A Breath of Fresh Air

[WalkerW]

Some members might try to work their way along the wall, rigidly clinging to their expectations that there may be an opening somewhere, but with enough Kuhn and a large hammer, they can beat their brittle brains into a soft pliable pulp, sufficient to enable them to return to the center of the safety zone.

I've got to ask: have you actually read Kuhn?

[volgadon]

I've never read Kuhn, so obviously I'm about to teeter over the brink into the deep, dark cave where only valiant truth-seeking spelunkers dare go, right? When I hear Kuhn I think Bela.

No, truth-seeking doesn't necessarily lead you down MM's path.

[volgadon]

Oh, I was responding to MM, and your post appeared, Walker. Coincidence.

[mfbukowski]

And here I keep thinking we are the Church.

Seriously, though, is this position just an example of, "When the Church leaders speak, the thinking has been done"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I am curious about what you think your covenant of "obedience" means? Seriously? Or do you feel you never made such a covenant? How does this relate to the idea of "authority"? Or do you reject both? Does obedience have any value in and of itself (fostering humility- learning to conform to someone else's will)?

I know I have been antagonistic toward you sometimes, but if we can bury the hatchet for a little bit I am genuinely curious about that, and it would help me to understand you as a human being better. That is probably not important to you at the moment, but I promise to be totally charitable should you feel you want to answer. I am trying to repent of my jerkiness and I could use your help if you are so inclined.

[mfbukowski]

I will also note that studying history makes me question a lot of things: religion, science, politics, economics, etc.

More often than not, I find those using modern science and the history of religion against religion need to read more on the history of science and philosophy. Too often in our criticisms, we fail to take the whole into account and instead try to judge the world through the lens of our specialized interest.

[Mortal Man]

What do you even mean by this? Do you mean "the Church" as the members that make up the Church or "the Church" as in the First Presidency and the Twelve or something entirely different?

There is a "wall" between the teaching that the Nephites really existed and the notion that they're fictional. If you cross this wall, you must keep it to yourself or go anonymous; you may not express it openly.

[Deborah]

This may come as a surprise to those here, but my main struggle was what I call "Mormon cultural issues." I never felt united with my ward. I never saw the "one heart, one mind" concept in my local setting. I never felt on the same page with other members that I attend with.

This is something that I've observed as well. We are to be of one heart and mind but as a church we have a long way to go yet. I have observed that most members really aren't interested in history or deeper study. At least not until they become disaffected, which is probably why we hear claims of the church keeping things hidden: they just weren't interested before and therefore brushed it off when they did come across it.

I had a friend and home teacher in a previous ward who used to share some very interesting things with me, things he wouldn't dare bring up with others because they just either weren't ready or weren't interested. I loved having discussions with him and his wife because we both thought outside the box.

There were so many reasons I could have left the church in all the years I've been a member. None of them had to do with doctrine or history, but always with as you say "Mormon cultural issues." But the doctrine kept me going, that along with some spiritual experiences that couldn't be denied or altered by an altered paradigm.

I have noticed in the last few years GC is more meaningful; but is that because there's really more there or because I'm really wanting to listen now.

[Mortal Man]

I've never read Kuhn, so obviously I'm about to teeter over the brink into the deep, dark cave where only valiant truth-seeking spelunkers dare go, right?

It's not something you just fall into volga, it takes effort. Sometimes a wall gives way and your leg gets caught under a pile of rubble. When that happens, you cut your leg off, tie the stump with a tourniquet, and keep going. When all your limbs are gone and you're pulling yourself along by your teeth, then you can come talk to me.

[Questing Beast]

Whether the church whitewashes its history or not is not as relevant as the fact that the history is full of problems for logically thinking peoples. The church can deny or expose the scandals in the early history, but it does not change the fact that they happened. Each individual is going to have to decide whether they are deal breakers or not.

For me personally it is difficult to adapt my thinking to believe that polygamy was instructed of God considering how it was rolled out. The Book of Abraham a translation of ancient text I do not think so. The Kirtland bank scandal swept under the rug? Not for me. These are just a few examples that I find problematic. I just can not rationalize them away. For others this is not an issue and they can maintain their belief in the church. It is just a matter of which straw is going to break the proverbial camels back.

I can say the more you study the actual history the more likely its seems you will walk away. I am not sure how but the church will have to address it at some point. Maybe not for years but at some point it will have to adapt or wither. IMHO

I will add my "Amen" to that.

Study history and you discover an amount of "whitewashing" or whatever you prefer to call revisionist or selective history making. EVERYONE indulges in it when they have an agenda. Only the interested student with no agenda can honestly be said to pursue history as a mere interested enthusiast. "Let the truth be what it is and lead me where it will" is the attitude which will guide the student most unerringly.

It does become increasingly likely that you will "walk away" at some point, when you study more of the existing evidence that is increasingly available. But if your membership and association in the Church is not dependent on the need for an exclusive religion then I don't see why anything about the history should be a deal breaker.

To me, religion is all about association and the support and cooperation that religion creates. And I think that Mormonism does it better than any other religion. This attitude could just be my parochial perspective talking. But I do believe that my understanding of religion in the world points out the LDS Church's comprehensive program and teachings to be the best so far, if results are the measurement being applied....

[mfbukowski]

Cut from the same cloth, you and I. I've felt and experienced the exact same thing.

Put me on the list.

But it is not the church's fault. It is the culture's fault. If we could divorce the two, we could all just be members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints instead of "Mormons".

Somehow we need to affirm the pioneer heritage, thanks pioneers, but loose the "circle the wagons" mentality. It is curious to me that Dehlin's piece starts with all the pioneer heritage stuff as if that has any relevance to his beliefs whatsoever. He still has that notion that some how pioneer heritage gives one "credentials" in the church. It is heritage heritage heritage rather than a belief system- I think especially in Utah of course.

If your belief is based in history and culture, there will be problems. If you belief is based in teachings- that is another entire story. I think you have to take the church on what it teaches, and forget the culture - it is largely irrelevant.

When you are "religion shopping", the way one would look at, say, the Presbyterians vs the Methodists, one is not interested in the history of the Presbyterians vs the history of the Methodists, but on what their current belief system is.

Who cares about the personal lives of who founded the Presbyterians vs who founded the Methodists?

I treasure the fact that I have found a church which believes in Jesus Christ, ongoing revelation, that God is a Man, that believes that all people will eventually hear the gospel and be judged on an informed decision possibly made in the hereafter, that we can become as God is, that we existed before our Earth life, and a myriad of other doctrines I largely believed anyway before I found the church.

All the other stuff is frankly pretty irrelevant to my beliefs, as much as John Wesley's personal history is to your typical Methodist.

And that belief in itself makes me "different", my background makes me "different", the way I think makes me "different".

But I have learned that we are here to get over our differences and become one. I am different from my wife too- a lifelong member who is a descendant of folks who came on the Mayflower and who have been in the church forever.

But I see in my marriage what the church is all about- the blending of an ex-Catholic, urban New Yorker, ex-atheist crazy hippie philosophy student with agrarian salt-of-the-earth Utah Mormonism.

I was totally shocked when God told me that a bunch of largely uneducated Utah farmers had the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

But what can you do when he tells you that, but surrender and do what He wants?

[Biz]

This is something that I've observed as well. We are to be of one heart and mind but as a church we have a long way to go yet. I have observed that most members really aren't interested in history or deeper study. At least not until they become disaffected, which is probably why we hear claims of the church keeping things hidden: they just weren't interested before and therefore brushed it off when they did come across it.

I had a friend and home teacher in a previous ward who used to share some very interesting things with me, things he wouldn't dare bring up with others because they just either weren't ready or weren't interested. I loved having discussions with him and his wife because we both thought outside the box.

There were so many reasons I could have left the church in all the years I've been a member. None of them had to do with doctrine or history, but always with as you say "Mormon cultural issues." But the doctrine kept me going, that along with some spiritual experiences that couldn't be denied or altered by an altered paradigm.

I have noticed in the last few years GC is more meaningful; but is that because there's really more there or because I'm really wanting to listen now.

This my own account of something that has helped me as I have battled with the "Mormon Cultural Issues." Once again this is my own account so who knows if this is how this individual feels. I had the wonderful opportunity to go to a open question fireside with Elder Bednar and Elder Anderson. Elder Anderson was newly called to the twelve and was following Elder Bednar for training purposes. Elder Bednar to his knowledge as an apostle had never had a meeting like this. After two short talks they took question for the audience for about an hour.

One recent new covert was struggling with the bombardment of the new culture. Specifically she was overwhelmed with everyone telling he to get her food storage in order and list went on and on. Most of it was to do with the second coming. Elder Bednar paused and then he really laid into the difference between "Mormon Culture" and the "Church." He was frustrated and more or less rebuked people who engaged in this behavior. He talked about how "Mormon Culture" the gossip, the hearsay, and speculations really hampers the Gospel. He explained he did not know how to solve this problem but he was working on it and has been frustrated by it for some time. I mean frankly he was upset about it.

He testified to the new convert that he was an ordained apostle of Jesus Christ. He explained that during the five years that he had been a member of the twelve he had meet with the other apostles on a weekly basis. Never once in the five years that he had been an apostle had the apostles ever discussed the second coming of Jesus Christ. He said don't listen to the chatter. If the Second Coming and other issues become extremely important he assured her the brethren would discuss it and relay that information to the Church.

This has really helped me out as I too struggle with the "Mormon Culture." At least for myself I believe an apostle of the Lord is frustrated and upset over the same issue I am. He recognizes that it is a problem and despite being a part of the Church that is visible to all it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Biz

[Questing Beast]

It's not something you just fall into volga, it takes effort. Sometimes a wall gives way and your leg gets caught under a pile of rubble. When that happens, you cut your leg off, tie the stump with a tourniquet, and keep going. When all your limbs are gone and you're pulling yourself along by your teeth, then you can come talk to me.

I note the winking smiley, so why say that at all?

Do you REALLY feel that your path has resulted in such anguish? Are we to make comparisons now between the sufferings of the truth seekers? Bleh! ...

[Biz]

"This may come as a surprise to those here, but my main struggle was what I call "Mormon cultural issues." I never felt united with my ward. I never saw the "one heart, one mind" concept in my local setting. I never felt on the same page with other members that I attend with" Quoting Walker

My last post was supposed to be quoting something else which I simply pasted above. Sorry, I am just a humble newbie and what my page quoted was not what I wanted to quote.

Any tips?

• Maybe just post more and figure the system out?
• Can you delete your past comments or is this board one in which if you post it then it is there forever and property of the board?
• Any comments suggestions would be great.

Thanks, Biz

[mfbukowski]

There were so many reasons I could have left the church in all the years I've been a member. None of them had to do with doctrine or history, but always with as you say "Mormon cultural issues." But the doctrine kept me going, that along with some spiritual experiences that couldn't be denied or altered by an altered paradigm.

[frankenstein]

I had the wonderful opportunity to go to a open question fireside with Elder Bednar

Biz

Me too, twice, once for my ward, then for the Stake. He had some gentile rebuke for us, specifically about the difference between American LDS and LDS in other countries, he said "You just don't get it", he went on to talk about how we do not need a basketball court in our buildings, he spoke of visiting a congregation in Africa that had an open-air chapel, his point being no Air Conditioning. I have not listened to the link in the OP, at first glance it is too long, and I really find it off putting when LDS feel the need to reference their original stock in the Church or list out the callings they served in.

[WalkerW]

There is a "wall" between the teaching that the Nephites really existed and the notion that they're fictional. If you cross this wall, you must keep it to yourself or go anonymous; you may not express it openly.

There is a "wall" between teaching Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he was merely a 19th-century mystic con artist. There is a "wall" between teaching God exists and that He doesn't.

Forgive the concept of basic doctrines.

[WalkerW]

This my own account of something that has helped me as I have battled with the "Mormon Cultural Issues." Once again this is my own account so who knows if this is how this individual feels. I had the wonderful opportunity to go to a open question fireside with Elder Bednar and Elder Anderson. Elder Anderson was newly called to the twelve and was following Elder Bednar for training purposes. Elder Bednar to his knowledge as an apostle had never had a meeting like this. After two short talks they took question for the audience for about an hour.

One recent new covert was struggling with the bombardment of the new culture. Specifically she was overwhelmed with everyone telling he to get her food storage in order and list went on and on. Most of it was to do with the second coming. Elder Bednar paused and then he really laid into the difference between "Mormon Culture" and the "Church." He was frustrated and more or less rebuked people who engaged in this behavior. He talked about how "Mormon Culture" the gossip, the hearsay, and speculations really hampers the Gospel. He explained he did not know how to solve this problem but he was working on it and has been frustrated by it for some time. I mean frankly he was upset about it.

He testified to the new convert that he was an ordained apostle of Jesus Christ. He explained that during the five years that he had been a member of the twelve he had meet with the other apostles on a weekly basis. Never once in the five years that he had been an apostle had the apostles ever discussed the second coming of Jesus Christ. He said don't listen to the chatter. If the Second Coming and other issues become extremely important he assured her the brethren would discuss it and relay that information to the Church.

This has really helped me out as I too struggle with the "Mormon Culture." At least for myself I believe an apostle of the Lord is frustrated and upset over the same issue I am. He recognizes that it is a problem and despite being a part of the Church that is visible to all it has nothing to do whatsoever with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Biz

Thanks for sharing this. Bednar is awesome.

[mfbukowski]

To me, religion is all about association and the support and cooperation that religion creates. And I think that Mormonism does it better than any other religion. This attitude could just be my parochial perspective talking. But I do believe that my understanding of religion in the world points out the LDS Church's comprehensive program and teachings to be the best so far, if results are the measurement being applied....

Now this is where we have common ground.

To me, religion is a belief system nothing more nothing less. History is virtually irrelevant.

I have not problems with the Bible, for example because I don't care one iota about it's alleged "history" and I feel the same about the BOM and BOA as well.

Rationally, they all might be historical or might not be. But I have a testimony they all are historical- so who am I to argue when God tells me something?

Rationally, I can't even know if the person Jesus of Nazareth, who is probably historical- there are too many evidences that he probably was- worked miracles or was resurrected. But I have a testimony not only of that, but of the fact that he was the Son of God, the Christ, and took upon himself my sins and I am redeemed by that act.

[volgadon]

It's not something you just fall into volga, it takes effort.

So you don't just fall but have to fling yourself?

Sometimes a wall gives way and your leg gets caught under a pile of rubble. When that happens, you cut your leg off, tie the stump with a tourniquet, and keep going. When all your limbs are gone and you're pulling yourself along by your teeth, then you can come talk to me.

[volgadon]

He had some gentile rebuke for us

I know this is a typo but

[volgadon]

There is a "wall" between teaching Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he was merely a 19th-century mystic con artist. There is a "wall" between teaching God exists and that He doesn't.

Forgive the concept of basic doctrines.

Reminds me of one of Woody Allen's Chasidic tales.

"Rebbe, I know the Torah says we can't eat pork, why is that?"

"We can't? Uh-oh."

[WalkerW]

w

Now this is where we have common ground.

To me, religion is a belief system nothing more nothing less. History is virtually irrelevant.

I have not problems with the Bible, for example because I don't care one iota about it's alleged "history" and I feel the same about the BOM and BOA as well.

Rationally, they all might be historical or might not be. But I have a testimony they all are historical- so who am I to argue when God tells me something?

Personal experience is an aspect that I'm happy to find Christian philosophers (rightly) embracing:

It cannot be gainsaid that Christians have faith in Easter largely because they belong to communities of believers, or that their faith is a complex amalgam of shared confession, personal experience, spiritual and ethical practice, and reliance on others, or that they are inevitably obliged to make judgments about the trustworthiness of those whose word they must take. Some also choose to venture out upon the vast seas of Christianity's philosophical or mystical traditions; and many are inspired by miracles, or dreams, or the apparent working of grace in their lives, or moments of aesthetic transport, or strange raptures, or intuitions of the Holy Spirit's presence, and so on. None of this might impress the committed skeptic, or seem like adequate grounds for faith, but that does not mean that faith is essentially willful and irrational. More to the point, it is bizarre for anyone to think he or she can judge the nature or credibility of another's experience from the outside. If [a skeptic] really wishes to take a "scientific" investigation of faith, he should promptly abandon his efforts to describe religion...and attempt instead to enter into the actual world of belief in order to weigh its phenomena from within. As a first step, he should certainly-purely in the interest of sound scientific method and empirical rigor-begin praying, and then continue doing so with some perseverance. This is a drastic and implausible prescription, no doubt; but it is the only means by which he could possibly begin to acquire any knowledge of what belief is or what it is not. (David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, Yale University Press, 2009: pgs. 11-12)

Now it is a basic principle of rationality, which I call the principle of credulity, that we ought to believe that things are as they seem to be (in the epistemic sense) unless and until we have evidence that we are mistaken...Someone who seems to have an experience of God should believe that he does, unless evidence can be produced that he is mistaken. (Richard Swinburne, Is There a God?, Revised Edition, Oxford University Press, 2010: pgs. 115-116).

Consider an example. I am applying to the National Endowment for the Humanities for a fellowship; I write a letter to a colleague, trying to bribe him to write the Endowment a glowing letter on my behalf; he indignantly refuses and sends the letter to my chairman. The letter disappears from the chairman's office under mysterious circumstances. I have a motive for stealing it; I have the opportunity to do so; and I have been known to do such things in the past. Furthermore an extremely reliable member of the department claims to have seen me furtively entering the chairman's office at about the time when the letter must have been stolen. The evidence against me is very strong; my colleagues reproach me for such underhanded behavior and treat me with evident distaste. The facts of the matter, however, are that I didn't steal the letter and in fact spent the entire afternoon in question on a solitary walk in the woods; furthermore I clearly remember spending that afternoon walking in the woods. Hence I believe in the basic way. (Alvin Plantinga, “Intellectual Sophistication and Basic Belief in God,” Truth Journal, Vol. 3, 1991)

[mfbukowski]

Personal experience is an aspect that I'm happy to find Christian philosophers (rightly) embracing:

Yep.

It's good to know I am finally having some influence.

[Mortal Man]

Now you're getting it.

[Kevin Christensen]

I dunno Kevin, that's an awful lot of steps for a brittle mind with rigid expectations, such as mine. Couldn't I just get a prefrontal lobotomy instead?

The view from Position 9 is worth the journey, something I would not say of a lobotomy, much less of pounding my own brains to mush.

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.

I notice the important lines about the "inseparable nature of the knower and the known." Those who claim that they have been forced from their faith by their willingness to unblinkingly face the facts, do, I think, typically demonstrate reluctance to consider both the mote-eye problem, and the related New Wine and Old bottles problem.

I remember reading Jerald Tanner's de-conversion account in the Changing World of Mormonism. He said that when he read in David Whitmer's Address to All Believers in Christ that some of the revelations in the Book of Commandments had been changed for the D&C, that he (Jerald), was so offended that he threw the book across the room. "As if God had changed his mind after giving his word," Whitmer wrote, all in a huff. "No brethren," he continues, "God does not work in that manner." Not at that point, I notice, or any later point, did he discuss the story of God telling Abraham to offer up Issac, or use it to support his basic premise. Nor did he discuss Jesus saying "Ye have heard it said,... but I say unto you" several times in the Sermon on the Mount. Nor the differences between the 10 commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy, or many other things. It being much easier to argue from the unquestioned presumption that God would not change his mind after giving his word than from the actual evidence at hand. Now, I can understand why Whitmer was so offended, and why Jerald followed that point and why he was so obsessed with the imperfections of LDS scripture as he perceived them against his demand for the perfect and the ideal or nothing. But I think that, having removed those unreasonable expectations from my own eyes, I can see a bit better. I notice that I keep my faith in much more suitable bottles. And there were two very good essays on the changes in the D&C in the Ensign. The Church, I notice, didn't hide that from me. Rather, I've found that when I seek, I find church members eager and willing to share what they know. And of course, I think of The Church as a bunch of people, very few of whom write the manuals.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA