Thoughts On Church History, Theology, And Faith Crisis

[DBMormon]

It is not your "sharing of damaging events" that is problematic- it is your consistent, insistent refusal to engage any sort of reasoning or counter examples. You haven't acknowledged a single instance in which your characterizations were exposed as incomplete or inaccurate.

Nor have you acknowledged a single explanation given to you.

You simply rehash the same talking points over and over.

No- you've been hitting us for reactions- also known as trolling.

This statement is also a tacit admission that our answers aren't the problem- but rather than we don't share your bias. The problem isn't that we lack sound reasons or explanations- but that we don't see the problem the way you do.

And that merely reinforces that the problem lies not with the Church, but with your fixation on a specific set of minutia.

Don't kid yourself. I only apologize when I'm wrong. It was, however, an earnest and sincere invitation.

We tried that once, and you spit in out eyes. Now it's your turn to show good faith. You burned us once- now the ball's in your court.

Once again, the ball is in your court, not ours.

And we do understand "your paradigm"- we've seen it vomited up a thousand times before by people with less-than-honest agendas.

The problem you're having is that we don't accept your paradigm- and likely never will.

Unless and until you can accept that there might be a reality outside of your assumptions, then we cannot help you.

Until you can accept that there might not be a monster under your bed, you will never be convinced no matter how many times we get down on hands and knees and lift the blankets for you.

I read your replies, your asking for evidence.... Do you know how long it would take to answer every person in here in a way that carries on thorough complete conversations when you are one person getting replies from 30 people. Let's take this one at a time. Give me one thought process I am using that you would like evidence of how I got there? again the tone.... please put it back in your top drawer. we won't need it for a while. If you can do that this might actually be a conversation that goes somewhere

Thank you

[wenglund]

Deal - what format do you see this occurring?

How about here, on this thread, and I ask you investigative questions and you provide answers, with a bit of discussion mixed in?

If so, then here is my first question:

Given that you are bothered by, and the focus of your struggle within the Church has been, "the lack of full disclosure by the Church" (what ever that may mean--we can explore this more in-depth later if needs be); and given that it is not a bother or struggle for a lot of other faithful LDS, to what do you attribute the difference between you and them? Why do you suppose you are bothered and challenged by this and they are not? What is there within you, that is different from within them, that may give rise to the bother and challenge in you?

What I am searching for is a possible core issue that may be producing, symptomatically, the bother and challenge in you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 19, 2012 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

How about here, on this thread, and I ask you investigative questions and you provide answers, with a bit of discussion mixed in?

If so, then here is my first question:

Given that you are bothered by, and the focus of your struggle within the Church has been, "the lack of full disclosure by the Church" (what ever that may mean--we can explore this more in-depth later if needs be); and given that it is not a bother or struggle for a lot of other faithful LDS, to what do you attribute the difference between you and them? Why do you suppose you are bothered and challenged by this and they are not? What is there within you, that is different from within them, that may give rise to the bother and challenge in you?

What I am searching for is a possible core issue that may be producing, symptomatically, the bother and challenge in you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Heading home from church will answer in about 20 minutes

[DBMormon]

How about here, on this thread, and I ask you investigative questions and you provide answers, with a bit of discussion mixed in?

If so, then here is my first question:

Given that you are bothered by, and the focus of your struggle within the Church has been, "the lack of full disclosure by the Church" (what ever that may mean--we can explore this more in-depth later if needs be); and given that it is not a bother or struggle for a lot of other faithful LDS, to what do you attribute the difference between you and them? Why do you suppose you are bothered and challenged by this and they are not? What is there within you, that is different from within them, that may give rise to the bother and challenge in you?

What I am searching for is a possible core issue that may be producing, symptomatically, the bother and challenge in you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Alright - here it goes. The reasons I list are only guesses or thoughts of possible reasons for my "rigidness" or differences between them an I.

1.) i grew up agnostic, not by choice, my family didn't talk of God and was never inside a church.

2.) Live in Ohio - Ward here is great but I would guess by sacrament talks, lessons, and my personal discussions with many lend me to think that most here are very fundamental in their beliefs. and As a convert I likely blendded right into that

3.) I have a one track mind in the sense that if there is a question that needs resolved I will read as many books, online sites, listen to MP# talks until I feel I have a grasp of the situation. I can't let things go or brush things off. For me I must resolve something completely before I can move on

4.) I joined the church at 17 - prior to joining but after the missionary discussions began I borrowed Fawn Brodie's no man knows my history" and read it. It crushed me. I took every question there and many after that and studied them until I had answers. I am the one in my ward others point people to who have questions on the surface issues (kinderhook, Adam God, Book of Mormon Evidences, polygamy... ect.) But the underlying issue of why did I have to find these things somewhere other then church likely started to fester then and was something I didn;'t have a satisfactory answer to... So while I had all the answers to the troubling issues I wished everyone knew about those things.

5.) I had been taught false concepts (Catholic church = great and abominable, bad reasons why african American couldn't have the priesthood prior to 1978, age of earth = 6,000 years, evolution was a heresy as taught by Elder McConkie) I then perpetuated these false teachings and no-one ever corrected me... ever ... leading me to assume (and probably true as I reflect) that all the members around thought these same things.... heck that is where I got them from, in lessons, or from Missionaries who taught me, or from my in laws who are longtime members.

6.) When I would ask FAIR or SHIELDS questions 10- 15 years ago I would get lots of bad answers - such as and only this example comes to mind but when I asked about Masonry and Temple similarities the answer I got was... Easy Masonry dates back to the building of Solomon's temple. So as I have increased my own knowledge and understanding I have grown skeptical of both the critic who twists and turns every sentence into anything that will meet his means to the end of mormonism as well as the apoligetic who reaches so far for a satisfactory answer that he shares a false answer that sounds good. About 98% of antim material doesn't bother me at all.... only when I feel the disclosure was part of the formula. Which is likely why I think full discolsure solves the issue because at least for me it does. If I see a church that admits it's failings, flaws, and shortcomings then I at least see one that is being honest in forthright... again my perception I understand others disagree.

7.) continuing from 6, I had grown very profecient at making my way through questions from critics. Since reading Brodie's book I had always taken on the challenge of finding out everything I could on both sides of the isle and sorting it out as I always felt the truth would rise to the surface. That worked almost universally until about 4-5 years ago when this underlying issue took on more of an awareness in my conscious

8.) I have had a ton of spiritual experiences but can easily credit them to God loves me and wishes to draw me nearer to him. I also had a very spirtual experience in praying about the Book of Mormon. In short it was a clear message that everything that I was being taught was true...all of it. Yet now knowing some of it is not true or at least not complete it on some level shakes that answer. Also with any spiritual experience way in the past ... at my low moments I wonder if it was real. Someone was with me, and they partook in the spiritual experience as well which is a reassurance of it though

I think that does it... I will share more if I think of them

9.) I went to a local public university. I did not attend seminary, or a church school so no institute, or church classes. So likely some of this would have been resolved in those settings.

10.) becasue some critics point out personal harmful related experiences of LDS leaders it makes me have a spot in my concious where I am skeptical of them. Not that they aren't called but that their motivation to grow the church or move the work forward supercedes their ability to be openwith me and others who see things the same way

Edited April 19, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

just read this for the first time.... helps.

Elder Oaks is then asked how the church deals with imperfections of early church members and current members coming across this information themselves on the internet rather than through teachings of the church. Elder Oaks responds,

It’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life. There are several different elements of that. One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now. On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.

[DBMormon]

I must also say... because at some point the likelyhood of someone who personally knows me may read this whole topic and will assume I have no testimony and am in apostacy. I want all to be clear - First and foremost one should never assume exactly what goes on in anothers head without asking them. so I would hope one would ask me what all this means. Second I have a strong testimony of the BOM. Third I started this discussion because there are many many members who struggle with these same issues and I am concerned for them as much as finding a better paradigm for me to work within to better reconcile these issues. It is my personal mission to give reason for others to hold onto faith if they share these views. In order in my mind for this issue to be handled, you had to know worst case scenario, how these events and circumstances can be seen.

anyway.... this is my legal clause regarding what has been written and what is forthcoming.

[selek1]

just read this for the first time.... helps.

Glad to hear it.

I consider the following points to be both succinct and prescient (and put far more clearly than I could have managed):

And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read.

These are the primary reason that personal study is at the member's discretion and responsibility.

Even if the Church wanted or needed to teach an exhaustive history, there simply aren't enough hours in the day to do so. Even graduate and doctorate level history courses can only manage to teach a brief summary.

Knowing that the Church can only do so much, they have chosen to teach the basics- the essentials that will allow the member to understand the fundamentals necessary to get to know and revere Christ. The "refinements" and "niggly little details" are left to the individual members to discover- or not- at their own pace and discretion.

You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place.

This reminds me of a testimony given by a Church leader (I cannot recall when I read it or who made the statement). In the statement, the leader details an interview with a young man who had wandered into diverse (and serious) sexual temptation and sin and was not trying to repent.

The speaker asked where the young man had gotten such ideas. According to the young man, one of his previous Bishops had been interviewing the young man prior to his going on a mission- and had gone well beyond the Temple recommends and asked some remarkably lurid specifics. These "specifics" had planted a seed of curiosity in the young man's mind, and when tempted, he fell.

In other respects, the phenomenon (and the power of suggestion) is one that medicine commercials and hypochondiacs take great advantage of. If I tell you- right at this instance- not to scratch your nose, how long before it starts itching?

If I tell you not to think of a pink elephant, what's the first thing that pops into your mind?

Do I believe that the Church might "tweak" their curriculum to better inoculate against the bumps and bruises in our history- certainly. And based upon the testimonies and statements made here, I believe that most of the faithful agree.

But the question remains as to whether that is the best use of the Church's time and energy.

As Elder Oaks goes on to say:

...[T]here is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.

So- should the Church focus her efforts on teaching the ninety-and-nine who need the basic necessary to draw the faihtful closer to Christ?

Or should she focus all her efforts on the one who needs a little bit more?

The parable teaches us that the Savior values the one enough to leave the ninety-and-nine to search for the lost, but it neither states nor implies that he neglected the others- or placed them in danger- in order to do so.

As an aside, Reel- you continue to have some formatting issues that make your posts harder to read.

May I suggest that you use the Quote function instead of indent?

The easiest way to do this is to mouse over and highlight the relevant text and then click on the "Quote" button in the tool bar. On my screen, it's seventh from the right (beneath the "My Media" button) and looks like on the the voice balloons from the Sunday comics.

Edited April 19, 2012 by selek1

[Log]

Tell ya what- clean slate all around?

That is a great idea!

[DBMormon]

Selek,

I kind of understand what your asking me to do as far as improving the visual of my posts... could you explain better what you are seeing and what I am doing that is causing that

[DBMormon]

I kind of understand what your asking me to do as far as improving the visual of my posts... could you explain better what you are seeing and what I am doing that is causing that

Like that you mean

[selek1]

Ayep!

[DBMormon]

good night all... a productive day if I may say so

[wenglund]

Alright - here it goes. The reasons I list are only guesses or thoughts of possible reasons for my "rigidness" or differences between them an I....

I appreciate you answering my question. I was looking for a little more concise answer, and one that addressed more about how you may generally think differently than others rather than how your background may have been specifically different from others (I don't know that your background is all that much different from that of many of us). However, perhaps I can distill your response down to a more workable level.

One seeming important difference that I in your response is tha you "can't let things go or brush things off." You said: "For me I must resolve something completely before I can move on." Why is that? What do you suppose would happen if you left some things unresolved and moved on anyway?

More important, do you believe it is the Church's responsibility to completely resolve all church-related issues for you, so you can move on?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 19, 2012 by wenglund

[why me]

Less-than-charitable, Selek1, if charitable means something other than, in part, fair.

There has been too much unwarranted defensiveness, too much apportioning of blame, too many baseless accusations. If you wish, I can quote mine the thread to illustrate the point that language and attitudes have been leveraged here by various posters which is not in harmony with the spirit of love that ought to characterize brothers and sisters in Christ.

If this is the case, I would blame it on frustration. People are human beings and we do get frustrated at times. Usually from the old timers on the board, the frustration comes when the conversation becomes one sided where the apologists spend countless hours explaining and get no response to the post but another question and a rehash of the original problem without a comment about the attempt to answer the question in a previous post. The frustration can also come from the feeling that the poster does not seem to want help but to vent.

Also, I think that you wish to hear what you want to hear and miss the rest. I think that the lds posters here had the spirit of love in their posts. Heck, Ben wrote long posts to reelmormon, taking up much of his time. And what did he get back? Selek, wrote long posts too.

Here is a homework assignment for you: the next time reelmormon rehashes a previous question, a question where posters spent hours trying to answer, come up with your own answer to reelmormon and when he ignores your answer 10 minutes later with a rehash of the question, attempt to answer him again with charity and understanding and allow this to go one for another 5 pages between you and him and lets see what happens.

Edited April 19, 2012 by why me

[Log]

If this is the case, I would blame it on frustration. People are human beings and we do get frustrated at times. Usually from the old timers on the board...

I get it.

I'm an old timer too. I've not always had this user id, and I take extended breaks (think years) from the board when the contention hits a certain point in my soul.

Let's wipe the slate clean and listen with our hearts.

[why me]

I get it.

I'm an old timer too. I've not always had this user id, and I take extended breaks (think years) from the board when the contention hits a certain point in my soul.

Let's wipe the slate clean and listen with our hearts.

On the BBC, it was reported that people have selective listening and I think that this is the case here. It is not so much the problem with listening with our hearts but being heard when we speak. Reel did have a hard time listening with his heart too. And he had a difficult time addressing the posts that were directed at him. Thus, we had a problem with the hamster wheel.

[Uther]

just read this for the first time.... helps.

Elder Oaks is then asked how the church deals with imperfections of early church members and current members coming across this information themselves on the internet rather than through teachings of the church. Elder Oaks responds,

It’s an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That’s an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn’t have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should’ve been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life. There are several different elements of that. One element is that we’re emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn’t deal with anything that’s unfavorable, and we’re coming into a period of “warts and all” kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now. On the other hand, there are constraints on trying to reveal everything. You don’t want to be getting into and creating doubts that didn’t exist in the first place. And what is plenty of history for one person is inadequate for another, and we have a large church, and that’s a big problem. And another problem is there are a lot of things that the Church has written about that the members haven’t read. And the Sunday School teacher that gives “Brother Jones” his understanding of Church history may be inadequately informed and may not reveal something which the Church has published. It’s in the history written for college or Institute students, sources written for quite mature students, but not every Sunday School teacher that introduces people to a history is familiar with that. And so there is no way to avoid this criticism. The best I can say is that we’re moving with the times, we’re getting more and more forthright, but we will never satisfy every complaint along that line and probably shouldn’t.

Elder Oaks shared something similar with a friend of mine a year ago, while spending some time talking together during a flight.

Elders Oaks also said that the brethren were divided upon the issue of how to deal with the growing number of average members becoming accuainted with uncorrelated church history.

He said he had great compassion and understanding for people experiencing challenges to their testimonies, and he finished by bearing his testimony as a witness of the Lord.

[DBMormon]

I appreciate you answering my question. I was looking for a little more concise answer, and one that addressed more about how you may generally think differently than others rather than how your background may have been specifically different from others (I don't know that your background is all that much different from that of many of us). However, perhaps I can distill your response down to a more workable level.

One seeming important difference that I in your response is tha you "can't let things go or brush things off." You said: "For me I must resolve something completely before I can move on." Why is that? What do you suppose would happen if you left some things unresolved and moved on anyway?

More important, do you believe it is the Church's responsibility to completely resolve all church-related issues for you, so you can move on?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How am I different -

First I don't know why I can't let things go...... It is part of my mental makeup.... whenever I hear something on tv that is intriging or discover something neat I run off and get books and other media resources and find out all I can.

because if my list of possible factors to how I got to where I got, I have assumed that the Lord's True and Living Church would have the following. Please note I am trying to better see this in another paradigm but this it what I work in. I am not sure I can answer the first question beyond things I have rehashed but will try

1.) the difference between me and them is I have an expectation that the Lord's church will set a completely different standard then other faiths. That they will be willing to be a complete open book tell their full story out in the open where all members know the troubling areas and then get to make spiritual decisions about whether they will join or continue in the faith having as much information as the church has. Then having all the info ( I realize we never will have all the info but there is value in the attempt I believe) they can decide to go on faith.

2.) along with that I felt the church told me all the exciting faith promoting side of their story. I was excited and saw the church as this complete work of God and dismissing the critics as liars and joined once I had God's answer. Then finding out that all the negative information was withheld from me by the church caused a feeling of betrayal. I felt like my trust was broken on some level. Like they owed it to me if they had truth and nothing to hide to give it all to me and let me decide.

Not sure where else to take it.

[DBMormon]

More important, do you believe it is the Church's responsibility to completely resolve all church-related issues for you, so you can move on?

I believe they either have to have a "their side of the Story" or admit someone messed up and try to correct it.

[Calm]

I believe they either have to have a "their side of the Story" or admit someone messed up and try to correct it.

Have you written to the Curriculum department suggesting improvements?

[Kevin Christensen]

The issue of expectations is why I came in quoting Kuhn and expectations and the appearance of anomaly, and the Perry scheme for developmental issues and assumptions and expectations at different stages, and it's why I talk of checking my eyes for motes. It's why I frequently refer to N.R. Hansen's famous "All data is theory laden." Such notions make it easy for me to deal with the issues.

Institutionally, I suppose we could do away with the principle of common consent, and have some dictator enforce all thoughts to be thought and things to be taught, so that all LDS children everywhere would grow up knowing that authorities are always to be trusted without question, and that if anything is worth knowing, it will be found in the official curriculum. (See the earlier stages of the Perry Scheme for similar world views, and consider a living a life that does not involve developing to the higher stages of cognitive and ethical growth.)

Personally, I don't see that as necessary or desirable. A month or so back I posted on John Boyd and the Observe, Orient, Decide, Action loops, OODA.

Boyd theorized that large organizations such as corporations, governments, or militaries possessed a hierarchy of OODA loops at tactical, grand-tactical (operational art), and strategic levels. In addition, he stated that most effective organizations have a highly decentralized chain of command that utilizes objective-driven orders, or directive control, rather than method-driven orders in order to harness the mental capacity and creative abilities of individual commanders at each level. In 2003, this power to the edge concept took the form of a DOD publication "Power to the Edge: Command...Control...in the Information Age" by Dr. David S. Alberts and Richard E. Hayes. Boyd argued that such a structure creates a flexible "organic whole" that is quicker to adapt to rapidly changing situations. He noted, however, that any such highly decentralized organization would necessitate a high degree of mutual trust and a common outlook that came from prior shared experiences. Headquarters needs to know that the troops are perfectly capable of forming a good plan for taking a specific objective, and the troops need to know that Headquarters does not direct them to achieve certain objectives without good reason.

All of the responsiveness that some people demand from Headquarters, I already experience in the church community. I see power at the edges, and personally, I think it belongs there. It's nice to see things like the Joseph Smith papers project with direct backing from Headquarters, but I don't see headquarters as ever being able to respond to new developments as quickly to new situations as the edge.

Last month I read an essay by Colleen Harrison about her own codependent nature. She talked about praying about her expectations, saying to God, if I give up my expectations for reciprocal reward from other people, what is left for me as a basis for living well? The answer, "Hope." She learned that if she gave up expectations, she felt far less resentment and frustration. In recovery literature there is much talk of "expectations as pre-meditated resentments." Hope is something else. I hope the manuals are good. A few I happen to like. But it is the independent LDS community where many of quickest and most interesting responses to issues beyond the basic gospel principles are to be found. I see the church as the gathering as a whole, not as just the top of the hierarchy. With that expection, my experience turns out to be far less frustrating. And in sharing what I know in meetings and other conversations, I can feel like I'm helping the community as part of that community.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[why me]

How am I different -

First I don't know why I can't let things go...... It is part of my mental makeup.... whenever I hear something on tv that is intriging or discover something neat I run off and get books and other media resources and find out all I can.

because if my list of possible factors to how I got to where I got, I have assumed that the Lord's True and Living Church would have the following. Please note I am trying to better see this in another paradigm but this it what I work in. I am not sure I can answer the first question beyond things I have rehashed but will try

1.) the difference between me and them is I have an expectation that the Lord's church will set a completely different standard then other faiths. That they will be willing to be a complete open book tell their full story out in the open where all members know the troubling areas and then get to make spiritual decisions about whether they will join or continue in the faith having as much information as the church has. Then having all the info ( I realize we never will have all the info but there is value in the attempt I believe) they can decide to go on faith.

2.) along with that I felt the church told me all the exciting faith promoting side of their story. I was excited and saw the church as this complete work of God and dismissing the critics as liars and joined once I had God's answer. Then finding out that all the negative information was withheld from me by the church caused a feeling of betrayal. I felt like my trust was broken on some level. Like they owed it to me if they had truth and nothing to hide to give it all to me and let me decide.

Not sure where else to take it.

I believe that you posted something like this previously and got various responses. And the hamster wheel goes round and round. I commented on the link that you supplied from the Mormon Chronical about Jensen recogizes the problem and will attempt to do something about it. But....you don't recognize that at all. You just ignore it and repeat your problems. I don't know what more one can do for you. You seem embedded in your own mental perception of the lds church. And what is negative? I see no negatives in the history but I do see some human imperfections and that is the point: it is in the eye of the beholder.

Edited April 19, 2012 by why me

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The internet, too, is a hugely valuable boon to the Edge (obviously none of us would be talking right now without it. *grin*). Decentralized instantaneous worldwide connection? Excellent! I'm no longer limited to meager local resources; the Neal A. Maxwell Institute has uploaded more full books than are contained in my entire ward library. We can read and respond to an essay by Peterson or Hamblin the day they write it; we can access tremendous databases and do wordsearches (!) within the enormous collections. Good time to be alive!

[why me]

Have you written to the Curriculum department suggesting improvements?

I made the same suggestion a couple of threads ago and got no response. The wheel goes round and round.

[why me]

I believe they either have to have a "their side of the Story" or admit someone messed up and try to correct it.

Make a list about what is troubling you about church history and ask for a response. Or better yet, give them a call and ask to speak with someone. I just started a thread about the yldsr series on church history. A couple of lds historians made the segments. The martyrdom of Joseph was very interesting. However they omitted the fact that Joseph picked up a six shooter and fired into the mob. Why? I have no idea. It wasn't the lds church that did it but these two lds historians. What should I do about it? If I know their email addresses I could email them and get the reason why. It was an interesting segment but why did they make the omission? Should I be angry at the church?