Callings given to imperfect human beings

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are confusing what I’m talking about with the governor of Missouri in the 1970s rescinding the Extermination Order of 1839. Totally separate event from what the Illinois state legislators did later. 

But I do agree that both actions are worthy of appreciation, though I hasten to repeat that the lawmakers’ action was not an apology or an acknowledgement of guilt borne by anyone now living. 

I think the repeal of the Nauvoo charter impacted the expulsion of Mormons from Illinois. It could have been amended if it was problematic but wasn't.

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are dodging the question.  Are all Jews "institutionally guilty" of the crucifixion?  If yes, then wow!  If no, then you don't really subscribe to the notion of institutional guilt (to which I would say: Good for you!).

Dodge.

Dodge.

"Counter such teachings" is a very different proposition from "repent on behalf of other people."

I reject your premise of collective guilt.  I am obligated to repent of my own sins, not the sins of others.

Thanks,

-Smac

You've created your own definition of institutional accountability and sin to counter, without considering mine. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think the repeal of the Nauvoo charter impacted the expulsion of Mormons from Illinois. It could have been amended if it was problematic but wasn't.

The repeal of the charter was symptomatic of the oppression already inflicted upon the Saints, not the cause of it.  You turned the correct conception on its head. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Again, I have not argued that President Nelson repent for Joseph Smith's sins, but that it would benefit the church and others to apologize and repent for harm it caused as a church, and that individual leaders repent for  sins they commit in their leadership capacities.

Who gets to decide what conduct constitutes "harm?"

To whom should "individual leaders repent" for their sins?  Are you calling for some sort of public apology?

Quote

I knew about Joseph Smith's polygamy when I was a teen.

I knew about it before that (I read about it in a series of historical fiction novels, The Storm Testament, and my parents also taught me about such things).

Quote

It was hidden from my husband, but not me.

"Hidden" by one or two missionaries, who may have spoken in ignorance.  Or they may have spoken with an intent to deceive, for which repentance would certainly be appropriate.  But not public repentance (which appears to be what you are wanting to see).

Quote

I think you are imagining a stereotype instead of my actual objections to polygamy: I object to its coercive nature.

No such thing.  Polygamy is not innately coercive.

Quote

I object to the multilayerer deceptions the church and Joseph used to protect it.

I understand that part.  But contextualizing these issues helps a lot.  Resisting presentism helps a lot.  Applying Mormon 9:31 helps a lot ("Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.").

Quote

I object, perhaps most of all, to the level of control required for a theology to convince people to break their marital vows. I view that level of control as unhealthy and as a generational harm that persists today in the church.

I really don't think so.  Polygamy stopped 130 years ago.  Calling it "a generational harm" comes across as a contrived attempt to make polygamy relevant to us today.  As a pretext to continue complaining about things that never happened to you and yours, that none of us has ever experienced.

Quote

People have written articles about "polygamy culture," if you'd like to listen to others who feel they've been harmed by it, and which discuss the way polygamy has shaped the institution.

"Who feel they've been harmed" being the operative phrase here.

"Get over it" comes to mind.  You may as well try to persuade me to claim victimhood because my ancestors were persecuted in Missouri and Illinois (by mobbers), and in Utah (by the feds).  It just doesn't work.  I don't hold grudges against the current citizens of those fine states.  I don't feel victimized by them in any real or even derivative way.  And I really don't expect them to "repent" of anything.  I don't buy into the concept of "collective guilt."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 3, 2019 by smac97

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

When Joseph Smith first received the revelation, he did not want to participate in it.   There were women in the Church who were married to non believing husbands. 

That's not real accurate (possibly for some of his plural marriages).  His first plural wife was a teenager (Fanny Alger).  He also married many other teens (and single women).

And, he also did marry women whose husbands were believing members of the church (such as Zina Huntington Jacobs).

22 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Joseph felt he could satisfy the commandment by marrying those wives for eternity. 

We do not know if any of Joseph's sealings were for eternity only.

22 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

That way, the marriages would not need to be consumated in this life.

We also do not know which marriages were consumated for sure.  There are some statements from the wives that they were and other statements from witnesses, but we do not know regarding all of them.

Edited September 3, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You've created your own definition of institutional accountability and sin to counter, without considering mine. 

I've asked you to define "institutional accountability."  Have you done this?

What does this phrase mean?  Who is to be held "accountable?"  Who is going to do the "holding?"  For what conduct?  How does this "accountability" play out?  Public apologies?  Monetary payouts?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

   So I wish you the very best in sorting this all out.

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. 

To your point about reasons for (re-)joining, if the church could let go of its role as an authority representing God, I think I could go back. I'm trying to organise my own thoughts about what a place like that would look like. But I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. I hope that I can help people within and on the fringes by using my voice.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. 

To your point about reasons for (re-)joining, if the church could let go of its role as an authority representing God, I think I could go back. I'm trying to organise my own thoughts about what a place like that would look like. But I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. I hope that I can help people within and on the fringes by using my voice.

So in other words, you want the Church of Jesus Christ to stop being the Church of Jesus Christ. That strikes me as way too much to ask. 

[Meadowchik]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The repeal of the charter was symptomatic of the oppression already inflicted upon the Saints, not the cause of it.  You turned the correct conception on its head. 

Yes, it was symptomatic but the repeal is where "legalised" oppression happened in Illinois. 

[Meerkat]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not real accurate (possibly for some of his plural marriages).  His first plural wife was a teenager (Fanny Alger).  He also married many other teens (and single women).

And, he also did marry women whose husbands were believing members of the church (such as Zina Huntington Jacobs).

We do not know if any of Joseph's sealings were for eternity only.

We also do not know which marriages were consumated for sure.  There are some statements from the wives that they were and other statements from witnesses, but we do not know regarding all of them.

That’s right.  My daughter felt he wanted to satisfy the requirement in another way.  Joseph went on and experimented with many things.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Meerkat said:

That’s right.  My daughter felt he wanted to satisfy the requirement in another way. 

I'm not sure what you mean here (?), but I'm glad she was able to find some peace regarding this difficult topic.  

[Meadowchik]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've asked you to define "institutional accountability."  Have you done this?

What does this phrase mean?  Who is to be held "accountable?"  Who is going to do the "holding?"  For what conduct?  How does this "accountability" play out?  Public apologies?  Monetary payouts?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I thought I did so, you might have missed what I was fully saying since I gave it alongside personal accountability:

 

My position is that when I learn I have done something wrong, to try to correct it when I can, including repairing harm and making amends. I also expect others to do it, it is  basic decency. And if I am indirectly responsible for harm, or if I am part of a group that harms, or if I am represented by someone who harms someone else, I will try to correct it when I can, including repairing harm and making amends. And I expect that of the church and its leaders, its just decency. It's obviously complex, and my abilities, and the church's, and anyone's abilities are limited, but that's normal. But it is important to try. To the point of the thread, if there is such a thing as inspiration, or divine revelation, both or either will flow more freely when one is kind.

[Meerkat]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what you mean here (?), but I'm glad she was able to find some peace regarding this difficult topic.  

Joseph didn’t want to consummate the marriage.  Apparently, the idea was repugnant to him.  Ultimately he came to understand what the Lord required of him and participated in the same manner as prophets of old.  Hence, the restoration of all things including polygamy.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I thought I did so, you might have missed what I was fully saying since I gave it alongside personal accountability:

My position is that when I learn I have done something wrong, to try to correct it when I can, including repairing harm and making amends. I also expect others to do it, it is  basic decency. And if I am indirectly responsible for harm, or if I am part of a group that harms, or if I am represented by someone who harms someone else, I will try to correct it when I can, including repairing harm and making amends. And I expect that of the church and its leaders, its just decency. It's obviously complex, and my abilities, and the church's, and anyone's abilities are limited, but that's normal. But it is important to try. To the point of the thread, if there is such a thing as inspiration, or divine revelation, both or either will flow more freely when one is kind.

Yes, I saw this.  But I still don't understand what it is you want to see.  

1. Who is to be held "accountable" in this "institutional accountability" concept?

2.  Who is going to do the "holding?"  You?  Our critics and opponents?  The government?  God?

3. For what conduct are you hoping to see "accountability?"

4. How does this "accountability" play out?  Public apologies?  Monetary payouts? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Joseph didn’t want to consummate the marriage.  Apparently, the idea was repugnant to him.  Ultimately he came to understand what the Lord required of him and participated in the same manner as prophets of old.  Hence, the restoration of all things including polygamy.

Well, I disagree with most of what you state above.  But I don't want to derail this thread and much of this has already been discussed here at length anyway....so let's just a agree to disagree  

Edited September 3, 2019 by ALarson

[Meerkat]

30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. 

To your point about reasons for (re-)joining, if the church could let go of its role as an authority representing God, I think I could go back. I'm trying to organise my own thoughts about what a place like that would look like. But I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. I hope that I can help people within and on the fringes by using my voice.

Hmmm.  “if the church could let go of its role as an authority representing God, I think I could go back.”  In other words, it’s not the authority that matters to you.  Is it the social aspect?  I have found members of the Church to be a delightful bunch.  But for me, the proper authority is pre-eminent.  Otherwise what’s the difference between the Church and the YMCA?

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I saw this.  But I still don't understand what it is you want to see.  

1. Who is to be held "accountable" in this "institutional accountability" concept?

2.  Who is going to do the "holding?"  You?  Our critics and opponents?  The government?  God?

3. For what conduct are you hoping to see "accountability?"

4. How does this "accountability" play out?  Public apologies?  Monetary payouts? 

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm still focusing on the baby step of accepting the concept of institutional apology. What that looks like is, not just the leadership embracing the habit of institutional apology, but also members embracing it. If we can accept imperfect leaders and institutional mistakes, we would benefit from (the healthy balance of) accepting admissions of grievous mistakes on their part and on the institution's part.

For more development of the concept, it might take some more time for me to develop those ideas, except in obvious cases. Maybe it would be good for the church to not require victims to agree to NDAs in abuse cases, if that's a thing? Also, financial transparency could go a long way as one of many methods of holding itself accountable.

Anyways, my bishop and stake president apologised to me and that alone really helped me. I guess they set a dangerous precedent?

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Hmmm.  “if the church could let go of its role as an authority representing God, I think I could go back.”  In other words, it’s not the authority that matters to you.  Is it the social aspect?  I have found members of the Church to be a delightful bunch.  But for me, the proper authority is pre-eminent.  Otherwise what’s the difference between the Church and the YMCA?

I think it's all social, be it the Spirit of Christ or biological chemicals forging human connection, or both, I think authoritarian (not to be confused with authoritative) structures are unhealthy.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Meerkat]

21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, I disagree with most of what you state above.  But I don't want to derail this thread and much of this has already been discussed here at length anyway....so let's just a agree to disagree  

You may be right.  My point was that I believe Joseph Smith was trying to follow God’s commands.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

You may be right.  My point was that I believe Joseph Smith was trying to follow God’s commands.

I can respect that's what you believe.  For me though, I believe that polygamy came from man and not from God....so we would disagree.  But that also does not mean that I believe Joseph Smith was evil or a pedophile (as some suggest) or that he even meant to cause any harm to anyone.  I believe he was a man and he made mistakes.  Polygamy was one of those mistakes, IMO.

Edited September 3, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm still focusing on the baby step of accepting the concept of institutional apology.

But this concept presupposes institutional guilt.  

Moreover, you seem to be conflating "apology" and "repentance."  I think there's a fair difference of meaning between the two.  

So which is it?  Are you looking for an institutional "apology" or institutional "repentance?"  Or is it both?

Quote

What that looks like is, not just the leadership embracing the habit of institutional apology,

I am having a hard time conceptualizing what it is you want to see, let alone seeing it become a "habit."

Quote

but also members embracing it.

Members already embrace the idea of repentance.  "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance..."  (AoF 1:4).

What we do not embrace is the idea of collective/institutional guilt, which is what you seem to be presupposing.  Again, "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression" (AoF 1:2).

If you are, as it seems, advancing an idea that is antithetical to the Restored Gospel, then it seems unreasonable to ask the Church (its leaders, its members) to "embrace" it.

Quote

If we can accept imperfect leaders and institutional mistakes,

Yes, we have long accepted these.

What we don't accept is the need that Person A should repent for the sins of Person B.  But that is what you are advocating.  And that goes against the Second Article of Faith.

Quote

we would benefit from (the healthy balance of) accepting admissions of grievous mistakes on their part and on the institution's part.

Your idea is a moving target.  Are you looking for institutional repentance?  If so, that contradicts the Restored Gospel.

Are you looking for institutional apologies?  Apologies for what?  To whom?  In what time, place and manner?  Are you looking for some sort of public mea culpa?

Are you looking for institutional "admissions of grievous mistakes?"  We saw that back in 2013 from Pres. Uchtdorf:

Quote

Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.

In the title page of the Book of Mormon we read, “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

This is the way it has always been and will be until the perfect day when Christ Himself reigns personally upon the earth.

Is this insufficient, in your view?  If so, why?

And if so, can you perhaps understand the deep suspicion that some folks harbor when critics and opponents of the Church call for things like this?  Since they'll just move the goal posts and demand more?

Quote

For more development of the concept, it might take some more time for me to develop those ideas, except in obvious cases. Maybe it would be good for the church to not require victims to agree to NDAs in abuse cases, if that's a thing?

Huh?  How is that relevant to "apologies" or "repentance?"  

Quote

Also, financial transparency could go a long way as one of many methods of holding itself accountable.

But it would never be enough, I think.

Quote

Anyways, my bishop and stake president apologised to me and that alone really helped me. I guess they set a dangerous precedent?

I have no idea.  I don't know the circumstances.

I was previously in my ward's bishopric.  I was once having a conversation with a sister in my ward who said she felt out of place.  I encouraged her to give our ward a try because we seem to be genuinely open and accepting to people in all sorts of circumstances.  I noted that we have married couples, divorced individuals, single-parent families, older couples, widows and widowers, and so on.  We also have an interesting mix in terms of races (mostly white, but also plenty of hispanics, Asians, African-Americans, etc.).  We also are all . . . shall we say, socioeconomically modest, so there's not much in the way of Keeping-Up-With-The-Joneses.  I also noted that we even have some members who have served time in prison.  I said that all of these people are attending church and feeling welcomed and valued.

The sister paused for a moment, then said "So your comparing me to a felon?  Really?"  After that it went downhill very quickly.  I tried to clarify my point (which was that our ward is welcoming to all sorts of people), but she would have none of it.  So . . . I apologized.  I apologized for having given offense, even though in my mind what I had said was not at all offensive.

An apology is sometimes more about attempts at reconciliation than about allocation of fault.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 3, 2019 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think you are imagining a stereotype instead of my actual objections to polygamy: I object to its coercive nature. I object to the multilayerer deceptions the church and Joseph used to protect it. I object, perhaps most of all, to the level of control required for a theology to convince people to break their marital vows.

I really have no idea what you are referring to as "coercive".  The command to live polygamy was no more coercive that the requirement to be baptized, pay tithing, say your prayers, wear the garments. 

As for the vows, it's simple to see that vows made under man's authority are temporal and lesser in nature than those made with God.  The theology didn't convince people to break marital vows.  It required them to put God back in the covenant.

 

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I really have no idea what you are referring to as "coercive". 

Well, there most definitely was coercion involved (in more than one aspect).  Each of us just needs to determine if we believe that coercion came from God (the angel story) or men.  Was it righteous to promise Helen salvation for her family if she married Joseph when she was just 14 years old?  Those are questions we have to pray over and figure out from studying as much information as we have about polygamy back then.

Edited September 3, 2019 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Was it righteous to promise Helen salvation for her family if she married Joseph when she was just 14 years old?  

Yes, 100%.

Every bit as righteous as telling us to pay our tithing or be burned.  Or accept someone we've never met as our supreme Lord or be damned.  Or Christ telling the disciples if they weren't washed by him they'd have no place in his kingdom.  

Sorry, I have no moral outrage that there are blessings and cursings attached to obedience.  That's not coercion,  that's eternal principle.  D&C 130 is clear on the connection between law and blessing.

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Joseph didn’t want to consummate the marriage.  Apparently, the idea was repugnant to him.  Ultimately he came to understand what the Lord required of him and participated in the same manner as prophets of old.  Hence, the restoration of all things including polygamy.

Guess he shouldn't have inquired about restoring something he didn't really care to do then. Besides, Christ didn't want concubines and polygamy restored, IMO!