- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I hope people don’t misunderstand me here, but I think it’s too easy to get bogged down in the masses of historical problems, without dealing with day to day things. Day to day matters *can* be resolved.
Historical ones can’t, for a variety of reasons – firstly, they’re in the past, secondly all accounts are biased one way or the other, and thirdly, I think they have to be taken collectively in relation to the modern individual. The collective effect on the wavering individual is similar, and so is the personal solution, whereas the historical/historiographical element has to be dealt with on its own terms and is another matter.
There will be more, and more or these issues. Some of them are extremely important (MMM, Fanny Alger), some of them only of interest to history geeks.
People from outside the church who wish to criticize it, usually latch on to obscure historical doctrine or events. People who live the church, usually leave for much more mundane reasons. They might stumble on these issues on the way out. I think they tend to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, not the main reason for leaving.
I hope people understand what I mean by this.
Thanks Eman, and Sambee, I agree with you and think it is indeed worth saying. When it ‘feels right’ the ‘intellectual issues’ seem to dull in significance. Today, having just finished reading the Givens’ The God who Weeps, it feels right… And that feels good.
mackay11 wrote:Thanks Eman, and Sambee, I agree with you and think it is indeed worth saying.
When it ‘feels right’ the ‘intellectual issues’ seem to dull in significance. Today, having just finished reading the Givens’ The God who Weeps, it feels right… And that feels good.
+ 1 to all of this. I was pretty aware of a fair portion of the historical stuff but as long as the church enabled me to call down the power of heaven to bless my family and hold them together through the eternities, it didn’t seem to matter much. JS could have commited cold blooded murder as far as I was concerned and as long as the priesthood was real and effective, those other things weren’t so important. When my faith crisis catalyst struck and shook my assumptions that I have power or control to save those dear to me the rest came more glaringly into view.
I think that sometimes we act as though people in the church should be willing to endure all kinds of hardship for the sake of the truth. Like we don’t need to worry about meeting the needs of the membership because we are the only game in town with the “truth.” But the “truth” shifts mightily depending on the lens of the viewer and having unmet needs is a prime reason to inspect the quality of the lens.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.