- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It seems to me that ambiguity is a major challenge in navigating in the church and managing our faith. The talk featured on this video helped me see this in a new light. What do you think? http://mormonchallenges.org/love-is-not-blind-a-balanced-approach-to-ambiguity/ I’m not sure I see anything in a new light, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t. The only thing that surprised me was the age of the talk – I didn’t think anyone talked about such things that long ago. Pretty great talk that was given before I was born. The opening joke was fairly sexist but I guess that was more normal and accepted 35 years ago. Quote:I also would like to share with you something I recently heard about students in the Church schools, so that we can be alert to what the enemy is saying. A friend of mine, a graduate from another school in this state, recently asked me if I knew the difference between a rooster, a patriot, and a coed who goes to an LDS college. I said that I did not know the difference, but that I had always wondered about that very question.
He said, “A rooster says ‘cock-a-doodle-doo,’ a patriot says ‘Yankee Doodle-doo,’ but a coed at Ricks or BYU says ‘Any dude’ll do.’” This obviously does not apply to us, except for the occasion on which I proposed to my wife here in Provo a number of years ago. At that time, at least, I was glad that there was some truth in that observation.
I wasn’t sure if he was trying to be humble in a “there was nothing special about me” kind of way or if he was subtlly dissing his wife.
I was also struck that he suggested that “improvers” (roughly equivalent to Fowler’s stage 5) would give the Brethren’s counsel on birth control the benefit of the doubt. I was reminded that this must have once been a pretty big push in the church. The church has largely backed away from this issue and the world moved on.
For me the money qoute was the following:
Quote:
The people on the extreme sides of these questions convey great certainty about what should be done. However, I think some of these people are more interested in being certain than they are in being right.I liked the concluding thought:
Quote:We may not understand everything in the universe, but that does not diminish our love. “Love is not blind; that is the last thing it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound, the less it is blind.”
If things in the church and the teachings are all rooted in how it helps us love others, or to feel God’s love, then the message is in line with the truth of the gospel, IMO.
Ambiguity is something I think we just learn to accept, and learn to live with. I find some of his statements in the talk encouraging, and yet…also trying to not scare young listeners about ambiguity and trying to reassure him them
Quote:The fundamental teachings of the restored gospel are potent, clear and unambiguous; but it is possible, on occasion, to encounter some ambiguity even in studying the scriptures.
I partially agree, but probably feel his faithful message would differ from my views only on the degree to which things are ambiguous. I think there is less clear and potent perhaps…but I don’t disagree with his message, only have differing perceptions on the degree to which things are ambiguous, if that makes sense.
I think I mentioned in another post recently, the more orthodox members can let go of a need for certainty in all things, the better off we’ll all get along at church together. Learning to live faithfully and embrace (not fear) ambiguity is a progression in life.
I certainly agree with Roy on
Roy wrote:For me the money qoute was the following:
Quote:The people on the extreme sides of these questions convey great certainty about what should be done. However, I think some of these people are more interested in being certain than they are in being right.
Once again I want to turn what some of the leaders are saying to the church as a mirror back to them.I also like a bit later on about
Quote:“optimists,” “pessimists,” and “improvers,”
and how improvers are the only ones that really change things.I am struggling from staying in a pessimistic / pointing out problems mode. I do want to be more of someone that is improving things.
DarkJedi wrote:The only thing that surprised me was the age of the talk – I didn’t think anyone talked about such things that long ago.
Now you’re making me feel old. There are a wealth of deeper thinking stuff on the BYU Speeches sight. Neal Maxwell’s are particularly thought provoking. Here’s the link:http://speeches.byu.edu/ I like to browse by speaker, the tab to the far right.Heber13 wrote:
Ambiguity is something I think we just learn to accept, and learn to live with. I find some of his statements in the talk encouraging, and yet…also trying to not scare young listeners about ambiguity…
In my experience, ambiguity is mostly caused by our lack of understanding the entire context of things. When I was quite young, having just learned the basic principles of geometry and the very rigid rules and definitions, one definition that was emphasized heavily was that of a line. It could not bend or curve in any way eternally in either direction. It had to be perfectly straight. Then a friend, who had a big brother in high school calculus told me that he could prove that a line could still be a line with bends and curves. That was direct contradiction to what I had learned. It seemed only one concept could be right, the one I learned from my teacher or what my friend was saying. This was ambiguity to the max being taught by the same public school system. However, when I learned the context and how this could be, the ambiguity disappeared. We need to remember that God sees the bigger picture with no ambiguity. It all makes perfect sense to him. We just need to be patient and realize we have much to learn.DaddyB wrote:
In my experience, ambiguity is mostly caused by our lack of understanding the entire context of things. When I was quite young, having just learned the basic principles of geometry and the very rigid rules and definitions, one definition that was emphasized heavily was that of a line. It could not bend or curve in any way eternally in either direction. It had to be perfectly straight. Then a friend, who had a big brother in high school calculus told me that he could prove that a line could still be a line with bends and curves. That was direct contradiction to what I had learned. It seemed only one concept could be right, the one I learned from my teacher or what my friend was saying. This was ambiguity to the max being taught by the same public school system. However, when I learned the context and how this could be, the ambiguity disappeared. We need to remember that God sees the bigger picture with no ambiguity. It all makes perfect sense to him. We just need to be patient and realize we have much to learn.While I agree that there certainly is much we don’t know and that we will at some point gain greater understanding, I think that’s part of the problem. It’s not a problem for me, but for many – of both the more and less orthodox varieties – don’t understand this and see things from a very black and white perspective. The problem is the tension this causes between those who understand (and it has been taught recently from the pulpit in GC) and those who don’t, the latter of which seem to be in the majority.
DaddyB wrote:We need to remember that God sees the bigger picture with no ambiguity. It all makes perfect sense to him.
I would agree with that.
But since we all see through a glass darkly, and won’t see things as He does in this life, I agree we’ll always be learning, and therefore, ambiguity is our companion in this journey…and so we should accept that. There will always be more to learn and we should be open to it.
Your experience with geometry and calculus are good examples of people talking about the same things within different perspectives or frameworks, which does not make one right or one wrong. Both can be right, depending on your point of view.
I love ambiguity, since I have no belief in absolute certainty about most spiritual things. The problem, imo, as others have said, is that so many people don’t like ambiguity and, therefore, insist on artificial certainty. Also, an acceptance of ambiguity (things we don’t know) is the basis of faith. Remove ambiguity, and faith dies.
Old-Timer wrote:
Also, an acceptance of ambiguity (things we don’t know) is the basis of faith. Remove ambiguity, and faith dies.
I couldn’t agree more. Well said.This is full of some great quotes already cited. Another one I like is “Love is not blind; that is the last thing it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound, the less it is blind.” That is consistent with what the Givens says about the atonement and our possible relationship with the Divine in “The God Who Weeps”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.