Perception: Not Always Reality

[Mystery Meat]

So I went and saw the movie "Tommorland" over the weekend (the point of this thread is not to discuss the cinematic merits of the movie, but if you are wondering I would give it a decent 6/10). Several things about this movie got me thinking over the weekend, which is more than I can say about most movies. To me, this movie is all about how perceptions can alter a persons concept of reality.

 

Let me explain.

 

Ironically, the first thing I will note is that there were certain types of people who jumped on this movie as global warming propaganda. Yes, GW was mentioned once or twice, but that it is not what the movie is about. The movie, in my mind, is about how people can keep hearing the negative (this is the context that GW is presented, i.e., that the world is going down the drain and we are all going to die) and think that everything is hopeless. In other words, we focus so much on the problems (environment, war, poverty, etc.) that we, as a society, accept that it is hopeless. Our lives and how we live are effected as a result.

 

I rarely go to a movie searching for truth, but I think the message is spot on. When I went through my short-lived faith crisis, I knew pretty quick that I had a choice to make: to believe or not to believe? Yes, there were some things about Church history (a lot of things actually) that I did not understand or I struggled to grasp (polyandry, William Law, that sort of thing), but I also knew the Church had brought so much good to my life and that without it, my life would be much, much different. Pretty quickly, I decided to focus on the positive and I think that changed everything (included getting answers to things) for me and it is also why my faith crisis (if you can even call it that) lasted for about six months as opposed to the years that many seem to drag on.

 

I have observed that this board is obsessed with the negative, myself included. We post about these controversial topics either to play gotcha or to harp on the negative, whether perceived or real. I have decided that that is not for me. There is so much more that is beautiful in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, that I think it would be healthier for me (dare I say all of us?) to engage in that type of dialogue. I think this board would be a better place if we simply ignored the negative (even if we have the perfect rebuttal . . . because lets be honest, there is no such thing as the perfect rebuttal; and its rarely (never?) going to make a difference anyway). I think dealing with the negative is best left to real, face-to-face interaction or BETTER YET heartfelt prayer and study.

 

Yes, the negative exists. We live in a fallen world. But I don't have time to define the only true and living Church, its leaders or even its members by the negative when there is so much more that is good, inspiring, uplifting, edifying, virtuous, lovely or of good report, or praiseworthy...I seek after these things.

[HappyJackWagon]

Lvjd66-

I saw the movie and had a similar thought. They overall theme of optimisim in making the world a better place is very positive. Summary of a line- "Two wolves meet. One is full of darkness and despair, the other full of light and hope. Which one will thrive" Answer- The one you feed the most.

Yes, there is negativity on boards like these and I agree that we sometimes feed the negativity more than the optimism. But it is important to validate that both exist and both can serve a purpose. If we apply this to the church we could make the argument that some people choose to pretend that the dark, desparate, negative wolf (problems in the church, culture, history etc.) simply don't exist and view anyone who acknowledges those things as also being negative and dark. While others might argue that those who acknowledge the negative are actually the most optimistic if they feel that positive changes can be made. They aren't willing to give up and throw in the towel. They're not willing to have the church self-destruct as an influence in their lives. So they go out and try to make it better. But the others, who don't acknowledge the negative, view the attempts to make things better as misguided, prideful, and apostate.

[Mystery Meat]

Also, as this is my thread, I ask that you not make this thread about negative things. If you feel like you need to focus on the negative, please start your own thread.

[Mystery Meat]

Lvjd66-

I saw the movie and had a similar thought. They overall theme of optimisim in making the world a better place is very positive. Summary of a line- "Two wolves meet. One is full of darkness and despair, the other full of light and hope. Which one will thrive" Answer- The one you feed the most.

Yes, there is negativity on boards like these and I agree that we sometimes feed the negativity more than the optimism. But it is important to validate that both exist and both can serve a purpose. If we apply this to the church we could make the argument that some people choose to pretend that the dark, desparate, negative wolf (problems in the church, culture, history etc.) simply don't exist and view anyone who acknowledges those things as also being negative and dark. While others might argue that those who acknowledge the negative are actually the most optimistic if they feel that positive changes can be made. They aren't willing to give up and throw in the towel. They're not willing to have the church self-destruct as an influence in their lives. So they go out and try to make it better. But the others, who don't acknowledge the negative, view the attempts to make things better as misguided, prideful, and apostate.

 

Sure. Its differing perspectives. However, Church governance works in a certain way. Who the Lord calls, he qualifies. I really do think my sig line quote is on point. That doesn't mean we can't as individuals understand that negative exists and have questions about it. But the more we focus on it the more it will consume us. I trust God to call those best suited to address the "issues" that He wants to be addressed. 

[HappyJackWagon]

But isn't accepting the negative aspects of the church and acting like we have no role in making things better, or even believing that things CAN be better, feeding that negative wolf? Wasn't the theme of the movie that to save what we love we must first believe that it can be saved and that we have a role in making it better?

[Mystery Meat]

But isn't accepting the negative aspects of the church and acting like we have no role in making things better, or even believing that things CAN be better, feeding that negative wolf? Wasn't the theme of the movie that to save what we love we must first believe that it can be saved and that we have a role in making it better?

 

Yes and no.

 

I never said we have no role. We have a role. Sometimes that role is trusting God and making sure we are doing our best in our lives to make sure our heart is pure and our life is clean. If we have a calling with stewardship it is to make sure we our following the Spirit and doing the best we can to correct the negative within the boundaries of that stewardship. That is our role. 

 

Granted, the role is different in the Church than it would be in government, school or just about any other organization. My job is to make sure that I am exercising faith, repenting, etc. It is not our job to sit as judge and jury in determining if Bishop so and so acted to harshly in excommunicating John Whathisname or to criticize the Church for not doing this or encouraging that. When we do those things, things outside of our stewardship and the calling we have, then we our focusing on the negative to our detriment. In those instances, I believe President McKay had it right (see below). I think such people lose the Spirit. 

[Mystery Meat]

Yes and no.

 

I never said we have no role. We have a role. Sometimes that role is trusting God and making sure we are doing our best in our lives to make sure our heart is pure and our life is clean. If we have a calling with stewardship it is to make sure we our following the Spirit and doing the best we can to correct the negative within the boundaries of that stewardship. That is our role. 

 

Granted, the role is different in the Church than it would be in government, school or just about any other organization. My job is to make sure that I am exercising faith, repenting, etc. It is not our job to sit as judge and jury in determining if Bishop so and so acted to harshly in excommunicating John Whathisname or to criticize the Church for not doing this or encouraging that. When we do those things, things outside of our stewardship and the calling we have, then we our focusing on the negative to our detriment. In those instances, I believe President McKay had it right (see below). I think such people lose the Spirit. 

 

One more thing if I may. I think this is the struggle that many face. Learning to let go. Learning to be okay with trusting others (and God) when we might have done things differently. Learning to be okay with not being in charge. I think there is a natural tendency to think we SHOULD have the right and the responsibility to fix everything. 

 

I think in the Lord's kingdom, our right and responsibility ends with our stewardship.

[ALarson]

lvdj66, interesting topic and discussion so far.  As you may know, I'm involved with planning our ward's 5th Sunday discussion (for this coming Sunday) and have been meeting with the Bishop (and a few others in our ward) to prepare a lesson plan or presentation for this.  

 

We met again last Sunday evening and many times during our planning, the Bishop said, "We need to remember to keep this a positive discussion".  So, your topic caught my eye here.

 

This can be challenging when discussing difficult topics (we are covering the essay on race and the Priesthood), but I do believe it's possible and that's what we're hoping for.

 

One thought I have though is that what is positive to one person may not be so for another.  My journey through my "faith crisis" (for lack of a better term), resulted in some different conclusions than yours did.  But, I believe it was a very positive experience for me and still is.   

[HappyJackWagon]

 

One more thing if I may. I think this is the struggle that many face. Learning to let go. Learning to be okay with trusting others (and God) when we might have done things differently. Learning to be okay with not being in charge. I think there is a natural tendency to think we SHOULD have the right and the responsibility to fix everything. 

 

I think in the Lord's kingdom, our right and responsibility ends with our stewardship.

 

This is a fair point, but I don't necessarily view it as needing to be in charge. I view it as an issue of value and duty. I view it as lazy, weak and cowardly to sit back and let bad things happen if there's a possibility I may be able to help. That help won't always be accepted but I feel we should at least try.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

lvdj66, interesting topic and discussion so far.  As you may know, I'm involved with planning our ward's 5th Sunday discussion (for this coming Sunday) and have been meeting with the Bishop (and a few others in our ward) to prepare a lesson plan or presentation for this.  

 

We met again last Sunday evening and many times during our planning, the Bishop said, "We need to remember to keep this a positive discussion".  So, your topic caught my eye here.

 

This can be challenging when discussing difficult topics (we are covering the essay on race and the Priesthood), but I do believe it's possible and that's what we're hoping for.

 

One thought I have though is that what is positive to one person may not be so for another.  My journey through my "faith crisis" (for lack of a better term), resulted in some different conclusions than yours did.  But, I believe it was a very positive experience for me and still is.

 

Good luck on this lesson. I'm interested in your report next Monday.

FWIW- When I gave a 5th Sunday lesson on Race and the Priesthood I softened the idea that even a prophet's understanding of doctrine and practice can change by describing it as part of the continuing restoration. Ironically, a week later Pres. Uchtdorf spoke about the continuing restoration in General Conference.

[Mystery Meat]

 

 

This is a fair point, but I don't necessarily view it as needing to be in charge. I view it as an issue of value and duty. I view it as lazy, weak and cowardly to sit back and let bad things happen if there's a possibility I may be able to help. That help won't always be accepted but I feel we should at least try.

 

And I don't think the Lord wants us to overstep our stewardship, even if we think we bring something different to the table. To do otherwise, is sin.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

And I don't think the Lord wants us to overstep our stewardship, even if we think we bring something different to the table. To do otherwise, is sin.

 

And I think the Lord cares more about the desires of our heart and the compassion we show through our efforts, whether or not we are officially the authority assigned to complete a task.

ETA- I've known home teachers who have been offended that someone else did service for a family they were assigned to HT. They said it wasn't the person's stewardship and that it should have gone through the HT. I understand this to a point because I used to feel this way, but I think that is the exact opposite of how God feels about it. He wants the person to be served and is less concerned about upholding the bureaucratic process of authority.

Edited May 26, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[ALarson]

And I don't think the Lord wants us to overstep our stewardship, even if we think we bring something different to the table. To do otherwise, is sin.

But what or who does "our stewardship" include?  Does that just depend on what our calling currently is?

[ALarson]

 

 

Good luck on this lesson. I'm interested in your report next Monday.

FWIW- When I gave a 5th Sunday lesson on Race and the Priesthood I softened the idea that even a prophet's understanding of doctrine and practice can change by describing it as part of the continuing restoration. Ironically, a week later Pres. Uchtdorf spoke about the continuing restoration in General Conference.

Thanks Happy.  I'll post how it goes (on the thread dedicated to this topic )

 

Thanks also for the suggestions as I will remember them and include them for this Sunday.

[Mystery Meat]

But what or who does "our stewardship" include?  Does that just depend on what our calling currently is?

 

Yup. That and our family. That is the pattern the Lord has set in scripture and modern day governance. 

[CV75]

Yes, the negative exists. We live in a fallen world. But I don't have time to define the only true and living Church, its leaders or even its members by the negative when there is so much more that is good, inspiring, uplifting, edifying, virtuous, lovely or of good report, or praiseworthy...I seek after these things.

I don’t think people get very far handling (or discussing) a problem with negativity, whether in perceiving and defining the problem or in justifying and defending the route for correction. President Hinckley taught:

 

It isn’t as bad as you sometimes think it is.

It all works out. Don’t worry.

I say that to myself every morning.

It will all work out.

Put your trust in God,

and move forward with faith

and confidence in the future.

The Lord will not forsake us.

He will not forsake us.

If we will put our trust in Him,

if we will pray to Him,

if we will live worthy of His blessings,

He will hear our prayers.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2006/02/put-your-trust-in-god?lang=eng

 

I think the way people handle their problems or what they conclude is a problem with/for/about someone else is reflected in how they discuss them, and remembering President Hinckley’s counsel offers a sound basis for both.