im becoming disenchanted with the church.... - Page 3 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

fusnik11 · 10-31-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

Ignorance of what? Some historical details. Of the machinations used to arrived at a political compromise?

knowledge of leadership lying to the goverment? joseph smith secretly marrying women without their husbands approval? brigham saying its ok to chop off your wives head, or stick a javelin through her heart?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't have a testimony of the Church; I have a testimony of the doctrines of salvation. The Church is a vehicle to learn stuff.

Some stuff is true but not very useful. If we learned that Joseph pooped in the woods on the northside of trees, instead of the left, because that's how his mother taught him, how is that useful even if true?

if the church is simply a vehicle why is it necessary if we understand the doctrines of salvation? i learn a greater understanding of the doctrines of salvation through personal study as opposed to church frequency. yet we are taught without church frequency exaltation cannot be obtained.

although it would be interesting if josephs mother taught him to poop on the northside of trees as opposed to the left, that information is much different than much of the fluff that is consistently passed as truth in our church. when in reality it borders between the truth, and telling lies so members gain a false sense of security about the church.

Dan · 10-31-2005, 08:59 PM

and I do not disagree too much, but we have the example of Jesus himself who flat out told his apostles that they could not handle the whole truth at that time. We have Alma explaining that the mysteries of the kingdom are showed unto a few, and those few are under strict command to impart only as moved upon by the HG. Clearly, not everyone should be given the full truth all the time. When a person is ready, he will find what he is looking for. I think we assume we are always ready, and when we learn things later we get pissed because of our own pride in assuming we were wronged for not being told sooner. I felt that way. I do not now, but I did. Now I marvel at how I have learned a tidbit here and there, all at just the right time to unlock one door here and a door there, just when I was came upon it and was ready to go in. I trust that God knows how to steer my ship. I inquire, I try to learn, but when I am ready to know, he opens the way for me to know.

fusnik11 · 10-31-2005, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

I think we assume we are always ready, and when we learn things later we get pissed because of our own pride in assuming we were wronged for not being told sooner. I felt that way. I do not now, but I did.

you know how hard it was for me on sunday in church not to be upset about the stuff being taught in sunday school or blurt out that joseph had polyandric relations, or that polygamy did not stop with the 1890 manifesto?

chica up there, masters degree, articulate, beautiful, and the majority of the class sitting in ignorance about some major points in early church history....i was astounded....i seriously wanted to yell, dont you people really know about polygamy? sitting there talking about how hard it would be to follow the commandments of the lord, crying about your ancestry and early pioneers...please.

non sequitur · 10-31-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

and I do not disagree too much, but we have the example of Jesus himself who flat out told his apostles that they could not handle the whole truth at that time. We have Alma explaining that the mysteries of the kingdom are showed unto a few, and those few are under strict command to impart only as moved upon by the HG. Clearly, not everyone should be given the full truth all the time.

I uderstand your point, and I agree that not everyone is ready for the big picture all at once. If Church Leaders want to withold the "mysteries of the kingdom" from me that's fine. What I have a problem with is when I feel like they are repackaging the truth and then telling me I'm just not ready for the "real" truth.

Archaea · 10-31-2005, 09:56 PM

the McKay book illustrates the complexity of identifying the "leaders".

First, different persons have different agendas and it's difficult for even the Presidency to keep track of everything going on. You have to be able to delegate and some people by their natures are more tolerant than others. ETB, Mark E. Peterson and even President Lee were less tolerant of diversity than President McKay.

Elder Packer comes across as tolerant than President Faust. I can't get a read on Monson. President Hinckley seems more pragmatic.

I don't think you label the entire "Church" for some misguided but perhaps well-meaning persons.

I too do not like the repackaging.

I have a problem with JS's polyandry. It bothers me, but I do like the BoM, the inspiration I've personally received as fruits of his labor.

I'm very grateful I live now rather than then.

Leadership does seem at times hypersensitive.

If Elder Packer is asking Church employed personnel to not make their life's work a criticism of the Church, I understand that request. If he's saying ignore all potentially negative aspects, I respectfully disagree.

The polygamy debate has really been one of, "let's hope it goes away and nobody asks us about it." If it were looked at it intelligently, I suppose it could be done tastefully and in an interesting fashion without shaking the foundations of testimony of too many persons.

Dan · 10-31-2005, 10:11 PM

Your reaction is a common one. If you consider your reaction to things you have learned, can you begin to see the sense in NOT openly divulging all of these things to the members at large? Imagine if you, all of a sudden, had hundreds of thousands of formerly content LDS folk feeling the exact same way you do right now. Oh dear. :cry: Again, the purpose of the church is to teach the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Things that may detract from that will not be covered and are strongly frowned agaist.

You are actually fortunate Fusnik, despite your current anger and frustration. Why? Because you are learning truth, and the truth shall set you free. The ultimate trust is God himself, as knowing him inimately is what sets you free. But in a lesser shpere, simple historical and/or gospel truths are truth nonetheless. Truth dispells darkness. What is the darkness and from what are you being freed? From ignorance! Man is only saved as fast as he gains knowledge. Again, true and complete knowledge is God himself, but in a lesser sphere, we can be set free from prejudices, false traditions and incorrect paradigms.

Its true Fusnik, so many LDS sit in ignorance of historical truth. But in the comparative balance of things, my friend, the person who sits in ignorance of compassion for others and service to others is much worse off. I am often somewhat envious of the fact that so many simple members of the church who have very little understanding of history or enen slightl;y advanced doctrinal issues are MUCH better off than me. i am one who knows, but does not always act. I would trade all of my understanding for a heart full of service, compassion and love for fellow man. Not that I do not have it in part, but so many have so much more than I do. I guess the point is, do not let pride step in front of you and make you feel haughty and better than the rest when you are not. Don't think I am getting down on you, as the same is true for me and everyone else who may feel similar.

I used to feel a lot like you described, but then I realized I was being blessed with understanding. That I do not have many gifts, but that was one of them. I realized I am meant to fit in with other members of the church and spiritual seekes as a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. I have things to offer that others do not, and they have things that I do not. I realized I should not expect others to, therefore, be or understand the way I do. In fact, were the church to instruct its members the way I would want to personally be instructed, most would not be edified. I understood then, that the church is only able to instruct its members based on common denominators. And that common denominator is the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Hang in there, the feelings of betrayal and anger go away.

MikeWaters · 10-31-2005, 11:51 PM

Re: church historians, that is why I found the account of Juanita Brooks so moving. To have excommunication hanging over her, for doing what she felt in her heart was the right thing, must have been a terrible burden. She blazed the way for a more honest approach to our history.

I pray that I am never put in the same situation, where I feel doing the right thing puts my membership in jeapordy. Maybe that is why I try to keep a low profile and keep my mouth shut. That is one of the frustrations I have with being a member, but it is something I have learned to live with. The tent is big enough to include me. And the people that try to make the tent smaller don't have the authority to do so, and you can't let them get under your skin.

MikeWaters · 10-31-2005, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Maybe your friend's testimony wouldn't have been rocked if he had been exposed to some of the information in the Krakauer book earlier on in his life. I understand the whole "milk before meat" rationale, but that only goes so far. I'd be pretty pissed if I went through my whole life only drinking milk and didn't find out about prime rib until I was on my deathbed.

Anyone who quits the church over Krakauer's book has a testimony made of paper mache.

It's a terrible book. Pure schlock. Dishonest, even.

At the very least, a true seeker would say "hmm, there's some things here that disturb me, that I should look further into."

Unfortunately for some people these things are the exact excuse they need to justify the sorts of things that they wanted to do anyway, that previously engendered guilt. Sin creates ambivalence. One either quits the sin, or quits the beliefs.

Honestly part of me feels bad for the people that quit the church after many years of faking it. What a miserable existence that must be to live a lie.

non sequitur · 11-01-2005, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Unfortunately for some people these things are the exact excuse they need to justify the sorts of things that they wanted to do anyway, that previously engendered guilt. Sin creates ambivalence. One either quits the sin, or quits the beliefs.

That is an attitude that really irks me, and I see it all the time. The idea that people leave the Church or lose their testimonies because they prefer to sin or because they are weak. That is pure garbage. All the people I know that have left the Church have done so because they either stopped believing or because they simply give up trying to acquire a testimony. People in the Church don't want to believe that someone could simply come to the conclusion that the Church isn't true, so they feel the need to impute someone's loss of testimony to some underlying sin or weakness. That is pure arrogance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Honestly part of me feels bad for the people that quit the church after many years of faking it. What a miserable existence that must be to live a lie.

This is another attitude that bugs me. There are many in the Church that struggle their entire lives to develop a testimony. They don't necessarily believe everything, but they accept a lot on faith. These people are not "faking" it, nor are they "living a lie". They are simply making an effort to find the truth and are taking a leap of faith. I was never taught that exercising faith meant "faking it", but maybe I missed that lesson.

MikeWaters · 11-01-2005, 01:16 AM

There is a difference between people who are honestly trying and those that aren't. I never meant to imply that all people fit the category I described.

However, I would suggest that someone who has been on a mission, endowed, and crumbles when he learns that Joseph Smith was a polygamist probably has more issues than that. A lot more.

And let's say that a person adopts a lifestyle radically different than their upbringing after reading controversial LDS literature. I don't need to be a rocket scientist (not that they know a lot about the human condition) to figure out that their definition of principled living is different than mine. Godmakers one minute. Sex, drugs and rock and roll the next.

On the other hand I believe that honest seekers might not ever receive a testimony of the church, despite faithful efforts. I have no problem with that.

But I do have a problem with half-assed efforts, in that I call it like I see it. Not everyone will agree with me.

10-31-2005, 08:59 PM	#22
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	I understand what you are saying Non Sequiter, and I do not disagree too much, but we have the example of Jesus himself who flat out told his apostles that they could not handle the whole truth at that time. We have Alma explaining that the mysteries of the kingdom are showed unto a few, and those few are under strict command to impart only as moved upon by the HG. Clearly, not everyone should be given the full truth all the time. When a person is ready, he will find what he is looking for. I think we assume we are always ready, and when we learn things later we get pissed because of our own pride in assuming we were wronged for not being told sooner. I felt that way. I do not now, but I did. Now I marvel at how I have learned a tidbit here and there, all at just the right time to unlock one door here and a door there, just when I was came upon it and was ready to go in. I trust that God knows how to steer my ship. I inquire, I try to learn, but when I am ready to know, he opens the way for me to know. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

10-31-2005, 09:56 PM	#25
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	understandable the McKay book illustrates the complexity of identifying the "leaders". First, different persons have different agendas and it's difficult for even the Presidency to keep track of everything going on. You have to be able to delegate and some people by their natures are more tolerant than others. ETB, Mark E. Peterson and even President Lee were less tolerant of diversity than President McKay. Elder Packer comes across as tolerant than President Faust. I can't get a read on Monson. President Hinckley seems more pragmatic. I don't think you label the entire "Church" for some misguided but perhaps well-meaning persons. I too do not like the repackaging. I have a problem with JS's polyandry. It bothers me, but I do like the BoM, the inspiration I've personally received as fruits of his labor. I'm very grateful I live now rather than then. Leadership does seem at times hypersensitive. If Elder Packer is asking Church employed personnel to not make their life's work a criticism of the Church, I understand that request. If he's saying ignore all potentially negative aspects, I respectfully disagree. The polygamy debate has really been one of, "let's hope it goes away and nobody asks us about it." If it were looked at it intelligently, I suppose it could be done tastefully and in an interesting fashion without shaking the foundations of testimony of too many persons. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

10-31-2005, 10:11 PM	#26
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Fusnik ... Your reaction is a common one. If you consider your reaction to things you have learned, can you begin to see the sense in NOT openly divulging all of these things to the members at large? Imagine if you, all of a sudden, had hundreds of thousands of formerly content LDS folk feeling the exact same way you do right now. Oh dear. :cry: Again, the purpose of the church is to teach the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Things that may detract from that will not be covered and are strongly frowned agaist. You are actually fortunate Fusnik, despite your current anger and frustration. Why? Because you are learning truth, and the truth shall set you free. The ultimate trust is God himself, as knowing him inimately is what sets you free. But in a lesser shpere, simple historical and/or gospel truths are truth nonetheless. Truth dispells darkness. What is the darkness and from what are you being freed? From ignorance! Man is only saved as fast as he gains knowledge. Again, true and complete knowledge is God himself, but in a lesser sphere, we can be set free from prejudices, false traditions and incorrect paradigms. Its true Fusnik, so many LDS sit in ignorance of historical truth. But in the comparative balance of things, my friend, the person who sits in ignorance of compassion for others and service to others is much worse off. I am often somewhat envious of the fact that so many simple members of the church who have very little understanding of history or enen slightl;y advanced doctrinal issues are MUCH better off than me. i am one who knows, but does not always act. I would trade all of my understanding for a heart full of service, compassion and love for fellow man. Not that I do not have it in part, but so many have so much more than I do. I guess the point is, do not let pride step in front of you and make you feel haughty and better than the rest when you are not. Don't think I am getting down on you, as the same is true for me and everyone else who may feel similar. I used to feel a lot like you described, but then I realized I was being blessed with understanding. That I do not have many gifts, but that was one of them. I realized I am meant to fit in with other members of the church and spiritual seekes as a piece of the jigsaw puzzle. I have things to offer that others do not, and they have things that I do not. I realized I should not expect others to, therefore, be or understand the way I do. In fact, were the church to instruct its members the way I would want to personally be instructed, most would not be edified. I understood then, that the church is only able to instruct its members based on common denominators. And that common denominator is the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Hang in there, the feelings of betrayal and anger go away. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

10-31-2005, 11:51 PM	#27
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Re: church historians, that is why I found the account of Juanita Brooks so moving. To have excommunication hanging over her, for doing what she felt in her heart was the right thing, must have been a terrible burden. She blazed the way for a more honest approach to our history. I pray that I am never put in the same situation, where I feel doing the right thing puts my membership in jeapordy. Maybe that is why I try to keep a low profile and keep my mouth shut. That is one of the frustrations I have with being a member, but it is something I have learned to live with. The tent is big enough to include me. And the people that try to make the tent smaller don't have the authority to do so, and you can't let them get under your skin.

11-01-2005, 01:16 AM	#30
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	There is a difference between people who are honestly trying and those that aren't. I never meant to imply that all people fit the category I described. However, I would suggest that someone who has been on a mission, endowed, and crumbles when he learns that Joseph Smith was a polygamist probably has more issues than that. A lot more. And let's say that a person adopts a lifestyle radically different than their upbringing after reading controversial LDS literature. I don't need to be a rocket scientist (not that they know a lot about the human condition) to figure out that their definition of principled living is different than mine. Godmakers one minute. Sex, drugs and rock and roll the next. On the other hand I believe that honest seekers might not ever receive a testimony of the church, despite faithful efforts. I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with half-assed efforts, in that I call it like I see it. Not everyone will agree with me.