Dismayed

[mfbukowski]

maybe at Church but here or other similar sites and a billion blogs and whatnot

No, no truth is available anywhere.

The church has sent the Danites and burned all the true records- didn't you know that? In fact we are not even having this conversation because it's impossible since the church has oppressed at all.

[Storm Rider]

I hear so much lately about how the church doesn't hide any of it's history and about how truthful and honest they are. Then I see something like today's BYU channel program on church history and I just have to shake my head.

 

The topic was regarding some of the early formal and informal historians, record keepers and diary keepers, one of which was Horrace K. Whitney.

 

They gave a little of his background and then proceeded to inform us of his "classic love story" with Helen Mar Kimball.

 

It was mentioned how they were "children of the restoration" and that they had been practically raised together and had gone to school together in Kirtland. They were considered "childhood sweethearts".

 

It went on to say that they were married and then the story turned back to how faithful Horrace had kept a record of the great trek to the west. Etc., etc.....

 

If I had been a non-member or an (heaven forbid) uninformed member, I would have come away from that telecast having absolutely no clue as to the real status of Helen Mar Kimball, her marriage to Joseph Smith, or plural marriage in general.  As far as I could tell from the information given, Helen and Horrace were simply high school sweethearts that fell in love and got married and were good ol' faithful saints for the rest of their days as all good saints should be. Ain't it wonderful? 

 

This is why it's difficult to keep a straight face when apologetic TBMs attempt to say that the church is upfront and forthcoming with their history. It just doesn't wash.......

 

This seems unfair to me.  If I am addressing journals and record keeping of the early saints I would focus on that topic. What you are demanding is that any time an individual is mentioned from Church history we must admit everything that ever happened in their lives regardless of the context or purpose of the show.  

 

I am not familiar with Horrace's journal, but I suspect that he did not dwell very much on Helen's sealing to Joseph.  Do you know about his journal and what he said or did not say?  

 

Further, can Helen ever be discussed in any context without mentioning her sealing to Joseph?  Was her whole life's focal point her sealing to Joseph? This seems more like it has to do with how you prioritize her life rather than she prioritized or Horace prioritized her life.  

 

For example, I have an Uncle Joe that went to prison for killing the county doctor. Well actually, he shot the doctor who was trying to kill his brother, my grandfather, at a dance. It seems my grandfather had danced a little too often with a certain young lady who the doctor felt was his and his alone.  Doctor says they need to take care of business outside; grandpa follows him out and his two brothers follow.  They get outside and the doctor pulls a gun on grandpa.  Joe gets his gun and shoots the doctor and kills him. Joe eventually goes to prison for two years. 

 

Here's the deal. Joe came home, married a wonderful girl, became a preacher and had lived a great life. He had a wide reputation in the south for being a real hellfire and brimstone kind of preacher and scared most young people understanding they either would be in God's loving embrace or burn in hell.  What you are proposing is that Joe's life could only be mentioned IF we also talked about him going to prison early in his life as a late teen. Why?  Is is value only found in going to prison?

 

This really has more to do with your views and what is important to you than what is important to me as a genealogist or his descendants.  Sometimes it is acceptable to talk about people and only address a few events or relate that person's life to a topic rather than introduce everything they ever did in their lives.  You are setting an impossible standard that you cannot meet yourself nor can anyone else. 

 

I think you have a hot button topic and it causes a knee-jerk response because....well because it is a hot button topic for you. Let it go and begin to look at face value at things. You will be happier it and you would not need to carry the burden around.  BTW, you are not alone; we all have these kinds of things. Mine are different and I am still trying to let them go also. 

[Coreyb]

Who said anything about official church doctrine? You questioned whether the Church was RESPONSIBLE for the film.

I answered your question. Yes, the Church is RESPONSIBLE for the videos it creates and broadcasts. Is this really up for debate?

We need to stop using "the Church" as a catch all term for everything we dislike in our religion. Who is responsible for shoddy history programming on BYU TV? A writer, influenced by broadcast managers, who are influenced by their board of directors, who are influenced by BYU and LDS church public relations experts (possibly outside consultants), who are influenced by Church correlation committees, who either influence or are influenced by the quorum of the twelve (hopefully the latter ). Yes, its irresponsible history that palerider is dismayed by, but I find it hard to point to Thomas S. Monson, or any of the Twelve and say they are the ones responsible for the "cover-up". It is just corporate marketing culture that has crept into our Church, which is understandable seeing how most employees in the chain of bureaucracy will have have training in business administration, marketing, and public relations. I find it bland, but hardly sinister.

[Danzo]

I wonder if Horace and or Helen were upset at all. if they were, would they have mentioned it in their Journals?

Would they have shown their dissatisfaction by leaving the church? (something many at the time did). Although we cannot read their minds, we can read their journals and find out how their actions conformed to what we think their feelings were.

[sunstoned]

Utter horse apples.

 

Edit:

 

I'm going to expand on this a bit, since you have an ongoing problem with the kind of stuff you post above. It's one thing to try and address the problematic things in the church and deal with them. It's a totally different thing to take things and basically mock like you're doing above, as if it validates your concerns to do so. You're cutesy phrasing serves no purpose other than to to denigrate the church and its members; it doesn't give any indication of any desire on your part to seriously address your "concerns". Actually it sounds more like you want to validate your concerns as being irreconcilable with what you think the real true church ought to be.

 

So feel free to keep up this kind of tone. But don't expect to get much respect in doing so. 

I think DBMormon is respected by many on this board.

[mormonnewb]

This seems unfair to me.  If I am addressing journals and record keeping of the early saints I would focus on that topic. What you are demanding is that any time an individual is mentioned from Church history we must admit everything that ever happened in their lives regardless of the context or purpose of the show.  

 

I am not familiar with Horrace's journal, but I suspect that he did not dwell very much on Helen's sealing to Joseph.  Do you know about his journal and what he said or did not say?  

 

Further, can Helen ever be discussed in any context without mentioning her sealing to Joseph?  Was her whole life's focal point her sealing to Joseph? This seems more like it has to do with how you prioritize her life rather than she prioritized or Horace prioritized her life.  

 

For example, I have an Uncle Joe that went to prison for killing the county doctor. Well actually, he shot the doctor who was trying to kill his brother, my grandfather, at a dance. It seems my grandfather had danced a little too often with a certain young lady who the doctor felt was his and his alone.  Doctor says they need to take care of business outside; grandpa follows him out and his two brothers follow.  They get outside and the doctor pulls a gun on grandpa.  Joe gets his gun and shoots the doctor and kills him. Joe eventually goes to prison for two years. 

 

Here's the deal. Joe came home, married a wonderful girl, became a preacher and had lived a great life. He had a wide reputation in the south for being a real hellfire and brimstone kind of preacher and scared most young people understanding they either would be in God's loving embrace or burn in hell.  What you are proposing is that Joe's life could only be mentioned IF we also talked about him going to prison early in his life as a late teen. Why?  Is is value only found in going to prison?

 

This really has more to do with your views and what is important to you than what is important to me as a genealogist or his descendants.  Sometimes it is acceptable to talk about people and only address a few events or relate that person's life to a topic rather than introduce everything they ever did in their lives.  You are setting an impossible standard that you cannot meet yourself nor can anyone else. 

 

I think you have a hot button topic and it causes a knee-jerk response because....well because it is a hot button topic for you. Let it go and begin to look at face value at things. You will be happier it and you would not need to carry the burden around.  BTW, you are not alone; we all have these kinds of things. Mine are different and I am still trying to let them go also.

You're absolutely right. The Church need not unnecessarily dig up every detail about a person's life. In fact, it seems that, in this context, it probably would have been fine to omit any mention of Horace's wife. However, once it went down the road, it probably should have given the full story. In the same way that OJ Simpson biographer could legitimately focus his work solely on OJ's football exploits, but would lose credibility if he attempted to paint the OJ/Nicole relationship as a match made in heaven.

That being said, I don't see anything sinister in it. I certainly don't imagine that the First Presidency got together on a Tuesday to decide how to whitewash Church history (I've been told those meetings occur on Fridays).

[mormonnewb]

I think DBMormon is respected by many on this board.

I second that notion!

[Palerider]

Accurate and informative bio? You be the judge.......

 

Subject: Immigration to the U.S. 

 

"Marina Porter is our mother and I wanted to give a little bio on her in view of the subject of my essay which is on immigration to the U.S

 

She was born in Northwest Russia near Arkhangelsk in 1941, where she lived with her mother and stepfather until 1957 when she moved to Minsk. In 1961 she met a nice young man from the USA at a dance, who had served his country in the Marine Corp. His name was Lee Harvey Oswald. They were married April 30th, 1961 and later had a daughter, June Lee Oswald.

 

In June of 1962 they came to America and settled in Dallas, Texas. Unfortunately on November 24th, 1963, Marina's husband Lee was shot and mortally wounded by an angry man.

 

In 1965 Marina married Kenneth Jess Porter with whom she has two sons. She currently lives happily in Rockwall, Texas.

 

I think being the daughter of an immigrant gives me special insight as to some of the challenges facing those who come to America......etc. etc."

Edited May 12, 2014 by Palerider

[Porter_Rockwell]

On the subject of honesty: Why did you title your thread "Dismayed," when you are obviously revelling in the opportunity to accuse the Church?Wouldn't "Delighted" be a far more honest title?Regards,Pahoran[/quote

And even if it was....what would make you the judge, Pahoran, you sanctimonious self-entitled child. Lol...seriously, who died and left you in charge. You're exhaust us. Zzzzz

[frank_jessop]

Utter horse apples.

Edit:

I'm going to expand on this a bit, since you have an ongoing problem with the kind of stuff you post above. It's one thing to try and address the problematic things in the church and deal with them. It's a totally different thing to take things and basically mock like you're doing above, as if it validates your concerns to do so. You're cutesy phrasing serves no purpose other than to to denigrate the church and its members; it doesn't give any indication of any desire on your part to seriously address your "concerns". Actually it sounds more like you want to validate your concerns as being irreconcilable with what you think the real true church ought to be.

So feel free to keep up this kind of tone. But don't expect to get much respect in doing so.

While I disagree with DBmormon, in my experience, he, at least, has the gumption to acknowledge difficult issues. And as I see his approach, he has a desire to help people stay in the Church who are struggling. His methods might be a bit quirky to me. His willingness to acknowledge issue, and willingness to help - rather than ridicule those who struggle with issues - is a breath of fresh air.

[frank_jessop]

Regarding the first post, while BYU is owned by the Church, I am sure the typical "Not all views or opinions represent that of the Church".

With, that. A person willing to distort or withhold history, simply for the sake of a propaganda; isn't exactly a great character witness regarding whether or not another person is open about history.

Edited May 12, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Storm Rider]

You're absolutely right. The Church need not unnecessarily dig up every detail about a person's life. In fact, it seems that, in this context, it probably would have been fine to omit any mention of Horace's wife. However, once it went down the road, it probably should have given the full story. In the same way that OJ Simpson biographer could legitimately focus his work solely on OJ's football exploits, but would lose credibility if he attempted to paint the OJ/Nicole relationship as a match made in heaven.

That being said, I don't see anything sinister in it. I certainly don't imagine that the First Presidency got together on a Tuesday to decide how to whitewash Church history (I've been told those meetings occur on Fridays).

 

I suspect if I had been involved I would have just avoided both of these individuals; however, in that they chose to talk about them AND that they discussed their loving relationship they could have also mentioned the fact that Helen had been previously sealed to Joseph.  I don't have an issue with this example that was given; it is a non-event for me.

 

Having said that I recognize that some individuals are rather concerned that the Church does not present all church history in an unvarnished manner and that they do so in an incomplete manner. I think this is unrealistic because they are demanding a full, complete, exhaustive discussion happen any time an individual is ever mentioned.  It would be a long line of watching historical harakiri or seppuku.

 

I think there is a middle path is one is seeking to lay blame somewhere.  Yes, historically the Church has chosen to use faith promoting stories about church history and have avoided discussing complex, difficult issues that took place. In addition, incomplete history leads to incomplete understanding. Even though the Church has been THE source for records and historical fact, many individuals have learned historical tidbits - still incomplete stories, but factual tidbits from critical sources that are even more egregious in their retelling of LDS history because they hide all positive facts and stories.  Their focus is just as twisted and narrowly focused, if not more so, than what they accuse the Church of doing.  

 

Unfortunately, many individuals only see the negative and have lost the ability to see anything positive. They are the ones when given a rose will only see the thorns and completely miss the rose itself.  It is a matter of focus, priority, and context.  Why does God ask us to have an eye single to his glory?  If it is single will we focus on why bad things happen in the world? Will we focus on how difficult this life is?  What brings us happiness?  Is it focusing on the negative or keeping on eye single and letting the rest go.  

 

I think questions matter because some questions will find no answers in this life.  I see no value in running my head into a wall repeatedly. 

[Pahoran]

It's inaccurate? So they didn't fall in love and get married?

 

The real irony is that if we only listened to the people who do Palerider's and Mormonnewb's thinking for them, we'd never have even heard of Horace Whitney in connection with Helen.  All they want us to know about her is that she was sealed to Joseph -- with whatever other conclusions they want to leap to on the strength of that sealing.

 

And then they have the temerity to insist that their "Warts are all" view of Mormon history is the "whole story."  Ha!

 

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[DBMormon]

maybe at Church but here or other similar sites and a billion blogs and whatnot

 

The point is the Church speaks highly of wanting truth seekers - that is supposed to be the group that joins the church as kingdom builders... yet in reality truth seeking in the church is only welcome up to the point at which you understand the surface of issues.... not their depth

Edited May 12, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Utter horse apples.

 

Edit:

 

I'm going to expand on this a bit, since you have an ongoing problem with the kind of stuff you post above. It's one thing to try and address the problematic things in the church and deal with them. It's a totally different thing to take things and basically mock like you're doing above, as if it validates your concerns to do so. You're cutesy phrasing serves no purpose other than to to denigrate the church and its members; it doesn't give any indication of any desire on your part to seriously address your "concerns". Actually it sounds more like you want to validate your concerns as being irreconcilable with what you think the real true church ought to be.

 

So feel free to keep up this kind of tone. But don't expect to get much respect in doing so. 

 

 

Assume what you will, but the Doctrine bothers me not at all, I have very little if any issue with the Doctrines of the Church.  I am in a place where Church history - Seer Srones, Book of Abraham, Polyandry do not bother me.

 

What I can't stand is the culture of nonsense.  While I understand and grasp that the Church has no official stance on Evolution, whether tithing is gross, white shirts and ties for all, age of the earth, the date of Christ's birth... etc...   I am bombarded every Sunday by a group of older members who tell me my stances that such are not Doctrines are apostate, out of line, not following prophets etc...  -  In my ward maybe 1-2 others grasp the nuance and flexibility, 60 % simply don't know enough to decisively take a stance on most issues and don't even think about them or care to seek out answers and delve into Church history (more power to them though I wish we were all more active in seeking), and the rest have been taught a mormonism that simply doesn't hold up to reality, but they have been been taught it so long, and had it re-enforced at all levels, and have had others around them to hold them up in their nonsense that they know and enforce the status-quo rather than even allow for the possibility they are wrong.  In doing so they create an evironment where either I simply suffer through the bullcrap allowing false doctrine to be taught every week or I speak up and have the "older" "wiser" members get frustrated with me because I am letting the room know this old viewpoint is not the only way to see the gospel.

[DBMormon]

I would like to submit that the attitude above might be better informed by looking for scripturally significant circumstances that embrace the principles that apply to this perspective.  It does reflect a philosophy that is becoming more and more prevalent and is a natural telestial mentality approach but contrary to popular notions it is not critical thinking but to become such must embrace a higher means of address.  

 

One of my favorite set of verses for this principle is found in 1 Corinthians 8.  I’m not going to do a verse by verse but just hit a few key verses that illustrate both sides of this discussion.

 

The first verse kicks it off with a perfect intro:

 

The essence is that his audience is well informed concerning idols.  Idols have no capacity to grant or deny blessings, or in any way affect those who choose to ignore them for the empty, powerless entities they are.

 

That idols are nothing is the point of knowledge and it can be used in two ways.  It’s true no doubt, but there is a “puffed up” way to deal with ownership of that knowledge or there is an edifying charitable way to deal with that knowledge.

 

Naturally, the common telestial response is I know some “stuff” and I think my “stuff” is important to share with everyone I meet that touches upon that subject of my “stuff” cause you need to informed about my “stuff”

However, the verse alludes to an edifying charitable way of dealing with this knowledge.  I commend the chapter to all as it does an excellent job but let’s proceed.

 

Should be clear enough... But the essence is that knowing something is only part of the issue.  It reminds me of this quote by Joseph Smith:

 

 

 

For continuity I recommend these verses 1 Corinthians 8:3-9 for further consideration:

 

However, lets look carefully at these verses that begins to develop the distinctions of puffed up knowledge and edifying charity in the use of knowledge.

 

 

This is pretty black and white.  We could rephrase it to say that when those of you who think you have knowledge about the history of the church or those who know Joseph’s foibles, or those that constantly remind that prophets are men and make mistakes etc, when you who still retain intact your testimonies though you know “stuff” start reciting and spouting off this wonderful “stuff” you know, is there any chance that others who have yet to develop strength of testimony sufficient to embrace your “stuff”  might consume your stuff to their detriment.

 

Is there any chance that your exuberance in sharing your "stuff" openly and with little discretion as to who your audience is may actually cause those who consume it to perish and suffer in testimony and fall away?

 

Verse 12 puts a very nice bow around this and calls it a sin against the brethren and Christ.  Repeat – it is a sin and offends Christ.

 

 

Now we finally reach the edifying and charitable response.  If you are aware that your “stuff” that you are so proud of knowing could in any way cause another to offend, or fall away, or they begin spouting your “stuff” to others without proper understanding then you need to find some other way of charitably preventing their loss by your actions... of course I can safely add … unless ye offend Christ with your sin.

 

For myself I consider this a significant and very important principle to grasp and apply liberally and often.  It’s a good thing to know “stuff” but when the potential exists that we might cause even the tiniest of sheep to become lost for our being puffed up then I’m with Joseph that all should “shut their mouths in everlasting silence on religion till they had learned something.”

 

...and what they need to learn is charity.

 

Charity certainly is part of the issue.  I could simply just forgive and love in spite of the fact that no one cares to at least attempt to fix the problem... that's true.  But in reality the problem still exists.  As a culture we are prone to hold onto false notions and false doctrine and we are rather defensive if someone offers us better information or truth.  

 

In part due to my seeking (mock all you want - not you Samlam but to all here) but my seeking has caused me to discover 100's of problematic issues the Church decided it would rather not share with me.  I have have had to fight my tail end off to get to a place where I could reconcile My faith's Doctrine and history in a way that I could believe again and justify such beliefs. (Thanks in large part to God's grace and his divine assistance)  In doing so I have resolved that part of the problem.

 

The other part though is very few others are seeking in this way.  Very few others are even aware that their faith has tons of issues that at least intially are problematic.  Many are absolutely practicing blind obedience and justify every behavior as = well Leader soandso said so.

 

They, every Sunday, impose their false beliefs as the standard of Mormonism and if I try to make more room for people like me, I am looked at as the idiot in the room

 

Simply I and so are countless others suffocating in such cultural staus-quo as blind obedience and being absolutely and completely uninformed with no desire to even consider alternatives and this being the majority and thereby truth seeking as a cultural trait is very unwelcome

[SamIam]

Charity certainly is part of the issue.  I could simply just forgive and love in spite of the fact that no one cares to at least attempt to fix the problem... that's true.  But in reality the problem still exists.  As a culture we are prone to hold onto false notions and false doctrine and we are rather defensive if someone offers us better information or truth.  

 

In part due to my seeking (mock all you want - not you Samlam but to all here) but my seeking has caused me to discover 100's of problematic issues the Church decided it would rather not share with me.  I have have had to fight my tail end off to get to a place where I could reconcile My faith's Doctrine and history in a way that I could believe again and justify such beliefs. (Thanks in large part to God's grace and his divine assistance)  In doing so I have resolved that part of the problem.

 

The other part though is very few others are seeking in this way.  Very few others are even aware that their faith has tons of issues that at least intially are problematic.  Many are absolutely practicing blind obedience and justify every behavior as = well Leader soandso said so.

 

They, every Sunday, impose their false beliefs as the standard of Mormonism and if I try to make more room for people like me, I am looked at as the idiot in the room

 

Simply I and so are countless others suffocating in such cultural staus-quo as blind obedience and being absolutely and completely uninformed with no desire to even consider alternatives and this being the majority and thereby truth seeking as a cultural trait is very unwelcome

 

There are countless behaviors embraced by members of the church that tend to something less than exaltation.  Blind faith as you point out is perhaps inadequate. Others take it upon themselves to second guess the Saviors gift of the Holy Ghost.  To them, it appears Christ, with his perfect understandings, can't possibly reach through this miasma of conflicts of aspects of the church and so they with their woefully inadequate knowledge think to supplant the Holy Ghost and see to the education of other individuals who in all truth may be better off without them.

 

There is in my estimation a sad truth.  The cultivation of an obsessive focus on correcting the misunderstandings of appropriate belief, leaves those so focused with an inadequate capacity for trust in Jesus Christ;that he can handle it; that he knows what he is doing. In this cause he has called no one to correct the church or it's leaders or its history. It fosters in some a slight doubt and hesitancy in their leaders and in others great distrust that they can believe anything they have to say.  And between those degrees, the slight and the great, falls the degree of shortcomings that will fail them when their faith is demanded in full capacity to act in a timely fashion upon the warnings of the Lord through his leaders. 

 

I am not saying here that an effort to address those who have already been dissatisfied by virtue of Satan's effort to sow the seeds of doubt will not require someone of understanding to address the concerns that threaten them.  You and I have been there. However, our ignorance, or flat out unwillingness to accept there is a sorting taking place makes many ineffectual guides, unsuitable for the burden they take upon themselves of correcting issues that exist for the cause of allowing the sheep to declare themselves His followers.

 

Instead of a focus that diminishes their support and trust in the church, make all of your efforts focus on bringing them unto Christ.  Then nothing will dissuade them, they will be founded on the rock and your efforts will have genuine eternal ramifications both for yourself and for others.  In this cause Christ has explicitly invited all who would rejoice with him to be missionaries and bring to him those who are ready willing and able to follow the master.  There is no need to find yourself weeping with the distracted ones, when you can find yourself reaping with the Savior and those who you helped find the true center principle of importance; Jesus Christ and him crucified for their sins. If you should lead but one soul how great shall be your joy is a much more satisfying objective.

Edited May 12, 2014 by SamIam

[bluebell]

 But just remember you only win the argument when you have convinced the heart of the person who is searching. 

 

It's not logical to say that a person can only win an argument if the one they are arguing with agrees with them.  In the first place, it's as much an indictment against your arguments as it is against anyone else's, since someone else can say the exact same thing back to you and have it be just as valid.  In such a situation, all you are left with is two people who can each declare they have won because they can say to the other "you haven't convinced me you're right."  What does that prove?

 

And second of all, people's biases and/or misconceptions and bad assumptions (regardless of which 'side' they are on) should have no power to hold someone else's arguments hostage.  

Edited May 12, 2014 by bluebell

[DBMormon]

mfbukowski - Not ignoring you in any negative way.  I simply disagree with your position and any effort to hash it out will simply re-enforce both our stances to ourselves.  I absolutely agree that I don't know it all and that I still hold bad assumptions.  That said I am absolutely sure I know more church history and historical narrative than anyone else in my ward.  That may seem like pride or boasting but I also see it as not debatable.   So if a person in the ward is the most informed and a group of "older" "wiser" members still push him away as "misinformed, mentally off, or intentionally trying to deceive" simply because what the person is saying is different than what they learned or how they understood it, than I have a big problem with that.

Edited May 12, 2014 by DBMormon

[Palerider]

It's not logical to say that a person can only win an argument if the one they are arguing with agrees with them.  In the first place, it's as much an indictment against your arguments as it is against anyone else's, since someone else can say the exact same thing back to you and have it be just as valid.  In such a situation, all you are left with is two people who can each declare they have won because they can say to the other "you haven't convinced me you're right."  What does that prove?

 

And second of all, people's biases and/or misconceptions and bad assumptions (regardless of which 'side' they are on) should have no power to hold someone else's arguments hostage.  

 

I'm sorry you only see "winning the argument" in such narrow terms. Heavenly father argues or as the scriptures put it "pleads" his case to mankind in the hopes of winning our souls to Him.

 

Anyone can craftily argue a case (as your own scriptures seem to support, remember those crafty lawyers in the BOM?) and APPEAR to win but the real test is, have they won the heart and conscience of the individual? Is there truly reconciliation, seeing eye to eye and spiritual growth, both between individuals and with God.

 

Nothing I have seen here on this site persuades me that my conclusions regarding the church have been misguided and very little tells me that there is much if any understanding for those who doubt.

 

Instead, many are put up for ridicule and disdain and their motives are questioned, judged, and then are discarded. What I really see here is a huge effort at "turf protection" and a lot of self ego stroking. If this site's intent is to bring people back to the fold I would say that in general it is a miserable failure.

Edited May 12, 2014 by Palerider

[Storm Rider]

mfbukowski - Not ignoring you in any negative way.  I simply disagree with your position and any effort to hash it out will simply re-enforce both our stances to ourselves.  I absolutely agree that I don't know it all and that I still hold bad assumptions.  That said I am absolutely sure I know more church history and historical narrative than anyone else in my ward.  That may seem like pride or boasting but I also see it as not debatable.   So if a person in the ward is the most informed and a group of "older" "wiser" members still push him away as "misinformed, mentally off, or intentionally trying to deceive" simply because what the person is saying is different than what they learned or how they understood it, than I have a big problem with that.

 

If I understand your position correctly you are in a position where you know more about everyone else in your ward.  However, that knowledge does not translate into any degree of respect for what you say and everyone else will discount what you say at best and ridicule your "facts" as being anything but correct.  The fact they do not listen and worse, do not find out for themselves is extremely frustrating for you.  

 

I can understand your frustration, but the problem remains yours and not theirs.  I think some just have a different focus; historical facts have little value for them and it is just easier to satisfy themselves to accept whatever they heard earlier in life as the gospel and there is no need to do further research.  They are contented and see no reason to rock the boat.  They have no sense of frustration and you do.  When guest's glass is full of water do you spend your time all evening trying fill it anew with fresh water?  Their glasses are full; quit trying to fill them anew.  

[jwhitlock]

Assume what you will, but the Doctrine bothers me not at all, I have very little if any issue with the Doctrines of the Church.  I am in a place where Church history - Seer Srones, Book of Abraham, Polyandry do not bother me.

 

What I can't stand is the culture of nonsense.  While I understand and grasp that the Church has no official stance on Evolution, whether tithing is gross, white shirts and ties for all, age of the earth, the date of Christ's birth... etc...   I am bombarded every Sunday by a group of older members who tell me my stances that such are not Doctrines are apostate, out of line, not following prophets etc...  -  In my ward maybe 1-2 others grasp the nuance and flexibility, 60 % simply don't know enough to decisively take a stance on most issues and don't even think about them or care to seek out answers and delve into Church history (more power to them though I wish we were all more active in seeking), and the rest have been taught a mormonism that simply doesn't hold up to reality, but they have been been taught it so long, and had it re-enforced at all levels, and have had others around them to hold them up in their nonsense that they know and enforce the status-quo rather than even allow for the possibility they are wrong.  In doing so they create an evironment where either I simply suffer through the bullcrap allowing false doctrine to be taught every week or I speak up and have the "older" "wiser" members get frustrated with me because I am letting the room know this old viewpoint is not the only way to see the gospel.

 

No assumptions at all on my point. Your post was applied to the church as a whole; the tone of mocking you used was something I'd expect from an enemy of the church. By your own admission, not all members of the church buy into the cultural Mormonism that they've been taught; yet you continue to stereotype things as applying to the whole church. If that's not what you meant, then you need to review what you write since it doesn't give that impression.

 

Though it may surprise you, I'm not a big fan of cultural baggage in Mormonism. However, instead of mocking people about their various stages of belief, I instead work with them respectfully to help them think outside the box. Most members that I come in contact with are rather amenable to that kind of methodology and tend to respond in kind. If your post is any indication of how you operate in your ward, then I'm not particularly surprised at the results you perceive you're getting.

 

As a side note, one of the items of cultural baggage being displayed on this thread is the inane notion that anything spouted by any "official" arm of the church is somehow doctrine or policy and the church as a whole is responsible for it. I find that belief also held by some members who have been unduly influenced by cultural Mormonism's baggage. It amazes me that anyone concerned about cultural Mormonism would espouse such a concept as being the position of the church, yet that is exactly what both critics and culturally oriented Mormons do.

 

In any case, your post set the tone. If you want to adjust it, there can be some discussion. Otherwise those who delight in such mocking of the church will be only too happy to support you.

[jwhitlock]

I think DBMormon is respected by many on this board.

 

Most likely those who think that mocking the church is good sport.

 

I'm not seeing much to respect here. He's extrapolating his own perspectives about the membership of the church in making far-reaching generalizations that are simply out of touch with reality. And he's doing so (at least in this thread) in a way calculated to be offensive to those of us who have a more balanced perspective about things.

[Palerider]

If I understand your position correctly you are in a position where you know more about everyone else in your ward.  However, that knowledge does not translate into any degree of respect for what you say and everyone else will discount what you say at best and ridicule your "facts" as being anything but correct.  The fact they do not listen and worse, do not find out for themselves is extremely frustrating for you.  

 

I can understand your frustration, but the problem remains yours and not theirs.  I think some just have a different focus; historical facts have little value for them and it is just easier to satisfy themselves to accept whatever they heard earlier in life as the gospel and there is no need to do further research.  They are contented and see no reason to rock the boat.  They have no sense of frustration and you do.  When guest's glass is full of water do you spend your time all evening trying fill it anew with fresh water?  Their glasses are full; quit trying to fill them anew.  

 

I think the problem is theirs. Let's see........who was it that said a man could not be saved in ignorance? Or better yet (and even more true) "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

 

What DBMormon has to decide is whether he can go to church, sit on his hands, hold his nose and eat the pablum or whether he should speak up with the truth and risk becoming a pariah among those who should be a spiritual support to him.

 

Hmmmmmmmm...........decisions, decisions.............

[jwhitlock]

While I disagree with DBmormon, in my experience, he, at least, has the gumption to acknowledge difficult issues. And as I see his approach, he has a desire to help people stay in the Church who are struggling. His methods might be a bit quirky to me. His willingness to acknowledge issue, and willingness to help - rather than ridicule those who struggle with issues - is a breath of fresh air.

 

Quite a few of us acknowledge difficult issues. The difference is in how we perceive and work with those differences. His mocking tone in this thread is definitely not a breath of fresh air. On the contrary, it's rather frustrating to see valid issues dealt with in such an unproductive and contentious manner.