- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
Roy, do you find other churches you visit are in any less denial (if we are using that term for avoiding airing dirty laundry)? Because that has been one thing I’ve observed as I visit other religions…the LDS church isn’t the only church with struggles on how to deal with mortals in their congregations that are imperfect, how things are explained imperfectly, and how people misunderstand things and aren’t always corrected timely.
I believe so. The Baptist church where we did Awanas had an anti-Muslim mean streak. They had pamphlets that quote parts of the Koran that seem to justify violence, Jihad, sexism, etc. Of course if someone where to cherry pick verses of the Bible – we Christians would not come out smelling like roses either.
We most often participate at the Assembly of God church because of their AWESOME children’s program. While the kids are downstairs I go upstairs, read, play my tablet, and listen to the Pastor’s evening service. It is quite apparent that he has a Bible = Word of God mindset. I remember him talking once about the miracle of the bible – all the fulfilled prophecies etc. as though it could do and say no wrong. For several weeks he was talking about marriage and against gay marriage. His logic seemed very circular. He said that if you widen the definition of marriage to include these other types of relationships then that water’s down the definition of the word “marriage” until it has almost no meaning…like expanding the definition of “dogs” to include all pets. That same argument could be used against Flat screen televisions, laptop computers, or cell phones – as though these new items are diluting the definition of the original words by modifying them. Now he is talking about the Holy Spirit. He has said repeatedly that the doctrine of the trinity is taught consistently throughout the Bible. I know this not to be the case. The only verse that mentions the three explicitly as one god is a later insertion. He mentioned three different verses, one indicating that the holy spirit raised JC from the dead, another said that it was God, and still another said that JC did it of his own power. Rather than a contradiction he used these three different verses as proof of the Trinity. It seems to me that the Trinity was not conceived/understood until after the time of the bible. But if Paul and Jesus did not have our same understanding as modern Christians as to the exact nature of God, that raises some big questions. Therefore we reinterpret the biblical record as though they had always believed in the Trinity.
OTOH, The Assembly of God Pastor has also said of some of the church’s doctrinal positions “Me may be wrong about that, and that’s ok.”
In looking up online reviews for the book “Misquoting Jesus” I found 5 books that were evangelical apologetic responses to “Misquoting Jesus.” So yes, I would say that denial and apologetics are alive and well in a number of different churches.
And yet, I brush most of this stuff off as good people trying to defend and hold on to their own quirky belief systems. Why can I take it so impersonally at these other churches? I believe that my feeling of betrayal in the LDS church is directly related to the amount of confidence and dedication that I placed in LDS teachings. I made important life decisions with LDS considerations taking top priority and when I fell I fell hard. Had I been a casual member of the LDS church then I do not believe these “denials” would sting quite so much.
Anyone got a comment on my list above? Rob4Hope wrote:Anyone got a comment on my list above?
They are what they are. They’re things that make life hard when you’re trying to stay in the game one way or another. There’s no real answer/refutation/justification for any of them. The church ignores or finesses them to not shake members’ testimonies and we just set them aside so that we can teach SS, help with scouts, be a clerk, etc.. Are they reasons to throw in the towel? Sure, the members of your ward could easily be more than enough reasons to set it aside and stay. IMHO.
Rob4Hope wrote:Anyone got a comment on my list above?
I think most faithful and obedient members including the top 15 leaders are not even aware of some of the most problematic details that tend to undermine the credibility of the Church’s claims about revelation, living prophets, and the restoration story and it is only a relative handful of hardcore apologists and history buffs that actually know about most of the issues in detail but still believe in these claims. Maybe most members and leaders know about the racial priesthood ban but that doesn’t mean they know about the statement from the First Presidency in 1949 that they basically thought this was a God-given commandment at the time so that makes it easier for them to rationalize and make excuses for it without connecting the dots that it doesn’t exactly help support the continued claims about revelation and living prophets. Similarly I think many of them don’t know about some of the most troubling details surrounding Joseph Smith’s plural marriages, the Book of Abraham “translation”, etc. So I would call some of this ignorance more than denial, not in a disparaging way, but simply stating that as far as I can tell many Church leaders and members don’t even know about many of the worst problems with the Church’s story to begin with.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:…as far as I can tell many Church leaders and members don’t even know about many of the worst problems with the Church’s story to begin with.
I think you are right about this…and it blows my mind. It just blows my mind.
We are this church that values education. We are this church that teaches study out of the best books,…and we don’t have institutional denial as much as we have institutional ignorance and blindness.
That surprises me because leaders, of all people, should be the most informed.
Rob4Hope wrote:We are this church that values education. We are this church that teaches study out of the best books,…and we don’t have institutional denial as much as we have institutional ignorance and blindness.
That surprises me because leaders, of all people, should be the most informed.
R4H,they aren’t blind, they aren’t ignorant. They just see things in a different way than you and I do. Do you think the Pope understands that Peter wasn’t the first Bishop of Rome? Closer to home, think about the debates that will be aired between the two candidates for President this fall. Each candidate will be very articulate. Each will rely on facts. Each will be very self-assured. Neither will be able to understand the other. Followers of one will agree with that candidate and think the other is ignorant.
I feel like the only way I have been able to move forward, while being a Mormon Atheist, is to come to terms with the concept that people see things differently, and to learn to accept and even embrace that. The most poisonous approach is to label everyone with whom I disagree as ignorant and blind. All that accomplishes is polarization. See the political environment of the US as a great example.
Rob4Hope wrote:Anyone got a comment on my list above?
The list demonstrates the full range of humanness in the church. My comment about gold rich dirt applies here. After I fully acknowledge and internalize the level of regular people, actions, and thought, I can then move forward in my efforts: sifting and searching for “gold.”
The miners that make their living out of ground that is over 99% regular dirt don’t complain about all the rocks and dirt, they know that almost all of it is useless to them. They know what it takes to extract what they are looking for.
I do acknowledge that the situation is complicated by bad expectations. I see how many were holding and treasuring soil believing it had extremely high concentrations of the precious stuff, and when they learned the “truth” they see it as worthless and not worth the effort.
It does take a different process. Some of us have adapted and still see enough gold to make a high volume process pay off.
It’s simple gold but not fools gold, the opportunities to serve are real.
I don’t know if that helps. I feel like when people present a list they are looking for answers that change the nature of the issue, or in other words they are saying “show me that this dirt really has as much gold as I thought it did.” I have to say “nope, it’s mostly basic dirt, here is the high-volume process that I use.”
On Own Now wrote:… is to label everyone with whom I disagree as ignorant and blind. All that accomplishes is polarization. See the political environment of the US as a great example.
I am not sure I know a better way to say this. I recognize these guys are VERY accomplished…..scientists, lawyers, doctors, business professionals, etc. But, are they pure theologians? And are there any accomplished historians?
I understand what you are saying OON…but I’m still a little stung.
Individual sin, if based on ignorance, is understandable. However, we can’t be saved in ignorance. Does an institution have different requirements?
On Own Now wrote:R4H,
they aren’t blind, they aren’t ignorant. They just see things in a different way than you and I do. Do you think the Pope understands that Peter wasn’t the first Bishop of Rome? Closer to home, think about the debates that will be aired between the two candidates for President this fall. Each candidate will be very articulate. Each will rely on facts. Each will be very self-assured. Neither will be able to understand the other. Followers of one will agree with that candidate and think the other is ignorant.
I feel like the only way I have been able to move forward, while being a Mormon Atheist, is to come to terms with the concept that people see things differently, and to learn to accept and even embrace that. The most poisonous approach is to label everyone with whom I disagree as ignorant and blind. All that accomplishes is polarization. See the political environment of the US as a great example.
You said it much better than I did, much more loving and respectful.I like these examples. Well said.
Rob4Hope wrote:I am not sure I know a better way to say this. I recognize these guys are VERY accomplished…..scientists, lawyers, doctors, business professionals, etc. But, are they pure theologians? And are there any accomplished historians?
Like the fisherman Jesus called, they may not be accomplished at anything specifically related to religion. They are called, and they answer the call, and do the best they can and hope people will sustain them despite their weaknesses, and that God will make up for their mistakes.
God doesn’t call the mighty and accomplished…probably because it doesn’t matter if the histories got retold correctly or not.
All things flow in the course they are intended to flow. We fight the currents or we learn to navigate the flow.
Rob4Hope wrote:I am not sure I know a better way to say this. I recognize these guys are VERY accomplished…..scientists, lawyers, doctors, business professionals, etc. But, are they pure theologians? And are there any accomplished historians?
I think this is precisely why
theydidn’t write the essays and asked the expertsto do it. Heber13 wrote:On Own Now wrote:R4H,
they aren’t blind, they aren’t ignorant. They just see things in a different way than you and I do. Do you think the Pope understands that Peter wasn’t the first Bishop of Rome? Closer to home, think about the debates that will be aired between the two candidates for President this fall. Each candidate will be very articulate. Each will rely on facts. Each will be very self-assured. Neither will be able to understand the other. Followers of one will agree with that candidate and think the other is ignorant.
I feel like the only way I have been able to move forward, while being a Mormon Atheist, is to come to terms with the concept that people see things differently, and to learn to accept and even embrace that. The most poisonous approach is to label everyone with whom I disagree as ignorant and blind. All that accomplishes is polarization. See the political environment of the US as a great example.
You said it much better than I did, much more loving and respectful.I like these examples. Well said.
On Own Now – I need whatever drug you do. You are just so calm and clear. I wish I worked in the same office so we could have lunch every once in a while.Rob4Hope wrote:
Individual sin, if based on ignorance, is understandable. However, we can’t be saved in ignorance.We also cannot be saved without ignorance.
On Own Now wrote:…they aren’t blind,
they aren’t ignorant. They just see things in a different way than you and I do.Do you think the Pope understands that Peter wasn’t the first Bishop of Rome? Closer to home, think about the debates that will be aired between the two candidates for President this fall. Each candidate will be very articulate. Each will rely on facts. Each will be very self-assured. Neither will be able to understand the other. Followers of one will agree with that candidate and think the other is ignorant…I feel like the only way I have been able to move forward, while being a Mormon Atheist, is to come to terms with the concept that people see things differently, and to learn to accept and even embrace that. The most poisonous approach is to label everyone with whom I disagree as ignorant and blind.All that accomplishes is polarization. See the political environment of the US as a great example. There’s a difference between people looking at all of the available information they have time to process and still interpreting it differently and people only looking at a relatively limited amount of information that specifically favors a certain interpretation from the outset. Take the Book of Abraham for example; is there any compelling reason to believe that the Church Presidency and apostles have ever paid much, if any, attention to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers or the fact that the facsimiles are mistranslated according to independent Egyptologists but at the same time the text of Joseph’s “translation” refers to specific facsimiles? Personally I don’t see it.
If Church leaders were openly saying, “I see all that and I still believe in the restoration” then maybe you could make a case that they are actually looking at most of the same information as the critics and hard-core apologists but so far all we typically hear out of them is the traditional faith-promoting narratives. Even if they are vaguely familiar with the Book of Abraham not matching the existing “Book of Breathings” scroll enough to sign off on the essay or whatever, it seems like not taking into account some of these details would make it that much easier to simply dismiss the issue with some explanation like the missing scroll or catalyst theory. If you have a puzzle with half the pieces missing then of course people can imagine whatever they want to fill in the blanks but as more of the pieces are included it will become increasingly difficult for the average person to see anything other than the original image.
That’s why I’m not going to apologize for thinking that Church leaders really are uninformed and relatively ignorant of the facts because I think this is simply the most accurate description of the situation until we see a good reason to believe that they are actually aware of some of these details. Personally I think saying they don’t necessarily know any better is actually more charitable than assuming that they know all this but still stubbornly believe and act the way they do in spite of that. In some cases they could simply not have any interest in some of these historical details (my wife definitely doesn’t). Even willful ignorance and denial are understandable coping mechanisms where sometimes people basically don’t want to face the facts simply because it is so painful or inconvenient for them that they just don’t want to go there.
LookingHard wrote:I wish I worked in the same office so we could have lunch every once in a while.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had real-world contact to be able to sit down and talk together, rather than this relatively ineffective form of communication?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.