- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote: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?
Yes it would. This forum is also good as a first step to get where people are at a bit.Orson wrote: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.
I’m curious…can you elaborate so I can understand you better?
DevilsAdvocate wrote: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.
DA, I really like your analogy of the puzzle and I think it helps me understand where you are coming from. Let me try to use the same analogy to express another point of view about the topic.I think the puzzle analogy works very well for outsiders who have never seen the picture that the puzzle depicts. In that case, yes, they will imagine the image that will be produced and as more puzzle pieces are added, they refine their mental version of the image. As more pieces are added, people who have never seen the box that the puzzle came in, can agree on more an more of what the image will be. But that’s not what we are really talking about when we talk about the Church, its leaders, and its believing members. They have the lid of the box that the puzzle pieces came in… at least they think they do. You and I would probably say that while the picture on the lid is vaguely similar to what the puzzle pieces will eventually produce, it’s not the same, and in significant ways. So, they are trying to put the puzzle pieces together in a way that reflects what they already believe to be the master image. There are many puzzle pieces that fit well, much that is simply missing, and a growing number of puzzle pieces that seem to be outliers: they don’t really seem to fit the image that they have on their box lid. From my own experience in the Church, from my interactions with other Church members, and interactions of members of other churches, I will say that I believe that faith or belief is the trump card that makes all the outlying puzzle pieces just not matter. People set them to the side either to come back to them later or to determine that they must have been misplaced puzzle pieces. When they think they know the image that will appear, anything that doesn’t fit that image has to be discounted. So, they aren’t necessarily ignoring these odd pieces, they just don’t give them any value. Faithful people will excuse these things by saying that “God moves in mysterious ways” or that “my ways are not your ways” and will overcome them by trying to “live by faith”.
The BofA is a great example of this. I have no doubt that to the top leaders of the Church, the BofA is an inspired work. How it came to be is unclear. Some probably still believe it is an actual translation, and there there is a logical explanation for why the papyri contain an unrelated funerary text. Others likely have accepted the catalyst theory as the most logical explanation. You and I think the most logical explanation is that JS made it up. But that is because the image that we think should be on the box lid is that JS was not a prophet and that the BofA is not inspired. If their box lid says he was and it is, they will draw different conclusions.
OON,..I understand exactly what you have said here. It makes pretty good sense. We fit our beliefs into a preconceived image of what we thing they should be. One of my favorite quotes is simple but profound: Quote:We don’t believe what we see; we see what we believe.
Rob4Hope wrote:Orson wrote: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.
I’m curious…can you elaborate so I can understand you better?
We cannot become saved from ignorance if it doesn’t exist. We cannot progress if we remain forever in the garden. We cannot progress if we were never in the garden.
Without the contrast of light and dark everything remains meaningless.
Orson wrote:
We cannot become saved from ignorance if it doesn’t exist. We cannot progress if we remain forever in the garden. We cannot progress if we were never in the garden.Without the contrast of light and dark everything remains meaningless.
Understood…opposition in all things, so ignorance must exist as well.
Rob4Hope wrote:
Understood…opposition in all things, so ignorance must exist as well.Yes. One byproduct of the faith journey for me is I have found deeper meaning in so many of our common teachings. Some books like “Crucible of Doubt” and podcasts like “Mormon Matters” have helped bring them out for me.
Orson wrote:Rob4Hope wrote:
Understood…opposition in all things, so ignorance must exist as well.Yes. One byproduct of the faith journey for me is I have found deeper meaning in so many of our common teachings. Some books like “Crucible of Doubt” and podcasts like “Mormon Matters” have helped bring them out for me.
I feel myself shifting in my faith crisis. I go from a place of more peace to ANGER!…and then waffle back and forth. Its a challenge. I wish I could describe what happens to me….
Years ago I read a book–a fantasy novel–where a world of mythical fairy life existed. It was filled with a mist that took on the shapes and structures that those around it conceived, as though reality became what was envisioned in the minds of people. Reality was what they conceived it to be, literally becoming reality in process. It explored the whole concept of “as a man thinketh so is he” as actually happening.
This whole quest, this personal FC I am on, is in a strange way like that. The rules shift: what is right and wrong, good and bad, light and dark seem to shift and twist from day to day. It is maddening because the rigidity of principle and “doctrine” (whatever that is) seem so ethereal and unfixed.
I struggle mostly with GA statements that “if you do this or that…you are going to hell” type of thing. So, they say…but what is hell, and how can they fortune tell when they themselves don’t even agree with each other?
Never in my entire life would I have considered that I have to literally make my own decisions about what I consider light and dark, right and wrong, good and bad. When the standards are not fixed, it becomes so twisted and frustrating.
I’m talking in high metaphor here…but my FC has devolved into just such a quest. The very nature of what is right and wrong have become suspect to me–they are not fixed.
There is a single concept ONLY that seems fixed,…and that is the concept of love. Something inside of me knows what love is: it is foundational and fundamental to who I am as a person. And, love makes choices more clear, as well as deciding what may or may not be right or wrong.
I can not make it any more clear. But, this is where I am…. I’m getting tired of being Angry. I feel myself slipping into agnosticism or atheism,…but most of all, apathy. I’m not sure I like any of those choices at this point.
Rob4Hope wrote:It is maddening because the rigidity of principle and “doctrine” (whatever that is) seem so ethereal and unfixed.
Yes. Welcome to life outside the garden.
Quote:I struggle mostly with GA statements that “if you do this or that…you are going to hell” type of thing. So, they say…but what is hell, and how can they fortune tell when they themselves don’t even agree with each other?
We all speak from our own experience and understanding. It can be a major switch to see prominent leaders as fellow travelers, men that are asked to lead, but we all access the divine in the same way – therefore we must trust our own heart first as we listen to the counsel of others.
Quote:Never in my entire life would I have considered that I have to literally make my own decisions about what I consider light and dark, right and wrong, good and bad. When the standards are not fixed, it becomes so twisted and frustrating.
When I was a child I thought as a child, when I became a man I had to put away childish things and take fate into my own hands. Moving out of the early childhood stage is one adjustment (santa, tooth fairy); moving into full adulthood is another, more challenging adjustment.
Quote:There is a single concept ONLY that seems fixed,…and that is the concept of love. Something inside of me knows what love is: it is foundational and fundamental to who I am as a person. And, love makes choices more clear, as well as deciding what may or may not be right or wrong.
To me that sounds like God is speaking to you. Love is the key, the answer, “the means and the end” (pres. Uchtdorf) To me God is love, more literally now than ever. Cling to love and ask yourself the questions “am I apathetic on love?” If I constantly try to cultivate love and grow in my capacity to love where does that take me? Moroni 7 says charity is the greatest of all and whosoever is found with it at the last day will be in good shape.
Don’t be apathetic or agnostic on love, that is all I worry about; and I find as my capacity to love increases baby step by baby step, I am able to place all the other challenges in context. There is one question I often hold active in my mind as I sit through church meetings, I don’t often share it but you may find it helpful. It helps me find new connections and new hope. “Is the power of love the power of God?” If so what would that mean, what forms would it take, what bread crumbs would it leave? Have you seen Interstellar?
We often want to ask “if our purpose is to move into full adulthood why is it so fully discouraged in church?”
I think the best answer is “why were Adam and Eve commanded to not partake of the tree of knowledge?”
Old-Timer wrote:One of my favorite quotes is simple but profound:
Quote:We don’t believe what we see; we see what we believe.
That’s awesome, Ray.Orson wrote:We often want to ask “if our purpose is to move into full adulthood why is it so fully discouraged in church?”
I think the best answer is “why were Adam and Eve commanded to not partake of the tree of knowledge?”
Exactly. I agree Orson. It becomes a choice to embark on something that “must be” if there is no other way to have eyes opened. It is a leap of faith in one’s self, even if not from an institutional checklist of instructions.
I sometimes think it is a possiblity God doesn’t correct some things in the church or he allows the human element of imperfection and what can be perceived as denial because the opposition is needed and we can’t become so complacent and comfortable that we never want anything but the easy garden of eden perfect, safe, easy environment.
At some point…we want more. And have to choose the path to get the reward because adulthood includes that environment and we have to be ready to thrive in such an environment of uncertainty and experiences to grow from.
Orson wrote:
We often want to ask “if our purpose is to move into full adulthood why is it so fully discouraged in church?”
That is a REALLY good question. The church creates homogeneous groupings of people–each patterned after obedience models, and yet to stray from the mainstream is to incur displeasure and hostility from the culture that keeps people in check.
Orson wrote:
I think the best answer is “why were Adam and Eve commanded to not partake of the tree of knowledge?”A big questions I have is, from the Church’s perspective, what is adulthood?
The concern is NOT making choices; it shifts to the nature of the choice. For example, as an adult, we know taking responsibility for our choices is part of the domain. We are also taught our entire lives that the “light of Christ” delineates the lines between ethical right and wrong.
However, along comes talks from people like Oaks who say in essence: “If you get revelation that is different than what we GAs are saying, it is from the devil.” And there are many people on this site who have come right out and said that the LGBT policy is wrong–it is not Christlike. So, immediately, there is a dilemma: right and wrong become fuzzy,…and the “light of Christ”,…whatever that is, becomes suspect.
Actually Orson, I don’t think the church cares about adults who self think, unless that process coincides with the proscribed methods and policies. We are told we can think outside the box, but if we are not in agreement and we choose to publish our thoughts or feelings contrary to church edicts, warnings and discipline follow.
How can variety and growth happen in an environment where divergence is punished? And how can adulthood happen when growth in such areas as self determination about “ethical questions” is attacked?
You are right that thoughts or ideas outside the box are stifled. I don’t know if this will be helpful but on a much simpler scale imagine a group of young kids in a class that are excited about Santa coming. If a couple have discovered the “truth” about Santa and they want to “ruin” the experience of all the other kids in the class. In some situations it makes sense to not force people beyond their present paradigm. It is true in that case that all the kids are not free to share their personal views on the topic, the magical experience for most is the goal. A teacher may say “some people don’t believe in Santa, isn’t that sad” and in other ways demonize the experience of the few that is not in harmony with the goals of the norm.
Yes this analogy falls short, it assumes teachers know something they are not sharing.
Regarding “if your inspiration is contrary to what the leaders teach…” to me it sounds like something they have to say. People crave that type of clear distinction, if it’s not given to them the whole experience falls apart.
Yes it’s messy, ‘real life’ is messy. It also has incredible potential for personal growth.
What is adulthood from the church’s perspective? Fuzzy and largely irrelevant. I see the important question as “what is adulthood from God’s perspective” or even “what is my personal potential?” It will be different from my brothers, as will my path.
Maybe it’s an issue of timing. When I look at the doctrines of the church it appears the end goal is to help people progress to the point that they become agents unto themselves. There also appears to be a glass ceiling, people are only “allowed” to progress to a certain point before they are reeled back in. Perhaps most people believe that the end goal can only be achieved in the afterlife. What if it can be achieved in this life? Spiritual autonomy (or becoming god) doesn’t work well in an organization that is set up to keep people in the relative comfort of Fowler’s stage 3. Fear damns progress. Someone in stage 3 likely fears becoming their own voice of moral authority. You have to get to a place where you can trust in yourself and that’s a hard thing to do, especially when we know how imperfect we are. We are our own harshest critics after all.
The church facilitates transitioning from one faith stage to another. Any staunch stage 3 organization can do that, it’s the opposition that provides the growth. If the church
wasn’twhat it is would we have ever become an adult? Okay maybe, but through some other process and then we’d all be on some other message board complaining about whatever opposition facilitated that same type of growth. 
In that light the church served the exact function that it was meant to serve, despite being an organization that discourages becoming a full adult. Once an adult we can better recognize the role that the church played in facilitating the process of becoming an adult. The church provided a crack in our conceptualization of perfection that caused us to question. The church provided resistance which allowed us to become stronger as we wrestled with god. I imagine that once we’re an adult we’re more at peace with how the church operates. It’s just like any other thing in life, and I find it interesting how the church can help people grow no matter what stage of faith they find themselves in.
The funny thing about becoming an “adult” much later in life… if it happened once it could happen again. Transitioning from a child to an adult is really just transitioning from a child to yet another iteration of a child. Maybe the scriptures would say (trigger warning, Book of Abraham
😆 )Quote:If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them; … These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.
My “adult” is really just a child in the eyes of many. No matter how far we think we’ve come there’s always room to become an adult all over again. Well maybe not for “big G” god. I’ve found that the more I learn the less I know so I don’t ever have to worry about becoming a big G.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.