[Rix]

Hi “mom!” Welcome!

Great posts here so far…and I think most here relate to your story. I will also add that there really are many “kinds” of Mormons…and the diversity is getting larger every day.

You have experienced advice from a man who is doing the best he can with what he’s been given. He is what I call an “Iron Rod” (as compared to a Liahona — led more by the Spirit, where an Iron Rod lives by the letter of the law). Iron Rods don’t understand us Liahonas…and they never will. What helps is for you to understand that, and not expect “him” to change. Unfortunately, one trait of the Iron Rod is to aspire to leadership positions…so we see more of them as bishops, etc.. We Liahonas tend to be more interested in fellowship and support of each other…so we tend to work in the trenches without getting a lot of accolades.

Both types are important. Like others have said, you are young and have grown up with expectations that are collapsing at the present time. Long-term, that is a good thing. It helps us become accepting of so many aspects of the church (and elsewhere) that we become more tolerant and respectful of differences. As my kids say…”it’s all good!”

But the present pain is difficult. The confusion is uncomfortable. You are experiencing what we call cognitive dissonance…and it is a necessary step to find your eventual peace. And you will find it in time!

Good luck on your journey!

[Rix]

SilentDawning wrote:

Also, I’ve noticed that in these other long-time forums, there is a group of high volume posters and moderators who support each other on certain issues, making a new poster who says something against the culture of the board feel like an outsider. I don’t see this here. Hopefully that never develops.

I absolutely agree with all you said, SD. A few years ago I posted a bit on the MA&D board and was shocked at the meanness and personal attacks there…IF you didn’t tow the line with their culture. They made sarcastic jabs at anybody that questioned, and the moderation was hard-core. It really disappointed me that they would claim to be somewhat of the official scholarly forum website of the church, and have such an attack approach…VERY defensive!

I guess they are the modern day Danites?!

😆

[Rix]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Sure I think it’s possible that maybe Jesus was just another man and these stories were all embellished and eventually developed into a highly exaggerated myth

Yup. That’s pretty much it for me. Like Joseph Campbell says, “It’s ALL myth!” But if it works for you, please go for it! I am comfortable looking at it all as myth, with a splash of history blended in…and I love the story of it all!

[Rix]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

… However, to assume that these philosophies are all equal when it comes to morality is simply not true. In principle Christianity teaches an unselfish brand of morality which strongly emphasizes things like forgiveness, brotherly love, charity, sacrifice, etc. whereas in many cases the more natural tendency would be towards self-interest, greed, vengeance, etc.

Christianity absolutely features a more ambitious moral code that is clearly a higher ideal in my opinion because atheism/agnosticism doesn’t really say anything about morality other than that we supposedly don’t know that it came from any god so then it all becomes relative to the individual as far as what they think they should do or not. Sure some of the Christian ideals are easier said than done in practice but I really don’t understand why anyone would have a problem with their neighbors aiming for this lofty goal if that’s what they want to do. The real misunderstandings occur when some Christians lose sight of this and start to act in a self-righteous, hypocritical, or intolerant way that is actually contradictory to what Jesus taught but some people will still associate their bad behavior with the fact that they are Christian.

Umm, perhaps no surprise, but I just think you need to get to know a few good people from these other walks of life. I think you’ll have a hard time judging them as you have when you really understand them.

I understand from a “the natural man is an enemy to God” perspective, this line of thinking makes sense. I disagree with that foundation. I think the natural man is from love…and fear is what turns them away from love. But that’s a longer, deeper discussion (for another thread, if you want). I very much agree with Sam Harris on the video if you had a chance to see it.

DA, perhaps our core disagreements really stem from our diverse background (or belief) of religious history. I see Christianity as a borrowed religion from prior traditions. I do believe that Jesus most likely existed as a brilliant, enlightened teacher, but the bulk of what we read of his miraculous, magical events were applied to him by political leaders (Constantine et al) and borrowed from Pagan/Greek mythologies.

So with that background, my approach is to find the good in each life paradigm…and I find good in most religions. I think spirituality is individual, and I hope we each find what works for us and makes us better, moral people.

[Rix]

George wrote:

If you like it black, stop by for a cup!

Oh my, I’m sure you’re going straight to hell, George! 😆

(where do you live? I’ll be right over…)

[Rix]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

I understand that some people are mostly just looking for the truth above all else and I guess atheism/agnosticism simplifies things for many of them because it reduces some of the required assumptions they need to make by rejecting popular faith-based beliefs that aren’t directly supported by overwhelming evidence. However, I still think one of the major reasons that atheism appeals to many people is that it really is the easy way out by giving them a convenient excuse to reject any moral obligations so that they can basically live a selfish hedonistic life without feeling guilty about it. I think this is especially a motivating factor for ex-Mormon atheists because of the high demands that the LDS Church currently makes like tithing, the Word of Wisdom, time-consuming callings and meetings, etc.

Gotta say, I completely disagree with this, respectfully. I heard this line of thinking from so many “traditional Mormons” as I went through my transition that it really made me angry! In fact, I believe just the opposite — about both topics.

While I was studying/researching, I found that most Mormons were not in the least bit interested in looking into what I had heard. At the time, I thought it was the simple way out…the lazy way. It was easier to avoid the confrontation and conflict by ignoring the evidence that might change a person’s total paradigm of life. I found it was much more difficult, painful, and discouraging, than continuing in the status quo of putting the smiley face on and pretend it’s all “true” and historically accurate.

Also, before my transition, I believed similarly that atheists/agnostics were immoral and intellectually lazy. Today, if pushed, I would say just the opposite. If interested, here’s a link of a recent presentation given by Sam Harris:

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

NOW, my outlook has changed. I find atheists and agnostics as equally spiritual, moral, ethical, and intellectually diligent in searching for truth. I find most religious people to be the same. What I’ve come to see today is that most people are doing the best they can with the circumstances in their lives. I really try not to judge what is going on for them, and I don’t feel it my duty to do so. I try to better myself, care for my family and friends, and my life is as full as I desire.

But, that’s just me….

[Rix]

I’ll chime in a bit…I absolutely agree that good research is good research, and I tried to be as unbiased as I possibly could in my “crisis” time.

I was asked to be in a “study group” when Grant Palmer was doing his research for his book, and even though I think a few of his conclusions are off a bit, he was extremely thorough and did his due diligence, IMO. There was a time in the early 90s when the “vaults” were open to church educators, and much of what Palmer, Quinn and others wrote about came as a result of new information that came available then.

It was quite disturbing to Grant, who had spent most of his life dedicated to the church, and he did feel a certain amount of duty to write his book to disclose what many hadn’t known about the early church. He continued for some time to be active and wanted to simply set the story straight…but there ensued a witch hunt of sorts for him, and I don’t think he is as eager today to remain in the church.

Having been a part of it, I was really struck by the personal attacks many apologists threw at him to discredit his work. Jeff Lindsay spent most of his “critique” of the book saying how Grant lied about his church service. The attacks alone was eye-opening to me as to how defensive the apologists can be…disappointingly mean and political.

But the experience allowed me to see “religion” in the light of a political, corporate system, and I think almost any powerful religion will have its salesmanship and white-washing events to convert and retain members. It’s just sad it has to be that way, especially when you are “selling” a culture based on honesty and love for others. I guess it is human nature…and seems nobody is immune.

But the upside for me was that I evolved to become responsible for my own spirituality. Nobody else can do that for me. Yes, it was a bit unnatural at first — the LDS culture is quite filled with “leaders” that tell us how to live. But for me, I found that we are each uniquely individual, and our communion with God is also individual. With that, I found much peace — and forgiveness for what others do that probably have the best of intentions.

[Rix]

Euhemerus wrote:

Rix wrote:

Regarding Joseph’s work on the NT, I would guess many would like to “test” it, but it also seems it might be a negative…just as the BoA “translation” has shown. Maybe that’s the reason for a lack of enthusiasm to do it. As scholars are continuing to find real problems with Joseph’s (literal) claims, it seems to me the church is backing away from “evidence” that Joseph was a “true prophet,” emphasizing gaining a spiritual testimony instead.

Hmmm, that’s an interesting point Rix, I had not thought of that. If I take the approach that Joseph’s claims were literally true, I have a really hard time figuring out why we don’t use the JST.

However, it seems to me that “evidence” for Joseph’s claims, if nothing else, has ramped up! I remember E Maxwell’s talk not that long ago that mentioned the church would no longer allow critics to “slam dunk” the church. And hence modern apologetics in the church was born. And they seem to still be going strong. But perhaps they don’t want to add one more thing on the apologist table. I dunno.

Incidentally, Bruce McConkie once said that the JST Bible was the best version of the bible on earth. This is why I’m led to the conclusion that it is more tradition than anything. We have a pretty hard time, in our church, breaking with tradition.

Yes, we are traditionalists! And I’m sure many leaders still hold to the literalist view of Joseph’s claims…and the FARMS’ boys can satisfy many that there is still a possibility that it is all historical. But I think the pendulum is swinging the way of the symbolist, and room is being made for them/us. While it is happening, I think the prudent approach is to be a bit silent on the controversial areas…sort of like the church was around the blacks/priesthood transition.

BUT, I may be crazy too!

😆

[Rix]

Old-Timer wrote:

Honestly, I can see benefits for lots of people to take the idea of a personified devil (Satan/Lucifer) literally – and I can see benefits for lots of people (even some of the same ones) to take that idea fuguratively and symbolically. I have no idea, really, if a personified devil exists – but I do believe totally that evil exists, so I take the best of both views and go from there.

Yup, that’s how I see it. I think for many people, personifying God, Satan, etc…really helps to understand things. For others, it doesn’t make sense, and/or the story and legend are sufficient for a foundation. I go back to “it’s all an illusion anyway,” so whatever works is great!

Where we seem to get in trouble is when we are deadset on our perception being the only “true” perception. I’ve done that way too many times, and it’s just a pride thing. I’m just fine to say “You may be right, I may be crazy…” (ala Billy Joel…)

[Rix]

Thanks for the review, Eu! I love Ehrman’s work…quite easy to read.

Regarding Joseph’s work on the NT, I would guess many would like to “test” it, but it also seems it might be a negative…just as the BoA “translation” has shown. Maybe that’s the reason for a lack of enthusiasm to do it. As scholars are continuing to find real problems with Joseph’s (literal) claims, it seems to me the church is backing away from “evidence” that Joseph was a “true prophet,” emphasizing gaining a spiritual testimony instead.

I think that’s a good move, and allows the members many different approaches and perceptions of the early claims.

[Rix]

bridget_night wrote:

…whether it was Satan just working on me to think this negative and personalize things, or if it was a chemical/hormonal problem.

I’ll give you my (extremely) oblique response to this, Bridget. We tend to look at Satan, God, Spirit, etc., as literal “transformed humans” with the same sorts of thoughts and processes as we have.

Consider it all as metaphorical…what if instead of viewing “right and wrong,” “good and evil,” “God and Satan,” the way we traditionally do…view everything as coming from LOVE and fear (fear being the lack of LOVE). Compare LOVE to light, and fear to darkness (lack of light). Love is the pure energy that makes the universe work…fear is the lack thereof.

If you look at it that way, traits such as worrying, pessimism, lack of hope, etc….all come from fear — no matter what happens internally in our bodies. In fact, more and more, we are coming to understand that one of the most powerful “drugs” is our own thoughts. If we have positive thoughts, life works better. Of course, we all have the kind of dreams and thoughts that take away our optimism, but if we do the kinds of things that bring us back to “LOVE” (like good nutrition, exercise, meditation, a walk in nature, etc.), we can transition our attitude and state of being back to a more positive place.

At least I’ve found that to work for me…

[Rix]

Brian Johnston wrote:

Drink a beer to relieve stress = bad. Take some Oxycontin = gray area. So the choice would tend to gravitate towards the gray. It’s not so bad right? They could still get a temple recommend, etc.

I’m not saying this in an accusatory way, just a practical observation. People will do what they are going to do in the most palatable way.

I’ll answer a few of the posts, but quote Brian. Yes, the statements above are correct in my experience. There were so many of my clients that explained to me (in rehab) that the reason they started the (opiate) drug abuse was because they could “get away with it.” No smell, no being seen buying beer, etc.

And yes, when you comb through the statistics, Utah is right at about the average wrt substance abuse — “illicit drugs,” below average, misuse of RX drugs, the top of the heap. So this is what so many here have assumed and posted…you are correct.

However, one point I was trying to make — and I think misfit7 was too — is that there is a dramatically more devastating outcome when you get addicted to Rx meds (mostly Oxycontin these days). The deaths from this type of problem are significantly greater than all other substances combined.

The common pattern is that a person starts with pain pills, then when they can’t get, or afford them anymore, they are forced to transition to heroin (relatively cheap). The physical dependence with opiates changes the person’s state of being to the point of always lying, stealing, etc…just to get the drug and avoid the painful withdrawls. Quite often, since the addiction leads to poor sleep patterns, the person combines opiates with benzos (valium, xanax, etc.) and alcohol. The mix is often fatal as it shuts down the cardio-pulmonary system…IOW, they go to sleep and never wake up (ala Michael Jackson…).

So, yes, the overall substance abuse rate in Utah is average, but the type of abuse is much more damaging than the others.

[Rix]

I have no doubt that many TBMs (particularly the “iron-rod” types) think “we’ve” already apostacized and are on our way to our burnings! My step-father thinks John Dehlin IS the anti-Christ (he saw the “Why do they Leave” podcast, and we heard about it all night!).

There are really many types of mormons…my guess is that the majority of active members don’t know more than 10% of the historical issues and challenges. The ones that know a little more, and have listened/read the FARMS/FAIR responses to them are comfortable the challenges are all false and purely anti-mormon. Those of us that have dug into the issues have had to create a whole new way of looking at religion and spirituality in general…and the others have no concept of that process.

So like we say here, there are many parts of the orchestra, and many that play the violin have no concept of how to play a woodwind!

😆

[Rix]

Sailor, I’m sure this is a hard time for you to hear this, but I promise life will get better for you!

The excommunication process is difficult — for both sides. From a therapist perspective, it is quite demoralizing and humiliating…you have a bunch of men (that mostly really don’t want to be there..) doing their job and watching you eat crow!

I understand the “court of love” process, and also see it from the historical perspective that it is an offshoot of the old church courts where the church WAS the law here in “Zion.” It has evolved since then, but much of the process remains the same wrt “justice.” And much of the process is designed to protect the church and its reputation.

I have personal feelings that hope it will continue to evolve to a more loving process, instead of creating guilt and shame to the person. In the long run, we are our own worst enemy as it relates to “sin,” and (IMO) it should stay between the parties offended, and God. The shame one experiences often makes it more difficult to heal from the issue…and to ever be comfortable and confident to associate with the many people that end up knowing all the juicy details….

But that’s just my oh so humble opinion….

Maybe it will help to try to realize they are just doing a job they have accepted. The real healing process is between you, your wife/family, and God. Focus on that and I think you’ll do fine.

Good luck!

[Rix]

SamBee wrote:

[

I have heard similar rates for anti-depressants, etc, BUT we have to bear in mind that 30-40% of Utahns are not LDS, and that percentage is increasing.

True. But there is a pattern we see that live here…the higher the concentration of LDS (at least along the Wasatch front), the higher the Rx drug abuse. IOW, Utah County is worse than Salt Lake…

Now, the church responds with “the drug abuse is higher among inactives.” (I can find the quote if you want it). I answer, DUH! Once you start abusing drugs, you’re not gonna want to go to church! The statistic they fail to mention is that the parents are usually very active. I just know that from my experience as a drug counselor.

Again, I don’t want to blame the church for the problem (except possibly the fact that they have not been proactive enough in teaching the members how to deal with the addiction correctly). It is usually naive and ignorant parents that don’t want to admit that there is an issue…or deal with it. But of course that is the furthest from what the church is teaching….

[Author]

Posts