- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
We’ve seen the church slowly making changes within the wiggle room they have, to elevate the role of women, to share, openly, objectionable parts of our history, etcetera. They are doing this quietly, with a few more liberal comments in Stake Conference but that are not disruptive to faith (such as Uchdorfts comments about doubt). Meanwhile, the internet is alive with the hard stuff – the real history, etcetera. I don’t think the church can just write it all off as anti-Mormon and tell people not to read it. It’s becoming very pervasive. Quote:So I ask a question — would it be better for the church to go forward with a mass transparency program about our history or is their current path of slow culture change better? By slow change, I mean essays tucked away in a corner on LDS.org, soft moves toward a more liberal approach to religion in conference, offloading controversial topics to personal study, and subtle changes to the CHI as they are currently making?
.
I think about this also. I have a hard time thinking that once many members hear some of the details and are not able to say “that is just anti-Mormon junk” that it will rock you to the core given how hard the church pushes that the LDS church is the ONLY church that is true, the leaders must be followed to a tee or the devil will have hold of you, and the leaders are perfect (especially the portrayal of Joseph Smith). It is the contrast that just smacks you across the face – or at least it did to me. I still feel like I was lied to and given my level of commitment I feel betrayed. As I asked in another thread this AM, I am puzzled MORE are not in the throes of faith crisis. But I have had a leader just recently say that even if evidence came that showed the church to be very untrue, he has had spiritual experiences that force him to still believe the church is true. He is a very non-judgmental TBM that does know quite a bit of church history, leader fallibility, and actually seems to be very pro LGBT (as long as you don’t cross a certain line). I only have 1 experience quite a long time ago (like just before I went on my mission). That one experience did make me pause before throwing the towel in in the midst of my faith crisis.
Still a bit puzzled and working through this. Neither throw in the towel nor be a TBM seem to be the right choice.
Perhaps if your leader really examined and pondered those experiences, LH, he might come to the conclusion that the gospel is true. That is to say our spiritual experiences (at least mine) tend to me more gospel oriented than church oriented. This doesn’t necessarily mean the church isn’t true, but it may not be any more true than some others. To answer your question, SD, I think the continued slow process is better. If the prophet were to stand up in the next GC and come totally clean, I believe there would be massive faith damage to those who have not been through a faith transition, precisely because of those claims pointed out by LH. While we see that the GAs are generally more open, sometimes more liberal, and avoid saying things that many of our much more orthodox friends say (like avoiding the word “know” as in “I know the church is true”), I don’t think the membership as a whole could stand wholesale transparency dumped all at once. It’s hard to go back on many years (decades) of “follow the prophet” and strict obedience. I have often wondered if the GAs aren’t really speaking to us (meaning our generation) as much as they are to the younger generations – teaching them the correct principles because many of us are a lost cause. If these generations don’t grow up with the teachings we did (Blacks being less valiant in the pre-earth life, for example), true change will have occurred.
Interesting side note: we had a Seventy visit recently, and he did a little QA thing. One of the questions (from a youth) was about repentance. He said that the Spirit cannot dwell in unholy temples, therefore if you can feel the Spirit you are on the road to repentance. He added that all of us are only on the road to repentance because none of us are perfect and none be perfect without the grace and mercy of the Savior. He also said some stuff about the sacrament and the most important part being a willingness to repent – the broken heart and contrite spirit. Seriously, can you imagine BRM saying stuff like that? This is the type of subtle change that works.
Part of me thinks there is wisdom to the slower, safer approach. But perhaps not as slow as I feel it is going sometimes. If it was too open too fast, they could say things or present things that would also be wrong, as some things are definitively true. In other words, some things on the Internet are an over-correction to their lack of transparency in the past, and may be equally wrong or controversial unnecessarily, which would not be kind to a large host of folks.
Wisdom would suggest a balanced approach, not all and not nothing.
DarkJedi wrote:To answer your question, SD, I think the continued slow process is better.
I agree.Since becoming “active” again, I have tried, personally, to be more transparent. I don’t want to play a role anymore. I try to do that by being honest with myself, my church, my God, my friends & family. I try to do it without being labeled “anti” and in the process, remain true to the person I hope God wants me to be.
For example, a couple weeks ago, in the GD class, the lesson was about Job, the “perfect” man.
After listening to the material presented, I raised my hand & said I don’t like the story of Job.
I said I get more from a person who falls, picks himself (or herself) up & strives to do better.
I said I believe there is too much emphasis in the Church about striving to achieve perfection in this life.
(summarized version)
It gave more people permission to disagree or think in other terms then the standard doctrinal position.
I don’t take the opposite position to be obstinate. I don’t do it all the time.
I think before we can expect the church to be more transparent, we as individual members have to be more transparent.
I’ve had 40 years to get used to and comfortable with being transparent. I don’t share everything, and I don’t dump, and I don’t share confrontationally – but I am quite transparent. It just takes time to figure out the best way for each person, and it is a little different for each person.
As far as the Church is concerned, I think the pace right now is as good as it can be. I don’t want anything to be tackled in a half-****** way. There is SO much to publish and preach, and drowning someone is not a good approach. Nobody here liked the flood that hit them, so we shouldn’t want the Church to do it to the general membership either.
SilentDawning wrote:
So I ask a question — would it be better for the church to go forward with a mass transparency program about our history or is their current path of slow culture change better? By slow change, I mean essays tucked away in a corner on LDS.org, soft moves toward a more liberal approach to religion in conference, offloading controversial topics to personal study, and subtle changes to the CHI as they are currently making?I tend to look at it as a parent. I’m concerned that the pace isn’t going to work for my kids, but the church has more to consider.
I personally think that there comes a point where a bit more does not cause any more dissonance. So reading the “Letter to a CES director” isn’t a good place for someone to start. But for me right now, I am not sure if I learned of some new history or past doctrine that makes me say, “WHAT THE !@#” – I might still say that, but it does not change much of where I am at emotionally. It just means, OK – one more thing to go dive into and figure out. So I personally would like the pace picked up just a bit (like getting more openness in Sunday school lessons where it does not tell the teacher to stay away from certain topics). I would like a bit of acknowledgement of what the church has published. My bishop read a statement saying to go study the gospel topics, but that sounds like “make sure you are reading your scriptures and if you still want more, then go read some more.” I don’t think that got anybody to go study. It felt more like, “we can tell you that we told you to study this back in 2014!”. Even a mention of, “There are some new and interesting topics” would have sufficed for me.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.