- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:wl44 wrote:
Given that level of investment, full disclosure is completely rational and within a person’s right to ask for
Give me another good example where full disclosure is required, and shows the church is lacking compared to other comparable organizations.
I realize I may sound like I’m defending or excusing the church. I’m not. I’m just trying to keep it realistic, and less personally emotional for me. That’s just how I deal with it.
You’re using a poor standard. You’re essentially stating that it’s unfair to expect the church to be open if no one else is being open. I don’t care what other organizations are doing. My issue is with the relationship between the church and its members. You and the church shouldn’t base the correctness/fairness of the church’s actions on what other organizations are doing. If other organizations require as much from their members and have a history of hiding/withholding information then they are wrong too.
wl44 wrote:You’re essentially stating that it’s unfair to expect the church to be open if no one else is being open.
I realize we don’t see eye to eye.
I’m not trying to say “well…everyone else is doing it, so it is ok.” That doesn’t fly with my kids either.
As soon as the church claims to be divine, it is for sure going to be held to a higher standard. That is reasonable.
But the extreme positions that are being stated in this thread to me are just unrealistic, for any earthly organization, inspired or not. So if I can accept the church is an earthly organization, trying to do God’s will and trying to get members closer to becoming like God, than I can accept it makes mistakes, as continuing revelation continues to try to make improvements, and changes based on the changes in the environment.
I think it becomes a matter of perspective, like Obi-wan stated. Language has a big part of this issue. The church didn’t create the limitations we deal with in this earth life, it is only trying to work to complete its mission amid the circumstances that exist in the mortal environment. But perspective is a big part of the issue too. Will we focus on all the things Elder Christofferson didn’t say, or didn’t say good enough, or are we going to recognize, for what it is worth, the things he did say which demonstrate some value?
None of that may really help resolve the problem for the individual who feels betrayed or lied to. I don’t think the issue can be fixed externally. In other words, we experience things through our perspectives of reality, and our internal processing of it, and even if we can’t control the external factors. But we can work on and control what we do about it, how we can see things, what we can learn from it, how we can choose to accept less than perfection and still find value.
For some, it is not enough to stay in the church. But … for many, there are ways to learn and grow to accept and love the church by seeing it how it really is, not how we thought it was based on our upbringing, or even how we think it should be based on how we think they are asking us to be.
Einstein wrote:“We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”
In my experience, I have had to shift my paradigm to see the church differently so that I can feel good and honest about being committed to it, after learning all the things I have learned that shook my world. I feel better now… I feel I have more to learn, but I feel at peace sitting in church with my brothers and sisters in the ward, even when they say ridiculous things in my opinion. I can accept a less than ideal church, with a background that is very hard to understand, and correlated teaching materials that only tell one side of the story…because I can see there is still value, and I appreciate the church trying to make improvements. When I get sick of it, I remove myself. But I have returned to feel good about it all, and find so much of that is all internal and what is going on inside of me.
Elder Christofferson doesn’t solve all the problems, and I don’t let him off the hook. I just try to keep things in perspective. There is a middle way to say Elder Christofferson’s talk had some good things
ANDI wish the church would do more to open up about things. We just got my daughter’s weekly mission letter, and, knowing nothing about the conversation of this thread, she included the following statement in her letter: Quote:Don’t judge yourself for what you did yesterday based on the knowledge you have today.
The perceptions and claims of the leadership and members notwithstanding, the LDS Church is run globally and locally by real people, doing the best they can based on the knowledge they currently possess, and
they screw up in that process on a regular basis – all of them. I would like a LOT of things to be different about every relationship I ever have experienced, but part of charity is “long-suffering patience” – and unrealistic expectations are terrible taskmasters. Part of what helps me stay LDS and be at peace with that decision is to understand that the leadership and other members are no different than I am, at the most fundamental level.
I’m a sinning screw-up on a regular basis, and I am 100% positive that I will do and say things when I am in leadership positions (and even when I’m not) that will offend, hurt and damage someone else. I know I’ve done that even here in a support forum like this. All I can ask is that people try to understand my sincere efforts, even when I screw up royally, and extend me a degree of charity in their reactions – so I try really hard to do the same for them. Do I think it was wrong to approach our history as it has been approached at various times in the past? Absolutely. Do I think the people who did so could have acted any differently than they did? No, since I think they did the best they could at the time, even as I think it was the wrong approach to take. Am I glad that the current leadership appears to be taking a different approach now? Absolutely. Does that different approach now help me stay LDS? Absolutely.
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t deny that, and I never will. My only point was that the Church isn’t doing that now, and it’s not fair to claim it is doing that now. Having listened to Elder Christofferson say lots of things, I think he was trying to say that it’s interesting to criticize the Church for being an organization that hides its history when it is trying so hard now to publish unvarnished, unwhitewashed history – and that is a valid point.
I agree with you Ray. But if E. Christofferson was really trying to say what you think he was then he did a poor job communicating it. A better way to communicate that would be “the critic’s argument regarding the hiding of history isn’t as valid since the beginning of the JS papers project.” It’s just too easy to misinterpret his words as stating that critics are a bunch of irrational people who are only looking to attack the church with unsubstantiated claims.
Heber13 wrote:But the extreme positions that are being stated in this thread to me are just unrealistic, for any earthly organization, inspired or not.
Is it really extreme or unrealistic to expect the church to be open and honest about it’s history?
Quote:if E. Christofferson was really trying to say what you think he was then he did a poor job communicating it.
Yep, you are right – and the exact same thing can be said legitimately about lots of things I’ve said in my life, including here. I’ve done a poor job of communicating lots of things – but we have had the benefit of a forum that allows us to clarify and discuss. I would hate to have some of the things I’ve said here published without the follow-up commentary.
Quote:Heber13 wrote:But the extreme positions that are being stated in this thread to me are just unrealistic, for any earthly organization, inspired or not.
Quote:None of that may really help resolve the problem for the individual who feels betrayed or lied to.
Maybe not in the moment (or ever for some people), wl44, but just reading it is important, sometimes, to help in the healing process. It’s good to get multiple perspectives on things, even if they don’t make sense or ring true at the time.
wl44 wrote:Is it really extreme or unrealistic to expect the church to be open and honest about it’s history?
wl44, I don’t see it in extremes. They are not ALL open and honest, or ALL lying and deceptive. Can you say they have been completely dishonest in everything?
That is my point. Our internal level of comfort of honesty and others’ is not always the same.
I just had a thought, so I went back and checked. There are nine things listed in the original post, and we have discussed only one of them as being dicey enough to cause reactions. The other eight are:
1) Joseph Smith has flaws.
2) Don’t be superficial in studying JS.
3) We don’t have all the answers.
4) The absence of evidence is not proof.
5) Don’t confuse honest issues with unexamined assertions or incomplete research.
6) Projecting 21st-century concepts on 19th century people is misleading.
7) Don’t claim JS was perfect.
The wonder is this imperfect man succeeded in his mission. His fruits are undeniable and incomparable. (The church he founded has survived and now has nearly 15 million members, 29 thousand congregations in 160 different countries, active members have fewer divorces, higher educations, better health and live longer than their peers.)If I can get eight out of nine things right in a forum like this, I’ve done really, really well – and if he had said only #1, #3 and #7 everyone here would be celebrating joyously.
Maybe that should be highlighted, and he should receive credit for it. Literally, he made seven points that are extremely positive for everyone here, one (#
that is so-so and only one that is problematic enough to cause an uproar. When you look at the totality of what he said, we really ought to be extremely happy about it.#3 is all I need to hear. 
Heber13 wrote:wl44, I don’t see it in extremes. They are not ALL open and honest, or ALL lying and deceptive. Can you say they have been completely dishonest in everything?
That is my point. Our internal level of comfort of honesty and others’ is not always the same.
Forget it.
In the spirit of self-moderation I’ve edited my first contribution to the thread: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4653&p=63382#p63382 I was excessive and over-emotional. I apologise. This isn’t always easy. I miss it being easier.
Love you guys
Old-Timer wrote:I just had a thought, so I went back and checked.
There are nine things listed in the original post, and we have discussed only one of them as being dicey enough to cause reactions. The other eight are:
1) Joseph Smith has flaws.
2) Don’t be superficial in studying JS.
3) We don’t have all the answers.
4) The absence of evidence is not proof.
5) Don’t confuse honest issues with unexamined assertions or incomplete research.
6) Projecting 21st-century concepts on 19th century people is misleading.
7) Don’t claim JS was perfect.
The wonder is this imperfect man succeeded in his mission. His fruits are undeniable and incomparable. (The church he founded hassurvived and now has nearly 15 million members, 29 thousand congregations in 160 different countries, active members have fewer
divorces, higher educations, better health and live longer than their peers.)
If I can get eight out of nine things right in a forum like this, I’ve done really, really well – and if he had said only #1, #3 and #7 everyone here would be celebrating joyously.
Maybe that should be highlighted, and he should receive credit for it. Literally, he made seven points that are extremely positive for everyone here, one (#
that is so-so and only one that is problematic enough to cause an uproar. When you look at the totality of what he said, we really ought to be extremely happy about it.You’re right Ray. I was disproportionate in my initial response. The fact that a member of the 12 is talking about the uncomfortable aspects of our history at all is progress.
Quote:This isn’t always easy. I miss it being easier.
mackay…so well said…:thumbup: Sometimes I miss it too, the days when it was a bit simpler for me. I really do.I’m not prone to getting angry…but there are stages when I certainly was, and then wondered what else might not have been told to me honestly…hence, lots of doubt and cynicism. I just don’t think it is healthy for me to stay in that phase. Somehow, I have to move past it and focus on my relationship with God, despite my relationship with the church or the church’s relationship with its history.
Quote:We don’t have all the answers.
I was recently told this by a member of the stake presidency in an interview with me. He acknowledged it. That speaks volumes for me.
mackay11 wrote:I was excessive and over-emotional. I apologise. This isn’t always easy. I miss it being easier.
Love you guys In the spirit of self-moderation I’ve edited my first contribution to the thread:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4653&p=63382#p63382 I was excessive and over-emotional. I apologise. This isn’t always easy. I miss it being easier.
Love you guys
My short answer is that these issues get very clouded with emotion because it is so stinking hard to remove ourselves from the trees of our personal experience.
I agree that Elder Christofferson’s speech was largely apologetic. I have had to modify BOTH my expectations and my commitments to manageable levels. This process took time and effort and I’m not finished yet. Group Hug! ((StayLDS))
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.