Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mormonism is a creedless religion with (theoretically at least) an ever-expanding canon. We are supposed to “treasure up the good of all faiths” and have been taught that “Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth.” So, given that, heterodoxy should be the norm, right? It’s really the fact that there is so much focus on conservativism and orthodoxy that’s so surprising. I think it’s just that the orthodox and conservatives tend to be more confident, more vocal, more organized, and a little power hungry. That’s okay. Let them rule the world. I’d rather understand it than rule it.
Quote:I simply don’t see that recollection from the story as squaring with the other historical evidence.
I agree with KM on this one. JS’s perception of having been persecuted for telling his story simply doesn’t have much supporting evidence. Perhaps he shared the story with the minister and felt that he was discouraged. Perhaps the minister didn’t hear him correctly or thought he was speaking hypothetically. Perhaps Joseph never really told him, but the minister preached against visions and he felt it was directed at him. Joseph seems to me to be a person who is subject to both wishful thinking and paranoia at times (aren’t we all? although he seems particularly susceptible), or as his mother put it, a youth with great depth of feeling.
Quote:I personally feel that no one could have a vision at age 14 and NOT remember that both God and Jesus were present.
Two quick points on this: 1) just because the 1832 version doesn’t include it doesn’t mean he forgot it. There are other reasons that the versions might differ (Bushman theorizes that JS was focused on the fact that he was forgiven of his sins, which is what the 1832 account emphasizes, rather than any significance for the church or the world–he implies JS was experiencing personal doubts about his worthiness, which also fits nicely with the year 1832). He was writing down his thoughts years after the fact in both cases, and 2) it’s called the first vision, not “visit” which could mean it was more like a dream. Dreams are subjective, and often layered with meaning. The meaning dreams hold for the individual changes over time. The other thing that helps me with this one is the fact that it simply wasn’t a topic of discussion until so much later. JS was not out broadcasting it, and it wasn’t part of the missionary message at all. Members didn’t know about it. We hear about it pretty regularly, but early church members hadn’t heard of it outside JS’s own family. I’m not a big fan of how much extra meaning we’ve layered into it over time, but I’m not the boss of it I guess.
Quote:Is it okay for me to ask to not be a VTeacher, or at least try a different route?
VTing is a hard one for me, too. Most of the leaders who make the assignments try to make a match based on geography or what they think your common interests might be. There’s no harm in asking for a change to your route. As to not wanting to be a snob – hey, be a snob! What’s wrong with being a snob?? They’re being snobs, too, in their way. Just be yourself. You can’t make friends based on someone you are not. It just sounds as though they aren’t that interesting to you on a personal level. Maybe you’ll find some common ground if you can get them to change the subject! Sometimes I just get someone to laugh to change the subject. My boss is a big-time cyclist, so when she starts talking about exercise I just say I get enough exercise beating my kids or that the only exercise I get is moving from the couch to the kitchen to get a bag of chips.
Quote:They often turn the lesson, even when I am teaching it, into the joys of staying at home. Then they always say in a very condesending tone “oh, don’t worry, we understand YOUR situation, YOU are fine, it is all those OTHER selfish moms who CHOOSE to work”. I work with a lot of women. The only choice we make is the choice to feed and clothe our children, which means getting a job. I have yet to meet a woman who only works in order to get fancy clothes and pedicures. They may exist, but they are a lot more rare than my RS sisters want to believe.
There is so much self-loathing in what they are saying. You don’t judge others because you feel good about your own life choices. You judge others because you feel insecure. It’s a pretty hollow way to feel good about yourself, really. Kind of sad.
Quote:I think it will be best to ask for a letter route.
Here’s a little secret I learned as the VT Leader a few years ago. The reporting is really just quarterly. So long as sisters get a quarterly in-person visit, all is well in Zion. I suggest doing an email or drop off on the other months if you can’t stomach these ladies!
Quote:To boil it down into a short statement, I would say this. To be LDS, someone has to want to be LDS on some level. They can’t be out to destroy and ruin the faith tradition. They have to find some enjoyment and purpose in being a part of the community.
I’ve said it before elsewhere, but the church allows for a lot of variation in belief, but less variation in behavior, probably because we see behavior but don’t have “windows on men’s souls.” Personally, I think there is something to the “loyalty” factor. If you are not against the church, you are for it (to paraphrase Jesus very loosely). Some members like to take that the other direction and say if you are not for it you’re against it, but those who like to judge others and feel right should also beware that they aren’t mistaking their own beliefs for doctrine when they are sometimes just culturally accepted norms that are incorrect.
On the loyalty factor, when JS was confronted with apostatizing apostles, some of whom were close friends, the one test they had to be able to pass to come back to the fold was to profess loyalty to him and the church. Is that the best test of one’s worthiness? Not necessarily, but it’s probably a good judge of how fit one is to be in an organization. If you ran a company, would you keep an employee on who would not be loyal to the company (e.g. promote its interests, not give away trade secrets, not sabotage whatever the company was creating)? I wouldn’t, no matter how brilliant or talented they were.
msa01 – my favorite author is Kate Atkinson. If you like Barbara Kingsolver, you might also like her stuff. I think absolutist faith is when people get wrapped up in polemic arguments like this: either it’s all true or it’s all a fraud. Either you’re for the church or you’re against it. Here’s a BOM source that I always think seems very absolutist (2 Ne 2:11-16): 11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.
13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
The layout of the logic here is very black and white. Either you’re enticed to action by God or by Satan. Either people are angels or devils. It also implies (but doesn’t state) that if you are righteous, you’ll be holy, good, happy and have sense, but if you’re wicked you’ll be in misery, be bad, incorrupt, miserable (again) and insensible. The logic is pretty circuitous that takes it from these concepts to proof of God. But this is an example of that kind of polemic logic.
I just see life as having more shades of gray. The righteous are not always happy (right now). The wicked are sometimes happy. And being righteous doesn’t mean you have more sense than others.
msa01 – it seems to be an unfortunate human failing that when there is a strong majority in a ward (a lack of diversity in thought, feeling, socio-economic background, etc.), they have a hard time accepting those outside the norm. The one thing I have the hardest time dealing with is provincialism. But I have also grown to understand that provincial minds are somewhat self-loathing. They resent, hate and fear the “different” because they are trapped in “sameness.” Smallness of experience creates smallness of mind. Deep down, people aren’t happy being provincial or judging others who are different. They just lack the social skills and the open-mindedness to do anything else until they learn how. The person with the most awareness in the situation has the most responsibility. And that’s never the person trapped in a provincial mindset.
I think Katie’s approach is good. I think everyone feels they live in a secret world at times, not just the disaffected – there are people struggling within their marriages, people whose kids are having problems, people with financial troubles, people who are in physical distress, people who need an answer to prayer but feel uninspired, people who are insecure, people who feel they aren’t smart enough or interesting enough or accomplished enough, people who feel they don’t fit in because they are not average or not the norm. But really, very few people are looking at others to judge them. They usually look at others to judge themselves (and either they come out on top or on bottom in the comparison). Mostly, though, I think we’re just looking through each other at church. We only see the reflection of ourselves in others and ignore the rest. Never underestimate the influence you have as a parent. Your influence will always be more important than any individual teacher’s. The key, IMO, is to ask thought-provoking questions, to talk about their lessons or things they are reading or being taught and to ask the questions that will help your kids think for themselves. Quote:The dogmatic people at chruch think they run the joint (in many ways they probably do)
The dogmatic folks are vocal and run every joint they belong to, and many they don’t! So, I think this is a key point – most people are not the vocal dogmatic individuals. They are folks just like you and me, trying to live a decent life, trying to deal with the incomprehensible, and trying to raise kids who won’t set fires, torture cats, or come home pregnant.
I tend to agree that the heavens never close to those who are seeking revelation, although the dark ages were a pretty dark time IMO, and there are some major problems with all world religions if you trace them back to their origins. If you keep a perspective of things being open (hearts, minds, the heavens, open canon, etc.) you’re right in line with JS. He was all about embracing the good of all faiths and attended other churches even though he did not join them due to his own experiences. Why should we not feel and do likewise? There’s more to be learned from the good others do than by shunning or judging anyone different from us. That’s just my opinion. Not sure it totally answered your question. Do I think there was a great apostasy? Not as stark as many define it certainly. But I do think the world has some pretty bad patches of history on the collective level (Inquisition, Communism, burning heretics, the Borgias, etc.). I just believe that God has inspired people throughout all time also. Question -do you think Mohammed was a prophet?
I totally agree with KM and Katie about the need to be genuine and authentic at church. I don’t see why we shouldn’t be honest, but respectful, in speaking up about things. Here are some examples: – “facts” that aren’t right
– opinions we don’t share
I also think a lot of people on this kind of journey are unsure how to express “testimony” when they don’t feel they “know.” Even if you’ve exited the tunnel of doubt and are now in a re-believing on different terms, using the word “know” probably doesn’t feel right. I like the following alternatives:
– “I’m grateful for . . .”
– “I hope that . . .”
– “I feel . . . “
– “I appreciate the example of . . .”
These things feel more authentic to me, for me to say.
KM: Quote:I still feel more welcome and supported by NOM, even as my standards and goals direct me to StayLDS.
No need to choose just one! Go to NOM to vent, and bring what fits better here, here. And there’s some room for venting here, too. I think Valoel’s point is a good one – the extremes of both sites wouldn’t probably enjoy each others’ company at a dinner party. Both might feel it’s a waste of their time. But those in the middle can navigate both and get what they need.
