[Daeruin]

foodoctor33 wrote:

I wasn’t able to read all the above posts but I will say one simple thing:

If Joseph Smith and Hyrum took off their garments before going to Carthage Jail because “it is hot in the summer” according to John Taylor, that is all I need to know to determine when I feel it’s ok to wear or remove them.

Interesting. Source?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daeruin]

TheFlea wrote:

I get bitter and upset when I see the church perpetuating a culture that encourages people to view people like myself as broken, less faithful, or nitpicking. It’s extremely hurtful and strains my relationship with my wife. Losing the certainly that the church was 100% what it claimed to be was hard enough, but the complexity, pain and loneliness experienced after that is what makes me most sad. The pain is real. And indescribable.

This has been hard for me, too. My own wife thought for years that I was just being lazy, that I had simply never tried hard enough. At times it makes me so angry to think that church culture “poisoned” her against me like that. Thankfully we’ve worked through that. If I’m being completely honest, I was being lazy to a certain degree—but I was also in a lot of pain through that time, and I was so confused, and I was afraid to talk to anyone about my doubts and concerns for fear of being rejected. I only realized there might be a path to peace after finding this forum. My relationship with my wife is now better than it has ever been.

TheFlea wrote:

I’ve been hesitant to join support groups like this, but I think I’ve come to the realization that there is strength in having a place to be completely authentic. It’s for my own health.

Exactly. Just having a group of people who really get where you’re coming from, where you can be completely honest in all your confusion and pain, is incredibly therapeutic. We can say things here that we can’t say in church and work through issues that we can’t address in church. It helps so much. I’m glad you are here in our little group!

[Daeruin]

MomofTwo wrote:

I feel that the church shoots itself in the foot by keeping these things so secretive, it would be better to educate us about our history so we are prepared to handle these kinds of concerns as they arise, rather than having to hear them from a negative source.

The church does seem to be trying harder at this. Have you seen the recent essays being published on LDS.org yet? They cover many of the troubling historical issues that have traditionally been avoided. Maybe not to a degree that’s helpful for those of us who have crashed here on StayLDS, but hopefully to a degree that will help generally faithful members who are encountering the information for the first time in the safe context of the church’s official site.

[Daeruin]

It sounds like you have had a lot of rough experiences. I think you will find a lot of sympathetic ears here. I know a lot of us have many of the same concerns that you listed. Your number 4 was what precipitated my own faith crisis:

RiverSong14 wrote:

4. People are expected to determine truth from a feeling, and if they do not feel it, they feel like something is wrong with them. So many religions and belief systems operate in the same way, and bear testimony in similar ways as ours. How do you know which one is telling the truth? How many of us want something so bad to be true that we do it to ourselves? What about those with depression or mental illnesses who have a hard time trusting their feelings, or feeling anything at all?

Feelings are just so unreliable to me. I have always thought that any answer to prayer that I’m expected to rely upon would have to be easily recognized as coming from a source that is not myself. Otherwise how could I possibly rely on it and trust it to be from God? I have heard people describe such experiences, and I’m glad they have something they feel they can rely on. But I’ve never had such an experience myself, and frankly I’ve become skeptical enough that I’m not sure I’d be able to trust it even if it did happen to me. How could I ever be absolutely, 100% sure it came from God? I don’t think I could. So in the end it all comes down to faith, a choice to believe while facing uncertainty. I’m slowly trying to accept that and see the positive aspects of choosing to live with faith even when I don’t have any personal experiences that make me want to believe. In many ways I’m envious of those who don’t have as much difficulty believing in Christ and feeling a personal connection to God or a Savior. It’s just not there for me. I don’t understand it.

I don’t want to ignore the positive side though. Despite certain problems, I think most members of the church are genuinely good people. There are so many loving, giving, Christlike people. I loved my childhood in the church, for the most part. The church encourages many good traits that I personally need to work on, and I’m grateful for that.

[Daeruin]

Welcome to the forum! I hope we can help each other find more peace as we journey on. Personally, I’m not very political. I guess I’m a moderate. I voted Republican when I was young, because that’s how my parents voted and I didn’t know any better. Lately I’ve been voting libertarian or independent, because I think the two-party (effectively one-party at times) system is a travesty and an affront to free, honest, and intelligent people everywhere. That’s the one political fight I care about.

A few of your comments did give me some thinks.

MomofTwo wrote:

2. The churches changing stance on so many issues really concerns us. It seems to us that God would be more rational and consistent than what we see in “his” church. We are taught that God is unchanging and yet the church is changing all the time.

This is an interesting issue, because we have conflicting teachings. God is unchangeable, yet we also believe in continuing revelation. So there’s some tension there, and different ways to view it. Maybe God is unchanging, and what he has already revealed will never change—we just get new stuff added to it. In that case, some of the changing doctrine of the church is suspect. But you’d also think God and the gospel ought to be flexible enough to adapt to changing times. And we’ve had some pretty obvious changes in doctrine—the Law of Moses being a very clear example from scripture, as well as the change from Levites being the only priesthood holders. Do those changes mean God lied or that people were being misled? How is that similar to polygamy or race and the priesthood? Or maybe God is unchanging, but it’s a lot harder to understand God’s intent than we tend to think. Maybe it’s even harder, or at least less straightforward, for prophets than we tend to think. Lots of interesting possibilities here.

MomofTwo wrote:

1. I Love to read, and I read a variety of things, but some of my more recent favorite reads have been by Patrick Rothfuss and Carla Kelley.

Hooray for Patrick Rothfuss! I love his books. The man is a storytelling genius. I had never heard of Carla Kelley before. Is her writing similar at all to Georgette Heyer?

[Daeruin]

Thanks for sharing this. The thought of going to a temple recommend interview causes me anxiety. I haven’t had one for over a decade. It’s good to hear your experience.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daeruin]

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

Quote:

rents are confronted with a fundamental but often difficult task: teaching children the values and regulations necessary to function effectively in society while also nurturing children’s drive to express themselves and to pursue their unique interests and capacities. The central socialization goal is internalization, wherein children “take in” social regulations, make them their own, and eventually self-regulate autonomously (e.g., Lepper, 1983; Schafer, 1968). When it functions optimally, internaliza- tion is beneficial for children’s learning, well-being, and psy- chosocial adjustment. However, because activities that need to be internalised are often not enjoyable (e.g., clean-up, home- work), adults wonder how to encourage children’s engagement in such tasks without negatively affecting their self- determination.

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000, 2008) uses the concept of innate, universal, psychological needs to understand human motivation. All human beings have the funda- mental needs to feel related, competent, and autonomous in order to develop and function optimally (Deci & Ryan, 2000) The paramount importance given to the need for autonomy is the core

Rather, autonomy is about volitional, harmonious, and integrated functioning, in contrast to more pressured, conflicted, or alienated. Self-determination theory suggests that children have an innate propensity toward mastery of their environment, and that the internalization of values, behaviours, and attitudes in the social surround is a spontaneous, natural process (Ryan, 1995).

Self-determination theory highlights the role of the social con- text, which can either facilitate or undermine children’s intrinsic motivation and internalization. Both intrinsic motivation and in- ternalization are likely to function optimally when children’s need for autonomy is supported by parents and teachers (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). It is not merely that children can develop well without external pressure and control: external pressure that goes against children’s developmental tendencies can actually have a negative effect on their development.

Self-determination theory is what I choose between authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, and self-determination.

I’m not sure how much this has been used or talked about in LDS families though. Anyone know of this or used this theory?

A small section if a 7 page extensive research study.

http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2008_JoussemetLandryKoestner_CanPsych.pdf” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/2008_JoussemetLandryKoestner_CanPsych.pdf

It sounds good, but as a father of 5 kids I don’t have time to read long research papers about the theory of this. Is there anything that is more practical for those of us in the trenches? I need one of those self help books with lots of quotes and examples.

[Daeruin]

Although I am more secular in my beliefs these days and would absolutely agree with the need to teach kids self reliance, I often struggle with the proper balance. I come from a very authoritarian home, and I often find myself demanding obedience from my kids as a matter of pure instinct, even when it might be more effective to use those moments to teach empower them with self reliance and problem solving skills. And I do this despite the fact that I personally do not believe that God, if he even exists, would not demand obedience. I’m trying to be brutally honest about myself here. I didn’t vote in the poll because my ideals and my actions don’t always match in this area. Maybe a better way to put it is that my head-beliefs don’t always match up with my instinctive-feelings. I struggle with it.

[Daeruin]

jaboc84 wrote:

I feel like my wife and I are barely keeping up with the demands for 3 young kids under age 5 (over-nighters with the scouts and weekly mutual activities feel like a burden)

I feel for you. I was in that situation 3 years ago. And I have added two more kids in that time, with one more on the way! By early December we will have 6 kids age 9 and under. It’s incredibly time consuming and stressful to fulfill the needs of that many young kids. All kids have needs, no matter what age. But the young ones tend to be more time consuming (correct me if I’m wrong, all you parents of older kids), and when you have more than one that young it can get overwhelming really fast. At one point we had three kids in diapers at the same time. I felt like I spent an hour or more a day just changing diapers—not to mention all their other needs, plus the extremely poor quality of sleep we were getting due to multiple nighttime wakings. How could I possibly have time and energy for a calling on top of all that? I think we only managed that period of our lives because I was lucky enough to be able to work from home and I did not in fact have a calling (I was refusing all callings due to my faith crisis). My wife had some fairly easy teaching assignments, and we managed.

If I get and accept a calling in the future, I plan to be very explicit about how much time I feel I can commit. If they don’t like it, they can ask someone else. Of course I talk tough, but I’m very nonconfrontational and would have a hard time enforcing that in reality. I do, however, very strongly agree with the quote Nibbler posted from McKay: “No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” Only you can decide what will constitute failure in your home—and you have the right, the expectation even, to tell your bishop what your family’s needs are.

Does anyone have advice for countering a bishop who claims the Lord will provide and bless you for making those sacrifices? Or maybe that your service in the church will serve as a great example to your kids?

jaboc84 wrote:

Does anyone ever return to full faith in the church after experiencing a crisis of faith like I have ?

Like others, I think this depends on what you mean by “full faith in the church”? If you mean going back to exactly like it was before—no. I don’t think that’s possible. Your experience, your dark night of the soul, will always be part of your experience and will qualitatively change your future faith, whatever that ends up being. There are those who return to a more orthodox type of faith after a faith crisis. But I think they are rare, and their faith is still colored by, and in a way always reacting to, the experience of having been through a faith crisis. Some people end up leaving the church. Some never regain any faith but still stay with the church. And some people end up developing a new and different kind of faith, as you have now gathered from other responses.

[Daeruin]

Like.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Daeruin]

I’ve been wanting to reply to this for a while and finally found a few minutes. Thanks to your recent comment on another post for reminding me!

DancingCarrot wrote:

I haven’t researched it much, but as far as I can tell Agnostic Theism seems to apply pretty well. I really wanted there to be one and tried to act like it (mostly through prayer even though they suddenly felt very empty). I’m INTJ and have a pretty developed sense of “I need to reach conclusions.” Sometimes that serves me well and sometimes it screws me over. This time, it helped me see pretty quickly that agnosticism as a permanent, unchanging view of the world (especially compared to my one previously) wouldn’t work for me. If there are SO many things that are unknowable in the world, I literally don’t know how to function in that world. Or if only certain things are knowable, I might feel really limited and get depressed anyway. So it’s a double-edged sword as I see it.

I think the way I can come out of this the best is considering Father’s character. Or at least what I would hope for in a supreme creator and overseer. In my own life, I have become intimately acquainted with the principle of agency. There is just so much power and ability in choice. I know that they’re limited by circumstance, but in my mind, a Father would take that into consideration and would never fault anyone for their environment. So we start with his unyielding attachment to honoring agency. He isn’t going to change your mind or make you do things you don’t want to do. Obedience for Obedience’s sake is off the table. That blows a huge hole in a lot of people’s perception about the church and gospel. It’s incredibly liberating, but also comes with plenty of responsibility in my opinion. Yay!

I find this really interesting. I am also INTJ (I think in another recent post I accidentally typed INFJ—sorry if I confused anyone), but for some reason I don’t have a problem remaining agnostic and withholding judgment in this case. I guess I view it in a really pragmatic way (also typical of INTJ) in that for me it’s not about belief but choice. I think the point in your second paragraph is critical—a truly loving Father who gave us agency would understand that we are bound by our environment and circumstances. Since he hasn’t given us concrete, objective evidence of his existence, then he can’t hold us accountable for believing in him or not. But he could (if he does exist) hold us accountable for making moral choices and doing the best within the environment and circumstances we are in.

I also recognize in a very pragmatic sense that I only have so much time available, and I have to spend my time on what’s most important: my family. That means I will may never be able to do as much research about the question at hand (God’s existence, theology, etc.) as I would normally like to do as an INTJ. So I focus on enduring through the things about the church that I don’t believe or understand and keeping quiet while my more orthodox wife to teaches our kids things I wouldn’t feel comfortable claiming to know. At the same time I focus on doing the things that I feel I can do, like providing for my family, keeping them safe and healthy, trying harder to be patient with my kids, continuing to show my wife more love and support than yesterday, and so forth. Making the system I have work is more important than whether I believe X, Y, or Z. At least, that’s how I see it.

[Daeruin]

Yes, having children is sometimes a godsend when you desperately need to get out of a meeting. I’ve used that excuse many, many times. I feel some of your pain on the temple issue. I don’t have a personal problem with the temple, but my wife and I were not married in the temple. That makes for many uncomfortable situations where people assume something about you that isn’t true, just because you happen to be at church wearing a white shirt and tie with your wife and kids. (For example, in a conversation about how long you’ve been married, someone might innocently but presumptuously ask: “Which temple did you get married in?” My reply: “Uh, none. We got married in a church.” Awkward silence.) A lot of temple-talk also puts pressure and guilt on both me and my wife—my wife because she wants to be sealed in the temple but can’t thanks to me, and me for feeling like I’ll never be good enough for her in that way and never fully accepted by other members for what must be an obvious lack of faith or desire to sin. I just try my best to let it roll off my back.

[Daeruin]

I liked the essay. The very fact that the church is even talking about the potential problems is awesome. I don’t begrudge them a little apologetics.

[Daeruin]

That was indeed a good read. I didn’t have time to finish the whole thing, but the part I read was great, especially the points about anger. Thanks so much for posting it.

[Daeruin]

SamBee wrote:

I don’t know.

Har har. 😆

DarkJedi wrote:

While I agree that no one can know there is a God, your definitions make everyone some sort of agnostic – which is true to an extent.

Leap wrote:

Just curious, which definition of the word “know” are you using when you make this statement? It seems to me that many people use the word “know” to mean they are completely convinced of something. Using that definition I think many people can say truthfully that they know there is a God. However, I get the feeling you are using a different definition. I bring this up because my self identification with any of Daeruin’s definitions depends on which definition of this word is being used.

DarkJedi wrote:

The definition of “know” certainly does come into play, and to “completely convinced of something” is a definition of the word. I prefer a more narrow definition as in “to be absolutely certain or sure about something (which cannot happen with God since none of us have seen him). I think knowing is beyond a firm belief or being thoroughly convinced. I will also note, like I usually do when the word “know” is the topic of discussion, that the General Authorities, especially the Q15, rarely use the word in the context of “I know the church is true….” All that said, this is my definition of know and not necessarily that of the general membership, general public, or anyone else for that matter.

I’m glad you asked. It’s something I was thinking about as I was writing up those definitions (which come almost directly from Wikipedia—I should have put a link in my OP). In an everyday sense or even a somewhat more strict sense, I think the definitions you and DarkJedi mention work just fine, which is part of the reason why I have been able to calm down about people using the word “know” while bearing their testimonies at church. In philosophical circles, for something to be considered “knowledge” it generally has to meet three criteria: (1) you must believe it, (2) you must be able to justify it (evidence, etc.), and (3) it must actually be true. As with anything in the philosophical world, that’s up for debate, but it’s generally accepted. If one of those three criteria is missing, you can’t really say you know something.

By that strict philosophical definition, I think you’re right—pretty much everyone is an agnostic in some sense, because we simply don’t have objective evidence for the existence of God. There are some logical reasons why you might be justified, but those aren’t well accepted (though potentially true). You might be absolutely certain or completely convinced, but that only meets the belief criteria—justification and truth are still up in the air. I think this is why Ray in other recent posts has clarified that intellectually he’s agnostic, but emotionally/spiritually he’s a theist. When you look at things from an intellectual point of view, basically all religious people are really agnostic theists, even if they claim to “know.” Some might be fideists like Ray probably is.

But really the definitions I listed are more about what you personally claim to know and believe. Whether you actually know or not, if you claim to know that God exists, you’re not really agnostic. Other people might think you’re deluded, but your personal beliefs can’t be said to be agnostic.

I was listening to a podcast today (On Being by Krista Tippett, a great podcast) and one of the guests said:

Quote:

Even God must agree with this: The existence of God doesn’t matter; doing the best with what you’ve got does.

I think that comes closest to what I personally believe, and it falls under the tent of pragmatic agnosticism. I think if God really wanted us to know for certain that he exists, he would have let us know by now. Therefore I think that if he does exist, he must find our moral decisions more important than our specific beliefs about him. I lean towards weak agnosticism, because I do see some weird and seemingly unexplainable things in the world that may point to the existence of God, but I don’t claim to know anything and I can’t say I really believe. Maybe I’ll call it skeptical weak agnosticism. I do have hope, but it’s a dim hope. More of a wish, really.

[Author]

Posts