- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws wrote:
I see too clearly the goodness outside the church
- I see too clearly the problems within the church
- I keep too real and present before me the 7 billion people on earth
Tom… You stated so simply and beautifully my exact feelings. Thank you!
Tom Haws wrote:You can’t go backward, only forward. The day may come I look and sound and act much like a traditional believer. I may even someday attend 100% of the time again and have an assignment or two. But I will never see things the same as the pre-epiphany me for the following reasons:
I see too clearly the goodness outside the church
- I see too clearly the problems within the church
- I keep too real and present before me the 7 billion people on earth
Yeah. Of all the good posts on this thread – this is my favorite.
Old-Timer wrote:It totally depends on how you define “TBM” – and points to why I don’t like that title.
When it comes to my practical life, I’m about as TBM as it gets. I’m an orthopraxic TBM, if you will. When it comes to my opinions and beliefs, I’m all over the place. I’m a heterodox member, if you will. So, I’m a heterodox TBM in the end.
I don’t think so Ray. I know you don’t like the term but it is an essential for folks on this board to sort out their feelings and frustrations. From the little i know you, I just don’t see how you could call yourself a TBM. I don’t see TBM at all. I see you as a guy who is finally getting comfortable in a Stage 5. (that is a compliment) TBM’s, as defined by the bloggernacle, are going to be stage 3. You don’t fit there. I would box guys like BRM as TBM stage 3. I see folks like Gordon B, Hinckley not as TBM, but as stage 5 Mormons. He may APPEAR to be TBM, but I don’t believe it. I think he is/was well into stage five.
After I thought about this for a while, I just reopened this post to edit. I think that if stage 4ers, like myself, were to look honestly at our own wards and branches, we may find there are MANY MANY folks around us who we view as TBM, who have probably actually worked themselves into stage 5. I don’t think in most cases one would really be able to identify the different folks in a stage 3 and a stage 5 without getting to know that individual on a personal basis. We probably are surrounded by “closet stage 5ers” who are too afraid to make themselves know? Am I way off base on this one? I’m just thinking out loud.
What’s this “stage” thing, and where can I find it explained please? Absolutely, cwald, I am convinced you are correct – and, your last paragraph probably is one of the most insightful things anyone has written in this forum. That’s the point I was trying to make with my first comment. By all visible indications, without getting to know me on a personal basis, I appear to be solidly entrenched in Stage 3 as a classic TBM. I am positive there are hundreds of others in a similar situation in my stake alone, and I get glimpses of it here and there in comments that they make.
For example, a Sunday School teacher in a ward I was visiting recently started his discussion of David’s and Saul’s conflict by mentioning that all prophets have flaws. He even said something like, “Joesph Smith had some major flaws, and I’m sure Pres. Monson’s wife could tell us his flaws.” Not one person raised an issue about it, and I didn’t see any concerned looks on faces in the class. The context didn’t imply not helping with the dishes but rather a weakness of some sort that would be classified as a character flaw.
Sam, I will find the post that deals directly with Fowler’s Stages of Faith and provide the link.
SamBee wrote:What’s this “stage” thing, and where can I find it explained please?
Sam,A pretty good summary guide to these stages can be found on this website:
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d46/psy/dev/Spring01/Spirituality/fowler.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d46/psy/dev/Spring01/Spirituality/fowler.html There is also a post that is always found at the top of the Support section forum which has Fowlers Stages, since we refer to it a lot on this website.
There are some podcasts on
http://www.staylds.com/?page_id=29http://www.staylds.com/?page_id=29” class=”bbcode_url”> These are obviously generalizations on stages, and one is not “better” than others, but is just usually a progression.
What Heber13 said. In particular: MormonStories Episiodes
James Fowler’s Stages of Faith, Mormon Interpretation, Part 1 of 3 — MP3 FILE
James Fowler’s Stages of Faith, Mormon Interpretation, Part 2 of 3 — MP3 FILE
James Fowler’s Stages of Faith, Mormon Interpretation, Part 3 of 3 — MP3 FILE
and
Mormon Expression Podcasts
Fowler Stages of Faith – Overview, Part 1
Fowler Stages of Faith – Fifth stage and what it means to the LDS Church, Part 2
Okay Brian, I’ll make a point of listening to those. I loved your interview by the way, and also enjoyed the one with Ted Lyon too. There are some very good podcasts on this site. I’m unfamiliar with it, but since I’m always trying to educate myself yet further, I’ll swot up on these too!
I don’t think I ever was a TBM. I’m too much of a Universalist. I’m a really big student of the paranormal and have experienced things on could call spiritual/paranormal. I was even kind of raised in the Church that way. I mix too many different beliefs while retaining many core aspects of Mormonism. I almost think there are two kinds of TBM. The CulturalTBM and the SpiritualTBM. The CulturalTBM truely believes most/all he/she hears from the pulpit and follows everything without question and most of thier spiritual struggles come from the letter of the law and contradictions in dogma. The SpiritualTBM is more able by my estimation to weigh the letter or the law equaly with the spirit. They, as I feel I am a STBM, is able to better judge and interpret dogma/standards while retaining core beliefs and comfortable level satisfaction at church. I’m not saying that I’m wiser or better than anyone else. It’s just the place where I feel I’ve finally arrived. I still believe I just had to modify my testimony. I guess I’m a True Blue Mormon/Unitarian/Universalist/Christian.
This may be a funny way of looking at it, but I believe there was only one TBM who ever lived – the Savior. I believe if you delve deep enough into the doctrine, all of the rest of us are NOMs to one degree or another. No two people’s religious beliefs will exactly match up with each other, much less the institutional church. Steve-hpias wrote:I believe there was only one TBM who ever lived – the Savior.
Steve, that’s an interesting observation from the perspective that TBM means “faithful and true saint” and NOM means “less active”. But if we take TBM to mean simply “traditional believer” (which is the preferred term for this site), then I think we end up with the Savior being obviously anything but “traditional”.
SilentDawning’s question, as I understood it, was whether we could see ourselves ever returning to seeing the LDS Church as the One True Church, the Perfect Church with imperfect people, the Shining City on the Hill, the Light of Hope in a Dark World. In my words, would I ever go back to believing I, a Mormon Elder, have more priesthood in my pinkie than the Pope and the Dalai Lama have put together? Would I ever want to go back to that perspective? Would you want me to?
Tom
Tom Haws wrote:have more priesthood in my pinkie than the Pope and the Dalai Lama have put together?
That is the power you need on earth to bind an eternal and everlasting pinkie swear in heaven
For me, the realization I was diagnosed with a terminal illness and death was nigh — that would probably jar me out of the luxury of doubting so much. I’d probably revert to True Believing status fairly quickly as the days of my probation would be drawing to a close. Shallow, huh? SilentDawning wrote:For me, the realization I was diagnosed with a terminal illness and death was nigh — that would probably jar me out of the luxury of doubting so much. I’d probably revert to True Believing status fairly quickly as the days of my probation would be drawing to a close. Shallow, huh?
In my opinion, we should follow what we most deeply believe. The scenario you painted above is an excellent thought experiment to clarify which direction you might want to go. Based on what you said, I would think you would not want to do anything that would be contrary to the realization that traditional LDS belief represents for you the highest and final truth. As Heber13 often reminds us (originally said by Brian), “always trade up”. I’m pretty sure we aren’t trying at this site to encourage “slacking”. As Brian once said regarding, “Is baptism necessary?” “If you believe it is, it is.”
GBSmith wrote:I think if you asked most members to define the apostasy they’d say the loss of priesthood and loss of revelation through a designated authority/prophet. Given that the LDS Church believes the priesthood’s been restored and we now have a living prophet means that the “Great Apostasy” has ended.
This statement from GBSmith at another thread is what I take to be the quintessential statement of LDS Church traditional belief. I just thought it was worth bringing over here as a definitional help or bone to chew on.
SilentDawning wrote:For me, the realization I was diagnosed with a terminal illness and death was nigh — that would probably jar me out of the luxury of doubting so much. I’d probably revert to True Believing status fairly quickly as the days of my probation would be drawing to a close. Shallow, huh?
Not shallow. Natural and human. There’s a reason they say there are no atheists in foxholes. Even if really and truly there was nothing out there, and we are just meat puppets expressing a chemical and biological anomaly in the universe, we still need
hopeto function correctly. The hardware begs for the software to operate as intended. I am not saying that as a real atheist. I believe in God, even if know I don’t know what that is anymore, precisely. But as I personally explored inside myself the boundaries and logical extremes of the existence of God, I came to that conclusion for myself — even if there was no God, we still need God to function at our best (or something so much like an idea of God that we might as well just call it that), and to ensure the survival of our species. Not even the most atheistic scientist can deny that is a core part of our existence.
5 Requirements for survival and human life:
Air
Shelter
Water
Food
Hope, or the will to keep existing
Losing hope will kill a person just as much as a lack of food, literally and physically.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.