Uncorrelated Mormon

[Questing Beast]

...

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?

Rational thought keeps me in the Church. I see all religion as made up of c. 7 billion thinking souls. Many do not adhere or associate religiously. This is okay. Many others associate themselves with one or more recognized, dogmatic religions. This is okay too. A few disavow association with one or more or all religions. And this is okay as well. I do not see association with a dogmatic religion as necessary in order to be a "good person". But I do accept the aphorism that "religion makes bad people good and good people better". Bad religion per se is almost non existent: that's why it gets such prominent press when it surfaces. Most of the time religion just calmly and mundanely goes about its business like everything else that humans do.

Imho, Mormonism, among the recognized, dogmatic religions, does a better job than any of the others. I hope that one day it will get beyond the perceived need to resort to dogmatic, "faith promoting" methods; and just let the facts say what they say. But then the Church will probably not be as dynamic and growing as it is now. That would be okay, since in my religious paradigm this planet already has c. 7 billion religious world views inhabiting it; and association within an organized religion is secondary to that reality. Organized religion is for organized effort. And to be most efficacious in organizing good works, all of the recognized religions also must cooperate with each other; just like individuals cooperate with each other....

[rockslider]

This sounds a lot like how I feel.

It also sounds a lot like how Joseph Smith felt.

It feels so good not to be trammeled.

Being the same type of uncorrelated Mormon as how I've always viewed consiglieri, I was going to post him as an example. But subversive covered the type well later on, and consiglieri has now come out of the closet! (hehe, news to all!)

Yep, to me uncorrelated == old school == Damian Smith - pre correlation committee indocternated.

I’ll bet that darn Consiglieri partly believe Adam God. That alone should warrant excommunication!

[ELF1024]

I think you just described the heart-wrenching post made by ELF1024.

My point would be that; Life is risk. Each of us, be it a correlated or uncorrelated Mormon takes a risk. I would assume the same is true of a Baptist in a similar crisis of faith or catholic or any religious group.

[bookofmormontruth]

Rational thought keeps me in the Church. I see all religion as made up of c. 7 billion thinking souls. Many do not adhere or associate religiously. This is okay. Many others associate themselves with one or more recognized, dogmatic religions. This is okay too. A few disavow association with one or more or all religions. And this is okay as well. I do not see association with a dogmatic religion as necessary in order to be a "good person". But I do accept the aphorism that "religion makes bad people good and good people better". Bad religion per se is almost non existent: that's why it gets such prominent press when it surfaces. Most of the time religion just calmly and mundanely goes about its business like everything else that humans do.

Imho, Mormonism, among the recognized, dogmatic religions, does a better job than any of the others. I hope that one day it will get beyond the perceived need to resort to dogmatic, "faith promoting" methods; and just let the facts say what they say. But then the Church will probably not be as dynamic and growing as it is now. That would be okay, since in my religious paradigm this planet already has c. 7 billion religious world views inhabiting it; and association within an organized religion is secondary to that reality. Organized religion is for organized effort. And to be most efficacious in organizing good works, all of the recognized religions also must cooperate with each other; just like individuals cooperate with each other....

Say it isn't so! That is one of the nicest (my bold) compliments you have given towards the Lord's Church.

Unfortunately, that isn't how the Gospel works. The requirements set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants for what qualifies a person for the Celestial Kingdom doesn't include changing the Gospel to fit our own needs "a-la carte style". It is the opposite, we must change.

[rockslider]

Wow, Schryver’s sixth spider senses must be in overdrive. DEFCON1 (cocked pistol, War is imminent)

Subversion Asset 2.0, welcome (loving this so far) to the board, and to the top of the Fifth columnist list.

[bookofmormontruth]

My point would be that; Life is risk. Each of us, be it a correlated or uncorrelated Mormon takes a risk. I would assume the same is true of a Baptist in a similar crisis of faith or catholic or any religious group.

I have to say, you are one of my favorites on here.

And that isn't because you were put on official "ignore" by Rob Bowman.

[bookofmormontruth]

Wow, Schryver’s sixth spider senses must be in overdrive. DEFCON1 (cocked pistol, War is imminent)

Subversion Asset 2.0, welcome (loving this so far) to the board, and to the top of the Fifth columnist list.

In light of the OP. I have seen this "fifth columnist" phrase thrown around.

Why would someone be proud to labeled as someone who secretly supports and helps the enemies of the organization that they are in? This isn't "V".

[ELF1024]

In light of the OP. I have seen this "fifth columnist" phrase thrown around.

Why would someone be proud to labeled as someone who secretly supports and helps the enemies of the organization that they are in? This isn't "V".

I assume that it's a sought after title like "bad boy" or "renegade". It feels like the breaded guy in the black leather jacket on the Harley Davidson. Someone in the biker outfit looking like something out of a ZZTOP video sitting in the back pew with his feet up on the seat, thumbing his nose at the Bishop and General Authorities as they scowl.

I guess that makes the "TBM" the clean shaven white shirt and tie wearing guy who tries his best to ignore the biker guy sitting several rows behind him.

[LeSellers]

I assume that it's a sought after title like "bad boy" or "renegade". It feels like the breaded guy in the black leather jacket on the Harley Davidson.

He may be breaded, but I hope no one fries or bakes him.

Lehi

[Subversive Asset 2.0]

In light of the OP. I have seen this "fifth columnist" phrase thrown around.

Why would someone be proud to labeled as someone who secretly supports and helps the enemies of the organization that they are in? This isn't "V".

Not withstanding my admittedly unfortunate username (which actually carries back far further in time), I'd just like to note that I do not consider myself a fifth columnist. I certainly don't consider myself as being anything out of V for Vendetta, or as a "biker" or "renegade" or whatever.

Leave these grandiose titles to someone like John Dehlin...

[mercyngrace]

In light of the OP. I have seen this "fifth columnist" phrase thrown around.

Why would someone be proud to labeled as someone who secretly supports and helps the enemies of the organization that they are in? This isn't "V".

So far as I know, fifth columnist is something you are accused of being rather than a title you choose. However some seem to find it fun to stump the self-appointed apostate hunters by mocking their assigned epithets.

I think my bishop would laugh out loud at the names I've been called on this and other LDS boards. I know I do.

[ELF1024]

He may be breaded, but I hope no one fries or bakes him.

Lehi

Thanks for keeping me humble

[LeSellers]

I guess that makes the "TBM" the clean shaven white shirt and tie wearing guy who tries his best to ignore the biker guy sitting several rows behind him.

A real "TBM" would hardly ignore him. He'd want to engage with him and teach him the Gospel.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Thanks for keeping me humble

I do what I can.

Lehi

[rockslider]

In light of the OP. I have seen this "fifth columnist" phrase thrown around.

Why would someone be proud to labeled as someone who secretly supports and helps the enemies of the organization that they are in? This isn't "V".

Hello, the likes of David B. and Loap on high up on this man's list.

McCarthyism at its best.

[Questing Beast]

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.

It's not that simple. Faith entails belief first. It is impossible to sustain "faith" without belief.

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

Facts get in the way. We have sapience, we ARE sapience. That means that we weigh evidence and decide if something is worthy of being defined as factual. Things that are not facts are nebulous: at best they are theoretical. There is nothing theoretical about being told to study and pray to know truth. That is the methodology promoted by the Church's own doctrine. We are told to study and pray every day, constantly, throughout our lives. Study produces belief. At any given point you have a "set" of beliefs. These are not voluntary. They are founded on what you know or think you know. Belief is always incomplete, that is to say, belief is always altering; and not always expanding in volume: sometimes/often, discovery dismantles belief and leaves you more void than fecund with facts. It is like starting over. This too is not a choice. Once belief is gone you cannot simply will yourself to get it back: the facts get in the way.

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.

The black and white logic of this as I have already pointed out is not that simple: we do not have a choice in what we believe, anymore than we have a choice in what we feel. Once we feel something it is too late to take the feeling back, it simply is. This is true also with belief. We believe or we do not. We do have a desire that might be opposite to what we believe. Often this is the case in fact.

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.

It really is not simple at all; it is as complex as c. 7 billion egocentric, metaphysical souls are different and solitary from each other.

Dogmatic religion is not the answer to the needs of any number of solitary souls, connected only to "God" and not to each other. We find ourselves born into this or that religion. We are either taught in precepts or our religious "training" is more or less neglected. Many of us are born and raised outside of any religion at all. We attain adulthood as sovereign sapient souls; free to think as such. And from "here" we proceed to learn and unlearn much more than we had imprinted upon us in childhood. The one thing we are not free of is our current religious paradigm. We can only add to or subtract from it, not eliminate it. We do not have a choice in what gets added to it or subtracted from it. We believe as we must, according to our current understanding of the "facts" defining our very existence. No two such paradigms are exactly alike. And my paradigm is constantly undergoing change.

The one belief that has endured all change is my acceptance of "God" as the only rational explanation for existence at all. From this core belief has emerged a clearer vision of purpose: "What is it for?" And the only coherent reason is Joy. If existence is meant to be anything it is Joyful. Everything else falls into place if this is the core truth behind existence....

[Calm]

"Insights, feelings, and experiences" are not sources in the normal sense of the word. Imagine writing a scholarly paper and backing it up with "insights, feelings, and experiences." .......

Though they don't actually forbid using outside sources. But I do think a large number of people would read that and decide they'd better not use outside sources, just to be on the safe side!

But insights can come from reading other sources....

I have used many such in the several decades that I've been a teacher (started teaching Primary at the age of 17). I've never once had anyone complain about it.

I've had a few people who have expressed concern about using outside sources, they've all been brand new converts who are trying extra hard to do everything right all at once. I try to let them know that living the gospel and teaching it doesn't have to be rigid if they don't want it to be.

[consiglieri]

I’ll bet that darn Consiglieri partly believe Adam God. That alone should warrant excommunication!

I do believe Brigham Young was onto something with his teachings about Adam's relationship to us and to God, but more important than the accuracy of his doctrine was the fact that he saw himself as a full and complete successor to Joseph Smith's prophetic office.

Once Brigham Young's less than enthusiastic successors silenced him by first mandating his teachings not be repeated, and later by effectively rewriting history by public and official denials he ever taught such a thing, we were left with the shallow and insipid correlated gospel we know only too well today.

Nothing produced by a committee is going to be of lasting value.

The gospel is no exception.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. Thanks for thinking of me, Rocky!

[Hestia]

McCarthyism at its best.

These kind of comments are uncalled for.

[Brian 2.0]

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.

Wow. I wish it was that simple.

I highly discourage that type of methodology. Focusing on one thing and letting that one thing be the basis for your whole belief or dis-belief in everything else is a horribly insufficient way of determining the truth of that "everything else."

[Olavarria]

I was of the understanding that an "uncorrelated Mormon" was one that had views and beliefs that contradicted correlated Church materials like the Ensign, Gospel Principles, General Conference etc. It's a very broad term.

[Libs]

I enjoy you on here. I would have loved to be your home teacher or in the least associated with you more.

Thank you...you are very kind. That would have been interesting, eh? Probably would have been quite frustrating for you. (I do have a very dear Home Teacher, but we only visit in email, now)

Thanks for sharing. The "difficult" things will remain personal, but one struggle is to love my neighbors. I absolutely loved every person I came in contact with on my mission - such an amazing feeling that I have always longed for since.

That one (love your neighbor as yourself) is a difficult one for all of us. Wonderful that you got to experience that, so intensely, on your mission.

If the Sunday School answer is incorrect then the teachings of Lord's Prophets are incorrect, just doesn't work for me. IMO, if we explored that ex-Mormon - why would he start to have doubts if he was doing those Sunday School answers? Doubts and fear only come from satan, not the Lord who espouses faith.

I don't think doubts always come from Satan. My doubts came from things I learned about the church that I hadn't known before. And, I didn't go looking for it...the information was kind of dropped in my lap. I thought what I was hearing were lies, at first (about Joseph and his sealings to young girls and already married women). I had never heard that, before.

But that is exactly the point I am making. Why does a person have "increasing unbelief"? Did it start from neglecting meetings and personal prayers?

No. That's what I'm trying to tell you. They did not start by neglecting meetings or scripture. As a matter of fact, when I first started having doubts, I read the entire Book of Mormon in about three weeks time. I hung in there for quite awhile (four years), but finally started feeling like a hypocrite, because my testimony was badly damaged.

I understand that and respect your view. I personally just don't agree with it. That "whatever reason" is the key why someone starts to lose their testimony and I believe can be found in every case by members who leave.

When I said "for whatever reasons", I was talking about intellectual concerns (of which there are many), not personal sins.