Major Step Forward Today?

[Anonymous]

embwm – I love your post. I do think you are starting to see the value of figuring out your own views without the all or nothing paradigm that is, IMO, not very useful. The problem with an all or nothing paradigm is that life doesn’t work like that. Life and the gospel are full of paradox. We have to lose our life to save it. We have to be charitable, but “the poor you have always with you.”

I too think there is a huge problem with confirmation bias in the church. Alma 32, IMO, is an explanation of how to achieve confirmation bias. I’ve always been skeptical of that as a result.

As for feeling misunderstood – get used to that. It’s OK, though. Being understood and validated are not enlightening.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

embwm – I love your post. I do think you are starting to see the value of figuring out your own views without the all or nothing paradigm that is, IMO, not very useful. The problem with an all or nothing paradigm is that life doesn’t work like that. Life and the gospel are full of paradox. We have to lose our life to save it. We have to be charitable, but “the poor you have always with you.”

I too think there is a huge problem with confirmation bias in the church. Alma 32, IMO, is an explanation of how to achieve confirmation bias. I’ve always been skeptical of that as a result.

As for feeling misunderstood – get used to that. It’s OK, though. Being understood and validated are not enlightening.

I like that post Hawkgrrrl. I will think on that tonight. Although I don’t see proving an idea or truth as a one time thing, but a consent process continually testing and confirming or not confirming as we struggle to understand and improve ourselves.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon,

Thanks for the call invitation- I can feel your sincerity and I appreciate it. Truthfully though, writing back and forth is a better method for me personally. I have had many discussions with some very close trusted friends about my religious concerns- some good and some not so good. I tend to think through the points made, and it is more useful for me to take the time to digest a well crafted idea or argument and then respond. This may be a way to help others on the board with perspective as well. In some of the face to face conversations I have had I feel that even with close friends, the discussion has devolved to “see, it’s that simple- why don’t you just do that”… in other words seeking to convince instead of understand and learn. It’s kind of like that old skit with Bob Newhart as a therapist- whose council to people with problems is “just stop it!” (You can insert Pres.Uchtdorf here if you want ).

I have read a ton the past few years, both books and online. I have read many of the books by the folks you listed- Givens, Bushman, and Gardner. Lot’s of good information- but what I was really looking for in them was some info from the authors about how they reconcile some of the things I mentioned and how they make that work. In the online community, there is a LOT of negativity- and while I can understand where it comes from- there has to be a point where people start being constructive in their own lives. There are also a lot of people who are bearing what I assume is a heartfelt testimony- but in many cases it seems to be coming from either a shallow understanding of the issues or a complete misunderstanding. It’s one thing to say “I make it work by understanding a functional translation model of the BOM as opposed to a literal- regardless of what conference talks have said- and that’s what works for me” compared to “I just know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s true- because I just know”. I am not making light of what different people believe, but understanding HOW they come to the conclusions and what their frame of reference is- can be very important in understanding how useful their approach really is.

I don’t want to hijack the thread from the OP- for my benefit and for the original thread, it may be of value to those around here to hear just how those who feel they are making it work are doing that in a pragmatic real world sense. For example- in listening to the MoSto podcast with Bushman, one huge distillation I gleaned was that for Bushman, he makes it work by choosing to believe and live in a world where God would talk to man- and specifically to a rural farm boy asking questions. The beauty and poetry of that response is not lost on me. To me this is a very different response than an assertion of literality.

[Anonymous]

I agree about hijacking this thread. so start a thread and one item at a time tell me specifically what issue is most difficult to ignore and why. I will try to share how I have thought through it and see where it goes. use your strongest point first so that we are not beating around the bush and please give enough detail so that I understand exactly why it poses a problem.

Have an awesome evening

[Anonymous]

embwbam wrote:

Is this how stage 5 feels? Am I finally coming out of the tunnel? Maybe this is just the less angsty part of stage 4, I don’t know.

It’s funny that I came across this just now because I just finished having a related conversation with my husband. I was educating him on Fowler’s stages and we were contemplating our current stages. Personally, I think you are solidly in stage 4 and reaping the benefits. Stage 4 is difficult, but there is a strength and a freedom in it that can be very empowering. My husband pointed out that the most painful part in it all would really be the transition from stage 3 to stage 4.

It sounds to me like you have made that transition more gracefully than many of us and are now living the positives of stage 4 without dwelling on the negatives. Good for you!

[Anonymous]

embwbam wrote:

The last 3 years though, I realized that I didn’t know if I could trust spiritual evidence. I began to think that following the steps to re-gain a testimony might just be an exercise in confirmation bias. If it’s possible that we induce our own spiritual experiences because we want them so badly, how could I ever regain a testimony? Maybe there’s a simple answer to that, but if there is, I haven’t found one in 3 years…

Well, in church I made a realization.

I really don’t think there’s any way the church is literally True. Like, no way. There’s way too much evidence that a lot of it is made up. That doesn’t mean it isn’t inspired at all, it just means that the TBM interpretation isn’t correct…

I feel like I’ve finally moved on. Like now, since I admit it’s not 100%, I can step back and figure out what *I* really believe. If mormonism isn’t 100%, I’m pretty sure nothing else is, so that means God isn’t as picky as I thought, and won’t blame me for honestly trying to figure things out. I can live by the things I think I should do, and get back to trying to improve myself instead of being stuck by this testimony thing.

I found myself nodding a lot to what you wrote in your post. I feel fairly comfortable where I am, but there is something that has been nagging at me and you happened to mention that thing in your post. How do you know if spiritual evidence is divine or conjured by yourself? I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how to distinguish between the divine and just an emotional experience? I wasn’t as careful with the reading of the many posts that followed because my eyes are getting tired so if I am asking a question that has already been answered I am sorry.

[Anonymous]

I understand the danger of what I’m about to say, but why do we need to distinguish between the two in that way? Why can’t we adopt the Moroni 7 model of whatever inspires to do good is of God – and the idea that the kingdom of God is within and among us – no matter how it comes to us?

[Author]

Posts