Sheder’s story

[Anonymous]

As I pondered off-line Sheder’s story over the past few days, I hoped I might validate what seemed to me to be the soul questions that cry out from his story. If you will recall, he had an essentially idyllic youth, and then was sent to serve under a devil as a missionary. In validation, I would ask these questions:

1. If the LDS religion failed to turn a devil like his mission president into a decent human being, what good is it?

2. If the LDS church placed an abusive devil as a leader of immature men, what good is it?

These are the kind of deep issues that all of us at this forum feel deeply about. While I can never be comfortable with Sheder’s tragic story, and I can’t think about it without getting a swelling in my eyes, I am personally comfortable with these ways of looking at the questions it raises about the church:

1. The LDS church is perhaps very good for many people (and it is my church), but it is nothing out of the ordinary. As a whole, it doesn’t stand out among all the religions of earth. If tested by Jesus’ measuring stick, “their fruits”, it is simply average.

2. There are many wonderful religions and people all over the world. The church next door or the holy man in India 3000 years ago might have something special to teach you. Let go of the LDS Church and go find your peace.

3. The best way for me to make the LDS Church better is to stay in it and become an example of an enlightened believer. Exemplary in patience, love, service, and spirituality. I can’t be an example of an enlightened believer unless I truly am becoming enlightened.

So, like Valoel might say:

The church is no good; and it is very good. The leaders are bumbling; and they are doing miracles. The religion is false; and it is true. The revelations are human; and they are divine. All those things are true; and none of them are.

[Anonymous]

Excellent post, Tom. Thank you for starting a thread I was going to start tonight. I really like the way you addressed it.

I’m in a bit of a rush right now, but I will come back and comment more later, since there are lots of important things I think we all can learn from this.

Again, thanks.

[Anonymous]

First off, there is no such person as the “LDS Church” or the “LDS Religion.” Those are ideas that we pretend are people, who make decisions, have motivations, and commit acts. There are only people (and God). That MP failed to become a decent human being. A living, breathing person made the decision to “place an abusive devil as a leader of immature men.” People with varying levels of knowledge and power in the situation made decisions, and acted or did not act, so that the result happened the way they did. All that stuff *is*. Our part is to act and react.

I am not just blaming people to excuse “the Church,” like I want to let “the Church” off the hook. There is no “the Church” to blame. We all can look in the mirror. That is “the Church.” It is just as bad to make up an imaginery group “those people” to blame. Everything in life is done by people, to people, for people, unless it is an “act of nature.”

There is no way to fix “the Church” directly. Real people must change. That is how the Church changes, one person at a time.

I don’t think the LDS Church is “one size fits all” for every person, all the time. I think it could be, maybe in a very broad-brush, anything is possible sense. A Church is a social tool for exploring. There are beautiful and diverse manifestations out there of this quest. They all have their own unique focus and highlights. They can all teach something. We should pay attention to our cravings, they will tell us where to look for good, nutritious food.

[Anonymous]

Well, I see it a little bit differently. I really do think that the institution (like any and all institutions) takes on a life of its own. That institutional path can do some things that none of the people inside it would have ever intended. That doesn’t excuse us from responsibility – to the contrary, it should cause us to understand that our responsibility might be bigger than our intentions.

Mostly, I just hear a really deep anger from Sheder. I thought he was really upset by his experience with leadership and just stayed on that topic. The stuff about the growth of the Church – all that was just fuel on a fire that had nothing to do with it. I’ll post later about a tough experience I had with leadership. For now, some of us take a leadership problem to mean that there’s a problem with how we first saw leadership, while some think that it’s an indication that the ship is still perfect and has been hijacked by a terrible driver.

While I don’t see the coherence in the second view, it’s a real experience, and I see how that would contribute to an anger that pervades all else. I used to be angry that way and I hope he gets out of it as I did.

[Anonymous]

I agree, you can’t really help anyone or anything with frustration and anger – it takes a cool head to effect positive change.

[Anonymous]

Valoel and Gabe, the dominant way I look at the institution is through the lens of tradition. History happened and it all became a part of the tradition, along with all its unintended consequences. The legacies are what they are, good and bad, and it can take a long time to change them.

It’s reasonable to expect that inspired leadership would not have left bad consequences or produced bad fruit. It’s reasonable to point out that the church isn’t absolutely “Good” or “Perfect” or “True and Living”. But we do the best we can with what we have, just as we hope others will do with us.

[Anonymous]

There are a few lessons that come to mind for me personally here:

1) “The incorrect traditions of their fathers” doesn’t apply only to those outside the Church. It applies to the Church, as an institution, and it applies to each individual in the Church, as well. “Incorrect traditions” are interwoven into every organization, from the largest to a single person living alone. That doesn’t excuse the effects of those traditions, but it’s critical to realize – since it helps blunt the natural tendency toward exclusive harshness when one is hurt by someone or something.

2) Believing in infallibility (or holding totally unrealistic expectations) hurts those who are harmed the worst the most. Those with lower expectations are harmed less than those who have their unrealistic expectations shattered.

3) NOTHING is strictly an academic issue. EVERYTHING has an emotional element to someone.

4) Those who are hurt severely by someone or something have every right to be mad and want to strike back – and, in some cases, they have every right to strike back. Likewise, time and distance are necessary for healing to occur. However, when time and distance don’t heal, other proactive steps must be taken. Striking back and lashing out never is the final solution.

5) I personally believe that about 75%-90% of the hurt we feel was not intended by the ones who hurt us – even in many cases where the pain was deep and lasting. In many of those cases, someone was acting in a way that they felt was “right” or “necessary” – or it simply had been drilled into them over their own lifetime. I can NEVER know exactly and comprehensively why someone acts as they do, so I simply can’t judge or condemn THEM – even when I am required to judge and even condemn their actions.

6) Many bad things are the choice of the lesser of two evils – or, at the very least, not a choice of one obvious good and one obvious bad.

7) Finally, time and distance can bring healing, but, conversely, time and distance also can distort and push toward extremes – to the end results of both condemnation and denial. Therefore, healing is most likely when initiated as early as possible after the original harm. Festering emotional and spiritual wounds are no different than festering physical wounds in that regard. If left untreated, they will become cancerous.

This site is dedicated in a way to facilitate healing, and, as valoel mentioned in another current thread, part of that healing process is to face our own biases and the impact those biases have on our unique perspectives – and part of that is talking through and questioning those perspectives. This can’t be in an accusatory, combative way, but it has to be done. Objectivity ultimately is impossible, but attempted objectivity is important.

[Anonymous]

Ray,

These are extremely helpful and sensitive points. I especially appreciate number 3.

[Author]

Posts