Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

[_mentalgymnast]

A few things off the top of my head (that don't involve relying on "spiritual fruits" and evidences) that cause me to remain open to possibilities of the LDS church being what it claims to be are:

1) the continuing debate among the naysayers and the apologists without complete resolution either way. The Vogel/Broadhurst debates having to do with the SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY being a prime example. Are they both right? Are they both wrong? Have one of them conclusively provided incontrovertible evidence that they are right and the other isn't?

I was a bit off on this one. Vogel/Broadhurst are both naysayers. I don't know that I would consider either one of them an apologist. By any stretch. <g>

MG

[_Seven]

I want to add a few comments about the "black and white thinking" /fundamentalist label that apologists often accuse former Mormons of. Truth Dancer already said perfectly most of my thoughts on the subject.

A member who questions or has doubts is the furthest from the black and white thinking done in the church. Some are still active and are able to comparmentalize their beliefs, some have found the church to be a fraud, and some like myself have found some of the church's doctrines to be in conlfict with our conscience and are dissillusioned with leaders who claim to speak for God.

Black and white thinking is among the majority of the TBM church members and is a natural consequence of the church's claims. An example of this comes from my own DH. For him to believe in the truth/ claims of the church, he has to accept that plural marriage was a commandment of God. Even though it goes against everything holy and sacred he believes in marriage, the church can't be true if that doctrine isn't. It's all or nothing on that topic. He doesn't believe everything was done right in the practice of it, but if Joseph was wrong and made up 132 (or Brigham Young) then he has to throw out his belief in the church. You will find this attitude among the majority of TBM Mormons. They are unable to handle the possibility that the Prophets gave false doctrine or teachings of this magnitude. The Adam God doctrine, and many others will never be an issue for them unless they go digging around for it, but polygamy and racism are ones that they are forced to accept as Godly or they will have a testimony crisis. It is rare to find a member like "Katherine the Great" who can retain belief in the church but also believe that the church leaders were not inspired or led by God on the plural marriage doctrine.

Even among apologists you see some of the black and white thinking. They claim to believe in the fallibility of Prophets but can't ever admit what behavior or teachings were clearly wrong and in violation of moral law. "If the church is true then this must be of God" is how they view immoral behavior and spin it.

Calling evil good doesn't work for me, but I can still believe in Christ and the teachings of the LDS leaders that are in agreement with my consience/spirit I benefit from. I don't believe the LDS leaders are led by God any more than the Catholic Pope, but I can still see some good in their work and appreciate it. "Leaving the church" had nothing to do with black and white thinking. As a chapel Mormon I was a black and white thinker. If the church wasn't true, then nothing was in my mind. As an inactive internet Mormon I am no longer a black and white thinker. It was opening my mind to the gray areas that led me out of the church.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Hi MG... :-)

Now TD, I'm thinking as an active member of the church here. Am I thinking black and white? Are there shades of gray? Can you see them? Are those that leave the church able to see the shades of gray? I believe that this ability to do so is lost, at least to some extent, once one chooses to disbelieve.

I personally think the WORLD is shades of gray.
~dancer~

I do too. It seems to me that MG is the greatest black and white thinker of them all here. He glimpses the gray and he sifts it back into black and white before it can shake his testimony. He is set on believing Mormonism is truth even though he has questions and doubts. He is not seeing outside the box. Anyone who sees those shades of gray for what they are loses their faith in Mormonism, I can't see any way around that.

I love this song by Billy Joel. I see myself in it as a Mormon and a post-mormon.

Shades Of Grey Lyrics
Artist(Band):Billy Joel

Some things were perfectly clear,
seen with the vision of youth
No doubts and nothing to fear,
I claimed the corner on truth
These days it's harder to say
I know what I'm fighting for
My faith is falling away
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
Black and white is how it should be
But shades of grey are the colors I see

Once there were trenches and walls
and one point of every view
Fight 'til the other man falls
Kill him before he kills you
These days the edges are blurred,
I'm old and tired of war
I hear the other man's words
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey are all that I find
When I look to the enemy line
Black and white was so easy for me
But shades of grey are the colors I see

Now with the wisdom of years
I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear
are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men,
and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

Shades of grey are all that I find
when I look to they enemy line
There ain't no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colours I see

Shades of grey wherever I go
The more I find out the less that I know
There ain't no rainbows shining on me
Shades of grey are the colors I see

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I contend that there is a core difference(s) between those that jump ship and those that don't see a reason to after having received enlightenment as to those things that are potentially destructive to faith. I have alluded to some of these differences in my original post.

This is nice. You've come up with a new (new to me, anyway) way to imply that there is something wrong with those who leave. They haven't received enlightenment! Guess that's better than "they just want to go out and smoke and drink."

But this enlightenment you have received, can you explain it a little more?

Oh come on, Lucretia. All you have to do to be enlightened, MG-style, is to disconnect facts from their logical implications. It's just that simple.

Once you've learned to see evidence contravening LDS beliefs without seeing how this evidence bears on LDS beliefs, then you can have the peace of mind that comes with the certainty that you'll never know you're wrong.

Don

You do have a way of getting to the bottom line!

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I want to add a few comments about the "black and white thinking" /fundamentalist label that apologists often accuse former Mormons of. Truth Dancer already said perfectly most of my thoughts on the subject.

A member who questions or has doubts is the furthest from the black and white thinking done in the church. Some are still active and are able to comparmentalize their beliefs, some have found the church to be a fraud, and some like myself have found some of the church's doctrines to be in conlfict with our conscience and are dissillusioned with leaders who claim to speak for God.

Black and white thinking is among the majority of the TBM church members and is a natural consequence of the church's claims. An example of this comes from my own DH. For him to believe in the truth/ claims of the church, he has to accept that plural marriage was a commandment of God. Even though it goes against everything holy and sacred he believes in marriage, the church can't be true if that doctrine isn't. It's all or nothing on that topic. He doesn't believe everything was done right in the practice of it, but if Joseph was wrong and made up 132 (or Brigham Young) then he has to throw out his belief in the church. You will find this attitude among the majority of TBM Mormons. They are unable to handle the possibility that the Prophets gave false doctrine or teachings of this magnitude. The Adam God doctrine, and many others will never be an issue for them unless they go digging around for it, but polygamy and racism are ones that they are forced to accept as Godly or they will have a testimony crisis. It is rare to find a member like "Katherine the Great" who can retain belief in the church but also believe that the church leaders were not inspired or led by God on the plural marriage doctrine.

Even among apologists you see some of the black and white thinking. They claim to believe in the fallibility of Prophets but can't ever admit what behavior or teachings were clearly wrong and in violation of moral law. "If the church is true then this must be of God" is how they view immoral behavior and spin it.

Calling evil good doesn't work for me, but I can still believe in Christ and the teachings of the LDS leaders that are in agreement with my consience/spirit I benefit from. I don't believe the LDS leaders are led by God any more than the Catholic Pope, but I can still see some good in their work and appreciate it. "Leaving the church" had nothing to do with black and white thinking. As a chapel Mormon I was a black and white thinker. If the church wasn't true, then nothing was in my mind. As an inactive internet Mormon I am no longer a black and white thinker. It was opening my mind to the gray areas that led me out of the church.

Amen, Sister Seven. I can tell you one moment when that happened to me. I was sitting in a Unity Church, reading the program, "there is only one presence and power in my life, God the good, the omnificent." (I hope I got that right.) Anyway, I thought yes, that sounds right. Then the Mormon in me said, no, what about Satan, Satan is also a power in my life. And then this little epiphany, the whispering of the Spirit, whatever you want to call it, said "there doesn't have to be a Satan!" That, for me at that time, was waaaaay out of the box, and it felt so absolutely true. Mormonism and traditional Christianity went down the tube for me in that moment and I've never regretted it for a second.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

...my companion asked me about my decision, and we had a wonderful conversation riding home that night about proirities, extenuating circumstances, and flexibility when it comes various mission rules and policies.

MG: I think that if and when there is a final PPI in the sky, that God will take into account priorities and extenuating circumstances that we each experienced individually. I think also that there would/will be a significant degree of flexibility/acceptance from the creator as it would relate to life rules and policies which we voluntarily chose to live by.

All in accordance and within the template/box containing the amount of light, knowledge, and understanding which we had of course.

Regards,
MG

Are you saying that all light, knowledge and understanding are provided within the box? So what's the use of thinking outside it then? Are you sure that you have ever thought outside it, or are you just wandering into some dusty corners?

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

A chain of assumptions...

There is a God. If God is, then God created us. If he created us, he has a plan/roadmap for us to become like him...this would necessitate his interaction with mankind. An organization would be necessary for this plan to be carried out. Authority to speak in the name of God...fully...would have to be given by him. "Starting gates" of some sort (ordinances) would need to be set up/provided to initiate the creative progression/expressions towards becoming more like God. A "fail safe" mechanism for making things right (Jesus and his atonement) would have to be put in place for all of the possible anomalies and imperfectnesses in the creation(s) that are naturally going to happen as a result of "the fall". Finally, when all is said and done, if God is, it seems to me that he would have a "true and living church" upon the earth if it is "humanly" possible to do so to bring the human family back to his presence and as the song says, "to live in his light, always, always, to walk in the light".

I can go along with the first assumption. There is a God. But why do you find it necessary to assume then that God created us, or just what do you mean by he "created" us? That assumption and all the rest sound like black and white, in-the-Mormon-box thinking to me.

[_mentalgymnast]

...my companion asked me about my decision, and we had a wonderful conversation riding home that night about proirities, extenuating circumstances, and flexibility when it comes various mission rules and policies.

MG: I think that if and when there is a final PPI in the sky, that God will take into account priorities and extenuating circumstances that we each experienced individually. I think also that there would/will be a significant degree of flexibility/acceptance from the creator as it would relate to life rules and policies which we voluntarily chose to live by.

All in accordance and within the template/box containing the amount of light, knowledge, and understanding which we had of course.

Regards,
MG

Are you saying that all light, knowledge and understanding are provided within the box? So what's the use of thinking outside it then? Are you sure that you have ever thought outside it, or are you just wandering into some dusty corners?

MG: There are multiple boxes. The original is the one in which we find ourselves initially. As we think outside of the box we create another. That box then has its own template, or set of templates if you will, of possible truths/light/knowledge/understandings which are available. It is then possible to move beyond and out of that box/way of thinking to another level/box.

Think of Fowler's stages of faith.

And yes, I think I've been forced to think outside of the box and not simply investigate dusty corners. It was that or not think at all...or jump ship.

I've been around the block more than once. Like about fifteen times, if each block counts as a year. <g>

Regards,
MG

[_wenglund]

...my companion asked me about my decision, and we had a wonderful conversation riding home that night about proirities, extenuating circumstances, and flexibility when it comes various mission rules and policies.

MG: I think that if and when there is a final PPI in the sky, that God will take into account priorities and extenuating circumstances that we each experienced individually. I think also that there would/will be a significant degree of flexibility/acceptance from the creator as it would relate to life rules and policies which we voluntarily chose to live by.

All in accordance and within the template/box containing the amount of light, knowledge, and understanding which we had of course.

Regards, MG

I agree, though I am open to being suprised either way---by how high may be God's expectations or how lenient he may be if we fail to meet his expectations. I happen to be one who views reasonably high expectations as a good thing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_mentalgymnast]

A chain of assumptions...

There is a God. If God is, then God created us. If he created us, he has a plan/roadmap for us to become like him...this would necessitate his interaction with mankind. An organization would be necessary for this plan to be carried out. Authority to speak in the name of God...fully...would have to be given by him. "Starting gates" of some sort (ordinances) would need to be set up/provided to initiate the creative progression/expressions towards becoming more like God. A "fail safe" mechanism for making things right (Jesus and his atonement) would have to be put in place for all of the possible anomalies and imperfectnesses in the creation(s) that are naturally going to happen as a result of "the fall". Finally, when all is said and done, if God is, it seems to me that he would have a "true and living church" upon the earth if it is "humanly" possible to do so to bring the human family back to his presence and as the song says, "to live in his light, always, always, to walk in the light".

I can go along with the first assumption. There is a God. But why do you find it necessary to assume then that God created us, or just what do you mean by he "created" us? That assumption and all the rest sound like black and white, in-the-Mormon-box thinking to me.

MG: do you have any better explanations for why we "are" ? Is it that big of a jump to go from God to "he is our Father"?

By created I mean that we are because God is. Without God we are not...if God exists. Now what ever the creative processes were, between there and here and here and there, are up for grabs until we find out what they were/are. On the assumption that there is an all powerful God in the universe do you think that we are come kind of oversight and/or accident?

If you are saying that it is black and white thinking to accept the proposition that if God exists then in turn we as human beings on this planet are his children...rather than not...I stand convicted. Whether that's simply "in-the-Mormon-box thinking" as you seem to be saying, I would take issue with.

Regards,
MG