Warts And All

[Thinking]

It seems that warts and all is the catch phrase that more and more is being used to justify a continued belief in the truth claims of the LDS Church even though there may be something uncomfortable that cannot be explained away.

 

It also seems that the size and number of warts are unlimited. There are two very simple formulas that I have noticed.

• If a criticism cannot be debunked, then it is classified as a wart.
• Transform the wart into support for the truth claims of the LDS Church.

Here's an example of the second rule.

For example, the seerstone in the hat is a beauty spot for me, not a wart. It makes Joseph more endearing to me (which has been a problem in the past because for some reason I didn't find him very interesting growing up) because it shows me he wasn't concerned about looking like a wise and powerful prophet, but was so focused on the work at hand and getting it done that he ignored appearances....which makes me more inclined to believe he wasn't a scam artist who are first and foremost concerned with appearances because that is pretty much all there is in their work.

 

Do some active LDS too easily classify as warts those things that might cause a reevaluation of belief?

[Calm]

Except I never defined the hat in the seerstone as a "wart".  It never, ever bothered me.  It made instant sense for him to do that to block out light just as I have to block light out at times to read my phone or iPad.

 

The "warts" for me were things I found out later weren't real and they were "warts" for me because they never felt right, like an infallible and overly cultured Joseph.  (and I never felt the need to restructure any of them to support the Church as they didn't in my view have an effect on the truthfulness of the Gospel and at the time, I wasn't that committed to the Church to be what I understood it to be)

 

However, as you are apparently using the term "wart" here...

 

If you want a criticism that I haven't been able to debunk and therefore see it as a problem that needs to be reconciled, a better example would be why the heck Brigham Young was allowed to ban blacks from the Priesthood and why our leaders continued to buy into it for so long.

 

But I don't see that "wart" as in any way a support of the truthfulness of the Church. 

Edited November 26, 2015 by Calm

[Teancum]

Another thing to consider is what might be a criticism or wart that is passed by relating the the LDS founders would likely not be passed by for someone else.

For example with polygamy/polyandry we find all sorts of reasons to accept what Joseph Smith did but would never tolerate similar things for another enigmatic religious leaders.

When I realized that at least for me I could not defend si much of what I was defending for the LDS church, it's history and so forth were this coming from anyone else I could no longer defend it for the LDS church, it's founders and their claims.

[JLHPROF]

Personally, I see no warts in restored Mormonism.  I don't feel the need to "transform a wart into support" because I see no error in the gospel restored through Joseph Smith.

I DO see the occasional internal wart (a wart that should only concern members) in our changes from that restoration.

[Teancum]

Personally, I see no warts in restored Mormonism.  I don't feel the need to "transform a wart into support" because I see no error in the gospel restored through Joseph Smith.

I DO see the occasional internal wart (a wart that should only concern members) in our changes from that restoration.

Fair enough. I think you are more the real deal than most. As noted at least for me I see so many indications and evidences that speak the opposite that as much as I still want to that I can hardly go back the believing that Moromsim is any more or less true than any other religion. And beleive me there are many days I still so want to beleive it.

Any way Happy Thanksgiving.

[Ahab]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And warts are things that are there for a reason. I see beauty in the fact that God works with all of us as we are while he works to help us to become perfect people. The warts are there only until he helps us to get rid of them.

[filovirus]

I view the church as a vehicle to have access to the fullness of the Gospel, starting at the atonement and expanding out from there, access to the saving ordinances, and access to the priesthood to effectuate God's will. The problem as I see it is that people mistake church history as one of the three items I mentioned. Church history shows how we as a people are trying to figure out how to live the gospel, ordinances, and priesthood. A misstep here or there is not a bad thing as long as it gets corrected.

I believe we as a people will continue to misstep occasionally through our journey together. Those are learning experiences. That's why I don't shy away from church history. For instance, even if withholding the priesthood from the blacks was contrary to God's will (I don't know enough about it to classify it as contrary to God's will), we as a people repented of it and it got corrected.

[BlueDreams]

Like Cal, I don't see your example as a wart in the first place. I assume a number of the problems that people have (that I've seen) fall in the gray category where one persons "wart" is another person's beauty mark/inert trait. I don't have warm feelings about the hat, I simply just don't have feelings about it. It's a hat...it wasn't like he was cutting open a rabbit to read its entrails. 

 

I am sure some LDS too quickly/flippantly reduce a problem to a wart. But on the flip side I think some started off with a too perfect picture of the church anyways...meaning whatever flaws are found are detrimental to what they believed. Or they're overwhelmed by these flaws/problems and they become disproportionate to the things they did believe. I'm oversimplifying....the ones that have left the faith or feel disenfranchised, that i know personally, are far more complicated than that. It's very rarely simply the truth claims (or whatever else we simplify it to).  

 

Personally I can't tell you why I'm not bothered by a lot of the "warts." Cal mentioned one that I do think is a wart and do not think is supportive of said truth claims. It was on my top 3 list of things that really bother me in the church. I've reached my peace with it and feel like I've received the answers I needed about it and am satisfied. But I wouldn't say it somehow supported the truth claims of the church. It does inform me about what to expect when we say our leaders aren't perfect and it does allow me to see the church as a body organized/founded by Christ, but who's builders and walls are still very flawed people. Sometimes things are wrong and they will be removed or corrected in time, when we're ready.

 

But to me, I guess it's more what would cause a reevaluation of belief. I haven't found anything that would do so...including my top 3 list. To me there are problems, there are things we've gotten wrong, and there are things we still do that may not be 100% correct/healthy....but it doesn't change that at the core that I find the words of eternal life here. I'm not going to chuck living water because the cup is chipped, dented, and overall less glorious than what it holds.

 

  With luv,

BD 

Edited November 26, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Teancum]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And warts are things that are there for a reason. I see beauty in the fact that God works with all of us as we are while he works to help us to become perfect people. The warts are there only until he helps us to get rid of them.

I agree that much of this is in the eye of the seeker.

[Teancum]

Like Cal, I don't see your example as a wart in the first place. I assume a number of the problems that people have (that I've seen) fall in the gray category where one persons "wart" is another person's beauty mark/inert trait. I don't have warm feelings about the hat, I simply just don't have feelings about it. It's a hat...it wasn't like he was cutting open a rabbit to read its entrails. 

 

I am sure some LDS too quickly/flippantly reduce a problem to a wart. But on the flip side I think some started off with a too perfect picture of the church anyways...meaning whatever flaws are found are detrimental to what they believed. Or they're overwhelmed by these flaws/problems and they become disproportionate to the things they did believe. I'm oversimplifying....the ones that have left the faith or feel disenfranchised, that i know personally, are far more complicated than that. It's very rarely simply the truth claims (or whatever else we simplify it to).  

 

Personally I can't tell you why I'm not bothered by a lot of the "warts." Cal mentioned one that I do think is a wart and do not think is supportive of said truth claims. It was on my top 3 list of things that really bother me in the church. I've reached my peace with it and feel like I've received the answers I needed about it and am satisfied. But I wouldn't say it somehow supported the truth claims of the church. It does inform me about what to expect when we say our leaders aren't perfect and it does allow me to see the church as a body organized/founded by Christ, but who's builders and walls are still very flawed people. Sometimes things are wrong and they will be removed or corrected in time, when we're ready.

 

But to me, I guess it's more what would cause a reevaluation of belief. I haven't found anything that would do so...including my top 3 list. To me there are problems, there are things we've gotten wrong, and there are things we still do that may not be 100% correct/healthy....but it doesn't change that at the core that I find the words of eternal life here. I'm not going to chuck living water because the cup is chipped, dented, and overall less glorious than what it holds.

 

  With luv,

BD

I agree that the terms wart is not the best describer. For me there are many problematic issues that the person who remains faithful to the LDS claims must wrangle with as they become aware of them and then deal with them to on degree or another. Obviuosly the results and outcomes vary significantly.

[volgadon]

The OP has an odd understanding of the phrase "warts and all." The phrase refers to a non-idealised depiction of history, biography, etc., using the metaphor of portraiture. Warts are the unseemly, or even ugly aspects of the subject. It certainly has nothing to do with whether our belief aurvives encountering it or not. Warts and all history (as opposed to what Ben Park termed all is warts history) is honest history.

Edited November 26, 2015 by volgadon

[Kenngo1969]

I have to get to work shortly, so I haven't had the chance to read the whole thread.  Apologies.  If someone is compelled to doubt to such a degree that they cannot trust the good fruit they formerly believed the restored gospel of Jesus Christ has borne in their life, or the good fruit it still bears, they have my sympathy, but to me, that's what matters: What good fruit has the gospel borne in your life, and does it continue to bear such good fruit?  Like any member with a halfway decent-functioning brain, I have questions about this or that aspect of the history, past or current practices, or what this or that leader said in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I look forward to some exceedingly well-attended firesides during the millennium or on the other side with such scintillating titles as, "Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?," "Brother Brigham, What Were You Thinking?," and so on, but if the Adversary can get me to "lose the plot" of the restored gospel by getting me to focus on what this or that leader has said or done, this or that current or past practice, or this or that historical factoid, then he's won.  I simply don't feel the need to give up what, to me, is a bounteous harvest of good fruit, notwithstanding any questions I may have.  Questions are inevitable, but doubt and faith are choices.  And we don't see the past, past leaders, current leaders, or anything they have said or done as they are: we see them as we are.  With those realizations, in my opinion, the need to "explain away" anything vanishes.

 

Your mileage probably varies, and I wish you well.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

It seems that warts and all is the catch phrase that more and more is being used to justify a continued belief in the truth claims of the LDS Church even though there may be something uncomfortable that cannot be explained away.

 

It also seems that the size and number of warts are unlimited. There are two very simple formulas that I have noticed.

• If a criticism cannot be debunked, then it is classified as a wart.
• Transform the wart into support for the truth claims of the LDS Church.

Here's an example of the second rule.

 

Do some active LDS too easily classify as warts those things that might cause a reevaluation of belief?

 

I do not classify anything as a wart.  To me the only thing that is important is the confirmation that Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration and that he translated the Book of Mormon.  The rest is just irrelevant and doesn't need classification. 

[Rivers]

There are lots of warts in church history. You'll find warts in an honest history of any subject.

[JLHPROF]

There are lots of warts in church history. You'll find warts in an honest history of any subject.

 

If you mean people aren't perfect in their actions and choices, I would agree.

If you mean the restored gospel is full of mistakes, I completely disagree.

 

If you mean that many people seeing warts can't tell the difference between the two, then you have hit the nail on the head.

[Rivers]

I meant the first definition.

[Rivers]

duplicate

Edited November 26, 2015 by Rivers

[Deborah]

For me there are many problematic issues that the person who remains faithful to the LDS claims must wrangle with as they become aware of them and then deal with them to on degree or another. Obviuosly the results and outcomes vary significantly.

 

They are problematic only if one doesn't understand the context or the fact that the Lord uses faulty humans to carry out his great work, and that he doesn't tell us everything all at once.

[Teancum]

I have to get to work shortly, so I haven't had the chance to read the whole thread.  Apologies.  If someone is compelled to doubt to such a degree that they cannot trust the good fruit they formerly believed the restored gospel of Jesus Christ has borne in their life, or the good fruit it still bears, they have my sympathy, but to me, that's what matters: What good fruit has the gospel borne in your life, and does it continue to bear such good fruit?  Like any member with a halfway decent-functioning brain, I have questions about this or that aspect of the history, past or current practices, or what this or that leader said in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I look forward to some exceedingly well-attended firesides during the millennium or on the other side with such scintillating titles as, "Brother Joseph, What Were You Thinking?," "Brother Brigham, What Were You Thinking?," and so on, but if the Adversary can get me to "lose the plot" of the restored gospel by getting me to focus on what this or that leader has said or done, this or that current or past practice, or this or that historical factoid, then he's won.  I simply don't feel the need to give up what, to me, is a bounteous harvest of good fruit, notwithstanding any questions I may have.  Questions are inevitable, but doubt and faith are choices.  And we don't see the past, past leaders, current leaders, or anything they have said or done as they are: we see them as we are.  With those realizations, in my opinion, the need to "explain away" anything vanishes.

 

Your mileage probably varies, and I wish you well.

I am what I am much because of Mormonism and much of that is good, That is why I continue to participate in spite of the fact , that again, at least to me, it is pretty clear the truth claims of Mormonism are no valid than any other truth claims. One can choose to believ up to a point. But there does come a point where simply choosing to believe is not possible. You likely can't choose to believ in Santa Clause yet there was a point in your life when you could. Why can't you today!

[Teancum]

I do not classify anything as a wart.  To me the only thing that is important is the confirmation that Joseph Smith was the prophet of the restoration and that he translated the Book of Mormon.  The rest is just irrelevant and doesn't need classification.

I am happy that works for you. Sadly it does not for me. Evidence is important to me.

[Teancum]

They are problematic only if one doesn't understand the context or the fact that the Lord uses faulty humans to carry out his great work, and that he doesn't tell us everything all at once.

No they are problematic. My guess is you don't give the same latitude to those making other truth claims and the problems that surround those claims as you do the LDS founders. And I understand this. You have a vested intererst. So did I.

Do you grant to the same latitude to Islam and its prophet? If not why.

I understand your argument fully. I used to use it. Now I see it as a poor argument.

[Deborah]

I don't know what others making truth claims has to do with what I think. I really do not see these things problematic once I study further and put them in context. I believe that others find truth to the extent they are ready for it. I believe other faiths can fulfill the needs of people. I have stated elsewhere here that the primary function of the restoration of the church is to bring the Priesthood and saving ordinances to all the world. The church and its members are administrators of these ordinances. That doesn't mean that everyone will be converted in this life which is why we do work for the dead.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Deborah

[ERayR]

I am happy that works for you. Sadly it does not for me. Evidence is important to me.

 

I did not say I lacked evidence.  It is just that you and I see it differently and attach a difference in importance.

[ERayR]

No they are problematic. My guess is you don't give the same latitude to those making other truth claims and the problems that surround those claims as you do the LDS founders. And I understand this. You have a vested intererst. So did I.

Do you grant to the same latitude to Islam and its prophet? If not why.

I understand your argument fully. I used to use it. Now I see it as a poor argument.

 

We believe in worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege . . .  

 

What you see as a poor argument others see as common sense.  POV

[Teancum]

We believe in worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege . . .  

 

What you see as a poor argument others see as common sense.  POV

Sure.

I frequently admit I could be wrong.