- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Well it looks like doubt is the big topic right now for general authority talks… Today’s BYU devotional by Elder Corbridge was also about doubt. It felt like it was going back to the “it’s not okay to doubt” narrative. We had Renlund at the worldwide devotional talk about doubt as foolish and dangerous. Then we had Uchtdorf at the devotional say it’s okay if you can’t believe now, start with hope. Now we have Corbridge talking about how you should believe in the church, then all of these other concerns are insignificant.
It seems like the church leadership really has no consensus on how to address this issue. I personally think Uchtdorf’s more compassionate approach will have to win in the long run for people to want to stay.
Sounds like preaching to the choir. Believers would likely eat this up, doubters would likely feel alienated. Here is one quote that really got me:
“Doubt, unless changed into inquiry from reliable, trustworthy sources, has no value or worth.”
Boy, if you turn to reliable, trustworthy sources like DNA evidence, actual historical facts, and other reliable sources, the church doesn’t always come out on top unless you just put the issue on the shelf. And of course, a TBM’s definition of a reliable source is probably way different than a doubter’s ‘reliable source of truth’.
When I read the synopsis of the talk above, I saw nothing but ridicule and a pure TBM perspective for people who doubt. Maybe there were some obligatory love statements in it if I watched the entire piece, but overall, not impressed.
I guess there are some people who are just cynical, perpetual doubters. I wasn’t, but eventually, you settle into a pattern after all other methods to save yourself have failed. I don’t fault people for that.
It’s talks like these that make me happy to stay on the fringes. If the TBM’s view me the way doubters are depicted in this fireside, then why bother to try to be part of it?”
I also chuckled when it was asked “The church may have some nicks in its paint, but does this prevent it from giving the saving ordinances?”. That statement trivialized the doubts of the person — many question if the church CAN provide saving ordinances given potential lack of truth! It’s not just trivial faults that make the church a source of doubt, it’s major items that makes you question the whole thing!!
SilentDawning wrote:
“Doubt, unless changed into inquiry from reliable, trustworthy sources, has no value or worth.”
I agree with this, but completely flipped from how it was intended. It’s a truth that’s been twisted in a damning way.
SilentDawning wrote:
I also chuckled when it was asked “The church may have some nicks in its paint, but does this prevent it from giving the saving ordinances?”
“Nicks in its paint” is a funny way of downplaying what many see as some serious issues. Couldn’t the same be said of the Catholic Church? Or any other Church for that matter? What one calls apostasy, the other call a “few cosmetic nicks”. Can’t any Church claim to have the saving ordinances, in spite of the “nicks”? What sets us apart, and how should we know it?
There was anotherrecent devotional about doubt/criticisms directed toward YAs that was given by Lawrence Corbridge at BYU. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-corbridge_stand-for-ever/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/lawrence-corbridge_stand-for-ever/ https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-01-22/what-to-do-with-your-questions-according-to-1-general-authority-whos-an-expert-on-anti-church-materials-48843 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-01-22/what-to-do-with-your-questions-according-to-1-general-authority-whos-an-expert-on-anti-church-materials-48843 Stated diplomatically, Corbridge appears to have a more orthodox perspective than even Renlund.
I’ve only seen articles that give a brief synopsis but this particular talk did hit a lot of the highlights for things that have plagued members that have experienced a faith crisis.
There’s the implication that the information that antis share is wrong, which creates a stumbling block for people when they discover that often the information shared by antis is more accurate. In trying to parse the article I get the sense that Corbridge was also tone policing? He said he didn’t feel the spirit while listening to the “dark choir.” So I don’t know whether his largest issue is that he feels the “dark choir” is not telling the truth or whether his principle objection is that the “dark choir” can be mean spirited when telling their version of events.
Plus, it’s got to be super hard to feel the spirit when you wade into a group you view as a dark choir. I listened to the dark choir. Sure enough, they’re dark.
I wonder whether he conflates feeling the spirit with confirmation bias and the absence of the spirit with cognitive dissonance.
One thing in particular that I don’t like… he tells people what the most important questions are and dismisses other questions as secondary. Please don’t try to tell people what should and should not be important to them. If a question is important to them, it is important to them. Someone else coming along and saying, “That’s not important.” or, “That’s not as important as…” is dismissive, it’s not helpful at best and downright harmful at worst.
I did want to highlight one comment he made (emphasis added):
Quote:…If you answer the primary questions, the secondary questions get answered too or they pale in significance and you can deal with things you understand and things you don’t understand,
things you agree with and things you don’t agree withThe trail end of this comment goes against the take it or leave it/can’t be a cafeteria Mormon attitude. I may be completely misinterpreting here, but it sounds like it’s okay to disagree. I guess you just have to keep it to yourself though.
There does appear to be a theme in recent devotionals. I hope this particular theme doesn’t bleed into general conference, at least not how it’s been presented thus far.
The best advice I had was from Uchdorft — doubt your doubts, not your faith. We can’t know much of what is in the hereafter with certainty (although some claim to). So, awakening our doubts about our own conclusions can be an effective strategy in stemming complete unbelief. Unfortunately, this approach leads to agnosticism, but that’s better than utter unbelief. But I believe this approach is better than member shaming, which is what I feel these two talks above are doing. To this day, I stay partly because I have great faith in my own ignorance and capacity for big mistakes. Uchdorft’s directive to doubt my own doubts harmonizes with this.
The spiritual whack-a-mole analogy was also not very helpful. Many members exist in a condition where there are many things that do not quite sit right but are stored away without resolution. Many have used the analogy of putting those items up on a shelf. The force that keeps the shelf intact is the narrative that the church is divine AND that all of these things does have a reasonable explanation consistent with the LDS worldview that will be revealed at some future point. Even if it is not clear until we pass through the veil – at some point it will all make sense. When someone arrives to the point of a faith crisis I believe that the assumptions that maintain the shelf are called into question. All the issues that have been placed in abeyance then resurface for re-examination. Once those core narrative assumptions fall away it can be like trying to undo the effects of opening pandora’s box or putting humpty dumpty back together again or returning to the magic of being a child again on Christmas morning. I believe that for most people there can be no going back.
I do also believe that some find apologetic answers helpful. I believe this is particularly true when someone has run across one or two nagging inconsistencies in church history but the underlying assumption of “this all will make sense eventually” remains. Apologetic answers can provide just enough closure to put the issue back again on the shelf.
Where I believe this analogy is especially flawed is how it seems to blame the person in faith crisis. As if to say, “If they really wanted answers then they would accept the answers that we have to give and be content with that.”
Quote:it looks like doubt is the big topic right now for general authority talks… Today’s BYU devotional by Elder Corbridge was also about doubt
If I have my information right, Elder Corbridge began his talk by explaining that the Top Leaders sent him to discuss this.
My guess is, and I am probably not wrong. Redlund went and did his. Then the Silver Fox decided to use his Devotional time to present his version of things. More grace and mercy. Less certainty. Lower level Corbridge gets an email or phone call with instructions to “Hold the Line”.
It’s got to be hard to be the Top Leaders of the team right now. You have spent your life working to hold the Old Ship Zion on course. Now you are the ship Captain. If it sinks on your watch that could be devastating. Since you have never had a crisis, you are certain that a pep talk or two will solve it. The internet is bad. Except for the Mormon’s use of it – genealogy, LDS.org, BTUTV.
I am going to let this blip roll. Even if they spend hours on it. If they can’t hear us, I can’t hear them.
NOTE: Slightly Bitter Post Roy wrote:
Many have used the analogy of putting those items up on a shelf. The force that keeps the shelf intact is the narrative that the church is divine AND that all of these things does have a reasonable explanation consistent with the LDS worldview that will be revealed at some future point. Even if it is not clear until we pass through the veil – at some point it will all make sense.When someone arrives to the point of a faith crisis I believe that the assumptions that maintain the shelf are called into question. All the issues that have been placed in abeyance then resurface for re-examination. Once those core narrative assumptions fall away it can be like trying to undo the effects of opening pandora’s box or putting humpty dumpty back together again or returning to the magic of being a child again on Christmas morning. I believe that for most people there can be no going back.
Agreed. I thought about it today, and it seems like more traditional members focus on keeping the items on the shelf, while for some people, the nails holding the shelf have already come out, the shelf has already dropped, and there is a mass of free-range items on the ground. It takes a while to accept that the non-physical shelf is down, and then decide what to do about it. We may want to replace it with a different shelf, move it to a different place, or something else. If we put the shelf back, we are going to put reinforcements in this time. We are going to carefully decide which items go back on the shelf in the process.
I think that there are cultural issues with this – what is it culturally acceptable to “shelve” (polygamy seems to be a general favorite, but BoM belief – not so much)? Also, there are limited resources for dealing with the shelf fallout (blaming the person for their shelf falling is always a favorite). On the other hand, if a person’s experience is limited to working with their shelf with few items on it, it is unrealistic to expect them to have the drywall expertise on how to handle a full-fledged shelf disintigration.
Roy wrote:
I do also believe that some find apologetic answers helpful. I believe this is particularly true when someone has run across one or two nagging inconsistencies in church history but the underlying assumption of “this all will make sense eventually” remains. Apologetic answers can provide just enough closure to put the issue back again on the shelf.Where I believe this analogy is especially flawed is how it seems to blame the person in faith crisis. As if to say, “If they really wanted answers then they would accept the answers that we have to give and be content with that.”
I think my main problem is that I have grown comfortable with not expecting God to answer prayers or supply revelation. When answers/revelation are received and identified, it is a blessing, but not a requirement. I no longer believe there is a formula to induce God to provide revelation on any level in a quid pro quo sense. I feel that if a circumstance requires revelation, revelation will be required. Otherwise, I feel that a person can choose to put themselves into spaces where they can receive “revelation” for things – i.e. President Nelson’s years of work as a heart surgeon made it possible for him to identify the inspirational mental diagrams for the procedure given for one of the key surgeries he completed.
This distresses my husband because of the numerous teachings he has had to the contrary at church. He also feels that I “am not praying sincerely enough” or “studying the scriptures sincerely enough” which leads to a prideful state where God won’t talk to me (and I need to “repent”). It doesn’t matter that I am reading “Rough Stone Rolling” and thinking about how revelation influenced Joseph Smith. It doesn’t matter that I am reading Conference Talks and giving lessons in R.S. that are well-received and seem to help others. It doesn’t matter that having a more deist perspective on the nature of God allows me to fit God into my narrative – which resolves some cognitive tension regarding the philosophical moral principal regarding the “nature of evil”.
What seems to matter is that there is a magic formula that I am not following anymore…
AmyJ wrote:
This distresses my husband because of the numerous teachings he has had to the contrary at church. He also feels that I “am not praying sincerely enough” or “studying the scriptures sincerely enough” which leads to a prideful state where God won’t talk to me (and I need to “repent”). It doesn’t matter that I am reading “Rough Stone Rolling” and thinking about how revelation influenced Joseph Smith. It doesn’t matter that I am reading Conference Talks and giving lessons in R.S. that are well-received and seem to help others. It doesn’t matter that having a more deist perspective on the nature of God allows me to fit God into my narrative – which resolves some cognitive tension regarding the philosophical moral principal regarding the “nature of evil”.What seems to matter is that there is a magic formula that I am not following anymore…
I don’t want to put words in your husband’s mouth but I think many members need to believe in the formula, it gives them comfort and stability. For the formula to work, it has to apply to all, it’s a formula, and in cases like ours someone that believes in the formula may look at us and apply the formula backwards. They start with their judgments about us, plug them into the results of their formula, and they work backwards to arrive at the kind of behaviors that they believe would yield those results.
It’s their way of preserving their faith in the formula.
AmyJ wrote:
I no longer believe there is a formula to induce God to provide revelation on any level in a quid pro quo sense. I feel that if a circumstance requires revelation, revelation will be required.I like that. You mentioned “numerous teachings…to the contrary at church.” Yeah, variants of the prosperity gospel/quid pro quo god are peppered throughout our discourse at church. Obey to be blessed. Earn that reward. We have Job and Alma the younger, but we still believe in that if>then god. I think people want to establish order in the chaos of life, and people gravitate towards formulas to provide that order.
nibbler wrote:
I think many members need to believe in the formula, it gives them comfort and stability. [snip] we still believe in that if>then god. I think people want to establish order in the chaos of life, and people gravitate towards formulas to provide that order.
Yes, that was definitely where I was as a TBM. Church historical drama was weird/interesting but all that mattered was that I had the power to call down the powers of heaven to bless my family in the here and now. I will say what you want me to say and believe what you want me to say if it means that I can tip the scales of health and good fortune in my families favor. I don’t need to question how my car works as long as I can get from point A to point B. Do I need to say a little prayer before turning the key in the morning? Teach me the correct words to say! Of course, my own shelf became unstable when our third child was stillborn and I came to realize that we technically have no enforceable divine promises of protection or well-being.(as an aside, I do believe that Mormons are somewhat successful in building communities where the members enjoy a measure of health and good fortune [because the community rallys together to help mitigate some of the worst of bad fortune])
AmyJ wrote:
He also feels that I “am not praying sincerely enough” or “studying the scriptures sincerely enough” which leads to a prideful state where God won’t talk to me (and I need to “repent”).
I am very sorry for this Amy. It can really hurt when people close to us devalue and/or invalidate our faith transition. I remember a time when my wife was convinced that I had lost the spirit and that I was less positive and more irritable as a result. This of course could become a self fulfilling prophecy – with every frustration and bad day becomeing another data point to prove the theory. I can only recommend reassuring your spouse that you are still the person they married. You are figuring some stuff out right now and they might think that they have all the answers but you need to figure it out on your own and therefore may need a bit of space on this topic. You are not going to go out partying and abandon the family. You are just as committed to him and the children as you ever were.Roy wrote:
I am very sorry for this Amy. It can really hurt when people close to us devalue and/or invalidate our faith transition. I remember a time when my wife was convinced that I had lost the spirit and that I was less positive and more irritable as a result. This of course could become a self fulfilling prophecy – with every frustration and bad day becomeing another data point to prove the theory. I can only recommend reassuring your spouse that you are still the person they married. You are figuring some stuff out right now and they might think that they have all the answers but you need to figure it out on your own and therefore may need a bit of space on this topic. You are not going to go out partying and abandon the family. You are just as committed to him and the children as you ever were.
Thank you.
I may be splitting hairs here, but I feel it is not so much a “devaluation/invalidation” of our faith transition as it is a challenge to our spiritual competency (in general) and in the social/cultural setting. OK, I get how socially you may not want a person in faith transition potentially opening up the can of worms for other people in social/cultural settings – but the Light of Christ (or maybe it’s moral equivalent in a non-Christian paradigm setting) still works. People do not need to be religious to make good choices or make thoughtful spiritual decisions.
AmyJ wrote:
I may be splitting hairs here, but I feel it is not so much a “devaluation/invalidation” of our faith transition as it is a challenge to our spiritual competency (in general) and in the social/cultural setting. OK, I get how socially you may not want a person in faith transition potentially opening up the can of worms for other people in social/cultural settings – but the Light of Christ (or maybe it’s moral equivalent in a non-Christian paradigm setting) still works. People do not need to be religious to make good choices or make thoughtful spiritual decisions.
I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, there are many elements of our LDS narrative that are fear based. Some members operate on the idea that the commandments of God are the only thing keeping them and their neighbors from doing bad things that destroy themselves, their families, and their communities. They feel that they can draw a direct line from removing one’s garments to abandoning marriage and family.https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-27?lang=eng The following words are famously attributed to JS:
Quote:Before you joined this Church you stood on neutral ground. When the gospel was preached, good and evil were set before you. You could choose either or neither. There were two opposite masters inviting you to serve them. When you joined this Church you enlisted to serve God. When you did that you left the neutral ground, and you never can get back on to it.
Should you forsake the Master you enlisted to serve, it will be by the instigation of the evil one, and you will follow his dictation and be his servant.Quote:Strange as it may appear at first thought, yet it is no less strange than true, that notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly, apostates after turning from the faith of Christ, unless they have speedily repented, have sooner or later
fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes. From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him. These quotes make it seem that without the protection of the church/gospel/holy spirit you would begin doing bad things against your own will because Satan has power over you.
😈 Very well written Roy! You have a talent in that area. You know, I’d only put up with the menu whitewashing for so long….there is a cost to it. And what if, at the end of your life, you’re still on the boat, eating crackers and water, barely making the repairs but surviving? Compare that to the fulfillment back on the island you might have enjoyed had you not gotten into the boat on faith? Particularly if the outcome — death and no promised blessings — is the same in either situation?
I remember, my TBM father in law once said that if he does all this Mormon stuff, and there are no promised blessings, he was going to be ticked in the afterlife…
What I sometimes visualize happening is death, and then a continuation of the need for faith for hundreds of years, waiting for a millennium that never comes. It’s kind of like what happened to fans of the X-Files. They kept everyone on a string through unfinished story arcs to the point loyal fans got ticked off and abandoned the show. At some point, you have to deliver on the goods. And unfortunately, religion is stacked so you’re expected to do all the should’s on faith, and with no realization of promised rewards. Sure, people sort of invent blessings, but I’m not convinced they wouldn’t receive many of those blessings without the religion. The religion does steer you away from certain risks — like drugs, alcohol problems, infidelity, and its aftermath, safety stuff, but the grandiose spiritual blessings? I am not so sure anymore.
To add to this thought, I am working on a presentation of general business principles for students, and one of them is “Test Before You Invest”. With some of the things that have happened to me in this life, when the church was in a position to help me succeed spiritually in very concrete ways, and didn’t, the test has made it hard to invest.
I do know that I’m on the Kon Mari plan of seeking Joy, and I seem to have a lot more of it now that I put the church in its appropriate place.
Roy wrote:
Quote:From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies,
because Satan entered into him. These quotes make it seem that without the protection of the church/gospel/holy spirit you would begin doing bad things against your own will because Satan has power over you.
😈
Funny how Christians tend to view this as a one way street. Sure, certain Christian groups have recieved persecution from others, but the moment they are in power, they become the persecutors. Not meaning to single out Christianity or the LDS Church; I think this is true for just about all groups. But we’re as guilty as any.
I’m generally fine with people believing whatever they want. But when those beliefs turn to bullying (or war), that I really start to have an issue.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.