Taking the good, leaving the bad.

[Emower]

I always told my loved ones that I wasn't just abandoning everything that they held dear, I was just cleaning out the fridge and throwing away what stunk. Turns out, most of it had to be thrown out.

I wasn't sure exactly how to take the good. What does that look like, really? So the home teachers came over the other day and I came clean with them, told them I don't believe. They tried to help me out, the one guy said that he had gotten into "some of that stuff," but he didn't like the feeling it gave him so he stopped looking into church history. Anyway, I told them the one thing they could do was to let me know about service opportunities. I have always enjoyed a good moving, or weeding, or what have you. I decided that this is one way that I can take some of the good. I will be looking for service outside the church as well, but today when I went to help a family move, it felt really good to do it for them and not for Jesus, God, Joseph or anyone else. It was for them, and them alone. That felt good.

[redjay]

Up until about 18 months ago I was the 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' variety of mormon. But now I feel that we just make too much sawdust. By the time we've done all the busy work and given 10% gross, there really isn't much left in the tank for anything else.

[No Tof]

There comes a time when it's a "rip off the bandage " situation.

I agree with the OP's idea of cleaning out the fridge but you're right - the things that might not give you food poisoning, are still affected.

[2bizE]

So, what things have you kept in your fridge?

[Give It Time]

So, what things have you kept in your fridge?

Basically things that can be found in any wisdom tradition.

The Sermon On The Mount
The Great Commandments
Golden Rule/Platinum Rule interpreted through a moral lens
Paul's sermon on charity
The Book Of Mormon scripture about Heavenly Mother
I think I'm going to go mostly vegan (Mormonism/Taoism)

From other traditions

The Wiccan Rede
The concept of perfect love and perfect trust instead of unconditional love
Lovingkindness
Walking The Tao (listening to my inner guide and that is an oversimplification)
The three treasures: compassion, frugality, humility
Te: virtue
Wu Wei: non-doing
Detachment
Forsake most alcohol most of the time (Buddhism)
Tea is a Taoist drink and I drink that stuff
Donating the amount of money I believe is appropriate to the organization I believe is appropriate
Service that is truly service and not the kind that is a burden or insult to the recipient
Meditation
Walks in nature
Listening to the Spirit/my gut/inner guidance
Chi/The Force/The Field/The Priesthood (except I think the church gets this mostly wrong)
Male/Female divinity
Yin/Yang
Zen
Mandalas
Martial Arts as an aspect of better understanding the philosophy

Actually, now that I look at it, a pretty full fridge.

[Edited to switch vegetarianism to be listed under the Mormon category. My reasons for the dietary choice are more about health than morals (non-harming, although I see there's something to that)]

[Emower]

Up until about 18 months ago I was the 'don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' variety of mormon. But now I feel that we just make too much sawdust. By the time we've done all the busy work and given 10% gross, there really isn't much left in the tank for anything else.

I'm not even against throwing everything out if that works for you. I am in no way an advocate of trying to nuance your way through Church, or "wrestle" with the tough questions. I sick of "wrestling" and I am not going to do it anymore. But there are some things that Mormons sometimes do very well, and taking care of superficial needs is one of them. Sometimes a guy just needs help with some superficial stuff. It just felt really nice to lend a hand, realize that it was superficial and not really showing deep charity, and be OK with that. It was kind of cathartic in a way. I felt like I was letting go of some of the anger that really shouldn't be directed towards unsuspecting members anyway.

[1smartdodog]

If you can personally separate the church from your local ward it is not so bad. I just completely ignore every obedience lesson or doctrinal discussion. I just have some friends there that I like to talk to from time to time and help out from time to time. That is not how the church is structured I know, and if everyone was like me it would collapse in a week, but not everyone is like me and as long as they want to believe in the story put forth who am I to say they can't.

So I still feel for the most part the people are good, but the churches is just obnoxious. But those people exist because of the church and we need to acknowledge that.

[SeeNoEvil]

About 5 years ago I took a good look at my fridge and decided it was time to clean it as well. I've cleaned that fridge so many times since there is little left in it that I can use anymore. The shelves are pretty well empty. I found ways to use some of it for good just because I wanted to and not because it was assigned. The not so useful things were tossed or donated. Learned things were put in my tool box of life for future building and redesign of my foundation.

[Newme]

I love it "Take the best, leave the rest." In fact, it's kind of a motto I repeat to my kids (usually in a whisper), and to remind myself.

There's a tendency to think in bi-polarized all-or-nothing thinking - from "the church is perfect"... to "the church completely sucks." In reality, most of my experiences with the church are with people - who are not 100% good nor 100% bad - we're all a mix.

And I like what you mentioned about serving. There are other ways to serve, but often it may require some searching. The church provides convenient opportunities to serve.

[wtfluff]

What about comparing the good vs. the bad that an organization does?

If I support an organization that does a whole lot of bad, and a tiny bit of good, is it OK ignore the "bad" that the organization does, and support the "good"?

[Give It Time]

I once had a relative who was taken off of life support. The family was gathered and keeping vigil more or less in the hospital. It was going to be a few days. My father had a home teacher who was a long-time family friend. He had lost his wife a few years before. I think that gave him some compassion for our impending loss. Without being asked, this man came up to the hospital every day from the beginning of visiting hours until the end of visiting hours. He'd sit with us hour after hour telling us stories. He was a great story teller. He'd run small errands for us and walk the corridors with us when it all got to be too much.

There was a link on another thread to a tortilla story. I don't remember the exact details, but some home teachers came through for a man in a tight spot. Service of this level is, I believe, the best of us. Other denominations have service of this level, but they don't have a watch care team assigned to individuals and families the way we do. A person in need is less likely to fall through the cracks with us. I have some beefs about HT and VT, because when it's invasive, done as if it's a chore, with more thought about doing it "correctly" than actually serving, both of these programs can also be a really terrific example of what is the worst about us.

[Newme]

What about comparing the good vs. the bad that an organization does?

If I support an organization that does a whole lot of bad, and a tiny bit of good, is it OK ignore the "bad" that the organization does, and support the "good"?

If you ignore either the good or bad, it leans toward bi-polar (polarized - "all-or-nothing") thinking. What I perceive to be reality is always subjective- my limited focused perspective.
Ie: Part of me wants to tell my son, "No! Don't go on a mission and teach evil cultish principles like robbing the poor of tithes being a free mind-less salesman for the church!"
But another part of me remembers when I was involved with drugs - kid yelled, "cops are here" & we flushed everything down the toilet only to discover the "cops" were actually lds missionaries. Just their presence helped me begin to turn around - to reconsider what I wanted in life.

This guy on old NOM made me reconsider what an organization actually is. Yes, there's team spirit (or herd mentality) which tends to be more insane than individual thinking. Still, an organization is made up of many individual parts. It's like the scripture about the head needing the feet etc & how all parts are important. He even suggested that our bodies depend on smaller organisms that work together for mutual benefit. The ultimate result is generally complicated, especially when many different individual entities are contributing.

[Emower]

If I support an organization that does a whole lot of bad, and a tiny bit of good, is it OK ignore the "bad" that the organization does, and support the "good"?

It's more complicated then that for me. Some may view the church as evil, quite simply, I don't.

[Corsair]

If I support an organization that does a whole lot of bad, and a tiny bit of good, is it OK ignore the "bad" that the organization does, and support the "good"?

It's more complicated then that for me. Some may view the church as evil, quite simply, I don't.

I agree, it is complicated. How many of you are willing to give up your U.S. citizenship after many unfortunate incidents in U.S. history? Every four years we get people insisting that they are leaving the country because some disagreeable person won the U.S. presidency. Very few people actually do leave. Let's be clear that I am deeply happy and grateful to have been born as a U.S. citizen and I have no interest in changing to some other more "enlightened" country. For one thing, which country is objectively best that all good people should emigrate into?

I can't fix the historical challenges of the LDS church, the United States, or humanity in general. The LDS church can work for many people and a lot of us have loved ones who will be sticking around. Leaving the LDS church is an action that I would support for many people. I still retain a current temple rec for my own amusing reasons. I have no illusions that I can change the church and I simply have to deal with reality.

[nibbler]

If I support an organization that does a whole lot of bad, and a tiny bit of good, is it OK ignore the "bad" that the organization does, and support the "good"?

It's more complicated then that for me. Some may view the church as evil, quite simply, I don't.

I don't want to put words in wtfluff's mouth but I didn't read the original question as asking whether the church could be considered good or evil. I took it to ask people at what point they decide to cut off their support.

E.g.
If you believe the church is 10% bad and 90% good.
If you believe the church is 25% bad and 75% good.
If you believe the church is 49% bad and 51% good.
If you believe the church is 50% bad and 50% good.
If you believe the church is 51% bad and 50% good.
If you believe the church is 75% bad and 25% good.
If you believe the church is 90% bad and 10% good.
etc.

"Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective and everyone has a line. Someone that believes the church does 90% bad may wonder why someone else stays. Maybe because the person that stays is in the 10% bad camp.

I agree, it is complicated. How many of you are willing to give up your U.S. citizenship after many unfortunate incidents in U.S. history? Every four years we get people insisting that they are leaving the country because some disagreeable person won the U.S. presidency. Very few people actually do leave. Let's be clear that I am deeply happy and grateful to have been born as a U.S. citizen and I have no interest in changing to some other more "enlightened" country. For one thing, which country is objectively best that all good people should emigrate into?

It's even more complicated than countries. In the USA there are elections. People get a say in who runs the show. In the USA the democrats held the presidency, the house, and the senate in 2009 and in 2017 the republicans hold the presidency, the house, and the senate. Church would be wild if every decade or so one faction got their way while the other faction was told to pound sand - only to have the roles reversed every so often.

And things can get bad enough in a country to make people leave (wars, economics, etc.). Usually it's something drastic because leaving it all behind isn't easy. It's far easier to wait until the next election and hope your side wins so it can tell the other side to pound sand.

I don't view the church as evil either but I think the question was more, where's the line where people decide to drop their support for the church? I know many that bailed after the November policy. It wasn't the policy itself, the policy played more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" role.

I can't fix the historical challenges of the LDS church, the United States, or humanity in general.

Is it the history or the perceived future that causes people to leave? For instance, someone might believe the church will change but they may also believe that by the time it changes to something palatable they'll be long since dead. Maybe all the history does is shake people up enough to get them to perform a cost/benefit evaluation of imagined future experiences.

[Emower]

"Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective and everyone has a line. Someone that believes the church does 90% bad may wonder why someone else stays. Maybe because the person that stays is in the 10% bad camp.


I don't view the church as evil either but I think the question was more, where's the line where people decide to drop their support for the church? I know many that bailed after the November policy. It wasn't the policy itself, the policy played more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" role.

You are absolutely right, it is entirely subjective. What is also subjective is the phrase "dropping support." I view myself as dropping support. I dont pay tithing, I dont hold a calling, and I am generally more of a nuisance than anything. I still however attend, mostly because of my wife. Some may view that as supporting the organization. Is leaving your name on the roles supporting it? I suppose you are allowing them the use of yourself as a data point.
One thing I have learned about involvement in this church is that dang near everything is subjective. That makes it difficult to make right or wrong statements.

[Corsair]

Is it the history or the perceived future that causes people to leave? For instance, someone might believe the church will change but they may also believe that by the time it changes to something palatable they'll be long since dead. Maybe all the history does is shake people up enough to get them to perform a cost/benefit evaluation of imagined future experiences.

This is exactly what I have to consider. My singular reason for staying is that my wife is a full believer. Like you indicated, I have no faith that the LDS church will somehow get "better" or even "palatable" for me before I shed this mortal coil. I do my best to remain happy in my own ward and I have enjoyed some success.

However, if my dear wife were to have her own faith transition I would quietly bow out of LDS activity.

[wtfluff]

If I support an organization that does a whole lot of bad, and a tiny bit of good, is it OK ignore the "bad" that the organization does, and support the "good"?

It's more complicated then that for me. Some may view the church as evil, quite simply, I don't.

I don't want to put words in wtfluff's mouth but I didn't read the original question as asking whether the church could be considered good or evil. I took it to ask people at what point they decide to cut off their support.

E.g.
If you believe the church is 10% bad and 90% good.
If you believe the church is 25% bad and 75% good.
If you believe the church is 49% bad and 51% good.
If you believe the church is 50% bad and 50% good.
If you believe the church is 51% bad and 50% good.
If you believe the church is 75% bad and 25% good.
If you believe the church is 90% bad and 10% good.
etc.

"Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective and everyone has a line. Someone that believes the church does 90% bad may wonder why someone else stays. Maybe because the person that stays is in the 10% bad camp.

This is probably more akin to what I was eluding to in my "good vs. bad" post... As many have mentioned, It's all subjective to the individual, each individual will weigh things differently, but again, just because an organization is "good" for some folks, does not mean that it is a net positive for society in general. Hell, a "member" of the KKK could say there are "good" parts of that organization, because it brings together like-minded individuals in a social group to "support" each other. Does that mean the KKK is a "good" organization, because "It works for some people"? (How's that for jumping right to Godwin's Law?)

I won't go so far as to say the LDS Corporation is evil, and like many of you, I unfortunately retain some ties to the Corporation because of family, but I also won't hesitate to speak out about the damage that the Corporation does, especially to those who don't fit the mold that the Corporation wants everyone shove themselves into. I spent more than half a lifetime trying to pound myself in to that mold. More than half a lifetime of decisions based on LDS Corporation lies and half-truths. I'm going to spend the next half of my life paying for those decisions. At this point, I can't view the Corporation's influence on my life as positive / good. (ETA: Fluffy subjectivity engaged!)

[Newme]

If I support an organization that does a whole lot of bad, and a tiny bit of good, is it OK ignore the "bad" that the organization does, and support the "good"?

It's more complicated then that for me. Some may view the church as evil, quite simply, I don't.

I don't want to put words in wtfluff's mouth but I didn't read the original question as asking whether the church could be considered good or evil. I took it to ask people at what point they decide to cut off their support.

E.g.
If you believe the church is 10% bad and 90% good.
If you believe the church is 25% bad and 75% good.
If you believe the church is 49% bad and 51% good.
If you believe the church is 50% bad and 50% good.
If you believe the church is 51% bad and 50% good.
If you believe the church is 75% bad and 25% good.
If you believe the church is 90% bad and 10% good.
etc.

"Good" and "bad" are entirely subjective and everyone has a line. Someone that believes the church does 90% bad may wonder why someone else stays. Maybe because the person that stays is in the 10% bad camp.

I agree, it is complicated. How many of you are willing to give up your U.S. citizenship after many unfortunate incidents in U.S. history? Every four years we get people insisting that they are leaving the country because some disagreeable person won the U.S. presidency. Very few people actually do leave. Let's be clear that I am deeply happy and grateful to have been born as a U.S. citizen and I have no interest in changing to some other more "enlightened" country. For one thing, which country is objectively best that all good people should emigrate into?

It's even more complicated than countries. In the USA there are elections. People get a say in who runs the show. In the USA the democrats held the presidency, the house, and the senate in 2009 and in 2017 the republicans hold the presidency, the house, and the senate. Church would be wild if every decade or so one faction got their way while the other faction was told to pound sand - only to have the roles reversed every so often.

And things can get bad enough in a country to make people leave (wars, economics, etc.). Usually it's something drastic because leaving it all behind isn't easy. It's far easier to wait until the next election and hope your side wins so it can tell the other side to pound sand.

I don't view the church as evil either but I think the question was more, where's the line where people decide to drop their support for the church? I know many that bailed after the November policy. It wasn't the policy itself, the policy played more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" role.

I can't fix the historical challenges of the LDS church, the United States, or humanity in general.

Is it the history or the perceived future that causes people to leave? For instance, someone might believe the church will change but they may also believe that by the time it changes to something palatable they'll be long since dead. Maybe all the history does is shake people up enough to get them to perform a cost/benefit evaluation of imagined future experiences.

In my opinion, the reason many left the church after the church announced children of homosexuals couldn't be baptized, was peer pressure. Sorry to offend, but that's how I see it. It's not about the kids being denied baptism because if it were, they would've left long before when they discovered children of polygamist families could not be baptized - which policy is old news and nobody showed a problem with that. And essentially it's the same thing. Except studies ( &common sense) show that children need a mom & dad. And I'm not a "hater" because I see it this way. To me, it's logic that is independent of the peer pressure that causes people to ignore inconvenient facts in favor of looking good to others.

There are some who have given up herd mentality, but it seems to be a tough habit to kick.

[wtfluff]

It's not about the kids being denied baptism because if it were, they would've left long before when they discovered children of polygamist families could not be baptized - which policy is old news and nobody showed a problem with that. And essentially it's the same thing.

What percentage of members actually knew about the policy regarding children of polygamists? It's only published in Handbook 1, and not available to the general membership. Personally, I was unaware of the "Children of polygamists hate policy" before the "November children of homosexuals hate policy" was leaked. I felt the same way about the polygamist hate policy as I did about the "new" homosexual hate policy. Hate is hate, no matter who it is directed at. Putting a target on the back of any minority group is wrong.

I'd personally wager that the majority of folks were unaware of the polygamist hate policy before the homosexual hate policy was leaked.