Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Gray]

Not according to Alma 32: 33-36. “…ye must needs know that the seed is good… Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing… is your knowledge perfect? Behold I say unto you, Nay…” But it is perfect enough to continue nourishing the seed and the stages of its growth into a tree of everlasting light (37-onward).

 

And not according to 3 Nephi 12:48, which if used as a binary term, eradicates the principle of grace (Moroni 10:32-33; 2 Nephi 31:20).

 

Alma 50:37 attests a fallible human being as being perfectly upright, and Alma 27:27 attests to an entire fallible people being perfectly honest and upright in all things. Evil men in Jacob 7:4 and Alma 55:1 were also perfect in their knowledge of certain things—but hardly as perfect as Perdition!

 

The degrees of glory are also considered degrees of perfection, especially when they are inhabited by souls with “perfect frames.”

 

So it does seem the Church is perfect enough for anyone, including the Lord.

 

No one said you had to be a good writer to be a prophet

[The Nehor]

Blueprints = gospel? 

 

In which case, in theory the blueprints are perfect but we only got a substandard copy of them

No, I think we got a pretty perfect copy but the members used the make the church run are (by design) a bunch of screw ups.

[mfbukowski]

This is what I mean by infallibility.

 

There are many members who think that the prophets have never erred when it comes to doctrine, policy, or pretty much anything as it relates to the church.  Interestingly, while I was never taught that, say, Pres. Monson is perfect, I've been told repeatedly that the "Church is perfect."

 

So what happens when a member comes to the conclusion that the Church has been, say, more perfect than at other times?  Or if they have a hard time coming to grips with the whole "several months before her 15th birthday" thing?

 

For someone raised outside of the Church, this has never bothered me very much at all.  Because I grew up reading a Bible FULL of imperfect prophets. If Peter could walk with Christ every day for three years, see him perform countless miracles, actual walk on water himself and still deny Christ three times, then I wouldn't put anything past anyone.  Yet, time and again, we have debates on this board where people try to prove the most questionable of assertions (e.g., the propriety of publicly denying polygamy while privately practicing it, that all 30-something men in the 1840s were marrying 14 yo girls, that God was racist until 1978, etc.).

 

And don't get me wrong.  If someone has a "testimony" of these things through faith, that's fine.  But many would claim that such beliefs are actually necessary for one to be a "real Mormon."

 

This is a unique proposition amongst Christians.  One need not believe in a global flood to be a Baptist (not all Baptists even believe in the necessity of baptism).  Nor need one believe that Samson actually killed 1,000 men (not 999, not just a whole bunch, but actually 1,000 exactly) to be a Methodist.  One need not believe that Martin Luther's statements about Jews were defensible or that his bigamy exception for Philip of Hesse was doctrinally proper to be a Lutheran.  In other words, you can actually belong to a church named after a man that you believe to have made mistakes, in both matters of morality and doctrine.  

 

The rest of Christianity has somehow figured out that faith in Christ does not require blind faith in His servants.  That, to paraphrase Pres. Uchtdorf, "Heavenly Father works through imperfect men, because that's all he has to work with."  In fact, to my knowledge, even Mormon apologists aren't trying to excuse Noah's drunkenness as being "normal for the times" or "necessary for the protection of his family."  We simply accept that Noah could be both the most righteous man of his day and still have a few issues.

 

So what is it about Mormonism that requires the notion of prophet infallibility (even if we won't admit to believing in it)?  Other than Pres. Woodruff's desperate assertion in OD1 that "If I'm lying, may God strike me down," what else requires the prophets to be perfect?  We admit that we see through a glass darkly.  We admit that there is more to be revealed.  We admit that Zion has not been perfected.  So what prevents us from admitting that maybe, just maybe, kinda possibly that once (or maybe even twice) a Church leader was just a "smidgeon" off on a revelation or policy?  Does that possibility cancel the Restoration?  Does it negate all of our sacred ordinances?  Does it negate the crucifixion, resurrection and the atonement?

 

Of course not, but what it would do is allow room in this Church for both those who believe in prophet infallibility and those who can no longer hold such a belief.

We have traditions that we should not have, in my opinion.  So do "Christians"

 

Some actually believe it is wrong to play with "face cards" - ie playing cards as most know them, jack, king, queen, four suites etc. apparently because they are used in gambling and divination.  I have never understood it, never believed that.  All those things you mention are fables and are not doctrinal.

 

I have said repeatedly and I guess this is another instance: We believe in "orthopraxis" and not "orthodox doctrine" because really we have none.

 

We have the baptismal interview and we have the temple recommend questions.  If you can answer those properly, in good conscience, you are a "member in good standing"

 

The rest is fables, open to discussion, and not required.  For whatever reason I have known that in my soul since before I was a member.  You must always follow your own conscience, wherever it leads.  But with that knowledge, that human beings are human beings. Close to God and the spirit? No question.  Inspired men, no question.  Great leaders, no question.  Human beings with foibles who make mistakes, no question.

 

A wise man once said about the church that he was never disillusioned because he was never "illusioned" in the first place.  I don't agree with all that person said, but I think he was absolutely right about that point.

[mfbukowski]

Perfect is a pretty binary term - either you are or you aren't. I don't think the grammar of your sentence really makes sense 

Arguing definitions will not get you anywhere.  The word originally meant "complete" and I would argue that nothing is.

[mfbukowski]

Blueprints = gospel? 

 

In which case, in theory the blueprints are perfect but we only got a substandard copy of them

Unfortunately that is not their fault- we are all in this together.

 

The "blueprint" must exist within each of us as an ideal to be achieved

 

How are you doing in creating your own world in accord with those plans, as revealed, and as interpreted in your own heart?

 

I am not doing all that well, that's about all I know.  But once we think they are a "substandard copy" we have no one to blame but ourselves for being "substandard" in our own imperfection.

 

Each of us inside us know that we are to be "perfect" even as He is.  THAT is the message.  If we are not there we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Edited June 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

No one said you had to be a good writer to be a prophet

Any excuse seems perfect enough to bury their words in the shallowest of insight. Speaking of that which has come to us from the prophets all along, I think Paul describes perfectly what they have written and said, and how:

 

“Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit…” (2 Corinthians 3: 2-6).

 

 

Unfortunately that is not their fault- we are all in this together.

 

The "blueprint" must exist within each of us as an ideal to be achieved

 

How are you doing in creating your own world in accord with those plans, as revealed, and as interpreted in your own heart?

 

I am not doing all that well, that's about all I know.  But once we think they are a "substandard copy" we have no one to blame but ourselves for being "substandard" in our own imperfection.

 

Each of us inside us know that we are to be "perfect" even as He is.  THAT is the message.  If we are not there we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Amen to that which is contained in the fleshy tables of the heart ("perfect" or not!)!

Edited June 15, 2015 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

I have gotten a few hundred in the past year but most simply say thank you for helping them.  About 20 have gone into the reasons why they fell into a faith crisis and about half of those say the essays were a major contributor

Learning to think critically is never easy, but it is part of growing up.

 

We all are born thinking our parents are infallible and then we find they are human.  It's all the same really.  Unfortunately some have transferred that to leaders.

 

I think some fall out is inevitable but overall it is for the best.

 

Learning math is hard, but we must learn it or remain ignorant for a lifetime and never develop to be all that we might be.

 

Are we progressing on that other thing?

[maxrep12]

We have traditions that we should not have, in my opinion.  So do "Christians"

 

Some actually believe it is wrong to play with "face cards" 

I love this example. This is exactly what believers do. They admit to the most benign behaviors or harmless errors with relation to church leaders as a way of saying, "See, they are not perfect. They are not infallible. And Joseph even engaged in the folly of youth".  

[Robert F. Smith]

I love this example. This is exactly what believers do. They admit to the most benign behaviors or harmless errors with relation to church leaders as a way of saying, "See, they are not perfect. They are not infallible. And Joseph even engaged in the folly of youth".  

And your crucial point is . . .?  I thought Bukowski's point well taken.  Do you prefer a straw-man version of Mormonism?

[stemelbow]

How can a fair evaluation be made when most members don't pay attention to the essays, or the topics they raise?

I know in my little corner of the Church most members don't care one bit about the essays. Sure some seem to think the Church noble because they exist, but upon further conversation you come to learn that these members haven't read the essays and don't really know much about the topics the essays address. I guess in one way it's possible to consider they are backfiring. They are ignored, largely. If they were meant to help members understand, they aren't really effective. Ask average members to go read them and they'd need help to find them, identify any of them. Members remain in the same place as before, for the most part.

[Gray]

Arguing definitions will not get you anywhere.  The word originally meant "complete" and I would argue that nothing is.

 

Yes, nothing is complete, nothing is perfect, except that which does not exist in reality. 

[Gray]

Unfortunately that is not their fault- we are all in this together.

 

The "blueprint" must exist within each of us as an ideal to be achieved

 

How are you doing in creating your own world in accord with those plans, as revealed, and as interpreted in your own heart?

 

I am not doing all that well, that's about all I know.  But once we think they are a "substandard copy" we have no one to blame but ourselves for being "substandard" in our own imperfection.

 

Each of us inside us know that we are to be "perfect" even as He is.  THAT is the message.  If we are not there we have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

My own self-assessment - I'm doing just "okay" with my blueprints. They've lead me to a life of peace and helped me to be my "best" version of myself so far, but my commitment to charitable giving is lackluster. 

 

I don't find the idea of "perfection" helpful. In fact I think it's more distracting to me than anything else. It doesn't lead me to be a better person, it just leads me to dislike myself. 

[Meadowchik]

Yes, nothing is complete, nothing is perfect, except that which does not exist in reality. 

 

You've never been to the French patisserie down my street and around the corner.

 

 

On the other hand, one could say that a thing IS complete insomuch as is required for the given moment and stage. Just getting a body and being born is a form of completion. The Atonement is complete, Christ's mortal sojourn is complete, a testimony from someone about a given moment can be complete. Perfect, too, inasmuch as in bringing a beginning into fruition.

 

Come to think of it, many things can be perfect and complete while still occurring within mortality. But filling a measure of creation does not imply being all things to all people.

[Gray]

You've never been to the French patisserie down my street and around the corner.

 

Alas, I have not!

 

On the other hand, one could say that a thing IS complete insomuch as is required for the given moment and stage. Just getting a body and being born is a form of completion. The Atonement is complete, Christ's mortal sojourn is complete, a testimony from someone about a given moment can be complete. Perfect, too, inasmuch as in bringing a beginning into fruition.

 

Come to think of it, many things can be perfect and complete while still occurring within mortality. But filling a measure of creation does not imply being all things to all people.

 

I suppose so. But it will always be a subjective determination within rather narrow brackets. My inner grammar Nazi (thanks, Mr. P from 9th grade) still makes me want to nit pick the idea. 

[Meadowchik]

 

You've never been to the French patisserie down my street and around the corner.

 

Alas, I have not!

 

On the other hand, one could say that a thing IS complete insomuch as is required for the given moment and stage. Just getting a body and being born is a form of completion. The Atonement is complete, Christ's mortal sojourn is complete, a testimony from someone about a given moment can be complete. Perfect, too, inasmuch as in bringing a beginning into fruition.

 

Come to think of it, many things can be perfect and complete while still occurring within mortality. But filling a measure of creation does not imply being all things to all people.

 

I suppose so. But it will always be a subjective determination within rather narrow brackets. My inner grammar Nazi (thanks, Mr. P from 9th grade) still makes me want to nit pick the idea. 

 

I guess another way to think of perfection is that it can exist even if it is not the way everyone imagines it.  We may not know exactly what is perfect, but dat don't mean it don't exist. 

Edited June 16, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Nofear]

Mildly related about perfection: for fun, compare Matthew 5:48 and 3 Nephi 12:48. Prior to his resurrection Christ commands us to be perfect as Father is. After his resurrection he commands us to be perfect as both he and Father.

[CV75]

I don't find the idea of "perfection" helpful. In fact I think it's more distracting to me than anything else. It doesn't lead me to be a better person, it just leads me to dislike myself. 

That is certainly not the object of the essays! There are plenty of conference talks that reflect a very beneficial perspective on the subject of perfection.

[Gray]

That is certainly not the object of the essays! There are plenty of conference talks that reflect a very beneficial perspective on the subject of perfection.

 

I wasn't really referring to the essays, just to the practice of a using perfection as some kind of life goal. It doesn't work well for me personally. It might for someone else. 

[hagoth7]

I love this example. This is exactly what believers do. They admit to the most benign behaviors or harmless errors with relation to church leaders as a way of saying, "See, they are not perfect. They are not infallible. And Joseph even engaged in the folly of youth".  

 

And your crucial point is . . .?  I thought Bukowski's point well taken.  Do you prefer a straw-man version of Mormonism?

I agree with Robert. I love, for example, the psalm of Nephi, where he acknowledges human frailties. Nephi was a great man.

[rockpond]

That's why it is good to have 5th sunday discussions on these essays.  It would provide an opportunity for members to discuss them together.

 

I'd like to do that in my own ward but I am still concerned about a discussion of the essays creating doubt and challenges for members where none exists now.  My opinion of the essays as they exist right now is that they create more questions than they answer.

[stemelbow]

I'd like to do that in my own ward but I am still concerned about a discussion of the essays creating doubt and challenges for members where none exists now.  My opinion of the essays as they exist right now is that they create more questions than they answer.

yes. I struggle with participating at all in Church for the same reason. People seem blissful enough without me coming in and upsetting their course. I say this because I've participated in a lot of ways over the years and have seen people get upset, set up walls with me and feel anger towards me. Alls I want to do is talk openly, share with others, accept disagreement, and learn from others. But i'm pretty stuck on all of those fronts.

[Robert F. Smith]

Arguing definitions will not get you anywhere.  The word originally meant "complete" and I would argue that nothing is.

That's what the word means in Hebrew and Egyptian.

[Robert F. Smith]

How can a fair evaluation be made when most members don't pay attention to the essays, or the topics they raise?

I know in my little corner of the Church most members don't care one bit about the essays. Sure some seem to think the Church noble because they exist, but upon further conversation you come to learn that these members haven't read the essays and don't really know much about the topics the essays address. I guess in one way it's possible to consider they are backfiring. They are ignored, largely. If they were meant to help members understand, they aren't really effective. Ask average members to go read them and they'd need help to find them, identify any of them. Members remain in the same place as before, for the most part.

Well, of course, but what did you really expect?

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd like to do that in my own ward but I am still concerned about a discussion of the essays creating doubt and challenges for members where none exists now.  My opinion of the essays as they exist right now is that they create more questions than they answer.

Hugh Nibley was always concerned that the LDS students he encountered on BYU campus had no opinions, and did not ask questions.  That worried him.  Of course, he was a graduate of the UC system (first as an undergrad at UCLA, and then with his doctorate at UC Berkeley), in which students always had questions.  Eternal progression isn't possible without them.  Joseph Smith wasn't possible without them.  Revelation within the Restoration would never have occurred without them.  We desperately need more questions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't want to wade through this thread so I'll just ask: Is there anything here, other than anecdotal information and personal opinion, that gives evidence that the essays are backfiring?