MrShorty

Tangent alert! In the spirit of "the more things change, the more they stay the same..." Interestingly, I hear this kind of sentiment a lot in modern faith crisis circles. "If the church has gone back on (fill in the blank -- Biblical racial curses, creationism/anti-evolution, apostasy of same sex couples, Lamanite descendants, or whatever change you identify), then was there anything true about anything the church taught?" And I see this sentiment outside of LDS deconstruction circles, such as Rhett McLaughlin who has been on a few podcasts in recent months and describes his deconstruction as starting with creationism/anti-evolutionism and, when he discovered the holes in his fundamentalist apologetics, he started asking what else he had been wrong about. I can't help but wonder if we could carefully explore this across time and issue, we could pick out some general principles for why some people have such a hard time when the church changes or appears to have been wrong about something. A few of the things I would hypothesize are part of this experience. As @Navidad mentioned the other day, certainty seems to play a role. I think another tendency we have is to interrelate things. "If the Joseph Smith was a prophet and..., then (a long list or even everything else the church teaches) must also be true." Christ's atonement is only meaningful if humankind is fallen, which means Adam and Eve must have been historical and the fall occurred exactly as outlined in Genesis, so therefore evolution and/or death before the fall must be false." I would also think that "all or nothing" or "black and white" attitudes have a role to play, too. There's probably more. I kind of hate to speak ill of such a spiritual or revelatory experience, since it clearly had great meaning to her, but it sometimes feels to me this idea of an "Abrahamic sacrifice" (almost always some kind of obedience test) becomes more about dismissing doubts and questions rather than really grappling with them. We say it was an Abrahamic sacrifice for some to practice polygamy. It was also an Abrahamic sacrifice for some to abandon polygamy. Every question of "obedience even if my moral and ethical compass tells me otherwise" ends up being answered with "obedience is best, because Abraham did it, and God rewards obedience, even if the command is morally or ethically questionable." I'm starting to count months until this shows up in our SS classes.

Not in a ritual way, but words also reflect the person's inner state. "I/we hope God will heal you" could reflect an inner uncertainty or an inner certainty that God won't heal someone but they don't want to actually say that or could be their way of not leaning confidently into the inspiration present. "I/we command you to take up your bed and walk." could be a reflection of the person's confidence or could be a reflection of their arrogance. I can't speak for Pres. Nelson, but I think the end goal for sincere blessing-givers is to do your best to discern God's will and put that discernment into words for the benefit of the receiver. Ever since "Spiritual Treasures," I'm leaning more and more into a priesthood of all believers kind of model, where "type of authority" only matters for those ordinances/sacraments that are "ecclesiastical" in nature (baptism, confirmation, sacrament, for example). In the specific case mentioned in the OP, it was a parent/father performing the ecclesiastical ordinance of naming a child before creating a church membership record for that child (not that the record wouldn't be created without the ritual) with the bishop and membership clerk standing by creating the record. But many other circumstances of a parent wanting to bless a child could easily be done by either father (whether formally ordained or not) or mother. A few years ago, when I was diagnosed with cancer, in addition to calling in some friends from church to give me a blessing, I often wish I had had .... something (precedent or guidance or something) ... to ask my wife to give me a blessing. Simply by virtue of being married, I now feel like she has authority over me sufficient to give me a blessing. At the bottom of this slippery slope (introduced to me by Pres. Nelson's Spiritual Treasures talk) is that one can pronounce a blessing simply by the authority granted by being a believer who feels inspired to give a blessing. I know that it's awful Protestant of me; so be it. Based on current rhetoric, I feel like the church is tying a lot of this to the temple endowment rather than priesthood ordination, so the current rhetoric would lean towards that this kind of authority must come from the Restored Gospel. To me, this feels like a slippery slope. Once we drop the requirement for formal priesthood ordination for giving blessings, it seems kind of arbitrary to stop at receiving endowment or being baptized. I can see how these represent footholds on the slippery slope, but I think it would take more to explain why our currently chosen foothold is where God chooses to stop granting authority to give blessings.

@ZealouslyStriving I think you are right. This shows that many of us don't understand priesthood. As the Eunuch said to Philip, how can we understand if someone doesn't teach us? At this point, it seems that most of the teaching on the topic is vague, based on prooftexts and traditions. I'm not going to feel bad that I don't understand priesthood because, if I might be so bold and irreverent, God's system of teaching lacks clarity and certainty. Many LDS claim that God's system is designed to be uncertain. Sometimes so that God can hide important truths from those He doesn't want to learn truth. Sometimes it is about protecting the ignorant from knowledge. And other reasons pop up. In mortal topics (like math), when broad groups of students have trouble understanding the topic, educators delve into the curriculum and try to figure out how to better teach the topic so that students will be better able to understand the concepts being taught. If many LDS are not understanding priesthood, when should the church and its leaders begin to examine the curriculum and root out the flaws and errors in the curriculum? Now that I have entered the discussion, this topic is one I have struggled with, too. I have wondered how the question of women versus men holding the priesthood might add to the discussion. It comes up fairly frequently, but a question like what is the difference between an endowed woman praying for someone who is sick and a pair of ordained elders performing the rituals related to the priesthood ordinance of blessing the sick? When Pres. Nelson gave his "Spiritual Treasures" talk, I found myself contemplating what formal ordination brings to ways that we strive to serve and bless each other, and I haven't found a good answer to the question. If I had to speculate as to the answer to the OP, I think there is a sometimes subtle distinction between prayers where one is pleading with God for some blessing, but doesn't feel confident enough in God's will to command (for lack of a better word) God to grant the blessing. When giving a blessing, the voice (male or female) somehow has gained enough confidence in their understanding of God's will to "command" the blessing. That confidence in knowing God's will can, IMO, only come from the Spirit in the moment. At that point, the problem I see with Pres. Nelson's disappointment is -- what was the father supposed to do? Postpone the blessing a week while he spent more time trying to understand God's will for his child? Defer to someone else to act as voice in the blessing while he stepped aside? I guess a lot depends on whether we thing we can command God to grant His Spirit to us in the moment or not. IMO, God is the gatekeeper of His Spirit and, when He decides to withhold, we can often only do our best to pray for our desires and then hope God grants them in His mercy. At that point, I wonder if what the utility is in publicly expressing disappointment in someone else's best efforts to exercise the priesthood that they hold.

I agree with most of what you said, including this. However, I feel to push a little bit back on it. Why do we not think that a sacrament meeting or fast and testimony meeting is not the right place to talk about the different paths that God seems to lead us down? One thing I see somewhat regularly in the "faith crisis" space is a sense of loneliness or solitude because people struggling or deconstructing feel like no one else at church understands or shares their experience. I saw a recent piece by Jared Halverson where he talked about the time a family member (mother-in-law, if memory serves) left the church. After the fact, she told him that part of why she left was that she couldn't find anyone to talk to who shared or understood or was interested in her experience. Halverson, of course, resolved to make sure that people around him knew that he was interested in sharing those experiences. I sometimes can't help but wonder how much of the "brittleness" of some people's church experience could be made more resilient if we had spaces (it doesn't have to be Sacrament meeting) where those with doubts, questions, or other "faith crisis" issues could find community within the church. It sometimes seems to me that our public worship and classroom settings are exclusively reserved for "yes-men" who believe and say and do all the right things, unintentionally pushing those with real doubts and questions towards the edges of our community.

As we've been going through the D&C this year, one thing I keep coming back to is how Joseph Smith wrote most of the revelations in the D&C in the voice of God (or God in first person, or whatever the proper way to phrase the concept is). What do we make of this practice? In most LDS commentaries (in the classroom or in other publications), we almost exclusively comment as if God really did speak the exact words Joseph wrote down. As I become more aware of the idea of scriptural errancy, I find myself often wondering if God really said the things that have been attributed to Him. In this respect, this isn't really any different than when I ask myself about things attributed to God in the Old or New Testament. It often feels similar to what happens when I read the gospels where each author attributes words and actions to Christ and then we are left to grapple with what is historical and what is propaganda (for lack of a better word). In another direction, as I spot check Community of Christ's D&C, I see that they perpetuated the tradition of writing revelations in the voice of God until nearly the 21st century. It quickly becomes apparent that writing something down in the voice of God does not automatically mean that God spoke those words or gave that revelation. Any thoughts on the prophet's practice of writing his revelations in the voice of God? Any 19th century historical context that might contextualize the practice? Other thoughts?

Off on another tangent, and I think I've said it before in this group, but epistemology is an important part of my own faith "crisis," and this is one of the things I find very interesting about our epistemology, especially when revelation from God is supposedly among the possibilities. I largely agree that we sometimes can't know what we don't know just like our predecessors couldn't know some of the things that they didn't know. While I'm not interested in condemning them for what they seemingly couldn't know, I think there is value in trying to understand why they couldn't know so that maybe we can figure out how to know some of the things that we can't know. At some level, when direct revelation is considered a possibility, part of people not knowing what they can't know comes down to God's decision to withhold revelation. This eventually means that some of these questions ultimately become "problem-of-evil-like" problems, because God seems to have some "culpability" for people not knowing any better. I find this to be incredibly challenging.

Exactly. That lack of full, wholehearted conversion suggests to me a lack of full and complete consent. That Joseph, himself, may have been uncertain about the rightness of the practice is also problematic, IMO. We claim that God values agency very highly, sometimes above all else. It's quite a tangent from the OP, but how does God value doing something that runs counter to your sense of right and wrong -- even if you believe that He commanded it? How do angels with flaming swords and threats of eternal destruction figure into God's idea of how we consent to the choices we make? Because we tend to use historical precedent to judge the morality of our own choices, what are the implications for the things we declare right and wrong today?

@teddyaware It's interesting how sexual mores and ethics have been an important part of my faith crisis/deconstruction/reconstruction. I started from the same kind of "good boys don't want or enjoy" sex that you describe, deconstructed that (which included deconstructing prophets, since Pres. Kimball et. al. were adamant that oral sex was inappropriate in marriage, which let me see that sometimes the church's sexual ethic is overly and unnecessarily conservative/restrictive). As I deconstructed my sexual ethic, I came to see, as you said, that one man could possibly romantically love and desire more than one woman at a time without disobeying God's laws. However, it was a slippery slope. I could also see that it is possible for one woman to romantically love and desire more than one man without disobeying God's laws. Eventually I came to accept that a man could romantically love and desire another man (and woman-woman). The church taught me an overly restrictive sexual ethic, and, when I deconstructed that, I discovered that proper sexuality could incorporate a lot of situations. At present, my sexual ethic is mostly built on principles of consent, mutuality, and agency. When I think of the problems I see in the 19th century practice of polygamy, those are the problems that I see. Let's face facts -- Emma never consented to Joseph's polygamy. Sure she occasionally gave verbal approval (always under some form of duress, IMO), but it's clear that she was never fully and wholeheartedly converted to the practice. On that basis alone, Joseph should have never married other women.

Presentism is a tough nut to crack. The other day, I listened to a podcast talking about changing attitudes in the church and the broader culture towards tattoos. In my youth in Utah, tattoos were very much "sinful" since they tended to represent rebelliousness. Today, tattoos are much more acceptable in the broader culture and carry multiple meanings. Of course, there are other cultures and times (thinking of the Pacific islands here) where tattoos were considered good. Was it wrong to villify tattoos in the past? Is the current laissez-faire attitude towards tattoos closer to how God views tattoos? However I and the culture of my current time and place might feel about tattoos, I sense that tattoos are not that morally significant, so maybe it doesn't matter that different cultures in different times and places have different opinions about tattoos. How far does that go, though? Ancient meso-American clutures (the Aztecs, Mayans, and others) believed in human sacrifice. Perhaps I am just committing the sin of presentism, but my sense of right and wrong says that human sacrifice is wrong no matter the time and place. I recognize that nothing I can say or do in the 21st century can change what was happening in these cultures 500 years ago, but I cannot simply say that human sacrifice was "good" because their culture said it was good. I feel like I can say the same kinds of things about historical practices of slavery and genocide and racial segregation. The problem with the church and Biblical history is that my church traditions tell me that I should accept the Bible and our prophets and apostles as moral authorities in my life. That they are important in helping me determine what is right and wrong. But these traditions don't tell me what to do when these moral authorities have their own questionable morals. Why should I accept the Bible as a moral authority when the Bible's morality includes genocide? Why should I accept 19th and 20th century LDS leaders as moral authorities when their morality included racism and segregation? If there are moral issues that have an absolute answer that is independent of time and place and culture, how will these sources help me recognize moral absolutes and distinguish them from issues that aren't morally absolute? So often, it seems that we get so worried about somehow "condemning" historical figures that we don't address the more important implications for our own efforts to discern right and wrong today?

@Calm It's been a couple of weeks, so I don't remember everything they discussed. The big one I remember was for the church to put much greater emphasis on service missions and much less emphasis on proselyting missions. I think there might have even been a comparison to Peace Corps or similar programs where young adults could be sent around the world for humanitarian work with no push for any kind of proselyting.

I understand the sentiment, and mostly agree with it. The problem I see is that we sometimes use this to excuse or rationalize some pretty awful beliefs and practices. Slavery and racial segregation leap to mind. The argument goes something like God recognizes that the church would not/ could not survive if it treated a group of people as their equals so, under the guise of Biblical curses, He implements (or allows) the church to restrict those people from full participation in the church. I've said before in this group that this can lead me down the slippery slope where, if God can tolerate slavery and racism, then maybe He can tolerate same sex romance or gender transitions or who knows what else. This is one of those places where I find real conflict between the part of me raised in a high demand religion and the laissez-faire part of me. The high demand side of my wants to insist, along with Nephi, that "God cannot look upon [some] sin with the least degree of allowance" and tries to identify what sins and evils that God must speak out against no matter what level of preparation people have experienced. The laissez-faire side of me insists that God can redeem anyone from any sin or evil because God is just merciful in that way. Again, I agree with the overall notion that God meets us where we're at and helps us grow from there, but I think it really only works for "good, better, best" kinds of things ("we're not ready for full consecration, but maybe we can try tithing until then"). I think we need to be careful of the slippery slope that leads to justifying and rationalizing real evil under this kind of belief that God accepts us wherever we are at and is infinitely patient with the pace (or lack thereof) of growth. Sorry for the tangent. Resume your regular discussion.

I agree that it would be interesting to see a statistical analysis of Moroni's promise. I would hypothesize that it would be similar to the statistical analyses that have been done for "faith healings" rituals in hospitals, where the results seem mixed (suggesting, at best, weak correlations). I agree that the BoM seems to be the strongest conversion tool we have, and we've been using it and Moroni's promise for almost 200 years. As strong as that conversion tool is, a very small percentage of those who have been contacted have joined the church, and a fraction of those drift into inactivity or even turn away from the church. Again, I'm not sure of the exact success rate of Moroni's promise, but I would hypothesize that the correlation is far from strong.

I'm aware of a handful of people who claim to have sincerely asked and been told that God didn't want them to believe in the BoM. I guess we can always second guess any claims to sincerity, but I choose to take their claims to sincerity at face value.

I think this is where Pres. Nelson's skepticism regarding the post-mortal opportunities of a man of his acquaintance (see Apr. 2019 Sunday AM talk titled "Come Follow Me") has received a lot of flack over the years -- even being nicknamed the "sad heaven" talk. As much I'm inclined to agree with you, I find that there is some very real tensions bordering on "paradoxes" in the church from top to bottom about just how much leniency there is. Our "high demand" side is extremely uncomfortable with the idea that someone might "get away" with rejecting the LDS gospel in this life. Our more universalist side is uncomfortable with any rhetoric that might declare someone permanently unworthy of exaltation and redemption. Truth seems to be somewhere in the nebulous middle of those two extremes. Pres. Nelson tried to find that middle, but, because he seemed to lean too far towards the skeptical side, I think he missed the real truth, but it's admittedly very difficult to discern that middle. Something about this D&C cycle as we studied The Vision a couple of weeks ago brought to my mind the importance of the hope that comes out of the more universalist side of this paradox. It seems to me that it is important to lean into the universalist side of this "contrary" if for no other reason than to preserve hope. Moroni (or was it Mormon) had some pointed things to say about having hope in Christ for salvation. It might be offensive to the "high demand" side of our culture, but I think that keeping hope alive is important. I don't see anything good that comes out of the kind of skepticism that our high demand side expresses about people's post-mortal opportunities.

I'm reminded of a video where Bart Ehrmann (former conservative Evangelical turned atheist/agnostic, though still prominent in the world of Biblical studies) was talking with someone (a Christian apologist of some sort or another) about evidences for the Resurrection. The apologist naturally brought up the claim that there are several different "witnesses" of the resurrection mentioned in the Bible and maybe a few extra-Biblical sources. Ehrmann pointed out that there are at least as many witnesses of a similar type for Joseph Smith's gold plates and the angel Moroni (which he amusingly pronounced Mo-ro-nee) and such. However, as Ehrmann correctly pointed out, the Christian apologists don't want to give the Book of Mormon any kind of credibility, so it seemed a bit hypocritical to accept the usual witnesses for the Resurrection while rejecting the witnesses for the Book of Mormon. As I pointed out in the "poaching" thread, I don't have a problem with people coming to different conclusions about what is and is not scripture and the exact nature of scripture. But I usually want to discuss the issues with someone who is also willing to explore the same weaknesses in the Bible. While we are talking about the dearth of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, can we also talk about the absence of evidence for an exodus from Egypt, for any of the Biblical people prior to about King David? Can we have the conversation respectfully?

Even though I don't think that was an example they used, that's the kind of thing MRM was bemoaning in the essay I mentioned. They were clearly bothered by the many examples of "1 -- Christian witnesses to Mormon (using whatever 'gotcha' or prooftext or gimmick or even well reasoned issue). 2 -- Mormon deconstructs not only Mormonism but Christianity and maybe theism altogether." It's hard for me to understand the "naive LDS" example like you shared here, because I am currently so far removed my naive days as a member of the church. If I were faced with that situation, I would probably agree that there are problems with the Book of Abraham, and different ways LDS might reconcile it (lost manuscripts or catalyst theory or whatever). I might suggest that this is where we could all (LDS-Christian and non-LDS-Christian) talk a little bit more about "resilient" faith. In a world where faith deconstruction is a real thing as people disaffiliate from Christianity and religion, perhaps we all need to talk more about how to talk about our differences of belief in ways that both encourages critical thinking and encourages staying true to faith in some way. Which is why I would much prefer to have a conversation like this with someone who not only wants to understand how I retain faith in spite of issues like the Book of Abraham, but also would want to share how they retain faith in spite of issues with their chosen religion/denomination. While we're talking about how I wrestle with LDS specific cognitive dissonances, how does the Evangelical deal with cognitive dissonance around Biblical inerrancy? How does the Catholic deal with issues like Papal decrees that don't reflect modern sensibilities? How do any of us deal with universal issues like the problem of evil? I find that these are the types I want to engage with. Someone who is clearly just out to present a "gotcha" issue in hopes of destabilizing my faith, who has no interest in talking about the ways that their own faith is unstable, is not interesting to me.

I can't say why, but, back on my mission in my first encounters with these kinds of Evangelicals, I immediately felt like their main interest was that they would be happier to see me be atheist than Mormon. It was a few years ago that I ran across an essay by Mormonism Research Ministry (MRM) that said essentially the same thing. They were concerned that Christians were putting too much effort into deconverting Mormons without given them good reasons to convert into Biblical Christianity. Based on that one essay, I think the reason is something unintentional. I expect that most Christians assume that, if they can convince someone to deconvert from the LDS church, it will be automatic for that person to drift into broader Christianity. Statistically speaking, I don't think the assumption is born out. Many LDS when the deconvert, prefer to join the "nones" or move into agnosticism/atheism. "Never" is a pretty strong word. I doubt I could say "never." However, so much of the root of my "faith crisis" is rooted in prophetic fallibility and scriptural errancy that I doubt I could join any that insist on believing some kind of Biblical inerrancy. I can see branches of Christianity that have a better handle on Biblical errancy than others, and those would be the ones I would be attracted to. I would say secular critics. I might need an example of what you have in mind here. Personally, I think my response will depend on the specific issue. Some issues, I would probably agree with the critic, while I would disagree on other issues. A lot of my response would probably depend on whether my counterpart seems interested in exploring truth and right and goodness, or they might seem solely interested in contradicted whatever I might believe. I would say no effect. Unknown.

If it helps to take this out of the hypothetical into the real, Laurie Lee Hall in her recently released memoir talked about her bishop who refused to convene or participate in disciplinary proceedings against her. She was still excommunicated, but she made a very specific point of noting that her bishop at the time refused to participate. In the spirit of "do what is right, let the consequence follow," if this bishop's stance is the right thing to do, then I hope the bishop has the courage to stick with his pronouncement, even in the face of significant outside pressure from leaders and neighbors. In the spirit of humility and repentance, if this bishop's stance is wrong, then I hope he will have the courage to humble himself and repent. Of course, the hard part of this really is knowing what is right and wrong.

Obviously getting a long ways away from the OP, but I find this accusation interesting. According to the board guidelines, this forum is for I don't know what constitutes "testimony strengthening dialogue," but it seems to me that "substantive, civil discussion" can strengthen testimony just as easily as it can weaken testimony. I am reminded of the oft quoted statement from Pres. J. Reuben Clark, "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." I doubt life and faith and truth are as dichotomous as all that, but I think it is valuable for my faith to have substantive, civil discussion with a variety of people of differing faith and beliefs. That said, some of my investigation has "harmed" previously held beliefs. Polygamy and "celestial marriage" -- the main topic of the OP as it relates to Pres. Taylor's 1886 "revelation" -- is certainly one of those topics where some of what I used to believe was true has been harmed, but I think such inquiry gets me closer to truth. Having the ability to wrestle with the nuances around these topics makes my faith in core principles (like the goodness of God and the atonement of Christ) more resilient. I don't think I would find this same resilience in an "echo chamber" where nobody dared challenge belief. I guess at the end of the day, nobody is forced to participate here. If someone wants a "fluff" discussion board where people post soundbites and all of the comments are some variation on, "Amen," those exist out there. I like that this group has regulars who are willing to challenge my testimony so that my testimony can grow (even when that means discarding previously held beliefs).

If only we had a few active members here who knew dozens of ways to contact Southwest Airlines customer support.

I recall a poll in a Facebook group I am in (so nothing scientific or anything) that consists of a number of "hyperconservative" members of the church. The poll question asked about the greatest threat to the church. To the tune of 80% of respondents, this Facebook group identified "progressive members" as the greatest threat to the church. For anyone who is familiar with Dr. Hanks work, she leans towards the progressive side. Many of these conservative members of the church take exception to some of the things she says about LGBTQ+ issues, women's issues, garment issues, and (the one that seems to get their dander up the most) using "personal authority" to make choices that run against the orthodox, conservative LDS grain. As a larger issue, what @ZealouslyStriving's post highlights, IMO, is the current tensions between conservative and progressive members as the church tries to figure out how to deal with many of today's difficult issues.