501 replies to this topic

[selek1]

Deleted.

I'm just gonna let the mods handle you.

Edited by selek1, 12 April 2012 - 05:11 PM.

[Pahoran]

spartacus, on 12 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

What do you have against the Bickertonites? - Don't seem like the true BoM accepting group to you?  Why is that?  Is it something other than that they accept the BoM?

Speaking only for myself: yes.

spartacus, on 12 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I hope you have looked a little into other mormon groups considering the way that prophet succession went down.  Even just that Emma Smith didn't go with Brigham Young is pretty good reason to consider which group is right.

There seems to be a degree of hubris in play when we presume to tell another person what their faith should be based upon, or what they should "look into."  Just a thought.

But yes, the fact that various people (not just Emma) didn't follow Brigham is worth investigating as an historical phenomenon.  It has nothing to do with the truth claims of the Church, though.

spartacus, on 12 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

After all, that seems to be the whole point of LDS - it is not the BoM - it's that groups go into apostasy and you have to look into it to know which group is true.

Here's a suggestion: instead of you(!) telling us(!) what "the whole point" of our(!) religion is, why don't you let us tell you?

spartacus, on 12 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I meant nothing against your nose skin , just that it doesn't look good for an organization to be going around using such an obviously unsound argument as its main teaching apparatus.

It may be "obviously unsound" to you; but that is because you seem to be relying upon the "obviously unsound" assumption that the various splinter groups are actually relevant to someone who is investigating the Church of Jesus Christ.

Which they are not.

Regards,
Pahoran

[ERMD]

Buzzard, on 12 April 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

Not saying this applies to you, but a lot of folks are looking for a reason not to believe.  If they really want to find one, no excuse is too small.  Heck,  a bishop with a sarcastic streak will do the job quite nicely.

Ooops.  I guess many in my ward should start falling away at any time now...

[selek1]

ERMD, on 12 April 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

Ooops.  I guess many in my ward should start falling away at any time now...

They can come to my ward- and long for the good old days....

[NobodyFamous]

I'm a newbie to the church, so I'm sure that there is something that I'm missing here, but I think part of the problem is our definition of "faith-promoting" discourse, particularly as it applies to sacrament meetings, Sunday school and seminary.  In his famous talk, The Mantel is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, President Packer argues rather eloquently that educators within the Church should avoid introducing extraneous information that serves to only weaken the faith of others.

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful....  That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith."

I think many people in the church have viewed this comment to mean that any mention of the weaknesses or frailties of church leaders is faith-demoting.  Yet, I'm not sure that this necessarily follows from President Packer's comments.  He mentions specifically those who "delight" in pointing out these salacious details.  However, what about the person who has a sincere desire to demonstrate that Heavenly Father can use "cracked vessels" to accomplish His ends on the earth?

I take great solace in knowing that God could use Noah to preserve a remnant of mankind dispute the fact that Noah was a drunkard.  Likewise, I'm encouraged by the fact that God would establish the bloodline of our savior through King David and Bathsheba, despite the adultery (and murder) that David committed in the process.  In fact, the Bible tells us that Paul was a Christian killer and even after his conversion, he continued to struggle with sin ("For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I").  Yet, God used him to write the vast majority of the New Testament epistles.  Perhaps, it's just me, but I find hope that perhaps He can use a sinner like me as well.

In that vain, I think it could be faith-promoting to share some of Joseph Smith's early troubles or the Mountain Meadows Massacre with believers, even those in their teens and early twenties.  It seems to me that the young person with, say, a Word of Wisdom problem might find the strength to get the issue under control knowing how mightily God used Joseph Smith after he got over his treasure hunting, etc.  In fact, I think even a local church leader might find strength in knowing God's purposes for His church will go forward regardless of their mistakes (none of which will come anywhere close to the magnitude of the MMM).

In short, faith-promoting facts aren't just those that encompass the virtues of past leaders.  After all, at root, our faith is in the Savior and not men. And through the weaknesses of men, we truly learn what Paul meant when he told the Corinthians that God's strength is made perfect in weakness.

[DBMormon]

Kenngo1969, on 12 April 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

[/color][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=Calibri][color=#000000]

I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis other religions in such binary, black-and-white terms as you apparently do.  "Inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 56:26).  This applies to people of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion whatsoever.  The scriptures tell us that good trees don't bring forth evil fruit, whether those "good trees" are "Buddhist trees" or "Muslim trees" or "Catholic trees" or "Protestant trees" or some other species of tree.  I believe that good trees are good trees, and good fruit is good fruit.  I don't think that God gives me grapes and figs while giving people of other religious persuasions thorns and thistles; I don't think that God gives me bread while giving them stones, or that He gives me fish while giving them serpents.  I believe He gives good gifts to all of His children who ask Him.

Now, having said all of that, do all good trees bring forth the same amount of good fruit?  I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I believe that it brings forth a hundredfold of good fruit.  Does that justify me in condemning people who are members of other faiths because they "only" receive sixtyfold or thirtyfold?  Of course not.  When it comes right down to it, the only reason for anyone to associate him- or herself with any particular religion is because that belief system bears good fruit in the person's life.  Do we tell people, when they come into the Church, "Yes, we know you've got all of this good fruit from elsewhere, but you're just going to have to throw it away"?  No, of course not.  In the words of President Hinckley (and I believe he got it from Brigham Young), we tell them to bring the good that they have and let us see if we can add to it.

while all have good to offer we make truth claims.  One can not feel that the jehovah witness is true and another feel the LDS church is true and both be right.  someone is wrong.  perhaps both are close to god recieving his grace on a personal path that leads back to him, but one set or both sets of truth claims are wrong it is impossible for both to be right.  it is not a statement about the good they offer, so much as it is a statement about their truth claims.  If I pray about JW faith or the catholic faith and feel good about that as countless others have, that doesn't make it true.  At some point if all the evidence says it is not true then one must use facts as well as spiritual evidences too.

If the qourum of the 12 and first presidencty came out and declared the church false would your spiritual feelings have any weight.....likely not.  obviously hypothetical but it points to the impetus many others have towards their faiths truth claims.

[DBMormon]

GingerRed, on 12 April 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Well said!!    

I think the majority of Mormons feel this way, too.

so a prophet revealing false revelation and theology (Adam GOD) is not a factor in your belief system.  for me it plays in.  It is hard to reconcile prophets who declare god's will and doctrine and get it wrong.  Take any doctrine we have..... perhaps they got it wrong too.  if it is possible with one facet, it is possible with all the others.

[DBMormon]

spartacus, on 12 April 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

1) "the church is perfect, the people are not" (or something like that) - indicates that a lot of LDS are in for disappointment

2) The truth of the Book of Mormon ("the keystone of our religion") does not indicate the truth of the LDS church.  There are way too many mormon groups that all accept the Book of Mormon (as truth literally or otherwise) to use it's determination as true as justification to believe in one of those groups over another.  So how do you differentiate between all those groups that accept the Book of Mormon?

If you haven't dealt with this fact, then your "no reservations" appear to be from lack of looking around.  If I just looked at the person in front of me I might think there was only one other person in the world, but that doesn't make it true.

[This is also one reason why I disdain the missions, their entire program is built on this false logic.  Their goal is to get someone to pray about the Book of Mormon and then they believe the LDS church is true - false.  They may add praying about the current prophet but, then, how much more do you have to pray about to know the LDS church - a rather large entity with a long complex history is true?]

3) Looking around is what we are supposed to do, see "ponder"-ing.  If you do that, it doesn't mean you are looking for a reason not to believe.  In fact, looking only for reasons to believe is just as bad as looking only for reasons not to believe.  Looking for reasons not to believe is useful in determining falsehood.  If you don't want to believe stuff that is false, look for evidence of falsehood.  If want to believe stuff that is true, you look for falsehoods - because they are usually easy to spot and wittle down the options quite quickly- then look for evidence of truth from what is left over.  Even then you are not done because you will still have multiple non-compatible options to choose from - which is the proper place for prayer and faith in God's leading to come in at (not the very beginning - at least all by itself = without the above steps as well, that is.)

Doing this means you look at all of these issues and much more that reelmormon posted about.  And what really causes concern is the claim of the LDS church that it is the only one guided by God through an effective means, a prophet.  Given this it would seem that it should have a better track record than everyone else.  Or else what's the point of being guided by God through the only effective means?  So if there is evidence of not such a great track record, then that is quite pertinent to the main claim of the LDS church - revelation received.  It is this grand claim of the LDS church that turns even what otherwise might be gnats into camels.  In fact, with such a strong claim, one could say there are no gnats.  If the LDS church is so efficiently led by a prophet of God, then all would-be gnats become camels.  The LDS church makes great claims that require it to toe a thin line, any deviation puts the whole at risk.

This post doesn't say its true or isn't and I say thank you for how you wrote this..... this is how I feel.  Thank you

[GingerRed]

reelmormon, on 13 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

so a prophet revealing false revelation and theology (Adam GOD) is not a factor in your belief system.....

Nope!    My faith is based on my own personal revelations, experiences, blessings and miracles. I don't care about the past. It has nothing to do with my own salvation and my future. I know this gospel it true or I wouldn't have converted to it in the first place.   I look at the big picture.

[DBMormon]

ElijahWasAbel, on 13 April 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

I'm a newbie to the church, so I'm sure that there is something that I'm missing here, but I think part of the problem is our definition of "faith-promoting" discourse, particularly as it applies to sacrament meetings, Sunday school and seminary.  In his famous talk, The Mantel is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, President Packer argues rather eloquently that educators within the Church should avoid introducing extraneous information that serves to only weaken the faith of others.

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful....  That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith."

I think many people in the church have viewed this comment to mean that any mention of the weaknesses or frailties of church leaders is faith-demoting.  Yet, I'm not sure that this necessarily follows from President Packer's comments.  He mentions specifically those who "delight" in pointing out these salacious details.  However, what about the person who has a sincere desire to demonstrate that Heavenly Father can use "cracked vessels" to accomplish His ends on the earth?

I take great solace in knowing that God could use Noah to preserve a remnant of mankind dispute the fact that Noah was a drunkard.  Likewise, I'm encouraged by the fact that God would establish the bloodline of our savior through King David and Bathsheba, despite the adultery (and murder) that David committed in the process.  In fact, the Bible tells us that Paul was a Christian killer and even after his conversion, he continued to struggle with sin ("For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I").  Yet, God used him to write the vast majority of the New Testament epistles.  Perhaps, it's just me, but I find hope that perhaps He can use a sinner like me as well.

In that vain, I think it could be faith-promoting to share some of Joseph Smith's early troubles or the Mountain Meadows Massacre with believers, even those in their teens and early twenties.  It seems to me that the young person with, say, a Word of Wisdom problem might find the strength to get the issue under control knowing how mightily God used Joseph Smith after he got over his treasure hunting, etc.  In fact, I think even a local church leader might find strength in knowing God's purposes for His church will go forward regardless of their mistakes (none of which will come anywhere close to the magnitude of the MMM).

In short, faith-promoting facts aren't just those that encompass the virtues of past leaders.  After all, at root, our faith is in the Savior and not men. And through the weaknesses of men, we truly learn what Paul meant when he told the Corinthians that God's strength is made perfect in weakness.

avoiding things that hurt faith is also exactly what a false church would tell it's members to keep them from dealing with troubling historical and theological information.  Again we may have less converts if people listened to their churches not to hear the mormons they because they are a cult and evil

[why me]

ElijahWasAbel, on 13 April 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

I'm a newbie to the church, so I'm sure that there is something that I'm missing here, but I think part of the problem is our definition of "faith-promoting" discourse, particularly as it applies to sacrament meetings, Sunday school and seminary.  In his famous talk, The Mantel is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect, President Packer argues rather eloquently that educators within the Church should avoid introducing extraneous information that serves to only weaken the faith of others.

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful....  That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith."

I think many people in the church have viewed this comment to mean that any mention of the weaknesses or frailties of church leaders is faith-demoting.  Yet, I'm not sure that this necessarily follows from President Packer's comments.  He mentions specifically those who "delight" in pointing out these salacious details.  However, what about the person who has a sincere desire to demonstrate that Heavenly Father can use "cracked vessels" to accomplish His ends on the earth?

You are correct with those who delight in pointing our these salacious details. However, the critics interpreted it a different way: to stifle the truth. But what needs to be considered is the interpretation from the historian and I think that lds historians can give a very faith promoting interpretation of historical details as can be found in Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. And the lds church needs to begin to do this.

[DBMormon]

why me, on 13 April 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

You are correct with those who delight in pointing our these salacious details. However, the critics interpreted it a different way: to stifle the truth. But what needs to be considered is the interpretation from the historian and I think that lds historians can give a very faith promoting interpretation of historical details as can be found in Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. And the lds church needs to begin to do this.

AMEN

[why me]

reelmormon, on 13 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

so a prophet revealing false revelation and theology (Adam GOD) is not a factor in your belief system.  for me it plays in.  It is hard to reconcile prophets who declare god's will and doctrine and get it wrong.  Take any doctrine we have..... perhaps they got it wrong too.  if it is possible with one facet, it is possible with all the others.

http://en.fairmormon..._not_infallible

The critics will have a different interpretation, especially when they use the Journal of Discourse. But these discourses have been around for many years in book form and can be found in many old timer lds libraries. No one that I know who read them thought that every word or statement was a revelation. But they did find the comments in the discourses interesting. It is the internet and the critic interpretation that is the problem.

Edited by why me, 13 April 2012 - 05:00 AM.

[why me]

The way that I saw the Journal of Discourses was always in simple form: these men of the frontier spoke from the hip. I do not remember anywhere that they said: I kneeled with the twelve and we received this revelation and it will be in the updated D&C. I just saw them as someone speaking their mind about a variety of issues.

We need to remember that the church of yesteryear was different from today. In the beginning there would be people jumping up and down, speaking in tongues, enjoying the lord. And the frontier leaders were speaking about this and that, trying to come to terms with a new church with direct revelation. I am sure that it was exciting to be a member, even being a danite must have been exciting. And brigham was a part of it. The lds church has matured since then and one thing I do know: the lds church has not lead anyone away from what it means to be a human being who has faith that god lives. And now the church is fighting against worldly values and our youth are examples for others to follow.

But I like Brigham for being a frontier pioneer with a fighting spirit.

[cdowis]

reelmormon, on 13 April 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

so a prophet revealing false revelation and theology (Adam GOD) is not a factor in your belief system.  for me it plays in.  It is hard to reconcile prophets who declare god's will and doctrine and get it wrong.  Take any doctrine we have..... perhaps they got it wrong too.  if it is possible with one facet, it is possible with all the others.

Prophets can make mistakes.  I still believe in the New Testament, even though Peter and James the apostles warned us about some of Paul's teachings.

2 Peter 3 [15] And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[16] As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

BY warned us about accepting everything that the leaders taught.  I prefer a prophet that may slip up occasionally than theologians that continue to teach false doctrines.

The church has living prophets, and we can be assured that the Lord will correct any errors.

Edited by cdowis, 13 April 2012 - 06:13 AM.

[Kevin Christensen]

spartacus, on 12 April 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

SNIP
Doing this means you look at all of these issues and much more that reelmormon posted about.  And what really causes concern is the claim of the LDS church that it is the only one guided by God through an effective means, a prophet.  Given this it would seem that it should have a better track record than everyone else.  Or else what's the point of being guided by God through the only effective means?  So if there is evidence of not such a great track record, then that is quite pertinent to the main claim of the LDS church - revelation received.  It is this grand claim of the LDS church that turns even what otherwise might be gnats into camels.  In fact, with such a strong claim, one could say there are no gnats.  If the LDS church is so efficiently led by a prophet of God, then all would-be gnats become camels.  The LDS church makes great claims that require it to toe a thin line, any deviation puts the whole at risk.

It helps to know how to recognize a true prophet.  It also helps to know how to approach the question properly, to take the attitudes and actions that lead an investigator towards a knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come.  And it also helps to know the kinds of mistakes to avoid.

http://en.fairmormon..._False_Prophets

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[cdowis]

To clarify my previous post:

The church has safeguards in place to prevent incorrect teachings from becoming church doctrine -- we have the Quorum of the Twelve, and the succession of prophets.  In the case of Adam/God, we see this teaching abandoned by the church.

I have the assurance that the Lord protects His church.

[Senator]

cdowis, on 13 April 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

I have the assurance that the Lord protects His church.

Limited by circumstance, of course.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I took some time to ponder this issue a bit recently. I have some observations -

1: People are always influenced by their environments.

Bill here, is a great example of this. In the original post, he gives us a list. Now, the list itself isn't unusual at all. In fact, if I look all over the internet, what I find is that this list of issues is published in lots and lots of places. Mostly by critics and disaffected members. The narrative is often the same. Now, this doesn't mean that people aren't encountering information that disturbs them, what it means is that not only are they encountering information that disturbs them, they are also being given a template for how to discuss this disturbing information, they are given a pattern for how to respond to it, and so on. It isn't about facts that anyone can uncover, it is also about accepting the narrative of discovery, of rejection, and all of the rest of it.

2: Most members of the church don't have these issues - even when confronted by them.

This is an interesting personal observation. While I know that there are people out there who have experienced a faith crisis over these kinds of issues, I also know a lot of people who haven't. In fact, my personal experience with people I know personally is that other issues cause far greater angst with the church than these historical ones. I suspect that this is largely an issue of interpretation. Because while Bill has encountered issues that challenge his faith, I have (I am sure) encountered all of the same issues - and I haven't had the same response he has. I can think of a number of reasons why this might be the case - but it has very little to do with the source of the information (whether from believing sources or from critical sources). In fact, I tend often to be quite skeptical of both kinds of sources - because both kinds of sources have an innate bias that isn't helpful at building my own interpretation of the facts.

3: Why the emphasis on the internet?

This seems fairly obvious to me. As with everything else, the internet is great at decontextualizing everything. It is great at creating anonymity when it suits a persons purpose. It is great at eliminating perspective. What do I mean by this? John Dehlin created this survey of disaffected members. Looking at the survey, you would think that he had uncovered the root causes of people leaving Mormonism. The challenge, of course, is that the survey defines the narratives that it wants to present. What the internet seems to be doing is encouraging people to match their own issues with the gospel with a set of predefined narratives (John does this very well) so that whatever Bill's challenges were, as he encounters Dehlin's materials, he rewrites his own history to match what John has provided. Dehlin gives people a framework to understand their disaffection. The reality is that the approach is very problematic. Religion in general is currently in a state of decline here in the U.S. It's not the first time its happened (historically). It won't be the last. It seems (at least to those who track these kinds of things) that this is a cyclical process. If Mormons were losing members at a rate that was completely out of sorts with the religious community in the U.S. in general, we might look for explanations. But it clearly isn't out of whack - in fact, Mormonism is one of the few religions that is still seeing growth right now (even if it as at a slower pace) while most churches are losing overall membership. On some level, if we were losing all of the members that we are losing just to historical kinds of issues, that would seem to be a really interesting piece of the conversation - because it would mean that we weren't losing members for all of the other reasons people normally leave their church over. In a sense, because Dehlin is creating the narrative himself and not collecting it from others, it creates a self-fulfilling kind of situation. The internet isn't causing people to leave by revealing facts - it is causing people to leave by telling them that when we uncover these facts, this is how we should interpret them, and this is how we should respond to them, and ultimately, this is why we need to leave the church. That is the role of the internet, and that is what John Dehlin is doing.

4: Polemical language

Nearly all of these narratives are filled with polemical language. Bill's is no exception. And it clearly isn't built on any kind of personal knowledge or experience. Take this from his item number 2: "ex: not finding seer stones and treasure Hunting in any of the info we are taught from on sundays, no mention of polyandry anywhere.... try typing that in LDS.ORG's search engine, no effort in the material to correct any of these fasle teachings mentioned above."  It is true, of course, the the word polyandry doesn't occur anywhere on LDS.ORG. (I am not sure this is an issue, since it is a relatively technical term that has never been used in popular discourse - it was never used to describe the practice when it occurred - its absence is something of a red herring). But seer stones? How about this from the Friend magazine: "Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone." It doesn't get a lot clearer than that. So we have this insinuation in part because Bill has never actually tried to do what he is so critical of. The fascinating thing for me is how easy it can be to find this information. But, Bill would rather take someone else's word for it (like John Dehlin) instead of actually looking. Where is the personal responsibility here?

What's the deal with polemical language? There is a notable issue in the study of comparative religions. That is, quite naturally, a fairly small scholarly field, and its publications are probably not widely know. One of the most recognized though is Johnathon Z. Smith (no relation that I know of to any of Mormonism's Smiths). You can read a bit about him here: http://en.wikipedia....nathan_Z._Smith ). In his book Drudgery Divine, he talks about this issue quite a bit. In particular, he makes this observation:

Quote

The uniqueness of the ‘Christ-event’, which usually encodes the death and resurrection of Jesus, is a double claim. On the ontological level, it is a statement of the absolutely alien nature of the divine protagonist (monogenes) and the unprecedented (and paradoxical) character of his self-disclosure; on the historical level, it is an assertion of the radical incomparability of the Christian ‘proclamation’ with respect to the ‘environment’. For many scholars of early Christianity, the latter claim is often combined with the former so as to transfer the (proper, though problematic) theological affirmation of absolute uniqueness to an historical statement that, standing alone, could never assert more than relative uniqueness, that is to say, a quite ordinary postulation of difference. It is this illicit transfer from ontological to the historical that raises the question of the comparison of early Christianity and the religions of Late Antiquity.

Now that may be a bit Greek, so let me explain. Religions always have two aspects. One is a historical aspect (religions are made of real people living at a real point in time, using language that is shared with their contemporaries, incorporating ideas from their social and cultural backgrounds into their faith). The other is the meaning of the faith - represented often in its theology, its notions of salvation, the meaning of faith, and so on. In examining religion, Smith tells us, the problems begin when we substitute one for the other. So, when I read Bill's set of issues, I see all sorts of things that are doing just this. They are moving historical items over into the realm of theology - in ways that the actual historical members of the church didn't. Bill is frustrated with the church for exactly the kind of things that would occur in any American church (how many churches today are vocal opponents of Evolution)? To use one he didn't mention, we have the pre-Adamites right? It was a fairly popular theory through to the tail end of the 19th century. The idea is to take the part of Mormonism that is culturally based, and pretend that it ought to have been revealed. But this is itself a sort of fabricated look at religion. Scholars of the history of religion see things quite different. Everett Ferguson writes this (and I have taken the liberty of substituting "Mormonism" for "Christianity"):

Quote

That Mormons observed the same customs and used words in the same way as their contemporaries is hardly noteworthy in itself. Those things belonged to the place and time when Mormonism began. The situation could not have been otherwise for Mormonism to have been a real historical phenomenon, open now to historical study. To expect the situation to have been otherwise would require Mormonism to be something other than it is, a historical religion. Indeed, if Mormonism did not have these linguistic and cultural contacts with [contemporary culture] the presumption would be that it was a fiction originating in another time and place (Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 1–2.).

In point one, probably some of the issues do in fact have significant doctrinal or theological consequences. The restriction of the priesthood would be one of these. Lamanites skin getting lighter? That is not a major doctrinal difference. Bruce's identification of the Great and Abominable Church as Catholicism (stemming from the popular view that Babylon in Revelations was the Catholic Church) is not a major doctrine. Part of the polemical argument is giving these issues an importance that they never had.

5: How to decide?

There is this funny statement in Bill's comments. One of course, that many LDS simply do not have issues with in my experience. He tells us he has a problem with "the effort to teach everyone that we should all follow the prophet, that he can not lead the church astray, that we will be blessed for following him regardless of what he asks and then on the other hand being told to know that these are men and they make mistakes and you are not obligated to follow them when they are wrong. That you should have the spirit and it will direct you when one is acting as a prophet and when they are not." Does this paralyze him? Does it make him unable to make judgment calls on his own? There is great irony for me in this statement because, quite simply put, he is already making these decisions - and some of them he is allowing to be made for him. Yes, he tells us about Bruce R. McConkie and his anti evolution stance. But where in the question is the views of James E. Talmage, or John A. Widtsoe or Henry Eyring.  Where are the statements from the church on the subject? Bill presents a single side of the story - the side aimed at causing the most angst if provided without the other half - a corresponding context. And all of this while bemoaning have to make meaningful choices. Obviously access to information in our digital age is not that hard. But in repeating the same kind of claims that others make (almost as it were a mantra), Bill lets me know that he has simply read the claims and hasn't bothered to do any kind of personal study or research. If they don't spend the time to look at what is already there, then why should I believe that the church adding to the accessible materials will make any difference at all?

6: The narrative

Bill concludes with this:

Quote

Now with the internet the church is forced to deal with much of the above issues but until their hand was forced they did all they could to let this stuff stay below the surface and went out of their way to dismiss having to deal with any of it. ex : prior to 1990 when did we hear of seer stones, evolution can be true, polyandry, treasure hunting, Mormon leaders were racist in their comments about afircan americans, ADAM GOD was taught by Brigham Young and was wrong. Do you feel like things were kept from you? and if so how do you reconcile that?

And here again is the rich irony. Take Adam-God. In the Ensign, in 1976, then prophet Spencer W. Kimball wrote this:
"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Where do we read about Adam-God? Is it spelled out on LDS.ORG? No. In fact, if you search there, you will find a couple of passing allusions to it, and the one statement from Kimball rejecting it. So, here we have it. Obviously there are warts in the past. There are things we have moved beyond. But, we have this sort of challenge here where people like John Dehlin (and his fan Bill now in this thread) want to define the church by these issues. Even in raising them though there is sort of polemical outcry. We could pick the ten biggest issues that Dehlin might raise and include them in the curriculum as past beliefs that we no longer practice. We could talk about the racism of the past. Every church in America has past beliefs that they no longer practice. Every church in America has racism in its past. These are the things we expect to find. It shouldn't be a surpries. What makes it a surprise is not the discovery, but the narrative.

As the church makes more and more historical resources available, the cry hasn't changed. It hasn't diminished. If anything the critics take the historical record and try to fit it to their own preconceptions of what is wrong with the church - and what they really want is some kind of historical interpretation (not the historical documents themselves) in which the church admits how wrong it is, and was, and that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Anything short of that, for most of the critics, will always be a narrative that conceals and hides the truth. I reject that. In giving so much attention to this issue I think we need to remember that despite claims to the contrary, many memebrs of the church are aware of these issues, they remain faithful. It's not the facts that cause disbelief, it is the inability to handle ambiguity in faith and it is the narrative that tells people that they need to stop believing once they uncover historical inconsistencies.

I suppose we can always argue that things were "kept" from us. It is so easy to play the victim - to suggest that we have no responsibility for ourselves to look things up, or to read. We can argue that because its easier to read a synopsis on a critical site than to look at a source and read it for ourselves that we can feel justified in accepting and believing their narrative. But then, I became aware of a lot of this stuff at a very early age. And my response was quite different from Bill's. So I don't think that I am going to accept a Dehlin like narrative that the church has been hiding all of this stuff, and that we should be disturbed by it. Or that if I am not disturbed by it, I must be an apologist with some kind of ulterior motive that keeps me from questioning my faith in the same way (or more importantly just rejecting it). I simply reject the narrative that seems to be informing others about how they should respond - the narritive that really makes a lot of people sound virtually the same when they make their complaints. The narrative that has hand picked its issues and cherry picked its support. I suppose some people are willing to just substitute one authority for another instead of actually trying to find their own understanding.

Ben M.

[Jaybear]

cdowis, on 13 April 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

To clarify my previous post:

The church has safeguards in place to prevent incorrect teachings from becoming church doctrine -- we have the Quorum of the Twelve, and the succession of prophets.  In the case of Adam/God, we see this teaching abandoned by the church.

I have the assurance that the Lord protects His church.

Those "safeguards" would also likely prevent correct teachings from becoming doctrine.  Do you really beleive, for example, that the LDS Church would have accepted the true doctrine of polygamy if those "safeguards" were in place in 1832, which I think is when Smith introduced Fanny Alger to the principle.