Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
changed

Holding onto beliefs

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, changed said:

Haha, yes, that is the solution - #4 Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs ... pretend there are no contradictory facts ;) 

 

That doesn't actually answer my question, it deflects, but the answer seems kind of ironic.  It seems like, when I ask you to consider that some beliefs are actually based on accurate information (a fact which seems to be contradictory to the point you are trying to make) your response is to deny or ignore that fact and pretend it doesn't contradict your current view.  🤔

 

 

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/1/2019 at 6:37 AM, changed said:

Getting too attached to any particular beliefs leads to cognitive dissonance- hold onto anything too tightly and vision becomes clouded.

Well, let's see about a few beliefs to which (Gasp! :o) I'm firmly attached, and to which I hold tightly.

"God loves me": Nope, no clouded vision or cog-dis there!

"Jesus sacrificed Himself for me": Nope, no clouded vision or cog-dis there!

"The Holy Spirit has borne witness to me that God is aware of me and that He loves me": Nope, no clouded vision or cog-dis there! ...

Well, I guess I'm simply not very good at this "cog-dis-and-clouded-vision" thing that, apparently, is supposed to open up new vistas of understanding for me! :( :blink: :huh: 

Ah, well!  I guess I'll just have to keep working on it!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/1/2019 at 3:05 AM, Calm said:

Maybe I'm delving into a matter that is a waste of time. Just saying that Yeshua was not 'begotten" by the Holy Spirit is true. Read literally, BY is right there. I believe that BY is mixing up concepts though, because I believe Yeshua's begottenness as the unique Son of God, was a spiritual thing that occurred through a priesthood covenant rather than the typical scriptural use of begats. Scripture indicates that the Father begat Yeshua, when He said to Him "this day I have begotten thee." BY is clearly talking about a physical begottenness. Here I would say that begat can refer to conception or birth. Men beget but they don't give birth. Mary begat Yeshua quite like everyone else is begat, so one can say BY is right here too. Yet, he dismisses the Bible's teaching that Yeshua was conceived through the Holy Spirit. My point is the BoM teaches that He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit as well. Whether you want to liken that to artificial insemination is up to you. I think the Holy Spirit combined some amino acids up into DNA, inside an egg, but obviously that is a guess. None of that implies Mary had another husband, or that God the Father came down to earth or any of those things that BY said. 

Now I temper this comment to try to be fair to BY:

“... I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the apostles said he did, and begat the Saviour of the world; for he is the ONLY-begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person.... I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ.”
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 238
 

Here he said "I believe" which couches everything he said there as his opinion, but in other places he says basically that his words are gospel truth. The strong implication is that the Father was Mary's other husband, and Yeshua was conceived the old fashioned way... although he never quite comes out and says that. Pratt comes right out and says it. I just don't believe that, and that contradicts both the Bible and the BoM which say Yeshua was conceived through the Holy Spirit. That is "the difficulty" I see. Anyway, I believe that is error, and I do not accept it, because it contravenes scripture.

I was just intending for this to be an example of some of the things I do not accept because I believe they contravene scripture. Does that mean the Church is not true in the sense that it is the authorized Church he leads and corrects? No. I conclude that it will be corrected. So, I just don't hang my testimony on every little word that Church leaders have ever spoken. That would drive me nuts, but it is obviously a problem for a great many people who enter a faith crisis because of claims like: God will not let the president lead you astray. Even that gets tempered though with stuff like if you are following, but turn out to be wrong, you are OK. While that may be true, it doesn't really help those in faith crises. None of these types of things really affect our salvation as far as I can tell, but I do believe they come into play for our exaltation. I just don't believe for instance that polygamy is necessary for exaltation, and other early concepts/claims. To be exalted, I believe we must be committed to the right path. So, anyway, I chalk up these things to the foibles of men, and just really don't concern myself over them. They don't particularly present a faith challenge for me. I offer my comments in the hopes that maybe they will help some. If you(the reader) are someone who would rather believe every pronouncement, more power to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/1/2019 at 9:38 PM, changed said:

Haha, yes, that is the solution - #4 Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs ... pretend there are no contradictory facts ;) 

 

You may live in a world in which "contradictory facts" are so compelling that, e.g., when confronted with them, an erstwhile faithful, devoted member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no choice but to cease his participation.  I'm sure you disagree, and I believe I understand why, but I don't think God works that way, any more than He presents a case to someone that is so compelling for remaining faithful and devoted that the member has no choice but to continue his participation.

We're all our own triers of fact with respect to matters of faith.  When it comes to decisions whether to cease or to continue our participation in a certain faith community, each of us decides what evidence we will admit, what evidence we will exclude, how much weight we will give to any particular piece of evidence we do decide to admit, and so on.  That's why, even when presented with the same evidence (a "case" which one person believes is so compelling for ceasing [or for continuing] participation), another person may reach a contrary conclusion. 

I don't see the world as it is; I see it as I am.  The same is true of you: you don't see the world as it is; you see it as you are.  That's why you may have massive levels of cognitive dissonance over something which barely troubles another person (or which doesn't trouble him at all), or vice-versa.  I can shake my fists and stomp my feet and say, "But my case is so compelling!"  But I can't force you to see the matter or the subject under consideration the same way I do (or vice-versa).  Because each of us is his own trier of fact regarding matters of faith and because each of us sees matters of faith not as they are, but, rather, as each of us is, we may reach differing conclusions even when presented with identical evidence.

It's not so much about pretending there are no contradictory facts as it is about simply seeing and/or weighing those facts differently.  You may have what you believe to be a perfectly valid, perfectly reasonable frame of reference with respect to those facts (and it may even be a perfectly valid, perfectly reasonable frame of reference with respect to those facts) but that doesn't mean it's the only such frame of reference.  That's why someone could consider the same evidence you have, yet could reach a different conclusion.

Say, for example, I kill someone.  All of my victim's friends, family, and acquaintances universally hail him as a kind, gentle, and caring person who wouldn't hurt a soul.  Based on those "facts" (though, really, they're opinions), his death seems senseless and unnecessary.  But is that the only possible conclusion?  What if, for whatever reason, he instigated the confrontation between us (however out-of-character that might be for him)?  What if I were defending myself?  What if I were actually trying to defend both of us against a third party, but my efforts went horribly awry? 

Am I "ignoring" what his friends, family and acquaintances say about him?  No, but I am suggesting that that evidence be weighed differently in light of other facts.  They're welcome to eulogize him however they wish at his funeral: I'm not going to crash the funeral insisting that people hear the "real" story.  And while they're welcome to give victim impact testimony at any proceeding against me, still, I can, in good conscience and good faith, argue that as compelling as those victim impact statements might be, they don't tell the whole story.

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/1/2019 at 1:25 AM, Wade Englund said:

Have you considered that your loss of faith in Apostles and Prophets may be the result of not testing, but holding on to beliefs that may be in error?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Even when I was TBM, 20 yrs of being TBM, doing all the stuf I was supposed to do- I never felt the spirit for leaders or the BOM...

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't see the world as it is; I see it as I am.  The same is true of you: you don't see the world as it is; you see it as you are.  

I agree with this completely. I think the question is how open we are to viewing pthe world through a different paradigm or lens when new information is presented. 

I think that Dr Muhlestein sums up most believers viewpoints that I have interacted with when he states:

Quote

 

“And so I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon and anything else that we get from the restored gospel is true, therefore, any evidence I find I will try and fit into that paradigm. I don’t feel that I need to defend that paradigm, I feel that I want to understand the evidence that I find within that paradigm because to me it’s a given that it’s true.”

 

I personally have adopted a paradigm of wanted to belief what best represents the data regardless of my preconceived notions / beliefs. Can I still be wrong, yes! Can people still reach different conclusions based on the same data? Yes. However it is only by adopting a willingness to dispose deeply cherished beliefs that we have a chance to get things right - and this is an attitude specifically rejected by apologists like Muhlestein. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, changed said:

Even when I was TBM, 20 yrs of being TBM, doing all the stuf I was supposed to do- I never felt the spirit for leaders or the BOM...

Okay. Let me rephrase. Did you consider that your lack of faith in Apostles and Prophets may be the result of not testing, but holding onto beliefs that may be in error?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by Wade Englund

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, changed said:

Even when I was TBM, 20 yrs of being TBM, doing all the stuf I was supposed to do- I never felt the spirit for leaders or the BOM...

I look at it as a complete package.

For me the question is if the paradigm of a father in heaven and his son as glorified humans is the best paradigm for mankind, along with the fellowship service, sacrifice and obedience that we all need to learn in life, is the best paradigm for mankind.

What paradigm will lead to the perfection of mankind?

And what fits with the general Christian values that I have always lived, like the Golden rule, self discipline and loving my neighbor?

And where have I seen those values actually turn people around and their lives?

And then I top it off with the host of spiritual experiences I have had teaching me that God wants me here.

I surrender to that. 

The stories in the Bom and Boa give great spiritual comfort and advice. 

I don't sweat the little stuff like if a policy was right or wrong, or if some human being made a mistake in something they said.

I don't expect infallibility I just expect the best overall paradigm and way of life. Orthopraxis not orthodoxy.

It's fundamentally materialistic and pragmatic.

It beats Buddhism, being saved by faith alone and three persons in one substance hands down.

And so here I am and here I will stay.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And so here I am and here I will stay.

That is what I used to think too...  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Okay. Let me rephrase. Did you consider that your lack of faith in Apostles and Prophets may be the result of not testing, but holding onto beliefs that may be in error?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The church failed its test for me - they abused my kids, and then abandoned us.  I went through everything alone - they support abusers, enable abuse.  Experience - not speculation or books - experience - that is what my reality is based on.  I thought the church was a protection, I thought it was led by the spirit, I thought it was a safe place for my kids - I was wrong.

Edited by changed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, changed said:

The church failed its test for me - they abused my kids, and then abandoned us.  I went through everything alone - they support abusers, enable abuse.  Experience - not speculation or books - experience - that is what my reality is based on.  I thought the church was a protection, I thought it was led by the spirit, I thought it was a safe place for my kids - I was wrong.

I'm sorry to hear this. Did you say in earlier posts that you are still attending church? If I'm correct, out of genuine curiosity, I'm wondering why you have made the decision to do so when you seem not to trust it (from what I've read here, anyway).

Best,

Darius

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, changed said:

The church failed its test for me - they abused my kids, and then abandoned us.  I went through everything alone - they support abusers, enable abuse.  Experience - not speculation or books - experience - that is what my reality is based on.  I thought the church was a protection, I thought it was led by the spirit, I thought it was a safe place for my kids - I was wrong.

The entire church abused your kids and supported the abuser?   I think individuals in the Church did some bad things but not all of us had any involvement.  The Church is made up of individuals.  Some are good and some are wolves in sheep clothing.  If the church failed it only failed your possible expectation that everyone in it is perfect and ready to be translated.  My experience is that really is not the case.

Edited by carbon dioxide

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The Church is made up of individuals.  Some are good and some are wolves in sheep clothing.  If the church failed it only failed your possible expectation that everyone in it is perfect and ready to be translated.  

This is grossly incomplete and the latter is patronizing and minimizes the very real hurt that changed and others like her went through. All people are a mixture of good and bad. Institutions create environments where the good can thrive or the bad (often they do both). The Catholic Church for a long time created environments that enabled child abuse. So did the BSA. So did the your church. To the extent that policies weren’t in place, training given, abusers punished and reported, the institution bears some responsibility. No one expects people to be perfect. That’s a straw man and in this case an extremely insensitive one. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, changed said:

That is what I used to think too...  

So what changed, Changed? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/30/2019 at 7:38 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

I had no trouble dropping the Steady State theory of cosmology in favor of the Big Bang, but I find it difficult to conceptualize quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, string theory, and the like.

Dr. Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in physics, once said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics.  He was speaking of his fellow physicists.  So you're in good company. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/30/2019 at 5:14 PM, The Nehor said:

Well played.

I think my favorite is still the guy who told a girl he was crushing on that he had it revealed that they had promised each other in the premortal world that they would marry. Her response: “Well, I am not making that mistake again.”

Sounds like a talk on Personal Revelation I listened to once. I think it was this one:

9781606411940.jpg?1436805718

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is grossly incomplete and the latter is patronizing and minimizes the very real hurt that changed and others like her went through. All people are a mixture of good and bad. Institutions create environments where the good can thrive or the bad (often they do both). The Catholic Church for a long time created environments that enabled child abuse. So did the BSA. So did the your church. To the extent that policies weren’t in place, training given, abusers punished and reported, the institution bears some responsibility. No one expects people to be perfect. That’s a straw man and in this case an extremely insensitive one. 

Perhaps some of what I said in incomplete but look at what changed said.

"The church failed its test for me - they abused my kids."  Who abused those kids?  Did a few individuals or the church?   Did the Church send out memos to target those kids for abuse?

"..they support abusers, enable abuse " 

The Church supports abusers.  Really?  Perhaps some bad policies allowed abusers to do their thing but that is quite different than support

support

to bear or hold up (a load, mass, structure, part, etc.); serve as a foundation for.
to sustain or withstand (weight, pressure, strain, etc.) without giving way; serve as a prop for.
to undergo or endure, especially with patience or submission; tolerate.
 
enable
 
to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize:
to make possible or easy: Aeronautics enables us to overcome great distances.
to make ready; equip (often used in combination):
 
Once again, the church may have had some policies or actions that may have resulted in some bad thing happening but that was not the intent of the Church when they established them.  Unless there is some evidence that the Church intended and wanted abusers to be sustained, held up as a standard and foundation and authorized abuse, I object to that characterization. 
 
 
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, changed said:

The church failed its test for me - they abused my kids, and then abandoned us.  I went through everything alone - they support abusers, enable abuse.  Experience - not speculation or books - experience - that is what my reality is based on.  I thought the church was a protection, I thought it was led by the spirit, I thought it was a safe place for my kids - I was wrong.

Okay. You didn't answer my question, but okay. All the best to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Dersman29 said:

I'm sorry to hear this. Did you say in earlier posts that you are still attending church? If I'm correct, out of genuine curiosity, I'm wondering why you have made the decision to do so when you seem not to trust it (from what I've read here, anyway).

Best,

Darius

Mixed faith fam...

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps some of what I said in incomplete but look at what changed said.

Oh wow, a lot to unpack here. First, I have literally no idea what happened with Changed and her family. Do you? Whatever happened it sounds horrific. Like I can't even imagine. When I see someone in legitimate pain, I admit my first response isn't to minimize my discomfort. True story: I worked for a refinery as the environmental manager. During the time that I worked there, the company's pipeline burst resulting in oil going into several peoples yards, creeks and ponds. The pipeline was operated by a completely different section of the company, but they didn't have personnel to make contact with everyone affected. In addition, the cause of the leak was unknown (it turned out the power company illegally placed a fence post too close to the pipeline. Lightning struck the fence, arced from the buried fence post to the pipeline and caused the leak). When we went door to door, people were angry. They were agree at us and the company. Their was no company memo to pollute people's yards. There was no intent. I certainly wasn't personally responsible. But guess what? It never even crossed our minds to take the tack that you did. We apologized profusely. We accepted responsibility. We promised to make things right. We gave out phone numbers, addressed concerns and cleaned up the mess as quickly as possible. 

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

"The church failed its test for me - they abused my kids."  Who abused those kids?  Did a few individuals or the church?   Did the Church send out memos to target those kids for abuse?

The church is made up of its members. Sometimes we act as official representatives. When people are fulfilling their callings as leaders, bishops, teachers etc, they are the church. I don't know Changed. I don't know who abused who. But if someone acting in their official role abused them, handled things poorly, covered things up, then yes the church bears responsibility. Is there some hyperbole in changed statements? Probably, but given what she's been through I would like to cut her some slack. My corporate training tells me the same thing. People are much more receptive when you take responsibility and promise to do better than when you attempt to shift blame, and split hairs.

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

"..they support abusers, enable abuse " 

The Church supports abusers.  Really?  Perhaps some bad policies allowed abusers to do their thing but that is quite different than support

Again perhaps hyperbole, but can you understand how it might feel to be changed. Again do you even know her circumstances? Did the catholic church support or enable abuse? Did the boy scouts? Is it possible to unintentionally create an environment where abuse can thrive? 

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Once again, the church may have had some policies or actions that may have resulted in some bad thing happening but that was not the intent of the Church when they established them.  Unless there is some evidence that the Church intended and wanted abusers to be sustained, held up as a standard and foundation and authorized abuse, I object to that characterization. 

Maybe, but again at the end of the day it doesn't really matter to those on the receiving end of things. I personally feel like instead of being defensive in cases like this, it is much better to ask, "Is it I?". In part it's our defensive nature that prevents change and improvements and in many cases allows abuse to thrive. Not knowing changed situation, its hard to say, but I can only guess that having a supportive non-defensive response from her local leaders might have made all the difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/30/2019 at 5:53 AM, Glenn101 said:

 believe the earth is only several thousand years old 

You realize that even the very archtype of the Biblical fundamentalist conservative LDS orthodoxy, Bruce R. McConkie himself taught and believed the earth was billions of years old, right?

Go ahead and say that he railed against evolution, but getting sick of people saying that even conservative-mos* are Young Earth Creationists

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_seven-deadly-heresies/

 

"Mo" is short for MOTCOJCOLDS of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, jpv said:

Mo" is short for MOTCOJCOLDS of course

ShortER maybe, but not much. ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, jpv said:

You realize that even the very archtype of the Biblical fundamentalist conservative LDS orthodoxy, Bruce R. McConkie himself taught and believed the earth was billions of years old, right?

Go ahead and say that he railed against evolution, but getting sick of people saying that even conservative-mos* are Young Earth Creationists

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_seven-deadly-heresies/

 

"Mo" is short for MOTCOJCOLDS of course. 

Don't know why you are jumping all over that one bit. I was talking about what a lot of people still believe and shifting paradigms etc. Nothing about conservative vs whatever other types and their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/3/2019 at 2:32 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

it is only by adopting a willingness to dispose deeply cherished beliefs that we have a chance to get things right 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/5/2019 at 12:06 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is it possible to unintentionally create an environment where abuse can thrive? 

thanks.

for me the lesson abusive high priests in leadership positions... the lesson of Judas, doubting Thomas, sleeping apostles, mistaken apostles... is now - don't follow apostles, just follow Jesus.  :)

Edited by changed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...