Hello from the FAIR Conference

[_Dr. Shades]

Wendy Ulrich, a psychologist, spoke about the impact that our personal lives may have on our view of God and the Church. She passed out a questioneer designed to illustrate her point, and I thought it might prove useful to post the questioneer here for discussion.

Can somebody please help me out? I read those questions, and I still have absolutely NO IDEA how any of them "illustrate her point."

[_wenglund]

Is there some general principals for interpreting answers to these questions?

I don't know about general principals, but the bulk of Wendy's talk dealt with interpreting the answers.

I actually am wondering what sort of problems with the church people have that are addressed by these questions. Perhaps it works for people who still believe it is true and are experiencing some sort of friction somewhere.

From what I recall and surmized, the questioneer was self-diagnostic in nature, rather than prescriptive for the Church or religion as a whole. However, I think the questioneer may be helpful for both the believer and former believer by illuminating, in part, why one may believe or disbelieve in God.

Myself I hoped religious leaders would help me learn. I found instead doubt that just got deeper and deeper with no way out. If it is true then the universe is insane.

Other reasonable people have concluded just the opposite, thus suggesting that the opposing conclusions are not so much a function of what religious leaders have said, but rather a function of the differing ways in which the opposing parties have rationally analyzed what religious leaders have said. In other words, for your hopes to yet be realized would require that you change the way you rationally analyze religion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

Count me in with those baffled by this questionaire.

Other than a very simplistic calculus between childhood and adulthood (fears and disappointments with parents being transfered in later life onto social and cultural leaders in general---a vulgar Freudianism indeed!), I don't see what kind of insights the questions are supposed to produce.

And then there is the leading nature of so many of the questions themselves....I suspect I have the same response to the questionaire that I allegedly have toward "the church," too.

To take questions seriously and answer them in full---perhaps more completely than intended---well, where would that get me, or us?

[_wenglund]

Wendy Ulrich, a psychologist, spoke about the impact that our personal lives may have on our view of God and the Church. She passed out a questioneer designed to illustrate her point, and I thought it might prove useful to post the questioneer here for discussion.

Can somebody please help me out? I read those questions, and I still have absolutely NO IDEA how any of them "illustrate her point."

I would suggest getting a copy of Wendy's talk once it is available.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Blixa]

I'm not familiar with Wendy Ulrich. Is she a Mormon psychologist? Utah based? I ran her name through Google and only saw lds/fair-related things on the first two pages. Does she have other work?

[Gadianton]

Count me in with those baffled by this questionaire.

Other than a very simplistic calculus between childhood and adulthood (fears and disappointments with parents being transfered in later life onto social and cultural leaders in general---a vulgar Freudianism indeed!), I don't see what kind of insights the questions are supposed to produce.

And then there is the leading nature of so many of the questions themselves....I suspect I have the same response to the questionaire that I allegedly have toward "the church," too.

To take questions seriously and answer them in full---perhaps more completely than intended---well, where would that get me, or us?

The value I found in the questionaire (thanks for providing the correct spelling) is the illuminating of the tie-in between beliefs and personal needs--i.e. one's pursuit of beliefs may, to some degree, be a reflection of one's pursuit of personal needs and desires.

Whether it amounts to "vulgar Freudianism" depends upon what one perceives as the driving needs. If sex and aggression are the driving needs, then "vulgar Freudianism" may be behind it. However, if love and respect are the pursued needs, then Choice Theory may be behind it.

I think this tie-in is important, though, because it says more about us than about the beliefs in question. By understanding better what may be driving our belief-pursuits, it may have a positive affect in changing the beliefs we may pursue and the way we may pursue them. By being made aware of the driving need(s), one then may weigh them in relation to other needs, and evaluate whether it/they should be the driving force or not, thus putting one in a better position to change the driving force and thus the change the nature of the beliefs being driven--i.e. it positions one better to direct one's thinking. For example, if one is driven by the need for certainty, that may invariably inhibit one's pursuit of belief or faith in general. It may give rise to extreme skepticism. When made aware of that driving need, one may then evaluate whether the need for certainty is more critical than other needs ( such as the need for love and respect), and if not, then one may change the driving need, which may then better allow for belief and faith in general, perhaps to their benefit.

But, that may be just how I see it. Other are certainly free to reasonably disagree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I'm not familiar with Wendy Ulrich. Is she a Mormon psychologist? Utah based? I ran her name through Google and only saw lds/fair-related things on the first two pages. Does she have other work?

I am not all that familiar with her either. But, I believe the FAIR website has a brief bio on her under the list of FAIR speakers.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Canucklehead]

I have a suspicion that this questionaire was intended to perpetuate the idea that critics only leave the church due to their inability to stop sinning (or desire to start).

[_Hoops]

Good Monday Hoop, you said, to which I will inject in bold:

I think we may agree, and this surprised me, considering your inititial post. RM: I'm glad...

I think you would agree that the very nature of organized religion invites the abuses that you have described. RM: Yes, as they are constructed after a top-down political aristocratic model that is difficult to accept as infallible... It is for this reason, and others, that I have chosen the denomination I have. RM: If not too personal, which one is that? I deplore the idea of any organization puttiing a layer between me and God, and that facet of an organized expression of faith can be dangerous. RM: Yes, more for some than for others... Note: I wrote "can be". In addition, it is for this reason, among others, that I welcome scrutiny of our faith. RM: Do you mean Christianity as a whole, or denominations in particular? However, if you or anyone is expecting a perfect, or even outstanding, expression of faith, RM: I'm not sure how to interpret your use of the word, "faith"? Do you mean a person's "faith" or the "faith" to which one belongs? I.e. Catholicism, LDSism, etc... you will be disappointed. RM: I can never be disappointed in an individual. However, I do have high expectations of Institutions & their Officers that present themselves as experts in their fields. Accountability, you know what I mean? We are, quite simply, flawed fallible people trying to voluntarily organize ourselves to do some good. RM: So we all are, my friend... AND by our very nature we are creative, initiative taking problem solvers...when allowed to be, as "God" would have, and not allowed to be by Institutions that fear their demise... Generally speaking...

If I may, could we agree that what you may regard or understand as the "golden rule" or, even, most important in expressing faith, may be different than what I think? RM: Of course... Here is where I welcome the scrutiny. If we are blowing it terribly, please, tell me. But if I contend for our expression that does not necessarily mean that I am some kind of intellectual dolt who just can't listen to reason. RM: That never occured to me...

I "think" we are "blowing it" less today than in the past. With 1,000 +/- denominations/sects it is obvious there is little agreement in the nits-&-pics that generally make up the discussions on sites like this. HOWEVER, amidst the N&Ps there are thoughtful folks who represent a growing number of thinkers who have no difficulty seperating fiction from fact and engaging in human issues, as you suggested, that far outweigh religious trivia.

It is in such spiritually empathetic environments that "Churches"--not "Religion"--can play the roles Jesus, humanity's advocate, intended HIS followers to take. Slow going, with a lot of resistance from compromised-christianism. But folks like You seem to be seeing it... Warm regards, Roger

The next time we go back and forth, I think I will, by outrageous claims of my own, incite you to write more and more. The more I hear from you the more I like you (I'm sure I would like you anyway) and agree. So let me put a finer point on my thoughts, forgive me poor writing skills, I usually only write fiction, where one can play fast and loose with reality.

Would you agree, assuming Christianity is rooted in reality and has something relevant to say, that the differences in MOST denominations are mainly cosmetic? This may give me some idea of where you're coming from.

"Top down aristocratic model that is difficult to accept as infallible" - Agreed. Which is why I attend a SBC Church, which is independent by design. We have the ability to wrestle with the direction our church goes, remain faithful to doctrine (which poses different dangers, but is not the point of our discussion), and generally govern ourselves. This can make for some interesting leadership meetings, but, if I understand you, this is better than the alternative. In addition, this allows us the freedom to effect our community in whatever way we think is best. You(not necessarily you) may disagree with how we do that, and that's a fight I would relish - we both would learn from that.

If you were to make the claim - and I think you might be - that religions today are missing great opportunites to change our world because they are so infected with legalism and piety, then I could agree. However, much of the time, those opportunities have been met. Hence: church's are much more effective than religions.

One final thought, and this may give you more insight into my poorly drafted response, while I have a changed heart, the vestiges of my Paganism remain at the fore (the war is won, but the battles seem to be a lost cause). I buck when the bridle is taut.

[_truth dancer]

I do not know Wendy but she is an LDS psychologist who used to live in Michigan, where I also used to live.

I heard her talk at a woman's conference or something many years ago and came away with the idea that to her, the church was not about truth but about one's needs.

I am not saying this is how she believes but it was my observation after listening to her.

If I recall correctly, she and her husband moved to Utah where she was going to teach at the Y, then her husband was called to be a MP... that would have been maybe four or five years ago? Two years ago, she spoke at FAIR, and gave a talk which was posted somewhere online... again I got the same impression.

I'm guessings Wendy's earlier FAIR talk is available online.

This questionaire fits my earlier observations but again, I could be very much mistaken and am not trying to speak for her.

~dancer~