Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[canard78]

The line from the article that saddens me most is this one: '"I was just in a bubble, and we felt so happy," Mr. Mattsson said'.

It reminds me of Lyman Johnson's purported words spoken on one of his visits to Nauvoo:

And, more personally, it reminds me of my former flatmate when I was studying in America. For 'spring break' a close mate and I took a 10-hour road trip to the temple, and said flatmate asked if he could tag along because the temple was half the distance to the home of his brother, whom he was planning to visit on his holiday. For much of the trip this poor soul bemoaned over and over again how much he missed the peace of the temple. When I could take it no longer, I pointed out that, if I missed the temple that much, I'd sure as hell be doing everything in my power to be able to enjoy those blessings again. No, he said; that would be 'intellectually dishonest' of him.

But in his MS interview Mattsson expresses sadness at what he lost, but also peace at where he's reached. He feels God is guiding him.

When people discover a pill is a placebo they sometimes continue using it and feel the benefits. Others though accept there was no substance to it and stop. I'm not saying Mormonism is a placebo, but if someone loses confidence in the truth claims it is difficult to live with the same engagement.

By the way, what's the source in LJ's Nauvoo account? Sounds like interesting reading.

[Avatar4321]

I had to smile a little that the two 'deal-breakers' mentioned:

Of all the things that could have been mentioned, we got off fairly lightly.

Polygamy was and still is a doctrine in our canon, introduced by Joseph Smith.

That this would be a shock to a GA is a good example of the fact that many people are simply unaware of our history.

Polygamy's not even one of the "hidden" bits:

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

Having said that, the article goes on to mention then detail that the church doesn't (polyandry/teens).

Mattson was never a GA. Only the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy are GAs. Area Seventies are, by definition, not general authority but AREA authorities

[Avatar4321]

no offense but if bro. Mattsson is the guy that Palmer is ramping up then consider me even more seriously less impressed with Palmer. Didn't Palmer say he was an active member of the 1st Quorum of the 70? Mattson doesn't qualify then and Palmer would need to get his facts straight yet again

You mean Palmer could have lied about it? Forgive me if I'm not shocked at that revelation.

[canard78]

Abrahamic Test????

Before I reply in detail to this... Are you being serious?

I find the call to 'Abrahamic test' argument to be a fairly unproductive one. When a leader calls on people to do something that is entirely unreasonable "because God says so," I find it quite disturbing. Where do we draw the line?

If the prophet came to your house today and told your husband to give you up as his extra wife (he has over 20 already) would you pass your abrahamic test or would you send him kindly on his way and suggest he ask someone else.

However flattering the polyandry approaches must have been, the simple answer should have been no.

[canard78]

Mattson was never a GA. Only the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy are GAs. Area Seventies are, by definition, not general authority but AREA authorities

Fair enough. Replace 'G' in my post above with 'A' and the rest still applies.

[Avatar4321]

Still Elder I believe. Emeritus Seventy who speak at the MTC are referred to as Elder when announced.

Why wouldn't he be an elder unless he was excommunicated? Anyone with the Melchesidek Priesthood can be called Elder. It's all the same priesthood.

[Avatar4321]

But is there a better way? You seem to think so.

And I just want to add that while I may express myself in a less-than-tactful way at times or be too "literal" for some people's tastes, I'm not dumb or ignorant with regards to church history or Mormonism in general.

Last time I checked we still believed in a literal Satan - and that he stirs up the hearts of men to anger and to oppose the work of God.

But he is much more effective when he convinces people he isn't there at all.

[canard78]

Why wouldn't he be an elder unless he was excommunicated? Anyone with the Melchesidek Priesthood can be called Elder. It's all the same priesthood.

But if someone at church started insisting on being addressed as 'Elder Jones' then you might wonder.

I simply wanted to check what the appropriate title was for emeritus 70s. When a Stake President is released he returns from being Pres Smith to Brother Smith. I wondered if the same was true for 70s.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But in his MS interview Mattsson expresses sadness at what he lost, but also peace at where he's reached.

I'd rather swallow razor blades than listen to a podcast, but I do hope that people find some measure of peace. I'd feel completely empty if I were to turn my back on things like prophecy, revelation, visions, healings, angelic ministrations, priesthood power, the teachings of the Book of Mormon, the inexpressible joy that comes from daily engaging with the Restored Gospel, etc.

By the way, what's the source in LJ's Nauvoo account?

Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses.

[Hannah Rebekah]

Before I reply in detail to this... Are you being serious?

I find the call to 'Abrahamic test' argument to be a fairly unproductive one. When a leader calls on people to do something that is entirely unreasonable "because God says so," I find it quite disturbing. Where do we draw the line?

If the prophet came to your house today and told your husband to give you up as his extra wife (he has over 20 already) would you pass your abrahamic test or would you send him kindly on his way and suggest he ask someone else.

However flattering the polyandry approaches must have been, the simple answer should have been no.

Sure glad Abraham passed his test and didn't kill his son, I find death even more appalling than polyandry.

[Hamba Tuhan]

When a leader calls on people to do something that is entirely unreasonable "because God says so," I find it quite disturbing. Where do we draw the line?

That's precisely the question a number of the Saints during the Nauvoo period found themselves confronting. As so abundantly documented, a good number of them decided to take their concerns to the Lord. As a consequence they came to know with certainty (a) that God is real, (b) that He genuinely hears prayers, © that revelation -- including visions and angelic visitations -- has not ceased, and (d) that the voice of the God has the ability in a single instant to replace fear, confusion, and even disapprobation with perfect peace. And then they never turned back, providing the Lord's fledgling Kingdom with a backbone of strength and commitment that has blessed both their literal and their spiritual descendants across the ages.

[Hannah Rebekah]

That's precisely the question a number of the Saints during the Nauvoo period found themselves confronting. As so abundantly documented, a good number of them decided to take their concerns to the Lord. As a consequence they came to know with certainty (a) that God is real, (b) that He genuinely hears prayers, © that revelation -- including visions and angelic visitations -- has not ceased, and (d) that the voice of the God has the ability in a single instant to replace fear, confusion, and even disapprobation with perfect peace. And then they never turned back, providing the Lord's fledgling Kingdom with a backbone of strength and commitment that has blessed both their literal and their spiritual descendants across the ages.

Exactly...wasn't it Parely P. Pratt and his wife who refused then later something happened that they became polygamy's greatest defenders?

[CV75]

Bear in mind he's working with a second language. I think the point he's sincerely making is that it was emotionally, mentally and even physically devastating when he was discovering the history.

I can empathise with that. There were times when I thought I was close to vomiting when discovering some of the history for the first time. I know that sounds melodramatic. It's not meant to. I'm simply saying that I was so emotionally pained by some of what I read, so wound up inside that I think my body's physical reaction to the anxiety was to want to vomit. The phrase "sick to my stomach" usually speaks of an emotional experience but can have a physical manifestation.

Yes, this is what I am saying: experiences that are physical, emotional, mental, dramatic, uncertain and otherwise psychological are not spiritual. We create our own faith crisis from things that are not spiritual when we presume them to be things spiritual or dysfunctionally try to integrate them with the things of the Spirit.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Exactly...wasn't it Parely P. Pratt and his wife who refused then later something happened that they became polygamy's greatest defenders?

I'm not certain. There are so many accounts of such experiences. One of my favourites is from Elizabeth Ann Whitney, wife of Newel K. Whitney:

My husband revealed these things to me; we had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon them continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God had heard and answered our prayers and intercedings before Him (link).

And of course there's a current thread on this very forum that relates another.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Senator]

I'd feel completely empty if I were to turn my back on things like prophecy, revelation, visions, healings, angelic ministrations, priesthood power, the teachings of the Book of Mormon, the inexpressible joy that comes from daily engaging with the Restored Gospel, etc.

I would too, if those had been my experiences.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think the author of the article poorly phrased that part. Here's what the article says:

Obviously, the fact that Joseph Smith was a "polygamist" is in D&C 132 (including the heading), and while it's not discussed much in Church or in other official Church publications, the concept of polygamy in general is pretty benign (no one ever leaves after finding out Brigham Young was a polygamist, for example).

I suspect the article should have clarified that it wasn't the fact that Joseph Smith "was a polygamist", but instead should have read "But when he discovered the details of Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy..."

Since it seems to be the details that cause all the problems.

No... it was his interpretation of the details. The nature of his soil, the way he contextualized and nurture the details, the time, patience, and diligence he gave towards understanding and resolution. I'm reasonably well informed on these topics. I had no special privileges, and I had to go a lot of leg work back in the days before internet.

Those who keep blaming the information, rather than the interpretation continue to miss the point. Notice again what Jesus said about the parable of the Sower. "Know ye not this parable? How then well ye know all parables?"

Kuhn expresses the point that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation." The more rigid the the expectations, the more serious an anomaly appears. My approach has been to keep my eyes open, give things time, and to re-examine my own assumptions now again. (What Jesus described as removing the motes from my own eyes that I may see clearly.) The alternative is to go about with my eyes closed, to insist on immediate answers whenever I blunder blindly into something, and to refuse to re-examine my own assumptions ever. ("It's not what I was taught as a child, what I thought as a child, and now my childish things are broken, and I have nothing left to do but complain about those who brought me to this impasse.")

As long as people get stuck at the bullet point level, crying :"What about this? What about that? What about the people pointing and mocking?" they are not as likely to get on with the business of learning, contextualizing understanding, and broadening their understanding. IN therapy, it's important for people who have been traumatized in some way to at some point re-frame themselves as survivors rather than victims.

And with all due respect, those bullet points are spot-on in their framing and summary of the core issues that cause "doubt" among online LDS. So if you feel they are either inaccurate or intentionally negative or opaque, you should probably spend some time reappraising your understanding of how others see these issues. Because if your responses and "clarifications" are illustrative of your recommended apologetic approach, you're missing the broadside of the barn but probably think you're hitting bullseyes.

If I understood these issues in the same way that those who framed the issues, I would have their understanding, and not mine. I'd be stuck, obsessing for years and years about why church art for the translation doesn't show a rock in a hat, or why the bit of papyrus we've got isn't the Book of Abraham.

It's like I'm being told, if you were more troubled, disturbed, pained, and agonized by the trauma of those who can't get past these issues, then you could help. But I got down and crouched in the dark existential gloom with them, and had the poor taste to be saying, "Come up in to the light! It's a lot more fun over here." My way of helping is to invite people to step into the light. Pretending that I don't see it, or forgetting that I do see it might get me more credit for sympathy, but I am trying to help whether I get credit for sympathy or not.

My understanding seems to work a whole lot better. It encourages me to learn with joy, and share with enthusiasm, and to not depend on truth coming through official channels. It strikes me as a having a whole lot more to recommend it. it is far more broadly based, deeply rooted, and, this is important, open-ended, and opened to increased understanding. The view from here is a lot more exciting. In boldly facing problems with the Book of Mormon translation, honestly, forthrightly, courageously, does Mattsson tell me anything meaningful about the text? (Did you know that Alma's conversion matches modern NDE research? Or that the Book of Mormon teaches valid 12 step recovery? What about Nahom, and Bountiful and the Sidon correlation? Anything?) Or are there ONLY problems to face? (Think of the bright shining exploration that was Dehlin and Coe.)

Or, for that matter, how about anything helpful about translation via seer stones? I've got all sorts of articles on that topic. Brant's recent book, for instance, on the role of a village seer. Old Dialogue articles. Something other than bleak despair built on the firm foundation of having asked someone who wasn't as helpful as he'd hoped.

I'm for the answers I've got to hand. And I've got all sorts of bullet points that I notice that people stuck on these questions never bother to ask about. While they are saying "How come no one ever told me about this or that problem," I'm wondering why they're not interested in finding and sharing the good stuff? Why not mention some of the cool aspects of the Book of Mormon? Why just,mumble something about vague and undefined "historical anomalies." Why just hint about Joseph as philanderer? Why not point to the sources, name a few names, quote what the people most intimately involved said. Discuss a DNA study on the issue of issue. Discuss implications for scandal.

The word comes like a seed, and the harvest varies from person to person. Why suppose that we can only learn the truth about the seed from those who have provided the most pitiful harvest?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited July 22, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Hamba Tuhan]

I would too, if those had been my experiences.

Which may do much to explain our apparently divergent paths.

[rockpond]

I'm rather astonished that he claims that he didn't know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Last time I checked, the D&C included D&C 132, and for decades, its been easy to go into any LDS bookstore, or any anti-LDS bookstore, even if you don't have the energy to peek at the Journal of Mormon History, or Signature Books, BYU Studies, or Joseph F. Smith's Pamphlet on The Origins of Plural Marriage, or even the Work and the Glory. I showed the article to my wife, and she exclaimed, "I can't remember when I didn't know this stuff!"

For someone get that high up and be so utterly naive strikes me as rather unusual. It's never a good idea to generalize from atypical situations. How about a poll of general authorities,and asking them how typical is it for someone to get to be a Seventy and not know about polygamy? How about asking how many of them do know and aren't scandalized by it? How about some stories from the perspective of people who've known so long that they take it utterly for granted? Do you think it might be possible to learn from the behavior and experience of most well informed and well adjusted members? Or wouldn't that be news?

And while the tone of the article is reasonable (given that the whole point is to be as sensational as possible,

while pretending not to be), I do notice the accuracy slipping away the further along the bullet points I read. And there is a reliance on insinuation throughout, rather than any effort whatsoever to contextualize the information.

Take this one:

Is this insinuating that when Joseph Smith was looking into the hat to obscure the light, that any of those witnesses thought that Joseph Smith was doing anything other than translating the plates?

And while we're not really asking this question, obviously not looking things up in something useful like Bush and Mauss, Neither White Nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race issue in a Universal Church, let's not notice that we are also not asking why Slavery was still going on in much of America in 1847 and why the federal government gave up on reconstruction, and what Jim Crow means, and why statistics on lynching could be kept, and why 100 years after being emancipated, the Civil Rights movement had a reason to be at its peak.

The supposed identification of "the papryus that Smith used in translation" is not at all certain, given the number of papyrus that Joseph Smith had compared to what we have, and considering that the text of the Book of Abraham predates the KEP. LDS scholars have published translation of the Hor Book of Breathings (Nibley and Rhodes). They are not scandalized by their contents. (Nibley had pointed out in Abraham in Egypt that the Egyptian scholars had pointed out ties between the Abraham Apocrypha and the Egyptian Book of the Dead.) Who kept Mattsson from reading them? He is certainly of age of have been aware of the 29 part series that Nibley ran in the Improvement Era, including the first color photographs published very quickly after the Metropolitan Museum.

A simulation of an even journalistic tone is not the same thing as informed and balanced.

Notice the wide-eyed innocent wonder with which we juxtopose "dozens of wives" with the not actually accurate "some as young as 14" we might as well mention that one, Helen Mar Kimball by name, and consider what she personally reported about the situation. The personal accounts by wives, as well as the lack of DNA evidence of descendants outside of Emma, does raise some interesting questions about what it really meant to be a plural wife of Joseph Smith. But that kind of journalism takes more work than the hint and run approach.

Annoying.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Our published RS/Priesthood manual on the life and teachings of Brigham Young doesn't talk about polygamy! As a church we do not make an attempt to discuss these issues. I understand that there are good reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact that we walked ourselves into this...

The issue remains that these faith crises are occurring among Mormons all over the world. You can continue to say that people have no excuse for not knowing this information, or we can face it institutionally, as a church and work on it.

Right now, it seems that we've left that responsibility to people like Givens, Dehlin, and Greg Prince. They are great people and maybe leaving it to them is the best way to handle it. Or maybe it's time for the church to step into this arena.

[Senator]

Which may do much to explain our apparently divergent paths.

I'm inclined to think that our paths are not much divergent.

[Kevin Christensen]

Our published RS/Priesthood manual on the life and teachings of Brigham Young doesn't talk about polygamy!

Since I am not utterly dependent on that particular manual on as my source of information, I just can't get excited. As a child, I watched Dean Jagger do his Brigham Young impression on a screen set up in the chapel. I went on tours of the Beehive House. I've got hundreds of other sources. Arrington's bio, Nibley's Sounding Brass, for instance. If the committee that made that the decision (a few people, doing what they thought best) didn't include that important bit of information, I might be slightly annoyed, but I was so pleased to have a manual that was fun and interesting to teach with, after decades of worse than useless pablum, forgive me if my primary emotion regarding that manual is joy.

As a church we do not make an attempt to discuss these issues.

Who is we? What is the church? Where are the boundaries between "the Church" and the utterly helpless parts of the membership, there every Sunday, owning books like Comprehensive History of the Church, attending Daughters of the Utah Pioneers, various historical societies, geneologists, institute teachers, seminary teachers, sunday school teachers,, Sunstone, BYU Studies, Dialogue, BYU, Ricks, librarians, informal hall conversations, all of whom have no voice and no resources?

The church by me, is a bunch of people. Not just the hierarchy, not the buildings, nor manuals, nor the committees. It's everyone. If I listen to everyone, I hear a lot more conversation than if I only listen to General Conference, and Priesthood manuals.

I understand that there are good reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact that we walked ourselves into this...

It all depends on who you count when you say we and what you mean by this.

The issue remains that these faith crises are occurring among Mormons all over the world. You can continue to say that people have no excuse for not knowing this information, or we can face it institutionally, as a church and work on it.

Faith crisis is a natural part of human development. See John 6, and the multitude saying, "This is a hard saying. Who can hear it? Or "have any of the rulers or of the pharisees believed on him?" How we navigate them says something about what we value most in life. Are we willing to risk what we Think and what we Desire in order to discover the Real?

Right now, it seems that we've left that responsibility to people like Givens, Dehlin, and Greg Prince. They are great people and maybe leaving it to them is the best way to handle it. Or maybe it's time for the church to step into this arena.

The way I look at it, Givens, and Dehlin and Prince are the "church" as much as anyone in the hierarchy. And for the record, I've published on the topic myself. Here's something from 18 years ago.

Take note that those who send out the young unprepared, or who create faulty background expectations for them, have just as much to answer for as those who stand in the great and spacious building, zealously or morbidly pointing out problems. Whether they intend to or not, both camps can lead innocent individuals to feel shame at clinging to the iron rod, and to lose their way, and wander lost in the broad roads. The disillusioned got their illusions somewhere.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=7&num=2&id=193

We can do better, I agree. But I'm for giving credit where credit is due, as well as asking for improvements.

It helps my relationship with the institutional arms of the church if I keep a set of realistic expectations regarding how it behaves:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_%28military_strategist%29

The edge will always be more responsive than headquarters. Messier, but fun and exciting.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[stemelbow]

Our published RS/Priesthood manual on the life and teachings of Brigham Young doesn't talk about polygamy! As a church we do not make an attempt to discuss these issues. I understand that there are good reasons for that but it doesn't change the fact that we walked ourselves into this...

The issue remains that these faith crises are occurring among Mormons all over the world. You can continue to say that people have no excuse for not knowing this information, or we can face it institutionally, as a church and work on it.

Right now, it seems that we've left that responsibility to people like Givens, Dehlin, and Greg Prince. They are great people and maybe leaving it to them is the best way to handle it. Or maybe it's time for the church to step into this arena.

I fear the church has tried too hard to control the information, the tone, and the teachings we are giving out. Now we're seeing the biggest problems with that. I don't think it's unfixable, but in it all, we're going to lose many a good people. But that was always the case. We'll always being losing good people. Most people, as it turns out, simply aren't going to be LDS--for many reasons.

[Thinking]

The headline should read some mormons search the web because they have doubts. Back in the early 90's when I first started having questions, I talked to my bishop. He told told me that there are some things that we won't know until the next life.

[canard78]

I'd rather swallow razor blades than listen to a podcast, but I do hope that people find some measure of peace. I'd feel completely empty if I were to turn my back on things like prophecy, revelation, visions, healings, angelic ministrations, priesthood power, the teachings of the Book of Mormon, the inexpressible joy that comes from daily engaging with the Restored Gospel, etc.

Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses.

It's a shame. If it was an interview broadcast on BYU.tv or on the radio would you listen. It's a straight up interview between Dehlin and Mattsson. If you're not willing to do the research and listen to his side of the story then I struggle to see how you can bring any credibility to the discussion. You earlier made assumptions and compared him to Lyman and your friend. It's a 50 minute interview (skip to episode 4 and then 5) to 'first seek to understand, then seek to be understood.'

And are you saying the Lyman didn't actually say the words you quoted, that instead BY is reporting why Lyman might have said. Was this before or after he suggested Emma was going to hell and Joseph would have to fetch her himself?

Edited July 22, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Since I am not utterly dependent on that particular manual on as my source of information, I just can't get excited. As a child, I watched Dean Jagger do his Brigham Young impression on a screen set up in the chapel. I went on tours of the Beehive House. I've got hundreds of other sources. Arrington's bio, Nibley's Sounding Brass, for instance. If the committee that made that the decision (a few people, doing what they thought best) didn't include that important bit of information, I might be slightly annoyed, but I was so pleased to have a manual that was fun and interesting to teach with, after decades of worse than useless pablum, forgive me if my primary emotion regarding that manual is joy.

You keep on saying that people should be aware of Joseph's polygamy. But here are two church historians that do agree that Joseph's polygamy is not widely known:

Richard Bushman

You would be amazed at the number of Mormons who don’t think Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It just wasn’t talked about. It was never mentioned in church periodicals. That was policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/us/some-mormons-search-the-web-and-find-doubt.html?pagewanted=all

And:

Richard E. Turley Jr. (Assistant Church Historian):

Did Joseph Smith practice plural marriage? Yes. Many church members don’t know it but the answer is yes.

http://mormonstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Turley_Jensen_Stockholm_2010.pdf

So if Turley and Bushman are so certain that many church members don't know that Joseph even practiced polygamy at all (let alone the multiple teenagers (including two 14yos, not just Helen Marr) and 11 men's wives and one 17yo house maid in 1833 to start it all off) why are you and others here so shocked that someone would say Joseph's polygamy was a surprise to them, especially someone who's read enough to know the full details?

And why does Bushman speak of a "policy" of silence about polygamy. You've excused the ommission of the wives from the Brigham Young manual (even to the point of changing 'wives' to 'wife' in the text). But the fact remains that many are unaware of the details of polygamy, despite D&C 132 and despite the various books that you've read about it.

[rockpond]

Since I am not utterly dependent on that particular manual on as my source of information, I just can't get excited. As a child, I watched Dean Jagger do his Brigham Young impression on a screen set up in the chapel. I went on tours of the Beehive House. I've got hundreds of other sources. Arrington's bio, Nibley's Sounding Brass, for instance. If the committee that made that the decision (a few people, doing what they thought best) didn't include that important bit of information, I might be slightly annoyed, but I was so pleased to have a manual that was fun and interesting to teach with, after decades of worse than useless pablum, forgive me if my primary emotion regarding that manual is joy.

Not everyone had your "born & raised in Utah" experience.

And, yes, I also think that the "prophets" series of manuals is a huge improvement. For the most part, I enjoy them as well.

Who is we? What is the church? Where are the boundaries between "the Church" and the utterly helpless parts of the membership, there every Sunday, owning books like Comprehensive History of the Church, attending Daughters of the Utah Pioneers, various historical societies, geneologists, institute teachers, seminary teachers, sunday school teachers,, Sunstone, BYU Studies, Dialogue, BYU, Ricks, librarians, informal hall conversations, all of whom have no voice and no resources?

The church by me, is a bunch of people. Not just the hierarchy, not the buildings, nor manuals, nor the committees. It's everyone. If I listen to everyone, I hear a lot more conversation than if I only listen to General Conference, and Priesthood manuals.

I agree, we are all the body of the church. I certainly don't want to suggest some kind of dependence on the Brethren for *everything*... that's not their job and we have responsibilities as members. But, again, your statement here about the kinds of people you walk the church halls with reflects your experience. Your circles are certainly different than those of other members.

It all depends on who you count when you say we and what you mean by this.

I meant all of us. But those who author the manuals that we are required to use probably carry a bit more of the burden.

Faith crisis is a natural part of human development. See John 6, and the multitude saying, "This is a hard saying. Who can hear it? Or "have any of the rulers or of the pharisees believed on him?" How we navigate them says something about what we value most in life. Are we willing to risk what we Think and what we Desire in order to discover the Real?

And how we help others navigate their faith crises says a lot about what we value.

The way I look at it, Givens, and Dehlin and Prince are the "church" as much as anyone in the hierarchy. And for the record, I've published on the topic myself. Here's something from 18 years ago.

http://maxwellinstit...=7&num=2&id=193

We can do better, I agree. But I'm for giving credit where credit is due, as well as asking for improvements.

It helps my relationship with the institutional arms of the church if I keep a set of realistic expectations regarding how it behaves:

http://en.wikipedia....ary_strategist)

The edge will always be more responsive than headquarters. Messier, but fun and exciting.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I agree... Dehlin, Givens, Prince are all part of the church. So are you and I honor you for writing quality stuff. But I think you'll also agree with me that there are some within the church who strongly disagree with Dehlin, Givens, & Prince and what they are doing. There are those who consider them apostate for their views.

And I don't think that the oft repeated attitude that "it is a member's own fault if they don't know about polygamy, peep stones, Book of Abraham issues, etc" is useful. There are members who don't. And it's not their fault. Our curriculum doesn't teach those things and not everyone has the same cultural experience in the church.

One of the most well known newspapers in the world published an article on Mormon faith crises. It's out there. Definitely time to stop saying that those members should know better. Probably more useful for us to bring the article into our ward councils and say: how do we fix this?