501 replies to this topic

[Buzzard]

Specifically regarding the Adam-God theory, if Brother Brigham was around today to clarify, I bet he would clear up a lot of the confusion that those few passages in the JOD have caused.  Of course, he's not, but there is a very good reason why the JOD is not doctrine.

[DBMormon]

"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward church authorities, general or local…It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true…Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies." (Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B)



Perhaps true just not the way I am programed!!!!

[thesometimesaint]

From reading the Bible, which BTW predates JS by at least 1600 years, polygamy is well attested to. Plus D&C 132: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

[CV75]

OP:

I still don’t see how history and theology can create a faith crisis.

A crisis forms when a complex system functions poorly, and an immediate decision is necessary to keep it from degrading, but the causes of the dysfunction are so many or unknown that it is impossible to make a rational, informed decision to reverse the situation.

I question whether faith is either sufficiently rational or sufficiently complex a system to be subject to crisis mode.

Faith is not rational: Faith is to hope for things which are not seen, but which are true; to have confidence in Christ based on what He has revealed about Himself. Faith is generated by hearing (perceiving the correct meaning and application of) the testimony of those who have faith in Christ. This is not a purely rational process. Faith must also be nurtured, cultivated and sought after, the motivation for and perception of which is rarely rational (Alma 32).

Faith is not a complex system: As a principle of action and of power, once it is applied it is replaced with confirmation (knowledge); once it is not applied it is replaced with false belief, doubt or fear. Correct knowledge in turn promotes greater faith.

I think what you are talking about is an intellectual or emotional crisis, but not of faith. People can react dysfunctionally to history and theology, but this is on an intellectual or emotional basis, not on the basis of faith. Complex systems in crisis can affect simple systems, but simple systems cannot go into crisis. Simple systems’ ability to affect complex systems is limited only by their presence or absence. For example, faith helps intellect and emotion; fear hampers them.

Edited by CV75, 13 April 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[cdowis]

Jaybear, on 13 April 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

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.

The doctrine of polygamy continued within the church over the administration of multiple Presidents and General Authorities.   (The doctrine survives even today, while the practice has been changed by revelation). The teaching of A-G barely survived the administration of Brigham Young.

The safeguards have been present from the very beginning, including the New Testament when Paul had to be corrected.

Edited by cdowis, 13 April 2012 - 09:45 AM.

[Kevin Christensen]

Benjamin McGuire, on 13 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

SNIP
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.

Always a pleasure to encounter a level of thinking that goes beyond the pre-scripted levels.  Very enlightening, Ben.

Elsewhere, Margaret Barker commenting Biblical scholarship, has observed that the problems of that scholarship won't be solved at the same level of thinking that created them.

FWIW

Kevin  Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[why me]

reelmormon, on 13 April 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward church authorities, general or local…It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true…Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies." (Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B)



Perhaps true just not the way I am programed!!!!

And of course this is his opinion. Nothing more. But what he did say has some truth. Historical facts are meaningless when it comes to the spirit.
For example, American history is not exactly patriotic when we consider what happened to the native americans and the wars that america had experienced from coast to coast during its formation. Then, we have slavery and segregation. But americans can still love their country and see the bigger picture.

[why me]

Benjamin McGuire, on 13 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

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.
Ben M.

I think that there is something more to consider. Many people no longer read books. But what they do do is surf the internet for information, which they then skim and scan but what they may not do is to give a close reading with a specific questioning skill which would then lead them to discover the original source and get a different interpretation. I can't blame the people doing the skimming and scanning because this is now a sign of the times.
As I said earlier, many old timers had the Journal of Discourses in their homes and they did read them. And they read them with interest but no one that I remember ever left the church because of them. In fact, most found the Discourses interesting and they were able to interpret them for themselves and put them into perspectives. But now...with the internet and the access for quick information and a lack of critical thinking ability has become problematic for the lds church because people are losing valuable reasoning skills.

Edited by why me, 13 April 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[Log]

I would like to interject that while Ben has a well-thought out position, it's incomplete.  This is not going to be a fully coherent post, but, then, when do I ever post coherently?

Everyone has a breaking point.  What they do when they reach that point is a witness of their character.

Abraham was commanded to slay his sole son.  I guarantee you there was nothing else in existence that would have been as great a trial for him.

For others of us, other issues arise which perform the same function.  I have personally defeated a couple.  I have chosen wickedness in the face of others, to my eternal shame.

I feel that, in Ben's response, the power of a demonstrated contradiction is not appreciated.

It does not help to say "others don't have this problem."  The person with the problem has this problem, and that is sufficient for them.

[Kevin Christensen]

But Ben is not just saying, "others don't have this problem."   He's thinking about and accounting for what makes the difference.  Why does what seems "a demonstrated contradiction" from one perspective, nothing to fret about from another?   Why the wine that breaks one wine bottle survive quite comfortably in another?  Can a mere bottle change the nature of the wine?  Or does the survival of the bottle with the new wine tell us something important about that nature of both the wine and the bottles that break?  The point of bringing up such difference is to emphasize that it is not the information that inherently causes the shattering, but how the individual processes it.  "I looked at the net, and found the damning facts.  The end."  That's a narrative.  "I already knew about those facts, and have a good understanding of why they aren't at all daming.  The story continues."  That is another narrative.  The existence of the other narrative that uses the same facts should be enough to demonstrate that what appeared to be a contradiction might actually be a function of perspective, not a self-evident conclusion from a self-interpreting fact interpreted infallibly by a made-to-order-narrative that is so obvious that to call attention to its existence as such is unthinkable."   Ben has been particularly good at thinking unthinkable thoughts and explaining just what is profitably thinkable about them.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen, 13 April 2012 - 11:52 AM.

[Jaybear]

cdowis, on 13 April 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

The doctrine of polygamy continued within the church over the administration of multiple Presidents and General Authorities.   (The doctrine survives even today, while the practice has been changed by revelation). The teaching of A-G barely survived the administration of Brigham Young.

You didn't answer the question.
I presume you chose not to, because you know fully well that Smith engaged in the practice of polygamy without seeking approval from the Q12.

[Log]

Kevin,

There are cases where there are true contradictions - I can give you one, and it is listed in the OP.  

As for accounting for the difference between how one individual and another approach or evaluate a particular issue, there was an insight I gleaned from one of your essays wherein you discuss Kuhn: it all comes down to which problems are more important (have the greatest need) to have solved.  What needs are addressed, created, or fulfilled?  Not every person has the same needs, or needs whatever is needed to the same degree.  Another portion of the difference is the level of understanding the individual has of the surrounding issues.

Frankly, I find discussions of narratives unhelpful.  In the end, the reality is "I had a need, and my course of action was adopted because I felt it might fulfill my need."  We then tell stories to justify these courses of action; hence, narratives exist, and are usually false to a greater or lesser degree.

Edited by Log, 13 April 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[Pa Pa]

reelmormon, on 12 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

I am hoing that the replies to this post might be serious answers from your perspective on how you deal with several faith crises issues.

1.) How do you handle repeated major doctrinal mistakes taught by prophets and apostles from the pulpit or in their books.  
ex: evolution is one of the 7 deadly heresies - bruce R. McConkie, age of the earth - Joseph Fielding Smith, Blacks and the Priesthood - several leaders, all indians = lamanites, Indians getting lighter skin - Spencer W Kimball, ADAM GOD - Brigham Young, great and abominable church = Catholic Church = Bruce R. McConkie.

2.) The lack of sharing historical and theological issues with everyday members.
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.

3.) 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.

4.) lastly, 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?

From the bottom of my heart...this is how serious. We spend to much time reading about the scriptures than reading them. Apologetics and the internet do not bring the Spirit. All of these questions related to the Church in any age. Men embellish, we should have testimony of the gospel and not Church history. We will never know the full truth and from experience those who claim too are fooling themselves. We did not live in those times and will never fully understand them. What impresses me most about the early Saints is what they accomplished "despite their weaknesses". Everyone on the internet has an agenda, and no one should look to "scholars" for inspiration, just information. God works with flawed men because that is all he has to work with.

[KevinG]

The Gospel is for those who want to find God.  Church history is for those who enjoy church history.

[why me]

Kevin Christensen, on 13 April 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

But Ben is not just saying, "others don't have this problem."   He's thinking about and accounting for what makes the difference.  Why does what seems "a demonstrated contradiction" from one perspective, nothing to fret about from another?   Why the wine that breaks one wine bottle survive quite comfortably in another?  Can a mere bottle change the nature of the wine?  Or does the survival of the bottle with the new wine tell us something important about that nature of both the wine and the bottles that break?  The point of bringing up such difference is to emphasize that it is not the information that inherently causes the shattering, but how the individual processes it.  "I looked at the net, and found the damning facts.  The end."  That's a narrative.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

But Ben is an educated fellow. He has decent critical thinking skills where he can question the interpretation, look up alternative sources or come to his own conclusion by weighing interpretations and facts. But there are many people who go to the internet, push a button, skim a critic site, scan the damning information, to confirm their new found doubt and begin the process of leaving the church. Then they pick up a book recommended by the critics to cement their new interpretation. This is one reason why certain authors are trumpeted by the critics because these authors are influential in their interpretations.  But critical thinking seems not to play into the interpretation.

[why me]

Pa Pa, on 13 April 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

From the bottom of my heart...this is how serious. We spend to much time reading about the scriptures than reading them. Apologetics and the internet do not bring the Spirit. All of these questions related to the Church in any age. Men embellish, we should have testimony of the gospel and not Church history. We will never know the full truth and from experience those who claim too are fooling themselves. We did not live in those times and will never fully understand them. What impresses me most about the early Saints is what they accomplished "despite their weaknesses". Everyone on the internet has an agenda, and no one should look to "scholars" for inspiration, just information. God works with flawed men because that is all he has to work with.

http://www.fairlds.o...y-of-the-church

Perhaps you have seen this?

[KevinG]

Where is Ambrose Bierce when we need him?

Critical Thinking = the critics have done the thinking.

[why me]

KevinG, on 13 April 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Where is Ambrose Bierce when we need him?

Critical Thinking = the critics have done the thinking.

You would be surprised how many university students accept what is written in a book as truth because it is written by an academic. But to question the knowledge, see its bias, and its intent and to have a conversation with the author that one is reading. through a questioning process..well...not many do this. All knowledge should be questioned, facts carefully weighed, no judgement until a careful investigation etc, is not common place.
So, until lds historians begin to publish different interpretations about controversial aspects of lds history...well...there will be a problem.

[KevinG]

I was privileged to have a critical thinking class as part of my education curricula.  Real skills in evaluating evidences, classifying sets and subsets of information and learning some basic analysis skills.  Unfortunately I think people confuse the concept with political debate these days.  I don't even recognize what some claim to be "critical thinking".

[Kevin Christensen]

There are different levels of contradiction.  Those that function within a system (the endocrine system comes to mind), and those that call into question the validity of a system.  Someone says, "You said it was light outside. It's dark."  I reply "It was light earlier,  You didn't look until the sun went down."  Someone replies, "How can I trust anything you say?  It's just apologetic ad hominem."  There are a great many "hard facts we just have to face" that actually fit well in my system of thought.  Against an expectation of perfection, any imperfection will do.  Even the appearance of imperfection, coupled with an uncritical assumption that a particular observer is equipped to judge accurately.  Against an expectation that reality is messy and imperfect, for instance, my expectation based on  D&C 1 regarding LDS leaders, that "inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest...inasmuch they sought wisdom, they might be instructed," that God spoke to Joseph Smith, and also unspecified "others."  I expect imperfection.  I do not expect exclusive, complete truth and virtue.  So the LDS voices that may contradict each other do not contradict my expectations from those voices.  They disagreements actually belong comfortably in my expectations. "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest."  And if truth is knowledge of things as they are, were, and are to come, and I should expect opposition  in all things, why not a few personal contradictions from different people with different perspectives, degrees of development, and educational opportunities?

And as regards Kuhn, the issue of deciding "which problems are more significant to have solved" is important but there is much more to it than that.  He also emphasizes equally the question of "which paradigm is better," and how a person goes about deciding that. And I have written on that at length.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen, 13 April 2012 - 01:09 PM.