- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I can certainly relate, especially to your feeling of having devoted so much time, resources to the church. I, too, went on a mission, then I was Elder’s Quorum Pres. at my university ward, stake young adult leader, and more, paid a full tithe, worked tirelessly, and so on. I read your post to my introductory bio without knowing you, but know I feel that I know you, at least a little bit, and I look forward to hearing more from you.
Poppyseed wrote:And then there is the other part of me the feels deeply betrayed by this organization that I devoted so much to — the one that was suppose to be there to help me in my darkest of days. Instead, I felt very abandoned and shunned and most of all forgotten. So. Here I am…..a recovering apostate.
I hope you have listened to the podcast #22 on the home page here by J. Bonner Ritchie entitled Organizations and Individuals. I found that to be so helpful in my expectations of the church as an organization and I think it will be helpful for you, too. I am learning to find happiness through lowered expectations.
I’m so sorry you feel very abandoned and shunned and forgotten. I am sure you have found support and great helps here as I have. This is a good place to be as we sort it all out. I hope you will see in me a person who is there for you in your darkest days.
Humans have hard time explaining contradictory aspects of the same person or of an organization. “Splitting” is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism employed when the psyche can’t accept a complex entity into consciousness in its entirety. Splitting is a common scenario for struggling Mormons. When we attempt to harmonize elements within the church that we accept, with those that we reject, there’s bound to be fallout. For example, I love the doctrine of free agency, but I detest the doctrine of Blood Atonement. What do I do mentally with these acceptable vs. unacceptable teachings? I can’t really accept them both. One has to be wrong, right? Can one of them be wrong and the church still be true? In your case, you’ve had a positive experience with the Book of Mormon, but you harbor, “reservations or pockets of questionings that are weighing heavy and that cause me to question…” Your internal dialogue might run something like, “Wow, King Benjamin’s speech is so uplifting, but can the Book of Mormon be true if the text perpetuates known King James Version translation errors? If the evidence goes against the Book of Mormon being a bona fide historical record, does it make sense to be inspired by a prophet that never really existed?”
Because it’s hard to integrate the LDS faith into a cohesive whole, one unconsciously separates or “splits” it into two categories: the “good” side of Mormonism as those acceptable things, and the “bad” side of it as the painful or unacceptable parts. In so doing, we effectually divide a single entity into two opposing realities. To reference a common example of splitting, a child might conceptualize of mother (having both a tender and a terrifying side) as alternately “good mommy” or “bad mommy.” As a result, the child alternates between over-idealizing and deprecating the same person. Many of us do the same with the Church.
Your own self-concept can also suffer its own version of splitting. It’s really even worse than the external sort. Splitting off aspects of the Church is one thing, but what about splitting off parts of your own self? There’s your good “stalwart Mormon” side opposing your evil “bitter apostate” side. These archetypes battle it out as opposing realities inside your own head. Can’t be all that healthy right? Extreme degrees of internal splitting fragment the self through dissociation or even multiple personality formation. More generally, however, this splitting of the psyche shows up as depression, anxiety, addictions, psychosomatic symptoms, or just plain confusion. (Maybe that’s why I get a headache every time I sit through sacrament meeting!)
I’m not 100% sure, but I’m fairly certain that raising our own level of consciousness is the cure for splitting. Albert Einstein said, “Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them.” By raising my level of awareness, I hope to cure myself of the same sort of psychological pain you seem to be going through.
Because the LDS church is a human undertaking, it’s going to manifest the full range of human morality, from the very good, through the mundane, to the very evil. Because the LDS church is man-made, some of the doctrines are glorious, others don’t matter, and some are just plain stupid. Perhaps, making ourselves aware of the entire spectrum of the Mormon experience is key to making peace with the Church, and ourselves.
Thank you, goodtruebeautiful, for your comments. I appreciate them. I think there is something inside of me that must understand this …..hazy and in the distance as it may be. Quote:Because the LDS church is a human undertaking, it’s going to manifest the full range of human morality, from the very good, through the mundane, to the very evil. Because the LDS church is man-made, some of the doctrines are glorious, others don’t matter, and some are just plain stupid. Perhaps, making ourselves aware of the entire spectrum of the Mormon experience is key to making peace with the Church, and ourselves.
I am getting the impression that you have decided that the church is NOT a true restoration with Jesus at the helm. Which is absolutely fine. I guess I am just wondering if I am reading you correctly. If this were indeed true, then why try to “stay” LDS? For me, if this important puzzle piece isn’t there, then the whole argument in my head goes peacefully away.
Poppyseed, I think that God is at the helm of pretty much every “major” religion in the world – since I believe in the concept of spiritual creation. I absolutely LOVE the “unique” aspects of Mormonism and see them as mind-blowing in the simple complexity, but I also believe that corruption is inevitable in everything we do as mortals. I keep returning to the allegory of the vineyard in Jacob 5 – since it says explicitly that the good will grow with the bad and be pruned ONLY according to the strength of the root to maintain the tree. This concept of there being two people / dogs inside of me applies equally to the organization, since the organization can’t be more than a combination of these flawed people. It’s just life – but the wonder of Mormonism, for me, is the underlying majesty of the theology, no matter how imperfectly we mortals botch things as we naturally try to confine the unconfinable into a box we can understand.
At the heart of it all, I’ve reached peace with trying to break open my own box and catch a glimpse of the unconfinable, while allowing and even valuing and celebrating others’ attempts to construct their own boxes. I’m fine with there being two people in all of us, and I really do believe that there is great and unique power and goodness and beauty and enlightenment and fulfillment available within the LDS Church – if I just let go of the need to “enlarge my box” and instead focus on breaking it apart. The Church’s box will be whatever it will be, and it will be smaller than I want it to be, and it will include some things I don’t want it to include. That’s ok with me. I love the box for what it is overall, competing people notwithstanding.
That whole post was fantastic goodtruebeautiful!! Old-Timer wrote:I’m fine with there being two people in all of us
I make up in my mind, Ray, that you’re saying that it’s ok for there to be two people in all of us, maybe for a time? I actually think, as goodtrue said, that allowing the two to co-exist, to grow, etc. will ultimately end badly. We all have the two inside of us, but without honestly dealing with that internal duality, there will be emotional damage done.
I actually think that this may be why TBM’s are so afraid of anything that may seem negative about the church. I remember in my TBM days, the feelings of internal terror when reading something that went against the teachings of the brethren. I would get that cold, empty feeling you get when you’re about to be fired, or you found out you failed the final exam, or you discovered that your significant other had cheated on you, or you’re getting pulled over by the police.
I think that the fragile nature of the intellectual paradigm that stage 3 TBM’ers are clinging to (which is fine, despite my pejorative terminology) is due to this duality. That inner-struggle is exhausting. I know, because I was there. And, it’s impossible to truly stay present when living in this duplicitous paradigm. The problem is that in a black/white world-view, the two cannot co-exist peacefully. As the pendulum swings between the two, the one will feel shame and resentment of the other. And, the cycle begins, to self-loathing, hopelessness, despair, and ends with acting out. Either through inappropriate expressions of anger, sexuality, substance abuse, over-eating, under-eating, etc., etc.
Our inner-lives are too important to allow for this duality for too long. We must discover honesty, emotional health, unconditional love, detachment, and self-care to overcome the duality and find our true selves. The self that can live in paradox, embraces good, is not concerned with externalities, and loves self.
I agree with much of what you are saying, swim, but, since I view everything through the lens of striving for completion, wholeness and full development, I’m not sure the vast majority of people will ever eradicate completely the “other” person inside them – the one who balks at growth and challenge and shrinks from pain, for example. I know I haven’t done so totally yet. When I say “two people inside of us”, all I really mean is that there still exists in nearly all people competing drives – “opposition in ALL things”, including ourselves, as I said in another post. The goal is to “become one” in MUCH more expansive, comprehensive terms than most people realize, but I’m just saying that I’m ok with the internal competition being part of us – individually and collectively. It is what it is, even as I try to grow out of it on a personal level.
Is that any clearer?
Okay, I’m posting this totally ignorant of what others have posted, so forgive me if it’s a repeat of another…. Karl Jung is credited with his description of the “shadow side” in each of us, and I know many psychologists that are very good at their work…using his approach with clients. In Mormonism, we might call it “opposition in all things,” but I suspect most believe there is a “good” and a “bad” attitude or label applied towards each trait. A Jungian would argue that both sides are neither good nor bad, but that to be emotionally healthy, we must allow, accept, balance, and utilize both “sides.”
For example, many in the church struggle with what they call “pornography addiction.” It is considered wicked, evil, obsessive and hurtful. I’m not here to say it is none of those, but I believe it exists as a “problem” because often we don’t allow the “shadow side” of sexuality to be expressed. When we shun many natural emotions, it leads to obsessions that come out in unhealthy ways. Unfortunately, in the LDS culture, sex (and discussion about it) is seen as embarassing, shameful, and secretive. The natural result of this is the obsession that sometimes plays out in participating in pornography, prostitution, and many other behaviors that can be harmful.
I mentioned previously that I spent some time in a community completely isolated from the rest of the world in the Amazon jungle. This community was very open wrt sex…in all ways. The result was absolutely no sign of sexual dysfunction, sexual disease, or guilt towards such. It was quite the “field trip” for my education!
Anyway, I think the guilt and shame that our culture instills in us is often unnecessary…and sometimes quite harmful. I think we should revel in our natural tendencies…to everybody’s benefit!
I agree with much of what you say, Rix, especially the following: Quote:Anyway, I think the guilt and shame that our culture instills in us is often unnecessary…and sometimes quite harmful.
However, I think the following is too all-inclusive:
Quote:I think we should revel in our natural tendencies…to everybody’s benefit!
I think there absolutely are natural tendencies in which we should revel to everybody’s benefit, but I think I draw the circle a little less broadly than you do.
I agree with much of what you say, Rix, especially the following:
Quote:Anyway, I think the guilt and shame that our culture instills in us is often unnecessary…and sometimes quite harmful.
However, I think the following is too all-inclusive:
Quote:I think we should revel in our natural tendencies…to everybody’s benefit!
I think there absolutely are natural tendencies in which we should revel to everybody’s benefit, but I think I draw the circle a little less broadly than you do.
I may have painted that a little more broadly than I intended. When I said “to everybody’s benefit,” I meant that most behaviors between people are okay, in my mind, as long as it is to each person’s benefit, and their wishes. IOW, there are many behaviors that religious dogmas have passed down that seem quite archaic to me…and feel like some of the old world, old testament, rules just to have rules, sort of nonsense. They had their time, but I’m a fan of the “love fulfills the law” approach today. It’s okay…I know I’m a bit weird here…
Quote:I have no problem with the principle of the natural (wo)man being an enemy to God, even while I have a huge problem with much of how that principle is interpreted and applied in practical terms
Ray, my first response is that I do have a huge problem with the statement…but in fairness, maybe I’m interpreting it the way you say “the principle is interpreted.” It just makes no sense to me that the most intricate creation of God — “man” — could be an enemy to Him.
I suppose I am viewing it from the religious historical view that the demonization of man occurred in the early Christian doctrines to obviate the need for a Savior, and a “church” to uniquely administrate the salvation process. I admit I am more of a gnostic as it applies to the teachings of Jesus, so I don’t view the fall of man as most Christians do….
But I’m sure you have a different angle that I am very interested in pondering. I always enjoy your thoughts!
Old-Timer wrote:I agree with much of what you are saying, swim, but, since I view everything through the lens of striving for completion, wholeness and full development, I’m not sure the vast majority of people will ever eradicate completely the “other” person inside them – the one who balks at growth and challenge and shrinks from pain, for example. I know I haven’t done so totally yet.
Is that any clearer?
Yes. And I haven’t done so totally yet either, obviously.
😳 Sometimes, I let my utopian bravado show.
😳 Old-Timer wrote:I have no problem with the principle of the natural (wo)man being an enemy to God, even while I have a huge problem with much of how that principle is interpreted and applied in practical terms.
I think I get what you’re saying here too. The “principle”. This presumes that the “principle” of the natural man means that natural man=greed, envy, selfishness, etc. But, when that is interpreted as “sex is dirty” or “money is bad” then the practical application is iffy, at best. N’est-ce pas?
Quote:when that is interpreted as “sex is dirty” or “money is bad” then the practical application is iffy, at best.
Amen!Old-Timer wrote:Quote:when that is interpreted as “sex is dirty” or “money is bad” then the practical application is iffy, at best.
Amen!
Amen to your Amen.I’d say “dirty sex is dirty” and “bad money is bad” – but sex and money have their place in this natural world.
Yeah, muddy sex doesn’t appeal to me, either. 😮
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.