A More Enduring Faith through a Partial Disillusionment

[pogi]

In another thread the topic of faith amidst troubling religious history and mistakes of leaders is being discussed. @MiserereNobis shared how his conversion to Catholicism and enduring faith has been able to endure even in light of an honest and open history and acknowledgement of mistakes by leaders at the highest levels.   Here was my response, and I want to open it up for discussion: 

Quote

 

Your approach to faith amidst a not so clean history is commendable.   I believe strongly that this approach will increasingly become the only way for a healthy faith to endure and thrive in the information age.   While I think this is especially true in our church, I believe it is true for faith to endure within any organization of religion.  The facade of a perfectly clean and undefiled image before the world worked for a long time to bolster up faith within and conversion without, but that facade can't endure this age of information.  It is, and will continue to crumble exposing the very human side of religion, and with it will crumble many-o'-testimony which were inspired by that illusion.  Disillusion and lost faith will result.  

My question is this (for anyone to answer) - how does one address this, what they perceive to be an imminent threat to faith, without damaging faith in the process?  I perceive the illusion and the culture which sustains it as a threat to faith.   But we all know the (all too frequent these days) result of disillusionment as well.  So, how does one help others navigate a faithful-disillusionment into what I believe can only be a more enduring faith?  

 

I know that some who are still engrained in this culture will accuse me of being the one under illusion.   That's fine, your perceptions are your own, but I must follow my conscience and the light I perceive on this.   

Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that.  Either way, it is not a doctrine or policy in the church where I see that improvements can be made, rather it is a culture and practice that I want to improve upon for the sake of maintaining an enduring faith.  I have seen too many fall because of this culture, and I have seen enough.  Something needs to be done.  But what, exactly I don't know?  Any thoughts?      

Edited December 2, 2022 by pogi

[OGHoosier]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

In another thread the topic of faith amidst troubling religious history and mistakes of leaders is being discussed. @MiserereNobis shared how his conversion to Catholicism and enduring faith has been able to endure even in light of an honest and open history and acknowledgement of mistakes by leaders at the highest levels.   Here was my response, and I want to open it up for discussion: 

I know that some who are still engrained in this culture will accuse me of being the one under illusion.   That's fine, your perceptions are your own, but I must follow my conscience and the light I perceive on this.   It is as the missionaries always say, I can't not have something delicious and not 

Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that.  Either way, it is not a doctrine or policy in the church where I see that improvements can be made, rather it is a culture and practice that I want to improve upon for the sake of maintaining an enduring faith.  I have seen too many fall because of this culture, and I have seen enough.  Something needs to be done.  But what, exactly I don't know?  Any thoughts?      

I agree with you regarding the existential nature of the challenge. 

For my part, I've been helped by reengaging a lot more with the Old Testament. For starters, the Old Testament is itself an example of "troubling religious history" (Canaanite genocide anybody...yes, I know contemporary archaeology says it's unlikely to have actually played out like that, but its still in there). But beyond that, I see a lot of examples in the Old Testament of disillusionment. Jonah, Job, Jeremiah? Are any of these characters depicted in an optimistic fashion? Are any of them perfect models (is Jonah even a good model at all)? What about David and Solomon? There's a lot of gritty, messy stuff in there - which is probably why we tend to keep that particular standard work at arm's length. 

And yet...nestled in there are the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah, which move me more than any writing since. There's the Law of Moses, which stood head and shoulders above its contemporaries in terms of moral virtue and vision. The seeds of a divine future are sown throughout the Old Testament, and we cannot forget that it was the only scripture which Jesus Christ Himself taught with. It seems to me that we have the Old Testament as a prototypal model for messy religious worldviews. Taking it seriously as a work of scripture has been the single most useful thing I have personally done to adapt to discipleship of the Information Hour. 

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

In another thread the topic of faith amidst troubling religious history and mistakes of leaders is being discussed. @MiserereNobis shared how his conversion to Catholicism and enduring faith has been able to endure even in light of an honest and open history and acknowledgement of mistakes by leaders at the highest levels. 

I've had a similar experience through my own studies, through participating on this board, etc.

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Here was my response, and I want to open it up for discussion: 

Quote

Your approach to faith amidst a not so clean history is commendable.   I believe strongly that this approach will increasingly become the only way for a healthy faith to endure and thrive in the information age.   While I think this is especially true in our church, I believe it is true for faith to endure within any organization of religion.  The facade of a perfectly clean and undefiled image before the world worked for a long time to bolster up faith within and conversion without, but that facade can't endure this age of information.  It is, and will continue to crumble exposing the very human side of religion, and with it will crumble many-o'-testimony which were inspired by that illusion.  Disillusion and lost faith will result.  

My question is this (for anyone to answer) - how does one address this, what they perceive to be an imminent threat to faith, without damaging faith in the process?  I perceive the illusion and the culture which sustains it as a threat to faith.   But we all know the (all too frequent these days) result of disillusionment as well.  So, how does one help others navigate a faithful-disillusionment into what I believe can only be a more enduring faith?  

"How does one address this" = "How does one address {the very human side of religion} ... without damaging faith in the process," is that correct?

28 minutes ago, pogi said:

Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that.  Either way, it is not a doctrine or policy in the church where I see that improvements can be made, rather it is a culture and practice that I want to improve upon for the sake of maintaining an enduring faith.  I have seen too many fall because of this culture, and I have seen enough.  Something needs to be done.  But what, exactly I don't know?  Any thoughts?      

I think this process is about presuppositions and expectations about the Church's history/practices almost as much as - if not more than - the history/practices per se.

I wrote a fairly long post on this subject in August 2021:

Quote

I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst.  Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals.

A few thoughts:

1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool:

I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity):

I've posted this a few times now:

Quote

Quote

 

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.

In 2008, Elder Hafen delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University (where he once served as dean of the law school and later as provost). His remarks centered on the lifelong journey of Christian discipleship.
...
Their new book extends this kind of faith-affirming discussion beyond the halls of BYU (or the ambiance of the local Olive Garden) and into the hearts of discerning Latter-day Saints of all ages.
...
But, with regard to style (the book is a breezy 130 pages) and substance, the Hafens clearly have a specific audience in mind — young adults.
...
The book amounts to one of the more readable, yet authoritative contributions to the expanding genre of literature speaking to the religious concerns of the rising generation.
...
A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

 

So we have:

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

This seems about right.  Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up.

Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity.

3. My Attempt at a Framework:

Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) :

Quote

A) Consider the Duration of the Feeling:

 I read The Book of Mormon several times prior to this experience.  As a teenager, for an extended period I read it every night and prayed about it.  Over time I gained a cumulative spiritual confirmation that the book was true, that it is what it claims to be.  

After graduating from high school, I served 18 months in the military.  During this time I also had several spiritual experiences, mostly centered on The Book of Mormon, on Jesus Christ as savior, and also about Joseph Smith as a genuine prophet.  

Then I served a two-year mission and had more experiences, centered on the scriptures, on Jesus Christ, but also on the testimonies of people in Taiwan who joined the Church despite the language barriers, cultural impediments, and significant familial disapproval.  Converting from Buddhism / ancestor worship to Christianity was very difficult for many of these people, but they did so largely based on what they felt and determined to be the Spirit.  

Then I returned home and shortly thereafter had a very strong spiritual experience that, for me, solidified my previous cumulative experiences into a more cohesive whole, and also helped me differentiate "emotion" (which, as you have described, is "fleeting"), and the Spirit (which is "something more constant and which because a more permanent feeling of peace and comfort and enlightenment, etc.").

B) Consider the Circumstance of the Feeling:

A person may be able to determine whether a particular feeling derives from the Spirit or from mere emotional response to stimuli by looking at the source or circumstance of the feeling.  How did the feeling come about?  For example, every day there are sports fans all around the world who scream and shout in support of their particular team (we currently have a Brazilian exchange student living with us, and soccer looms very large in his life).  Are these people being influenced by “the Spirit?”  Generally not.  Sporting events are exciting, emotional.  My point in saying “consider the source” is to look at it from God’s perspective.  Does God communicate important and fundamental truths to His children through the emotional response they experience at a football game?  Probably not. 

So a person can, to some extent, differentiate “emotion” from “the Spirit” by examining the circumstances in which the experience occurred.  This is particularly helpful when you consider the teachings of the LDS Church.  For example, D&C 9:8 states: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”  Elder Oaks put it this way: “We should recognize that the Lord will speak to us through the Spirit in his own time and in his own way. … We cannot force spiritual things … In most cases, ‘his own way’ is not the thunderous interruption or the blinding light, but what the scriptures call ‘the still small voice’ (1 Kgs. 1 Kings 19:12; 1 Ne. 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 85:6). … We need to know that the Lord rarely speaks loudly. His messages almost always come in a whisper” (“Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign, Mar. 1997, 10–12).

I had a very important spiritual experience just after I returned from my mission.  It was “important” not because it was extraordinarily powerful, or overwhelming, or any of the other adjectives that we Latter-day Saints – perhaps on occasion inappropriately – apply to important spiritual experiences.  Rather, it was “important” because of its clarity.  And its “clarity” arose because it occurred in circumstances in which confusing the Spirit with emotion was pretty much not possible.  

C) Consider the Apparent Purpose of the Feeling:

Another way to distinguish “emotion” from “the Spirit” is to again look at the experience from God’s point of view, and this time try to ascertain the *purpose* of the feeling.  That is, if God is trying to communicate with you, is He doing so in circumstances which have a discernible purpose?  Or is the feeling more properly attributed to a mundane response to emotive stimuli?

Let me give you an example: In high school I was a huge fan of music, mostly classical (Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak), movie soundtracks (John Williams), and musicals (Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Stephen Sondheim).  My high school’s marching band, of which I was a part, once traveled to LA to participate in a competition, and while there we saw Michael Crawford perform “Phantom of the Opera” in the Ahmanson Theatre.  I returned to Utah and began listening to the soundtrack on a regular basis.  I would retire to a darkened room in our house and listen to most of the tracks on really good headphones, with the volume turned up, and I would re-visit the staged play in my head.  By the time I would reach the last track, with the full orchestra at a crescendo, and the Phantom singing “It’s over now … the Music of the Night…”, I felt a tremendous thrill.  (Yeah, this is geeky, I know.   If you question my masculine bona fides, I refer you to the last play of the 2006 BYU-Utah game, in which Johnny Harline caught the winning pass in the end zone.  Here’s a YouTube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dflMnmCCZk.  I remember being pretty thrilled about that, too.)

So here I am, a guy who felt *something* very strongly when listening to “Phantom of the Opera” in high school and, later, when watching a football game on TV.  However, these circumstances were not ones which I would think God would use to convey spiritual promptings.  These were instead merely emotive reactions.

D) Consider the Feeling’s Effect on Behavior:

Another factor to consider is to evaluate a feeling’s effect on your behavior and ask whether the behavior prompted by the feeling is conducive to God’s will.  If yes, then it could be the Spirit, but if not, then the feeling is likely just an emotive response.  I think this principle is described well in Moroni 7:16-17:

Quote

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

So there you are.  I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior.

4. Defining Terms and Parameters:

I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony.  Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) :

Quote

1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and of His role as your Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ?
4. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
5. Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators?  Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local leaders of the Church?
6. The Lord has said that all things are to be “done in cleanliness” before Him (Doctrine and Covenants 42:41).  Do you strive for moral cleanliness in your thoughts and behavior?  Do you obey the law of chastity?
7. Do you follow the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ in your private and public behavior with members of your family and others?
8. Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
9. Do you strive to keep the Sabbath day holy, both at home and at church; attend your meetings; prepare for and worthily partake of the sacrament; and live your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
10. Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?
12. Are you a full-tithe payer?
13. Do you understand and obey the Word of Wisdom?
14. Do you have any financial or other obligations to a former spouse or to children?  If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
15. Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple, including wearing the temple garment as instructed in the endowment?
16. Are there serious sins in your life that need to be resolved with priesthood authorities as part of your repentance?
17. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances?

Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc.

As Joseph Smith put it: 

Quote

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

And, of course, there is D&C 76:

Quote

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!
23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—
24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom?  Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?"

 

5. Additional Resources:

I would point an interested party to the following essays:

• The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson)
• I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton)
• The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson)
• Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin)

Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony."

Managing expectations is, I think, a big factor.  We are living in a weird era where fault-finding and condemnation, together with chest-thumping outrage/indignation, have been vested with an aura of virtue and prestige.

I'm reminded of this clip from a recent movie starring Cate Blanchett:

Thanks,

-Smac

[pondering]

 faith amidst a not so clean history...

what is the difference between:

• changing faith in say, the garden of eden / young earth creationism after learning about the true age of the earth

vs.

• changing faith in say, the infallibility of prophets after having a child abused under the laws/leadership/organization of the prophet

imperfect religious science vs. imperfect religious people, it seems either would change one's beliefs.  I think many as they grow older come to a less binary / less dualist way of thinking.  Changing viewpoints can be seen as being humble, teachable, meek.... or changing viewpoints can be seen as being weak, pushover, disloyal, 'ye of little faith'.  It seems to depend on the views of those who are judging, and the change of views of those who are changing.  A convert to our own given view is praised and exalted, while a convert away from our views is looked down upon.  Converts - those of changing faith - I think most of them are just honest/humble/flexible/willing to learn and show that through changing beliefs.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I agree with you regarding the existential nature of the challenge. 

For my part, I've been helped by reengaging a lot more with the Old Testament. For starters, the Old Testament is itself an example of "troubling religious history" (Canaanite genocide anybody...yes, I know contemporary archaeology says it's unlikely to have actually played out like that, but its still in there). But beyond that, I see a lot of examples in the Old Testament of disillusionment. Jonah, Job, Jeremiah? Are any of these characters depicted in an optimistic fashion? Are any of them perfect models (is Jonah even a good model at all)? What about David and Solomon? There's a lot of gritty, messy stuff in there - which is probably why we tend to keep that particular standard work at arm's length. 

And yet...nestled in there are the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah, which move me more than any writing since. There's the Law of Moses, which stood head and shoulders above its contemporaries in terms of moral virtue and vision. The seeds of a divine future are sown throughout the Old Testament, and we cannot forget that it was the only scripture which Jesus Christ Himself taught with. It seems to me that we have the Old Testament as a prototypal model for messy religious worldviews. Taking it seriously as a work of scripture has been the single most useful thing I have personally done to adapt to discipleship of the Information Hour. 

And we can't forget about the completely dysfunctional family that was Abraham and the patriarchs and the covenants/blessings that God has sent throughout the world and throughout the centuries through all of those messy and flawed people.

 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"How does one address this" = "How does one address {the very human side of religion} ... without damaging faith in the process," is that correct?

I think I am speaking more of addressing the dangerous culture that bolsters the illusion of perfection amongst our leaders and history, rather than the history itself.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this process is about presuppositions and expectations about the Church's history/practices almost as much as - if not more than - the history/practices per se.

Yes!  Exactly.  

Beyond our history, I am also talking about how many view the leadership today.   The culture is very much alive today, and propagated by some in leadership.  It is a culture that has tentacles within leadership itself.   There doesn't seem to be room for the Orson Pratts today.  How do we create a healthy spiritual place for the Orson Pratts of our day to thrive without scorn and ridicule from the more orthodoxic members of this culture which sustains the illusion of perfection and cuts down anyone who disagrees with the leadership and voices their opinions.   It is the silencing and shaming of those who vocally disagree that creates this culture of fear and upholds this false illusion of perfection. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are living in a weird era where fault-finding and condemnation, together with chest-thumping outrage/indignation, have been vested with an aura of virtue and prestige.

This is a common difficulty I run into when attempting to make a dent and change in church culture surrounding these ideas.  I have regularly been criticized for the very things you say here because I am perceived as one who is fault-finding, etc.  So, the dilemma is that I am trying to tear down the illusion of perfection by highlighting the human side of religion (which shouldn't really be troubling, but it is for many).  I want people to be spiritually comfortable and at peace in imperfection - that requires acknowledging fault to get people to be more comfortable with it and stop avoiding it and tucking it away.   By acknowledging fault, one is going to be judged and perceived as a fault finder, but by ignoring fault and tucking it under the rug, then we are only sustaining this toxic culture of false illusion.    Should I care that others judge me wrongly?  Maybe not.  I suppose it would be naïve to push back against the dominant culture and expect no strong resistance.   I don't like confrontation though.  I don't know how to move forward towards what I believe is a healthier culture and faith without sewing some discord.   That is the dilemma I face. 

Edited December 2, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I agree with you regarding the existential nature of the challenge. 

For my part, I've been helped by reengaging a lot more with the Old Testament. For starters, the Old Testament is itself an example of "troubling religious history" (Canaanite genocide anybody...yes, I know contemporary archaeology says it's unlikely to have actually played out like that, but its still in there). But beyond that, I see a lot of examples in the Old Testament of disillusionment. Jonah, Job, Jeremiah? Are any of these characters depicted in an optimistic fashion? Are any of them perfect models (is Jonah even a good model at all)? What about David and Solomon? There's a lot of gritty, messy stuff in there - which is probably why we tend to keep that particular standard work at arm's length. 

And yet...nestled in there are the Messianic prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah, which move me more than any writing since. There's the Law of Moses, which stood head and shoulders above its contemporaries in terms of moral virtue and vision. The seeds of a divine future are sown throughout the Old Testament, and we cannot forget that it was the only scripture which Jesus Christ Himself taught with. It seems to me that we have the Old Testament as a prototypal model for messy religious worldviews. Taking it seriously as a work of scripture has been the single most useful thing I have personally done to adapt to discipleship of the Information Hour. 

Really good insight.  Thank you!  

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

In another thread the topic of faith amidst troubling religious history and mistakes of leaders is being discussed. @MiserereNobis shared how his conversion to Catholicism and enduring faith has been able to endure even in light of an honest and open history and acknowledgement of mistakes by leaders at the highest levels.   Here was my response, and I want to open it up for discussion: 

I know that some who are still engrained in this culture will accuse me of being the one under illusion.   That's fine, your perceptions are your own, but I must follow my conscience and the light I perceive on this.   

Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that.  Either way, it is not a doctrine or policy in the church where I see that improvements can be made, rather it is a culture and practice that I want to improve upon for the sake of maintaining an enduring faith.  I have seen too many fall because of this culture, and I have seen enough.  Something needs to be done.  But what, exactly I don't know?  Any thoughts?      

This may seem too simple an answer, but it's harder (for me) than it looks: develop an increasingly abiding faith in Christ, and answers will come which will contribute to building a Zion culture within our scope / sphere of influence, no matter what culture we are living in. In contrast, critical and judgmental attitudes that foment cultural competition, enmity and contention are the wrong way to go. 

A cultural tendency to ignore mistakes is different than cultural tendencies to ignore sin and rebellion, which is different than cultural tendencies to sin and rebel (all these assume accountability). Hence all the warnings against secret combinations and personal complacency in Zion. But a well-grounded relationship with the Lord works well in influencing any of these kinds of cultures for the better.

People get frustrated when they feel they are not fitting in and so many in their community are wrong; time to look at their relationship with the Lord and convert that frustration into love.

Edited December 2, 2022 by CV75

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think I am speaking more of addressing the dangerous culture that bolsters the illusion of perfection amongst our leaders and history, rather than the history itself.  

...

I don't know how to move forward towards what I believe is a healthier culture and faith without sewing some discord.   That is the dilemma I face. 

Start small!  ! (See my post above).

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This may seem too simple an answer, but it's harder (for me) than it looks: develop an increasingly abiding faith in Christ, and answers will come which will contribute to building a Zion culture within our scope / sphere of influence, no matter what culture we are living in. In contrast, critical and judgmental attitudes that foment cultural competition, enmity and contention are the wrong way to go. 

A cultural tendency to ignore mistakes is different than cultural tendencies to ignore sin and rebellion, which is different than cultural tendencies to sin and rebel (all these assume accountability). Hence all the warnings against secret combinations and personal complacency in Zion. But a well-grounded relationship with the Lord works well in influencing any of these kinds of cultures for the better.

People get frustrated when they feel they are not fitting in and so many in their community are wrong; time to look at their relationship with the Lord and convert that frustration into love.

I agree about the abiding faith and seeking divine guidance and influence.  

I would love to avoid cultural competition, enmity and critical/judgmental attitudes, but changing a dominant, damaging culture within a faith does not come without the price of resistance, competition, enmity, judgement.  Ask Jesus.  He thought it worthwhile.  

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree about the abiding faith and seeking divine guidance and influence.  

I would love to avoid cultural competition, enmity and critical/judgmental attitudes, but changing a dominant, damaging culture within a faith does not come without the price of resistance, competition, enmity, judgement.  Ask Jesus.  He thought it worthwhile.  

Jesus was not set on changing the dominant, damaging culture so much as building a kingdom not of this world. He faced such a culture, certainly, but He went about building His kingdom in a certain way and with a certain perspective. Virtually all He did in His three-year mission was unexpected and unappreciated by the dominant, damaging culture, but expected and appreciated by those of His kingdom on both sides of the veil.

I hear people from Utah whose eyes have suddenly been "opened" criticize Utah culture, much like those in the mission field have done for over a century. It is not the way to go and makes them act like the very alleged culture they are trying to escape or change.

Edited December 3, 2022 by CV75

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Jesus was not set on changing the dominant, damaging culture so much as building a kingdom not of this world. He faced such a culture, certainly, but He went about building His kingdom in a certain way and with a certain perspective. Virtually all He did in His three-year mission was unexpected and unappreciated by the dominant, damaging culture, but expected and appreciated by those of His kingdom on both sides of the

Even within his church, the damaging culture they came from didn’t just disappear.  There was a real struggle to root it out.  A lot of what you mention ensued as a result.

Do you believe it is possible to change culture without the prices you mention?  I am not as optimistic that it is possible.  Sometimes the Lord requires struggle and division before oneness can be achieved.  The very act of holding up a light creates division and tension, even within the membership of the church.  Should we cower from holding up that light because it may cause enmity, division, judgment, etc.?  

[mrmarklin]

In a conversation with Peter, the Savior declared: ". . . and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18.)

 

the rock is revelation. This is on two levels. One is the revelations of the prophets and Apostles of the modern era ( since AD 0).  The other is our own personal revelation. This is the foundation of the church. Without your own personal revelation about the truthfulness of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, you will fail in your faith when the storm comes. 
There are many here that never received their own revelation, and of course this thread is about such another. 
You owe it to yourself and your families, to gain this revelatory knowledge. 
 

All else is sophistry. 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

In another thread the topic of faith amidst troubling religious history and mistakes of leaders is being discussed. @MiserereNobis shared how his conversion to Catholicism and enduring faith has been able to endure even in light of an honest and open history and acknowledgement of mistakes by leaders at the highest levels.   Here was my response, and I want to open it up for discussion: 

I know that some who are still engrained in this culture will accuse me of being the one under illusion.   That's fine, your perceptions are your own, but I must follow my conscience and the light I perceive on this.   

Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that.  Either way, it is not a doctrine or policy in the church where I see that improvements can be made, rather it is a culture and practice that I want to improve upon for the sake of maintaining an enduring faith.  I have seen too many fall because of this culture, and I have seen enough.  Something needs to be done.  But what, exactly I don't know?  Any thoughts?      

I feel like this is particularly hard for me to give an answer to, as I come from the other end. I never believed or trusted anything that seemed too perfect when it entailed people. A glowing image of prophets, faith, family, church, etc was more foreign to me than when I was given more messy semi-chaotic narratives that still showed God in the experience, IMHO. For example, I didn't have a solid direct testimony of the restoration until I listened to rough stone rolling (mine was more indirect...as in I believe in much that came from the restoration ergo...). That was a narrative I could relate to. Not the more polished version of JS and this time period. I know for some like the catholic convert, their experience with that can be quite the opposite.

I think the closest I came to having this cultural assumption was with the priesthood ban and it many accompanying theories and justifications. I went through phases of thought that tried to maintain prevalent assumptions at the time I started searching for answers, only for those to constantly not work fully. This or that piece of information just wouldn't fit. And it's those wouldn't fits that made me finally reject several of those cultural assumptions. I should note it didn't leave me to the other end of disbelieving entirely. That would have been equally problematic to me because of experiences I'd had with the BoM. So when I readjusted belief it did remove the core things I'd come to truly find good. But that took time. So I've taken from that experience that healthy changes in paradigms can take time, and may come in steps...to be patient with that process.

I've seen the perfect façade effect people in different ways and I've tried to help them move to something healthier when I can. Culture is also tied to values and I think the that having an imperfect, messy dynamic is a really hard sell for people to believe is a) valuable and b) feasible within a church setting.  It's easy to believe in the value of nigh perfect and without major flaws. It comes with less struggle, less pain, promises of direct prosperity (do this, get nice thing), an illusion of peace, a sense of stability and confidence, etc. And you're asking people to chuck that for a stance that may leave them in more discomfort, more uncertainty, less absolutes, immediate dissonance, etc. it's also a path that they've seen most visibly go "off the rails" and have people leave the faith entirely, whether overtly or spiritually. But somehow one has to show the value of a messy work and a messy faith: Greater resilience, more honest engagement, greater meaning and truth, greater peace in storms, etc. While also highlighting the problems in remaining with a semi-perfect illusion. 

 

with luv, 

BD

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

In a conversation with Peter, the Savior declared: ". . . and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18.)

 

the rock is revelation. This is on two levels. One is the revelations of the prophets and Apostles of the modern era ( since AD 0).  The other is our own personal revelation. This is the foundation of the church. Without your own personal revelation about the truthfulness of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, you will fail in your faith when the storm comes. 
There are many here that never received their own revelation, and of course this thread is about such another. 
You owe it to yourself and your families, to gain this revelatory knowledge. 
 

All else is sophistry. 

And what if their personal revelation says it's not to be found in the COJCOLDS? 

Not speaking for myself, I'm still on the fence. 

[bsjkki]

An old but goodie on the topic of uncertainty and a maturing faith perspective. Not easily summed up.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/08/on-dealing-with-uncertainty?lang=eng

“Chesterton’s arranging of these categories makes me think of one other way to compare the differing levels of perspective that people bring to the way they cope with ambiguity. Consider the metaphorical image of “lead, kindly light.” At level one, people either do not or cannot see that there are both a kindly light and an encircling gloom, or that if there are both, that there is no real difference between the two. At level two, the difference is acutely apparent, but one’s acceptance of the ambiguity may be so wholeheartedly pessimistic as to say, “Remember that the hour is darkest just before everything goes completely black.”
How different are these responses from that calm but honest prayer at level three,
“Lead, kindly Light, amid th’encircling gloom;
lead thou me on. …
I do not ask to see
the distant scene—one step enough for me.”

Here is the process in gifs

 

 

[gav]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

I know that some who are still engrained in this culture will accuse me of being the one under illusion.   That's fine, your perceptions are your own, but I must follow my conscience and the light I perceive on this.       

“Culture eats strategy for breakfast” Peter Drucker. 

Leadership has a hard time changing culture once entrenched, this is known from the business world and organisational cultures that develop as a business emerges...

The Church has had many cultural infusions since the restoration and this continues since we are a proselytizing church. There is only so much GA's can do about the culture that has developed over time and how it evolves. Cultural evolution takes decades.

Consider the "vain traditions of their fathers"... We try to "Come unto Christ and be perfected in Him" i.e. adopt the culture of a true disciple, but often we get mired in "mormon culture" along the way.

I have heard Elder Bednar(apostle over Africa) say that he hopes we as the local church can break free in Africa and not be so fully influenced by the entrenched culture within the church that emanates from the US.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

In another thread the topic of faith amidst troubling religious history and mistakes of leaders is being discussed. @MiserereNobis shared how his conversion to Catholicism and enduring faith has been able to endure even in light of an honest and open history and acknowledgement of mistakes by leaders at the highest levels.   Here was my response, and I want to open it up for discussion: 

I know that some who are still engrained in this culture will accuse me of being the one under illusion.   That's fine, your perceptions are your own, but I must follow my conscience and the light I perceive on this.   

Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that.  Either way, it is not a doctrine or policy in the church where I see that improvements can be made, rather it is a culture and practice that I want to improve upon for the sake of maintaining an enduring faith.  I have seen too many fall because of this culture, and I have seen enough.  Something needs to be done.  But what, exactly I don't know?  Any thoughts?      

"How well do the teachings change your life for the better?" Is my only paradigm.

Pure Pragmatism. Do they explain your experiences in life? 

There is no other "evidence" possible 

[3DOP]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"How well do the teachings change your life for the better?" Is my only paradigm.

Pure Pragmatism. Do they explain your experiences in life? 

There is no other "evidence" possible 

Hi Mark. Hi all.

We have our philosophical differences...however, if someone perceives that their faith, however certainly believed, did not work? I cannot say that my pragmatism is pure, or my only paradigm, but I have to acknowledge the necessary value of confidence that the faith you live brings forth good results for yourself, those around you, and for the glory of God. I see great value in pragmatism for maintaining one's faith. But it seems like something else had to make one decide to give that faith a try.

During the week, I had intended to start a thread to address an idea raised over on the thread, questioning how one who was originally troubled by LDS history, and then studies Catholic history, could choose to remain Catholic. I have discovered just this week, providentially it would seem, an example of a trained historian, a reluctant atheist, who eventually found his way to the Catholic Church, in spite of the historical detractors of the Catholic Church. Of some interest to you Mark, might be his passing mention of Richard Rorty in his conversion story. Anyway here is the description he gives of his website:

"My name is Darrick Taylor. I am the founder and proprietor of Controversies in Church History.

I am a professor of history at Johnson County Community College in Overland Park, Kansas. I am an adult convert to the Catholic Church, baptized while attending the university of Florida and earning a master’s degree in history. I also have a doctoral degree in history from the University of Kansas.

My podcast began as a free monthly lecture series at my parish in 2017. My goal was to help young adult Catholics learn more about the history of the Catholic Church, so that armed with knowledge, they might better defend their faith. With the pandemic and lock-downs of the past two years, I decided to continue Controversies in Church History as a podcast.

My podcast takes an in depth look at difficult, even disturbing, issues in the history of the Catholic Church. My perspective is unique, in that I hold to be true all that the Catholic Church teaches and has taught, yet I am trained as a secular historian. My podcasts are detailed, but objective in tone and presentation. If you desire to know more of the whys and wherefores behind controversial teachings (about the all-male priesthood, or contraception), or scandals which have beset the Roman communion (sexual abuse, for example), then my podcast is for you. Thank you for listening, and thank you for your support."

I am not saying that history proves everybody should be Catholic. I would never say that anti-Mormon history proves nobody should be LDS. But this, about a former faithful LDS missionary, adult volunteer who became Catholic in part, because of history, I found to be disappointing:

 "Hilarious. Reading about LDS Church history led him away. I guess he hasn’t read much Catholic history yet. But when he does, then what?"

I would have to say that those of you who approved of this post haven't "read much Catholic history yet"! I found this historian through an article he wrote for Crisis Magazine, which makes an interesting historical analysis, going back to the early part of the last century to examine why it comes to pass, that there is conflict today between two important segments of the Catholic Church:

 https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/a-unified-theory-of-backwardism

Here is his website:

https://churchcontroversies.com/

   

   

Edited December 3, 2022 by 3DOP

[CV75]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

Even within his church, the damaging culture they came from didn’t just disappear.  There was a real struggle to root it out.  A lot of what you mention ensued as a result.

Do you believe it is possible to change culture without the prices you mention?  I am not as optimistic that it is possible.  Sometimes the Lord requires struggle and division before oneness can be achieved.  The very act of holding up a light creates division and tension, even within the membership of the church.  Should we cower from holding up that light because it may cause enmity, division, judgment, etc.?  

I might not be getting your point. The Lord requires a broken heart and a contrite spirit for people to change, and as they change and unite, they develop into Zion. He calls His people Zion because "they are of one mind and one heart..." and He describes Zion as (or names it) "THE PURE IN HEART". So, a Zion culture would be built through conversion to Christ, not identifying what is wrong with x-y-z culture and setting out to change a-b-c issues. For example, there is no poor in Zion -- spiritually or temporally -- a fine way of life. Those who apply the principles of Zion in their personal lives will expand these blessings for others, through inspired individual action and inspired participation in Church councils.

I think individual aspirations to directly engineer change communities within Zion, or even the whole of Zion, comes close to seeking revelation for others or even for the Church. Political and social action to change the secular culture uses a different set of tools and skills, which I believe most people believe they exert in good faith; the proof would be in whether they or their political/social action builds Zion at the same time.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

We have our philosophical differences...however, if someone perceives that their faith, however certainly believed, did not work? I cannot say that my pragmatism is pure, or my only paradigm, but I have to acknowledge the necessary value of confidence that the faith you live brings forth good results for yourself, those around you, and for the glory of God. I see great value in pragmatism for maintaining one's faith. But it seems like something else had to make one decide to give that faith a try.

I will probably have more comments from this post- I have not even read all of it yet-  good to chat with you Rory!   For me "it works" means that it gives me all I need spiritually to know God and all that implies.  Yes it does all you mention and more more more.  THAT for me is all "pragmatic" even paying tithing.  I have even been blessed financially by paying tithing.

Just terminology- there are layers of importance and needs and all that "spiritual stuff" is included in my kind of "pragmatism".   Just explaining my semantics. 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Mark. Hi all.

We have our philosophical differences...however, if someone perceives that their faith, however certainly believed, did not work? I cannot say that my pragmatism is pure, or my only paradigm, but I have to acknowledge the necessary value of confidence that the faith you live brings forth good results for yourself, those around you, and for the glory of God. I see great value in pragmatism for maintaining one's faith. But it seems like something else had to make one decide to give that faith a try.

During the week, I had intended to start a thread to address an idea raised over on the thread, questioning how one who was originally troubled by LDS history, and then studies Catholic history, could choose to remain Catholic. I have discovered just this week, providentially it would seem, an example of a trained historian, a reluctant atheist, who eventually found his way to the Catholic Church, in spite of the historical detractors of the Catholic Church. Of some interest to you Mark, might be his passing mention of Richard Rorty in his conversion story. Anyway here is the description he gives of his website:

"My name is Darrick Taylor. I am the founder and proprietor of Controversies in Church History.

I am a professor of history at Johnson County Community College in Overland Park, Kansas. I am an adult convert to the Catholic Church, baptized while attending the university of Florida and earning a master’s degree in history. I also have a doctoral degree in history from the University of Kansas.

My podcast began as a free monthly lecture series at my parish in 2017. My goal was to help young adult Catholics learn more about the history of the Catholic Church, so that armed with knowledge, they might better defend their faith. With the pandemic and lock-downs of the past two years, I decided to continue Controversies in Church History as a podcast.

My podcast takes an in depth look at difficult, even disturbing, issues in the history of the Catholic Church. My perspective is unique, in that I hold to be true all that the Catholic Church teaches and has taught, yet I am trained as a secular historian. My podcasts are detailed, but objective in tone and presentation. If you desire to know more of the whys and wherefores behind controversial teachings (about the all-male priesthood, or contraception), or scandals which have beset the Roman communion (sexual abuse, for example), then my podcast is for you. Thank you for listening, and thank you for your support."

I am not saying that history proves everybody should be Catholic. I would never say that anti-Mormon history proves nobody should be LDS. But this, about a former faithful LDS missionary, adult volunteer who became Catholic in part, because of history, I found to be disappointing:

 "Hilarious. Reading about LDS Church history led him away. I guess he hasn’t read much Catholic history yet. But when he does, then what?"

I would have to say that those of you who approved of this post haven't "read much Catholic history yet"! I found this historian through an article he wrote for Crisis Magazine, which makes an interesting historical analysis, going back to the early part of the last century to examine why it comes to pass, that there is conflict today between two important segments of the Catholic Church:

 https://www.crisismagazine.com/opinion/a-unified-theory-of-backwardism

Here is his website:

https://churchcontroversies.com/

   

   

Thanks Rory I will check it out.

[smac97]

23 hours ago, pogi said:

I think I am speaking more of addressing the dangerous culture that bolsters the illusion of perfection amongst our leaders and history, rather than the history itself.  

I think we have been moving away from this "culture" for quite a while.  

23 hours ago, pogi said:

Quote

I think this process is about presuppositions and expectations about the Church's history/practices almost as much as - if not more than - the history/practices per se.

Yes!  Exactly.  

Beyond our history, I am also talking about how many view the leadership today.   The culture is very much alive today, and propagated by some in leadership. 

I dunno.  I think the Brethren are not particularly keen on cults of personality.  As for "propagated by some in leadership," you would need to provide some examples.  

From FAIR (emphases added) :

Quote

Joseph Smith

• “a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” ^[1]
• Altho’ I do wrong, I do not the wrongs that I am charg’d with doing—the wrong that I do is thro’ the frailty of human nature like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if he were here would be without fault in your eyes? They said all manner of evil against him—they all watch’d for iniquity….When I do the best I can—when I am accomplishing the greatest good, then the most evils are got up against me. – 31 August 1842 ^[2]
• I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught—must I then be thrown away as a thing of nought? – 12 May 1844 ^[3]

1854

…it is not the place for any person to correct any person who is superior to them, but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong. ^[4]

 

1867

We must all learn to depend upon God and upon Him alone. Why, the very man upon whom we think we can rely with unbounded confidence, and trust with all we possess, may disappoint us sometimes, but trust in God and He never fails. ^[5] The men who hold the Priesthood are but mortal men; they are fallible men. … No human being that ever trod this earth was free from sin, excepting the Son of God. … ^[6]

1858

Why do you not open the windows of heaven and get revelation for yourself? and not go whining around and saying, “do you not think that you may be mistaken? Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken?” Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right. If I am thus borne off by your prayers and faith, with my own, and suffered to lead you wrong, it proves that your faith is vain. Do not worry. ^[7]

1879

I hope what I have said may be blessed to your profit. If I have said any unwise thing, forget it. If I have said any improper thing, I hope it will pass from your minds, and that which is good, cling to you. ^[8] And then, we have bishops among us. We will treat them courteously. Have they weaknesses? Yes, they are men just like we are. “What,” say you, “have you weaknesses?” Yes, lots of them. I wish I had not sometimes, and then again I don’t wish so. ^[9]

1883

Now, was not Joseph Smith a mortal man? Yes. A fallible man? Yes. Had he not weaknesses? Yes, he acknowledged them himself, and did not fail to put the revelations on record in this book ^[10] wherein God reproved him. His weaknesses were not concealed from the people. He was willing that people should know that he was mortal, and had failings. And so with Brigham Young. Was not he a mortal man, a man who had weaknesses? He was not a God. He was not an immortal being. He was not infallible. No, he was fallible. And yet when he spoke by the power of God, it was the word of God to this people. ^[11] The First Presidency cannot claim, individually or collectively, infallibility. The infallibility is not given to men. They are fallible. ^[12]

1891

Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop; an apostle, or a president; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place, they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone, and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight, and the pure in heart are dear to Him. Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, my brethren and sisters, seek after the Holy Spirit and His unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel, and prepare a people for His coming. ^[13]

1898

I saw Joseph Smith the Prophet do things which I did not approve of; and yet…I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had these imperfections the power and authority which He placed upon him…for I knew I myself had weaknesses and I thought there was a chance for me. These same weaknesses…I knew were in Heber C. Kimball, but my knowing this did not impair them in my estimation. I thanked God I saw these imperfection. ^[14]

Twentieth Century

1907

We can and do know the truth with reference to the matters that concern our salvation . . . But with reference to matters involving merely questions of administration and policy in the Church; matters that do not involve the great and central truths of the gospel—these afford a margin wherein all the human imperfections and limitations of man, even of prophets and apostles, may be displayed…. when you take into account human weaknesses, imperfection, prejudice, passion, bias, it is too much to hope for human nature that man will constantly thus walk linked with God. And so we make this distinction between a man speaking sometimes under the influence of prejudice and pre–conceived notions, and the utterances of a man who, in behalf of the Church of God, and having the requisite authority, and holding the requisite position, may, upon occasion, lay aside all prejudice, all pre–conception, and stand ready and anxious to receive the divine impression of God’s Spirit. ^[15]

1941

Is anyone so simple as to believe he is serving the Lord when he opposes the President? Of course, the President is not infallible. He makes no claims to infallibility. But when in his official capacity he teaches and advises the members of the Church relative to their duties, let no man who wants to please the Lord say aught against the counsels of the President. ^[16]

1954

There have been rare occasions when even the President of the Church in his preaching and teaching has not been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” You will recall the Prophet Joseph declared that a prophet is not always a prophet….This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where a subsequent President of the Church and the people themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not “moved upon by the Holy Ghost. How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are “moved upon by the Holy Ghost”; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest. ^[17] We are not infallible in our judgment, and we err, but our constant prayer is that the Lord will guide us in our decisions, and we are trying so to live that our minds will be open to His inspiration. ^[18] Hugh B. Brown: The only way I know of by which the teachings of any person or group may become binding upon the church is if the teachings have been reviewed by all the brethren, submitted ot the highest councils of the church, and then approved by the whole body of the church…I do not doubt that the brethren have often spoken under inspiration and given new emphasis—perhaps even a new explanation or interpretation—of church doctrine, but that does not become binding upon the church unless and until it is submitted to the scrutiny of the rest of the brethren and later to the vote of the people. Again, we are only bound by the four standard works and are not required to defend what any man or woman says outside of them. ^[19]

1956

If I should say something which is contrary to that which is written and approved by the Church generally, no one is under obligation to accept it. Everything that I say and everything that any other person says must square itself with that which the Lord has revealed, or it should be rejected. ^[20]

1959

Joseph Smith, as prophets were and as prophets are, was subject to disappointment, even to despair; to illness, to fatigue, to frustration, and even to failure. He was just a man, after all, and he had no special immunity from any of the realities of life that prevail for all the other beings who have ever been born. ^[21]

1964

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator––please note that one exception––you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea!” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard”––it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false; regardless of the position of the man who says it. ^[22]

1965

There have been times when even the President of the Church has not been moved upon by the Holy Ghost. There is, I suppose you’d say, a classic story of Brigham Young in the time when Johnston’s army was on the move. The Saints were all inflamed, and President Young had his feelings whetted to fighting pitch. He stood up in the morning session of general conference and preached a sermon vibrant with defiance at the approaching army, declaring an intention to oppose them and drive them back. In the afternoon he rose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address the tempo of which was the exact opposite of the morning sermon. ^[23]

1966

With all their inspiration and greatness, prophets are yet mortal men with imperfections common to mankind in general. They have their opinions and prejudices and are left to work out their own problems without inspiration in many instances. Joseph Smith recorded that he “visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that ‘a prophet is always a prophet’; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” (Teachings, p. 278.) Thus the opinions and views even of prophets may contain error unless those opinions and views are inspired by the Spirit. Inspired statements are scripture and should be accepted as such. (D. & C. 68:4.) Since “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32), whatever is announced by the presiding brethren as counsel for the Church will be the voice of inspiration. But the truth or error of any uninspired utterance of an individual will have to be judged by the standard works and the spirit of discernment and inspiration that is in those who actually enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost. ^[24] Whether that happened or not, it illustrates a principle: that the Lord can move upon His people but they may speak on occasions their own opinions. ^[25]

1980

The prophets, as they walk and live among men, are common, ordinary men. Men called to apostolic positions are given a people to redeem. Theirs is the responsibility to lead those people in such a way that they win the battles of life and conquer the ordinary temptations and passions and challenges. And then, speaking figuratively, it is as though these prophets are tapped on the shoulder and reminded: “While you carry such responsibility to help others with their battles, you are not excused from your own challenges of life. You too will be subject to passions, temptations, challenges. Win those battles as best you can.” Some people are somehow dissatisfied to find in the leading servants of the Lord such ordinary mortals. They are disappointed that there is not some obvious mystery about those men; it is almost as if they are looking for the strange and the occult. To me, however, it is a great testimony that the prophets anciently and the prophets today are called out from the ranks of the ordinary men. It should not lessen our faith, for example, to learn that Elijah was discouraged at times, even despondent. (See 1Kgs.19:4.) This calling forth of ordinary men for extraordinary purposes is as evident during the Savior’s earthly mission as in former and later eras. ^[26]

1981

Now my divine commission and your divine commission is number one, to teach the principles of the gospel; number two, to teach them out of the standard works; number three, to teach them by the power of the Holy Ghost; number four, to apply them to the situation at hand; and number five, to bear a personal witness, a witness born of the Spirit that the doctrine that is taught is true. That is the teacher’s divine commission. I do not always measure up to that by any means. I guess the brethren of whom I am one do as much preaching and speaking in Church congregations as anyone, unless it is the seminary and institute teachers. There are times when I struggle and strive to get a message over and just do not seem to myself to be getting in tune with the Spirit. The fact is, it is a lot harder for me to choose what ought to be said, what subject ought to be considered, than it is for me to get up and preach it. I am always struggling and trying to get the inspiration to know what ought to be said at general conference, or in a stake conference, or whatever. If we labor at it and if we struggle, the Spirit will be given by the prayer of faith. If we do our part we will improve and grow in the things of the Spirit until we get to a position where we can, being in tune, say what the Lord wants said. That is what is expected of us. ^[27]

1987

To keep ourselves unspotted from the world….includes being aware that God’s work on earth is done by human beings, all of whom have some weaknesses. It encompasses the ability to look for the good accomplished rather than being disillusioned when human failings surface. It includes resisting the urge to proclaim such weaknesses so adamantly that the basic good is overshadowed and testimonies waver. ^[28]

1989

We make no claim of infallibility or perfection in the prophets, seers, and revelators. ^[29] We who have been called to lead the Church are ordinary men and women with ordinary capacities struggling to administer a church which grows at such a pace as to astound even those who watch it closely. Some are disposed to find fault with us; surely that is easy for them to do. But they do not examine us more searchingly than we examine ourselves. A call to lead is not an exemption from the challenges of life. We seek for inspiration in the same way that you do, and we must obey the same laws which apply to every member of the Church. We are sorry for our inadequacies, sorry we are not better than we are. We can feel, as you can see, the effect of the aging process as it imposes limitations upon His leaders before your very eyes. ^[30]

1991

Every student of church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among church leaders since the Church was organized. ^[31] …even with the best of intentions, it [the governance of the Church by mortal priesthood holders] does not always work the way it should. Human nature may express itself on occasion, but not to the permanent injury of the work. ^[32]

1994

The members’ faith in the Brethren as living Apostles and prophets not only provides the needed direction but also clearly sustains those leaders in their arduous chores. There is more to it than this, however. Sustaining them also means that we realize those select men are conscious of their own imperfections; each is even grateful that the other Brethren have strengths and talents he may not have. The gratitude of the Brethren for being so sustained thus includes appreciation for members’ willingness to overlook the imperfections of the overseers. The faithful realize the Apostles are working out their salvation, too, including the further development of the Christlike virtues. Serious discipleship requires us all to be “on the way to perfection” rather than thinking we are already in the arrival lounge. ^[33]

1995

I’ve known a few prophets. You’ll hear them criticized and attacked, and people will sometimes talk about their failures or their weaknesses, because they’re not perfect. ^[34] Clearly, my problem and your problem is to hear the word of God from and through imperfect teachers and leaders. ^[35]

Twenty-First Century

2001

Good but imperfect prophets are especially likely to be slandered. Nor are they immune from trials. In fact, of the responsibilities of priesthood leaders, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The higher the authority, the greater the difficulty of the station.” President John Taylor further said, “God tries people according to the position they occupy.” Near the end, the Prophet noted, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” The Prophet Joseph, then and since, has been subjected to intense mortal scrutiny. Yet, as prophesied, many in the world ever continue to “inquire after [his]name” (D&C 122:1). ^[36]

2012

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find. The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; 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” (Ether 12:6). ^[37] At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader past or present necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well considered, opinion not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is a prophet only when he is acting as such. ^[38]

2013

We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself. He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be. In May 1844 Joseph declared, “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” And he had commented earlier, “Although I do wrong, I do not the wrongs I’m charged with doing. The wrong that I do is through the frailty of human nature like other men. No man lives without fault. Do you think that even Jesus, if he were here, would be without fault in your eyes? His enemies said all manner of evil against him, and they all watched for iniquity in him.” Joseph was a mortal man striving to fulfill an overwhelming divinely appointed mission against all odds. The wonder is not that he ever displayed human failings, but that he succeeded in his mission. His fruits are both undeniable and incomparable. ^[39] 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. It is unfortunate that some have stumbled because of mistakes made by men. ^[40]

We don't do ourselves or the Brethren any favors when we put them on pedestals or when we hold them to unreasonable (though often tacit) expectations of perfection.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

It is a culture that has tentacles within leadership itself.

I guess I'd need to see some examples of this.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

There doesn't seem to be room for the Orson Pratts today.

I don't know about that.  That the Brethren abstain from disagreeing with each other publicly (Elder Pratt and Brother Brigham tended toward public disagreements here and there) does not, in my view, equate to the absence of substantive disagreement between them.  Both my father and my brother have had extensive experience in working with General Authorities, and there seems to be plenty of spirited - yet cordial - disagreement between them as to various matters.  Hence the whole "counseling in councils" thing.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

How do we create a healthy spiritual place for the Orson Pratts of our day to thrive without scorn and ridicule from the more orthodoxic members of this culture which sustains the illusion of perfection and cuts down anyone who disagrees with the leadership and voices their opinions.

You would need to explain what you mean by "the Orson Pratts of our day."  Would you apply this label to, say, Sam Young?  Kate Kelly?  Bill Reel?  Denver Snuffer?  Natasha Helfer?

Or do you have in mind people more akin to Richard L. Bushman, Neylan McBaine, and so on?

Joseph Smith said: "I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

I'm not particularly inclined to give a presumption of goodwill and pure motives for self-selected agitators, activists, etc., which pretty much always end up (or start out as) the type described by Joseph above.

Conversely, I am very grateful to members of the Church who are genuinely devoted to the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it, who sustain the Brethren while not imputing onto them unreasonable expectations or making public disparagements about them, who do not indulge in self-aggrandizement, who do not resort to pressure tactics to get their way, who do not seek to foment ill will and adverse public opinion against the Brethren for coercive purposes, who generally adhere to these principles laid out by then-Elder Oaks way back in 1987, and so on. 

23 hours ago, pogi said:

It is the silencing and shaming of those who vocally disagree that creates this culture of fear and upholds this false illusion of perfection. 

I guess you'll have to explain what "vocally disagree" means.

I think the "culture of fear" and "false illusion of perfections" are substantial exaggerations.

I do not refrain from publicly speaking or working against the Brethren out of "fear."  It is, instead, a matter of keeping covenants, obeying the commandments, following the scriptures, pursuing unity, and so on.

There are some who seem to view the Church as a political construct, with leaders who are answerable to their constituents (as opposed to being representatives of Jesus Christ).  This is evidenced by resorting to public pressure tactics and other behaviors which are incompatible with enduring discipleship.  

23 hours ago, pogi said:

This is a common difficulty I run into when attempting to make a dent and change in church culture surrounding these ideas.

Change through persuasion, longsuffering, patience, etc. is hard, but I think that's the tack we are generally supposed to take.  

Stewardship and authority matter.  A lot.  Unity and cohesion matter.  Sustaining the Brethren matters.  The above link to Elder Oaks' talk in 1987 has been highly influential to my thinking on this matter.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

I have regularly been criticized for the very things you say here because I am perceived as one who is fault-finding, etc. 

How do you differentiate whatever it is you do from "fault-finding"?

How do you ascertain when it is appropriate for you to offer constructive criticism to leaders in the Church?

Do you think the time, place and manner of such criticism are reasonable considerations?

Have you read the above 1987 article by Elder Oaks?  What do you think of it?

23 hours ago, pogi said:

So, the dilemma is that I am trying to tear down the illusion of perfection by highlighting the human side of religion (which shouldn't really be troubling, but it is for many). 

This is too abstract for me.  I guess I'd need to see some examples.

I love my wife a lot, yet I have no illusions about her being perfect.  While there are things that I think she might want to consider doing to improve herself, I would never in a million years air such things in the public square, nor would I invite others to join me in "acknowledging" her faults and errors. 

There is a vast gulf between me offering private constructive input / feedback / criticism to her versus, say, the coercively public rhetoric/tactics used by Sam Young, Kate Kelly, Bill Reel, and so on.  Again, Elder Oaks' article goes a long way for me.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

I want people to be spiritually comfortable and at peace in imperfection - that requires acknowledging fault to get people to be more comfortable with it and stop avoiding it and tucking it away.   

I don't know what "acknowledging fault" means in this context.  It feels like it either starts with, or will devolve into, "dwelling on faults," "holding and lording faults over others," "using to coerce others to my preferred way of things," and so on.

No community can survive endless navel-gazing and fault-finding of its leaders.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

By acknowledging fault,

I can't help but interpret this as "By acknowledging {the} fault{s} {of leaders of the Church, mostly the dead ones}."

23 hours ago, pogi said:

one is going to be judged and perceived as a fault finder,

Could you elaborate on the difference between "acknowledging fault" (in others) and "fault-finding" (in others)?

The leaders of the Church acknowledge their flaws and limitations.  We know they exist.  But by endlessly dwelling on and re-hashing the flaws and mistakes of our leaders, I think we run the very real risk of defining our leaders by those flaws and mistakes.

Back in February I made the following observation:

Quote

There is a strong temptation in our "Cancel Culture"-saturated mileu to reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities.  So Moses becomes a murderer.  Noah becomes a drunkard.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington become slaveowners.  Martin Luther King, Jr. becomes an adulterer and plagiarist.  Gandhi was a sexist and racist.  And that's all they were.

Or . . . not.

Mormon 9:31 comes to mind: "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."

23 hours ago, pogi said:

but by ignoring fault and tucking it under the rug, then we are only sustaining this toxic culture of false illusion.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  

When you speak with black people about Martin Luther King, Jr., do you insist on perpetually "acknowledging" (for fear of "ignoring" and "tucking" away) his dissertation plagiarism, his purported "45 extramarital lovers," how he once apparently “'looked on, laughed and offered advice' to a peer who was raping a woman," etc.?

When you speak with people from India about Mahatma Gandhi, you you insist on pointing out that he was "notorious for sleeping with other women ... {who} either married, extremely young, or both," his mistreatment of his wife, his fairly overt racism against Africans, his advocacy of Jews committing mass genocide, and so on?

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

Should I care that others judge me wrongly?  Maybe not.

I think you should do what is right.  

I also think the calculus involved in discerning what is right can and ought to involve consideration of prophetic counsel on this issue. 

I also think it is difficult to maintain a sense of proportion and fairness when one is focused on the flaws and errors of others, and on persuading other people to share in that focus.

23 hours ago, pogi said:

I suppose it would be naïve to push back against the dominant culture and expect no strong resistance.   I don't like confrontation though.  I don't know how to move forward towards what I believe is a healthier culture and faith without sewing some discord.   That is the dilemma I face. 

I think you are playing with fire here.  I think you run the risk of defining others principally by their faults, of doing so publicly, and of .  That sort of outlook tends to spill out beyond its originally-intended boundaries.  Look at Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  How much of their fault-finding and vilification started out with ostensibly good intentions, but ended up . . . badly?

We have no shortage at all of people who are very willing to trumpet and broadcast each and every character flaw, mistake, sin, etc. of the Latter-day Saints.  Particularly of our leaders, and more particularly of our long-dead leaders.  Do you really think you will strengthen and improve our community of faith by doing . . . whatever it is you are proposing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 3, 2022 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

Wow. 

[mfbukowski]

On 12/2/2022 at 1:03 PM, smac97 said:

I'm reminded of this clip from a recent movie starring Cate Blanchett:

"Separating the art from the artist" is the worst problem we have in the church and that is DIRECTLY RELATED/ANALOGOUS to the problem of historicity, and I promised that I would get back to you on that one.  Both involve faultfinding in texts or works of art using alleged factors which are irrelevant to seeing the work "as it is" in itself.

It's interesting to me that you insist on the historicity, say of Nephites, for the gospel to be "true" and yet defend the errors of Joseph and the general authorities.

Prophets, it is said cannot make mistakes.  Scriptures must be historical.   I don't believe either of those, and yet it appears you think one is OK but seem rather strict on the other.

I don't get it.

AND we still gotta get to historicity one of these days.....   also the following post after the link

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74898-writing-about-the-book-of-mormon-as-an-environmentalist/?do=findComment&comment=1210122384

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by mfbukowski