“Doubt Not, but Be Believing” Elder and Sister Renlund CES Training June 2018

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I certainly identify with a lot of what is being said.  As I read the story, the first thing I thought about is when the Savior was in the fishing boat with his apostles and the storm came up.  After calming the seas, He stepped out of the boat and asked Peter to do the same.  It was a great leap of faith for Peter to do that.  That is kind of how I felt.  Staying in the church.  Even staying in my marriage was the easy thing to do.  It was scary taking that first step away from the church.  But for me,  I knew it was the right thing to do.  It required more faith  to make that leap than staying in.  

BUT I truly believe that my journey is not other peoples journey.  I think for many people staying in the church with all its dents and peeled paint is indeed the right thing.  I think it is the right thing for most of my children.   It seems to be working for them.  They seem happy and they are getting spiritually nourished.  At the end of the day, isn't that what is most important?  Their relationship with God?  Your relationship with God?

There are many paths back to the presence of God.  Prayerfully choose what is best for you.  Trust God.  You have to believe that He will direct you.   And try not to judge those that choose differently than you do.  

Good thoughts.  I just wanted to clarify that Jesus did not ask Peter to leave the boat, but leaving the boat was Peter's idea (which clearly Jesus was o.k. with).   

[jkwilliams]

Just now, CV75 said:

But the premise is that it is a boat that is doing the rescuing, no misrepresentation: "As you look, you see a fishing boat approaching."

OK, accepting the analogy, you see a fishing boat approaching. When it gets closer, you see it’s Richard Hammond in a leaking Vanagon. 

 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

OK, accepting the analogy, you see a fishing boat approaching. When it gets closer, you see it’s Richard Hammond in a leaking Vanagon.

Well, that changes the storyline but not the outcome for the folks on the capsized boat :)

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm picturing a helicopter carrying a Buick and dropping it in the water near the people who need rescuing. It might float for a minute or so.

Not a perfect analogy, but you get the idea. 

I thought the analogy was pretty accurate. Peeling pain? Sweaty hat? these will not sink the boat but a rudderless boat will. And rudderless equals things in church history that are not only warts but possible skin cancer.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sounds like a great title for EVERY soap opera  

Hence context is everything!

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought the analogy was pretty accurate. Peeling pain? Sweaty hat? these will not sink the boat but a rudderless boat will. And rudderless equals things in church history that are not only warts but possible skin cancer.

The boat has a rudder, at least in the Renlunds' story, albeit one that required constant diligence at the helm. Go figure, the boat tends to pull right from abuse coming at it from the left!

"I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with ...all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there." (Joseph Smith)

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Just a question about the distinction between relativism and acknowledging different paths, as I'm not sure I see a clear difference. 

Also, its interesting that what works for you (I presume the concept of a universal truth and/or authority) is clearly one of many ways of orienting towards the church, which essentially is evidence for the relativism that you say is wrong. 

Not quite sure what you mean in your second paragraph. Could you flesh that out a bit?

To what I meant, there can be normal senses of truth - that is there is a fact whether there is an existing person who is God, whether there is a resurrection, whether the angel Moroni actually appeared to Joseph, whether the Church has authority for ordinances that other churches don't, etc. Yet even if all those things are true, for someone's necessary development they may not be ready to be a member at a given time. The reasons may be complex. Maybe it's due to past abuse by a member that keeps them psychologically from being able to be a member in wellbeing at that time. Maybe it's personal issues where they just aren't ready to truly accept those covenants and act on them right then but need to learn things they couldn't learn within the Church. Maybe the preparation they need to be able to gain a testimony can only be found outside, not inside the Church. Maybe aspects of a person's personality are such that they'd grow emotionally outside the Church better than inside. There's tons of possibilities. I'm just saying that God could easily from a purely utilitarian perspective lead people outside the Church even if the basic truth claims of the Church are true.

So all I'm saying is that we should not conflate path from a personal development perspective with questions of truth. They really are fairly orthogonal. My sense is many people do confuse them. Further many people tend to dismiss questions of truth relative to religion and see it purely in utilitarian terms for personal interest or growth. (I think this later is a general problem of this generation where Church is seen purely in terms of what it gives people in the short to mid term - it's seen in materialistic consumer terms)

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I consider myself a skeptic, but I don't think you've characterized the way I would identify as a skeptic appropriately.  I don't see skepticism as just tearing things down, although that certainly happens at times and I would argue appropriately so.  I think of myself as a compassionate skeptic.  I think its important to show respect to people, even when they hold beliefs that are clearly erroneous.  

The line between skeptic and cynic is blurry at best. Put an other way often people who pride themselves on skepticism actually tend to be rather "selective" about where they point the skepticism. That is it can turn into a kind of passive demand. Others must prove something to me but I need not question the beliefs I do have nor take a more active role in inquiry. You see this especially in academics where often confirmation biases come into play. One is skeptical of those outside ones group, demanding they meet a burden of proof while rationalizing of the positions ones own group holds. That rationalizing element in particular can be a problem. (I'm sure some here think I do that when I raise issues relative to our ignorance of pre-exilic Israel) Like that GA quote goes. It's not enough to doubt. We must also doubt our doubts. It's that self-reflective pointing of skepticism towards ones own presuppositions - often presuppositions that aren't obvious - that tends to get neglected.

Edited July 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, that changes the storyline but not the outcome for the folks on the capsized boat

Pretty much. Either way, they're going to be waiting for the Toybota.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The line between skeptic and cynic is blurry at best. Put an other way often people who pride themselves on skepticism actually tend to be rather "selective" about where they point the skepticism. That is it can turn into a kind of passive demand. Others must prove something to me but I need not question the beliefs I do have nor take a more active role in inquiry. You see this especially in academics where often confirmation biases come into play. One is skeptical of those outside ones group, demanding they meet a burden of proof while rationalizing of the positions ones own group holds. That rationalizing element in particular can be a problem. (I'm sure some here think I do that when I raise issues relative to our ignorance of pre-exilic Israel) Like that GA quote goes. It's not enough to doubt. We must also doubt our doubts. It's that self-reflective pointing of skepticism towards ones own presuppositions - often presuppositions that aren't obvious - that tends to get neglected.

I think a lot of us apostate types are more skeptical of the church than we may be of other groups and sources of information. That's pretty much human nature when you've trusted someone or something and have been burned. Once the trust is gone, it takes even more to regain it than to gain it the first place.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not sure I'm seeing change here overall.  Years ago in Stake conference we had Elder someone come and basically tell us to acknowledge the difficulties in church history and doctrine when confronted.  I don't recall anyone ever doing so.   But if it is becoming more of a push then great.  

We've had several lessons on the gospel topics essays, talks and so forth. As I said that might just be our stake/ward or even region but the impression I have is that it's a broader push directed from further up. However even if it is directed from the apostles that doesn't mean all stakes or wards are heeding it.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Fair point.  I say any acknowledgement is a step forward but I do realize just acknowledging vague possible dings and paint being chipped does seem to say everything is fine...all is well in zion.  no need to doubt.  

Yup. What I've noticed over the last 25 years is that there's a certain group of members who really embrace an Kierkegaard like feidism presumably because of doubts or a lack of certain experiences. Then there are those who pretend to know when of course they don't but are just aping what they think others have experienced. There's nothing wrong with either as a temporary way stop in ones path. But the goal should be knowledge. Secondarily because both these don't have knowledge but are doing "acting as if" it can lead to people who treat the superficialities of the gospel as if they were the heart. That can be destructive and lead to a kind of phariseeism.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Relativism is all we have.  We're just us, individually stuck in our own worlds with our own perspectives--seeing what we individually see and feeling what we individually feel. 

I don't think our being tied to perspectivism means relativism is all we have. Again, look at the hard sciences, where evidence frequently leads people to coherent, consistent answers. Those stable answers that don't change through continued inquiry are truths for all practical purposes.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If Someone can't be saved outside of the Church, then God is a monster it seems to me. 

The main work of the Church is in the next life with those awaiting judgment. They need to be taught and given the opportunity for salvation. That's a pretty key doctrine of the Church. It also reconciles the two issues you raise.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

It can't be wrong for one to travel a path that leads to the highest end if that one never joins the Church--not for that one. It must be if that is ever the case, that is exactly what God needed or wanted for that one.   "the Church is true" mantra is a big problem on this front, if you ask me.  The meaning fo the phrase is convoluted and seeing as no one sees clearly, it is just a plainly wrong mantra.  

I'm not sure what the difficulty is. Again a common theology within the Church is that God attempts to give everyone as much as he is able. However they are free people so their highest end may simply not be being with God eternally. That is we shouldn't view judgment as punishment but as giving people as much as they are willing to receive. It's all grace in that sense.

The Church is true just means that this is God's church, with the proper authority and key doctrines. That doesn't mean it's what everyone wants.

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think a lot of us apostate types are more skeptical of the church than we may be of other groups and sources of information. That's pretty much human nature when you've trusted someone or something and have been burned. Once the trust is gone, it takes even more to regain it than to gain it the first place.

Yes, but as inquirers we should recognize that such emotional responses can block us from doing inquiry. I may not trust say a significant other who cheats on me. But if I automatically dismiss anything they say simply because they say it, then chances are I'm just screwing myself over. It's the sort of thing I see in my kids when they're first hitting adolescence but hope they grow out of soon. However you're completely right in that it is a natural psychological response particularly when the relationship wasn't already balanced and healthy.

Edited July 9, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Yes, but as inquirers we should recognize that such emotional responses can block us from doing inquiry. I may not trust say a significant other who cheats on me. But if I automatically dismiss anything they say simply because they say it, then chances are I'm just screwing myself over.

I understand that. I don't know many who automatically dismiss everything the church says, but certainly a lot of us have our guards up. I try really hard to keep an open mind, but I have to remind myself sometimes of some of my underlying distrust for the church. The thread about the "Hebrew/Egyptian wordplay" is a good example. Given the track record of some apologists I have known, I was immediately skeptical, but I tried to put that aside and look at the actual evidence. I wasn't all that impressed, and clearly some people thought I was just playing to my biases. But then everyone does that to some extent.

[jkwilliams]

57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I thought the analogy was pretty accurate. Peeling pain? Sweaty hat? these will not sink the boat but a rudderless boat will. And rudderless equals things in church history that are not only warts but possible skin cancer.

I guess my point was that peeling paint, dings, and an old captain are fairly insignificant flaws in a boat when you need rescuing, and most people would gladly overlook those issues. For me, anyway, pointing to minor flaws is minimizing the issues with the church. Not only that, but it's equating doubt with nitpicking and complaining, when it's much more than that. 

[changed]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

... when you've trusted someone or something and have been burned. Once the trust is gone, it takes even more to regain it than to gain it the first place.

 

I have been really struggling with trust issues - one bad apple (child molester) has made me doubt all priesthood holders.  How was this bad apple put in leadership callings?  How was he sustained year after year?  No one had the spirit to stop him  He lied through every interview he had, went to the temple, and no one ever felt the need to stop him?  ... and there was another bad apple too - not quite as bad, but a liar who was never questioned, never stopped...

Don't trust in the arm of flesh - is it possible to be a member of the LDs church if you do not trust any of the priesthood holders, if you do not trust the prophet or any human?  

 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

oh serious?  you can't see the little gif thing I put there?  hmm...

https://gph.is/2bDOokj

 

 

Saw that one. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, changed said:

I have been really struggling with trust issues - one bad apple (child molester) has made me doubt all priesthood holders.  How was this bad apple put in leadership callings?  How was he sustained year after year?  No one had the spirit to stop him  He lied through every interview he had, went to the temple, and no one ever felt the need to stop him?  ... and there was another bad apple too - not quite as bad, but a liar who was never questioned, never stopped...

Don't trust in the arm of flesh - is it possible to be a member of the LDs church if you do not trust any of the priesthood holders, if you do not trust the prophet or any human?  

I'm not exactly a believer, but I would say that, whether or not the church is true (even in a deflationary sense), the people who run it are humans, and humans are liable to screw up and even do terrible evil, no matter how high the calling. The trick is to recognize the human while trying to find the divine. I know, that sounds hypocritical from someone who doesn't see a lot of the divine in the LDS church, but I try to find good wherever I can, even in a flawed, human-created, human-led religion. Heck, my wife has asked me to attend church with her, and I think I'm going to do it. Doesn't mean my expectations of the church have changed at all, but I'll keep looking for the good.

[clarkgoble]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The thread about the "Hebrew/Egyptian wordplay" is a good example. 

I'll confess that while I'm not dismissive of wordplay arguments I'm skeptical simply because I'm skeptical we should expect such things to typically survive the translation process. After all we have a translation process that appears to frequently be loose with a preference to quoting or aping KJV phrases where possible to convey an idea. Now the translation style is somewhat inconsistent so I don't want to say no such structure could survive translation. However my instinct is to suspect most are false positives. Although how much I feel that varies somewhat from example to example. (Some I'll admit are far more interesting and compelling to me - I'm just speaking in general)

[changed]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 Again a common theology within the Church is that God attempts to give everyone as much as he is able. However they are free people so their highest end may simply not be being with God eternally. That is we shouldn't view judgment as punishment but as giving people as much as they are willing to receive. It's all grace in that sense.

 

It seems some are tested quite a bit more than others, and some are given a more secure educational background than others.  Willing to receive?  It just does not feel like G-d is offering everyone the same resources or opportunities.  Some are "chosen" and others are despised.  

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated....

G-d hates some, and loves others.  

... I think I am one of the ones he hates.... take my husband, molests my children..  leaves me without comfort... yea, pretty sure he hates me.

Edited July 9, 2018 by changed

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

I'll confess that while I'm not dismissive of wordplay arguments I'm skeptical simply because I'm skeptical we should expect such things to typically survive the translation process. After all we have a translation process that appears to frequently be loose with a preference to quoting or aping KJV phrases where possible to convey an idea. Now the translation style is somewhat inconsistent so I don't want to say no such structure could survive translation. However my instinct is to suspect most are false positives. Although how much I feel that varies somewhat from example to example. (Some I'll admit are far more interesting and compelling to me - I'm just speaking in general)

Agreed. The other thing is that even the "strongest" wordplay examples are pretty flimsy, IMO. Abish meaning "father-man" because she was converted by a dream of her father? How is that even a thing? 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, its interesting that what works for you (I presume the concept of a universal truth and/or authority) is clearly one of many ways of orienting towards the church, which essentially is evidence for the relativism that you say is wrong. 

Not quite sure what you mean in your second paragraph. Could you flesh that out a bit?

Sure.  The concern you have expressed about a utilitarian approach to the church, I see as evidence for a wide variety of approaches to religion in general or Mormonism in particular.  Because of the flexibility of Mormon theology, I think it essentially has carved out a relativistic approach to the gospel in its core canon.  One of the scriptures that exemplifies this approach in the BoM is in Alma 32:13-16.  

Quote

13 And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.

14 And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

15 Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

16 Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe.

So, even though more blessings are afforded to those that humble themselves, those who are compelled to be humble through difficult experiences essentially get the same reward of salvation.  This says nothing of authority or exclusivity or denominational truth claims.  Alma 32 is essentially a utilitarian approach to principles that have real world application and the trial and error approach to the gospel.  

So your preference for a theology that asserts specific ideas to be ontologically true, things like Moroni visiting Joseph or an actual physical resurrection, is one approach that bears fruit for you personally, and that is great.  However, there are others who find fruit through different paths within and without Mormonism, and those paths have no connection to the same preferences you've asserted.  And since you've acknowledged that their paths are also valid based on their unique circumstances, I think you've essentially also embraced the very relativity you are critiquing, and I would say thats a good thing and that its compatible with many ideas within Mormonism.  

39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The line between skeptic and cynic is blurry at best. Put an other way often people who pride themselves on skepticism actually tend to be rather "selective" about where they point the skepticism. That is it can turn into a kind of passive demand. Others must prove something to me but I need not question the beliefs I do have nor take a more active role in inquiry. You see this especially in academics where often confirmation biases come into play. One is skeptical of those outside ones group, demanding they meet a burden of proof while rationalizing of the positions ones own group holds. That rationalizing element in particular can be a problem. (I'm sure some here think I do that when I raise issues relative to our ignorance of pre-exilic Israel) Like that GA quote goes. It's not enough to doubt. We must also doubt our doubts. It's that self-reflective pointing of skepticism towards ones own presuppositions - often presuppositions that aren't obvious - that tends to get neglected.

I don't see a thin line between skeptic and cynic.  My version of skepticism I try to apply to all categories of thought, sacred cows, tribal orientations.  That is partly why I have such a hard time aligning with any particular group these days because I've got criticisms of so many elements of various ways of orienting to the world.  I am very concerned about various different biases and I seek to be aware of these biases.  I guess I see all this as a very healthy way of operating that fits well with my personality.  I actually agree with the doubt your doubts concept in a certain sense, but I see it frequently misused by believers who want to assert that its only your doubts that you should take a critical approach to, and not your beliefs.  I think we should be critical and thoughtful about both our beliefs and our doubts.  

[jkwilliams]

40 minutes ago, changed said:

 

It seems some are tested quite a bit more than others, and some are given a more secure educational background than others.  Willing to receive?  It just does not feel like G-d is offering everyone the same resources or opportunities.  Some are "chosen" and others are despised.  

Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated....

G-d hates some, and loves others.  

... I think I am one of the ones he hates.  

I understand that completely. It sometimes feels that way, but as the poet said, "Five to one, baby, one in five. No one here gets out alive." We all have our own issues and trials and pain, even those who look like they don't have any problems at all. I'm with Thomas Hardy in that I'd rather know that there's some "vengeful god" causing all this pain than to know it's all just random chance.

If but some vengeful god would call to me

From up the sky, and laugh: “Thou suffering thing,

Know that thy sorrow is my ecstasy,

That thy love's loss is my hate's profiting!” 

 

Then would I bear it, clench myself, and die,

Steeled by the sense of ire unmerited;

Half-eased in that a Powerfuller than I

Had willed and meted me the tears I shed.

 

But not so.   How arrives it joy lies slain,

And why unblooms the best hope ever sown?

—Crass Casualty obstructs the sun and rain,

And dicing Time for gladness casts a moan. . . .

These purblind Doomsters had as readily strown

Blisses about my pilgrimage as pain.

Edited July 9, 2018 by jkwilliams

[CA Steve]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess my point was that peeling paint, dings, and an old captain are fairly insignificant flaws in a boat when you need rescuing, and most people would gladly overlook those issues. For me, anyway, pointing to minor flaws is minimizing the issues with the church. Not only that, but it's equating doubt with nitpicking and complaining, when it's much more than that. 

Well the problem is, the whole analogy hinges on there just being one ship. I suppose if there were someone there at the talk who was able to offer a doubters actual perspective, that person might suggest that he wasn't jumping back into the water, he was transferring to another ship that was better maintained.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Well the problem is, the whole analogy hinges on there just being one ship. I suppose if there were someone there at the talk who was able to offer a doubters actual perspective, that person might suggest that he wasn't jumping back into the water, he was transferring to another ship that was better maintained.

Exactly. If a boat approaches that is on fire or sinking, I think I'll take my chances waiting for another boat to come along.

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, changed said:

It seems some are tested quite a bit more than others, and some are given a more secure educational background than others.  Willing to receive?  It just does not feel like G-d is offering everyone the same resources or opportunities.  Some are "chosen" and others are despised. 

If there's really some variety of free will (here meaning simply God doesn't control choices) then that means there can't be equality. I'm not sure it's fair to blame God for that beyond allowing the basic biological propensity towards violence.

Now of course the reason people care about this is because life in particular seems so unfair. That's the real practical problem of evil which leads many to doubt the existence of any God worthy of the name. I think the Mormon approach to evil and this life as probationary gets us part way to the answer, but can't answer everything. That is it can answer why there must be some evils. It can't answer why there is this level of suffering or why the suffering has to be so unequally distributed. At best we have the theology that Christ's atonement can eventually heal all equally. Of course as J K mentioned above, I'm not sure the "it's all random chance" is exactly a whole lot more satisfying.

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Agreed. The other thing is that even the "strongest" wordplay examples are pretty flimsy, IMO. Abish meaning "father-man" because she was converted by a dream of her father? How is that even a thing? 

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. I think I can still be skeptical towards them but some do seem stronger my eyes. But some, like Abish, are weaker. (Although to be fair names having significance within narratives is definitely a Semitic thing - to the point that names may I suspect get renamed) To be fair I really should go through the list that's in the other thread and see which, if any, are still mildly persuasive to me. I've just not had time to do that.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So, even though more blessings are afforded to those that humble themselves, those who are compelled to be humble through difficult experiences essentially get the same reward of salvation.  This says nothing of authority or exclusivity or denominational truth claims.  Alma 32 is essentially a utilitarian approach to principles that have real world application and the trial and error approach to the gospel.  

But it says nothing about how that salvation will be accomplished (at least in that chapter although obviously contextually the answer is Christ - but it's not clear in Alma and Amulek's sermon what that means in practice). So I wouldn't say Alma 32 entails a more utilitarian approach. (I know Mark has verged in that direction but I don't think even he would go so far as to say it's purely utilitarian) 

My own view on Alma 32 is that the process described in Alma 32 arises out of the Hebrew conception of truth. That is for Hebrew truth is more properly a property of objects rather than intermediate quasi-linguistic propositions. A thing shows itself to be true in the sense of being what it appears to be as it functions over time. So a true tent peg is a peg that keeps a tent down. That's only unveiled over time.

A prophet's words thus have their meaning and truth in terms of the objects described. We find out over time whether they are what they appear. So the "being compelled" really is just those who doubt something is true but the objects show they are true. Typically with prophetic speech this is warnings of conquest, pestilence or so forth. So a lot of that "compelled" is in terms of prophetic warning. Relative to Alma and Abinadi that's the warnings to the Zoramites about the commandments which the Zoramites reject. In this case it is the reality of Christ and judgment. So this "compel" shouldn't be seen as salvation but rather the destruction.

With regards to the particulars of Alma 32 the key part is verse 16. "Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart..." So in the context of Alma's narrative salvation is still involving baptism and so forth.

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So your preference for a theology that asserts specific ideas to be ontologically true, things like Moroni visiting Joseph or an actual physical resurrection, is one approach that bears fruit for you personally, and that is great. 

I'm not quite sure what ontologically true means. Not a criticism just that I mean a fairly traditional sense of true as "really happened." I'm doing my best to avoid ontological baggage.

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

However, there are others who find fruit through different paths within and without Mormonism, and those paths have no connection to the same preferences you've asserted.  And since you've acknowledged that their paths are also valid based on their unique circumstances, I think you've essentially also embraced the very relativity you are critiquing, and I would say thats a good thing and that its compatible with many ideas within Mormonism.  

But there's a difference between true and useful. Not to get political, but lots of politicians find lies are really useful. That doesn't make them true. It's rather likely lots of people believe lies that make them happy. Now believing false things may be necessary for a person's particular psychological makeup and circumstance even if they could believe the truth. But it's still a falsehood.

That's not relativity though. Relativity more or less says there aren't truths that are independent of being psychologically short term useful. That I reject. It may make someone happy to believe the earth was created 7000 years ago. But it's just not true. Eventually if they continue to inquire they'll have to accept that it wasn't.

54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't see a thin line between skeptic and cynic.  My version of skepticism I try to apply to all categories of thought, sacred cows, tribal orientations. 

But most people's skepticisms aren't like that. That is skepticism can be useful because it leads to doubt that leads us to inquire to resolve the doubt. Or skepticism can be harmful because it leads to doubt that cuts of inquiry leads to stasis and no progression. Now of course in practice everyone is a mix of the two, but the latter is unfortunately much, much more common.

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

I have been really struggling with trust issues - one bad apple (child molester) has made me doubt all priesthood holders.  How was this bad apple put in leadership callings?  How was he sustained year after year?  No one had the spirit to stop him  He lied through every interview he had, went to the temple, and no one ever felt the need to stop him?  ... and there was another bad apple too - not quite as bad, but a liar who was never questioned, never stopped...

Don't trust in the arm of flesh - is it possible to be a member of the LDs church if you do not trust any of the priesthood holders, if you do not trust the prophet or any human?  

 

i sympathize with you so much.  Yes the church is run by humans that are not perfect and make mistakes. The problem is not that the church is run by humans, but that the church claims some kind of divine guidance.  That is a wonderful claim to make, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that is happening, as you found out, and as I have found out.  Trust God.  Find your own connection to Him.  It gets better.