DiscussMormonism.com

I’ve learned that church isn’t just a gathering for the righteous or wannabe righteous. It’s also a hospital for the sick.

Good ole sweet lemon.

mentalgymnast wrote:

son of Ishmael wrote:This is the typical b***s*** that the church loves to throw out." See? It's all your fault. You just want to sin, or are prideful or aren't spiritual enough."

Apparently you didn't read the whole article. This is an individual we're talking about. Real life. Real experience. Of course, the "church" and others are happy he returned...why wouldn't they be? But he came to all of these realizations/insights/lessons on his own. No one forced him to. I liked this:

I’ve learned that church isn’t just a gathering for the righteous or wannabe righteous. It’s also a hospital for the sick. And if you let the way someone treated you keep you from living the gospel of Jesus Christ, you are missing the whole point.

“I’ve come to realize that these people are the ones who need the gospel the most. So it’s a good thing they are at church, and hopefully the teachings will sink in a little deeper over time. Instead of worrying about myself, I have learned I need to turn outward and serve these very people. I need to love them, reach out to them and help them. What is it that is going on in their lives that is making them act this way? They need the love and healing power of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ in their lives just as much as anyone.”

Good article...and worth reading the whole thing...not just watching the video. Thanks for sharing.

Regards,
MG

I did read the article smartass. This guy did not leave the church because he discovered that the church is not true. He drifted away. He says he stop reading and praying and then started having doubts. This plays right into the TBM narrative that people who leave the church do so, because they are lazy or they want to sin. It is the same old tired bull crap that they throw time and time again. There is nothing new here.

honorentheos wrote:Anti-LDS charges have been amply countered by faithful members much more intelligent than I...

Because he's done his own thinking, you see.

...and can be studied by anyone sincerely interested in the truth of the matter.

The rest of the sentence.

What that might entail is of course up for grabs. But it may me that he has "studied" it out for himself while also reading the works of Richard Bushman, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Blake Ostler...along with, may I be so bold, some of the works/books coming out of Signature Books Press and the like. I guess you'd have to ask him. Sounds like a guy who's been around the block a few times and he has "done his own thinking, you see."

Regards,
MG

son of Ishmael wrote:
I did read the article smartass.

Good for you. I haven't been called that before. There's a first for everything, I suppose. When you're sixty years old and haven't been called a smartass before...at least that I can remember...maybe that's not so good?

He doesn't go into a lot of detail on his doubts. I'd guess that they may have been associated with some of the same issues we see discussed here.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:

honorentheos wrote:Anti-LDS charges have been amply countered by faithful members much more intelligent than I...

Because he's done his own thinking, you see.

...and can be studied by anyone sincerely interested in the truth of the matter.

The rest of the sentence.

What that might entail is of course up for grabs. But it may me that he has "studied" it out for himself while also reading the works of Richard Bushman, Richard Lloyd Anderson, Blake Ostler...along with, may I be so bold, some of the works/books coming out of Signature Books Press and the like. I guess you'd have to ask him. Sounds like a guy who's been around the block a few times and he has "done his own thinking, you see."

Regards,
MG

The rest of the sentence doesn't modify what he said. He concluded that anyone can study what others have thought out. Pretty simple. And not congruent with claiming to do one's own thinking. I'm sure if I had the opportunity to ask him he'd confabulate something on the spot like you did above, MG, but the initial reactive response was the revelation of the soul.

What's interesting is that you felt the need to come to his defense. Something to occupy your mind on your next run, perhaps.

honorentheos wrote:
What's interesting is that you felt the need to come to his defense. Something to occupy your mind on your next run, perhaps.

Ha. Tomorrow morning, weather permitting. I simply think (Ok, I gave that away...) that we ought to give the benefit of a doubt to anyone who claims to have thought things through as they make their decisions in regards to religion. Both sides (believers and non-believers) tend towards denigrating the "other" as not being as thoughtful...as logical...as educated...or what have you. I make the assumption at the outset that you have put in time/resources/energy in your own journey of meaning. I think that it isn't unreasonable, on your part, to look towards others as being able/willing/honest/smart...etc., as yourself...well, maybe not quite as smart ...and doing the same thing. With honesty. With integrity.

The fellow who wrote this Des.News piece seems to be a smart, honest, with it kind of guy. Let's not call him a Moron. Let's call him and educated...and life experienced...Mormon.

Why is it a knee jerk reaction to reject this fellow's experience, etc.? If he'd stayed OUT of the church there would be very few here second guessing his decision. That's of course because he would have make the RIGHT one.

Regards,
MG

Seems as though John Dehlin lost and regained his faith. Then he lost it again, I guess.

Funny thing about faith (especially faith in Mormonism) - it is so ephemeral that we are told it can only be maintained by constantly repeating the myth to one's self. Constant internal repetition of a set of childish fantasies is needed to retain belief because one encounters so much solid evidence to the contrary as they go through life.

Mark Twain's observation that "Faith is believing something that you know ain't true", certainly applies to Mormonism.

Hey Q!

Quasimodo wrote:
Faith and hope are not the same thing. Not even close.

I agree.

Hope is probably a good thing.

If someone happens to agree with what another individual is hoping for, yes, hope would probably be seen as a good thing.
If not, then no.

Faith is the the thing that allows you to devote your life to a myth. Faith is not required to have a happy life. In fact, it works against it.

This is a very unfortunate and exceedingly narrow description of faith.

Faith is what charlatans sell to separate you from your money. Faith is what people use to feel good about flying planes into buildings or blow themselves up in crowded busses.

This is equally unfortunate and in my opinion - when people start flinging paint wildly across the entire canvas - using a brush this wide - the finished product is not only of little worth - it grossly underestimates, ignores and completely neglects what faith means (not to mention how hugely diverse faith can be and is) to many many millions of human beings - past and present.

Faith is greatly overrated.

Perhaps.
It seems that it is also greatly misunderstood.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Ceeboo wrote:
This is equally unfortunate and in my opinion - when people start flinging paint wildly across the entire canvas - using a brush this wide - the finished product is not only of little worth - ...

I take it you're not a Jackson Pollack fan...

- Doc

mentalgymnast wrote:

honorentheos wrote:
What's interesting is that you felt the need to come to his defense. Something to occupy your mind on your next run, perhaps.

Ha. Tomorrow morning, weather permitting. I simply think (Ok, I gave that away...) that we ought to give the benefit of a doubt to anyone who claims to have thought things through as they make their decisions in regards to religion.

MG, I could not claim he retained the benefit of a doubt from beginning of reading the quote you shared to the end. That he managed to cram three of the more despicable and dismissive apologetic responses in that post may be something to marvel at, but "asked and answered", "apostates are only apostates because they didn't study the church enough", and "people smarter than you still believe, so..." are pretty low-grade arguments. Sorry, but pointing out the obvious contrast between his claim and one of his key points may have been a gut-level response on my part. But it wasn't because I was unfairly judging his comments.