- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi wrote:
I’m glad you’ve come back to clarify and expand your thoughts and to give us more of a background on where you’re coming from. I totally agree with you with the idea of “love one another.” It is half of the two great commandments which encompass all others, and it is, IMO, the essence of the gospel. I mentioned earlier that one of the reasons I initially joined the church was because of the “by their fruits ye shall know them” idea. I still think this is true, but, as others have pointed out, there is bad fruit in there and many of the people here have had a taste (or sometimes several tastes) of that bad fruit.
I didn’t realize you were a “dry Mormon” and in fact had wondered if you didn’t post just to stir things up a bit here, a hit and run as it were.
Help clarify something else for me. I think I understand you believe in the second great commandment as the core of your belief and I understand that you see members of the church as keeping this commandment (many do it very well, others are not nearly as good a it). On the other hand, you don’t fully buy into church doctrine and teachings. Do you really believe that Mormons are the most correct in this respect?
The fact that they can so consistently obey that greatest commandment is by itself mostly sufficient for me: They do so much better than any other Church. The clincher is that most of the LDS doctrine directly pertaining to righteousness (metamorphosis from the human nature into the divine nature) has been confirmed in my heart by the Holy Spirit.
peteolcott wrote:
The fact that they can so consistently obey that greatest commandment is by itself mostly sufficient for me: They do so much better than any other Church. The clincher is that most of the LDS doctrine directly pertaining to righteousness (metamorphosis from the human nature into the divine nature) has been confirmed in my heart by the Holy Spirit.Hi Pete,
Thanks for persisting with us. I know we have a bit of a tendency to circle the wagons when it seems an “outsider” is threatening our cosy camp fire.
I’m glad that you’ve found something that works well for you. I personally don’t agree that the church does a better job of loving neighbour than all other organisations, but I’m willing to accept that it does a better job at helping you to meet that objective.
Alma 32 is a genius framework for “knowing” because instead of saying “here is a single absolute truth that every person must accept” it instead says “take all principles and test them. If, by testing, they are proven good, then keep them.” In that sense, the fruit is more important than the root. We on this board should try to remember that judging by fruit not roots (history/origins etc) is one of the few things that we can do with certainty.
Pete, for some people the very fruit you consider sweet, others find bitter. That’s natural, we’re 7billion individuals. So I accept that you find it sweet and can think of no other alternative better. But it might be useful to recognise that what is sweet to you might not be to your neighbour etc.
mackay11 wrote:
Alma 32 is a genius framework for “knowing” because instead of saying “here is a single absolute truth that every person must accept” it instead says “take all principles and test them. If, by testing, they are proven good, then keep them.”Pete, for some people the very fruit you consider sweet, others find bitter. That’s natural, we’re 7billion individuals.
I will have to re-read Alma 32 tomorrow, your understanding of it seems to be exactly consistent with the answer to my question at Gospel Principles last week and yet another confirmation that this church is right.
If some individuals consider loving others (or being loved) to be bitter then perhaps they are playing on the opposite team? I probably misunderstood your intentions.
Another thing that the Holy Spirit has seemed to share with me, (personal revelation) the commandment to Love One Another must be applied to the here and now, eternal consequences are really none of our business.
This eliminates the excuse of:
1) torturing people to death to save their soul (the Spanish Inquisition) or
2) throwing a young family member out to fend for themselves because of same sex attraction
These kind of things are clearly on the side of the adversary, and in no possible way any expression of love. See if this rings true with you too.
I really appreciate this discussion, it seems to be what this site is all about, at least for me, finding a way and a reason to StayLDS. I do agree that there is a lot of goodness in the people of the church and you could call that good fruit, but as others have said, many have had a variety of bad experiences with other members, leadership, peculiar doctrines, or investigating history, and they might call these things bitter fruit. I’m not sure the best way to go about things is to compare members of religions and their histories and say that as a whole one group is more loving or generous than the other.
We all have different weaknesses, so you can’t compare me as a Mormon to my neighbor who is atheist. You might notice that I can be rather lazy, selfish, and even rude to those I meet in the street while my atheist neighbor has a much calmer demeanor, is loving, and is an inspiration to all he meets. Does that mean the fruits of The Church are bitter and the fruits of atheism are sweet? I’m not convinced, and it goes both ways.
What I can do is look at the various stages of my life and ask, when I was striving to live the Gospel what were my INTERNAL FRUITS? Was I happy? Was I giving? Forgiving? Maybe not perfect, and maybe not even as much as my atheist neighbor, BUT, what were my INTERNAL FRUITS when I was not honestly striving to life the gospel? Whether or not I was physically present in sacrament meeting, what were my INTERNAL FRUITS when I was not striving to live the gospel. Was I a better person? The honest answer is clear to me.
You cannot compare a man of faith to his atheist neighbor, but you can compare the man of faith to the atheist version of himself. This is where the quality of the fruit becomes clear, and each of us our own judge in this regard.
So was Joseph Smith a prophet? As a missionary I taught that the Book of Mormon was his fruit. But maybe the real fruit, the only fruit that matters, is personal to me. Maybe the real fruit is simply the impact the Book of Mormon has on my character when I make it an integral part of my life through studying and living its principles. And that is, without a doubt, these sweetest fruit I have yet to taste in mortality.
How to win back those who quit the Church? Respect their decisions as honest ones.
Accept and love them, unconditionally, no expectations of return.
Do unto them as they want done unto them.
Work to fix the things that drove them away, so if they return they won’t face the same crap that pushed them out the first time.
(Notice that not one of the things above places any blame on them. They all focus on repenting ourselves.)
Ray I agree with your post. You did a good job explaining what people need to return to the church. I should add that my list is my reaction to the broad issue – but I understand completely that some things help bring some people back that don’t help others. It’s really important to recognize and respect multiple approaches that work for differing people, so I have no problem whatsoever accepting that the list in this post is 100% accurate – for some people.
(Also, you’re welcome for fixing the “whom”/”who” issue in the original title and every comment. I’m going to demand that my salary be doubled.
Unknown wrote:We all have different weaknesses, so you can’t compare me as a Mormon to my neighbor who is atheist. You might notice that I can be rather lazy, selfish, and even rude to those I meet in the street while my atheist neighbor has a much calmer demeanor, is loving, and is an inspiration to all he meets. Does that mean the fruits of The Church are bitter and the fruits of atheism are sweet? I’m not convinced, and it goes both ways.
What I can do is look at the various stages of my life and ask, when I was striving to live the Gospel what were my INTERNAL FRUITS? Was I happy? Was I giving? Forgiving? Maybe not perfect, and maybe not even as much as my atheist neighbor, BUT, what were my INTERNAL FRUITS when I was not honestly striving to life the gospel? Whether or not I was physically present in sacrament meeting, what were my INTERNAL FRUITS when I was not striving to live the gospel. Was I a better person? The honest answer is clear to me.
You cannot compare a man of faith to his atheist neighbor, but you can compare the man of faith to the atheist version of himself. This is where the quality of the fruit becomes clear, and each of us our own judge in this regard.
My crisis of faith produced horrible disillusionment and distress, but I remember feeling a surge of love for my fellow man, far less urge to judge myself and others. I became more convinced of God’s love for me. I let go of ideas that beat me down. It was an emotional high, and felt so good it almost convinced me that I’d be happier out the church. (This was all invisible from the outside and completely off the radar of any leadership. Things might have gone differently under other circumstances.) I had to ask myself why the fruits of my gospel living had been so low-quality compared to what I was feeling now. Seems like I read a similar story from a lot of people who leave the church – they like how much more loving and less judgmental they are without it. I guess what I’m saying is that when I ask myself, “Was I a better person?” the honest answer is not clear to me.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
peteolcott wrote:mackay11 wrote:
Alma 32 is a genius framework for “knowing” because instead of saying “here is a single absolute truth that every person must accept” it instead says “take all principles and test them. If, by testing, they are proven good, then keep them.”Pete, for some people the very fruit you consider sweet, others find bitter. That’s natural, we’re 7billion individuals.
I will have to re-read Alma 32 tomorrow, your understanding of it seems to be exactly consistent with the answer to my question at Gospel Principles last week and yet another confirmation that this church is right.
If some individuals consider loving others (or being loved) to be bitter then perhaps they are playing on the opposite team? I probably misunderstood your intentions.
Another thing that the Holy Spirit has seemed to share with me, (personal revelation) the commandment to Love One Another must be applied to the here and now, eternal consequences are really none of our business.
This eliminates the excuse of:
1) torturing people to death to save their soul (the Spanish Inquisition) or
2) throwing a young family member out to fend for themselves because of same sex attraction
These kind of things are clearly on the side of the adversary, and in no possible way any expression of love. See if this rings true with you too.
Alma 32 is brilliant theology. But it transcends Mormonism. It is a principle that applies to all aspects of theology: “Test it, try it, if it works for you… if the fruit is good… have faith in it.”
My wife has found that by testing and trying the principles of Mormonism that she prefers the fruit of other trees. She hasn’t attended for 3 years and the results have been good.
So while I accept that “Mormonism is truth” (to quote Joseph Smith) it does not have all truth and it does not have the only truth.
Quote:We seek for truth wherever we may find it. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “Mormonism is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or … being … prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men.”
Yes, we do have the fulness of the everlasting gospel, but that does not mean that we know everything. In fact, one principle of the restored gospel is our belief that God “will yet reveal many great and important things.”
… So we continually seek truth from all good books and other wholesome sources. “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” In this manner we can resist the deceit of the evil one. In this manner we learn the truth “precept upon precept; line upon line.” And we will learn that intelligence cleaves unto intelligence, and wisdom receives wisdom, and truth embraces truth.
And
Quote:We simply do not know all things—we can’t see everything. What may seem contradictory now may be perfectly understandable as we search for and receive more trustworthy information. Because we see through a glass darkly, we have to trust the Lord, who sees all things clearly.
Elder Uchtdorf
http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng P.S. – Sentences like this don’t go over too well:
Quote:If some individuals consider loving others (or being loved) to be bitter then
perhaps they are playing on the opposite team? I probably misunderstood your intentions. Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you mean by that, but it doesn’t come over too well. That which you consider an expression of love could be perceived by another to be an uncomfortable experience. That doesn’t make them a “player for the other team.”
Brigham Young said:
Quote:There is one principle I wish to urge upon the Saints in a way that it may remain with them—that is, to understand men and women as they are, and not understand them as you are.
mackay11 wrote:
Maybe I’ve misunderstood what you mean by that, but it doesn’t come over too well. That which you consider an expression of love could be perceived by another to be an uncomfortable experience. That doesn’t make them a “player for the other team.”If someone feels bitterness from expressed loving kindness and feels loving kindness from expressed violent animosity it seems to me that something may not be right here. The key would be whether or not these things are beneficial or detrimental from the point of view of the individuals involved.
This is the measure of loving kindness that I am referring to:
The Fruit of the Spirit Galatians 5:22-23 NRSV
22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control.
peteolcott wrote:The fact that they can so consistently obey that greatest commandment is by itself mostly sufficient for me: They do so much better than any other Church. The clincher is that most of the LDS doctrine directly pertaining to righteousness (metamorphosis from the human nature into the divine nature) has been confirmed in my heart by the Holy Spirit.
I guess this is where we disagree. It’s OK to disagree here. I’m not sure what your church experience is as far as living in different areas, although it is clear you have critically looked at the church. I am also not sure what your experiences with other churches/religions has been. I am apt to think that your experience is in one ward/stake. I do not disagree that there are many, many good people in the church who try their very best to keep the two great commandments and meet with success that can only be judged by God. Some wards and stakes are fortunate enough to have many of these loving people and leadership equally as loving. Others, however, seriously lack in this department. It’s pervasive enough, in fact, that I think it tarnishes the perception of entire the church in the eyes of some. I am one of those. Does the church, in its entirety do an adequate job at keeping the two great commandments? Yes. Is the church as a whole better than other churches? No, and it is not consistent whatsoever. One ward can be pretty good at it while a few miles down the road in another ward one might not recognize it at all. I’m big on the point of view thing (“Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view”, Obi Wan Kenobi), and this clearly fits there. Your point of view is very different from mine, and to you your truth that the church does a great job at keeping the second great commandment is solid. The truth I see is different.
Old-Timer wrote:How to win back those who quit the Church?
Respect their decisions as honest ones.
Accept and love them, unconditionally, no expectations of return.
Do unto them as they want done unto them.
Work to fix the things that drove them away, so if they return they won’t face the same crap that pushed them out the first time.
(Notice that not one of the things above places any blame on them. They all focus on repenting ourselves.)
That all sounds good and right to me!
The third one may be the most difficult to get right.
I have been working on this one for a long time.
I don’t see any infallible way to draw the line exactly where it should be.
Supplying a heroin addiction would seem to be consistent with this rule, yet not a good idea.
Even the golden rule seems to fail masochism.
Quote:Even the golden rule seems to fail masochism.
Yep. Even the best principles tend to fall apart at the extremes.
That’s a good reason to avoid the extremes.
🙂 peteolcott wrote:
Even the golden rule seems to fail masochism.Maybe because some people take the the golden rule too literally. If you’re an extremist and treat people the way you would want to be treated, then you probably won’t treat people the way
theywant to be treated. As Ray said, it’s better when we try this approach:
Quote:Do unto them as they want done unto them.
In that sense, I currently want the reality of church history, however tough and painful it is to hear. I want to know it all, warts and all, and then try to deal with it. But my neighbour does not. They are very happy not knowing and would prefer not to. So do I treat them the way I want to be treated or the way they want?
mackay11 wrote:peteolcott wrote:
Even the golden rule seems to fail masochism.Maybe because some people take the the golden rule too literally. If you’re an extremist and treat people the way you would want to be treated, then you probably won’t treat people the way
theywant to be treated. As Ray said, it’s better when we try this approach:
Quote:Do unto them as they want done unto them.
In that sense, I currently want the reality of church history, however tough and painful it is to hear. I want to know it all, warts and all, and then try to deal with it. But my neighbour does not. They are very happy not knowing and would prefer not to. So do I treat them the way I want to be treated or the way they want?
Yes so augmenting the Golden Rule with:
Quote:Do unto them as they want done unto them.
may form an improvement to the Golden Rule.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.