Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Have things changed?


Mortal Man

Recommended Posts

I've heard from other people that certain seventies have been tasked with monitoring this board for the purpose of identifying candidates for excommunication.

I'm utterly certain that this claim is untrue.

And, incidentally, that doesn't represent a "change." They never did monitor this board, or any other. This is the stuff of paranoid fantasies -- or of delusions of grandeur.

Link to comment

If that is the case, then I would agree. But was it?

I phrase it this way because I sense, in his writings a strong leaning towards the "product of Joseph" school of thought, with only a very small and qualified acknowledgment that "inspiration" may have played some part. Perhaps I missed something that he wrote about still considering the BofA as scripture, despite a perceived lack of historical evidence. If so, I would appreciate it being pointed out so I can modify my viewpoint.

Such clarification would be appreciated, because otherwise - as Deborah noted - we are left with the impression of an active undermining of the Book of Abraham as inspired scripture. While one can have a differing viewpoint of whether the actual BofA was on the fragments we have, or on the rest of the papyri that were lost, or was the product of revelation, the outright rejection of all of those three in favor of it being a simple product of Joseph Smith's imagination - and, by association, not from God - is really the simple question in all of this. Did he clarify that in his writings in something I have not seen?

It is indeed, sad, when something like this happens. I wish that David Wright, for his part, would have seen fit to not pass public judgment on those who he knew would be bound by policy not to respond.

So the question remains: at what point does a "non-traditional view" become apostasy? Where is the line? While I greatly appreciate your perspective as you've expressed, and do not doubt you (nor have I inferred that, to make it clear), when a non-traditional view turns into a public questioning of all or significant parts of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, for instance, then there is going to be conflict. Differing viewpoints, even extensive ones, can always co-exist, as long as the basic foundations are intact. It's when those foundations are attacked that problems occur.

I suspect the "attacking" sentiments that you're picking up on, could possibly derive from David's frustration with what he perceived as improper attempts at Priesthood sanctions against him personally and his scholarship. No doubt he felt some resentment, as I suspect any of us would. Suffice it to say that David Wright holds a very non-traditional/humanistic view regarding the nature of "scripture" and he has on occasion shared this perspective in some of his writings. No doubt traditionalists would assume that his work intentionally "attacks" the Church and restored scripture, even though this has never been his objective. He's simply applying the tools of biblical scholarship to LDS scripture. As a biblical scholar, David Wright attempts to date religious texts based upon a unique set of critical tools he has acquired via his academic training. Wright's work in LDS scripture is merely a reflection of this process. It's no more of an attack on orthodox LDS beliefs than are the publications of traditional Christian scholars who reject Mosaic authorship and publish their findings on biblical henotheism, and the corporeal nature of the biblical God.

Link to comment

Thanks for not believing I'm an apostate. :P

Well if you are, then we are both in trouble!

I guess maybe we're reading it differently. I simply see Wright saying that from his perspective, as a biblical scholar, the evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham is not historical, it may be inspired, but the evidence reveals that it's not historical. As a result, Latter-day Saints may need to take one of two approaches: 1. Revise our view regarding the revelatory process which would include the possibility that the papyri and the King James version of the Bible served as catalyses for Joseph's revelation, or 2. Demote the work from our canon.

Well, I think you are softening what he actually said significantly. I know he is your friend and all, but the reality is that your #1 above is only hinted at in what he actually said, and his tone was quite different, and of course he never mentions anything like the present "catalyst theory".
Note that Wright did not say we should in fact demote the work from our canon.
True, but imo if you take the overall tone into account and the later statements by his wife etc, that is very clearly implied. Again, to paraphrase, "to be orthodox he would have to lie".
His statement is really not that "apostate" of a claim.
Honestly? If I were in that disciplinary council believing what I do today, it would be a very close vote for me even after this conversation. But you are not a traditionalist, and neither am I, so we have to be aware that to traditionalists, folks like us may be on the razor's edge. I get flack all the time on this board for being "unorthodox" when to me, I am as TBM as you can get. But I guess when you are perceived as on the edge, what SIDE of the edge is very important. ;)
Compare Wright, for example, with John Gee via the Church News report on Gee's FAIR Conference address:

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57738/The-Book-of-Abraham-The-larger-issue.html

I wasn't aware of this article, thanks. I had no idea that had appeared on a "kinda-sorta-church-website". Of course it still doesn't come close to saying that the BOA is not scripture, but I agree, that edge is getting razor thin.

But I still don't understand why someone would want to be in a church that one does not believe in. I mean wouldn't be great to have another whole day on the weekend?

Link to comment

Well if you are, then we are both in trouble!

Well, I think you are softening what he actually said significantly. I know he is your friend and all, but the reality is that your #1 above is only hinted at in what he actually said, and his tone was quite different, and of course he never mentions anything like the present "catalyst theory".

True, but imo if you take the overall tone into account and the later statements by his wife etc, that is very clearly implied. Again, to paraphrase, "to be orthodox he would have to lie".

Honestly? If I were in that disciplinary council believing what I do today, it would be a very close vote for me even after this conversation. But you are not a traditionalist, and neither am I, so we have to be aware that to traditionalists, folks like us may be on the razor's edge. I get flack all the time on this board for being "unorthodox" when to me, I am as TBM as you can get. But I guess when you are perceived as on the edge, what SIDE of the edge is very important. :P

I wasn't aware of this article, thanks. I had no idea that had appeared on a "kinda-sorta-church-website". Of course it still doesn't come close to saying that the BOA is not scripture, but I agree, that edge is getting razor thin.

But I still don't understand why someone would want to be in a church that one does not believe in. I mean wouldn't be great to have another whole day on the weekend?

Again, I think the "tone" you're picking up on is a reflection of a deep frustration over what he perceived as a judgmental abuse of ecclesiastic authority. I'm not defending that. Again, if David had truly wished to remain in the Church while publishing his unorthodox views, he clearly made some critical mistakes. I've heard him acknowledge so himself. It was a difficult time, and he spent a lot of sleepless nights trying to reconcile his knowledge with his spiritual convictions and there weren't a lot of people around that could understand, let alone offer appropriate direction.

A lot of people don't believe in traditional orthodox views but still find great spiritual and communal benefit from Church membership. I have a very good friend who prays every morning and night with his family, serves in the temple, and is always the first to attend other Ward members' temporal needs, even though he is truly an atheist. He's done so for years and will no doubt continue this path till the day he dies. Personally, I think he brings a lot to the table of Mormonism and am extremely pleased he participates in the kingdom.

Link to comment

But I still don't understand why someone would want to be in a church that one does not believe in the same way I do (or approve of).

I fixed your statement.

Wright believed that the BoM, BoA, etc. were inspired, just not history. The Church kicked him out, not the other way around.

Link to comment
I have a very good friend who prays every morning and night with his family, serves in the temple, and is always the first to attend other Ward members' temporal needs, even though he is truly an atheist. He's done so for years and will no doubt continue this path till the day he dies. Personally, I think he brings a lot to the table of Mormonism and am extremely pleased he participates in the kingdom.

I suppose he has to remain "closeted" as an atheist to his family. I have a little problem with that. Praying as an atheist? It doesn't sound too honest.

But as far as service is concerned, I can understand this and as long as he sees the importance of service and does in fact serve and doesn't try to convert others to his views, I have no problem with it. To me this is no different than a TBM who is having temporary (or not) "testimony problems". We all have good days and bad days, good years, good decades, bad decades etc! It happens. Who knows- he may change in the future, maybe not. I don't have a crystal ball.

And as a pragmatist, I realize that something is "true" insofar as it makes a difference in your life. So if behaving as if he believes in God is making a difference in his life, one would really wonder how much he is an atheist even if he considers himself one intellectually. To me, it is an interesting question.

Usually one acts as one believes, but one who acts one way and believes something else? It seems backwards. It is like a republican showing up at a communist convention because.... because why again?

Link to comment

But why would anyone tax the resources of an organization they don't believe in, and don't contribute to? It's like the owner of a strip mining operation joining the Sierra Club because his friends are there. It is totally inconsistent.

And if they do contribute? Last I heard, people with unorthodox views can still pay a full tithe and serve in callings.

Link to comment

I have a little problem with that. Praying as an atheist? It doesn't sound too honest.

I'm an atheist, and not only do I pray, but I get answers to those prayers. Perhaps he's taking up the Alma 32 challenge. I hope it works out for him.

Link to comment

One of the problems with exit narratives is that you only get one side of the story, because the church does not comment on disciplinary councils. In certain cases, however, I get the impression that the story is basically accurate. Regarding the excommunication of scholars and intellectuals, I've heard from some people that times have changed; i.e., that members are now free to express doubts and publish their research without fear of reprisal. However, I've heard from other people that certain seventies have been tasked with monitoring this board for the purpose of identifying candidates for excommunication. Which is it?

If you're that far off the mormon track...why worry about sticking around?

Link to comment
...reading David Wright's letter, wherein he relates how a general authority contacted his stake president after reading one of his essays.

I was at the Sunstone meeting where David Wright got his notice that he'd been excommunicated. He'd just given a lecture on how his faith had been destroyed and how he now viewed the Book of Mormon as pious fiction. He'd started out, he said, to be another Hugh Nibley, but along the way he began to slide. He'd just sat down when he got the news from Salt Lake City and I recall that he wept. I didn't know him, but I approached him and asked what, exactly, it was that he found so troubling.

"Were you born in the church," he asked.

"No, I'm a convert. So what?"

He then explained how Mormonism was more than a religion -- that it is a culture and a way of life, like Judaism. There are people who are Jews and don't believe a word of the scriptures when it comes to Moses and the miracles in Egypt, yet they still eat Kosher and do all the irritating little things like driving an extra 20 miles to find a restaurant that serves the right kind of food during the right holidays.

"Fine, then why didn't you stay in the church by pretending you believed in it?" Well, he said, that would not have been intellectually honest.

But he couldn't have it both ways. If his membership meant a lot to him, he could have cherished it and not undermined the faith of others, which, let's face it, was the problem. It's one thing to have doubts, but quite another to cite your degrees and expertise in the Bible and Near East literature, then say you don't believe a word of the Book of Mormon.

David's wife was quick to defend her husband. In a letter to the disciplinary council, she wrote: "David's honesty has cost him dearly. ... David's beliefs are founded on thousands of hours of detailed research. These conclusions did not come easy for David. The church is a great part of his identity. To be a scholar of integrity, one must hold to truth above all else. This church was founded on the search for truth by Joseph Smith. Joseph used every means available to him to find truth. Indeed, one of the great joys we have on this earth is our quest to find truth. ... To many of you, his search is evil because it does not come to orthodox conclusions."

Not only not orthodox, but apostate. How can one determine that Joseph Smith "used every means available to him to find truth," if the very pinnacle of his work was based in deceit? If the Book of Mormon was indeed a 19th Century work, where did Joseph get the plates he showed to the eight witnesses, and how did he arrange for an angel to appear to the three witnesses? If the plates and angel existed, the Book of Mormon has to be a genuine historical document. But if it's not, then one cannot expect there to be plates or angels, and if there be just plates, from whence did they come? From Joseph, during his "quest to find truth"?

Many of these accounts not only are one-sided; they're lop-sided. You can't have an honest and pious Joseph Smith knowingly producing fiction while on a quest for truth, can you? And even if you've concluded such improbabilities to be the truth, how can you expect anything but excommunication when you're giving lectures to church members in which you enumerate the reasons you believe the Book of Mormon was a farce.

How many times have we read that Sonia Johnson was excommunicated because of her advocacy of the Equal Rights Amendment? Yet she was actually excommunicated because of her gross lack of respect to church leaders and for apostasy.

These people give long, emotional accounts of victimization in which the church is made to appear intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded and vindictive, but they're almost always wholly inconsistent with truth and logic. In Wright's case, he pretends with great conviction that he can't see the dichotomy of a truth-seeking man of God producing a document like the Book of Mormon and backing it all up by false witnesses and false testimony. How is it possible? And we all know what happened to Sonia Johnson and her secret group studies where God changes gender and the girls all come out of the closet.

So yes, it's hype, and it's not difficult to spot the glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

.

Link to comment

I fixed your statement.

Ok I'm a communist, but I join the republican party because I just don't believe in being republican like everyone else does. Sure, I get it now.... :P

Link to comment

I'm an atheist, and not only do I pray, but I get answers to those prayers. Perhaps he's taking up the Alma 32 challenge. I hope it works out for him.

Who's answering?

A Mormon and a Catholic at once, all while being an atheist. I wonder what the Catholics here think about that.

Link to comment

Who's answering?

A Mormon and a Catholic at once, all while being an atheist. I wonder what the Catholics here think about that.

Some are probably as confused as you seem to be, but that's okay with me.

Link to comment

What the heck is the "Mormon track"? Whatever it is, I for one sincerely hope that Mortal Man sticks around despite some apparent examples of unorthodoxy.

lol. OK. Maybe ask this David Wright person. Apparently....off the rails.

Orthodoxy is "right belief", not "rightly keep your mouth shut about what you do believe".

Link to comment
Not only not orthodox, but apostate. How can one determine that Joseph Smith "used every means available to him to find truth," if the very pinnacle of his work was based in deceit

When we have God himself identified as a pious fraud in D&C 19, for many non-traditional believers, it's not that big of a leap to assume Joseph himself was capable of being the same and even "inspired" via the process.

So yes, it's hype, and it's not difficult to spot the glaring inconsistencies and hypocrisies

Indeed, in us all, no doubt, which is why I suspect Jesus once said something quite profound regarding casting stones.

Link to comment

He then explained how Mormonism was more than a religion -- that it is a culture and a way of life, like Judaism. There are people who are Jews and don't believe a word of the scriptures when it comes to Moses and the miracles in Egypt, yet they still eat Kosher and do all the irritating little things like driving an extra 20 miles to find a restaurant that serves the right kind of food during the right holidays.

"Fine, then why didn't you stay in the church by pretending you believed in it?" Well, he said, that would not have been intellectually honest.

This nails it, imo.

I totally agree with Wright.

But yet he wept at hearing the official news. This is very confusing for me.

I was (am?)an apostate Catholic. I just could not believe it no matter how hard I tried.

I left, felt liberated and did not look back. I confess I do watch midnight mass with the pope on TV on Christmas eve. I love the Latin mass and recite it along with him, it reminds me of my childhood. I practically had it all memorized as an altar boy.

But I cannot go to a Catholic church without having very unkind thoughts. I have no desire to be within the culture at all. Maybe that is why I am having trouble with all this. It is all so foreign to the way I do things.

Link to comment

I suspect the "attacking" sentiments that you're picking up on, could possibly derive from David's frustration with what he perceived as improper attempts at Priesthood sanctions against him personally and his scholarship. No doubt he felt some resentment, as I suspect any of us would. Suffice it to say that David Wright holds a very non-traditional/humanistic view regarding the nature of "scripture" and he has on occasion shared this perspective in some of his writings. No doubt traditionalists would assume that his work intentionally "attacks" the Church and restored scripture, even though this has never been his objective. He's simply applying the tools of biblical scholarship to LDS scripture. As a biblical scholar, David Wright attempts to date religious texts based upon a unique set of critical tools he has acquired via his academic training. Wright's work in LDS scripture is merely a reflection of this process. It's no more of an attack on orthodox LDS beliefs than are the publications of traditional Christian scholars who reject Mosaic authorship and publish their findings on biblical henotheism, and the corporeal nature of the biblical God.

Thanks for your posts David, they've shed much light on this issue.

I imagine that for David Wright, being called in to the disciplinary council must have been like getting called in for heart surgery. Suppose your bishop informed you that your heart just wasn't right and you needed an operation. Suppose he told you that, although no one attending your operation would be an actual doctor, they had all prayed and received inspiration that the Lord would guide their scalpels. Would you go in?

Disciplinary councils are not trials; nevertheless, one might reasonably expect to face a jury of his peers. The higher your ecclesiastical authority, the more it takes to excommunicate you. No adjustments are made, however, for academic training; a Doctor of Philosophy in Biblical Hebrew faces the same jury as a plumber (no offense to you plumbers).

A man's work is sacred; especially when he spends many years of his life in school and pours his heart and soul into his research. How can you presume to judge his attitude if you do not understand his work? By "understand" I mean have commensurate expertise in the relevant area and have studied his writings in sufficient depth to point out his errors. If the Stake President had put together a "disciplinary council" composed of world-renowned scholars on Bible Hebrew, not for the purpose of judging David's orthodoxy, but rather to determine whether his work was accurate, I'll bet dollars to donuts David would have happily gone in.

For those who haven't seen them, here are David Wright's essays on search for religious truth and Hebrews in Alma, which apparently caused all the fuss. Additionally, here is an essay of his on Isaiah, which is definitely worth reading.

It seems to me that David's trial never ended.

Link to comment

"Fine, then why didn't you stay in the church by pretending you believed in it?" Well, he said, that would not have been intellectually honest.

Let me suggest that this is the key to the whole thread, IF it is accurate.

If accurate, it indicates that Wright himself acknowledged that it would not have been right for him to have stayed in the church.

The council was a de facto resignation and an opportunity for him to express fully his views to his bishop, and then others on the internet. He did not want to remain a member, because it would not have been intellectually honest.

And yet, he waited to go through the excommunication process so that the church could do it to him instead of the other way around.

It was similar to "suicide by cop"- when an individual wants to commit suicide, but lacks the courage, or for some other reason, fame or whatever, decides he would like to make a splash on his way out.

IF he really said this, the logic is inexcapable. He didn't want to be a member any more, but let the church excommunicate him rather than resigning his membership, for whatever reason.

The disciplinary council did what it had to do, really what he set them up to do for him.

With this information, if true, how is that conclusion not correct?

Link to comment

When we have God himself identified as a pious fraud in D&C 19,...

What do you mean? Which verse(s)?

Link to comment

What do you mean? Which verse(s)?

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name

Link to comment

Apparently someone reported to John Gee that via this thread, I had suggested that Gee and Wright hold similar views regarding the BofA. Clearly nothing could be further from the truth. Unlike Wright, Gee maintains that the text described in the Book of Abraham historically matches Abraham's day and not that of other time periods. If I led anyone to belief that John Gee and David Wright hold the same view regarding the BofA then I apologize. My response to John's email concerning this misrepresentation of my post contained the following:

I was simply stating that from my perspective, your comment quoted in the Church News that "the BoA is not central to the Restored Gospel" is no more "apostate" than David Wright's position that Latter-day Saints could either view the papyri as a catalysis or drop the book from the restored canon.

Just my opinion.

Best,

-DB

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...