- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
[
The only way I can make any sense of some of the haphazard changes in doctrine or policy and unflattering history surrounding the Church is simply to assume that whatever revelation or inspiration there may be is almost certainly not nearly as reliable and trustworthy as many Church members have been led to believe. Sure some apologists will concede that prophets and apostles are only human with their own opinions and limitations regardless of any legitimate revelations, but the problem is that the Church continues to insist that we should always follow the prophet no matter what because he will supposedly never lead the Church astray.
According to the Church, exclusive authority and continuing revelation through living prophets and apostles is supposed to be one of the main advantages that distinguishes the LDS Church from all the other religious sects out there. As long as they continue to make claims like this, I think it is perfectly reasonable and realistic to expect to find more consistency and “prophetic” judgment than they have demonstrated so far and to really doubt their credibility if the evidence doesn’t really support their claims. As soon as I started to look at the Church as just another man-made institution rather than some kind of divinely guided “kingdom of God” everything about it suddenly made a lot more sense to me.
Yes that is it for me. I perhaps could accept the crazy stuff, but when the leaders now or 150 years ago claim divine revelation and require obedience to their instruction then yes I am going to require a little more accuracy and common sense on their part. They can not require me to listen to them and then act stupid. That would make me stupid.
curt, I understand what you wrote in your last comment – totally. What you described is absolutely true for yourself and many others. Do you understand, however, that there are MANY members whose experiences are different than yours? I haven’t created an alternate reality that doesn’t exist for others; I’ve lived a true reality that exists for many others. Neither is a falsely created reality; both are true realities. In dismissing mine as falsely created by wrestling and twisting reality, you essentially are destroying any chance of recognizing that your experience isn’t the only “truth” out there – which destroys any chance of understanding “my truth” as legitimate. It also paints the Church into a false corner from which it is impossible to escape, since it doesn’t allow for any other option than intentional dishonesty and disappointment.
Understanding that my experience really is true and legitimate, even though it isn’t yours, is the beginning of real charity – and, frankly, your current paradigm simply doesn’t allow for charity as you view church leaders. Even if you never rejoin the LDS Church or “regain a testimony”, finding charity for others and allowing for differing yet legitimate experiences and perspectives is important to gaining peace and understanding.
curt wrote:…if the church is in fact true, does test our level of believability beyond what one would expect of the “restored church.” Why would God put us through the wringer like this?
I think that is an excellent question! Could it possibly lead to a higher level of understanding? Could there be some purpose for it after all?
Nobody here will disagree that many of our early images of what the “restored church” should be have been shattered. Our expectations have proven to be unrealistic. That is no longer in question, the organization does not hold up to our highest and naive ideals.
Once we put that subject to rest (and accomplish the more difficult task of letting other members continue to believe the way we used to) we can move on to what I see as the more important question:
Can we find value in our continued membership and participation in the church?Can we search for and find “truths” that are valuable to us? Can we be edified and lifted in some way by our activity? Can we reap the rewards of service and of humility/charity? Can we progress to a higher maturity level? There is not one right answer, simply points to ponder on our personal journeys.
To paraphrase the wisdom of the inventor of the Slap Chop: Don’t having a boring religious life, don’t attend a church that has a boring history. 😆 I like being in a church that’s a little bit wacky, hehe. I think I would be suspicious if the church I attended started making too much sense.
Quote:Ray wrote: Do you understand, however, that there are MANY members whose experiences are different than yours? I haven’t created an alternate reality that doesn’t exist for others; I’ve lived a true reality that exists for many others. Neither is a falsely created reality; both are true realities. In dismissing mine as falsely created by wrestling and twisting reality, you essentially are destroying any chance of recognizing that your experience isn’t the only “truth” out there – which destroys any chance of understanding “my truth” as legitimate. It also paints the Church into a false corner from which it is impossible to escape, since it doesn’t allow for any other option than intentional dishonesty and disappointment.
Understanding that my experience really is true and legitimate, even though it isn’t yours, is the beginning of real charity – and, frankly, your current paradigm simply doesn’t allow for charity as you view church leaders. Even if you never rejoin the LDS Church or “regain a testimony”, finding charity for others and allowing for differing yet legitimate experiences and perspectives is important to gaining peace and understanding.
Ray, you’re correct. My experience is certainly not the experience everyone has had with the church and I did not mean to say that you were creating a false reality. Yes, that is what I said, but it isn’t what I meant in actuality, and thanks for pointing that out to me. Just having been hammered over the head with a certain view of the church year in and year out, and having that view expressed by all those around me (family, friends, church leaders), makes it hard for me to believe there was (or is) an alternative view. Perhaps the problem is generational. I left the church when I was quite young, in my late teens, in the early 1980s (although I remained a believer until the early 1990s). I could see how being raised in the church at a later time, when much of this info became more available, would allow one to develop, perhaps, a more nuanced view of the church and so on (I have no idea if that applies to you). My experience was it was one way or the highway. One reason I appreciate this site is because it helps me to learn and I apologize if I came off arrogant or uncharitable. I am just going off my own experience and I see the problem with that. It is sometimes easy to get worked up over issues such as these.
So, yeah, that’s it.
Curt, my experience is similar to yours. cwald wrote:Curt, my experience is similar to yours.
same here.
My mother reads her scripture daily, attends they temple weekly, and to my knowledge has never missed a Sunday without attending church. Ask her if JS has ever practiced polygamy and she will assure you he has not. Ask her what a peepstone is and she will say “A what?” My mother may be ignorant to church history but I have a hard time believing that she is in the minority. She is the majority.
Just because the church will sneak in a small reference to something in The ensign every few years, does not mean they are being open. It is almost as if is done just so they can say “hey, we have nothing to hide, we mentioned something about that in the new era back in 1997”
How about all the members in non-english speaking countries? How much information do they have easy access to other than what the church provides?
I get it though, it’s all about image control. It is for the “greater good” to keep all information “faith promoting”
I think Ray runs in more educated circles than the rest of us. I could be wrong. I probably just run in more ignorant circles than the rest of you. That’s how I feel sometimes. A lot of times.
Sorry… I’ll stop my rant now.
curt, I’m the same basic age as you are – and I was raised in rural, central Utah. However, I had a very pragmatic father who said things all the time like, “If I left the Church every time someone offended me, I’d have left long ago – and all the time.” I grew up hearing stuff like that, and, as I’ve said in other threads, I grew up knowing I didn’t see things the same way as most people around me – even the local leaders and, in some cases, the apostles.
My reading of the Book of Mormon is perhaps the best example of that. I literally was seven years old the first time I read it all on my own, totally by myself, cover to cover –
and at seven years old I realized I disagreed with lots of things other people thought about it, even my Bishop whom I loved and admired greatly. I believed in the Limited Geography model before I knew it existed as an actual theory; before I was ten years old, I believed that the Lamanites joined a larger, indigenous population (much like the Nephites joined the Mulekites) – simply because that’s the only thing that made sense given the overall population comparisons in the book; I believed the descendants of the original Jaredites weren’t all killed in the “final” battle – that only those remaining in the central kingdom(s) were destroyed; I believed, therefore, that the book itself was a “history” that was written through “biased” eyes from the very beginning and had to be understood as such to be understood properly; I believed Joseph Smith didn’t really understand the book very well – and that those around me generally understood it no more than Joseph had; etc. That’s just who I was – a really odd duck in an outwardly homogeneous flock.What I have learned over the years, however, is that I’m far from the only odd duck in the flock. Most other odd ducks have blended in with time, but I recognize them all the time now that I know the signs – their “tells”, to use a poker term. Finally, I have run in highly educated, academic circles – but I also was raised among, have lived among and currently live among the generally less-educated. I speak the language of both circles fluently – and I’ve come to realize that one is not any better than the other when all is said and done.
Craziness has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember, so it doesn’t bother me that it is part of my religious history. Also, as a former history teacher, I recognize that it has been a part of humanity at all times and everywhere – so I expect it as a natural part of mortality.
It’s kind of hard to explain, but it all goes back to having to accept that nobody really understood me from a very early age – and being taught that it was ok, especially if I did my best to understand and accept them, regardless. That hasn’t always been easy, but recognizing the need from my earliest memories certainly has been a huge part of my ability to be at peace amid chaos – and, as Brian implied, even value the chaos for the chance it gives me to continue to refine what I personally believe.
My life might be easier if there was no craziness – but I wouldn’t like it nearly as much. I’m kind of odd that way – but I’ve worked hard to maintain that particular oddity, since it’s very important to me. I call it the muddle in the middle – and I have come to value it highly for the growth opportunities it has given me.
Old-Timer wrote:Craziness has been a part of my life for as long as I can remember, so it doesn’t bother me that it is part of my religious history. Also, as a former history teacher, I recognize that it has been a part of humanity at all times and everywhere – so I expect it as a natural part of mortality…My life might be easier if there was no craziness – but I wouldn’t like it nearly as much.
Brian Johnston wrote:To paraphrase the wisdom of the inventor of the Slap Chop: Don’t having a boring religious life, don’t attend a church that has a boring history…I like being in a church that’s a little bit wacky, hehe. I think
I would be suspicious if the church I attended started making too much sense.If human foibles and wacky antics are any kind of positive selling point maybe we should start teaching about the Kirtland bank failure, Danites, the Kinderhook plates, and Joseph Smith hunting for treasure and marrying other men’s wives and young teenagers in the missionary discussions. How well would that work? Not only would we have almost no converts but most missionaries would probably quit right away too.
Sure some members that already feel some attachment to the Church can often shrug off and even laugh about these things but there’s a reason that the Church has taken the general strategy of trying to present “milk before meat” and mostly whitewashed history rather than being completely open and honest about these things. The fact is that some of this is truly shocking and painful for many members to really acknowledge. When I first stumbled onto some of this information I tried to completely deny it and ignore it for over 10 years because I wanted to believe it was all just anti-Mormon lies.
I don’t expect all that much out of people and I don’t really expect religion to make sense in a simple and easily understandable way. Real life is complex so any attempts to understand the meaning of it all will typically result in explanations that are complex or oversimplified. To me the problem is not really imperfection in an organization made up of people that are only human as much as seeing one contradiction after another between what the Church says is supposed to happen and what the evidence suggests is really happening. Personally I think the Church should tone it down with some of their nearly infallible prophet mythology but since they refuse to do that all I can do is take almost everything they say with a grain of salt because they just haven’t done much to establish any real credibility with all the questionable claims they continue to make.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Personally I think the Church should tone it down with some of their nearly infallible prophet mythology but since they refuse to do that all I can do is take almost everything they say with a grain of salt
Agreed.
I say and think crazy stuff too sometimes. That is the essence of stretching our minds and souls towards enlightenment. The all-important balance is the quintessential grain of salt, taken liberally and often.
It does seem crazy to me too. To be fair, the church never claims to have 100% truth through prophets and revelation, but teaches that we are given light and knowledge line upon line, precept upon precept. We are given what we need to guide us in our day, even if it is not answers to all questions (which is why a living prophet is more important than the words of dead prophets). It teaches there is safety in following the prophet…not that the prophet is infallible (therefore it can be “true” to me, even if slightly incorrect technically).
Joseph F Smith wrote:There are many things yet to be revealed. There are things to be revealed which God will make known in his own due time which we do not now understand. For my own part, there is as much already revealed as it seems possible for me to understand. If I could only grasp all that God has revealed, and comprehend it as I should and apply it in righteousness in my life, I think I should then be prepared for something more, if I was still worthy of it.
This is interesting to me, because the paradox seems to be that while God will reveal more as we can receive it, how is it that the further revelation can conflict with prior teachings?
– OK, so now we understand things better, and really, teaching that the church should deny blacks the priesthood because they were less valiant in the pre-existence, or of a race of cursed bloodlines, was not right. Good thing we have more revelation to tell us that.
Quote:But wait, why were we told to deny blacks in the first place? How can I trust our leaders have it right now?
For some things, that may not be consequential, like the Word of Wisdom…I can accept that living by the teachings can help me be a better person, regardless if the revelation is all accurate about coffee, tea, alcohol, or tobacco. Living it can bless me, even if we get further light and knowledge about the chemicals as our knowledge in science grows. For me, now, living it blesses me, and so I live it.
But some teachings are harder for me to think through. So I keep studying and thinking, with an open mind.
Maybe some of the “crazy stuff” that seems crazy to us now is similar, that at the time it was taught, it helped people be closer to the Spirit and develop more Christ-like lives in those times, even if it doesn’t for us now.
:You are all right, and I think we can pick up some conflicting messages at church: …the prophet is a fallible human but you should always follow him… or, “personal revelation is the most important to consider in directing your life — but your direction should never conflict with the prophets’ counsel” …etc. To me it has a flavor of likening the garden of eden story to my own life – if you have to deal with conflicting directions which way do you go? I think this stuff gets at the heart of our human experience.
Cadence– I think I agree with you on the heart of the matter. But also I think it’s noteworthy that the “house” in the parable is not the Church. It’s your own life.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.