Uncomfortable at church - any suggestions?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

It's hard to argue against your definition of faith.  I don't hear you mention Christ.  But you describe following your conscience, or light of Christ.  Thse are a few of what I see as accepted definitions of faith in the scriptures.  "Lord, I believe.  Help Thou mine unbelief."  His son was healed according to his weak faith.  "Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works." The example of the Good Samaritan, who was not of the "chosen" race.  Yet he and his charity, became the example of the prototypical Christian.  Many other examples.  1 Peter 4:8 "And ABOVE ALL THINGS have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins."  Those important definitions fit squarely within your definition of faith.  I would lock arms with any brother or sister who described their faith as you did, whether in or out of the Church, and whether or not they professed to be Christians.   Didn't Christ say knowledge comes from doing the thing? 

For those that want to use the language of Christ or God or Buddha or Allah, it doesn't matter to me.  I've used that language in the past, but I'm in a phase right now where I'm not feeling very theistic, and looking at my Mormonism/Christianity more as one of many reservoirs for metaphorical meaning, than as a rule book for life.  Lots of good within the traditions, but many problematic elements as well.  Trying to hold onto the good and recognize and reject the bad.  

 

[mfbukowski]

On 5/6/2018 at 10:11 AM, Stargazer said:

I think I could speak for myself like this, too.

I do sometimes feel quite smug in my overarching sense of knowing everything.  

And I sometimes wonder how much of that is Dunning-Kruger in action.

There is a Beatles lyric that says

"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see"

I interpreted it as "Living is easy with eyes with eyes closed, it's understanding all you see" ...( that is hard)

And of course I was saddled with the heavy weight of omniscience

 

I've gotten better

Well a little anyway

 

 

[Calm]

13 hours ago, JayneAdelle said:

I got really annoyed in Gospel Doctrine class several years ago because our instructor put so much work into his lessons & then the members would just literally nod off in class. NO ONE answered questions, no one did the reading or the homework. It was disgraceful. I hadn't been much better because I didn't really have confidence to raise my hand. But I decided to take some action.

I did the reading & the homework, I studied, and then during the next class I answered ALL the questions, responded every time I got the chance, made it obvious that I'd done the homework. My hand was constantly in the air. I kept doing this every Sunday for 2 months before the other members started raising their hands. It had sort of become a contest among the others to see if they could shut me up. The class became very lively and animated & we had wonderful discussions. I still kept raising my hand but the teacher started ignoring me (he wasn't aware of my plan). That ended up being the most engaging class I ever went to. 

I have to make the disclaimer that I didn't really know how to make friends so I didn't care if they all thought I was obnoxious. If you don't want to be thought obnoxious, I suggest you don't follow my example.

One person can make a difference.

I think there are ways to do this that can be seen as less obnoxious, you might be surprised how others viewed you.  I bet there were many uncomfortable in that class and they were grateful for your efforts.  

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please don’t misconstrue, but safer for whom? I hope our children are taught by folks who are sincerely grounded in the fullness of the Gospel. 

Well, I was thinking its safer to be away from the dogma and judgey behaviors that are sometimes exhibited in adult classes, as I've found that kids typically don't try to police orthodoxy as much, and are usually more open minded when it comes to learning things.  

It sounds like you likely would find my perspectives to be dangerous, based on the implications of your post, and I'm guessing you wouldn't consider myself to be "grounded in the fullness of the Gospel."  

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is interesting in light of a conversation I was having with my wife the other day.  She was asking me about losing my faith, and you mention faith crisis, and I've described my initial experience as a faith crisis many times because of the convenience of using that description, but I'm at a somewhat different place now as far as my faith is concerned.  

The term faith doesn't mean the same thing it did to me before.  Currently I think of faith as a relationship my personal ethics.  I consider that I'm being faithful and developing faith when I honor those ethics through my fidelity in my actions and thoughts.  For example, a principle like loving the poor, I can show faithfulness to that principle when I give meaningful service through time or money to that effort.  

In the past I used to think of faith as believing a propositional idea that I'm taught in church.  For example, if we're taught that God did something or that God has a certain attribute or that some church leader wants us to do something, then exercising faith is when we trust that these propositions should be followed, should be practiced, should be believed as true.  That was what faith was for me in the past, and thats not how I describe faith today.  

Anyway, I agree with your other points, just wanted to share some thoughts.  Thanks

And may I point out this is stage 9 on the Perry scale,  "Commitment"

Faith is a personal commitment to action toward a hope for things yet unseen. I think that way of saying it combines lectures on faith with the scriptural definition.

It goes far beyond propositional truth because you're investing yourown effort toward that goal.

Edited May 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And may I point out this is stage 9 on the Perry scale,  "Commitment"

Faith is a personal commitment to action toward a hope for things yet unseen. I think that way of saying it combines lectures on faith with the scriptural definition.

It goes far beyond propositional truth because you're investing yourown effort toward that goal.

I like this, makes sense and is expressed in Mormonese.    

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, JayneAdelle said:

I got really annoyed in Gospel Doctrine class several years ago because our instructor put so much work into his lessons & then the members would just literally nod off in class. NO ONE answered questions, no one did the reading or the homework. It was disgraceful. I hadn't been much better because I didn't really have confidence to raise my hand. But I decided to take some action.

I did the reading & the homework, I studied, and then during the next class I answered ALL the questions, responded every time I got the chance, made it obvious that I'd done the homework. My hand was constantly in the air. I kept doing this every Sunday for 2 months before the other members started raising their hands. It had sort of become a contest among the others to see if they could shut me up. The class became very lively and animated & we had wonderful discussions. I still kept raising my hand but the teacher started ignoring me (he wasn't aware of my plan). That ended up being the most engaging class I ever went to. 

I have to make the disclaimer that I didn't really know how to make friends so I didn't care if they all thought I was obnoxious. If you don't want to be thought obnoxious, I suggest you don't follow my example.

Love it!

I think this is the exact definition of "sustaining"  someone.  We rarely  get callings we are good at, we get them so we can grow.

Livening up a class- while staying on the track the teacher is on- is a great way to help that teacher learn how to stimulate discussion.   At first someone in class might have to stimulate it for him/her, but gradually the teacher improves at doing it for himself.

I have found starting a class with a mildly controversial take on the topic gets it going.

"The topic for today is obedience"

(class groans, if not audibly then inside)

"So why do we have to obey all these stupid  rules anyway??  Who the heck comes up with all this stuff and what's it good for?? (wink wink)"

The wink is VERY  important!  --> 

If after that they are still  groaning  or say "I don't know either"  then you  have to go with

"Are rules good for anything at all?"   

And on it goes hopefully!

Edited May 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Atheist Mormon]

Quote

Uncomfortable at church - any suggestions?

Why don't you try staying away or going to nice nature hike?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please don’t misconstrue, but safer for whom? I hope our children are taught by folks who are sincerely grounded in the fullness of the Gospel. 

I would hope that  too, but unfortunately in my experience that  is not the case.

These callings often go to new converts or  people who are perceived to  be unable to "handle anything else".  Teenagers perhaps, young adults, but in my experience seldom "spiritually mature".

Yes the leadership will be in that category, but not necessarily  the "primary workers"

It may be different in Utah where you have more mature-in-the-gospel members than anywhere else in the world, but when pickings are slim, teaching kids seems to be a lower priority than leadership positions.

I visited a ward yesterday with over 400 members in a low income area in LA that is a 40 minute drive from the stake center through heavy traffic  in a high density  population area.  Sacrament attendance was around 50 by  my count.  There were virtually no  children present- 3 or 4.  The leadership of the ward consists of 5 or 6 large families who switch around leadership responsibilities, being bishop multiple times, etc and the bishop presently is also the primary pianist.   If that ward  was shut down, many  members there simply would not bother or could not afford the  gas for  an 80 minute round trip to the closest building,   If it is kept open, the staffing problems are not going to go away.

So the children who ARE there, thankfully are taught at home by their strong parents, but as for primary?  Meh!!  

They are doing the absolute best they can under the circumstances.  AND they do get  converts with children, brand new in the gospel themselves.

But "folks who are sincerely grounded in the fullness of the Gospel. " ?

It's just not possible everywhere.

In a place like LA where the diversity over a 40 minute/ 15 mile drive is so vast, it just doesn't work

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Why don't you try staying away or going to nice nature hike?

I do both! 

Absolutely fabulous Sabbath activity imo but it is probably prohibited in Utah.  

What could be better than communing with the Lord and then immersing oneself in His Creations?

[Bernard Gui]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would hope that  too, but unfortunately in my experience that  is not the case.

These callings often go to new converts or  people who are perceived to  be unable to "handle anything else".  Teenagers perhaps, young adults, but in my experience seldom "spiritually mature".

Yes the leadership will be in that category, but not necessarily  the "primary workers"

It may be different in Utah where you have more mature-in-the-gospel members than anywhere else in the world, but when pickings are slim, teaching kids seems to be a lower priority than leadership positions.

I visited a ward yesterday with over 400 members in a low income area in LA that is a 40 minute drive from the stake center through heavy traffic  in a high density  population area.  Sacrament attendance was around 50 by  my count.  There were virtually no  children present- 3 or 4.  The leadership of the ward consists of 5 or 6 large families who switch around leadership responsibilities, being bishop multiple times, etc and the bishop presently is also the primary pianist.   If that ward  was shut down, many  members there simply would not bother or could not afford the  gas for  an 80 minute round trip to the closest building,   If it is kept open, the staffing problems are not going to go away.

So the children who ARE there, thankfully are taught at home by their strong parents, but as for primary?  Meh!!  

They are doing the absolute best they can under the circumstances.  AND they do get  converts with children, brand new in the gospel themselves.

But "folks who are sincerely grounded in the fullness of the Gospel. " ?

It's just not possible everywhere.

In a place like LA where the diversity over a 40 minute/ 15 mile drive is so vast, it just doesn't work

Yep. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, I was thinking its safer to be away from the dogma and judgey behaviors that are sometimes exhibited in adult classes, as I've found that kids typically don't try to police orthodoxy as much, and are usually more open minded when it comes to learning things.  

It sounds like you likely would find my perspectives to be dangerous, based on the implications of your post, and I'm guessing you wouldn't consider myself to be "grounded in the fullness of the Gospel."  

Like I said, don’t misconstrue. Maybe I misunderstand, but have you not declared your disaffection and loss of faith many times, even in this thread? Wouldn’t it be disingenuous to teach children your perspectives in such a position of responsibility and trust? Seems to me that is somewhat presumptuous. I would not want my kids to be put into a situation where they had to defend or determine the orthodoxy of a particular perspective the teacher was trying to push. Being grounded in the gospel may not mean the same to you as it did to me. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For those that want to use the language of Christ or God or Buddha or Allah, it doesn't matter to me.  I've used that language in the past, but I'm in a phase right now where I'm not feeling very theistic, and looking at my Mormonism/Christianity more as one of many reservoirs for metaphorical meaning, than as a rule book for life.  Lots of good within the traditions, but many problematic elements as well.  Trying to hold onto the good and recognize and reject the bad.  

 

Not gonna argue BUT there is nothing wrong or untrue about metaphors BEING THE "rule book for life"

Everything that is written to me IS a metaphor anyway.   If it's written it is not "things as they are" because words themselves are metaphors. 

Things as they are are directly as we experience them.  I suppose we could write RED  BLUE  GREEN or ORANGE and them NOT be metaphors but it's a little hard to do that with "chair" or "God"!

They don't fit very well into being letter-sized.

The only bad OR good is in the interpretation of the metaphor- and you get to create your own interpretation anyway,  so that bad you put into it OR the good you put into it is all inside your noggin anyway, just like the color is!  

Not saying there are not bad metaphors that lead you in the wrong direction but I think they are not found in the scriptures or else humankind would not have defined them AS scripture.

Kind of like the rules of morality

We may want to tweak the 10 commandments contextually but even followed by the letter of the metaphor they won't lead you astray.  They have evolved as the rules for humanity because they work- OR you can see them as God breathed if you want- both views are metaphors but both will lead us to a better life, not a worse one.

Commit adultery and you just might run into a jealous husband or your wife who will not help you have a happy life.  Steal something and end up in jail.  Society just cannot tolerate that stuff.

Worship the wrong God (put your faith in action into a worthless pursuit) and your life will be wasted.

Just sayin'. 

Now THAT is pure Pragmatism.    Follow the plan and be happy.  Don't follow it and get messed up.  Pretty simple stuff.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I do both! 

Absolutely fabulous Sabbath activity imo but it is probably prohibited in Utah.  

What could be better than communing with the Lord and then immersing oneself in His Creations?

I know lots of people around here who go for hikes or drives in the mountains on Sunday after church.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know lots of people around here who go for hikes or drives in the mountains on Sunday after church.

Good thanks

That's  one of those things I can't tell if they would be in or out in the Culture.

It's ok with my wife, but we are like-minded spirits, even though she knows the Culture.

Sometimes these distinctions make no sense to me.

[LittleNipper]

My suggestion is to some Sunday go and visit a Fundamentalist Bible Only Believing church and sit in an adult Sunday School class. You may just find what you're looking for. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Like I said, don’t misconstrue. Maybe I misunderstand, but have you not declared your disaffection and loss of faith many times, even in this thread? Wouldn’t it be disingenuous to teach children your perspectives in such a position of responsibility and trust? Seems to me that is somewhat presumptuous. I would not want my kids to be put into a situation where they had to defend or determine the orthodoxy of a particular perspective the teacher was trying to push. Being grounded in the gospel may not mean the same to you as it did to me. 

Nothing disingenuous from my vantage point.  I’ve always tried to teach principles that resonated to be true to me.  Most teachers I’ve met over the years do the same, they emphasize principles that they feel strongly about.  Orthodox believers do this as well.  

I’m not sure why this puts me into some dangerous category that you or anyone should fear.  Heck, I know that my kids are much more likely to be taught shallow black and white thinking at church and I still allow them to attend.  People should encounter a diversity of opinions in life, thats much better than a group think echo chamber.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I know lots of people around here who go for hikes or drives in the mountains on Sunday after church.

Have to be honest, but having an extra weekend day with my family when they all stay home is an amazing thing.  Makes me really question the church attendance thing.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

My suggestion is to some Sunday go and visit a Fundamentalist Bible Only Believing church and sit in an adult Sunday School class. You may just find what you're looking for. 

Was this advice for me or someone else?  You didn’t say, but since I started the tread I thought maybe for me.  But if for me I’m wondering why you think I’d find something I’m looking for in fundamentalist Christian churches? 

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Why don't you try staying away or going to nice nature hike?

I do, very frequently and enjoy it immensely.  Sundays can be so relaxing and amazing without attending church.  However there are some things I like about church too, so it’s complicated for me.  

Edited May 8, 2018 by hope_for_things

[LittleNipper]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Was this advice for me or someone else?  You didn’t say, but since I started the tread I thought maybe for me.  But if for me I’m wondering why you think I’d find something I’m looking for in fundamentalist Christian churches? 

I think you'd find a different atmosphere and not one where cliches might be the expected norm.  People usually wont say anything where they realise a difference of opinion will be frowned upon. Such an environment rarely encourages interaction.

Edited May 8, 2018 by LittleNipper

[hope_for_things]

15 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I think you'd find a different atmosphere and not one where cliches might be the expected norm.  People usually wont say anything where they realise a difference of opinion will be frowned upon. Such an environment rarely encourages interaction.

I’m pretty sure they would be very uncomfortable with my perspectives about the Bible.  I can’t imagin myself switching from one flavor of a fairly fundamentalist religion in Mormonism to another fundamentalist church.  That’s a very odd recommendation.  

[LittleNipper]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m pretty sure they would be very uncomfortable with my perspectives about the Bible.  I can’t imagin myself switching from one flavor of a fairly fundamentalist religion in Mormonism to another fundamentalist church.  That’s a very odd recommendation.  

I don't see how Mormon beliefs can presume to be fundamentally Christian. The book of Mormon was unknown to Peter, Paul, Timothy and everyone helping to establish the early CHURCH. Fundamentalism has always been about returning Christ's CHURCH to its roots. The Mormon belief originates in early 19th century at best. Now, I know it could be argued that Jesus came to the New World and spoke to all those living here, but the reality is that only the CHURCH founded in Judea (even IF what Mormonism suggest is true) survived and flourished.  Yes, it (the Biblical Church) certainly had its ups and downs; however, it was never annihilated! And Christian FUNDAMENTALISM has given both Roman Catholicism and the Constantinople (Greek & Russian) Orthodox church a run for their money.  All the arguments over statues, Mary's supposed immaculate conception and iconoclasts pale in comparison with the firvant work at Bible translation into native tongues that eventually started blossoming with the Renaissance, The GREAT REVIVAL, and The Second Awakening. Hiding one's candle under a bushel (or even a mountain) is not what the Bible encourages. This is yet another reason I do not regard Mormonism and its literature as biblically sound ----- much less FUNDAMENTAL.

Edited May 8, 2018 by LittleNipper

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

I think you'd find a different atmosphere and not one where cliches might be the expected norm.  People usually wont say anything where they realise a difference of opinion will be frowned upon. Such an environment rarely encourages interaction.

So if I attended and brought up Evolution there would be no problem right?

[hope_for_things]

40 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I don't see how Mormon beliefs can presume to be fundamentally Christian. The book of Mormon was unknown to Peter, Paul, Timothy and everyone helping to establish the early CHURCH. Fundamentalism has always been about returning Christ's CHURCH to its roots. The Mormon belief originates in early 19th century at best. Now, I know it could be argued that Jesus came to the New World and spoke to all those living here, but the reality is that only the CHURCH founded in Judea (even IF what Mormonism suggest is true) survived and flourished.  Yes, it (the Biblical Church) certainly had its ups and downs; however, it was never annihilated! And Christian FUNDAMENTALISM has given both Roman Catholicism and the Constantinople (Greek & Russian) Orthodox church a run for their money.  All the arguments over statues, Mary's supposed immaculate conception and iconoclasts pale in comparison with the firvant work at Bible translation into native tongues that eventually started blossoming with the Renaissance, The GREAT REVIVAL, and The Second Awakening. Hiding one's candle under a bushel (or even a mountain) is not what the Bible encourages. This is yet another reason I do not regard Mormonism and its literature as biblically sound ----- much less FUNDAMENTAL.

It’s the attitudes of fundamentalist Christians that are similar to some of the more orthodox strands of Mormonism.  A deference to authority, the Bible for fundamentalist Christians and the hierarchy for Mormons. The literalist interpretations of scriptures, the millenarian views, the fear of science, the strict policing of sexuality, patriarchy, sexism, homophobia, aligning with the extreme right politically.  There are many similarities between the two groups.  I honestly don’t fit into the fundamentalist mindset.

 It has nothing to do with specific theological interpretations and everything to do with culture and ideological parallels.