- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
wayfarer wrote:
This probably won’t work, but it’s worth a try:
What if we consider that a person who has come to question or even reject his or her literal faith is someone who has progressed to a higher spiritual plane than those who require literalism?
Alma 12:9 suggests that the Church teaches “the lesser portion of His word”. Jesus taught in parables and metaphors, and to the audience of the Gospel of John, literalism was a live and well. Literalism is the “milk”. At some point, we outgrow it, and realize that universal, unconditional love is far more important than believing in some literal aspect of church history or doctrine.
Ha. Indeed indeed.
But no. It is a waste of time to have this conversation.
Glad to have got back….
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
cwald wrote:
But no. It is a waste of time to have this conversation.
you’re such a skeptic…I could have that conversation with specific leaders (and actually have, more than once), but, as a rule . . . nope. Realistic skepticism and realistic idealism meet on this one.
Good to see you again, Wayfarer. You contribute wisdom whenever you drop by.
wayfarer wrote:This probably won’t work, but it’s worth a try:
What if we consider that a person who has come to question or even reject his or her literal faith is someone who has progressed to a higher spiritual plane than those who require literalism?
Alma 12:9 suggests that the Church teaches “the lesser portion of His word”. Jesus taught in parables and metaphors, and to the audience of the Gospel of John, literalism was a live and well. Literalism is the “milk”. At some point, we outgrow it, and realize that universal, unconditional love is far more important than believing in some literal aspect of church history or doctrine.
Great to have you back wayfarer.
I like that perspective. My latest visit to the temple taught me that the church leaders can teach me a certain amount, but there comes a point when even they can give no more answers and the only way to receive further “light” is to have them complete their role and then pass you on for direct interaction with the Lord. I see that as a symbol of spiritual independence. I don’t think people notice it, but ultimately I think that is the greatest lesson of the temple endowment.
(DJ… probably not one for the Bishop conversations… any mention of the temple makes people usually squirm)
I do agree with those of you who believe it is possible that those of us who have undergone a faith transition might be on a different level and indeed might have a stronger testimony is some ways than the average member. I also agree with those of you who believe this is not a conversation to have in the types of meetings I will be involved in. Like Ray, I think under the right circumstances with the right individual something like that can be said and a worthwhile conversation could probably take place. wayfarer wrote:What if we consider that a person who has come to question or even reject his or her literal faith is someone who has progressed to a higher spiritual plane than those who require literalism?
DarkJedi wrote:I do agree with those of you who believe it is possible that those of us who have undergone a faith transition might be on a different level and indeed might have a stronger testimony is some ways than the average member.
Wayfarer! So good to hear from you again! I do believe that it is important not to think of ourselves as ‘more’ or ‘better’ or ‘higher’ than anyone else. It might be better FOR ME, but I don’t need to compare myself to anyone else. My SP and his wife are wonderful people. They are faithful believers and their faith works beautifully for them. I can think of dozens of ‘literalists’ whose faith works better for them than mine does for me. If the ‘way’ that a person finds is fully in the Church or fully in Catholicism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Veganism/Bike-rider-ism/Atheism/Beer-ism, then I think it’s good for them.On Own Now wrote:Wayfarer! So good to hear from you again! I do believe that it is important not to think of ourselves as ‘more’ or ‘better’ or ‘higher’ than anyone else. It might be better FOR ME, but I don’t need to compare myself to anyone else. My SP and his wife are wonderful people. They are faithful believers and their faith works beautifully for them. I can think of dozens of ‘literalists’ whose faith works better for them than mine does for me. If the ‘way’ that a person finds is fully in the Church or fully in Catholicism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Veganism/Bike-rider-ism/Atheism/Beer-ism, then I think it’s good for them.
I like this attitude On Own Now. It’s what makes me comfortable not trying to go out of my way to convince other members of their TBM perspectives. If literal and absolutist views are the vehicle they need to progress along the path to godliness then why should I challenge that. Maybe literalism is the best way for some learning styles. Different vehicles that are better for certain passengers, but not necessarily better for all.
On Own Now wrote:
Wayfarer! So good to hear from you again! I do believe that it is important not to think of ourselves as ‘more’ or ‘better’ or ‘higher’ than anyone else. It might be better FOR ME, but I don’t need to compare myself to anyone else. My SP and his wife are wonderful people. They are faithful believers and their faith works beautifully for them. I can think of dozens of ‘literalists’ whose faith works better for them than mine does for me. If the ‘way’ that a person finds is fully in the Church or fully in Catholicism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Veganism/Bike-rider-ism/Atheism/Beer-ism, then I think it’s good for them.
I agree. I guess my point is that a reconstructed faith is not “less” than literal belief.beer-ism…
wayfarer wrote:On Own Now wrote:
Wayfarer! So good to hear from you again! I do believe that it is important not to think of ourselves as ‘more’ or ‘better’ or ‘higher’ than anyone else. It might be better FOR ME, but I don’t need to compare myself to anyone else. My SP and his wife are wonderful people. They are faithful believers and their faith works beautifully for them. I can think of dozens of ‘literalists’ whose faith works better for them than mine does for me. If the ‘way’ that a person finds is fully in the Church or fully in Catholicism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Veganism/Bike-rider-ism/Atheism/Beer-ism, then I think it’s good for them.
I agree. I guess my point is that a reconstructed faith is not “less” than literal belief.beer-ism…
Nice.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Quote:“He asks why they didn’t work hard at their jobs”
stuck out like a sore thumb. I’m really starting to resent the “you didn’t work hard enough” attitude that prevails in every less than desirous outcome of a church program.
My bishop, who is a good, caring man, is nonetheless the king of this attitude. IMHO, he’s sooo worried about “wayward” members, that he goes overboard pushing everyone else to work harder, and it never seems to be enough. In the process, he drives the “sheep” he’s trying to save further away and burns out the “under shepherds.” The RS pres., who is my friend and my VT comp., is much the same way. This is why I keep my mouth shut (which relates to another recent thread here.)
Mackay11 said:
Quote:I like this attitude On Own Now. It’s what makes me comfortable not trying to go out of my way to convince other members of their TBM perspectives. If literal and absolutist views are the vehicle they need to progress along the path to godliness then why should I challenge that. Maybe literalism is the best way for some learning styles. Different vehicles that are better for certain passengers, but not necessarily better for all.
The problem is that we aren’t afforded the same consideration by the hardliners, not even a little bit.
writer63 wrote:Mackay11 said:
Mackay11 wrote:I like this attitude On Own Now. It’s what makes me comfortable not trying to go out of my way to convince other members of their TBM perspectives. If literal and absolutist views are the vehicle they need to progress along the path to godliness then why should I challenge that. Maybe literalism is the best way for some learning styles. Different vehicles that are better for certain passengers, but not necessarily better for all.
The problem is that we aren’t afforded the same consideration by the hardliners, not even a little bit.
But writer63, it doesn’t matter.For starters, it’s not “THE hardliners”, but “SOME hardliners”. I have been treated very respectfully by many people that we here would consider to be ‘hardliners’.
I do agree that MANY don’t afford us the same consideration, and that can cause people like us serious problems. Having said that, I don’t think I’m exactly on the cutting edge of philosophical thought to state that we can’t control how others treat us, only how we treat them, and we should strive to treat others the way we would like to be treated; even if it is not reciprocated.
To quote an old, but wise saying from my most youthful youth: “Reverence begins with me.”
What On Own Now said. writer63 wrote:mackay11 wrote:I like this attitude On Own Now. It’s what makes me comfortable not trying to go out of my way to convince other members of their TBM perspectives. If literal and absolutist views are the vehicle they need to progress along the path to godliness then why should I challenge that. Maybe literalism is the best way for some learning styles. Different vehicles that are better for certain passengers, but not necessarily better for all.
The problem is that we aren’t afforded the same consideration by the hardliners, not even a little bit.
That’s the problem with being a hardliner.
If you have an absolute view of the world then everything has to fit into that view. You can’t be an absolutist AND think a non-absolutist is right. You can, however, learn to be respectful and considerate and accepting. And I hope for more of that within the absolutists, just as I hope to extend the same to them.
mercyngrace wrote:
Dark Jedi,For me, please consider telling them:
(1) I’m a person not a project. I don’t need to be saved (by any human), I need to be loved. Just love me.
(2) The key word is Empathy not sympathy. I don’t need you to feel sorry for me. I need you to put yourself in my shoes.
(3) Stop pretending like checking the church boxes will make life wonderful. When reality kicks in and life gets inexplicably hard, we just end up feeling like failures. Don’t give me formulas for fixing things or pontificate bad theodicy. Just sit with me in my grief and frustration until I’m ready to move on.
(4) Don’t be an apologist for the church or feel like you need to defend God. You don’t have to explain or defend anything. You just have to listen.
(5) If you can’t honestly look in the mirror and feel like you are ready to be the person described above, humble and heal yourself before knocking on my door because you might end up doing more harm than good.
All This!!!
But in my case, it’s “me… and my family” because my children are joined to me tightly and my husband circles around me closely. Tell me how cute my children are (especially when the 8 year old is bouncing off the walls), and how smart you think my husband is (in a clearly generic way) and rapport is established. Actually it is a weird disconnect because I need you (the generic you) to see me for who I am in the middle of them as well as to see them…
Lastly… Check your expectations. period. full stop.
If you love me because you expect to love me back into the church, you will fail. If you love me because either a) I am lovable (or at least smell good most of the time) and b) you see the lovableness inside me when I am not easily lovable – I will be less likely to fall away from the church and/or come back on my timetable.
DarkJedi wrote:
Please help me teach them. What would you want me to tell your bishopric?
1. Be loyal to disaffected people in leadership meetings.I already felt disenfranchised when I left my HPGL calling when our slow moving, uncommunicative SP took FOREVER to release me when I was struggling with obesity, burnout, and reeling from the massive care required of my son diagnosed with a lifelong disease. I couldn’t do it anymore, and no one cared.
Then, after I stopped coming for a while, a good friend in the church came over. He let it slip that the leadership speaks poorly of me in their leadership meetings. I don’t know exactly what they said, as when I asked my friend clammed up, but it was clear that on more than one occasion, there were disparaging comments about me in private — in spite of the many years of solid service I’d given, the sacrifices I’d made, the famlly I’d alienated with my commitment to the church. Fall off the wagon (in their mind) once and you’re in the out-group. How fragile are our relationships in the church!!!
It showed just how incredibly conditional our friendships and informal standing is in our church. And by the way, I as still going to church pretty regularly, keeping my family active at the time.
Would such behavior encourage you, or discourage YOU from feeling part of a community again? Particularly when you already feel on the outs because of something you did? [which in my view, only happened after months and months and months of patience on my part with our SP].
See the good in people.Had a Bishop recently who everyone was drawn to. Why? Because he was so positive with people. Every person he met, he had something positive to say about their talents, and regularly tried to get the person to apply those talents for good. I know I used to get negative on people who refused callings or wouldn’t do what I asked. Just be thankful for the people who cooperate and contribute, and take the STake’s pressure and the metrics in the reports with a grain of salt. Report your best efforts alongside the numbers to keep the stake at bay, and keep your eye on the goal of creating a community of people who care about each other and who are celebrated for their own strengths.
Speak directly with the person and not their spouseHad a Bpric member who cornered my wife to pump her for information about me. Out of the conversation came that it’s better to go to church and hold a TR than to go to hell. Story about how his wife threatened to divorce him if he didn’t get active and temple worthy. Is this really good for families? For motivating a person? For creating trust with the disaffected person? To what extent would I consider this person a friend at church after he a) went behind my back b) used guilt or punishment as the sole motivator and c) put the idea of divorce into my wife’s head as an activation strategy???
The strange part is that this person was a talented manager of an international company too. HE should have known better! I suspect this is more common than I care to admit.
Focus on making the Sunday and weekly program experience in the church goodFor some reason, our church has the misguided idea that the way to get people active is to make short term attempts at connecting with people who aren’t coming. Rather than putting systems and supports and resources in place to make the experience of coming to church consistently uplifting and good, we badger our active membership to constantly go after less active people. This is so embedded in our leadership culture that we never even question it.
While there are a few success stories, most of the time, these efforts aren’t successful. If we put this effort into improving the quality of talks, make church engaging, make sure youth and other programs are well-organized, and experiences for the EQ that are meaningful and build community, we would retain far more of the people who spontaneously start coming back to church again. This happens frequently, in my experience. Then they end up sitting through a boring one-way meeting with amateur talks, often poorly prepared lessons, poorly organized programs during the week for the youth.
We have a church that is just hard, and often in a bad way.
Don’t suggest name removal to clean up the recordsI did this as a leader at one time. It’s a very business-oriented, people-second way of dealing with less active people who have church problems — and are honest enough to tell you.
I had a close friend who knows our family intimately. He said that he wondered why I even bother to keep my name on the church records given the way I feel about the church. I mentioned that a) staying a member is critical to keeping my marriage intact and b) that I have produced a fully active, temple worthy, married in the temple daughter and c) I have a son who I encourage to be active. This didn’t seem to matter in his recommendation I just blow off my church membership.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.