Staying LDS is Like Marriage Counseling (?)

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

1. If you follow the prophet you will never be led astray.

2. Prophets in the past have taught things that are not true.

3. Therefore, either you have to define the word ‘astray’ outside of normal meaning, or statement 1 is FALSE.

I have also heard that if you follow the prophet and the prophet is wrong, the Lord will count it as righteousness. Unfortunately this could have some ugly consequences if taken too far.

hawkgrrl wrote:

4. Keep your eyes on your own plate, sharing only about yourself and your own learning.

Let go of analyzing or defining [the church]. Let go of interrogating questions that are really attacks. These behaviors are self-justifying. Your job is to define yourself, not [the church or others]! The more you define your own inner worth and let go of attempting to define [the church], the better your relationship will become.

5. define your own worth and worthiness.

Comments on # 4) I see this in both relationships and the church. If DW has wronged me it seems so easy to build a mental prosecutorial case of how this is just the latest of a long pattern and that she is just a taker and never appreciative of anything I do. Then if she apologizes or some other event happens to break me out of my resentment, all of that fades away. Now would one apology for one incident overturn “a long pattern”? No! So how can I so easily reframe the “pattern” in my mind to mean something different after receiving one simple apology?

For me church is similar. If I define the church to be a narcissistic spouse (just as I might at times define DW as an ungrateful “taker”) These behaviors are self perpetuating and self justifying.

I believe I have the luxury of this because I have experienced the ”mixed bag” both in marriage and church experience. If either my spouse or my church truly were mostly abusive in my experience it may be harder for me to simply reframe my perspective to get such a totally different outcome.

Comments on # 5) This seemed to be a big part of the “redefining your relationship with God” thread. My message was that God loves me despite my inadequacy and that nothing I can do will make me adequate in the sinless/perfection sense. Brian seems to focus on being “good enough” and that if God wanted him different He should have built a “better Brian.” Both of these responses seem to be about redefining your own sense of worth and worthiness, that your value is inherent in who you are and not what you may do.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

cwald, fwiw, I “call it like (I see that) it is” in church all the time – and I’ve mentioned that the Church isn’t perfect many times, in one way or another, in more than one ward and stake, in classes and over the pulpit, for at least 20 years.

Yeah, don’t misunderstand me. This was not a personal attack aimed at you. Yeah, you’re willing to have the conversation and call it. I’m asking why the CHURCH LEADERS won’t do this. If you are right that they believe it, Why won’t they call it the way it is over the pulpit during GC? You admit the church is not perfect. Why can’t the leaders who could really make a different on a large scale willing to say the same thing that is so blatantly obvious to all of us here. Sure, they hint at, but that is not going to solve the issues that need to be address.

You don’t need to answer. it’s a rhetorical question.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

cwald, fwiw, I “call it like (I see that) it is” in church all the time – and I’ve mentioned that the Church isn’t perfect many times, in one way or another, in more than one ward and stake, in classes and over the pulpit, for at least 20 years.

Yeah, don’t misunderstand me. This was not a personal attach aimed at you. Yeah, you’re willing to have the conversation and call it. I’m asking why the CHURCH LEADERS won’t do this. If you are right that they believe it, Why won’t they call it the way it is over the pulpit during GC? You admit the church is not perfect. Why can’t the leaders who could really make a different on a large scale willing to say the same thing that is so blatantly obvious to all of us here.

You don’t need to answer. it’s a rhetorical question.

I’m going to answer it.

First an analogy — there was one time when I was a YM president and I made the mistake of saying “And if there is any way I can help you, let me know” to the parents. Well, all the single mothers flocked to me wanting me to drive their children back and forth to the YM activities — something I vowed I would not get roped into when they had cars themselves, and when my focus was on providing a good program — not being a chauffeur.

I think it’s because as organizational leaders, you want people to take greater responsibliity for their experience and not lean on the overworked leaders all the time. So you make statements that are more extreme than your “willingness” to give, hoping it will move people closer to the center. If you say things that encourage people to take advantage of your effort or goodwill, they will likely do so beyond your willingness to give.

So, if you stand up and say “The Church isn’t perfect” you run the risk of alienating the people who do believe this. They will then show less commitment, and then you as a leader will not achieve you goals for the organization….So, if people believe something wrong, but it suits your goals, then let them believe it!!

For me, it would ease the pain if they just came clean — like in Poleman’s talk on “The church is not the gospel”.

It would be the Balm of Gilead on my soul which groans whenever I hear people crying about how great the Church is when i know half of the decisions are made by the seat of someone’s pants, that the Apostles probably have NOT seen Christ, and that society’s racism of the 1800’s bled into prophetic announcements in the mid and late 19th century. LIke when Brigham Young said the blacks will only get the priesthood after everyone else does….

I guess I’ve matured to the point I feel more faith in an organization that claims to be, what is IS rather than pretending to be something it isn’t — like in Gordon Hinckley’s Truth Restored.

On this note, I found this talk at General Conference particularly narcissistic and self-absorbed about the Church…particularly the analogy of the church as being like the British Empire how “the sun never sets on the British Empire” can now be applied to the Church.

http://lds.org/general-conference/print/2011/10/the-time-shall-come/?lang=eng

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I have also heard that if you follow the prophet and the prophet is wrong, the Lord will count it as righteousness.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Someday, I’ll tell you how I really feel about that abominable, straight-from-Lucifer’s-plan idea. 👿 Until then, you’ll just have to guess. 🙄

[Anonymous]

I completely agree that the 14 Fundamentals are extremely harmful and flawed thinking. Can you imagine if they were reviewed in the press? They would have disastrous consequences to any Mormon’s chance to win political office unless they were subsequently (and correctly) repudiated once and for all. I am personally appalled that they were quoted twice in the same GC recently despite being false doctrine, and nobody corrected it (well, except the spirit, to all of us who were listening).

Quote:

1. If you follow the prophet you will never be led astray.

2. Prophets in the past have taught things that are not true.

3. Therefore, either you have to define the word ‘astray’ outside of normal meaning, or statement 1 is FALSE.

I always chuckle to myself on that first one, because what it really says is that the prophet can never lead the church astray, not “if you follow the prophet, you will never be led astray.” I take that to mean that nobody can lead me astray without my own consent, and I don’t give it. We can choose to be led astray by someone in authority because we fear social reprisal if we don’t go along, but I will choose not to if I feel it’s wrong and let the chips fall where they may.

The marriage analogy, I agree with WF is weird for the first 3 points. It relies on personifying the church which is really not a person. No matter how you slice it, an organization is going to be emotionally distance, demanding and self-preserving. I suspect most of our employers would seem similar if we tried to personify them. Apparently Corporations are not People. But they do comprise of people, so I think if you consider how individuals behave, that can be useful. The problem there is that it’s easy to have confirmation bias, only remembering the incidents or people that confirm your current view of the church. But that’s true in marriages too.

cwald – you really should read this book I just finished last night: Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me). It describes exactly what you are talking about. “Why can’t they just admit that the church and the church leaders make mistakes sometimes, instead of sending mixed messages and nuanced answers.” There is an analogy in the book about doctors who have made big mistakes. They fear admitting mistakes because they believe lawsuits will go up and people’s confidence in them will go down, but in reality, the opposite is proven to be true statistically.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

cwald wrote:

What is so hard about coming out and saying that the “church is NOT perfect” in GC, rather than just beating around the bush? Maybe if they would actually say what they believe, things could change. Poelman did jsut that, and got censored for it….

I think you’ve converted me. The 14Fs have to be specifically, publicly and completely repudiated.

Let’s say there is a concrete, clear logical case:

1. If you follow the prophet you will never be led astray.

2. Prophets in the past have taught things that are not true.

3. Therefore, either you have to define the word ‘astray’ outside of normal meaning, or statement 1 is FALSE.

I do not think this is a matter of debate, nor interpretation. The 14Fs are false, and need to be repudiated publicly and completely.

I think Church leaders typically do rationalize and re-define what leading the Church astray really means and because of that they think the Church is already on track and no major changes are needed. My guess is that to them it’s not so much about Church leaders needing to be completely accurate and consistent with each other as much as the Church supposedly providing what they think is essential for salvation (ordinances, priesthood succession, commandments, etc.). That’s why I think they are so afraid of openly admitting Church leaders have made mistakes and continue to make mistakes because they worry it will lead too many members to lose confidence in the Church and possibly fall away permanently. So from that perspective, drawing attention to the truth could actually result in leading many members astray if the facts happen to make Church leaders look uninspired and incomptetent.

So even if they believe the racial priesthood ban was wrong and some things Brigham Young and others said were wrong I don’t think they have connected the dots to supspect that the current teachings and policies about things like the WoW and tithing could just as easily be wrong because they were instituted in a similar ad hoc way based on some men’s opinions and interpretation of scriptures that are already questionable enough by themselves. Also, they often seem to think in an absolute all-or-nothing way where the Church supposedly has to be either the literal kingdom of God or an evil fraud and it looks like they haven’t seriously considered other possibilities such as that maybe God doesn’t care that much about the specifics of what people believe or that the Church could still be a beneficial and positive organization for people even if Joseph Smith wasn’t quite what they think and even if there is no God.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I have also heard that if you follow the prophet and the prophet is wrong, the Lord will count it as righteousness.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Someday, I’ll tell you how I really feel about that abominable, straight-from-Lucifer’s-plan idea. 👿 Until then, you’ll just have to guess. 🙄

I had a Bishop that joined in Ray’s chorus of No’s when I told him about this objectionable “doctrine”.

[Anonymous]

-sigh-

Sometimes I wish I didn’t care so much.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, cwald, I’m glad you do.

In the words of Lady Antebellum:

Quote:

I’d rather hurt than feel nothing at all.

(Although the central message of that song isn’t one I’d advocate – privately or in church. )

[Author]

Posts