- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m not sure how to make an intro very interesting, but I know many like to have the background prior to the poster posting, so here goes: Personally, I’m not sure I will integrate well here, though I have no intention of disrupting or denigrating anyone’s beliefs or posts. In fact, I’m mostly in lurk mode, now, trying to see if there’s an element of belief left in me that can be nurtured into some sort of LDS congruence, mostly to give harmony to my marriage and family life, if not to meet my own spiritual hopes.
This place would have been perfect for me about 3 yrs ago, before I started down the path of disaffection w/ Mormonism in particular, God/Jesus Christ more generally much later (though I had been disappointed by my spiritual experiences even on those personal levels for much of my life). But like most things in my life, the “medicine” to my afflictions seem to only appear or be discovered long after they would have helped, which makes the seeming sense of God’s inattention more poignant and personally hurtful. It has also led to the personal conclusion that the church (though more questionably the gospel) appears frequently devoid of God’s inspiration and seems to often operate out of sheer mechanization due to its strong, corporate organizational structure and will. (and, I will add, the earnest desires to do good of the members).
I have, like Paul I suppose, a particular thorn in the flesh (or of the flesh), that I’ve struggled with, and I suppose that could be used against me by those who wish to judge my current disaffection as simply a by-product of poor/insufficient repentance and/or my desires to “sin” or being under the influence of “the devil”. I feel, however, that if anything, this struggle has enabled me to have a particularly deep seated need to figure out things, and come to spiritual conclusions, to “feel after” the outstretched arm of Deity to come to my aid, or at least give me some comfort that I’m on the right track. In this, for myself and some particular family members, I’ve been disappointed, then disillusioned, and now, mostly disbelieving.
I am essentially BIC (sealed as an infant), RM, TM, fully “TBM” wife and her side of family is TBM as well. My side are converts, TBM, but probably less orthodox, ie. not been in leadership, per se, father divorced, later disfellowshipped, but returned, largely due to my interactions, Mom has a severe mental illness. I remain open only to my wife about my disaffection, and she has thankfully decided to remain with me, but has exacted a moratorium on my discussing my church issues w/ the children until they are adults. So I try to maintain some sort of belief appearance for my kids, but it ends up looking more like spiritual laziness than conviction, which is unfortunate, because that’s not really me and not the way I handled my previous activity. I’ve always been active.
I’m not profound in writing or insight, not well read (except on-line forums) and am long-winded (in writing, that is). My humor apparently doesn’t translate well in writing, so I’ll leave that at the door, though it’s a main property of my personality. At any rate, I hope to see if there’s some remnant of faith that can be stimulated to remain LDS, and not just for appearances, because that’s truly not how I want to live my life. To thine own self be true, is what I’d like to be, but life isn’t that straightforward. I look forward to interacting here.
Latterday Skeptic
Hey Latterday Skeptic, I know you from NOM, and enjoy your posts over there. Welcome to our little corner of the cyberworld. Glad to have you with us; whether you “integrate” here, stay for a long time, stay for a short time, or however it ends up. I know you think a lot about all this stuff, and this is something very important to you. It matters.
[edit] I started to write more. But I gotta hit the sack and get up super early tomorrow. I’ll post more, but really wanted to extend a welcome.
Welcome! I too cannot comment long tonight, but I am glad to see you here – however long you end up staying and however actively you end up commenting.
Hi, LDSkeptic. I remember you fondly from NOM back when I was Justin Morning. In my opinion, there’s no reason to try to believe in anything that, for you, just ain’t so. But at the same time, there is much to say for finding ways to enjoy being LDS. Welcome to this little corner of the WWW and the church.
Tom
Welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here! This site has helped me a lot. I hope it helps you too. I’ll leave it at that.
i haven’t been here long, but i’d like to add my welcome to the others! hopefully we can all help each other think and grow! I finally got a chance to spend more time. I really wanted to respond in a thoughtful way to your introduction. Here are my personal thoughts: Latterday Skeptic wrote:now, trying to see if there’s an element of belief left in me that can be nurtured into some sort of LDS congruence, mostly to give harmony to my marriage and family life, if not to meet my own spiritual hopes
Just keep in mind that our site is not about cramming people back into the old box they popped out of. You really aren’t going to go back to where you were before the traditional LDS paradigm fell apart. I personally think it’s important to consciously recognize that and come to terms with it. We focus on moving forward and finding spiritual ideas that DO resonate with us. This can be inside the LDS church or outside, most often from both. Most of us here supplement our need for spiritual nourishment from a wide range of sources, but they are ones that WE see feed us. We try to see how we can integrate and harmonize them with a Mormon framework. If we step outside of the cultural aspects of our LDS faith, Mormonism can be VERY broad and encompassing – indeed even Joseph Smith and other leaders have spoken of encompassing all that is “true,” wherever we find it, from the best books and sources. Old-Timer here and others often speak of something called “Pure Mormonism,” a stripped down version going back to very basic and much more universal “truths,” and discarding a lot of the cultural baggage that has attached to our faith tradition, a lot like barnacles to a boat heading toward enlightenment.
I think you said it well though: “LDS congruence” and “harmony.” Even if you don’t go back to fully believing the foundational claims of the LDS Church, can you possibly learn to appreciate and accept that experience others are having? Can you even possibly find ways of even repurposing LDS ideas in alternative and positive ways so that you can be both authentic to your new views AND find a way to harmonize with the important people in your life that are still traditional LDS believers?
Some people can pull this off. It is not easy, but I find it a personally expanding and challenging (in a good way) endeavor. It is certainly a very practical goal for many of us — especially trying to hold together otherwise good marriages and family relationships.
Latterday Skeptic wrote:It has also led to the personal conclusion that the church (though more questionably the gospel) appears frequently devoid of God’s inspiration and seems to often operate out of sheer mechanization due to its strong, corporate organizational structure and will. (and, I will add, the earnest desires to do good of the members).
It is interesting you put it that way — that the Gospel itself is the flaw. Most try to argue that the human-inspired church is a lesser form of the greater Gospel. Your experience is as valid as real and valid as anyone’s though, so I won’t argue. Yes, there is a part of the LDS world that seems to be defective at times, corporate and mechanical, devoid of spirituality in favor of the form or likeness of efficiency and accomplishment = goodness. I think that is a human trap that some people fall into. We all have our rough edges that need to be broken off and smoothed.
Latterday Skeptic wrote:I have, like Paul I suppose, a particular thorn in the flesh (or of the flesh), that I’ve struggled with, and I suppose that could be used against me by those who wish to judge my current disaffection as simply a by-product of poor/insufficient repentance and/or my desires to “sin” or being under the influence of “the devil”.
Excuse my crass response, but ‘eff them! That is the most classic of all techniques for other people to avoid dealing with us and connecting with our problems in a compassionate way. It is just as easy to say that someone else’s zealousness is simply a product of their sinfullness and lack of repentance, trying to overcompensate for their own “thorn,” and often doing so because they refuse to recognize and deal with their real problems. Perhaps God will fix their problems if they just avoid it hard enough, and suffer enough? To live in the world is to be under the influence of “the devil” (in a metaphorical sense).
The solution, in my experience and observation of others, is what is best described as a hero’s quest to make a deep and interal peace with God (or the universe, your life, whatever you want to label it). This idea is embedded in all religions, and it is found in the LDS Gospel too. Unfortunately, few are they who find the path … And outward orthodoxy is NOT a sure sign of having completed this quest.
Two great examples come to mind: Jesus (Jewish) and Al-Hallaj (Muslim). Both were supremely a part of their faith traditions, and who really deeply “got it.” But both were so dangerously playful and exploratory with their faith tradition material (like true masters of an art), the “faithful” could only react by accusing them of terrible sin and killing them, nailing them to a pole to make them go away. It reminds me of the phrase “You can’t handle the truth!”
Jesus spoke wise words when he told the story of needing to pull the beam (log) out of our own eye before attempting to pull the mote (sliver) out of someone else’s. It would be nice if the believers believed this
I feel, however, that if anything, this struggle has enabled me to have a particularly deep seated need to figure out things, and come to spiritual conclusions, to “feel after” the outstretched arm of Deity to come to my aid, or at least give me some comfort that I’m on the right track. In this, for myself and some particular family members, I’ve been disappointed, then disillusioned, and now, mostly disbelieving.
I see my own journey this way, trying to create a positive — (speaking figuratively) God made me the way I am (flaws, thorns and talents, all of it). I am someone who questions everything and MUST know. When I struggle, I react by digging in to understand. So this is my destiny. I am “filling the measure of my creation” by questioning and searching, pulling things apart to see how they tick. This is how I was made, it is what I am. I have come to peace with it. You are the way you are LD Skeptic. If God wanted you to be different, this being should have made you different. We are as we are, and travel a life journey the way we do.
Latterday Skeptic wrote:At any rate, I hope to see if there’s some remnant of faith that can be stimulated to remain LDS, and not just for appearances, because that’s truly not how I want to live my life.
Like I said before, it probably won’t be a remnant of the old. It will have to be something new. Try not to think about it being *all in* or *all out*, knowing again that it is all true, or finally knowing that it is all false. Religion is true and false and meaningless all at the same time, the LDS Church is no exception (IMO). If you want to find ways toward some level of happy activity in the LDS Church, which will probably help your family relationships, it will probably be some where in between. Perhaps it would work better to build new forms of connection WITHOUT new and old forms of attachment.
Latterday Skeptic wrote:To thine own self be true, is what I’d like to be, but life isn’t that straightforward.
AMEN! Brother. So glad to have you here with us.
I also wanted to get back to comment more thoroughly, but all I will do now is second what Brian said and add one personal note. (Almost typed “mote” – which would have been incredibly ironic.) 
I have built my life around the idea that I might see through my glass, darkly,
but at least it’s my glass– and, to twist the analogy a bit, I can drink from my glass amid the community / tribe to which I “belong” even as I look around and see others drinking from other glasses. (See my signature tag line.) I learn from church and the community (sometimes how to act and see – sometimes how NOT to act and see), but I don’t participate primarily to learn. I participate to serve and grow in faith, hope and charity – and I’ve found the way that works for me. It might not work for others, but it’s important to recognize that the
**process**of constructing a personal faith paradigm can work – as long as we aren’t trying to re-create someone else’s glasses, relative to both analogies I mixed here. Thanks for the heartfelt welcome and thoughtful replies.
Brian Johnston wrote:Just keep in mind that our site is not about cramming people back into the old box they popped out of. You really aren’t going to go back to where you were before the traditional LDS paradigm fell apart. I personally think it’s important to consciously recognize that and come to terms with it.
Yes, well sometimes I wish I could just put an apologetic patch over the problem, and go back to some sort of rose-colored orthodoxy, but I’m fairly certain that those “excuses” (for that is what a lot of apologetics is to me) just won’t cut it anymore. Although I’ve accepted that I won’t ever be the naive young RM robot anymore, I’m not sure what coming to terms with never becoming the faithful Mormon carbon copy will actually mean in relation to my quest for spirituality and Mormon synergism. And frankly, I don’t know that I’d care other than my wife, children and her family relationships are at stake as well. So I’m making the attempt.Quote:We focus on moving forward and finding spiritual ideas that DO resonate with us. This can be inside the LDS church or outside, most often from both. Most of us here supplement our need for spiritual nourishment from a wide range of sources, but they are ones that WE see feed us. We try to see how we can integrate and harmonize them with a Mormon framework. If we step outside of the cultural aspects of our LDS faith, Mormonism can be VERY broad and encompassing…” – indeed even Joseph Smith and other leaders have spoken of encompassing all that is “true,” wherever we find it, from the best books and sources. Old-Timer here and others often speak of something called “Pure Mormonism,” a stripped down version going back to very basic and much more universal “truths,” and discarding a lot of the cultural baggage that has attached to our faith tradition, a lot like barnacles to a boat heading toward enlightenment
I see some contradiction here. While I wholeheartedly like the idea, I find that “pure Mormonism” is a pretty narrow and bitter distillation, because it’s so institutionally self-centered/ pre-occupied, and this is not just “cultural baggage” nor doctrinal supposition. For example, a continuation of the “lives” or family unit after this life is a marvelous, expanding idea, but then you’re pushed and squeezed into the narrow confines of Mormon baptism, Mormon endowment, Mormon sealing, Mormon priesthood to the exclusion of any other idea, rite or ritual just as meaningful or deserving. So on the one hand, though you have this great “selling point” of “families are forever”, a beautiful concept, the “rest of the story” is that God, then, refuses to recognize other marriages performed, no matter how righteous, honest or lovingly entered into, threatens to disintegrate you “both root and branch” for disbelief in Mormon temple ceremony, and, for part member families or NOM/TBM marriages, holds the family “hostage” until the unbeliever or disaffected recants, forever keeping those who do believe in fear of losing the one’s they love most. It is the back side of the advertising billboard that the leadership tries very hard to keep in the shadows as it presents itself in the best, most congenial way possible, but every member knows what it truly means if they’re not fully invested as the “Lord’s anointed” have insisted we be.
Quote:Even if you don’t go back to fully believing the foundational claims of the LDS Church, can you possibly learn to appreciate and accept that experience others are having?
Certainly…to the extent that they can reciprocate and show forth what I would consider, true Christlike love. But “certainty” lends itself to negativity, arrogance and self-righteous condemnation, and kills much good that could be done, if we truly considered ourselves part of the big picture, and not simply the end point.Quote:Can you even possibly find ways of even repurposing LDS ideas in alternative and positive ways so that you can be both authentic to your new views AND find a way to harmonize with the important people in your life that are still traditional LDS believers?
Ah, but that is truly the challenge and the crux of the matter, isn’t it? And even if I’m able to do so, there’s no surety that others will be able to reciprocate the same. I’m not so self actualized that I can simply go my way against all currents and opposition and spout love and flowers to everyone despite our differences when it’s obvious I’m being patronized, marginalized, and ostracized by “true” believers. The wounds that are deepest and the hardest to heal are those we receive “while in the house of my friends”. (Zechariah 13:6)Quote:If you want to find ways toward some level of happy activity in the LDS Church, which will probably help your family relationships, it will probably be some where in between. Perhaps it would work better to build new forms of connection WITHOUT new and old forms of attachment.
Perhaps. But I’m afraid that the only way to do so would be to go and then come back in at another time or place. I frankly can’t over-ride my Mormon upbringing. I’ve been completely indoctrinated from a young age onward, and it’s in my DNA, and I don’t know how I’ll ever come back if they make me go (or I go my own way voluntarily). In my experience, you can’t insert new DNA into old genes. The Mormon paradigm summarily rejects anything that isn’t predicated upon it’s relentless belief in itself as the end all, be all. We can struggle, hang on by our teeth, and insist we are just as valid as any other picture perfect Mormon, but I don’t find that struggle to be one that is positive. It’s like trying to bail yourself out of a sinking ship while trying to convince yourself and others that you really need to be on the ship in the first place. Your efforts are pulled in conflicting directions, and it takes the energy away from the good you could do and pumps it into defending yourself. I find that tiring, and not how I want my religious life to be.
Old-Timer wrote:It might not work for others, but it’s important to recognize that the **process** of constructing a personal faith paradigm can work – as long as we aren’t trying to re-create someone else’s glasses, relative to both analogies I mixed here.
So, are you advocating mixed drinks?
Thanks to all the warm welcomes. I’m intrigued at what this journey here might provide for me, and hope my comments will be of some value to the discussions and support.
Latterday Skeptic
Quote:So, are you advocating mixed drinks?
This is where I’m headed of late. Been writing on this forum for a while now, and it’s got me thinking in many ways that I think are healthy, but unothodox for my next leg of the journey. One belief is that yes, I will have to drink alone. I do open up here at this forum, but at Church I’m starting to look like a TBM again in action. However, I keep quiet about my motives and my reasons, which are different. And I stay dead silent when I don’t agree with someone or with a doctrine. If I have to teach something I find hard to accept, then I get someone else to teach it or emphasize another part of the lesson. I do raise controversial questions occasionally, but only when I have an answer that isn’t considered apostate.
Like you, I”m partly doing this for my kids and my family. I’m not about to rain on the parade leaving them wondering if parades are ever a good idea. This paticular parade is a good one compared to others, notwithstanding the gaps in it. Also, my wife is a TBM and I don’t want to hurt her faith, or the faith of her relatives who look up to me. These are things worth sacrificing for, in my view.
I also agree that the Church can look like a self-serving, self-perpetuating organization, and it irritates me. But I hope to succeed in spite of that, in raising a family that loves goodness, lives cleanly, and loves their Dad. I teach them about tithing, etcetera. And when they come to me with doubts as adults (if they do), I might then share unorthodox reasons for staying active…..I hope to pick the raisins out of the cake as time wears on — get my family the benefits of Church membership while minimizing the irritating costs as best I can.
Some great thought provoking comments Latterday Skeptic. I want to focus on this one because it reminds me so much of an experience that I had:
Latterday Skeptic wrote:Perhaps. But I’m afraid that the only way to do so would be to go and then come back in at another time or place. I frankly can’t over-ride my Mormon upbringing. I’ve been completely indoctrinated from a young age onward, and it’s in my DNA, and I don’t know how I’ll ever come back if they make me go (or I go my own way voluntarily). In my experience, you can’t insert new DNA into old genes. The Mormon paradigm summarily rejects anything that isn’t predicated upon it’s relentless belief in itself as the end all, be all. We can struggle, hang on by our teeth, and insist we are just as valid as any other picture perfect Mormon, but I don’t find that struggle to be one that is positive. It’s like trying to bail yourself out of a sinking ship while trying to convince yourself and others that you really need to be on the ship in the first place. Your efforts are pulled in conflicting directions, and it takes the energy away from the good you could do and pumps it into defending yourself. I find that tiring, and not how I want my religious life to be.
For me it was a time when I was thoroughly disillusioned, and I just couldn’t see any justification or reason for continued participation with an organization that I felt I simply did not agree with. My wife had told me she did NOT think she could adapt to a mixed-faith marriage, and I felt backed into a corner. I had some vague concept of “Sunstoners” or stage 5 Mormons, but I didn’t know what that meant exactly. I remember distinctly mowing the lawn thinking about it and wondering “how in the world could anyone know the things that I now know and still find value in their participation at church??” I was really baffled by that idea. But yet my wife’s words “you better find a way to make it work!” echoed in my head.
I realize any disaffected member reading this today will probably say “he caved”, it’s a reasonable explanation that I simply had no other choice – so I went back. That is a simplistic version, and as how most things apply to real life the simplistic version is often lacking some key and meaningful details. Today I honestly enjoy my participation at church, but let’s not jump ahead.
So at the time I decided that I needed to try to understand better the things that I didn’t understand. I got a copy of Fowlers “Stages of Faith” and read it; studied it. I also decided to adopt a metaphorical view of everything that I heard at church. I started thinking about how others expressed their feelings and testimony, and tried to guess what the specifics were to them personally – what made them feel good. I wouldn’t take any idea of gullible-blind-faith or unfounded certainty as valid in my new quest. I was looking for real, valid, personal identification; and tried to also find common ground with basic human desires that I could relate to.
On top of that I began to read from some of the more liberal Mormon minds. Lowell Bennion, Leonard Arrington, Eugene England, Hugh B. Brown, Henry Eyring the scientist, etc. And to my surprise I found quite a bit that I could relate to. There is one quote from Arrington that I especially love:
Arrington addressed the subject of the miraculous foundational events of our Church and asks the question
“can one accept all of the miraculous events that surrounded the restoration of the gospel?”He then explained “that truth may be expressed not only through science and abstract reason but also through stories, testimonies, and narratives of personal experience; not only through erudite scholarship but also through poetry, drama, and historical novels. …[Religious myth] is an account that may or may not have a determinable basis of fact or natural explanation. The truth of a myth is beyond empirical or historical accessibility. Examples are the Christian story of the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and the creation of the world as described in the book of Genesis. These are ways of explaining events or truths having religious significance that may be either symbolical or historical.”He concludes “I was never preoccupied with the question of the historicity of Joseph Smith’s first vision (though I find the evidence overwhelming that it did occur) or of the many reported epiphanies in Mormon, Christian, or Hebrew history. I am prepared to accept them as historical or as metaphorical, as symbolical, or as precisely what happened. That they convey religious truth is the essential issue, and of this I have never had any doubt.”As quotes like this started to stack up for me, I began to realize that there ARE many different interpretations to Mormonism. The paradigm that I grew up with is simply one out of the bunch. Granted, it may be the overwhelming majority, but it is not the one and only valid interpretation. Arrington’s “religious truth” opened new doors for me. Could I accept the Book of Mormon as “religious truth” …and even scripture (same thing different term)? Well yes, I guess I can. Can I accept Joseph Smith as a prophet – not by my “old” definition, but by my growing understanding of what is really meaningful in “religious truth” and what personally inspires many people? This probably took more time to digest but I think you get the idea.
Through this whole process I am honestly starting to believe that it is possible to “re-program my DNA” …as far as my understanding of Mormon teachings go. I am not worried in the least that my personal understanding may differ from other members. My personal foundation for Mormon belief (you might say “Pure” Mormon belief) is a quote from Joseph Smith stating Mormonism IS truth. I take that to mean whatever can be proven automatically inserts itself into being the “real” Mormon doctrine – even if 99% of the church will not recognize it as such.
Overall I don’t claim to “know” anything, as far as spiritual matters go. I am trying to learn, I am trying to love, I am trying to get closer to truth.
So how do I go about my day-to-day activities among all the outspoken literalists without the ability to proclaim all the details of my personal point of view? I’m not sure how to even answer that except to say that Time and practice heals and makes “perfect.”
There is much much more, but I’ll pause for now before I write a book. I’ll simply say if my family was on a sinking ship, and I couldn’t get them out, I wouldn’t leave them and jump but I would focus all my energy on doing everything possible to keep us above water – even as we stay on the ship.
Best wishes!
SilentDawning wrote:… at Church I’m starting to look like a TBM again in action. However, I keep quiet about my motives and my reasons, which are different. And I stay dead silent when I don’t agree with someone or with a doctrine. If I have to teach something I find hard to accept, then I get someone else to teach it or emphasize another part of the lesson. I do raise controversial questions occasionally, but only when I have an answer that isn’t considered apostate.
Yes. But this is a sad commentary on the state of our religion, IMO. But perhaps my view of what church should be and what the church feels church should be are two different things. My own view is that as members, the church doesn’t expect us to seek truth (in that truly open way), we are expected to accept it. I’m all for honest, open discussion, not necessarily adversarial debate. But all discussion always ends up with the “faithful” expected answer, the discussion is predetermined to get there to make sure everything fits the standard Mormon paradigm. I suppose this is because church is a way to build faith in it’s own doctrine (not discuss the pros and cons of doctrine), but can faith still be built/ maintained/ reinforced w/o coming to a standard answer?
We’re social beings, generally speaking, and while I agree we have to watch what we say, based upon the sensitivities of others, like we do in most all conversations, when you actually feel constrained, unable to speak
yourtruth, yourexperience, or questions/ doubts, when your participation is so filtered that it no longer feels like you’re in or belong, then I question the benefit of continuing to go (other than for the reasons mentioned). I always thought that’s a large part of what church is for. It’s at that point that I wonder if my silence is worth the effort. It might be different if the church believed it was one path of many, or if it was just a nice service organization, which didn’t require me to covenant before God, angels, etc… to believe exactly the way it does. Latterday Skeptic
Thank you very much for your personal experience, Orson. It does give me pause, and though I’ve tried some of this prior to becoming as disaffected as I am now, I certainly can see the value of trying to find that internal peace congruent w/ external expectations, even if those expectations have to be redefined, or changed. Orson wrote:I realize any disaffected member reading this today will probably say “he caved”,
[/quote]
I think your experience is likely very deep, personal, and nuanced, as is all human experience, which is why I would be arrogant to judge you as anything else but honestly seeking what’s best for you and your family.
The Arrington quote is itself, nuanced, which is troubling to me on certain levels. Arrington was able to access freely the church archives during a courageous period of Mormon Perestroika, if you will, about its history. Reportedly, it resulted in less than glowing results for the church, and the church eventually shut things back up, and rather summarily dismissed Arrington (if my reading of what occurred is correct).
The very fact that Arrington can’t just come out and say, “Look, some of this works, some of it is likely myth, but it remains that there are some truths here of value..” shows an appalling view that forthright honesty is not tolerated at leadership levels. Doublespeak from leadership pisses me off in a church that demands unflinching honesty from its members. I can believe in Mormonism if I continue to “pull the camera back” far enough, but the dirt, as they say, is in the details. If I pull back far enough, the church starts to blend in with other more general philosophies, and this sort of nondescript religion, while more inclusive, makes me question why bother with it at all. Universalism is great, if it wasn’t so damned contradictory when you try to accept everything anybody says as “their truth”. Why, then, is only our myth important? Shouldn’t I then go ahead and accept all the Catholic “Saints” miracles, etc…, even though they sound very foreign and questionable as well? If miracles still occur to others, where does that put LDS and our “priesthood” as being the one and only way? Always more questions, and I think the leadership would just rather not have that pandora’s box.
Quote:Overall I don’t claim to “know” anything, as far as spiritual matters go. I am trying to learn, I am trying to love, I am trying to get closer to truth.
And if the church would simply adopt that more honest concept, there would be a lot less to be upset about. Thanks for the experience, I really need to read more Hugh B. Brown, et al.
(I apologize, btw, for the length of all my posts here. Those of you who have hit the snooze button may go back to your daily activities…. I promise. I’ll shut up.
😳 )Latterday Skeptic
Latterday Skeptic wrote:“We’re social beings, generally speaking, and while I agree we have to watch what we say, based upon the sensitivities of others, like we do in most all conversations, when you actually feel constrained, unable to speak your truth, your experience, or questions/ doubts, when your participation is so filtered that it no longer feels like you’re in or belong, then I question the benefit of continuing to go (other than for the reasons mentioned).”
This is clearly a good and important point. We DO need to feel valued for who we are. This is ESPECIALLY important during certain stages of development. Obviously opinions and personalities are bound to clash at times on some subjects, and the way it is handled is vital to the overall and lasting health of the organization. When I look at this topic today, from my personal point of view, I think more about the needs of the whole than the needs of one individual, including myself. Maybe that is another area where I need to expand my comprehension. I have been so focused on forgiveness and tolerance of a flawed system and of human members and leaders, that maybe I could benefit from some contemplation of the other side – how others besides myself may be affected. I still think reality points to a slow change, but I do have faith in positive organizational growth. I have seen some in the past several years. It is very slow, but in a positive direction.
Latterday Skeptic wrote:“It’s at that point that I wonder if my silence is worth the effort. It might be different if the church believed it was one path of many, or if it was just a nice service organization, which didn’t require me to covenant before God, angels, etc… to believe exactly the way it does.”
I simply wanted to illustrate my own view here, for what it’s worth, to show that some Mormons do see things in their own way. I do see the church viewing itself as one path of many. Granted most members probably see the church as the “best” way, but if you really talk to them I think most would also say other religions can have an elevating effect, that they can lead to personal growth and increased spirituality. I believe most members will also say the church IS a nice service organization, and that it won’t require anyone to do anything that they don’t want to. Of course there is a whole other discussion around expectations and “pressure”, but those are cultural items – driven by humans in their weakness.
I’ll talk about priesthood authority later, but I wanted to make a point about the temple ceremony. I once heard a prominent leader say that ALL of the temple ceremony is symbolic. I take that to mean how we choose to apply it to ourselves will determine what parts of it will be important to each of us personally. I take the act of making covenants as a time to reflect on my personal level of dedication and belief; not to conform, but to assess. God knows what is important to me, where my heart is, and what my intentions are.
The structure that the church gives me (including common interpretations of covenants) is a starting place for my personal relationship to and understanding of God. The real growth, the real meaning, the real comprehension and devotion can only come from my most inner self. It cannot be “required” of me, that is the most absurd thought, how can you require someone to be something they simply are not? You can encourage personal growth, I think the church does that very well, but you cannot predetermine an end product. And in my opinion the church does not – although individual members seem to promote cookie cut-outs. Again, simply offering an alternate view.
Latterday Skeptic wrote:The very fact that Arrington can’t just come out and say, “Look, some of this works, some of it is likely myth, but it remains that there are some truths here of value..” shows an appalling view that forthright honesty is not tolerated at leadership levels.
Might we try to understand why? Do you know anyone who may be violently shaken up by this type of expression coming from church leadership? Could it be that other leaders themselves cannot fit the paradigm into their own worldview?
Latterday Skeptic wrote:Universalism is great, if it wasn’t so damned contradictory when you try to accept everything anybody says as “their truth”. Why, then, is only our myth important? Shouldn’t I then go ahead and accept all the Catholic “Saints” miracles, etc…, even though they sound very foreign and questionable as well? If miracles still occur to others, where does that put LDS and our “priesthood” as being the one and only way?
My myth is important to
me, it really doesn’t matter in the end if anyone else shares my views or not. I feel we should absolutely recognize the Catholic miracles as important to themselves, why wouldn’t we? The problem as I see it begins when we start to believe our revelations apply to others. I believe revelation is personal, I have no right to tell others that they need to live the way I feel I should. If my revelations are universal, this causes a problem because it says “you need to listen to what was revealed to me.” This is clearly preached against in church. Our personal revelations only apply to ourselves – and revelation itself is personal. Yes many members get confused on this issue, they co-mingle spiritual truth with physical truth. I hope that over time this distinction can become better understood in the church, but in the mean time it helps me exercise patience. The “one and only way” again, should come with the clarifying words: “for me.” If this has been revealed to me as my way, then it is my way. The misunderstanding goes way back, we all know that, back to a time when – and many people still do – confuse spiritual resonances with literal physical reality. I really enjoyed Elder Oaks talk where he explained that spiritual truths are not physically verifiable, they are personal and subjective, but of course they are still real and deeply meaningful. The word “real” can cause some confusion, but all I can do personally is operate on the best knowledge that I can acquire at this point in my existence. I feel that is exactly what the church tells me to do.
The priesthood obviously also falls into this realm of “according to my understanding.” I see it as a tool given for the benefit of our earthly education. Do humans misinterpret or misunderstand its true purpose/meaning/authentication? Probably. I never want to underestimate human limitations. I also don’t want to underestimate the potential of the human spirit, how high can we fly if we properly learn to reel out the kite string? As we navigate personal spirituality some people will say “you need to cut loose to reach your potential” others say “you need to keep the string fixed at X distance to stay up in the air, more elevation is an illusion.” I think the best answer is somewhere in between – the slow and steady letting out of string. And for me I feel my participation with the church helps me do just that.
But that’s me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.