Terryl Givens – letter to a doubter

[Anonymous]

wjclerk wrote:

Cadence wrote:

I do not doubt the existence of Leprechauns I just know they do not exist.

Please don’t think that what I am about to say is an attack or personal, but I am wrestling with this very issue:

“How do you KNOW Leprechauns don’t exist?”

I too believe that they don’t “exist,” or that what we agree is the meaning of the word “exist” means that there is no discernible presence or external evidence of Leprechauns on our plane of existence as far as we can currently detect or demonstrate, but since we have not discovered or experienced ALL states of existence, it is premature to say that they do not exist anywhere or anywhen carte blanch? So, what are you able to say when you state that you KNOW that something exists or does not exist? Is it presumptuous to be able to account for all possibilities, however remote or statistically improbable they are in the reality we experience – and to a limited extent – understand?

I really am interested in your perspective on this – not at all looking to start an argument. Thanks in advance for your input.

For the record, biologists every year document about 2,000 new species of flowering plants and 13,500 new invertebrates.

For us to say for certain something doesn’t exists while I would agree leprachauns are so unlikely as to be non-existant in my mind, it is still within sciences reach to say there are millions of species we do not know about yet.

Also if we decide God or his gospel doesn’t exist then we will have a self fulfilling prophecy in this life as God will not likely visit or give to those who have discounted him already. For me, I have had serious spiritual experiences that assure me there is a God and he is in control, and he has placed me where I need to be without taking away my agency.

[Anonymous]

BobDixon wrote:

I don’t disagree with what he says at all, but in order to follow this path you have to be willing to accept that you have not only the right, but the ability, to define what Mormonism is to you. You also have to prepare yourself to be completely self-sustaining in this approach, because you will get no support for it in church. It’s like being a scuba diver or an astronaut. To follow his approach you have to take all your own oxygen and food with you, because you’re not going to find it where you’re going.

There is no support for “doubt” out there, nor is there support for anything less than “follow the prophet”.

I was really surprised that these remarks were given in a fireside, so maybe change is coming, however slightly. I’m lucky enough to have a bishop who comes from a Sunstone-reading family, but our situation is like being trapped under the ice and finding small pockets of air in random places. You have to be mighty good at conserving your strength and holding your breath.

Sadly I think most just drown.

I disagree very much with your post Bob, and hope you will see the love in my comment as I am not taking up arms against you. In the past year I have shared my faith crisis experience with a member of the seventy, a member of the 12, a whole ward of members in Canada, and 3-5 members in my own ward, my stake presidency, and a high councilman in my stake, and in a smaller way the listeners of MormonStories.org. Not a single individual has cast me out, ridiculed me, or mocked me for my lack of faith ( My only negative response was from the MDB discussion board but that is another story it is NOT a case study example of this problem for various reasons).

Now are some members planted in false standards and incorrect assumptions and judge falsely those who struggle and act in a way that is not how the Savior would act? absolutely. And if your in a situation where a spouse or leader acts this way then call on someone who sees things the right way to sit down with them and shake them up. If I had one hour with any of those who handle this incorrectly, I am sure that they could be turned to face the right direction. So individuals who think all they get is criticism for struggling in their faith, stop being a victim. I Think our view of how the church and it’s members respond to Faith Crisis is not accurate. I think there are way more sympathizers and empathizers out there then you think.

Is there work to be done, yep. So lets get to it. If anyone would like me to talk to someone, let me know. I am happy to do it, by phone or by skype if needed. Once they hear a story like mine, see Marlin Jensen’s comments, and observe how the church talks about this in my experience with GA’s then they have no choice then to see their need to repent and change direction and create a better framework, all while being told this in love and compassion.

My experience has been positive accross the board…. so let’s stop taking the minority view in the church and saying woe is the environment of the church, while having a blind eye to how the majority sees and deals with this issue.

My opinion only

Bill

[Anonymous]

Bob, I agree with both your and DB’s comments, interestingly – IF you change your “will not” statements to “might not” and your “is no” to “might not be”.

There are those here who really do get no support whatsoever from those they know, and there are others who not only get support but strong support. For some, there’s no way to get support; for others, their approach lends itself to getting support.

Finally, just to try to be precise, I would alter the following:

Quote:

officially what the gospel is really about is authority, with the “saving ordinances” being the expression of that authority, because the hierarchy controls the ordinances.

I would change “gospel” to “LDS Church as an organization”. The “gospel” has nothing whatsoever to do with authority, since the universalist foundation of vicarious ordinances makes the authority issue disappears at the most basic level. If the belief is that those ordinances are going to be performed for everyone at some point, the authority to perform them literally becomes moot – and there are very few things in the realm of religious theology that allow me to construct them “literally” with any degree of comfort. Given our temple theology, authority becomes a purely mortal concept – something relevant only to mortality when it comes to “sacred ordinances”.

Thus, the Gospel isn’t about authority at all.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Thus, the Gospel isn’t about authority at all.

Other then Christ’s Atonement having Authority in and of itself to save.

[Anonymous]

Unless, of course, the Atonement is symbolic in nature and is more about an understanding of the nature of God and His children than about a literal substitution of some sort and, thus, “authority” as it is understand by us as mortals.

I don’t know, but I like that view, personally.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I would change “gospel” to “LDS Church as an organization”. The “gospel” has nothing whatsoever to do with authority, since the universalist foundation of vicarious ordinances makes the authority issue disappears at the most basic level. If the belief is that those ordinances are going to be performed for everyone at some point, the authority to perform them literally becomes moot – and there are very few things in the realm of religious theology that allow me to construct them “literally” with any degree of comfort. Given our temple theology, authority becomes a purely mortal concept – something relevant only to mortality when it comes to “sacred ordinances”.

You make a good point here, and I was sermonizing and not being completely specific.

“Gospel” is a somewhat elastic term. From the LDS perspective “gospel” means “restored gospel” which means the church hierarchy together with everything we might believe about God as an indivisible entity. Thinking back to the infamous Poelman revised talk, where there is no difference between the gospel and the church. I was using the term in that sense and could have been more specific.

I think that the idea that these ordinances being universal makes the authority irrelevant is too abstract. From a practical standpoint if you don’t qualify for a TR you are a second class citizen in the church, and that affects most aspects of your participation, even if you’re going to get the equivalent of a GED at some point in the future. i.e. the second chance. I think you also have to go back to McConkie’s point that some people don’t get a second chance. Someone who has rejected these ordinances in life (or the conditions thereof, i.e. maybe I want to go to the temple but not enough to give up smoking) doesn’t get a second chance, so they’re not universal in that sense.

Old-Timer wrote:

Thus, the Gospel isn’t about authority at all.

What Bill Reel said. The gospel is totally about Christ’s authority. The followup point is to whom he delegates authority for ordinances and the administration of the church, which is something as LDS that we deal with about as often as breathing.

[Anonymous]

BobDixon wrote:

I think that the idea that these ordinances being universal makes the authority irrelevant is too abstract. From a practical standpoint if you don’t qualify for a TR you are a second class citizen in the church, and that affects most aspects of your participation, even if you’re going to get the equivalent of a GED at some point in the future. i.e. the second chance. I think you also have to go back to McConkie’s point that some people don’t get a second chance. Someone who has rejected these ordinances in life (or the conditions thereof, i.e. maybe I want to go to the temple but not enough to give up smoking) doesn’t get a second chance, so they’re not universal in that sense.

I think I know where you are coming from. I remember being taught in institute that baptized Mormons that marry outside of the temple is the equivalent of selling their birthright for a bowl of soup (trading that of eternal significance for something fleeting). I believed this for a time.

I now believe in a Loving and Saving God that doesn’t have any second class children and would never stop at the second chance or the third or the fourth…. I do not believe in an infinite atonement that is so wide it can reach all of God’s children but so shallow as to only afford them one chance each.

Quote:

Here and hereafter, a multitude of non-Mormons will constitute the Church of the Firstborn. As a mighty God, our Heavenly Father has the capacity to save us all. As a fond father, He has the desire to do so. That is why, as Joseph taught, “God hath made a provision that every spirit can be ferreted out in that world” that has not deliberately and definitively chosen to resist a grace that is stronger than the cords of death.

In order for me to reconcile my view of God with the 3 kingdoms idea – I must believe that God will work with you to go as far as you are able, that eternal progression applies to all those that are willing to give God a chance and put one foot in front of the other. It is not a contest. There is nothing to prove. Just love and be loved and see where that takes you.

[Anonymous]

wjclerk wrote:

Cadence wrote:

I do not doubt the existence of Leprechauns I just know they do not exist.

Please don’t think that what I am about to say is an attack or personal, but I am wrestling with this very issue:

“How do you KNOW Leprechauns don’t exist?”

I too believe that they don’t “exist,” or that what we agree is the meaning of the word “exist” means that there is no discernible presence or external evidence of Leprechauns on our plane of existence as far as we can currently detect or demonstrate, but since we have not discovered or experienced ALL states of existence, it is premature to say that they do not exist anywhere or anywhen carte blanch? So, what are you able to say when you state that you KNOW that something exists or does not exist? Is it presumptuous to be able to account for all possibilities, however remote or statistically improbable they are in the reality we experience – and to a limited extent – understand?

I really am interested in your perspective on this – not at all looking to start an argument. Thanks in advance for your input.

Good question so I shall rephrase. Given the best empirical evidence available I believe I am safe in saying at this point in time Leprechauns do not exist. If you have reliable and verifiable empirical evidence to the contrary, I will adjust my understanding.

This is the way I believe we should approach things. Eliminate the superstition, non reliable sources, emotion, and make statements of belief based on observable verifiable information. Sounds sort of cold and analytical I know, but it is the best tool we have to get to the bottom of many claims. Cal Sagan put it best “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Unfortunately so often we rely on anecdotal stories for the most part to prove many supernatural claims. So until Leprechauns decide to show up with their pot of gold and have their existence verified, I will take the position they do not exist. End of discussion in my mind. Wasting time trying to prove a negative is just that a waste of time. Now I may choose to hold the door open a crack because it is impossible to make absolute statements about almost anything of supernatural origins, but I think we do not dwell on what might be possible but on what we know to be most likely.

So treat Leprechauns as being what they are. Fanciful mythical creatures. Bring them out on St Patricks Day and have as much fun as you desire extolling their virtues, but never for a second believe they exist. Doubt always.

[Anonymous]

Bob, just as an fyi, I make a very clear distinction in my own mind between “pure Mormonism” and “practical LDS-ism” – between what I believe to be the core concepts and principles of the theology and what is the currently, generally accepted understanding of our day (or any other day, for that matter). I also believe there is an even clearer distinction between “the Gospel” and “the Church” – and, for me, that distinction is inviolable. “The Gospel” is NOT the same as “the Church” – and it’s extremely important to me to maintain that distinction, regardless of how often they are conflated by other members (including some leaders).

[Anonymous]

I think you are both correct.

Ray is speaking real truth. Gospel truth.

Bob is speaking what most active Mormons would consider as truth…ie church = Gospel = truth.

IMO.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

DBMormon wrote:

I disagree very much with your post Bob, and hope you will see the love in my comment as I am not taking up arms against you. In the past year I have shared my faith crisis experience with a member of the seventy, a member of the 12, a whole ward of members in Canada, and 3-5 members in my own ward, my stake presidency, and a high councilman in my stake, and in a smaller way the listeners of MormonStories.org. Not a single individual has cast me out, ridiculed me, or mocked me for my lack of faith ( My only negative response was from the MDB discussion board but that is another story it is NOT a case study example of this problem for various reasons).

No worries. Even though there’s a lot we disagree on, I see you as one of the good guys. You’re trying to hang on to a theological understanding of the LDS gospel and have it make sense, and there are precious few out there trying to do that. In general most people who have “issues” and are trying to hang onto participation in the church are not rooted in a literal belief in Christ as divine or a literal belief in the atonement. Many are trying to hang on as more cultural Mormons or with more universalist beliefs like the type of thing Ray expresses elsewhere, and I enthusiastically support what you’re trying to do. I wish more leaders had the guts you have. Really I would like to see the apostles venture outside the safe force field of believing members and engage these topics, because that what the ancient apostles did, and why they were martyred.

Having said that, often the LDS gospel is like the three blind men and the elephant. It is to you what you have in front of you. When I talk about support for doubt I don’t really mean having a one on one with a senior leader and getting private support, or at least some form of tolerance. I’m talking about not being a salmon swimming against the continual cultural stream. I don’t want to get into a quote war, but see Elder Cook’s talk and Elder Nash’s talk from the last conference. In the latter search for “doubt”. Doubt is something to be replaced with faith, and the answer is simple. Doubt is a tool of Satan and is destructive. Doubt is the enemy of faith, so if you have doubt you obviously lack faith and haven’t taken the very simple steps he advocates.

I was sent a talk some months ago about “keeping covenants” by my home teachers, with the idea that if only I kept my covenants and kept the commandments all my problems would be solved. I thought “OK, this will be fun” and I tried to get a discussion started with them on a very basic question: “What does it mean to ‘keep the commandments'”? I couldn’t get them to play. They will attempt to guilt-bomb me with talks, but they will absolutely not discuss my concerns, and these are both former bishops. That’s along the lines I mean. One of my home teachers is a former member of the temple presidency and is very sanctimonious. He will hold himself up as an example of righteousness for his family, 2/3 of which have left the church, but he will not talk through my concerns and help me figure this stuff out, and I work hard to try to make it fit together.

[Anonymous]

BobDixon wrote:

I was sent a talk some months ago about “keeping covenants” by my home teachers, with the idea that if only I kept my covenants and kept the commandments all my problems would be solved. I thought “OK, this will be fun” and I tried to get a discussion started with them on a very basic question: “What does it mean to ‘keep the commandments'”? I couldn’t get them to play. They will attempt to guilt-bomb me with talks, but they will absolutely not discuss my concerns, and these are both former bishops. That’s along the lines I mean. One of my home teachers is a former member of the temple presidency and is very sanctimonious. He will hold himself up as an example of righteousness for his family, 2/3 of which have left the church, but he will not talk through my concerns and help me figure this stuff out, and I work hard to try to make it fit together.

I feel awful for their behavior. I can very easily separate Faith Crisis and sinful behavior. Some obviously can not. One can have a faith crisis while remaining worthy and true to their hopes and perhaps what faith that is still present. Others may simply be living in sin or choosing to disobey willingly. The first group should never be spoken to in a way as to make them feel guilty or to make them feel less then acceptable. One can have a faith crisis (assuming he/she is searching for spiritual help to resolve it) and still be completely acceptable in the church.

[Author]

Posts