- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think it is a fairly good summary in the article. About 5 years delayed in coming, but a good summary. I like what nibbler pointed out, although I would say that validation would come perhaps from loving leaders or family at an individual level, not the church level. I don’t think the church has been defensive (like saying “We never lied, not once!”)…they just stay silent and avoid it because they don’t acknowledge it. Silence hasn’t always helped them.
But the author does say
Quote:Their pain and feeling of betrayal is legitimate. But does it serve any good to continue the “We’ve been lied to!” mantra without trying to understand how we got to where we are today?
While there is the line that legitimizes the feelings of betrayal, the “But…” kinda invalidates that recognition. So…not really an acknowledgement afterall…but more a patronizing attempt.
He finishes with….and I thinkk this is important…
Quote:I tend to think that past church leaders believed that they were being honest and responsible about the history of the church, but that they were insulated and got much of it wrong. I prefer to look at the present age as growing pains for the church—both its leaders and its members—as this relatively young religion has entered into an unprecedented age of information availability and is rediscovering its own history.
Fine. That is how he sees it.I agree they got it wrong in the past. I can validate his opinion that he is able to move on and see a hopeful spin that the young religion is rediscovering itself. Good for him that he is comfortable with that take while acknowledging the bias and the mistakes the church made.
Because the next person that can’t look past that and sees those mistakes as problematic, and the rediscovered history is just not something digestable, hence disaffection and transition in faith…well…that is just as legitimate of a reaction.
We can’t change what the church did with telling it’s history. We only choose what we want to do going forward.
Which means…I’d never tell others to stop saying anything. The church didn’t tell the whole picture. Period. Make of it what you will…I will make of it what I will. Say what you want, because I’ll say what I want about it. Thanks for the summary, and thanks for your take on it. I have my own.
Fwiw, I go to church to provide the meat I get the other days. I figure church helps me eat meat in moderation, since I try to eat it every other day.
Seriously,though, there is some amount of meat almost every week for me – but I have to acknowledge it and brush off the large amounts of peanut butter covered kale. (two foods inspired by Lucifer’s more evil brother)
Quote:Ray wrote: Seriously,though, there is some amount of meat almost every week for me – but I have to acknowledge it and brush off the large amounts of peanut butter covered kale. (two foods inspired by Lucifer’s more evil brother)
Most Sundays, I dig through the peanut butter and kale mess looking for meat. I finally find a tiny little sliver. Some weeks it really is meat. Other weeks, what I thought was meat turns out to be TVP, and I feel deceived. Then I look at my peanut butter and kale covered hands, the smear on my shirt, and wonder if the hard search for that sliver was worth it. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no. Unfortunately, I am so entrenched in the game that I keep looking. I keep thinking that the next Sunday, I’ll go through the exact same actions, but the result will be different. I find myself questioning my sanity.
I keep looking for the prime cut Ribeye. Surely it exists. Friends keep telling me I’m looking in the wrong place. They tell me Costco has all the answers I seek. I could sample things for free. I’m trying to not be lured. They have meat, but I could walk out with more than I planned on.
I have a hard time with this article. It’s on the basis of the MISSIONARY DISCUSSIONS that people join the church. And join the church, committing to give tens of thousands of dollars to the church in the process, as I did. It’s at Church, in the missionary discussions, truth restored, and other accessible church publications where we find the true message the church wanted the members to hear. And these sources have been wiped clean of the objectionable parts of our history. And we are told not to use anything but the manual and church publications in our lessons — and people do that — absorbing everything the church wants us to hear. As I keep saying, I learned about MMM on the doorstep of a non-mem on my mission, and only confirmed to him I’d been brainwashed when it was clear I’d never heard of it. So, the church has, and still does (to some extent) engage in selective presentation of history, which can be considered crafty and deceiving. I think BKP’s statement that “that what is true isn’t always helpful” is inconsistent with the church’s claim to be “true” and to help people find truth — not the truth the church wants to hear, but the whole truth,
The average convert is not going to search out scholarly works on the history of the church to verify the watered down version the church gives to new members. Our libraries often didn’t even stock many of these books (during the few hours they are open). And if the actual history is not presented at church, the vast majority of members will never hear it.
I’m glad the author winces when he hears people say the church was deceptive, because wince they should
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.