[Orson]

I love that I am starting to hear expanded comments in church. Recently I heard someone say Joseph Smith was not the flawless man that we are prone to assume, and that God can work through imperfect people. (Even perhaps if they say things like “I could never lead you astray.”) 😮

[Orson]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

… Charles Taylor’s book A Secular Age. … the idea that if you subtract superstition and religious control you get reality. But he says that’s a really self-serving narrative, and one that doesn’t hold true for people over a lifetime from what he sees.

That sounds to me a lot like trading one paradigm of certainty for another. The way I see it true religious experience begins when we let go of our desire for certainty — take the leap of faith. …obviously not a “faith” that will lead to proclamations of certainty, but faith that the path of ambiguity is the road less traveled – the one that will make all the difference.

[Orson]

DarkJedi wrote:

I have heard the Santa Claus analogy, probably appropriate of the time of year. Once one learns the truth about Santa Claus one can’t go back to believing in Santa again. No amount of other explanations or apologetics will work.

I also like the Santa analogy, not necessarily as one to help others understand what the experience is like, but as an analogy to the process of growing through the stages.

1) In the beginning we see Santa as a literal magical figure who delivers physical gifts to every child on earth.

2) We reject or “learn the truth” about this literal view of Santa.

Both 1 and 2 can be seen as a shallow view, what is needed is more depth.

3) We may begin to see useful symbolism in the telling of the Santa story.

4) We fully embrace “believing in Santa” and in no way imply a strictly literal view with that claim.

Last time I was in Deseret Book I noticed a book displayed prominently: “I believe in Santa Claus” My impression is that it draws parallels between Santa and Christ – effectively promoting Santa as a symbol of Christ.

Fowler says stories are important in the shaping of a worldview, children are and need to be Mythic/literal, they cannot grasp another concept until they have lived through the first stage. There is good reason for healthy parents to tell the traditional story of Santa, and evidence to suggest that parents who refuse in the name of “truth” may have difficulty progressing into depth themselves. …not to cast dispersions, but as a way of understanding behavior. No single way of viewing the world is “correct”, but different views will cause varying actions.

I will forthrightly say “I believe in Santa” without hesitation. I believe strongly in symbols and mythic stories, they can have deep meaning that holds much value. The numerous points of crossover or influence to the “real” world can begin to blur – making their significance even more powerful – while remaining apart from a literal view.

Along another line of thought I have come to realize some of the church members that I know blend “spirit” with “emotion” and have no desire to separate them. Others may try to explain how the feeling of the spirit is somehow higher and not simply emotions. I like what can happen when we are willing to blend them, it facilitates religious conversation.

Edit: Or when someone says a deceased loved one is “looking down on us” and the skeptic has to say “I don’t believe that.” They are being far too literal in my mind, they are stuck at #2 above.

[Orson]

Thanks to everyone for the very kind words. Our little support community has made all the difference. I don’t spend the time here that I used to but you all are always in my heart. It is important to have the ability to be open and relate to others as we share from the heart.

LookingHard wrote:

As great as this community is, one thing that the phpBB software does not do well is capture the really important threads. I assume there are thousands of threads with a few gems in there. But there is no way to “vote” them to be really important.

I am sure we all have looked for the “thumbs up” button many times. It would be nice to have.

mom3 wrote:

The minute I saw your name I knew I had to read this. You have been a mentor to me. I have read your posts and responses for most of that decade. The stage 5 development you have found gives me hope of finding mine, too. Thank you.

Thanks mom3, it has been a journey hasn’t it? I think back to awkward & sometimes dark days on other boards. Your support and also from everyone else has meant everything.

We all have our frustrations. From the disaffected side mine often surfaces when I hear/see someone say “when I learned the church isn’t true.” I understand where they’re coming from, I just see those words as inadequate and misleading. If everyone could remember that we always speak from our own perspective, and our words are more personal than objective it wouldn’t be a problem. But too often the speaker and the hearer believe words like this are supposed to represent an objective or universal truth. In that situation they fail, because religion/spirituality is not experienced objectively or universally. Ironically I suppose the universal disappointment with humanity will lie on parallel lines – we are always wish our neighbor could see the bigger picture and gain a little more wisdom.

[Orson]

Heber13 wrote:

I judge JS to be a prophet (black and white…he is or he is not)…based on the fruit of his actions which are not black and white but are a sliding scale of it being good enough for me to tip the scales from False Prophet to True Prophet.

I don’t even have to weigh all the fruit and see to which side the scale will tip. In my mind someone can preach/do 99% bad, but in the 1% truth be acting as a true prophet. “A prophet when acting as such”

There is also the title or status of “prophet” in a church, I would grant “authentic” to the title of prophet if there was in fact an organization that did in reality recognize the person as their designated “prophet.” Someone else that tried to fake authentication or fraudulently pose as the figure head of an organization would administratively be a “false prophet.”

[Orson]

brittastheworst wrote:

Why do I care so much about if other people like me?

Human nature. We all feel it, maybe sometimes more than others, and in different degrees, but we can’t escape it.

I always try to turn the tables. I am as valuable a person as anyone else, what do I think of Them? Everyone is a little crazy. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. Everyone will be annoyed at some little part of anyone else.

The truly strong rise above. They acknowledge these follies and realize that the being “bothered” by others is the weakness. Somebody may be popular, successful, good looking, smart, well spoken… etc. but if they demean and look down on others, or view them as “less than” for some reason, they are exposing their fatal weakness. It doesn’t matter how others may interact with them; what matters, the real personal character and power, is not determined by how others treat you – it is revealed by how you treat others.

[Orson]

Joni wrote:

The line in the chorus that really jumped out at me during rehearsal was, ‘Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren.’ What do we think that means?

My impression of the ideas from back then: Joseph would lead or preside over “the church” in heaven (the portion that he presided over on earth) the way it had been set up by him on earth. He was essentially the leader of the dispensation. When I read the old journals and communications I get the idea that some saw the priesthood structure as eternal, and could pass from this life into the next. This may add context to how bishops served for most of their lives back then. I have the impression that members believed if they built a relationship with Joseph then he could look out for them in the next life. My take on “Gods” in this verse allows room to mean other exalted beings in the next life, maybe not our Eternal Father type of “God” – although it could easily mean that too – but other children of God who are progressing toward exaltation and have achieved the distinction of that title. Maybe like the extended authority figures of the priesthood as it exists in heaven. Some Christians may think giving anyone else the title reduces the singular greatness of God, but at the time I’d bet they would have taken it as we refer to President Eyring or Uchtdorf as “President” – it in no way reduces the position of President Monson.

Don’t quote me, this is all simply my impression as I imagine the saints and their views at that time.

[Orson]

I wonder about the typical experience in the church today. At a young age I was told that we no longer practice polygamy on the earth, but in the celestial kingdom all men would have more than one wife (an idea obviously passed down from great grandparents). I remember an awareness of Brigham Young’s many wives, and being told “we don’t know much about Joseph Smith’s wives, but we do know he taught and practiced plural marriage.”

That was all I knew about Joseph’s polygamy until I started reading RSR, Mormon Enigma, and other sources. The messy details are what really disturbed me. I still wonder how we can address the topic and details (more than in the LDS.org essays) in faithful settings, but it needs to be addressed.

[Orson]

LookingHard wrote:

…for me the apologetic response for many things seems to be, “decrease the meaning until the problems are no longer problems”, then I am left with something close to meaningless (or at least drastically less meaningful).

Or am I missing something?

My view is somewhat different. I don’t see the adjustments as “decreasing meaning”, I see them as aligning with truth. If my expectations are demonstrated to be out of harmony with what can be verified, then I need to adjust them to become more compatible with what is known.

I also see space being created for personal experience, the goal is to communicate with God directly, without setting the bounds of an acceptable response before we begin to listen. If scripture is seen as a little bit more human then maybe we we can be willing to receive personal revelation without first dictating to God what an acceptable message will be.

Yes people will receive different messages. I believe that is part of the mortal experience, learning to deal with people who live on the other side of the coin. It becomes essential that God tell people different things.

[Orson]

Gerald wrote:

Would a testimony stating “I haven’t seen God but that doesn’t alter my belief in Him one way or another” be problematic? It’s probably the kind of testimony many members have.

It has been several years but my memory says in G. Prince’s biography of Pres. McKay, when asked directly if he had seen the savior DOM replied “no, but I have heard his voice many times.” I know some members don’t want to hear this, their idea of a prophet requires a personal vision, but here we have an account that he said it.

Over time my views on “seeing God” has changed. Some may say my bar has lowered, but it has had the effect of taking me from the position of being extremely skeptical that anyone could see God, to feeling it is probably fairly common. The difference is I don’t imagine seeing and talking to God as a physical experience of one man talking to another. The primary takeaway will be an overwhelming sense of love, and that may come from dreaming about encountering the savior for example. When it is a powerful experience I would call it “seeing God.”

[Orson]

It is easier to change our ideas on any topic than to change our behavior. It is far more difficult to change our personality, and I would not suggest trying. Maybe you are looking for small changes that can come from developing strengths, I will always applaud that effort, but first make sure you learn to love yourself fully for who you are. You have valuable strengths that are unique to you, find them, cherish them, develop them.

[Orson]

Rob4Hope wrote:

Orson,…in the book, there was a discussion about “spiritual sight”. Basically it meant a type of metaphysical second site that didn’t involve actual eyes. Any ideas on this?

Yes, I have come to understand spiritual manifestations in this same way, it is not a physical event. When you hear the spirit speak to you it does not come through physical sound waves that vibrate your ear drum. If it was physical hearing then other ears nearby could also pick up the sound. In the same way if Moroni’s appearance to Joseph during the night was a physical event it would have roused his siblings who were sleeping in the same room next to him. Our expectations can easily get out of hand, as I read history this becomes obvious many times over.

[Orson]

Joni wrote:

Jacob 2:28 “For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.”

Why only women? Does God not also delight in the chastity of men? (After all, it takes two to tango.) Or did He simply not think it was worth mentioning?

I read this passage of Jacob in the context of protecting women from polygamy and other loose relationships. I hear it saying “women are entitled to a secure relationship with one devoted husband.” In that context it doesn’t mention men because the culture of the day did not have them at risk in the same way. The men’s hearts were not being broken by the actions of women.

[Orson]

Rob4Hope wrote:

… those other people (like Oliver and Sidney) would have to be “duped”. They would have all had to of been in on it.

What is everyone’s take on that? Do you see all of these others being all in on a fraud?

No, I don’t see malicious fraud. I see true believers. There may be some examples of wanting to adjust a story because the audience can’t handle the way that God delivered it, but behind it all is a strong belief that it came from God.

[Orson]

DarkJedi wrote:

The idea of God being love, which is closer to Catholic theology in some ways, is harder for me to wrap my head around while trying to let go of what I have believed about God.

I don’t see the ideas as mutually exclusive. Just because I relate to a concept of God being love/love “being” God, at least to some degree; it doesn’t eliminate in my mind the possibility of a divine eternal father figure. I do appreciate the idea that God in his entirety is simply too much for our human minds to fully grasp. In our Mormon world we often talk about beliefs that are comprehensible, but we also have beliefs about eternity and God that must be outside our ability to grasp.

Think of the old joke of St. Peter giving a new arrival a tour of heaven, the pass a closed off area and St. Peter says “Shhh… in there are the Mormons, they think they are the only ones here!” I think God must be bigger than we can imagine.

[Author]

Posts