What would you want me to tell your bishopric?

[cwald]

This probably won't work, but it's worth a try:

What if we consider that a person who has come to question or even reject his or her literal faith is someone who has progressed to a higher spiritual plane than those who require literalism?

Alma 12:9 suggests that the Church teaches "the lesser portion of His word". Jesus taught in parables and metaphors, and to the audience of the Gospel of John, literalism was a live and well. Literalism is the "milk". At some point, we outgrow it, and realize that universal, unconditional love is far more important than believing in some literal aspect of church history or doctrine.

Ha. Indeed indeed.

But no. It is a waste of time to have this conversation.

Glad to have got back....


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[wayfarer]

But no. It is a waste of time to have this conversation.

you're such a skeptic...

[Curt Sunshine]

I could have that conversation with specific leaders (and actually have, more than once), but, as a rule . . . nope.

Realistic skepticism and realistic idealism meet on this one.

Good to see you again, Wayfarer. You contribute wisdom whenever you drop by.

[mackay11]

This probably won't work, but it's worth a try:

What if we consider that a person who has come to question or even reject his or her literal faith is someone who has progressed to a higher spiritual plane than those who require literalism?

Alma 12:9 suggests that the Church teaches "the lesser portion of His word". Jesus taught in parables and metaphors, and to the audience of the Gospel of John, literalism was a live and well. Literalism is the "milk". At some point, we outgrow it, and realize that universal, unconditional love is far more important than believing in some literal aspect of church history or doctrine.

Great to have you back wayfarer.

I like that perspective. My latest visit to the temple taught me that the church leaders can teach me a certain amount, but there comes a point when even they can give no more answers and the only way to receive further "light" is to have them complete their role and then pass you on for direct interaction with the Lord. I see that as a symbol of spiritual independence. I don't think people notice it, but ultimately I think that is the greatest lesson of the temple endowment.

(DJ... probably not one for the Bishop conversations... any mention of the temple makes people usually squirm)

[DarkJedi]

I do agree with those of you who believe it is possible that those of us who have undergone a faith transition might be on a different level and indeed might have a stronger testimony is some ways than the average member. I also agree with those of you who believe this is not a conversation to have in the types of meetings I will be involved in. Like Ray, I think under the right circumstances with the right individual something like that can be said and a worthwhile conversation could probably take place.

[On Own Now]

What if we consider that a person who has come to question or even reject his or her literal faith is someone who has progressed to a higher spiritual plane than those who require literalism?

I do agree with those of you who believe it is possible that those of us who have undergone a faith transition might be on a different level and indeed might have a stronger testimony is some ways than the average member.

Wayfarer! So good to hear from you again! I do believe that it is important not to think of ourselves as 'more' or 'better' or 'higher' than anyone else. It might be better FOR ME, but I don't need to compare myself to anyone else. My SP and his wife are wonderful people. They are faithful believers and their faith works beautifully for them. I can think of dozens of 'literalists' whose faith works better for them than mine does for me. If the 'way' that a person finds is fully in the Church or fully in Catholicism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Veganism/Bike-rider-ism/Atheism/Beer-ism, then I think it's good for them.

[mackay11]

Wayfarer! So good to hear from you again! I do believe that it is important not to think of ourselves as 'more' or 'better' or 'higher' than anyone else. It might be better FOR ME, but I don't need to compare myself to anyone else. My SP and his wife are wonderful people. They are faithful believers and their faith works beautifully for them. I can think of dozens of 'literalists' whose faith works better for them than mine does for me. If the 'way' that a person finds is fully in the Church or fully in Catholicism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Veganism/Bike-rider-ism/Atheism/Beer-ism, then I think it's good for them.

I like this attitude On Own Now. It's what makes me comfortable not trying to go out of my way to convince other members of their TBM perspectives. If literal and absolutist views are the vehicle they need to progress along the path to godliness then why should I challenge that. Maybe literalism is the best way for some learning styles. Different vehicles that are better for certain passengers, but not necessarily better for all.

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer! So good to hear from you again! I do believe that it is important not to think of ourselves as 'more' or 'better' or 'higher' than anyone else. It might be better FOR ME, but I don't need to compare myself to anyone else. My SP and his wife are wonderful people. They are faithful believers and their faith works beautifully for them. I can think of dozens of 'literalists' whose faith works better for them than mine does for me. If the 'way' that a person finds is fully in the Church or fully in Catholicism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Veganism/Bike-rider-ism/Atheism/Beer-ism, then I think it's good for them.

I agree. I guess my point is that a reconstructed faith is not "less" than literal belief.

beer-ism...

[cwald]

Wayfarer! So good to hear from you again! I do believe that it is important not to think of ourselves as 'more' or 'better' or 'higher' than anyone else. It might be better FOR ME, but I don't need to compare myself to anyone else. My SP and his wife are wonderful people. They are faithful believers and their faith works beautifully for them. I can think of dozens of 'literalists' whose faith works better for them than mine does for me. If the 'way' that a person finds is fully in the Church or fully in Catholicism/Buddhism/Christianity/Islam/Veganism/Bike-rider-ism/Atheism/Beer-ism, then I think it's good for them.

I agree. I guess my point is that a reconstructed faith is not "less" than literal belief.

beer-ism...

Nice.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[MockingJay]

"He asks why they didn’t work hard at their jobs"

stuck out like a sore thumb. I'm really starting to resent the "you didn't work hard enough" attitude that prevails in every less than desirous outcome of a church program.

My bishop, who is a good, caring man, is nonetheless the king of this attitude. IMHO, he's sooo worried about "wayward" members, that he goes overboard pushing everyone else to work harder, and it never seems to be enough. In the process, he drives the "sheep" he's trying to save further away and burns out the "under shepherds." The RS pres., who is my friend and my VT comp., is much the same way. This is why I keep my mouth shut (which relates to another recent thread here.)

Mackay11 said:

I like this attitude On Own Now. It's what makes me comfortable not trying to go out of my way to convince other members of their TBM perspectives. If literal and absolutist views are the vehicle they need to progress along the path to godliness then why should I challenge that. Maybe literalism is the best way for some learning styles. Different vehicles that are better for certain passengers, but not necessarily better for all.

The problem is that we aren't afforded the same consideration by the hardliners, not even a little bit.