Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Much wiser than following the church-haters that Tacenda blindly follows. I guess she doesn’t realize that they are also “just human”.  

You don't know me well enough to say that, IMO. I may come off that way but you'd be surprised to learn that I don't do that at all. In fact I have the opposite reaction to "church-haters". 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I think you are throwing a lot of good people under bus with this comment.

I don't understand the use of the idiom in this case...I am not arguing against a belief her comment may be over broad (I am not sure exactly what group she is talking about, if she has someone specific in mind or otherwise), just wonder how you see her throwing them under the bus.  I am confused as to how you mean your comment given the definition below.

From wiki:

Quote

To throw (someone) under the bus" is an idiomatic phrase in English meaning to betray a friend or ally for selfish reasons. It is typically used to describe a self-defensive disavowal and severance of a previously-friendly relationship when the relationship becomes controversial or unpopular or inconvenient.

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Calm

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

As one who you may think is a church-hater and also a friend of Tacenda, I have never ever tried to persuade her one way or the other...I have only wished her to be happy in her journey and it is hers...I think you are throwing a lot of good people under bus with this comment.

Jeanne, you're not a church-hater at all, I thought Raingirl might be talking about the time I might spend on exmormon reddit or something. And on there it's mostly people struggling with family and friends and how to go about their faith crises. But on there are definitely some angry church-haters too. But I usually have the opposite reaction to church-haters as Raingirl thinks I have. Thanks for your support, and maybe I do come off that way, so I'm really not blaming Raingirl, because I might deserve some of it. 

[Jeanne]

Sorry if I have misunderstood Raingirl.  

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, there was back-and-forth that day over email. The SP initiated contact by emailing the invitation with reasons one and two, calling it a "preliminary disciplinary council."

 

No such thing.

[Meadowchik]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No such thing.

Are you sure?

[Calm]

An interview prior to a council is not a type of council itself, but an interview.   The interview probably is limited to the SP I am guessing and maybe a few others, but not a full council. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

An interview prior to a council is not a type of council itself, but an interview. 

Well that is what he called it. It sounds like it might not be an official term, atleast in English. (Our stake covered parts of 2-3 European countries, we're all multilingual, ie differing sense of terms is possible.)

The words he used stood out.

[Meadowchik]

On 12/15/2019 at 7:20 PM, smac97 said:

"Applying Voltaire's maxim, the 'perfect' (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the 'good' (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church."

I long accepted that leaders were not perfect and I didn't expect perfection from the church either. God working through imperfection, to me, exhibited his condescension and mercy. Yet at the same time, there must also be a limit to the severity of imperfection, right? Where's the line where the imperfection is not good? I considered D&C 121 to be a guide, would you agree? I'd be interested in how you evaluate that question.

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Well that is what he called it. It sounds like it might not be an official term, atleast in English. (Our stake covered parts of 2-3 European countries, we're all multilingual, ie differing sense of terms is possible.)

The words he used stood out.

I asked my husband for the email. It was in French, and it said, translated, "an interview preliminary to a disciplinary council." 

My apologies for the inaccuracy.

I communicated details to mfbukowski at the time through private message in December 2016. His support was helpful.

 

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

An interview prior to a council is not a type of council itself, but an interview.   The interview probably is limited to the SP I am guessing and maybe a few others, but not a full council. 

Just to emphasize that, given all we'd gone through, knowing whatever it was was intended as a precursor to a disciplinary council was the salient point for us. We were in a threatening situation with a violent neighbor and were trying to be guided through it and felt the confirmation of spiritual guidance. So to be called to such a meeting with worthiness in question was a very hard blow. To be refused, myself, to participate at my husband's side made it worse.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Gender-based hierarchies are not irrelevant novelties. 

Gender-based heirarchies?  I've edited my response to a question here instead of an exclamation.  I guess I am a bit confused by this terminology.  Whatever, nevermind.

And...

My father and mother were the bosses of me until I turned 18, when I became an adult.  Their sexes (gender is for electrical connectors) were important because my father was the go-to person for certain matters, my mother for other matters, and both of them together for still other matters.  They were different but equal.  Though my mother insisted upon my father showing leadership in the family, which she (usually) followed.  This is something that has been going on for multiple thousands of years in various forms.  In some forms it was (and is) bad. In other forms it was (and is) good.  But it is part of human nature, whether created by God or evolution.  As intelligent beings we can mold our cultures around the best forms of human nature -- and in some ways we are actually succeeding -- but we try to stamp it out at our peril.

I've gotten fed up with this whining over so-called "patriarchy".  "Patriarchy! Patriarchy! Patriarchy!"  Whatever.  If the so-called "patriarchy" was ever completely overturned, making men into the irresolute wimps some women seem to want, nobody would be happy, least of all women.

That's my opinion, and though I'm sure you may disagree, I do think you would prefer living in supposedly "patriarchal" Western Civilization rather than somewhere in Saudi Arabia or Persia, where your word as a woman is worthless, and you have to hide your face and hair just in case some Mullah or Imam incites some men to stone you to death.

What do I think of women?  They are the image of my Mother in Heaven.  How could I treat them, other than with utmost respect?  But our heavenly parents created us with certain roles in mind, and expect us to respect those roles. Not tear them down because "gender-based heirarchies" is somehow out of fashion.

You and I will have to disagree about much of this, I suppose. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Much wiser than following the church-haters that Tacenda blindly follows. I guess she doesn’t realize that they are also “just human”.  

I think that she has gone from that extremity to a more balanced stance than before.  Perhaps she will progress further in a positive direction!

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Gender-based heirarchies my foot.

My father and mother were the bosses of me until I turned 18, when I became an adult.  Their sexes (gender is for electrical connectors) were important because my father was the go-to person for certain matters, my mother for other matters, and both of them together for still other matters.  They were different but equal.  Though my mother insisted upon my father showing leadership in the family, which she (usually) followed.  This is something that has been going on for multiple thousands of years in various forms.  In some forms it was (and is) bad. In other forms it was (and is) good.  But it is part of human nature, whether created by God or evolution.  As intelligent beings we can mold our cultures around the best forms of human nature -- and in some ways we are actually succeeding -- but we try to stamp it out at our peril.

I've gotten fed up with this whining over so-called "patriarchy".  "Patriarchy! Patriarchy! Patriarchy!"  Whatever.  If the so-called "patriarchy" was ever completely overturned, making men into the irresolute wimps some women seem to want, nobody would be happy, least of all women.

That's my opinion, and though I'm sure you may disagree, I do think you would prefer living in supposedly "patriarchal" Western Civilization rather than somewhere in Saudi Arabia or Persia, where your word as a woman is worthless, and you have to hide your face and hair just in case some Mullah or Imam incites some men to stone you to death.

What do I think of women?  They are the image of my Mother in Heaven.  How could I treat them, other than with utmost respect?  But our heavenly parents created us with certain roles in mind, and expect us to respect those roles. Not tear them down because "gender-based heirarchies" is somehow out of fashion.

You and I will have to disagree about much of this, I suppose. 

You responded to my goal of studying the impact of patriarchy by telling me that I "might as well" study humanity in general. You described patriarchy in your family of origin, you described the more extreme forms in other world regions, and in earlier post you describe it as naturalistic.

I think it could be good to study it from the mathematical perspective. So if you agree that patriarchy exists, why do you oppose studying it specifically?

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You responded to my goal of studying the impact of patriarchy by telling me that I "might as well" study humanity in general. You described patriarchy in your family of origin, you described the more extreme forms in other world regions, and in earlier post you describe it as naturalistic.

I think it could be good to study it from the mathematical perspective. So if you agree that patriarchy exists, why do you oppose studying it specifically?

I don't oppose studying it specifically.  Go for it, if you want.  But I do think it's a waste of time and effort and is likely only to result in confirming the prejudices of the person studying it, if indeed it can produce any meaningful result.  I could be wrong, I suppose.  But I don't think that humans can be successfully evaluated using mathematics.  Are you familiar with the three-body problem in physics?  It's a very difficult problem, and though it can be solved using very advanced methods, it is extremely difficult because there is no general solution.  A mathematical treatment of humans is similarly ubercomplex, but with a trenchant difference: humans do not follow laws like physical masses (such as planets, moons, and stars) do.  As a human I can decide to do something completely unexpected on very little notice.  Where does the math go with that kind of uncertainty?  The term "irreducible complexity" comes to mind.  When that amazing humanist Isaac Asimov conceived of a branch of mathematics that could predict human history, psychohistory, even he realized that it would be no good at predicting individual human behavior.

If you insist upon a mathematical evaluation, perhaps you should start with an examination of the sexual dynamics of a much simpler organism, a pride of lions, Panthera leo.  Lion family dynamics has been well-studied and is well understood.  See how sex-selection has shaped that successful animal species. Try a thought experiment with making the male lions more like females (or vice versa), and see if you think the change will encourage or discourage species survival in the wild.  I doubt that a mathematical treatment of lions will do much towards understanding humans mathematically.

As for "patriarchy", it was a survival characteristic over nearly all of human history.  It's baked into the species.  Like I said, we can modify our culture to take advantage of its best points, but we try to eliminate at our peril as a species.

[Meadowchik]

31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I don't oppose studying it specifically.  Go for it, if you want.  But I do think it's a waste of time and effort and is likely only to result in confirming the prejudices of the person studying it, if indeed it can produce any meaningful result.  I could be wrong, I suppose.  But I don't think that humans can be successfully evaluated using mathematics.  Are you familiar with the three-body problem in physics?  It's a very difficult problem, and though it can be solved using very advanced methods, it is extremely difficult because there is no general solution.  A mathematical treatment of humans is similarly ubercomplex, but with a trenchant difference: humans do not follow laws like physical masses (such as planets, moons, and stars) do.  As a human I can decide to do something completely unexpected on very little notice.  Where does the math go with that kind of uncertainty?  The term "irreducible complexity" comes to mind.  When that amazing humanist Isaac Asimov conceived of a branch of mathematics that could predict human history, psychohistory, even he realized that it would be no good at predicting individual human behavior.

If you insist upon a mathematical evaluation, perhaps you should start with an examination of the sexual dynamics of a much simpler organism, a pride of lions, Panthera leo.  Lion family dynamics has been well-studied and is well understood.  See how sex-selection has shaped that successful animal species. Try a thought experiment with making the male lions more like females (or vice versa), and see if you think the change will encourage or discourage species survival in the wild.  I doubt that a mathematical treatment of lions will do much towards understanding humans mathematically.

As for "patriarchy", it was a survival characteristic over nearly all of human history.  It's baked into the species.  Like I said, we can modify our culture to take advantage of its best points, but we try to eliminate at our peril as a species.

If I were you, I'd check out the already-existing mathematical studies of human behaviour. There's plenty of angles of scrutiny, lots of potential for study.

Even if it were "baked in," understanding patriarchy can provide arguments for improved practices, or which are worth preserving.

['aussieguy55]

 Perhaps there should be something written on stages of disbelief. Some friendships I had in the LDS faith  have survived son long as we don't discuss LDS things.While my wife has returned to the kind of Christianity she grew up with I found it hard to associate with another church. she does church on Sundays I stay home and watch youtube videos of Bart Ehrman debating with evangelical scholars. Reading the gospels horizontally which Bart suggests is an interesting approach. I often wonder about the exchange of Jesus with the thieves. Luke has the report of an elaborate exchange while two gospels only mention both berated him. John does not mention them berating Jesus. Where did Luke get that long exchange? No one new pitman's shorthand. Those scholars who debate with him sometimes get a bit snarky. I read this once "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"  

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, 'aussieguy55 said:

 Perhaps there should be something written on stages of disbelief. Some friendships I had in the LDS faith  have survived son long as we don't discuss LDS things.While my wife has returned to the kind of Christianity she grew up with I found it hard to associate with another church. she does church on Sundays I stay home and watch youtube videos of Bart Ehrman debating with evangelical scholars. Reading the gospels horizontally which Bart suggests is an interesting approach. I often wonder about the exchange of Jesus with the thieves. Luke has the report of an elaborate exchange while two gospels only mention both berated him. John does not mention them berating Jesus. Where did Luke get that long exchange? No one new pitman's shorthand. Those scholars who debate with him sometimes get a bit snarky. I read this once "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"  

I also find debates with Bart Ehrman entertaining, but I don't use them as replacements to my church services    As an active Latter-day Saint I don't find problems with his scholarship, but only with his conclusions.  The differences in the gospel accounts make them far more realistic.  It would be more suspect (and redundant) if they contained exactly the same details and all the same events.  I think he just enjoys rattling people's cages.

Edited January 12, 2020 by InCognitus

['aussieguy55]

Smith made some strange changes in his inspired version in the relevant verses. I would like to see the mode of discussion Bart has with scholars done with LDS apologists. For example Ritner and Gee.   I disagree with you that there are no problems but then Smith solves that problem. IMO the gospels are not reliable historically. I would like to see Bart debate some LDS Biblical scholar. Some like David Bokavoy are perhaps too liberal for LDS audiences. I think the Book of Abraham is the most damaging evidence against Smith's claim as a prophet. Much like Ellen G White's plagiarisms .  Perhaps Finkelstein or Dever with some lds archaeologist.    

['aussieguy55]

Simon Southerton has a new ebook out on DNA and the Book of Mormon   https://simonsoutherton.com/

He writes "Since publishing my book, Mormon apologists have attacked me personally. They have questioned my intelligence and scientific credentials, my motives and my knowledge of what the Book of Mormon really says. They have exaggerated the limitations of DNA science, obscured the true facts it has revealed and even made false claims of positive evidence. They have also twisted the Book of Mormon narrative into a bizarre story that reduces the Lamanites to a sideshow anywhere you like in the New World. For Pete's sake! Ancestry.com knows Native Americans don't have Jewish DNA."

Can we respond without the personal stuff.

[smac97]

22 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

"Applying Voltaire's maxim, the 'perfect' (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the 'good' (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church."

I long accepted that leaders were not perfect and I didn't expect perfection from the church either. God working through imperfection, to me, exhibited his condescension and mercy.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Quote

Yet at the same time, there must also be a limit to the severity of imperfection, right? Where's the line where the imperfection is not good?

I'm not sure I understand the question.  The transgression of this theoretical limit would mean what?

Quote

I considered D&C 121 to be a guide, would you agree? I'd be interested in how you evaluate that question.

To some extent, yes, D&C 121 has some application (I assume you are referencing verses 36-39?).

A few thoughts:

1. What do you think "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man" means?  Is this a permanent thing?  Across the board?  

2. Are you applying these verses to Joseph Smith (that he was a "fallen prophet" or some such)?

3. The cessation of authority as described in these verses is necessarily predicated on the investiture of authority in the first place, right?  That is, authority must be had in order for it to later be lost through "unrighteous dominion."  That being the case, how do you read D&C 121 given the theophanies of Joseph Smith?  Either they happened, or they didn't.  Either the First Vision, the ministrations of Moroni (and others) happened, or they didn't.  These experiences either involved leading Joseph to the Plates, letting him eventually take them, and then translate them "by the gift and power of God," or they didn't.  These experiences either included the restoration of the Priesthood, or they didn't.

4. This is where the Book of Mormon becomes pretty vital.  The text exists.  It needs to be accounted for.  The statements of the Witnesses need to be accounted for.  If the book is what it claims to be, and if that is confirmed by the Spirit, then the Restoration happened, and the covenants we make in association with it are with God.  Those covenants transcend the flaws and errors of the Lord's servants.  Those covenants are real and vital, and are not negated by the errors of others. 

5. In that sense, no, there is not a "limit to the severity of imperfection" in the leaders of the Church, past and present.  If an individual leader transgresses as described in D&C 121:36-39, then that can have real consequences to him and his use of the Priesthood.  I'm not sure to what extend we are situated to render such a judgment.  I guess the particular circumstances would need to be fleshed out.  I would venture to say that, in most circumstances, such a judgment is not within our stewardship.  And we are left to follow the counsel in Mormon 9:31 ("Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.").

6. For what it's worth, I do not think Joseph Smith committed any disqualifying sin that deprived him of his prophetic mantle.  He made mistakes, including some substantial and serious ones.  In any event, his mistakes, and Brigham Young's, and any other mistakes made by past and present leaders of the Church do not retroactively negate the reality of the founding events of the Restoration.  I believe they happened.  And if they did, then the promises God has made through covenant will be kept.  It is my job, then, to keep to those covenants.  Faith, repentance, service, saving ordinances, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

5 hours ago, 'aussieguy55 said:

Simon Southerton has a new ebook out on DNA and the Book of Mormon   https://simonsoutherton.com/

He writes "Since publishing my book, Mormon apologists have attacked me personally. They have questioned my intelligence and scientific credentials, my motives and my knowledge of what the Book of Mormon really says. They have exaggerated the limitations of DNA science, obscured the true facts it has revealed and even made false claims of positive evidence. They have also twisted the Book of Mormon narrative into a bizarre story that reduces the Lamanites to a sideshow anywhere you like in the New World. For Pete's sake! Ancestry.com knows Native Americans don't have Jewish DNA."

Can we respond without the personal stuff.

Perhaps in a separate thread?  

I'll participate, but it's a bit off topic in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps in a separate thread?  

I'll participate, but it's a bit off topic in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

aussieguy55 may not (yet) have the capability to start threads, particularly if he is new. In which case, it would fall to someone else (you perhaps) to start such a thread. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

aussieguy55 may not (yet) have the capability to start threads, particularly if he is new. In which case, it would fall to someone else (you perhaps) to start such a thread. 

Sigh.

It's just the old historic vs the newer spiritual understanding of our beliefs.

It's no different than BOM geography vs horses in the BOM, metallurgy, translation vs revelation, the Book of Abraham, and every other misunderstanding. Evolution. Young earth. Big Bang and ex nihilo, geocentric universe and flat earth!

Can't we see it's all the same argument, different day?

What a waste of time!!

Every alleged anachronism disappears if Joseph was teaching spiritual principles and not science or history.

When will we get over this nonsense??

Grow up people!

Grow up critics, somewhere there's a brain in your head that should get you past Santa Claus and baby stories!!

 

 

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps in a separate thread?  

I'll participate, but it's a bit off topic in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was thinking the same thing (that these things need their own thread).  I searched the board to find out if DNA and the Book of Mormon had been discussed previously, and I was surprised that I couldn't find it.  Maybe the search engine is the issue, or I was doing it wrong.  

aussieguy55 had enough posts to create a new thread, but 'aussieguy55 does not (note the apostrophe difference).   DNA and the Book of Mormon is one topic, the Nature of Scripture (perhaps) is another.