The Church Hides Its History....

[ERayR]

Conceptually, I agree.

But in the context of historical issues, I'm not sure that they are necessarily expecting perfection. Just more disclosure. But, honestly, I'm grateful to not be in the position of the Brethren trying to decide how to deal with these historical issues that seem to be increasing in intensity now that the internet has opened up the flow of information (both true and false). How do you build faith of the "younger" members while simultaneously strengthening the "older" members against the more complex historical issues.

But with historical issues who gets to choose which interpretation is valid?

[why me]

But with historical issues who gets to choose which interpretation is valid?

No one. But that is where the battle should be and not on 'hidden history'. LDS critics who are attempting to score points on the 'hidden history' argument would then need to regroup and fight the interpretation. Most will not concede their interpretation because then they would need to rethink why they left.

[Tacenda]

I always cringe when I hear"The Church is perfect but the people are not". As long as the Church is made up of people it is not perfect.

The second time today a true believer has said something truly refreshing, especially since it goes against the grain somewhat.

[why me]

I think we should empathize with those who are troubled by learning stuff about church history, regardless of whether they are justified (and I think they're not).

I think that we should be more troubled that members who had received many spiritual experiences or confirmations can be persuaded so easily by history, so much so, that they leave such experiences and confirmations behind. It seems that LDS testimonies can be rather weak, in general if we go by this.

Edited June 4, 2013 by why me

[why me]

I agree, Calmoriah. I think what you just wrote is a key concept to understand when coming up against the kind of faith crisis that is rooted in some of these historical issues: even though the church is led by Christ, it is run by men and women striving to follow Him but constantly falling short.

And yet, LDS history is rather benign when we consider the history of other established churches. The religious wars that plagued europe for a couple of hundred of years as protestants and catholics battled it out for power and control is a witness to that. And yet...I see no downsizing in membership because of such history but I do see a downsizing do to secularization. However, Dawkins and Hitchens went through the historical problems with christianity by stressing the harm it has done the world and I do believe that these books that they wrote did have an effect on the general christian population.

[ERayR]

The second time today a true believer has said something truly refreshing, especially since it goes against the grain somewhat.

I am not as rigid as some may believe. A little common sense is all it takes. That is why such things as polygamy and historicity being stumbling blocks is absolutely foreign to me. The relevant thing to me is the spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Gospel.

[ERayR]

I think that we should be more troubled that members who had received many spiritual experiences or confirmations can be persuaded so easily by history, so much so, that they leave such experiences and confirmations behind. It seems that LDS testimonies can be rather weak, in general if we go by this.

10 rep points at least.

[why me]

I always cringe when I hear"The Church is perfect but the people are not". As long as the Church is made up of people it is not perfect.

I think that you miss the point on this one. As it went back in the day it meant this: the church as an organization is perfectly structured. However, its members are not so perfectly structured. This meant to imply that members should not leave the church over how they were treated by a member. However, we can expand it to the 21 century and claim: the church is perfect but its history as made by human beings is not.

Edited June 4, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

Elder Maxwell defines the Church's "perfection" as:

the Church is perfect in its doctrine and its divine leadership

However that does not mean that our (any member's up to and including the Prophet imo) understanding, interpretation or teaching of the doctrine is perfect and it certainly doesn't mean that it is complete (we believe there will yet be many things revealed). The doctrine allows us to seek out God and receive salvation and exaltation from him, in that sense it is perfect imo.

Edited June 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I think that we should be more troubled that members who had received many spiritual experiences or confirmations can be persuaded so easily by history, so much so, that they leave such experiences and confirmations behind. It seems that LDS testimonies can be rather weak, in general if we go by this.

As someone who probably would fit your description... Spare us a little clemency. I don't celebrate my weakened testimony.

Most people who know me would have also considered my testimony to be very strong. My fear as mentioned elsewhere is that if I left it would damage the faith of others.

When I read my journals of even 2-3 years ago I feel I'm reading the words of someone else.

But that doesn't mean my relationship with God or desire to serve him and develop a relationship with him has gone. It simply means that I don't view the church organisation, its leaders, its origins and its place in the world in the same way I used to.

[canard78]

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

Elder Maxwell defines the Church's "perfection" as:

"the Church is perfect in its doctrine and its divine leadership"

However that does not mean that our (any member's up to and including the Prophet imo) understanding, interpretation or teaching of the doctrine is perfect and it certainly doesn't mean that it is complete (we believe there will yet be many things revealed). The doctrine allows us to seek out God and receive salvation and exaltation from him, in that sense it is perfect imo.

God's doctrine and his divine leadership is perfect. That works. As soon as there is an imperfect filter (any human) it becomes imperfect. So given church doctrine is filtered through a man I don't see how 'church doctrine' (i.e. the doctrine taught by the church) can be considered perfect. Not possible.

[Storm Rider]

As someone who probably would fit your description... Spare us a little clemency. I don't celebrate my weakened testimony.

Most people who know me would have also considered my testimony to be very strong. My fear as mentioned elsewhere is that if I left it would damage the faith of others.

When I read my journals of even 2-3 years ago I feel I'm reading the words of someone else.

But that doesn't mean my relationship with God or desire to serve him and develop a relationship with him has gone. It simply means that I don't view the church organisation, its leaders, its origins and its place in the world in the same way I used to.

I am curious if you would consider that your current understanding of the Church and its leaders is more mature now? Too many members put leaders on very tall pedestals and have unrealistic expectations of them and of the Church as an organization. I suspect that your current understanding makes it much more likely that you are more tolerant of others, accepting of shortcomings, and more focused on learning truth regardless of where it is found.

[why me]

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

Elder Maxwell defines the Church's "perfection" as:

However that does not mean that our (any member's up to and including the Prophet imo) understanding, interpretation or teaching of the doctrine is perfect and it certainly doesn't mean that it is complete (we believe there will yet be many things revealed). The doctrine allows us to seek out God and receive salvation and exaltation from him, in that sense it is perfect imo.

Just one comment Cal. The article was a great article but this part needs to be seen in context. Also, by stressing what the GA said we can make it seem as if it came from god directly. When I read such texts, I tend to read them as if someone was giving me their opinion. In this way, I can read the text with a questioning mind, reflecting on the words and the sources used. In other words, it allows me to have a dialogue with the writer.

So, can it be possible that this was one man's opinion about the meaning of the expression?

[why me]

I am curious if you would consider that your current understanding of the Church and its leaders is more mature now? Too many members put leaders on very tall pedestals and have unrealistic expectations of them and of the Church as an organization.

And this was something that Joseph Smith suffered from: people putting him on a high pedestal. He attempted on a few occasions to stop this practice by declaring himself unrighteous. And the lord thought so too if we can go by the D&C. But for many members he needed to be perfect and they left when he was not.

[Calm]

God's doctrine and his divine leadership is perfect. That works. As soon as there is an imperfect filter (any human) it becomes imperfect. So given church doctrine is filtered through a man I don't see how 'church doctrine' (i.e. the doctrine taught by the church) can be considered perfect. Not possible.

Perhaps perfect for its purpose. Sometimes it is something's imperfections that give it the most value.

If the Church doctrine was explicitly and obviously perfect, there would be no reason to seek out the Lord to confirm that this is what he meant for us to be doing day after day or to seek him out for dozens of other things on the right way to do it.

I think we have examples in our histories, ones that might not be so obvious due to the current context around them but that God at least was trying to convey that men had not been asking enough questions of him, that they had gone off and done things on their own and altered things along the way instead of checking with him when circumstances changed.

This is, imo, a perfect church to bring us to the Lord because it gives us sights of perfection and then it makes it clear through teaching and experience that it is going to be God by your side getting you there, not your spouse, not your parents, not your SS or Seminary or BYU teacher, not your Bishop, HT, GAs or the Prophet...they will be by your side as well and everyone will be supporting and speculating and teaching what they understand in hopes of helping others, but everyone getting anywhere will have their eye on the Lord to avoid the distractions of when someone gets it wrong, no matter how little.

The leap of faith that we are going to need to make to accept the Atonement with all of our heart, mind and soul, isn't going to be taken side by side with hand in hand with our favourite missionary companion or your loving spouse, the one we will be leaping with and to will be God and we need to get to know him well so that when that time comes we are not faint of heart and decide to settle for something less than was we can truly be.

Edited June 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Perhaps perfect for its purpose. Sometimes it is something's imperfections that give it the most value.

If the Church doctrine was explicitly and obviously perfect, there would be no reason to seek out the Lord to confirm that this is what he meant for us to be doing day after day or to seek him out for dozens of other things on the right way to do it.

I think we have examples in our histories, ones that might not be so obvious due to the current context around them but that God at least was trying to convey that men had not been asking enough questions of him, that they had gone off and done things on their own and altered things along the way instead of checking with him when circumstances changed.

This is, imo, a perfect church to bring us to the Lord because it gives us sights of perfection and then it makes it clear through teaching and experience that it is going to be God by your side getting you there, not your spouse, not your parents, not your SS or Seminary or BYU teacher, not your Bishop, HT, GAs or the Prophet...they will be by your side as well and everyone will be supporting and speculating and teaching what they understand in hopes of helping others, but everyone getting anywhere will have their eye on the Lord to avoid the distractions of when someone gets it wrong, no matter how little.

The leap of faith that we are going to need to make to accept the Atonement with all of our heart, mind and soul, isn't going to be taken side by side with hand in hand with our favourite missionary companion or your loving spouse, the one we will be leaping with and to will be God and we need to get to know him well so that when that time comes we are not faint of heart and decide to settle for something less than was we can truly be.

While I believe the Church is true and its leaders are properly called to the work, I gave up on the notion that everything that falls from the lips of a GA is the whole truth and nothing but the truth a long time ago. I think the quote of Elder Maxwell set out above is the type of rhetoric which sets people up for a crisis of faith. I have seen it over and over again, people with near adoration of GAs and an amazing acceptance of sanitized history eventually get smacked with reality and crack like a rigid tree in a windstorm.

[TruthSeeker2013]

While I believe the Church is true and its leaders are properly called to the work, I gave up on the notion that everything that falls from the lips of a GA is the whole truth and nothing but the truth a long time ago. I think the quote of Elder Maxwell set out above is the type of rhetoric which sets people up for a crisis of faith. I have seen it over and over again, people with near adoration of GAs and an amazing acceptance of sanitized history eventually get smacked with reality and crack like a rigid tree in a windstorm.

Well said.

The doctrine is perfect? Which set of doctrine, the one we have today? 10 years ago? 100 years ago? So the Adam-God theory is perfect doctrine? Doctrine of no priesthood for black members? Doctrine of ban on contraception? Doctrine of discouraging interracial marriage? Doctrine that the Book of Abraham was translated from Abraham's own writing on papyri Joseph had?

Nah, this is a church with modern day revelation, which means that by definition we do not have a constant doctrine. Instead we have a constantly changing doctrine, one that seeks to always be in line with the will of God, and sometimes gets it wrong.

[rockpond]

And yet, LDS history is rather benign when we consider the history of other established churches. The religious wars that plagued europe for a couple of hundred of years as protestants and catholics battled it out for power and control is a witness to that. And yet...I see no downsizing in membership because of such history but I do see a downsizing do to secularization. However, Dawkins and Hitchens went through the historical problems with christianity by stressing the harm it has done the world and I do believe that these books that they wrote did have an effect on the general christian population.

A key difference, I believe, is that so much of our theology is rooted in the history of just the past two centuries: the Restoration.

[Calm]

I think the quote of Elder Maxwell set out above is the type of rhetoric which sets people up for a crisis of faith.

How does " the Church is perfect,[in the sense that] its doctrine is perfect, and its leadership is divine, but then you and I are in it " since he is one of those GAs do that? Edited June 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Closet Doubter]

True so long as we aren't just facilitating the enemies of the Church, there is a fine line there.

We are facilitating the enemies of the Church by not presenting an honest complete history. When I started to learn about the many things the Church leaves out, I began to not trust anything at face value that the Church presented. To this day, I don't trust the Church's material any more than I do the anti material. There are certain authors I give a lot of credibility to such as Bushman and Quinn and others that I am skeptical of such as Peterson. There are anti authors that I don't give credibility to such as anything coming from Tanner and Bagley.

[ERayR]

But that doesn't mean my relationship with God or desire to serve him and develop a relationship with him has gone. It simply means that I don't view the church organisation, its leaders, its origins and its place in the world in the same way I used to.

That can be healthy or unhealthy, depending an which way you go and how it affects you. If you make it an opportunity to draw closer to and use the Holy Ghost as an anchor then fine. However if you decide to make irrelevancies stumbling blocks in your life you have a rough road to travel. Either way it is your choice.

[Closet Doubter]

Since men and women are pretty much the sole tools through which the organization operates, I am not seeing how we can rise above the level of other man-made organizations. There will be times that members are the best and will rise it to the best of organizations...but why can't that happen for others who are trying their best? There will be times that members are not at the best and will drag the organization down, as we are likely very familiar with happening in every organization we've ever belonged to, even our families.

Funny, I was always taught that the Church operated through Prophets, Seers, and Revelators with Bishops and Stake Presidents that receive inspiration to make the decisions that the Lord desires. Now I am learning that we are just another man made organization and can't be expected to rise above that level. When did the Lord quit directing the Church?

[ERayR]

God's doctrine and his divine leadership is perfect. That works. As soon as there is an imperfect filter (any human) it becomes imperfect. So given church doctrine is filtered through a man I don't see how 'church doctrine' (i.e. the doctrine taught by the church) can be considered perfect. Not possible.

Don't you see that is irrelevant if you are seeking and getting personal revelation but when you make it relevant you restrict your ability to do so. I have a category I call "Waiting for Answers". It is as big as warehouse 13. I put things on a shelf and occasionally I have an Aha moment and then I get to take something off the shelves and put it in the "Now I Understand" category. If I had to have a perfect understanding of everything before I listened and received personal revelation I would have received nothing. As it is whenever he thinks I am ready God sends the Holy Ghost to take one of my warehouse 13 questions off the shelf and answer it.

[ERayR]

We are facilitating the enemies of the Church by not presenting an honest complete history. When I started to learn about the many things the Church leaves out, I began to not trust anything at face value that the Church presented. To this day, I don't trust the Church's material any more than I do the anti material. There are certain authors I give a lot of credibility to such as Bushman and Quinn and others that I am skeptical of such as Peterson. There are anti authors that I don't give credibility to such as anything coming from Tanner and Bagley.

It is senseless to let your enemies dictate the direction of the conversation. If you do they have won. If you were to spend two thirds of your time on history and answered all their questions until they could find no more history complaints the would then find something else to find fault with and you would never get the chance to teach the gospel.

It works the same in your personal life. As long as you are fixated on the irrelevancies you don;t have the time to move forward in the gospel. You are forever caught worrying about Josephs "rock in his hat".

[tagriffy]

Conceptually, I agree.

But in the context of historical issues, I'm not sure that they are necessarily expecting perfection. Just more disclosure. But, honestly, I'm grateful to not be in the position of the Brethren trying to decide how to deal with these historical issues that seem to be increasing in intensity now that the internet has opened up the flow of information (both true and false). How do you build faith of the "younger" members while simultaneously strengthening the "older" members against the more complex historical issues.

You mythologize it. You tell stories.