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

[Stargazer]

On 1/8/2020 at 5:19 PM, smac97 said:

I am glad to hear it.

However, there are others who, for varying reasons, have not been able to preserve their testimony in the face of such challenges to it.  

There are also many who, like me, have found faithful and informed scholarship to be a thrilling ancillary witness to the merits of the Restoration.

A fair point, but not necessarily a universally applicable one.  For me, I have found great satisfaction in studying the Gospel from both spiritual and "scholarly" perspectives.

I did not express myself completely enough.  I wasn't objecting to scholarship, I was simply expressing my personal feelings and the depth of my spiritual experience.

I wouldn't have responded at all, except I wanted to put my 2 cents in as regards the importance of personal revelation.

I had been wishing I had seen this thread when it launched so I could have participated in the early stages -- instead of weighing after a huge volume of text had already gone by.

I also find studying the Gospel from a scholarly perspective very rewarding and satisfying.

On 1/8/2020 at 5:19 PM, smac97 said:

This is wonderful to hear.

However, I personally know a number of people who have had similar experiences, but who have nevertheless been persuaded to abandon their faith.  The reasons are varied, but forgetting those spiritual experiences, or neglecting them, or retroactively discounting or diminishing them, can happen.

To be sure, the remedy of returning is a primarily spiritual process.  But intellectual inquiry can play a big part in that process

No doubt of it.

I was at our stake council meeting last night and the person assigned for the spiritual thought brought up the doctrinal and historical problems that some of our members have, and that we needed to find more effective ways to answer the problems.  It just happened that I had read your opening post that day, and after hearing his thought I determined that it would be expedient to send a link to your OP to the stake presidency (who have expressed similar concerns in the past), so that they could perhaps use it.

On 1/8/2020 at 5:19 PM, smac97 said:

I think Daniel Peterson put it well in this Liahona article: Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon.  An excerpt:

So it's not an either/or scenario.  Rather, I submit that we should take a first-comes-faith-through-confirmation-from-the-Spirit,-then-comes-strengthening-and-expanding-one's-testimony-through-continued-study-and-application,-which-can-include-study-of-"scholarly"-materials approach.

The Church uses "gospel scholar" in a number of places.  I think that can have an expansive definition.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't disagree at all.

[Garden Girl]

On 12/16/2019 at 5:16 AM, Duncan said:

 

"In truth, this Church ruins its members for any other church, because, like this missionary, they know too much. If people leave this Church, they will usually end up traveling down one of two paths — either they will become a church unto themselves (because they will never find another church that has more truth than they already have) or they will head down the road of agnosticism"

This is what happened to me when I became inactive at age 20... I simply could not see attending any other Church... I did not reactivate until age 55 (when the sudden death of my mother whipped me around and I couldn't run fast enough back to the Church).  During those inactive years my testimony had remained intact albeit suppressed... when Mom died, everything I had known and loved about the gospel came rushing back full force as I looked into her eyes and saw the light go from them.  That was 24 years ago and I've never looked back...  (Those of you here who have not seen some of my previous posts about this may wonder why I went inactive... Simply put, I met my wonderful non-LDS husband-to-be.  After we married, as often happens, I slipped into inactivity.  And I loved the "world" we lived in... my world. )  To be perfectly honest, I still miss some of that world... but not enough to turn away again.  When I reactivated, I started from square one again... reading, studying, praying, fasting... I've had some incredible answers to prayer, spiritual experiences, etc.  So here I am... at age 79...

From the beach on a rainy, blustery evening... waiting for BYU men's basketball to come on at 8:00 PM on ESPN2... Go Cougs!!

GG

[Stargazer]

On 1/8/2020 at 5:12 PM, smac97 said:

<snip />

What did I learn from this?  Well, a few things. 

First, the leaders of the Church can, and do, make mistakes.

<snip />

Wait... WHAT?!?!  

NOBODY EVER TOLD ME THAT!!!!  I THOUGHT THEY WERE CALLED BECAUSE EVERY LEADER IN THE CHURCH IS PERFECT!!!!

My letter of resignation is on it's way. 

I WILL EXPOSE THIS CHURCH FOR WHAT IT TRULY IS!!!

Thanks, Spencer, for opening my eyes.

 

 

 

I think I will start rolling on the floor laughing my tush off now...

Don't mean to make fun of people running into church leaders (or other members with issues) and getting ignorant or unrighteous chaff thrown their way, making their lives miserable, but I've run into them, too, and there's always a solution. Just don't get your knickers in a twist.  People are weird.  Sometimes you have to deal with it.  God's up there nodding his head at that one.  He should know, He made them after all.

[Stargazer]

On 1/8/2020 at 5:18 PM, Meadowchik said:

I may do that if I can. Also, I have been considering researching the impact of gender/priesthood policies from a scientific level. I'm sure that a social network analysis of church hierarchies cannot encompass all elements involved, but if I complete such research, (attending school for a Masters right now) I will send my findings to the church.

You might as well do this for human beings in general.  What humans have created for themselves out of the need for survival and reproduction sometimes looks pretty bad.  But it seems to work, generally.  Different societies have developed different strategies, and every single one of them has negativities associated with them.  From an atheistic point of view, they're all good, since the goal is species survival, and we've survived pretty darned well.  From that point of view, if women feel they're not happy with whatever situation they find themselves in, that's tough.  Nature put you here with those chromosomes, and that's the hand you're dealt so get on with it. Complaining doesn't help much.  But we all have choices, even if we feel compelled by our hormones or brain structure to act out in a particular way.  We (unlike animals) can choose differently from our chromosomes' demands, but if we choose this then there will be a price to pay.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Have you ever considered that the way God created us naturally leads to disparities in power between the sexes?  And the only way to get shut of it is to remove reproduction from the mix.  Male and female gametes to be joined in test tubes, and artificial wombs to be used to gestate them.  At birth the babies to be raised by hirelings or artificial intelligence, scientifically.  

Ever read Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley?  There's an ideal society for you.

 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Wait... WHAT?!?!  

NOBODY EVER TOLD ME THAT!!!!  I THOUGHT THEY WERE CALLED BECAUSE EVERY LEADER IN THE CHURCH IS PERFECT!!!!

My letter of resignation is on it's way. 

I WILL EXPOSE THIS CHURCH FOR WHAT IT TRULY IS!!!

Thanks, Spencer, for opening my eyes.

 

 

 

I think I will start rolling on the floor laughing my tush off now...

Don't mean to make fun of people running into church leaders (or other members with issues) and getting ignorant or unrighteous chaff thrown their way, making their lives miserable, but I've run into them, too, and there's always a solution. Just don't get your knickers in a twist.  People are weird.  Sometimes you have to deal with it.  God's up there nodding his head at that one.  He should know, He made them after all.

Then don't tell us to follow the prophet....if they're just human. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Tacenda

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Quote

<snip />

What did I learn from this?  Well, a few things. 

First, the leaders of the Church can, and do, make mistakes.

<snip />

Wait... WHAT?!?!  

NOBODY EVER TOLD ME THAT!!!!  I THOUGHT THEY WERE CALLED BECAUSE EVERY LEADER IN THE CHURCH IS PERFECT!!!!

My letter of resignation is on it's way. 

I WILL EXPOSE THIS CHURCH FOR WHAT IT TRULY IS!!!

Thanks, Spencer, for opening my eyes.

Okay, I re-learned it.

It's a point that bears repetition.  I know people who have left the Church over such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

On 1/8/2020 at 6:58 AM, pogi said:

Did they say you can’t attend because you are a woman, or because you don’t hold the priesthood?  Are you certain there were not other reasons?  

Since married men and women are always of one mind and never disagree on financial issues, it would never make sense to question one without the other. 🙄

[mfbukowski]

On 1/8/2020 at 7:04 AM, Meadowchik said:

Policy was cited. Women are dealt with at the bishopric level, not stake level. 

A clear indication that the meeting was about a disciplinary action. Those always happen on a one-on-one basis. It has nothing to do with being a woman. It is about which authority prevails in a disciplinary counsel. M. Priesthood holders are interviewed by the stake, in matters of discipline. 

[mfbukowski]

On 1/8/2020 at 7:23 AM, smac97 said:

I suspect she's speaking of disciplincary councils.  In terms of jurisdiction, "women are dealt with at the bishopric level."

Of course, men are also often "dealt with at the bishopric level."  As I understand it, the stake has jurisdiction over Elders because Elders Quorums are technically organized at the stake, rather than the ward, level.  But the vast majority of discipline is handled informally by the bishop.  Disciplinary councils are fairly rare (as compared to instances of informal discipline).

I'm not sure how this amounts to unfair treatment of women.  Having participated in many such councils, at both the ward and stake levels, I think most people would much rather have a disciplinary council in front of 4 people whom they likely know (the bishopric and the executive secretary) rather than a council in front of 16 or so people whom they likely don't know as well (stake presidency, the high council (which must include 12 high priests, so if a member of the high council is unavailable for the council, some other high priest in the stake is summoned to fill the spot), and the executive secretary).

Thanks,

-Smac

Or it could be a pre-interview leading to such a council. 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Then don't tell us to follow the prophet....if they're just human. 

No everyone should just follow ME because I said so. Makes a lot of sense huh?

Unfortunately few people know that I am the one true infallible leader of the universe.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Or it could be a pre-interview leading to such a council. 

Such a "pre-interview" would not involve a counselor in the bishopric.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You might as well do this for human beings in general. 

No, I think men have already spent centuries studying the generality. Discovery means looking for new information and understanding.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What humans have created for themselves out of the need for survival and reproduction sometimes looks pretty bad.  But it seems to work, generally.  Different societies have developed different strategies, and every single one of them has negativities associated with them.  From an atheistic point of view, they're all good, since the goal is species survival, and we've survived pretty darned well. 

That sounds like a circular pat on the back: "we're alive, so the way things are work, generally." Yet humans have always been changing and adapting. Many did not survive, many were not able to adapt.

The different strategies can be seen as good through a religious point of view, especially from an LDS point of view. But, be you looking through an "atheistic" lens or Mormon, the way you've framed it seems too reductive for any serious philosophy. Furthermore, you seem to imply some strange nihilism associated with atheism. I'll take this opportunity to say that atheists can points of view as vastly different as theists, and that some theists can have more in common with atheists than other theists, and some atheists can have more in common with some theists than with other atheists.  

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

From that point of view, if women feel they're not happy with whatever situation they find themselves in, that's tough.  Nature put you here with those chromosomes, and that's the hand you're dealt so get on with it.

It sounds like you're trying to tell me, a woman, that I should be grateful for God-given patriarchy because it's better than the alternatives. That's pretty lousy.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Complaining doesn't help much. 

On the contrary. Complaining can literally and figuratively help move mountains.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But we all have choices, even if we feel compelled by our hormones or brain structure to act out in a particular way.  We (unlike animals) can choose differently from our chromosomes' demands, but if we choose this then there will be a price to pay.  There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Yes. There's always a price, and patriarchy has a price.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Have you ever considered that the way God created us naturally leads to disparities in power between the sexes?  And the only way to get shut of it is to remove reproduction from the mix.  Male and female gametes to be joined in test tubes, and artificial wombs to be used to gestate them.  At birth the babies to be raised by hirelings or artificial intelligence, scientifically.  

Thank you for the biology lesson, I think I missed all that as I was busy gestating seven children over 11 years. I must have forgotten my middle school science classes with all that sleep deprivation!

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ever read Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley?  There's an ideal society for you.

Yes indeed I have. I also spent most of my life defending patriarchy. As a woman. You can bet your biceps that I have thought a whole bunch about it all.

When it comes to human power structures, be they natural outcomes in a godless world or ordained by a loving Creator, I think Maya Angelou said it best:

“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

 

 

[Meadowchik]

On 1/8/2020 at 8:52 PM, CV75 said:

RE: #2, was that the SP's explanation for your exclusion from the invitation to your husband's disciplinary council?

Stake presidents (and not bishops) do preside over disciplinary councils for those holding the Melchizedek priesthood because they preside over the Melchizedek priesthood in their stakes. It seems your bishop did not see the need to hold one for you.

Was the stake-level disciplinary council a formal one (where the high councilors are present) or a less formal, counseling-type session with a smaller group of individuals (both can be referred to as disciplinary counsels)?

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."

 

[Meadowchik]

On 1/8/2020 at 8:52 PM, CV75 said:

 

Dp

Edited January 10, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I think men have already spent centuries studying the generality. Discovery means looking for new information and understanding.

And sometimes people ignore what is in plain sight and concentrate on irrelevant novelties.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That sounds like a circular pat on the back: "we're alive, so the way things are work, generally." Yet humans have always been changing and adapting. Many did not survive, many were not able to adapt.

It's not a circular pat on the back.  It's a perfectly legitimate observation.  Billions of species have arisen and have perished in the history of the earth.  Some chromosome lines (and even some species) have survived millions of years, which is prima facie evidence of fitness.  Humans haven't been here as long as (for example) coelecanths, but so far our run has been fairly successful. Either God or evolution designed us well -- I say God did it, but YMMV.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The different strategies can be seen as good through a religious point of view, especially from an LDS point of view. But, be you looking through an "atheistic" lens or Mormon, the way you've framed it seems too reductive for any serious philosophy. Furthermore, you seem to imply some strange nihilism associated with atheism. I'll take this opportunity to say that atheists can points of view as vastly different as theists, and that some theists can have more in common with atheists than other theists, and some atheists can have more in common with some theists than with other atheists.  

I'm looking at this through an objective lens. For the sake of neutrality, I assume the atheistic point of view.  

And what does philosophy have to do with it?

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds like you're trying to tell me, a woman, that I should be grateful for God-given patriarchy because it's better than the alternatives. That's pretty lousy.

Why?  What's most important?  Survival or extinction?  You can be grateful if you want, or resent it if you want.  The facts don't care about your (or my) opinion.

And I don't care whether you're a man or a woman, when it comes down to this.  You're trying to tell me, a man, that I should be grateful that (in a state of nature) that I have to devote my life to feeding, protecting and nurturing a woman, just so I can have a little assurance of descendants?

Your "patriarchy" is a state of nature.  The only reason humans have survived thus far in our journey on Spaceship Earth is because men have devoted their lives to what nature requires of them, and women have devoted their lives to what nature requires of them.  I can't bear children.  You can't beget them.  Men and women must cooperate to survive and reproduce.  Call it patriarchy, if you want.  Resent it if you must.  And I won't force you to do what you don't want to do, as long as you agree to leave me alone about what I want to do.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

On the contrary. Complaining can literally and figuratively help move mountains.

It can.  But it doesn't always.  Sometimes it just sounds like whining.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes. There's always a price, and patriarchy has a price.

What price does patriarchy have then?  

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you for the biology lesson, I think I missed all that as I was busy gestating seven children over 11 years. I must have forgotten my middle school science classes with all that sleep deprivation!

Congratulations!  I've helped raise 12 children over a bit longer span of time. And I've lost plenty of sleep, too.  

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes indeed I have. I also spent most of my life defending patriarchy. As a woman. You can bet your biceps that I have thought a whole bunch about it all.

You've got me beat there.  I haven't spent ten seconds defending patriarchy.  Mainly because I couldn't be bothered, as I had enough to do as it was. But also because I don't believe in patriarchy.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

When it comes to human power structures, be they natural outcomes in a godless world or ordained by a loving Creator, I think Maya Angelou said it best:

“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

Ms. Angelou was wise (in this instance at least).  

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay, I re-learned it.

It's a point that bears repetition.  I know people who have left the Church over such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

So do I. Sigh.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Then don't tell us to follow the prophet....if they're just human. 

Have I told you to do that?

But human or not, the prophet is the Prophet.  He's a pretty darned good one, as far as I can tell.  And I think following him is a wise course of action.

[mfbukowski]

This is a test.  I am mfbukowski, but it appears my account was hacked and gave me the new moniker MFB

Is this working?

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Such a "pre-interview" would not involve a counselor in the bishopric.

Thanks,

-Smac

Correct. I did not see that, I thought the meeting was with the SP

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, MFB said:

This is a test.  I am mfbukowski, but it appears my account was hacked and gave me the new moniker MFB

Is this working?

Well I'm confused. I got a message saying I could not access the board. I then changed my password and ended up with a new sign on name which I did not pick.

Very odd

 

[Raingirl]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Have I told you to do that?

But human or not, the prophet is the Prophet.  He's a pretty darned good one, as far as I can tell.  And I think following him is a wise course of action.

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

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And sometimes people ignore what is in plain sight and concentrate on irrelevant novelties.

It's not a circular pat on the back.  It's a perfectly legitimate observation.  Billions of species have arisen and have perished in the history of the earth.  Some chromosome lines (and even some species) have survived millions of years, which is prima facie evidence of fitness.  Humans haven't been here as long as (for example) coelecanths, but so far our run has been fairly successful. Either God or evolution designed us well -- I say God did it, but YMMV.

I'm looking at this through an objective lens. For the sake of neutrality, I assume the atheistic point of view.  

And what does philosophy have to do with it?

Why?  What's most important?  Survival or extinction?  You can be grateful if you want, or resent it if you want.  The facts don't care about your (or my) opinion.

And I don't care whether you're a man or a woman, when it comes down to this.  You're trying to tell me, a man, that I should be grateful that (in a state of nature) that I have to devote my life to feeding, protecting and nurturing a woman, just so I can have a little assurance of descendants?

Your "patriarchy" is a state of nature.  The only reason humans have survived thus far in our journey on Spaceship Earth is because men have devoted their lives to what nature requires of them, and women have devoted their lives to what nature requires of them.  I can't bear children.  You can't beget them.  Men and women must cooperate to survive and reproduce.  Call it patriarchy, if you want.  Resent it if you must.  And I won't force you to do what you don't want to do, as long as you agree to leave me alone about what I want to do.

It can.  But it doesn't always.  Sometimes it just sounds like whining.

What price does patriarchy have then?  

Congratulations!  I've helped raise 12 children over a bit longer span of time. And I've lost plenty of sleep, too.  

You've got me beat there.  I haven't spent ten seconds defending patriarchy.  Mainly because I couldn't be bothered, as I had enough to do as it was. But also because I don't believe in patriarchy.

Ms. Angelou was wise (in this instance at least).  

Gender-based hierarchies are not irrelevant novelties. 

[Meadowchik]

9 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”.  

That sounds incredibly unfair, and an inaccurate play on words. You can follow, as in "watch" personalities and their social media and you can follow a leader of a religion or whatever by adhering to their teachings. Those are two vastly different actions.

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Have I told you to do that?

But human or not, the prophet is the Prophet.  He's a pretty darned good one, as far as I can tell.  And I think following him is a wise course of action.

My comment was in reaction to what felt like mocking to those that struggle with leadership in the church. No, you didn't tell me that directly, but I was showing how one might feel when they realize some things. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

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”.  

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.