Uncorrelated Mormon

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

Subversive Asset 2.0:

To me if I didn't believe in some organization I certainly wouldn't be inclined to join much less maintain affiliation with that organization. This life is just too short for that.

One can certainly be and teach their children to be moral responsible citizens without being members of the Church.

One can certainly be a non member and love their spouse and children every bit as much as a member.

The Church is changing constantly. What was applicable in JS day just doesn't meet the needs of a 14 million member organization. What hasn't and won't change is the Truth Claims of the Church.

If one is using the term uncorrelated to mean disaffected sure. But I not too sure that is a correct supposition.

I guess the issue is several-fold. There are several people who join the organization irrespective of belief (e.g., for someone who grows up in the church, believing in the church's claims is a nice result, but it's not the primary reason why they have joined and maintained affiliation. Regardless of the shortness of life.)

The second thing is that many people do believe -- to whatever extent -- at some point, but may find different information that either changes or breaks the nature of belief. In this case, it's not as if there are no other benefits to the organization. Hence, it's not necessarily truth that there is no inclination to "join much less maintain affiliation with that organization."

I don't personally disagree with you on many of these claims; I'm just conveying that some people do. For example, even recognizing that you can teach your children to be moral responsible citizens without being members of the Church, one could believe that there is a particular familiarity with the church has that would warrant them sticking with it. (E.g., if you've grown up in the church, then even though you may be aware that there are alternative ways to raise moral responsible children outside of the church...you don't know them. On the other hand, you are very familiar with the church's methods of accomplishing such.)

Next, the problem isn't that the person who is questioning will not love their spouse and children. The problem is the risk that their spouse and children will not love them back, as a result of the disaffection. Consider what many posters in this very topic have written regarding the people in this situation. It's not entirely compassionate. Many spouses also believe that it's better for one to perish than for a nation to dwindle in disbelief -- or, in other terms, it's better for a disbelieving spouse to be cut off from all family contact than for the family to dwindle in apostasy.

I'm not saying that every uncorrelated member is calling for a church like that of Joseph's day. Nevertheless, it's not as if the two options are "church like in Joseph's day" and "modern church as is."

Finally, I'm not using uncorrelated to mean disaffected. If I were, then maybe a lot of the things you suggest would make sense. (Disaffected Mormons leave. Uncorrelated Mormons don't. Disaffected Mormons may agree with you that if one doesn't believe the church, then, there isn't much reason to join much less stay affiliated with the church. Uncorrelated Mormons may not.)

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

Wrong on all accounts, sorry.

oh, ok. You know other people's lives better than they do or I do, right.

[Libs]

From thesometimesaint's link I read in here that he has left and is a "big celebration" on that link from the comment section. Talk about "out of the Lord's Church" testimony builders.

Regardless, you don't have to answer, but what would keep you in the Church? What do you feel you need? How can we as members help if that is a desire?

Culturally, either, the church would have to become much more progressive or I would have to become much more conservative. I don't see either of those things happening.

A lot of problems, doctrinally, as well, although, I'm probably much more compatible in that area, than above.

Subversive was right on, about living the LDS gospel, as not the problem. Living it is easy. Believing (some of it) is the hard part.

[ELF1024]

Subversive was right on, about living the LDS gospel, as not the problem. Living it is easy. Believing (some of it) is the hard part.

I've found the opposite to be the problem. I can believe it, I just have not been able to live it.

[Duncan]

Living the Gospel entails having Faith in Christ, repenting of our sins, being baptized and then renewing our covenants, following the Spirit and then enduring to the end. That is the good news, that Christ covenants with us and so because of his merits as per DC 45 we can be exalted, and all we need to do is what I just mentioned, that is how we access the atonement. We don't need to be attend BYU, attend general conference in person, live in a certain place, be related to Joseph Fielding Smith,have the latest Gerald Lund book autographed, buy Temple stickers or be a counsellor at EFY to be saved.

[Senator]

Next, the problem isn't that the person who is questioning will not love their spouse and children. The problem is the risk that their spouse and children will not love them back, as a result of the disaffection. Consider what many posters in this very topic have written regarding the people in this situation. It's not entirely compassionate. Many spouses also believe that it's better for one to perish than for a nation to dwindle in disbelief -- or, in other terms, it's better for a disbelieving spouse to be cut off from all family contact than for the family to dwindle in apostasy.

What you've stated here is a reality.

[ELF1024]

What you've stated here is a reality.

In my own experience, having faith in the church is as much a personal choice as not having faith. You have the power to choose if you have faith in something or not.

If you want to believe; you can find all the reasons in the world to believe to have faith and be happy.

If you don't want to believe, the same is true, you can find all the reasons in the world to doubt and be miserable.

If you want to have faith, pick one simple thing that you believe is true; and use it as your spot of focus. X is true, so if X is true, then the rest must be true.

If you don't want to have faith, pick one simple thing that bugs you, and use it as your spot of focus. X bothers me greatly, so if X bugs me, then the rest of if it could be false.

It really is that simple.

[Senator]

It really is that simple.

Actually, per my experience; it is not.

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

In my own experience, having faith in the church is as much a personal choice as not having faith. You have the power to choose if you have faith in something or not.

If you want to believe; you can find all the reasons in the world to believe to have faith and be happy.

If you don't want to believe, the same is true, you can find all the reasons in the world to doubt and be miserable.

If you want to have faith, pick one simple thing that you believe is true; and use it as your spot of focus. X is true, so if X is true, then the rest must be true.

If you don't want to have faith, pick one simple thing that bugs you, and use it as your spot of focus. X bothers me greatly, so if X bugs me, then the rest of if it could be false.

It really is that simple.

I think many other people have different experiences.

For example, in saying "You have the power to choose if you have faith in something or not," you make certain assumptions. First, that it's tied to "wanting" to believe. That if you want to believe or do not want to believe, then you can find all the reasons for those and then you will thusly be able to believe. (This already isn't quite the case). Look at the dichotomy you have made: if you want to believe, you can find all the reason to believe, have faith, and be happy. As opposed to if you don't want to believe, you can find all the reasons to doubt and be miserable.

But some people didn't have it quite like that. They wanted to believe, wanted to find reasons to believe, couldn't convince themselves of the efficacy of these reasons, and were miserable. Part of the misery was in assuming that they could simply choose it.

Secondly, there is an implication that one can choose to want to believe or not want to believe in the first place.

NEXT, the issue is that most people do exactly what you say, but again, it's not as simple and clear-cut as you state it. For example, when they pick one simple thing that they believe is true and use it as a spot of focus, the problem is it may not accord with the rest of Mormonism. E.g., someone else mentioned the Joseph Smith quote, "It feels so good not to be trampled." In this case, they have several things they believe about the early Mormon church that is their spot of focus...but the modern church has diverged so far away from this one thing they believe and find true...so what conclusion do you suggest they make here?

And most people don't choose to have things that bug/bother them as their spot of focus. Rather, they try to turn it off. They try to put it on a shelf. It's just that one day, the shelf collapses.

[ELF1024]

I think many other people have different experiences.

For example, in saying "You have the power to choose if you have faith in something or not," you make certain assumptions. First, that it's tied to "wanting" to believe. That if you want to believe or do not want to believe, then you can find all the reasons for those and then you will thusly be able to believe. (This already isn't quite the case). Look at the dichotomy you have made: if you want to believe, you can find all the reason to believe, have faith, and be happy. As opposed to if you don't want to believe, you can find all the reasons to doubt and be miserable.

But some people didn't have it quite like that. They wanted to believe, wanted to find reasons to believe, couldn't convince themselves of the efficacy of these reasons, and were miserable. Part of the misery was in assuming that they could simply choose it.

Secondly, there is an implication that one can choose to want to believe or not want to believe in the first place.

NEXT, the issue is that most people do exactly what you say, but again, it's not as simple and clear-cut as you state it. For example, when they pick one simple thing that they believe is true and use it as a spot of focus, the problem is it may not accord with the rest of Mormonism. E.g., someone else mentioned the Joseph Smith quote, "It feels so good not to be trampled." In this case, they have several things they believe about the early Mormon church that is their spot of focus...but the modern church has diverged so far away from this one thing they believe and find true...so what conclusion do you suggest they make here?

And most people don't choose to have things that bug/bother them as their spot of focus. Rather, they try to turn it off. They try to put it on a shelf. It's just that one day, the shelf collapses.

As I said, it was from my experience. It seems it is not true for everyone, which is fine.

[consiglieri]

I try to be more concerned about what the Lord would be more concerned about. "It is better that one man should perish than a whole nation should dwindle in unbelief......."

Are you citing Nephi's rationale for slaying Laban or Caiphas' rationale for slaying Jesus?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

As I said, it was from my experience. It seems it is not true for everyone, which is fine.

I guess my only issue is that when most people say "It really is that simple" then they don't generally mean to have the silent caveat "to me." They generally want to make statements about the church as a whole or about members as a whole, where any deviation means a person is at fault. When they use the word "you" it seems like they are not just talking about themselves...but they are talking to other people about how their lives work.

I apologize for jumping to conclusions if this is not the case.

[Libs]

I've found the opposite to be the problem. I can believe it, I just have not been able to live it.

That's interesting. I guess I don't really understand that. I didn't find anything in the lifestyle, particularly, difficult. No problem with the Word of Wisdom or tithing or staying faithful to my husband. I didn't have problems with "belief", either, until I started reading more of the history of the church...and then listening to Evangelicals, who believe LDS doctrine is in conflict with the Bible.

[ELF1024]

That's interesting. I guess I don't really understand that. I didn't find anything in the lifestyle, particularly, difficult. No problem with the Word of Wisdom or tithing or staying faithful to my husband. I didn't have problems with "belief", either, until I started reading more of the history of the church...and then listening to Evangelicals, who believe LDS doctrine is in conflict with the Bible.

I agree that there are some things in Church History that I have resolved to take up with those persons when/if I see then after death. However, in most cases, I cannot in good conscience accept what was said at face value. There requires more to the story and a better explanation. It is quite possible that the rest of the story has been lost in the murk of history, which is why I have decided to resolve the issue at a later time.

One of the things that greatly bothers me, but I refuse to focus on, is the way that polygamy was practiced by Joseph Smith Jr. I have found some of the accusations to be very distrubing and distasteful.

However, the Book of Mormon is true... so Joseph Smith was a Prophet; and everything else falls into place. (for me)

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

I agree that there are some things in Church History that I have resolved to take up with those persons when/if I see then after death. However, in most cases, I cannot in good conscience accept what was said at face value. There requires more to the story and a better explanation. It is quite possible that the rest of the story has been lost in the murk of history, which is why I have decided to resolve the issue at a later time.

One of the things that greatly bothers me, but I refuse to focus on, is the way that polygamy was practiced by Joseph Smith Jr. I have found some of the accusations to be very distrubing and distasteful.

However, the Book of Mormon is true... so Joseph Smith was a Prophet; and everything else falls into place. (for me)

At the risk of slightly getting on a diversion.

You say there is something you 'cannot in good conscience' do.

I would say that you don't choose what your "good conscience" dictates you can or cannot do. So, for example, for you, you are led to believe that you cannot in good conscience accept what was said at face value.

I'd just say that for other people, there are different issues that have this effect...and there are different things that cannot be done in good conscience. So, "desiring to believe" or "picking a point of focus" doesn't quite cut it.

[Libs]

I agree that there are some things in Church History that I have resolved to take up with those persons when/if I see then after death. However, in most cases, I cannot in good conscience accept what was said at face value. There requires more to the story and a better explanation. It is quite possible that the rest of the story has been lost in the murk of history, which is why I have decided to resolve the issue at a later time.

One of the things that greatly bothers me, but I refuse to focus on, is the way that polygamy was practiced by Joseph Smith Jr. I have found some of the accusations to be very distrubing and distasteful.

However, the Book of Mormon is true... so Joseph Smith was a Prophet; and everything else falls into place. (for me)

(bolding mine) Yes, that was a big concern of mine, as well.

I clung to the Book of Mormon for along time, because I thought I had a testimony of it. I did have a spiritual experience with it. I haven't thrown that out, because I think God can use anything to bring us closer to him. But, I don't think that, necessarily, makes Joseph a "prophet"...

[ELF1024]

At the risk of slightly getting on a diversion.

You say there is something you 'cannot in good conscience' do.

I would say that you don't choose what your "good conscience" dictates you can or cannot do. So, for example, for you, you are led to believe that you cannot in good conscience accept what was said at face value.

I'd just say that for other people, there are different issues that have this effect...and there are different things that cannot be done in good conscience. So, "desiring to believe" or "picking a point of focus" doesn't quite cut it.

Perhaps you should consider why I cannot "in good conscience" take it at face value? Perhaps it's because I choose to believe? We could quibble over words all day long, but it won't convince either of us of anything.

[ELF1024]

(bolding mine) Yes, that was a big concern of mine, as well.

I clung to the Book of Mormon for along time, because I thought I had a testimony of it. I did have a spiritual experience with it. I haven't thrown that out, because I think God can use anything to bring us closer to him. But, I don't think that, necessarily, makes Joseph a "prophet"...

Well, if that doesn't make Joseph a Prophet; I'm not sure what does make a man a Prophet.

[ELF1024]

listening to Evangelicals, who believe LDS doctrine is in conflict with the Bible.

I don't put a whole lot of faith in preachers. Reason being, if I hadn't been raised LDS, I'd prolly be one of them. It seems like a great scam. You just stand up at the Pew on Sunday and tell people what they want to hear and believe and then pass around the plate. They pay you, and then you tell them more of what they want to hear.

Seems like a great way to spend a life doing nothing of value.

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

Perhaps you should consider why I cannot "in good conscience" take it at face value? Perhaps it's because I choose to believe? We could quibble over words all day long, but it won't convince either of us of anything.

Do you choose your conscience?

on second thought, if you don't want to quibble over words, then I won't try to make you

[ELF1024]

Do you choose your conscience?

on second thought, if you don't want to quibble over words, then I won't try to make you

How do you define conscience?

If "Conscience" is the sum of your experiences with social standards and is the sum of your "social mores" then yes, you build your own conscience as you learn and grow.

if "Conscience" is the light of Christ; then it may or may not be something you can choose, but seems to be something you can choose to ignore and isn't consistent from person to person.

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

How do you define conscience?

If "Conscience" is the sum of your experiences with social standards and is the sum of your "social mores" then yes, you build your own conscience as you learn and grow.

if "Conscience" is the light of Christ; then it may or may not be something you can choose, but seem to be something you can choose to ignore and isn't consistent from person to person.

With the first one, it doesn't seem that you're choosing your conscience. Rather, you choose experiences, which may go with or against social standards and social mores, and these experiences may cause you to learn different things and grow in different ways, but you're not choosing your conscience. And there are consequences. (Going against your conscience is, I believe, a pretty miserable experience.)

With the second one, you aren't choosing your conscience either. Rather, you choose actions (ignore or do not ignore) that may cause inconsistencies in your future ability to recognize such conscience, but you're not choosing your conscience.

Shall we continue?

[ELF1024]

With the first one, it doesn't seem that you're choosing your conscience. Rather, you choose experiences, which may go with or against social standards and social mores, and these experiences may cause you to learn different things and grow in different ways, but you're not choosing your conscience. And there are consequences. (Going against your conscience is, I believe, a pretty miserable experience.)

With the second one, you aren't choosing your conscience either. Rather, you choose actions (ignore or do not ignore) that may cause inconsistencies in your future ability to recognize such conscience, but you're not choosing your conscience.

Shall we continue?

How you do account for people who seem not to have one? Such as Jeff Dahmer and other notorious killers. Did they just ignore their conscience, build their own, or just have a head full of bad wiring from the start?

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

How you do account for people who seem not to have one? Such as Jeff Dahmer and other notorious killers. Did they just ignore their conscience, build their own, or just have a head full of bad wiring from the start?

One thing I would say is this: "immutable" and "chosen" are false dichotomies. It's possible for something to change without someone having consciously changed.

That being said, I don't know why people without a conscience should be problematic at all? I'm not asserting that they choose to have a conscience or that they choose not to have a conscience. So, if they, as you say, 'seem not to have one,' then there wouldn't be anything for them to ignore. There wouldn't be anything for them to "build" if they are conscience-less. On the other hand, if the issue is that they do have a conscience, but it simply justifies actions that others of us would find, well, unconscionable, then the issue is they have bad wiring.

Bad wiring from the start? Who knows. But they didn't *choose* to have the bad wiring, is what I'm saying.

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

P.S., is editing posts something people can only do after they have a certain number of posts here?

I wanted to add to my previous post...we may also speak of people who do bad things and feel guilt/remorse/etc., In this case, that would explain a conscience ignored. If someone could choose their conscience, they could choose not to feel guilt whenever they wanted.