Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A More Enduring Faith through a Partial Disillusionment


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I might not be getting your point. The Lord requires a broken heart and a contrite spirit for people to change, and as they change and unite, they develop into Zion. He calls His people Zion because "they are of one mind and one heart..." and He describes Zion as (or names it) "THE PURE IN HEART". So, a Zion culture would be built through conversion to Christ, not identifying what is wrong with x-y-z culture and setting out to change a-b-c issues. For example, there is no poor in Zion -- spiritually or temporally -- a fine way of life. Those who apply the principles of Zion in their personal lives will expand these blessings for others, through inspired individual action and inspired participation in Church councils.

I think individual aspirations to directly engineer change communities within Zion, or even the whole of Zion, comes close to seeking revelation for others or even for the Church. Political and social action to change the secular culture uses a different set of tools and skills, which I believe most people believe they exert in good faith; the proof would be in whether they or their political/social action builds Zion at the same time.

We clearly are not a zion people yet.  The point isn't oneness in and of itself.  It is to be one in Christ.  If a culture leads too many away from Christ, than we should not seek to be one in that culture, but to anxiously engaged in good work to increase oneness in Christ and hedge up our way against unnecessary pitfalls.  The point of the gospel is to lift others, to be an example, to be an influence for good. 

Quote

So keep doing good—all the good you can. Your influence will spread farther than you know.

-President Monson

https://basic.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/02/young-adults/a-mighty-force-for-good?lang=eng

I think you are framing my intentions improperly.  My intention is to influence and inspire a more enduring faith.  We are taught in the gospel to seek improvement where improvement can be made in ourselves and all around us.  On our missions we counseled as a mission and companionships on what can be improved.  What is working, what is not working.  What can be changed to improve our efforts to increase faith?  I am proposing nothing other than that.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we have been moving away from this "culture" for quite a while.  

I dunno.  I think the Brethren are not particularly keen on cults of personality.  As for "propagated by some in leadership," you would need to provide some examples.  

From FAIR (emphases added) :

We don't do ourselves or the Brethren any favors when we put them on pedestals or when we hold them to unreasonable (though often tacit) expectations of perfection.

I guess I'd need to see some examples of this.

I don't know about that.  That the Brethren abstain from disagreeing with each other publicly (Elder Pratt and Brother Brigham tended toward public disagreements here and there) does not, in my view, equate to the absence of substantive disagreement between them.  Both my father and my brother have had extensive experience in working with General Authorities, and there seems to be plenty of spirited - yet cordial - disagreement between them as to various matters.  Hence the whole "counseling in councils" thing.

You would need to explain what you mean by "the Orson Pratts of our day."  Would you apply this label to, say, Sam Young?  Kate Kelly?  Bill Reel?  Denver Snuffer?  Natasha Helfer?

Or do you have in mind people more akin to Richard L. Bushman, Neylan McBaine, and so on?

Joseph Smith said: "I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

I'm not particularly inclined to give a presumption of goodwill and pure motives for self-selected agitators, activists, etc., which pretty much always end up (or start out as) the type described by Joseph above.

Conversely, I am very grateful to members of the Church who are genuinely devoted to the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it, who sustain the Brethren while not imputing onto them unreasonable expectations or making public disparagements about them, who do not indulge in self-aggrandizement, who do not resort to pressure tactics to get their way, who do not seek to foment ill will and adverse public opinion against the Brethren for coercive purposes, who generally adhere to these principles laid out by then-Elder Oaks way back in 1987, and so on. 

I guess you'll have to explain what "vocally disagree" means.

I think the "culture of fear" and "false illusion of perfections" are substantial exaggerations.

I do not refrain from publicly speaking or working against the Brethren out of "fear."  It is, instead, a matter of keeping covenants, obeying the commandments, following the scriptures, pursuing unity, and so on.

There are some who seem to view the Church as a political construct, with leaders who are answerable to their constituents (as opposed to being representatives of Jesus Christ).  This is evidenced by resorting to public pressure tactics and other behaviors which are incompatible with enduring discipleship.  

Change through persuasion, longsuffering, patience, etc. is hard, but I think that's the tack we are generally supposed to take.  

Stewardship and authority matter.  A lot.  Unity and cohesion matter.  Sustaining the Brethren matters.  The above link to Elder Oaks' talk in 1987 has been highly influential to my thinking on this matter.

How do you differentiate whatever it is you do from "fault-finding"?

How do you ascertain when it is appropriate for you to offer constructive criticism to leaders in the Church?

Do you think the time, place and manner of such criticism are reasonable considerations?

Have you read the above 1987 article by Elder Oaks?  What do you think of it?

This is too abstract for me.  I guess I'd need to see some examples.

I love my wife a lot, yet I have no illusions about her being perfect.  While there are things that I think she might want to consider doing to improve herself, I would never in a million years air such things in the public square, nor would I invite others to join me in "acknowledging" her faults and errors. 

There is a vast gulf between me offering private constructive input / feedback / criticism to her versus, say, the coercively public rhetoric/tactics used by Sam Young, Kate Kelly, Bill Reel, and so on.  Again, Elder Oaks' article goes a long way for me.

I don't know what "acknowledging fault" means in this context.  It feels like it either starts with, or will devolve into, "dwelling on faults," "holding and lording faults over others," "using to coerce others to my preferred way of things," and so on.

No community can survive endless navel-gazing and fault-finding of its leaders.

I can't help but interpret this as "By acknowledging {the} fault{s} {of leaders of the Church, mostly the dead ones}."

Could you elaborate on the difference between "acknowledging fault" (in others) and "fault-finding" (in others)?

The leaders of the Church acknowledge their flaws and limitations.  We know they exist.  But by endlessly dwelling on and re-hashing the flaws and mistakes of our leaders, I think we run the very real risk of defining our leaders by those flaws and mistakes.

Back in February I made the following observation:

Mormon 9:31 comes to mind: "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."

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  

When you speak with black people about Martin Luther King, Jr., do you insist on perpetually "acknowledging" (for fear of "ignoring" and "tucking" away) his dissertation plagiarism, his purported "45 extramarital lovers," how he once apparently “'looked on, laughed and offered advice' to a peer who was raping a woman," etc.?

When you speak with people from India about Mahatma Gandhi, you you insist on pointing out that he was "notorious for sleeping with other women ... {who} either married, extremely young, or both," his mistreatment of his wife, his fairly overt racism against Africans, his advocacy of Jews committing mass genocide, and so on?

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here.

I think you should do what is right.  

I also think the calculus involved in discerning what is right can and ought to involve consideration of prophetic counsel on this issue. 

I also think it is difficult to maintain a sense of proportion and fairness when one is focused on the flaws and errors of others, and on persuading other people to share in that focus.

I think you are playing with fire here.  I think you run the risk of defining others principally by their faults, of doing so publicly, and of .  That sort of outlook tends to spill out beyond its originally-intended boundaries.  Look at Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  How much of their fault-finding and vilification started out with ostensibly good intentions, but ended up . . . badly?

We have no shortage at all of people who are very willing to trumpet and broadcast each and every character flaw, mistake, sin, etc. of the Latter-day Saints.  Particularly of our leaders, and more particularly of our long-dead leaders.  Do you really think you will strengthen and improve our community of faith by doing . . . whatever it is you are proposing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you are largely misunderstanding me and jumping to conclusions.  Read my last response to CV75.  You seem to think I am on a mission to highlight mistakes and imperfections in the church and our leaders.  That is not me.  I am out to tame the fears of acknowledging mistakes and human side of our religion and leaders.  I want to highlight the good, but not view other with suspicion or shame for acknowledging their perspectives of imperfection.   It seems our culture is comfortable acknowledging that our leaders our imperfect, but the SECOND anyone addresses a specific problem they see in the church or a leader, then they are a villain and a fault finder out for blood.  That, too me, is unhealthy.  There is a better way.  

I don't think I am exaggerating the culture of fear.  Anytime I acknowledge what I perceive to be a mistake or room for improvement in the church, I am usually attacked, demanded, compared to Bill Reel, John Dehlin, Kate, kelly (not saying you are doing this, but there definitely seems to be some suspicion), told that I am "playing with fire" that I am a "fault-finder", etc. etc. etc. etc.  There is a clear difference in tone and openness from others within our faith who are not so blinded by this need to uphold this facade of perfection among our leaders.  There is peace in dialogue with one, and faith is not injured.  There is contention and darkness from those who are of the culture I speak of.  That is my personal experience anyway. 

I am inspired by wanting to strengthen faith, to highlight the good that our faith is.  I want people to stay.  I think there is a a dangerous culture in our church that is a stumbling block for many.

I am simply asking for suggestions on what we can do to hedge up against this all too common reason for lost faith.  I am not imagining the risk and danger in this culture to faith.  What can we do to change culture for the better?

It seemed like we were on the same page until I insinuated that there might be an imperfection in leadership in propagating this culture.  That seemed to have triggered something in you to view me with suspicion and warning of "fire".  What happened?  You don't even know what I am talking about specifically.  

To answer your question - definitely ala Richard Bushman.  Many seem to be more comfortable to talk about our history in a more open way without triggering fear and shame.  I hope that one day we can talk in the same peace and openness with a lens of faithfulness regarding the present as well.  That still seems to be off-limits. 

I agree with you that the pendulum is swinging the other way, I am simply asking how we can help it along.  Nothing to be afraid of here. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm right there with you buddy.  Always have been.

I am trying to find pragmatic solutions to a massive problem of disillusionment leading to lost faith.  I am convinced a large part of the problem is the illusion in the first place.  There simply is no good reason to leave the church for finding out that we have some concerning history or imperfect leaders who gave a bogus blessing, etc. 

The illusion is the problem.  We need to stop propping it up. 

What if the problem stems from the very man that started the church, I put him on a pedestal and finding out how he lived polygamy is probably the biggest stumbling block of all. I can handle all of the prophets, apostles, and ? being imperfect but draw the line when it is abuse and that's what I think was marrying young girls, even girls that were adopted by him, or mother/daughter and sister/sister, etc was. The fruit was bad all around. That's a tough one don't you think, how does the church get around it. And they did just what you're saying was wrong, they hid it pretty much. But there's no way to fix it, by exposing it now, it's not really going to help. I was fine with BY's polygamy but that's because I didn't know the details of how he lived it. Little did I know it was as bad as Joseph's way along with many other men. 

I think being open about the history can walk a fine line between helping and hurting. But appreciate the sentiment you have with trying to keep members from leaving but think the dam has broke. It will be interesting to see how the church will be able to stop it from emptying out completely. I hope it figures something out soon, because not all, but many ex LDS can go a little or a lot crazy and their worlds come crashing down because it's not just culture or ?, it's identity that is lost with many of us.

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Mark. Hi all.

We have our philosophical differences...however, if someone perceives that their faith, however certainly believed, did not work? I cannot say that my pragmatism is pure, or my only paradigm, but I have to acknowledge the necessary value of confidence that the faith you live brings forth good results for yourself, those around you, and for the glory of God. I see great value in pragmatism for maintaining one's faith. But it seems like something else had to make one decide to give that faith a try.

Can't speak of MFB on this one. I did resonate a little with his post. Though my guiding principle isn't straight pragmatism but moreso an answer to "why?" I am not good at being led by others or doing something without at least some explanation as to why I'm doing it. And I believe things most when they have personally rooted meaning. Some of my faith was pragmatic in nature, including what finally nudged me to find my own belief/understand them. I wasn't happy (understatement) and many in my youth ward group were. I knew I was missing something and faith seemed to have some strong correlation. So I sought it out. And I think several of my early spiritual experiences first drew me in for more by showing me that my voids would be filled with God. It's not at this point my only reason, but it was definitely a foundational one.

If it doesn't hold purpose or meaning that I can see at least somewhat, then I have a really hard time comfortably following it. In or out of church. Either I'll reject it to some degree, do it but not appreciate that I'm doing it, or I'll seek out if there is a reason for why it is. Usually it's a mix of all three. If I can find reason/meaning in it, it may be incorporated in or at least Garner respect from me. For example I,'ve had experiences of fasting where I know the practice is a legitimate way to come closer to go on special occasions. But i'm terrible at any form of traditional fasting. So I rarely do it and prefer non-traditional fasts, such as from tech. Same principle if not a little adapted to my physical limitations.

 

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I would have to say that those of you who approved of this post haven't "read much Catholic history yet"! I found this historian through an article he wrote for Crisis Magazine, which makes an interesting historical analysis, going back to the early part of the last century to examine why it comes to pass, that there is conflict today between two important segments of the Catholic Church:

I didn't fully approve to this exact comment as I found it a little too flippant. I think there's still irony in losing faith due to a history that entails imperfect actions. And then joining a faith that still has arguably imperfect actions and characters in its history as well. I would find that weird even if he said, "I left the church because of a messy history, but I still really love and find value in the old testament." It's not that there's something wrong with loving the OT or the Catholic faith. It's more that it just seems inconsistent. 

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, pogi said:

I share some of the same concerns with how polygamy went down.  I don't have good answers to justify anything, nor am I going to try.  I think that is largely unhelpful.  All I can do is suggest that mistakes, as big and enormous as they may be, should not define a person or diminish from the good that they did.   I am not one who believes in dwelling on mistakes (although I do believe in acknowledging them - and that it is unhealthy not to) when I could be basking instead in the light.  I find the good that they did and taught to be too valuable to cast off because of their mistakes and possible sins with polygamy.  What they did in this specific issue you bring up is troubling to me, but what they have given me from the rest of their works and life is priceless.   I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water.   I don't disown my mother or father for the trauma I experienced at home.  I love them.  But I don't to hide the trauma and never address it or speak about it is a mistake.  You are right, it is delicate.  But tucking it away is even more dangerous, I think.

I agree that it is a fine line.  That is why I am asking for suggestions.  I do want to point out that it is not about exposing mistakes, for me.  I am not about finding and pointing out weaknesses and mistakes, but I am about being willing to discuss and acknowledge them as we see it without fear of being shunned or shamed by other members, and without being perceived in suspicion and warning.  Allowing oneself to acknowledge, heal, and move on - always looking forward towards the light and never getting entangled in the darkness of the mistakes.

Take the good, leave the bad.  It is as simple as that. 

I recognize the danger in acknowledging mistakes.  It leads some to ask - if this was a mistake, what else is a mistake?  Can I trust them in other areas?  I think those are all fair questions, but I think it is important to couch them in a more holistic context that includes the good.   Keep a holistic perspective and don't myopically focus on the mistakes.  Look forward towards the light, not backwards towards the darkness.  Acknowledge the wrong, but don't get entangled in it.  I think that is a skill that our membership lacks because we have been deprived of even looking at or acknowledging a mistake, let alone learning how to not get entangled in it, healing from it, and moving on. 

I posted this elsewhere, it may be helpful:

 

❤️

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

❤️

I neglected to include the most important part.  Maintain a close intimate relationship with the Lord through daily prayer.  Be meditative and listen for his voice.  Always seek how to be one with Him.  He will always direct you for good.   I am confident that I am where the Lord wants me, and here I will stay until He directs me otherwise.  I will not leave on my own.  He is my shepherd, and I will follow wherever he may send me.    It is all about where we place our attention and intention.  You are safe with the Lord.  There is nothing that Joseph or Brigham or any current prophet has done or could do that could cause me to not go where my shepherd leads me.  It is not about them or what they did.  It is about Me and HIM.   Once we understand that, history is just history.  Mistakes are mistakes.  Sins are sins.  Those can all be overcome.  We don't need to be afraid of looking at them and discussing them when the Lord is our shepherd.

The gospel is true.  People (leaders)...not always. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
On 12/2/2022 at 2:44 PM, Ambrosia said:

I said something negative about Jonah earlier today on this board but seeing you (someone else) say something has inspired me to defend him, a little.  We're all imperfect people, and yet God still tries to work with all of us.  God told Jonah to go preach repentance to the people in Nineveh, but he didn't want to.  Seems to me like he got scared or thought it would do no good.  Then the whale story, which we all know.  Eventually Jonah did go and do what God told him to do.  Still an imperfect person.  I think a lot of us are like Jonah, and still God tries to work with all of us.

Jonah confesses at the end that he refused to preach repentance because he was worried they would repent and God would be merciful. He wanted Assyria to burn.

The story is packed full of hyperbole. It probably didn’t happen at all.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What if the problem stems from the very man that started the church, I put him on a pedestal and finding out how he lived polygamy is probably the biggest stumbling block of all. I can handle all of the prophets, apostles, and ? being imperfect but draw the line when it is abuse and that's what I think was marrying young girls, even girls that were adopted by him, or mother/daughter and sister/sister, etc was. The fruit was bad all around. That's a tough one don't you think, how does the church get around it. And they did just what you're saying was wrong, they hid it pretty much. But there's no way to fix it, by exposing it now, it's not really going to help. I was fine with BY's polygamy but that's because I didn't know the details of how he lived it. Little did I know it was as bad as Joseph's way along with many other men. 

I think being open about the history can walk a fine line between helping and hurting. But appreciate the sentiment you have with trying to keep members from leaving but think the damn has broke. It will be interesting to see how the church will be able to stop it from emptying out completely. I hope it figures something out soon, because not all, but many ex LDS can go a little or a lot crazy and their worlds come crashing down because it's not just culture or ?, it's identity that is lost with many of us.

 

My great-great grandfather married two sisters. His first wife chose her sister to be his second. This is forbidden in the Torah despite Jacob/Israel living it. Well, living it almost inadvertently. Poor Leah.

Link to comment

The difference between disillusion and enlightenment is the difference between shattering and expansion.  Over the years, I found that whenever I ran across something that I did not expect, the best response has been to ask, "What should I expect?"  That is why I found the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth very helpful.

From: Veda Hale vhale@infowest.com
Subject: Perry scheme

I was cleaning up my email and wondered if I ever sent this to you.   Whatever....here goes.
Veda

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION
POSITION 1 - Basic Duality.  (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.) 
The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.
Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified.  (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty.  But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems.  It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed.  It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind."  When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced.  When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.  

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it.  They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME.  (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go.        

Transition 1.  The person can make the transition by modifying dualism  drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them.  Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors.  With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

Transition 2.  The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes.  All is of equal value.  To have an opinion makes it right.

Transition 3.  Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many.

Transition 4.  Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively.

Transition 5.  The person is moving closer to accepting relativity.  He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations.  To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers.  So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want.

Transition 6.  Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people  reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent.  They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground.  But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently.

Transition 7.  This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity.  The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases.

NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.

POSITION 5  Relativism discovered.

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective.  It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices.  They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment.  They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY.  THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE.  IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP.  THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY. 

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING.  His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement.  He may reconsign agency to some possible event.  If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE.  He becomes apathetic.  His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life.  This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement.  He starts to rely on impulse.  THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION.  "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition.  In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance.  It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith.  In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. 

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right.  He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it.  He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief.  He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and   acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition.  He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows:

Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.

POSITION 7.  Commitments in Relativism developed.

The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggling responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative.

POSITION 8.  Commitments in Relativism developed continues.

The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity.  He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN  THE MODEL MUST BE TRAN SCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma.  The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas.  But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love".

POSITION 9.  Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace  other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains  strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.  veda 
 

I made the case in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" in Interpreter that Joseph Smith and the LDS scriptures, by precept and example, try to lead us to Position 9.  However, being a society of humans at difference stages of personal growth, we will always have people at all nine stages, all of whom need to be dealt with at the place they happen to be.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Jonah confesses at the end that he refused to preach repentance because he was worried they would repent and God would be merciful. He wanted Assyria to burn.

The story is packed full of hyperbole. It probably didn’t happen at all.

So Ambrosia is correct when he posted that a lot of us our like Jonah.  A lot of us don't want the Lord to be merciful to our "enemies" but instead would want them to suffer for disagreeing with us.  :D 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Calm said:

Why wouldn’t a developing Zion culture desire to improve themselves and identify what is wrong in their xyz culture (that will still exist to a great extent as culture is much more than just attitudes towards God and others) as they become more converted in order to be better disciples and in doing so use the process of identifying what is wrong in their culture to change abc issues to bring their culture to be a more Zion community. For example, unfair laws don’t just change because the culture changes to a fairer one, someone has to write new laws to replace them. This they will only do if they realize these laws are unfair. 
 

And why would a growing Zion community only operate for the better through church councils and not through changing their community laws and organizations, such as in their desire to help the poor supporting laws and charitable projects in and outside the Church that help the poor?

I guess the short answer is in the form of a question: what is wrong with the Zion culture?

Improvement and progress aren't only about changing what is wrong (good, better, best, etc.). There are no unfair laws in Zion. Church councils are better than government and non-profit mechanisms for establishing Zion and resolving problematic issues along the way.

I think Moroni's Promise follows an eternal principle: improvement is facilitated by identifying "how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men," not what is wrong with how merciful He hath been. So, instead of identifying the mistakes of Church leaders and mistakes imbedded in the Church culture (which differ from place to place, but I'm reading into the comments that "Utah" is the original culprit), I would suggest applying the revealed council process, not deciding what is wrong with it.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, pogi said:

We clearly are not a zion people yet.  The point isn't oneness in and of itself.  It is to be one in Christ.  If a culture leads too many away from Christ, than we should not seek to be one in that culture, but to anxiously engaged in good work to increase oneness in Christ and hedge up our way against unnecessary pitfalls.  The point of the gospel is to lift others, to be an example, to be an influence for good. 

I think you are framing my intentions improperly.  My intention is to influence and inspire a more enduring faith.  We are taught in the gospel to seek improvement where improvement can be made in ourselves and all around us.  On our missions we counseled as a mission and companionships on what can be improved.  What is working, what is not working.  What can be changed to improve our efforts to increase faith?  I am proposing nothing other than that.

I can appreciate your intention to influence and inspire a more enduring faith on the subject of accepting Church leaders as fallible and historically as having made mistakes. Individually, you have your good example, and collectively we have councils. Now, where does culture fit in?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The difference between disillusion and enlightenment is the difference between shattering and expansion.  Over the years, I found that whenever I ran across something that I did not expect, the best response has been to ask, "What should I expect?"  That is why I found the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth very helpful.

From: Veda Hale vhale@infowest.com
Subject: Perry scheme

I was cleaning up my email and wondered if I ever sent this to you.   Whatever....here goes.
Veda

PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION
POSITION 1 - Basic Duality.  (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.) 
The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is "Out there". The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.
Transition 1-2 - Dualism modified.  (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty.  But they decide it is part of the authority's job to pose problems.  It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.

(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed.  It takes time for the "guts to catch up with leaps of mind."  When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced.  When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.  

TRANSITION: 2-3 - Dualism modified

Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it.  They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is "out there".

POSITION 3 - Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake's logic considered)

The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it's as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.

ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME.  (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)

There are seven ways a person can go.        

Transition 1.  The person can make the transition by modifying dualism  drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them.  Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don't come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors.  With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and "bull", disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.

Transition 2.  The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes.  All is of equal value.  To have an opinion makes it right.

Transition 3.  Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many.

Transition 4.  Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively.

Transition 5.  The person is moving closer to accepting relativity.  He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations.  To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers.  So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want.

Transition 6.  Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people  reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent.  They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground.  But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently.

Transition 7.  This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity.  The person sees that thinking relatively isn't just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases.

NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.

POSITION 5  Relativism discovered.

The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective.  It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices.  They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment.  They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don't yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.

THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY.  THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE.  IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP.  THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY. 

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

If the person at this point doesn't retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING.  His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement.  He may reconsign agency to some possible event.  If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.

Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE.  He becomes apathetic.  His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life.  This drifting with insecurity about "goodness" of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement.  He starts to rely on impulse.  THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION.  "For the students reporting their recovery of care,...their period of alienation appears as a time of transition.  In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world's appearance.  It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith.  In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside." (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)

POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.

FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT. 

Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right.  He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it.  He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief.  He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.

He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.

He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and   acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition.  He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.

The TRANSITION position between Position 6, "Commitment Foreseen", and position 7, "Commitments in Relativism developed" is as follows:

Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn't decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.

POSITION 7.  Commitments in Relativism developed.

The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggling responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted--but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values--yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative.

POSITION 8.  Commitments in Relativism developed continues.

The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity.  He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN  THE MODEL MUST BE TRAN SCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma.  The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can't make sense out of life's dilemmas.  But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of "separate but equal" or "live and let live" but truly embrace them with what might as well be called "love".

POSITION 9.  Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace  other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains  strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.  veda 
 

I made the case in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista" in Interpreter that Joseph Smith and the LDS scriptures, by precept and example, try to lead us to Position 9.  However, being a society of humans at difference stages of personal growth, we will always have people at all nine stages, all of whom need to be dealt with at the place they happen to be.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I think this model may be helpful in identifying the culture I speak of and the delicate situation in how to address it without causing harm.  The culture I speak of largely views relativism with suspicion or outright disdain.  They live in some variation of the first 3 positions.  I 100% agree that "when changes in thinking start to happen, it can be dangerous time" for them.  The dualism and black/white perception is the illusion I speak of.   Their very faith is intrinsically tied to this illusion.  Once the illusion starts to crack, then their faith often goes with it.  This is what we see in the all-too-common disillusionment that causes members to leave the church.   So, it becomes a two-edged sword which either leads to further enlightenment and healthy faith, or towards total loss of faith all together.  My question is this - how do we assist people through this transition towards further enlightenment rather than a harmful disillusionment?  I agree that we need to deal with them where they are, but how?  One risks so many potential pitfalls in the transitions towards position 9, how do we help them avoid those pitfalls?   

I believe we need to help them separate faith from this illusion.  That way, when the illusion crumbles (aka disillusionment), their faith can remain in tact and further enlightenment can take place.  My question is how do we help other dissect their faith from the illusion without triggering some pitfall?

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I can appreciate your intention to influence and inspire a more enduring faith on the subject of accepting Church leaders as fallible and historically as having made mistakes. Individually, you have your good example, and collectively we have councils. Now, where does culture fit in?

Culture/tradition largely influences both the individual and counsels.  Joseph Smith himself really struggled with this dilemma:

Quote

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen. (20 January 1841,  Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [1938], p. 331)

Culture can be an impedance to the preparation of our minds to receive the things of God.   That problem is clearly identified in this quote.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Jonah confesses at the end that he refused to preach repentance because he was worried they would repent and God would be merciful. He wanted Assyria to burn.

The story is packed full of hyperbole. It probably didn’t happen at all.

I think Jonah was probably intended to satirical. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think this model may be helpful in identifying the culture I speak of and the delicate situation in how to address it without causing harm.  The culture I speak of largely views relativism with suspicion or outright disdain.  They live in some variation of the first 3 positions.  I 100% agree that "when changes in thinking start to happen, it can be dangerous time" for them.  The dualism and black/white perception is the illusion I speak of.   Their very faith is intrinsically tied to this illusion.  Once the illusion starts to crack, then their faith often goes with it.  This is what we see in the all-too-common disillusionment that causes members to leave the church.   So, it becomes a two-edged sword which either leads to further enlightenment and healthy faith, or towards total loss of faith all together.  My question is this - how do we assist people through this transition towards further enlightenment rather than a harmful disillusionment?  I agree that we need to deal with them where they are, but how?  One risks so many potential pitfalls in the transitions towards position 9, how do we help them avoid those pitfalls?   

I believe we need to help them separate faith from this illusion.  That way, when the illusion crumbles (aka disillusionment), their faith can remain in tact and further enlightenment can take place.  My question is how do we help other dissect their faith from the illusion? 

 

The parable of the sower is not so much about the sower as it is about the state of the soil. I guess in these types of cases how does one increase the depth of the soil or assist with elimination of weeds?

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, gav said:

The parable of the sower is not so much about the sower as it is about the state of the soil. I guess in these types of cases how does one increase the depth of the soil or assist with elimination of weeds?

I agree, but I am convinced that some who have left the church due to disillusionment have good soil.  I think in the long-term, they will eventually come back around because of this (either in this life or the next) but I think a harmful culture which blinds the mind can trip up even the best.   I guess in this analogy, the culture would be the weeds that strangles growth.    My question is, how do we assist in removing these noxious weeds without tearing up delicate growth?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree, but I am convinced that some who have left the church due to disillusionment have good soil.  I think in the long-term, they will eventually come back around because of this (either in this life or the next) but I think a harmful culture which blinds the mind can trip up even the best.   I guess in this analogy, the culture would be the weeds that strangles growth.    My question is, how do we assist in removing these noxious weeds without tearing up delicate growth?

That brings us to the wheat and the tares then, which the Lord said he would leave to grow together until the harvest. So sub-optimum culture remains until we finally advance to the state of "no poor among them".

I think that includes all forms of poverty not just financial but spiritual, emotional, intellectual etc. as well. Then my question is what does it take to get an entire community to an acceptable level of spiritual, emotional, intellectual etc. resilience, and how much of this is it up to each individual and how much the community.

Western culture was infused with rugged individualism partially by the germanic/barbarian tribes and it helped the gentile west get to where it is today but it is also the antithesis of a zion society. Jackson County as a case in point. I can far more easily see zion being established in an Eastern or African culture. From where I am sitting it looks to me like the "gentile west" is going to have a harder battle than the scriptural "heathen nations". Perhaps that is why slaves must rise up against their masters and the remnants who are left must vex the gentiles with a sore vexation. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, pogi said:

Take the good, leave the bad.  It is as simple as that.

This is what I try to do, and for the record the circle in which I look for "good" is a pretty big one. 

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I am trying to find pragmatic solutions to a massive problem of disillusionment leading to lost faith.

If "faith" is defined in terms one's relationship with the LDS Church, then it would appear that the net result of my efforts to "take the good, leave the bad" is that I have "lost my faith".  

If "faith" is defined in terms of one's relationship with God(s), then arguably "take the good, leave the bad" has not resulted in me having "lost my faith".

(Imo part of "leave the bad" is that it frees up the person to stop putting their attention on whatever constitutes "the bad".  It's like, rather than staying on that level of the video game and fighting the same battles over and over, the person is free to simply go up to the next level and put their attention on next-level challenges.)

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Why wouldn’t a developing Zion culture desire to improve themselves and identify what is wrong in their xyz culture (that will still exist to a great extent as culture is much more than just attitudes towards God and others) as they become more converted in order to be better disciples and in doing so use the process of identifying what is wrong in their culture to change abc issues to bring their culture to be a more Zion community.

I applaud you and Pogi and all those on this site who are committed to making your culture better, even if you sometimes have very different ideas of what that would look like.  

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, manol said:

This is what I try to do, and for the record the circle in which I look for "good" is a pretty big one. 

If "faith" is defined in terms one's relationship with the LDS Church, then it would appear that the net result of my efforts to "take the good, leave the bad" is that I have "lost my faith".  

If "faith" is defined in terms of one's relationship with God(s), then arguably "take the good, leave the bad" has not resulted in me having "lost my faith".

(Imo part of "leave the bad" is that it frees up the person to stop putting their attention on whatever constitutes "the bad".  It's like, rather than staying on that level of the video game and fighting the same battles over and over, the person is free to simply go up to the next level and put their attention on next-level challenges.)

I applaud you and Pogi and all those on this site who are committed to making your culture better, even if you sometimes have very different ideas of what that would look like.  

I don't think faith should be defined in terms of "the church" or "the prophet", etc.  Faith, for me, should be placed in principles/gospel and God only.  I think this culture I speak of wrongfully intertwines faith with the church and with leadership.  They promote faith in people and faith in the church.  That is a good recipe for disillusionment, if you ask me. 

The restored gospel is something I have faith in, which is distinct from the institution of the church.  I have some questions and concerns with how it came about and the people surrounding it, but what I have to judge is the seed - not the man, or the institution it came through.  They are fallible, I shouldn't expect differently.   The seed, is what I have faith in through the application of Alma 32.   It is good.  I can't deny it.  There is nothing more empowering and good than the fundamental gospel truth that was restored via Joseph Smith that we are the literal children and family of God.  That we have inherent in us godliness and the potential to realize/actualize it through the application of Godly principles.  Personal revelation is the foundation of His church - not Peter.  Those are the core truths that I can't leave or deny.  The plan of a near universal salvation is the best paradigm I have found.  While the earthly institution has faults, while Peter and the prophets have faults, the kingdom of God is pure.  We need to tie our faith to it, and not the earthly institution of the church and its leaders that administer it.  I couldn't depart from all that fruit if I wanted to.  I am forced to acknowledge the source of this seed, and it would be foolish of me to expect it to be through anything or anybody but an imperfect and faulty institution/man.  That is kind of the beauty in it!  That God works with and through us - mortal, fallible, complex, confusing, human beings/children of God.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...