Flunking the test of faith?

[_Baker]

I failed the Santa Claus test. I believe I understand the Santa myth better now.

Is it hateful or speacial pleading for you to say you failed the Santa Claus test?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I also failed the Easter Bunny test, and the Tooth Fairy test.

[_madeleine]

I made the following controversial comment in a thread in the Terrrestrial Forum:

It always amuses me when those who have flunked the test of faith, and for whom faith has not worked, think they understand faith better than those who continue to pass the tests of faith and for whom faith has worked.

Up is down, and down is up--speaking of what doesn't work.

Rather than derail that thread further, we can discuss it here.

At the outset I should clarify that the faith I had in mind was the LDS faith, and that the test would consists of continued growth in LDS faith unto the realization of the ultimate objective of the LDS faith--i.e. becoming like Christ, unto a fulness of joy and love in eternal familial relations.

Flunking that test, then, would consist of discontinued growth in LDS faith and/or loss of LDS faith.

With these clarifications now in place, I am open to hearing and civilly discussing your opposing views.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, when I think of faith I think of it as a grace, a gift of the Holy Spirit. It isn't possible to flunk faith, any more than it possible to say, have a remedial soul. Though there are times in my life I thought I must.

That is a failing, human thought, not one that is based on the inherent dignity that all people possess and is theirs by the grace the One Who created them.

God calls to all people, unconditionally. One does not flunk what is given freely.

[_wenglund]

Except he has never failed a class or even come close. How can he be said to have flunked in any sense?

...in the sense that he is no longer on the roles of the public school system. Obviously. (Let's not quiblle over semantics, particularly when speaking allegorically.)

So, if something doesn't work well for you, you are unqualified to speak about it? That's a strange approach.

I didn't say your son isn't unqualified to speak about the public schol system at all. I said he isn't as qualified to speak about it as those who haven't flunked out (dropped out) and for whom the public school system worked, and worked better than for your son.

I recently had an experience that bears this point out. Because finances were tight, my buddy and I decided to replace the leaky water pump in my car, ourselves. We spent all day taking things apart and putting them back together. Unfortunately, while driving my car, the pump began leaking again, and enough water leaked out to cause steam pressure to build up to the point of blowing a hole in my aging radiator. So, I decided to take my car to a mechanic for repairs. And, while doing the repairs, the mechanic found that my buddy and I had inadvertantly stripped the pully bolt that goes into the crank shaft. To make a long story short, I ended up needing the mechanic to not only replace the water pump and the radiator, but the engine as well. What would have originally cost me a little over $200 in repairs at the mechanic shop, ended up costing me more than $5,000.00 because I had attempted to repair the pump myself.

Why would it be a "strange approach" to think the mechanic was in a better position than me to speak to what works in terms of my car repairs?

Who is lecturing you about the church? Not me, and not anyone here.

My intent here is not to quible over symantics. I will simply refer the interested readers to the thread in which my controversial comment was made, and look for those instances where I clearly pointed out where former members presumed to know better than me about my faith.

But we have experience in the church, we know how and why it does what it does, and we know how it is supposed to work.

That is, in part, the issue that was in question.

And since most of us have found a path that does work, we can compare how it works to how Mormonism works...

You can compare how your new path works for you as contrasted with how Mormonism worked for you. No dispute there.

...and if it works better, we are qualified to say why it does and why Mormonism didn't work for us.

I have no problem with that. But, again, that is a separate issue than the one to which my controversial comment was meant to address.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Is it hateful or speacial pleading for you to say you failed the Santa Claus test?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I also failed the Easter Bunny test, and the Tooth Fairy test.[/quote]

Okay. But, again, is it hateful or speacial pleading for you to say you failed those tests?

I certainly don't think so. It isn't even something I would consider as "not nice".

Thank's, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

...in the sense that he is no longer on the roles of the public school system. Obviously. (Let's not quiblle over semantics, particularly when speaking allegorically.)

It's not a quibble over semantics at all. Saying someone "flunked" means they did something incorrectly. You have implied over the years that it's not the church but the flawed/emotionally damaged person that is the problem. It's always our fault that the church didn't work for us. You have changed your approach slightly in that you used to treat us as if we were evil incarnate, and then you decided we had problems with our cognitive abilities. The common thread is that you judge those who leave as being deficient spiritually, morally, intellectually, whatever. And that is why you used the term "flunked."

I didn't say your son isn't unqualified to speak about the public schol system at all. I said he isn't as qualified to speak about it as those who haven't flunked out (dropped out) and for whom the public school system worked, and worked better than for your son.

He is definitely more qualified to speak about the differences in quality and success between the two systems than are those who stuck it out in the public school. Last I checked, he isn't lecturing public high school students and saying he knows better. You certainly are.

I recently had an experience that bears this point out. Because finances were tight, my buddy and I decided to replace the leaky water pump in my car, ourselves. We spent all day taking things apart and putting them back together. Unfortunately, while driving my car, the pump began leaking again, and enough water leaked out to cause steam pressure to build up to the point of blowing a hole in my aging radiator. So, I decided to take my car to a mechanic for repairs. And, while doing the repairs, the mechanic found that my buddy and I had inadvertantly stripped the pully bolt that goes into the crank shaft. To make a long story short, I ended up needing the mechanic to not only replace the water pump and the radiator, but the engine as well. What would have originally cost me a little over $200 in repairs at the mechanic shop, ended up costing me more than $5,000.00 because I had attempted to repair the pump myself.

Why would it be a "strange approach" to think the mechanic was in a better position than me to speak to what works in terms of my car repairs?

Because you have never been a mechanic, have never been to mechanic school, and thus can't be said to have "flunked" out of mechanic school. If a mechanic changes schools and graduates from a different school from where he started, you seem to think he flunked. It's very strange.

My intent here is not to quible over symantics. I will simply refer the interested readers to the thread in which my controversial comment was made, and look for those instances where I clearly pointed out where former members presumed to know better than me about my faith.

But we have experience in the church, we know how and why it does what it does, and we know how it is supposed to work.

That is, in part, the issue that was in question.

I have no problem with that. But, again, that is a separate issue than the one to which my controversial comment was meant to address.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You used the term "flunk" because you knew it would upset people. Your example of the mechanics just reaffirms what you think of ex-Mormons. Pretending you're just being misunderstood isn't helping.

As I said, I don't care what you think of my faith. God doesn't think I'm a failure, and that's good enough for me.

[_wenglund]

Well, when I think of faith I think of it as a grace, a gift of the Holy Spirit. It isn't possible to flunk faith, any more than it possible to say, have a remedial soul. Though there are times in my life I thought I must.

That is a failing, human thought, not one that is based on the inherent dignity that all people possess and is theirs by the grace the One Who created them.

God calls to all people, unconditionally. One does not flunk what is given freely.

That is a lovely point of view, and one that, in its own regard, I don't object to. It just is a separate matter than the specific one I had in mind with my controversial comment.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Baker]

Is it hateful or speacial pleading for you to say you failed the Santa Claus test?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I also failed the Easter Bunny test, and the Tooth Fairy test.

Okay. But, again, is it hateful or speacial pleading for you to say you failed those tests?

I certainly don't think so. It isn't even something I would consider as "not nice".

Thank's, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

Who cares what it is? In each case, I guarantee that I understand the myths better than the still-believers.

[Gadianton]

It's not a quibble over semantics at all. Saying someone "flunked" means they did something incorrectly. You have implied over the years that it's not the church but the flawed/emotionally damaged person that is the problem. It's always our fault that the church didn't work for us. You have changed your approach slightly in that you used to treat us as if we were evil incarnate, and then you decided we had problems with our cognitive abilities. The common thread is that you judge those who leave as being deficient spiritually, morally, intellectually, whatever. And that is why you used the term "flunked."

Again, I am not intending to argue semantics. I used the word "flunked" metaphorically (drawing what I thought to be a clear correlation between flunking scholastic tests and presuming to know better about the subjects being tested than those who passed the tests). You are interpreting it literally and hyper sensitively, and that is your choice. I can only speak to what I said and meant, and not to how you mistook it--clarifications to the contrary notwithstanding.

Also, I am not here to pay for all my past sins--as you see them. I am simply addressing the specific comment that I made, and people’s over-reaction thereto.

Because you have never been a mechanic, have never been to mechanic school, and thus can't be said to have "flunked" out of mechanic school. If a mechanic changes schools and graduates from a different school from where he started, you seem to think he flunked. It's very strange.

Wrong. I have taken auto repair classes in school. I have also chartered my own independent auto-mechanic education. I obviously flunked making my education work for me in terms of repairing my water pump. It isn't strange to think that I flunked, nor is it strange to think that I am not in a position to presume to know more about repairing water pumps than my mechanic, who obviously was able to make his education work for him.

But, you are certainly free to view the analogy in whatever way that avoids my simple and reasonable point.

You used the term "flunk" because you knew it would upset people.

Wrong. Again, I used the term metaphorically, and I am baffled that people were upset.

Your example of the mechanics just reaffirms what you think of ex-Mormons. Pretending you're just being misunderstood isn't helping.

Pretending that you know better than me what I meant and said and am doing, simply underscores my point—speaking of very strange.

As I said, I don't care what you think of my faith. God doesn't think I'm a failure, and that's good enough for me.

Again, I don’t object to this, nor does it matter to me. Such is between you and God. But, how you perceive yourself and your chosen path in the eyes of God, is a separate issue from whether, in the eyes of faithful LDS, you “flunked” in making the LDS path work for you, and whether you are in a position to know better what works in ways LDS than those of us for whom it does and has worked.

Perhaps, if I repeat this salient point enough times, it might sink in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Who cares what it is?

Some of the good folks here do. Obviously.

In each case, I guarantee that I understand the myths better than the still-believers.

I can't speak to that since I am not a still-believer (at least not in a way remotely approximating my LDS belief).

However, I see your point in terms of a child/adult distinction, though it breaks down in matters between intelligent adults (as is the case here).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I can't speak to that since I am not a still-believer (at least not in a way remotely approximating my LDS belief).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow.