- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve always thought there should be a third “to some it is given” statement: Quote:To some it is given to know that Jesus is the Christ.
To others it is given to believe on those who know.
To others it is given to be the rational counter-balance that keeps the knowers and believers from becoming totally obnoxious in their certainty.
I know; totally impossible to have recorded in our canon – but I believe there is room for all three types in the Church. They key is for the first and third groups not to try to exclude the other – and that tendency is equally strong in both.
Old-Timer wrote:I’ve always thought there should be a third “to some it is given” statement:
Quote:To some it is given to know that Jesus is the Christ.
To others it is given to believe on those who know.
To others it is given to be the rational counter-balance that keeps the knowers and believers from becoming totally obnoxious in their certainty.
I know; totally impossible to have recorded in our canon – but I believe there is room for all three types in the Church. They key is for the first and third groups not to try to exclude the other – and that tendency is equally strong in both.
Nice……!
Wow, that is so insightful, Ray. And timely, in my case. I’ve really spent alot of time/energy lately to accept those whose certainty trumps all else. It may be the most difficult aspect of the journey through disaffection while remaining engaged in the LDS community. While on paper an emotionally healthy individual should be able to love and accept those “types”, the practical application is somewhat more difficult/tricky/challenging… with large doses of challenging.
Which may explain why it is so rare to find people who are willing to stay engaged in the LDS community/tradition after an episode/transition of disaffection. Unfortunately, the community demands that the disaffected becomes adequately healthy to remain engaged, rather than the community making “space” for the disaffected. While I understand why this happens in the evolution of the organization, it doesn’t make it easier.
Love it! Great thought on how to see ourselves as a positive influence if we fall into that third category. We really don’t have to be the enemies of the other two. It just has to be framed in a positive and productive way. All I have to say is A-freaking-men!! It is probably most fortunate that the folks who tend to be like #3 are not only few in number, but can hold their own despite people trying to push them out. In other words –
we don’t care what y’all think, we’re tellin’ it like it is! (of course in the most charitable, benevolent, kind, and humble way possible 
I think it’s the mormon version of keeping someone around to remind the emperor that he doesn’t have any clothes. Or to be there to say “wait a minute” when the ward mission leader wants to take a Saturday and tract out the neighborhood. Or to make a loud throat clearing sound when a comment about the evils of gummint comes up in Gospel Doctrine. Or, well you get the idea. GBSmith wrote:I think it’s the mormon version of keeping someone around to remind the emperor that he doesn’t have any clothes. Or to be there to say “wait a minute” when the ward mission leader wants to take a Saturday and tract out the neighborhood. Or to make a loud throat clearing sound when a comment about the evils of gummint comes up in Gospel Doctrine. Or, well you get the idea.
I agree GB. I think organizations work best when there are some checks and balances. Some people may not initially like those who are “checking” or “balancing” when they are enthused to just go get things done their way…but overall, it is healthy for the organization.Our nation is kinda built on that principle, right?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.