- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I agree with what others have said about the cafeteria approach and black and white thinking. I have likened my faith crisis to a crumbled building in the past. It could be a church building but it doesn’t need to be (in my mind’s eye it is). This idea of the world lying about me in pieces is a very real description of how I felt for a long time. I didn’t see that the building could be rebuilt, and I’m not sure I wanted to rebuild it because of how devastating it was when it fell. But after the anger and grief began to subside I did see that it could be rebuilt, but that it wasn’t going to be like it was before. There were even pieces that could be reused, but there were also pieces that definitely could not be reused. There was a need for some new pieces.
A big part of my faith crisis had to do with the LDS theology of God. To me, God was not what I had been taught He was. As a result of black and white thinking, if this wasn’t the God of the Lost Car Keys who was intimately involved with small details of my life then there clearly was not God. I was never convinced there was no God, but I doubted there was – at least not the LDS testimony meeting God. One day I was contemplating the universe and recognized (or re-realized) that of course there is a God. I simply do not believe all of this came about without a greater intelligent being of some sort. Without the black and white view of God as someone I had an intimate relationship with, God actually became more real to me. I do not believe God helps us find our car keys (and any other inane trivial thing) nor do I believe He speaks to men (depending on your definition of God, this is confirmed in scripture). I do believe God is the Creator, and perhaps nothing more or less. Thus, that day I let go of the black and white all or nothing approach. My definition of God evolved, and it was not the same definition of God that I perceive most Mormons have – but that’s OK. In further evolution of thought, I recognized that I am never asked about that Mormon God directly. I am asked (in TR interviews) if I believe in God the Father – and I most certainly do (although I don’t
knowhe exists). Thus, the foundation of this building to be rebuilt became a belief in God. I then recognized other parts that could be used in rebuilding – but it turns out they’re all gray (or perhaps that’s just they way look through the dark glass through which I see). The building is rebuilt now, there are clearly parts from the old building and there are new parts – and there is still a pile of rubble nearby, pieces that probably won’t be reused. The building is still under construction and probably always will be – unlike the previous perfect building.
Key to this thought evolution is this: Just like the realization that God isn’t what I thought He was, neither was Joseph Smith, neither is the Book of Mormon, and lots of other stuff. The TR questions really were a key part of all of this as well – what am I really being asked? Not much, it turns out. I recognized the dominoes don’t necessarily fall, and no matter how many times people repeat it, it’s not necessarily true that if JS was a prophet then the BoM is true and if the BoM is true then the church is true. The reverse is also true – if I conclude JS wasn’t a prophet, the BoM could still be true. Any could be true without the other, and I think they need to be looked at as independent pieces, not as a whole.
My new faith is much more focused on what I believe and much less focused on what others, including the church institution, teach and/or believe. I believe that’s what the parable of the ten virgins (which I don’t like, BTW, and don’t believe is properly interpreted or perhaps not properly translated) is about. I have come to believe in a beautifully and exquisitely simple gospel, and that gospel is much more important than any church. FWIW, I think the entirety of the gospel is summed up in another parable, the parable I like to call the parable of the father and the two sons but more commonly called the parable of the prodigal son.
That’s where I coming from when I say focus on what you do believe. It does not have to be a belief that there is a God like it was for me – but somewhere in there you likely have some part of the gospel that is a part of the inner you. Find that and build. The rest takes care of itself.
I have been noticing lately that even through my faith crisis, I get these feelings of ‘I need to get back to the TBM I was’ or ‘I think eventually I’ll go back to being a TBM or I’ll leave the church because I can’t stay in between forever’ or i’ll suddenly get this urge of ‘I have to become temple worthy again as soon as possible.’ I have to remind myself that it’s okay to stay where I am and think about things and let things take their time. I’m sure if I jumped toward the church or completely away from the church, I would regret it. It’s so interesting though how growing up so TBM, I have these habits still of feeling like I need to constantly get better in the church or something bad will happen. It’s hard to feel comfortable in gray areas when it comes to church things and I think that’s because of the ideology of the church that you need to be constantly moving forward in the church or you’ll move backwards. Yet, it feels important to be a fence-sitter, as they say, right now so I can process everything OK….so the thing that rattles me the most is not anger….its FEAR. I admit that, and it doesn’t bother me to admit it. I remember being a younger man and having just finished some of my science undergrad work. I got the real understanding of what “light year” really is,..the magnitude of distance. Its astonishing!
One night I was outside, and it was a clear night–the stars blazed across the sky, and it was breathtaking. The realization of the distances involved came to my mind, and I found myself marveling that the light I was seeing from those stars was generated millions of years ago, perhaps longer,… At that moment, I caught the tiniest glimpse of just how BIG things were out there,..how much DISTANCE was involved, and I was virtually overcome–
OVERCOMEI took comfort that I had fellow humans around me, but that wasn’t enough. “It is not good for man [or woman] to be alone” is a pretty serious statement!
What if? What if God really wasn’t that accessible? What if He wasn’t involved, in control, and there? What if He wasn’t there for me? What if, when I cry out, HE DOESNT HEAR,…or more frightening, what if HE just doesn’t respond?
Oh…..My……GOD!!!!!!!!!
WHAT IF!!!!!!That is my core. That is why I freak out when I find out there is disharmony in the doctrine, that there is
unsurenessin the revelations or how they are interpreted. That is why the whole existential perspective that drifts into agnosticism or flat out atheism just frightens me. I need to be heard when I cry out. The profound distance and loneliness that descends if this is not true,…I grapple with that. It shakes me to my core. So, my anger has its root in fear….and I admit that.
Rob4Hope wrote:What if? What if God really wasn’t that accessible? What if He wasn’t involved, in control, and there? What if He wasn’t there for me? What if, when I cry out, HE DOESNT HEAR,…or more frightening, what if HE just doesn’t respond?
My faith crisis was more about the realization that these things really were true than “what if” they were. The Deist God I have come to embrace is pretty much exactly what you describe, essentially inaccessible, uninvolved, certainly not there for me, doesn’t hear, and doesn’t respond. I can no longer see God any other way. Embracing your doubts can be very empowering.
I also agree that the anger is not necessarily anger, but a manifestation of other emotions.
Letting go of the all or nothing approach was the only way I got through my faith crisis !!!!!!!!!! I am not even sure how the all or nothing thing even came to be but I believe it may have come about by way of Pres. Hinckley. At any rate I am now comfortable with being A Cafeteria Mormon , nothing wrong with it at all !!!!!!!! I am ok with Jesus Christ and the Bible but uncomfortable claiming the church is the only true church on the face of the earth I just can’t buy into that anymore . I have several other examples but I won’t go into any more of them here anyway the cafeteria way works and works very well and no one should ever feel guilty about it . jgaskill wrote:Letting go of the all or nothing approach was the only way I got through my faith crisis !!!!!!!!!! I am not even sure how the all or nothing thing even came to be but I believe it may have come about by way of Pres. Hinckley. At any rate I am now comfortable with being A Cafeteria Mormon , nothing wrong with it at all !!!!!!!! I am ok with Jesus Christ and the Bible but uncomfortable claiming the church is the only true church on the face of the earth I just can’t buy into that anymore . I have several other examples but I won’t go into any more of them here anyway the cafeteria way works and works very well and no one should ever feel guilty about it .
Maybe we should get some t-shirts with the words, “This is what a cafeteria Mormon looks like”
That would at least strike up some conversations.
Every single Mormon who has lived and been aware of what various leaders have believed and taught throughout our history has, of necessity, accepted some things and rejected (or ignored) others. A ‘cafeteria approach” is the only possible approach other than ignorance – and many, many, many faithful, active members use a cafeteria approach whether they realize it or not. All or nothing views work remarkably well for lots of people; they don’t work at all for lots of others.
So, whatever works for each of us individually is what we need to pursue. I personally pursue a limitless cafeteria – which can expose me to ideas that can sicken me and fill me with sweetness and true meat. The limit of what is offered / allowed in our own personal cafeterias is our call, since we are told to be agents unto ourselves. (a wonderful, oft-overlooked Mormon phrase)
Old-Timer wrote:… since we are told to be agents unto ourselves. (a wonderful, oft-overlooked Mormon phrase)
Ray,…this opens up a VERY interesting train of thought. Are you saying the quote of being agents unto ourselves is a justification/reason for the “cafeteria” approach? Please expand on this…
I want to also expand this slightly by an idea shared by Wendy Ulrich in one of her books. She quoted another writer (and if anyone is interested, I think I can find the exact quote) about how westerners have a very linear problem with platonic idealism. We see things in a linear fashion, and when we make a mistake (for example), then repentance is the answer, but we can not expunge the mistake from history because it is past and still in the record. This author pointed out that those in the east understood things differently–causality could ONLY be understood in the context and meaning of the whole.
So he likened it to a musical presentation. At the beginning of the music, things might be horrible–but as the music progresses (and becomes more clear and melodious), the meaning of the entire piece changes: the past measures of music would be interpreted only in relation to that which succeeded it, and vice versa–causality and meaning of the whole moved in both direction, both forward in time as well as backward.
What we do now CHANGES the very fabric of the past, because it changes the MEANING of what happened. Scripture seems to support this, because it says that time is ONLY measured unto man, and past, present and future is God’s realm, a realm in which eventually we are supposed to take up occupancy.
It is because of this type of thinking that Nephi, for example, could have great hope for his brothers. Why?…because their whole life, even the meaning of their big mistakes, would be interpreted differently depending on what they did going forward. Instead of those things being sins–they perhaps became “learning experiences” of great value.
I think everyone here would agree that seeing something as either a “sin” or “learning experience” are two VERY different interpretations. If we saw someone growing and moving forward, would the understanding and interpretation of past mistakes not shift and change in meaning? For me, I think they would. I also think this change in interpretation is movement out of TBM and into something more mature and nuanced.
Would you agree?
Quote:I think everyone here would agree that seeing something as either a “sin” or “learning experience” are two VERY different interpretations. If we saw someone growing and moving forward, would the understanding and interpretation of past mistakes not shift and change in meaning? For me, I think they would. I also think this change in interpretation is movement out of TBM and into something more mature and nuanced.
Would you agree?
Yes, I would agree. I believe sometimes seeing something as a sin or a learning experience can also lead someone into a more mature and nuanced faith.
Rob4Hope wrote:I need to be heard when I cry out. The profound distance and loneliness that descends if this is not true,…I grapple with that. It shakes me to my core. So, my anger has its root in fear….and I admit that.
First off, I want to say that I am just like you. I believe what I believe about God and the eternities because of what I need and what I hope for. I choose to have faith in what I assess to be the most beautiful and NOT what I assess to be the most probable. So I get that these things are common to the human condition.
That being said, I believe that “it is either all true or all false” is a fear based control mechanism. If JS being commanded to marry more wives than one is on the table for consideration and my eternal relationships with my family hang in the balance, I will be highly motivated interpret the event through the “lens of faith.”
FWIW, I personally have doubts about the sealing power of temple ceremonies – however I still choose to believe in the eternal nature of human relationships.
I support the topic of this thread. Church got infinitely more peaceful and enjoyable when I realized that I was in control. My current challenge is two-fold:
The Church categorically rejects cafeteria Mormonism. Yes, I understand that I can reject their rejection of my cafeteria style, but it doesn’t help the social status of my family
- Certain “food” choices prevent a person from having a Temple Recommend
In other words, if you’re okay not having a recommend, and you’re okay dealing with the social consequences (some of which your spouse has to bear), then it’s a much better position to be in.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.