Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Come on, you don't think the Archilochus quote is intelligent?
I hear what you're saying, but in fairness to my devout friends, fusnik's game is to play both sides of the fence, the objective being to tease, even arouse and bait. What I see them saying is that fusnik doesn't bear the indicia of someone who genuinely believes in Mormonism. Related to that, they say that he isn't treating what they see as sacred things with sufficient seriousness and respect, baiting as he is. I can't really argue with any of that. Personally, if fusnik really doesn't believe in it, I think he'd be happier just being genuine about it. Then he could be forthright in his critique and no one could attack him for his beliefs, so long as he didn't disrespect others'. But playing both sides of the fence you open yourself up to this kind of criticism.
|
At risk of getting taken for a fool, I am going to take Fusnik at his word. What he is doing seems very familiar, and it is something I saw a lot among the smart kids at Yale -- people value their testimony and they value church membership, so when something doesn't fit they try to make it fit in whatever way will salvage their testimony. I once compared my own testimony to something I preserved in a mason jar covered with a rubber sheet and a rubber band lid. On the top of that rubber sheet was the impression of the SLC temple. As my own doubts began to go after my testimony, the struggle would pull at the rim of the mason jar, deforming it. I would find that the rubber sheet would no longer cover the opening. No problem. I would simply stretch the rubber sheet to cover the deformed opening of the jar. This would keep happening, and I would keep stretching the rubber sheet to keep my in my testimony.
One day I showed up to church with my testimony and I noticed a new picture of the SLC temple had been framed and hung on the wall. I looked at the image and then looked down at the same image printed on my rubber sheet. Only I couldn't match one to the other for how different they now looked. I still had a testimony, but it was a testimony in a church of my own making.
This wasn't really a problem, except I always felt like a stranger in my own church. Whenever I wanted to discuss anything I thought my ideas would always be shut down and shut up.
Ironically, what you see in Fusnik is probably his attempt to SAVE his testimony, and not the process of losing it. I have known plenty of people that have salvaged a passing testimony through this process. I have known others who would look at the rubber sheet and look at the picture on the wall and say, "I don't belong here." Both paths can be filled with their own sorts of happiness and trials.
Also ironically, I thought that places like CG were supposed to be safe places to talk about our faith, where ever it might be. But many in this thread are starting to sound like the voices from my elders Q.'s past -- shut him up and shut him down.
What it comes down to is this -- do you trust Fusnik? His POV is either genuine, or he is a troll. What are the consequences of treating him like a troll when his beliefs and doubts are genuine? What are the consequences of treating his beliefs and doubts as sincere when he might in fact be a troll? If the latter, we are taken for fools, but no harm is done. But if Fusnik is sincere (and I believe he is) then the consequences of treating him like a troll will be to alienate him even more from a community where he felt that he could be open and free to talk about the current status of his testimony. And that does its own kind of damage.
Treat the man with respect. Not all of our testimonies are going to be so 'mature.' At the end of the day, a lot of those smart kids at Yale were able to salvage a testimony, and live a happy life in the church.