Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wow, where to start? Most recently I’ve read “Making Peace” by Eugene England and “Reflections of a Mormon Historian” by Leonard Arrington (I was looking for “Adventures of..” but didn’t realize it’s out of print) and enjoyed them both very much. Before that Fowler’s Stages of Faith. I just got the Joseph Smith Papers vol.1 and plan to re-read RSR in conjunction with that. Why don’t you start with what you’ve enjoyed? I’m curious!
Hi Buffy! I think the being treated differently part wears off with time, people get used to what they are around. I agree that we think about “church stuff” doctrines, policies, culture, whatever much more than the average member. I know I think about these things much more than I used to. Some good comments on this thread. Valoel wrote:I would not see things like this and have the chance to think about them if I were not in the Church. Community with others creates the challenge.
Amen! I try to say I love a good challenge.
Jordan Turner wrote:I love everything that Orson has ever said, ever.
(Blushing) This is probably because I see Jordan as a Jedi master.
Fantastic question. I guess for me, I like to think that the doctrine IS truth – as in defined by what is true and not the other way around. Yes, as humans our comprehension of truth is dark or cloudy much of the time, so we must recognize our own limitations in the mortal state. We believe that prophets are mortal and fallible, so their words are undoubtedly mixed with the limitations of their own understanding (this is why we are taught to discover for ourselves, or gain our own confirmation). For me a key illuminator of this principle is that Brigham Young actually taught the Adam-God theory; a view that has been denounced as false doctrine in more recent times. If a prophet taught false doctrine once (and was not removed for it) we can assume it could as easily happen again. The point of this is not to stand up and say “I know the truth better than the church leaders”, the point is to be assured in your own heart that doing what you personally feel is right – is the right thing to do. I believe our doctrine supports you in that, as long as you don’t have an agenda to damage or alter the church as a whole (some of the few limits Ray referred to).
Imagine you lived in 1856, and you personally listened to BY teach Adam-God. You then would have a choice, you could accept it as a true doctrine (as my own third-great grandfather did) or you could say to yourself “that is not the way I see it” as undoubtedly some members did. As time went on the general view of the church changed; those people who were “out of step” with BY at the time became “in step” with the church at a later time without changing their views. I see similar situations today. My views may not be “in step” with the church currently, but personally I think they may be in another three to five generations. I personally think it would be a shame if I felt I couldn’t be in the church today just as it would have been for the people who couldn’t accept Adam-God back in the day. This obviously isn’t a perfect corollary, BY himself stated A-G was not a required belief. To me however, the point is still relevant – that views and doctrines do change, and the goal of the LDS doctrine (at least from the early days) is to be aligned with what is actually true (as far as can be determined).
My views at least – I tend to see current doctrines and policies as subject to change instead of carved in stone.
So to the larger question: What does it mean to be LDS? I think it is simply to become the best that we can be. Love is the principle, everything else is secondary. Ordinances and doctrines can be helpful reminders, as long they don’t distract us from the primary objective. You know — like what Jesus taught.
Welcome GD Teacher! Glad you found us. GDTeacher wrote:
Are there good reasons for me to stay actively engaged in the church, or am I too far gone to be “redeemed?”Do you want there to be a reason to stay engaged?
I agree with much of what you say, and can relate to your frame of reference. The logical side of me doesn’t see God as a tinkerer in the universe, choosing to spare some people from certain calamities while ignoring the pleas of others. I relate to your general view of how most religionists view spiritual experiences, I feel l understand their perspectives but I don’t see things exactly in the same way that they do. To me God is love, God is goodness . . . also truth and life. I don’t worry so much about the ‘unknowable’ aspects of a supreme being, or even if we falsely attribute other forces or sources (of good & love for example) to a ‘being’. I enjoy the same things you mention about church. A religious or spiritual experience to me is witnessing the power of love, or the strength of a common desire for good – a cause to unite. To me this entire process (in and out of church association) is a meaningful progression, a way to ‘become’ better personally. I think I hold that desire in common with the greater church body, and I cherish that common goal.
I look forward to more of your thoughts.
I’m right there with you KM. It is so much easier to write nice things on the internet (which I always try to do) than to react the right way in everyday life. In my view at least – the desire is 80% of the growth; the other 20% takes 80% of the time. KM, thanks for bringing out these important points. Nonny and Ray I have enjoyed your perspectives as well. All of our journeys are so unique, even though we share some basic parallels. The ward of my youth was much different from the ward I am currently in. I had been thinking that time was the major difference, that the church as a whole has evolved in the past couple decades. That may be true to some extent but hearing the experiences of others makes me wonder. I am feeling very fortunate at the moment – my bishop has read RSR, we have personally discussed much of the difficult early history. While he may be more inclined to pull the “we can’t really know ALL the details of what happened” card, at least he understands that situations exist in our history that are very difficult to explain logically with the absolutist mindset. I think this basic awareness lends to a more charitable outlook overall. I remember visiting with the previous bishop, telling him I just can’t believe things literally the way I used to, and he said firmly “you have done nothing wrong, we are supposed to ask questions.” As I explained (to the current one – who is a good friend ) how I felt the need to embrace a figurative view of everything as I begin to rebuild a new relationship with the church, he seemed to understand the need for “baby steps” and was more concerned with orientation (the desire to build a positive relationship) than specific position. Several months later, when I expressed a desire for a TR he assured me that a desire to know can be called a testimony and had no hesitation in giving me one. So I know “the luck of the draw” has as much to do with your leaders as anything else.
I certainly don’t share this to gloat, I hope it offers more hope for the future. I think the issues are becoming more widely known in the church, and I think that will help overall in cultivating a more charitable attitude. I hope it will at least.
Those are valid points. I think people naturally gravitate to the areas where they feel most comfortable. Personally I don’t see any problem with any of those – meaning limiting participation to the comfort level. Nonny wrote:After gaining confidence in my own path, I now feel the need to forge a new relationship with the church. Because I will always attend the church as long as my dh does, I will always “stay LDS.” I need to have a new way of internalizing or restructuring the concepts that are taught so they do not become toxic to me. I hope this web group can offer suggestions along these lines.
I like this, I hope so too!
Welcome!
Good questions KM. I’m not sure if you are misreading me a little, or if you define LDS questions and answers a little differently than I do. I don’t see myself seeking exclusively for “LDS heaven.” I don’t claim to know specifics about any “after life.” I also see inspired works from Mother Teresa and many others. I don’t see any literal exclusive authority of God on the earth, we agree on that. I think in my own terms and I value my unique perspective. I do however try to frame my personal beliefs, beliefs that I don’t expect any other human to mirror exactly, with commonly used LDS terminology. I try not to worry about my personal definitions lining up exactly with what other members believe – I think there are more differences of belief in the church than most members would like to think about anyway. People feel comforted when you speak “their language” using terms they are comfortable with. Do I want to “be LDS?” Mostly yes, I think that is the goal of SLDS – to stay for personal growth and benefit as well as family/social reasons. Does that mean I want to “go back” to a strictly absolutist view and belief? No, not at all. I see a higher level of personal and spiritual maturity that I want to reach, and I think participation in the church can help me get there. Not because I swallow any “dogma” hook, line, and sinker; but because I’m constantly in the position of figuring out what rings “true” to me, and searching for and pulling out the little (sometimes miniscule) nuggets that I can find and cherishing those.
So if “fully” means walking like a duck and quacking like a duck, I guess to me life is more pleasant and enjoyable when I do. The people closest to me don’t like associating with “odd ducks”, and they certainly won’t listen to one preach. I don’t feel good about being “under cover” or having some “hidden agenda”, so maybe that does make me want to integrate more fully and honestly. In the end I am who I am, I will not pretend to be something I’m not. I will always try to grow into something better (and perhaps more compatible with church activity) but I also know I need to be honest with myself. It can be a bit of a tight rope walk sometimes, but I see any such situation as an opportunity for personal growth.
I have become fascinated with the “non-absolutist” Mormon intellectuals, and how they frame their personal belief. I get the impression they don’t really believe in a literal and exclusive authority of God on the earth (at least in the same way as ‘absolutists’), but they don’t like to spell it out because they want to be seen as “good Mormons” and besides, stating things in a ‘positive’ light is generally a good habit to have. Instead of picking on the differences they like to direct growth in a new and more positive direction.
I guess here on SLDS I like to demonstrate how I’m “learning” again to speak the LDS language. You can read my intro to see where I’m coming from and where I’ve been. Sometimes I also demonstrate that I understand the language of disaffection, but call me selfish I’m more interesting in seeing where the road leads ahead then dwelling on where it has been in the past. It’s a personal fascination of mine as I mentioned in referring to the intellectuals, I want to learn the “deeper meanings” to all the LDS terms that will allow me to use them comfortably again. I hope that others here will have a similar goal, because two or more minds can solve the puzzles faster than one.
Hopefully something here is helpful, I feel like I’m rambling. (Re-reading I feel like I should give the detail: priesthood “power” is representative (to me) of the ‘knowledge’ that love and faith
conquers all. Or something like that.)
