Evolving Views Since Joining Mormon Dialogue

[ZealouslyStriving]

After seeing the discussions here, I am genuinely curious about the influence of the discussions here on people's religious views.

Edited May 13, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

After seeing the discussions here, I am genuinely curious about the influence of the discussions here on people's religious views.

How about a "no change' option.

[Vanguard]

You might want to include the option "I was a TBM and still am". The option "...and believe still more than ever" suggests I would be even more TBM than when I came to the boards and that's simply not the case. I am pretty much TBM and always have been. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

To me it was the same thing, but I changed it. The poll only allows 3 answers.

[10THAmendment]

I was in major doubt when I joined and am now strong in my testimony. 

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I was in major doubt when I joined and am now strong in my testimony. 

Good for you, it is possible!

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

36 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I was in major doubt when I joined and am now strong in my testimony. 

That's good to hear!

[let’s roll]

I struggle with labels since they lack nuance and the beauty in finding out about others is always in the nuances so won’t label myself by choosing one of the poll boxes.  I enjoy the wide range of personalities and opinions on the board.  I don’t have much, if any, angst in my life so generally avoid the angst-laden threads, instead gravitating to those threads where people share ideas and beliefs, are interested in the ideas of and beliefs of others, and not dismissive of invitations.

[LoudmouthMormon]

I've been on this forum (and in it's previous incarnation) for almost a quarter-century.  Showed up with a shiny new fledgling testimony not even a year old.  I was interested in familiarizing myself with the criticisms folks had about my faith and its members.  I lurked for a year before I posted.  I read the best everyone had to bring, pro or con.

Summary: 
- There is no shortage of legit stories about how individual mormons have behaved in beastly ways.  Legit cultural issues also exist.  
- There are almost zero criticisms on my faith or church doctrine which I have not evaluated and resolved to my satisfaction.  
- I'm happy, after all these years, to continue to occasionally receive tangible and clear guidance from the spirit.  I've never needed it to help set aside or ignore a doubt, but it's been nice to have it show up and remind me of what's important.

 

Edited May 13, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Damien the Leper]

I was but a shell of a creature waiting to blossom into a Catholic with a deep love of Eastern Orthodoxy.

[MrShorty]

When I first joined this group, I was already well into a "faith crisis" (if that's the term you like). Since joining, I've looked for resolutions to those issues, and recently decided that resolutions just aren't forthcoming. For the immediate future, the path before me looks like a (much maligned) "cafeteria Mormon" path. I will keep the things that seem right and good and true, and discard the things that don't.

I guess that means, if the poll option were included, I would check "doubting TBM to cafeteria Mormon" (or equivalent).

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I was but a shell of a creature waiting to blossom into a Catholic with a deep love of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I have recently started watching Eastern Orthodox videos. I would not object if we added incense and candles, smells and bells, to our services. I don't know why some object to priestly vestments, Israelite High Priests had quite a fancy wardrobe. Dress them priests and deacons up!

[smac97]

A few thoughts:

1. Mormon 9:31 and the Nirvana Fallacy

My participation on this board has helped me develop a deep appreciation for the wisdom found in Mormon 9:31:

Quote

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 joined this board in April 2004, just over twenty (20) years ago.  I've seen a lot of people come and go.  I think this aphorism, if well and truly applied, is a fairly effective inoculation against a faith crisis or loss of faith.  Not for everyone, because some people have concerns that well and truly transcend the foibles, mistakes, and sins of the Latter-day Saints, particularly

A) those errors and sins made by Latter-day Saints with whom the individual is acquainted (a family member, local bishop, etc.),

B) the errors and sins of the founding - and hence long-departed - leaders such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, 

C) the decisions made by current leaders of the Church which either
-C1) don't really go along with, or even contravene, currently-popular sociocultural trends (e.g., issues relating to The Law of Chastity) or
-C2) are more administrative than pastoral (e.g. the SEC issue last year, the Bishop's Hotline, etc.), and

D) a cascade failure which originates in one of these, then flows into one the others, and then to the truth claims of the Church.

Mormon 9:31, then, has helped me avoid the Nirvana Fallacy, which I previously described here:

Quote

{T}hese days we have the Internet, and with it comes immediate and at-your-fingertips access to any and every opinion under the sun.  Also accessible are "Big Lists" (as Jeff Lindsay put it) that itemize controversies involving, and errors and mis-steps made by, past and present members of the Church (particularly its leaders).  Jeremy Runnells' "Letter to a CES Director" is perhaps the most well-known example of this.
...
Another challenge is that some folks, having encountered these "Big Lists," can end up adopting a variant of the "Nirvana Fallacy."  This fallacy is described here:

Quote

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.
...
In La Bégueule (1772), Voltaire wrote Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien, which is often translated as "The perfect is the enemy of the good" (literally: "The best is the enemy of the good").

The nirvana fallacy was given its name by economist Harold Demsetz in 1969, who said:

Quote

The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing "imperfect" institutional arrangement. This nirvana approach differs considerably from a comparative institution approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.

 

My sense is that some members of the Church are harboring idealized, unrealistic expectations about the Church, and its leaders and members, and its history.  This is the "perfect" part of Voltaire's maxim. 

Then these folks encounter "big lists" and other online resources that distill and summarize all sorts of controversies, errors, shortcomings, etc. by members and leaders of the Church.  Such compilations are full of cheap shots presented for shock value.  Presentism.  Facile criticism.  Misrepresentation by omission and distortion.  A determined effort to keep these topics decontextualized and sensationalized.  Sarcasm.  No effort to study or meaningfully understand.  And intermingled with them are some legitimate criticisms. 

These summaries of the Church are, understandably, difficult or impossible to reconcile with the Church's narrative about itself, which has long tended toward an idealized presentation (though the Church's publication of Saints, Vol. 1: The Standard of Truth is signaling some real change on this issue).

Some members, then, end up facing seemingly irreconcilable options

• Option A: the Church is essentially good and decent and ordained of God (as claimed by the Church), or
• Option B: the Church is essentially flawed and corrupt, and even evil (as claimed by authors of the above-referenced "big lists").

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

These members can, and often do, grapple with these issues in secret.  Maybe they don't want to "rock the boat" (in the ward, amongst family members, etc.).  Maybe they don't want to disappoint family members and friends.  Maybe they struggle in secret out of fear.  Maybe they feel overwhelmed and anxious at the prospect of their Latter-day Saint "worldview" being challenged or upended.  This can be a particularly potent factor in their decision-making process, as such secrecy tends to isolate the individual from other members, and also tends to lead the individual to hostile sources, who are at liberty to characterize the Church in the worst ways possible.  

My participation on this board has helped me develop what I think is a healthy and realistic outlook on the mistakes made by members of the Church, particularly its leaders.

2. Hafens' Three-Phase Progression of Faith

This board has also been helpful in developing a more resilient faith.  There are three components to the counsel in Mormon 9:31:

Component A) "Condemn... not" others because of their imperfections (in this context, particularly as pertaining to the Latter-day Saints and their leaders).

Component B) "{G}ive thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto" us the "imperfections" of the Latter-day Saints and their leaders.

Component C) "{L}earn to be more wise than" those who have come before, and whose errors have been made known to us.

It is this third component that I think is relevant to this board.  Part of learning requires that we examine where we stand individually.  A useful framework for such introspection is set forth in a book published in 2018 by Elder Bruce and Sister Marie Hafen, Faith is Not Blind, and which describes a faith journey comprised of three phases, summarized here:

Quote

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.
...
In the volume, lived stories — like a Latter-day Saint being challenged by an agnostic coworker — blend with the doctrinal discussions one might expect from university-level lecturers. As the authors put it, “untested idealism,” “naïve simplicity” or a gospel that’s little more than “a firm handshake, a high-five, and a smiley face” is unlikely to foster the requisite conviction in order for faith to survive today's trials.
...

A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

Here's a good short YouTube synopsis of the Hafens' framework:

I think many of those who, having been a member of the Church, encounter a faith crisis do so in Phase 2 ("struggl{ing} with conflicts and uncertainty," often derived from things can can, or ought to be, considered in light of Mormon 9:31 and the Nirvana Fallacy).  If these folks do not see a way forward to Phase 3, then they often leave.  This board has helped me get to, and remain in, Phase 3 ("a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience").

3. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool

This board has also helped me navigate challenges where my religious faith and perspective is in tension with, or contradicted by, other influences and ideologies (social, political, etc.).  In such circumstances, I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively. 

4. Stalemate and Moroni's Promise

Having spent twenty years on this board, I have observed some repeated trends that just recycle over and over.  I summarized them back in 2018, and these trends continue to appear today:

Quote

Quote

Years ago, when I joined this site, the field of Mormon apologetics was active.  I remember active engagement from Mormon academics from various backgrounds, consistent publications, debate, amongst other activities.  Nowadays, Mormon apologetics seems close to non-existent relative to ten years ago.  What changed?  Where are the apologists?  

A few thoughts:

1. There really isn't much new to discuss.  We end up re-litigating the same topics over and over again, or else minor variations of the same topics.

2. The topics that are discussed seem to have reached sort of an end-stage.  The data points and talking points are being recycled.

3. FAIR, Mormon Interpreter, BookofMormonCentral, Jeff Lindsay, and a few other resources seem to have addressed pretty much all of the substantive criticisms of the doctrines of the Church.  That is not to say that these explanations and such are undeniably persuasive.  There's still plenty of room to disagree.  But both sides have argued each other into a stalemate.

4. Online debates about the merits of the truth claims of the LDS Church can only get you so far.  Moroni's Promise, prayer, faith, humility, service, patience, endurance, and so on are, I think, the means God intends for us to use when seeking a determination on the Church's truth claims..  Adversarial discussions . . . not so much.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 13, 2024 by smac97

[CV75]

I don't know what a TBM is supposed to really be.

[MustardSeed]

I honestly don’t fit in anywhere.  True blues to doubts is a very large spectrum imo

[LoudmouthMormon]

The absolute coolest thing in the whole universe occurred on another LDS debate board.  The regulars all decided to take a week and switch sides, just to see what could happen.  The critics voiced their strongest defenses of the church and defended them.  The apologists took the weakest parts of theology or doctrine or whatever, and pushed it as hard as they could.   Then they stopped after a week and compared notes.  

Witnessing it was a singular experience.  I saw friendships and understanding happen.  I saw mutual respect and higher quality arguments after.  

Honestly, something similar might actually solve many world problems.  

[Damien the Leper]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't know what a TBM is supposed to really be.

TBM is a false construct.

[Rain]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

After seeing the discussions here, I am genuinely curious about the influence of the discussions here on people's religious views.

This is a different discussion than your question.  While the board may or may not have influence on someone's views your poll question will not show it has caused those views. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Did my best. Sorry.

Make the topic about whatever you want.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't know what a TBM is supposed to really be.

My understanding is that it is a reference to either "True Blue Mormon" or "Totally Believing Mormon."  The latter may have, for some, a pejorative connotation, as it indicates someone who is a Latter-day Saint more because of some sort of tribalism than because of having developed a thoughtful and well-informed faith in the Restored Gospel.

For others, "TBM" just means someone who is a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

IIRC, "TBM" was invented by critics.  It seems to be widely used an awful lot of exmo spaces as way (sometimes a mocking way) of referring to folks with solid beliefs. 

Similar to the "internet mormon/chapel mormon" stuff that seemed to be popular 10 years ago.  A way to divide us into camps of people who had either looked into church history and had a few brain cells, or those who steadfastly refused to read or think anything that didn't come from a church magazine.

I've never felt the need to measure myself according to any scale thought up by critics.  But I did answer the poll.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

IIRC, "TBM" was invented by critics.  It seems to be widely used an awful lot of exmo spaces as way (sometimes a mocking way) of referring to folks with solid beliefs. 

I understand it to come from a story of a missionary confronted by an anti-Mormon mob when asked if he was a "Mormon" instead of denying it, he proudly proclaimed, " Yes siree, true blue, through and through!"

Edited May 13, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My understanding is that it is a reference to either "True Blue Mormon" or "Totally Believing Mormon."  The latter may have, for some, a pejorative connotation, as it indicates someone who is a Latter-day Saint more because of some sort of tribalism than because of having developed a thoughtful and well-informed faith in the Restored Gospel.

For others, "TBM" just means someone who is a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint.

Thanks,

-Smac

In that case, I'm of the latter descriptive statement (LDS --  ). As such, I checked the third box. 

@ZealouslyStriving, I think there is more to "evolving views" than faith in Christ and observing the covenants, though those are the ultimate aims. I think my participation on MDDB has helped me think through many issues on my way (evolution) to applying the Gospel in my life as the world changes. Could I have done this without MDDB? I hope so, but I like it anyway!  

[Rain]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did my best. Sorry.

Make the topic about whatever you want.

Good poll questions can be very difficult to form.  I spent some time working for a survey place at about the same time I took a research class. It was surprising to me how bad some of those questions where people were paying money for the answers were! 

Then it doesn't help when people assume that the question is asking something different than it is. People sometimes speak with hints that are not in the language or assume hints that were not there so even with questions asking for exactly what you want the people answering them might be answering in a different way! It makes it even more difficult!

So going by what I THINK you are asking for rather than the poll I'll answer: I believed when I joined. Now, I don't believe the church is God's one church, but believe it has truth like any other good church does. I had a serious concern way back when I was a teenager that has come and gone and had one major question for over 20 years that is still a question. When really working through my doubts I stayed away from the board because I didn't want it to influence me. I don't want to say more because it would break the board rule of not sharing why I left stories. (To be clear, I haven't currently left). So basically, the board has influenced me (and I think anyone who has spent time here has been influenced in one way or another), but I always try to be willing to follow God's directions when making choices verses listening to any person.

Edited May 14, 2024 by Rain

[webbles]

39 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I understand it to come from a story of a missionary confronted by an anti-Mormon mob when asked if he was a "Mormon" instead of denying it, he proudly proclaimed, " Yes siree, true blue, through and through!"

It is a story about Joseph F. Smith that was first recorded a year after his death.  The story happened when he was returning from his Hawaiin mission in 1857 in California.  There's a 4 original variants (by 3 different people who knew Joseph F. Smith).  https://juvenileinstructor.org/true-blue-depending-on-whos-telling-the-tale-the-redacted-story-of-joseph-f-smith-and-the-ruffians/ has a nice break down of the different variants.

Edited to add: There's a short video about it at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2012-05-0603-preparation-of-joseph-f-smith-true-blue-through-and-through?lang=eng

Edited May 13, 2024 by webbles