Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Gervin]

The saints who rely on the Spirit and not on the arm of flesh will eventually triumph over the seemingly strong assaults of confutation carried out by the adversary and his witting and unwitting earthly servants.

I'm using this quote on my next American Sampler.

[cursor]

I guess I just don't see the spirituality in taking half a Sunday class period discussing the perceived sex life of our 18th century Church leaders If it was seen fit to call and train instructors to do this for a weekday or evening class that would be fine with me. My thinking is it would not change anything. The rhetoric would be "Oh my this is not what I read on the internet they are not teaching it correctly">

"Half a Sunday's lesson" ... out of how many Sundays? Why is it that since Section 132 represents about 8% of the D&C, that plural marriage, polygyny and polyandry (all of which, according to LDS teaching, are key to ultimate exaltation) aren't more heavily emphasized in the curriculum?

In regards to these very serious issues you (ERayR) say, "I just don't see the spirituality in taking half a Sunday class period discussing the perceived sex life of our 18th century Church leaders." Really? If it isn't more that that, then what is it, exactly?

[Rivers]

#2 - There seems to be what I would call and improper demand for perfection in the church, and that any human failing somehow invalidates the church. Yet the reality is that there is only one perfect man - Jesus himself. All the rest of us are imperfect, be they overt sinners or the inspired leaders of the church. It is inevitable that we as humans, even those actively following Christ, will err. One of the truest things about our church is its ability to acknowledge that it has made a mistake and move on.

I don't think anybody is arguing that church leaders should be perfect. Only that they apologize for past mistakes.

[Storm Rider]

I don't think anybody is arguing that church leaders should be perfect. Only that they apologize for past mistakes.

PLet's suppose there was an individual apology for every wrong that you think demands such action for the FP and the Q12; then what. What do you think would change in the world? Specifically, how would it change your life and your relationship with Jesus Christ?

[Tacenda]

PLet's suppose there was an individual apology for every wrong that you think demands such action for the FP and the Q12; then what. What do you think would change in the world? Specifically, how would it change your life and your relationship with Jesus Christ?

I think there is a teaching somewhere that we are to apologise to someone we've wronged and try to make restitution with that person or people.

[Calm]

And how could a current church leader make restitution for a past leader's mistake?

(As opposed to helping someone heal)

Edited July 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

I don't think anybody is arguing that church leaders should be perfect. Only that they apologize for past mistakes.

that's the problem! haha! men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's or our transgression, I wouldn't apologize for any misdeed of anyone I never met, especially if I don't know or care about their wrong doings, why should I apologize for Joseph Smith or he for me? if anyone's sins need apologizing for me and by whom it's mine and for me

[Tacenda]

It's okay, I don't think the church would ever apologise anyway. But know if it did, there'd be a lot of healing that could be gained by it.

[Storm Rider]

I think there is a teaching somewhere that we are to apologise to someone we've wronged and try to make restitution with that person or people.

Are any of those individuals here to make amends? Is the Church the same thing as those individuals?

[Storm Rider]

...and the questions I posed remain unanswered.

[gree0232]

It's okay, I don't think the church would ever apologise anyway. But know if it did, there'd be a lot of healing that could be gained by it.

Well, there is the matter of context and the reality of church policy - because it matters. For example, screaming, "Fire!," when there actually is a fire is the correct thing to do, screaming the same word as a prank is dangerous and needlessly harmful. Granted, that is a very over simplified example, but it is necessary to understand the wider issue of an apology for a 'wrong'.

The issue with topics like polygamy is that, there are indeed times and places where it makes sense. Like in a time and place where women cannot own property, and whose husbands have been killed or otherwise died. However, the rapacious nature of man kind means that, at best IMHO, any allowance of polygamy must necessarily be temporary. (Indeed, the fLDS church is proof positive of the warning issued about the consequences of continuing the policy).

So, should the church apologize for a practice that was temporary? Perhaps needed in the appropriate context, but stopped when circumstances changed? TO a woman whose husband passed and she still had young children, a legal plural marriage would have prevented the ripping apart of the family and destitution (assuming the best of the priest/man involved) - even as the more rapacious aspects would rear their head and eventually, and justly, demand apology just like any other sin.

Certainly, in the church's past there are other commandments that required us to control our appetites, such as the law of consecration, and our performance under these circumstances was equally ... adverse. Whereas the law of consecration remains a lofty goal, I do believe that the ability to transcend sexual desire to form genuine bonds of affection remains a lofty goal - even if our human fickleness and quick ability to succumb to temptations (be they sexual or greed) makes these very difficult goals.

Which is a long way around to saying that its very easy to see wrong in hindsight, but those who bore the cost of the previous centuries miscalculations would receive little aid - and apologizing for something that may not have been entirely wrong in the circumstances in which it arose (and from which it was eliminated) may not be in order at all.

Though I hate to use the comparison, there is a major world religion that still practices polygamy: Islam. You can see the costs and benefits of polygamy very clearly just by looking. On one hand, you have rulers (its a society not unlike the one Joseph Smith was born into with regard to women's rights) who use the marriages in a society where trust is hard to come by as a way of cementing relationships and bonding families to one another - families that might otherwise go to war with one another. There is at the same time a darker side, where men take on wives as play things and rotate through them like a harem, one in which women are clearly not much more than sexual adventure. How does one get the political stability fostered by the practice while eliminating the clear and obvious abuse and exploitation? In practice, most Muslims realize this, and even if there is scriptural allowances of the practice, most simply do not having no need of the political boundary and little desire to debase themselves sexually.

I think a similar process flows through our own history, and, given the over sexualized society we live in today, its best we stopped when we did. And we do have clear guidance that, having had our misadventure with polygamy, monogamous marriage is the way forward.

[canard78]

Please, if you are going to quote me, don't insert your comments into what I said ... thanks. For the record, I did NOT say "What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?" There are formatting options available within this forum environment that allow for the responsible separation of quotes from other's statement. Thanks.

Was this to me or ERayR. I thought I'd quoted your original post directly (which had included: "What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?")

[Tacenda]

...and the questions I posed remain unanswered.

I'm not saying that they should apologise for mistakes individuals made but should apologise for say, correlating true history out of the curriculum, if indeed it once was there, atleast I believe someone mentioned Ensign articles, lesson manuals etc. But understand they have done an excellent job of that, with the Joseph Smith Papers, thanks to the late Larry H. Miller, who provided the funding for it. And I'm going to make a guess, that he thought it necessary for things to come out in public, maybe, emphasize maybe, because his own mother went through her own faith crisis.

Apologising through an article in the Ensign would be nice. Maybe have an article about reasons some doubt and it's not because they want to sin or have sinned. Just a simple squeezed in apology, that maybe even the TBM won't pick up but the hurt individual will. Not an apology like in the newsroom or something, or a press meeting, nothing like that.

[Bob Crockett]

Apologising through an article in the Ensign would be nice. Maybe have an article about reasons some doubt and it's not because they want to sin or have sinned. Just a simple squeezed in apology, that maybe even the TBM won't pick up but the hurt individual will. Not an apology like in the newsroom or something, or a press meeting, nothing like that.

I don't see any precedent in the Bible for demanding apologies of anybody.

Who would "correlat[] true history out of the curriculum?" I mean, whom would you suggest be qualified to distill the conflicting threads of history?

For instance, in the Thomas B Marsh milkstripping story, the Church is condemned by critics for relying upon it, yet we have a journal entry of an eyewitness to the trial of Marsh's wife and we have the statement of George A Smith, who succeeded Marsh in the Twelve. Who would be really qualified to reject these eyewitness stories to say that the milk stripping story is not true? When you have conflicting accounts of history, I think the Church is entitled to rely upon what it thinks is a faithful interpretation, with no apologies necessary.

See The Journal of Henry William Bigler microfilmed in US/CAN film #465, although I have not personaally verified it:

While in Far West I was at the trial of Sister Marsh the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, he was the President of the Twelve, for skimming milk[.] Several sisters in Far West had agreed to unite in make[-]ing cheese by putting their milk together, each one promising not to skim their milk. The trial was before Bishop Edward Partridge where it was [?] that she had not kept her promise and was about to withdraw the hand of fellowship[.] [T]he Bishop and others plead with her to make things right and offered to give her time to do so, but no [?] she called on God and angels to witness her innocence[.] [A]t this the Prophet jumped up and said “Sister Marsh if you say that you lie like the devil.” This remark from the Prophet at that time made me [stare? startled?], However on a little reflection, I [sure?] got over it.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

I don't see any precedent in the Bible for demanding apologies of anybody.

Who would "correlat[] true history out of the curriculum?" I mean, whom would you suggest be qualified to distill the conflicting threads of history?

For instance, in the Thomas B Marsh milkstripping story, the Church is condemned by critics for relying upon it, yet we have a journal entry of an eyewitness to the trial of Marsh's wife and we have the statement of George A Smith, who succeeded Marsh in the Twelve. Who would be really qualified to reject these eyewitness stories to say that the milk stripping story is not true? When you have conflicting accounts of history, I think the Church is entitled to rely upon what it thinks is a faithful interpretation, with no apologies necessary.

See The Journal of Henry William Bigler microfilmed in US/CAN film #465, although I have not personaally verified it:

While in Far West I was at the trial of Sister Marsh the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, he was the President of the Twelve, for skimming milk[.] Several sisters in Far West had agreed to unite in make[-]ing cheese by putting their milk together, each one promising not to skim their milk. The trial was before Bishop Edward Partridge where it was [?] that she had not kept her promise and was about to withdraw the hand of fellowship[.] [T]he Bishop and others plead with her to make things right and offered to give her time to do so, but no [?] she called on God and angels to witness her innocence[.] [A]t this the Prophet jumped up and said “Sister Marsh if you say that you lie like the devil.” This remark from the Prophet at that time made me [stare? startled?], However on a little reflection, I [sure?] got over it.

I haven't demanded anything. But people have that feeling that they've been misinformed. People who've given time, talent, money and maybe a relationship or two over their falling away or disbelief. You and some on here just don't seem to grasp it. Until you've walked in their shoes, or my shoes.

Add on: I found a couple of quotes that say it well.

“Never hide things from hardcore thinkers. They get more aggravated, more provoked by confusion than the most painful truths.”

― Criss Jami

“I'd rather hear an ugly truth, rather than an obscure lie.”

― Ana Monnar

“The truth feels like it hurts, yet actually it builds. A lie feels like it builds, yet actually it hurts.”

― Moffat Machingura

Edited July 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[Bob Crockett]

You may not have demanded an apology but you've mentioned it several times as needed from the Church.

You and some on here just don't seem to grasp it. Until you've walked in their shoes, or my shoes.

I grasp what you're saying.

Somewhere I've read a quote that says that he who demands an apology usually has a lot of apologizing to do. There's a fellow on the other board, a so-called Doctor, who used to demand apologies from all faithful members of the Church until I pointed out that odd practice to him, whereupon he stopped. And, really, must an institution apologize? The United States government has never apologized for slavery; should it? The apology would be stated by those who had nothing to do with the practice. How valuable is that?

We read in the New Testament how Peter erred by excluding Gentiles from his meals during church conferences after receiving a revelation telling him not to do so, but we read of no apology. Should the church apologize today for what Peter did?

I go back to my question. When you say you've been misinformed about the history of the Church, I ask, how should the Church use people to weigh and sift contradictory themes and accounts in history to tell the truth, as you see it?

Even in the case of Joseph Smith's polygamy, who is going to judge the conflicting accounts to render a faithful history of what went on? [i'd say that the closest thing to an accurate rendition of history can be found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism; do you quibble with anything there?]

Edited July 28, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

Bob, I see what you're saying, how about they, meaning the apostles, not the historians, the leaders at the top, the men who we are to heed advice from, or the prophet whom we are to follow, address the issue rather than apologise. Hey, I'll hold out hope for October's conference, how's that?

[Bob Crockett]

So, now you want an apostle to correct history? How are they do do that? Put a dime in, and get a revelation? B.H. Roberts learned that couldn't be done.

Look at the case of the Encyclopedia. It does not mention with respect to the Book of Mormon translation that Joseph translated it with his head in a hat. Instead, it cites to various witnesses who attest to the use of the "Nephite interpreters." Then it says, "[o]ther late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or denied."

This article was not written by a Church historian, but by John Welch, a lawyer who teaches in the law school at BYU. Yet, the Church gave considerable resources to the publication of the Encylopedia. Why wasn't this article written by a Church historian? It is because the Church doesn't do that kind of thing. A church historian is one who keeps a history, not publish about it. (There have been some very rare exceptions, of course. But even Rick Turley did not publish in a church venue.)

I say this to point out that apologies, or an apostolic correction as you now put it, is not in the offing. Two much of our history is contradictory, and in the case of an account of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Church was entitled to rely upon trustworthy accounts consistent with its past message.

I repeat to you, are you aware of any errors in the Encyclopedia with respect to history?

More broadly, what part of LDS History would you like the Church to correct? Can you be specific?

Edited July 28, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

So, now you want an apostle to correct history? How are they do do that? Put a dime in, and get a revelation? B.H. Roberts learned that couldn't be done.

Look at the case of the Encyclopedia. It does not mention with respect to the Book of Mormon translation that Joseph translated it with his head in a hat. Instead, it cites to various witnesses who attest to the use of the "Nephite interpreters." Then it says, "[o]ther late reports mention a variety of further details, but they cannot be historically confirmed or denied."

This article was not written by a Church historian, but by John Welch, a lawyer who teaches in the law school at BYU. Yet, the Church gave considerable resources to the publication of the Encylopedia. Why wasn't this article written by a Church historian? It is because the Church doesn't do that kind of thing. A church historian is one who keeps a history, not publish about it. (There have been some very rare exceptions, of course. But even Rick Turley did not publish in a church venue.)

I say this to point out that apologies, or an apostolic correction as you now put it, is not in the offing. Two much of our history is contradictory, and in the case of an account of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Church was entitled to rely upon trustworthy accounts consistent with its past message.

I repeat to you, are you aware of any errors in the Encyclopedia with respect to history?

More broadly, what part of LDS History would you like the Church to correct? Can you be specific?

Correct church history? No, correct methods of teaching church history in our curriculum. Do you read my words or words you think I'm saying? I'm saying acknowledge that there was a problem in portraying our history like it happened. I can't wait to read your comment back on this, and am curious how you might ignore what I'm truly saying again. Do you know why there are so many leaving? One big reason is to what I've been referring to and the request for acknowledgement from the leaders would hopefully lead to change for future generations. I don't believe I'm alone in this. Read the Givens comments also.

[Bob Crockett]

Correct church history? No, correct methods of teaching church history in our curriculum. Do you read my words or words you think I'm saying? I'm saying acknowledge that there was a problem in portraying our history like it happened. I can't wait to read your comment back on this, and am curious how you might ignore what I'm truly saying again. Do you know why there are so many leaving? One big reason is to what I've been referring to and the request for acknowledgement from the leaders would hopefully lead to change for future generations. I don't believe I'm alone in this. Read the Givens comments also.

How so? Best example? Or are you just complaining in general? I realize it may be an effective method of discussion to say that I am not reading what you're writing, but perhaps you can indulge me with specific examples of something that may bolster what you are saying.

I can read the New Testament myself to see examples of how people were disappointed in Paul and some of the other apostles and left.

People have left the church "in droves" since 1830 for many different reasons, but they are often related to "discovering" that the truth is different than what they've been taught. Edward W. Tullidge is the finest example I can think of. An expert in the history of the Church who published a well-respected volume on it.

Sorry for the bold. I can't figure out why that is the case nor can I correct it.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

How so? Best example? Or are you just complaining in general? I realize it may be an effective method of discussion to say that I am not reading what you're writing, but perhaps you can indulge me with specific examples of something that may bolster what you are saying.

I can read the New Testament myself to see examples of how people were disappointed in Paul and some of the other apostles and left.

People have left the church "in droves" since 1830 for many different reasons, but they are often related to "discovering" that the truth is different than what they've been taught. Edward W. Tullidge is the finest example I can think of. An expert in the history of the Church who published a well-respected volume on it.

Sorry for the bold. I can't figure out why that is the case nor can I correct it.

I'm offering a suggestion that could just help the droves from leaving and you keep ignoring the answer to your questions, I ran out of posts for awhile so hopefully you'll get it. I've given you two ways if you'll go back and read my posts. One would be an article in the Ensign, two is possibly through a conference talk. That's how and I'll let you use your imagination as to how the leaders would do it in the best way.

[gree0232]

I'm not saying that they should apologise for mistakes individuals made but should apologise for say, correlating true history out of the curriculum, if indeed it once was there, atleast I believe someone mentioned Ensign articles, lesson manuals etc. But understand they have done an excellent job of that, with the Joseph Smith Papers, thanks to the late Larry H. Miller, who provided the funding for it. And I'm going to make a guess, that he thought it necessary for things to come out in public, maybe, emphasize maybe, because his own mother went through her own faith crisis.

Apologising through an article in the Ensign would be nice. Maybe have an article about reasons some doubt and it's not because they want to sin or have sinned. Just a simple squeezed in apology, that maybe even the TBM won't pick up but the hurt individual will. Not an apology like in the newsroom or something, or a press meeting, nothing like that.

Again, explaining why something was done but no longer is does not require an apology. If so, then the Jews, who gave us the OT filled with polygamy and worse, should also be, not explaining, but apologizing. The same would go for any community on Earth that once practiced polygamy, but no longer does. That is not a condition unique to the LDS church - not by a long shot. Indeed, by this standard we must demand an apology, not an explanation, from Islam as well.

In fact, Jewish faith no longer practices polygamy either, and yet the conditions of the OT, which were arguably similar to those of the early pioneers, stopped ... as have we.

I get the impression that demanding an apology, rather than an explanation, is about a sense of superior morality ... a way to keep the church and its claims at a distance, as in, "You guys had polygamy, therefor your church cannot be true!"

Well, we are commanded to seek Wisdom above all else, and sometimes that means doing exceptional things as circumstance and context require. An explanation is certainly in order - an apology? Less so.

In the larger point of the article that started this, its almost impossible that a high ranking member of the church didn't know any of this. His bringing it up as a basis of doubt is, at best, disingenuous, and it raises the issue of motive.

In those circumstances, its less about needing an 'apology' than it is about tarring something you rejected. As in, "See I am right because 'I' rejected polygamy!"

Well, so do we.

[cinepro]

I've been listening to the Mattsson podcast on MormonStories, and while describing his tenure as an Area Seventy, he recounts this experience in a training meeting with Preisdent Hinckley:

HM: Let me tell you a story. [President Hinckley] comes in [to an Seventy training meeting], he stands up and hits his hand on the pulpit. And said "You guys, I get the most wonderful reports of how many you are re-activating. And you have a real "golden pen" writing how much you are doing. But you know, I don't see it because I don't look at your reports. I go to the Sacrament Meeting statistics, and I don't see any changes at all.

Don't write in those reports if you don't mean it. You have a "golden pen."

He was a little bit straightforward.

JD: So he was saying that your reports to him didn't seem accurate. That people were inflating their reports of Church attendance. And he didn't want you to do that.

HM: He didn't want us to do that. And he said "This is one of my big problems. Everyone likes to give me the good numbers, they want to tell me how successful the Church is. But I want to know the problems. I want to know the real thing."

JD: So he liked the truth.

HM: He like the truth, he didn't want to be deceived. He couldn't make decisions based on just "golden" figures.

MormonStories Mattsson interview, part 3, 6:45, grammar corrected from original and spurious comments deleted.

In many ways, it seems the Church wants investigators and members to make decisions based on a "golden" version of Church history. Is it too much for people to want to know "the real thing"?

Edited July 28, 2013 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

Again, explaining why something was done but no longer is does not require an apology. If so, then the Jews, who gave us the OT filled with polygamy and worse, should also be, not explaining, but apologizing. The same would go for any community on Earth that once practiced polygamy, but no longer does. That is not a condition unique to the LDS church - not by a long shot. Indeed, by this standard we must demand an apology, not an explanation, from Islam as well.

In fact, Jewish faith no longer practices polygamy either, and yet the conditions of the OT, which were arguably similar to those of the early pioneers, stopped ... as have we.

I get the impression that demanding an apology, rather than an explanation, is about a sense of superior morality ... a way to keep the church and its claims at a distance, as in, "You guys had polygamy, therefor your church cannot be true!"

Well, we are commanded to seek Wisdom above all else, and sometimes that means doing exceptional things as circumstance and context require. An explanation is certainly in order - an apology? Less so.

In the larger point of the article that started this, its almost impossible that a high ranking member of the church didn't know any of this. His bringing it up as a basis of doubt is, at best, disingenuous, and it raises the issue of motive.

In those circumstances, its less about needing an 'apology' than it is about tarring something you rejected. As in, "See I am right because 'I' rejected polygamy!"

Well, so do we.

I'm not asking for an apology for the practice of polygamy, have you been talking to Bob? I want or hope for acknowledgement that history was vague in parts and for future generations, let history be what it is, not a storybook fiction. Don't hide those wives under a rock, they shouldn't be an embarrassment to the church or appear to be.

When was the first time you learned Joseph Smith married Helen Mar Kimball or Sylvia Sessions or Eliza R. Snow, please answer honestly. Where did you learn about it?

[ERayR]

Please, if you are going to quote me, don't insert your comments into what I said ... thanks. For the record, I did NOT say "What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?" There are formatting options available within this forum environment that allow for the responsible separation of quotes from other's statement. Thanks.

Your post #340

Wait ... you're kidding, right?

"Why? is it the Churches [sic] responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons[?]"

If that responsibility doesn't belong to the Church ... then to whom exactly might it belong?!

"It is the individuals [sic] responsibility to go beyond that and then choose how they let it affect them."

What ... independent of helpful direction from the Church?

This approach results in unacceptable apostasy ... in very many cases.

So, exactly how is it NOT "the Church's responsibility to teach the spiritual lessons"?