- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I really find it interesting all the theories that sure seem to play out in the church. My wife won’t even read the essays. I have not pushed, but I told her if she wants to understand the issues I have, that would be a good place to start. I assumed she would at least read them herself, but she does not want to touch them with a 10 foot pole. What I see from this is that she fears where it will take her. But this podcast from “You are not so smart” talks about
Active Information AvoidanceNietchze was once quoted as saying “faith is for people who don’t want to admit the truth”. We all do it. It’s one of the many flaws in human psychology. It’s just MUCH easier to see it in others, and look down on them for it. But catching it in ourselves… that’s where it really counts. I love Nietchze, but I think the statement applies far beyond faith. I prefer Nephi’s quote. “The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.”
dande48 wrote:
We all do it. It’s one of the many flaws in human psychology.It’s just MUCH easier to see it in others, and look down on them for it. But catching it in ourselves… that’s where it really counts. I love Nietchze, but I think the statement applies far beyond faith. I prefer Nephi’s quote. “The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.”
I’m constantly monitoring myself to make sure that my disagreement with the church isn’t about justifying sin, or feeling wounded that valid criticism is leveled at me.
So far, I feel that my attitudes are not a result of “taking the truth to be hard”. They are there as a result of reasoned reconstruction over the years. Also a reaction to testing certain practices and finding they come up short.
I think Nephi’s quote is interpreted by many TBM’s as a nice, cozy reason why unorthodox people like me are the way we are — we couldn’t live the commandments so we justify our decisions so we can sin.
Not so, and fortunately, we have Uchdorft to stand up for us on that count….someone should pin his talk somewhere here on StaylDS where he told the general membership that disaffection is not always about sin — in his own words “it’s not that simple”…
SilentDawning wrote:
So far, I feel that my attitudes are not a result of “taking the truth to be hard”. They are there as a result of reasoned reconstruction over the years. Also a reaction to testing certain practices and finding they come up short.I think Nephi’s quote is interpreted by many TBM’s as a nice, cozy reason why unorthodox people like me are the way we are — we couldn’t live the commandments so we justify our decisions so we can sin.
Not so, and fortunately, we have Uchdorft to stand up for us on that count….someone should pin his talk somewhere here on StaylDS where he told the general membership that disaffection is not always about sin — in his own words “it’s not that simple”…
I interpret the term “guilty”, not as those guilty of “sin” (however defined), but anyone who’s outlook and worldview is contrary to things as they really are. Hence, many members of the Church refuse to acknowledge even the most obvious discrepancies in Church history and doctrine. And yet, for myself, sometimes I fail to realize when I’m being unjustly harsh or antagonistic towards the Church. Like you said, the truth is “much more complicated.”
Fortunately, just by learning
aboutour psychological weakpoints, can greatly fortify against them. Like SD mentioned, I’ve seen the “…. take the truth to be hard” quote used as a form of victim blaming, as a way of dismissing or turning a cold shoulder to those who have been hurt by church teachings or disobey commandments that they cannot in good conscience follow. It can also be problematic when used in introspection, since if you are coming from the same TBM paradigm, you can take what your conscience is telling you as “proof” that you are wicked. I prefer the Nietchze quote if you interpret “faith” in context to mean belief without or in spite of evidence, since that focuses on making sure the reasons for a belief are valid instead of giving emotions (which can have many different causes) the heavier weight. ydeve wrote:
Like SD mentioned, I’ve seen the “…. take the truth to be hard” quote used as a form of victim blaming, as a way of dismissing or turning a cold shoulder to those who have been hurt by church teachings or disobey commandments that they cannot in good conscience follow. It can also be problematic when used in introspection, since if you are coming from the same TBM paradigm, you can take what your conscience is telling you as “proof” that you are wicked. I prefer the Nietchze quote if you interpret “faith” in context to mean belief without or in spite of evidence, since that focuses on making sure the reasons for a belief are valid instead of giving emotions (which can have many different causes) the heavier weight.
Nietchze meant “faith” in the context of religion. He was very against Christianity, in particular, marking it as a vice next to alcohol. But I agree, the Nephi statement is often taken out of context, and used to “pinpoint” the “faults” of inactive members. Reverting back to the original topic, we are much more likely to see the faults in others, than the faults in ourselves.
Motes and beams and all that jazz. Having said that, as long as we are willing and committed to trying to see and understand our own faults, pointing out natural faults in others is part of true compassion. The key is how it’s done – concerning both intent and method.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.