It was the end, it was the beginning

[Anonymous]

Ralph wrote:

In recent weeks I have just given a different meaning to so many things. There was a moment where I began to see everything from a different point of view. You risk to lose your balance. To stand I’m trying to listen to my heart, my mind and my spirit. You know it is not easy.

I would not tend to frame what many call a FC. Simply because I have had many LC(life crisis). Although I do think faith transition is more accurate, I would call it thought transition, or assumptive world view transition.

Thinking about things from many different perspective is what caused so much pain and collapse of my assumptive world view well before a FT. The experience was exactly the same on a structural level.

Mostly because I was always the “fix it Felix”. I always tried to fix things. Fail into deep depression when I couldn’t, felt like a complete failure of myself and faith.

After some years of looking through multiple lenses I learned to be more comfortable and appreciate so many different people and cultures and ideas. I was no longer afraid to subject myself to them.

I had gained increased empathy and understanding for a wider range of people.

I would not call that a stump, it was growth for me.

The bible gave me no comfort for understanding human interaction I had witnessed and experienced. It was pretty good for its time but so far off of what I found and experienced for human nature.

Today, I brace that fix it Felix will always be a part of me, but I focused on being the best me and can be and helping others being the best them they can be. The FT or the start of looking at things from the new multiple perspectives instead of a insular I had been brought up in changed all that.

So I do not feel robed, I feel blessed for having the chance to change my perspective to many and to much better understanding and empathy of others then I had before with the religiously insular point of view I grew up with.

I’m no longer afraid to look at things from mukhtar perspectives and pick. One that helps others or a situation.

Looking at things from a different perspective was not a crisis, it was a process of conversion, a change of heart, a blessing.

[Anonymous]

Ralph wrote:

In recent weeks I have just given a different meaning to so many things. There was a moment where I began to see everything from a different point of view. You risk to lose your balance. To stand I’m trying to listen to my heart, my mind and my spirit. You know it is not easy.

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

I would not tend to frame what many call a FC. Simply because I have had many LC(life crisis). Although I do think faith transition is more accurate, I would call it thought transition, or assumptive world view transition.

Thinking about things from many different perspective is what caused so much pain and collapse of my assumptive world view well before a FT. The experience was exactly the same on a structural level.

…

I’m no longer afraid to look at things from mukhtar perspectives and pick. One that helps others or a situation.

Looking at things from a different perspective was not a crisis, it was a process of conversion, a change of heart, a blessing.

I really appreciate these thoughts. A lot of what happens in a faith crisis, or faith transition, is a huge change in assumptions about your world, your culture, and your personal life. Trying to find a new worldview that feels right and comfortable is a huge challenge. I think you are right to involve your heart, mind, and spirit. Your transition will be much easier if you can identify some things that absolutely believe, as well as things that you can feel OK with being ambiguous or uncertain. Living peacefully with uncertainty is a big step.

[Anonymous]

Welcome to the forum Ralph. As a fellow-european (British) it’s good to have you on the forum. I really appreciated your sincerity. I completely empathise with your frustration about the assumptions of why people leave. I used to see the world that way too. I had a friend who left and I assumed it was because of the guilt of sin. Recently another friend has left and I know it’s more to do with history/doctrine. As a result of losing belief he has stopped living all of the ‘mormon’ commandments (but keeps the ‘big-10’ in the bible). People observe his behaviour and assume it was sin causing him to leave. A mutual friend said he thinks that is the reason. Some people can’t accept there might be something wrong with the church and assume it must always be with the person. I hope you enjoy this community.

[Anonymous]

Welcome to awakening

[Anonymous]

I know there is a lot of hard things to accept that you mentioned. I would think if racism is bad, then despite Brigham Young’s racism, the Lord would intervene and say you need to course correct here. But it did not happen that way. It is hard to put these two together when we believe so hard that the prophet will never lead us astray. I think this shows that the average church members have just as influence and has just as much ownership of the Church as the prophet and apostles. If the church members would have had no tolerance for racism at the time, than there is no way Brigham would have slipped that one through and everyone was alright with it. Members who have the spirit and the right information cannot be led away even from the prophet. When asked about this Brigham said “If he (God) should suffer him (Joseph) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray…it would be because they deserved it…” “I have universelly exhorted the people to obtain a living witness each for themselves ; then no man can lead them astray”. Brigham even stated as much that there is a possibility that the prophets might lead the people astray “..if I were to preach false doctrine, it would not be an hour after the people got out that the people would fly to one another and say “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right!” It seems weird to me but I think if there was a time to set the racial record straight, then 19th century Utah would have been perfect for it with the Church having almost total cultural control. But it didn’t happen. The Lord is there to give direction and clarify on belief in Christ, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, enduring to the end. The Lord did not seek to change the social institutions in Christ’s time either, even though Christ was the Son of God. I see that the Church could take a stand on issues that they need to when they do not, like a minimal meat, most plant based diet as stated in D&C 89, and less unhealthy competition in the business world, and only recently have they advocated much more fully the place for Gays in the church and the full benefits of the gospel for women. Occasionally the brethren have taught outside the circle of acceptability of the saints, but mostly it seems they teach in the circle, which is mostly conservative values with generous portions of good deeds, sprinkled with mercy, charity, forgiveness, understanding. When it should really be generous portions of Christlike attributes sprinkled with some conservative and liberal values because the gospel should not lean, it should take the best of all views. I do have to say that of late, the brethren have been teach more towards the middle of mercy and the law, though this still needs to come down to local leaders more fully. This is just to say that the saints had more of the spirit, and more of a well rounded and full view of Christ, then the apostles and prophet would too because they would not allow the brethren to vere too much to one side of their personal views like Ezra Taft Benson did in the 60s. This is not to say that the revelations of D & C and the BOM and from conference are not inspired, but I feel that if the saints were more intune with the Lord, study things out for themselves more, than the circle of what is acceptable would more in line of what is ultimately acceptable to the Lord. As members we have a big responsibility to keep the church on track in any age and time.

[Author]

Posts