No one should be accused of lacking faith because they have questions

[Coop]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'll provide an example but is it obviously anecdotal and I do not have any kind of "reference" to back it up.  So if someone is going to be tempted to hit me back with a CFR, just stop reading.

A friend of mine, during her temple recommend interview, told our bishop that she did not agree with the Brethren's position on LGBT issues (her beliefs are the result of personal inspiration on this question).  He signed her recommend but reported the conversation to our stake president.  When she interviewed with the stake president he told her that he wouldn't sign the recommend because her beliefs were not in alignment with the Brethren.

I'll provide another example.

When the November policy on same sex marriage came out I pointed out to my Bishop that there were a number of problems with it.  He had no idea that there was a problem and didn't know what to do.  So I went to the Stake President.  When I explained the problems with the policy he agreed and said the Brethren were aware of the issue and were working on it. (I anticipate changes in the interview questions)   In the mean time I also expressed my belief that same sex marriage wasn't a sin and that I disavowed any notion that it was.  He said he didn't care what I thought as long as I didn't share my beliefs with others.  I replied and said that I share this belief with all that I meet.  He then said that as long as my doing this doesn't cause any problems he would be okay signing my temple recommend, and when it came up for renewal he was good to his word.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, Coop said:

I'll provide another example.

When the November policy on same sex marriage came out I pointed out to my Bishop that there were a number of problems with it.  He had no idea that there was a problem and didn't know what to do.  So I went to the Stake President.  When I explained the problems with the policy he agreed and said the Brethren were aware of the issue and were working on it. (I anticipate changes in the interview questions)   In the mean time I also expressed my belief that same sex marriage wasn't a sin and that I disavowed any notion that it was.  He said he didn't care what I thought as long as I didn't share my beliefs with others.  I replied and said that I share this belief with all that I meet.  He then said that as long as my doing this doesn't cause any problems he would be okay signing my temple recommend, and when it came up for renewal he was good to his word.

So this is an example of not needing to keep it to yourself, but to not cause problems. I take causing problems to be apostasy in the Handbook 1 sense.

[blueglass]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Accounts_R3.pdf

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/BYU_H_Social+Faith_R5.pdf

Thanks for posting links to these reports.  A lot of time was spent to format and organize these professionally.  

Edited October 30, 2018 by blueglass

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Coop said:

I'll provide another example.

When the November policy on same sex marriage came out I pointed out to my Bishop that there were a number of problems with it.  He had no idea that there was a problem and didn't know what to do.  So I went to the Stake President.  When I explained the problems with the policy he agreed and said the Brethren were aware of the issue and were working on it. (I anticipate changes in the interview questions)   In the mean time I also expressed my belief that same sex marriage wasn't a sin and that I disavowed any notion that it was.  He said he didn't care what I thought as long as I didn't share my beliefs with others.  I replied and said that I share this belief with all that I meet.  He then said that as long as my doing this doesn't cause any problems he would be okay signing my temple recommend, and when it came up for renewal he was good to his word.

 

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So this is an example of not needing to keep it to yourself, but to not cause problems. I take causing problems to be apostasy in the Handbook 1 sense.

 

That is great that @Coop had such a positive experience.  I had a similar experience with a past Bishop. 

The sister in my example was not causing problems, she just expressed her belief to the Bishop and then the Stake President.  And that was enough to be denied a recommend. 

Leadership roulette. 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

This kind of what I was trying to get at. She is heartbroken but doesn’t feel compromised for sharing her views, so I would guess she still feels she did the right thing by not keeping them to herself. Maybe she’ll change her views someday; maybe she’ll find joy in sharing them with others as time goes on. I’ve known people who had greater joy (or simply slept better) in their personal integrity than in having a recommend they suspect they would not otherwise have. Often they are motivated to genuinely qualify for that recommend, depending on their personal priorities, and I suppose there are some that rationalize their opposition as a form of sustaining their leaders' greater potential, or not qualifying as that big a problem, and can answer the questions so as to keep a recommend.

She is a wonderful faithful and Christlike person.  I’m confident she will find joy.

That said, she shouldn’t be forced to choose between personal integrity and receiving a recommend. 

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That is great that @Coop had such a positive experience.  I had a similar experience with a past Bishop. 

The sister in my example was not causing problems, she just expressed her belief to the Bishop and then the Stake President.  And that was enough to be denied a recommend. 

Leadership roulette. 

 

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

She is a wonderful faithful and Christlike person.  I’m confident she will find joy.

That said, she shouldn’t be forced to choose between personal integrity and receiving a recommend. 

I'm wondering what the difference between you and your ward sister is. Did you have different bishops / stake presidents? Do you think you each come cross or interview differently?

Edited October 30, 2018 by CV75

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

The gospel according to stemelbow. Just because he is comparing them to animals because of their behavior does not mean that he does not still love them. 

I pointed out, in contrast to what you said, that he didn't call it like it is.  He did the opposite of that.  I didn't say anything about loving anyone.  

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

I'm wondering what the difference between you and your ward sister is. Did you have different bishops / stake presidents? Do you think you each come cross or interview differently?

I was in a different ward and stake at the time.  

I’ve heard enough from other members in this new Stake to know that I shouldn’t express any questions, doubts, or non-mainstream  beliefs. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by rockpond

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was in a different ward and stake at the time.  

I’ve heard enough from other members in this new Stake to know that I shouldn’t express any questions, doubts, or non-mainstream  beliefs. 

Is that because it would be construed as apostasy?

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Is that because it would be construed as apostasy?

Because it could be construed as something that should restrict me from holding a temple recommend. 

It shouldn’t be apostasy but you illustrate my point well with your question.  I had questions.  I prayed, pondered, and studied and the Spirit led me to answers that may not be perfectly aligned with the Brethren.  I can’t express those answers publicly for fear of being accused of apostasy. 

[stemelbow]

If one asks, Did the First Vision happen as the Pearl of Great Price says it did?  

Then one is likely to get a response from some member testifying that he/she knows Joseph saw God and Jesus, and end it in the name of Jesus.  I suppose the listener will likely assume the questioner doesn't know about the Church or is lacking in faith.  It I think will always be so.  

But if one says, look I've read the history.  I've studied the various accounts.  I question whether it really happened as it says it did in the Pearl of Great Price.  It sounds to me it was dreaming.  The BoM tells us a vision is really just a dream.  So it appears he dreamed seeing God and Jesus and that helps to account for the contradictions in his accounts, partly because when a person dreams something, that person likely dreams something about that dream again...and again...and again.  It's obvious he used those around him to help craft the story of the first vision so it got better in time.  It became more meaningful and useful in the event of Church restoration as a result of that crafting.  I don't know that the teenager Joseph knew more about God as a result of that dream than any professor of religion of that time, mostly because of that.  So, is the first vision really all that important to me?  

A response may be something similar about someone testifying that they know stuff that they don't know and perhaps getting a bit defensive about calling the vision a dream or whatever...but the listener will proably have a bit of a different thought in his/her head.  That questioner is not only lacking faith, and perhaps ignorant, but also is one who is like unto a woof in sheep's clothes wanting to lead people away from the correlated Church story.   it may even be that this questioner will be brought up in church leadership meetings saying he/she is someone we need to worry about and proceed with caution with, because he/she is saying things that are of the uncorrelated type and he/she thinks he/she knows more than the prophet or is trying to tell the church what to do.  

It's nice to think that someone shouldn't be made to feel lesser for asking questions, but of course it feels empty because we know that someone who questions is treated with suspicion, not just be local members hanging around the halls on Sunday but also by leaders at the highest levels.  

[pogi]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I can’t express those answers publicly for fear of being accused of apostasy. 

No need, I'll just take your word for it. 

You apostate!

[changed]

On 10/29/2018 at 2:45 PM, Storm Rider said:

Some of the statements here (Changed comments are an example) are prime examples of relying on the arm of flesh and choosing to walk in the mists of darkness. Relying on the arm of flesh is believing that "I" can do it better than God can; my thoughts are the ultimate in all thought. Changed states that (s)he rejects relying on the arm of flesh while actually choosing to do just that. Relying on the arm of flesh is an unwillingness to be humble and/or to follow. This is very different from the need to gain one's own spiritual witness to the reality of Jesus Christ as our Master, Savior, and King.

God created us as social creatures; he recognizes the need for political structures to govern his children in the same way that he has organized his children with spiritual guidance through those he calls. It is pretty clear that the Church of Jesus Christ teaches its members to be subject to a broad range of political structures. The Church also teaches that there are those on the earth that are called to govern the temporal organization of the Church. 

I believe that some of these individuals are gifted leaders and prophets/apostles of Jesus Christ. I think others are just good administrators and for me or not often inspiring. I expect that they also might be very inspiring to others. I also think that we are inspired by truth wherever we find it or teaches it. We have been taught to seek these out and accept them for our own. 

A whole lot of pride and misunderstanding often leads to personal apostasy. 

 

Pride leads to leaving the church?  or is it humble honesty that causes someone to leave... 

Humility "... I guess I was wrong..." - this is what causes people to change

Pride  "... my church is right, and all others are wrong, it does not matter what anyone says, or what evidence you think you have, I know I am right..."?  is that the better road to take?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

But if one says, look I've read the history.  I've studied the various accounts.  I question whether it really happened as it says it did in the Pearl of Great Price.  It sounds to me it was dreaming...

I would respond that this "dream" type of vision is actually supported by the Pearl of Great Price. 

Quote

When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven.

This sounds to me like his vision left the temporal realm and entered the spiritual in a type of dream/vision.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It's nice to think that someone shouldn't be made to feel lesser for asking questions, but of course it feels empty because we know that someone who questions is treated with suspicion, not just be local members hanging around the halls on Sunday but also by leaders at the highest levels.  

 This doesn't sound empty at all to me.  I think Ballard recognizes this knee-jerk reaction of some Latter-day Saints to treat a questioner with suspicion, but isn't that precisely why he brought it up - to try and put an end to it?

Read what bluebell posted:

Quote

 At one point he stated that he hated to hear of members with honest and sincere questions who are made to feel as if they are lacking faith for asking them. He said that that is not appropriate and that there is nothing wrong with asking questions. 

In what way is that empty?  Are you suggesting that he wasn't being sincere, or that he didn't really mean it?  I don't see this as empty at all.  I sounds genuine to me, as if he really, really wants it to stop.  And thus his counsel to stop it. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by pogi

[changed]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

So this is an example of not needing to keep it to yourself, but to not cause problems. I take causing problems to be apostasy in the Handbook 1 sense.

 

Two roads to travel ... the yellow road people tend to keep everything to themselves.... quite a few traveling the yellow road.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf?fbclid=IwAR25l_BL1dyKfb_rwZLp_1DjUBDWMZoRV9vQGEtKnILmI8-5qCqi-GtwCdk

 

SBNA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious  "Spiritual but not affiliated" (SBNA) is better than atheist don't you think?  If someone is going to start down one of these paths, the better path is the "less-literal" believer, so why not allow people to travel the "believer" path? even encourage it?

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by changed

[changed]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If one asks, Did the First Vision happen as the Pearl of Great Price says it did?  

Then one is likely to get a response from some member testifying that he/she knows Joseph saw God and Jesus, and end it in the name of Jesus.  I suppose the listener will likely assume the questioner doesn't know about the Church or is lacking in faith.  It I think will always be so.  

But if one says, look I've read the history.  I've studied the various accounts.  I question whether it really happened as it says it did in the Pearl of Great Price.  It sounds to me it was dreaming.  The BoM tells us a vision is really just a dream.  So it appears he dreamed seeing God and Jesus and that helps to account for the contradictions in his accounts, partly because when a person dreams something, that person likely dreams something about that dream again...and again...and again.  It's obvious he used those around him to help craft the story of the first vision so it got better in time.  It became more meaningful and useful in the event of Church restoration as a result of that crafting.  I don't know that the teenager Joseph knew more about God as a result of that dream than any professor of religion of that time, mostly because of that.  So, is the first vision really all that important to me?  

A response may be something similar about someone testifying that they know stuff that they don't know and perhaps getting a bit defensive about calling the vision a dream or whatever...but the listener will proably have a bit of a different thought in his/her head.  That questioner is not only lacking faith, and perhaps ignorant, but also is one who is like unto a woof in sheep's clothes wanting to lead people away from the correlated Church story.   it may even be that this questioner will be brought up in church leadership meetings saying he/she is someone we need to worry about and proceed with caution with, because he/she is saying things that are of the uncorrelated type and he/she thinks he/she knows more than the prophet or is trying to tell the church what to do.  

It's nice to think that someone shouldn't be made to feel lesser for asking questions, but of course it feels empty because we know that someone who questions is treated with suspicion, not just be local members hanging around the halls on Sunday but also by leaders at the highest levels.  

 

I think not only should someone not be made to feel lesser for asking honest questions, but "cafeteria members" should be welcomed and appreciated for their honesty.  Faith is a journey, no one is going to have a 100% testimony in 100% of all the doctrines from their 8yo B-day.  Allow everyone to be honest with where they are, support them into higher stages of testimony - just a natural progression, nothing to be alarmed about.  

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Two roads to travel ... the yellow road people tend to keep everything to themselves.... quite a few traveling the yellow road.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf?fbclid=IwAR25l_BL1dyKfb_rwZLp_1DjUBDWMZoRV9vQGEtKnILmI8-5qCqi-GtwCdk

 

SBNA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious  "Spiritual but not affiliated" (SBNA) is better than atheist don't you think?  If someone is going to start down one of these paths, the better path is the "less-literal" believer, so why not allow people to travel the "believer" path? even encourage it?

 

This is an accurate representation of my journey.  I would consider myself in the "less literal believer" category right now.  But I am hopeful that I can stay there.  I don't really want to be a secular participant (not that there is anything wrong with that).  Nor do I want to jump over to the disbeliever path.

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, changed said:

 

I think not only should someone not be made to feel lesser for asking honest questions, but "cafeteria members" should be welcomed and appreciated for their honesty.  Faith is a journey, no one is going to have a 100% testimony in 100% of all the doctrines from their 8yo B-day.  Allow everyone to be honest with where they are, support them into higher stages of testimony - just a natural progression, nothing to be alarmed about.  

Amen to this!

[pogi]

50 minutes ago, changed said:

 

Two roads to travel ... the yellow road people tend to keep everything to themselves.... quite a few traveling the yellow road.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf?fbclid=IwAR25l_BL1dyKfb_rwZLp_1DjUBDWMZoRV9vQGEtKnILmI8-5qCqi-GtwCdk

I don't like this linear graph at all.  It suggests that a less-literal believer is simply on his way to becoming a "secular participant" and that he is not a "true" believer at all.  It suggests that the only way to become a less-literal believer is to pass through some sort of spiritual trauma. 

It doesn't have to be trauma that leads one to be less-literal, it can also happen because of a spiritual experience which deepens belief and conviction.

I am much less literal today than I was 20 years ago.  But my belief and commitment is stronger than ever.  I definitely consider myself a "true" believer, much more than I was anyway.

Edited October 30, 2018 by pogi

[Calm]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I don't like this linear graph at all.  It suggests that a less-literal believer is simply on his way to becoming a "secular participant" and that he is not a "true" believer at all.  It suggests that the only way to become a less-literal believer is to pass through some sort of spiritual trauma.

I often find that the less-literal believers are often the most prayerful and spiritually in-tune.  

This.

[Storm Rider]

5 hours ago, changed said:

Pride leads to leaving the church?  or is it humble honesty that causes someone to leave... 

Humility "... I guess I was wrong..." - this is what causes people to change

Pride  "... my church is right, and all others are wrong, it does not matter what anyone says, or what evidence you think you have, I know I am right..."?  is that the better road to take?

1

1

I see this position relatively often regarding pride. The fear of being right; the rejection of truth unless it is completely subjective. For example, they posit there cannot be an objective truth because that makes those who have it superior i.e. prideful. Truth must only be held if it is "my" truth; this allows everyone else to have their truth and everyone is equal and thus, no one demonstrates pride. It is thought that objective truth is impossible to possess. If it was then an individual would possess it and that would introduce pride and superiority, which would prevent "me" from being tolerant (i.e. morally superior to all those intolerant people) and accepting of others.

I reject this position in toto. Truth exists and it is objective and never subjective. If it is subjective it becomes just a fantasy that can only exist in the mind of an individual. Possessing truth is not prideful or intolerant - it is the result of a difficult process of study, reflection, and prayer. Its discovery is an interaction with God.

You set up a strawman argument, which I reject also. The Church of Jesus Christ is the restored church of the Savior on earth. No other church, denomination, organization, or faith has the authority to perform Jesus' ordinances. This does not mean that truth does not exist in them - to the contrary, they are often full of truth and they are examples that teach disciples of Jesus Christ how better to serve and know him more fully. In this proposal, there are shades of truth and none should demean any other religious faith because they possess the truth.

My main criticism of your position was your attack on the arm of flesh and equating it to following prophets. You proudly stated that you could and would only follow your own thoughts - this is a prime example of what having faith in the arm of flesh is all about. It is the inability to follow - my thoughts are better and greater than anyone else's. It was evident that you did not see this problem in your logic.

You have a high degree of confusion on many things. If I were to leave the Church it would be because I found greater comfort elsewhere - it is not humility. I think that some are not comfortable with the laws of Exaltation; a lower law is more comfortable. There may be pride involved, but not always. Pride enters in when I begin to say you are wrong, I know better; the prophets are liars and I will follow my own path. The first path I described is one I see more often with those that simply leave and don't seek any media attention or want to prove their rightness to all the stupid members of the Chruch. We really only hear from the prideful ones, the second path, because of their manner of talking so loudly. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Storm Rider

[CV75]

2 hours ago, changed said:

 

Two roads to travel ... the yellow road people tend to keep everything to themselves.... quite a few traveling the yellow road.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf?fbclid=IwAR25l_BL1dyKfb_rwZLp_1DjUBDWMZoRV9vQGEtKnILmI8-5qCqi-GtwCdk

 

SBNA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_but_not_religious  "Spiritual but not affiliated" (SBNA) is better than atheist don't you think?  If someone is going to start down one of these paths, the better path is the "less-literal" believer, so why not allow people to travel the "believer" path? even encourage it?

 

This is interesting because I consider non-literal belief to be part of a greater spirituality (and very non-secular); in other words, an attribute of a “true believer.” Semantics perhaps. Who put this diagram together, and what is their paradigm?

Not that I’m the most spiritual person, and I can’t think of anything more tedious and stultifying than being a secular participant in what the Church has to offer, but I consider myself to be a non-literal believer and a “true believer” in that I’m really trying to be a better disciple.

People have lots of reasons for keeping their opposition to the Brethren's teaching to themselves; I think the better ones (i.e. the more altruistic and charitable reasons) can help someone become a better member over time and resolve their views.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Because it could be construed as something that should restrict me from holding a temple recommend. 

It shouldn’t be apostasy but you illustrate my point well with your question.  I had questions.  I prayed, pondered, and studied and the Spirit led me to answers that may not be perfectly aligned with the Brethren.  I can’t express those answers publicly for fear of being accused of apostasy. 

What is wrong with being accused of apostasy? If it is true, embrace it; if it is not, take the high road knowing the Lord is with you in eh integrity of your heart.

I once had a stake president treat me and speak to me according to some misinformation he believed. This was during an interview for various callings he had in mind. I told him I can only function as the Lord's servant in an environment of trust, and if he couldn't trust me, don't call me to any of them. I also asked him what he wanted to know about my character, and what specific questions he had (he didn't offer any at that point). I felt the Lord with me and supporting me more than I would have had I been on his good side! and it felt really, really good.

I don't (and didn't) see his flaws as hurting me or anyone else; the stake ran just fine.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Truth, if it exists, is objective and never subjective. If it is subjective it is a fantasy that only exists in the mind of the individual.

You better watch out for @mfbukowski. Next thing you know he's going to posting Rorty videos at you  

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You better watch out for @mfbukowski. Next thing you know he's going to posting Rorty videos at you  

Omigosh. 

So many errors, so little time.