Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[Johnnie Cake]

New York Times article...

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Oh joy...

Edited to add: with all these new missionaries and temples, Satan is putting on his a-game...

editing to tone it down some...be back SOON

Edited July 22, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[canard78]

I recognise I've been quite vocal and emotional in my defence of Hans Mattsson.

I've listened to his interview with Dehlin. I've read the full transcript of the Turley/Jensen visit to Sweden in 2010.

If find Mattsson's concerns reasonable and often unanswered.

I'll try to calm the passion in my posts down and 'play the ball as it lies.'

[Tacenda]

In response to Kevin, I can't remember if it was you or someone else that responded to me about the LDS.org site that doesn't mention any wives for only those prophets/presidents that lived polygamy and then picked up for the other presidents when no polygamy was lived and mentions wives on the Significant Events page. I'll post the page below for the umpteenth time, to show that indeed the church hides it. Why wouldn't the names of these wives be listed, these women sacrificed a lot for the doctrine of polygamy/polyandry. Yet they aren't mentioned? Very sad.

If the church would open this door/window and air it out, people in the long run won't be too bothered, just like with Brigham Young's polygamy, even though through the years I didn't know he also married other living men's/men wives/or wife, that's a new one for me, just this year. I wish the church had WhyMe's stand point of being open. It would be like the people that have hidden secrets and once told to someone can feel better and healed. The church can heal from any undesirable history information. It can even triumph when it stands by it's own teachings of truth and in being honest. Since being honest is also not withholding information. If the leaders acted as a whole and were in that temple interview would they be able to answer the temple question "are you honest in all your dealings". Why isn't the church held up to the standard that the individual is?

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

[Johnnie Cake]

This is a sad situation and the church has no one to blame but themselves...and the saddest part is that it could have been completely prevented had the church chosen to be more honest and forthright…it’s the chickens coming home to roost...it's the church having to pay for the fiddler...This is the direct result of the church choosing at some point in the past to be less than forthright and making a decision that I’m guessing thought would never be exposed. A decision to turn up the volume on its faith promoting brand of history rather than a more honest yet less faith promoting version of historical events. It’s the result of teaching a brand of history as they wanted it to have played out rather than how it actually did play out. A history that had a lot more “man” and a lot less “God” than the version currently taught. And it’s again another perfect example of a church reacting to events and having to play catch up to realities. One would think that a church directed by God would have been aware of future events and taken preventive measures to safe guard its membership from the impending storm that was just over the horizons with the coming of the invention of the internet.

All the signs of an impending faith crisis implosion within the church were right there before their eyes years before the invention of the internet had the church merely wanted to come clean…but the church chose to ignore those signs and proceed full steam ahead as if the conditions that the church operated in had not changed, as if the world of available knowledge and information was not about to have the greatest expansion of available information since Guttenberg’s invention of the moveable type printing press. Decisions were made to ignore the signs and play like the world would always be the same and that the rules of the game had not changed…but they did change…and now the church is having to play catch up and react. It’s as if the leadership of the church didn’t see this impending storm coming and was caught completely off guard…imagine that…

As someone who has also gone through a similar faith examination...I feel vindicated...

Edited July 22, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

Hey I thought you had left Johnnie Cake. Good to see you around.

This is a sad situation and the church has no one to blame but themselves...and the saddest part is that it could have been completely prevented had the church chosen to be more honest and forthright…

Whose to say? There will always be good explanations to not believe. Whether the information was had by this man from the beginning or the end, it may not have mattered. He might have left as a teenager or something, if he knew the things he said he never knew about.

I agree, the church is better off just being as open and honest as possible about everything. But, even if the Church is, I'd imagine there'd be plenty each year who would up and leave.

it’s the chickens coming home to roost...it's the church having to pay for the fiddler...This is the direct result of the church choosing at some point in the past to be less than forthright and making a decision that I’m guessing thought would never be exposed. A decision to turn up the volume on its faith promoting brand of history rather than a more honest yet less faith promoting version of historical events. It’s the result of teaching a brand of history as they wanted it to have played out rather than how it actually did play out. A history that had a lot more “man” and a lot less “God” than the version currently taught. And it’s again another perfect example of a church reacting to events and having to play catch up to realities. One would think that a church directed by God would have been aware of future events and taken preventive measures to safe guard its membership from the impending storm that was just over the horizons with the coming of the invention of the internet.

I think the Church has for quite sometime operated on the assumption that if it controls what is taught, in terms of doctrine, history and practice, faith will most often prevail over disillusionment, and feelings of distrust. Perhaps these past few years and ocming years will tell us whether that assumption was a good one to operate under or not.

All the signs of an impending faith crisis implosion within the church were right there before their eyes years before the invention of the internet had the church merely wanted to come clean…but the church chose to ignore those signs and proceed full steam ahead as if the conditions that the church operated in had not changed, as if the world of available knowledge and information was not about to have the greatest expansion of available information since Guttenberg’s invention of the moveable type printing press. Decisions were made to ignore the signs and play like the world would always be the same and that the rules of the game had not changed…but they did change…and now the church is having to play catch up and react. It’s as if the leadership of the church didn’t see this impending storm coming and was caught completely off guard…imagine that…

As someone who has also gone through a similar faith examination...I feel vindicated...

But if ten years down the road the church somehow does something, turns into something that completely shatters what has vindicated you now, then what?

[Johnnie Cake]

Hey I thought you had left Johnnie Cake. Good to see you around.

Whose to say? There will always be good explanations to not believe. Whether the information was had by this man from the beginning or the end, it may not have mattered. He might have left as a teenager or something, if he knew the things he said he never knew about.

I agree, the church is better off just being as open and honest as possible about everything. But, even if the Church is, I'd imagine there'd be plenty each year who would up and leave.

I think the Church has for quite sometime operated on the assumption that if it controls what is taught, in terms of doctrine, history and practice, faith will most often prevail over disillusionment, and feelings of distrust. Perhaps these past few years and ocming years will tell us whether that assumption was a good one to operate under or not.

But if ten years down the road the church somehow does something, turns into something that completely shatters what has vindicated you now, then what?

The world and conditions within which the church must function have changed...whether the church wishes to acknowledge this reality or not...and the church must either change and adapt to this new reality or continue to become less and less relevant.

PS: I did leave MD&D but this subject was something that was just too close to my heart to leave alone...I'll crawl back into my cave now

Edited July 22, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[The Nehor]

The world and conditions within which the church must function have changed...whether the church wishes to acknowledge this reality or not...and the church must either change and adapt to this new reality or continue to become less and less relevant.

The relevancy of the church and the gospel it preaches is determined by whether it is true or not. Its relevancy is not influenced by what people think of it or what our enemies insist we should teach to stay relevant.

[mrmcplad]

We talk about the Church as a monolithic institution, as if it had its own independent will, emotions, and personality. To this end, would it be at all helpful to think of "the Church" as a person? To look at the last 180 years in a sort of personal narrative? Here's my rough cut:

In her youth, the Church grew fast and everything was exciting. Newly married, she had a vision of glory, the ideals of Zion, moving her forward and desired to bring all people to her, to make them her children. She spoke excitedly of the future, and interpreted the events in her life in a way that propelled her in a direct course toward that thrilling horizon. Some of her memories of the past were inconsistent with what actually happened, but she didn't take the time to process the incoherence. A few things she did with wistful regret and sought to hide them, or, when pressed, to justify them. She was proud. She did not always live up to the ideals of Zion. She sinned in some instances. Her weaknesses overcame her in many.

Then, approaching middle age, things slow down and some of her expectations are not met. The Church begins to become wiser. She recognizes her sins and weaknesses. In her zeal to become Zion, she had ignored many of the very principles upon which Zion must be founded. She begins to repent, but it's hard. Hard to admit wrong-doing publicly (and privately, in her bathroom mirror). Hard to face the fact that she may have let down the people who trusted her with so much. Will she see compassion from them after leading them down blind alleys with fervent bravado? Or will they scorn her? Will evidence of her fallibility be seen with charity or be mocked by her children?

She cares for her people, her children. She has done much to help and lift them, and she doesn't want to risk losing them, especially because of her own imperfect parenting. Yet she knows that if she is to continue in her role, she must remember her primary loyalty is not to the children she hopes to please, but to her husband. The Anointed One. The One who promised her exaltation in the first place. She begins to cry to Him for forgiveness. She seeks the power of His atonement. And she resolves to hold tighter to the Word of God from now on, and to be more careful, introspective, and quick to repent.

[Johnnie Cake]

The relevancy of the church and the gospel it preaches is determined by whether it is true or not. Its relevancy is not influenced by what people think of it or what our enemies insist we should teach to stay relevant.

Well Nehor...surprisingly I somewhat agree with you... and with respect to your second point…I guess it just comes down to who the church wants its message to reach. If the world and those that the church is attempting to reach through its missionary program no longer find its message relevant or the church credible in its claims…then those that the church do reach will be those less educated, more needy in terms of taking limited financial resources and those less able to contribute to the financial needs of the church. And well if that is the demographic that the church is seeking…I guess it is succeeding

[stemelbow]

The world and conditions within which the church must function have changed...whether the church wishes to acknowledge this reality or not...and the church must either change and adapt to this new reality or continue to become less and less relevant.

PS: I did leave MD&D but this subject was something that was just too close to my heart to leave alone...I'll crawl back into my cave now

Ahh...no need to leave, But do what you must.

Relevant to who/what? it might not be a bad idea for the church to decrease in relevancy depending what is the relevancy test.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not sure what you mean. Elder Mattsson started seeking because he wanted to help Swedish members who had questions. A stake president (among others) expressed concerns. When he couldn't get answers from official sources (including Marlin Jensen) he tried to find answers himself out of concern for his friends.

All of this rings true for me (albeit at a less 'elevated' level). I wouldn't say I'm a victim of liberalism.

I do find it interesting that I also have this issue. I was willing to believe that an angel visited Joseph, gave him gold plates over 1000 years old which he translated with a strange contraption that sounded more like a scuba diving kit than a divine instrument.

I believed that the resurrected Peter and James accompanied by the immortal John (or Highlander as we call him in UK) visited Joseph and Oliver to hand over the priesthood. I believed that God the father himself visited Joseph in person in 1820, taking time out from his busy schedule of running the universe (who was answering prayers for the other billion during that visit - did they get the answering machine?). I believed that people were brought back from the dead, that an old patriarch was willing to stab his son to death at God's command before an angel with a ram and a thicket arrived to stop him.

Elder Mattsson believed all of this too. He still does for some of it. The issue is not a willingness to believe the fantastical (and I was intentionally flippant in my list above to show that for a non-believer these things do seem somewhat a stretch of credibility), the issue is in the unexplained behaviours (and unanswered questions around them) of church leaders, church practice and doctrine from Joseph on down to present.

(ETA: Elder Mattsson still recognises that Mormonism is a good way. He just doesn't feel it's the only way).

LITERALISM not liberalism.

I am also willing to believe all those things, and in fact do, but if any or all of them are false, I really don't care.

Lord, I believe, help thou my unbelief.

Look, I am a philosophy guy. Before i found this church all I had was philosophy. Who cares what Bertrand Russel did in his private life. Who cares if he plagerized everything he wrote and was a murdering rapist who killed 19 people (all of this is untrue incidentally- it is a what if) WHAT COUNTS IS HOW GOOD HIS PHILOSOPHY IS.

For me, Mormon philosophy stands alone, and as I have said before, if I had to invent a church which would work for me, it would be Mormon Doctrine without the plates, visions, angels, strange history etc.

I would believe that God is a glorified Man and that we are gods in embryo and we can grow up to be like our Father. I would believe that one should worship the Family and that community involvement- in one's faith community especially is essential to "filling the measure of one's creation and having joy therein".

I would invent a temple in which these things were taught to a select few, in symbolic fashion, possibly using masonic-like symbols. We need ritual in our lives, especially in our spiritual lives. I would teach that we need to be guided by our inner voice, and do always what that voice tells us, and NEVER do otherwise.

Sound familiar? THAT would be my church.

And it is. I found it and came home, and reside here peacefully and happily, thank you very much, and will never leave because I know these principles are true.

You think I care that it needs a new roof every once in a while? That the hundreds of year old foundation has a few chinks?

Heck no! Get out the mortar and trowel and fix the chinks, or jack the house up and replace the foundation- who cares? It's my home!

You don't demolish your house and go homeless because it has termites and needs a paint job.

That's what I meant.

Edited July 22, 2013 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

I went on tours of the Beehive House.

Just to be clear, I went on a tour of the Beehive house earlier this month and Brigham Young's polygamy was not mentioned by the tour guides until my son asked about it. (And their answer was evasive.)

Edited July 22, 2013 by cinepro

[Duncan]

Just to be clear, I went on a tour of the Beehive house earlier this month and Brigham Young's polygamy was not mentioned by the tour guides until my son asked about it. (And their answer was evasive.)

why would they bring up polygamy? it's a tour of his house!

[mfbukowski]

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.

Just for the record, I want to say that I believe in a literal Satan as well- I believe all the foundational stories literally, or COULD BE literal.

My point is that I don't care if they were literal or not. It doesn't matter to me if Satan is a negative force opposed to a positive force in the universe, or if he is a guy with horns and a pitchfork and a tail. Regardless, the principles of good in opposition to evil are the same.

So if science someday, having proven the existence of God as a literal man- we get his picture sitting at his heavenly desk doing his work of bringing to pass our eternal life, while God is on the phone to some kid dying of cancer- after we get that picture, and we go to take a picture of Satan and it comes up blank, I am not going to freak out because he doesn't have a tail.

And when we go back in the time machine and take our surveillance cameras and catch Joseph doing something he shouldn't have, I am not going to freak out.

I can take it on a literal or a symbolic or "forces of the universe" level and it all works fine for me.

If God made us through evolution or intelligent design or special creation of Adam, or even if it is all just in my mind and gives me peace, I don't care- it is all the same to me.

I am happy and fulfilled in my beliefs and being the best person I can be. What more does anyone want?

[stemelbow]

why would they bring up polygamy? it's a tour of his house!

uhhh...because in that house he lived as a polygamist.

When I go on historical tours of places I'd like to get some historical context. It seems reasonable that his polygamy would be a part of the tour.

[bluebell]

Just to be clear, I went on a tour of the Beehive house earlier this month and Brigham Young's polygamy was not mentioned by the tour guides until my son asked about it. (And their answer was evasive.)

i had that same experience and I thought it was really weird.

[cursor]

When Chicken Little gets bonked on the head by a shingle, that is data. Interpretation is "The sky is falling!" Another interpretation is, "Oh. I got bonked on the head by a shingle. Perhaps I should be more careful."

Actually, it was an acorn ... not a shingle.

[Duncan]

uhhh...because in that house he lived as a polygamist.

When I go on historical tours of places I'd like to get some historical context. It seems reasonable that his polygamy would be a part of the tour.

I took my son to the Electrical museum sometime ago and the guide talked to us for 2 hours (they had maybe 4 rooms) and my goodness I couldn't wait to get outta there! different strokes for different folks I guess!

[stemelbow]

I took my son to the Electrical museum sometime ago and the guide talked to us for 2 hours (they had maybe 4 rooms) and my goodness I couldn't wait to get outta there! different strokes for different folks I guess!

What makes ya think it'd take 2 hours to mention that BY was a polygamist?

[cinepro]

What makes ya think it'd take 2 hours to mention that BY was a polygamist?

Yeah, we didn't say they should try to actually name all the wives...

Edited July 22, 2013 by cinepro

[Duncan]

What makes ya think it'd take 2 hours to mention that BY was a polygamist?

I didn't but I don't like them telling me every last detail about something, If I want to know more about something then i'll find out on me own

[The Nehor]

Well Nehor...surprisingly I somewhat agree with you... and with respect to your second point…I guess it just comes down to who the church wants its message to reach. If the world and those that the church is attempting to reach through its missionary program no longer find its message relevant or the church credible in its claims…then those that the church do reach will be those less educated, more needy in terms of taking limited financial resources and those less able to contribute to the financial needs of the church. And well if that is the demographic that the church is seeking…I guess it is succeeding

This has always been the case. The wealthy and the well educated rarely join the church (though of course there are exceptions). Most of the wealthy in the church reached that state after joining or are descendants of those who joined.

Jesus could not seem to get the wealthy and educated interested. Why should we expect to do better? The only educated member in the last dispensation mentioned in scripture was Paul and God does not let us schedule our missionary work around angelic visitation. Nicodemus was interested but was not willing to openly support Jesus. Later the educated joined in droves and we got the apostasy. We did not need wealth then and we really do not need it now.

We get the scriptural warning that the learned often imagine this makes them wise.

[The Nehor]

Yeah, we didn't say they should try to actually name all the wives...

I have an idea for a Primary song.

[Storm Rider]

You will find what you are looking for....every time. If you are looking for what is ugly, you will find it. If you are looking for what is uplifting, you will find it. If you are looking for faith, you will find it. If you are looking for doubt, you will find it. You will find exactly what you are looking for in life. I wonder how often individuals in the Church actually understand the 13 Article of Faith? I cannot tell you why some people talk about a BY one way and not another, but I can tell you one thing; it does not matter a hill of cold beans that he was a polygamist in the eternal scheme of things. I can also tell you that most of you don't know jack about the history of the Old Testament or the New Testament. Guys, it is simple, no one needs to know the vast majority of things about historical activities of most, if not all, prophets. It stuns me that a Christian, any Christian, would get the slightest bit excited about anything any of the latter day prophets have done if they understood what the early prophets had done. It all depends on what we are looking for; where is our focus when we read the scriptures. If we want to spot what offends us, we will find a whole host of things. Yet, if we want to focus on the spiritual, the uplifting, we will find it and remember it. It is almost as if we are to believe that people fell out of the back of a turnip truck, innocent and ignorant as newborn lambs, and finally understood that God calls the weak as his servants and he makes them strong. When you come down off that high horse of shock and dismay I would encourage each of you to look in the mirror for a good long while and see if you can find the sinner staring back at you. Then throw that rock if you haven't broken your arm from having patted yourself on the back so hard. More than anything the internet is an echo chamber and the few become the many because they all talk and no one listens or takes time to think. It is that constant whine that we hear so often from the wannabe victims that our society seems to produce in ever greater numbers. Everyone wants to race to the front of the line of victimhood and so very few take the time to take responsibility for their lives by remembering that the life of a disciple begins and ends with humility. There is far too much mouth and for too little ears being used.

[Thinking]

You will find what you are looking for....every time.

I want the truth.

If you are looking for what is ugly, you will find it.

Sometimes the truth is ugly.

If you are looking for what is uplifting, you will find it.

Sometimes the truth is uplifting.

If you are looking for faith, you will find it.

Sometimes the truth builds faith.

If you are looking for doubt, you will find it.

Sometimes the truth creates doubt.