Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Maybe the search engine is the issue, or I was doing it wrong.  

Search engine is the issue. Only does the past year and sometimes not even that.  Use google or equivalent with a site search site:mormondialogue.org “keyword”. Also “dna” is too short for the board search function to work. I can’t remember if it is four or five letters needed. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

Here is a DNA thread that aussie started:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70663-the-dna-issue-again/

 

[Meadowchik]

On 1/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, smac97 said:

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

Cool! Thanks for your answers. Just an fyi, I'm gonna answer in parts. The following now, but tn the rest as soon as I can because I wanna give it some care and thought and this is my first week of classes this term

On 1/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I understand the question.  The transgression of this theoretical limit would mean what?

Let's consider the theory of Perfect versus Good, and the point of not sacrificing the good for the perfect. When I think of the adage, I imagine going through some sort of process where you've arrived at a much-desired, good result, yet you consider leaving it all behind for an ideal of perfection (that will probably never come in life, by the way, and thus you have neither in the end.) I totally agree with it, when the alternative to Perfect is actually Good. But hopefully we can agree that as a generality, not all alternatives to Perfection are Good. Some are very, very bad. And so caution should be used to avoid applying the adage to a false binary between Perfect and Anything Else. 

And so, in order for the premise to apply to a Perfect and a Good, there must be a Good. Even though we may not agree on what is Good, do you agree in theory that the adage is meant to apply to Good?

On 1/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, smac97 said:

To some extent, yes, D&C 121 has some application (I assume you are referencing verses 36-39?).

A few thoughts:

1. What do you think "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man" means?  Is this a permanent thing?  Across the board?  

I think it is a difficult question. There is not a clear answer in the passage itself.

So, to think this through, how about starting with some easy examples first?

1. When my mom recounted her student life at BYU, she cited a tactic used where a young man would approach a young woman, tell her he had received a revelation that they should marry and in a very entitled way, expected her to take it seriously as revelation. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to stomp on toes of sweethearts who tell each other such things in humility and respecting each others' spirituality, not at all. But for a priesthood-holder to step out of his sphere of stewardship and imply that his revelation entitles him to a relationship with is a form of abuse of the priesthood described in verse 37:

Quote

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

As a girl hearing this girl, I agreed with my Mom: the recipient of such an implied claim upon her hand in marriage would, by virtue of this scripture be fully supported in rejecting consideration of it at the outset. The manner  would be an outward sign of a disqualifying attitude and she can safely say, "No Spirit of God would ask me this!"

She may decide to cut ties with the young man completely, depending on how she values their relationship. Or, she might bristle, and remind him of her spiritual agency and demand that her correct his attitude and not speak to her of it again until he has done so.

I think a reasonable interpretation of this scripture is that, at least in this instance, the young man's claim of revelation is null.

However, this case is relatively easy because the young man has no existing authority over the young woman. It gets more difficult, though, when the recipient of claims is under authority of the person making the claim. I think it can be difficult for both parties to navigate such a situation.

2. Another experience. This is just my understanding of events of a story that my friend experienced with her husband's family: A man lives in Utah during the week for work and Nevada on the weekends. His first wife is in Nevada with their children. He takes a "spiritual wife" in American Fork, a divorced woman with children. The children are one girl and several older boys. He eventually takes the minor girl as a second "spiritual wife." Years pass. The older boys are relieved to get away from their abusive step-father (who had years earlier scared off their biological father with threats of harm) and they serve missions. After they've all returned home, they unanimously find the courage to oppose their stepfather and take a stand. They rescue their sister and write a letter to the First Presidency. The man is promptly excommunicated, and he and their mother go to jail.

I think that it took years for the brothers to see past the manipulation of their stepfather, to understand they could trust the meaning of the principle in Verse 37, but eventually they realised that he was doing wickedness and thus had no divine authority. But it was obviously incredibly difficult for them.  

On 1/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, smac97 said:

2. Are you applying these verses to Joseph Smith (that he was a "fallen prophet" or some such)?

Well, that is a specific point that was meaningful to me, and which I had been able to manage for many years until 2016,  when I understood more about human nature, but I prefer to not dig into that right now.  What I'd like to think about is the general principle and how our judgment is to be righteously exercised, judging between good and evil, and then maintaining integrity, without, of course, sacrificing the Good for the Perfect. 

Thanks again!

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Let's consider the theory of Perfect versus Good, and the point of not sacrificing the good for the perfect.

Okay.  I'm with you.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

When I think of the adage, I imagine going through some sort of process where you've arrived at a much-desired, good result, yet you consider leaving it all behind for an ideal of perfection (that will probably never come in life, by the way, and thus you have neither in the end.)

By way of clarification, I think "the theory of Perfect versus Good" theory (in which the expectation of the former results in the rejection of the latter) is more likely to be an untethered, perhaps even unreasoned not really intended, process or event.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I totally agree with it, when the alternative to Perfect is actually Good. But hopefully we can agree that as a generality, not all alternatives to Perfection are Good.

Yes, but Voltaire was contemplating good alternatives.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Some are very, very bad. And so caution should be used to avoid applying the adage to a false binary between Perfect and Anything Else. 

Okay.  But that's not what Voltaire said what I intended to say.  He wasn't juxtaposing "perfect" with "very, very bad."  He was juxtaposting "perfect" with "good."

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And so, in order for the premise to apply to a Perfect and a Good, there must be a Good.

Yes.  

It's a pretty big stretch to say that the Church, taken together, is "very, very bad."

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Even though we may not agree on what is Good, do you agree in theory that the adage is meant to apply to Good?

By its terms, yes.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

1. What do you think "Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man" means?  Is this a permanent thing?  Across the board?  

I think it is a difficult question. There is not a clear answer in the passage itself.

Okay.

My position is that this passage was not intended to be construed as a basis for rejecting the entirety of the Restored Gospel as a response to its messengers (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, one's bishop, etc.) making mistakes.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So, to think this through, how about starting with some easy examples first?

1. When my mom recounted her student life at BYU, she cited a tactic used where a young man would approach a young woman, tell her he had received a revelation that they should marry and in a very entitled way, expected her to take it seriously as revelation.

My mom had the same experience at BYU.  More than once, in fact.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to stomp on toes of sweethearts who tell each other such things in humility and respecting each others' spirituality, not at all. But for a priesthood-holder to step out of his sphere of stewardship and imply that his revelation entitles him to a relationship with is a form of abuse of the priesthood described in verse 37:

Quote

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

Yes, I can agree with this general sentiment.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

However, this case is relatively easy because the young man has no existing authority over the young woman. It gets more difficult, though, when the recipient of claims is under authority of the person making the claim. I think it can be difficult for both parties to navigate such a situation.

We're getting pretty far afield.  In quoting Voltaire, I was contemplating the basic truth claims of the Church.

The ways in which a given Latter-day Saint can mess up are pretty much endless.

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What I'd like to think about is the general principle and how our judgment is to be righteously exercised, judging between good and evil, and then maintaining integrity, without, of course, sacrificing the Good for the Perfect. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a pretty big stretch to say that the Church, taken together, is "very, very bad."

Just to be clear: I'm not trying to say that. Remember, the general theory of Perfect Versus Good is what I am thinking about. The "very, very bad" is used to clarify its meaning.

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We're getting pretty far afield.  In quoting Voltaire, I was contemplating the basic truth claims of the Church.

The ways in which a given Latter-day Saint can mess up are pretty much endless.

Well, the Good, the Bad, and Authority are all entangled, as we must expect them to be when humans get a bit of authority. So when Perfect Versus Good is applied to the church, I think first one must sort out the management of good authority versus bad authority. You can hold me to this: I have no intention in this thread to use your answer to go after Joseph Smith or the church. I decided when I asked the question that I just want to know how you figure the difference between imperfection and "not good." I hope I can get a bit more insight about that when I think about the rest of your response.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

It's a pretty big stretch to say that the Church, taken together, is "very, very bad."

Just to be clear: I'm not trying to say that. Remember, the general theory of Perfect Versus Good is what I am thinking about.

My point pertains to the apparent flaw in using expectations of "the perfect" to reject "the good."  In relation to the 

I'm not sure why you are now talking about the "very, very bad."

I said this:

Quote

These {"big list" summaries of the Church are, understandably, difficult or impossible to reconcile with the Church's narrative about itself, which has long tended toward an idealized presentation (though the Church's publication of Saints, Vol. 1: The Standard of Truth is signaling some real change on this issue).

Some members, then, end up facing seemingly irreconcilable options

• Option A: the Church is essentially good and decent and ordained of God (as claimed by the Church), or
• Option B: the Church is essentially flawed and corrupt, and even evil (as claimed by authors of the above-referenced "big lists").

Applying Voltaire's maxim, the "perfect" (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the "good" (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church.

Can we stay more or less with this topic?

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Well, the Good, the Bad, and Authority are all entangled, as we must expect them to be when humans get a bit of authority. So when Perfect Versus Good is applied to the church, I think first one must sort out the management of good authority versus bad authority. You can hold me to this: I have no intention in this thread to use your answer to go after Joseph Smith or the church. I decided when I asked the question that I just want to know how you figure the difference between imperfection and "not good." I hope I can get a bit more insight about that when I think about the rest of your response.

"How you igure the difference between imperfection and 'not good.'"

I'm sorry, but I don't now what this means.  And it doesn't seem to pertain to the topic in general, or to the Voltaire quote in particular.

I'm not being obtuse.  I just don't understand where you are going.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

My point pertains to the apparent flaw in using expectations of "the perfect" to reject "the good."  In relation to the 

I'm not sure why you are now talking about the "very, very bad."

I said this:

Can we stay more or less with this topic?

"How you igure the difference between imperfection and 'not good.'"

I'm sorry, but I don't now what this means.  And it doesn't seem to pertain to the topic in general, or to the Voltaire quote in particular.

I'm not being obtuse.  I just don't understand where you are going.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it is on topic. Before one applies Voltaire, the premise must be met. Theoretically, how do you distinguish between good and not good?  Without thinking about the church, but in general, how does one know something is good? 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Wrong thread.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Stargazer]

On 1/12/2020 at 12:15 AM, Meadowchik said:

If I were you, I'd check out the already-existing mathematical studies of human behaviour. There's plenty of angles of scrutiny, lots of potential for study.

But then, I'm not the one wanting to study human behavior mathematically! 🙂  I'm more of a hard-science guy.  Physics, chemistry, astrophysics and the like are a lot more deterministic and easy to understand.  But being retired, I'm unlikely to dig deep into even those.  As my late wife once pointed out to me, by the time I got my PhD in astrophysics I'd be something like 75 years old, and who'd want to hire a superannuated specimen like that?  Wouldn't I rather go fishing instead?

On 1/12/2020 at 12:15 AM, Meadowchik said:

Even if it were "baked in," understanding patriarchy can provide arguments for improved practices, or which are worth preserving.

I'm sure that you will disagree, but I do believe that we (speaking of Western Civilization) are well on our way towards those improved practices. For example, we're largely past the point where the "boys' club" prevents women from taking part in certain occupations.  There's still something like that going on here and there, of course, but in another generation or so that will have gone away entirely. 

 

[Meadowchik]

On 1/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, smac97 said:

3. The cessation of authority as described in these verses is necessarily predicated on the investiture of authority in the first place, right?  That is, authority must be had in order for it to later be lost through "unrighteous dominion."  That being the case, how do you read D&C 121 given the theophanies of Joseph Smith?  Either they happened, or they didn't.  Either the First Vision, the ministrations of Moroni (and others) happened, or they didn't.  These experiences either involved leading Joseph to the Plates, letting him eventually take them, and then translate them "by the gift and power of God," or they didn't.  These experiences either included the restoration of the Priesthood, or they didn't.

Those sound like the binaries in your OP. But it's possible that some happened in some of the ways described while still some authority distilling from the Heavens through Joseph Smith, while others did not. If any authority was transmitted, it's entirely possible that the original was different than the one which was preached later.

Furthermore, a person can see those portions of D&C 121 as a moral for God's authority as they see it: misuse God's power by abusing others with it, and you lose it. I think it is actually a principle that can stand on its own.

On 1/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, smac97 said:

4. This is where the Book of Mormon becomes pretty vital.  The text exists.  It needs to be accounted for.  The statements of the Witnesses need to be accounted for.  If the book is what it claims to be, and if that is confirmed by the Spirit, then the Restoration happened, and the covenants we make in association with it are with God.  Those covenants transcend the flaws and errors of the Lord's servants.  Those covenants are real and vital, and are not negated by the errors of others. 

So the Book of Mormon, if confirmed by the Spirit, confirms the Restoration and the covenants of the Restoration. 

On 1/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, smac97 said:

5. In that sense, no, there is not a "limit to the severity of imperfection" in the leaders of the Church, past and present.  If an individual leader transgresses as described in D&C 121:36-39, then that can have real consequences to him and his use of the Priesthood.  I'm not sure to what extend we are situated to render such a judgment.  I guess the particular circumstances would need to be fleshed out.  I would venture to say that, in most circumstances, such a judgment is not within our stewardship.  And we are left to follow the counsel in Mormon 9:31 ("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.").

And so church leaders are not subject to our judgment but only to God's, or perhaps the leaders over them?

On 1/12/2020 at 2:38 PM, smac97 said:

6. For what it's worth, I do not think Joseph Smith committed any disqualifying sin that deprived him of his prophetic mantle.  He made mistakes, including some substantial and serious ones.  In any event, his mistakes, and Brigham Young's, and any other mistakes made by past and present leaders of the Church do not retroactively negate the reality of the founding events of the Restoration.  I believe they happened.  And if they did, then the promises God has made through covenant will be kept.  It is my job, then, to keep to those covenants.  Faith, repentance, service, saving ordinances, etc.

I would think that it depends upon how one evaluates the entirety of the structure. You've described here a very interconnected structure involving priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, the Restoration events, covenants, and imperfect men who represent God's authority on earth. If enough important points come into question, the structure can fall.

I think that the "Good for the Perfect" comparison does not always fit for people experiencing a struggle with or loss of faith in the church claims. For my daughter, the church was not a good place, spiritually or mentally. Some people find it good, others do not. I do think that this is the crux for many: they had no difficulty continuing when they believed the church was the Best Good and they were not holding out for Perfect, but their experience with church changed, and was no longer the Best Good. My daughter, who was mentally out for three years before we were, is one of the most morally conscientious people I know. She did not throw away Good by not believing in the church, she sought Good and still does. 

For me, I tried to negotiate a place in the church when my testimony of Joseph Smith evaporated, and what resulted may be representative of others' experiences to some extent: I was still attending and still teaching the Young Women in 2017. In a small ward, the YW PResident and I took turns teaching our small group of young women at one time every Sunday. And so, eventually there was a lesson involving material that was no longer something I could teach with honest conviction. I asked the President, a good friend, if we could switch or if she could just take over in a couple places, and she instructed me to press on, to teach it, and hopefully gain something from the experience. I felt that under such conditions, I could not serve with integrity and a resigned from the calling a week later. Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise, given that I no longer had a belief in an essential key to the Restoration. I was still holding on to many good values and beliefs, but that still was not enough to continue fully participating as I had before. 

I think that if you articulate what is Good to you and why, it may give you insight into why people believe in the church, why people believe in other things, and why people don't believe in the church. People evaluate good with different perspectives and experiences and people generally want to experience Good in their lives. So I would say that people leaving is not about holding out for the Perfect and rejecting Good, but is people seeking good the best they can.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

3. The cessation of authority as described in these verses is necessarily predicated on the investiture of authority in the first place, right?  That is, authority must be had in order for it to later be lost through "unrighteous dominion."  That being the case, how do you read D&C 121 given the theophanies of Joseph Smith?  Either they happened, or they didn't.  Either the First Vision, the ministrations of Moroni (and others) happened, or they didn't.  These experiences either involved leading Joseph to the Plates, letting him eventually take them, and then translate them "by the gift and power of God," or they didn't.  These experiences either included the restoration of the Priesthood, or they didn't.

Those sound like the binaries in your OP.

Yes.  In the end, there really are some binaries.  Either Donald J. Trump is the current POTUS, or he is not.  Either the earth is an oblate spheroid in shape, or it is not.  California is either on the west coast of the United States, or it is not.  There is no middle ground on these things.  There is no nuance.  Either these are true and factual and real, or they are not.  They are not mere matters of opinion.  Or speculation.  Or conjecture.

The binaries I mentioned in the OP are not false.  I think they are susceptible to being misconstrued.  From the OP:

Quote

I wonder if we are seeing a glitch in the truth-seeking process envisioned by the leaders of the Church (as quoted above).  I think they contemplated that someone investigating/evaluating the merits of the claims of the LDS Church would give those claims a fair hearing. 
...
Some members, then, end up facing seemingly irreconcilable options

• Option A: the Church is essentially good and decent and ordained of God (as claimed by the Church), or
• Option B: the Church is essentially flawed and corrupt, and even evil (as claimed by authors of the above-referenced "big lists").

Applying Voltaire's maxim, the "perfect" (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the "good" (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church.

Either the Church is "true" (as in "perfect"), or it is not (as in "evil").  That is a problematic approach, I think.

The Church can be "true" (as in being ordained of God, having priesthood authority, etc.) but not "perfect" (as in leaders and members can and do make mistakes large and small).

Quote

But it's possible that some happened in some of the ways described while still some authority distilling from the Heavens through Joseph Smith, while others did not. If any authority was trasnmitted, it's entirely possible that the original was different than the one which was preached later.

Furthermore, a person can see those portions of D&C121 as a moral for God's authority as they see it: misuse God's power by abusing others with it, and you lose it. I think it is actually a principle that can stand on its own.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Quote

Quote

4. This is where the Book of Mormon becomes pretty vital.  The text exists.  It needs to be accounted for.  The statements of the Witnesses need to be accounted for.  If the book is what it claims to be, and if that is confirmed by the Spirit, then the Restoration happened, and the covenants we make in association with it are with God.  Those covenants transcend the flaws and errors of the Lord's servants.  Those covenants are real and vital, and are not negated by the errors of others. 

So the Book of Mormon, if confirmed by the Spirit, confirms the Restoration and the covenants of the Restoration. 

I think that is one of its primary purposes, yes.

Quote

Quote

5. In that sense, no, there is not a "limit to the severity of imperfection" in the leaders of the Church, past and present.  If an individual leader transgresses as described in D&C 121:36-39, then that can have real consequences to him and his use of the Priesthood.  I'm not sure to what extend we are situated to render such a judgment.  I guess the particular circumstances would need to be fleshed out.  I would venture to say that, in most circumstances, such a judgment is not within our stewardship.  And we are left to follow the counsel in Mormon 9:31 ("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.").

And so church leaders are not subject to our judgment but only to God's, or perhaps the leaders over them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "our judgment."  

In what way am I situated to "judge," say, Joseph Smith?  He's dead.  I've never met him.  I have no relationship with him, nor stewardship over him.

So my approach to Joseph Smith is governed by Mormon 9:31: "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."

And D&C 64:10: "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."

I will not condemn Joseph Smith, nor ignore his errors.  I will, instead, learn from them, and otherwise leave the judgment to God.

Quote

Quote

6. For what it's worth, I do not think Joseph Smith committed any disqualifying sin that deprived him of his prophetic mantle.  He made mistakes, including some substantial and serious ones.  In any event, his mistakes, and Brigham Young's, and any other mistakes made by past and present leaders of the Church do not retroactively negate the reality of the founding events of the Restoration.  I believe they happened.  And if they did, then the promises God has made through covenant will be kept.  It is my job, then, to keep to those covenants.  Faith, repentance, service, saving ordinances, etc.

I would think that it depends upon how one evaluates the entirety of the structure. You've described here a very interconnected structure involving priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, the Restoration events, covenants, and imperfect men who represent God's authority on earth. If enough important points come into question, the structure can fall.

Theoretically, I suppose.  

Or perhaps not.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."

Quote

I think that the "Good for the Perfect" comparison does not always fit for people experiencing a struggle with or loss of faith in the church claims.

I agree.  Here's that I said in the OP (emphasis added):

Quote

Applying Voltaire's maxim, the "perfect" (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the "good" (Option A).  Consequently, some folks go with Option B, because it seems the only plausible means of reconciling what they thought about the Church with what they now know about the Church.

So you are correct, the comparison "does not always fit."  I never said it did.

Quote

For my daughter, the church was not a good place, spiritually or mentally.

I can't speak to that.  I'm not sure what you mean by "the church."

I believe marriage is a divinely-appointed institution.  That doesn't mean that it is practiced with pristine perfection.  We all know plenty of people for whom marriage "was not a good place, spiritually or mentally."  But that's not an indictment of the institution, but rather recognition that flawed individuals who utilize it can and do mess up.

Quote

Some people find it good, others do not.

"It" being . . . what?

The principles of the Restored Gospel, when observed by its adherents, result in wonderful amounts of "good."

And let's be honest: Faithful, observant Mormons are weird, but they're overwhelmingly good.  They are far from perfect, but there's a lot to be said about the impact of keeping the faith.  Abstinence from drugs and alcohol help us avoid all sorts of problems.  Adherence to the Law of Chastity helps us avoid all sorts of problems.  Belief in accountability for wrongdoing induces us to repent.  Emphasis on education and family.  And on and on.

To be sure, we mess up all over the place.  But the mess-ups are bugs, not features, of the "structure."

Quote

I do think that this is the crux for many: they had do difficulty continuing when they believed the church was the Best Good and were not holding out for Perfect, but the experience with church changed, and was no longer the Best Good.

"Best Good" sounds quite a bit like Voltaire's "perfect."

Quote

My daughter, who was mentally out for three years before we were, is one of the most morally conscientious people I know. She did not throw away Good by not believing in the church, she sought Good and still does. 

I didn't say anything about "throw{ing} away Good."

Again, from the OP: "Applying Voltaire's maxim, the 'perfect' (the idealized perception of, and expectations about, the Church and its members) becomes the enemy of the 'good' (the Church is essentially good and decent and ordained of God)."

For some, that is.

Quote

For me, I tried to negotiate a place in the church when my testimony of Joseph Smith evaporated, and what resulted may be representative of others' experiences to some extent: I was still attending and still teaching the Young Women in 2017. In a small ward, the YW PResident and I took turns teaching our small group of young women at one time every Sunday. And so, eventually there was a lesson involving material that was no longer something I could teach with honest conviction.

I see your point.  I addressed this issue somewhat back in 2018: "Believe, Behave, Belong" -- What is the proper sequence?

Some excerpts:

Quote

Wednesday evening I had a very nice, but abbreviated, discussion with my older brother.  He is a thoughtful fellow.  He is a very observant member of the Church, but he is also pragmatic about how the Church is doing.

 

My brother mentioned a concept of "Believe, Behave, Belong."  This is, he said, the model that the Church uses.  We invite people to first believe (e.g., take the missionary discussions, read the Book of Mormon, pray, etc.), then behave (start attending Church, obeying the Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, etc.), then belong (get baptized and formally join the community of the Saints).

 

My brother mentioned that he had spoken with a Jewish fellow who said that Jews generally use a different sequence, namely, a "Belong, then Behave/Believe" approach.  That is to say, the Jews consider each other part of the "Jewish" community regardless of their level of religious observance.  They "belong" to and in the "community" simply by being Jewish.  Whether they "Believe" and "Behave" is an optional, aspirational thing.  The Jewish fellow suggested that we as members of the Church might want to try the "Belong --> Belief --> Behave" approach.

I think there are some things we can learn from the "Jewish" approach.  But in the end, we are not an ethnicity.  We are not a race.  We are a community of faith.  

Joseph Smith taught: "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion?  We have none."  To me, Joseph's use of "religion" seems to be referencing a religious community.  That being so, can we really have a cohesive international community of Saints without a concerted emphasis on "Believe" and "Behave?"

Quote

I asked the President, a good friend, if we could switch or if she could just take over in a couple places, and she instructed me to press on, to teach it, and hopefully gain something from the experience. I felt that under such conditions, I could not serve with integrity and a resigned from the calling a week later.

An understandable and reasonable thing to do.

Quote

Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise, given that I no longer had a belief in an essential key to the Restoration. I was still holding on to many good values and beliefs, but that still was not enough to continue fully participating as I had before. 

But there is a fair distance from "not ... fully participating" to not participating at all.

I have a good friend who spent some years doing what you describe above.  She never "fully" left, and eventually returned to full activity and membership.  I say this only to note that this can and does happen.  All the time, actually.  

Quote

I think that if you articulate what is Good to you and why, it may give you insight into why people believe in the church, why people believe in other things, and why people don't believe in the church.

See above.  The "good" is seen in the spiritual and practical things I see in people striving to live a life devoted to God and family.

I have also seen the diminished, but still significant, blessings that can and do fall on those who continue to lead moral and upright lives, while nevertheless forsaking their relationship with the Church.

I have also seen the tragedies that come from "riotous living."

Quote

People evaluate good with different perspectives and experiences and people generally want to experience Good in their lives. So I would say that people leaving is not about holding out for the Perfect and rejecting Good, but is people seeking good the best they can.

I'm not sure that observation is incompatible with mine.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 16, 2020 by smac97

[Islander]

On 12/15/2019 at 11:03 PM, Thinking said:

Blame the idealized narrative that the Church presented for so many years.

I believe, by far, this is likely the core issue. As a convert, I must confess that my initial belief about LDS people was that they were "super saints" and that people in Utah were just a few steps away from heaven. That was before I visited SLC, of course. My insights into the scriptures were severely limited as well and it has taken almost two decades of consistent and faithful study to close those gaps. 

Prophets,  ancient and modern, were broken, fallible, sinful men just like the rest of us. But for reasons that are beyond us, were chosen by God as instruments in His hands for His glory, to do His work and build up His church. Those men had flaws, struggled, disobeyed, made mistakes and repented just like we do. Unfortunately, the tendency to "exalt" them in life and to present them as "just a little lower than angels" has been a historical error. And even when they, themselves, acknowledged their own fallen nature in their writings, we either ignore it or minimize it. Let not forget the colossal failures of Abraham, Jacob, Judah and his brothers, Moses, David, Solomon; the list goes on and on. Yet, God so fit to chose them, in the Holy Counsel of His Will, to play a role and be part of His work upon the earth. 

They were (and are) men. With all the flaws and shortcomings of mortality. In a quest to work out their salvation, just like the rest of us, with fear and trembling. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

I believe, by far, this is likely the core issue. As a convert, I must confess that my initial belief about LDS people was that they were "super saints" and that people in Utah were just a few steps away from heaven. That was before I visited SLC, of course. My insights into the scriptures were severely limited as well and it has taken almost two decades of consistent and faithful study to close those gaps. 

Prophets,  ancient and modern, were broken, fallible, sinful men just like the rest of us. But for reasons that are beyond us, were chosen by God as instruments in His hands for His glory, to do His work and build up His church. Those men had flaws, struggled, disobeyed, made mistakes and repented just like we do. Unfortunately, the tendency to "exalt" them in life and to present them as "just a little lower than angels" has been a historical error. And even when they, themselves, acknowledged their own fallen nature in their writings, we either ignore it or minimize it. Let not forget the colossal failures of Abraham, Jacob, Judah and his brothers, Moses, David, Solomon; the list goes on and on. Yet, God so fit to chose them, in the Holy Counsel of His Will, to play a role and be part of His work upon the earth. 

They were (and are) men. With all the flaws and shortcomings of mortality. In a quest to work out their salvation, just like the rest of us, with fear and trembling. 

 

FYI this is a "zombie" emoticon used sometimes to mark a new post on an old thread that most consider dead and gone because no one posted anything more to be said on the subject during the several weeks it was available on p 1 of the topics.

No problem with the practice of course, you may not get as many replies as you anticipated however.  Who knows?

It is likely the post you quoted was already beaten to death

Edited March 23, 2020 by mfbukowski

[2BizE]

On 12/15/2019 at 11:03 PM, InCognitus said:

It has to be something else, or something more than that.  I grew up in that so called "idealized narrative" era, and it really wasn't as idealized as many make it out to be, or not always intentionally so.  I realize there are more details now that have been made available over time because of projects like the Joseph Smith Papers, but many of the things that people are surprised to find out have always been taught in church publications and seminary and institute manuals using the best information available at the time.  You can learn about a lot of the things just by reading History of the Church, as flawed as that publication may be by today's standards.

For example, I had an ex-member neighbor, at my previous house, and she said one of the things that the church hid from her was that Joseph Smith used a pistol against the mob at Carthage jail at the time of his death, and she thought that I would be shocked to hear about that.  I told her I had learned that in seminary, and showed her where that was taught in my high-school seminary church history manual (The Restored Church, by William Edwin Berrett).  I also showed her pictures I had taken of the pistol on display at the Church History Museum in Salt Lake City, from a recent family trip to Utah.  She blamed the church for not teaching her that.  But I blamed her for not studying what the church had made available for her to learn.

But as I mentioned in a previous post (here), I've learned that everyone is different, and people process information and view things differently, and there are complex and diverse reasons that people become disillusioned with the church and its teachings and eventually leave the church. There is no simple answer. 

I don't seem to remember learning about seer stones, Joseph's polygamy and polyandry in seminary 35 years ago....I must have missed those days.

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, Islander said:

I believe, by far, this is likely the core issue. As a convert, I must confess that my initial belief about LDS people was that they were "super saints" and that people in Utah were just a few steps away from heaven. That was before I visited SLC, of course. My insights into the scriptures were severely limited as well and it has taken almost two decades of consistent and faithful study to close those gaps. 

Prophets,  ancient and modern, were broken, fallible, sinful men just like the rest of us. But for reasons that are beyond us, were chosen by God as instruments in His hands for His glory, to do His work and build up His church. Those men had flaws, struggled, disobeyed, made mistakes and repented just like we do. Unfortunately, the tendency to "exalt" them in life and to present them as "just a little lower than angels" has been a historical error. And even when they, themselves, acknowledged their own fallen nature in their writings, we either ignore it or minimize it. Let not forget the colossal failures of Abraham, Jacob, Judah and his brothers, Moses, David, Solomon; the list goes on and on. Yet, God so fit to chose them, in the Holy Counsel of His Will, to play a role and be part of His work upon the earth. 

They were (and are) men. With all the flaws and shortcomings of mortality. In a quest to work out their salvation, just like the rest of us, with fear and trembling. 

 

I think is very close to the core issue in many cases. And I agree that all those men are flawed. The core of the "idealized" view is that these men represent some sort of authority from a divine being. The problem arises when they no longer appear distinct from any other people in a way that makes them appear to represent God. For me, it came to a point where their representation of God was counterproductive to knowing God. I think that this is more likely to happen with the more divine authority men claim to have over mankind.

 

Edited March 23, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

10 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I don't seem to remember learning about seer stones, Joseph's polygamy and polyandry in seminary 35 years ago....I must have missed those days.

The first two are in the Institute texts that were intended to build on seminary knowledge.  Seminary has never been intended to be the end point of church study. In fact while seminary texts could only be used in seminary, all Institute manuals could be purchased through Church Distribution so even those who didn’t attend Institute could use them. Most wards I knew had them in their library for check out.  They have been online and accessible to all for quite sometime (thinking at least 15 years). The Church History manual was put on the main site way back as soon as they were adding more than the basics, iirc. 
 

Polyandry is not in the current text (unless they have updated it or switched to Saints, haven’t check what is being used since that came out).  I will try and remember to check the previous text for it (Barrett’s iirc) to see if it mentions polyandry.  Polygyny, definitely mentioned though pretty lightly touched upon in the Church History in the Fulness of Times manual unlike the previous manual. It mentions Louisa Beaman as the first known wife.  Pretty sure both mention seerstones.  Remember a picture of one even, but I might be confusing texts. Will check.    

Added:  no seerstones in older text, used William Smith's description of the process of translation.  Listed 6 plural wives of Joseph's but no polyandry.  Polygamy involving Joseph discussion was more on how it affected relationships with other church leaders, their reactions, as well as Emma's.  Half a dozen pages focused on it iirc.  I didn't check for any short references.

May check the newer book later.
 

I can understand waiting until young adults to discuss what is an alternative marriage arrangement. Youth are more likely to see things in black and white and misunderstand nuances while college age students hopefully understand by then knowledge doesn’t come in sound it’s answers. 
 

Seer stones were apparently seen as primary age material in the past such as in this Friend:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/1974/09/a-peaceful-heart?lang=eng

Edited March 23, 2020 by Calm

[smac97]

7 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I don't seem to remember learning about seer stones, Joseph's polygamy and polyandry in seminary 35 years ago....I must have missed those days.

I learned about all these things 30-35 years ago.  From my parents, mostly.  But I also picked up some stuff from historical fiction novels (The Storm Testament).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think is very close to the core issue in many cases. And I agree that all those men are flawed.

As are we all.

But "those men" seem to be generally quite good men.  Many are even great men, both as to their competency and leadership, and also as to their personal morality and integrity.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The core of the "idealized" view is that these men represent some sort of authority from a divine being.

I think the "'idealized' view" of these men is being exaggerated.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The problem arises when they no longer appear distinct from any other people in a way that makes them appear to represent God.

Yes, a loss of faith that the Lord speaks through (imperfect) prophets and apostles is a substantial hindrance to maintaining a testimony.

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

For me, it came to a point where their representation of God was counterproductive to knowing God.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.  What do you mean by "their representation of God?" 

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that this is more likely to happen with the more divine authority men claim to have over mankind.

I'm not sure what this means, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As are we all.

But "those men" seem to be generally quite good men.  Many are even great men, both as to their competency and leadership, and also as to their personal morality and integrity.

I think the "'idealized' view" of these men is being exaggerated.

Yes, a loss of faith that the Lord speaks through (imperfect) prophets and apostles is a substantial hindrance to maintaining a testimony.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.  What do you mean by "their representation of God?" 

I'm not sure what this means, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

There are lots of good people, but that does not make them speakers for God. And yes, a loss of faith that they speak for God sure does hinder faith in them speaking for God.

I think I've said this before to you before, but for me it came to a point of choosing between principles of what is right and church leaders' authority.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Quote

As are we all.

But "those men" seem to be generally quite good men.  Many are even great men, both as to their competency and leadership, and also as to their personal morality and integrity.

I think the "'idealized' view" of these men is being exaggerated.

Yes, a loss of faith that the Lord speaks through (imperfect) prophets and apostles is a substantial hindrance to maintaining a testimony.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.  What do you mean by "their representation of God?" 

I'm not sure what this means, either.

There are lots of good people, but that does not make them speakers for God.

I quite agree.  Joseph Smith and his successors were and are "speakers for God" not based on their general goodness (though it's there), but because of their being called and ordained by those in authority.

13 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think I've said this before to you before, but for me it came to a point of choosing between principles of what is right and church leaders' authority.

 

 

I don't understand the purported need to choose one to the exclusion of the other.

Thanks,

-Smac

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I don't seem to remember learning about seer stones, Joseph's polygamy and polyandry in seminary 35 years ago....I must have missed those days.

The same high-school seminary church history manual I mentioned previously (The Restored Church, by William Edwin Berrett, 1961) has sections covering the marriage issues, with section headings like: Revelation on Marriage, The Philosophy on Mormonism and the Circumstances of the Time Led to The Introduction of Plural Marriage, The Prophet Anticipates the Crisis, on pages 181-184 (with descriptions of leaders who entered into the practice),  Plural Marriage, Opposition Aroused, Anti-Bigamy Laws Held Constitutional, Edmunds-Tucker Law, and the Manifesto (p. 316 - 319), with several suggestions for "Supplementary Readings" on 319-320.

There are some naive or poorly researched views portrayed in portions of this book on some of the topics, but it seems to cover most of the core material.

My wife has been wanting me to get rid of some old books.  I'm going to keep this one simply because I have to keep proving what was taught to me in seminary  

[Islander]

48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

There are lots of good people, but that does not make them speakers for God. And yes, a loss of faith that they speak for God sure does hinder faith in them speaking for God.

I think I've said this before to you before, but for me it came to a point of choosing between principles of what is right and church leaders' authority.

I certainly understand. I have found, however, that it is a rare occasion when these (principles and authority) are at odds. And, if that would be the case, there are ways to persuade others of alternative courses of action. I lived a short timea in a ward where the Bishop was a very busy man. He was against holding parties or gathering in the church building way from official functions. This was NOT revelation or anything to do with the calling. It was simply his preference. I appealed to the scriptures and the discourses of the brethren to illustrate my point that holding events in church, aside from Sacrament, was a sound missionary opportunity. It took a few weeks but I prevailed. And I did not feel that I undermined his authority or violated a church principle. Being able to discern these things is very important. No one walks around in the Spirit or in sync with the Heavenly ALL the time. God ordained a host of very unlikely characters, through out history, to be an example and a real life illustration that we are all sinners but that His grace and mercy are sufficient to lift all men that repent. And we recognize that calling and accept their authority. But, like I said; we are all human and fallen and fallible. 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Islander said:

I certainly understand. I have found, however, that it is a rare occasion when these (principles and authority) are at odds. And, if that would be the case, there are ways to persuade others of alternative courses of action. I lived a short timea in a ward where the Bishop was a very busy man. He was against holding parties or gathering in the church building way from official functions. This was NOT revelation or anything to do with the calling. It was simply his preference. I appealed to the scriptures and the discourses of the brethren to illustrate my point that holding events in church, aside from Sacrament, was a sound missionary opportunity. It took a few weeks but I prevailed. And I did not feel that I undermined his authority or violated a church principle. Being able to discern these things is very important. No one walks around in the Spirit or in sync with the Heavenly ALL the time. God ordained a host of very unlikely characters, through out history, to be an example and a real life illustration that we are all sinners but that His grace and mercy are sufficient to lift all men that repent. And we recognize that calling and accept their authority. But, like I said; we are all human and fallen and fallible. 

Good points, these.

I would add this: When there is a "rare occasion when these (principles and authority) are at odds," it my perception that this is a manifestation of a misuse of authority, rather than a lack of authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.  Joseph Smith and his successors were and are "speakers for God" not based on their general goodness (though it's there), but because of their being called and ordained by those in authority.

 

 

I don't understand the purported need to choose one to the exclusion of the other.

Thanks,

-Smac

It may be the same reason why you're not choosing to follow the Pope.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The core of the "idealized" view is that these men represent some sort of authority from a divine being.

I disagree.  I know many who view them as having been given divine authority and yet have little to no inclination to idealize.  Some, including myself, even tend to judge them harsher than we would other men.

Idealizing appears to me to be closer to what happens to celebrities and those one chooses as one's heros or role models.people want to believe those they admire are worth admiring, are special.