NOM

Brethren, let me be clear: there is nothing noble or impressive about being cynical. Skepticism is easy—anyone can do it. It is the faithful life that requires moral strength, dedication, and courage. Those who hold fast to faith are far more impressive than those who give in to doubt when mysterious questions or concerns arise.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng

This quote showed up in my Facebook feed today. I take strong exception to it - actually just blindly accepting whatever the Brethren say is way easier than being skeptical. My response would be "there is nothing noble or impressive about believing something that is clearly untrue in the name of faith. There is nothing noble or impressive about clinging to a belief out of fear, ignorance, or superstition when there is evidence is against it. And there sure as hell is nothing noble or impressive about encouraging your followers not to think deeply or critically about what you are teaching them."

I know many of you are big fans of President Uchtdorf, some of you even hope he is secretly NOMish. Personally, I think he is the most dangerous of the Brethren - it is easy to see Elder Bednar for what he is, but President Uchtdorf's charm, charisma, and eloquence fool many of us into thinking he isn't 100% on board with the oppressive and deceitful organization he helps lead. Don't kid yourself - he's a company man who knows how to talk in ways that make the peons think he is one of them. And this quote is a despicable attempt to keep members from questioning some things about the Church that really need to be questioned.

+1 and AMEN!

I like Uctdorff, but you may be right. For me the jury is still out. I am, after all, a skeptic.

I loved the post.

I know from insider information there is division at the top ranks. What is confusing is when you have people like Uchtdorf who says one thing once, and then a month later says something else.

Its like they have division inside themselves as well--not consistent are they...

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I just think that the "the church" holds a bunch of different types of Mormonisms. There's a generally acceptable spectrum, and people generally know when they're getting close to the edge.

Uchtdorf has his own brand of belief that's probably as different from Bednar as a Southern Baptist to a Primitive Baptist. They're technically in the same sort of faith tradition, but the differences lead them to very different lifestyles and attitudes. Some of the brethren are fundamentalists and others seem to preach a more intellectual or mysterious approach to Christianity. Uchtdorf, I believe, falls into the latter category as does Eyring.

When most of us recoil from fundamentalist dogma, it's because they preach a rigid literalism that easy to disprove. My gut instinct is that many of the brethren have reacted in a similar way to the likes of McConkie, Joseph Fielding, BKP, and others. That's what he means by "Skepticism is easy". Of course the fundamentalist worldview is bullshit, an Uchtdorf might say, but any bright minded 13 year old could figure that out. The challenge is to look beyond the surface appearances, and get to the deep spiritual significance of what's being preached.

It's a Jungian view of religion.

It's a view that religion itself is a symbol that points to truth, but is not truth in and of itself. From that perspective, the Book of Mormon doesn't even need to have been an actual record of actual people, only the teachings matter. From that point of view, the nuts and bolts of what did or didn't happen in reality are irrelevant, it's how it effects people emotionally and then moves them to action that matters. It's the action where the truth is found. Who cares why a community as formed that cares for its members? What matters is that it exists.

The reason this view of religion is so appealing to many people is because it engages their imagination, and gives them a rich set of histories and symbols to play with for the purpose of self discovery and beyond. That, more than anything else, is why people like this find those who leave to be lazy or intellectually lacking. "Why did you not stay, look beyond surface things, and uncover the depths of truth?" They likely look at fundamentalist believers in a similar way, that they are too caught up in the particulars and not enough in the larger archetypal narratives. In many ways, I think this can be true. It's difficult to see beyond the surface of Mormonism. It's difficult to see beyond its faults and rigidity. But it's also difficult to openly believe in a very metaphorical way because the literalists would have you for breakfast. The second way this is difficult, beyond pushing aside the literal fundamentalist message which dominates church discourse, is having to maintain a veneer that you are a literal believer, just like the hoi polloi.

So I'm not that put off by the substance of what Uchtdorf is saying. It's probably true that his view of Mormonism is a lot more complicated and nuanced than finding out there were no horses in America before Columbus, calling it a sham, and being done with it. The problem I see is that he's making these sorts of judgments and statements from a position of extreme privilege. No one is going to call him out. No one will "correct" him. He does not and will never again have to live under the authority of local priesthood holders. He gets to enjoy the elevated environment and infallibility that comes from being an apostle. He's taken one of many possible roads towards developing a personal faith, in a religion that absolutely forbids you from developing a personal faith. He's essentially succeeded by internally doing exactly what you aren't supposed to do, take the symbolic route.

It's a frustration that arises from blatant double speak. From one side of his mouth comes the plea to be open, tolerant, and explore the depths of Mormonism beyond the obvious frauds. From the other side of his mouth, he supports a system and structure which produce manuals, training materials, and a sustained effort to revise history that pushes the exact opposite narrative.

Uchtdorf makes several mistakes (probably on purpose) in this statement.

First, one cannot equate skepticism and cynicism. I can be quite skeptical and be very honest, sincere and without guile at the same time.

Secondly, being open with one's doubts when all around you are thinking the exact opposite is not for the faint hearted. It takes true courage to go against peer pressure, as many seminary teachers have made clear.

Thirdly, these are not just "mysterious questions" we're dealing with. They are hidden actions by leadership that when put together and seen as a whole do not add up to the promise one would rightly expect of a prophet of God on a Biblical standard. Furthermore, I doubt (sincerely) that if Uchtdorf had been given full disclosure and evidence BEFORE he or his family had joined the church that he would be a member now.

I was going to ignore this whole quote, because it was very triggering. But where I'm at now, maybe it's a good time.

This very quote started one of the very first angry confrontations between the missus and I. I came home so angry from hearing this from a guy I actually admire (not unlike the Hinckley "critics don't create" quote I didn't like, and I have to admit I still admire that guy too) that I swore in front of Sister M, calling this a load of BS without using the initials. So Sister M says, "oh, you swear now too, do you?" and of course that sent me off into a diatribe for the ages and an argument that lasted well into the night, and one we both still haven't entirely got over. Luckily we're both much past this now. But here's why this made me so angry.

No, Silver Fox, the easy way for me is not to skeptical and cynical about the church, that's the hard way. If I went back to my blindly believing TBM ways, I'd still be serving a real estate conglomorate and having the respect of my peers, instead of being the ward pariah I am; since my wife believes in a conditionally loving God that the church teaches her, she loves me less because I'm an "unbeliever"; instead of respecting me as the head of my home, my kids now think I'm an apostate and are worried I'm on the road to hell. Luckily, that last one is just their silent belief, because we have so much fun; I'm so glad my kids and to some degree even Sister M have made their peace (well, somewhat, not entirely) with my new belief system, it has made much difference in our relationships.

Bottom line is, my life sucks as one who sees the church for what it is, it's not "easy" at all. That's why I was so mad. Still am, and as much as I appreciate Utchdorf, he pissed me off with this one. I'm just glad he redeemed himself with his fear talk, I'm getting a lot of mileage out of that one. That's why being a NOM is great; I can pick and choose what I listen to, ignore the crap and accept what I want to, which is a great place to be, and a much more peaceful one.

Here is the way I see his quote.

When a person runs into doubt there are two things to do. 1. Listen to your doubts and search for actual truth. 2. Doubt your doubts.

Now, we all know from previous quotes from Uchtdorf, that he ants us to doubt our doubts and that is probably what he did.

So how do you doubt your doubts when there is good evidence that the doubts are well founded? You go looking for possible answers from placeslike the appoligists, and you put your world view back together based on the preconceived notion that the church really is true. Even if you have to play mental gymnastics and mind games and create a false reality.

#1 is the "easy and lazy way. But #2 doubting your doubts and constructing an alternate universe where you can still believe takes a heck of a lot of work.

See, guys, we are the lazy ones because we settled for Ocam's resort kind of truth instead of reconstructing an alternate reality.

This would be a useful quote for those promoting a flat earth being the center of the universe.

Palerider wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:40 am

First, one cannot equate skepticism and cynicism. I can be quite skeptical and be very honest, sincere and without guile at the same time.

Like

Just wanted to add that if Uchtdorf wants to see cynicism and sarcasm perfected, he should slip on over to places like Mormondialogue and see the way doubters have been treated by the apologists there.

Truly a study in Christian concern for those who are supposedly lost...