Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was in your exact spot too, kinderhook, about a year ago. In my experience, love, patience, kindness, openness, honesty, and emotional health in the marriage will always make it stronger, no matter how hard or difficult the “trying” times. If the marriage is about love and acceptance, wherein you “choose” each other rather than worrying about what others may think in your immediate families or in the church or in the church culture/community, you will find yourselves in a better marriage than you ever thought imaginable. Sorry for the cheesy, cliche but, hey, that’s how it happened to me.
There were recent times in my life, long periods of time, when the best part of going to church was putting away the chairs at the end of the three-hour block. I have to agree with jmb and valoel, I’m in the camp of “If God exists, He put us here without any knowledge of Him but still wants us to make the world a better place or at least make others happy”. Someone else said that meaning is created by the individual anyways, so it’s so personal and abstract as to be a “believer” or “non-believer” that it’s hard to ascribe importance (but sure fun to talk about The one thing I am struggling a bit with is how I would deal with the death of a loved one.
This was me. My grandpa died two years ago next month. He was the most important person to me in my life (even more than my parents). He was 95. Obviously, he had lived a full life and his “time” was up. For the last 8 years of his life, I had a hard time visiting him consistently because I had started a family. We lived relatively close to each other so this lack of attention on my part made me feel a little guilty.
Then I thought about it. In the scope of life, specifically human life, there really is a time, a season. My time and season to be with my Grandpa, share life with him, learn from him was past. I now had my own family to attend to. This was the season of my life. I didn’t need to feel guilty about a season passing. All seasons come and all seasons go. I need to enjoy them because God (or life) created them for me and I only get them once. The season of my current life is all-important; not the season that has passed or the season that is yet to come (whether in this life or the “next”).
As for the final part, I understand the implication. A knowledge of God gives an assurance of a life after this, one in which we will share with our loved ones. This thought can bring comfort to those in grief over the loss of a loved one, especially “prematurely”. It is no comfort, but this is the exact reason that I feel it is so important to take advantage of life in the moment you are living it; no one knows the end, but we do know the here and now. Viva la vida! (yes, I went to the coldplay concert last night)
just me wrote:I’m hoping to have him watch the youtube video on “Why People Leave” by John Dehlin. I just watched it the other night and thought it was excellent. Other than that, I’m not really sure where to start. Do you good people have any ideas?
Great idea, the “Why People Leave” is excellent.
I’m not good with ideas because I tended to dump things on DW and then we sorted it out over time and long talks. Not the most productive but we always have found ourselves in a better place. Probably just luck. I think as you discover and share simple things, show love, embrace happiness, your example/light will start to rub off and things will happen. It takes time and patience, as bruce said.
Keep it up!!
just me wrote:Perhaps if we came to a place where literal believers and authorities did not feel threatened by symbolic believers (and viceversa).
Therein lies the rub. Very interesting article. Thanks for bringing it to attention.
There is a significant chasm between the myth-believers and the literalists. If Hinckley’s intention was to narrow that chasm, I don’t think he made any progress. If his intention was to widen the chasm, he may have made some headway. Considering the openness of the brethren towards non-literalist interpretations of the 1950’s, it feels like the culture of the church has taken big steps backward, or maybe more succinctly, widened that chasm.
While I don’t dispute the enlightening, milk/meat, potential of myth, I don’t judge Hinckley’s appropriation of mythologizing as an attempt at “enlightenment”. It seems to be more about connecting to a sacrificial past that justifies the “peculiarities” and encodes the “chasm” in an “us vs. them” mentality. Exactly like the post-WWII anti-communist movement. Adding “under God” to the pledge, demonizing the “reds”, creating the myth of the U.S. as a “christian nation”, spiritualizing the founders, etc.
These are myths that have continued, in one form or another, perpetuating the sense of the U.S. being a “chosen” nation, glorifying the sacrifices that have been made, and justifying all means for the “ends”, perpetuation of the myth of a “chosen” land. “You’re either with us or against us”. “And we’re right, as is perfectly obvious by the fact that we are a “christian nation”, “under God”, and have never lost a war.”
I am aware, as the article so succinctly points out, that this mythologizing has two sides. I guess I’m coming down on the “Hinckley’s Ritualization” was not helpful on the whole, and less enlightening overall. My judgment is based on the concept, “by their fruits…” Imho, the church, it’s culture and community, was not left in a better place than GBH found it.
mormonheretic wrote:Not all people in a marriage work toward the betterment of the relationship–in fact, some seem to really sabotage it. I think this can be seen in religion as well.
In the spirit of this thread, are you saying that the “why bother” is just a residual of circumstance (“I’m in it now, so I might as well make it work”)?
Valoel wrote:The matches seem to slip off track over time as one field of human knowledge and experience advances faster than the other.
Wow! So true!
Of course, it may be an inevitable trend as one side, by rule, seeks truth without claiming entrenched definitives and the other seeks to only defend entrenched definitives it claims is truth. Although, there has been dislocations in the “Gospel” model, in part attempting to re-direct more towards the “science” track when the gap in knowledge and experience becomes so glaringly large (Christ, St. Augustine, Prophet Mohammed, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith?, etc.).
Maybe that’s a reach, but those dislocations happen for a reason and that seems to be a logical conclusion. SSA is a great example of this right now. Human knowledge and experience has arrived on one side of the ledger and is waiting, not so patiently, for the other side to catch up.
Though the Episcopalians this week did catch up:
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50992 mormonheretic wrote:I think religion can be a lot like a marriage.
I think this is a great analogy. Of course, in a marriage, it’s presumed that both spouses will work to make it better, overcome faults (or at least acknowledge those faults), increase respect to each other, try to minimize or avoid emotionally manipulative tactics, etc.
Again, I would argue that the marriage analogy is excellent, it just feels like the “spouse” isn’t working towards the same goal of mutual respect, unconditional love, emotional support, and real honesty. fwiw, imho, iow, etc.
Great example, Valoel! I’ll be using it and giving you full credit. 😆 Tom Haws wrote:And of course, swimordie, I fit none of your seven.
That was written with WAY too much glee.
It may be splitting hairs (and your #8 may have been inevitable even if I had written it, maybe it should be the “Tom version”) but your 8 and my 7 are really, really close.
just me wrote:To me, the whole purpose of life is charity-the pure Love of Christ.
Perfectly said, justme.
Tom Haws wrote:@Valoel: Love it.
Ditto!!Tom Haws wrote:Antagonistically disposed people have a heyday with this, calling LDS-ism a sci fi religion. Why the literal interpretation persists, I just can’t understand.
Valoel wrote:I don’t think it is entirely clear in LDS theology that God is a physical being only in our tangible universe somewhere.
You guys must go to REALLY liberal wards. Everywhere I’ve ever attended, the overwhelming sense is that God is tangible, is a physical being and is currently residing on an actual planet somewhere near Kolob. And, someday, that will be each of us.
The fact that you guys don’t entirely agree with this assertion doesn’t mean the rest of the world views mormonism from your perspective. The world views mormonism from the perspective of what they see, hear and that is the TBM, literal-meaning of it all.
I’m sorry for the bluntness but I would be SHOCKED if the world viewed mormonism in a different way; we make the literal interpretation persist because we still believe it! (As an institution/culture/community)
I was wondering if someone was gonna bring this up on this forum…. I agree entirely with Valoel’s take. The tricky part of beingLDS or stayingLDS is equal parts the institution and the individual, imo.
The institution is going to protect itself, which tends to come out as a form of coercion via emotional abuse. Examples: guilt, groupthink, conformity, uniformity, fear, hierarchical accountability. There is a very fine, very gray line between the institution and what would be considered a cult.
The individual has to choose how to react to the institution.
One: toe-the-line, TBM, internalize the abuse and use it for motivation, never show weakness, thus perpetuating the myth of near-perfection, blind obedience, unwavering “faith”, blurry line between acting out of love or out of fear/guilt, generally can’t attend to own family appropriately because of the desire to look, act, seem the part at church, sees this sacrifice as an “example” to family, demonstrating what they feel is “really” important, building a bigger mansion in heaven.
Two: be a part of the community, pretend to be TBM, fall in line, never speak up, feel some guilt but not enough to “go the extra mile”, don’t make waves, appear to be “near-perfection” on Sunday, do absolute minimum in callings, essentially just “going with the flow” probably because raised in the church, does not care about intellectual problems or cognitive dissonance, social circle is entirely LDS so this is never an issue.
Three: been offended or feels uncomfortable at church, is inactive, still believes everything but doesn’t feel comfortable in a place where they’re “judged” due to socio-economic status, “people talking”, never feeling welcome, have become someone’s “project” which perpetuates and validates previous feelings, could go on for years even generations.
Four: never really had a “testimony”, could be convert or BIC, finally just quit going because they moved away from home, married non-LDS, found new friends, got a new job, church friends moved.
Five: was TBM either BIC or convert, bought into the “this is the only way/truth”, lived it, believed it, took the abuse and internalized it, then POW!, something happened, and now just as black/white but the other way, anti-mormon, distrustful of anyone who could possibly believe all the “crap”, bitter of the sacrifices made for “nothing”, becomes more and more hostile as those feelings of betrayal and bitterness go unvalidated and sometimes those feelings are disputed which makes them enraged, view of the church as “pure evil”.
The next two appear, to me, to be a very, very small faction.
Six: truly Christ-like, goes to church on sunday, goes “the extra mile”, fulfills callings happily and joyfully, attends to family AND fulfills church “responsibilities”, leaving little to no time for self, accepts this sacrifice as a true sacrament for Christ and love for fellow-man, truly believes they are doing right, the church is the vehicle and any “problems” with the eschatology is “put on a shelf”, love and service far outweighing anything else.
Seven: intellectual, trying to balance the cognitive dissonance of the church (teachings, scripture) with the desire to seek truth, in any form, trying to make the church work for them, via service, spiritual “food”, love of others, getting to pick and choose truth, not feeling guilty and not internalizing the abuse, hoping for opportunities to serve, make a difference and maintain intellectual honesty, at least in their own minds and hearts, the church is their only opportunity to sing in a group in public.
The actual question of this thread is, of course, the black/white view which version one and five identify with and which may, collectively, make up the largest group. Which makes sense because the institution demands exactness for survival due to the lack of paid clergy (on the front lines) and the demonstration of “plenty” in the buildings, businesses, property holdings, charitable contributions, etc.
Isn’t it great that I can go on and on without ever answering the question?
I’m definitely version seven, but have asked this exact question to myself many times in the last year (my coming out). I’m raising my two young sons “in the church” but my take is version seven and my wife is version two, so it works for us, for now. I’m anticipating it will change as my boys start to care more about intellectual and social things (they both still believe in Santa). I hope to do right by them and give them the emotional health and strength to trust their own feelings and follow their own dreams.
spacious maze wrote:All cool folks, but no one ever brings up the fact that gay men act a lot more like women and gay women act like guys. Please don’t dispute this, you know what I mean, it’s the reason we can spot a gay dude from a mile away. So it’s not exactly the same sex you’re attracted to if you behave like the other side.
This is a bit of “stereotyping” but it also gets at the other part of this whole debate, which is gender, gender-identity, and transgender. SSM is a tough concept for many and gender-identity/transgender is just as tough. It’s a long road ahead. Unless, of course, there’s a lightning bolt type revelation to the FP and 12, wherein they determine that “humans” regardless of race(check), sexuality(patience), and gender(more patience) can form families and live happily ever after. No matter how icky it is.
Valoel wrote:It’s a sense I have that Mormon’s really need to be “right.” I think it counterbalances the much higher demands required by our religious practice.
I think you nailed it, Valoel.
Not as much a counterbalance as much as a necessity. To demand the level of sacrifice required to be “active”, the stakes need to be much higher than just one’s personal salvation through the grace of Christ. In gospel essentials class yesterday, the lesson was on sacrifice (Lesson 27, I believe). The overwhelming sense of the lesson was that sacrifice was THE saving principle. I’m not saying it isn’t, btw.
And, I get that, since the church has no paid clergy, huge beautiful buildings, etc. Most of the mainstream churches in my area meet in public school gymnasiums or hotel conference rooms or have private/charter schools attached. Some of the suburban mega-churches just go for quantity. Their need for each and every individual congregants’ participation/sacrifice is greatly diminished.
I’m not making a value judgment but the payoffs need to be bigger, more significant, more urgent to justify the demands on people’s time and resources.
@Tom: Cool concepts. How come you talk in such ambiguous ways when describing “reality shifts” and “view of heaven”? I hear people say that experiences are too “sacred” to share. Is this what you’re insinuating? I’m all about “life is an illusion” anyways, so I would love to hear more specifics. btw, I loved the quote by Beverly B. but it is extremely subjective. There are millions of people who have changed their lives in an instant, after having a supernatural experience/dream/hallucination, so it is possible to have experiences as intense and life-changing as a dream or hallucination.
