Is The Church Being Completely Honest?

[Abulafia]

Agreed, but that's not what I am arguing. I'm arguing that it should be covered in investigator lessons.

[thesometimesaint]

Investigators should also be taught from the start that the history of Joseph as contained in canon, is hagiography.

I learned off by heart the canonical account of the first vision. It is so misleading, simplistic and fails to account for the complexity of the way he reinterpreted his experience as time went on.

The recent essay was good, but somehow that needs to filter through to investigators.

 

The First Vision was a transformative event in young JS life. To claim that there should be no reinterpretation of its events as he grew older is simplistic.

[Abulafia]

Maybe, but from experience, I know that many post mormons have had a problem with the way they were taught to view Joseph and the reality of the historical record. I'm sure the church understands this, which is why they produced the essay.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed, but that's not what I am arguing. I'm arguing that it should be covered in investigator lessons.

 

I have no way of knowing what the Missionaries asked you(personally) to do. but mine asked me to read all the LDS Scriptures including the D&C. Moreover one of the few things non-members associate with the Church is it long ago practice of polygamy.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe, but from experience, I know that many post mormons have had a problem with the way they were taught to view Joseph and the reality of the historical record. I'm sure the church understands this, which is why they produced the essay.

 

It really is difficult to respond to what some think the correct view of JS should be. All I know is what I believe. That he was a good but imperfect man trying to do the will of our Father in Heaven as best he could. That he put on his pants one leg at a time just like I do.

[Abulafia]

Sometimes Saint, as a teacher, (of children) - Tell 'em, tell 'em what you told 'em, and tell 'em again. Keep it simple. One sentence with a flip chart picture should do it.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

It really is difficult to respond to what some think the correct view of JS should be. All I know is what I believe. That he was a good but imperfect man trying to do the will of our Father in Heaven as best he could. That he put on his pants one leg at a time just like I do.

He was a complex man, but any attempt to paint him either black or white is inaccurate, I do agree.

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimes Saint, as a teacher, (of children) - Tell 'em, tell 'em what you told 'em, and tell 'em again. Keep it simple. One sentence with a flip chart picture should do it.

 

I'm a firm believer in the KISS principle when talking to people of less experience. Keep It Simple Stupid. I'm not favorably impressed with people whom use a half pound note words to describe a half penny thought.

 

Ps; Sometimes I Ain't.

Edited March 24, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

He was a complex man, but any attempt to paint him either black or white is inaccurate, I do agree.

"Sometimes Saint, as a teacher, (of children) - Tell 'em, tell 'em what you told 'em, and tell 'em again. Keep it simple. One sentence with a flip chart picture should do it."

Isn't this a contradiction?

[Abulafia]

"Sometimes Saint, as a teacher, (of children) - Tell 'em, tell 'em what you told 'em, and tell 'em again. Keep it simple. One sentence with a flip chart picture should do it."

Isn't this a contradiction?

No!

The one sentence....something like..

Eternal marriage within the church is believed to consist of both polygamous and monogamous relationships in the hereafter.

The picture would show a man with many wives, and a man with one wife.

It is the sentence that would be repeated.

That should do it.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Abulafia

[sheilauk]

Maybe, but from experience, I know that many post mormons have had a problem with the way they were taught to view Joseph and the reality of the historical record. I'm sure the church understands this, which is why they produced the essay.

 

 

It really is difficult to respond to what some think the correct view of JS should be. All I know is what I believe. That he was a good but imperfect man trying to do the will of our Father in Heaven as best he could. That he put on his pants one leg at a time just like I do.

 

 

He was a complex man, but any attempt to paint him either black or white is inaccurate, I do agree.

 

I have read quite a lot of material (on Fair and LDS.org) about Joseph Smith and the more I read, the more I like him.  I understand that life/people/organisations are complex and I generally don't think black and white.  I didn't like the picture I was originally getting when I joined the Church - I found it hard to believe anyone, even a great Prophet, could be that good but it didn't stop me joining the Church because others things were far more important that what a man was like as a person and instead I looked deeper to find out more.  I don't feel misled - the missionaries were just young men with limited knowledge and experience.  I also know that a lot of people don't want more than the soundbite, surface information and they don't want or need to know more, especially at the beginning of their journey.  I have spoken tp people in Church about some of the more nuanced aspects of Joseph Smith's life and it did not go well.  Some of the people I was speaking to just did not want to hear it and my Bishop bascially suggested I should stop.  That got short shrift from me, because I am circumspect about it and generally only answer questions, but it is indicative of my ward and the local inhabitants.  Most people I know where I live - whether in or out of the Church - are only interested in the basics.  So, no, I don't agree that investigators should be told "more".  I think that there should be more encouragement to investigate on our own, to look into what interests us and we should be told where good, reliable information can be found, but I don't think we should put onto young shoulders the responsibility for determining how much information an investigator wants and carrying around with them an encyclopedic knowledge of everything LDS.  They are there to teach the Gospel.  Of course, they should not give untrue or speculative answers to any questions and therefore I do think that they need to be able to direct investigators to places where answers can be found and they should be encouraged to say they don't know, rather than speculate.  Which, in fact, is what the young men that taught me did do.  Maybe that's why I don't feel misled - I've never really been told something by the missionaries or any one else that I haven't personally double checked or known before hand by my own research (generally only of Fair and LDS.org and books and magazines in the Church library).  And I expect things to be nuanced.  But, you can't force acceptance of nuance or teach nuance to those who only want the basics.

[Storm Rider]

Historicity is not religion, doctrine, faith, or belief.  Historicity demands that all of these influences be stripped from the topic in order to get a "real" picture of an individual. The problem is that every historian, ever recording of what an individual says is not reality; it remains that individual's perception of reality. We are not even able to record accurately what occured yesterday, much less those events that occured 190 years ago. 

 

This is much like the Jesus Seminar that researched the historicity of Jesus sayings and deeds and they determined that between 16% and 18% of what is recorded in the Bible is really from Jesus.  Obviously, if they then have determined that over 80% of what is contained in the Bible is not truthful or an accurate recording i.e. is not historical to the real story of Jesus.  

 

To demand that every religion teach the historicity of their main characters is not how religion or faith is promoted.  It is my personal belief that historicans have an incrediblely difficult time of finding hte real historical portraity of any individual. We can know some things, but we cannot know everything. Those historians who attempt to proclaim "this is the real person" is a fraud. The best they can do is give pictures of moments of the individual's life, but it is impossible to capture the full range and breadth of an individual.

 

Demanding that religion limit their teachings to the historical person is both unfair and, more importantly, impossible. Whose history should be taught? Whose perspective should have primacy?  

 

I am advocating that both reason and faith are companions, but they both have a role to play in our lives; niether should be given the stage alone. History should be taught, but it is unfair to teach history as if it is truth.  There needs to be a better, more complete understanding of what history is and what it is not.  

[Abulafia]

I'm not arguing to teach the fine details of the historical record. On Joseph, a sentence like..

Joseph was far from perfect, and made mistakes both at a doctrinal and personal level.

I mean, I think people know that anyway. Who really believes that Brigham for instance was inspired in everything he did or wrote, but it just really needs to be emphasized a heck of a lot more, and right from the beginning.If not in the missionary discussions, then in the Investigator class.

I know when I was a missionary we aimed to baptize within 2 weeks. Ok, there may be some occassions when someone is ready at that time for such a life changing event, but the great majority are not.

It does them or the church absolutely no favours.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Abulafia

[Walden]

are you completely honest on everything? 

No, but then again, I am not proclaiming that I am am gods one and only true representative here on earth, that mankind can only receive full salvation through me, that followers must obey my rules, or that followers must donate 10% of their earnings and their time, talent and efforts to my cause.

 

I hold a higher expectation of gods one and only true church on earth.

[Coreyb]

I'm not arguing to teach the fine details of the historical record. On Joseph, a sentence like..

Joseph was far from perfect, and made mistakes both at a doctrinal and personal level.

I mean, I think people know that anyway. Who really believes that Brigham for instance was inspired in everything he did or wrote, but it just really needs to be emphasized a heck of a lot more, and right from the beginning.If not in the missionary discussions, then in the Investigator class.

I know when I was a missionary we aimed to baptize within 2 weeks. Ok, there may be some occassions when someone is ready at that time for such a life changing event, but the great majority are not.

It does them or the church absolutely no favours.

I agree that those discussions are perfect for the Gospel principles class. I have been in many of those classes with many different teachers and having a teacher that is too defensive when they get authentic questions from the class is horrible. People will surprise you in how open they are to accepting mistakes on behalf of the church/leaders if you just let them know about it up front.

[cdowis]

No, but then again, I am not proclaiming that I am am gods one and only true representative here on earth, that mankind can only receive full salvation through me, that followers must obey my rules, or that followers must donate 10% of their earnings and their time, talent and efforts to my cause.

 

I hold a higher expectation of gods one and only true church on earth.

 

 

I think you are confused on the purpose of "God's one and only true church".

 

To be blunt, I don't think you really understand the plan of salvation and how God does things at all, especially considering you use "god" instead of "God", indicating a total lack of respect for your Creator.

[rockpond]

I think you are confused on the purpose of "God's one and only true church".

 

To be blunt, I don't think you really understand the plan of salvation and how God does things at all, especially considering you use "god" instead of "God", indicating a total lack of respect for your Creator.

 

I don't know whether or not Walden is confused.

 

But, I think, in some respects we are raising generation's of members who are a bit confused about the role of God's "one and only true representative here on Earth" but promulgating doctrines like Kimball's "14 Fundamentals" and all its derivatives.

[Sanpitch]

I don't know whether or not Walden is confused.

 

But, I think, in some respects we are raising generation's of members who are a bit confused about the role of God's "one and only true representative here on Earth" but promulgating doctrines like Kimball's "14 Fundamentals" and all its derivatives.

Is that not, "Bensen's 14 Fundamentals"?

[rockpond]

Is that not, "Bensen's 14 Fundamentals"?

 

Yes.  Thank you for the correction.  It was Pres. Benson (I'm not sure if we was a counselor to Pres. Kimball at the time or the President of the Q12).

[Damien the Leper]

I don't know that the rules were consistent from the beginning.  But a better way of phrasing your statement would be that a man could only be sealed and married to a woman who was not already SEALED.  At that time civil marriage wasn't given a lot of validity, and in none of Joseph's polyandrous marriages was the woman already sealed as an eternal wife to these men.  Joseph simply didn't view their civil marriages as barriers to his marrying them.  Now if they were sealed to their husbands I doubt Joseph would have courted them.

 

That certainly says something about Joseph's regard for the sanctity of marriage. If he thought the more women he was sealed to gave him a higher place in the Kingdom then he was sorely mistaken.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm not aware of any rules that were written down other than section 132. I think that prior to the Brigham Young days, Joseph Smith was probably just trying to figure out what God expected of him with respect to polygamy and the sealing ordinance more generally.

 

Apparently something was lost in transmission. Or at least you'd think God would have given explicit on instruction concerning the practice. 

[Damien the Leper]

The practices concerning sealings evolved as the Brethren came to better understand the principle.

 

Or they just screwed up royally. But since I'm not LDS, I shouldn't speak so strongly about the practice.

[rockpond]

Apparently something was lost in transmission. Or at least you'd think God would have given explicit on instruction concerning the practice. 

 

I don't know.  To be frank, I don't have a testimony of polygamy so I can't say that I really think it came from God in any form.  But, I do think that there are things that He lets us work through and figure out on our own with just a small amount of divine intervention.

[Kevin Christensen]

Jeff Lindsay has an essay relevant to the theme of the thread.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2014/03/getting-nuclear-with-doubt-lessons-from.html

Worth a close read and ponder.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Scott Lloyd]

Jeff Lindsay has an essay relevant to the theme of the thread.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2014/03/getting-nuclear-with-doubt-lessons-from.html

Worth a close read and ponder.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Excellent article by Lindsay. Thanks for the reference.

 

If, as has been stated before, we view the gospel as encompassing all truth, it must be infinitely more complicated than even graduate-level physics.

 

Yet, Nephi said he delighted in plainness as a means of bringing people to Christ and salvation. Relatively few people are ready, even past the beginning stages, for a graduate-level exposition of gospel principles. But, when told so, many are apt to resent it.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Scott Lloyd