of something we are no longer near it and it cannot poison us.

I have always said members will find it infinitely easier to stay after a faith crisis if they have for the most part enjoyed their experience in/with church. Those with an overall negative experience may not be able to find the personal reasons to stay.

One “key” in my mind (I don’t know if this is one of the things you are looking for) is to know that different personalities need to believe different things. We have our own set of preferences and while certainty feels like a burden to me, I can see that others lean heavily on their sense of certainty. I can’t try to take that away from them because I don’t understand all the facets of it that exist for them. These things are not just nuggets that we attach to from one angle and in a prescribed way. Our concepts are interwoven with our personality and the way we hold/use/measure/compare to the world around us is completely unique even if it seems to be very similar to others. My primary objective in life is to become more loving, and according to my beliefs more divine, so as I interact with others I don’t want to pull at or attack any part of their being or what they hold as precious. If it is poison I want to educate them in non-threatening general terms about poison or false ideas so they may choose to examine it and possibly in time “grow out” or “un-weave” it from their being.

I cannot take it out, it is not mine to deal with. They must make their own decision. I must also recognize that I probably hold some things to my detriment. As I live day to day focusing on love I must recognize that others will speak at times from their false ideas, just as I will. If I take offense I show my weakness. What they hand out is not my responsibility, it is theirs to give. My job is to decide what I will pick up and hang on to in life for my own progression.

[Anonymous]

On the issue of impact to LGBT people within the Church, I merely point out that I do believe that Church leaders struggle with what to do to improve this, short of changing what they see as the doctrine. I believe they are sincere. Note this segment from mormonsandgays.org from QLC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F1_bW5dtfQ

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

On the issue of impact to LGBT people within the Church, I merely point out that I do believe that Church leaders struggle with what to do to improve this, short of changing what they see as the doctrine. I believe they are sincere. Note this segment from mormonsandgays.org from QLC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F1_bW5dtfQ

Thanks OON. I do think I see what you are saying about them honestly caring, but not seeing a way to change what they see as doctrine.

It just saddens me that such an important item (reach out to those that are gay, NOT shun them!) is on a website that most members don’t know about. For me it parallels the essays. It feels mainly about plausible deniability in the future. Why not have a quick review of what is on Mormonsandgays.org between conference sessions?

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Leaders are not extraordinary men, they are regular men with a demanding calling.

I wish this were the case, but not the way it happens around here. They are “Men of God”. “Follow the prophet, he knows the way.”

These men are revered, even to a fault. They are held up as the examples of piety, kindness, poise, charity and holiness. They themselves are careful to protect the reputations they have, and they close ranks to protect their fellow associates. They limit exposure to controversial concerns, and work to quash publicity or even discussion of faults they may have. They teach doctrines that support this position of reverence and adoration. DHO, for example, said that even if it is true, to share it, if it is evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed (which is used with VERY broad strokes to include just about anything if its negative at all), is to fight against God.

When apostles enter the room, we stand for them. When the prophet speaks, “The debate is over”. “We can’t lead you astray…” “The prophet will never lead the church astray…” The list goes on.

Hero worship. They are not “not extraordinary men”…they are “Men of GOD”.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

On the issue of impact to LGBT people within the Church, I merely point out that I do believe that Church leaders struggle with what to do to improve this, short of changing what they see as the doctrine. I believe they are sincere. Note this segment from mormonsandgays.org from QLC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F1_bW5dtfQ

Thanks OON. I do think I see what you are saying about them honestly caring, but not seeing a way to change what they see as doctrine.

It just saddens me that such an important item (reach out to those that are gay, NOT shun them!) is on a website that most members don’t know about. For me it parallels the essays. It feels mainly about plausible deniability in the future. Why not have a quick review of what is on Mormonsandgays.org between conference sessions?

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

I wish this were the case, but not the way it happens around here. They are “Men of God”. “Follow the prophet, he knows the way.”

These men are revered, even to a fault. They are held up as the examples of piety, kindness, poise, charity and holiness. They themselves are careful to protect the reputations they have, and they close ranks to protect their fellow associates. They limit exposure to controversial concerns, and work to quash publicity or even discussion of faults they may have. They teach doctrines that support this position of reverence and adoration. DHO, for example, said that even if it is true, to share it, if it is evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed (which is used with VERY broad strokes to include just about anything if its negative at all), is to fight against God.

When apostles enter the room, we stand for them. When the prophet speaks, “The debate is over”. “We can’t lead you astray…” “The prophet will never lead the church astray…” The list goes on.

Hero worship. They are not “not extraordinary men”…they are “Men of GOD”.

I think this accurately reflects how many Orthodox church members see the Church Leadership and how “the Church” (meaning its administration, PR machine, leadership, etc) presents itself. I struggle with similar frustrations. I think it’s up for us to gradually discover if we can Stay LDS (in however we define that) when this is the way the Church operates and this is the way many in our faith community see Church Leadership. I think I know which way I’m going, for now. But I’m in the same process. I could change directions.

[Author]

Posts