- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I stumbled on this on the front page of LDS.org. Some stuff doesn’t stay there long and becomes difficult to find so I figured I’d share it. It’s a short read and not all of us are going to agree with every word – but the message that ambiguity exists is a truth and the author does a fairly good job at explaining it. https://www.lds.org/blog/sitting-in-the-space-of-not-knowing?cid=HP_TU_6-9-2016_dOCS_fBLOG_xLIDyL2-3_ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/blog/sitting-in-the-space-of-not-knowing?cid=HP_TU_6-9-2016_dOCS_fBLOG_xLIDyL2-3_ I read this the other day. I was very excited to see it. Every little bump that cracks the wall gets me excited. I don’t want “the church” or even large parts of “our culture” to implode or fall, but I don’t want us to be cookie cutter nor dismissive. Yet we seem to achieve cookie cutter or dismissive much more easily. It is a message that needs to be shared more broadly – and having it on lds.org is an important step. Quote:I think we as humans crave certainty and control. When we encounter complex issues and situations—more general ones like polygamy or priesthood restrictions, or intensely personal ones like having same-sex attraction or dealing with a devastating divorce or death—we want to make sense of them. We want to know why it’s happening and how everything is going to work out. In the absence of a clear explanation, we or others may invent one.
(Oncoming cynical remark.) Overall, I like the sentiment and the advice. On the other hand, I think it’s painfully inappropriate to group these things together. There’s got to be a word for this technique – we see it a lot lately. Lumping polygamy and racism (aka “priesthood restrictions”) in with life’s true uncertainties and disappointments doesn’t fly with me. Didn’t we acknowledge that the priesthood ban bubbled up out of the atmosphere of the times? How much clearer does it need to be? I think trying to fit the disease and disappointment so hard for us to bear at times under the same umbrella with the misery we’ve caused each other is poor form.
Sorry, I know it’s an attempt made in good faith. But they’ve got to let go. There’s this unwillingness to let us come to any conclusions. They’re craving control of us!
Ann wrote:Quote:I think we as humans crave certainty and control. When we encounter complex issues and situations—more general ones like polygamy or priesthood restrictions, or intensely personal ones like having same-sex attraction or dealing with a devastating divorce or death—we want to make sense of them. We want to know why it’s happening and how everything is going to work out. In the absence of a clear explanation, we or others may invent one.
(Oncoming cynical remark.) Overall, I like the sentiment and the advice. On the other hand, I think it’s painfully inappropriate to group these things together. There’s got to be a word for this technique – we see it a lot lately. Lumping polygamy and racism (aka “priesthood restrictions”) in with life’s true uncertainties and disappointments doesn’t fly with me. Didn’t we acknowledge that the priesthood ban bubbled up out of the atmosphere of the times? How much clearer does it need to be? I think trying to fit the disease and disappointment so hard for us to bear at times under the same umbrella with the misery we’ve caused each other is poor form.
Sorry, I know it’s an attempt made in good faith. But they’ve got to let go. There’s this unwillingness to let us come to any conclusions. They’re craving control of us!
I disagree Ann. There are a wide varieties of concerns and doubts among the membership. While I understand that the majority of people here and on other support sites do have historical concerns, mine were not. My faith crisis started with me getting fired from a job that I thought God specifically told me to take, helped me to get, and that I was supposed to be doing. At that point polygamy, the priesthood ban, and other historical things meant nothing to me nor did the church’s treatment of LGBTs. It’s why FAIR and apologetics did nothing for me. I don’t think I’m alone. I think there are others who perhaps have bought into the prosperity gospel and lose faith because of devastating life circumstances or who don’t understand why God isn’t answering their prayers because “all prayers are answered.” We are admittedly the minority in the shadows with others who doubt, but we’re here and the blog applies to us as well.
My main aim in sharing was not that I think the blog itself is earth shattering or game changing. I shared it because it was on the landing page on LDS.org and as Mom and Ray said, it’s another small step in the right direction.
DJ – thanks for your perspective. I would agree it is a smallsmall
Ann wrote:… Didn’t we acknowledge that the priesthood ban bubbled up out of the atmosphere of the times?
When I read theRace EssayQuote:Today, the Church
disavows the theoriesadvanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life;
So from this I read that thetheoriesof why the doctrine/practice of having race restrictions was not of God, but I don’t see them saying that the restriction itself was not of God. I don’t see that they said the latter as that would be saying a prophet (actually almost all the latter-day prophets) goofed up on this. The essay didn’t say it explicitly, but it said it about as strongly as could be said without saying it explicitly. Old Timer wrote:The essay didn’t say it explicitly, but it said it about as strongly as could be said without saying it explicitly.
Which not actually saying it implicitly says a lot (IMHO).It does. I think it says the writers knew they couldn’t risk saying it explicitly, given how many members can’t reject it completely for being man-made – but I am happy for a major step forward with a statement that can’t be read objectively as anything but a state,net that it was not instituted by God. Seriously, there is no way to read the essay without pre-existing bias and come to the conclusion that the ban was instituted by God. That is not a small thing.
LookingHard wrote:Old Timerw wrote:The essay didn’t say it explicitly, but it said it about as strongly as could be said without saying it explicitly.
Which not actually saying it implicitly says a lot (IMHO).I have begun to wonder if instead of the essays being definitive all encompassing answers (which they clearly are not), they were meant more as springboards to having more open conversations. From a big picture perspective it’s very difficult to address details to a vast audience with a wide spectrum of beliefs and “do no harm.” However in smaller groups and between individuals, things like expression and body language can come into play as well as at least some knowledge of who the audience is. For example, here I can be much more open about my beliefs about the priesthood ban and polygamy (neither of which I believe was of God). I know a couple real life individuals I can be more open with and with whom I can carry on rational discussions on those topics.
Using evolution as an example, I know several people in my ward who are absolute believers in evolution and absolutely eschew the idea of a young earth. I also know some in my ward who are total believers in creationism, young earth, and literal Adam and Eve. And then there is the other “third” (not literal third) who I don’t know which way they believe. I can carry on conversations with my evolution believing friends that I can’t carry on with my non-evolution believing friends and there are topics related to evolution I won’t discuss in mixed company where I know there are non-believers or where I don’t know what some believe. I won’t mention the topic in a sacrament meeting talk. If the subject were brought up and there was opportunity for rational discussion in a SS or PH class I’d certainly discuss it though (partly because I didn’t bring it up). If there were an essay about evolution, though, I might bring it up (and I do think an essay about evolution would be good).
I believe the church was being very careful to “do no harm” in publishing the essays. My son’s experience on his mission with the polygamy essays was very telling – his MP had to have a special meeting with missionaries because so many were thrown by not knowing JS was a polygamist. Perhaps what the MP did was exactly what the church intended to happen – for SPs and bishops and EQPs and SS teachers to have these discussions on a much smaller scale. They are being incorporated into seminary and some of the youth lessons, and we’ve been told they will be part of the new and long awaited adult curriculum (and I honestly think the essays are hold that up, which may not be a bad thing in the long run). Maybe we’re not supposed to take them just for what they are.
DarkJedi wrote:Ann wrote:Quote:I think we as humans crave certainty and control. When we encounter complex issues and situations—more general ones like polygamy or priesthood restrictions, or intensely personal ones like having same-sex attraction or dealing with a devastating divorce or death—we want to make sense of them. We want to know why it’s happening and how everything is going to work out. In the absence of a clear explanation, we or others may invent one.
(Oncoming cynical remark.) Overall, I like the sentiment and the advice. On the other hand, I think it’s painfully inappropriate to group these things together. There’s got to be a word for this technique – we see it a lot lately. Lumping polygamy and racism (aka “priesthood restrictions”) in with life’s true uncertainties and disappointments doesn’t fly with me. Didn’t we acknowledge that the priesthood ban bubbled up out of the atmosphere of the times? How much clearer does it need to be? I think trying to fit the disease and disappointment so hard for us to bear at times under the same umbrella with the misery we’ve caused each other is poor form.
Sorry, I know it’s an attempt made in good faith. But they’ve got to let go. There’s this unwillingness to let us come to any conclusions. They’re craving control of us!
I disagree Ann. There are a wide varieties of concerns and doubts among the membership. While I understand that the majority of people here and on other support sites do have historical concerns, mine were not. My faith crisis started with me getting fired from a job that I thought God specifically told me to take, helped me to get, and that I was supposed to be doing. At that point polygamy, the priesthood ban, and other historical things meant nothing to me nor did the church’s treatment of LGBTs. It’s why FAIR and apologetics did nothing for me. I don’t think I’m alone. I think there are others who perhaps have bought into the prosperity gospel and lose faith because of devastating life circumstances or who don’t understand why God isn’t answering their prayers because “all prayers are answered.” We are admittedly the minority in the shadows with others who doubt, but we’re here and the blog applies to us as well.
My main aim in sharing was not that I think the blog itself is earth shattering or game changing. I shared it because it was on the landing page on LDS.org and as Mom and Ray said, it’s another small step in the right direction.
DJ, I can’t tell what exactly has happened here, but I’m sorry that I came across as I did. I’m definitely NOT saying that faith crises don’t blossom out from all kinds of experiences. I read them often here and I know they aren’t easily resolved. They raise a whole other set of harder questions about our very existence.In that sense the blog rings true for me. I’m also not saying it isn’t good to acknowledge that people are struggling with their faith in general and give them ways to cope, process and hang on. I’m saying there seems to be a large number who are reaching conclusions about the historical items they’d previously shelved, and they’re
oftenin recent-style apologetics told to keep the item in a limbo and wait for some vague future understanding. I start imagining a cartoonish scene where I take it off the shelf, happy that I finally see it more clearly, ready to move and recover what I can of my faith…but then they put it back on, I take it off, they put it on, etc. I think the more interesting, profound, and dignified discussions are had in the arenas you describe, not in the church pulling the rug out from under people who are trying to get a new footing for their faith. I want to say, “Let me say how I think about these things so I can remodel my Mormon house!”
I love the respect shown on this site such as the exchange above, and even Ray gently letting someone know a few hours ago that he was stepping over the line for this site on a comment that was made. I am appreciating that as I have looked at a few other sites as I am not 100% sure “staying LDS” is exactly where I am at or headed. But dang – you often see a lot of the anger. I am getting over being in that stage and don’t feel like dwelling there (and I guess I have to admit I am not in a place where I can help console that anger and help them – at least not yet).
Thanks everyone. I do really appreciate this site – or more to the truth – the PEOPLE at this site.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.