Only part of the truth

[wenglund]

Once again, denying that there is a problem.

I admit there is a problem...that is, with people, such as yourself, who have failed the test of faith (in large part because they don't get it) attempting to tell the faithful what is needed to be faithful. They also don't seem to get that they aren't in a position to say. And, it doesn't seem to matter how irrrational their gripes are shown to be, or how at odds their own personal actions are to what they demand of the Church (in terms of disclosing part of the truth), they seem entirely unimpacted. Impregnable cluelessness (or as the Lord calls it: "pride") is evidently on the rise.

Sure. Just take a stroll to RfM and see just how many exit stories have the phrase, "I never knew about" or "when I found out about".

See what I mean?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Obiwan]

Yeah... because there is SO much consensus among believing LDS as to what doctrine is.

Actually there is.... We are all united on "actual" doctrine, as well as most other things. Of course, the further out we get from actual doctrine, the more "opinion" may very. But, we are certainly FAR MORE united on doctrine than anyone else out there. I've been in the religions, so I know.

Again, just because the apologists have taken it upon themselves to determine when a past prophet was speaking as a man or speaking as a prophet doesn't make it so. You have no authority to tell me which is which.

Let me tell you a little secret. What the apologists say about subjects is what the Church says about subjects. Even when I didn't know a thing about LDS scholarship I knew the Church, and what I knew then is no different than what I now know, though now being well versed in LDS scholarship. Take DNA and the Book of Mormon. I had already "resolved" the so-called issue that most natives were of Asiatic decent, by knowing the BOM and knowing what science was already saying for years. So, when the DNA & the book of mormon issue came along, I and most LDS already knew it was a joke. We weren't fazed one bit by it. We didn't need LDS scholarship to tell us things. Same thing with the so called Hemispheric and Limited ideas. We already knew that the Prophets spoke both, within certain "contexts", not at all conflicting with science nor LDS scholarship, again, your claims a joke. etc. etc.

Those of us educated about the Gospel already knew well when LDS Prophets spoke as men, and knew well the difference between that and Doctrine, as well as how to determine such. There are all kinds of "authority". You not wanting to believe mine or other LDS's doesn't make you smart. Further, LDS leaders have always been quite clear what LDS Doctrine is. Maybe you should actually attend the Church, read it's manuals and listen and read their words. "Fringe" and "Rare" statements through history NEVER WAS what made LDS Doctrine. Incomplete quote mining is not what makes LDS Doctrine. You should learn the difference.

You don't know the context of Adam/God or sex with Mary any more than I do. For you to claim that I'm interpreting it wrong is, well, wrong.

haa haa.... You funny. I've studied the issues well and perfectly well know the "context" of the statements per LDS thinking and theology. You "assume" a negative by ignoring context and everything else related to the subject, I on the other hand understand what they were actually saying because I know our thinking and theology. So too bad.... You ARE wrong....

I suppose this is subjective from person to person. Some may feel they got all they needed from the missionaries. It would appear that most believe important information was withheld. Even LDS admit that they give "milk before meat", except they forget to ever give the meat.

That is your opinion, LDS know otherwise. You get out of it exactly what you put into it.

Oh BS. Just because the LDS skewed interpretations of the Bible "support" LDS beliefs doesn't mean that your interpretations are correct. Not only that, but LDS love to conveniently ignore the parts of the scriptures which blatantly go against LDS beliefs.

Nothing you said is the truth... LDS don't ignore anything, and further, "I" knew the LDS Church from the Bible Alone long before I even knew the LDS Church existed, while being in many a religion and seeing now NONE of them fully and consistently fit the book. It wasn't until the LDS Church came along did a religion FULLY fit what the book said. Other religions have a bad habit of "proof-texting", that is taking one or so scripture and creating a whole theology out of it, while ignoring other scriptures which give a MORE ACCURATE view on what the "actual" doctrine is. So, stick it.

What have I said that is a lie? It appears to me that LDS lie and take things out of context FAR more than most critics do. Granted, there are the Ed Deckers of the world which grandize to the extreme, but I would say they are in the minority.

You clearly then are quite ignorant.... Everything you say is a lie concerning the Church. As some who's also left the Church once for "intellectual" reasons, I KNOW it absolutely. I know how you think, and I know exactly what you are basing your judgments on, and it's "incomplete" Truth, NOT the Full Truth as you believe. What you have done is learned a little more than the Church teaches you, along with a LOT of falsehood, so you falsely think THAT you "now" have the full truth. What you don't realize is that you've only been given "part" of the truth on those issues, and lot's of LIES with it. The "actual" and full truth as contained in LDS scholarship vindicates every single issue. And I know this because I've done the work and have the experience. The "only" things that are in any way "damaging" to the Church is that LDS leaders were sometimes human and made mistakes, like a little ethno-centrism, racism by our standards, and some wrong opinions they were too liberal on. Only like 1% of your claims against them are actually "true". And they are such fringe statements, that they are well within normal human error. EVERYTHING ELSE you all say about the Church is complete LIE. It's a little truth used to tell great lies.

[Honorentheos]

If you want history go to school. Church instructional time is for <no soap, radio>. (my edit for clarity)

I agree.

[zeezrom]

I think there are a lot of naive people in the church.

It is not entirely the church's fault they are naive, but everything they have learned about the church has come in a chapel classroom.

They have scarcely picked up a book, browsed the net, or watched a documentary program.

The folks would get their world rocked.

Call me one of the naive ones. However, I consider myself a member who was determined to learn what I could by following the teachings of the prophet. I tried to read the BofM every day (yes, I missed a few) and ended up reading the book multiple times. I read each monthly issue of the Ensign and presented the FP message to my families. DW and I taught GP to our kids during FHE (and still try to do so), I attended SS and EQ every week. I never went less active and worked hard on my mission. I tried very hard to stay on top of my studies according to how I was taught to do it. I somehow missed the stones in the hat, fanny alger, shulem, etc, etc, etc. I admit it. Somehow I missed it all. I guess I was not as detailed as I should have been...

Why does it sound like you are faulting me for this?

I credit part of my ability to recover from a major faith crisis to inoculation and shifted paradigms from my youth.

Since I was teenager I knew religion was wrong on human origins and that polygamy was shady business.

In other words, if I was not already a bit of a secular-leaning skeptic when the internet LDS history monster was unleashed upon me, I would have never recovered.

I was told by many people to stay the hell away from anti-mormon literature. I was literally afraid of it. I never even dared look online at anything because I wasn't sure if it was "safe" and I had no idea FAIR or FARMS existed. The first time I started looking into the wives of Joseph Smith I felt guilt and shame. I wasn't sure if I should tell DW for fear she would think there was something wrong with me like I was falling into sin. I made sure to stay in safe areas so I talked to active members of the church about the issue and did not believe anything I saw on the internet. Then I was introduced to FAIR and started reading there. I admit, soon after I looked at wivesofjosephsmith.org site and was shocked but I had already been shocked by things a BYU professor showed me.

So I was not at all like you. But nobody ever told me I should have been. I was always taught to stick with the basics and believe and have a testimony based on prayer and the answers I received from my prayers and line upon line. I attributed my testimony mostly to line upon line learning of the basics.

More than one apostate has told me they would have survived their faith loss if they hadn't took it all so seriously/literally initially.

Change that to "I will survive if I don't become too serious."

[Deborah]

I somehow missed the stones in the hat, fanny alger, shulem, etc, etc, etc. I admit it. Somehow I missed it all. I guess I was not as detailed as I should have been...

So? I missed a lot of that in the beginning too. The question is why do some people go bonkers over it and others take it in stride once they do learn these things.

[Honorentheos]

So? I missed a lot of that in the beginning too. The question is why do some people go bonkers over it and others take it in stride once they do learn these things.

"no soap...radio?"

[Hamba Tuhan]

"no soap...radio?"

So you really believe that people who freak out over 'troublesome historical issues' are really just victims of groupthink and the psychological need to conform???

Sigh, I guess you may be right.

[Honorentheos]

So you really believe that people who freak out over 'troublesome historical issues' are really just victims of groupthink and the psychological need to conform???

Sigh, I guess you may be right.

May be. Unless I've heard this one before. I ain't no typewriter.

[zeezrom]

So you really believe that people who freak out over 'troublesome historical issues' are really just victims of groupthink and the psychological need to conform???

Sigh, I guess you may be right.

Wait, what? I don't think I freaked out. I just learned one thing after another and changed my beliefs. I just did what made sense to me. Now I'm right in my mind while you are right in yours. Nothing wrong with that. If we all believed the same, life would be very boring.

[sunstoned]

I love the utter, rank, insurmountable, hypocrisy in that "us".

You are an apostate, who has set himself at odds with the Church and presumes to judge and condemn.

You have cast yourself out in everything but name and now stand in opposition to the Church and the Gospel.

You have perpetuated falsehoods against this Church, laid snares and traps for both the Church and its members, and sought to make both the Church and its members offenders for a word.

You have sought to undermine and destroy the faith of others, and in so doing, have waged war against the Kingdom of God.

On that basis, amongst your legion of acts of hypocrisy, I demand to know-

Who are YOU to "cry repentance" unto this people?

Perhaps we all should take a deep breath and start over in this discussion and perhaps think about the example Christ has shown us. You know, stuff like withholding judgment and all.

[Calm]

I somehow missed the stones in the hat, fanny alger, shulem, etc, etc, etc. I admit it. Somehow I missed it all. I guess I was not as detailed as I should have been...

Why does it sound like you are faulting me for this?

Are they faulting you for this? Or for you placing the fault on the Church?

Personally I have never blamed anyone for missing details, whether it's church history or an understanding of the Atonement or something else. What I may blame someone for is how they chose to react to the discovery...do they accept personal responsibility for their education in some significant part or attempt to shift it to others and act instead as if they were some kind of helpless victim of those others.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Wait, what? I don't think I freaked out

Sorry, Zeezrom. I was attempting to have some fun with Honorentheos, who kept insisting that people who believe despite 'troublesome' history are like people who laugh at a joke they don't get simply because other people laugh.

I just learned one thing after another and changed my beliefs. I just did what made sense to me.

I believe you. What I find interesting is why a particular path has made sense to you whilst it hasn't made sense to me or 1,000s of others I know. Though I may be wrong, the only explanation I've been able to reach is that our practical experiences within 'Mormonism' have been radically different. For me everything--revelation, inspriation, prayer, priesthood power, repentance, forgiveness, service, temple worship, etc.--has worked exactly as it should if this is really Christ's restored Church. Therefore, I'd have to be mad to turn my back on it because of something I might read. I don't think you're mad, so I have to conclude that your experiences have been different to mine.

[Molloch]

Good thread. Would read again. 8/10

[Honorentheos]

Sorry, Zeezrom. I was attempting to have some fun with Honorentheos, who kept insisting that people who believe despite 'troublesome' history are like people who laugh at a joke they don't get simply because other people laugh.

Saying "No soap, radio" twice is equivalent to "kept insisting"? Interesting.

But I also agree with you in a way. Whether consciously or otherwise, I think that everyone who encounters new information does not just evaluate this information dispassionately. That's simply not human nature. We weigh many different considerations when deciding how to take that new information and act on it. Everyone has different experiences, certainly, and everyone has different costs/benefits from choosing one path over another.

And I don't mean that as an explicit, "I'm choosing to ignore that because..." or "I'm choosing to focus on that little detail because..." Evidence on the interaction between our subconscious brains and our prefrontal cortex and other "higher" brain structures is that they are very intertwined at levels of which we can not be aware (subconscious, huh).

That's one of the reasons I tend to argue for a broader view and greater tolerance of others. That being different, however, from tolerating disinformation. Since it is so difficult for us to separate ourselves from our personal view of the world, that isn't easy to do and not step on toes. But there you go.

[Kevin Christensen]

I post this every now and then, when it seems particularly relevant to a thread. I got it from Veda Hale on the AML list about 10 years ago, who had done an analysis of Levi Peterson's Canyon's of Grace, based on it. Perry was a Harvard professor who studied the reactions of students coming from provincial high school backgrounds in their adaptation to the more diverse University environment. I prefer this to the Fowler Stages of Faith model, finding this more focused on general attitudes than on advocating specific doctrinal belief. (Step four is missing, but is was when I got this version, and you can look it up if you need it.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION

POSITION 1 - Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)

The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.

Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind." When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it. They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go.

Transition 1. The person can make the transition by modifying dualism drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them. Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors. With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

Transition 2. The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes. All is of equal value. To have an opinion makes it right.

Transition 3. Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many.

Transition 4. Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively.

Transition 5. The person is moving closer to accepting relativity. He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations. To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers. So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want.

Transition 6. Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent. They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground. But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently.

Transition 7. This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity. The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases.

NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.

POSITION 5 Relativism discovered.

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective. It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices. They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment. They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY. THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE. IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP. THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY.

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING. His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement. He may reconsign agency to some possible event. If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE. He becomes apathetic. His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life. This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement. He starts to rely on impulse. THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION. "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition. In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance. It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith. In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows:

Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.

POSITION 7. Commitments in Relativism developed.

The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggle responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative.

POSITION 8. Commitments in Relativism developed continues.

The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity. He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN THE MODEL MUST BE TRANSCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma. The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas. But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love".

POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.