canard78 Posted April 6, 2015 Author Posted April 6, 2015 "I was willing to extend courtesy to those without doubts if they would extend courtesy to me."I love how this speaks to both sides. Both sides should show that courtesy. I have seen doubters come out swinging and patient believers turning the other cheek and loving them anyway. I also have seen questioners who get pounded into the ground for having honest, sincere questions. When both sides are courteous to each other then there is still love there whether the person ends up leaving or staying.Exactly. I have wrestled with questions for several years. I think the majority of my Mormon Facebook associates would be very surprised to know it. Only close friends and family are aware of concerns and questions and even then, I've never imposed them, only responded to their questions about my change in perspectives. I took this lead from my wife who left over 4 years ago when I was still fully believing. We both learned very quickly that trying to impose our perspective on the other would only generate negativity and conflict. We've grown closer through respect.
canard78 Posted April 6, 2015 Author Posted April 6, 2015 So, I am going to interject some more thoughts into this discussion. Maybe, I should quit while I am ahead, but here goes. Don't worry, great contribution. You stayed ahead All or nothing statements about the Church or any topic isn`t usually a good idea, ie either the Book of Mormon is exactly what it says or it is the greatest deception by the devil known to mankind, either the Church is God`s one true Church or it is a blaphemous delusion thrust on people. Those aren`t exact quotes, but they sound like things I have heard people say, especially general authorities. I remember when I was doubting and I would come across tidbits about Church history and doctrine, usually some of the same old chestnuts we talk about today. Polyandry, Adam-God theory, BoM archaeology, Mountain Meadows Massacre, origin of the Book of Abraham. It was very hard to process the information and then hear an all or nothing statement. Usually the Church came out bad when I used that reasoning, especially when I was taught things differently before my mission. On my mission I read The Mormon Experience, The Story of the Latter Day Saints and Joseph Smith, the First Mormon to name a few. Then I would hear people say things that didn't agree with my reading. None of those books is anti-Mormon, but sometimes members would disagree vehemently about items I would bring up and say they came from anti material. Imagine when I would show them that Leonard Arrington was the Church Historian. Jaws drop, flies going in and out of their mouth. The Church is spending a bunch of time talking about doubters. The advice about not judging is so important. Listening to what the other person has to say is also important. Don`t blow them off and if you don`t know the answer then get them to someone who does. Just because their issues aren`t a big deal for you doesn`t mean they weren`t the straw that broke the camels back for someone else. Try to get them to spend as much time reading the scriptures as they do their alternate material. They will often go for that. Avoid using all or nothing statements. Avoid assuming that they are only doubting because they have sinned. Pray with and for them. Emphasize Christ and his Atonement. Admit that apostles and prophets are people that are human and disappoint at times. Being honest about those things and touchy history helps bring back trust into the person`s mind. Don`t give up on them, but also know when to back off. Finally, we need to bring up these potential landmines before people reach 18. They discuss them in seminary now and bits here and there need to be in the curriculum (IMO). It sure would have helped me.I completely agree. The black and white, all or nothing approach is not going to work in the internet age. Nuance is essential.
Storm Rider Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 I have tried to live my life, poorly as all sinners, under the premise that I cannot control the actions and words of others; I can only control my own actions and my own words. I would like to one day always be able to respond properly rather than react to the actions/words of others. Basing my words or actions upon those of others people just seems a bit...unfruitful. It reminds me of the old eye for an eye type of mentality. I think the Savior was great on not being baited by the words of others or reacting to their actions. He had an objective and a way of life that ruled all his words and actions. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 6, 2015 Posted April 6, 2015 We all see through that glass darkly. Be gracious in forgiving others as well as yourself. We are not our problems or our fears. We are our response to them. 2
CMZ Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Maybe some here will consider this and stop accusing doubters of bitterness and swimming in the mire or muck or not having the light and so on. I don't think doubting makes one a sinner. Last month's Ensign has a good article about this topic. But what is so frustrating to me is seeing over and over people doing the same things that many others have done before but thinking it has never happened to anyone else. For instance, I see far too often people stating something along the lines of, "I can't believe the Church has been lying to us all this time about Joseph Smith and polygamy. I'm glad I uncovered this deception. Now I will have to warn others." And I think, "*sigh* Here we go again... " 1
JLHPROF Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 I don't think doubting makes one a sinner. Last month's Ensign has a good article about this topic. But what is so frustrating to me is seeing over and over people doing the same things that many others have done before but thinking it has never happened to anyone else. For instance, I see far too often people stating something along the lines of, "I can't believe the Church has been lying to us all this time about Joseph Smith and polygamy. I'm glad I uncovered this deception. Now I will have to warn others." And I think, "*sigh* Here we go again... " It's true. It's been ages since the anti's came up with any new material worth mentioning. But for those poor members whose faith gets shaken by discovering the old anti material, I really do have sympathy. But there's nothing new there.
CMZ Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Yeah, I have sympathy too. I can't claim to have never had questions or doubts before. I just wish they could not let something they don't understand unravel what they do understand (yes, I'm quoting conference).
canard78 Posted April 7, 2015 Author Posted April 7, 2015 It's true. It's been ages since the anti's came up with any new material worth mentioning. But for those poor members whose faith gets shaken by discovering the old anti material, I really do have sympathy. But there's nothing new there.I don't think it matters whether it's old or new material. It's not all about "anti" criticism either. This BYU article had a huge impact on me becoming aware of the environment and attitudes that were prevalent at the time of the Book of Mormon's publication:http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/20/2/S00004-500d8c2988222JBMRS20-1-3NationExtinct.pdfI would say that the above article had a bigger influence on me considering a modern origin for the Book of Mormon than any "anti" material ever has.
canard78 Posted April 7, 2015 Author Posted April 7, 2015 Yeah, I have sympathy too. I can't claim to have never had questions or doubts before. I just wish they could not let something they don't understand unravel what they do understand (yes, I'm quoting conference)."They" being doubters? The problem is not with things I don't understand... I'm very willing to park those things. It's the things I've developed a clear understanding of that are problematic. 1
CMZ Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 "They" being doubters? The problem is not with things I don't understand... I'm very willing to park those things. It's the things I've developed a clear understanding of that are problematic. Okay, and your understanding of these matters is final and complete and immune to change?
canard78 Posted April 7, 2015 Author Posted April 7, 2015 Okay, and your understanding of these matters is final and complete and immune to change?Absolutely not!The biggest certainty I am left with is this: "I'm probably wrong."The probability of the realities of life for all of us is that whatever conclusions we've reached about the meaning of life is almost certainly wrong. As such I will always remain open to alternative explanations and conclusions. I remain completely open to the possibility that the church is "the only true and living" one... I just don't think it's very likely (based on the best evidence currently available to me) 1
Recommended Posts