Dismayed

[Danzo]

I am only 35.  I was called to Bishop when 29.  I am currently the WML.  The under 55 crowd seem to look up to me.  They are more open to letting go of false assumptions.  The older crowd is the issue.  They hold firmly to a brand of Mormonism taught in the 70's and have seemingly failed to read much since then and are not willing to allow more truth in and nonsense out.

In the last few months I have had the following happen

 

- Had a High councilman tell a member that shouldn't put much stock in what I say since I was not wearing a white shirt

 

- When I offered a better perspective one member told me "President soandso said it, good enough for me" which totally came off as "sorry but my old beliefs are not up for question as I am determined to follow every word of a leader no matter what they say"

 

- Had a sister after a talk I gave where I spoke generally about people outside our faith being directed by God to to help bring people to Christ - she stormed  up to me after my talk and got in my face and said if that was true then the Church wasn't, she then emailed my wife and had her kids email me as well. 

 

These are just a few, but I find every week is suffocating.  I understand the burden and responsibility is on me but please know that to go through a severe faith crisis, to find faith again, only to realize those around you refuse to give the the space and flexibility you now need to even survive.  I simply can't live, breathe, and certainly not survive in that brand of Mormonism.  I need space.

 

I need to see some aspects as figurative, I need to be alowed to acknowledge mistakes by the Church when they are made, I need to feel free to have my own opinion on issues of science, I need to be able to reject April 6th as Christ's birth, white shirts for all, and private interpretations of the word of wisdom

wow tough crowd,  Might I ask what area (generally) you live in.  I haven't had those experiences but it might make a difference that I don't live in Utah. (Not that people here can't be stupid, but I have never heard someone discounted for what they wear or not acknowledging the good other churches do.) 

[frank_jessop]

But don't mock the church and its members and make generalizations like you have done here. People are likely to respond in kind, and that doesn't lead to any productive resolution of things.

Even if he had mocked anything, aren't we instructed by Christ to turn the other cheek?

[sdc999]

I am only 35.  I was called to Bishop when 29.  I am currently the WML.  The under 55 crowd seem to look up to me.  They are more open to letting go of false assumptions.  The older crowd is the issue.  They hold firmly to a brand of Mormonism taught in the 70's and have seemingly failed to read much since then and are not willing to allow more truth in and nonsense out.

In the last few months I have had the following happen

 

- Had a High councilman tell a member that shouldn't put much stock in what I say since I was not wearing a white shirt

 

- When I offered a better perspective one member told me "President soandso said it, good enough for me" which totally came off as "sorry but my old beliefs are not up for question as I am determined to follow every word of a leader no matter what they say"

 

- Had a sister after a talk I gave where I spoke generally about people outside our faith being directed by God to to help bring people to Christ - she stormed  up to me after my talk and got in my face and said if that was true then the Church wasn't, she then emailed my wife and had her kids email me as well. 

 

These are just a few, but I find every week is suffocating.  I understand the burden and responsibility is on me but please know that to go through a severe faith crisis, to find faith again, only to realize those around you refuse to give the the space and flexibility you now need to even survive.  I simply can't live, breathe, and certainly not survive in that brand of Mormonism.  I need space.

 

I need to see some aspects as figurative, I need to be alowed to acknowledge mistakes by the Church when they are made, I need to feel free to have my own opinion on issues of science, I need to be able to reject April 6th as Christ's birth, white shirts for all, and private interpretations of the word of wisdom

 

 

Then feel free to do so and to deal with it in a productive manner as the rest of us have. You seem to think that you're somehow unique in your experiences.

 

But don't mock the church and its members and make generalizations like you have done here. People are likely to respond in kind, and that doesn't lead to any productive resolution of things.

 

And I'm talking as one of the "over 55" crowd that you apparently don't think so highly of. Evidently none of us think for ourselves, or have ever had to deal with the same experiences you have.

 

Not.

I think he did do so in a productive manner to which you didn't like so now it becomes totally unacceptable.  He just mentioned problems within his own ward.  I didn't see him saying that EVERY member was this way.  Seems like people in his ward do not want to be productive in their conversations.  Maybe he should go to a different ward if one is close.  I know he's really not 'allowed' to stray according to rules, but I have seen it done and I have seen Bishops welcome them.

DB, sorry you are having a difficult time but please refrain from whining or Jwhitlock will call out the pansy in you. 

[teddyaware]

I am only 35.  I was called to Bishop when 29.  I am currently the WML.  The under 55 crowd seem to look up to me.  They are more open to letting go of false assumptions.  The older crowd is the issue.  They hold firmly to a brand of Mormonism taught in the 70's and have seemingly failed to read much since then and are not willing to allow more truth in and nonsense out.

In the last few months I have had the following happen

 

- Had a High councilman tell a member that shouldn't put much stock in what I say since I was not wearing a white shirt

 

- When I offered a better perspective one member told me "President soandso said it, good enough for me" which totally came off as "sorry but my old beliefs are not up for question as I am determined to follow every word of a leader no matter what they say"

 

- Had a sister after a talk I gave where I spoke generally about people outside our faith being directed by God to to help bring people to Christ - she stormed  up to me after my talk and got in my face and said if that was true then the Church wasn't, she then emailed my wife and had her kids email me as well. 

 

These are just a few, but I find every week is suffocating.  I understand the burden and responsibility is on me but please know that to go through a severe faith crisis, to find faith again, only to realize those around you refuse to give the the space and flexibility you now need to even survive.  I simply can't live, breathe, and certainly not survive in that brand of Mormonism.  I need space.

 

I need to see some aspects as figurative, I need to be alowed to acknowledge mistakes by the Church when they are made, I need to feel free to have my own opinion on issues of science, I need to be able to reject April 6th as Christ's birth, white shirts for all, and private interpretations of the word of wisdom

Now here's a point to ponder: I teach, speak and comment frequently in Church, but even though some of my beliefs are somewhat outside of the mainstream of the Church (I think I'm actually just ahead of the curve on some points of doctrine) I never get anything but positive comments from members of all stripes, whether from the liberal/progressives or the Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith hardliners. In fact if you ask the progressives, they think I'm one of them; and If you ask the TBM hardliners, they'll say I'm one of them. Why? Because I've learned unity in the body of Christ is of utmost importance, so I've come to know how to follow the Apostle Paul's lead to teach and speak in such a way that virtually all (except for the willfully perverse) might agree and rejoice in my words. The impetuousness, brashness and pride of youth are often the reasons why some teaching approaches create unedifying controversy when the controversial is neither wise, needed nor called for. 

 

I could supply a great many scriptural references that counsel us to avoid questions and teachings that minister strife, controversy and division, but I'll post just two of them. If you would like to take a gander at the 100 or so others, I'll post them for you as well...

2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. (Philippians 2)

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (1 Corinthians 9)

 

Edited May 12, 2014 by teddyaware

[mormonnewb]

Then understand that there is a great deal of grey area when it comes to the church. We have to make sense of it in our own way, and within the framework of the foundation that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet, that the church as an organization is God's restored church, and that it is led by a prophet today who gets direction from God.

 

What frustrates me is when people make generalized or absolutist statements about the church. It happens on both ends of the spectrum. You've been guilty of it here when you've claimed that the church is directly responsible for and approves everything that happens under its umbrella - a claim which is basically untenable and makes no allowance for grey areas involving the exercise of personal agency. That agency is something that God Himself is loathe to interfere with and must be understood as perhaps the guiding principle of what goes on in the church.

 

So when I hear about cultural Mormons who are rigid in their absolutist interpretations, and see critics of the church who are rigid in their generalizations and stereotyping, I see two groups of people who are actually very similar in what they are doing.

 

The rest of us in the church - who are probably the majority - deal with things in our own way, balancing all the apparent contradictions that occur because people are involved, with what we understand to be really important and true about the church.

 

So there you go. I can understand Angst, but I don't have much patience with it when it manifests itself in destructive ways.

And we were so close to our kumbaya moment on this one!

 

 

Let me say this again.  Yes, the Church is responsible for documentaries that it pays for and broadcasts on its own network -- BYU TV.  This is beyond question in any conceivable context.  If BYU TV were to violate copyright by showing, say, Boogie Nights, without permission, then some corporate entity that is wholly owned by the Church would be sued.  It would not be able to defend itself by claiming that Pres. Monson was not consulted and has stated several times in public that Mark Wahlberg is a horrible actor (thus, sayeth EVERYBODY).

 

Also, I suspect that the Church itself would start cleaning house at BYU TV.  It wouldn't just fire the person who pressed play (or however that works).  It would likely fire that person's manager and perhaps, even that manager's manager.  But wouldn't that defeat agency?  Of course not.  We are often held responsible for the actions of others (good and bad).  And most certainly, if such a thing happened, the Church itself would issue an apology for "allowing" such filth to go out over its airways, because even if Pres Monson isn't in the control room that day, the Church is responsible for what it produces and broadcasts.   And, by the way, the Church should be given credit for all of the uplifting programming broadcast by BYU TV (even though, Pres. Monson didn't hit the play button on any of that stuff either).

 

As for your patience with angst, I hate to break it to you, but angst is seldom neat and tidy.  In fact, it is often destructive.  Once again, if I cheat on my wife, her angst is going to be quite destructive; particularly to my pretty face.  I also suspect that I would lose quite a bit of flat ware in the deal as I dodged plates, saucers and the washing machine and dryer, for that matter.  I suspect that declaring "I have no patience with your angst when it manifests itself in destructive ways" isn't going to resolve our trust issues.  Likewise, I don't suspect that your lack of patience is particularly helpful in this context either, but hey, I bet it felt good to get it off your chest, huh?

[Palerider]

And we were so close to our kumbaya moment on this one!

 

 

Let me say this again.  Yes, the Church is responsible for documentaries that it pays for and broadcasts on its own network -- BYU TV.  This is beyond question in any conceivable context.  If BYU TV were to violate copyright by showing, say, Boogie Nights, without permission, then some corporate entity that is wholly owned by the Church would be sued.  It would not be able to defend itself by claiming that Pres. Monson was not consulted and has stated several times in public that Mark Wahlberg is a horrible actor (thus, sayeth EVERYBODY).

 

Also, I suspect that the Church itself would start cleaning house at BYU TV.  It wouldn't just fire the person who pressed play (or however that works).  It would likely fire that person's manager and perhaps, even that manager's manager.  But wouldn't that defeat agency?  Of course not.  We are often held responsible for the actions of others (good and bad).  And most certainly, if such a thing happened, the Church itself would issue an apology for "allowing" such filth to go out over its airways, because even if Pres Monson isn't in the control room that day, the Church is responsible for what it produces and broadcasts.   And, by the way, the Church should be given credit for all of the uplifting programming broadcast by BYU TV (even though, Pres. Monson didn't hit the play button on any of that stuff either).

 

As for your patience with angst, I hate to break it to you, but angst is seldom neat and tidy.  In fact, it is often destructive.  Once again, if I cheat on my wife, her angst is going to be quite destructive; particularly to my pretty face.  I also suspect that I would lose quite a bit of flat ware in the deal as I dodged plates, saucers and the washing machine and dryer, for that matter.  I suspect that declaring "I have no patience with your angst when it manifests itself in destructive ways" isn't going to resolve our trust issues.  Likewise, I don't suspect that your lack of patience is particularly helpful in this context either, but hey, I bet it felt good to get it off your chest, huh?

 

Hi Mormonewb,

 

In the interest of fair play, I did a little research and found that "History of the Saints" is produced by Glenn Rawson and Dennis Lyman and is funded apparently by an extremely wealthy Mormon, who passed away a short while ago. Not sure if he made arrangements to continue funding after his demise or not.

 

That being said, such things are known to have been encouraged by the church in the past and having had the opportunity to glimpse some of the inner workings of the church on a general level, I believe many here would be amazed at how tightly the church manages it's public image and the micro managing of what is acceptable fair for it's media arm to televise. 

 

I am quite reasonably sure that they wouldn't publish something that didn't suit their agenda whether produced directly by them or by their proxies.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Palerider

[Palerider]

Is there a link to this so I can watch it? Also, a link about the information about being married to Joseph Smith?

 

BYUtv says that it has broadcasts available for viewing on line but I didn't see this program listed. www.BYUtv.org

 

I think all you would have to do is google search "Helen Mar Kimball" and I feel certain you will get enough hits to keep you busy for awhile.

 

Also see: www.historyofthesaints.org for more info on it's production. They say they will have online viewing at some point but apparently aren't ready yet.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Palerider

[jwhitlock]

I think he did do so in a productive manner to which you didn't like so now it becomes totally unacceptable.  He just mentioned problems within his own ward.  I didn't see him saying that EVERY member was this way.  Seems like people in his ward do not want to be productive in their conversations.  Maybe he should go to a different ward if one is close.  I know he's really not 'allowed' to stray according to rules, but I have seen it done and I have seen Bishops welcome them.

DB, sorry you are having a difficult time but please refrain from whining or Jwhitlock will call out the pansy in you. 

 

You really need to read all of his posts on the thread before you start calling people names.

[jwhitlock]

Hi Mormonewb,

 

In the interest of fair play, I did a little research and found that "History of the Saints" is produced by Glenn Rawson and Dennis Lyman and is funded apparently by an extremely wealthy Mormon, who passed away a short while ago. Not sure if he made arrangements to continue funding after his demise or not.

 

That being said, such things are known to have been encouraged by the church in the past and having had the opportunity to glimpse some of the inner workings of the church on a general level, I believe many here would be amazed at how tightly the church manages it's public image and the micro managing of what is acceptable fair for it's media arm to televise. 

 

I am quite reasonably sure that they wouldn't publish something that didn't suit their agenda whether produced directly by them or by their proxies.

 

Unsupported speculation on your part.

[jwhitlock]

And we were so close to our kumbaya moment on this one!

 

 

Let me say this again.  Yes, the Church is responsible for documentaries that it pays for and broadcasts on its own network -- BYU TV.  This is beyond question in any conceivable context.  If BYU TV were to violate copyright by showing, say, Boogie Nights, without permission, then some corporate entity that is wholly owned by the Church would be sued.  It would not be able to defend itself by claiming that Pres. Monson was not consulted and has stated several times in public that Mark Wahlberg is a horrible actor (thus, sayeth EVERYBODY).

 

Also, I suspect that the Church itself would start cleaning house at BYU TV.  It wouldn't just fire the person who pressed play (or however that works).  It would likely fire that person's manager and perhaps, even that manager's manager.  But wouldn't that defeat agency?  Of course not.  We are often held responsible for the actions of others (good and bad).  And most certainly, if such a thing happened, the Church itself would issue an apology for "allowing" such filth to go out over its airways, because even if Pres Monson isn't in the control room that day, the Church is responsible for what it produces and broadcasts.   And, by the way, the Church should be given credit for all of the uplifting programming broadcast by BYU TV (even though, Pres. Monson didn't hit the play button on any of that stuff either).

 

As for your patience with angst, I hate to break it to you, but angst is seldom neat and tidy.  In fact, it is often destructive.  Once again, if I cheat on my wife, her angst is going to be quite destructive; particularly to my pretty face.  I also suspect that I would lose quite a bit of flat ware in the deal as I dodged plates, saucers and the washing machine and dryer, for that matter.  I suspect that declaring "I have no patience with your angst when it manifests itself in destructive ways" isn't going to resolve our trust issues.  Likewise, I don't suspect that your lack of patience is particularly helpful in this context either, but hey, I bet it felt good to get it off your chest, huh?

 

Since you haven't seen fit to address the point I made earlier on the thread about how ridiculous your "responsibility" claim is when carried to its logical conclusion, there's not much sense in responding to this.

[jwhitlock]

Sounds like I need to reproduce DBMormon's original mocking post in this thread. Funny how people become so purposely obtuse when the methodology of someone critical of the church is pointed out.

 

Let's be frank.  There are hundreds of quirks and conflict and difficult issues in Mormonism.  80-90% of members (my guess... yes) that are unaware of most of them and certainly not aware of much below a surface understanding.

 

Combine that with the Church prefers to allow these members to continue to stay uninformed.  Too risky to tell them the whole truth.  We don't want members to move to more complex thinking.... too risky

 

We don't really want to try too hard to tell members about mormonsandgays.org, gospel topics articles, or acknowledge past DOCTRINE is todays DISAVOWED theory.  We prefer members learn problems very slowly or not at all because anything otherwise is too risky.  Someone states Evolution is a heresy.... well  it's incorrect but shhhhhhh don't correct that publicly.

 

Someone said we know by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th?  incorrect... but shhhh no sense in correcting that.

 

Meanwhile those who do know are looked upon as apostaes, brainwashed by anti mormon propaganda, "misinformed, menatlly challenged, or intentionally trying to deceive"

 

In the end we really don't value truthseekers or critical thinkers... we in cultural practice enable blind obedience 

 

Doesn't sound too me that there's much particular respect for the church here. But hey - he's dealing with it "productively", evidently.

 

As if unsupported, mocking generalizations are in any way productive - or balanced.

[mormonnewb]

To take this absurd line of reasoning a step further, evidently you must think that President Monson is directly responsible for your performance - or lack thereof - in your own personal church responsibilities.

And that includes what you post on this board as a member of the church.

If the Church paid me to post on this board, then, yes, it would be responsible for what I posted. It's called being an EMPLOYER.

Now, if I were trying to attribute to the Church a film posted on YouTube by a random BYU student, then you would have a point. But when the Lord's University (and I'm not talking about Notre Dame) distributes programming though it's television network, then it is responsible for that programming.

Added:

The Church is not responsible for all of the actions of its members, but it is responsible for the employment-related actions of its EMPLOYEES. And a BYU TV employee broadcasting a program through its channel is about as employment-related as possible.

And this really shouldn't be that hard to understand. This principle of respondeat superior responsibility is older than the Church (and possibly two of the three Nephites).

Edited May 13, 2014 by mormonnewb

[jwhitlock]

If the Church paid me to post on this board, then, yes, it would be responsible for what I posted. It's called being an EMPLOYER.

Now, if I were trying to attribute to the Church a film posted on YouTube by a random BYU student, then you would have a point. But when the Lord's University (and I'm not talking about Notre Dame) distributes programming though it's television network, then it is responsible for that programming.

 

Nope, you missed the point. Try again.

[MiserereNobis]

But when the Lord's University (and I'm not talking about Notre Dame)

 

 

Yeah, but we've got Touchdown Jesus cheering for our 6 points!

 

[Pahoran]

For now, I will ignore your obsession with the crime next to murder -- mocking. I certainly don't in any way want to mock would could be seen as hypersensitivity on your part.

However, your assertion that the Church is being truthful because it publishes truth SOMEWHERE is simply ridiculous. You can't just sprinkle the truth in bits and pieces all over the Internet and then claim that you are being "upfront" about things. By way of analogy, I certainly can't report only some of my income on my Form 1040 and then explain to the IRS that I was being truthful because I mentioned my other income on an obscure website somewhere. Yet, in this case, you want to claim that the Church is being truthful because SOMEWHERE in the Joseph Smith Papers, the entire truth of the matter is told. Neither the IRS nor I am buying that.

 

Y'know Mormonnewb, there are good analogies and there are, well, other analogies.

 

And yours is one of the... others.

 

But that doesn't mean it can't be fixed.

 

And here it is, fixed for you:

 

By way of analogy, once you've honestly reported all of the relevant details of your income on your Form 1040, if someone with a name similar to "pastypassenger" (someone who has had it in for you for years) claims to be "dismayed" (while trying his best to hide his nasty grin) at having caught you in a "cover-up," in that your Form 1040 doesn't mention income you earned in your job as a paperboy when you were 11, you might wonder what his problem is.

 

And then if others who purport to be your friends all start shaking their heads and tut-tutting about how naughty you've been, you might start to wonder if they really are your friends at all, or if they've merely been faking it, like others have before them.

 

And if they are your friends, you might wonder why are they so eager to be (in Lenin's words) "useful idiots" for an obvious troublemaker.

 

But then, in a moment of philosophical reflection, you might decide that if your friends are going to be idiots, they might as well be useful to somebody.

 

 

One can be a faithful member of the Church and still not agree with everything it does. In fact, I don't see how one can be a faithful member and not want the Church to better.

 

Yes, but consider: just how faithful an Israelite was Uzzah anyway?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

I am only 35.  I was called to Bishop when 29.  I am currently the WML.  The under 55 crowd seem to look up to me.  They are more open to letting go of false assumptions.  The older crowd is the issue.  They hold firmly to a brand of Mormonism taught in the 70's and have seemingly failed to read much since then and are not willing to allow more truth in and nonsense out.

In the last few months I have had the following happen

 

- Had a High councilman tell a member that shouldn't put much stock in what I say since I was not wearing a white shirt

 

- When I offered a better perspective one member told me "President soandso said it, good enough for me" which totally came off as "sorry but my old beliefs are not up for question as I am determined to follow every word of a leader no matter what they say"

 

- Had a sister after a talk I gave where I spoke generally about people outside our faith being directed by God to to help bring people to Christ - she stormed  up to me after my talk and got in my face and said if that was true then the Church wasn't, she then emailed my wife and had her kids email me as well. 

 

These are just a few, but I find every week is suffocating.  I understand the burden and responsibility is on me but please know that to go through a severe faith crisis, to find faith again, only to realize those around you refuse to give the the space and flexibility you now need to even survive.  I simply can't live, breathe, and certainly not survive in that brand of Mormonism.  I need space.

 

I need to see some aspects as figurative, I need to be alowed to acknowledge mistakes by the Church when they are made, I need to feel free to have my own opinion on issues of science, I need to be able to reject April 6th as Christ's birth, white shirts for all, and private interpretations of the word of wisdom

 

If it weren't for Mormons the Church would be great.  It sometimes feels like that; at times it is incredibly difficult to be around some Mormons.  Within every faith group is found a wide range of people and each individual has their own way and degree of progression.  

 

Your group is not one where I would find a high degree of comfort.  Each of us has to learn to adjust and sometimes it can be a real up hill slog. I have had leaders and other members that have not been favorites or even likable.  I try to keep the situation in perspective; it is my responsibility to adjust to them and to accept only as much as I must to retain my sanity.  I have had occasion to move around for most of my life so I have never felt stuck with a specific congregation or leader.  I am not sure how well I could have handled some of the congregations I have been in for a long term.  

 

This may be an opportunity for you to learn more about love and patience for...not enemies, but those who may abuse you.  I do believe that most things happen for a reason and you may be right where you are for your own benefit.  

[Pahoran]

If the Church paid me to post on this board, then, yes, it would be responsible for what I posted. It's called being an EMPLOYER.

Now, if I were trying to attribute to the Church a film posted on YouTube by a random BYU student, then you would have a point. But when the Lord's University (and I'm not talking about Notre Dame) distributes programming though it's television network, then it is responsible for that programming.

Added:

The Church is not responsible for all of the actions of its members, but it is responsible for the employment-related actions of its EMPLOYEES. And a BYU TV employee broadcasting a program through its channel is about as employment-related as possible.

And this really shouldn't be that hard to understand. This principle of respondeat superior responsibility is older than the Church (and possibly two of the three Nephites).

 

Perhaps, but there's something you're missing.

 

It has yet to be established -- or even, reasonably argued -- that BYU TV, or whoever made the doco, actually did anything wrong.

 

You see, mormonnewb,  if you were to try to make a movie that covered every detail of a person's life, do you know how long it would have to be?

 

That's right; it would be as long as that person's life.

 

So, in order to make a movie that can be watched in a reasonable length of time, you have to select your material.

 

I, for one, am very glad someone was able to make a movie about Helen Whitney without harping on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about her sealing to Joseph.

 

As I mentioned earlier: if it was up to the paleriders of this world (and, evidently, some of their fellow riders) we'd never know anything else about her.  Their idea of "the whole story" is the one and only detail that they love to obsess over, the single string of the fiddle on which they monotonously saw their one-note symphony.

 

Would any reasonable person think that anyone did anything wrong by letting us know that Helen didn't live out her life as a perpetual 14 1/2 year old not going to dances?

 

If we take a roll call of those who are having conniption fits over it in this thread, I would say not.

 

But, as has been pointed out elsewhere: BYU TV is not the Church.  Quite apart from the fact that they did exactly nothing wrong and deceived precisely nobody by making a documentary that didn't mention a detail that only anti-Mormons obsess over, the fact remains that Helen's sealing to Joseph is documented elsewhere and made available by the Church in places that are certainly no more "obscure" than a local privately owned TV channel.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

Hi Mormonewb,

 

In the interest of fair play, I did a little research and found that "History of the Saints" is produced by Glenn Rawson and Dennis Lyman and is funded apparently by an extremely wealthy Mormon, who passed away a short while ago. Not sure if he made arrangements to continue funding after his demise or not.

 

That being said, such things are known to have been encouraged by the church in the past and having had the opportunity to glimpse some of the inner workings of the church on a general level, I believe many here would be amazed at how tightly the church manages it's public image and the micro managing of what is acceptable fair for it's media arm to televise. 

 

I am quite reasonably sure that they wouldn't publish something that didn't suit their agenda whether produced directly by them or by their proxies.

 

The Church does manage its PR closely and where they can exert influence they do. The question is where can their influence be felt and where does it have less than a primary effect. As an aside, I always put this emphasis on PR at the feet of GBH and those closely associated to his agenda and perspective.  In many levels there is no judgment in this assessment, but to be honest, I generally don't like spin of any kind. My personally opinion is that PR firms "play" with truth and with facts in such ways as to distort and mislead.  If it were not so, there would be no need for them.

 

You open many more questions than provide answers with your view. If they exert influence so that their agenda is achieved, then to what degree? Some influence is to prevent a negative influence and some is to increase the positive facts. I don't think it is valuable to search after boogeymen when the truth serves the Church completely. 

[DBMormon]

Then feel free to do so and to deal with it in a productive manner as the rest of us have. You seem to think that you're somehow unique in your experiences.

 

But don't mock the church and its members and make generalizations like you have done here. People are likely to respond in kind, and that doesn't lead to any productive resolution of things.

 

And I'm talking as one of the "over 55" crowd that you apparently don't think so highly of. Evidently none of us think for ourselves, or have ever had to deal with the same experiences you have.

 

Not.

 

Its the over 55 crowd in my ward.  The old boys club.  Your ward dymanimcs may be different but we have a group of brethren, long time members, who held a very different speculative Mormonism.  They feel they are the guardians of truth.  I do not get resistance from one person under 55, and sure there are several over 55 who are supportive and who acknowledge my input, but there is a group that do not.  Why don't they?  Is it my behavior?  If it was You would expect me to rub all age groups the same.  It's not me at least not at the onset.  In my ward there is a group who are confident they have all the answers to the "essential" questions but in fact their answers are speculative, unfounded, and a matter of opinion at best and not Doctrine.  When they push said ideas across as Doctrine, I admit, I am the first to raise my hand and offer an alternative approach/view.

[Tacenda]

The Church does manage its PR closely and where they can exert influence they do. The question is where can their influence be felt and where does it have less than a primary effect. As an aside, I always put this emphasis on PR at the feet of GBH and those closely associated to his agenda and perspective. In many levels there is no judgment in this assessment, but to be honest, I generally don't like spin of any kind. My personally opinion is that PR firms "play" with truth and with facts in such ways as to distort and mislead. If it were not so, there would be no need for them.

You open many more questions than provide answers with your view. If they exert influence so that their agenda is achieved, then to what degree? Some influence is to prevent a negative influence and some is to increase the positive facts. I don't think it is valuable to search after boogeymen when the truth serves the Church completely.

Thank you for your honesty, especially at the heels of piranha, I mean pahoran. It's refreshing to see that even when a true believer, you can still see where needs are and where something can be worked on, even if it goes against the grain. PS: Hopefully, I didn't put words in your mouth. Edited May 13, 2014 by Tacenda

[jwhitlock]

Its the over 55 crowd in my ward.  The old boys club.  Your ward dymanimcs may be different but we have a group of brethren, long time members, who held a very different speculative Mormonism.  They feel they are the guardians of truth.  I do not get resistance from one person under 55, and sure there are several over 55 who are supportive and who acknowledge my input, but there is a group that do not.  Why don't they?  Is it my behavior?  If it was You would expect me to rub all age groups the same.  It's not me at least not at the onset.  In my ward there is a group who are confident they have all the answers to the "essential" questions but in fact their answers are speculative, unfounded, and a matter of opinion at best and not Doctrine.  When they push said ideas across as Doctrine, I admit, I am the first to raise my hand and offer an alternative approach/view.

 

You keep adjusting your story. Things apparently are not as generalized or all-encompassing as you led us to believe at first since there are "over 55" individuals who don't "oppose" you.

 

Perhaps that's why when you make statements such as "...the Church prefers to allow these members to continue to stay uninformed.", they're looked at skeptically since they're obviously hyped.

 

Edit:

 

I still suspect that if the way  you've phrased things on this thread is the way you phrase them in your ward, there are valid reasons why you experience conflicts there.

Edited May 13, 2014 by jwhitlock

[why me]

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.......

I think that the BYU channel is a media channel operated out of BYU. I don't think that the lds church has much to do with its programming. What is said about Helen and not said, it up to BYU. I don't know why that everying that is produced on BYU radio or TV and for that matter is always the church leadership's fault. I would say that the best thing to do is to write to the station about your concerns or to write to the producers of the program.

[why me]

How does this relate to Palerider's claim that the church hides its history?

I think that the certain members of the church choose to leave out what they consider to be non-useful. But I don't see this as a leadership problem that comes from salt lake. I see this as a matter of choice by the writers of the documentaries. With the JSP, all items about JS will be known. However, what producers wish to use or not use should be up to them. I would hate for the church to be too controlling over what is produced. If one thinks of the lds church as a cooperative of members who interpret history as they see fit and include facts as they see fit, one can understand the problem much better than to blame the 'church'.

[stemelbow]

What I call way overblown:

1. The criticism that the Church hides, or withholds information. (I get it. I sometimes get riled when I read something that seems to miss crucial information. I just have to tell myself its not critical that everyone know every detail. Most information most people aren't interested in)

2. The Distinction between the "informed" members of the Church and the less informed

3. Defensiveness when people do criticize the Church when pieces lack information or come off as misleading.

4. The need to suggest people who promote open information flow or disagree with the traditional view of ignore the unimportant (read not faith promoting) labeling the other as apostate or on the road to.

5. The sides that are created in all of this.

Edited May 13, 2014 by stemelbow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, but we've got Touchdown Jesus cheering for our 6 points!

 

Well you definitely got that going for you. I am going to talk to the brothern to see if we can get that at BYU.