Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:@canpakes, you stated:
He's built an entire life within the framework of it being 'true', and there's no alternative structure that he prefers to identify with and define himself within. It is everything that he has known since birth. There's nothing wrong with this...
I disagree firmly with you. It's of the utmost import that we humans possess the ability to identify fallacy, make appropriate adjustments, and live in a manner that's based on fact... not fiction. It's fantasy that leads us to folly. If we're going to have any sort of long-term viability as a species we need to leave behind the notion that we're going to die, so we better make peace with a Creator because we're going to have to explain ourselves to Him at some point, so we better not let the faggots marry, and it's cool if Mr. Smith married other mens' wives because Mr. Smith said it was the will of the Lord.
That's absurd, and Mr. Space not only holds onto that position, but he promulgates it... and really, his kind of thinking extends from the absurd into the dangerous, and it ought to be exposed and countered when possible.
V/R
Doc
I should have clarified that the last part of my statement has conditions inasmuch as, "
there's nothing wrong with this", refers to that person's acceptance and choice for
himself.
It
is an issue when the person believing a thing then attempts to sway another individual, possibly to their detriment.
My SO and I have had this discussion as we have a newborn son. My desire is that we can balance a sense of his family's past
history - which includes their participation in the LDS Church - with an alternate contemporary viewpoint rooted much more in an agnostic considerations, and a strong appreciation for science and truth, especially where facts contradict religious ideology. We have to deal with the fact that he'll have close family that is uber-active in the Church, but I have absolutely no desire to see him turn into a 'true blue' believer because of observations of how free thought and reason are shackled when under the confines of 'doctrine' and 'religious authorities'.
Still, I'll have to allow him to find his own path, and if that involves a level of belief in the Church's truth claims that exceeds my own (which, frankly, is any level at all) then I will respect his decision, so much as he is considerate of the belief levels of others and treats their position accurately and respectfully.
I 'get' the place that folks like my friend are in - they don't use their belief as a cudgel against others; they're content to let it guide them to be a decent person who has found that reaching that goal is well-served by the authoritarian and detailed template laid out by the Church. He honestly doesn't understand how to do it any differently; this is his own statement. I could argue with that statement, but it would be a pointless exercise. Whether or not he needed the Church to be the person that he is today is moot;
I don't believe that it is necessary but
he has no other 'life experience' reference to judge by.
Where my friend differs from bcspace is that he doesn't promulgate his theological point of view, nor claim to know that the 'Church is True'. He just accepts that it makes no difference at this point in his life if it is not, at least for himself (I could not come to the same conclusion).
But I've also met a few folks who more or less admit to the following thought process:
- My identity = 'The Church'
- 'The Church' is... not true? What you say!! *
- If so, my identity and life are without truth or value.
- That cannot be allowed to be the case, therefore, the Church must be True.
- ::press forward with vigorous apologetics to convince the self::
* with apologies to grammarians and AYBABTU fansThis response looks to be couched in a false dilemma, as a form of self-preservation, and I believe that it tacitly admits to a realization of the lie that the Church is founded upon, even if these folks give every appearance of being as TBM as possible. My opinion is that this is where bc falls.
I figure that many present
apostates, by comparison, did not maintain that the ties between their identity and 'The Church' are unassailable, and are willing to sever those ties where the truth warrants it, as opposed to the steadfast apologist who digs his/her heels in and presses aggressively outward to maintain nearly any 'Church is True' claim that can be made, while giving only as much ground as would be required to avoid looking like a denier of the wholly obvious.
So that's where the "there's nothing wrong with this" statement enters into the picture... to the extent that bc may have no direct influence or control over anyone else on this board, then neither he or my friend are substantially different than millions of other folks who possess a similar or dissimilar theological belief set. I cannot really deny either their right to preserve their identity as he sees fit.
However, to the extent that they might use their own beliefs to
disadvantage others or deploy
emotional blackmail (my term for what the Church does with many of its teachings and doctrinal approaches), then
that is
not OK.
Anyhow, apologies for the ramble... trying to chart a path as a jackmo family amongst the TBMs that we love is a precarious and curious path...