Changing in activity since participating in CUF?

[cowboy]

We all know you're no simpleton so you can drop that card.

I apologize if I misread you, but I'm probably recalling previous hints you've made about the foyer not being the healthiest place to hang out. Really, I was asking for clarification about what you meant by testimony. I think when it really gets down to things, we probably mean the same thing, but too often the word is thrown around as having a sure knowledge of the truth of everything about the church. If it really means "faith-based belief", a definition that I can buy, then I'm not really sure how reading something can affect that at all. So the poll becomes much less interesting. The second part of your original question, how has CUF affected opinions of the church, is much more interesting.

Maybe if I share my personal experience, people will understand why this issue is important to me and believe that I'm really not trying to be overly analytical. About two years ago, I was feeling less and less like everyone else in my ward. I was experiencing a number of questions and doubts while it seemed like everyone surrounding me was completely sure of everything. It got to the point where I wondered if I belonged at church at all.

I was hesitant, even fearful, to search the internet because of what I figured I would find there. I knew CB had a religion section but I wasn't a donor so I had no idea what they discussed there. I posted something on CB about whether there was any interesting discussion going on and Archaea directed me to CG through a PM.

CG was a godsend to me. I realized that there were other Mormons who didn't "know" everything was true, who had plenty of questions and doubts, but despite them all, kept going to church. They even liked to think about things and discuss them. They were like me. Maybe I wasn't so different from the private sides of the members at church.

CG literally kept me going to church. However, as part of these discussions, I started to find out things that were a little tough to process. Probably my biggest crisis came as a result of a discussion on the priesthood ban. I knew BY had said some quirky things in his life, but I had always written them off as personal musings and not church policy. So in response to one of these things someone posted, I asked for an example of something that was said in an official capacity. SU responded with a link to one of BY's conference addresses discussing the curse of Ham and the flat bridge of the Negro and other nonsense.

This completely shook me. If I can't trust what's said over the GC pulpit by a prophet, then what exactly can I trust and why exactly do we have a prophet? I wasn't happy with the response that it's obviously no longer doctrine because we don't talk about it any more--do I have to wait 100 years to validate every teaching over the pulpit? Institutionalized racism is perhaps one of our greatest failings as a country and society and our prophet (series of prophets) and church completely whiffed on it. You might try to claim that BY harbored no hatred for black people, and I can't really prove that he did, but whatever his personal feelings, his statements as a prophet of God have justified thousands, perhaps even millions who looked to him for moral guidance, in harboring racist feelings. I didn't want to fall in that kind of trap.

I didn't leave the church, but I considered it. I guess my "testimony" was shattered. The more time and prayer I devoted to it, however, the more I started to feel that this was a blessing to me. For years, I had depended on GC and my church leaders for moral guidance, as the end-all source. Well, now, I was going to have to figure it out on my own, and work it out between me and God. If I heard something that didn't feel right, I'd give it the appropriate weight as coming from a wise leader, but I was going to have to figure out if I agreed with it. God would hold me accountable for going against something that I knew was true, just because the institution told me to, just as Stapley will have to face God about his racist statements. I'm accountable to God and God only for what I do. Everything else is a guide to me on how to find God, but it's up to me to find Him. I'd finally found my testimony, and it didn't have much to do with blind acceptance or obedience.

So now, when I face institutional racism/sexism/homophobia (as I see it) in our Church, I'm no longer obligated to support it as a means of supporting my "testimony". I'll certainly give weight to TSM as a called leader and "prophet" (I'm still working out what that means), but my ultimate source of truth is God, as I understand Him. Hopefully, those two figures overlap, but if they don't, I know where my loyalty is. I don't believe in a God who will punish me for doing what I feel is right.

Sorry for the rant, but I hope that helps you understand me better. I'm really not trying to nitpick or overanalyze or get in to a discussion of "is"--these are important distinctions to me. I also don't mean to imply that you're blindly following anything of anyone. I'm just trying to explain myself a little better.

This is a great post. I have a lot to say about this, but no time to say it. Consider this a place marker.

[LA Ute]

Would you argue that there are not plenty of members that say, "Yes, Master"?

I am not ready to say that. I think it is deeply insulting to the membership at large to suggest there are "plenty" who do so, frankly.

Besides, obedience is an interesting and fundamental principle, an element of free agency, and I reject emphatically the idea that excessive obedience among members of our church is a problem. Was Adam exercising excessive obedience when he made offerings and said he did not know why he was doing so, "save the Lord has commanded me?" How about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac? Philosophers, theologians and scriptorians have been talking about those two stories for a long time.

[ERCougar]

I am not ready to say that. I think it is deeply insulting to the membership at large to suggest there are "plenty" who do so, frankly.

Besides, obedience is an interesting and fundamental principle, an element of free agency, and I reject emphatically the idea that excessive obedience among members of our church is a problem. Was Adam exercising excessive obedience when he made offerings and said he did not know why he was doing so, "save the Lord has commanded me?" How about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac? Philosophers, theologians and scriptorians have been talking about those two stories for a long time.

I was hoping you would chime in on this, not to argue, but because I was sincerely curious of your opinion on all of this.

But back to arguing...
I have to disagree with your assessment of general Church membership. To resurrect the Prop 8 issue, I had this discussion with lots of friends who couldn't understand why they needed to go any further in the discussion than it was a motion backed by TSM. I'm OK with the argument that we don't understand all things and that one might have developed a trust or faith in following the prophet's counsel even if one doesn't understand it. But that's different from the argument, or at least the tone, that I frequently come across. I don't mean to imply that every orthodox or obeying member of the church blindly follows, but based on my experience, I have a hard time not believing that "when the prophet's spoken, the thinking's done" is alive and well among church members.

As to obedience...
I think the kind of obedience that we're blessed for is obedience to the counsel of the Holy Ghost (or light of Christ or whatever people feel comfortable with). That may or may not coincide with counsel from your local leaders or even the leaders of the Church (hopefully, it coincides most or nearly all of the time). Although we don't have to completely understand the counsel, or the reasoning behind it, I do think a just God owes us at least some sort of confirmation. So when Adam says "I know not save the Lord commanded me", I don't think he's advocating blind obedience. I suspect that his next phrase would be "and the Spirit has confirmed this commandment". Like we all do in every sphere of our lives, Adam was moving forward based on trust (I'm avoiding "faith" because it's a loaded term, although I think it would work) in a figure whom He trusted, in an area he didn't completely understand. If we waited for complete confirmation of everything before action, we'd never accomplish or learn anything, spiritual or secular.

[ERCougar]

I don't either. It may be for some people. Like everything in life, there are gradations. For example, if President Monson says something, I pay close attention. If he says it emphatically, I pay even closer attention. I don't sit up straight and say, "Yes, master," but his comments are very significant to me. I suspect most believing members are the same, and the differences among us regarding responses to the prophet's statements are differences in degree. (I think I could say this better but I'm out of time this morning.)

I'd agree with that. So now that we've clearly (as mud ) defined 'testimony', do you think that hanging out in the foyer can damage it? Like niku points out, I feel like mine has "evolved", but many (I think more than you're admitting, but that's another thread) would probably say it's been "damaged".

[Pheidippides]

I'd agree with that. So now that we've clearly (as mud ) defined 'testimony', do you think that hanging out in the foyer can damage it? Like niku points out, I feel like mine has "evolved", but many (I think more than you're admitting, but that's another thread) would probably say it's been "damaged".

I also think there is not a small contingent that would consider my testimony "damaged." I intentionally do not share much of what I believe - even thought it is largely mainstream - because I don't want to deal with the same silly arguments I once made myself. This is why CUF/CG have been great - I am not alone and feel a kinship with all the people just plugging their way through life, unsure but faithful all the same.

Thankfully for me, the friends I have in my ward now are not interested in what I believe - they are interested in me as a person, and we have a friendship that would exist independent of religion. In this respect, I think that the church is becoming much more big tent that it previously was. I could tell my bishop everything and anything I believe and his response would be more along the lines of, "that's nice - how are your kids, by the way." It would be a non-event.

[ERCougar]

Thankfully for me, the friends I have in my ward now are not interested in what I believe - they are interested in me as a person, and we have a friendship that would exist independent of religion. In this respect, I think that the church is becoming much more big tent that it previously was. I could tell my bishop everything and anything I believe and his response would be more along the lines of, "that's nice - how are your kids, by the way." It would be a non-event.

I actually made the mistake of hinting to our new bishop (when we moved in 8 months ago) about some doubts I had about things but that despite it all, I'm still paying my tithing and going to church every week. He wanted to launch into an immediate discussion of these, with my kids in the office with us, but I declined, saying that I didn't feel like it was an appropriate setting (and really, wasn't terribly interested in hearing the standard arguments I used to use, like you say). Was definitely not the "non-event" that I had intended.

In fairness to him, he hasn't brought it up again, and on the whole, seems a really good guy.

[Pheidippides]

I actually made the mistake of hinting to our new bishop (when we moved in 8 months ago) about some doubts I had about things but that despite it all, I'm still paying my tithing and going to church every week. He wanted to launch into an immediate discussion of these, with my kids in the office with us, but I declined, saying that I didn't feel like it was an appropriate setting (and really, wasn't terribly interested in hearing the standard arguments I used to use, like you say). Was definitely not the "non-event" that I had intended.

In fairness to him, he hasn't brought it up again, and on the whole, seems a really good guy.

In my case, it helps that my bishop and I are friends and that he very much views himself as a guy who has no clue about the answers. He spends very little time trying to give answers out, but a lot of time making sure people are happy and have food on the table.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I actually made the mistake of hinting to our new bishop (when we moved in 8 months ago) about some doubts I had about things but that despite it all, I'm still paying my tithing and going to church every week. He wanted to launch into an immediate discussion of these, with my kids in the office with us, but I declined, saying that I didn't feel like it was an appropriate setting (and really, wasn't terribly interested in hearing the standard arguments I used to use, like you say). Was definitely not the "non-event" that I had intended.

In fairness to him, he hasn't brought it up again, and on the whole, seems a really good guy.

You shouldn't have moved:nana:

[Portland Ute]

I am not ready to say that. I think it is deeply insulting to the membership at large to suggest there are "plenty" who do so, frankly.

Besides, obedience is an interesting and fundamental principle, an element of free agency, and I reject emphatically the idea that excessive obedience among members of our church is a problem. Was Adam exercising excessive obedience when he made offerings and said he did not know why he was doing so, "save the Lord has commanded me?" How about Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac? Philosophers, theologians and scriptorians have been talking about those two stories for a long time.

From the sounds of it, the only thing we disagree on is the definition of "plenty."

[LA Ute]

I was hoping you would chime in on this, not to argue, but because I was sincerely curious of your opinion on all of this.

But back to arguing...
I have to disagree with your assessment of general Church membership. To resurrect the Prop 8 issue, I had this discussion with lots of friends who couldn't understand why they needed to go any further in the discussion than it was a motion backed by TSM. I'm OK with the argument that we don't understand all things and that one might have developed a trust or faith in following the prophet's counsel even if one doesn't understand it. But that's different from the argument, or at least the tone, that I frequently come across. I don't mean to imply that every orthodox or obeying member of the church blindly follows, but based on my experience, I have a hard time not believing that "when the prophet's spoken, the thinking's done" is alive and well among church members.

I think I understand what you are saying. I also see the same argument/tone in other members from time to time, but it only bothers me when it is used to oppress other people or make them feel bad because they don't see the matter in the same rigid way. I don't like that.

To me, obedience is intensely personal, and if someone wants to be more of an "iron rodder" than I might be on a given issue, that's their choice. (This occurs often in my own extended family.) It does not bother me or shake my own testimony. If anything, it makes me examine my own position all the more closely. (I hope that my position or thoughts also cause others to think about their own, in a positive way.)

I'd agree with that. So now that we've clearly (as mud ) defined 'testimony', do you think that hanging out in the foyer can damage it? Like niku points out, I feel like mine has "evolved", but many (I think more than you're admitting, but that's another thread) would probably say it's been "damaged".

Big, big subject. I am hard-pressed to answer briefly. I do not think The Foyer is a bad place to be at all (if I did I wouldn't come here). It's another very individual thing and will vary from person to person. Hanging out in The Foyer could damage a testimony; so could hanging out at Cougar Board or with a group of polygamists. IMO, evolving is very important -- after all, it's what we are here on earth for -- as long as one is evolving in the right direction -- towards better knowing and loving God and loving one's neighbor, and becoming a true disciple. I think The Foyer helps me do those things. (I especially enjoy the constant practice I get at forgiving. SU is invaluable in that regard.)

As to obedience...
I think the kind of obedience that we're blessed for is obedience to the counsel of the Holy Ghost (or light of Christ or whatever people feel comfortable with). That may or may not coincide with counsel from your local leaders or even the leaders of the Church (hopefully, it coincides most or nearly all of the time). Although we don't have to completely understand the counsel, or the reasoning behind it, I do think a just God owes us at least some sort of confirmation. So when Adam says "I know not save the Lord commanded me", I don't think he's advocating blind obedience. I suspect that his next phrase would be "and the Spirit has confirmed this commandment". Like we all do in every sphere of our lives, Adam was moving forward based on trust (I'm avoiding "faith" because it's a loaded term, although I think it would work) in a figure whom He trusted, in an area he didn't completely understand. If we waited for complete confirmation of everything before action, we'd never accomplish or learn anything, spiritual or secular.

I agree. You are treading on perilous ground here, however. How do we "know" that we have received such confirmation?

Seriously, action based on a spiritual confirmation is an exercise of faith, and not blind faith. What's interesting is that often we need to act on prior spiritual confirmation because it's impractical to get confirmation every time.

Non-spiritual example: I tell my young daughter to drop to the floor immediately. She'll probably do so, and that's because of past experience and her trust in me. It's not a blind reaction.

Spiritual example: When GBH asked everyone to read the BofM in 2005, I decided simply to do it because based on a prior spiritual manifestation (that he was indeed a prophet of God) I trusted that following his counsel would result in blessings to me. I didn't give the admonition that we read the BofM a second thought. I just did it. That was not blind faith either.

Make sense?

[LA Ute]

From the sounds of it, the only thing we disagree on is the definition of "plenty."

Probably so. Just as you and I might disagree about what constitutes "plenty" of Novacaine!

[mUUser]

Activity hasn't changed, but on CUF, I appreciate that Cowboy, Indy, Art and LA Ute are the wierdo's instead of me. It's refreshing for a change.

[LA Ute]

Activity hasn't changed, but on CUF, I appreciate that Cowboy, Indy, Art and LA Ute are the wierdo's instead of me. It's refreshing for a change.

Now you've resorted to name-calling. I am deeply disappointed.

[mUUser]

Now you've resorted to name-calling. I am deeply disappointed.

Thanks for the "winky" dude. I forgot mine.

[Portland Ute]

Probably so. Just as you and I might disagree about what constitutes "plenty" of Novacaine!

Oh, I don't think we'd disagree about that at all.

Believe me, I don't want a patient feeling anything, either. That's not a good practice-builder. It also makes getting my work done an adventure.

A numb patient = happy dentist.