A More Enduring Faith through a Partial Disillusionment

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Absolutely.  What if one is not in a position to participate in church councils?  

How does one help dispel the illusion without triggering a loss of faith?  As smac noted, even Bushman couldn't avoid that pitfall.  Yet, I think we would all agree that the work  he is doing is incredibly important.  What is an example of how "personal good example"  can help with that?  

How do we specifically influence the culture to be safe for people who express their open and honest concerns and feelings about the church or leadership without being attacked, or viewed with suspicion and harsh judgment?   I think that culture places the honest questioning soul in a defensive position, causing them to speak louder because they feel misunderstood and judged unfairly.  This can eventually result in a hardened critic, when they are placed on the defensive and attacked for their concerns in such a toxic way.   Any thoughts about what we can personally do to help influence change for good in these areas?

You can participate in a Church council initially by meeting with a priesthood leader -- an informal council of two with the Church official acting as the minister as you as the decision-maker. If I am following right, you've concluded that the "illusion" that Church leaders are perfect is created by the Church, or at least the Church perpetuates this belief as a cultural marker. After prayerful research, discussion and spirit-confirming conclusion, you can decide whether to pursue this on a cultural level and/or individual ministry basis, because no matter the cause, there are folks who have faith crises in reaction to disillusionment. The priesthood leader may well decide to peruse it in his councils; who knows?

The personal good example is sharing your experience whenever you can in available forums such as Sunday School, testimony meeting, talks, one-on-one conversations with friends and family, etc. For example, "I was disillusioned/had a crisis of faith, but then the Lord saved me once I ..." Our EQ President did this just a couple of weeks ago in the 2nd hour meeting (the topic was Elder Renlund's talk, framework for personal revelation). Just make sure the Holy Spirit is with you and that you can present yourself in a culturally sensitive manner, if the culture is really where you think the problem lies.

In both cases, it is starting small and tests the presumption that it is all culturally induced before you proceed. And sometimes people feel attacked or viewed with suspicion and harsh judgment no matter what you do. 

So, not trying to be funny but offer these resources as a start: 4 ways to communicate better with defensive people - The Business Journals (bizjournals.com) This was a quick Google -- I'm sure there are better resources. Another: How To Talk To a Defensive Person (and Keep Your Cool) | Well+Good (wellandgood.com) and one more: Tips for Talking to Defensive People | Psych Central And here's one from the Church!: Elder M. Russell Ballard: Engaging Without Being Defensive (churchofjesuschrist.org)

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

But a family council is not a church council.  And it would probably be best to avoid confusion to use the specific qualified council label or if meaning in general, specify that because most when they read “council” in the context of a Church related discussion will think of our official church councils and not more generic councils members and nonmembers hold with their families, businesses, charities, churches, etc.

The principles are exactly the same, but you may certainly differentiate by nomenclature, and I will understand and accept what you mean.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

You can participate in a Church council initially by meeting with a priesthood leader -- an informal council of two with the Church official acting as the minister as you as the decision-maker.

This is unfamiliar language and procedure to me.  Can you show me any church policy or handbook instructions that outlines procedure for such “Church councils” with the member acting as a “decision-maker”. 

If you are simply saying “talk with the bishop”, ok.  But I’m not sure why you are referring to that setting as a “Church council” (even informally).  That is confusing language that is never used that way in the church to describe “talking to the bishop”.  I certainly wouldn’t be viewed as the “decision maker” in such a so-called “Church council”.

But I will consider your suggestion of talking to the bishop.  

I’ll have to address the rest later.  

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by pogi

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is unfamiliar language and procedure to me.  Can you show me any church policy or handbook instructions that outlines procedure for such “Church councils” with the member acting as a “decision-maker”. 

If you are simply saying “talk with the bishop”, ok.  But I’m not sure why you are referring to that setting as a “Church council” (even informally).  That is confusing language that is never used that way in the church to describe “talking to the bishop”.  I certainly wouldn’t be viewed as the “decision maker” in such a so-called “Church council”.

But I will consider your suggestion of talking to the bishop.  

I’ll have to address the rest later.  

 

Formal Church organization/unit councils are addressed in the Handbook (4.4). The presiding officer is the decision-maker -- regardless of whomever else they involve in the decision -- and these principles are the same for family councils (Family Councils (churchofjesuschrist.org) where parents / head of home are the decision-makers) and informal councils (where the one seeking counsel is the decision-maker). This inspired setting, formal or informal, in which counsel is sought and by which decisions are made within the scope of one's stewardship (ecclesiastical, familial, civic or personal) is what I'm calling a council.

I would advise that you approach "talking to the bishop" as if you were forming a council, or "counseling with the bishop". You are sharing your perceptions and asking for feedback on the topic of the culture as you experience it, which you believe sets members up for a faith crisis when disappointed by leaders' mistakes, and what can be done about it. Then you can decide what to do, or maybe he will explore the issue further in ward council.

I know definitions and semantics are important, which is why I intentionally look at the setting for these kinds of discussions as "councils" and call them such, to bring to bear some of the more sacred aspects of the undertaking.

Edited December 6, 2022 by CV75

[Calm]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

The principles are exactly the same, but you may certainly differentiate by nomenclature, and I will understand and accept what you mean.

However, I am having a somewhat difficult time tracking what you mean with your broader usage.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

This is unfamiliar language and procedure to me.  Can you show me any church policy or handbook instructions that outlines procedure for such “Church councils” with the member acting as a “decision-maker”. 

If you are simply saying “talk with the bishop”, ok.  But I’m not sure why you are referring to that setting as a “Church council” (even informally).  That is confusing language that is never used that way in the church to describe “talking to the bishop”.  I certainly wouldn’t be viewed as the “decision maker” in such a so-called “Church council”.

But I will consider your suggestion of talking to the bishop.  

I’ll have to address the rest later.  

 

I think what was a little confusing was that the term "decision maker" is the presiding officer, the one who "calls the meeting together", be it the stake pres, bishop, mom, dad, or theoretically a kid, who doesn't like some family rule, etc.  

Maybe I got that wrong, maybe not.

I guess the decision is to see the meeting as needed, so one calls it together .......?

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

- and these principles are the same for family councils (Family Councils (churchofjesuschrist.org) where parents / head of home are the decision-makers) and informal councils (where the one seeking counsel is the decision-maker). This inspired setting, formal or informal, in which counsel is sought and by which decisions are made within the scope of one's stewardship (ecclesiastical, familial, civic or personal) is what I'm calling a council.

@pogi

Emphasis added.

Edited December 6, 2022 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

However, I am having a somewhat difficult time tracking what you mean with your broader usage.

Sorry about that, maybe the post above helps: Posted 20 hours ago (edited)   I intentionally look at the setting for these kinds of discussions as "councils" and call them such to bring to mind some of the more sacred aspects of the undertaking.

[Tacenda]

Saw this and wondered if anyone had seen it before and if it's approved by the church. It looks like a younger version of the latest find of Joseph's actual photo. Wondered if it's approved by the church, that might mean the church feels that the photo is authentic.

[Calm]

White hat and stone featuring prominently, called Young Joseph, the Glasslooker…I am guessing it’s not from the Church.  The artist appears to be Adam Worthington.

Quote

It was made using the youngest available photos of his sons, his death mask, and a body borrowed from a contemporary.

His sons were good looking, though Joseph III needed to lose the beard badly.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

White hat and stone featuring prominently, called Young Joseph, the Glasslooker…I am guessing it’s not from the Church.  The artist appears to be Adam Worthington.

His sons were good looking, though Joseph III needed to lose the beard badly.

Well it closely resembles the photo found in the locket. Makes it more assuredly authentic perhaps.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well it closely resembles the photo found in the locket. Makes it more assuredly authentic perhaps.

I agree, but not sure that is why, though the pictures of his sons look a lot like the photo to me, suggesting relatives.
 

The artist was aware of the photo as he used it in another picture, so my guess is unless the painting came first, the photo influenced him. Maybe what he was talking about how the sons were a reference was changing the look of the photo to a younger version.  

[Islander]

On 12/2/2022 at 1:31 PM, Ambrosia said:

I would also like to say that we all make mistakes, including our Church leaders, and I think we need to have a forgiving and loving attitude regarding everyone, whether they are right or wrong.  As church members we should sustain our Church leaders with respect to their leadership positions, as well as on a personal level.  The bishop of a ward, for example, any ward, is not a perfect person.  He is going to make some mistakes both in his personal life and while functioning as a bishop.  And the same goes for stake presidents, members of the high councils, area authorities, general authorities, all the way up to the top in Church leadership positions.  Generally, I regard all of these people as fallible, imperfect people as I sustain them in their positions.  And I do have faith, a level of certainty, that pretty much every one of them is trying to do his or her best to be a good person.  If we look for faults we will find them, if we look hard enough.

I friend and currently inactive member of the church articulated his feelings in regards to this issue in very insightful ways. He said that "in a way, it feels like my wife was unfaithful to me but decided to stay...but never apologized, never expressed repentance or regret...that is how I feels about all the so-called mistakes of the church leaders in the past..." He was a bit more graphic after that but I see no need to repeat his statements.

In a way I understand him. It is true that there are many issues that the church did not disclose or shared openly for over a century. And it is true that, although the church has said that they no longer adhere to certain practices or is no longer advancing certain doctrines, they never publicly apologize or expressed regret for the damage and pain those teachings caused to millions of people. That is an undeniable fact.

I suggest that the greatest challenge, in the context of the conversation, is that many argue that there is no clear and visible line between what is revelation from God and church policy. It is not easy to talk about truth and knowledge when the leadership publish a "revelation" and secular public outcry overrules the will of God, for all practical purposes, and the "revelation" is then quickly discarded.

It is a challenge to talk about "revelation" when in the same sentence we open the possibility of fallibility due to human error and the fact that we are all broken, fallen human beings. Just some thoughts.

[Tacenda]

Thought this was right down this topic's alley.

Intro:

Many people stay engaged with the LDS church after deconstructing their faith, but that relationship looks different for everyone. In this episode, Scott brings on Patrick Mason to discuss nuanced membership within the LDS church. What does faithful dissent look like, or how can a member express their unorthodox position with their congregation? Patrick Mason is the Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2022/12/rameumptom-ruminations-078-nuance-and-respectful-disagreement-with-patrick-mason/

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thought this was right down this topic's alley.

Intro:

Many people stay engaged with the LDS church after deconstructing their faith, but that relationship looks different for everyone. In this episode, Scott brings on Patrick Mason to discuss nuanced membership within the LDS church. What does faithful dissent look like, or how can a member express their unorthodox position with their congregation? Patrick Mason is the Leonard J. Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture.

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2022/12/rameumptom-ruminations-078-nuance-and-respectful-disagreement-with-patrick-mason/

Thanks for sharing, I gave it a listen.  Patrick Mason and I seem to be resonating on the same ideas.  He made a lot of good points. 

[Stargazer]

On 12/4/2022 at 3:57 AM, The Nehor said:

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.

As for a wife picking out her sister wife, or her successor...

A man in my old ward who later became the bishop and is now the stake patriarch, his first wife died of cancer. They had five children. She picked out two unmarried women she considered good candidates for his next wife. One of them was a young woman who already had a good relationship with their children, having served many times as their babysitter. She was like half his age. And that was the one he married after his wife died. They had three or four children together. 

When my wife knew her time on earth was ending, she gave me two candidates to be her sister wife. One of them was her choice to be my next wife if plural marriage was ever re-instituted. I ended up marrying someone completely different, a widow who was already sealed to someone else. But it was nice to already have two pre-approved candidates! 

[RevTestament]

On 12/2/2022 at 1:13 PM, pogi said:

In another thread the topic of faith amidst troubling religious history and mistakes of leaders is being discussed. @MiserereNobis shared how his conversion to Catholicism and enduring faith has been able to endure even in light of an honest and open history and acknowledgement of mistakes by leaders at the highest levels.   Here was my response, and I want to open it up for discussion: ****

I know that some who are still engrained in this culture will accuse me of being the one under illusion.   That's fine, your perceptions are your own, but I must follow my conscience and the light I perceive on this.   

I am glad there are others willing to discuss this issue, so am glad you brought it up. However, before discussing further, I want to nail down a few things. By "this culture" do you mean the "pure unquestioning" culture of follow the leader? Having had some exposure to Catholicism, I believe they probably have even more troubling religious history to deal with than we do. There are several things I think one must do to overcome "this culture" as you call it.

1. You must be willing to search for the truth. If the truth really is our moniker, we must be willing to endure a little cognitive disonance in order to find it. Here, I don't necessarily mean some obscure facts - these can change according to the state of present archaeological findings, etc. I mean more spiritual truths.

2. For instance "this culture" as I see what you are saying accepts authority as "truth." I  do not. I accept that those in authority may err. They have authority to tell us to do one thing, when later it is seen to be erroneous. We have to start realizing this is just not so. It is a nice comfortable little package to believe your leaders will never lead you astray, and the Church has taught that to its members, but I simply do not believe that. I have simply come to accept that leaders are imperfect with the exception of Christ, and err. That doesn't make the gospel untrue, but as we grow, and begin to see this for ouselves, it does present a challenge to many, and they become "disillusioned" due to the reality of their prior perceptions, and their new reality. 

I did not teach our children Santa Clause exists, because I did not want to teach them a reason to distrust me - no matter how "innocent" it seems. I didn't want to give them "Santa Claus" syndrome - the point where reality crashes their prior perceptions - including of me. I feel the Church has taught a version of Santa Claus. For a good while it worked until we continue to learn more. The primary song "follow the prophet" is a perfect example of this.... and I think of this as the culture you are talking about. Bucking that makes you a pariah... an outsider.... etc. Does that mean I reject the Church President? No. I accept that the Church has given him authority. But, I do believe that the president does not necessarily know the way any better than me, and in fact forged my own way. I am not endorsing that for others, and am not telling them to reject Church leadership nor to believe anything different than what they have taught. I am just saying that I am comfortable outside of that culture. I still believe the Church has the "true gospel" but have come to accept that does not necessarily mean that all its past teachings have been true. 

As I perceive it, this culture is alive and well in the Church. For example it is even in the temple worthiness questions... "[not a precise quote] do you believe or teach anything different from Church teachings or doctrine."  Well, of course I do. If I give an example of this, I will probably get admonished not to pursue it further. I for example have talked about Eden in this forum, and how I do not believe Eden was in America. To challenge that perception "breaks" things. People start to get upset. Some may become diillusioned. I see it as a necessary thing in order to seek truth out and build upon it. I don't see myself as being able to pursue truth further if my underlying perceptions are false. Others see a little crack, and throw up their hands in disgust saying to themselves, I have been deceived, and led astray. They stop attending, etc. I do not think of the Church as true. "The Church" is a community of people. People are faulty sinners. The gospel is true, and built upon true scriptural principles. I do not feel obligated to follow prior interpretations. How to do that without becoming disillusioned is not easy, and to me is what makes the gospel hard. If we accept the yoke, and proceed in the right direction, the task becomes "easy." 

Are we communicating at the same tree here?

On 12/2/2022 at 1:13 PM, pogi said:

Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that.  Either way, it is not a doctrine or policy in the church where I see that improvements can be made, rather it is a culture and practice that I want to improve upon for the sake of maintaining an enduring faith.  I have seen too many fall because of this culture, and I have seen enough.  Something needs to be done.  But what, exactly I don't know?  Any thoughts?      

Again, I am unsure of "the culture" you are talking about. Is it a culture of "follow the leader" or a culture of truth seekers? I don't know that the Church has any express policy that you must follow the leadership, but it is certainly ingrained in the culture. From my perception we must stop discouraging members from asking questions. Seeking after spiritual truth requires us to ask questions and seek after answers. I just went to my son's graduation where I listened to a speaker say how we must encourage questions to learn, yet I still see that there is a culture of discouraging any questions where Church leaders have spoken. We should not make members who choose to do this pariahs. If in this process, they end up becoming inactive, we should not shut them out of our families and friendships. Is that "the culture" you are talking about? Instead, let us openly share how we have grown. How we have overcome similar obstacles - because many of us have. Many of us may be content just to follow. I am quite grateful to the Church for teaching me correct gospel principles on which to build a lasting faith. To the extent that I have not come to believe everything the Church has previously taught does not make me angry, because I have never had the perception that the Church is perfect or that leaders are perfect. Has it caused me to struggle? Yes, I have struggled with understanding the atonement. I have struggled with understanding various parts of scripture. I have taken from what I perceive as true, and built upon it, instead of having the expectation that all input from the Church is true, and getting my beliefs[in Santa Claus] dashed, becoming disillusioned, and/or angry. Because of this I can give my testimony that the restored gospel is true, and that the Church is doing the Lord's work through us imperfect followers, and may be subject to correction from time to time. I do not see myself as that correcter. That is for the Lord to do. I just live my beliefs, and to the extent that is the light, I believe people may eventually follow. I do not demand the Church change for my perceptions of reality and interpretations. I have to be content with living those myself. That is how I maintain an enduring faith without imposing on others or even destroying the very thing that pointed me in the right direction, and gave me an enduing faith is God's word.

Edited December 16, 2022 by RevTestament

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for a wife picking out her sister wife, or her successor...

A man in my old ward who later became the bishop and is now the stake patriarch, his first wife died of cancer. They had five children. She picked out two unmarried women she considered good candidates for his next wife. One of them was a young woman who already had a good relationship with their children, having served many times as their babysitter. She was like half his age. And that was the one he married after his wife died. They had three or four children together. 

When my wife knew her time on earth was ending, she gave me two candidates to be her sister wife. One of them was her choice to be my next wife if plural marriage was ever re-instituted. I ended up marrying someone completely different, a widow who was already sealed to someone else. But it was nice to already have two pre-approved candidates! 

That is sweet. Almost makes me want to start trying to date again.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am glad there are others willing to discuss this issue, so am glad you brought it up. However, before discussing further, I want to nail down a few things. By "this culture" do you mean the "pure unquestioning" culture of follow the leader? Having had some exposure to Catholicism, I believe they probably have even more troubling religious history to deal with than we do. There are several things I think one must do to overcome "this culture" as you call it.

1. You must be willing to search for the truth. If the truth really is our moniker, we must be willing to endure a little cognitive disonance in order to find it. Here, I don't necessarily mean some obscure facts - these can change according to the state of present archaeological findings, etc. I mean more spiritual truths.

2. For instance "this culture" as I see what you are saying accepts authority as "truth." I  do not. I accept that those in authority may err. They have authority to tell us to do one thing, when later it is seen to be erroneous. We have to start realizing this is just not so. It is a nice comfortable little package to believe your leaders will never lead you astray, and the Church has taught that to its members, but I simply do not believe that. I have simply come to accept that leaders are imperfect with the exception of Christ, and err. That doesn't make the gospel untrue, but as we grow, and begin to see this for ouselves, it does present a challenge to many, and they become "disillusioned" due to the reality of their prior perceptions, and their new reality. 

I did not teach our children Santa Clause exists, because I did not want to teach them a reason to distrust me - no matter how "innocent" it seems. I didn't want to give them "Santa Claus" syndrome - the point where reality crashes their prior perceptions - including of me. I feel the Church has taught a version of Santa Claus. For a good while it worked until we continue to learn more. The primary song "follow the prophet" is a perfect example of this.... and I think of this as the culture you are talking about. Bucking that makes you a pariah... an outsider.... etc. Does that mean I reject the Church President? No. I accept that the Church has given him authority. But, I do believe that the president does not necessarily know the way any better than me, and in fact forged my own way. I am not endorsing that for others, and am not telling them to reject Church leadership nor to believe anything different than what they have taught. I am just saying that I am comfortable outside of that culture. I still believe the Church has the "true gospel" but have come to accept that does not necessarily mean that all its past teachings have been true. 

As I perceive it, this culture is alive and well in the Church. For example it is even in the temple worthiness questions... "[not a precise quote] do you believe or teach anything different from Church teachings or doctrine."  Well, of course I do. If I give an example of this, I will probably get admonished not to pursue it further. I for example have talked about Eden in this forum, and how I do not believe Eden was in America. To challenge that perception "breaks" things. People start to get upset. Some may become diillusioned. I see it as a necessary thing in order to seek truth out and build upon it. I don't see myself as being able to pursue truth further if my underlying perceptions are false. Others see a little crack, and throw up their hands in disgust saying to themselves, I have been deceived, and led astray. They stop attending, etc. I do not think of the Church as true. "The Church" is a community of people. People are faulty sinners. The gospel is true, and built upon true scriptural principles. I do not feel obligated to follow prior interpretations. How to do that without becoming disillusioned is not easy, and to me is what makes the gospel hard. If we accept the yoke, and proceed in the right direction, the task becomes "easy." 

Are we communicating at the same tree here?

Again, I am unsure of "the culture" you are talking about. Is it a culture of "follow the leader" or a culture of truth seekers? I don't know that the Church has any express policy that you must follow the leadership, but it is certainly ingrained in the culture. From my perception we must stop discouraging members from asking questions. Seeking after spiritual truth requires us to ask questions and seek after answers. I just went to my son's graduation where I listened to a speaker say how we must encourage questions to learn, yet I still see that there is a culture of discouraging any questions where Church leaders have spoken. We should not make members who choose to do this pariahs. If in this process, they end up becoming inactive, we should not shut them out of our families and friendships. Is that "the culture" you are talking about? Instead, let us openly share how we have grown. How we have overcome similar obstacles - because many of us have. Many of us may be content just to follow. I am quite grateful to the Church for teaching me correct gospel principles on which to build a lasting faith. To the extent that I have not come to believe everything the Church has previously taught does not make me angry, because I have never had the perception that the Church is perfect or that leaders are perfect. Has it caused me to struggle? Yes, I have struggled with understanding the atonement. I have struggled with understanding various parts of scripture. I have taken from what I perceive as true, and built upon it, instead of having the expectation that all input from the Church is true, and getting my beliefs[in Santa Claus] dashed, becoming disillusioned, and/or angry. Because of this I can give my testimony that the restored gospel is true, and that the Church is doing the Lord's work through us imperfect followers, and may be subject to correction from time to time. I do not see myself as that correcter. That is for the Lord to do. I just live my beliefs, and to the extent that is the light, I believe people may eventually follow. I do not demand the Church change for my perceptions of reality and interpretations. I have to be content with living those myself. That is how I maintain an enduring faith without imposing on others or even destroying the very thing that pointed me in the right direction, and gave me an enduing faith is God's word.

Yes, I think what you describe is the culture I am speaking of in-part.   It is more then that though, it is the black and white attitude that seems to permeate everything.  It is the all true or all fraud, all in or all out tribality mentality.  People don't feel safe to believe differently from the correlated teachings, if they do believe differently, they better keep it to themselves!   Fall-in-line - the thinking has been done - doubt your conscience and the impressions of the spirit to you before you doubt the leaders, type of culture.  It doesn't feel welcoming and safe to be a more nuanced believer.  

I identify with what you say a lot, including your more healthy attitude of gratitude and recognition of good and grounding that the church has provided you.  That is a healthy balanced relationship that is hard for many to navigate the gray gaps between the black and white spaces and voices in and out of the church.  It feels like everything wants to push us towards one or the other.   I say no.  I will follow the light of my conscience and the spirit that speaks to my heart thank you very much!  That happens to be a church teaching, but there is another, more dominant school of thought in the church that doesn't like it much. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by pogi