Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Russell C McGregor]

I would say that they are a net positive. Yes, you read that correctly. I think that the Chirch did something right. Here is my (normally twisted) reasoning.

Okay, who are you and what have you done with the real mormonnewb?

The ex-mos largely see the essays as "Ah ha! We told you so all the time!" They dismiss the church's faith-promoting theories and instead hold fast to "several months before her 15th birthday" type admissions. But in truth, nothing short of Christ appearing on Orange is the New Black (in a recurring role no less) would convince the ex-mos that the Church is true. NET NEUTRAL.

Those with firm testimonies seem blissfully unaware of the essays or if they have seen them, are completely comfortable with the church's explanations (and why shouldn't they be?). NET NEUTRAL

For my money, the questioners are the prime audience for these essays. As a perpetual questioner, I've found the essays to be, in the words of my favorite public intellectual Dr. Cornel West, "plausible but not persuasive." But hey, in matters of faith, that's pretty much all one can ask. Furthermore, the essays do take some sting out of the argument that the church is hiding things, which I see as THE major cause of disaffection. The other upside is that members can take solace in the fact that church leaders know "what's up." Perhaps, one of the most persuasive arguments to a member is "Hey, if this doesn't bother a man as smart as Elder Holland/Bednar/Packer/etc., then why are you still wrestling with it?" The only possible downside that I see is the essays serve as "hard evidence" for those who might have otherwise dismissed, say, the translation problems in the BOA as "anti-Mormon lies." That being said, I think the positives outweigh the potential negatives. NET GAIN.

WINNER: Church

Well reasoned.

I think the Church would be an even bigger winner if it could embrace the POSSIBILITY of a fallible and sometimes flawed JS, in which case, the essays wouldn't be needed in the first place. The Lutherans aren't publishing essays to reveal (and try to explain away) Martin Luther's heavy drinking, fits of anger, and erring doctrines. The Lutherans seem to have accepted that their prophet of the Reformation was a MAN. Perhaps, one day, we could accept that about our beloved prophet.

But, to paraphrase another wise man: We already know he was a man. That isn't news. What's actually important is that he was a prophet -- and in a sense that Luther, Calvin, John XXIII and MLK were not, but that Moses, Isaiah and Peter were.

[mormonnewb]

Okay, who are you and what have you done with the real mormonnewb?

Well reasoned.

But, to paraphrase another wise man: We already know he was a man. That isn't news. What's actually important is that he was a prophet -- and in a sense that Luther, Calvin, John XXIII and MLK were not, but that Moses, Isaiah and Peter were.

 

Quick question: The official LDS position is that HF didn't raise any prophets between the Great Apostasy and the Restoration?

 

I understand that our position is that priesthood authority wasn't restored until JS, but no one else for almost 2,000 years was given prophetic vision and utterances?

[mormonnewb]

Okay, who are you and what have you done with the real mormonnewb?

Well reasoned.

But, to paraphrase another wise man: We already know he was a man. That isn't news. What's actually important is that he was a prophet -- and in a sense that Luther, Calvin, John XXIII and MLK were not, but that Moses, Isaiah and Peter were.

 

As to your primary point, were Moses, Isaiah and Peter without error, either in their prophetic announcements or their moral character?

 

Let's just take Peter as an example.  He seemed to require continual correction in His prophetic utterances.  Jesus has to personally intervene to get him to agree to abide with those "unclean" Gentiles.  Paul has to rebuke him to convince him to ease up on the whole circumcision thing.  And even today, there are still some points of disagreement between Peter and Paul's theology (they both can't be right).

 

As for morality and strength of character, Peter showed incredible courage and commitment once the day of Pentecost had fully come, but before then, he was a mess (much like me).  In addition to the denying Christ three times (something that I think we believe is unpardonable even once), he was running around cutting people's ears off (well, at least, one guy's ear).  Despite the fact that Christ had clearly told him what the game plan was, Peter decided that he was going to single-handedly thwart the will of God (now, THAT is ark-steadying).

 

As saints, we seem to be okay with the fact the Peter was wrong (in his theology and actions from time to time), but this doesn't create faith crises, whereby people leave the Church because "Peter was a fraud."  In fact, we know that Christ chose Peter specifically as the rock upon which to build His Church, knowing full well that Peter would deny Him three times and go Benihana on the guard's ear.  So why is it possible that HF could use JS, even though He knew JS might get a "little carried away" with the sealing power.

 

And once again, I'm not saying that it isn't possible to conclude that JS was 100% right in all of his actions as a prophet.  I'm simply suggesting that coming to a different conclusion about JS' actions in a few cases shouldn't be a barrier to faith in the Church and the Restoration.  Peter could mess up from time to time.  Why not JS?

[Calm]

In addition to the denying Christ three times (something that I think we believe is unpardonable even once)

 

Only if one has received the witness of the Holy Spirit, which Peter hadn't at that time.

[Rivers]

As to your primary point, were Moses, Isaiah and Peter without error, either in their prophetic announcements or their moral character?

Let's just take Peter as an example. He seemed to require continual correction in His prophetic utterances. Jesus has to personally intervene to get him to agree to abide with those "unclean" Gentiles. Paul has to rebuke him to convince him to ease up on the whole circumcision thing. And even today, there are still some points of disagreement between Peter and Paul's theology (they both can't be right).

As for morality and strength of character, Peter showed incredible courage and commitment once the day of Pentecost had fully come, but before then, he was a mess (much like me). In addition to the denying Christ three times (something that I think we believe is unpardonable even once), he was running around cutting people's ears off (well, at least, one guy's ear). Despite the fact that Christ had clearly told him what the game plan was, Peter decided that he was going to single-handedly thwart the will of God (now, THAT is ark-steadying).

As saints, we seem to be okay with the fact the Peter was wrong (in his theology and actions from time to time), but this doesn't create faith crises, whereby people leave the Church because "Peter was a fraud." In fact, we know that Christ chose Peter specifically as the rock upon which to build His Church, knowing full well that Peter would deny Him three times and go Benihana on the guard's ear. So why is it possible that HF could use JS, even though He knew JS might get a "little carried away" with the sealing power.

And once again, I'm not saying that it isn't possible to conclude that JS was 100% right in all of his actions as a prophet. I'm simply suggesting that coming to a different conclusion about JS' actions in a few cases shouldn't be a barrier to faith in the Church and the Restoration. Peter could mess up from time to time. Why not JS?

Because JS is considered by a lot of mormons to be the greatest next to Jesus.

" Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. "

D&C 135:3

JS isn't allowed that kind of levity. Unfortunately.

[Rivers]

Peter could mess up from time to time. Why not JS?

Because JS is considered by a lot of mormons to be the greatest next to Jesus.

" Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it. "

D&C 135:3

JS isn't allowed that kind of levity. Unfortunately.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Rivers

[Rain]

Quick question: The official LDS position is that HF didn't raise any prophets between the Great Apostasy and the Restoration?

I understand that our position is that priesthood authority wasn't restored until JS, but no one else for almost 2,000 years was given prophetic vision and utterances?

Mormon, Moroni....

[mormonnewb]

Only if one has received the witness of the Holy Spirit, which Peter hadn't at that time.

 

I guess Peter hadn't received the witness of the Holy Spirit, but he did have the witness of HF, which should be at least as binding as a source of revelation.

 

 

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 16

 

It would seem like a strange "loophole" to try to use on HF.  "Sure, I denied Christ after YOU confirmed it to me, but in my defense, the Holy Spirit hadn't confirmed it to me at that time."

 

P.S.  For the record, I suspect that Peter is going to be just fine when it comes to salvation, so I'm sure that I'm wrong on this point but I wasn't going to give up THAT easily.

[mfbukowski]

The coolness of seeking perfection is that we never let ourselves get too comfortable and thus never stop learning and growing.

...we keep on knocking and God keeps opening doors to more gloriousness.

Uh, you realize that we who struggle for rep points are getting jealous here.....

 

 

Great post as usual!

[mfbukowski]

Quick question: The official LDS position is that HF didn't raise any prophets between the Great Apostasy and the Restoration?

 

I understand that our position is that priesthood authority wasn't restored until JS, but no one else for almost 2,000 years was given prophetic vision and utterances?

I think we acknowledge that God was still in contact with the righteous.  We include the words of Francis of Assisi in our hymbook.  We all have access to the Holy Ghost and light of Christ and God teaches whomever he wills to teach whatever they need to learn.

 

The position is that there was no organized priesthood which was authorized by God.  Flashes of brilliance, and pure inspiration, yes of course, but no priesthood lineage- no connection to the organization of the priesthood.

[carbon dioxide]

I vote "yes, they are backfiring" but that's really an oversimplified answer.  The issues need to be dealt with, so I commend the church for publishing the essays.

 

My "yes" answer is due to having come across many people who entered faith crises/challenges because of what they read in the plural marriage and/or priesthood/race essays.  IMO, the basic problem is that these essays paint of picture of prophets who have said/done things inconsistent with the restored gospel as we currently identify it.  This can create severe cognitive dissonance for someone who has always been taught and believes that the prophet will not ever lead us astray.

We all have to go through an Abrahamic test of some sort to see where we actually stand.  If people can't hand some issues and it causes them to loss faith in everything else, well then I guess they fail their Abrahamic test.  It sounds harsh but life is harsh it is how the Earth was set up.  Satan had a different plan. If we are to believe him at his word, he would not have had hard tests so everyone would have returned.

[rockpond]

We all have to go through an Abrahamic test of some sort to see where we actually stand.  If people can't hand some issues and it causes them to loss faith in everything else, well then I guess they fail their Abrahamic test.  It sounds harsh but life is harsh it is how the Earth was set up.  Satan had a different plan. If we are to believe him at his word, he would not have had hard tests so everyone would have returned.

 

But I don't think that we (the church) need to be creating those tests for people.  

[carbon dioxide]

But I don't think that we (the church) need to be creating those tests for people.  

The issues are already out there.  Avoiding an issue does not make them go away.  Its like talking about issues of sex to your kids.  Either you feed them the information or their friends do.  If we do it, we can present the material in a way that steers them down the waters so they can make it to the other side ok.  Leaving it bad sources might cause them to drown in the waters. 

[rockpond]

The issues are already out there.  Avoiding an issue does not make them go away.  Its like talking about issues of sex to your kids.  Either you feed them the information or their friends do.  If we do it, we can present the material in a way that steers them down the waters so they can make it to the other side ok.  Leaving it bad sources might cause them to drown in the waters. 

 

Definitely... the issues are already there and we can't just avoid them.  I didn't intend to make it seem that we should (although I think I may have).

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think it's good that the church published the essays.  I just think that they don't completely resolve the issues at hand and thus have had the side effect of causing faith crises for some.

[Teancum]

We all have to go through an Abrahamic test of some sort to see where we actually stand.  If people can't hand some issues and it causes them to loss faith in everything else, well then I guess they fail their Abrahamic test.  It sounds harsh but life is harsh it is how the Earth was set up.  Satan had a different plan. If we are to believe him at his word, he would not have had hard tests so everyone would have returned.

Why do we all have to go through some so called Abrahamic test? Who says this? Who lose believes this beside those inundated with LDS doctrine? Maybe those who no longer use faith to rule their lives are enlightened and the so called faithful are shackled with false dogma.

[Teancum]

Definitely... the issues are already there and we can't just avoid them.  I didn't intend to make it seem that we should (although I think I may have).

 

As I mentioned earlier, I think it's good that the church published the essays.  I just think that they don't completely resolve the issues at hand and thus have had the side effect of causing faith crises for some.

Let's be honest Rockpond. The essays were published as a total reaction to the abundant problematic issues and info regarding this issues that have been totally accessible for a number of years now to anyone with Internet access. The Church never would have published them otherwise. They now have hoping to control the message and spin on it to some extent. For many they are far to,late and their attempt seems pitfifully reactionary. For some it will soothe their concerns. For others, well it is just all a test and if you doubt you are inferior as far as faith goes and you fail some grand test. Welcome to a second or,third class eternity,

[carbon dioxide]

Why do we all have to go through some so called Abrahamic test? Who says this? Who lose believes this beside those inundated with LDS doctrine? Maybe those who no longer use faith to rule their lives are enlightened and the so called faithful are shackled with false dogma.

Perhaps but if everything turns out as LDS expect, those "enlightened" individuals can glory in their enlightenment in a lower kingdom. 

[Robert F. Smith]

Quick question: The official LDS position is that HF didn't raise any prophets between the Great Apostasy and the Restoration?

 

I understand that our position is that priesthood authority wasn't restored until JS, but no one else for almost 2,000 years was given prophetic vision and utterances?

Nonsense.  Take a look at a recent manual:

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith (SLC: CJCLDS, 2013), 272, citing Conference Report, Oct 1919, pages 89-90,

 

I am in full accord with the idea that has been expressed that the Lord is using many agencies; his work is not confined to the Latter-day Saints, for he has called many to his service outside of the Church and has endowed them with power, has inspired them to do his work. … However, my brethren and sisters, do not let us lose sight of the fact that we are a power in the earth for good and for the spread of the truth and the establishment of peace among all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples.

 

Elder Orson F. Whitney said:

"[God] is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves."

 

A number of the Brethren have commented on specific people who were called of God to do preparatory work.  I think in this regard of Protestant Reformers, and of the Founding Fathers of the USA in their creation of the U. S. Constitution -- considered inspired.

 

But there were also men like Robert Mason, who was known as Prophet Mason, and who prophesied the future establishment of the LDS Church with great clarity to young Wilford Woodruff, and declared that Wilford would be a part of it.

 

Edited June 24, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

............................. The essays were published as a total reaction to the abundant problematic issues and info regarding this issues that have been totally accessible for a number of years now to anyone with Internet access. The Church never would have published them otherwise. They now have hoping to control the message and spin on it to some extent. For many they are far to,late and their attempt seems pitfifully reactionary. For some it will soothe their concerns. For others, well it is just all a test and if you doubt you are inferior as far as faith goes and you fail some grand test. Welcome to a second or,third class eternity,

No room for simple honesty, eh?  Telling the truth, which the Church has been doing for a long time, is just putting spin on it.  When Fawn Brodie was offered access to the Church Archives in the early 1940s, she refused.  When Leonard Arrington and a large group of professional historians began looking at everything in the 1970s, you apparently believe that that was all a lie.  Just spin.  Being honest is a diabolical plot.  It's all a trick.

 

The anti-Mormons always complained about secret files, and now they complain that they are no longer secret.  Honesty?  The LDS Church is always wrong, even when they are right.  A veritable catch-22.  There is real justice in that, Teancum.  Justice and no mercy.

[mormonnewb]

Nonsense. Take a look at a recent manual:

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith (SLC: CJCLDS, 2013), 272, citing Conference Report, Oct 1919, pages 89-90,

I am in full accord with the idea that has been expressed that the Lord is using many agencies; his work is not confined to the Latter-day Saints, for he has called many to his service outside of the Church and has endowed them with power, has inspired them to do his work. … However, my brethren and sisters, do not let us lose sight of the fact that we are a power in the earth for good and for the spread of the truth and the establishment of peace among all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples.

Elder Orson F. Whitney said:

"[God] is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves."

A number of the Brethren have commented on specific people who were called of God to do preparatory work. I think in this regard of Protestant Reformers, and of the Founding Fathers of the USA in their creation of the U. S. Constitution -- considered inspired.

But there were also men like Robert Mason, who was known as Prophet Mason, and who prophesied the future establishment of the LDS Church with great clarity to young Wilford Woodruff, and declared that Wilford would be a part of it.

Thanks! I'm glad to hear it.

Follow-up question: Since the Restoration, is HF raising prophets outside of the LDS Church? Certainly, they wouldn't have priesthood power, but none of the prophets above had it either. Just curious ...

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't think honesty is ever a backfire. The church did the right thing by admitting to some of the problems of the past and present. It is only natural that there will be fallout from this just like there is anytime someone comes clean after years of hiding from the full truth.

 

The essays are good because they provide additional information from a trusted source that people can consider as they make their decisions about the church. There will be some pain but it will be a benefit in the long run as people are able to base their faith and understanding of the gospel and the church's history on more accurate information.

[CV75]

Thanks! I'm glad to hear it.

Follow-up question: Since the Restoration, is HF raising prophets outside of the LDS Church? Certainly, they wouldn't have priesthood power, but none of the prophets above had it either. Just curious ...

Interjecting here... People throughout the ages have had the spiritual gifts by virtue of the power of the Holy Ghost or the Light of Christ without having either the Priesthood or the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This includes some of the more “temporal” talents that are so developed and harnessed for good that their spiritual roots are evident by having a positive spiritual effect on oneself and others by bringing charity into the world.

[Thinking]

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Fielding Smith (SLC: CJCLDS, 2013), 272, citing Conference Report, Oct 1919, pages 89-90,

 

I am in full accord with the idea that has been expressed that the Lord is using many agencies; his work is not confined to the Latter-day Saints, for he has called many to his service outside of the Church and has endowed them with power, has inspired them to do his work. … However, my brethren and sisters, do not let us lose sight of the fact that we are a power in the earth for good and for the spread of the truth and the establishment of peace among all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples.

 

Elder Orson F. Whitney said:

"[God] is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves."

 

What kind of endowed power do these other agencies possess? Can they perform saving ordinances?

[Teancum]

Perhaps but if everything turns out as LDS expect, those "enlightened" individuals can glory in their enlightenment in a lower kingdom. 

 Well sure ok.

 

And if it turns our the Evangelicals are correct Mormons are going to burn in hell for worshiping a false Jesus.

[Teancum]

No room for simple honesty, eh?  Telling the truth, which the Church has been doing for a long time, is just putting spin on it.  When Fawn Brodie was offered access to the Church Archives in the early 1940s, she refused.  When Leonard Arrington and a large group of professional historians began looking at everything in the 1970s, you apparently believe that that was all a lie.  Just spin.  Being honest is a diabolical plot.  It's all a trick.

 

The anti-Mormons always complained about secret files, and now they complain that they are no longer secret.  Honesty?  The LDS Church is always wrong, even when they are right.  A veritable catch-22.  There is real justice in that, Teancum.  Justice and no mercy.

 

 

Well Robert let's discuss this.

 

First are you calling me an anti Mormon? If so this is much different than what i see as mostly your reasonable approach to discussion here.

 

Next based on your comments it seems you think that the information that is now readily accessible to almost anybody these days has been for a long time because "the Church has been doing for a long time, is just putting spin on it.  When Fawn Brodie was offered access to the Church Archives in the early 1940s, she refused.  When Leonard Arrington and a large group of professional historians began looking at everything in the 1970s..."

 

So you really equate this to all the controversial issues and the details behind them to being available to the average member of the Church anywhere they lived?  If so I have misjudged you and I would classify you as a typical apologist who thinks anyone anytime could have easily found all the difficult issues had they just not been so damn lazy. 

 

Oh and what happened to the early writers that brought up the difficult issues like Brodie, Brooks and Quinn? 

 

So no Robert I do not think the LDS Church was open about its history in general nor would it have been had the new info age forced it to be be because the Church has never ever offered up anything like the essays. 

 

Now I understand why the Church is going to portray the issues in the essays in as favorable and faithful light as the Church can.  I would do the same.  I think though, as noted, they have entered the fray a bit too late and clearly because their hand was forced.  Just my opinion.