- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
ConcernedMember wrote:
I am with Hans M. I don’t want to hurt the church– I have tried every faithful means that I know of to stay in and contribute to the church. But, I want the truth.
Welcome CM – I just wanted you to know that you have found a group of likeminded individuals that “meet” together to explore alternate ways to “stay in and contribute to the church” despite our concerns. I believe that many are helped simply by lurking. You are welcome to participate as much or as often as you like. I also invite you to do a post in our introduction section to get to know you better. Welcome again!
Quote:I want the truth.
You won’t get it – at least not objectively.
I don’t mean to be overly blunt or harsh, but we as a collective people (not just in the Church, but everywhere) can’t even agree on what happened yesterday. Two news stations report on the exact same event and reach radically different conclusions.
The best we can do is decide what makes sense to us individually and “worship according to the dictates of our own conscience” – no matter what that ends up being. We have to act in a way that minimizes harm to others, but, ultimately, we have to work out our own salvation and be agents unto ourselves, to put it in religious terms.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:I want the truth.
You won’t get it – at least not objectively.
I understand what you are saying. I understand that the telling of history is highly subjective.
DB – I get where you are coming from here. And in the cold hard fact area you are right, nothing new, especially for anyone who has ever had a full faith crisis. At the same time though, every time a child falls down, his hurt is real. For me that is deeper experience of this. Imagine riding a bike, hitting a rock and getting road rash. Whether you are 5 or 50, it still stings, hurts, and knocks the wind out of you. And sometimes at 50, it hurts even worse. By the time you are 50 you assume you won’t fall, you’ve ridden so often and never had a problem, when it comes it’s a real blow. Also your body heals slower, and internal pains run deeper.
To me, that is what this story is. We assume that the person higher on the ladder is experienced, safe, and assured. Today he and we know differently. He just fell off his bike, and he was probably riding pretty fast. He may have even been riding hands free, feeling very confident. We don’t know. All we know is it hurts, and we remember it.
I keep thinking of the promise that Alma asked people to make before baptism, “To mourn with those that mourn, to comfort those who stand in need of comfort.” To simply say, “There’s nothing new here” seems very apathetic and contrary to the effort Christ would have us make. If I’ve read your statement wrong, please show me. Otherwise – I disagree with you. Every faith crisis hurts.
Old-Timer wrote:The best we can do is decide what makes sense to us individually and “worship according to the dictates of our own conscience” – no matter what that ends up being.
I wonder if that is what the Q15 tell themselves and each other every day.
Personally, I think that our/their “best” includes more than acting “in a way that minimizes harm to others…” I like what mom3 added to this thread: maybe we all could more often remember the invitation to “mourn with those who mourn, to comfort those who stand in need of comfort”.
Maybe it is technically too much to expect to be told or “know” the/any “truth”. I guess what I really meant in my earlier post is just that I want our leaders to genuinely (and with greater effectiveness and immediacy) to ease some of the suffering and confusion that is going on for (“disaffected”) members of the church who are just trying to make sense of things. From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the “Swedish Rescue”, that just didn’t happen. And, IMHO– it still isn’t happening now. Not for me anyway. Not from the highest (church-wide), local, family, or friends Level.
hawkgrrrl wrote:The simple fact is that if we want to grow as a church, we have to win converts. The only way to do that is to see ourselves realistically from an outside perspective. I’m saying this of the church organization – the gospel message is in and of itself compelling; the church organization is the baggage that comes with the gospel message. And IMO, the church has less to fear of its rocky past than it does of how it handles things in the present. Having weird stuff in your past is understandable. Pretending you don’t is not very noble. Punishing people for finding out about it is not Christian. And beyond that there is the problem of naming intellectuals (smart people), feminists (women), and homosexuals the enemies of the church and treating them as such. It doesn’t fly today. Who wants to be in an organization of dumb people, sexists and homophobes? Fewer and fewer people all the time.
And people might say, “dumb,” “sexist,” “homophobic” – all labels, all unfair, too simplistic. True. But we don’t get to make the label and control perceptions. We can say that polygamy was commanded by God and produced a phenomenal posterity. But if the world, and, in particular, the type of people who would supply strength and depth in our wards, see polygamy as a sexist horror, there’s nothing we can do about it.
What stood out to me about the interview was how he said the church is run like a business, and when he explained some of the processes of the line of authority. This really reaffirmed to me the idea I have that God probably doesn’t really communicate any more directly to the leaders than to anyone. I think they make decisions based on their emotions/the spirit as well. I have no idea if they have seen Jesus, but I don’t think he tells them exactly what to do in the church like some members seem to think. (I also got this impression from the Chieko Okazaki article I posted in the History board). Quote:I want the truth.
I would enjoy being able to talk more openly about my personal take and perspective, and I would enjoy hearing more about what some people “really” think.
DBMormon wrote:while being a GA with doubts going public is new, the story and the concerns is the same. For me there is little new here.
Can you clarify what you mean as I agree that it seems a little abrupt.
Some things that are new:
– A member of the quorum of the 70 and his wife have publicly expressed doubt about our origins
– They have expressed that while also maintaining a positive outlook towards the church. They are walking a genuine ‘middle way.’
– This is in real contrast to the usual high profile fallouts. Tom Phillips for example (previously a Stake President and Exec Sec to the Area pres) has been far more vitriolic and has burnt bridges. Steven Benson is another high profile disaffected member who has been fairly aggressive. People are far more likely to listen to the Mattssons because they’re being collaborative. I would be willing to share their interview on MoSto with my TBM friends to help them understand “where I’m at” – I would not share Tom Phillips’ letter.
– The nature of the Mattssons departure has turned heads. An apostle visited and couldn’t answer his questions. The church historian and his assistant couldn’t answer his questions. I would imagine they know it. They know they can’t just fob people off any more.
– We also learned a few new things about GAs habits and quirks from the interviews (they are told to not keep a journal. I wonder if that’s the paranoid legal team).
journeygirl wrote:What stood out to me about the interview was how he said the church is run like a business, and when he explained some of the processes of the line of authority. This really reaffirmed to me the idea I have that God probably doesn’t really communicate any more directly to the leaders than to anyone. I think they make decisions based on their emotions/the spirit as well. I have no idea if they have seen Jesus, but I don’t think he tells them exactly what to do in the church like some members seem to think. (I also got this impression from the Chieko Okazaki article I posted in the History board).
This has been one of the biggest changes in my faith transition. The prophets are not a ventriloquists dummy. I used to think that when they opened their mouths, God’s words came out (usually in an American accent).
These days I realise they are more like an ambassador (one of many to different countries). They may represent the views of the premier, but usually with some of their personal perspectives thrown in. And adapted for the audience. The ambassador to Russia and the ambassador to Brazil have different briefs and different priorities. As does a Mormon ‘prophet’ compared to a Buddhist ‘prophet.’ Or even within a range of Mormon ones.
Sometimes this seems to me like back-rationalisation. But I try to be genuine about it.
And it allows me to take out the middle man and instead make them a wing man. They are not entirely unneeded. But in the end it’s me flying the plane and me choosing the flight path.
As for God. Well he’s my air traffic controller. He guides planes in out of each others paths as they’re willing and in need. Having said that, there are plenty of light aircraft that need no wingman nor air traffic controller, but still complete successful flights.
I’d love for Elder Uchtdorf to use that as his next aviation analogy
About 3 or 4 months ago Grant Palmer posted on Mormonthink that he had been talking to a 70 and his wife and also a a mission president who had come to the conclusion that many of the the church’s truth claims were not correct and that they were going to come forward some time in July and talk publicly about it. Does anyone know if the Mattsons are the one he was talking about? I think that the Mattsons have shown a lot of class and style in the interview with John Dehlin. Will this lead other high ranking leaders to come out publicly with some of their concerns? church0333 wrote:About 3 or 4 months ago Grant Palmer posted on Mormonthink that he had been talking to a 70 and his wife and also a a mission president who had come to the conclusion that many of the the church’s truth claims were not correct and that they were going to come forward some time in July and talk publicly about it. Does anyone know if the Mattsons are the one he was talking about? I think that the Mattsons have shown a lot of class and style in the interview with John Dehlin. Will this lead other high ranking leaders to come out publicly with some of their concerns?
It could. I hope they all maintain the dignity that the Mattssons have. Really outstanding examples.
DBMormon wrote:while being a GA with doubts going public is new, the story and the concerns is the same. For me there is little new here.
Oh please…I heard the same quote two dozen times on MAD and the comment section on the NYTimes.
See mackay’s quote above.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
DBMormon wrote:while being a GA with doubts going public is new, the story and the concerns is the same. For me there is little new here.
There’s little new because the problems are there and they’re not going away and for generations to come they’ll be something that will have to be discovered and dealt with. It may be that you’ve come to the conclusion that it’s all old news and not that big a deal but for the Mattson’s it is. And for a church where the public face of the hierarchy is supposed to be on the same page, it is news. It may be that if the truth of it all weren’t so tied to the mythology that’s grown up around the founding of the church a person could just blow it off but the church isn’t old enough and mature enough for that to be possible.
I think they tried. Elder Jensen and Bro. Turley went with the intention of answering the issues. They were overwhelmed and not prepared for the gravity and expanse of issues. They learned their lesson. These questions being asked. Some have very compelling reasonable answers, some are even handed with the criticism and some are outmatched. That said the trouble is getting someone to slow down, take a breath, and seriously give room for the faithful answer to have some weight. For me most of these issues no longer cause doubt, some still do. The more I take time to understand context and to grasp what real LDS doctrine is, the less bothered I am. It is not a simple give some answers or apoligize. It is way more nuanced then that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.