Uncomfortable at church - any suggestions?

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for your response.  My impression from my interactions with people is that those of us on the more liberal end of the spectrum theologically (I don't love the term liberal, but can't think of a better one) are tolerated less and viewed with suspicion more by the more conservative orthodox types. 

 

 My  impression is that everyone pretty much sees their own group as the underdog. Just look at how many groups claim the distinction of being the target of the last acceptable prejudice.

A few examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Anti-Catholicism

Quote

The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

https://eurojewcong.org/ejc-in-action/statements/ejc-president-says-anti-semitism-has-become-the-last-acceptable-prejudice-in-football/

Quote

Anti-Semitism Has Become the Last Acceptable Prejudice in Football

https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/01/johnson-accents

Quote

This is the last acceptable public prejudice: bad jokes and silly stereotypes about people who speak differently. It plays out differently from other kinds of prejudice, of course. People do not choose their race. Religious beliefs are so deeply held that everyone knows to treat them gently. And sexual preference is now so widely seen as inherent that anti-gay prejudice is vanishingly hard to find in polite precincts. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/stigma-obese-acceptable-prejudice/story?id=18276788

Quote

People have no qualms aiming such overt cruelty at obese people, Puhl said, because there are few consequences. She said that fat stigma is rarely challenged and often ignored. In effect, it's the last acceptable prejudice.

 

Someone else who has observed the same thing, warning language towards the end:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/16/last-acceptable-prejudice-pale-stale-males

Quote

“Laughing at dwarfism is the last acceptable prejudice,” runs one hit from the Independent. “Accents,” intones the Economist, “the last acceptable prejudice.” Elsewhere, anti-Catholicism is widely credited as the last acceptable prejudice. However, the last religious prejudice stakes is nothing if not hotly contested, because the more general anti-Christianity seems to be gaining on anti-Catholicism, and all comers would be wise to work on the basis that they will end up in a photo finish with antisemitism and Islamophobia, both frequently given Last Acceptable status.

Disablism has been called the last acceptable prejudice; sexism is judged it bi-weekly; homophobia, generally or in places such as football, has also been nominated. Ageism regularly stakes a claim, as does fat-shaming, and even something called thin-shaming. In a comment piece earlier this year, a Travellers’ Times journalist declared: “It’s time to end ‘the last acceptable racism’,” which is against Gypsies and Travellers. All three forms of class hatred are the last acceptable one – hatred of the working class, hatred of the posh and hatred of the middle class.

Following the publication of her committee’s report into trans discrimination earlier this year, Maria Miller MP argued that transgender people “are the last group of people in our society who endure overt unchallenged prejudice”. Someone omitted to inform the authors of multiple versions of “Mental illness: the last acceptable stereotype?”, while another publication wanted to know “Why is ginger bullying one of the last acceptable prejudices?”.

Redheads were eased out by rednecks in the Conservative Review in October, which inquired rhetorically about “the last acceptable leftwing slur?”. “Is bias against the wealthy the last acceptable prejudice?” someone else has demanded. The headline affixed to my colleague Simon Jenkins’s hugely enjoyable column on this website this very week suggested that “Pale, stale males are the last group it’s OK to vilify”.

I have seen Mormons claim the distinction for themselves as well.

Not saying discrimination doesn't exist, btw, as I think there is a huge amount of prejudice out there, spread far and wide, but definitely not evenly.  I think the use of the phase indicates wishful thinking to a great extent, blindness and lack of empathy for others in some cases.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, juliann said:

And there needs to be time for the majority mindset to learn to happily co-exist with liberals. There are certainly enough high level quotes to deal with this. The best defense is to have them printed and at the ready for stupid comments. Unfortunately, lived Mormonism happens on the local level and we can't pick our congregations. Mine has come out of a horrific take over of fundamentalist thinkers a couple of decades ago to be something truly wonderful. Intolerant and unkind statements (and that is what we are really talking about, which is why it is a universal problem not a fundy problem,) are quickly but gently corrected in classes. But it takes someone with social capital to be willing to be the front man and it takes a long time. It is a skill to be able to pierce through unkindness, dressed up as "standing your ground" type nonsense, without being unkind yourself. I think that is why so many "progressives" are beside themselves. They don't have that skill and aren't interested in learning it or making the time investment. 

Thanks Juliann, this is a really good post, thanks for the thoughtfulness here.  

I think you're right, there is a measure of skill that is needed to be effective at this approach.  I have to be honest though, sometimes I feel tired and not up to the challenge.  I just wish we could all treat each other with patience and love, and tolerate different views.  Sometimes I question whether its worth my efforts to try and build that "social capital."  But I think you're right, there probably are no shortcuts around this problem.  It is going to take time at the grass roots and its going to take people like me in the trenches doing the dirty work, turning the other cheek, and getting my feelings hurt along the way. 

All that just makes me sad because I honestly question whether I'm even up to the challenge.  

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

 My  impression is that everyone pretty much sees their own group as the underdog. Just look at how many groups claim the distinction of being the target of the last acceptable prejudice.

A few examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Anti-Catholicism

https://eurojewcong.org/ejc-in-action/statements/ejc-president-says-anti-semitism-has-become-the-last-acceptable-prejudice-in-football/

https://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2015/01/johnson-accents

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/stigma-obese-acceptable-prejudice/story?id=18276788

 

Someone else who has observed the same thing, warning language towards the end:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/16/last-acceptable-prejudice-pale-stale-males

I have seen Mormons claim the distinction for themselves as well.

Yes, I totally get this, I was saying that I think this is human nature to a certain extent and I think your links back that up.  But I also wonder if there isn't a measure of familiarity with some of the older extremism at church on the fundamentalist side of the house, where people have learned to cope with that ideology.  Perhaps newer kinds of unorthodoxy may seem like a stronger and more dangerous threat because of the newness. 

Perhaps in another generation those of us who've had the faith reconstructions will be just as normal and acceptable as other people who are considered on the fringes of orthodoxy.  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I totally get this, I was saying that I think this is human nature to a certain extent and I think your links back that up.  But I also wonder if there isn't a measure of familiarity with some of the older extremism at church on the fundamentalist side of the house, where people have learned to cope with that ideology.  Perhaps newer kinds of unorthodoxy may seem like a stronger and more dangerous threat because of the newness. 

Perhaps in another generation those of us who've had the faith reconstructions will be just as normal and acceptable as other people who are considered on the fringes of orthodoxy.  

Or there could be stronger reactions to the older forms of extremism ( think someone hinting at practicing polygamy in the here and now) because  people know where the lines are drawn. The newer stuff is iffier  and so there may be a hesitancy in responding. 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

All that just makes me sad because I honestly question whether I'm even up to the challenge.  

But what is the alternative? 😉 You won't be happy not trying, either. Along the process, I had to humble myself. Especially in my grad school in religion phase when I thought I was such a hot shot. I learned something not long ago, in an awesome RS Council, from one of the members who annoys me the most. I had mentioned the JS Papers and she later said that she started reading it but felt darkness. Like...what?? It took me a few minutes but probably due to the grace of God, I then realized that for where she was (and she said this) it wasn't helpful, it wasn't uplifting her. SHE then concluded that we were all in different places and it was OK. And because of her honestly, the entire room confirmed that as we all made comments.  That is unity!  That was life changing for me. And yeah, she still can drive me nuts. 

If you bring everything back to an affirmation of the goodness of the gospel and your committment to it, you will be trusted. PIcking your battles and knowing when to not engage also is essential. One thing you might do is look at the online scholar SS suplemental lessons so you can include women in the lesson through comments. The women will love you for it. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

I can co-exist with people with "other perspectives" because either A) such people keep their "dangerous ideas" to themselves, such that I am operating in ignorance, or B) they tell me about their "dangerous ideas," which puts me on notice and allows me to proceed accordingly.

In contrast, the wolves-in-sheep's-clothing folks, particularly the current iteration who are members of the Church but use deception and online anonymity to slander and oppose and attack the Church while hiding such things from their fellow church members and leaders, those are a different concern.

Thanks for your response.  My impression from my interactions with people is that those of us on the more liberal end of the spectrum theologically (I don't love the term liberal, but can't think of a better one) are tolerated less and viewed with suspicion more by the more conservative orthodox types. 

I think the "conservative orthodox types" are not really concerned with reasoned and reasonable differences of opinion about the LDS Church and its doctrines, but rather with behavior that answers to what I have described previously.  The problem is compounded when people trade on their membership in the Church to do such things, and/or when they resort to patent, two-faced mendacity (one "face" for family, friends and local leaders, and another, anonymous online "face" that spews animosity and slanders and rebellion against the Church and its leaders / doctrines / practices).  The problem is compounded even further when these people glory in their duplicity, and continue in their online anonymous behavior for protracted periods of time.

Quote

In honestly, I likely have some preference towards those that more closely align to my beliefs even the extreme segments, and I probably am less tolerant of those on the other end of the spectrum, this is human nature after all that we're dealing with.

It's not a matter of mere "preference."  

I am pretty open to diversity of opinions about the doctrines of the Church.  It is the patent and ongoing dishonesty/duplicity (and the glorying in it) that I find disturbing.  

Quote

Ultimately it does make me sad to hear you and others use the language of suspicion and fear to describe people like myself. 

I haven't been speaking of you.  I have been speaking of "people online who A) profess to be members of the Church, B) hide behind pseudonyms and carefully mask their IRL identities, C) regularly speak stridently against and malign the LDS Church and its leaders, doctrines, policies, practices, etc., and D) seem to relish and enjoy the idea that they are "getting away with it" by separating their online conduct from their IRL interactions with members of the Church (including, notably, local leaders)."

If you are including yourself in the above category of people, then that's on you.  But surely you can understand why such profoundly dishonest behavior is troubling to others

If you are including yourself in the above category of people, I hope you have a change of heart as to your behavior.

Quote

While I appreciate the honesty with how you feel, I personally think this is part of the problem for why it makes it hard for people like myself to be comfortable at church. 

What I "feel" is a response to profound dishonesty from fellow members of the Church who have made sacred covenants and then go online and hide behind pseudonymns to speak against and tear down the Church and its fundamental and sacred tenets.

I think it is this fundamental and protracted dishonesty which causes discomfort.  That's the problem inherent with lying.  Maintaining them can be hard.  Maintaining them drives away the Spirit.  Maintaining them is fundamentally immoral.  Maintaining them makes others distrusting and suspicious and fearful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 9, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

But what is the alternative? 😉 You won't be happy not trying, either. Along the process, I had to humble myself. Especially in my grad school in religion phase when I thought I was such a hot shot. I learned something not long ago, in an awesome RS Council, from one of the members who annoys me the most. I had mentioned the JS Papers and she later said that she started reading it but felt darkness. Like...what?? It took me a few minutes but probably due to the grace of God, I then realized that for where she was (and she said this) it wasn't helpful, it wasn't uplifting her. SHE then concluded that we were all in different places and it was OK. And because of her honestly, the entire room confirmed that as we all made comments.  That is unity!  That was life changing for me. And yeah, she still can drive me nuts. 

If you bring everything back to an affirmation of the goodness of the gospel and your committment to it, you will be trusted. PIcking your battles and knowing when to not engage also is essential. One thing you might do is look at the online scholar SS suplemental lessons so you can include women in the lesson through comments. The women will love you for it. 

This is the current evaluation I'm going through.  There are many great causes I could put my time and energies into that don't include active attendance in Mormonism.  

Your example from church and recommending the JSP resources I've had very similar situations in my life as well.  I have close family members who can't handle the gospel topics essays and have expressed similar concerns about trying to engage with the content.  Some people aren't ready for it with respect to where they are at in their life.  

Thanks for the encouragement and good comments.  

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the "conservative orthodox types" are not really concerned with reasoned and reasonable differences of opinion about the LDS Church and its doctrines, but rather with behavior that answers to what I have described previously.  The problem is compounded when people trade on their membership in the Church to do such things, and/or when they resort to patent, two-faced mendacity (one "face" for family, friends and local leaders, and another, anonymous online "face" that spews animosity and slanders and rebellion against the Church and its leaders / doctrines / practices).  The problem is compounded even further when these people glory in their duplicity, and continue in their online anonymous behavior for protracted periods of time.

You can continue to use very strong language to describe your disapproval of certain perspectives, but suffice it to say, I completely disagree with the characterizations you're making here.  

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not a matter of mere "preference."  

I am pretty open to diversity of opinions about the doctrines of the Church.  It is the patent and ongoing dishonesty/duplicity (and the glorying in it) that I find disturbing.  

Same thing, see above.  

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't been speaking of you.  I have been speaking of "people online who A) profess to be members of the Church, B) hide behind pseudonyms and carefully mask their IRL identities, C) regularly speak stridently against and malign the LDS Church and its leaders, doctrines, policies, practices, etc., and D) seem to relish and enjoy the idea that they are "getting away with it" by separating their online conduct from their IRL interactions with members of the Church (including, notably, local leaders)."

If you are including yourself in the above category of people, then that's on you.  But surely you can understand why such profoundly dishonest behavior is troubling to others

If you are including yourself in the above category of people, I hope you have a change of heart as to your behavior.

I find these kinds of views misplaced, inaccurate and uncharitable, whether directed at me directly or implied.  I really can't think of anyone I know that fits these kinds of descriptors.  You've setup a boogeyman to try and make a point.  

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What I "feel" is a response to profound dishonesty from fellow members of the Church who have made sacred covenants and then go online and hide behind pseudonymns to speak against and tear down the Church and its fundamental and sacred tenets.

I think it is this fundamental and protracted dishonesty which causes discomfort.  That's the problem inherent with lying.  Maintaining them can be hard.  Maintaining them drives away the Spirit.  Maintaining them is fundamentally immoral.  Maintaining them makes others distrusting and suspicious and fearful.

Do you always speak in such hyperbolic terms?  Its hard to take this kind of rhetoric serious.  

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Some people aren't ready for it with respect to where they are at in their life.  

 This kind of language implies a sense of superiority because you are ready, more evolved than these others. On the other hand, speaking of the essays and other things as being "useful" or not to someone allows for more perceived equality or acceptance of diversity without diminishing others in your communication.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Without realizing it soon everyone in the quorum had identified the Church as a main source of their fears.

Literally every man in your elders quorum is afraid of the Church.

Only none of them realised it; instead, you had to realise it for them.

You certainly seem to be good at detecting fear in others.

But earlier you told us the people in your ward are actually afraid of you. So which is it? Are these men all afraid of you, or are they afraid of the Church?

[hope_for_things]

Just now, Calm said:

 This kind of language implies a sense of superiority because you are ready, more evolved than these others. On the other hand, speaking of the essays and other things as being "useful" or not to someone allows for allows for more perceived equality or acceptance of diversity without diminishing others in your communication.

I meant no sense of moral superiority.  You could look at this as a milk before meat kind of thing.  I tend to look at this in a stages of faith and human development perspective.  I also think temperament, and unique individual circumstances play a major role.  I try very hard not to think in terms that I'm better than others.  Look again at my OP in this thread, I setup the discussion making it clear that I don't believe I'm superior to others, and I try very hard to not think in these terms.   

I imagine that we all think our perspectives are more correct than others perspectives on some level though.  Otherwise why even have an opinion if you don't believe your opinion is somehow superior to the other options out there?  There are healthy levels of ego that we all should nourish, and unhealthy levels that we ought to avoid.  

 

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You can continue to use very strong language to describe your disapproval of certain perspectives,

"Perspectives?"  No.  I don't "disapprove" of differeing perspectives about the LDS Church.  I recognize that reasonable minds can and do disagree about such things.  I don't expect everyone around me to agree with me.

But do I disapprove of profound and protracted dishonesty?  Yes.  I'll own that.  

Quote

but suffice it to say, I completely disagree with the characterizations you're making here.  

Okay.  

Quote

I find these kinds of views misplaced, inaccurate and uncharitable,

Only if I am allocating improper behavior to specific persons.  I'm not.

If I say "I am troubled by the exploitation of infirm elderly people," I am not making an accusation, just a generalized observation about repellant behavior.  

As for the behavior I am describing, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether it exists.  I see it.  Frequently.

Quote

whether directed at me directly or implied. 

I don't know you.

Quote

I really can't think of anyone I know that fits these kinds of descriptors. 

I can.  I've been on this board since 2004.  I've seen plenty of such folks.

Quote

You've setup a boogeyman to try and make a point.  

Nope.  Bogeymen, by definition, are imaginary.  But I really have observed disturbing anonymous behavior from people who profess to be members of the Church.  It's a pretty common thing, actually.

And my "point" is about profound and protracted dishonesty.  This is a bad thing.  I don't need to "try" and make this point.  It is axiomatically a bad thing.

Quote

Do you always speak in such hyperbolic terms? 

There's nothing hyperbolic about describing "people online who A) profess to be members of the Church, B) hide behind pseudonyms and carefully mask their IRL identities, C) regularly speak stridently against and malign the LDS Church and its leaders, doctrines, policies, practices, etc., and D) seem to relish and enjoy the idea that they are "getting away with it" by separating their online conduct from their IRL interactions with members of the Church (including, notably, local leaders)."

This sort of thing really does happen.  Including on this very board.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 9, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I meant no sense of moral superiority.  You could look at this as a milk before meat kind of thing.  I tend to look at this in a stages of faith and human development perspective.  I also think temperament, and unique individual circumstances play a major role.  I try very hard not to think in terms that I'm better than others.  Look again at my OP in this thread, I setup the discussion making it clear that I don't believe I'm superior to others, and I try very hard to not think in these terms.   

I imagine that we all think our perspectives are more correct than others perspectives on some level though.  Otherwise why even have an opinion if you don't believe your opinion is somehow superior to the other options out there?  There are healthy levels of ego that we all should nourish, and unhealthy levels that we ought to avoid.  

 

 I  I am using dictation so thoughts aren't as developed as they should be.. I am thinking about  how you would want to talk about it to others, not necessarily how you see it yourself. Since this thread is in part  about interactions at church another. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Calm

[juliann]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  

I imagine that we all think our perspectives are more correct than others perspectives on some level though.  Otherwise why even have an opinion if you don't believe your opinion is somehow superior to the other options out there?  There are healthy levels of ego that we all should nourish, and unhealthy levels that we ought to avoid.  

 

I suspect that is a very gendered, i.e., male reaction. Women tend to think the opposite. So maybe my reaction comes from that but I find the thought that my opinion is always superior to be worrisome. I could never learn anything new if that was the case. 

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Perspectives?"  No.  Profound dishonesty?  Yes.

Okay.  

Only if I am allocating improper behavior to specific persons.  I'm not.

If I say "I am troubled by dishonest people who prey upon infirm old people and extract money from them," I am not making an accusation, just an observation about repellant behavior.  

As for the behavior I am describing, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether it exists.  I see it.  Frequently.

I don't know you.

I can.  I've been on this board since 2004.  I've seen plenty of such folks.

Nope.  Bogeymen, by definition, are imaginary.  But I really have observed disturbing anonymous behavior from people who profess to be members of the Church.  It's a pretty common thing, actually.

There's nothing hyperbolic about describing "people online who A) profess to be members of the Church, B) hide behind pseudonyms and carefully mask their IRL identities, C) regularly speak stridently against and malign the LDS Church and its leaders, doctrines, policies, practices, etc., and D) seem to relish and enjoy the idea that they are "getting away with it" by separating their online conduct from their IRL interactions with members of the Church (including, notably, local leaders)."

This sort of thing really does happen.  Including on this very board.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think this post is emblematic for why someone like myself can feel uncomfortable at church.  These caricatures and the accusatory language is very hurtful.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

I suspect that is a very gendered, i.e., male reaction. Women tend to think the opposite. So maybe my reaction comes from that but I find the thought that my opinion is always superior to be worrisome. I could never learn anything new if that was the case. 

You make a good point and I’m sure that my perspectives could and should be expanded on many fronts.  If we were speaking verbally I think you’d get a very different impression about what I’m saying.  I do have a certain level of confidence, but I also feel like ultimate certainty is not something I’m at all confident in.  I’m constantly changing and reevaluating perspectives based on new information.  And I respect others opinions and do my best to try and understand and learn from others.  

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this post is emblematic for why someone like myself can feel uncomfortable at church.  These caricatures and the accusatory language is very hurtful.  

I don't get this.  What "caricature?"  There really are people out there who meet the description I have posted.  I see it frequently.  What part of the description is, in your view, in accurate/nonexistent?

And I am taking pains to not accuse you.  I have notably not done so.  

I want people in the Church.  I literally want everyone in the world to join it.  But after they join it, there are certain minimum standards of behavior that I think are reasonably expected of them.  Using online anonymity to regularly attack and slander the Church and its leaders, doctrines, etc. while presenting a very different face to IRL members of the Church is pretty troubling to me.  It seems profoundly dishonest.  That is my concern. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 9, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Literally every man in your elders quorum is afraid of the Church.

Look.  I'm not trying to suggest I knew what each man in the quorum was thinking.  I think we had a pretty small group that day, as I recall, but fairly good participation for a while.   this was a good year ago or so.  What happened was, I had asked us to identify our fears.  each fear we talked about related to Church teaching  in some way.  Once we called that out, the EQP, as I said, got all teary eyed stood up (which was odd) and expressed how we better be careful.  We should only be faithful in our conversations in EQ and other such stuff, lest we offend God in our realness and support the devil.  So it basically ended our exploration, ended our effort to actually address the welfare of our souls, type of stuff.  I'll add though, as I went around the hallways to gather the kids my wife ended up right outside the door of the EQ presidency after the meeting.  They didn't realize I suppose the door was open, nor how loud they were being.  She heard, as I recall, that they expressed their fear that I was of the devil and that they can't possibly let me teach again.  Seemed to me to be an expression of fear, but I suppose as you frame it is was more of an expression of them feeling me to be disingenuous.  Whatever the case, I'm not sure there is much difference.  

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Only none of them realised it; instead, you had to realise it for them.

I don't know how much they realized or how much they knew it and didn't want to identify it right away.  

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You certainly seem to be good at detecting fear in others.

I'm not saying I detected.  I'm saying some of the brethren, those who spoke up, said it.  

14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

But earlier you told us the people in your ward are actually afraid of you. So which is it? Are these men all afraid of you, or are they afraid of the Church?

I think I've been pretty clear and I think you are clearly misunderstanding.  I'm not sure how to help when that is the case, so have a good one. 

[nuclearfuels]

On 5/4/2018 at 2:14 PM, 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 struggle with this also.  I'm uncomfortable around wards similar to those I grew up-

Asked my wife about, so many times she doesn't really want to talk about it anymore-

She said the truths of the gospel are more important than any social relationships (good or bad) within a ward-

I coudl talk about this for a long time and the challenges it's brought to me - having so-called brothers and sisters act like you don't exist; that doesn't strengthen a person's faith-

but let me conclude and tell you that the many years I was called to serve in a Chinese Branch truly revived me, spiritually - so I'd recommend trying another ward or branch for a while, if you're able.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I struggle with this also.  I'm uncomfortable around wards similar to those I grew up-

Asked my wife about, so many times she doesn't really want to talk about it anymore-

She said the truths of the gospel are more important than any social relationships (good or bad) within a ward-

I coudl talk about this for a long time and the challenges it's brought to me - having so-called brothers and sisters act like you don't exist; that doesn't strengthen a person's faith-

but let me conclude and tell you that the many years I was called to serve in a Chinese Branch truly revived me, spiritually - so I'd recommend trying another ward or branch for a while, if you're able.

Thanks for sharing, I think that kind of experience could be revitalizing.  Not sure I’ll have that opportunity with my current plans, but who knows.  

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

I struggle with this also.  I'm uncomfortable around wards similar to those I grew up-

Asked my wife about, so many times she doesn't really want to talk about it anymore-

She said the truths of the gospel are more important than any social relationships (good or bad) within a ward-

I coudl talk about this for a long time and the challenges it's brought to me - having so-called brothers and sisters act like you don't exist; that doesn't strengthen a person's faith-

but let me conclude and tell you that the many years I was called to serve in a Chinese Branch truly revived me, spiritually - so I'd recommend trying another ward or branch for a while, if you're able.

I don't think I could disagree with your wife more.  Our relationships with others are so much more important that the supposed truths of the gospel for each of us.  If it weren't so, then God would not be God.  I say that because if the truths are so important then more than a teeny tiny percentage would have heard about them.  But on top of that, the "truths" of the gospel all too often turn out to be truths at all.  The Church has such potential, sadly, it is just so misdirected, drawing it further and further away from it's potential.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/9/2018 at 2:26 PM, hope_for_things said:

I haven't dismissed or ridiculed these ideas to my knowledge.

You said (in response to my summation of fundamental LDS doctrines),

Quote

One mans firm foundation looks like a pile of sand from a different perspective.  Ultimately this all comes down to what people like yourself want to do with us heretics. 

 

On 5/9/2018 at 2:26 PM, hope_for_things said:

I think part of your problem with my position is that you're assuming I'm taking a subversive perspective that is openly trying to undermine, which is not at all what I've done.  I've never tried to do that, which should be apparent in my OP, but because my perspective is somehow threatening to your world view then you assume the worst.  

Not at all. My problem is that when asked about your preference to work in Primary, you responded:

Quote

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.  

Learning what things? Certainly not what you describe as the “foundation of sand.” What kind of things are they more open to? Kids don’t normally “police orthodoxy” because they are still in the process of learning basic doctrines. Is it therefore safer to teach one’s personal beliefs to kids without fear of adult scrutiny? That appears to be what you are saying. Whether you were to do it intentionally, unintentionally, or inadvertently, there is cause for legitimate concern. 

As you said in the OP, 

Quote

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?  

Good questions. I sincerely hope you succeed in answering them within yourself.

Quote

Another example of making assumptions that are very uncharitable.  How do you know what I "reject? You don't seem to know me, or where my heart is or how I interact with others or what my interactions at church have been like.  You aren't giving me any benefit of the doubt, you are casting judgment and suspicion.  I think this is a good example of what happens sometimes when a strictly orthodox person encounters different perspectives  Another example of making assumptions that are very 

You have made your positions plain here on this thread and on many others. In your own words on this thread, for example, you have rejected the exclusive role of Jesus, the scriptures, and the uniqueness of the restored Church. Much of what you described as a “foundation of sand” is what is called the Gospel, the Plan of Salvation, or the Plan of Happiness, which is contingent on the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In this thread you have stated yours doubts in the “plan.”

Quote

As for theories about the "plan", I might disappoint a little there as I don't really believe there is a "plan" anymore, so I probably wouldn't be the best person to play with on that subject.  I do like to learn about the history of theology and the different perspectives of those in the past and how those perspectives developed into doctrines we have today

If you have lost your faith, if you don’t believe in the Savior, the scriptures, the uniqueness of the Restored Church, or Plan of Salvation, why would you want to be put in a position where the explicit purpose is to teach those things to children? What should they expect to learn from you? Are you meeting their parents' expectations? I’m not judging you. I have repeatedly and unsuccessfully asked not to be misconstrued, but there are serious inconsistencies in what you are saying. I can sympathize with the confliction you must be feeling. I hope you can sort those things out. Perhaps that is why you started this discussion.

 

On 5/9/2018 at 2:26 PM, hope_for_things said:

I'm not saying there weren't groups of very conservative Mormons pre-correlation.  Do you think your personal exposure in your family is representative of the entire church?  I've read enough LDS church history to know that many other opinions have existed in the history of the church, and from my reading there was more diversity prior to correlation. 

Yes, I think my exposure is typical of people in the Church in my family’s generations. I’ve yet to find a place where I feel uncomfortable. My father was a Catholic New Jersey WW2 vet who experienced a miraculous conversion to the Church when I was 11 years old. My mother was of hand-cart pioneer heritage and grew up in a Mormon colony. My hometown ward (not in Utah or any other Mormon enclave) from 1947 through 1972 was perhaps one of the best educated, most intelectually, politically, and geographically diverse in the Church. I have an eclectic background in the way of education, experiences, and places lived. I also was well-trained in the mainstream of the Church in the 50sand 60s (pre-correlation), and I participated in pre-correlation experiments for 2 years in a BYU stake. You have some flawed notions about correlation, but that is another topic.

I’m not a prepper, I actually have friends and relatives outside of the Church and some who have left the Church but still get along with and love, I don’t have a Elders Packer, McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith shrine in my dedicated home altar room, I gave away my first edition Mormon Doctrine, I have never cast the devil out of heretics or burned them at the stake, I don’t insist on using only paper scriptures, I have taken the sacrament with my left hand and occasionally I pray without folding my arms, I don’t keep one foot in my garments when I bathe, and lips that have touched Coca Cola have touched mine.

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

PS. If you want to know about life pre-correlation, there are some folks here who can answer your questions.

[hope_for_things]

On 5/11/2018 at 11:31 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, I think my exposure is typical of people in the Church in my family’s generations. I’ve yet to find a place where I feel uncomfortable. My father was a Catholic New Jersey WW2 vet who experienced a miraculous conversion to the Church when I was 11 years old. My mother was of hand-cart pioneer heritage and grew up in a Mormon colony. My hometown ward (not in Utah or any other Mormon enclave) from 1947 through 1972 was perhaps one of the best educated, most intelectually, politically, and geographically diverse in the Church. I have an eclectic background in the way of education, experiences, and places lived. I also was well-trained in the mainstream of the Church in the 50sand 60s (pre-correlation), and I participated in pre-correlation experiments for 2 years in a BYU stake. You have some flawed notions about correlation, but that is another topic.

I’m not a prepper, I actually have friends and relatives outside of the Church and some who have left the Church but still get along with and love, I don’t have a Elders Packer, McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith shrine in my dedicated home altar room, I gave away my first edition Mormon Doctrine, I have never cast the devil out of heretics or burned them at the stake, I don’t insist on using only paper scriptures, I have taken the sacrament with my left hand and occasionally I pray without folding my arms, I don’t keep one foot in my garments when I bathe, and lips that have touched Coca Cola have touched mine.

I've been communicating on message boards like this one and interacting with orthodox members, apologists, liberal believers, non-believers, former members, etc, people all across the gambit for a few years now.  And I think one of two things is happening here with respect to your responses to me. 

Either you are sincerely misunderstanding my perspective in an honest and genuine way.  Or you are intentionally trying to paint my position in negative terms because of some other motivation on your part.  If the former is correct, then I'm not sure how I could correct your misunderstanding, as I've attempted to explain myself on multiple occasions without success.  If the latter is correct, then I have no desire to continue a discussion with you.  I have to admit that I suspect the latter.  

 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've been communicating on message boards like this one and interacting with orthodox members, apologists, liberal believers, non-believers, former members, etc, people all across the gambit for a few years now.  And I think one of two things is happening here with respect to your responses to me. 

Either you are sincerely misunderstanding my perspective in an honest and genuine way.  Or you are intentionally trying to paint my position in negative terms because of some other motivation on your part.  If the former is correct, then I'm not sure how I could correct your misunderstanding, as I've attempted to explain myself on multiple occasions without success.  If the latter is correct, then I have no desire to continue a discussion with you.  I have to admit that I suspect the latter.  

 

I’ll drop out of this discussion. You have the last word.

First, for what it’s worth, if we’re going to cite credentials I have participated on this board and it’s predecessor for decades -  since the beginning, and I have interacted with all kinds of folks.

There is another alternative to your two scenarios, one which better represents my intentions, and the one you have consistently ignored. I have no motivation other than to express legitimate concerns about a person who has consistently and emphatically announced his disaffection with the Church, it’s doctrines, scriptures, members, leaders, and practices, and often takes positions that reflect those of critics of the Church.

You have expressed doubts about your own motivations (your word  - disingenuous) and wondered what gives you the right to teach your perceptions rather than what the Church prescribes in its curricula. I am trying to understand how and why one would express a preference to teach Primary children rather than adults, given the antagonism regularly expressed on this board and in this thread. I would like to see you start a thread where you could discuss those things you think we should be teaching our children but are not.

I firmly believe that someone who has lost faith should not be put in a position of using the precious few moments my children spend in official Church instruction to further his agenda - intentional or not - that would in any way undermine what I teach them in my home. You seem to disagree. I would like to know why.

I remind you of this comment:

Quote

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. 

This is at the heart of my concerns which you have yet to explain after multiple requests. So, please enumerate those unorthodox “things” you think you should expose our children to away from adult scrutiny. I would welcome your efforts to explain. In my world, no one has the right or obligation to take that upon themselves.

I disagree with your painting me as a person who wants to harm or censor heretics, as you call them. In my decades of participating here I have never done that. I would appreciate being shown comments that were the intentionally misunderstood, misquoted, or unfairly interpreted. 

I have continually but unsuccessfully requested not to be misconstrued, and I repeat that request once last time. I have not called you a heretic, I have not called for you to be ejected or silenced or harmed in any way. I have not “painted” you with anything other your own conflicting words and asked for your clarification. 

I bear you no ill and wish you the best in your search for understanding and peace. I’m certain you will find it. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui