Never thought I’d find myself here. But cried when I did

[Anonymous]

johnh wrote:

I also find some eastern philosophy refreshing. Seems much more in alignment with true loving creator. Yet still supporting the philosophy of eternal progression ….with a personal focus that does not involve looking down your nose Att your neighbor.

Am I the only one who looks into the lds congregation and doesn’t see a lot of happy blissful people?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

No, you’re not. I see some people who are struggling and hoping, but don’t want to show it. Others for whom life’s just fine and church is a pleasant habit. Others who find fulfilment and satisfaction in church service and testimony. We’re a big mix, but the none-fits tend to stay quiet to avoid being ostracised.

And I agree, Eastern philosophy is wonderful and my daily exposure to it is part of my motive for asking questions.

It amuses me when I see/hear western people talk about India/China being in the dark for 5,000 years. They’ve clearly never explored the beautiful enlightening principles of hinduism/buddhism/confucianism.

[Anonymous]

Thankful wrote:

Welcome.

I understand very much where you are coming from. My story is similar. My husband lost his faith 9 years ago, and I responded by clinging even tighter to the gospel. We had some rough times, but worked it out. We’ve been happy and felt mostly at peace with our respective positions.

Then one day I realized I had never bothered to really understand his point of view, but was always hoping he’d see mine and “come back.” He never did anything to push me, one way or another. His lost faith was painful to him, and he knew the church makes me happy.

One day it hit me that *I* wanted to understand where he was coming from. I realized this is the person who is most important to me in the world. And I haven’t even given his perspective the “time of day.” And I knew I needed to listen and read and pray and understand.

Like you, I was sure that anything I found out would have a perfectly reasonable (and “faith promoting”) explanation. Then I learned more and realized I had no idea of what I’d gotten myself into.

There are days when I think the gospel is amazing and I want to believe every part. There are days when I wonder if I can believe anything, or am deluding myself instead. Some days I think I should renew my temple recommend. Other days I wonder if I can even stay in the church. It’s hard!

I don’t have answers, but understand where you are coming from. This site is a GOOD place. I hope it will help you the way it has helped me.

I got a little choked up reading that. It’s wonderful to speak with people who ‘get me.’ It’s hard to contemplate the notion that the years we’ve given could be meaningless (I still hope/believe they aren’t) or that those who left before us are actually the enlightened ones.

I decided early on in DW’s departure from church to not pray for her to change her mind and come back. Other Mormons are quite surprised when I tell them that. I feel it would be disrespectful to her intelligence and ability to know what is best for her if I were to plead to a god she doesn’t accept to convince her that she’s living in darkness. Instead I hope and occasionally pray that she will be happy and our relationship will be strong.

She’s actually a lot happier in the approach she’s now taking. I hope that the concept of God I have would be pleased with what she’s found as a life-balance.

I believe in being a parent who celebrates children who become hard working rail-road workers, dancers and brain surgeons. I hope that our heavenly parent takes the same approach…

And I’m not sure which of the job titles I’d compare to Mormons

[Anonymous]

It’s amazing how similar peoples experiences are as I read your intro I felt yep! Understand that, felt that, did that, yep!

I’m 5 months in to my faith crisis and everyday still hurts. I still don’t know if I’m staying or going. Almost all of me wants to leave but part is hanging on. Why or for what I don’t know.

I find it so sad that what used to bring great joy to so many now brings so much pain but was SO grateful when I found this site and realised I wan’t the only person who felt this way.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

Thanks wayfarer, you’re right. I can’t imagine a situation where I’d be able to be back in the simple, naïve certainty of being a TBM. I think I’m still mourning that loss.

I’m not really a middle way kind of guy. I’m not sure how sustainable that is. I can see three current possible outcomes:

– I’ll leave entirely. I hope I do it with dignity, respect for my friends and family and some ability to have belief in Deity.

– I’ll become an ardent apologetic, earnest to convince others, and myself that it all has an explanation

– I’ll become a (perhaps vocal) reformer on the inside which could lead to church discipline.

I don’t want to do the first, I doubt there’s the evidence to do the second and I question the need for the third as I can’t get over the idea of the church being all right or all wrong.

For now I’ll settle for the uncertainty and limbo of ‘middle way.’

With respect to everyone on this forum, I am also not a middle-way kind of guy. It just doesn’t fit with me. I firmly believe it is possible to return to TBM status. No one would be the same as before because the naivete is gone, but it’s possible nonetheless. I’ve considered your first option, but I also don’t want to do that. I want to be a bit like your second option, but I seek to be a loving, sharing Christian, ready to share my testimony and serve others rather than an “ardent apologetic.”

[Anonymous]

Just to say it one more time, I don’t like the label “TBM” specifically because of the connotations it always carries.

I’m as “believing” (or, perhaps more precisely, “faithful”) as it gets, and I’m as active as I can be, but I also believe in “a middle way” (meaning, as we’ve said in other threads, “my own way” NOT a single way that is common to a group). With that definition, I can be 100% both “a TBM” and “a middle wayer”. I can’t be either stereotype, but I’m not a stereotype – so I’m fine being both as I define each term.

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

mackay11 wrote:

Thanks wayfarer, you’re right. I can’t imagine a situation where I’d be able to be back in the simple, naïve certainty of being a TBM. I think I’m still mourning that loss.

I’m not really a middle way kind of guy. I’m not sure how sustainable that is. I can see three current possible outcomes:

– I’ll leave entirely. I hope I do it with dignity, respect for my friends and family and some ability to have belief in Deity.

– I’ll become an ardent apologetic, earnest to convince others, and myself that it all has an explanation

– I’ll become a (perhaps vocal) reformer on the inside which could lead to church discipline.

I don’t want to do the first, I doubt there’s the evidence to do the second and I question the need for the third as I can’t get over the idea of the church being all right or all wrong.

For now I’ll settle for the uncertainty and limbo of ‘middle way.’

With respect to everyone on this forum, I am also not a middle-way kind of guy. It just doesn’t fit with me. I firmly believe it is possible to return to TBM status. No one would be the same as before because the naivete is gone, but it’s possible nonetheless. I’ve considered your first option, but I also don’t want to do that. I want to be a bit like your second option, but I seek to be a loving, sharing Christian, ready to share my testimony and serve others rather than an “ardent apologetic.”

Even in a short period of a few months I think it’s possible to change.

I’m glad I don’t have to hold myself to anything I said a few months ago and would be comfortable completely contradicting myself. I’m glad I don’t hold myself to the same standards I hold Joseph Smith to. I’m glad that this princilple of double standards teaches me I should really cut Joseph some slack.

So with all that said, I am ready to add an option 4 & 5.

4. Live quietly, serving in faithfulness, while accepting a faith laced with uncertainty.

5. Go through this faith crisis, develop a deeper more meaningful, personal, private faith that allows for a full-faith acceptance of the LDS foundational stories and modern day application.

Thanks Shawn for your positive words.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

5. Go through this faith crisis, develop a deeper more meaningful, personal, private faith that allows for a full-faith acceptance of the LDS foundational stories and modern day application.

Thank you for adding 4 and 5 as I simply want all who are going through faith crisis to see 5 as a possible conclusion. It describes me well though I still have my moments.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

I’m glad I don’t hold myself to the same standards I hold Joseph Smith to. I’m glad that this princilple of double standards teaches me I should really cut Joseph some slack.

So with all that said, I am ready to add an option 4 & 5.

4. Live quietly, serving in faithfulness, while accepting a faith laced with uncertainty.

5. Go through this faith crisis, develop a deeper more meaningful, personal, private faith that allows for a full-faith acceptance of the LDS foundational stories and modern day application.

I am also one that appreciates this addition. Many LDS scholars speak and expound in different ways on #4. I think #4 and #5 work well together.

“Full-faith acceptance of foundational stories” in my view is basically the same thing as faithful acceptance of foundational stories. I honestly feel that I faithfully accept them, but my understanding is not perfect. Take the BoM translation for example: I don’t question that it happened by “the gift and power of God”, I don’t think Joseph could have written the book of his own talent and knowledge, I believe the experiences and testimonies of the scribes and witnesses are sincere. I also wonder if there was any group of ancient Americans that could broadly resemble what is found in the book. I tend to think the human imprint and personal coloring of the account by those involved in the process of its revelation is apparent.

In short if God has to do his work through imperfect humans, we should expect the results as we experience them to be imperfect. My wife and I often laugh when we give one of our children instructions to take to the other kids. As we overhear what they deliver it often doesn’t match what we intended to say. Why should we expect the process to be any different when coming from heavenly parents through a mortal prophet voice?

[Anonymous]

I am mostly a #4 kind of guy with a smattering of #3.

I think the #3 option just needs to be tempered…but I think we need more people challenging the “cultural craziness” of LDS life…the judging, emphasis on guilt, etc. I think as we see the shortcomings of our founders this should help us realize none of us are perfect and so we should be willing to give each other a little slack rather than lacing our lives with rules, rules, rules. Let people be people and not look down on blue shirts, facial hair or even WoW problems…hey, we are all on the same journey, more hand holding and less tripping please.

I can’t go #5 because there are too many doubts…timelines show definite copying of masonry in the temple…which I find a relief because I always thought some of that stuff was weird and made no sense. BoM ties to the “View of the Hebrews” are fairly strong and Oliver knew that author…enough there to leave doubts. That being said it doesn’t mean there are not good elements to be had and I can accept that God (the nature of whom I also don’t think any of us truly understand) will use whatever means possible to get positive change in this unruly bunch of monkeys.

Johnh

[Anonymous]

I can appreciate and find interesting value (true spiritual value) in the foundational stories without needing them to be literal. To me, the meaning we make from our stories is just that — what WE create. It’s a reflection of our soul into the world around us.

That includes secular history and not just religious history. Our stories tell us a lot about ourselves, perhaps even more than they tell us about the world we live in at times.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

Quote:

5. Go through this faith crisis, develop a deeper more meaningful, personal, private faith that allows for a full-faith acceptance of the LDS foundational stories and modern day application.

Thank you for adding 4 and 5 as I simply want all who are going through faith crisis to see 5 as a possible conclusion. It describes me well though I still have my moments.

I have good days and bad days. Some days I think, yes, 5 is completely fine. Some days I think like a 5. But then something occurs to me and I slip right back to considering 1 again and claw myself up to 4 as a coping mechanism.

Maybe the solution is to work to 5 and stop thinking, stop reading at that moment. Like my mums adage to face pulling “if the wind changes your face will be stuck that way.” I just need the wind to change on a 5 day.

[Anonymous]

johnh wrote:

I am mostly a #4 kind of guy with a smattering of #3.

I think the #3 option just needs to be tempered…but I think we need more people challenging the “cultural craziness” of LDS life…the judging, emphasis on guilt, etc. I think as we see the shortcomings of our founders this should help us realize none of us are perfect and so we should be willing to give each other a little slack rather than lacing our lives with rules, rules, rules. Let people be people and not look down on blue shirts, facial hair or even WoW problems…hey, we are all on the same journey, more hand holding and less tripping please.

I can’t go #5 because there are too many doubts…timelines show definite copying of masonry in the temple…which I find a relief because I always thought some of that stuff was weird and made no sense. BoM ties to the “View of the Hebrews” are fairly strong and Oliver knew that author…enough there to leave doubts. That being said it doesn’t mean there are not good elements to be had and I can accept that God (the nature of whom I also don’t think any of us truly understand) will use whatever means possible to get positive change in this unruly bunch of monkeys.

Johnh

Hi Johnh,

The reason I hold out hope for a 5 of sorts one day is there are other people who have done it. Jeff Lindsay has a great website and blog. I also appreciate his tone and respectful approach to those who doubt or those who leave (http://mormanity.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/cutting-little-slack-for-ex-mormons.html ).

Jeff reviews nearly every major anti-mormon book that’s published. He knows nearly all of the arguments against and yet has a faithful, literal understanding of the book of mormon. He considers it a ‘documentary’ not ‘inspired fiction.’ I don’t know how he does that. But the fact that he does gives me hope.

A couple of thoughts on the two issues you mentioned. This is not intended as a “sit down, shut up” – because they still trouble me too, but they at least give a counter to give me pause for thought and hope.

Masons and Temple Endowment. Yes, you’re right, there are clear parallels. And no, Masons probably didn’t originate at solomon’s temple. But just because the documentation of the masonic rights is more recent doesn’t mean they weren’t happening before the documentation. There is also far more in the temple endowment than just the masonic symbols. If you take all the masonic symbols out of the temple endowment, there is still lots of non-masonic content. If you read about the Endowment parallels to Egypt and Gnostics it is pretty cool. Jesus taught in symbols that he took from his environment and surrounding but gave them deeper significance. You could spend a month reading all the content and links from Jeff on Temples and Masonry: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml. This article is also amazing: http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/1999-fair-conference/1999-early-christian-and-jewish-rituals-related-to-temple-practices. The last paragraph (A Final Note) is pretty mind blowing. The point is, the temple parallels to ancient Judaism and ancient Christianity are much cooler than the parallels to Masonry (besides, where did Masonry get their ideas from?).

On the View of the Hebrews issue. Again, yes, these kinds of issues ad plausibility to the fact Joseph and associates could have authored the text. But then I read the text in the book and I read about the impressive hebraic/mesoamerican parallels and tip back away from authorship. So what of VofH and Oliver. I was giving this a lot of thought the other day. The notion that the Indians were of Jewish decent was quite accepted back in the 1800s and believed more widely than by Ethan Smith. The idea of warring factions of degenerating and wiping each other out was also a popular idea. Could that have inspired Joseph to write about it? Yes it could. But it doesn’t explain the brilliant content of the book. The alternative view is this: what if God wanted to ensure that when published, the Book of Mormon had a receptive audience. If it was common sense in the 1800s that the Indians were of Jewish origin then the book would get a much quicker uptake and acceptance. In essence, Ethan Smith wasn’t a decoy or Joseph’s muse… he was Joseph’s ‘john the baptist.’ What better way for God to get buy-in from Oliver or Martin Harris (and lots of people later) than to have them taught and believe the plausibility of the book’s premise before it was even translated/transcribed/published?

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the details Mackay. I appreciate the pointer to more information. I don’t take your comments as a shutup.

As mentioned in another thread we should expect challenges here…and to be honest if I only wanted agreement I would just talk to myself 😀

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I would have to say that “full faith acceptance of foundational stories” is deeply problematic to me.

Faith is specifically not to have knowledge. I’m good with this, and I can see that “full faith” means “I fully don’t know”. and for a lot of the founding claims, this is the case. But there are specific cases where we can know, do know, and the knowledge points clearly to something other than the foundational story as being the truth.

Hence, “faith” requires that the target of such faith be something that is ‘true’. If a given foundational story is completely bogus, for example, that Joseph “translated” the book of abraham from a papyrus written by Abraham’s own hand, and the papyrus is absolutely not that, then it is not “faith” to continue to make that claim…it is delusion. As well, Joseph Smith believed and claimed in the same Wentworth letter from what we get our Articles of Faith, that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the native americans “in this country”. That claim is patently false. To be a “principal ancestor” of a given people, then the DNA would have to have a dominance of requisite markers, and it does not. This completely rules out a hemispheric or heartland model. That’s why the church no longer makes the claim that native americans ‘principle ancestors’ are the lamanites.

Either we are servants of the truth, or we are deluded by false faith on these matters. I separate the claims of the church in such a way that I can see the “gift and power of god” in the book of mormon (and to a MUCH lesser extent the Book of Abraham), while categorically rejecting that they are a translation in any form. Since Joseph Smith translated nothing, we need to vacate the claim if we are to be servants of truth.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

…Either we are servants of the truth, or we are deluded by false faith on these matters. I separate the claims of the church in such a way that I can see the “gift and power of god” in the book of mormon (and to a MUCH lesser extent the Book of Abraham), while categorically rejecting that they are a translation in any form. Since Joseph Smith translated nothing, we need to vacate the claim if we are to be servants of truth.

Wow..well said wayfarer. I think you and I are on the same path. I think thats why I don’t feel the intense anger and betrayal that is common in some. I seek only the truth, I never put all my eggs in the hands of the prophet (no innuendo here…so don’t say it CWald! *chuckle*). I need things to pass the critical thinking test to some degree. So I can attend church, pull out the good, leave the bad. I also leave others to tread their path as I believe it is evil to rain on someone elses faith parade….and believe it or not some people are perfectly happy in ignorance…to live “in the matrix” so to speak.

[Author]

Posts