- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Morzen, I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying: there are a lot of people who aren’t getting what they need from the Church and it seems you were one of them. But you do seem to suggest that most active members of the Church haven’t had their faith shaken because of self interest or socialization. Now, I might be willing to agree with that position to an extent, but I don’t necessarily think that having your faith shaken or being inactive is any more noble. Just to take the most obvious example, we’ve probably all known someone who was inactive or less active for no reason other than laziness. My ability to stomach church in return for tangible and intangible rewards doesn’t make me a better person than him, but it also doesn’t mean that he’s somehow more noble because he wanted to catch the Braves game. In addition, I’d suggest that there are often selfish and impure motivations for being a nonbeliever. I experienced one of these firsthand at my most angry period. I’d show up at church from time to time, sneer at people from the back row, and congratulate myself on being able to see the man behind the curtain. I also didn’t have to do the things that a believer would have to do, either in a material sense or in terms of my spiritual practices.
So I’m not trying to say that believers are more noble than nonbelievers. What I am trying to say is that we’re all motivated by socialization and self interest (to some extent, probably large) and that our vision of “the truth” is probably colored by that more often than not. A cynic might well be more noble than a believer, but it’s not simply because he’s a cynic.
Morzen wrote:that is a paradigm shift that will increasingly promulgate the concept that we should concern ourselves more with the fact that the church is “good” instead of “true.” Eventually the church may be forced to adopt that position….
Yes. I am very comfortable with that. And It is a natural thing that will gradually happen. We will mature and realize we need not to say, “Bring all your truth and see if we can add to it.” (Like Pres. Hinckley said), but to say “Bring all your truth and see if we can add to each other.” (Like Ray said in another thread.)
Morzen wrote:Apr 2, 2009
Hawkgrrrl said:
Quote:“We become the hero in our own spiritual journey, and that becomes a stronger narrative than the experiences of others who are not directly involved in our lives.”
That is a very attractive sounding concept. So just as “I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning,” I would ask first of all, “How does this concept liken unto me?”
Just so. Very good!
Morzen wrote:To be sure, I have had a spiritual journey in the LDS church, but I am not the hero in the story of that journey; it was more as if I was a disenfranchised, marginalized, vilified, abused victim.
Here’s where you differ from Hawkgrrrl — She’s saying, and I agree, that you are indeed the hero. Who can be a hero without opposition and difficulties?
Morzen wrote:It wasn’t always like this, of course, but it’s not how a story begins that we focus upon and remember, but rather in how it ends. All too often I have seen many sad chapters, and consequently sad endings in the personal life stories of various members of the church. So “heros”? Oh sure, no doubt there will always be a certain number of those who would suppose themselves to be such in their own eyes, and those of their adoring fans right up until the end of their “book”, but what about the 80% or so of the other stories, i.e., those in the church who are not fully active or are even totally inactive?
If these don’t consider themselves the ‘hero’ of their story, they should. They *must*. Else life is a waste, Satan/Lucifer/the Accuser wins. Yech. The totality of life is not what happens to us. Those are just the starting points.
Morzen wrote:Or perhaps you need to provide a definition for what you mean by “hero.” In fact, I may think of myself as a hero now for having survived as a member of the church for as long as I have. My wife certainly does. Or I may think of myself as a “hero” for finally taking charge of my own life and leaving the church, to a great degree, and finding a more excellent way for me to grow spiritually. Perhaps I am the Martin Luther of my own hero story by finally coming up with the courage to nail a copy of “95 Theses” of my own conclusions to the door of my LDS religion’s “Wittenberg Castle Church” if not literally (I am not that much of a hero,
just yet), then at least within the boundaries of my own personal life. Exactly; now you’re talking in the sense that Hawkgrrrl is speaking. If I may be so bold as to presume…
Morzen wrote:The point I am attempting to make (although feebly) is that “experience(s)” is a broad, crowded street with a lot going on in it, and I don’t think that there are too many people who can continually not see what is going on. But they can ignore what they see, hear or intuit is happening. Hence, I would venture to say that a lot of current, so-called, active members of the church choose not to focus on what may intimidated them, or “shake their faith,” because it is not in their best interest (relationships, positions, employment, etc) to do so. So perhaps they are really cowards, or dishonest actors in their stories instead of heros. Or perhaps they only want to take a “bit” part as an “extra” because they don’t have any desires in getting too emotionally or intellectually involved in the production of the story, be it theirs or anyone else’s.
No one has a ‘bit’ part in their own story. Like it or not, that is the truth. It is always in our best interests to pursue truth. How we do it, what damage we cause to others and ourselves in the pursuit, what love we express as we pursue truth, these things give us the opportunity to be heroes or villains. If we choose not to pursue, we await another day in which we eventually will. We cannot avoid it forever. And this is right, in the eyes of God. To all things, there is a season.
Morzen wrote:But your thesis is also based upon the notion of “a strong emphasis on sharing personal experience” and I suppose that’s the rub. As long as currently active members maintain a high level of involvement in their LDS community (temple nights, leadership and other meetings, etc) then that activity will be the catalyst for the “sharing of personal experience,” which will in turn insulate them from any detracting elements, notwithstanding how germane and correct those elements may be.
So, you believe that the hypocrisy and shallowness of other members are not ‘detracting element(s)’? Hmmm… I would differ.
And I would suggest that regardless of our surroundings, if we are open to truth and thus consciously invite the Holy Ghost into our lives, then He at least will show us our own error and untruth. If we address those needs in our lives, the fruit will be substantial. The greatest changes/purity needs to happen in our own selves. Other groups, organizations and people have their own process for the same.
Motes and beams, I suppose. Can we look upon the imperfections of another justly, if we have not seen and dealt with the same within ourselves?
HiJolly
. Well, OK, I can’t tell you that the LDS framework is for you. You’re best qualified to make that decision and it seems that you already have. I wish you the best. My issue was never with that. What bothers me is your argument that many (most?) active members of the Church are motivated by self interest and willful blindness while decent people outside the Church are motivated, as you are, by love. Is that really your experience? If it is, I can’t deny you your journey. If you think the Church is making people worse, you should leave and never look back. If I were to ever draw that conclusion, that’s exactly what I would do. It seems, however, that your view of LDS truth claims has shaped your view of the motivations of LDS people, and I don’t know that that’s appropriate. Look – we’re all here because we’ve realized that, at least to some extent, the LDS Church is not exactly what it claims to be. Some of us might think they’re consciously lying, while others might think they’re honestly wrong about some issues. If we believed absolutely everything the Church says about itself, we wouldn’t be on this site. On the other hand, I also think that most of us can at least give LDS people credit for being basically as decent as everyone else. So we’re trying to reconcile all this: we know the Church isn’t perfect, we know that some of what the Church is saying isn’t right, and we know that there are policies and practices that bother us now. We also know that we’ve had good spiritual experiences in the Church and that most of the people we know are pretty good and honest people who are doing their best. So we’re trying to figure out what to do with all that. If you haven’t had any good experiences at all and don’t think most people are honestly trying to do what’s right, then I’m not sure why you’re wasting your time with us or the Church…..
Morzen – I read your last post again and I may not have fully understood what you’re saying. To clarify, let me ask you this: in your experience, the Church is based on assertions that are substantially or entirely untrue. In your experience, the leaders of the Church fall short of our common expectations of decent people, much less competent leaders. You also seem to suggest that others have had a much different, much more positive experience. In light of all this, would you argue that those who have had a positive experience in the Church are deceiving themselves to get gain in relationships and status? Would you argue that they’re basically good people who’ve been deceived by leadership? Or would you argue that they’re just not really capable of understanding the real truth about the Church, whatever that may be? And what would you do about that? Do you think that we should actively disabuse people of beliefs that are working for them on the basis of our belief that their faith is misplaced?
. Morzen, that’s fair. Your post deserves a real response and I’ll do that when I’m not dog tired. I definitely understand where you’re coming from a good deal better. You’re certainly not wasting our time, and I hope we’re not wasting yours.
Morzen, I hope you’ll pardon my intrusion on this conversation. I agree to much of the factual observation you have mentioned in your post. Members of the Church vary widely in their attitudes, capacities and character. Morzen wrote:You can’t tell me that the Mark Hoffman affair and other issues where not for the reasons other than to hide and keep information from getting to the general membership.
“You can’t tell me…”? I know that’s just a figure of speech, but it seems a tad confrontational, you know? And while I support your need to express yourself freely, I think the less confrontational we are, the more possible it will be to get comments and ideas from the other folks on this web site. The breadth of knowledge, experience and wisdom found here is just remarkable, and I’d hate to see anyone avoid leaving a comment due to a confrontational tone. I agree with you that it is easy to have the opinion that the leadership (‘the Brethren’)
😮 were trying to avoid negative publicity and such. I think they were trying to keep the Church’s best interests foremost and ‘protect’ the membership. What I find interesting is the negative or conspiratorial fears expressed by some on the topic. I think your next comment is very interesting in that regard:
Morzen wrote:The “peep stone” translation process, which is now out of the bag, is another example. I would love to see or know what is in the church’s safe.
After bringing forth the Book of Mormon, Joseph and Oliver agreed among themselves that whenever referring to that process of ‘translation’ (or channeling, or whatever…) that they would simplify the explanation to these words: “The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.” Which leaves open a vast array of possibilities without lying or misrepresentation (unless you believe it was a fakery and fraud, which I personally doubt — Spaulding, View of the Hebrews, ‘peep’ stones and ‘spiritual eyes’ notwithstanding).
So you’re right, it’s now “out of the bag” after being ‘hidden’ since day one. Sort of.
You could look at it in another light, from another angle. Why did they prefer to call it “the power and gift of God” rather than the “use of a peep stone”? Why did so many people in that day believe in ‘peep stones’? Were they all deluded, or gullible, or stupid? What about Greece and their pantheon of outrageous Gods? That they really believed in them is supported by evidence. How could the cradle of modern civilization, science, philosophy, mathematics and such, believe in such obvious nonsense? Were *they* stupid or deluded? I think not. I think there is much that is not obvious to us, in our intellectual, sophisticated ways.
When I read the opinions of various scholars and religious pundits on this topic, the width and breadth of credulity and hubris is amazing. I personally had to step back and ignore all the editorializing to cut through the murk. I had to go to original sources only, and ponder them in light of my own personal experiences, my own personal views. When I did that, the mocking and incredulous tones seemed to dim. *my* truth became more clear.
Morzen wrote:There are many people like that, and like I said, there are a lot of members who just don’t care to know anything beyond their pedestrian, church lifestyle.
Like I said before I really do agree with many of your observations. This is a valid one, for sure. Sad.
Well there is more that can be said, but I’ve got to get my day on. I’m glad you’re here, Morzen. This is a good community that isn’t afraid to acknowledge the difficulties in the Church and in our lives. Please stay with us!
HiJolly
This has been a really excellent discussion so far. It gets at the heart of what we are all here for. This statement stuck out to me as I was reading through everything:
Morzen wrote:It is also about investigating and questioning the founding claims of the LDS church, which because of the increasingly mounting evidence, seem to indicate that they very well may be bogus.
Like others have said a few times already, you don’t end up here without knowning this is a problem. We know. This same problem is at the core of every religion. The greatest minds in the history of the world have contemplated and autopsied the foundational claims of religion. Will you and I be the ones to discover the smoking gun? Will we be the ones that finally put all the pieces of the puzzle together? Somehow nobody else has been able to figure it out before us?
We all figure it out. It isn’t right to spoil the ending of the story
People will see their own reflection in the statements I made above. I can say for sure, without a shadow of doubt and with all the fiber of my soul that I do not know the truth
Yet here I am, an even bigger believer in religion (edit: and Mormonism) than before I started. I’m just not the same person anymore. What changed?
Morzen, I have hope that this is resulting to be a safe and productive discussion for us all. I hope you feel among friends and allies. I am thankful you are here. Sometimes those of us who have been on these forums a while can get so we appear a little TOO jaded or comfortable to lurkers, which we sincerely wish were not the case. You are helping us remember and keep alive that “there are no academic questions; everything is emotional to somebody.”
Valoel,
Your last post is a classic. You are becoming an effective mystic teacher, which is something inward that all of us can aspire to.
Morzen, I think you raise a real issue that’s kind of in the background for all of us. The fact is that the Church is not what it claims to be (or, at the least, that we honestly and sincerely believe that the Church is not what it claims to be). This could be a result of flim-flamming all along, flim-flamming in the beginning, or a historical accident of major proportions. To the extent that we were all TBMs who accepted the correlated history, you’re right that we were tricked, either by leaders, ourselves, or by sheer inertia.
You’re also right that you don’t just walk away from a life’s investment, even when you know about the issues we’re talking about. Suppose you find out your wife of thirty years has been cheating on you: you don’t just stop loving her (I would assume – I’ve neither had a wife nor lived thirty years). So you’ve got to make hard decisions about everything in your life, including friends, family, and institutional roles at church.
Do I think we’re being actively tricked? Yes, kind of. I definitely think the Church is going out of its way to encourage members to read history that is sanitized at best. We even write some of that history in lesson and CES manuals. I think the Church allows the average member to believe things that they probably know to be untrue. On the other hand, I don’t think there’s a massive fraud being perpetrated from the top down. For one thing, it’s just really hard to keep something like that secret. Suppose it’s only the Q12 that know it’s a lie. That’s still a ton of potential leaks over a ton of time. I have to think something would have been likely to turn up by now. I nevertheless think that the vast majority of the Church and even the vast majority of high end leadership is mostly sincere in wanting the best for the members of the Church. I also think that the leaders of the church honestly believe it’s a divine project. In my view, the Hoffman affair and other similar situations reveal the extent to which the leaders of the Church have doubts and lack the power that most of us (and, honestly, they as well) ascribe to them.
So I guess here’s what I would say. I agree with the substance of your original argument that the Church will eventually need to shift its emphasis in order to retain some members. I don’t know if that’s necessary to maintain growth: I think it would probably cause the demographic shifts that I was initially talking about. I don’t think we’re being tricked as to the basics: I think the Q12 believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that the Church has been restored to the earth. I do think we have information that indicates that, at the very least, the picture is a lot more complicated than they’re teaching. I also think we have to decide what we want to do with that information. For me, I’m willing to stay, but on my own terms. I’m not going to act as if the Church is exactly as the institute manuals say, because it isn’t. But I’ve put in a great deal and as one recent introduction on the site affirmed, I’ve also been given a great deal. I’m not leaving or repressing my beliefs just because Boyd K. Packer doesn’t want me to be a cafeteria Mormon. I’ve paid my money and I’m taking my choice.
Thanks for coming by, Morzen. I hope you stay. I’m looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts.
Quote:I’m not leaving or repressing my beliefs just because Boyd K. Packer doesn’t want me to be a cafeteria Mormon. I’ve paid my money and I’m taking my choice.
This is how I feel, too. We each have to take responsibility for our own beliefs.
Quote:Do I think we’re being actively tricked? Yes, kind of. I definitely think the Church is going out of its way to encourage members to read history that is sanitized at best. We even write some of that history in lesson and CES manuals. I think the Church allows the average member to believe things that they probably know to be untrue. On the other hand, I don’t think there’s a massive fraud being perpetrated from the top down.
I mostly agree with this statement. I did a post a while back on Mormon Matters about white-washing, and I still feel as I did then. There is white-washing, but some people are prone to white-wash everything in order to be “faith-promoting.” There are valid reasons to white-wash, but there are also negative consequences for doing it. Personally, I say let it all hang out. But I understand that an open approach to things that are not cut & dried also has a downside. All history is subjective, whether positive or negative, whether considering the viewpoints of the now dead or the now living.
Here’s a link:
http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/24/white-washing/http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/24/white-washing/” class=”bbcode_url”> hawkgrrrl wrote:I did a post a while back on Mormon Matters about white-washing, and I still feel as I did then.
Nice post. A person or organization that holds itself up as the custodian of all the answers puts itself in a special realm of responsibility and accountability. It’s a dangerous place to tread.
One of the things I found interesting in considering the topic of white-washing (that I didn’t fully elaborate when I posted that) is that there’s such a tendency for individuals to white-wash their own history that it has an impact on overall historical views. Each person is the hero of his or her own story. Likewise, we perpetuate this somewhat unconsciously by white-washing things with which we are associated. Some people do this more than others. Their doctor is the best, their kids are the smartest, they went to the best school, they drive the best car, their company is the best in its industry, etc. It’s a human trait.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.