- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
swimordie wrote:
All fantastic insight!
I would just add that some of the posters that are questioning seem to be mostly concerned about how it looks, who will say what, what will “they” think? This is probably the most natural reaction when considering blazing an individual path, especially while staying in the “church”. At some point, the journey can truly become individual when the individual is willing to let go of these “what if’s”.
If it’s possible, try to visualize being all alone but in a crowd of strangers. As you look around, you realize that you don’t know anyone. As such, you don’t really care what everyone there thinks about you. They’re looking at you but you can’t control what they’re thinking about you. What if your hair is messed up? What if you have a stain on your shirt? What if your fly is down?
Who cares!!
God, or whatever that means to you, has given you life. Don’t live it for others. Someday, we all have to answer to ourselves. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: God trusts you. Be honest with yourself, above all others.
I guess part of the difficulty is that as I am recently disaffected, at church I’m not in a crowd of strangers. I’m with friends, people I home taught last month, people who home taught me last month, men I have served alongside, people I have taught with the missionaries, people I have taught the temple prep lessons to, people whose kids play with mine. Perhaps that feeling will be different the next time I attend church (they recently reorganized the ward boundaries, so some of our old friends are in a new ward, and much of the ward is new people I haven’t previously met). I think it can be hard to not worry about fitting in at church, since so much of Mormon culture appears to be about fitting in. Mormons seem to be so worried about outward appearances (I know, a gross overgeneralization), more than about the things of the inner soul.
Quote:“Mormons seem to be so worried about outward appearances (I know, a gross overgeneralization), more than about the things of the inner soul.”
Fwiw, I don’t think that’s fair. It’s true of some, obviously, but it really is a gross over-generalization. At worst, I would say “too many” are AS worried about outward appearance as the things of the inner soul – but that’s true of EVERY group with whom I’ve ever associated. It’s only more disheartening in the Church because of YOUR expectations –
and that, ironically, is the other side of the outward appearance concern. That’s worth considering and pondering – since it’s very difficult to see naturally. Old-Timer wrote:Quote:“Mormons seem to be so worried about outward appearances (I know, a gross overgeneralization), more than about the things of the inner soul.”
Fwiw, I don’t think that’s fair. It’s true of some, obviously, but it really is a gross over-generalization. At worst, I would say “too many” are AS worried about outward appearance as the things of the inner soul – but that’s true of EVERY group with whom I’ve ever associated. It’s only more disheartening in the Church because of YOUR expectations –
and that, ironically, is the other side of the outward appearance concern. That’s worth considering and pondering – since it’s very difficult to see naturally. Perhaps its because it seems that Mormons use the outward appearance to judge the state of the inner soul. This is supported by statements such as, “Wearing the garment is an outward sign of our inner committment.”
You are absolutely correct about my disaffection resulting from MY expectations. I absolutely expected more from “God’s One True and Living Church” than I should have (particularly since it misrepresented itself). I absolutely expected more from a Prophet of God and that He would never lead me astray than I should have expected from any mortal man (not that we are really taught that he is just a mortal man, he IS a Prophet of God, afterall). Of course, these are the things I have been taught from my youth to accept without questioning, so I think the church itself fosters some of these unrealistic expectations.
As for unrealistic expectations, we probably expect too much from the man known as Jesus Christ if we are expecting eternal absolution of our sins and the resurrection of our bodies through him. I won’t even go into my unrealistic expectations of “God”.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:“Mormons seem to be so worried about outward appearances (I know, a gross overgeneralization), more than about the things of the inner soul.”
Fwiw, I don’t think that’s fair. It’s true of some, obviously, but it really is a gross over-generalization. At worst, I would say “too many” are AS worried about outward appearance as the things of the inner soul – but that’s true of EVERY group with whom I’ve ever associated. It’s only more disheartening in the Church because of YOUR expectations –
and that, ironically, is the other side of the outward appearance concern. That’s worth considering and pondering – since it’s very difficult to see naturally. Yes, I think it IS true of many groups…Mormons included. My take on it is the common belief (for those taking scripture literally) that God is “out there.” If He is a separate Being, and is believed to be instructing his “church members” through
leaders,” it is natural to feel judged by them, and feel a need to please them.
Gnostic Christianity (what seems to be closer to what Jesus actually taught) approaches God differently — “He” is within each of us. The external God, from my studies, was instituded in the early Catholic tradition, and to an extent was taught as a way to control the members.
I, personally, really like the Gnostic approach. It feels much more spiritual, and emotionally healthy to me. It allows us to shed our codependency and find spirituality uniquely and individually.
At least that’s my diagonal take on it, FWIW!
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:“Mormons seem to be so worried about outward appearances (I know, a gross overgeneralization), more than about the things of the inner soul.”
Fwiw, I don’t think that’s fair. It’s true of some, obviously, but it really is a gross over-generalization. At worst, I would say “too many” are AS worried about outward appearance as the things of the inner soul – but that’s true of EVERY group with whom I’ve ever associated. It’s only more disheartening in the Church because of YOUR expectations –
and that, ironically, is the other side of the outward appearance concern. That’s worth considering and pondering – since it’s very difficult to see naturally. Most social communities will be this way. The majority of adults find a comfortable equilibrium in this type of structural view of the world (referring to Fowler again). It just is the way it is, and it seems “right” and naturally comfortable to most people in groups. As frustrating as it is to those who later see the system as a system, I unfortunately have to consider sometimes that it is probably a very effective and functional mindset for group survival wired into a lot of us.
Hi MisterC, I think you have taken a big step in recognizing:
MisterCurie wrote:You are absolutely correct about my disaffection resulting from MY expectations.
It is our expectations, when out of line with reality, that leads to disillusionment. I agree with Dr. Ulrich that disillusionment is a healthy thing.You mention the church itself fosters unrealistic expectations. I would agree that some of our
culturefound in the church does foster unrealistic expectations. The important activity in rebuilding a new positive relationship with the church, in my opinion, is separating culture from doctrine. Yes, people in the church are flawed. This probably extends into what many people understand to be doctrine. It is difficult when the culture will not allow some items of “true doctrine” to flourish, but to me personally I gain comfort in knowing that if something is not actually true then in reality it is false doctrine. False doctrine is false to God and also false to the highest ideals of Mormon theology – even if the greater body of the church does not see a specific item as such presently. I don’t pretend to understand everything myself, but I do take comfort in knowing that God (the greater goodness, or whatever expression you are comfortable with) does not want me to “believe” something that is not actually true. That is what I hold onto, and I believe the people I run into at church – deep in their hearts – support this ideal also.
This analogy is obviously quite flawed, but hopefully good for something.
Orson wrote:Hi MisterC, I think you have taken a big step in recognizing:
MisterCurie wrote:
You are absolutely correct about my disaffection resulting from MY expectations.
And such a hard thing for me to let go of those unrealistic expectations! I
wantthe church and it’s leaders to live up to my expectations. Perhaps that is a key to moving on through Stage 4, letting go of those expectations. MisterCurie wrote:Perhaps that is a key to moving on through Stage 4, letting go of those expectations.
I think you’re onto something…
I like to look at it as maturing. Some children who grew up believing in Santa become upset when they learn the bigger picture. After they “let go” of being hung up on details of literal/metaphorical/”deceived” elements, then they can rejoin the fullness of the celebration and understand the value of the innocent view as well as the importance of the mature/enabler perspective to keep the magic of the whole experience alive. The whole of the experience is meaningful, or the children would not re-engauge as adults.
The stories are relevant to the stages. All stages have value.
Orson wrote:MisterCurie wrote:Perhaps that is a key to moving on through Stage 4, letting go of those expectations.
I think you’re onto something…
I like to look at it as maturing. Some children who grew up believing in Santa become upset when they learn the bigger picture. After they “let go” of being hung up on details of literal/metaphorical/”deceived” elements, then they can rejoin the fullness of the celebration and understand the value of the innocent view as well as the importance of the mature/enabler perspective to keep the magic of the whole experience alive. The whole of the experience is meaningful, or the children would not re-engauge as adults.
The stories are relevant to the stages. All stages have value.
Uh-oh, DW and I are planning to not do the whole Santa thing with our kids (is this an indicator of an inability to move on to Stage 5? J/K). When we first discussed it years ago, we didn’t want to build false expectations and cause the Santa faith crisis to also cause our kids to question the church, Jesus or God, we wanted them to know that we wouldn’t knowingly lead them astray or lie to them (guess that already backfired with my own questioning of the church and the historicity of Jesus, and God to some degree). Perhaps Santa is useful practice for later disillusionment in faith traditions in general?
MisterCurie wrote:Perhaps Santa is useful practice for later disillusionment in faith traditions in general?
I do not really think so, because I am trying very hard to prevent disillusionment for my kids later in their life but realize that must be handled delicately. I have thought that the Santa tradition is about teaching the kids something because my young kids just want gifts. So we use that thing they are interested in (getting gifts for themselves) and make up a folk hero that shows the value of giving anonymously instead of getting all the time. Then, when they are old enough…and able to develop faith at a different stage not capable of when younger, I can explain what it truly means. They may feel a little sheepish or confused why we would be carrying on with a hoax…but they know deep down inside them it is right…it makes sense…they were starting to see it anyway… and my older son that I told a few years ago about Santa feels some pride he is old enough to not be treated like a kid anymore.The tradition we have is that the year I tell the child about Santa, they get to stay up and help us to still make it magical for the younger one. The reason we keep perpetuating it is because of the joy we see on the little kids faces still. And when the older ones see how we are doing it to make it magical and special and then they can also participate in that … they remember their own fond memories and see how we offered that to them.
Having gone through it with three kids and having a younger one still believing, it has NEVER been a negative experience where the older kids have complained, “Dad, why did you lie to us…and now I can see you’re lying to the little kids still!!” It has always been a positive experience in providing a teaching method to younger minds that can’t grasp things at higher levels.
That is how I reconcile continuing to do it and keeping my integrity about me. I often wonder if church leaders think in these terms too.
MisterCurie wrote:Uh-oh, DW and I are planning to not do the whole Santa thing with our kids (is this an indicator of an inability to move on to Stage 5? J/K). When we first discussed it years ago, we didn’t want to build false expectations and cause the Santa faith crisis to also cause our kids to question the church, Jesus or God, we wanted them to know that we wouldn’t knowingly lead them astray or lie to them (guess that already backfired with my own questioning of the church and the historicity of Jesus, and God to some degree). Perhaps Santa is useful practice for later disillusionment in faith traditions in general?
FWIW we sort of went half-way with this with our children. We talk about Santa Claus around the holidays. Santa is everywhere, and is really a part of the cultural Christmas holiday. We greatly downplay Santa though. He only brings a few presents. I am not even sure if we are clear which ones are from Santa or not. When our little kids have those moments where they snap out of the story and ask us sincerely if Santa is real, I tell them in a very positive and happy voice that “Santa is real because we all pretend together that he is real. That makes him real … sort of. Doesn’t it?” They think about that a moment, probably half get it, and then go back and forth with the fantasy of it all. I think that is ok. They should experience the magic and intense fantasy of the holiday while they can. I also get to feel like I am being honest with them as their parent. It’s a compromise.
Quote:Perhaps Santa is useful practice for later disillusionment in faith traditions in general?
Kind of. The best thing about Santa is that the truth is even better than the story! My DH and I jokingly refer to Santa as the “fat red creep” who takes credit for all of our sacrifice, hard work, and conspiring! On our lists, items from Mr. Nick (“Mr.” since we’re not Catholic) have the initials “FRC” next to them so we can keep it straight. But maybe that’s a part of moving to Stage 5, too. Eventually you can see that the truth of human sacrifice and love is even better than the magical view in which humans are mere pawns.
Orson wrote:You mention the church itself fosters unrealistic expectations. I would agree that some of our
culturefound in the church does foster unrealistic expectations. The important activity in rebuilding a new positive relationship with the church, in my opinion, is separating culture from doctrine. Yes, people in the church are flawed. This probably extends into what many people understand to be doctrine. It is difficult when the culture will not allow some items of “true doctrine” to flourish, but to me personally I gain comfort in knowing that if something is not actually true then in reality it is false doctrine. False doctrine is false to God and also false to the highest ideals of Mormon theology – even if the greater body of the church does not see a specific item as such presently. I don’t pretend to understand everything myself, but I do take comfort in knowing that God (the greater goodness, or whatever expression you are comfortable with) does not want me to “believe” something that is not actually true. That is what I hold onto, and I believe the people I run into at church – deep in their hearts – support this ideal also.
I don’t think that you can separate things quite so simply into culture vs doctrine when you use the LDS Church as your standard. This is precisely the issue that led to DWs disaffection. As a convert to the church from Catholicism, having grown up in the East and currently living in the East, she was frustrated with what she felt was church culture imported by the Utah transplants in our ward. She decided to start a crusade to separate church doctrine from culture and blog about it (
http://www.myriadmormonmusings.blogspot.comhttp://www.myriadmormonmusings.blogspot.com” class=”bbcode_url”> 👿 . She found more evidence for the culture of man influencing the LDS Church doctrine than the eternal truths of God influencing doctrine👿 . I guess my point is that just because it is Church doctrine, it doesn’t mean it is “true doctrine” and may very well be “false doctrine.” I suppose those elements of “false doctrine” are the things we ignore in the LDS cafeteria.Quote:I don’t think that you can separate things quite so simply into culture vs doctrine when you use the LDS Church as your standard. This is precisely the issue that led to DWs disaffection. As a convert to the church from Catholicism, having grown up in the East and currently living in the East, she was frustrated with what she felt was church culture imported by the Utah transplants in our ward. She decided to start a crusade to separate church doctrine from culture and blog about it (
http://www.myriadmormonmusings.blogspot.com . Her ultimate conclusions, and hence the disaffection, was that within the LDS church, culture influences doctrine and cannot be separated from doctrine . She found more evidence for the culture of man influencing the LDS Church doctrine than the eternal truths of God influencing doctrine . I guess my point is that just because it is Church doctrine, it doesn’t mean it is “true doctrine” and may very well be “false doctrine.” I suppose those elements of “false doctrine” are the things we ignore in the LDS cafeteria.I completely agree with you Mr.C.! And, being in the midst of Mormon culture, there is really no way to seperate the doctrine from the cultural traditions. I am constantly trying to explain the difference to my children when they encounter crazy cultural traditions at church that are antithetical to our family’s social views, or our understanding of doctrine- it is exhausting to try to correct it within our home or ignore it (cafeteria style)! The most disheartening aspect of culture influincing doctrine in the church is that it does not reflect the fact that the church is world-wide and encompasses so many ethnicities, cultures, political structures, etc. I think leaders are trying to be more inclusive, but not by much yet, and it certainly is not reflected in the main. As to your comment regarding “true/false” doctrine: this is one area that I am struggling with now. It seems like I have been able to find the answers to my questions in the past and could be somewhat satisfied in sifting through what was said in meetings, then searching for the “truth” on my own, but this strategy is of little use to me at the moment. And frankly, thinking of this in terms of Mormon culture makes a lot of sense. We all relay gospel doctrine through a personal lens, and if your only exposure is Mormon culture, then of course you would filter and share the doctrine through this perspective. I can understand, but I can also say that it is getting pretty old for me.
I am curious about your comment concerning Utah transplants in your East Coast ward. What was your ward like before they moved in? Do you think they were able to influence ward leadership because they were from “Zion”? What changes came about from their influence? Are there other members from the East that can identify the changes/influence?
Quote:I am curious about your comment concerning Utah transplants in your East Coast ward. What was your ward like before they moved in? Do you think they were able to influence ward leadership because they were from “Zion”? What changes came about from their influence? Are there other members from the East that can identify the changes/influence?
I experienced this some as well and blogged about this a while back on Mormon Matters (there are a few specific examples given):
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/24/cultural-colonialism-the-sun-never-sets-on-the-mormon-empire/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/24/cultural-colonialism-the-sun-never-sets-on-the-mormon-empire/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.