- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’d like some advice. I’m in the process of working through some difficult issues that I’ve discovered about the church. I’m perplexed that most members of the church consider anything that isn’t a church sanctioned website, book, etc to be “anti.” Interestingly, these same people have good common sense when it comes to evaluating other things. For example, if you wanted a comprehensive look at a political candidate, you wouldn’t go to their website–which would obviously highlight the good. You also wouldn’t want to go to the opponents website because they would show only the negative. You’d seek out an objective third party who could give you an overall look at the good and bad. As such, when you are evaluating the church, it doesn’t seem right to only stick to church-sponsored materials. Why is this so hard for members of the church to understand? Have any of you encountered this?
A couple of reasons: – There are no objective third-parties. Everything said about the church from any source is tainted. We cannot find the truth. We can only find the “truth” as we see it.
– People who believe God is at the helm are not interested in scholarly analysis. If an author wrote a book about how Jesus was a great teacher, but obviously not the son of God, since that is impossible, it wouldn’t sell well at Christian bookstores.
Now some thoughts about what to do about it. If your intention is to enlighten others with your new-found understanding, you might want to rethink that. It’s not the case for everyone of course, and you need to find what works best for you, but I think it is a lot easier to be at peace by not fighting against faith. I myself wish I had taken the Blue Pill, so I’m not going to force others to take the Red Pill. I find it helpful for me to let others find the faith that works for them. I’ve long-ago given up on having special knowledge that I need to evangelize to others. I tell people I’m no longer a believer. That’s all they need to know. I don’t owe any explanation, and I don’t want to get into an argument. At the end of the day, I respect that they believe and hope that they respect that I don’t.
Faith is built on what is hoped but can’t be seen. Unfortunately, that can lead people to not worry about seeing anything – or even denying what should be easily visible. We all see through a glass, darkly, but glasses need to be prescription to work better than whatever we have now, and it’s really hard for someone else to find the right prescription for someone else – especially in an area that is as subjective and individualized as faith.
I have encountered this, and of course I have heard counsel to avoid anti sites. There are those who consider even the FAIR type sites, and probably this site, as anti because they’re not official sites. That said, I think I understand why. I have been known to visit an anti site or two, and while there is truth to information presented I have yet to find one that was completely truthful about what they present. That is, they mix truth with untruths, take things grossly out of context, or purport as doctrine or beliefs that which is not. Ah, but you say, so do pro sites (not officially associated with the church), and I agree. Even LDS.org is guilty, but not to purposely deceive IMO. You can’t control what others think or do, nor are you likely to convince them otherwise. if it’s a matter of you getting into arguments with them, simply avoid it – it’s not worth it. It’s up to you to decide for yourself what is true and correct, if that’s what you seek. The technology exists for use as a tool for you to make an informed decision.
Yes, I grew up with the same attitude you describe. I had an “ah-ha” moment when I realized just as you say if I want an objective look at what really happened back in the 1830’s I need to consider what both sides have to say. While it was uncomfortable and “against the grain” of my previous ideas to venture beyond the “authorized” story I have come to understand this idea is cultural …doctrinally as we are to seek out all truth we are obviously not tied to only half the story. Most members just don’t have the same desire and that’s okay.
I was specifically told by my bishop that anything that is not LDS.org is not worth looking at. That made me feel guilty for a while.
Then I learned better, and just realized that there is so much out there, I am OK with deciding what I should and shouldn’t look at, and what feels good and right to me. If the church is what it says it is…we should not fear what is out there. But I think the leaders don’t want to take risks. So the safe thing is to stick to the church website only.
But I think we all get to the point we need more. So at some point, we have to take our faith into our own hands, as grown ups. But beware, it isn’t the safest thing to do. But like the child that grows into adulthood and leaves the home to venture into the world to learn things about life on their own…it is a natural and good thing.
Give yourself some credit. You can tell the angry anti- websites from good sources. I like checking out the anti stuff sometimes, but don’t find their stuff appealing to me, and don’t return. Places like this are safe to explore ideas and really open up. Angry anti- stuff isn’t dangerous to me. Its just somebody else’s opinion…and I want good sources with good information…not defensive apologetic weak arguments or weak anti slanderous arguments. I want good stuff. Like Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling, and lots of other good stuff so I can be informed in my opinions.
Quote:If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellant; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellant which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know … the truth we need most is hidden precisely in the doctrines you least like and least understand. – CS Lewis
I appreciate all of your insightful comments. As I’ve considered some of the ideas brought up, I think it all boils down to validation. I am certainly not seeking to destroy anyone’s faith by exposing them to issues that they might not know about; rather, I am seeking a thoughtful conversation where issues and concerns are labeled as valid and worthy of discussion. Wishful thinking perhaps? Maybe or maybe not wishful thinking right now with other people you know, but not wishful thinking here. MissEyre, Echoing what Ray said, StayLDS is a perfect community for exactly what you are talking about. “This is the place!” There may be some irony in this but while StayLDS provides a (somewhat) open environment for free dialogue, what I’ve actually learned here is that I don’t need validation. Ray and I, for example, believe many different things. What I find is that that is a welcome respite. In the Church, conformity of belief is highly valued. Here, I’ve come to recognize that there are many different layers to belief, and that no one person, or no one idea, holds the way it should be for everyone. So, again, welcome. And I hope you are able to find your way, and I hope that together we can help each other.
As for people in your real-world circles… only you can tell if your talking with them will be received as dialogue or attack. Often, for me, I find that I am more free to talk practice than doctrine. I have had many conversations with faithful members of the Church regarding the role of women and same-sex marriage, to name two. I don’t try when it comes to whether or not the BofM is historically accurate. Doctrine is a matter of faith, and faith does not stand on reason. Depending on who you are talking to, policy and practice may be in a different bucket from doctrine. Even so, I don’t stand up in F&T meeting and declare my support of same-sex marriage (although I did toy with the idea once).
MissEyre wrote:I appreciate all of your insightful comments. As I’ve considered some of the ideas brought up, I think it all boils down to validation. I am certainly not seeking to destroy anyone’s faith by exposing them to issues that they might not know about; rather, I am seeking a thoughtful conversation where issues and concerns are labeled as valid and worthy of discussion. Wishful thinking perhaps?
It might be wishful thinking. If someone is open to the idea that there might be other points of view, then I believe exposing them to other ideas and issues might be fruitful – it might produce the thoughtful conversation you seek. However, I find that most TBM types are not open to that idea and there can be no other point of view in their way of thinking. I’m not saying they’re stupid or not thoughtful or not capable of engaging in conversation, I think they’re just unwilling to do so because they fear what it might lead to. Why they fear truth is beyond me because I think we are all counseled to seek truth. It’s very much like “A Bible, a Bible….”
As already pointed out here, I have also found that open, thoughtful conversation can be had on these forums. This isn’t the place for anti stuff, but asking a question or seeking the truth never seems to get anyone in trouble here.
The problem is that to most people anything that questions the Church is an attack on their faith. Me? I see such things as the refiner’s fire. I come out the other side stronger and with more faith in my GOD. Anti-Mormon sites are terrible. I’ve been to some and it’s all just biased “we hate Mormons” crap.
I like places like this. And the blogs “Pure Mormonism” and “By Common Consent”.
I like FAIR (except for their message boards because their terms of service cause me to lose my intellectual rights to what I post there, no thanks).
The site Mormon Think works really hard to be objective. I also like ReligiousTolerance.org for the same reason.
I like the Joseph Smith Papers available online, put out by the church, and other church sites that have things like the Millennial Star from the early days of the church for all to see. It helps me see the differences between then and now, and to get to know Joseph Smith Jr better.
Heber13, that makes no sense, since the church has more websites than that!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.