rockpond Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more honest. I am completely honest in my TR interviews.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I'm not sure what you mean by "confected" in this context. These are not concerns that they are coming up with on their own. As you wrote, they are reading about these concerns online. Someone else has put them together for them. Quote My leaders seem to think I'm doing a good job. Indeed. And as you clearly noted above, where you live there are members who actively deceive their leaders when it comes to their lack of belief.
clarkgoble Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, this is a really good point, and I completely agree. We're seeing this even in Mormonism, and I wonder if there have been any survey questions that would help provide some additional support for this. There have been a few. Distrust in even democracy is one polls in both the US and the EU have noted.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: I am completely honest in my TR interviews. But you know members (more than we can imagine) who aren't.
clarkgoble Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 (edited) 47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Yes, this is a really good point, and I completely agree. We're seeing this even in Mormonism, and I wonder if there have been any survey questions that would help provide some additional support for this. I know social disengagement is a common interpretation about the rise of the Nones. That is religion is just an other manifestation of a broader disengagement. The main evidence is Pew finding that the religiously active are also more active in volunteer groups, community groups and sports. Pew also found that the Nones are low on feeling it important to belong "to a community of people who share your values and beliefs." Whether that's a rise of Lockean individualism or something else isn't clear. I think the point is that there appears to be strong correlation between those who disengage from organized religion and disengaging from other types of organization. There's even signs that the upcoming generation (18-25 year olds) are disengaging even from social media. I tried to post the link to Pew but for some reason to forum flags it as inappropriate. Just do a search for Pew None disengagement. My personal guess is that the main drivers are too much social control (not enough independence when young), smaller family sizes and smartphones & other electronics. 12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: The section in the quote that says "Objectivity disguises a play for power" is a critique that Bushman says some Frenchmen and postmodern thinkers have about the principle of objectivity, saying that it is essentially impossible to have. Bushman DISAGREES with how far they take their critique and he says "I, for one, am loath to go all the way with postmodernist thinkers. It is very hard to relinquish faith in some measure of objective scholarship." This is really important point and gets at a place many misread Derrida. Derrida adopts a Nietzschean/Foucaltean play of power but thinks that the ultimate power is what we might term reality itself. That's not his term mind you. Foucault sees it as actual political power. Derrida's is much more impersonal. It's not traditional objectivity but neither is it traditional subjectivity and power-plays. (Foucault, I should note, really, really disliked Derrida) For various reasons French philosophy as understood by American non-philosophers tends to be this weird hybrid between Foucault and Derrida that's probably not fair to either. It's that status quo that I think Bushman is disagreeing with but that underlies a lot of gender, cultural or racial critiques of objectivity. Edited November 27, 2018 by clarkgoble 1
rockpond Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 Just now, Hamba Tuhan said: These are not concerns that they are coming up with on their own. As you wrote, they are reading about these concerns online. Someone else has put them together for them. Indeed. And as you clearly noted above, where you live there are members who actively deceive their leaders when it comes to their lack of belief. I have not "clearly noted" that. You are misrepresenting my words and have accused me of not being honest. I rarely report posts but you're pushing me in that direction.
rockpond Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 Just now, Hamba Tuhan said: But you know members (more than we can imagine) who aren't. I know of none.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: I have not "clearly noted" that. Here's your post: 55 minutes ago, rockpond said: I know there are active non-believers in my current ward. There were in my previous ward as well. And my ward before that had a couple. They all hold or held temple recommends at the time and you likely wouldn't know that they were non-believers (referring to the primary truth claims of the church) unless they opened up to you. You may have constructed a mental space where you honestly believe that a member can hold a temple recommend whilst being a non-believer in 'the primary truth claims of the Church', but I doubt very many people on this forum would agree. I'm happy for others to correct me. Quote You are misrepresenting my words and have accused me of not being honest. I haven't accused you of being dishonest. I've merely taken note of the dishonesty and deception that you've claimed is prevalent in every ward you've lived in and the possible implications of it. Edited November 27, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan
rockpond Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Here's your post: You may have constructed a mental space where you honestly believe that a member can hold a temple recommend whilst being a non-believer in 'the primary truth claims of the Church', but I doubt very many people on this forum would agree. I'm happy for others to correct me. I haven't accused you of being dishonest. I've merely taken note of the dishonesty and deception that you've claimed is prevalent in every ward you've lived in and the possible implications of it. You wrote: "Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more honest." Sounds like an accusation (baseless) that I am not being fully honest. I don't need to "construct a mental space" as you've described. And I'm not really concerned with whether or not many people on this forum would agree with you. The temple recommend questions are what they are and they don't require a belief in many of the truth claims of the church. If you want to read them that way, you may. But your interpretation does not apply to everyone. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'd like to honor those who feel that its important even if it doesn't make sense to you or [me]. Yeah, easily done. Things don't have to make sense to me if they work for other people. Quote Its interesting that for more orthodox members, perhaps like yourself, they seem to harbor these kinds of hopes that a person like myself may over time have faith rekindled. The converse of this would be for me to hope that orthodox participants would over time lose their faith and become more agnostic like myself. I'm not sure that I wish for that to happen from my vantage point. I think it's a natural tendency to want good things for people. When food is delicious, I want others to try it. Quote After thinking about your point, I imagine we shouldn't fault those who do wish that their religious counterparts lose their faith in God, because that is precisely the same kind of thing as hoping that people who lost faith in God rekindle their faith. Yeah, if that's really how they feel, I don't fault them. Just like I don't fault my Muslim friend who desperately wants me to convert to Islam. I take it as a genuine sign that he cares about me.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 1 minute ago, rockpond said: You wrote: "Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel more honest." Sounds like an accusation (baseless) that I am not being fully honest. You are right. I actually thought I'd written something else there, but my brain wrote 'honest'. I've corrected my post, and I sincerely apologise.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: If you want to read them that way, you may. But your interpretation does not apply to everyone. Fair enough. And hopefully you'll be OK with acknowledging that most of the faithful Saints I go to church with would see this as, at best, 'whitewashing' one's answers.
rockpond Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Fair enough. And hopefully you'll be OK with acknowledging that most of the faithful Saints I go to church with would see this as, at best, 'whitewashing' one's answers. Yes, I acknowledge that. And I think that rigidity is something we, collectively, are going to have to work on if we want to correct some of the problems the church is currently dealing with.
rockpond Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Improved. But I don't have a need to "feel better" about my status with the church and my temple recommend. It sounds like you are the one with concerns, not me.
hope_for_things Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Yeah, easily done. Things don't have to make sense to me if they work for other people. I think it's a natural tendency to want good things for people. When food is delicious, I want others to try it. Yeah, if that's really how they feel, I don't fault them. Just like I don't fault my Muslim friend who desperately wants me to convert to Islam. I take it as a genuine sign that he cares about me. This sounds surprisingly fair to me. I often hear believers complaining about how some ExMormon family member or friend of theirs is posting on social media things that are critical of the church. And I am often tempted to ask them if they have ever posted anything critical of the beliefs of others on their social media(I'm thinking of all the political posts I see), or if they have ever posted anything of an overtly pro-Mormon nature on their social media. I think both sides of that coin are essentially the same. People are evangelizing for their beliefs both pro and con and I like what you said that it is a sign that people care about something.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: I think both sides of that coin are essentially the same. People are evangelizing for their beliefs both pro and con and I like what you said that it is a sign that people care about something. Yeah, I think the Latter-day prophets have all made it clear that we need to support an open and fair exchange of ideas. You'll never hear me complain about that. I think people have every right to try to persuade me politically, religiously, or otherwise. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: And I think that rigidity is something we, collectively, are going to have to work on if we want to correct some of the problems the church is currently dealing with. I hope everyone will remember this the next time someone is inclined to accuse the Church or its leaders of whitewashing some narrative or another!
Glenn101 Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, rockpond said: The difficult truth claims of the church aren't really present in the TR questions. As one good brother (who was an active non-believer) put it when I interviewed him for his recommend: he hoped that it was true even though he lacked a spiritual witness and despite his mind telling him that it wasn't. The foundational truth claims are explicit. The "difficult" ones flow from the foundational ones. But the "primary" truth claims was what you originally said. Now I am not going to be the judge of anyone who really does not believe those truth claims. That will be God and he is the one who know's a person's heart. I just personally could not answer the faith questions about the restoration etc. if I did not firmly believe in all that it implies. Glenn Edited November 27, 2018 by Glenn101 added a clarifying thought or two
rockpond Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I hope everyone will remember this the next time someone is inclined to accuse the Church or its leaders of whitewashing some narrative or another! Not sure what you mean by that. I believe the Church and its leaders have whitewashed much of our narrative -- but I do understand their reasons for doing so. And I think they are gently trying to correct some of it.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: And I think they are gently trying to correct some of it. Let's see if the people you described in your wards follow suit.
rockpond Posted November 27, 2018 Posted November 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Let's see if the people you described in your wards follow suit. You seem to have missed an important distinction. It’s one thing to actually whitewash our historical narrative. It’s another thing for members to inappropriately decide that another member has whitewashed their TR answers.
clarkgoble Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Analytics said: As I recall, he said that a miracle is by definition the least likely possibility--that's what makes it a miracle. In any case, this is a side issue. My contention is that to the extent that things can be directly or indirectly observed, they are within the purview of science, regardless of whether they are characterized as being miraculous, supernatural, or even God. But this is a side issue we can discuss in another thread if you'd like. That seems a problematic definition.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: You seem to have missed an important distinction. It’s one thing to actually whitewash our historical narrative. It’s another thing for members to inappropriately decide that another member has whitewashed their TR answers. You seem to have jumped right over the obvious parallel for some reason. If it's OK to decide that another member has whitewashed our historical narrative, then it's OK to decide that another member has whitewashed his/her temple recommend answers. And if it's OK for a member to construct a narrative that communicates a sense of belief in the absence of such belief, then surely it is OK to construct a historical narrative that communicates a sense of belief in the presence of actual belief. That in each case you find one and only one of these inappropriate suggests a personal bias. I'm remembering something right now about people who live in glass houses ... Edited November 28, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan
rockpond Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: You seem to have jumped right over the obvious parallel for some reason. If it's OK to decide that another member has whitewashed our historical narrative, then it's OK to decide that another member has whitewashed his/her temple recommend answers. And if it's OK for a member to construct a narrative that communicates a sense of belief in the absence of such belief, then surely it is OK to construct a historical narrative that communicates a sense of belief in the presence of actual belief. That in each case you find one and only one of these inappropriate suggests a personal bias. I'm remembering something right now about people who live in glass houses ... When a member goes into their temple recommend interview, their answers are between them and the Lord. That another member thinks that they might be whitewashing their answers is not relevant. If a member wants to base their belief/faith/testimony on a narrative that may be whitewashed, that is totally fine as well. If Church leaders want to whitewash the actual narrative of the Church in order to create something that suits their belief/faith/testimony or that supports certain claims to authority, that is their prerogative. But that doesn't make it a correct or true narrative.
Hamba Tuhan Posted November 28, 2018 Posted November 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: But that doesn't make it a correct or true narrative. And whitewashing one's answers in a temple recommend interview doesn't make them any more correct or true. Of course, I honestly don't expect you concede this point.
Recommended Posts