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

[_DonBradley]

Don,

So, are you saying you are an active member of the LDS church who finds peace by maintaining a respectable distance between truth (the peg) and faith (the hole)?

If so, how do you reconcile this reference:

21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 32:21)

Did I misunderstand your post?

You did indeed misunderstand my post. The active LDS in the dialogue is MG, for whom the problems of Mormonism are resolved by taking a more complex view of prophets, etc., and by putting what doesn't fit up on the shelf alongside "the Book of Joseph scroll," the bones of Zelph, domesticated American elephants, a worldwide Flood as described in the Book of Moses, and, one presumes, Bigfoot, cold fusion, the second gunman, and the curse of Tutankhamen.

Don

[_marg]

First, I don't know that the LDS church claims to have all the answers. The LDS church does claim to have the truth, however.

And do you agree with the Church claim that it has the truth? How do you evaluate their claims to determine if what they say is true or not?

When I'm referring to non-believers being black and white thinkers I am referring to the fact that they have made a choice.

Everyone holds beliefs. Some people are dogmatic about their beliefs and are not willing to look at evidence rationally and objectively which might be disconfirming. Other people maintain an attitude of openmindedness to new information and a willingness to change their beliefs. Generally people are indoctrinated into their religion from a young age and don't question where their religious beliefs came from. Oftentimes, they are unwilling to rationally and objectively evaluate their religious beliefs.

Disbelief. Once that choice is made, flexibility in thinking becomes restricted and narrow. Even dogmatic. Lines of thinking follow a certain predictable path. Is that not black and white?

Rational individuals use evidence not faith. If after evaluating objectively one's faith and if one finds lack of evidence or disconfirming evidence and it is enough to warrant abandoning one's beliefs, that's not dogmatic , it's the opposite, it's critical thinking. If you think they should go back to their former beliefs what is required is the evidence and reasoning to do so.

By what means did you arrive at your religious beliefs? What reasoning and evidence do you use to warrant holding them? If you hold them based on faith then no evidence will disconfirm. And essentially you end up with dogmatic beliefs, ones that will not change despite lack of evidence or evidence to warrant them.

Reality demonstrates that there are many ways to know God. He seems to be OK with that.

Where is your evidence for "Reality demonstrates.. ways to know God"? Where is your evidence of God and that God seems to be okay with that? If there is no evidence to objectively evaluate, your statements are simply claims without merit. There is no reason anyone should take seriously or accept your claims. It is rational to reject or dismiss them unless you can give good reasoning to accept them. It is rational to disbelieve your claims without evidence and/or good reasoning.

[_DonBradley]

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

[_truth dancer]

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.

However, I do not see this teaching at all in the church. in my opinion, the church teaches a very black and white "truth"/doctrine. It teaches that the LDS church is the one and only church with the fullness of the gospel. It teaches it has the one true power of God (priesthood), it teaches it alone has the saving ordinances, it teaches without membership in and compliance with the LDS church and its teachings one cannot live with God in the CKHL, it teaches one must be sealed to be a God/Goddess in the CKHL, it teaches it has the one and only true prophet on the earth in direct communication with Jesus Christ, and it teaches it is being led by Jesus Chist himself.

No, I do not see shades of gray here.

Now, if people want to twist/reinterpret/reinvent the teachings of the church to mean something else more comfortable then they can figure out various shades of gray... actually I think most of those who disbelieve have been there as they tried to make the church work. I know I certainly went through that stage where I tried to expand/twist/reinvent the teachings to mean something more in line with how I saw the world.

TD, a common thread in almost everything I hear from you finally comes down to this. "The onus of proof is squarely on the prophets and leaders of the church".

No, I do not feel this way at all.

However, the prophets/leaders/teachings/doctrine CLAIM to be receiving infomration/revelation/inspiration from Jesus Christ himself which does raise the standard in my opinion. They CLAIM they are leading, have truth, commune with Christ, receive revelation, etc. etc.

My reason for disbelief is because I cannot integrate the doctrine/truth claims/teachings/beliefs/whatever of the church with my own experiences, revelations, inspirations, and observations.

Why should it be? Actual "church doctrine/teachings/beliefs taught by prophets" has not always remained the same from one period of time to the next. What are we do make of this?

That prophets do not know when the are inspired or not, that they can't tell what is or is not revelation, that they are not really in communion with Jesus inspite of their claims. And, the prophets cannot be trusted to share truth, or the will of God.

What one makes of it can lead one either way. Belief or disbelief. Where does the whole concept of line upon line and precept upon precept come into play here?

in my opinion, the "line upon line" idea as used in the church is a very manipulative, tricky way to get people to believe ... similar to other religions who use this tactic.

However, in life, we certainly learn and grow and develop.... what I see in my own life is, the more I learn and mature and grow, the more things become clear. Not so in the church.

What I'm trying to say and get across, is that the direction one chooses to go is directly connected with one's own thought processes and being able to think outside of the box that one was previously confined to...thoughtwise... because of circumstances that may have been beyond one's control. Including church control. One has to consciously force one's thoughts but not necessarily self, outside of that box.

You call it going outside the box, I call it twisting the church claims so it will fit inside the box.

While there are certainly those who find ways to make it work, there are others who wish to follow what seems true in the heart and mind.

You call this thinking in black and white, I call it going outside the box.

I contend that there are many that disbelieve who have not done so.

I disagree... my observation is that most folks who release belief have tried to make the church work and tried all sorts of ways to twist the teachings/doctrine to remain a believer. For some it gets too difficult, too exhausting, too harmful to ones spirit and mind and emotions. The pain of letting go is less than the pain of remaining. (See my tag line).

If one is outside of the church, I believe that it is likely they are still in the box of black and white thinking. Not that this same individual may not think outside of the box and see shades of gray in other areas of experience/life, however.

My guess is that those who no longer believe in the LDS church are more open to changing their belief or learning new information .... if there was some sort of proof that say, Islam was really the truth, or Scientology, or Hinduism, or whatever, those who are not stuck in a "one and only true way" are more apt to embrace new evidence that comes along.

It's good to talk to you!

You too! :-)

~dancer~

[_harmony]

What's with the double posts? Is the site seeing double?

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi Don. Over the years I have enjoyed (and that's the truth!) your insights as to things Mormon. I don't know that I've ever seen you get overly dramatic about anything and you've remained level headed in your approach. Thanks for that. A few comments in response to your post. First, I can accept the possibility that any one of those that I pointed out in my original post are not simply black and white thinkers in regards to faith issues and Mormonism in particular. Unless I've inadvertently met one of these people up at a Sunstone or FAIR conference, or heard them speak, I haven't had the pleasure of getting to know them on a personal level.

I'm sure that many individuals that have left the church have done so having looked at many issues and come to the conclusion that it's not worth trying to "think outside of the box" anymore because it has become irrational to do so. Comparable, I suppose, to year after year waiting for the incontrovertible evidence of Bigfoot...and it never comes. You refer to those that remain within the Mormon faith system as having to put things on the shelf. Yes, that's true also. My experience, however, has been that as I'm patient and continually searching for new information/insight some of the issues that were on the shelf have come down and I haven't felt it necessary to return them to collect some more dust.

The issue isn't whether Mormonism is possibly true if we make all kinds of allowances for it, but, rather, whether it is probably true given the bare, brute facts and without special pleading...The evidence against biblical faith, let alone the LDS revelation built atop it, is decisive.

MG: and that's where I respectfully have to disagree with you. If the evidence was decisive, I and many others would be sitting in the same non-belief pew as you and others who have respectfully (thank you) replied to my original post. I see dealing in possibles and plausibilities as being reasonable. 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?

2) internal evidences of the Book of Mormon that haven't been demolished and sent to the trash bin. Hebraisms, word print analysis, and some of the other internal evidential stuff you can find at some of the apologetic sites that to my knowledge haven't been repudiated successfully even though efforts have been made to do so.

3) Old World evidence that helps out some of the Book of Mormon archaeological conundrums. Have you seen the DVD production from FARMS called, "Journey of Faith"? It's worth a look.

4) Book of Abraham hits that Joseph Smith did get right. The Kerry Shirt's research/DVD's, Sunstone presentions have been helpful here. I haven't seen anyone successfully accomplish a one-two knockout of the stuff he's come up with or some of the stuff over at FARMS that deals with Book of Abraham issues.

5) Alternative ways of looking at troublesome aspects of Mormonism and Christianity which leave a place for faith. John Dehlin's work has been very helpful in this respect. I think I've listened to just about every podcast he's provided.

6) Doctrines/beliefs that make sense in general. Eternal progression and the possibilities/opportunities of becoming more perfected. Binding love connections "sealed" beyond the grave. Atonement and reconciliation with deity. Becoming co-creators with God and receiving portions of what he has. Choosing to believe/follow God without coercion, especially from a philosophical viewpoint...faith/hope literally becoming a choice. Kingdoms of glory...eternal happiness for just about everyone. Priesthood power and responsibilities which encourage men to try and keep up with their wives...just thought I'd throw that one in there <g>.

7) The wide range of "Mormon thought" and opinion that exists and maintains itself quite well within the framework of the church.

And most importantly, at least for me:

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".

Best wishes on your path Don,
Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

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? I'm a black and white thinker, you see, and I'm having trouble understanding how it jives with this statement from your first post:

For me, peace is knowing that I don't have to have all the answers...that in fact I can have more questions than answers, and still remain an active member of the church.

Actually, I've said myself more than once that enlightenment is knowing that we do not know, but I've never found a TBM yet who agrees with that. So what form does your enlightenment take? Sure knowledge, or knowing that you do not know?

MG: Knowing what I don't know and possibly can't know, and more knowledge. Not sure knowledge by any stretch.

Regards,
MG

[_wenglund]

She/he then responded that I was being somewhat incoherent to the extent that what I was saying was "clear as mud".

Was I that unclear in what I was attempting to say? by the way, I spelled learned...larned...intentionally. Maybe this threw him/her off, thinking I was a hick from Hicksville. <g>

After she/he responded and I responded back in kind, the conversation apparently went south even though there were a bunch of views on the topic after my last post.

Any thoughts? Regards, MG

Perhaps it may have helped to provide some specific examples to illustrate the general notions you proffered--taking your point from the abstract to the concrete.

I happened to value the point you made about peace resulting, in part, from our becoming comfortable with the unknown or the unanswered, and I would add becoming comfortable with various non-absolutes and paradoxes as well as nuances and the spectrum of plausibilities. In other words, relax one's binary thinking so as to accomodate a range of functional and edifying alternatives. For example, when I was on my mission, I had an appointment to teach a seemingly "golden" family the first discussion. However, because of the odd work schedule of the father, we had to arrange the appointment for around 9pm in the evening. Given the length of the lesson and the distance we missionaries had to travel to get home, there was barely enough time to make it back to our apartment before 10pm (the time our mission rules said we should be at home). While teaching the family, though, questions and side discussions pushed the meeting long, and I had to make a decision whether to obey the mission rules or finish teaching the family the first discussion. I felt at the time that finishing the discussion was more important than obeying the mission rules, and so as the senior companion, I made that executive decision. Afterwards, 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. What made things particularly exciting was we had to ride through the slums of Houston to get to our apartment, and back then, it was hardly safe for "white boys" to ride through that neighborhood during broad daylight, let along in the dark of night. ;-)

More importantly, I think that too often we get drawn into unresolvable dramas and pick at every nit rather than carefully choosing our battle. Consequently, we may become overwhelmed and quite conflicted and aggitaged. This may be resolved by first figuiring out our limits (what things we can resolve or not) and by parsing and prioritizing the resolvable issues, and working on them individually, from the most significant on down.

I think, too, our expectations on ourselves, others, and the Church, may be disproportionate and unfair, causing us to frequently be disappointed and ill-at-easy. I believe that peace may be derived from adjusting our expectation so that they are more realistic and fair (giving ourselves permission to be human, and not expect current perfection, though striving at a reasonable pace in that direction. And, also focusing our minds forward, rather than on the past, and fixing our thoughts on matters of import--things that will help us better to become our best selves and uplift those around us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi Marg. Thanks for your input.

By what means did you arrive at your religious beliefs? What reasoning and evidence do you use to warrant holding them?

MG: thinking and reasonings concerning the probabilities existing within a grouping of possibilities.

Where is your evidence for "Reality demonstrates.. ways to know God"? Where is your evidence of God and that God seems to be okay with that?

MG: the way things are in the world. If there is a God, then one could safely assume that this God has a concern/love for all of his creations and would value the way in which humans make efforts to connect with him. Look around, there are a myriad number of ways that human beings attempt to to just that.

Seems to work for many of them. They seem to be happy in their praises/worship of God as they have come to know their own respective versions/concept of deity.

Regards,
MG

[_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