The Problem With Silence
First, I want to state my love and admiration for President Hinckley. Please take this in the spirit it is mentioned and intended. This is not a personal attack on him but the ideals he speaks of. It is through an interview he had with Larry King from which I base today’s post.
“Larry King: Are people ever thrown out of your church?
“Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.
“Larry King: For?
“Gordon B. Hinckley: Doing what they shouldn’t do, preaching false doctrine, speaking out publicly. They can carry all the opinion they wish within their heads, so to speak, but if they begin to try to persuade others, then they may be called in to a disciplinary council. We don’t excommunicate many, but we do some. ” (emphasis added)
I’ve struggled with my faith for about four or five years now. It wasn’t until Prop 8 and this idea of keeping silent came to my attention when I felt compelled to express myself publicly. For the first time I found I did not agree with the church’s stance.
I remained quiet at first, keeping my opinions between my husband and myself, but to help me make the right decision I needed to talk about it. Under the weight of my dissenting opinion, I finally conversed with some online friends and later the few who read my new blog. Then I dared let some family know through either my writing or during conversation. While my husband warned me of the reactions likely to come, I was never prepared.
People online told me to rip up my recommend. One friend, someone who introduced me to the church and whom I’ve known for nearly a decade told me she no longer wished to read about what I thought, that she hoped I’d come to terms with my issues – but I wasn’t to talk about them. She’d have no part of that.
To say her response shocked me would be inadequate. It broke my heart: You feel I’m having issues and the best you can do is ignore it and tell me we can keep our conversation to husbands and children? (yes she said that)
Seriously?
My ex-roommate told me when the prophet speaks we don’t need to pray. Not if we sustain him as Prophet.
Another close friend of mine looked at me like I’d suddenly grown another head or perhaps a few horns atop the one I already have. My husband said his father regarded him in the same manner. They couldn’t or didn’t want to believe that we could have received a different answer than the prophets.
My friends and family who know avoid the topic now. It’s as if they hope my doubts will somehow magically disappear. Pretend they don’t exist. Ignore them and they will go away. She’s sneezing, you might catch cold.
These reactions only made my questions harder to ignore, all the more determined to be answered. I never looked to “go against the church.” I didn’t want to disagree with the prophet, I never had, but how do I deny that peace in my heart, even when it does go against the church? I know from experience you can ignore it, but it always comes back. Always.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it’s never okay to criticize our leaders - even when the criticism is justified. I get the reasoning behind this. It’s not good to spend all our time criticizing anyone. We need to focus on the good, count our blessings, that sort of thing. But where do people go when they have doubts and questions, when they can’t reconcile certain things? Bishops and stake presidents, General Conference talks and Ensign articles would have us pour ourselves into the scriptures, in prayer, to get a blessing. To “have faith.” A former bishop responded to my tearful admission of a crumbling testimony by telling me to watch BYU-TV.
It seems to me that we as a church do not enjoy speaking of such things. In my experience we don’t talk about it and I have to ask: does this kind of willful ignorance help? Hardly.
Doubts and questions do not silence themselves. Scriptures and prayer don’t always give me peace I need, no matter how long or hard I try with the best of intentions. This is deeper than that. People seem to think it’s easy to question. I assure you it is petrifying.
We like to find rational explanations for our commandments. “We are told to tithe because it is a matter of sacrifice to the Lord, to help us pay for our temples and buildings. Look how it kept our church out of debt!” While a matter of faith, we are also driven by reason. Fair enough?
So what of times when I can find no rationale? You might say this is a time for blind faith – and I might agree, except I received answer contrary the First Presidency’s letter. Would you say I must heed the answers to my prayers, or would you insinuate the prophet had said my prayers for me too? Some may suggest pride, a hard heart, etc. no matter what I say. I think these reactions are made from fear as we’ve been told it cannot happen, that our answers will always reflect that of the Church and if they don’t, then we’re wrong.
I understand this sort of reaction if a person went out and told people the church was fundamentally and wholly false – but this isn’t about that. I don’t think a genuine search for truth, even unseemly truth, is a good basis from which to ex someone or even six someones such as with the September Six.
The idea that one could inadvertently learn things that don’t add up, discuss them, and then be told to stop, just stop or I’ll call you to the disciplinary council raises about a million red flags in my heart. It’s potentially faith shattering, worse than any embarrassing fact I could ever discover. And I wish it wasn’t.
We talk about the power in strong, unyielding testimonies, but I ask what is a testimony if it isn’t challenged? Will silencing otherwise faithful dissenters really do the church good? I know we fear modern day Korihors, but I don’t think that’s what we’re dealing with. We’re dealing with good, well-intentioned people who disagree in some instances, and discussion should not only be allowed but encouraged. If our souls find strength in opposition, then so should our testimonies. If the Church is true it will withstand the storms. Truth always prevails.
I would like to be able to discuss my doubts without fear of excommunication. Yes we get enough negative advertising, but for us to pretend the problems don’t exist or are all unfounded is foolish at best. It will come back to bite us, either on an individual or general level. I’m confident about that.
I am sorry that you feel you don’t have close friends who are wiling to listen to you discuss your doubts or your issues with the church’s stance. Sometimes people can withstand opposition from outsiders, but not opposition from someone they think should be on their side. You can probably count me as one of those people. I don’t want to listen to anyone badmouth my husband or my church.
If you have peace in your heart over an issue, then it is settled for you. I guess I am not sure why you need to discuss it publicly, discuss it with friends who have requested not to hear it, etc.
I also think that whenever you try to say that some of what the prophet says is false, you will have the same reaction as when you say that all the church teaches is false.
I am not sure what to say. I don’t see it like you do. I think that when you publicly disagree with the church you are fighting against it.
If I were you, I would go back to what I felt was the answer to my prayer. Was the answer not to worry about it? Was the answer to keep worrying about it?
Part of me understands why you need to talk about it. I recently told someone that I’m at a really good weight right now, but I can’t talk about it (I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, especially family members who don’t even see me) but it is like its not real if I don’t verbalize it. The other part of me wonders why you need to verbalize it with so many people.
Comment by jks — December 22, 2008 @ 2:25 am
Wow, you really did a great job of summing up what I have been struggling with lately too. I don’t know how I feel about prop 8, and I am not sure that our stance was the right one. It feels to me like the stance the church took may be more of a PR move to align themselves with other mainstream Christian faiths, and less of an inspired move, but I may be wrong. I sustain our prophet as the leader of the church, but I think being able to question my leaders is an important part of my testimony.
I just can’t committ myself to blind faith alone when something inside me tells me that something is not right. There is a reason that God gave us the capacity to reason for ourselves, along with personal revelation. I feel blessed with the friends that I have in the church- I spoke with a good friend who also felt similar about prop. 8, and it was comforting to know that other people whom I respect share my feelings.
This reminds me of how I felt when my bishop advised me to stop dating a non-member man that I was seeing simply because he wasn’t a member. Thank goodness I didn’t listen to his counsel- he later coverted and we were sealed in the temple and have been happily married since. Sometimes, I just have to follow that I personally feel is right. But it can be a hard path to take.
I think the principles behind the foundation of our church reflect this very notion. Joseph Smith didn’t just fall in line with what the church leaders in his time were saying- he forged his own path (with some divine help), which led to the restoration of our gospel. If he hadn’t had the audacity to question those chuches, where would we be today? being able to have a dissenting opinon is an integral part of my faith.
Comment by RJ — December 22, 2008 @ 2:41 am
well it’s like you got into my head and wrote down my thoughts. I too have never questioned the prophet because I always agreed with everything and the counsel always seemed right, maybe a little over the top for me at times, but good and solid and mostly easy to obey. But the prop 8 issue has really thrown me off, and I was just getting to the point when i was starting to get over it mostly because time was passing. But then my husband and I went and saw MILK last night. Brought everything to the surface again. So I started picking my husbands brain because I know he didn’t agree with prop 8 but he didn’t seem to be having any of the internal conflict that I have been struggling with in how the church responded.
Here’s what he said and it makes sense to me–mostly because I want it to, I am ready to move passed this and I don’t think abandoning my testimony is the answer. I asked him how he felt about belonging to a church that so actively promoted this prop. He said it didn’t really bother him. He said he didn’t necessarily feel that this is what God wants us to be doing but because we as a society are choosing to make this a political issue instead of strictly a religious one then it is only natural for the church to get involved to try and push their side. My husband thinks that marriage should no longer be defined by government and legislation but should only be acknowledged by religious organizations. Any religion can choose to marry whomever they will and recognize those marriages, the same way that baptisms are handled. While I totally agree with this it didn’t really solve my conflict of feeling like either I was wrong or the prophet was and either outcome has very dire consequences for my life as I know it. But then he reminded me that the Lord sometimes has to give us what we want/ what we ask for even if it isn’t how he would like things to be done. And our society is demanding that we use legislation to define this issue and so the church has to take a stand based on the issue at hand and in the form it is presented in. Ultimately I think the Lord would rather we “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves” in the sense that we just continue to spread the gospel and be loving and tolerant.
I don’t think I am articulating his sentiments as well as he did but I know they made me feel a whole lot better. Perhaps this isn’t how the Lord wants it to be handled but we have left him no choice and he is just playing from the hand we delt him. Does that make sense?
Comment by LT — December 22, 2008 @ 2:42 am
You are definitely not alone and unfortunately the threat of church discipline is very real for those sharing dissenting/confused opinions with others. I do sometimes wish we’d follow the teachings of Joseph Smith about the truth prevailing no matter what and for us to seek revelations ourselves for confirmation. (Of course there’s the whole Expositor incident:{)
For me despite my criticisms I do have a testimony of Christ’s restored gospel and that it will prevail despite the governance of Man in the Church. Post #3 made a good point of sometimes the Lord will give us what we want (though I sometimes think we take the opinion that we want and because we feel good about it take it for the Lord sanctifying our decision).
Thankfully, with the Internet there are a few places available where you can keep a testimony and still discuss some concerns to help you sort things out in your heart and mind. However, it will be a lonely journey that only you and each of us can take to discover your true place in the world and with God. I’d suggest you keep in mind Lehi’s vision of the tree of Life and start off and cling to what you know to be the Iron rod as you cling to it while traversing the torrential river of filth that many inside and outside of the church will throw your way.
Comment by k — December 22, 2008 @ 3:07 am
I would hope it’s more when people do not seek to understand or align their will with God’s (yes, people are definitely allowed and even encouraged to gain their own testimony of the prophet’s commandments!) and instead continue to criticize and resist understanding, pulling others with them, that it becomes a problem. I’m sorry people have not treated you in the way you need. I hope people online will be nicer. I think many in the Church wonder similar things, and I hope they can get together and help each other instead of hurt each other.
Comment by Michelle Glauser — December 22, 2008 @ 4:34 am
It’s been said that there are three sources of inspiration: God, ourselves, or the devil. Since, we can be sure that the prophet gets his inspiration from God and we are promised in scripture that he will not lead the church astray, you need to check your source. You could well feel strongly about the issue and mistaken that for an answer to prayer.
Comment by Floyd the Wonderdog — December 22, 2008 @ 7:26 am
First off, I appreciate your struggle.
Second off, I think you’re decoupling the “speaking out publicly” phrase from the one that precedes it, “teaching false doctrine”. I don’t think Pres. Hinckley was listing two different reasons; I think that “speaking out publicly” was a modifier to “teaching false doctrine”.
Third, given the spectacularly low rate of Church discipline for “speaking out publicly” [quick: outside of Sonya Johnson (1979), the September Six (1993) and Margaret Toscano (2000), name someone], I believe that this concern is largely unfounded.
Fourth, your friend (”when the prophet speaks we don’t need to pray”) would be soundly rebuked by Brigham Young.
Fifth, here’s my simple thought experiment (and I hope it always remains a hypothetical): what if your bishop were to issue a press release, given a seminar talk, or write a blog post criticizing how you were fulfilling whatever calling(s) you hold, as well as your understanding of current events and politics? You would likely be tremendously angered and offended. Yet we often have no compunctions about doing exactly that to Church leaders. FWIW. ..bruce..
Comment by bfwebster — December 22, 2008 @ 7:57 am
Numbers 6 and 7, hows the KoolAid taste?
Comment by TheDevillllll — December 22, 2008 @ 8:39 am
Whoa! Ouch! You got me with that one! Jonestown == LDS Church is a powerful argument! And I admire your courage in stating this publicly! (What did you say your name was again?)
..bruce..
Comment by bfwebster — December 22, 2008 @ 8:47 am
Well, I stand up against ridiculous rules and “counsel” from the church, so I must be the Devil, right? Im just curious about you “turning the tables” on the OP by saying “How would you like it if your bishop talked about you?”. What does that have to do with anything? Who cares what some bishop says about her, it has nothing to do with her current situation. Just a ploy to shift attention from the issue on your part. This poor individual is pouring her heart out and all you can do is get all high and mighty and be an arrogant a**? Yep, must be the spirit of Christ in you.
Comment by TheDevillllll — December 22, 2008 @ 8:52 am
True, Bruce, yet there’s a mixed message in that. While we have been told to pray to recieve personal revelation to confirm revelations from the prophet…if we do receive a different answer, we are told to pray more, implying quite bluntly that we received the wrong response. Since the prophet is assumed to be the spiritual giant between the two of us, with his connection assumed to be direct, it is also assumed that if we did receive a conflicting response, it is quite obvious who is wrong. (Hint…it’s not the prophet.)
Hence, you do see it often, within our own faith, that even if we assert that we have prayed and have received a different answer, it is quite literally viewed by some as being a sign of personal unrighteousness or adversarial interference…because, if we were on the correct spiritual path, our personal revelation would align with that of the prophet’s, at all times and in all situations.
Pray and receive the personal revelation to which you are entitled, but you have only received righteous personal revelation if you have received the same answer as the prophet. It can be a very powerful tool for keeping people intimidated and quiet, since it is very, very painful to have one’s relationship to God questioned and exposed as false, simply due to factors of conscience, experience or circumstance. In fact, even if one tries to discuss these influences, some members are audacious enough to say that these said experiences or circumstance never would have occured if there wasn’t something wrong with you in the first place and that has led to your incorrect interpretation, which is incorrect because the prophet says so.
Are you getting dizzy from the circular reasoning yet?
Comment by Kimberly — December 22, 2008 @ 9:18 am
i hold personal opinions (not just opinions, but the reached-on-your-knees kind) that differ from church doctrine. when i encounter leaders, at any level, who try to change my opinions, i repeat my mantra-as-it-relates-to-church…the church is true but people are (i usually put stupid here, but i’ll try to be kind) often incorrect.
just my two cents. i like to keep things simple, something that i attribute to my conversion at age 32 some 12 years ago. i beleive that i was given a brain to use, as well as my experiences for my benefit, and i use both in concert with prayer to determine my personal beliefs. maybe not the best/right way, but it works for me.
Comment by sparekitty — December 22, 2008 @ 9:21 am
Kimberly, that was incredible. Thank you, good response!
Comment by TheDevillllll — December 22, 2008 @ 9:23 am
#1 - Why does she have to verbalize it?
TO GET IT OUT!!!! We all have different experiences and faith, and we all came down different journeys to reach our faith. Those stories, and those perspectives, are what we should share with each other to build each other up. When one person is feeling that their faith isn’t being held up by their own insight and experience alone, the FIRST place she should go is to fellow members of the church. The first people we should talk to is those who share our faith and want to see it increased.
Would you rather she take her concerns to her anti-Mormon co-worker, and get his perspective? It seems like a much better idea to work out the kinks in a safe setting, where growth can occur, and issues can be resolved with the aid of the Holy Ghost. Unfortunately, our church culture has become one of “Cut and run when any whisper of doubt or criticism appears”, an attitude which has been partially fostered by our leadership. I think that is incredibly counter-productive to actually resolving people’s doubts, and actually pushes them away from the Gospel.
#6 - I hardly think telling someone they are being inspired by the Devil when they have for 5 YEARS sincerely sought out truth, on their knees in prayer, is going to help build faith.
#10 - I really don’t think that’s what bfwebster (#7) was trying to do. He acknowledged and validated her concerns, and tried to help build some understanding about why things are the way they are. You can take issue with his perspective or argumentation, but bunching him up with a bunch of suicidal maniacs in a cult is far from helpful.
Comment by Natalie — December 22, 2008 @ 9:34 am
I empathize with your feelings, finding myself in a similar situation of wanting help, someone faithful and understanding and (for me at least) authoritative to discuss doubts and fears with, and not finding anyone.
That said, I think there is a powerful difference in seeking for help and counsel, and preaching false doctrine, seeking to convince others. Not everyone can see the difference (hence some of your friends’ reactions) but you can’t make them see it, either. You can, however, make sure you are not guilty of sin by examining your motivations. Are you wanting to talk about it to convince others or yourself that you are right, or to examine your own motivations and perhaps change them, should they need to be changed? Are you approaching the topic with an open heart and humility, or with an attitude of “this is what my heart says, therefore it is right and they are wrong”? Are you able to acknowledge that even if your answer is right in how to govern your actions, their answer may also be right in how to counsel the Church?
There is a world of difference between preaching the Gospel and priestcraft, even if the words used in preaching are exactly the same. Similarly, there is a world of difference in questioning and preaching false doctrine, even if the actions are outwardly similar.
My suggestion from my own experiences is to seek to cleanse your own heart before God and then, no matter what others say, you will know that you are clean and pure before Him. It may sound trite and closed to suggest you turn to Him when that doesn’t seem to be enough (I know how that feels, I am there now), but I have found that in the end, He is the only one you can rely on. Also, only He knows your heart, and only you are responsible for how you act. You can point to no one else, in the end.
Comment by SilverRain — December 22, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Lisa, I agree wholeheartedly that a truly mature organization cannot stifle honest exploration, nor should it gloss over mistakes and criticism. A mature organization acknowledges mistakes and welcomes critical investigation. Truth will out: if the doctrine is sound, we can stand honesty about the details or missteps. All too often we think that by stifling any questions we are protecting people. But such protection does nothing to strengthen us. Rather it weakens us. If people are confronted with evidence that they have been lied to, they are much more likely to be resentful than if they had seen the possibly ugly truth in the first place. Yes, the ugly truth might shake some people, but it will ultimately strengthen them to have had to reconcile those truths. For example, if the priesthood ban was not inspired but rather the result of the bigotry of early Church leaders (which I believe to be the case), the Church should stop temporizing and rationalizing. Just admit that the Church screwed up. We don’t have to pretend that the Church is completely infallible to maintain our testimonies and live righteously. We don’t have to deny the human frailties of even the most wonderful people who have lead the Church. We can forgive the errors of the Church if they are honest about them; if the Church remains determined to rigidly control the message, when they lie for our sake, it becomes much more difficult.
And yes, they do lie. For example, it is policy for seminary and institute instructors to respond to certain questions with things they know to be false in order to keep things simple for their students, to sweep uncomfortable things under the rug. That is a lie. And when people find out they’ve been lied to, they are likely to feel betrayed and to question everything they’ve been taught. Better just put everything out on the table in the first place.
Comment by Derek — December 22, 2008 @ 10:06 am
This seems to have more to due with Mormon culture than actual church teaching. My guess is that certain wards handle someone like LisaJ differently than others. So I’d be curious as to where you are, Lisa.
IMO, this cultural impulse to render questioning taboo is one of the reasons why the LDS activity and retention rate is low. There are thousands of LisaJs out there. Most of them just quietly drift away.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — December 22, 2008 @ 10:24 am
The ones that don’t question fear it is contagious. They don’t even want to think about what would happen if they entertain thoughs of doubt. I have be called everyname in the book you call and LDS person by other LDS people. That I am worldly, that I only think the way I do because I care what people who are not LDS think about me more than what God thinks about me.
I was accused of really not supporting No on 102, that if I really supported it I would speak out. When I pointed out that the reason I didn’t vocalize mt support for two reasons, my husband asked me not to, and that the church left no guildlines for displince in regards to the gay marriage bans.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705260852,00.html?pg=2
There is no yard stick for what type of speaking out is allowed and what type of is not. The fact that I kept my involvment to a no vote meant that I really knew it was wrong and that if I thought that what I was doing was right I would shout it from the rooftops.
I myself have no where to turn but here, it helps but sometimes I wish I had someone to talk in person that can listen and bounce ideas off of.
Comment by Starienite — December 22, 2008 @ 10:25 am
#1, jks: Ah, perhaps I should’ve been more clear. The answer to my prayer was a final, after months of worry and confusion: peace. I felt such a peace once I had made my decision.
#2, RJ: Thank you
My thoughts exactly.
#3, LT: I suppose, my only problem with that is: (a) I’ve ignored things in the past; I suppose I’m at my limit now, (b) I think your husband has a good idea, except in an interview between Elder Oaks, Elder Wickham, and PR in the lds.org newsroom, the two Elders stated (when asked if the Church would support FULL federal/state rights for “civil unions”) the Church could not support anything “tantamount to marriage” for the homosexual community. So apparently it would still be an issue. Struck me in a bad way.
#6, Floyd: Its statements like yours that weaken my will to stick around even moreso. God, ourselves or the devil? I don’t appreciate other people telling me the source of my prayers. I know what confirmation feels like and the fruits thereof. I’ve my opinions, I’ll respect other people’s answers, but those who insist my answer (one I struggled to get) is of the devil (or worse, myself) need to get down from their soapbox before they fall themselves.
#7, bfwebster: I realized that after some time. My friend, while well-intentioned, seems to have a misunderstanding of a few things. Like many other members, she’d prefer to ensure she’s on the right side and for her, unquestioningly supporting the prophet is her way. I almost went with her on this one, but the so-called “stupor of thought” I came across each time I prayed about voting yes kept me from such actions.
And uhm, #11 Kimberly nailed it. Thank you, sweetie. That was perfect
As for your thought experiment, I think that’s a good one. Treat others the way you’d like to be treated. I did think about that, but this isn’t about people so much as it is about my conscience and my relationship with God. I’m criticizing nobody in particular, just a stance. My leaders could fight with me on that one in the same manner I am and it would…be difficult because of their position of authority (what they could do), but I came to a decision that I’d have to deal with it. I couldn’t remain silent and keep my sanity.
I won’t be driven by fear, in other words.
#14, Natalie: Thank you. Exactly.
#15, Silverrain: My biggest concern was my blog. But everything else you said I had considered and thought about. I never would have said anything if my intentions weren’t pure and even flexible. I always want to be flexible.
#16, derek: You visited my blog, huh? Thanks so much. Your comments are awesome. I’m with you 100%
#18, starienite: Yep. That’s exactly it; there’s no convincing some/most people because they have those answers at the ready to discount me. It’s easier that way. I wish it wasn’t.
So glad for places like fMh and those groups on Facebook. I gain much strength there - just knowing I’m not alone. Thanks everyone.
Comment by LisaJ — December 22, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Lisa, I appreciate your thoughts on this. I’m very sorry that you’ve had the experiences with this you describe.
I would note that, in my experience, saying what you think can make some people upset with you but most often doesn’t have real consequences for your official relationship with the church. Much of the concern many of us have about punishment for our expression seems to be self-enforced. Not all of it, to be sure; the relatively rare cases of external punishment probably do a lot to reinforce the self-censorship of many of us. Yet in general, I find little consequence of saying what I think. I will note, though, that I certainly choose my time and place. This has consequences, to be sure, and I wish that some of the people who feel differently from me were equally circumspect. Yet there it is.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — December 22, 2008 @ 11:33 am
#20, J: You know, I wonder if I’m overreacting sometimes - and perhaps I am. I think it’s more the idea that bothers me than fearing my own disciplinary council.
We do seem to be a self-censoring kind of people - either on an individual or general level - and it doesn’t seem to be something that would do any of us any good. Those who would suggest dissenters have fallen into the devil’s trap don’t help, either. It isn’t as easy as some seem to want to believe. Some are so convinced, maybe haven’t had their own faith challenged just yet, that it’s difficult for them perhaps to give “us” the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for your support.
Comment by LisaJ — December 22, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
The problem for those of us not in agreement with #6 is that many active members of the church (the vast majority, I would say) define goodness AS the church. There is no moral standard by which one can measure the church, and the church, institutionally, can do no wrong. (Case in point–discrimination against blacks till 1978 was okay, now it’s not. But it was still okay then, just like discriminating against women is okay today.) So to disagree with the church is, by definition, evil. To members such as this, and they are legion, openly discussing disagreement feels like they are committing a sin themselves (e.g. “evil speaking of the Lord’s annointed”).
Comment by ujlapana — December 22, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
It’s hard to have a serious conversation when you characterize a different approach as “willful ignorance.” That may or may not be a fair characterization. I resent like hell that people assume I haven’t had my faith challenged because I don’t talk about it.
One of the SS had been my home teacher a few years earlier, and I was quite relieved when he was exed. In his case, he was clearly teaching false doctrine, and even bringing it into our home when he came home teaching, and always looking down at us as being stupid if we didn’t see things his way.
The problem with a lay ministry is that the lines blur so easily between when we are speaking for ourselves and when we are in a position to persuade others.
Say you have friends over and bring up a concern. I basically think that whatever you say in friends in your living room would be fine. But the catch is, what if you become their home teacher or Sunday School teacher the next day? That’s when it gets more problematic.
I disagree. It has done me a lot of good. It creates a safe space for a change of heart to happen. Back when the church was building the BYU center in Jerusalem, and locals were protesting, I thought that construction should be halted. One of the general authorities said that if construction stopped, the building would never be completed. It was finished, public opinion settled down, and it has been a very visible presence for the church in that part of the world. I am glad I didn’t make a stink and raise my serious concerns at the time.
I also make it a point not to complain about my husband to other people, and I’ve been very, very glad of that policy so many times, since it generally turns out there is another point of view, another side to the story.
That doesn’t bother me because I’m a scientist, and we don’t know everything or else I’d be out of a job. The wonder I experience in always learning new stuff is something that I feel with the gospel as well. It doesn’t bother me not to know everything right now. I’m not a god yet, why would I be able to comprehend all of it?
I also appreciate that I’m an introvert, so I don’t draw energy from others, and thus I don’t have a need to talk with others about such things.
So I have sympathy for those who question, but I truly don’t understand how the tactic of talking about it is very positive or helpful. It seems fraught with dangers: the risk of crossing over the line into persuading others, making it harder to come back when one’s heart is changed, as well as what it does to the church’s public image.
I don’t condone the unkind things that folks have said, but I wouldn’t blame someone for not wanting to follow you out on the tightrope you have chosen.
Comment by Naismith — December 22, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
I do understand where you are coming from. It is very hard to get LDS people to engage in discourse. They feel sacreligious in doing so. Remember that God’s plan is for us to have a choice and Satan’s plan is for us to be spoon fed everything. When you find yourself questioning things, you are pleasing God. Now, of course, how you choose to behave in the questioning process may make him sad, but there is nothing wrong with questioning.
You should be conscious, however, with whom you share your concerns. Some people are not up to the task of discourse on religious matters. My favorite person to talk to about religious matters is Jewish. In their faith, you are expected to question things. So they don’t feel threatened by questions or soul searching.
Comment by StillConfused — December 22, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Naismith—I agree with much of what you say, but I have a couple things on which to offer a different perspective. I am also an introvert, yet my mind is such that I need to be able to talk things out in order to understand them. If I don’t have that outlet, my thoughts get jumbled and chaotic and I end up miserable and confused. I don’t think the need to talk things out is wrong, it is simply different. I also feel that there is no danger of crossing into “persuading others” if one first and always acknowledges that one may be wrong, and secondly chooses their confidante wisely. The problem is not with questioning, it is with pride.
I would say that it is particularly hard when those who are in authority, such as bishops and RS presidents, are unable to abide these sorts of discussions. It leaves the seeker with no other recourse than to turn to those who are not in authority for that discussion or to suffer in silence. In the former, one more likely runs the risk of speaking publicly against the Church and in the latter, one feels cut off from the body of Christ. It seems to me, then, that the attitudes of those who do not understand first create the conundrum, and then condemn for it.
That does not mean that those who suffer can return condemnation, but it does mean that both sides could benefit from a little more Christlike charity. After all, of all the scriptural and historical examples of Christ dealing with seekers of truth, in none did He turn away the sincere. Is that not one of the most poignant messages of story of the Restoration?
Comment by SilverRain — December 22, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
In my mind, following blindly is never a good idea. Never.
That being said, I had a similar reaction in my family to proposition 8. I wrote in my blog that I disagreed with the church’s stance, and even more I disagreed with the hierarchy of the church telling congregation members in sacrament meetings that unless they vote yes on Prop 8 they are bad church members.
Certain members of my family responded by telling me that certainly I must have lost my testimony and basically that by questioning what the church is doing I might as well be spreading anti-Mormon literature.
I found those comments extreme and uncalled for, just as the person who told you to “tear up your recommend” is out of line. Perhaps that person needs a reminder of what the church teaches about judging others.
My beliefs (and I am sure to get blasted for saying this, but oh well) are that the church is perfect, not the people. Yes, the leaders are inspired by God, but they still are not perfect. I will never stop questioning things, whether in the church, government, or otherwise, that I find to be incongruent with what I believe is right. But that’s just me.
Comment by Erika — December 22, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
#23, Naismith: Hmmm, not exactly what I was doing. Perhaps I can help clarify: I was speaking of the church at large, both individual and general membership, is willing to play stupid when it comes to members losing their faith/testimonies. In my experience it’s not something we like to talk about, so we don’t. I have a strong hunch it’s because we’re scared doubts are contagious, we don’t want to give them voice in case they start ringing true to us as well.
But no, not everyone will have their testimonies challenged. That wasn’t my point.
“I also make it a point not to complain about my husband to other people, and I’ve been very, very glad of that policy so many times, since it generally turns out there is another point of view, another side to the story. ”
Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more that there is often more than one side to a story - more than two, I’d even say. This is why I talk. I don’t complain so much as I talk, and oft times the two are confused. I do talk with my husband when I’m having problems with people. He helps me find perspective. Talking and writing help me figure out my emotions and thoughts. That’s all. Some people take it as 100% complaining/murmuring which it’s not.
Also, I do complain. There. I’m careful who I complain to, however. My husband would be one safe person can complain to, someone who knows I could be wrong, someone who isn’t going to go on a gossip spree, someone who knows my heart and who has enough respect for others and myself to tell me if I’m way offbase or need to chill. Do I go to church and whisper in the foyer, complain to anyone who’ll listen? No.
As for not having to know everything: I know. I agree. I don’t have to know everything, either. But you have to agree that with most, if not all things, there is reason behind it. Even the Church with Prop 8 was looking for reason - one of the biggest being that the failure thereof would threaten religious freedom. Even the Church and its members were looking for rationale here, and that’s where I found issue as well: the rationale, as far as I could see, didn’t exist at worst and was weak at best.
I think it’s dangerous to tell people it’s dangerous to talk about things. So what do we do then? Ignore it? Pretend it isn’t there and hope it all goes away? I need perspectives as I often find I’m not getting one side of a story or I’m seeing something a little more skewed than I should. It’s important, but it’s also important WHO we talk to, I think.
We shouldn’t live a life of fear. That’s not what we’re to do.
And, honestly I would hope I, or anyone, would matter more than the Church’s public image.
Comment by LisaJ — December 22, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
re: 24
So why can’t our faith, a faith which is supposed to be willing to incorporate anything of value (AofF 13), incorporate that same attitude of questioning? Why should we be expected to unquestioningly accept the party line, even when that line is demonstrably false? How is that helpful?
Comment by Derek — December 22, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
#14 Natalie, I agree whole-heartedly. Sometimes we just need to “get it out.” At least I do. When I keep things bottled up inside, it drives me crazy. Sometimes it even makes me physically ill when I can’t talk to somebody. And since there’s no one around that I can talk to about spiritual things, I do my “talking” by blogging.
However, there’s a reason why I choose to blog anonymously. Part of me would love to put my picture on my blog and share more personal details about myself, but I’m afraid of the reaction from members of the Church who know me personally. Most of them would either assume I’m an apostate or that I’m out to pull others away from the Gospel — both of which they would discover are untrue if they actually read AND pondered the things that I discuss and the questions that I ask.
For those Mormons who are A-OK with absolutely everything about the Church, I think it’s hard for them to understand why people like LisaJ and I so desperately need a community of Mormons who share our struggles and questions, plus a safe place for us to voice those questions and concerns. Sometimes I feel like Edith Bunker. Other Mormons are Archie Bunker and they’re telling me to “stifle myself.” If I stifle myself, then I will die spiritually. I think there are many others in the same boat.
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — December 22, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Again, the struggles by LisaJ and everyone else are real, whether or not anyone else happens to agree with them.
I’ve been a member of the Church for 41 years, and I’ve certainly had my own struggles from time to time with Church policy and pronouncements. But the 41 years has also taught me the virtue of patience. Most of the issues I’ve had during those decades have been resolved or are being resolved, either by changes in the Church or by changes in me. New ones occasionally crop up, but they are typically minor and rare. And I find the unresolved ones just don’t matter as much as time goes on.
Through this all, I go back to Hugh Nibley’s famous comment: “There may be things about the Church that I find perfectly appalling. But I know the gospel is true.” Note that this statement is no urban legend or smudged samizdat: this is from Truman Madsen’s introduction to Nibley on the Timely and Timeless, first published by the BYU Religious Studies Center over 30 years ago and still in print (and in a 2nd edition).
Pres. John Eager, my (last) mission president, once told a group of us assembled at a zone conference, “I decided years ago that I would let no other person keep me out of the kingdom of Heaven.” He was referring specifically to that tendency to withdraw ourselves from the Church when someone says or does something that offends or upsets us. It doesn’t matter whether that person is a fellow ward member or the President of the Church; if we really believe that the powers and ordinances of salvation exist within this Church, then we hurt mostly ourselves and those who care about us when we withdraw.
And if we don’t believe that those powers and ordinances exist within the Church, then there’s not much point in sticking around anyway. ..bruce..
Comment by bfwebster — December 22, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
I am a constant lurker here and always appreciate the discussions.
LisaJ; I loved the post, I also have struggled with the specific topic of talking and open discourse/discussion about “controversial” things in the church. I have difficulty finding the line of okay and not okay in public speaking. So I decided to not look for it anymore.
I am one of the gospel doctrine teachers in my ward and I love when people share their beliefs and even more when they share their struggles/questions about doctrine.
I personally say what I want, when I want in my calling. I don’t get into specific topics very deep (Prop 8 for example), but I try to get honest discussion going on whether we should take the prophet’s counsel at face value without ever questioning it or praying about it. I share my questions and concerns, and have often been bolstered in the responses from my class.
I think the key may be in how you address it; If you ask questions vs. stating the prophet is wrong, I think you are fine. People are always more open when they are part of an open discussion and not part of a hostile argument. You can look at any of the past posts on this website to prove this.
Keep writing, keep talking, keep questioning, it is how we all learn. if we were supposed to just take everything given to us without needing to question it and exercise faith, then our purpose for being here would be frustrated.
Comment by LikestoWatch — December 22, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Another reason why I think it is important to be able to look at our church honestly and openly is that often, people ask us these hard questions!
For example, about 7 years ago, I started reading the Book of Mormon with a friend of mine who was Jewish. 7 years ago. He just decided, in September, that he wants to get baptized and serve a mission. Throughout those 7 long years, he asked a LOT of questions. He questioned the church’s public policy, the need for an Atonement, the “doctrinal” nature of cultural issues, and many other very serious things. If I hadn’t openly discussed these issues with him, there would have been two consequences. 1) He would have been turned off, would not have felt comfortable committing to the church, and would probably not trust it for a long time. 2) I would have had my own nagging fears. You know those nagging concerns that get in the back of your head? I used to have them all the time about political issues. Like, sex education. I used to think I was religiously obligated to support abstinence-only education. I would openly argue for it, but in my head, I was arguing with myself. “Hmm… that’s a really good point. But it can’t be true, because it’s wrong…. let me think of some semantically tricky response to prove my own point.”
At some point, you have to stop doing back-flips in your own brain and just confront your actual opinions.
Comment by Natalie — December 22, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
Question all you want, but don’t do it publicly in a way that promotes dissension within the church and gives the appearance (and actuality) of dis-union to those who are outside of the church.
Now what does that mean? Uncharitably it sounds like take your questions and shove it.
But if you’re fair about it, it means your will, your desires, your ego, your feelings, your conscience, whatever you want to call it — is not as important as unity in the church.
And I think this is not necessarily a bad thing.
I’m sure it must be a struggle for you, and I have to admit I have never faced an issue where the church has told me I need to do something I am philosophically opposed to. But I guess this is your chance to prove yourself and see where you stand.
I hope when it’s my turn I make the right decision…
Comment by sam — December 22, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Question: how “public” is blogging?
Comment by TheFaithfulDissident — December 22, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
#28. Yes this has been an issue of mine. In the Salt Lake area where I live (I don’t know if this is true for everywhere), if a question cannot be answered with “Pray and have faith”, then the question should not be asked. I personally have no opinion on Proposition 8 because as an attorney, I see it from a legal perspective and not an emotional one. But I do have issues with the marital relations of earlier prophets. That is my difficult area. It has actually been non-members who have provided me with some rationale on polygamy etc that I did not get from the LDS folks.
In all honesty, if I were really struggling with a religious matter, I would feel more comfortable discussing it with a Rabbi than with a Bishop. The Rabbi is a trained professional who encourages and enjoys questioning. He/She does not feel obligated to give a pat one-size-fits-all response. There are some definite advantages to that ability. In the LDS church unfortunately (at times) there is a hierarchy and a feeling “setting a precedent”. That limits the ability for individualization. For instance, in the Prop 8 scenario, everyone was expected to follow lock step without consideration of individual circumstances. Whether Prop 8 was really “that big of a deal” from a legal perspective is not the issue… it is whether people felt like their concerns were being heard that was the true heart of the matter.
Comment by StillConfused — December 22, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Ecclesiastes 3:1 says it for me - but I would add “and a tone and a place”.
I have no problem expressing even my concerns, but I choose the time and tone and place. Quite a bit of what I write on my own blog includes what might be considered “criticism” if the tone was different. (Take a look at my current post, for example. It’s a postive message, but it is a “criticism” of what I see too often.) That’s important, I believe, since often how something is said is more important than what is said.
Also, and I’m too rushed to link it, I wrote a post called “Righteous Complaints” that says much the same thing.
Comment by Ray — December 22, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
I truly believe that church leaders were doing what they felt was right with supporting prop 8.
And I truly felt it was wrong.
I figure things will straighten themselves out eventually. And I remind myself that the things I don’t know don’t cancel out the things I do know.
I wish there was more room for discussion without fear of losing membership. I agree that people are more likely to leave the church over feeling lied to than hearing openly about the ghosts in the closet.
Comment by Alliegator — December 22, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
Let’s say that you do have a lively open conversation. What is going to change? It is just mental masturbation unless you are the Prophet of the Church who can change the direction of the Church.
If you have personal revelation that active gays should be accepted members, woman should hold the Priesthood, people should pray to Heavenly Mother et al, great. You can laugh at all of us mere mortals who are ineligible for such knowledge. Or, you can attend Mrs. Toscano’s new church.
The whole war of words makes me puke. I hope that the CA governor changes the role of the state to preside over civil unions only and relinquishes marriage to Churches. The pro Prop 8 voters will be exposed for pushing an agenda that is much greater than just the word marriage: Adoption, Sex Education, etc…
***A message to my GLBT friends and the GLBT community: I wish that you would attend the LDS Church in peace. I would enjoy the discomfort of my congregation as gay couples sit and hold hands with each other at Church. What would my Bishop do? Would he call 911 and report a “Gay while in Church incident?”***
Comment by Scott — December 22, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
I have struggled with doubts and questions for quite some time. At the beginning of the year, I had decided to leave the church because I couldn’t reconcile my doubts with the church’s ‘party line’…long story short, I had prayed for someone that would validate my thoughts and concerns and hoped that if the Church was where I was supposed to be that I would find someone to help me through my doubts and questions.
In August, someone did show up — probably one of the most unlikely people I can think of — while most of my concerns still haven’t been resolved, the one thing that has happened is that this person has validated my concerns and told me that it’s OK, and even encouraged me to keep asking questions. This has taken a huge burden of guilt off my shoulders because I thought there was something wrong with me because I wasn’t getting the answers everyone else seems to get. The other thing I have worked on is following MY HEART and the answers and peace that I find when I do that - even if it seemingly goes against the Church’s party line.
Comment by Angie — December 22, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
But can we agree to not ruin Sunday services for everyone else? There’s nothing more tiresome than bringing Bloggernacle infighting into priesthood meeting or F&T meeting.
Start a local discussion group to express your concerns and doubts. But please consider your fellow Saints when you feel that Sunday is just the place to contend with everyone else.
Comment by queuno — December 22, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
I didn’t agree with this Prop, but the church’s involvement in it is not troubling to me. It’s confusing to me, but no more so than polygamy, blacks not being able to hold the priesthood until 1978, issues around the Pearl of Great Price translation, etc. etc. I’m able to hold onto my testimony with the idea that in the next life I will have a lot of questions for my father in heaven. A LOT.
In the meantime, I do my dangdest not to let ignorant church members get to me. Fortunately, no one has been ignorant to me to my face. Mostly on the internet.
Comment by Jeremy Jensen — December 22, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Since it was questioning, prayer, and personal revelation that brought me to the LDS church, I find it very hard to drop it by the door on Sundays.
Anyone who tells me not to question something lands on my list of reasons My Daddy Told Me Not To Join This Church. I simply roll my eyes and walk away.
It’s not the question but the journey to the truth that is important.
Comment by Sony — December 22, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
The important distinction here is that the church has inserted itself into something political. I have not struggled with doctrine, but when the church tells me how to vote (Equal Rights Amendment, Prop
then they are stepping on something I hold nearly as sacred as my membership in the church: my right to participate in democracy.
I don’t know if this helps, but it was easy for me to openly protest this type of legislation and to basically argue against the church because I wasn’t claiming the doctrine was false, just that the current political argument was not how I see it.
Comment by Eris — December 22, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
LOL…snort…mental masturbation…
Do I have to talk to my bishop about that? (#38)
Comment by Kimberly — December 22, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
ooohh … could be a band name
Comment by mfranti — December 22, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
stink! don’t respond to scott! (yes, i see that i commented on his statement but that was before i read the rest of his post)
if you do and this turns into a blank blank discussion, i will delete your comments.
thanks,
the moderation nazi
Comment by mfranti — December 22, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
#33 But is there really value in showing the world that the Mormon church is “unified” without dissenting opinions among its members? I’m not sure that this is a good thing. When I was converted to the Gospel, I asked a good LDS friend: “Does this mean I have to vote Republican now that I’m a believer?” And he said, “If you can find me a place in the Scriptures where it says we all have to vote the same way, then tell me so that I can bring it up in church.”
Comment by Anon for this one — December 22, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Of direct relevance to this discussion on Keepapitchinin:
Of Wise Guys and Angels’ Wings
Comment by Ray — December 22, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
#32, Natalie: Been there (semantics)
#33, sam: I hope so too. It sucks, But let me tell you: the individual person, the individual Christ loved enough to leave the 99 for, is less important than the facade of complete and pure church unity?
“But I guess this is your chance to prove yourself and see where you stand.”
Yeah, I’ve heard this too - far too often. It makes me want to step out of the circle, to be honest.
#34, FD: I’ve no idea. If one woman’s blog is for real, her bishop and stake president found it and called her in because she criticized a leader (elder? apostle?) I’ve no idea if she’s not telling the whole story or what, but yeah. I’ve no idea.
Comment by LisaJ — December 22, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
I don’t think it has to imply that you received the wrong message — just that the prophet speaks for the overall organization (made up of millions of individuals), while the revelation we receive for ourselves is very specific to us. You (the proverbial you) may receive a different answer than is appropriate for the general membership of the church, but you’d better make sure (pray again) that your answer really IS the exception and it’s not just that you want it to be. When your conscience and the Spirit dissent from the official position, just make sure. That’s all I get from it.
The restored gospel is founded on revelation, but not just from God to the prophet (or we might as well be papists, right? And frankly, I always wanted to be Roman Catholic, lol). It’s like a teeter-totter between prophetic revelation and personal revelation. They’re equally essential in theory and should balance each other out, though in practice sometimes it gets kind of wobbly….
Comment by RCH — December 23, 2008 @ 12:15 am
Ugh. That second paragraph (”True, Bruce …”) was supposed to be a block quote as well (from #11). I’ll never figure out this quotey business.
Comment by RCH — December 23, 2008 @ 12:16 am
My understanding has been that if the Spirit, the scriptures, and the prophets agree, then you know it’s right. If they don’t, then the Spirit trumps–though you’d better be very very sure that it is the Spirit. Which sounds threatening, but I think humility is the key.
I have often thought the same sort of things as you wrote–though not as articulately, alas–it was like you were writing down my thoughts for me.
I’ve come to the point in my life that I’m comfortable listening to my own heart and mind as well as the Spirit (but the Spirit trumps), and not worrying so much about what people think. But I also choose what I say and when. I’m trying to be more confident about sharing my opinions–though every time I start attending Sunday School, they call me to a Youth or Primary calling. Coincidence?–but I’m hesitant about sharing them too openly because things could backfire on me unexpectedly.
For example, my current bishop once started referencing the temple recommend question about “associating” with groups contrary to the church when I approached him about spearheading an outreach interfaith Christmas concert. If he ever even found out about this blog… I shudder to think. And I don’t believe I’m being at all heretical. But because HE has the authority, I have to be careful about any possible conclusions or judgments he might make about my worthiness, based primarily on his own preconceptions or misperceptions or whatever. He consistently and incorrectly reads into my husband’s and my words and actions, which has lead to my husband avoiding him and not paying tithing because he doesn’t want to pay it to him (yes, I know, he’s paying it to the Lord, but he has a hard time getting past the bishop), and when my husband went in for a recommend interview, the bishop wouldn’t give it to him–well, there was the tithing thing, we knew that, we expected the outcome. But then he started wondering whether he should revoke MY recommend because of things that aren’t relevant to the temple recommend requirements or even to me–just extrapolations upon what my husband did or didn’t and some conclusions he was jumping to from here to Timbuktu. The upshot was that we were both feeling like we had to cater to his whims rather than simply meet the temple recommend requirements. (sorry for the rant, the man makes me crazy)
The point is that often it seems like the offense or lack thereof is built into the perceptions of the authority, grounded or not, and that rather than answering to God through his appointed representative for my worthiness, I’m answering to the man, acting as a man, who happens to hold the office that holds stewardship over me. And so I must censor, not just to him, but to any who might mention my comments to him. Sigh.
Comment by Artemis — December 23, 2008 @ 1:13 am
Thank You for your post. No really. Just Thank You.
Comment by JdDaughter — December 23, 2008 @ 2:40 am
Very well put. I acknowledge this.
However, I am not sure that talking in a public way is the only way to address that “need.” There is a whole body of literature about how journaling, even if nobody else reads it, can help people because it is the process of writing it down that helps clear “the jumble.” And I used to think I had a need to resolve disputes before I went to bed, but since I’m married to someone who would rather sleep on things first, I’ve learned to compromise and found that the “need” is not so strong as I thought.
I agree that choosing a time and place is important. I am less sanguine about the danger of persuading others. Sometimes who we are and how we or are makes it impossible for us to speak without persuading.
I’ve served in RS leadership much of my adult life, and had many of these discussions. The first thing I always do is thank them for sharing, which is partly to buy time for me to pray and collect my thoughts but also to let them know it is okay to ask any question. I am willing to listen to any question.
I won’t tolerate criticism of leadership, that is true. But sincere questioning is always welcome and important to our growth.
Honestly, I am not sure what the exact issue is here, and as Ray noted, tone is very important. In the original post, she talked about her opinion. Then doubts and questions. Those are really hugely different things.
I don’t know anyone I serve with who “plays stupid” about this. It is a topic of prayer in every leadership meeting, and great caring and concern.
That may be for some. It isn’t for many.
Please understand that many of us who serve in leadership HAVE HAD DOUBTS. It’s just that we followed Pres. Hinckley’s counsel. I know a bishop who didn’t go to the temple for years because of his doubts. I know another bishop who doesn’t know the church is true, he only believes.
Your path is not the only path, and some of us have had just as grave doubts, we just deal differently. It doesn’t make our pain less, because we are not vocal about it.
I don’t think Abraham had a good “reason” for sacrificing his only son, and I don’t think the saints in the 1940s, when smoking was common and considered healthy, had a good reason for following the word of wisdom.
Okay, I was not in California for Prop 8, but I did live through the ERA thing. There were lots of members of my ward and stake who favored ERA, including a legislator who served on the high council, and it was not a problem for their church membership in the least. Once they asked not to be included in anti-ERA activities, everyone respected that.
The problem is when people encourage others to oppose it, and suggest people turn away missionaries, etc. Use the Gospel Library to look up the Ensign note about Sonia Johnson’s excommunication in the early 1980s, which of course they only made public after she misrepresented it to the media. I was particularly impressed, because if they wanted to just ex’ her they could have done it for fornication, since she was living with her ex-husband. Instead, they addressed the issue of her working against the church.
Again, I am just not sure without more specifics what the real problem was. There is a world of difference between “I feel good about supporting Prop 8 because….” versus “The church is wrong about Prop 8 because…”
I speak up at church all the time. Right now, I have an ongoing dialogue with the bishopric about including some women’s history in sacrament meeting in March. They didn’t do it last year because of a bunch of missionaries leaving and coming, so it is time. Last Sunday in Sunday School when we talked about secret combinations, someone said terrorists were an example, and I said that yes, the terrorists of 9/11 who plotted to invade our country, but NOT those in Iraq today who are simply defending their wives and children and land from an invader, and I said that I’d be willing to be a suicide bomber if someone invaded our town.
In a church manual about church history, there is an interesting story about this notion of speaking for the church. The Lorenzo Snow couplet, “as man is…” was apparently received by revelation years before he was prophet. He took it to Brigham Young. Pres. Young told him that if he wanted to teach it to his family, fine, but it was not for the entire church. Brother Snow complied. Later, he taught it to the entire church, when he was prophet. I wonder if that was a test to see if he could keep his opinions to himself? I dunno.
Comment by Naismith — December 23, 2008 @ 8:29 am
Artemis, I agree completely that the calling and the person get conflated far too often. With regard to the “association” question, I co-sponsored a Christian Students Association with a Baptist teacher years ago at the high school where I taught. I had one of the most eye-opening evangelical experiences of my life with that group (and not in a good way), but I had no problem then and no problem now with my role in it. Our Stake President, who also was a teacher at that school, never mentioned it to me, either.
I really believe that perception and reputation, unfortunately, play a large role in reaction - and that often is built on years of careful phrasing and conscious meekness. I believe I have been able to affect quite a bit of change where I have lived, but it has been done quietly and patiently and often individually - and I have never been challenged for it. I know how trite it sounds to counsel patience and self-reflective moderation, but as I have seen what has been effective and what has been problematic, those two aspects have stood out to me as key.
In this case, a well-placed .22 works works much better than a shotgun.
Comment by Ray — December 23, 2008 @ 8:34 am
Fair enough, Naismith, but believe me when I say that writing things down in a journal is not enough for some. I, personally, need human interaction, someone else’s mind to bounce things off of. Because of this, I have been saved from apostasy-line thinking at least a couple of times. If it is not good to discuss things with others, why have a discussion-type lesson at all? Why have two hours of Sunday discussion-type lessons compared to only one of sermon-type?
I still submit that the problem isn’t discussion, it is when, how, and who that is the potential problem. And, when we limit our discussion-based lessons to trite sermons, or when those who are faithful and in authority close the doors on these sorts of discussions, I can understand the temptation to take those discussions into more dangerous waters, though I certainly don’t condone actually doing so. This isn’t meant as criticism of leadership so much as to bring something to awareness. I don’t think leadership are bad for not understanding this need to discuss, any more than I think you are. It’s just a mental and emotional need that a certain percentage of the population has that the rest does not understand. I’ve come up against it time and time again, myself.
And I don’t know the exact issue, either. It is possible I’m projecting my own experiences onto her.
For everyone else, I think it important to point out that accepting a calling to be bishop does not come with an instant spell of understanding. Give them the same room for error that you ask for. Even trained clergy aren’t perfect.
I also think my recent post on revelation has some bearing on this subject, should anyone care to read it.
Comment by SilverRain — December 23, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Naismith, I have to admit I am having a hard time understanding where you are coming from. I think it’s almost impossible for “discussion” to be a bad thing. I think it is a good thing when we get up and share our feelings and get feedback. This is why the bearing of testimonies is so integral to how our church functions.
What if a close friend actually began to doubt that the prophet WAS called of God, or began to lose faith that the Book of Mormon was true. What if a friend started doubting the existence of God? Would you really want her to keep it to herself? I would want her to come to me with her concerns, and we can talk and pray and fear and think and study together. Obviously, the setting is important…. it would be inappropriate to bring this up in sunday school, for example. But there is nothing evil or unwise about discussing it. Quite the contrary, I believe.
For myself, I know I have a tremendously difficult time discussing any doubts, because I’m afraid of them, and don’t want to verbalize them for a long time. If I do get to the point that I talk to someone openly about it, that means they’ve been stewing for a LONG time, and are very serious. It also means that I’ve gone through the whole pray, read, fast, write phase, and still need more. If someone turned me away at that point, it would be a quite a blow, and I can only imagine that it would reinforce my doubts.
I don’t think it’s ever wrong to discuss, no matter the topic.
Comment by Natalie — December 23, 2008 @ 10:11 am
If you never had doubts, and never questioned, but just accepted everything without argument, would you actually LEARN anything? Isn’t that what we’re here for?
The Lord is giving you a chance to learn something. What that may be, I can’t say. But I can say this - he wants you to continue to question and think for yourself. He wants you to struggle to find an answer. The gospel is not just about the surface. Things go deeper. Sure, we can take the surface meaning. Or, we can dig deeper and find multiple layers of meaning, that become clear to us as we are ready to accept them.
As for the fullness of the gospel, please remember that even in our times, the United Order was removed because we were not yet ready to live it. Individual members may be, but the Church, and the world, as a whole, were not. The prophet speaks for the whole, and individual members may very well be on a different level, ready for more challenging doctrine, but the prophet has to speak for the whole.
It’s like the Word of Wisdom - given for the weakest of the saints. Those who can control themselves, and limit themselves to just one glass of wine a day are actually healthier, but how many people really have that self control? It’s much better to have none than to become an alcoholic, and so the Church says not to have any at all. It’s safer for the masses that way. It’s safer for the weakest of us.
Question, by all means, and take your questions to the Lord. Remember that your priesthood leaders are mere mortals, and may be struggling with the same questions, although they may not wish to say so. The Lord will answer your questions in his own way and in his own time.
Also, please note - there’s a big difference between expressing doubt or questions, and proclaiming to the world that the gospel is false and the prophet is a fool. The latter is definitely not a good thing to do.
Comment by Carrie — December 23, 2008 @ 10:40 am
#27 But no, not everyone will have their testimonies challenged.
Just skimming over all of the comments the above fairly jumped out at me. I must respectfully disagree. A testimony that hasn’t been challenged, like a life that hasn’t been examined isn’t worth much. Brigham Young pointed out that it isn’t when the waters are rough and the storm rages that people fall out of the boat. It is when the waters are calm and peaceful that people fall out. I guess that is because they are not holding on for dear life.
I just want to second everything that Naismith said. I live in the same area as Sonja Johnson. While I wasn’t in her ward the ripples of what she was doing reached into my life. I was acquainted with many women who were sympathetic with her cause and who even marched for the ERA. They came to church one Fast day wearing the scarves they had been given. They bore testimony to the validating and wonderful experience of sisterhood they had experienced. They were not criticzed or told to cease and desist. They remaine faithful.
Sonja went to a convention in NY where she spoke before a professional group and said Pres. Kimball had not been honest. She said that he only gave the church part of the revelation on priesthood and that is was supposed to include all worthy women as well as men. She further called on people to refuse to talk to the missionaries until women received the priesthood. This is the kind of thing President Hinckley was talking about.
It is important to take the long view. We don’t always have enough information in the heat of an emotional battle. It is easy to lose sight of what is important. There may be more going on than you are aware.
It is my understanding that the proceedings of and results of church courts are not made public in order to protect the privacy of all involved but especially that of the person being disciplined.
I have said more than I intended. The longer I live the more important charity becomes in my life.
Comment by Claudia — December 23, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Lisa- I’ve been struggling with many of these same questions/ideas for many years now. Thanks for sharing and having the courage to speak. It strengthens others. You are not alone. Thanks.
Comment by moksha — December 23, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Now I understand better the reaction I get on this site when I say my truths.
If everyone talked would they excommunicate the whole membership?
Organized religion is about control. Not religion.
You are being asked to abandon yourself. It doesn’t feel good because it isn’t fair.
Comment by Ruby — December 23, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Lisa, like everyone else has said, you’re not alone. I am no longer a believer due to all the same stuff you’ve said here. I’m now a secular mormon and am finding myself less and less welcome. I’m the problem because I have questions. If I would just have faith and stop thinking so much I wouldn’t be destroying my family like this, etc. Ad nauseum. It’s just so sad.
Comment by Kerri — December 23, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Lisa,
I was going back through some notes from a meeting a number of years ago (stake priesthood leadership, so you understand the context), and saw that I had recorded some comments from one of the members of our stake presidency at the time. He said, as my notes record, that if you receive inspiration that differs from someone who is in a leadership position over you, and you feel that it is indeed revelation, then they (the leader) may not have heard all the contrary opinions and feedback, and you should (I believe he may even have said the word “obligation”) discuss it with them.
That is hard for a couple of reasons. First, as indicated in your comments and those of others, most of us in the LDS church are very reluctant to go against the flow, thus creating a false homogenized public perception of the church and its members. Second, you are directly challenging the inspiration or at least the decision of those who are in positions of leadership, and that is hard for them.
I read in the most recent copy of BYU Studies an expanded discussion of how Pres. Kimball got the revelation on ending the priesthood ban. First, I was struck by the humility that he showed in the process, but second, the agonizing effort he put into getting unanimous support from the rest of the First Presidency, the Apostles, and the rest of the general authorities. It was a process of years, not days, and he just about exhausted himself in the effort. And he was the Prophet, with all the respect and deference that we give to the individuals holding that title.
I have to agree with Ray that dissension is tricky, and that timing, tone, and forum are important. Sometimes, I believe we get inspiration that is tailored for us individually that might differ from the rest of the church, and is offered to us to help us because our Father knows us as unique children. In that sense, you could say that while the church as a whole valid reason and inspiration to support the Proclamation on the Family by sponsoring efforts in behalf of Prop 8 or similar issues, that does not mean that you can’t receive inspiration for you about how you relate to that.
It may well be that your inspiration is to help you to overcome doubts, and help you to stay in the church, despite having real differences over an issue or two (or four). Ultimately, we know that we have been promised that we have that right to individual inspiration, and that might from time to time set us up for some tension with our membership in the church. Others need to recognize that we are all dependent on grace and the atonement to ultimately achieve our goals in this and the next life, and to remember that charity (with all that means as we understand that God is no respecter of persons) is the true love of Christ.
Hang in there. It’s hard, but worth it.
Comment by kevinf — December 23, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Ugh, I tried to respond to this earlier and it disappeared on me. I’ll try again. Please forgive my lack of html knowledge. Do I quote simply by [quote] [/quote], just in ?
Anyways.
# 54, Naismith. You said I don’t know anyone I serve with who “plays stupid” about this. It is a topic of prayer in every leadership meeting, and great caring and concern.
There’s prayer and then there’s action. There’s concern and then there’s not.
In my experience, it seems that when it comes to a face to face “My testimony is falling apart” my leaders and friends like to play stupid. Again, my last bishop told me to watch BYU-TV and dismissed what it was that started it all (it’s entirely too personal to discuss here, but suffice it to say it’s not a matter you simply dismiss)
I would hope my current bishop would be different. I think he might be. But again, what does one say when a person comes up and says “I think the Church was wrong with Prop 8″?
They read the script. I disagree. They counter with more script.
You might ask what it is I want to hear, and I don’t know what it is I want to hear. Maybe a pat on the back, a hug, something to let me know I won’t be forgotten, ignored, or shunned because I’m no longer sure about some very important things. So far, nothing. It’s just too damn hard to talk about. When a loved one, a person who you’ve always known to be strong comes to you and says “I don’t know if I believe anymore” it frightens. I wish it didn’t so much, though I understand completely why it does. I went through it with my own family when I investigated the church.
So pray all you want, but I need action. Doubters and dissenters need action. They need to feel that love, that respect for questioning and concern. “I’m praying for you” is nice and all, but I need a friend who’s not afraid of stepping in the dark with me for a minute.
I don’t think Abraham had a good “reason” for sacrificing his only son, and I don’t think the saints in the 1940s, when smoking was common and considered healthy, had a good reason for following the word of wisdom.
You’re right. Abraham probably had no good “reason” to do that. I’m not implying we always have to have a good reason; just saying there generally is one and in the case of Prop 8 even the church was trying to qualify revelation with weak arguments. I can’t imagine what Abraham must’ve gone through. He had a very personal relationship with God.
As for the WoW, it might interest you to know there was a temperance movement in the 1830s - and it didn’t stop with alcohol, either. Many believed smoking was bad for your health as well. Just like today, I hear there was a huge health movement back in the day. If this is true, and all my sources attest to it (google “1830s temperance movement” and “19th century anti-smoking/clean living movement”) then by the 20th century there was at least some who believed it was bad.
Here’s one article for you if you’re interested:
Tobacco Alcohol and Caffeine—Centuries of Use - Tobacco
Was it more accepted then than now? Absolutely. But they had no idea it was bad for you? Ehhhh….
Forgive me if you already knew about it. I just learned the other week - I always thought the tobacco aspect of the WoW was rather prophetic until I learned about the health movement of the 19th century.
Comment by LisaJ — December 23, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
re: LisaJ 63
I use [blockquote] blah blah blah [/blockquote], just exchange the [ ] for .
Comment by trill — December 23, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
hrm that would be exchange the square brackets for angle brackets. The angle brackets disappeared though.
Comment by trill — December 23, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
Lisa, not having someone with whom to talk about difficult issues is one of the hardest things with which to deal - bar none. Blogs like this are a balm for many, and, while you search for that someone in your non-internet life, I hope the opportunity to talk here bridges that gap long enough for you to find someone who can put their arms around you and listen while you talk. Answers are nice; understanding and love are better.
Meanwhile, my advice is difficult but, I believe, worth giving:
Don’t expect from others what they aren’t able to provide. Remember, some of them might be crying inside, wishing others would do the same for them and not realizing you are standing there praying for the same thing.
Comment by Ray — December 23, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
trill, ah, ok, thanks
Ray, I thought of that as well. Thanks for the reminder.
Comment by LisaJ — December 23, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is true. Today’s church is little more than a corporation, run by a bunch of fallible executives. They sometimes get (really) good inspiration, sometimes they are dead wrong. Some are sweet and humble, some are downright arrogant. Guess what? They’re mortal.
The leadership of The Church is no different than the leadership of your ward or Stake. They’re just guys doing a job. Sometimes they are brilliant. Other times they are just plain dumb.
They have a long track record of mistakes. Each of us do. Should anyone be surprised? Of course not! We’re all mortals, trying to figure things out. Monson gets inspiration the same way you do. Search, ponder, and pray. His is no different than yours. He doesn’t have PPI’s with “The Boss (JC). He’s never seen him! He pulls his pants on one leg at a time. He sits on the toilet and poops, and it stinks, just like your poop stinks. He’s visited most of the widows in SLC; kudos to him for such Christlike service! He also probably votes Republican. Idiot.
I think part of the problem is that we are so quick to deify these guys. They’re just guys. They fart, they spit, and sometimes they inspire. Take it and the church with a grain of salt.
Comment by Anon for this — December 23, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
mmmm I would hate to be the one that did the PPI’s for the Prophet. Eeee Gads that would be more than a little humiliating/intimidating/eye opening.
Yes, leaders are human. They are also our leaders. Fine line, hard to draw where at most of the time.
Go with your gut is all I can say. HF gave us both “instinct” (aka the Holy Ghost) and intellegence for a reason. We need to use both. Like everything else in life, it’s a matter of balance, and for each person the balance point is individual.
It is oh so comforting to find someone to truely talk to even if they disagree (especially if they disagree) who can still love you as a person and not have to fight/humiliate/prove you wrong. I wish you the best in finding such a person who not only listens but help you to find your own balancing point.
Comment by Aprillium — December 24, 2008 @ 1:29 am
I would stay up until all hours of the night talking with them, letting them know it is normal to doubt at times.
But the occasions when this has happened, it has been a matter of the person having doubts and questions, not opinions that were already made up. It was more along the lines of “I don’t understand….” rather than “I think the church is wrong…”
That may seem like a trivial difference, just a few words here and there. But it is a very different attitude, and may be perceived differently by others. So if you really are questioning, it might help to carefully choose your words to be clear that is the case.
I think unconditional love is very important in these situations. But our tolerance does not mean we tolerate what they do. There are limits that should be set, particularly by leaders. If you are struggling, I will listen as long as it takes. If you declare the church to be wrong, that is something I cannot tolerate when I am in a leadership setting.
In the health care field, there is much concern along these lines. Many patients benefit from support groups, and there are studies showing that patients with some cancers live longer when they get that kind of emotional support. But. There are also groups for bulimia and voluntary amputees. Not recovering from bulimia, but living it as a lifestyle. Ditto for the voluntary amputees. And this is not healthy and it is not in the person’s best interest to continue to give them that kind of support, telling them that whatever they do is fine.
Okay, this makes more sense, to hear of your personal experience rather than a blanket statement. (Although the “like to” is a bit snarky.)
You seem to interpret the silence as a negative thing, abandoning you. It might also be intended as a neutral thing, allowing you space. But I appreciate the effect is negative for you, irregardless of their intent.
Yes, you’ve pretty much forced them into it. And your disagreement, rather than agreeing to prayerfully consider their counsel, just makes it worse.
If you say, “I don’t understand the church’s stand on Prop 8,” you might get a different reaction.
It may or may not frighten. It doesn’t frighten me, or most of the leaders I work with, because we’ve all been through it. It is more normal than not. But just because we’ve been through it doesn’t mean we can show you the way back. We all take different routes.
For your bishop, BYU-TV may have played a role, and he was genuinely trying to share that with you. For me, the CHURCH NEWS knocked me out of one of my plateaus, but I wouldn’t prescribe it to anyone else.
Did you get elected as a spokesman for them? Have you done research suggesting this is a majority opinion?
Look, I understand that we all have different ways of dealing with things. I respected what SilverRain said about her needs, above. But to claim that all doubters and dissenters need the same is to dismiss those who don’t take the same path you did. I know a bishop who didn’t speak out, didn’t need action. He went a few years not going to the temple, etc. but finally came around.
They may not be afraid of stepping in the dark but rather not willing to be being covered by slime. “I think the church is wrong” is not a question. It is very much farther down the road towards slime.
I did study about the temperance movement in women’s history class, because it was one of the few public forums back then in which women played a public role. I am not sure that early opposition was based on science as much as belief and a sense it was dirty. But these things go in cycles, and when my mother was a RN in the 1930s, she was taught smoking was healthy because it kept weight down, prevented ulcers, etc. (And indeed, as smoking rates have declined, obesity has surged.)
But take another WoW example: tea. There is no doubt in my mind that iced tea is a healthier beverage than Diet Coke. Beyond the caffeine levels, the cola has phosphoric acid (bad for bones) while tea has anti-oxidants and had been demonstrated to lower cholesterol levels.
So I don’t refrain from drinking tea for a reason, I do it because we’ve been asked to.
Comment by Naismith — December 24, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Lisa, I have finally come to understand one specific human behavior that explains a great deal that had puzzled me for years. DOUBT frightens people–their own doubt. Doubt makes them wonder about the basic assumptions that they have lived by. Doubt opens them to rejection by others and even to punishment (ignoring, shunning, excommunication, beheading). Most of us do not want to face up to our own deepest doubts.
SO–our own doubts cause us to focus instead on the doubts of others. Fearing our own doubts, we stuff them out of sight and we become hyper-sensitive to the doubts of others. Even small, fairly unimportant doubts or deviations by others raises our fear factor. (”You drink COKE? You pay tithing differently than I do? You wear a pants suit to Sacrament meeting?”) That projection eases (temporarily) our own fear, gives us a safer focus. The more our locked-up doubts bang on the cellar door, though, the more loudly we have to condemn the doubts of others. We have to tsk-tsk, shake the finger, lecture to the doubter, and often dissociate from her, labeling that choice “avoiding the appearance of evil.”
John Patrick Shanley’s play, DOUBT (now a movie with Meryl Streep and Seymour Philip Hoffman), shows us the evil that can arise out of one’s fear of her own doubt. Many who see the movie or the play think that the “doubt” refers to Sister Aloysius’s doubts about Father Flynn, who may or may not have sexually molested a pupil. But reading Shanley’s short preface makes clear it is the sister’s own inner doubts about her own beliefs that create the chaos she fears. That fear causes her to become cruel and almost psychotically punishing to Father Flynn.
Sadly, it seems as if many of those around you have reacted to your concerns with fear arising from their own suppressed healthy doubts. Oh, I wish it weren’t so! I wish I knew a balm for your ache and anguish. Happily, God is Who God has always been, and you are the same eternal soul you have always been and will always be. May you find peace and joy soon.
Comment by Crone — December 24, 2008 @ 11:36 am
When I find myself in disagreement with what I have been told or have always thought is “right,” or when I’m trying to mentally reconcile and process an issue, I ask myself what Love would do. Sometimes it’s clear, and sometimes it’s not, and sometimes you’ve just got to talk about it out loud with others to process and discern. And the church - whichever church you are a part of - should be the FIRST place to sit down honestly with others and hash it out, not a place of fear, condemnation and suppression. If you can’t do that where you are, maybe you should consider finding an honest, Loving church community elsewhere that will foster the progress you’re seeking.
Comment by jwtx — December 27, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
#71, Naismith: I really don’t want to get into arguments, please take everything I say knowing I mean it with respect.
You can’t honestly suggest you know whether I’ve listened to absolutely everything without prayerful consideration. I assure you I have.
I’ve been questioning for some years now. Saying “I think the church is wrong on this issue” shouldn’t be grounds for excommunication. The church is not perfect, we shouldn’t have to pretend it is for sake of looking unified in all things.
Perhaps I am too quick to speak for others. Just know it is my experience.
As for the “slime” part - eeeh. Thanks.
And btw, I don’t drink tea and coffee because we’ve been asked to. I don’t see any other reason why we shouldn’t. I just wonder about it sometimes.
#72, Crone: Ah, projection! Yes, I agree and the thought also crossed my mind that those who were quickest to dismiss me and ignore me may be those who are silently struggling to muffle their own doubts. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me.
#73, jwtx: That is ultimately the question, isn’t it? Do we do things out of fear or love? I’ve thought of this as well.
Comment by LisaJ — December 27, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
I don’t understand when we disagree with a church leader, why we feel we even have to tell them, I think the leaders are men, and when I feel different, I just go with my gut, God is not eating breakfast with me, therefore I am not talking to him live, I cannot possibly know really what he wants, I just live what I know to be true, pray about the rest, don’t worry about from there, if he wants me to get it, he will let me know sometime. Otherwise, when I conflict, I just don’t worry, don’t really call it to anyones attention unless I need to stand up for it, and then I just say ” Ifelt it was important, and untill I feel otherwise” Ask them to pray about it if they are judging you.
Comment by Cathy Davis — December 27, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
[…] should people do when they have questions in the church? Doubts? Disagreements? I was reading this blog entry at Feminist Mormon Housewives (I do that a lot) (of a blogger who normally posts at the Liberal Mormon that Could, so I should […]
Pingback by Questioning and dissension « Irresistible (Dis)Grace — December 30, 2008 @ 5:11 am
I agree with looking to other religions when in doubt. I am in the process of “rebuilding my testimony” and have found that religious books from Jewish authors are much more helpful than LDS ones. Too often the LDS advice is “just grin and bear it” “fake it till you make it” “if life were easy it wouldnt be hard” stuff. Well, those make lovely wall paques, but don’t really help in my really personal, internal struggle.
I have also found that some people cannot handle questions and doubts. It scares them too much…that you will never “find your way back” or that they will “catch it” too. I’ve also learned that there are a lot of people still living in Primary la-la land and don’t really know that much about Gospel Doctrine or what they really believe and “know”. Their testimonies have never really been tried, so they have no idea that their testimonies aren’t really…*real* (shhhh, don’t pop their bubble!) The real fact of the matter is, until we have been pushed to a place where we must truly rely on the “rope that holds us up” (to quote CS Lewis) we don’t truly know if we trust it or not.
Questioning and searching is part of strengthing our testimonies. Yes, its scary, but more so for the person who has to wake up to it everyday. Not only are you struggling, but you are having to do without the peace you seek. I also think its nice to remember that every single prophet in the scriptures has at one time or another questioned God and felt abandonded, even Christ himself. If they even expercienced those feelings, then why could we ever expect more from ourselves?!
I think we can only speak of these matters to a selected, trusted few. And in the end, we can only find our TRUE answers from ourselves, no one else. Like you said, nothing anyone says is going to change your mind or stop you from questioning. The questions will stop only when *you* have received the answer for *yourself*. When and how that happens, no one can tell you. I have slowly been discovering this for myself. I am slowly coming to accept that I am not going to have an answer anytime soon, and its not going to come easily. We bear our personal Gesthemenes alone.
Comment by sb — January 2, 2009 @ 4:23 am