- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This quote from Boyd Packers talk ‘The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect’, I used to hate it, and I think I still do. But as I have moved on in my faith journey I am hating to admit that there may a little wisdom in there. Like most people when I first had my faith crisis, I wanted to tell everyone about all the wrong stuff in the church, I would look for and often create situations where I could talk about all the usual stuff, multiple first vision stories, book of abraham, kinderhook,etc.
As I have moved on in my faith, I now don’t really look for those situations, I look at people in my ward and think that if they are happy in the church, why should I look to damage that? I have elderly relatives, for them the church is everything, and they are very happy. So would me sharing these challenging aspects of the church history be really useful for them?
It’s a tough one, do you open your mouth? Or keep it shut?
I think the answer is C.) You open or shut depending on the circumstance. Someone in our GD doctrine class is very happy in the church, and is fine raising his hand and saying that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence. Open mouth. There’s a lesson on the First Vision, but it’s not really dealing with details. I kept my mouth closed. I spent decades denying my non-LDS extended family members’ assertions about Joseph Smith, most of which turned out to be true. I wish the church had opened its mouth long ago. What Ann said, with one more caveat: If you make a mistake, make it on the side of charity toward the other person / people. Don’t inflict pain unnecessarily.
I keep my mouth closed 95% of the time. It would be nice to have some frank but non-combative conversations about certain areas of the Church but then I remember a man in my in-law’s ward who was constantly pointing out inconsistencies in the gospel, criticizing leaders, and bringing up historical issues. He was annoying not enlightening. I’m fairly confident that my good-hearted fellow ward members would have little appreciation for a self-appointed gadfly. Silence is golden. I feel free to talk about social issues in a progressive fashion. For example, women should have more leadership in the church… separate hierarchy from priesthood, or acceptance of same-sex marriage… stuff like that, because I can do that 100% without calling into question the validity of the church itself… these are just social norms. I am somewhat more reserved, but do speak with my kids about appropriate expectations of the church toward them, in terms of their marrying age, tithing commitment, responsibility to family compared to ward, etc, because I’m just being the dad.
I do not EVER get into a discussion with believers about the “truth” of the church or its gospel, with the sole exception that I will explain that I am no longer a believer. Period. There are a number of reasons, but the mains reasons are:
– Faith is an individual thing. Those that have it have something that is very worth-while to them. I am comfortable allowing others to believe what I don’t. I don’t believe the Catholic Church is “true” either, but I don’t go around trying to convince my Catholic friends. I think if a person has faith in something, it is not my place to tear it down.
– I was much happier before my faith crisis. Many here have expressed that they are happier now… I’m glad for them, but it’s not the case for me. I wish I had taken the “blue pill”. Why would I now force the “red pill” on someone else?
Here’s a parable to show the inefficacy of contradicting the faith of others… There was a certain widower man who was stooped with age, and when he saw that he was about to go down to his grave, he did call together all of his family. He blessed them, and told them that he loved God and felt joy to realize that he would soon leave this world and go to Heaven, where he would meet God face to face and perceive His glory, and that his wife who had been lost so long ago would be there waiting for him, and they would shed tears of happiness upon the wonderful reunion. And it came to pass, that when the man finished speaking to his family, some punk 32-year-old, self-absorbed SOB who could never leave well-enough alone stood, and spake to the man thusly: “Uncle Myron, great speech and all, but I just wanted to let you know that it is all a sham… there is no afterlife… here, let me show you proof…” And after they had conversed for the space of a time, the man, knelt down, and began to draw on the ground as the others looked on in amazement. And it came to pass that after a long time, the man began to speak softly, saying, “Yes, I see that you are wise. Truly there is no God, and I have been deceived all my days. My wife’s body lies in the grave still, and I shall never see her again. Thank you for helping me to open my eyes to what is real.” And the man stood, and those around him saw that as he arose, he held a small can of Mace in his hand, and he sprayed it into the face of the young man, who shrieked, saying, “Yow, Uncle Myron, why did you do that? I was just trying to help you see the truth,” to which the man replied, saying, “Why the hell did you have to make it your business? I never liked your mother anyway. Good thing for you that there is no Heaven, because my plan had been to ask God to personally smite you when I got there… I guess all I can do now is take you out of my will and give your portion to your better-looking younger brother. Now get out of here, before I introduce you to my Taser.”
There is a time, place and even a manner for these things. I remember a skeptic telling me how he would go out with work mates, and how they wouldn’t listen when he debunked the urban legends that they told each other over alcoholic beverages. I mean, who really doubts that free bar snacks are coated in dried urine, because people don’t wash their hands? Despite what scientists say. Truth is that he was such a misery guts, that he didn’t realize that a) his personality and manner were the problem and that b) no one likes a smartypants or a killjoy, especially on a work night out. He may have been right, but he was so wrong in other ways. He was like the kid who goes round telling everyone Santa isn’t real.
Sometimes a myth has meaning, sometimes a good story is just that, and sometimes a joke doesn’t withstand dissection. If something is harmful, like racist attitudes, it should be addressed, but not everything is like that.
It is like explaining to kids how babies are made. As parents, we are told to answer their questions in a very basic but honest way, but not tell them more than what they are asking. Sometimes they will ask “how are babies made?” and then ask, in the same manner “how is pasta made?” They might not be curious about what we think they are curious about. Of course, there’s always a chance we don’t personally have all the facts straight. When I was on the playground in 3rd grade, my friend said a boy puts his finger in your bellybutton and 9 days later you have a baby. Sometimes we think we know more than we do. I debunked that one pretty quickly.
The person with the most awareness always has the most responsibility.
Quote:When I
was on the playground in 3rd grade, my friend
said a boy puts his finger in your bellybutton
and 9 days later you have a baby.
Not far off the truth apart from the timing. I used to think babies came out of there. And even after having it all explained to me I thought the man peed into the woman to fertilize her and had to have a lot to drink.
Even after being told the truth, my childish mind brought its own distortion. But the truth was as bizarre as anything else.
Just finished a marriage class sponsored by the church (Strengthening Marriage Manual). It seemed like almost every week the bishop’s wife would ask some variation of the question, “How should you act in a conflict when you know you are right because your position is also the Lord’s position.” Aside from feeling sorry for the bishop I really like the answer given. 1) Show genuine love.
2) Respect the person and their viewpoint. (also that respect is not earned, all people deserve it equally)
3) Do not share or impose your viewpoint on this individual unless it is a genuine teaching moment where they come to you for advice.
In many interactions with people we will just need to be content with 1, 2, and the bite your tongue part of #3 (how often do people really seek us out for advice) – but this is how we build and preserve relationships to make those teaching moments (if they ever come) more effective.
I find it very interesting that these steps apply just as well to interactions where you are the individual who “knows” the one and only true path to God or who “knows” that God doesn’t exist. The steps are still valid.
Ann wrote:I think the answer is C.) You open or shut depending on the circumstance.
This may be a variation on Ann’s comment, but I’d lean towards generally staying silent except in cases where people are hurt, such as sexism or racism. It seems to me that – generally causing contention in a group church setting is no-win. I fully support progression “social” changes in the church but think that Gospel Doctrine is usually not an ideal forum to bring up those topics, although frankly, I’m not sure what is… On the other hand I’m pretty open with my immediate family, although still respectful of others.
brit-exmo wrote:This quote from Boyd Packers talk ‘The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect’, I used to hate it, and I think I still do. But
as I have moved on in my faith journey I am hating to admit that there may a little wisdom in there…Like most people when I first had my faith crisis, I wanted to tell everyone about all the wrong stuff in the church…As I have moved on in my faith, I now don’t really look for those situations, I look at people in my ward and think that if they are happy in the church, why should I look to damage that?I have elderly relatives, for them the church is everything, and they are very happy. So would me sharing these challenging aspects of the church history be really useful for them?…It’s a tough one, do you open your mouth? Or keep it shut? I definitely believe that truth is overrated in general and that it shouldn’t be treated as if it is automatically more important than other considerations like health, happiness, getting along with others, etc. However, it isn’t merely questioning the relative value of truth that bothers about this comment as much as the presumptuous and sneaky attitude behind it if you look at it in context. Basically it sounds like, “We know what’s best for you.” Why not just let me judge for myself? Apparently there is just too much risk of making the “wrong” choices to let people decide on their own. I thought making real choices was supposed to be a major part of what life is all about. Basically, the whole approach sounds cult-like and overprotective to me (John 8:32). I’m not saying that anyone should go out of their way to damage the faith of others especially if they are already happy with their beliefs, but I get the impression that some Church leaders would prefer it if this information wasn’t available or talked about at all even for those that honestly want to know about it on their own.
I think how we should talk with each other in our families/wards and the church’s openness about its history are related but different issues. They comingle in the middle where we open up manuals and scriptures and teach each other. But I want a reasonable amount of readily availablefactual information about my church from my church. Is it not my right to decide what is useful? We’re just going to have to trust each other. I want to hear about “sensitive,” “troubling” issues in my spiritual home. I don’t want to be a child distrustful of parents, wandering around to extended family for the truth. Ann, I believe the current leaders are aware of that issue, and it is the driving force behind the Joseph Smith Papers project and the new “Revelations in Context” additions to the D&C Gospel Doctrine manual. I really do believe this isn’t my father’s church (or that of my youth) in more ways than most people realize.
Ann wrote:I think how we should talk with each other in our families/wards and the church’s openness about its history are related but different issues. They comingle in the middle where we open up manuals and scriptures and teach each other. But I want a reasonable amount of
readily availablefactual information about my church from my church. Is it not my right to decide what is useful? We’re just going to have to trust each other. I want to hear about “sensitive,” “troubling” issues in my spiritual home. I don’t want to be a child distrustful of parents, wandering around to extended family for the truth. I think this is beautifully expressed Ann and I agree.
My sex-ed was non-existent from my parents. I grew up believing some crazy distortions from school playground conversations. I wish it hadn’t been so. I’d like my church to do the same.
Ray, you’re right, they’re making gradual steps. But they still have 100s (1000s?) to go.
I recognize that I’m on a hair trigger with issues about Joseph Smith’s credibility. But I really was very disappointed to read “Stand By My Servant Joseph” in the Ensign. Aside from a fairly perfunctory “no one’s perfect” paragraph, it’s about self-assessment and scoring where you stand on the loyalty scale – i.e., there is really nothing about Joseph that should hold anyone back from utter devotion. And if you’re not there yet, it’s your problem. I have to have psychological space to be a follower of Christ without profound admiration for Joseph Smith. And I honestly don’t understand the some of the connections he makes, like this one: “How grateful we should be that we are allowed to stand by Joseph with our own actions and testimonies of the Father and the Son.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.