"Here I Stand. God Help Me, I Can Do No Other."

Post by **Old-Timer** » 09 Jul 2014, 11:29

The following link is to a post written by Margaret Blair Young, one of my favorite writers. Everyone here will not agree with everything she writes, but it is beautiful and profound in a lot of ways - and, I think, will resonate with many here.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/welcometab ... -no-other/

SunbeltRed · Post by **SunbeltRed** » 09 Jul 2014, 13:31

I very much enjoyed that - thanks for posting.

EuSouScott · Post by **EuSouScott** » 09 Jul 2014, 16:23

Ray,

Thanks for sharing. I did enjoy reading this and took some items to heart. But I didn't love all of it (like you assumed some wouldn't)

I have no problem accepting that the leaders of the church aren't perfect and that they have made mistakes. She says it is naive to assume that "all was revealed in the early days of Mormondom" and I agree with her. I hold on to the belief (kind of) that many great and wonderful things are yet to be revealed (or changed).

The frustrating part comes where the rubber meets the road. If the brethren have been and continue today to be fallible, how do I know what teachings today are correct, and which ones are incorrect and will be changed, modifies, or corrected in 15 years?

I don't NEED this certainty. I don't struggle trying to decipher where they are right and where they are wrong. I try hard to just not live the letter of the law and I am OK with that. But I don't think the church likes that mentality. I think the church expects absolute fidelity to the brethren. It is OK to ask questions, but I don't think they are OK with us questioning (there is a difference). Or at least their behavior toward the likes of Kate Kelly and JD have shown us it isn't OK to question.

Post by **Old-Timer** » 09 Jul 2014, 18:36

I think they are fine with questioning (as I define that in this context); I don't think they are fine with encouraging organized opposition and dissent - especially in a way that appears to be or obviously is focused on building a following and recruiting from among the rank and file in a way that seeks to pit members against the leadership.

I don't want that to become THE discussion of Margaret's post, since we have other threads for that, but I think it's an important distinction.

EuSouScott · Post by **EuSouScott** » 09 Jul 2014, 20:18

In light of my post that sounded somewhat negative earlier, let me share a part I loved and find helpful and therapeutic.

'When I spoke to a friend recently who is questioning his faith and no longer feels comfortable at church or in the temple, I suggested that he find his own sacred grove and nurture spiritual feelings while the faith issues work themselves out.'

I have recently found this sort of counsel tremendously helpful. I have trouble knowing what is really truth anymore in the church, and as a result, I find my spirituality diminishing. But I have found that poetry and music (particularly well written lyrics) speak to me on a 'spiritual' level and feed me in much the same way CES devotionals and scripture study used to feed me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Daeruin · Post by **Daeruin** » 09 Jul 2014, 20:35

That was indeed a good read. I didn't have time to finish the whole thing, but the part I read was great, especially the points about anger. Thanks so much for posting it.

Ilovechrist77 · Post by **Ilovechrist77** » 09 Jul 2014, 22:23

Thank you for sharing that post, Ray. Magaret wrote a wonderful article.

jhp33 · Post by **jhp33** » 10 Jul 2014, 20:01

EuSouScott wrote:
The frustrating part comes where the rubber meets the road. If the brethren have been and continue today to be fallible, how do I know what teachings today are correct, and which ones are incorrect and will be changed, modifies, or corrected in 15 years?

I don't NEED this certainty. I don't struggle trying to decipher where they are right and where they are wrong. I try hard to just not live the letter of the law and I am OK with that. But I don't think the church likes that mentality. I think the church expects absolute fidelity to the brethren. It is OK to ask questions, but I don't think they are OK with us questioning (there is a difference). Or at least their behavior toward the likes of Kate Kelly and JD have shown us it isn't OK to question.

I am starting to come around to the idea that God allows fallible, sometimes fundamentally flawed people to lead the church precisely because he does not want us to put all of our trust in the arm of flesh.

You ask, "how do I know what teachings today are correct, and which ones are incorrect..."

By living them. If they bear forth good fruit, they are "true." If they don't, they're not "true."

For example, I lived the principles associated with the church's repeated teachings about homosexuality for years, and it never bore forth good fruit. When I changed my views and adopted the teachings of Christ in a different way in regards to this issue, it started to bring forth good fruit. This new "path" is now true to me.

One of my favorite quotes from Terryl Givens is in regard to leadership. He says "We want a standard of infallibility because it relieves us of the burden of continually exerting ourself to use discernment. The way Dostoevsky put it so beautifully was, 'We want some person to be a keeper of our conscience.' The hard lesson is that there is never a moment where you can delegate your volition to another person -- leader or lay."

StayLDS.com