Uncomfortable at church - any suggestions?

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but oh, what an important 12% it is!

I agree, but the other meetings don't seem connected to it. A baptismal service may take an hour, but I assume all that goes on is connected to the baptism. I'm not sure how a sunday school lesson connects to communion..? So, if we take all of the sacrament meeting as being connected to covenants, that's still just 1/3 of the whole meeting time.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm going to be somewhat personal and vulnerable in this thread and I'm hoping to tap into some wisdom from this diverse group.   

Over the past few years I've had some ups and downs with respect to active Sunday attendance.  My last stretch of activity I approached my Sundays with two goals.  1.  I wanted to have positive interactions with as many people as possible.  Getting myself outside my comfort zone, and having meaningful exchanges with people.  2.  I wanted to contribute to the discussions in Sunday School and Priesthood meetings with thoughtful comments that at times would provide an interesting alternative perspective or may introduce information that you don't typically hear in correlated Mormonism.  

In many ways everything was going great, I was having meaningful conversations with people, I made new friends and felt like my comments and perspectives that I shared were a net positive to the group. 

Yet over time I kept having this gnawing feeling that I wasn't doing this for the right reasons.  I began to increasingly feel like I was being disingenuous.  I've had this idea creep into my mind and I can't seem to shake it.  Who am I to feel like I should be teaching people information that isn't part of their correlated Mormon world view?   Why do I think that my alternative perspectives are wanted or needed?  Am I doing this for personal reasons, for personal satisfaction, for personal gratification?   Am I really helping the group, or is this a more selfish endeavor?  

Any suggestions on how to cope with these feelings?  Have any of you had similar feelings before?  

 

God bless you hope for doing a fearless inventory of your motivations. 

The biggest question you have to answer is "where are these voices coming from?"  Are they feelings/voices that should be "coped" with as a burden, or are they feelings that should be listened and honored.  These gnawing feelings do not come from nowhere.  Where are these feelings/voices leading you?  To a place of righteousness or darkness?  To fulfill your own agenda, or something else?  If you follow these voices will it be spiritually progressive in charity, humility, faith, or regressive in selfishness, pride, and doubt?

May I suggest a healthy dose of prayer and meditation for clarity.  Take 20 minutes to sit in your feelings and get to know them.  Do 5 minutes of deep breathing, focusing only on your breath, to quite your mind and relax your body.  Then slowly and comfortably shift your attention to these feelings.  Go deep into them and observe them with compassion and non-judgment for another 5-10 minutes (or longer if needed).  Pay attention to the emotions and physical sensations that might be triggered by them, without judging them.  Then ask, "Father, is this your voice and your will for me?".  Then...listen...with your heart (for 15 minutes).  One session might not be enough.  Do it twice daily until you are satisfied you have an answer.  Write any impression you have in a journal, or at least on a piece of paper to review later.  Sometimes answers come as I write about my experiences in meditation/prayer.  

It always seems to work for me in finding peace and spiritual confidence/assurance with my decisions.   Best of luck.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm going to be somewhat personal and vulnerable in this thread and I'm hoping to tap into some wisdom from this diverse group.   

Over the past few years I've had some ups and downs with respect to active Sunday attendance.  My last stretch of activity I approached my Sundays with two goals.  1.  I wanted to have positive interactions with as many people as possible.  Getting myself outside my comfort zone, and having meaningful exchanges with people.  2.  I wanted to contribute to the discussions in Sunday School and Priesthood meetings with thoughtful comments that at times would provide an interesting alternative perspective or may introduce information that you don't typically hear in correlated Mormonism.  

In many ways everything was going great, I was having meaningful conversations with people, I made new friends and felt like my comments and perspectives that I shared were a net positive to the group. 

Yet over time I kept having this gnawing feeling that I wasn't doing this for the right reasons.  I began to increasingly feel like I was being disingenuous.  I've had this idea creep into my mind and I can't seem to shake it.  Who am I to feel like I should be teaching people information that isn't part of their correlated Mormon world view?   Why do I think that my alternative perspectives are wanted or needed?  Am I doing this for personal reasons, for personal satisfaction, for personal gratification?   Am I really helping the group, or is this a more selfish endeavor?  

Any suggestions on how to cope with these feelings?  Have any of you had similar feelings before?  

 

I have had these in SPADES all these years and frankly in the beginning - this might be offensive but I am bringing it up to show contrast with my present position- I thought " I am here to teach these Utah farmers the true gospel"

But now I realize it was ME who needed teaching!   The true gospel is found in the heart, not the head.

Sometimes rarely the head gets in the way of the heart, so I kind of see myself more as a roto rooter man removing  obstructions to allow the spirit to flow properly.

It sometimes is just a plumbing problem and should have nothing to do with ego.

I am still working on that.  

But church is strictly for correlated information.

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Nobis quoque peccatoribus", we need even more than we get in the block!

The good altar boy in you still remembers, eh?

 

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree, but the other meetings don't seem connected to it.

I think they are.  D&C 59 references both "sacraments" (the Sacrament) and "devotions" (everything else in the meetings?).

The lessons and talks are, or should be, centered on the Jesus Christ and His Gospel.  In my experience, that is pretty much the norm.  We don't talk much about gossip, or sports, or politics, or about the ending of Avengers: Infinity War (quite a doozy, that one).  Instead, we talk about the Atonement, missionary work, temple work, service to others, repentance, the Law of Chastity, and on and on and on.  

Quote

A baptismal service may take an hour, but I assume all that goes on is connected to the baptism. I'm not sure how a sunday school lesson connects to communion..?

The Sacrament Prayers  are intended to help us "always remember" Jesus Christ, and also to remind us to "keep his commandments which he has given them."

Hence the need for lessons.  We need to know about and understand Jesus Christ and His commandments if we are to remember and be obedient to such things.

Quote

So, if we take all of the sacrament meeting as being connected to covenants, that's still just 1/3 of the whole meeting time.

I don't think so.  I feel pretty edified by, and draw closer to the Savior because of, the content of the full three-hour block.

Apart from a very few minutes spent on announcements and administrative things, the rest of the meetings are devoted to thinking about Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 4, 2018 by smac97

[Eek!]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have found recently that truly trusting in God has been overlooked in my life- I am SO into intellectualizing everything every minute of the day.

I keep repeating "Faith-not fear" and "With God everything is possible", and TRULY believing that with all my heart.  It has helped me immeasurably!

Took me about half a lifetime to come to a similar conclusion:  "There is nothing to fear; there is only work to be done." 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

If I were you, I would feel good about apparently being received reasonably well. When I venture past "correlated Mormonism" I have never really received any positive feedback. Even when I corrected a teacher about Moses not restoring the priesthood, but receiving it from Jethro, my teacher reacted negatively, and seemed to try to get the rest of the class to dismiss my comment. I don't believe I speak up for selfish reasons. I feel I have an interpretation of scriptures worthy of consideration and investigation - otherwise I would not speak up. I certainly have not gained any positive recognition for it, so it would be hard for me to say I have selfish reasons for doing it. I am not trying to lead people away. I love discussing the scriptures and the restored gospel. I just differ from "correlated Mormonism" in a lot of ways. To just sit there quietly, has always kind of irked me, but it seems I have basically been mostly resigned to that.

I'm sorry to hear about that.  I've heard similar stories from others as well.  You have a lot of knowledge and valuable insight to share from what I've read on this message board.  That's got to be frustrating to have experiences like this from your church community.  Luckily I haven't had this experience myself before, and generally my comments have been well received.  I think it can vary quite a bit depending on each ward and the personalities there.  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

IMHO, the rise of correlated Mormonism has stymied the growth of the Church. It seems to me all of scripture has been formed into a neat Mormon box, and no one is willing to investigate outside that box. How do you grow outside the box then? Basically all the scriptures have been discussed in some GA talk, and therefore, it seems that in correlated Mormonism there is little room for alternate interpretations. I will give an example. In one of my home teaching visits years ago, I talked about Yeshua being the tree of life. The father mentioned that the BoM says the tree of life is the love of God. Long story short in home teaching reassignments I found I was no longer their home teacher. Doesn't scripture say God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son? Doesn't Yeshua say He is the root of David? Doesn't He say He is the vine tree and we are the branches? What is the tree of life in the Garden of Eden? Wasn't Adam to eventually find his way back to it? Who or what is the way? I think even Elder Holland talked about the Savior in reference to the tree of life. Rather than discussing these things though it seems I am often dissuaded from talking about them. Maybe my experience would be different if I lived elsewhere. I want to learn  and explore - not memorize. I guess that is what it boils down to. It seems there is not a whole lot of room for that in my Church meetings, when I seem to always be exploding with new discoveries and interpretations. So, I guess I am not helping you much here, but I certainly can relate to you. 

However, I am not saying that we should freely discuss all things outside correlated Mormonism. To the extent that you are having questions about what you are doing, have you considered that it is the spirit whispering to you to stop? Maybe what you are doing is not helping your group. I don't know that I would just assume that you should fight your feelings. Maybe they are telling you something. Maybe you should seek some feedback from your group rather than us. i generally do not talk about "issues." In other words I won't bring up questions about the November policy, Joseph's polygamy, etc. I try to keep my comments directed toward scriptural interpretation - new  archaeological discoveries, which may help to understand the scriptures, etc. For instance my most recent comment was on "scholars think Ramses II may have been the pharaoh of the exodus." and I pointed out that belief doesn't seem to correspond to the Biblical chronology, but seems solely geared towards his construction of Pi-Rameses. Nevertheless, it is against the suggestion of the lesson, so I am not asked to elaborate. However, I have never felt guilty for my comments. I feel I am correct even if they are not particularly received or don't seem particularly welcomed, so I can't say I have had your feelings. 

I think what you're sharing sounds like great discussion topics that the right kind of people would find fascinating and uplifting.  But not everyone is ready for or interested in expanding their views, and many people find safety in holding to correlated Mormonism and are fearful of anything other than the basics.  I see this idea being taught as gospel truth, the idea that we should stick to the basics and the simple messages of the gospel.  I think its a position of comfort and fear of trusting their intuition.  Unfortunately this is a position that doesn't allow for much growth.  I wish this kind of a tradition would go away.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, yes, I'm aware of the pride angle, and this is precisely why I'm questioning my motives.   I don't believe I'm superior to anyone from a moral or ethical perspective, quite the contrary, I feel like many people that I know are far better than I am on those important qualities, and I believe I have much to learn from them.  

At the same time, I know much about church history that the average Mormon doesn't know.  So sharing resources with them, like the church's essays, or JSP resources, or books and thoughtful essays, this is all information I've tried to share where I see opportunities.  

I think I agree with your assessment that I also have much to learn from them, yet for reasons that I have a hard time fully understanding within myself, I question whether I should be sharing what I have gained in the same way that I hope to gain from others.  

I suppose pride is a possibility. It is the "universal sin" after all. But I don't see that wanting to share your thoughts and ideas is inherently wrong. That's a universal need as well. If it wasn't, there would be little need for communication beyond a few grunts and gestures. Sharing ideas  is how we relate and interact. Not only would it be boring to limit our communications to the things we think people want to hear, but it would also be a very shallow and unrewarding existence.

I start with the assumption that most people at church want to learn and want to be uplifted. They want to exercise faith and agency. They can't do that if they are unaware of information like the JSP resources and essays. It's not anti information. If people desire to take their religion seriously they should be aware of it.

I think your effort and goals were admirable. You chose to engage in a positive way with others. The alternative is to not engage. If you choose not to engage with the religion there will be a reduction in the personal value it has in your life. "Critics" are often accused of being cynical, divisive, arrogant, and negative when it comes to their relationship with the church. But this is usually because they care or have cared so deeply about it. They want to continue to find value. When the interactions wane and the personal value lessens, the individual often becomes apathetic to the church. So which is better/worse? Engaging in ways that isn't always perfect or appreciated but in a way that helps to maintain relationships, or disengaging and increasing apathy?

I think it's great that you are self-reflective but don't be too hard on yourself. It sounds like you're a normal person. That's a good thing. And personally, I would think/hope that most members would appreciate that you are trying to engage. And it's pretty impossible to engage if you can't ever feel like you are sharing a part of yourself, your thoughts and ideas with others. The whole experience would be very empty and worthless IMO.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Took me about half a lifetime to come to a similar conclusion:  "There is nothing to fear; there is only work to be done." 

Good for you- it took me 3/4 of a lifetime if I am lucky to live another 1/4.

With enough faith and enough  work, anything can be done.  I might have  said that before but now I "grok" it.

Here is a translation for Millennials   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2. I'm not sure what you mean by going to Church to provide "comments that at times would provide an interesting alternative perspective or may introduce information that you don't typically hear in correlated Mormonism."  Mormons do have a spectrum of belief on many (most) issues, but that spectrum narrows a bit when it comes to lessons taught within the three-hour block.  That is sacred time.  It's time for the Saints to come together and consider the scriptures and messages from modern prophets and apostles.  And because people are all over the map in terms of their testimonies and spiritual journeys, their home lives, their jobs, and so on, I think most want to keep the three-hour block quiet, contemplative, solemn, harmonious, and so on.

In other words, I think most Mormons aren't going to be particularly comfortable or happy with people using the three-hour block to debate, to test doctrinal boundaries, to dispute important and established ("correlated") doctrines, to set themselves up as a voice of authority superior and alternative to that of the collective voice of the General Authorities of the Church, and so on.

I generally agree with you and I think I've been successful most of the time with the comments I bring up in class.  I'm a non-confrontational person by nature, and I try to make only constructive comments that may introduce an interesting perspective, but that won't lead to a debate or contentious experience in class.  We could probably have a good discussion about whether or not the goal of our classes should be for quiet contemplation (many people I know fall asleep and feel like class is boring, including orthodox members.)  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sunday services are, or should be, a respite.

4. I wish you well, and hope you continue to attend services.

Thanks,

Thanks for your input, its important to consider and remember.  Thanks

[Eek!]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good for you- it took me 3/4 of a lifetime if I am lucky to live another 1/4.

My math may have been wrong.  Experts say that 4 out of 3 people have trouble with math. 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Eek!

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I avoid as much as possible to speak anything in class.  Most of the time I have little to contribute but even if might has something, better to say nothing.  It keeps me out of various kinds of trouble including callings. 

Most of the wards I've been in, it seems like roughly 20% of the people in class participate and the rest never make a comment.  I fall into that abnormal group that tries to participate on a regular basis.  

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep I would agree that "fellowshipping" or some word like that, is a prominent part.

Besides you can get your ministering done in the hallway! 

Oh wait- that was the old way!   Now we actually have to help people.  Dang! 

 

I still love the hallway conversations!  

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have found recently that truly trusting in God has been overlooked in my life- I am SO into intellectualizing everything every minute of the day.

I keep repeating "Faith-not fear" and "With God everything is possible", and TRULY believing that with all my heart.  It has helped me immeasurably!

This is a great comment, thanks Mark.  I need to trust myself/God (not saying I'm God here, just that I think of God as an experience I'm having) and not get into my head to much. 

Positive affirmations, mantra's.  I need to think of these things when I'm doubting myself.  Most of the time when I just do the thing that I'm fearful of, the results turn out really well.  Thanks for the reminder and for the boost to my moral.  Still very glad we got to talk a few weeks back.  Thank you!! 

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

God bless you hope for doing a fearless inventory of your motivations. 

The biggest question you have to answer is "where are these voices coming from?"  Are they feelings/voices that should be "coped" with as a burden, or are they feelings that should be listened and honored.  These gnawing feelings do not come from nowhere.  Where are these feelings/voices leading you?  To a place of righteousness or darkness?  To fulfill your own agenda, or something else?  If you follow these voices will it be spiritually progressive in charity, humility, faith, or regressive in selfishness, pride, and doubt?

May I suggest a healthy dose of prayer and meditation for clarity.  Take 20 minutes to sit in your feelings and get to know them.  Do 5 minutes of deep breathing, focusing only on your breath, to quite your mind and relax your body.  Then slowly and comfortably shift your attention to these feelings.  Go deep into them and observe them with compassion and non-judgment for another 5-10 minutes (or longer if needed).  Pay attention to the emotions and physical sensations that might be triggered by them, without judging them.  Then ask, "Father, is this your voice and your will for me?".  Then...listen...with your heart (for 15 minutes).  One session might not be enough.  Do it twice daily until you are satisfied you have an answer.  Write any impression you have in a journal, or at least on a piece of paper to review later.  Sometimes answers come as I write about my experiences in meditation/prayer.  

It always seems to work for me in finding peace and spiritual confidence/assurance with my decisions.   Best of luck.

Thanks, this is great advice.  Mindfulness meditation is something I've tried off and on for the past couple years.  I've never gotten into a daily habit of it, but I try to do it a couple times a week and it has helped me.  

My conceptions around what I experience in my mind, these thoughts and feelings, I believe are coming from myself (I don't have a conception of God as an external entity) more like a personal experience that people have.  I do think that we can learn much from these feelings, and that often they are telling us important things we should listen to.  So important towards finding peach and spiritual confidence.  Great thoughts, thanks for sharing.  

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have had these in SPADES all these years and frankly in the beginning - this might be offensive but I am bringing it up to show contrast with my present position- I thought " I am here to teach these Utah farmers the true gospel"

But now I realize it was ME who needed teaching!   The true gospel is found in the heart, not the head.

Sometimes rarely the head gets in the way of the heart, so I kind of see myself more as a roto rooter man removing  obstructions to allow the spirit to flow properly.

It sometimes is just a plumbing problem and should have nothing to do with ego.

I am still working on that.  

But church is strictly for correlated information.

 

Thanks for sharing, I'm glad to know that you've had similar feelings in the past, and what you've learned from experience a different perspective.  I'm hopefully making my way down that path.

I do want to question that last sentence "church is strictly for correlated information."  Why do you think that is true?  Before correlation from what I've read about early Mormonism, church was very diverse and not at similar to how it has developed today.  Could it not evolve to be different in the future as well?  I think greater measures of vulnerability, problem sharing, honesty and uncorrelated thinking would be a great benefit to the Sunday church experience.  

[SouthernMo]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm going to be somewhat personal and vulnerable in this thread and I'm hoping to tap into some wisdom from this diverse group.   

Over the past few years I've had some ups and downs with respect to active Sunday attendance.  My last stretch of activity I approached my Sundays with two goals.  1.  I wanted to have positive interactions with as many people as possible.  Getting myself outside my comfort zone, and having meaningful exchanges with people.  2.  I wanted to contribute to the discussions in Sunday School and Priesthood meetings with thoughtful comments that at times would provide an interesting alternative perspective or may introduce information that you don't typically hear in correlated Mormonism.  

In many ways everything was going great, I was having meaningful conversations with people, I made new friends and felt like my comments and perspectives that I shared were a net positive to the group. 

Yet over time I kept having this gnawing feeling that I wasn't doing this for the right reasons.  I began to increasingly feel like I was being disingenuous.  I've had this idea creep into my mind and I can't seem to shake it.  Who am I to feel like I should be teaching people information that isn't part of their correlated Mormon world view?   Why do I think that my alternative perspectives are wanted or needed?  Am I doing this for personal reasons, for personal satisfaction, for personal gratification?   Am I really helping the group, or is this a more selfish endeavor?  

Any suggestions on how to cope with these feelings?  Have any of you had similar feelings before?  

 

So glad you're not alone in thinking this way.  So glad I'm not alone in thinking this way.  Great to see the outpouring of support here.

The history of LDS correlation is complicated, but well-intentioned.  I see changes happening with liberalized lesson schedules and plans, so I don't feel like I'm too far off the mark in 'thinking differently' or not being satisfied with the answers we've all been conditioned to give.

Since you've asked, my guiding principles on why I go to church, and what I do there have been:

• Who defines Mormonism?  For me, I do.  Don't let anyone tell you what you should/should not believe or say.
• Is what I am doing or saying bringing me and or others to the scriptures and closer to Christ?  If yes - then KEEP GOING.  If not - then STOP.
• I have rejected the notion of 'staying in the fold.'  If I am a sheep, I want to follow the shepherd, and not the other sheep.

Lastly - if you simply accept my perspective and advice...  see the third bullet point.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I start with the assumption that most people at church want to learn and want to be uplifted. They want to exercise faith and agency. They can't do that if they are unaware of information like the JSP resources and essays. It's not anti information. If people desire to take their religion seriously they should be aware of it.

I hate to say  this but I think it is called for here.

"Milk before the meat".

We are all at stages along a continuum - and actually if Kevin decided to try once more to mingle with us  worms he might post a link to the Perry Scheme of Cognitive development.

How many of us here are past 9?

I suggest we would not even BE HERE if we were.  There would be no point in discussing things with milk drinkers like us.

http://perrynetwork.org/?page_id=2

Quote

 

Dualism: Positions 1-2

While position 1 has rarely been found empirically, either in the initial work or in subsequent research (Moore, 1994), it represents the original “Garden of Eden” in terms of one’s view of the nature of knowledge and truth. In the position 1 perspective, there is a completely unquestioned view of truth as Absolute Truth in stark black and white terms. The identification with the Authority figure–parent, teacher, Church–is absolute and unquestioned, with no tolerance for alternative points of view. In position 2, different perspectives and beliefs are now acknowledged but are simply wrong. Thinking in this position is characterized by dichotomies and dualisms, i.e., We-Right-Good vs. They-Wrong-Bad or some variation. The world thus consists essentially of two boxes–rights and wrongs–and there is generally little trouble in distinguishing one from the other.

 

Multiplicity: Positions 3-4

Perry describes the entire progression across the first five positions as “successive modifications of right-wrong dualism in attempting to account for diversity in human opinion, experience and ‘truth'” (Perry, 1974, p.3). The modification in position 3 represents the first acknowledgement of legitimate uncertainty in the world; instead of two boxes or categories, right and wrong, there are now three: right, wrong, and “not yet known.” Thus, the knowledge that is not yet known is knowable, and will be determined at some point in the future. This acceptance of uncertainty as legitimate, albeit temporary, is a profound departure from the dualistic perspective, and for many students an exciting one. Positions 3 and 4, then, are characterized as Multiplicity–the confrontation and coping with diversity and “multiples” in virtually everything.

The initial solution to the problem of uncertainty is that “there are obviously right ways, or methods, to find the right answers,” and learning becomes a focus on process and methodology. In position 4, the “not yet known” notion of position 3 often becomes a new certainty of “we’ll never know for sure,” and thus what is most important is one’s own thinking. Self-processing and a sense of idea ownership increases, but frequently in position 4 the stance taken is that there is no non-arbitrary basis for determining what’s right (Benack, 1982); hence an attitude of “do your own thing” or “anything goes” tends to prevail in this position.

 

Contextual Relativism: Position 5 (and beyond)

The movement from position 4 to position 5 is arguably the most significant transition within the Perry scheme.  This transition represents a fundamental transformation of one’s perspective–from a vision of the world as essentially dualistic, with a growing number of exceptions to the rule in specific situations, to a vision of a world as essentially relativistic and context-bound with a few right/wrong exceptions. The most significant distinction between the pseudo-relativism of position 4 and the contextual relativism of position 5 is the self-consciousness of being an active maker of meaning.  As Perry makes clear even in the title of his book (1998), one’s task in life is finally understood fully as intellectual andethical–a question of judgments and meaning-making in both academic and personal contexts. Johnson (1981) clarifies this crucial distinction:

 

In position five… we recognize that any act of knowing (thinking, talking, reading, writing) requires taking a point of view, and we are forced to acknowledge our own. From this point on, thinking becomes acting, [and] “knowing” will always represent a placing of oneself, for better or worse, in one or another of many possible positions in relation to persons or [ideas].” (p. 3)

 

Commitment within Relativism: Positions 6-9

As defined by the model, the primary developmental emphasis shifts beginning in position 6 from intellectual to ethical: namely, the anticipation, clarification, and ongoing refinement of Commitments. These “Commitments”— distinguished from commitments or what Perry referred to as “considered choices” by being chosen in the face of legitimate alternatives, after experiencing genuine doubt, and reflecting a clear affirmation of one’s self or identity—define one’s identity in a contextually relativistic world.  Perry’s original contention was that the changing perspective beyond position 5 are not structural changes, at least not in the same way as in the earlier positions, and there is some substantial work (Slepitza, 1984) supporting that notion. Other researchers (e.g., King and Kitchener, 1994) dispute this contention, and Perry himself seemed to raise questions in later writings (e.g., 1985). Unfortunately, there has been little additional work done on these upper positions, partly due to the necessity of researching them through qualitative interviews, and partly because work with both the Perry scheme and other related models (e.g., Baxter Magolda, 1992; King and Kitchener, 1994) concentrates on undergraduate students, a population rarely reflecting post-contextual-relativistic thinking.

 

Space does not permit a more detailed description of the Perry model here; more thorough summaries are available elsewhere (Moore, 1994; Perry, 1998). Overall, however, the Perry scheme reflects two central interwoven dynamics: 1) confronting and coping with diversity and uncertainty with respect to new learning, and 2) the attendant evolution of meaning making about learning and self. As depicted in the nine qualitatively distinct positions (and transitions between them) of the Perry scheme, learners cycle through three increasingly complex encounters with diversity in the form of multiples:

 

multiple opinions about a given subject or issue (positions 1 through 3);

multiple contexts/perspectives from which to understand or analyze issues or arguments (positions 4 through 6);

multiple Commitments through which one defines his or her values and identity (positions 7 through 9).

 

As learners confront these levels of “multiplicity,” their meaning making shifts and evolves in predictable ways. Most significantly, knowledge is seen as increasingly conjectural and uncertain, open to (and requiring) interpretation. This central epistemology about knowledge and learning triggers parallel shifts in the learner’s views about the role of the teacher—moving from an Authority as the source of “Truth” to an authority as a resource with specific expertise to share—as well as the role of the student—moving from a passive receptor of facts to an active agent in defining arguments and creating new knowledge.

 

I would suggest that  we read this again in view of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the church's admonition to "get our own testimonies" and not try to see the gospel in terms of borrowed light.

Quote

As defined by the model, the primary developmental emphasis shifts beginning in position 6 from intellectual to ethical: namely, the anticipation, clarification, and ongoing refinement of Commitments. These “Commitments”— distinguished from commitments or what Perry referred to as “considered choices” by being chosen in the face of legitimate alternatives, after experiencing genuine doubt, and reflecting a clear affirmation of one’s self or identity—define one’s identity in a contextually relativistic world.

This pretty clearly states that one has  to,  in Mormon terms "get over" our doubting experiences and affirm one's OWN identity in the context of Mormonism and the diversity of views presented in discussing religion in general.

So putting it in Mormon terms, how many here have confronted their own faith crisis, and become MORE "committed" in doing so and come out with one's testimony as part of one's OWN IDENTITY in the contextually relativistic world of religion?

I would suggest that very few if any,  have.

Critics certainly have not reached that level because being critical of  anyone else's "development level"  proves their  own inability to move to  their OWN level of understanding, NOT defined or debatable with others any more than one would criticize a child for not understanding calculus.

Christ had no need to debate his position or put others down for not being at "his level", but he taught quietly and patiently and raised others through love.

So speaking for myself, I am not in a position to brag about my own brilliance  to others while I am still bragging about how smart I am.   It  is not my place to push others into my  own wonderful self-seen level of brilliance because to do so shows my lack of actually  being at that level.

Were I there I would be capable of teaching with love as the  savior did, while not creating fear  and doubt in others.

 

 

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suppose pride is a possibility. It is the "universal sin" after all. But I don't see that wanting to share your thoughts and ideas is inherently wrong. That's a universal need as well. If it wasn't, there would be little need for communication beyond a few grunts and gestures. Sharing ideas  is how we relate and interact. Not only would it be boring to limit our communications to the things we think people want to hear, but it would also be a very shallow and unrewarding existence.

I start with the assumption that most people at church want to learn and want to be uplifted. They want to exercise faith and agency. They can't do that if they are unaware of information like the JSP resources and essays. It's not anti information. If people desire to take their religion seriously they should be aware of it.

I think your effort and goals were admirable. You chose to engage in a positive way with others. The alternative is to not engage. If you choose not to engage with the religion there will be a reduction in the personal value it has in your life. "Critics" are often accused of being cynical, divisive, arrogant, and negative when it comes to their relationship with the church. But this is usually because they care or have cared so deeply about it. They want to continue to find value. When the interactions wane and the personal value lessens, the individual often becomes apathetic to the church. So which is better/worse? Engaging in ways that isn't always perfect or appreciated but in a way that helps to maintain relationships, or disengaging and increasing apathy?

I think it's great that you are self-reflective but don't be too hard on yourself. It sounds like you're a normal person. That's a good thing. And personally, I would think/hope that most members would appreciate that you are trying to engage. And it's pretty impossible to engage if you can't ever feel like you are sharing a part of yourself, your thoughts and ideas with others. The whole experience would be very empty and worthless IMO.

Thanks HJW.  This is really good advice.  I think you're right that my disengagement has shown a reduction in the personal value I get from church.  I think I feel some loss on the relationship side of things.  Its so hard, I really love my church experiences and it makes me sad to think about it because of how much I have cared.  You really get that, and its so important to remember for people that leave the church that many of them feel the same way you've expressed here and the feelings are raw and painful.  

I've had so many meetings with my local leaders to try and carve out spaces for those suffering from a faith crisis.  I guess I just need to keep trying because even though it seems like no real progress is being made, perhaps I've had some incremental influence for the better.  It also feels good to have a goal or purpose to be striving for.  Life is hard, but we can make a difference if we try. 

Thanks all, I'm getting some great feedback and encouragement on this thread!

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So glad you're not alone in thinking this way.  So glad I'm not alone in thinking this way.  Great to see the outpouring of support here.

The history of LDS correlation is complicated, but well-intentioned.  I see changes happening with liberalized lesson schedules and plans, so I don't feel like I'm too far off the mark in 'thinking differently' or not being satisfied with the answers we've all been conditioned to give.

Since you've asked, my guiding principles on why I go to church, and what I do there have been:

• Who defines Mormonism?  For me, I do.  Don't let anyone tell you what you should/should not believe or say.
• Is what I am doing or saying bringing me and or others to the scriptures and closer to Christ?  If yes - then KEEP GOING.  If not - then STOP.
• I have rejected the notion of 'staying in the fold.'  If I am a sheep, I want to follow the shepherd, and not the other sheep.

Lastly - if you simply accept my perspective and advice...  see the third bullet point.

Thanks, this is very good.  There is a story from early church that I like: 

After disagreement between President Brigham Young and Bishop Edwin Woolley, Brigham told Woolley, “Now I suppose you will go off and apostatize.” Woolley replied, “I might if this were your church, but it’s just as much mine as yours.”

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The good altar boy in you still remembers, eh?

Oh yeah!

You had to choose between the "book" side or the "bells" side.  The right amount of time to ring the bells were (I decided this) the amount of time it took to say "Mary had a little lamb little lamb little lamb little lamb" - in my mind- three times as fast as I could.

So that way the duration of each ring was exactly like the others.

The guy on the book side got to move the book to the other side, and then brought the cruets to the priest.

I think the bell guy got to take the paten around for communion, but then you had to see all the tongues which was kind of gross.  I had no idea of the variations possible in the human tongue.  ;)

And I must admit there is still a lot of the altar boy left when I get to officiate in an endowment session in the temple, getting everything "just right" but not robotic. 

I still love the Tridentine mass and the mystery, but there is even more mystery in the temple even though you can understand the words.

Sort of.  ;)

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

So glad you're not alone in thinking this way.  So glad I'm not alone in thinking this way.  Great to see the outpouring of support here.

The history of LDS correlation is complicated, but well-intentioned.  I see changes happening with liberalized lesson schedules and plans, so I don't feel like I'm too far off the mark in 'tg differently' or not being satisfied with the answers we've all been conditioned to give.

Since you've asked, my guiding principles on why I go to church, and what I do there have been:

• Who defines Mormonism?  For me, I do.  Don't let anyone tell you what you should/should not believe or say.
• Is what I am doing or saying bringing me and or others to the scriptures and closer to Christ?  If yes - then KEEP GOING.  If not - then STOP.
• I have rejected the notion of 'staying in the fold.'  If I am a sheep, I want to follow the shepherd, and not the other sheep.

Lastly - if you simply accept my perspective and advice...  see the third bullet point.

Dang!  Welcome!  Totally agree!

In my opinion, we are about to become buddies!

Edited May 4, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This is a great comment, thanks Mark.  I need to trust myself/God (not saying I'm God here, just that I think of God as an experience I'm having) and not get into my head to much. 

Positive affirmations, mantra's.  I need to think of these things when I'm doubting myself.  Most of the time when I just do the thing that I'm fearful of, the results turn out really well.  Thanks for the reminder and for the boost to my moral.  Still very glad we got to talk a few weeks back.  Thank you!! 

Glad it helped- I am better at wagging the tongue than wiggling the fingers!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks HJW.  This is really good advice.  I think you're right that my disengagement has shown a reduction in the personal value I get from church.  I think I feel some loss on the relationship side of things.  Its so hard, I really love my church experiences and it makes me sad to think about it because of how much I have cared.  You really get that, and its so important to remember for people that leave the church that many of them feel the same way you've expressed here and the feelings are raw and painful.  

I've had so many meetings with my local leaders to try and carve out spaces for those suffering from a faith crisis.  I guess I just need to keep trying because even though it seems like no real progress is being made, perhaps I've had some incremental influence for the better.  It also feels good to have a goal or purpose to be striving for.  Life is hard, but we can make a difference if we try. 

Thanks all, I'm getting some great feedback and encouragement on this thread!

I know you are helping, and boy I know big time that it is in....cre....men....tal, kind of like carving stone with a wooden chisel !

But PURPOSE is exactly what it is all about and that is what religion gives even to atheists who find purpose in saving whales instead of souls, or stopping global warming, they just dont see it as "religion"

Again to the Perry scheme- it's about committment and internalizing it as part of you.

After all we are all creating worlds here from matter unorganized- right??

Live right and honestly pass a temple recommend interview and that is the only real measure that tells us what a "True Mormon" is!  Sustaining a prophet is not blind obedience- the spirit is always primary!

[stemelbow]

I’ve had a terrible time at church sharing a bit of myself.  I won’t go into details (I have here in years past). but essentially I end up being asked to not participate.  Worse though is trying to converse with leaders one on one about thoughts and feelings.  They either don’t listen, or offer condemnations.  If church for me, it’s delving into thoughts as I observe and talking socially when opportunities come.  

The message had typically pushed me out.  

 

I believe ive shared how I’ve approached it much like you’ve suggested in the op in the past.  I’ve never really found a way to get it to work.  

Edited May 4, 2018 by stemelbow