Two Churches - I'm finally starting to get it

[Hagoth]

After watching people fall all over themselves to pronounce that they are membersofthechruchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints, and definitely NOT Mormons something became glaringly apparent to me and a lot of things fell into place.

Some of us care primarily about information/doctrine/truth (Type 1).

Some of us care primarily about conformity/social acceptance/being speshul/rules (Type 2).

I know it's incredibly obvious, but it has never been so blatantly transparent to me. I almost felt silly for all of the time I have spent putting together notes about the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, changes in revelation, polygamy, racism, sexism, Adam-God, evolution, yada, yada, yada in anticipation of the day when I will have meaningful discussions with friends, leaders or loved ones. It ain't gonna happen. When it comes down to it, all of that stuff is just incidental noise to Type 2s. It's an annoying noise that they just want to swat away.

What matters is having a Guy to follow, a group to belong to, a checklist to reassure yourself that you are following the Guy correctly in order to get the rewards he promises, and certainty that your friends and family are all on the same page with you.

Two churches:
1) the church that has history, doctrine, and philosophy,
2) the church of culture, authority figures and daily marching orders.

Like I said, I know this is ridiculously obvious but I had never seen the incredible gulf between the two so clearly. You have to have a foot on each side of the gap to be vulnerable to historic and doctrinal issues. If your feet are firmly planted in Type 2 soil you are very unlikely to every consider gazing across the gap, or even to recognize there's anything over there.

I wonder how many people would have eagerly fallen right in line if Pres. Nelson had announced that we're going to remove the name of Jesus Christ from the church to put more emphasis on Joseph Smith's restoration in these the latter days.

[Mormorrisey]

I was thinking about this as well given the different messages I heard over conference weekend, and you put it more succinctly then I would. It doesn't even seem to be the same church, the messages I heard.

And the divide has reached the top - look at how Oaks and Christofferson's talks demanded that those individuals that you have put in group 1, need to become part of group 2. Especially Christofferson's talk, where he basically told anyone who falls into NOM territory to essentially crap or get off the pot. Whereas Soares and Utchdorf (not coincidentally, two apostles who did NOT grow up in the Morridor) talked about the need to blend the two groups together to have a better church. Three guesses as to which direction the current leadership is moving in, and the first two don't count. And that divide is going to play out in every ward, every branch and every stake in the church. The ability to stay in group 1 is largely going to depend on leadership roulette, a game you will eventually lose.

I think the challenge over the next decade or two is NOT which group comes out on top, but when and if group 1 says they've had enough, and just walk away. I see this playing out on our forum every day.

[Red Ryder]

Great observations.

This completely explains the "emotionally attached" member I'm married to.

Sigh...

[Yobispo]

After watching people fall all over themselves to pronounce that they are membersofthechruchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints, and definitely NOT Mormons something became glaringly apparent to me and a lot of things fell into place.

Some of us care primarily about information/doctrine/truth (Type 1).

Some of us care primarily about conformity/social acceptance/being speshul/rules (Type 2).

I know it's incredibly obvious, but it has never been so blatantly transparent to me. I almost felt silly for all of the time I have spent putting together notes about the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon, changes in revelation, polygamy, racism, sexism, Adam-God, evolution, yada, yada, yada in anticipation of the day when I will have meaningful discussions with friends, leaders or loved ones. It ain't gonna happen. When it comes down to it, all of that stuff is just incidental noise to Type 2s. It's an annoying noise that they just want to swat away.

What matters is having a Guy to follow, a group to belong to, a checklist to reassure yourself that you are following the Guy correctly in order to get the rewards he promises, and certainty that your friends and family are all on the same page with you.

Two churches:
1) the church that has history, doctrine, and philosophy,
2) the church of culture, authority figures and daily marching orders.

Like I said, I know this is ridiculously obvious but I had never seen the incredible gulf between the two so clearly. You have to have a foot on each side of the gap to be vulnerable to historic and doctrinal issues. If your feet are firmly planted in Type 2 soil you are very unlikely to every consider gazing across the gap, or even to recognize there's anything over there.

I wonder how many people would have eagerly fallen right in line if Pres. Nelson had announced that we're going to remove the name of Jesus Christ from the church to put more emphasis on Joseph Smith's restoration in these the latter days.

Nailed it. This is really helpful to keep in mind when speaking with believing family. We're not having the same conversation most of the time.

[MerrieMiss]

I think this goes along with the idea that for a lot of people, it's validity or utility. So long as the emotional, social attachment and framework of the church works, validity doesn't matter.

[Hagoth]

I think this goes along with the idea that for a lot of people, it's validity or utility. So long as the emotional, social attachment and framework of the church works, validity doesn't matter.

Wow, that's a much more concise way of saying it than my windbaggery.

[Arcturus]

Love it! Explains things so well.

[Emower]

I think this goes along with the idea that for a lot of people, it's validity or utility. So long as the emotional, social attachment and framework of the church works, validity doesn't matter.

Wow, that's a much more concise way of saying it than my windbaggery.

Those of us who come from the validity standpoint think that validity speaks to utility, but utility does not create validity. From the other standpoint utility does create validity, but validity does not create utility. Sometimes it feels like a binary star system where one system is sucking energy from the other until they both collide and blow up. Or a binary star system where one system sucks the other one into some sort of dwarf status. I am prolly butchering the astronomical references here.

[Anon70]

This really articulates for me why some of the conversations I have with TBMs are not helpful. Thanks for your thoughts on this.

[Palerider]

You know me.... always going for the analogue.

As I recall ancient Israel was always clamoring for a king. This was a sign of their own inability to worship and depend on the invisible God.

They NEED somebody they can SEE and hear, who will give them order and tell them what to do. To create a heirarchy so everyone knows their place. They need a demi-god to help them because the reality is they can't trust themselves to differentiate between their own minds talking to themselves and when the Invisible God actually inspires them.

They need the arm of flesh....

They feel comfortable with order and conformity. It soothes them with social acceptance. They can relax because someone else is in charge.

People who actually value and seek out truth do so for the purpose of acting independently. Taking responsibility for their own path, while still being open to intuition from God. The line of communication is direct. No middle men. No soothsayers. No 10% fees for stipends and extravagant holy buildings....

[jfro18]

One thing that's been constant in listening to Mormon Stories podcasts and reading stories about those who leave is that they almost always fall back on the emotional reasons to stay (family, community, structure, whatever) even if they start to find those questions about the historical issues.

It's not until there's some emotional break (LGBT policy, policies with women, blacks, whatever, etc) that these people will begin to then rethink the whole foundation of their beliefs.

I still agree 100% that there are two churches, and I think there's a reason that the Mormon church has focused so heavily on the emotional church in recent decades instead of proclaiming the truth mantle as often as they used to. They know it's much harder to break an emotional connection than one based on facts and evidence, so they cultivate from birth to listen to authority and not get bogged down by questions that can hurt your testimony.

And I hate it so much for that.

[Unbroken]

I agree with your comment about two churches. I have always looked at it as two different basic types of people.

1- Religious- The central word here is control. They like to control and be controlled. Rules and regulations will get you to heaven. Control is needed because you advance in large groups and above all you need to maintain, support and fulfill your roll within the group. This is rewarded by the group with approval, support, recognition and a sense of belonging. Reality and truth are within the group.

2- Spiritual- The central word here is search. They are searching for the truth, even if alone. The truth, if you can find it for yourself is your final destination. Being one with yourself and a higher being or meaning will fulfill your roll. This person does not typically fit well within a group and may walk a lonely path. Reality and truth have nothing to do with the group.

[moksha]

Two churches:
1) the church that has history, doctrine, and philosophy,
2) the church of culture, authority figures and daily marching orders.

Seems like a pretty wise observation to me, since it fits with types of people you find on the pews every Sunday. Maybe some gradation exists, but there is a definite divide in both personality and intent between those who declare that love is the first principle of the gospel and those who insist that obedience is the first rule of the gospel.

[Corsair]

One thing that's been constant in listening to Mormon Stories podcasts and reading stories about those who leave is that they almost always fall back on the emotional reasons to stay (family, community, structure, whatever) even if they start to find those questions about the historical issues.

Yes, that is also true of apologists like Patrick Givens, Richard Bushman, and Patrick Mason. They would agree that LDS doctrine has transformed them into the kinds of men they want to be in their worship of Jesus Christ. They hold the intellectual issues very carefully and usually have some compassion on doubters. I can accept there explanations, but it ignores the many people who had a very different church experience. It also implies that virtually every LGBT person should find another church. It then gives tacit permission for anyone concerned with truth claims to also find a different church.

John Dehlin has talkde with people who have gone through a significant faith crisis but returned to the church or stayed with it as a believer with a testimony. He noted that the Pandora's Box of truth claims simply cannot be shut with the doubts satisfied. Instead, people who retain a "real" LDS testimony have a profoundly nuanced set of beliefs that are not nearly as literal as might be implied (but not necessarily required) in the average Sunday School class or temple recommend interview.

[blazerb]

Two churches:
1) the church that has history, doctrine, and philosophy,
2) the church of culture, authority figures and daily marching orders.

This is true. I have noticed this over the last few years. My SP will regularly give talks that are quite inspiring, but they ignore the question of whether the church is actually true. I have seen a couple of conversations over the last couple of weeks regarding Protect LDS Children. There are church members who are certain that failing to ask sexual questions will result in the spiritual death of their children. I just saw on reddit that Sam Young's life has been threatened. The disconnect between what I believe and what certain members believe is insurmountable.

[Hagoth]

[It also implies that virtually every LGBT person should find another church. It then gives tacit permission for anyone concerned with truth claims to also find a different church.

Or to become rapists and murderers. Either way there will be a place for them in Eternal SmoothieLand.

[Corsair]

[It also implies that virtually every LGBT person should find another church. It then gives tacit permission for anyone concerned with truth claims to also find a different church.

Or to become rapists and murderers. Either way there will be a place for them in Eternal SmoothieLand.

I remain skeptical of Eternal SmoothieLand since the Proclamation on the Family declares:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose

Also, because Joseph Fielding Smith simply had nutty ideas that remain unchallenged and unreferenced by any subsequent apostle. And also, because the whole thing seems like an awfully sketchy set of fan fiction on Christianity. Instead, my unbelief has allowed me to enter "well funded 401k land" based on my current tithing contributions. This is a blessing that I will graciously(?) share with my full tithe paying wife if she is willing to be clothed, housed, and fed by a heathen unbeliever in her retirement years.

[crossmyheart]

Two churches:
1) the church that has history, doctrine, and philosophy,
2) the church of culture, authority figures and daily marching orders.

It is hard to fly with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys.

I am surrounded by 2's who want me to conform.

Edited to say: Thanks for the insight, very helpful!

[Hagoth]

in skeptical of Eternal SmoothieLand since the Proclamation on the Family declares:

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose

So, the apostle-cum-prophet was speaking as a man, but the lawyer who wrote the proclamation was speaking for God. Yup, that sounds about right, considering the convoluted nature of "revelation."

[moksha]

...there will be a place for them in Eternal SmoothieLand.

If the idea that loyal COJCOLDS will get their own planets and will be required to mass produce spirit babies through perpetual eternal copulations has been nixed, then what is the purpose of all that non-smoothie stuff? Anyway, the whole idea of total castration as a heavenly means of punishment sounds like the workings of both a fetid imagination and bizarre ploy to round up some previously married babes to give to obedient TBMs for celestial polygamy purposes.