Mystery Meat Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 I have a coworker who is very vocal in their departure from the Church. Sometimes he directs me to a snippet from the Church leaders, one of the new essays, or an article from a newspaper. He often portrays the source to say one thing (for example that the Church has changed its position on certain issues) when after reading it I conclude that it says the exact opposite of what he claims. I am pretty sure he doesn't read the stuff himself, but allows others in the blogernacle to interpret. A month ago he told me that the Church repudiated the doctrine of us becoming like God in the Church's essay on Becoming like God. I had a moment to get around to it yesterday and it said the exact opposite and even re-emphasized things Joseph Smith taught in the King Follet discourse. He obviously did not read it. My short time browsing these forums has shown me that their are NOM and "anti" talking points that get parroted almost verbatim, without any thought to their truth and as a result their is a whole lot of group think. What is so sad to me about this is the fact that he says he wants to know what is true, yet he doesn't care enough to fact check what everyone tells him is right on the internet. Not only has he lost all credibility with me, but it tells me what he really desires and where his heart is. I also think he has built this whole net of assumptions about the church and its leadership that pollutes everything he reads about it. An article could say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Saves Millions of Lives in Africa" and he would read it and come away with the leaders of the Church hate Asians or they are just trying to save face after the priesthood ban. I don't think he will have a chance of getting the type of divine revelation we strive for until that net and way of thinking is unraveled. Does others experiences with disaffected member mirror mine?
Kenngo1969 Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Speaking generally, active, committed, devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ are dismissed by the disaffected as "not wanting to have anything to do with" family members or friends who fall into that category. The truth is that the disaffected themselves are the ones who engage in behaviors contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ, knowing full well that their family members and friends will be uncomfortable in such environments and around such behaviors. Then, the devout are dismissed as judgmental, prudish, uptight, et cetera. And the other part of it is that the Church is highly participatory. It takes a good deal of time and commitment to stay involved. It's not that devout family members of the disaffected "shun" them; it's simply that if anything is going to get done in this Church, members do it. I have a bifurcated family with respect to Church activity and commitment, and have experienced this first- and close second-hand with the "disaffected" branch of the family.
Calm Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Speaking generally, active, committed, devout members of the Church of Jesus Christ are dismissed by the disaffected as "not wanting to have anything to do with" family members or friends who fall into that category. The truth is that the disaffected themselves are the ones who engage in behaviors contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ, knowing full well that their family members and friends will be uncomfortable in such environments and around such behaviors. Then, the devout are dismissed as judgmental, prudish, uptight, et cetera. And the other part of it is that the Church is highly participatory. It takes a good deal of time and commitment to stay involved. It's not that devout family members of the disaffected "shun" them; it's simply that if anything is going to get done in this Church, members do it. I have a bifurcated family with respect to Church activity and commitment, and have experienced this first- and close second-hand with the "disaffected" branch of the family.this is my own experience as well though I ave no doubt that just as in any other significant organization, there will be those that ostracised the leavers just for that alone, even though it is completely against the teachings of our faith. 1
rpn Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 When I got interested in church history, before internet was rampant, I found myself tracing the "facts" outlined in faith challenging material back to original sources. Without exception I learned that the original source either was entirely misrepresented, or it was just as able to be interpreted in a faith sustaining way as it was the anti one. Sometimes the original source was simply a part of a whole that was yet unknown. Yes, when the internet lights up with discussion of conference talks, it often seems that they didn't listen to the same talks I did. Yes, there is lots of repeat without any independent consideration (though that is also true in the faithful member arena). Why don't you mark up the essay for him to show how what he said is different from what actually happened. If there is a clear difference, then it is possible your showing him the fallacy could help him push into a realm where he does more personal study and less following. 2
Walden Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 When I got interested in church history, before internet was rampant, I found myself tracing the "facts" outlined in faith challenging material back to original sources. Without exception I learned that the original source either was entirely misrepresented, or it was just as able to be interpreted in a faith sustaining way as it was the anti one. Sometimes the original source was simply a part of a whole that was yet unknown. Yes, when the internet lights up with discussion of conference talks, it often seems that they didn't listen to the same talks I did. Yes, there is lots of repeat without any independent consideration (though that is also true in the faithful member arena). Why don't you mark up the essay for him to show how what he said is different from what actually happened. If there is a clear difference, then it is possible your showing him the fallacy could help him push into a realm where he does more personal study and less following. "Why don't you mark up the essay for him to show how what he said is different from what actually happened. If there is a clear difference, then it is possible your showing him the fallacy could help him push into a realm where he does more personal study and less following." I imagine this would be about as effective and fruitful as me marking up an LDS teaching manual, let's say, for the lesson on the translation process for the Book of Mormon, and adding notes regarding the use of peep stones, the head in the hat, etc. People hear and see what it is that they want to hear and see, generally what is acceptable in their own worldview, and then generally dismiss those things that are outside their worldview....it is human nature, and it is done by both believers and non-believers. 1
Mystery Meat Posted April 8, 2014 Author Posted April 8, 2014 Thanks for the replies. They are all interesting. rpn I have had a similar experience to you where in a study of church history there is more than one way to interpret the history. But you would not know it to hear some. My best guess is they rely heavily on the interpretations of others OR they get so focused on the negative that they tend to believe the worst about the Church, Joseph Smith, etc. when faced with potential tough issues in church history. Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting topic for convo. Our brains and personalities (not to mention our backgrounds and in fact this may be the BIGGEST factor) play a large role in how we view and interpret not only Church history, but general conference and other Church actions as well. I am comforted and quite frankly humbled that we have an all knowing God who is capable of factoring in every little detail of our lives in the final judgment. 1
Walden Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Thanks for the replies. They are all interesting. rpn I have had a similar experience to you where in a study of church history there is more than one way to interpret the history. But you would not know it to hear some. My best guess is they rely heavily on the interpretations of others OR they get so focused on the negative that they tend to believe the worst about the Church, Joseph Smith, etc. when faced with potential tough issues in church history. Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting topic for convo. Our brains and personalities (not to mention our backgrounds and in fact this may be the BIGGEST factor) play a large role in how we view and interpret not only Church history, but general conference and other Church actions as well. I am comforted and quite frankly humbled that we have an all knowing God who is capable of factoring in every little detail of our lives in the final judgment. "they get so focused on the negative that they tend to believe the worst about the Church, Joseph Smith, etc. when faced with potential tough issues in church history"....this goes both ways; when faced with the sometimes thorny, uncomfortable historical issues regarding their faith or historical church figures, LDS believers will often believe only the most innocuous and easily digestible version of the truth, rather than admit or even acknowedge the more unsavory facts. I have heard as much rationalization, excuses and falsities from members regarding events such as Mountain Meadows, Kirtland Bank failure, Joseph Smith's polygamy, the BofM translation process, etc, etc. as I have from critics with regard to their attacks. Believers and critics alike are fervent in their defense of incomplete versions of the truth. 1
Mystery Meat Posted April 8, 2014 Author Posted April 8, 2014 "they get so focused on the negative that they tend to believe the worst about the Church, Joseph Smith, etc. when faced with potential tough issues in church history"....this goes both ways; when faced with the sometimes thorny, uncomfortable historical issues regarding their faith or historical church figures, LDS believers will often believe only the most innocuous and easily digestible version of the truth, rather than admit or even acknowedge the more unsavory facts. I have heard as much rationalization, excuses and falsities from members regarding events such as Mountain Meadows, Kirtland Bank failure, Joseph Smith's polygamy, the BofM translation process, etc, etc. as I have from critics with regard to their attacks. Believers and critics alike are fervent in their defense of incomplete versions of the truth. I have never denied that.
Sanpitch Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) Re Becoming Gods, well this sounds like it's up for question. And also the getting your planets issue. Search for "Mormonism 101 FAQ" and scroll down till you find the God issue and the Planet issue. But I'll copy it here anyway: Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2). Edit: I don't think the King Follet speech is doctrine or carrys much weight. However the DandC does indicate becoming Gods is possible. Edited April 8, 2014 by Sanpitch
Recommended Posts