Blame Is An Interesting Thing

[stemelbow]

But Church leaders can’t get out of this jam by blaming members for learning the history Church leaders tried to suppress. They can’t get out of this jam by blaming Church historians for hiding the history Church leaders told them to hide. And they can’t get out of this jam by blaming the artists whose artwork Church leaders would never have published unless they approved it.

The only way Church leaders can get out of this jam is by doing what they should have done in the first place.

Do what you tell members to do. Practice what you preach. Tell the truth. Do what is right, let the consequence follow. Be honest in all your dealings.

It should not be too much to expect from men who claim to be apostles of Jesus Christ.

http://rationalfaiths.com/the-mormon-history-conspiracy/

I say, yep. Any other thoughts?

[The Nehor]

I just don't blame anyone. Who are you trying to blame?

[Danzo]

http://rationalfaiths.com/the-mormon-history-conspiracy/

I say, yep. Any other thoughts?

 

Are you trying to blame someone?

[churchistrue]

My comment.

 

I can see why you come to the conclusions you do. But I see the brethren more favorably. I think they do the best they can. They're in jam. And they might not know exactly the way out, or how exactly God wants them to get out of the jam. You have to admit the essays are a good start. I think moving from a literal view to a metaphorical view of scripture, church history and doctrine is the way out of the jam. see www.churchistrue.com for more detail. But it's going to take time. This church is worth giving our best effort to the cause.

[jkwilliams]

My comment.

 

I can see why you come to the conclusions you do. But I see the brethren more favorably. I think they do the best they can. They're in jam. And they might not know exactly the way out, or how exactly God wants them to get out of the jam. You have to admit the essays are a good start. I think moving from a literal view to a metaphorical view of scripture, church history and doctrine is the way out of the jam. see www.churchistrue.com for more detail. But it's going to take time. This church is worth giving our best effort to the cause.

Blaming someone is always easier than coming up with solutions. I'm intrigued by your belief that a metaphorical view of scripture is the best way "out of the jam." Part of the reason people are willing to sacrifice so much for the church is that it is literally a restoration of God's kingdom on earth, brought about by the visit of God and Jesus and angels. Being a member of the church and having a testimony mean one feels part of something real and much bigger than one's self. If the whole thing, or parts of it, are metaphorical rather than literal, it seems less likely to inspire the kind of self-sacrifice required to build the kingdom.

Just my two cents.

[The Nehor]

My comment.

 

I can see why you come to the conclusions you do. But I see the brethren more favorably. I think they do the best they can. They're in jam. And they might not know exactly the way out, or how exactly God wants them to get out of the jam. You have to admit the essays are a good start. I think moving from a literal view to a metaphorical view of scripture, church history and doctrine is the way out of the jam. see www.churchistrue.com for more detail. But it's going to take time. This church is worth giving our best effort to the cause.

Metaphorical belief will either destroy the church or turn into something weaker then what it is. The Community of Christ tried it and I do not think the results are encouraging. I would leave if the church goes this route. I am not prepared to sacrifice for a metaphorical God whose son performed a metaphorical atonement and who metaphorically appeared to Joseph Smith and give him a metaphorical book and work hard to build the metaphorical kingdom of God now that I have the metaphorical power of God to do his work.

[ksfisher]

Metaphorical belief will either destroy the church or turn into something weaker then what it is. The Community of Christ tried it and I do not think the results are encouraging. I would leave if the church goes this route. I am not prepared to sacrifice for a metaphorical God whose son performed a metaphorical atonement and who metaphorically appeared to Joseph Smith and give him a metaphorical book and work hard to build the metaphorical kingdom of God now that I have the metaphorical power of God to do his work.

 

I know your post is a metaphor for something, I just can't figure out what.

[stemelbow]

I just don't blame anyone. Who are you trying to blame?

I think that's the tough thing. There's no one to blame specifically, unless you are the like author of this piece in blaming Pres Packer's 1981 speech. I would say there is certainly contribution to the problem from that speech though.

[stemelbow]

Are you trying to blame someone?

I would say the problem has had many contributors. I think the piece does a pretty good job of identifying th eproblem, for the most part.

[stemelbow]

My comment.

 

I can see why you come to the conclusions you do. But I see the brethren more favorably. I think they do the best they can. They're in jam. And they might not know exactly the way out, or how exactly God wants them to get out of the jam. You have to admit the essays are a good start. I think moving from a literal view to a metaphorical view of scripture, church history and doctrine is the way out of the jam. see www.churchistrue.com for more detail. But it's going to take time. This church is worth giving our best effort to the cause.

I dont' think a metaphorical view is a big deal. But it's hard to maintain for everything associated with scripture history and doctrine. For me, for instance, it's easy to see the creation and fall as metaphorical, but its hard to imagine God had no influence on the forming of this earth (or no part in creation of it). So while, in my mind, scriptures view of how the creation is metaphorical, it doesn't mean there was not a God that caused creation. He just did so in a way and perhaps at a time and place we simply don't and can't understand. So we get metaphor. Is it also possible for meaning and purpose if Jesus did not ge sacrificed and was not resurrected? I guess. I suppose. But if so, where do we start because surely not everything is metaphor. Something has to be real, no?

[stemelbow]

Blaming someone is always easier than coming up with solutions. I'm intrigued by your belief that a metaphorical view of scripture is the best way "out of the jam." Part of the reason people are willing to sacrifice so much for the church is that it is literally a restoration of God's kingdom on earth, brought about by the visit of God and Jesus and angels. Being a member of the church and having a testimony mean one feels part of something real and much bigger than one's self. If the whole thing, or parts of it, are metaphorical rather than literal, it seems less likely to inspire the kind of self-sacrifice required to build the kingdom.

Just my two cents.

I think conceding a metaphorical view can still have merit, at least in some cases, is a good step. I can't imagine what it'd mean if everything was metaphor, but it seems, for instance, much of the OT is story borrowed to create religion, or religious dogma. I'm not sure how people will get away with maintaining literal when metaphor seems like the best option. I guess we'll see.

[jkwilliams]

I think conceding a metaphorical view can still have merit, at least in some cases, is a good step. I can't imagine what it'd mean if everything was metaphor, but it seems, for instance, much of the OT is story borrowed to create religion, or religious dogma. I'm not sure how people will get away with maintaining literal when metaphor seems like the best option. I guess we'll see.

 

In my experience, people tend to see as metaphorical those parts of scripture they disagree with. There certainly can be value in an entirely metaphorical approach to scripture, but it is infinitely harder to commit and sacrifice for something metaphorical. It's just human nature.

[stemelbow]

In my experience, people tend to see as metaphorical those parts of scripture they disagree with. There certainly can be value in an entirely metaphorical approach to scripture, but it is infinitely harder to commit and sacrifice for something metaphorical. It's just human nature.

Ahh..then...the real test lies ahead for us.

[CA Steve]

In tithing settlement last year I told the bishop I had paid a full metaphorical tithing. He handed me a blank piece of paper telling me it was a metaphorical temple recommend that was good at any metaphorical temple.

[churchistrue]

Blaming someone is always easier than coming up with solutions. I'm intrigued by your belief that a metaphorical view of scripture is the best way "out of the jam." Part of the reason people are willing to sacrifice so much for the church is that it is literally a restoration of God's kingdom on earth, brought about by the visit of God and Jesus and angels. Being a member of the church and having a testimony mean one feels part of something real and much bigger than one's self. If the whole thing, or parts of it, are metaphorical rather than literal, it seems less likely to inspire the kind of self-sacrifice required to build the kingdom.

Just my two cents.

Exactly what's been on my mind a lot lately.  Here's my $.02.  http://www.churchistrue.com/saving-faith/

 

 

The great question.  Does the Sacramental Paradigm approach require the sacrifice to produce that kind of faith?

 

This is the question I’ve wrestled with for a few years.  At first, this kind of approach felt wishy-washy.  But as I’ve given an experiment on the word as Alma would suggest, I see that the fruit is good.

 

The LDS religion asks a lot of its members.  Tithing, Word of Wisdom, full time missions for youth, Law of Chastity, Sabbath Day observance, not to mention the law of consecration, which is actually more of a metaphorically applied commandment.   The literal approach makes it easier to commit to this.  I do it because I have to.  I do it to get the reward.  I do it because I know God commands it.

 

Shifting to a sacramental paradigm, those motivations dissipate.  We don’t do it because God commands.  We don’t view commandments as being from God.  We view commandments as being from man as an offering to God.  The motivation will come from understanding the blessings of committing this deeply to a religion.

 

 

LDS Beauty

 

This is the purpose of the section LDS Beauty on this site.  Living a life according to LDS teachings and principles brings numerous blessings and enables us to live life more abundantly.  If we can see how valuable this religion is, how much it offers us, then it can produce the faith and commitment to attain those blessings in our lives.

 

 

[stemelbow]

In tithing settlement last year I told the bishop I had paid a full metaphorical tithing. He handed me a blank piece of paper telling me it was a metaphorical temple recommend that was good at any metaphorical temple.

Not really different than what is reality.

[The Nehor]

I know your post is a metaphor for something, I just can't figure out what.

It is a very meta metaphor.

[Russell C McGregor]

Ooh, a conspiracy!

 

Question, though: since Mormons don't smoke, how can they hatch dark plots in smoke-filled rooms?

[strappinglad]

Question, though: since Mormons don't smoke, how can they hatch dark plots in smoke-filled rooms?

They make do with dry ice.

[Russell C McGregor]

http://rationalfaiths.com/the-mormon-history-conspiracy/

I say, yep. Any other thoughts?

I say nope.

For one thing, it's not obvious to me that there is a "jam."

The fact is that the history of the Church -- much like the history of any other movement involving lots of people over a period of time -- is an absolutely vast subject that cannot be taught in its entirety to anyone except highly motivated specialists with hundreds of study hours available.

Therefore, the teaching of that history, if it is to be done at all, requires a prioritising of subject matter, and a selection of material to fit the priorities.

To some, little pettifogging details about the minutiae of the translation process take top priority.

To others, they do not.

Interestingly, those who are obsessed with those aforementioned little pettifogging details rarely show the kind of discipline or work ethic necessary to actually master the whole body of relevant material. Instead, they most commonly pick up a couple of 3x5 cards with notes on them about stones and hats, and imagine that they know all there is to know.

I have a thought experiment I find useful for this particular topic, and it goes like this:

Can you seriously imagine anyone who is so impressed by the thought that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by looking at two stones attached to a breastplate, that that was sufficient to compel them to join the Church?

If you can imagine such a person, how is one stone qualitatively different than two?

And why is a hat rather than a breastplate such a deal-breaker?

The fact, though, is that other matters are vastly more important than the number of stones Joseph used at any given time. That question is a trivial one.

The leaders of the Church have -- rightly, in my view -- chosen to focus upon the weightier matters.

I fail to see how that puts them in any kind of "jam."

 

[filovirus]

Elder Neal A. Maxwell in 1986 said the following:

"Even so, some discount the Book of Mormon because they cannot see the plates from which it was translated. Furthermore, they say that we do not know enough about the process of translation. But Moroni’s promise to serious readers, to be discussed shortly, involves reading and praying over the book’s substance, not over the process of its production. We are “looking beyond the mark” (Jacob 4:14), therefore, when, figuratively speaking, we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than what was achieved thereon by Jesus. Or when we neglect Alma’s words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/voice-my-servants/book-mormon-great-answer-great-question#_ednref2

I don't know that I should "blame" the brethren for focusing on Gospel.

[Tacenda]

I say nope.

For one thing, it's not obvious to me that there is a "jam."

The fact is that the history of the Church -- much like the history of any other movement involving lots of people over a period of time -- is an absolutely vast subject that cannot be taught in its entirety to anyone except highly motivated specialists with hundreds of study hours available.

Therefore, the teaching of that history, if it is to be done at all, requires a prioritising of subject matter, and a selection of material to fit the priorities.

To some, little pettifogging details about the minutiae of the translation process take top priority.

To others, they do not.

Interestingly, those who are obsessed with those aforementioned little pettifogging details rarely show the kind of discipline or work ethic necessary to actually master the whole body of relevant material. Instead, they most commonly pick up a couple of 3x5 cards with notes on them about stones and hats, and imagine that they know all there is to know.

I have a thought experiment I find useful for this particular topic, and it goes like this:

Can you seriously imagine anyone who is so impressed by the thought that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by looking at two stones attached to a breastplate, that that was sufficient to compel them to join the Church?

If you can imagine such a person, how is one stone qualitatively different than two?

And why is a hat rather than a breastplate such a deal-breaker?

The fact, though, is that other matters are vastly more important than the number of stones Joseph used at any given time. That question is a trivial one.

The leaders of the Church have -- rightly, in my view -- chosen to focus upon the weightier matters.

I fail to see how that puts them in any kind of "jam."

It's about trust. Why was the church afraid to tell it like it was if there's nothing to be afraid of. Do they not believe in it? Leaders in general...like Pres. Packer....why was he afraid of a rock in a hat if he didn't struggle to believe it himself. I believe in one, two or three seerstones over the gold plates translation. I don't believe it's physically possible to engrave that many words and carry that many plates. But I don't believe there were actual gold plates at the moment. Edited September 10, 2015 by Tacenda

[Avatar4321]

Funny but i see this thread as just an excuse to blame the church. It's ironic.

Perhaps some people should listen to president Packers talk on spiritual self reliance.

[JLHPROF]

It's about trust. Why was the church afraid to tell it like it was if there's nothing to be afraid of. Do they not believe in it? Leaders in general...like Pres. Packer....why was he afraid of a rock in a hat if he didn't struggle to believe it himself. I believe in one, two or three seerstones over the gold plates translation. I don't believe it's physically possible to engrave that many words and carry that many plates. But I don't believe there were actual gold plates at the moment.

 

I don't blame them for doing everything in their power to ensure each members testimony remained firm and that they didn't throw away the restored gospel of Jesus Christ over something insignificant like a seerstone.

It's a problem that the leaders of the Church have faced since the very beginning:

 

But there has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation it has been like splitting hemlock knots with a Corn doger for a wedge & a pumpkin for a beetle, Even the Saints are slow to understand I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God, but we frequently see some of them after suffering all they have for the work of God will fly to pieces like glass as soon as any thing Comes that is Contrary to their traditions, they Cannot stand the fire at all, How many will be able to abide a Celestial law & go through & receive their exhaltation I am unable to say but many are Called & few are Chosen. - Joseph Smith

 

Now, this quote was a veiled reference to the introduction of polygamy, but the principle applies throughout the history of the Church.  I don't blame the leaders for trying to prevent people from "flying to pieces", even if I don't think they always handled it well.

I mean, Christ during his ministry knew exactly what the future would hold, but he withheld certain things even from his apostles.  Think of all the truths he could have revealed to them but kept to himself for their own protection.

[mfbukowski]

Metaphorical belief will either destroy the church or turn into something weaker then what it is. The Community of Christ tried it and I do not think the results are encouraging. I would leave if the church goes this route. I am not prepared to sacrifice for a metaphorical God whose son performed a metaphorical atonement and who metaphorically appeared to Joseph Smith and give him a metaphorical book and work hard to build the metaphorical kingdom of God now that I have the metaphorical power of God to do his work.

This is black and white thinking..  Surely being able to see it both as metaphorical for our journey through life AND seeing that it "really happened" make for a stronger position not a weaker one.  No one alive today was there, so your belief could be just as metaphorical as anyone's belief, so then where does that possibility leave you?

 

And guess what?  A little ambiguity also makes room for black and white believers like you and ones who are grey all over like me, to actually agree and co-exist.