Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mr. Wiggin wrote:
Is living one’s life based on a belief system that is not supported by many facts and the resulting emotions a functional/healthy way to be? What does such an approach to living/existence do to one’s psychological health?
I think it depends on the person, but there are certainly a number of studies that show cognitive dissonance to be harmful. Cognitive dissonance seem to me at least, to be nearly impossible to avoid once one has really studied early Mormon history and realizes all of the contradictions. There are plenty of people that live with these contradictions their whole lives that probably suffer some emotional/psychological repercussions as a result. However, many on this site seem to have overcome the issue by accepting metaphorical truths, not actual truths. My attempts to do this haven’t eliminated the CD for me, so I’m currently an agnostic/naturalist. I take literal truths to be important–again I’m speaking about just me–but a lot of people are comfortable with a different approach. My own opinion is that many who accept metaphorical truths are still suppressing some CD, but I don’t know that, I’m just guessing there. So no, in general, I don’t thinks it’s healthy, but that probably a minority viewpoint for this site.
Tom Haws wrote:Ray may have indulged in a bit of hyperbole, but his basic point is sound. Our community envisions positive permanence within the LDS community.
Likewise, I probably waxed overly poetic in saying, “they are our sad examples”. You are absolutely right that if they have left, that is okay. I am wrong to fall into the trap of feeling superior to them. I hope you can forgive me.
There is (in my humble opinion) nothing about the LDS Church that makes it particularly important to stay or particularly sad to leave. We just happen to have felt that for us, it’s meaningful to try to stay.
Tom, thanks for the validation; good point.
Old-Timer wrote:I guarantee you there is NOTHING you have read or studied or considered that I have not. I’ve seen it ALL – and I’ve considered it ALL – and I’ve reconciled it ALL – and I remain actively LDS. I even hold highly visible callings of leadership. I am at peace with it ALL.
Ray, I think misunderstood my “wise” comment, it was in response to jm275’s point about the wisdom of the crowd. An no offense Ray, but if you honestly think you’ve thought of EVERYTHING, I–or anyone else on this site–has thought of, you are wrong. We all have angles that are unique–isn’t that what this site is about? Different Perspectives? Being more open-minded? Are you really here simply to share wisdom, and to gain no insight?
Tom Haws wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:Maybe I’m attempting to do my part, possibly to make this crowd more wise–not that I’m all that wise.
I think one of the base assumptions of this community is that those who are here are “wise” to the issues. If you have wisdom to share regarding how I can share, serve, and love more effectively in the church, I am all all all ears. I want to do better. But the cold, hard fact is that if I violate the rules of the clan regarding dialogue and discourse, they will marginalize and demonize me. If I can’t see that, I am going to be out on my ear very soon. No amount of wishing or arguing the rules to be different is going to buy me air-time in the church. Only playing by the rules will do it. And it turns out, surprise of surprises, that my own spiritual growth needs that same exercise.
Our peers (bless their hearts) who used the scorched earth approach have become our sad examples.
Tom, you validate my point. Because of the close-minded clan, you get marginalized and demonized for speaking out. If religion, in general, was accorded less respect–and expected less respect–this might not be the case. Whether it’s on this website or with a friend, I’m trying one by one. No, I’m not bold enough to be outspoken at church, but I’m going to find areas where I can try. And I disagree with your thought about our peers. I don’t think they’ve become sad examples, I think they’ve moved on and given up because of the Church’s response to people that dare speak out. That says more sad things about the Church than it does them.
Tom Haws wrote:OK, wordsleuth. So where do I sign up for the course on how to become a welcome voice of warning in the ward? On the way back from a scout outing this week I took the liberty of saying that each of us has many great and important things yet to learn so we can live the life we came to live, and I felt I was an instant heretic with the black spot. “Why, we already have everything we need. All we need to do is live it.”
I am clearly ignorant of what it takes. And I know it takes love. So that means I need to find love. Sigh. Why did I know it would boil down to that?
Tom, I was responding to Spacious Maze’s question. I’m not suggesting that you need to be the voice of warning in your ward. What I am saying is that if Spacious Maze has an “ignorant friend”–as he termed it–then attempting to open his eyes some isn’t a bad idea. A lot of the responses have said that encroaching on someone else’s happiness wouldn’t be a good thing. I don’t think that helping someone understand that they have a close-minded view of things is bad. I know I harp on this a lot, but ignorance causes a lot of harm in this world. I’ve talked to some good friends and family members about my concerns over the last 5 years, and they have very different views about the Church than they used to. Not bad views, but more open minded, less black and white views. Talking to friends and family in one on one settings is very different from being the voice of warning for my ward.
I think this is an interesting question. If it is posed in another way, most of you wouldn’t hesitate to say that we have a responsibility towards the ignorant. What is missionary work? If you think you have knowledge that can help someone, then sharing it isn’t a terrible idea. A lot of people have devastated their families when they became Mormon. It has certainly caused plenty of people heartache and doubt when they thought they had the truth with another religion. I think it’s a double standard to say that we shouldn’t share our thoughts with others. While the journey isn’t easy, plenty of people say they are much happier when they have less rigid views about Mormonism. IMHO, ignorance should be combated wherever it is, because in the end ignorance, not knowledge and reason, causes unhappiness and suffering. jmb275 wrote:….What I don’t understand is what you propose to do about it? I would like to hear from you what ideas you have to combat this? You came to staylds.com for a reason (to stay LDS I presume), and you have said that many here are simply loosening the terms. What do you want to get out of this discussion?
My solution is to do the best I can with what voice I have. My solution is to do my part to make the crowd wise. My solution is to do the best I can to draw my own independent conclusions after doing the best research I can, and then share with people what I think in a respectful way. Sometimes that means loosening my meanings of words like “true” in order to help people understand my point without dropping an atomic bomb on their worldview.
Maybe I’m attempting to do my part, possibly to make this crowd more wise–not that I’m all that wise. To me, the key word you use is respect. What do you mean by respect? You’ve said you work in a nuclear physics lab. Do you “respect” colleagues if they start basing their research off of bad reasoning? The scientific method is brutally honest–peer reviewed papers humble the best scientists. I’m saying that less respect, and more directness/honesty, is needed when it comes to religion in the public realm. If people want to use religion to defend half-baked ideas about ID, stem cell research, gay marriage, or any other “hot button” issue, then their reasoning should be challenged. If I say the holocaust didn’t happen, and I’m attempting to get that taught in history classes, I should have very good evidence, and if I don’t it will get torn to shreds by the history community (as it should). It’s this culture of respect that we grant religion that is part of my problem. People shouldn’t be given a pass in this one area if they want to enforce their beliefs on others. No one forces me to go to Church and listen to “cleansed” church history, but I can’t choose whether the government funds stem cell research. I can’t choose whether the Church funds a massive campaign to take away gay rights. That’s what bothers me. I also wish the kind of frank discussion found on this website could be found at church. Ray has mentioned that he has built up “capital” so he can get away with saying some controversial things. Why should I need “capital”? Should I cork it and listen to the crowd for 10 years, with an occasional stray comment, just to keep things peaceful? If religion was accorded a bit less respect, I think everyone would benefit. Instead of seeing people fight the government over stem cells and gay marriage, they would choose to make a difference in those areas by not contributing. They would know that if they tried to take their stances public, they would have to have good/rational reasons. Instead, they might not try invitro, or they might not donate their leftover embryos. They might not be gay themselves, but they won’t worry about their gay neighbor. The only way for this kind of change to take place is for people to speak more bluntly about religion publicly. Read some of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Danniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. While they may be overly blunt, they are trying to prove a point. They are trying to get religion in the public realm to be treated like everything else. In my own way, I’m trying to do the same thing. I’m not a world renowned scientist or philosopher so I’m not going to write a book about it, but maybe questioning things in Church or on this site helps…I don’t know. It’s also a good place for me to let it out and get reasonable responses. I can’t say much at Church without being verbally stoned. I try and hold my tongue, and for the most part I do because I don’t enjoy tension and I know even well spoken comments can create that in an extremely conservative gospel doctrine class. Everyone on this site is trying to “staylds” by coming here and venting/philosphizing about their religion. Why can’t this be done in Church? Why don’t we have some real discussions for once? Primarily because of the culture of respect we’ve granted religion. I’m not trying to “staylds”, I’m trying vent/cope since I still go to Church w/my family, and hopefully someday, I’ll be able to speak more openly in Church. I don’t hope to see religion abolished, but I do hope to see it treated less respectfully and more honestly in the public realm.
How do you feel about Warren Jeffs? If the thoughts aren’t positive, what’s the difference? The primary reason polygamy is wrong, is the way that it has been practiced. I’m not advocating polygamy, but the key thing here is choice. Using one’s position of authority, claiming God has commanded it, and then guilting women into it is wrong. If there were all for it, they were all old enough, and they weren’t being pressured into by a prophet or any other authority figure, then it is less wrong to me. I’m sure to some it is sexually deviant no matter what, but I think the key thing is choice. He put women in an enormously difficult position–reject the prophet or secretly marry him, regardless of age difference. jmb275 wrote:If we can’t prove anything about it then what difference does it make? Why not try to find some metaphorical meaning in it? Or just dismiss it as nonsense.
Some of it is nonsense, and should be dismissed. We don’t base American laws of a Hindu belief system. We eat Cows. I’m not looking to find metaphorical meaning in the idea of reincarnation, and if I am, I shouldn’t expect to see laws enacted that force other people to.
jmb275 wrote:I’d highly recommend reading
The Wisdom of Crowdsby James Suroweicki. It helped me become comfortable with uncertainty, and helped me realize the role each of use play in our “crowd.” I’m no longer so concerned with what everyone else is doing or thinking. Anyway, I did a pretty involved review of the book on this site which you can find here: http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=340http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=340” class=”bbcode_url”> Without delving into Suroweicki’s analysis, some things are obviously dumb. I’m not so concerned with what everyone else is doing and thinking, to a point. When people believe stem cell research is equal to killing babies, I have a problem. We’ve delayed massive funding in this area for nearly a decade. Stem cells are used from 3 day old embryos–that would be thrown away otherwise–that have 150 cells at this point. A fly has 100,000 cells. It is not the same thing as an abortion. Yet because people with influence and authority have some irrational beliefs, we have sadly postponed a great chance to reduce human suffering. This is an example of beliefs mattering. They can be extremely harmful. Another one is the treatment of gays. So many people hate gay people. Why? Because they believe gays are vile sinners. I’m not implying that the Mormon church hates gays, but they are full of it when they say the care about them. They fought prop 8 as hard as they’ve fought for anything, all the while, they kept saying they are for gay rights. Not long after prop 8, the Utah State Legislature brought up the idea of Civil Unions–a fair compromise to some. The Church was mum while the Bill died. The Church is the most powerful player in the State, and if they truly cared, they could have done something. No offense, but there arguments are hollow and bigoted. These kinds of beliefs matter. They hurt people unnessecarrily.
This ties into another topic I posted about–normal behavior. I think that the WoW slowly became a black and white thing, at least in the eyes of many devout saints. As these devout saints rose to leadership positions, so did the black and white views they held. I’ve had a number of experiences where either myself or a friend was given/faced doctrinal interpretaions/rules by a Bishop or Stake President that wasn’t church wide. These individuals took normative views of Mormonism with them as they rose to leadership positions. I’ve had a Bishop from the pulpit say that caffeine was against the WoW. I’ve had a Stake President that took away temple recommends for 6 months if stake members watched R-rated movies. These were obviously individual viewpoints, but when a leader, with disciplinary authority, takes these strict views, what should one do? I personally think that the WoW had some wisdom to it, but it faces some challenges. Numerous contemporary studies have shown controlled amounts of coffee and wine to have some pretty good health benefits. Naturally, the studies are looking at very specific amounts of these substances–small amounts–but there are provable benefits. Obviously, there are various ways to get the benefits that these substances provide, but the point is that safe amounts can be very helpful. Valoel wrote:spacious maze wrote:Most of us are probably here for that reason. I think it’s culture, not truth, that keeps people hanging on.
I’m not sure that is accurate. The things that keep us hanging on … are the things that keep us wanting to hang on. For me, I really have little attachment to the culture. My wife would be thrilled if I just gave up and left the Church. I am actually still here for the spiritual truths. I found myself still finding a lot of value in the spiritual aspects of the Mormon religious metaphor. I don’t believe in the literal truth of a lot of it now, but I still very much value the “truthiness” of it. I think that is a Hawkgrrrl word.
I politely disagree. I would bet that a great majority of people stick with the religion of their families–especially is those families were devout. I’m sure there are some good studies out there. Whether it is Catholics, Southern Utah Polygamists, Mormons, or any other faith, it is extremely difficult to overcome the indoctrination. Maybe “cultural” is a bit vague or broad, people have a difficult shaking the beliefs they are raised with, religious or political. I earned my degree in Political Philosophy, and numerous studies show that a great majority of people stick with the political party of their parents. That doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptions–I’m one of them–but overall, statistically, its the norm, and I’d be willing to bet its the same way with religion. You say its the thing we want that keep hanging on, and at a subconscious level–and conscious–the things we want are things we’ve been taught/trained to want. Valoel, you may be exception, and there are certainly others, but I’m talking about a statistical majority.
Old-Timer wrote:I express unorthodox opinions all the time in Church – but I NEVER do it in a challenging manner, I ALWAYS speak softly and gently and slowly, and I generally begin with a softening disclaimer. (“That’s interesting. I’ve always wondered . . .” or “I like what Bro/Sis said. To build on that a bit, I heard someone say once that . . .” or “I know that’s how many people see this, but I’ve talked with quite a few memebrs who think . . .” – etc.)
People generally react negatively only when they feel threatened – and I’ve reached a place where I almost never sonud like a threat to them.
That is interesting. I guess I lack the courage & tact that you have. I generally can’t find it me to say something in Church that will cause others discomfort, and the few times that I have, the reactions are generally negative. I can relate to Tom’s feeling “paralyzed” on Sundays. The Brochure History is frustrating, and it is all I’ve heard since I was two years old. I think that there are some people who have the ability to say controversial things in an unthreatening manner, but I–and most people–am not one of them. I don’t know that there is a way to overcome this issue, ultimately. Lots of people that find their way to uncensored history leave the Church, and the Church knows this. They “censor” because the truth frightens people and they prefer not to deal with this challenge. I think, in many ways, that a complete unmasking of the Church History would ultimately help the Church. People like me wouldn’t find out about after 22 years of black and white thinking about Church Leaders and gospel topics. I can’t say for sure, but I really believe that if all of the censored history had been part of the story the whole time, I would probably still have a “testimony”. That still doesn’t mean it would be true, but the “indoctrination” would be more thorough. The way one is raised to belief is extremely powerful. That is why many of us are here; we can’t let go completely.
jmb275, thanks for the comments. It is nice to here people say they have been through similar belief transformations. I’ve enjoyed the discussion. Whether see eye to eye on everything isn’t so important–no, you haven’t offended me. Letting out my thoughts and getting intelligent responses is cathartic. That’s why I keep reading and writing here, because ultimately, it helps me feel better. Some of things I say may come out with some force, and that’s probably because most of the time, I’ve had to keeps these “rebellious” thoughts bottled up. I’m aware that there are many things I don’t know, and that many of you on this website have valuable insight that I can hopefully benefit from. jmb275 wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:It’s also how most scientists–the “hard” sciences–feel.
Once again, if you are going to insist upon such certain claims, then I must call you on your speculation. If you are going to make such claims, please provide evidence. I work in a nuclear physics national laboratory, and I would not necessarily agree with this.Refer to a Doctoral Dissertation titled “Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist Word-View”, by Greg Graffin. He received his Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology from Cornell. It was published in 2006. Also refer to research by Sam Harris. Both authors were referring to members of the National Academy of Sciences in the US. jmb275, if I make claims, I’ve read something reliable and I’m referring to it. Since I’m not an academic paper here, I don’t feel the need to cite everything. Considering the statements made on this website, I’m surprised you’re calling anyone out on speculation. I’m referring to science, yet most of the statements made here belong in an Epistemology book; they are all based on speculation.
jmb275 wrote:Maybe you haven’t talked to the right person yet. Or maybe you’re still too literal in thought. This is one thing I thought when I was going through disaffection. I often wondered how people could, on the one hand, act so rational in every day life, but in their religious life be so gullible…..
I guess in many ways, this is exactly how I feel. It’s also how most scientists–the “hard” sciences–feel. Believing what we can empirically confirm seems like the most “rational” way to believe. I guess I’ve used the wrong term for myself, I’m a naturalist, not an agnostic. Liberal interpretaions of religion may work for progressive, educated people, but they protect religion in its most fundamental, harmful forms. How do we reconcile the problems fundamental religious views cause our society? I guess the best way to sum up my current view of religion is to read Sam Harris–The End of Faith & Letter To A Christian Nation.
jmb275 wrote:The point I’m raising is that there is still no good explanation for how Joseph did it in so short a time, and what his motivation was. I can conceive of explanations for the former, but the latter, I haven’t heard anything very convincing. I know there are other prodigies who have written equally amazing things at his age. And certainly Tolkien’s work rivals Joseph’s in creativity. But Joseph did all this in a very short amount of time, and for what reason?
How do we know how long it really took Joseph to write the Book of Mormon? Just because he dictated in a relatively short period of time, doesn’t mean it was “written” in that time period. In Lucy Mack Smith’s uncensored autobiography, she talks about Joseph’s remarkable imagination, and he would tell stories for hours that contained BOM References, before he “wrote” the book. A combination of study, the Bible, and a vivid imagination that had worked on the story for a long time–that’s how. You’re right, we’ll never know for sure, but an explanation of this nature makes more sense that the Church story.
