[doug]

DBMormon wrote:

How can a second person walk into the church wanting to be part of it and even after talking to the first person still say “I want to believe there are no rules about God” and he has to declare all things to me as if it were new information?

The concept of building on the work of others is, of course, essential in science and technology (though one can get into trouble there as well) since there is simple too much information for one person to derive on their own. The best one person can hope to do is to make incremental additions to the body of technical knowledge, though of course there are those from time to time who make quantum leaps.

Religious “truth”, such as it is, ought to be entirely different. FIrst of all, the essentials should be extremely easy to grasp without any specialized training. And secondly, the body of truth ought to be fairly compact. The important parts I fill in on my own. This seems absolutely essential to me. Building on someone else’s foundation is a recipe for disaster, as many here can attest. Of course this works differently fo rdifferent people. Many — most, perhaps — are perfectly happy with accepting someone else’s ideas and going on from there. For myself, I have found that this is counterproductive, to say the least.

[doug]

Featherina wrote:

Why is it that so many prioritize comfortable lies over uncomfortable truth?

Because it’s more comfortable?

This may not be the best example, but I saw what I think was a demonstration of this kind of thing over the weekend when I visited the Manzanar relocation center, where approximately 10000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans were interned for about 3.5 years during WWII. I had been before, and of course was familiar with the episode, but to be there once again was an overwhelmingly emotional experience for me.

I won’t bother trying to contrast this with what happened in other parts of the world during that time … too much uncomfortable truth, perhaps … this was enough for me to try to digest. But to be witness to such egregious unfaithfulness to a principle still brings tears to my eyes. Why do people/governments do stupid/criminal/inhumane things? I think it boils down to fear and prejudice, or more precisely, an unwillingness and/or inability to think clearly and objectively when presented with new and different or disturbing information. It’s too uncomfortable for a lot of folks, myself included.

[doug]

Why not? For many, “Mormon” is a cultural identity more than anything else. I can see people wanting to maintain that identity though they may not necessarily have faith/believe in the basic doctrines as taught in the church.

[doug]

Nephite wrote:

I don’t know why I have allowed it all to become so complicated to me.

I was just about to say that I think you’re overcomplicating this, but you beat me to it. It has all become complicated to you because, as you also pointed out, the commandments of men have been taught as doctrine and you are actually trying to make it all make sense. But really, what else did you expect them to teach? They are men after all (… and women, of course), and men will teach the commandments of men … that’s all they have to offer. Something only becomes a commandment of God, for you, once you have had time to examine it in your own good time and make it yours if you so choose. If what is taught works for you, then great. If not, don’t be too surprised about it and just keep moving.

[doug]

wayfarer wrote:

We love ray, especially when he puts on those cute rose-colored glasses…

You mean the ones through which he sees darkly? I wonder if it’s possible that’s what Paul had in mind?

[doug]

Old-Timer wrote:

Pres. Packer is as hard-line as it gets … I doubt seriously that he would like to push out ANY member simply because of heterodox views.

Whoa, whoa, wait just a minute. Are we talking about the same Boyd K Packer who was largely responsible for ousting the September Six? We recently discussed one of them, Maxine Hanks, who was rebaptized, reportedly without being asked to recant any of the previous views and/or statements for which she was excommunicated in the first place. Does that mean that it didn’t really happen? Did the definition of the word “heterodox” just change? Are we speaking the same language?

Seriously, sometimes the way you guys talk I wonder if we’re even talking about the same church.

[doug]

I hate to say it, but not really. I can name at least a dozen other books that I get way more inspiration from.

[doug]

Nephite wrote:

My world is an elaborate sand castle that is crumbling away.

Well, Shawn, (if that’s your real name ) I think the image of crumbling sand that you used is a good one, and is very familiar to all who have gone through this process. All of the points that you raise are valid ones, no doubt about that. I think that most people here have had to learn to deal with these issues (along with a host of others) in one way or another. I am truly fascinated by the different ways that different individuals do this. It is amazing to watch. Some seem temporarily stunned by the realization that all is not as they thought it was, but are able to put things back together more or less like they were before. Others entirely turn their backs on the whole kit and kaboodle. And of course there are an almost inifinite variety and number of responses that fit in between these two extremes … and they are all valid responses. There is no one right answer to this.

Personally, I think I fit somewhere near the latter of these two extremes. I didn’t choose that. It was more or less thrust upon me, and I have had to deal with it as best I can. While I can vaguely see a place for me in the church somewhere in the future, it’s an image that fades in and out. I really don’t know where I will end up. Hopefully, you will be able to assimilate the new information you’ve got better than I did, or at least in a less dramatic fashion. When I found that the integrity of my foundation was seriously in question, I eventually had to tear it all down, burn it up, haul it away and start over again from scratch. And while I am more or less happy with the results and with where I’m headed, it’s not something I would wish on anyone else.

While I am not suggesting that you need to do this or anything close to it, or that you need to discard any or all of the notions that you hold dear or that have hitherto been a comfort to you, I think you need to accept as a possible way forward that some of those things will have to go, and that you need to give first priority to what your heart tells you is “right” and “wrong”, instead of necessarily taking direction from external sources, wherever that might lead you, and no matter which of your preconceived notions get challenged in the process. Now that you have opened Pandora’s box, you will forver be frustrated unless you abandon the “it’s all true or all a lie” mindset.

[doug]

Probably one of my biggest regrets in life is that I did not take control of the situation so that my mother, one of the kindest and most Christlike people I have ever known, could be present at my wedding. I was young and tended to not ask questions. I figured the people in charge knew better than I did the way things were supposed to work, and I was so self-interested at that time in my life that I probably never gave it due consideration at the time. Though she has never said anything to me about it, I am ashamed that I, with the full encouragement of my church, excluded this special person from one of the most important moments in my life. Note to whomever: I am not suggesting that my mother, not a member of our church, should have been allowed into the temple, but that the one-year waiting rule is ill-advised and somewhat manipulative.

[doug]

RDS-

Welcome. I really admire you for having gone through so much pain, heartache, and confusion, yet here you are doing what you can to make sense of it all — and very articulately, I might add. You haven’t given up. You deserve our admiration.

I can barely imagine what you have endured … it makes my own difficulties, past and present, pale in comparison. Yet here we all are on this earth, doing what we can with what we’ve been given to work with. I’m sure you know (I think you even said so yourself) that there are others “worse” off than you, though I know that is little comfort when we’re suffering.

I would echo what Brian said, if I knew how. I’m sure he’s right. You’ve got to make the best of a difficult situation, and you can’t afford to let anyone hold you down any longer, especially when you know better from experience. A good friend said to me the other day that peace comes not from receiving some long-awaited blessing (or whatever), but from each day and each moment choosing to do the right thing in our present circumstances … and if and when we screw up, to keep trying. It sounds trite and simple now that I write it out, but I think there is some deep wisdom there.

Hang in there! And go kick some ass for your own sake and for that of your kids.

[doug]

silentstruggle wrote:

This seems to go hand-in-hand with recent trends leaning toward a bias towards temple recommend holders. The other example I have was the recent directive that in order to perform Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances, one not only had to hold the priesthood, but also be a temple recommend holder …

FWIW, this has been discussed recently (I’ll find the thread later) but nowhere in the handbook is there a requirement that someone hold a TR in order to perform a priesthood ordinance, though for some ordinances (“saving” ordinances, IIRC) TR “worthiness” is a requirement.

On the temple dedication thing replacing SM, I agree this sounds a little over the top. I am inclined not to give the brethern the benefit of the doubt, because I’m certain that these matters are very thoroughly thought out well in advance. In this case the organization has chosen not to give consideration to issues of personal privacy or to consider the fallout to those who, for whatever reason, are unable or unwilling to get a TR, but instead to up the ante on temple worship/attendance/worthiness. That is, of course, their prerogative.

[doug]

When meat is served, typically the only thing on the menu is sausage. I agree … I’d rather provide for myself, thankyouverymuch.

[doug]

eddie-

Glad you’re here. Welcome. I’m so sorry to hear about your struggles. While I have never experienced divorce myself, I came from a difficult family situation that ended in divorce, and, sadly, have contemplated it myself. I can imagine the feelings of despair, lonliness and anger that you must have had to endure.

You’ve already received a lot of great advice here, and I hope you find it helpful. Thank goodness you have your daughters. I’m sure they have suffered a lot, too, and being able to help them through this situation must be balm, of a sort, to your own soul. Hang in there.

-doug

[doug]

SilentDawning wrote:

Ouch! I guess it is a bit under cover, although I wouldn’t say subversive…

Well, just so you know, while I was partially in jest, I was also trying to affirm your efforts. Subversion is not necessarily a bad thing. Subverting harmful ideas that have become ingrained in a culture for whatever reason is a noble effort that requires tact, skill, discernment, and above all love.

I am reminded of something Thomas Jefferson is purported to have said … something along the lines of the tree of liberty needing to be watered from time to time by the blood of patriots … and tyrants. I suspect that while a lot of people would think that was a great quote, if for no other reason than that TJ said it, most would recoil from the real implications of that statement. And while I’m in no way suggesting that blood needs to be spilt, I do think that somebody needs to take it upon themselves to clear away the detritus of sloppy thinking that has accumulated in the church, and that can feel like a bloody battle if not undertaken with the utmost care. I wish you luck, my friend.

[doug]

SilentDawning wrote:

…put the seed of questioning in people’s mind and then let them answer it. I do that all the time.

Sounds pretty subversive to me. 😈

Now that I think about it, I guess I do the same thing, but since my victims are innocent teenagers, I have to be a little more circumspect than I would otherwise be.

[Author]

Posts