Abiltity To Name Specific Mistakes

[wenglund]

Have you at last been shamed in silence, DBMormon?

 

Is shame even possible these days?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Is shame even possible these days?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm confused as to why DBMormon should feel shamed.

[CV75]

My experience is that they do advise against enmity.

 

 

That has certainly been my experience in my ward.  I know that there are members who feel "disenfranchised" (for lack of a better word) and still serve & worship faithfully.  Without contention.  But then there are those who discover challenging issues, feel betrayed, and walk away.  I know because I almost was one of them a few years back.

 

I like the trend that I am see coming from both within the leadership and without in facing the challenging issues of our beliefs/history in a faith promoting manner.  I think that's what Bill (the OP) is asking for here is to continue to push forward along that path.  But I could be mistaken.

Every decade since the Restoration began has had its challenging issues and members that feel so challenged by them that they walk away. And some resist that urge. It's always been one problem or another (personal or societal), or some fad or worldly philosophy or another. "Mistakes" (real or perceived) have not been the only challenge to one's faithful membership.

 

Our leaders generally have addressed the many challenges as the Lord inspired them. Because the OP set the focus on their fallibility and mistakes, and so many posters have been all too eager to publish their favorite list, I think "faith promoting" can be a loaded term in a thread like this, so let's just say that those abiding by the Gift of the Holy Ghost had ears to hear that the Lord wanted them to stick with the Church, regardless of whatever it was that deceived them in to wanting to leave the Church.

 

The only way to know the truthfulness of something is to "remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men" before praying about it, and that can't be done by focusing on what you think the Lord didn't do, which actually teaches you not to pray.

[Tacenda]

Of course you are correct. But I see it as a continuum. One one side you have members who err by their officious assumption of pharisical authority and fawning authority worship; on the other side you have fault-finders of the Brethren and those who think commandment-keeping isn't for them or their friends. Pick your poison.

Bob, you're correct also. I forgot those aspects, (fault finders of the brethren and commandment-keeping, etc.) Listening right this moment to a Mormon Stories podcast with John Dehlin speaking to an Unorthodox Jew, a Christian Pastor and a Progressive Muslim. This is a 4 part podcast. They touch on the wonderful parts of each religion. And now with science, technology & internet we see that all things in the Bible may not be history, as well as the BOM, and the Quran, but it doesn't matter. What matters is what scripture does for them spiritually. This means we should each accept others in their faith walk, for each have their own truth and above all, gain the ability to love. I loved this podcast! So instead of poison, I guess we need some raisin wine, red wine, pomegranate juice and Red Bull , with a touch of love in each. This podcast made me appreciate Mormonism or my tribe, much better.

I guess the LDS church is such a young religion that we must be going through some growing pains right now.

http://mormonstories.org/ Highly recommended!

Edited November 7, 2013 by Tacenda

[AndyDnom]

...and most, if not all, threads started by DBMormon. LOL  I wonder why?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I have no idea what this means. but DB mormons podcast leaves me unhappy.

[Tacenda]

I have no idea what this means. but DB mormons podcast leaves me unhappy.

Which podcast makes you unhappy?

[Robert F. Smith]

Bob, you're correct also. I forgot those aspects, (fault finders of the brethren and commandment-keeping, etc.) Listening right this moment to a Mormon Stories podcast with John Dehlin speaking to an Unorthodox Jew, a Christian Pastor and a Progressive Muslim. This is a 4 part podcast. They touch on the wonderful parts of each religion. And now with science, technology & internet we see that all things in the Bible may not be history, as well as the BOM, and the Quran, but it doesn't matter. What matters is what scripture does for them spiritually. This means we should each accept others in their faith walk, for each have their own truth and above all, gain the ability to love. I loved this podcast! So instead of poison, I guess we need some raisin wine, red wine, pomegranate juice and Red Bull , with a touch of love in each. This podcast made me appreciate Mormonism or my tribe, much better.

I guess the LDS church is such a young religion that we must be going through some growing pains right now.

http://mormonstories.org/ Highly recommended!

I love you, Tacenda!!

[Stone holm]

It would be entirely outside your province to include content in gospel doctrine classes, devotionals, high council talks, etc. to the effect, for example, that the pre-1978 restriction on the priesthood was a "mistake" that the Church should apologize for.

 

Is it likely that anyone would do that?  On the other hand, we had a three month or so series of adult education classes on the pre-1978 restriction and its lifting.  Not calling something a mistake, and I for one am not sure that it could be correctly classified as such is one thing, not talking about it is not necessarily, the remedy though.

[omni]

Is it likely that anyone would do that?  On the other hand, we had a three month or so series of adult education classes on the pre-1978 restriction and its lifting.  Not calling something a mistake, and I for one am not sure that it could be correctly classified as such is one thing, not talking about it is not necessarily, the remedy though.

 

I'm aware of a bishop had been approached by a large number of members in his ward regarding their concerns or loss of faith due to historical issues.   He was so concerned about it that for an entire year he assigned various individuals to cover these topics in their talks and how they were able to overcome their doubts.  It was a bold move, but I would be curious to know if anyone else has seen this in their ward.

[rockpond]

Every decade since the Restoration began has had its challenging issues and members that feel so challenged by them that they walk away. And some resist that urge. It's always been one problem or another (personal or societal), or some fad or worldly philosophy or another. "Mistakes" (real or perceived) have not been the only challenge to one's faithful membership.

Our leaders generally have addressed the many challenges as the Lord inspired them. Because the OP set the focus on their fallibility and mistakes, and so many posters have been all too eager to publish their favorite list, I think "faith promoting" can be a loaded term in a thread like this, so let's just say that those abiding by the Gift of the Holy Ghost had ears to hear that the Lord wanted them to stick with the Church, regardless of whatever it was that deceived them in to wanting to leave the Church.

The only way to know the truthfulness of something is to "remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men" before praying about it, and that can't be done by focusing on what you think the Lord didn't do, which actually teaches you not to pray.

Again, I agree with the sentiment but it may not be particularly useful in practice. Mistakes have been made by leaders over what is otherwise a rich and beautiful church history.

When a member feels betrayed by those mistakes to the point where they are in a faith crisis, your instruction to trust in the inspiration of the leaders may not be productive. And asking them to pray more and rely on the spirit could be difficult when a member feels that they have lost their faith.

I tend to think that providing them with some tools to reinterpret that which has hurt them and rebuild their faith would be more useful.

[rockpond]

I'm aware of a bishop had been approached by a large number of members in his ward regarding their concerns or loss of faith due to historical issues. He was so concerned about it that for an entire year he assigned various individuals to cover these topics in their talks and how they were able to overcome their doubts. It was a bold move, but I would be curious to know if anyone else has seen this in their ward.

Very bold. I'd be nervous about the direction talks like that could potentially take. I haven't personally felt that to be the right move in my ward, but I'm open to it. I would love to hear from anyone who has had first hand experience with trying to address these challenging issues within ward meetings.

[Bob Crockett]

Whatever might be said about the FairMormon organization, it has never occurred to me that it is ark-steadying or anything comparable thereto.

 

What a strange notion.

Lots of strange things happen in religious discussions.  I rather like FAIR's work.  I have issues with the opening post.  But DBMormon tries to do the same thing FAIR does, I think.

[CV75]

Again, I agree with the sentiment but it may not be particularly useful in practice. Mistakes have been made by leaders over what is otherwise a rich and beautiful church history. When a member feels betrayed by those mistakes to the point where they are in a faith crisis, your instruction to trust in the inspiration of the leaders may not be productive. And asking them to pray more and rely on the spirit could be difficult when a member feels that they have lost their faith. I tend to think that providing them with some tools to reinterpret that which has hurt them and rebuild their faith would be more useful.

It certainly works for me! And for hundreds of other people I know!

 

I don’t think you understood my "instruction" (what a paradigm!). I intentionally left out the role of appealing to Church leaders (see reasoning in the second paragraph of post #128). My approach is to respect the agency of the person deciding whether or not to stay with the Church and to help them “remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men” by precept and example. At some point they will decide whether to pray, or will be receptive (or not) to an invitation to pray. And of course each instance plays out in an individualized and nuanced manner.

 

Faith crises are more than just about mistakes that have been made by others. It is an awesome responsibility to decide which are real or perceived, and only God is can judge which are cosmically great or inconsequential despite all the human wisdom that can be thrown at them. But He without fail reaches out to the offended, and none are beyond His reach. Hence the problem with “subgroups”—He doesn’t work that way. If anything, He sorts us into groups after His work is done.

 

The solution to faith crisis is not mechanical or intellectual—it is spiritual, the gift of faith that God offers and grants His children when they have none. We can certainly be catalysts for that to occur, and where we interact with each other on any and all levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy (in which the Spirit will interject His effects), the approaches are innumerable.

 

Whatever the approach to reaching out, the tools, interpretations and perspectives need to be administered in faith and love “unto the hearts of the children of men” (2 Nephi 33:1) by the power of the Spirit. Once they open their hearts and give ear to the Spirit, and listen, it is up to them to pray and rely on the Spirit.

 

Of course a faith crisis attributed to the numerous allegations posted in this thread would generally begin with some review and discussion of the allegations. But the process for healing is fundamentally spiritual and completely inconsistent with the “preaching of the gospel of mistakes and injuries.” And as you can see, many who try to help are caught up in preaching “the gospel of mistakes and injuries” themselves. But the Church is here to help them too, whatever their rationale for staying, and however they label their rationale as a subgroup.

[rockpond]

It certainly works for me! And for hundreds of other people I know!

 

I don’t think you understood my "instruction" (what a paradigm!). I intentionally left out the role of appealing to Church leaders (see reasoning in the second paragraph of post #128). My approach is to respect the agency of the person deciding whether or not to stay with the Church and to help them “remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men” by precept and example. At some point they will decide whether to pray, or will be receptive (or not) to an invitation to pray. And of course each instance plays out in an individualized and nuanced manner.

 

Faith crises are more than just about mistakes that have been made by others. It is an awesome responsibility to decide which are real or perceived, and only God is can judge which are cosmically great or inconsequential despite all the human wisdom that can be thrown at them. But He without fail reaches out to the offended, and none are beyond His reach. Hence the problem with “subgroups”—He doesn’t work that way. If anything, He sorts us into groups after His work is done.

 

The solution to faith crisis is not mechanical or intellectual—it is spiritual, the gift of faith that God offers and grants His children when they have none. We can certainly be catalysts for that to occur, and where we interact with each other on any and all levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy (in which the Spirit will interject His effects), the approaches are innumerable.

 

Whatever the approach to reaching out, the tools, interpretations and perspectives need to be administered in faith and love “unto the hearts of the children of men” (2 Nephi 33:1) by the power of the Spirit. Once they open their hearts and give ear to the Spirit, and listen, it is up to them to pray and rely on the Spirit.

 

Of course a faith crisis attributed to the numerous allegations posted in this thread would generally begin with some review and discussion of the allegations. But the process for healing is fundamentally spiritual and completely inconsistent with the “preaching of the gospel of mistakes and injuries.” And as you can see, many who try to help are caught up in preaching “the gospel of mistakes and injuries” themselves. But the Church is here to help them too, whatever their rationale for staying, and however they label their rationale as a subgroup.

 

I agree with much of what you are saying though you kinda lost me in your final paragraph.  I don't think that I've ever suggested preaching a gospel of mistake and injuries.

 

Where I disagree is that I think there are some intellectual elements to faith crises (not for everyone, obviously).  In my case, a faith crisis hit in the midst of teaching early morning seminary.  I was spending hours each day in sincere scripture study and prayer.  I was feeling the Spirit daily.  Despite that, my faith was deteriorating because, as a lifelong member of the church, I didn't have the tools I needed to process the intellectual conflicts before me.  And I felt betrayed by those in whom I had placed my trust and a good portion of my testimony.  I *was* remembering our merciful God, I was praying, I was feeling the Spirit, but it wasn't helping me get through the crisis.

[Closet Doubter]

Last I checked, the church belonged to all of us.  Further these issues and the subject matter of this thread have direct impact on people within my stewardship as is likely the case for many participants here.  I don't see it as ark-steadying.

As long as our general church leadership neglect their responsibility to steady the arc by clarifying doctrine and assuring that if church history is taught at our meetings that it is taught honestly, then groups such as this, FAIR, FARMS, Mormon Think, and others will step in to fill the vacuum.

 

You are removed for mputing dishonesty to those you do not agree with.

[CV75]

I agree with much of what you are saying though you kinda lost me in your final paragraph.  I don't think that I've ever suggested preaching a gospel of mistake and injuries.

 

Where I disagree is that I think there are some intellectual elements to faith crises (not for everyone, obviously).  In my case, a faith crisis hit in the midst of teaching early morning seminary.  I was spending hours each day in sincere scripture study and prayer.  I was feeling the Spirit daily.  Despite that, my faith was deteriorating because, as a lifelong member of the church, I didn't have the tools I needed to process the intellectual conflicts before me.  And I felt betrayed by those in whom I had placed my trust and a good portion of my testimony.  I *was* remembering our merciful God, I was praying, I was feeling the Spirit, but it wasn't helping me get through the crisis.

 

 I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about the tendency to rely on the arm of flesh for our solutions, which I call “some other gospel” – in this thread, “the gospel of mistakes and injury”.

 

I agree that for some, an intellectual issue can be at the root of their faith crisis, just as any other kind of reliance on the arm of flesh ultimately falls short of what we need to abide in faith.

 

Trying not to talk about you, I understand the kind of faith crisis you describe from your experience. I’m not exactly sure what you think the solution was for you personally, but I see that the help through it could have come in two forms, one authentically spiritual and one just a stronger version of the arm of flesh. If stronger intellectual guidance or processing alone led you to a more comfortable place, this substitute for faith is still vulnerable to stronger rationale to the contrary. Leaving out any accompanying influence of remembering, praying, feeling the Spirit, etc. upon faith undermines the perceived relief (perceived but not actual faith) that was attained by intellectual, emotional, social, or any other means outside of faith.

 

 I think that those who rely upon the arm of the flesh to stay in or to help others stay in the Church are missing the mark. As I mentioned, the Church welcomes all in good faith regardless of motive for staying, but the aim is to facilitate their spiritual strengthening because everything else will eventually fail, like those who followeed Jesus only because He fed them: “Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. …From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (John 6).

fai

[Bob Crockett]

As long as our general church leadership neglect their responsibility to steady the arc by clarifying doctrine and assuring that if church history is taught at our meetings that it is taught honestly, then groups such as this, FAIR, FARMS, Mormon Think, and others will step in to fill the vacuum.

Well, at least one of these organizations likes to fill vacuums that do not exist.

 

One must keep in mind that your typical General Authority knows about as much of church history as does a stake president.  I know; I've had discussions with several of them to ask them when they asked me about my MMM articles.

 

The Church's curriculum department depends, in part, upon the Church Historian, but his department is about three or four people.  And, as I have stated many many times before, the Doctrine & Covenants mandated the Church's HIstorian as a means to preserve history, not to explain it.  One only needs to read Leonard Arrington's biography to understand how difficult it was in his day to tell history when it wasn't indexed and there weren't experts employed by the Church to recall all details.  So, the curriculum department labors about as best as it can.   Whether Joseph Smith translated the plates by looking at them after he became knowledgeable, or by his face in the hat (a very improbable method, in my view, given the difficulty of the text, the length of the book and the fact that the manuscript shows few back-up-type corrections, suggesting that the text was delivered to the scribe freely and in an easy-to-be heard format), is a matter of conflicting interpretation of the record such as it is.  So, in that case for example, what is truth and what is a lie?   Why not disregard the conflicting accounts and simply rely upon Joseph Smith's version of the events?

 

I further realize that when BH Roberts put together the CHC and the DHC he edited out unflattering items, such as Joseph Smith stopping to get a beer.  But, he wasn't a trained historian and the ethics which governed the profession of his day wouldn't have been too critical of that.   Looking at it today, the Tanners have argued "suppression" as have others, but standards were different.

[Scott Lloyd]

The Church's curriculum department depends, in part, upon the Church Historian, but his department is about three or four people. 

Whose department is three or four people? Are you referring to the Church Historian and Recorder? His department is the entire Church History Department and it is huge in terms of staffing. There are a couple dozen or more people involved in the Joseph Smith Papers Project alone.

 

There are librarians, archivists, researchers, publications managers. The department handles requests for copies of patriarchal blessings. They deal with Church historic sites around the nation and the world. In addition to massive archival holdings that must be seen to, there is a reading library on the main level of the new Church History Library.

 

And there is an Assistant Church Historian as well.

 

The Church History Department is over the Church History Museum, which, in itself, is a very substantial institution.

 

Were you referring to the person or persons over curriculum? That is under the auspices of the Priesthood Department, which is certainly more than three or four people.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

I love you, Tacenda!!

Thanks for the rose Robert!  Made my day!! 

[jkwilliams]

My two cents: It was good to hear President Uchtdorf say that we who have issues with the church and its history are not completely out in left field (well, not counting myself). To me, that ought to encourage leaders and members to talk to struggling members and find out what's bothering them instead of dismissing them outright. That seems like common sense and compassion to me.

Does that require these issues to be aired out in meetings, church magazines, manuals, and general conference? No, but again, it means a lot to people like me that someone might actually listen and try to help.

Now it's back to mocking believers and stirring the pot.

[Tacenda]

My two cents: It was good to hear President Uchtdorf say that we who have issues with the church and its history are not completely out in left field (well, not counting myself). To me, that ought to encourage leaders and members to talk to struggling members and find out what's bothering them instead of dismissing them outright. That seems like common sense and compassion to me.

Does that require these issues to be aired out in meetings, church magazines, manuals, and general conference? No, but again, it means a lot to people like me that someone might actually listen and try to help.

Now it's back to mocking believers and stirring the pot.

Well, I heard through the grapevine, NOM I think, that starting in 2014, there will be a website put out by the church, created to start explaining the somewhat hidden history that has done a number to so many testimonies.  Some have said that it may even put FAIR out of business.  Not that they ever were in a business, except that of getting the facts out and a reason for it possibly. 

 

That makes me a little worried, since the church putting it out there may still leave a few things out.  I know I sound like I want to make the church expose everything just to put it to them, but I don't.  I just want people to heal and future generations having it on the table to make a decision about the church.  When I was baptized at 8, no one mentioned to me about JS's polygamy, that blacks being denied the priesthood wasn't doctrine, Mountain Meadow Massacre, several accounts of the FV, etc.   When I was married in the temple, no one told me it was similar to Masonry, not that it matters to most LDS out there.  But it would have been nice to know these things, especially when I thought it came straight from God, all of it.   And I was making sacred covenants and oaths under lack of information.  Someone could have explained that JS used certain facilitators to teach what God wanted.  So as to not shock my system when finding out it wasn't what I thought. 

 

Hopefully the church will hurry with the website, if the rumor is true.  Especially with the I-15 billboard advertising a particular website.         

[Rivers]

Well, I heard through the grapevine, NOM I think, that starting in 2014, there will be a website put out by the church, created to start explaining the somewhat hidden history that has done a number to so many testimonies.  Some have said that it may even put FAIR out of business.  Not that they ever were in a business, except that of getting the facts out and a reason for it possibly. 

 

That makes me a little worried, since the church putting it out there may still leave a few things out.  I know I sound like I want to make the church expose everything just to put it to them, but I don't.  I just want people to heal and future generations having it on the table to make a decision about the church.  When I was baptized at 8, no one mentioned to me about JS's polygamy, that blacks being denied the priesthood wasn't doctrine, Mountain Meadow Massacre, several accounts of the FV, etc.   When I was married in the temple, no one told me it was similar to Masonry, not that it matters to most LDS out there.  But it would have been nice to know these things, especially when I thought it came straight from God, all of it.   And I was making sacred covenants and oaths under lack of information.  Someone could have explained that JS used certain facilitators to teach what God wanted.  So as to not shock my system when finding out it wasn't what I thought. 

 

Hopefully the church will hurry with the website, if the rumor is true.  Especially with the I-15 billboard advertising a particular website.         

When I was a missionary, we were specifically told not to talk about any of these issues and stick to the basics.  I wonder if there will be any changes on the missionary side of things to help with the problem.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Rivers

[Stone holm]

When I was a missionary, we were specifically told not to talk about any of these issues and stick to the basics.  I wonder if there will be any changes on the missionary side of things to help with the problem.

IMNSHO, it would be a mistake to change that policy because very few missionaries are really qualified to weigh in on such issues except for possibly the older couples.

[Hamba Tuhan]

When I was a missionary, we were specifically told not to talk about any of these issues and stick to the basics.  I wonder if there will be any changes on the missionary side of things to help with the problem.

 

I accompanied our recently arrived Elders to meet with a new investigator Tuesday. He's a uni student, studying politics and international relations. Between first meeting the missionaries and this meeting, he had, naturally, spent a good bit of time reading online, and he had a number of questions. We ended up talking quite a bit about polygamy in the early Church, including as practised by Joseph Smith. The missionaries, one from New Zealand (out for three monhts) and one from Samoa (out for two weeks), had no difficulty whatsover talking about this issue. In the end, though, it was a small part of the conversation, and we spent most of the time discussing the Restoration.

[CV75]

My two cents: It was good to hear President Uchtdorf say that we who have issues with the church and its history are not completely out in left field (well, not counting myself). To me, that ought to encourage leaders and members to talk to struggling members and find out what's bothering them instead of dismissing them outright. That seems like common sense and compassion to me.

Does that require these issues to be aired out in meetings, church magazines, manuals, and general conference? No, but again, it means a lot to people like me that someone might actually listen and try to help.

I find this a very good way to put it -- thank you!