- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
So, here goes a new leg of the journey… I finally crossed the invisible line in GD last week. My Bishop pulled me aside yesterday and said that I had caught the attention of my SP, who was in the meeting. The comment I made had to do with Joseph Smith and the scripture:
Quote:Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.
Now, I understand the desire to honor the martyr, and I know not everyone will agree with me on this (obviously), but I just don’t understand how someone could really expect to be able to qualify such a broad quantitative comparison. Also, I have a deep seated concern for people falling into the trap of infallible servitude (which the church does not teach, yet there is a collective vein in the church that really thinks that a testimony of anything Joseph Smith produced qualifies EVERYTHING he produced). I mean, that statement does put JS right up there with the model of perfection, Jesus Christ. My comment was simply intended to throw a bit more balance into the conversation and point out our leaders’ admitted lack of perfection. I felt this to be acceptable at the time given the question posed by the teacher, “What do you think we should or shouldn’t get out of this scripture?” Well, after my response I instantly felt a defensive wall go up in the room. The SP’s hand shot up immediately and he started defending himself. He talked about how our church leaders, whose peers are all out playing golf right now as opposed to giving their lives over to service of others, deserve our reverence, honor, and respect. It honestly all felt a bit egocentric to me. I agree that Joseph Smith did some impactful, praiseworthy things and I am still open to the idea that some of his apparent mistakes were backed up by good intentions, but let’s be real here. Growing a membership to 0.2% of the world population (14 Million in 7 Billion) in 183 years is overwhelmingly unimpressive to me. I think a lot of Joseph Smith’s life history is primarily to blame for the lack of widespread acceptance of the church he helped establish.
So, I ended up sitting across from my Bishop a week later being asked to tone it down. I willingly consented to keep my spiritual struggles more to myself, but asked for simple clarification on where I went wrong. He beat around the bush a little bit with, “Well, I was in there too, but I don’t really remember the statement that was made. I just know it raised concern.” I, on the other hand, remembered precisely what was being discussed, and I sensed he did too, so I refreshed his memory. He responded to me by saying that some people don’t need to question. Some people don’t need every detail. History is incomplete and biased. Therefore, we stick to the orthodox, prescribed teachings and don’t rock the boat for everyone else. As I explained how I had HOPED my statement would be interpreted, and that I had the best of intentions, he seemed to understand, yet I could also sense this underlying need he has of shielding others from the things that I am currently experiencing in my faith journey. He doesn’t want me making other people doubt. It was again as if he was defending his flock, only at this point I no longer felt like part of the flock. I felt like the wolf. Thanks to my recent readings of Father Rohr and Eckart Tolle, these feelings did almost nothing to damage my sense of personal worth and identity. If my honest and open thoughts aren’t wanted, I don’t really have a desire to share them. It’s that simple. No feelings hurt. It just jarred me a little bit off of the course I thought I was on, which was trying to tactfully be a bit more open. Before rushing off to priesthood meeting, he asked if I still thought I could answer the temple recommend questions satisfactorily. I told him that those questions are posed in a very YES/NO, BLACK/WHITE way, and that I don’t see them as black and white. He asked me to think about them and come back to him later and let him know what I came up with.
He ran off to priesthood meeting and I wandered across the street to the Catholic church and sat through the rest of their afternoon Mass. Following that I watched some infants and their families going through their Christenings. Post-baptisms I tracked down a priest and asked if he could talk. I explained my faith journey and my uncertainties. We discussed the nature of God, doctrines and dogmas, claims to authority, all very sincerely and openly. He recounted a beautiful story of his own faith crisis in his late twenties, when he had fallen away from activity and didn’t really know what he believed. He talked to a priest who he expected to tell him he needed to be Catholic, but the priest did no such thing. The priest told him that if he was sincerely seeking, he would end up where he needed to be, wherever that was. Through some investigation into other churches he found himself back at the Catholic church where one day on the very lot where their chapel now stands, he experienced an overwhelming assurance that the Catholic church was where he needed to be. He says he can’t explain it, but he has never doubted it since. Later in his life he had a similar experience about his call to priesthood. We finished talking and he sent me on my way with a prayer and similar loving counsel to that which he had received so many years ago.
I made my way back over to our church building and called my executive secretary. I told him I needed to speak to my Bishop that night if possible, and he ended up squeezing me in. I waited there at the church for an hour and a half just sitting in silence. In the meantime my wife and 2 year old daughter showed up since I had asked that they come. We went in and started right into our discussion of the temple recommend questions with me knowing full well that my explanations would likely result in me being asked to hand over my recommend in the end.
I started by telling him that to be comfortable answering number nine (honest in my dealings), I was going to give him my honest interpretations of the questions, and I would leave it up to him as the “judge” to determine if I should be admitted to the temple or not.
1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?I explained that I have no more grounds to accept the nature of the Godhead as taught by our church than I do for believing in what any other church teaches about God, in that regard. I have my concerns about certain aspects of the Gods of most religions, including jealousy, vengeance, and demands of love and fealty, but I accept the possibility that there is a God and that the Godhead may be made up of three distinct personages. I’ve just never actually met personages as Joseph Smith describes. I do acknowledge the influence of some transcendent force of Love that guides me toward virtuous living, and that when I’m in tune with this Presence, with the pure joy of Being that is my very existence, I have no desire to do anything to hurt myself, others, or the world around me. I proposed to my Bishop that if we could interpret this as the God the church describes, I was good with that.
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?Again, I have no experiential evidence of being rescued from physical death, though I hope we continue on after death. The only salvation I can attest to is the salvation that comes through letting go of the ego, which Jesus teaches. As Tolle says, “That’s the peace of God. The ultimate truth of who you are is not I am this or I am that, but I Am.” If that’s a sufficient testimony of salvation, then I’m good with that one too.
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?I agree with some of the reformations that took place in Joseph Smith’s “restoration,” but I do not have reason to believe that the LDS church is anything other than an appendage of the body of Christ. I do not believe in the necessity and infallibility of all of the church’s teachings, and I primarily dislike the emphasis our “restored” church places on hypothetical glory and rewards in the afterlife. I don’t need motivation to be good. I want to be good for the sake of goodness.
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?I think this is the one that tipped the scales for him. I explained that I see our President as
apotential prophet seer and revelator, as far as I believe in wise counsel and inspiration, but I do not see him as holding any more exclusive authority (priesthood keys) than other good religious leaders. I related my experiences of discovering great guidance and direction from various non-LDS mystics, and that I feel like we completely miss the mark with our efforts to claim exclusive authority to administer ordinances of salvation. He explained to me that there had to be some absolute truths. He said, “Take baptism for example. Is it supposed to be done by sprinkling or immersion? One of them has to be right.” I politely responded that, no, I don’t think that one of them has to be right. In fact I think that’s misguided altogether. I mentioned that the water is symbolic, a metaphor for the cleansing transformation that takes place when one sets their heart upon and commits to follow the teachings and principles of Jesus Christ. The disciple lets the old egocentric identity die and rises in their true form, at peace with the simple truth of their existence and its loving core. This is the real purpose of baptism in my mind, and the symbolism just offers a physical reminder. I identify with the concept of immersion and its death and resurrection imagery, and i also identify with the cleansing imagery of a sprinkling with clean water, but without the transformation you might as well just jump in a lake or stand in the rain. I told him these were the big ones, and at this point he asked, “If you had the job of sitting in my chair, what would you do? Would you give a temple recommend?” I simply replied that given my current position in my faith journey, there’s no way I could sit in his chair. I couldn’t hand down the kinds of judgments that he’s required to hand down in these situations. I don’t agree with aspects of the temple “screening” process, so how could I hand out worthiness cards? His response was that he couldn’t in good conscience give me a recommend given my explanations, so I willingly handed it over. There was no hostility, no anger, and I didn’t even feel a great sense of loss. I was being more truthful and honest than I’ve ever been in my life, and if the church doesn’t see me fit to participate in the temple given my current feelings, so be it.
He then mentioned some interesting things. He said the recommend would be waiting for me in the drawer behind his desk. He then assured me that I had done nothing wrong, and that I just needed to re-establish my faith in the church. He challenged me to pray and seek the Spirit for guidance in all the things that I’m studying and learning. I had already asked to be released from my calling months ago, but he asked me not to substitute teach any classes. He then said, “You’re always welcome here. Keep coming. Use the sacrament. Take in the goodness we have here, but restrict expressing any of the unorthodox views you may be coming across to the online forums and other external platforms.” My wife was very supportive, and then we left.
Last night I went on a walk and just thought long and hard about where I belong. I will continue to support my wife in her calling, as she is still TBM, but I don’t think I view the LDS church in the same light anymore. Thoroughly disenchanted and disillusioned would be good terms for it. A quote from Donald L. Ashton seemed to apply to this situation:
Quote:Like the Pharisees and Sadducees of the Bible, some people are so obsessive fulfilling the letter of the law that they forget the spirit of the law. They teach the lesson, but ignore the student. …They are so set on arguing their religion that they alienate people. In their zeal to be right, they fail to be good. We must not let them draw us away from that which is good, true and enduring in the gospel.
I don’t feel wronged, I just feel alienated. Alienated, yet strangely peaceful.It always saddens me when I hear about things like this. It’s just so unnecessary – even as I understand that shepherd protection aspect of a Bishop’s calling. It sounds like you hit a very sore spot with the Stake President, which caused him to lean on your Bishop – who, it seems, really didn’t want to act on it but felt he had to do so.
Having said all that, I am glad you are at peace and are willing to continue to support your family.
Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:I finally crossed the invisible line in GD last week. My Bishop pulled me aside yesterday and said that I had caught the attention of my SP, who was in the meeting. The comment I made had to do with Joseph Smith and the scripture:
Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.
Now, I understand the desire to honor the martyr, and I know not everyone will agree with me on this (obviously), but I just don’t understand how someone could really expect to be able to qualify such a broad quantitative comparison. Also, I have a deep seated concern for people falling into the trap of infallible servitude (which the church does not teach, yet there is a collective vein in the church that really thinks that a testimony of anything Joseph Smith produced qualifies EVERYTHING he produced). I mean, that statement does put JS right up there with the model of perfection, Jesus Christ.
This lesson was the last one that I taught as our ward’s GD teacher a few weeks ago. I completely left out that scripture for the exact reasons that you stated. However, at the end of class a highly respected (due to his temple sealer status) member of the ward raised his hand volunteering to say the closing prayer. Then he said that he felt like this lesson wasn’t complete without reading that particular scripture, so he read it and expounded on it. I didn’t even respond, I was so angry. I don’t see the comment you made as being out of place at all, but the response from your SP is all too common.
I admire your integrity and desire to be true to yourself and your feelings in initiating a meeting with your bishop and addressing those TR questions that you take issue with. I also really enjoyed reading about your conversation with the Catholic priest.
Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:The priest told him that if he was sincerely seeking, he would end up where he needed to be, wherever that was.
This gives me hope. I continue to search for truth and for the place that I need to be, whether inside the church or outside.
It’s wonderful that you have a supportive wife. Be sure to express your appreciation to her often.
I have no wonderful words of wisdom or comfort, but I am grateful that you posted this and that I read it today.
Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:My comment was simply intended to throw a bit more balance into the conversation and point out our leaders’ admitted lack of perfection. I felt this to be acceptable at the time given the question posed by the teacher, “What do you think we should or shouldn’t get out of this scripture?” Well, after my response I instantly felt a defensive wall go up in the room. The SP’s hand shot up immediately and he started defending himself. He talked about how our church leaders, whose peers are all out playing golf right now as opposed to giving their lives over to service of others, deserve our reverence, honor, and respect. It honestly all felt a bit egocentric to me. I agree that Joseph Smith did some impactful, praiseworthy things and I am still open to the idea that some of his apparent mistakes were backed up by good intentions, but let’s be real here.
I don’t know what you said, so this is just a general comment. Seems like we’re in a place now where lds.org, authorities members who write articles, books, give FAIR talks, firesides) can say that Joseph was “flawed”, but that’s where it ends. They do not give examples, as a general rule. If they do, they ignore some of the largest elephants in the room. They’ll go ahead and criticize members for being naive and perfection-expecting. AND, and here’s the catch, they’ve said it, written, and that’s supposed to be enough. You there, Sister Jones in Gospel Doctrine, shouldn’t say anything about it.
I love Sunday School. I love that we teach each other. But there is too much information now, too much disillusionment that needs diluting, processing and redirecting to have these brick walls at church manned by local authorities on a hair trigger.
Ann wrote:
I don’t know what you said, so this is just a general comment. Seems like we’re in a place now where lds.org, authorities members who write articles, books, give FAIR talks, firesides) can say that Joseph was “flawed”, but that’s where it ends. They do not give examples, as a general rule. If they do, they ignore some of the largest elephants in the room. They’ll go ahead and criticize members for being naive and perfection-expecting. AND, and here’s the catch, they’ve said it, written, and that’s supposed to be enough. You there, Sister Jones in Gospel Doctrine, shouldn’t say anything about it.I love Sunday School. I love that we teach each other. But
there is too much information now, too much disillusionment that needs diluting, processing and redirecting to have these brick walls at church manned by local authorities on a hair trigger.+1000
I’m glad that you told us about this…sorry it happened, but it only confirms my belief that local leaders have the best interests of the church at heart; member welfare (personal) is secondary. I have seen it time and time again that the public doubter pays a heavy price for his or her authenticity.
Christ taught that the key to 99 is the one. Not so in our church. The one is to be left for lost, and somehow, this is construed as protecting the 99.
I agree with the comment above. The church will have to address its history eventually. It appears to be starting to. I’m happy they are facing it, but sad that I gave so many years believing in a bubble of untruth. Better to have known it from the beginning.
Quote:Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it.
It’s a weird statement given the billions and billions who’ve lived. I would think Paul is actually beating JS out for this one. But some people just don’t want thoughtful answers in church. Sorry this happened, but glad you are at peace.
Quote:The SP’s hand shot up immediately and he started defending himself. He talked about how our church leaders, whose peers are all out playing golf right now as opposed to giving their lives over to service of others, deserve our reverence, honor, and respect. It honestly all felt a bit egocentric to me.
I agree. This part really stuck out when I read your story the first time….The thought occurred to me — that because these men are giving up a life of leisure, they somehow deserve more respect? I thought of my in-laws who had low income and paid tithing all their life, and CAN’T retire. Or the family we counseled with who had welfare issues when I was a priesthood leader. They were old, ill, and had a demented mother living with them to make ends meet. I saw their finances, and they had very little. The elderly man piped up and said “I was wondering if, because we have paid tithing all my life, if there comes a point when you don’t have to do it anymore when you are old, can’t work, and don’t have enough for your needs?”.
This was a latent turning point in my attitude toward tithing.
The rank and file members of the church deserve at least as much respect as the wealthy men giving up their golf game for the sacrifices they make — and the options they lose as a result of giving away most of their disposable income. Remember the parable of the widow’s mite? Why does it somehow not apply to our high ranking church leaders???? Why do they get a bigger piece of the respect pie simply because they gave up some leisure time?
And for me, respect in leadership comes from the character of the person and their competence — not because they chose to work instead of playing golf. And not because they are “in office”. I might add that most people in high places have a characteristic called Achiever. They LIKE to work. Many high achieving individuals go into retirement and get tired of fishing and golf, and then go back to work….it wouldn’t surprise me that for many high ranking LDS leaders, their church service is very fulfilling. It wouldn’t surprise me if church service is one of many pursuits they might undertake to fulfill their need for achievement.
So, I don’t agree one bit with the response the SP gave. Extremely one-sided, violates the spirit of the parable of the widow’s mite, and for me, implicitly ignores the huge sacrifices of people like the elderly couple in my example above.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:The SP’s hand shot up immediately and he started defending himself. He talked about how our church leaders, whose peers are all out playing golf right now as opposed to giving their lives over to service of others, deserve our reverence, honor, and respect. It honestly all felt a bit egocentric to me.
I agree. This part really stuck out when I read your story the first time….The thought occurred to me — that because these men are giving up a life of leisure, they somehow deserve more respect?
This jumped out at me also and my first thought was that the stake president feels like an ‘elder brother’ (Luke 15). He’s saying, ‘I slaved away for you all these years and never even got a goat to share with my friends… Where is my respect? Where is my attention? Where is my honor?”
I believe religious institutions attract elder brother personalities, especially churches that prioritize works. Had I been in the class, I probably would have been tempted to note that it’s priestcraft, not priesthood, which craves the praise (respect) of men.
But, that would be judgmental, and given how much of my life I spent box checking, I’m trying to give others the latitude to learn and grow under the Lord’s tutelage without the questionable benefit of my opinions.
Thank you all for reading and caring about my story. It means a lot to me. SilentDawning wrote:The thought occurred to me — that because these men are giving up a life of leisure, they somehow deserve more respect?
What really struck me the deepest was that someone who expects extraordinary respect for their service has missed the point of service. I thought, if Joseph Smith really was truly a servant of God, it wouldn’t matter to him one lick what reverence or credit we do or don’t give him. Is honor and respect synonymous with glory? If it is, then there are plenty of unfulfilled celebrities who revel in glory, and I just don’t see that as an enduring identity. I think if we are peacefully in tune and living life for the sake of love and goodness, any honor and respect we are due will naturally follow…and there will be no need to defend it, because we know it isn’t us that’s worthy of the praise; it’s the force of Love we are allowing to flow through us.
A continuation: There is a very well respected (by me) member of the stake presidency that I have been in touch with over the course of my journey. I shared with him basically the account of what I have shared here on this thread. I would like to share that conversation with all of you because it was very powerful to me.
Read my first post on this thread, and that’s basically what I described to him here. Following you’ll find his response to that, which in turn is followed by some concluding thoughts from me.
Matt—
I have read your email twice, with interest, and with a little pain.
I have a high regard, and deep love for you and your family; I think that will never go away.
I wish I could give you the benefit of my experience in these things, but I am more and more aware that it doesn’t work that way. My own experience is with a bibliography different from yours, but I think I wandered a few similar paths, at approximately your age. I think another difference is that the questions I asked at church were more focused on applying the gospel, especially as regards using and protecting agency. For me, this was truly the crux of the matter of living a believing, gospel centered life.
In any event, I see from this recounting of Sunday that your thinking and attitude have evolved since the meeting in the President’s office a few months ago. At that time, I was quite confident that you would bridge the gaps I thought you saw, and find a happy place to be. As your friend, I’m not sure how to feel about that outlook now, but I am still very hopeful that you will find the happiness you seek. In my own journey, I discovered that, for me, this quest (ie, for happiness) became far more meaningful than a search for truth. For me, seeing the latter as a the nobler quest–unconnected to the former–proved an unproductive distinction, if not a false one.
Faith is a fragile thing, Matt, needing nourishment. It can lead you to places that knowledge cannot. Be careful about the way you protect it in your life, and in the lives of your young family.
Your brother,
[Name Excluded for Anonymity]
[Name Excluded for Anonymity],
I want to sincerely thank you for your continued prayers and concern.
I feel directed to emphasize that I have no desire whatsoever to change anyone else’s beliefs, damage the LDS church’s name or standing, or any such thing. I plan to continue to partake of what the LDS church has to offer, though passively. I now have the sense that my faith journey, in any detail, is not considered appropriate to disclose to faithful members, and I respect that. It seems as if the church policy would have the organization take up the stance of one of the blind men who has touched part of the elephant, and will “dispute loud and long” that they have THE truth. In that regard, partaking of the LDS church doctrines and perspective alone has proven to be too exclusive for me at this point in my life. As a respected teacher said, once you can honestly admit that you know you don’t know, then you are on your way to building a meaningful faith, and I refer to faith as that which drives us to do what we do in life. I find so many LDS teachings, of caring family-centered living, service to others (King Benjamin’s sermon), etc. to be beautifully true, through my own experience. However, many of the other teachings are not so cut-and-dried, and are not beyond my scrutiny and personal interpretation at this point.
I strive to apply and live the principles from the teachings of Jesus Christ that are found in the standard works, whether I believe them to be his literal words or not. I find power and wisdom in them.
I would like to leave you with some final thoughts on your caution not to over-emphasize the importance of the search for truth. To quote the teaching of Jesus:
Quote:And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Now I would ask you to sincerely consider the words of Eckhart Tolle:
Quote:There is only one absolute Truth, and all other truths emanate from it. When you find that Truth, your actions will be in alignment with it. Human action can reflect the Truth, or it can reflect illusion. Can the Truth be put into words? Yes, but the words are, of course, not it. They only point to it.
The Truth is inseparable from who you are. Yes, you
arethe Truth. If you look for it elsewhere, you will be deceived every time. The very Being that you are is Truth. Jesus tried to convey that when he said, “I am the way and the truth and the life.” These words uttered by Jesus are one of the most powerful and direct pointers to the Truth, if understood correctly. If misinterpreted, however, they become a great obstacle. Jesus speaks of the innermost I Am, the essence identity of every man and woman, every life-form, in fact. He speaks of the life that you are. Some Christian mystics have called it the Christ within; Buddhists call it your Buddha nature; for Hindus, it is Atman, the indwelling God. When you are in touch with that dimension within yourself – and being in touch with it is your natural state, not some miraculous achievement – all your actions and relationships will reflect the oneness with all life that you sense deep within. This is love. Laws, commandments, rules, and regulations are necessary for those who are cut off from who they are, the Truth within. They prevent the worst excesses of the ego, and often they don’t even do that. “Love and do what you will,” said St. Augustine. Words cannot get much closer to the Truth than that. I gratefully accept your summons to nurture my faith, and I plan to do so with all my heart.
Sincerely,
Matt
Quote:In my own journey, I discovered that, for me, this quest (ie, for happiness) became far more meaningful than a search for truth. For me, seeing the latter as a the nobler quest–unconnected to the former–proved an unproductive distinction, if not a false one.
Faith is a fragile thing, Matt, needing nourishment. It can lead you to places that knowledge cannot. Be careful about the way you protect it in your life, and in the lives of your young family.
Overall, he is expressing support, but disapproval for where your “faith journey” has led you. He is being kind, though. He gave a letter that is not objectionable….
My take on this — it’s a bit of a work of art on the part of the person who wrote you this response.
People like you and me could read the quote above and say he’s advocating seeking happiness without a commitment to distinguishing truth from error. (Odd, but distinguishing truth from error is a bedrock topic of former missionary discussions). It seems overly convenient to me that leaders resort to this argument when the “truth” — as defined by Mormonism — becomes hard to defend. If you can’t defend it, then relegate it to the status of unimportant in the pursuit of happiness.
However, you might also interpret this a different way. A stayLDS way. For me, there are a number of “truths” put forward by the LDS Church that are objectionable, and that prevent my wholehearted embracement of them. Embracing them make me miserable. So, I choose not to pursue behavior those truths would dictate.
For example, I no longer obey local leaders just because they are leaders, or claim inspiration. This obedience is advocated by our leaders constantly, and is part of the “true principles” most members and many leaders believe to be part of Mormonism. And this obedience does NOT make me happy.
So, I choose to act in ways that bring me happiness instead. And this means considering what the leaders say, considering my own happiness, and then choosing a path that makes me the happiest. This may include making a sacrifice to obey the leader to preserve the relationship occasionally, But my motive is to preserve a relationship; not to find favor with God for my obedience or sacrifice (often the same way I agree to follow my supervisor at work, even when I don’t agree).
This pursuit of happiness may also mean completely ignoring the advice after considering it — flying in the face of the “obedience truth”. Or it may mean a period of repeated non-compliance — depending on what would make me happy considering the balance of the needs of others, my family’s needs, and my own needs.
So, his statement can be taken a couple ways. One, as a convenient way of dispelling cognitive dissonance when we find evidence that bedrock “truths” are not actually “true”. Or as a way of elevating your own personal happiness above what the Mormons think is “true”. And this may mean altering your commitment to those things Mormon truths say you absolutely MUST do.
I am much happier now on this plan. I choose to interpret the letter-writer’s advice the second way. And that’s why I think his statement is art — each person can look at it and find their own meaning.
Life_Journey_of_Matt wrote:So, his statement can be taken a couple ways. One, as a convenient way of dispelling cognitive dissonance when we find evidence that bedrock “truths” are not actually “true”. Or as a way of elevating your own personal happiness above what the Mormons think is “true”. And this may mean altering your commitment to those things Mormon truths say you absolutely MUST do.
I am much happier now on this plan. I choose to interpret the letter-writer’s advice the second way. And that’s why I think his statement is art — each person can look at it and find their own meaning.
I like that interpretation as well, and plan to navigate my membership now much the same way you do. Thank you for your thoughts.
I like the letter and appreciate the thoughtful way he expressed his own path to where he is now. I also like that there was no chastisement of any kind in the letter, simply a request to be careful about where your path takes you. It has a very, very different tone than the comment in the meeting from the SP that started everything. I have no doubt things would have happened very differently if he had been the one in attendance at that meeting.
Matt, thanks for sharing your journey. I feel your pain very acutely. Its a heart-breaking, no-win situation. I too take my faith journey very seriously. If there is a God and this life is my only chance to find and live according to this truth, then I need to be able to find it! I need to question, weigh evidence, and try to prove it wrong in order to know if it is right. I have to find truth. If I can’t find it here, then I need to keep looking somewhere else. Eternity could be riding on this.
To be honest, I’m getting discouraged, and am starting to think that God either doesn’t exist, or doesn’t care what we believe or do. He sure doesn’t make it clear.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.