[squarepeg]

With all the recent decisions by President Nelson and the Twelve lately to the tune of putting more trust in members’ capacity to use the spirit to make decisions, and moving away from letter-of-the-law structural rules, I hope that there would be more trust in members’ abilities to use the spirit in living the Law of Chastity, and less and less of asking direct questions about specific behaviors. But it really is an awkward situation if a local priesthood leader is still running interviews under the “old law,” because by skirting the question or questioning the interviewer, the implication is that the interviewee is “guilty”. My kids haven’t had a chance yet to use their scripted lines that I taught them in the event that an interviewer asks about masturbation. But it is concerning and unfortunate that some leaders are obviously still asking the question. Isn’t it the whole point of Christianity as Jesus taught it, that we are trusted to live a higher law, live in the spirit, be full of love and goodness, and be free of the constraints of nitpicky rules and obedience to mortal authority figures?

[squarepeg]

Thanks very much, DarkJedi, Roy, and SamBee.

Roy wrote:

I think this hits upon an issue for me. I actively try to not throw myself at the mercy of my priesthood leaders. They might be kind and somewhat flexible and help to validate my concerns or they may be very harsh and make further interactions with priesthood leadership and general continuing church participation more difficult. That is just a coin flip that I am not willing to make. Therefore I tend to play a part and carefully control the information that I might divulge. I am very glad that your latest visits with local leadership went so much better than this previous time.

I agree that the more we divulge to leadership, the greater the risk. I feel I’m in a good position to risk a bit more, maybe, than some others, as my marriage and family relationships are not in jeopardy based on my relationship with the church (my husband and most of the family I grew up in have all long since gone inactive or left, and are supportive of whatever I choose to do). So, I’m pretty motivated to divulge things, because I know that I cannot be the only one who feels, thinks, and experiences things this way, and my divulging things might help others.

In the book, The Hiding Place, Corrie’s sister certainly is the one with unwavering faith. Her sister dies and her face changes in a miraculous sort of way such that it gives Corrie strength to buoy her until her release (yes, due to a clerical error!). Yes, I agree, faith may not save us from all awful experiences (though it may save us from some of them, I think!), but it still has great value, including making the awful experiences more endurable, but also much more than that. I feel like I ought to read the book once a year – it is that powerful of a story.

[squarepeg]

I had both temple recommend interviews over the past couple weeks. I determined that this was such a gray area, I needed to just follow my gut, or the spirit. In my interview with the bishop I told him that I have faith and hope of these questions about testimony, but no knowledge of the truth of these claims. He felt that faith and hope was plenty good enough to qualify as a testimony. I told him it didn’t seem to according to how the church defines testimony, but he seemed undaunted in his own conviction that testimony runs along a spectrum and the only way one could have sure knowledge would be if they had had some pretty unique experiences.

A side note: I don’t recall whether this came up in this thread, but I have had struggles wearing the Garment for a very long time, due to tactile sensory processing issues, that resulted in my ultimately being no longer able to wear it consistently when I became really sick 9 years ago. I had discussed this with the bishop (which was embarrassing and awkward for me but I felt it was important because I know I can’t be the only one in this situation) and he, in turn, spoke to our stake president and temple president about my case. It was decided that my inability to wear the garment as directed should not prevent me from attending the temple, that the garment was made for man and not man for the garment. I should wear it when I am able, and especially if able I should wear it while actually participating in temple ordinances. And ultimately the matter is to be between me and the Lord. I thought it was really kind of my bishop to speak to those others about my situation and I will gratefully and humbly accept this gift.

During my recommend interview I also mentioned that I definitely affiliate with and sympathize with individuals who have beliefs and ideas that run contrary to the teachings of the church. Some of those people are my family and close friends. My bishop thinks that question about anti-church affiliations was added to the interview initially in order to weed out polygamists and/or RLDS folks, or something like that, and he thinks of it as being mostly just to identify people who are truly against the church. He feels, and I agree, that it is good for us to have associations and love for everyone, like Jesus did.

I explained my garment issue briefly during my stake presidency interview, and he (stake 1st counsellor) agreed with the others. I didn’t talk to him about whether faith and hope count as “testimony”. I was not feeling well, and decided in that moment that my having already discussed it with my bishop was enough, and was all the emotional stirring up in isolated rooms with adult males in leadership positions that I could handle in a single month, lol. I kinda know this stake leader, I am good friends with his wife, and they are an amazing family with open minds and hearts, and I am pretty confident that if I had brought it up with him, he would have felt that what I carry with me in my heart is enough testimony to qualify me for the temple. I was also antsy because years prior when I went in for a stake presidency temple recommend interview with a different stake leader on a weekday evening and was told that my having worn regular pants was unacceptable and I should wear a skirt next time. I felt so ashamed and upset. This time, even though this leader is kinder and would be much less likely to judge based on appearance, I still wanted to go home asap.

Two books I have been reading have thrown light on this nm issue of truth or honesty and all its shades of gray. One is written by two Evangelical Protestants, “Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes,” that discusses, among other issues, how the Bible contradicts itself in many places because we are supposed to use the spiritual to discern when a “rule” applies and when there should be an exception to the rule. Temple recommend interviews might be thought of this way. The other is “The Hiding Place” by Corrie ten Boom. Corrie ten Boom lives through concentration camp tortures in WW2, and was a devout Chrustian who believed in being honest and had a hard time telling lies, but she did lie on multiple occasions in order to save her own and others lives, and it would be a rare person who would say she was not justified in this.

So anyway, I have a temple recommend, now. Thank you for everyone’s input and help as I went through this process. I am pretty pumped to see the changes in the Endowment ceremony.

[squarepeg]

This all just reinforces how many shades of gray moral issues inevitably turn out to be. Thanks for everyone’s input.

Now I have Billy Joel, “Shades of Gray” in my head!

“Shades of gray wherever I go,

The more I find out, the less that I know.

Black and white is how it should be,

But shades of gray are the colors I see.”

So cheesy but true!

I’m sure there’s a reason why two people can both be following their consciences exactly and each arrive at the opposite conclusion. That’s why I believe all the major world religions are “true” even though that shouldnt be logically possible. Members of each religion have “testimony” every bit as strong as the strongest LDS testimonies, from all I can discern.

[squarepeg]

dande48 wrote:

We are, I think, taking two different ethical approaches. There’s utilitarianism, which states we must act in such a way that provides the most good for the greatest number (of our family members, specifically). Therefore, if our family is benefited while no one else is being harmed, it is permitted to do or say whatever you need to, in order to receive a TR. The other ethical approach is Kantian Ethics (FWIW, Kant was an atheist). His approach to ethics was, we should

Kant wrote:

“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

Thanks, dande, for outlining the philosophical underpinnings. That is so helpful. I’m with Kant.

[squarepeg]

Heber13 wrote:

In the end, I’m not sure how much it all matters in the grand scheme of things, right? If someone lied to go do service like baptism or other covenants for the salvation of others, besides that being kind of odd, it also isn’t causing anyone any pain. Is it? God isn’t calling those ordinances void to the names on the temple records, right? So…wherein is the harm? I guess it becomes the principle of the matter.

But if we are splitting hairs on definitions of what testimony in these things mean and what is really honest or dishonest about some arbitrary definitions, I’m not sure we should make it harder on ourselves than it needs to be. We don’t get points for being a martyr for honesty, do we? So what does it really matter? i guess one could argue…peace of mind…and I think that was what Nibbler was saying back several pages ago. Do what helps you find peace.

There are limits. Lying to go record the ceremonies to broadcast it on the internet is in a different realm. Avoiding consequences to a wife by pretending outwardly to be good when causing so much pain to the family is in a different realm.

I dunno. It may not matter how we specifically answer the questions, or how we specifically interpret them, but I absolutely think it matters a great deal that we answer in a way that allows us a clear conscience. Honesty, integrity always matters. A lot. If the reasoning for keeping the recommend current is to avoid causing familial pain, I can really only justify that for myself if I have confided to my spouse my unorthodox interpretation of the interview questions and gotten his/her blessing and encouragement to move forward and answer “yes” to all. I’d be absolutely devastated if I were TBM and my husband was giving me the impression for years on end that he had a TBM testimony when he secretly no longer had one. When I finally did find out, I would feel deeply betrayed and hurt that he didn’t feel like he could confide in me, his WIFE, how his testimony had altered or diminished. My trust in him would be pretty wrecked. There are maybe some spouses who just don’t want to hear about the other one’s faith crisis, just want to pretend like everything is TBM-hunky-dory, but that’s pretty hard for me to understand.

[squarepeg]

mom3 wrote:

So yes, you can be a change agent, just make sure you are prepared to hold out for a long time.

Sounds to me like family is second. That is great. Own it.

I guess my point is that just because it will take a long time for changes to come to fruition doesn’t justify NOT doing the small things necessary to bring about the changes.

Family is not second, family is first. Setting an example for my kids of doing what my conscience tells me is right regardless of the consequences is top priority. If I can’t do baptisms with them or someday attend their sealings or be with them when they receive their endowments, they’ll understand why, and they’ll know that they can always trust me. I will be right there on the steps or in the waiting area, eager to give them a hug and share my love and approval of them. It will only strengthen my family relationships. I know that’s not the case for everyone. But my family is never second.

[squarepeg]

dande48 wrote:

I feel this sort of deception, these devilish half-truths and “technicalities”, makes me trust them even less than if they had straight up lied to me.

Ditto.

Roy wrote:

There is no single motive or right way to StayLDS. We each have managed some nominal success in navigating this “middle way”. By sharing our stories we gain perspective and validation but not everyone else’s approach to staying LDS will fit quite right for us. Ultimately we make the adjustments and decisions that we think necessary and carry on as best we can. May God bless each of us in the endeavor.

Thank you, Roy. I fully respect the way in which you choose to “stay LDS” and agree that it is not a black and white issue. We are all doing our best, I fully believe that.

mom3 wrote:

This very point gets discussed again and again. The only part that is important to be aware of is that the Bishop and Stake President have no ability to change the outcome of the questions. Even if an entire ward boycotted the Temple Recommend experience.

The thing you want changed has to come from the top.

Isn’t it true that in US and World politics as well as in LDS and other church politics, a lot of changes happen at the top because of grassroots efforts that started at the bottom? I disagree that the Bishop and Stake President have no power. Of course they do. There’s a chain of leadership that goes all the way to Salt Lake. If issues work their way up lots and lots of those chains of leadership all over the world, Salt Lake is bound to do something. I’d be shocked if the temple endowment ceremony changes announced today were due solely to a revelation given to the leadership in Salt Lake. That all started because of people voicing concerns about the temple ceremony the way it was before.

Old Timer wrote:

Eliminating all but one specific meaning of a complex word is immodest (extreme), so what I am saying is that it is okay to be modest in how you view a testimony.

How is that for a Mormon answer? 😆 😆 😆 😆

I love it!!! :clap: Though I still feel I ought to try to develop a shared understanding of what each interview question means, between myself and the leader conducting the interview. In my day-to-day spiritual life, I absolutely hold to a very modest (and liberal! lol) definition of testimony.

DarkJedi wrote:

I wasn’t going to comment on this thread any more because it’s clear to me your mind is made up and probably was before you opened the thread.

No way, man. My thoughts about this were a muddle and I was flip flopping like a politician until you guys helped me figure out how I felt about this.

DarkJedi wrote:

I am not in favor, as you seem to be, of just throwing open the temple doors.

We just disagree here. I hope that’s okay. Buddhist, Daoist, and Hindu temples have their doors wide open, and they don’t seem to lose sacredness because of that. We can still emphasize temple worthiness in a general sense in church, etc., just to encourage people to be spiritually prepared before entering. Honestly, I don’t think too many people who are unworthy to enter the temple are going to have much interest in it. I mean, if your head and heart aren’t in the right place, the temple stuff is just going to be weird and/or boring and you’ll not get much out of it. It’s even weird/boring sometimes when we’ve done everything to be worthy, in my experience! (I emphasize “sometimes” because I’ve had many beautiful, profound experiences and feelings in the temple.)

I think I view this issue of how to answer TR interview questions kind of like “draft dodgers” in the US during the Vietnam War. It kinda seems like they should sacrifice their lives and put their families at risk for a bunch of South Vietnamese people whom they’ve never met, because Democracy and Freedom and all that, and yet, can anyone blame them for not being willing to do it? I can’t. If I’d been in that situation, I would’ve been one of them. Should people be totally 100% black-and-white honest in answering the really rather oddly specific temple recommend interview questions regardless of whether that means it could harm their family relationships etc.? It kinda seems like they should, and yet, can I blame anyone who doesn’t? Absolutely not. There are good and bad results regardless.

nibbler wrote:

I don’t know, I think top leadership makes their decisions based largely on what the bottom is or isn’t doing.

:thumbup:

nibbler wrote:

There are far too many messages focused on works and obedience at church. So much so that I hear the pain veiled in what people say at church. Pain that could be mitigated.

This is perhaps the hardest remaining issue for me to tackle as it relates to the church. How we make calls pertaining to someone’s worthiness, one way or the other, and all the measuring we do. The temple and temple worthiness are often at the center of it.

Yaaaassssssss!!!! I went inactive for several years largely because I just couldn’t DO ALL THE THINGS, anymore, due to illness, and I was just a huge ball of guilt anytime I thought about church much less entered the building! I felt like a piece of trash. Can a loving Heavenly Father really judge people based on whether they DID ALL THE THINGS? I don’t think so. But that’s how it feels when we talk so much about these behavioral variables being essential criteria for exaltation.

Heber13 wrote:

There are multiple approaches and you go with what feels right to you and your heart and your spirituality. And you don’t go around ruining the santa clause for other families nor judging others (not that you did in any way…I’m just making the point) that approach the TR interviews very generally and not black and white, my answers mean something to me.

Thanks, Heber. I sure didn’t mean to sound like I think others are handling TR interviews wrong if they don’t see it the way I do. (For the record, I told my older kids about Santa from the time they were able to comprehend enough English to understand the explanation. With my youngest, I’ve developed a more nuanced thought process about the Santa issue, and realized that if I tell her as young as she is currently (barely turned 3), that I have no way of helping her understand that she should NOT spoil the myth for her peers, so I’ve got to wait until she understands, “Don’t tell your friends, because their families might want them to believe in Santa for a while longer.” As with TR interviews, we have to choose whose needs/feelings to take into consideration and how to weigh those needs/feelings, within our families, outside our families. Pretty tricky. I care more about other families, now, than I used to, evidently!) I will sure let you all know how it goes.

[squarepeg]

Heber13 wrote:

On the other hand…how do you handle Santa Clause and Christmas?

How do you handle your spouse asking..”Do I look fat in this dress?”

I would not advocate for dishonesty. I also believe it is important and even critical with these sacred things.

I just think brute honesty must be weighed with other values and sometimes we find the kindest part is to withhold because others cannot see inside our soul to know what we mean or intend.

Thank you, Heber. I actually tell my kids the truth about Santa really young. My teenage daughter told me the other day that she wishes we would’ve waited until she was older to tell her, so that she could’ve prolonged the magic. But for me it’s like lying to my kids and it feels awful and isn’t justified in order to help things feel more magical. There can be Christmas magic without believing a man comes into your house in the night. And my parents told me when I was very young, and it made me feel mature and respected and valued, like they trusted me. So I wanted to have that same kind of honesty with my kids. I actually think that despite what my daughter said, I made the best decision. She tells me all kinds of things I’ve done “wrong” as her parent lately, like, that we haven’t taken her on exotic-enough vacations…we never leave the country. And we have never taken her to to the opera. And we put limits on how much time they can spend staring at their phones. Sigh. We are horrible parents. :crazy:

When my spouse asks me if he looks fat in this dress, I tell him he looks drop-dead gorgeous. 😆 But seriously, I will find the kindest words I can in order to respond truthfully. If I lie and say someone doesn’t look fat when they do, they can’t trust me. Whether they realize I can’t be trusted is beside the point.

Heber13 wrote:

Just avoid limiting yourself to only one way to answer and then blame the church for restricting your access to the temple when you are choosing your actions and answers in a way that allows them to restrict it. Don’t choose the path of blame or bitterness when there are options to open our minds to truth.

Absolutely, it’s never helpful to be bitter or blaming. But surely we would say that the church did play a role in a person’s disqualification to attend the temple when that person answered “no” to a question based on what they believed to be the official interpretation of that question. Phew…if that makes any sense…!

mom3 wrote:

Realize, depending on how you present your lack of belief/testimony, you could put all those other things that you desire in jeopardy. Those alone are good reasons to have a recommend. Especially attending family events like baptisms and sealings.

No one is asking you to lie. As Heber pointed out, if you have no desire to tear down the church or secretly record the temple stuff, then you are as valid as anyone to attend it. Even if you only attend to support family.

I know super jerk leaders and people who have recommends. I wonder what their testimonies are anchored in all the time. Cause they seem miles away from Christ and Godliness as I can find, but because they don’t drink coffee, and they pay tithing – they get in.

Important to remember that the questions are supposed to be between you and the Lord. I believe we still read that to each interviewee at the beginning. The Bishop or Stake President is just a guy. As you imagine your life with Jesus or God, do you think they would be okay with you going to the temple?

The thing is, if the church meant for us to knowingly interpret those questions in a manner at odds with the way most members of the church and the leadership would define it, I don’t think they’d bother with the interviews at all. Instead it would just be, “Do you think you’re worthy? Ok then!” The fact that awful people can have recommends and many good people don’t seems to support the idea that we should scrap or significantly truncate the interview process. But if we keep just giving our priesthood leadership the idea that we have a TBM testimony (which I think is what we do when we answer “yes” to everything), we do nothing to bring about the change that I think needs to take place, namely, letting worthiness be between the individual and the Lord. I actually think that a loving Father in Heaven and a loving Savior would want alcoholics and those who don’t pay tithing and those who are in all other ways sinners to enter the temple more than anyone else. Those are the people who need to be in His presence most in order to help them repent and be healed. Jesus chose to spend his time with sinners over the pious. Why would he want his house to be different? If the questions were truly meant to be between the individual and the Lord, then why do we bother asking them?

dande48 wrote:

If we protest, make a scene, etc, we’ll get exed. If we participate, everything will carry along, with positive statistics in the Church’s record book. There will be no change. But when people maintain partial participation, “I’m doing this, but I won’t do that”, that’s when we can raise some real red flags, without painting a target on our back.

This is a big part of why I stay LDS!! It’s uncomfortable and difficult for us to be “halfway in” but if we can remain in that uncomfortable place, I think that’s when we can effect some significant positive change. The more of us who are willing/able to stay in that awkward space, the quicker those changes happen. But it’s a fine tightrope to walk…dangerous. I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to, or feels they can’t, do it.

Old Timer wrote:

What we have said is that the questions are “Yes” or “No” questions, and most of them simply ask if you “have a testimony” of something, which is a VERY ambiguous, amorphous phrase. It literally can mean any one of MANY things.

I don’t know that testimony is terribly ambiguous. It looks kinda narrow and specific to me. https://www.lds.org/topics/testimony?lang=eng

It’s really interesting to recognize the wide range in where people draw the line between honesty and deception. Some of us would draw a very definite line somewhere along the spectrum, but others would shade in a whole gray zone rather than a line. When I read the Bible as well as various accounts of Jewish culture I get the feeling the Jews would consider many things within the realm of honesty that most Christians would consider outright deceptive. I personally think hyperbole, which is found abundantly in both Old and New Testaments, is deceptive and dishonest when the the writer knows that the reader might interpret the verse literally. It’s really about intent, IMO. We seem to all agree that in TR interviews we should not be deceptive. Where we all differ is in whether our obligation to avoid deception is to our Priesthood leaders, or just to God. The reason I feel I’m obligated to avoid deception with the Priesthood leadership, and not just God, is that I assume that if the church meant for worthiness to be between the individual and the Lord, they’d not bother with interviews. I may be misunderstanding.

Regardless, I’ll keep y’all posted on whether my definition of a testimony flies with my bishop. Thanks so much for everyone’s thoughts. I welcome any additional ones. Happy New Year!

[squarepeg]

Thank you, everyone. It sure is tremendously helpful to read your thoughts and insights and the linked thread. I can see this more clearly now.

I can kind of see both sides of this: the side that says we can interpret the interview questions however we like and answer according to whether our conscience tells us we are worthy to enter the temple, as well as the side that says its deceptive to answer questions according to our own subjective interpretation that we KNOW is NOT the same interpretation that the interviewer intends when he asks it. My conscience tells me that the interviewer and I need to have a shared understanding of the questions in order for my answers to have validity; to do otherwise would feel dishonest to me, because if the interviewer found out later that I had answered “yes” using my own arguably “creative” or “unorthodox” interpretation, he would feel I had deceived him.

It would be like when your kid asks, “Where is my old stuffed teddy bear?” And you, having donated it to the thrift store because you thought your kid had outgrown it, but not wanting to deal with the fallout of telling him you gave it away, reply, “I don’t know.” You literally don’t know, so in one sense you could convince yourself you’re being honest. You know you gave it away but you don’t know whether it’s still at the thrift store or whether it’s in a dump somewhere or in the home of another child… BUT, when you say “I don’t know,” you are knowingly giving your child the impression that you had no part in the teddy bear’s disappearance in the first place, in order to get the child to respond in the way that benefits you most favorably. To me that feels kind of dishonest.

I do believe that whether we are worthy to enter the temple should be personal and between ourselves as individuals and God. But the institution doesn’t concur. And if we take the passive route of answering with an interpretation that we know is different from what the church and the interviewer intended, I kind of worry that that will just perpetuate the status quo of the church believing it’s perfectly okay to make the matter of temple worthiness the business of third parties (outside of the individual and God). So, dande48, I think I really relate to what you’re saying.

I’m going to ask my bishop whether he thinks my hope of things being true, and my willingness to live as if they were true, counts as testimony…and risk him denying me the recommend.

The reasons I want it are, first, the bishop wants me to have it, and he being a very spiritual guy, I believe he genuinely wants ward members to be temple worthy because he wants us to be a holier people…a pure motive, and so I want to be cooperative. Second, my two oldest kids keep doing baptisms for the dead and I have never been able to go with them, and I would like to share that experience with them. Third, if I am card-carrying, it gives me more sway, more credibility, as I try to change the problematic or less-than-ideal aspects of church culture and policy from within. Fourth, if I attend the temple again, I will be able to form stronger bonds of love and charity with my fellow ward members and other temple-worthy family and friends as I’ll once again have that temple perspective salient and fresh in my mind. Fifth, I miss the profound feelings of peace and mind-opening I had from time to time while in the temple.

[squarepeg]

I’m so sorry for my ridiculously delayed reply. Another brain surgery and recovery has been difficult. My cognitive faculties are taking their sweet time recovering, but I do think I have turned a corner and am becoming a bit mentally clearer, so I can now try to make a somewhat coherent reply.

AmyJ,

You probably share my sentiment that sometimes it is thoroughly exhausting and isolating to have to choose one’s words so very carefully amidst TBMs who are supposed to be our brothers and sisters. But the alternatives sound worse.

Roy,

I found Hugh B. Brown’s currant bush talk. Thanks. I must be bitter because I think I’d joyfully trade places with Hugh B. Brown and lose the big promotion I expected to get, rather than go through what I’ve gone through. What an awful attitude, no? I know it’s impossible for me to know just how difficult that was for him and none of us can compare our suffering to someone else’s and be assured that the comparison is accurate. But I feel that extreme physical (or mental) suffering that never or hardly lets up and that goes on for years and decades seems to me worse than any other kind of suffering. Not that I can really know, since I’ve not suffered every possible type of thing. President Kimball seemed to have humility; I really respect that about him.

Bridget,

Thank you for sharing your struggles with RA. I am so sorry you have dealt with that. Your suffering sounds familiar…the purely animalistic brutal physical suffering that reaches the absolute heights and you know that Hell cannot possibly be worse. It just feels absolutely pointless, that it can’t possibly be teaching you anything, anymore than a mean kid is “teaching” a bird when he shoots it full of BBs. All it wants in every second is for the torture to stop. There can be no contemplation, no consideration of what this might be teaching, because the pain is too much and too persistent to hear or see or feel anything beyond or outside of just PAIN.

I like the historian’s reasoning for why we must live by faith and not knowledge of God. That’s very thought-provoking.

I want to thank everyone for helping me through this. I have read the replies three or four times now and they continue to help me. You all are wonderful.

[squarepeg]

I feel so so sorry for the female math student who made the poster. She obviously was making significant efforts to involve more women in STEM based on her explanatory comments, and her blunder with the poster has undermined that. I only hope that more people end up attending the event as a result of all the extra publicity it has inadvertently received, and that the original purpose.is accomplished of getting more women interested in math!

[squarepeg]

Old Timer wrote:

Just to say it, faith is not believing the sun will rise. That is knowledge, since the sun has risen every day of every person’s life, even if clouds obscured our view of it. Similarly, it is knowledge that says a light will go on when you flip a light switch. When it doesn’t, knowledge explains why it didn’t happen (the light burned out).

That is an important, even critical distinction, whenever faith is discussed. Even our youngest children in primary could grasp it if we taught it correctly.

It seems like faith rather than knowledge to me, trusting that the sun will rise. Just because it has risen every day of my life until now doesn’t mean it will do so tomorrow. The likelihood of it rising tomorrow is high but by no means known or certain. Same goes for the light switch: probability of it turning on the light is high but the outcome is not certain, so we can’t know with certainty the outcome ahead of time.

I had faith all my life that a God-type being cared for me personally, because that had always seemed to be the case. Because it had always been the case, the probability of it continuing to be the case in the future seemed high and my faith seemed justified. Then I had an experience where I went for over a year of doing all that I understood was required and yet feeling no divine presence at all. So now my faith in that concept of God listening to my prayers or being “there” for me, is pretty weak, because in my mind the statistical likelihood of God being there for me tomorrow or the next day has decreased significantly.

I don’t think that my faith is universally based on perceived statistical probabilities, but for certain constructs, it’s hard for me not to allow my faith to be partially determined by my past experience.

[squarepeg]

nibbler wrote:

This is also where I see the “body of Christ” come into play. Alone, none of us can handle it all, we aren’t perfect, but we can come together and when you sum up everyone’s collective strengths and experiences you can say that we’ve suffered all that people can suffer and that means there’s someone in the group that can succor us… or maybe by suffering we become that person for someone else.

I love this perspective on the “Body of Christ” concept. Thank you.

AmyJ wrote:

The principle that saved my sanity I learned here – I am not expected to “see” perfectly – in fact, I am expected to “see” darkly. The fact that I know see that I don’t see everything clearly is a boon that was granted to me at the tender age of 28 (plus a few years). It also gives me the freedom to experiment to see what I do “see” and what works for me.

I can relate to this 100%. I sometimes feel lonely, though, when in a group of TBMs who all feel that they see perfectly and believe we have the fullness of the Gospel, while I’m alone in feeling that it’s still and always will be a work in progress.

On Own Now wrote:

There is a thought among some modern scholars that the new testament concept of salvation which has traditionally been translated from Koine Greek into being saved by “faith in Christ” should instead have been translated to read that we are saved by the “faith OF Christ”… in other words, the way he handled it is what gives us power.

That’s really interesting. I kinda like both interpretations.

dande48 wrote:

So faith only works if you act in accordance with a belief that turns out to be true.

Exactly. I just interpret the Book of Mormon definition to mean that if you have faith in something that isn’t true, you don’t actually have faith. Obviously people do have faith in untruths, or else nobody would send money to the scam artist televangelists, etc. So there is risk involved in having faith, because we don’t know ahead of time whether our faith is in something true.

dande48 wrote:

Have you ever heard of the term “Wu Wei”? It’s a Daoist term, first described by Lao Tzu in the 6th century. It translates to “not making an effort”, but not in a slothful sense. Rather, it’s the “intentional surrender of the will based on a wise recognition of the need, at points, to accede to, rather than protest against, the demands of reality.”

Going back to faith, in term of Wu Wei, I think it might be useful to define it as “not knowing, and being okay with that”.

I love that. This is what I do with certain of US government leaders who shall remain nameless. I try to use the spirit to discern when to protest and when to just let things be, because my energies need to be preserved or used elsewhere. I have a ton of room for improvement with that kind of discernment, however.

I apologize to everyone for the delayed reply on my part. I’m having brain surgery in a few days and have been overwhelmed with preparations for that over the past two weeks, arranging help with the kids, etc… :crazy: I so greatly appreciate everyone’s thoughts.

[squarepeg]

iloveChrist77, thank you for the kind words.

DarkJedi, thank you. I was surprised to learn in a book (the title of which I’ve forgotten) that many of the prominent US Founding Fathers were deists. I thought that was fascinating and significant given that many people have the impression that the Founders were deeply and profoundly personally religious — they largely weren’t…they held God at arm’s length. So I feel like, if we’re Deists, at least we’re in good company! I appreciate the Santa Claus analogy. It’s true, we can still believe in him (Santa/God) in a sense, but our more mature understanding is less magical…kinda like listening to music on one’s phone after having grown accustomed to the big living room stereo. I’m trying to figure out if there are any negative effects, to ourselves or others, that result from shifting from theism to deism, other than feeling that we’ve lost that personal relationship and sense of “magic”. Nothing comes immediately to mind. Maybe it’s okay to have things lose some color. Maybe there are subtle shades that we’ll eventually be able to discern with our new lenses.

dande48, thank you for telling me about Alan Watts! I had not heard of him, but now I’m looking forward to reading “The Wisdom of Insecurity”. Do you think his definition of faith can be reconciled with the LDS definition, “if ye have faith, ye hope for things which are not seen which are true”? I feel like it can’t! I also never could make sense out of that verse in Alma 32. If the things are “not seen” then how do we know they ARE true? It’s like we are presupposing truths arbitrarily, not with an open mind, but based solely on what we HOPE is true.

nibbler wrote:

I’m reminded that even Jesus himself felt abandoned.

Matthew 27:45-46 wrote:

Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

And to borrow from Nephi’s logic:

And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should feel abandoned by God, O then, how much more will we, being unholy, feel abandoned by God! …yea, yea, verily, and it came to pass, verily.

Thank you, nibbler. I guess my understanding of the Atonement was that Christ performed that act so that we wouldn’t have to, in order to spare us; that He took upon himself that suffering in part so that He would be able to succor us in our times of need. He says, I’m going to leave you, but I’ll leave behind the Comforter so you won’t be alone. He doesn’t say, “Hey…I suffered, so y’all can jolly well suffer, likewise”. What have I missed?

On Own Now, thanks, I appreciate that perspective. I agree that there is value in carrying out all the religious principles behind prayer and devotion and worship for what they do to one’s character and mind, independent of whether there are any divine geographic locations or beings or truth behind any of the mythological aspects. I’m glad you’ve been able to find peace with a spirituality absent of divine beings. Maybe I’ll reach that point, someday.

[Author]

Posts