A More Enduring Faith through a Partial Disillusionment

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Culture/tradition largely influences both the individual and counsels.  Joseph Smith himself really struggled with this dilemma:

Culture can be an impedance to the preparation of our minds to receive the things of God.   That problem is clearly identified in this quote.  

I find that to be a description of human nature, not the Restoration culture.

Edited December 4, 2022 by CV75

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I think Jonah was probably intended to satirical. 

There is some satire. Along with a very lenient attitude towards non-believers and seeing good in them. You see Assyria suddenly mass repent. The more poignant example is in the ship when they decide they have to throw someone overboard as someone had to have offended the gods for the storm to be this bad. Then when Jonah confesses they choose not to throw him in (touched by his honesty?) and strive harder to bring the ship in until they realize it is hopeless.

Also Jonah going up on a hill to watch the Assyrians burn and getting ticked off by his shelter withering up. If it were not intended as metaphor the correct response is to find another shaded spot.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I find that to be a description of human nature, not the Restoration culture.

"Human nature" is too broad.  Joseph Smith was specifically talking about "traditions of men" (aka culture) that corrupt the minds of the saints and inhibit them from progression in the gospel.  These traditions/cultures exist in the church.  I don't know what you mean by "the Restoration culture'.   There is not just one culture within the restoration movement, but there are harmful ones that inhibit progress. 

Edited December 4, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"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.

I'm afraid I don't understand the analogy.  Could you elaborate?

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's interesting to me that you insist on the historicity, say of Nephites, for the gospel to be "true"

Broadly ,yes.

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

and yet defend the errors of Joseph and the general authorities.

I have not done this.  To acknowledge that Joseph Smith and other men are not perfect is not to "defend" their imperfections.

I also commented on Martin Luther King's "errors," and Gandhi's, but I did not "defend" those errors, either.

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Prophets, it is said cannot make mistakes.  Scriptures must be historical.   

What you say here is very far removed from what I think.  As for the former ("Prophets ... cannot make mistakes"), you are 100% reversing what I think.  As to the latter, you are substantially oversimplifying my position on historicity.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

I have discussed historicity many, many times.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Human nature" is too broad.  Joseph Smith was specifically talking about "traditions of men" (aka culture) that corrupt the minds of the saints and inhibit them from progression in the gospel.  These traditions/cultures exist in the church.  I don't know what you mean by "the Restoration culture'.   There is not just one culture within the restoration movement, but there are harmful ones that inhibit progress. 

Let's not move away from the discussion of culture, which isn't much less broad than human nature. Tradition and religious tradition are finer subsets of subsets of society and are often counter-cultural in nature. This is why human nature -- including a tendency to hold to religious tradition -- better describes what Jospeh said was getting in the way of some Saints' accepting his new doctrine (in this quote, temple work). He said, "The question is frequently asked, can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances &c.?" History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844], Page 1866 (josephsmithpapers.org) -- this was and remains a common religious tradition (salvation without ordinances), but more broadly is a natural (for human reasoning at least) question from anyone. As converts, they carried many traditions with them into their new way of life, which I referred to as the Restoration culture for convenience (but call it whatever you wish).

I'm not seeing new doctrine entailed in advancing the faith of individuals (both those born into families many generations into the Church and recent converts) who struggle with leaders' mistakes, or the need to do so at the levels of Mormon culture and religious tradition. I think your question can be better answered if you can find a quote on how Jospeh addressed faith crises fomented by having false expectations of Church leaders. 

[CV75]

Personal emphasis on (faith in) the Savior is the key to offsetting disappointment in Church leaders, based in both false and correct assumptions and expectations for them. I hear plenty of counsel on this topic at General Conference that promulgates correct expectations of her leaders. I've even seen approaches taken in the "Saints" series to apply this principle in the historical narrative. Providing an example and working in councils at any level at our disposal is the best way to accomplish this to benefit others. The Lord said we will have the poor always with us, and this is one form of poverty. We have a way of addressing temporal poverty in the Church, which is always improving, and a way to address this particular kind of spiritual poverty. Improvement in both areas involves proper understanding and use of what we currently have at our disposal.

Edited December 4, 2022 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm right there with you buddy.  Always have been.

I am trying to find pragmatic solutions to a massive problem of disillusionment leading to lost faith.  I am convinced a large part of the problem is the illusion in the first place.  We need to separate faith from this illusion.  There simply is no good reason to leave the church for finding out that we have some concerning history or imperfect leaders who gave a bogus blessing, etc. 

The illusion is the problem.  We need to stop propping it up. 

I don't believe that disillusionment is the problem, it is the illusion.  Faith can endure disillusionment, and become stronger for it.  I know that is true in my own life. 

Yes this is exactly right- the problem is that the entire civilization has gone down the path of the "correspondence theory of truth"- meaning that since language perfectly "mirrors" nature (👎🏾) truth then is correspondence with "reality".  And it gets confused farther.  Truth is reality.  And so things that are true must be real- and real things must be 

The view is based on the idea that what humans see IS reality- cars and pianos and trees and bugs really ARE as the way we perceive them and THEN of course since since we SEE things perfectly then we can make up perfect words to capture those mirrored things and not only SEE reality but SAY it and so communicate to another precise statements of truth and falsity.

So right there we have    multiple levels of ambiguity between what is "real" /true and what is not.

1- My Rorty quote- YES of course there is a world out there- we are not talking about brain in a vat stuff or ANYTHING close.   But what we SEE / HEAR/FEEL/TASTE/ SMELL ARE ultimately neural events in our brain.

So what we call "reality" CANNOT ultimately BE "reality" but what our brains make up out of the CAUSES of our sensory responses.

That's one level of ambiguity we cannot avoid.

2- So now we have to put those brain perceptions into language.

We do that with symbols- grunts and whistles and every sound the human mouth can make OR since now we can write also, clever beings that we are- we can make little squiggles on a page that of course represent the grunts which represent the brain perceptions which represent reality.  You get the idea.

3- Then we put those squiggles or grunts out into the world and other beings receive them and they receive them perfectly and identically  reconstruct them into identical copies of what was said- in THEIR brains and then perfectly convey to their own perfect brains our perfectly understood  notions of reality not filtered by human consciousness.(sarcasm)

So how many layers of ambiguity are there?  Much more than I have represented yet here.   But I won't go on- you get the idea.

So we start with a cause of perceptions we can never see directly- because all we can perceive is what our brain shows us, and assume that we have a perfect mirror of reality in our minds, which of course we don't.   But we can agree on the perceptions of others because their brains are doing the same as our brains, so we agree with those who see things as we do

So this is the illusion- but now the cracks are appearing.

Philosophers have led the way with new theories of epistmology, now back to the end of the Enlightenment in the days of Kant and Hume that show serious serious problems in these kinds of old theories, and they have led, long story short, to what is called "Postmodernism"

And so to the title of disillusionment leading to an even more enduring faith, I think that concept is right on the money.

People felt and had religious experience and yet science told them that that could never be "true".  After all there was no visible evidence of God therefore He did not exist.  After all for statements to be true there had to be EVIDENCE.

But wait a minute!!   Where is the evidence that nothing is true without "evidence" that must be seen?  Is it true that killing people is wrong?  Where is the evidence?  Do humans have rights just for being human?   There's no objective evidence for that either.

And then there is all the stuff only scientists can know for themselves- like the existence of atoms, lotsa stuff in astronomy and the age of the earth and all that.  I posted earlier about my great grandmother's difficulty in believing that her solid rocking chair is "actually" space and squirming atoms.   SHE had no evidence for that personally- she was born in the 1870's in a small town in Poland.   So IF she was a positivist and demanded evidence for atoms, good luck- she had to listen to scientists.   So how is that different than listening to the Priest?  One says God exists and the other says God doesn't exist!   Who do you want to believe?

At any rate I don't know of an influential philosopher today who accepts the "correspondence" theory of truth today- all have moved TOWARD other theories of truth

There are NO active serious arguments today that "evidence" is the only path to "truth"; that view is called Positivism, and it is dead.  Just google "positivism is dead" to see the zillions of articles you will find agreeing that positivism is dead and virtually none disagreeing with that point.

So yes, we have come full circle.

Folks used to be disillusioned that God COULD exist without scientific evidence and holding that opinion, but they had an enduring faith that now has been justified through different theories of truth like Neopragmatism and others.  There are now serious theological schools called "Empirical Theology" and "Radical Orthodoxy which seek to include forms of postmodernism to see religion with different eyes, and William James' Radical Empricism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy

https://www.religion-online.org/article/empirical-theology-a-revisable-tradition/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism#:~:text=Radical empiricism is a philosophical,a place in our explanations.

 

 

 

 

[CV75]

How come no one has brought up this article from the Salt Lake tribune? How activists influence The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sltrib.com)

Is it because the newspaper is incorrect in that the changes were the result of "vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change" (Google's Oxford Dictionary, Wikipedia is similar, which adds reform and other areas of reform such as the environment and economy)?  Or is it because none of these other examples involved disillusionment and faith crises over leadership? Some other reason (I see they make you pay now to read it, LOL)?

Edited December 5, 2022 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

On 12/2/2022 at 3:48 PM, CV75 said:

Start small!  ! (See my post above).

The problem with that then is one ends up treating a major hemorrhage with a band aid as we watch wards shrink weekly.   People need to know right NOW that it is fully rational to believe in God and religion even if YOUR God and YOUR religion differ from others.   Picking the "best" religion is a different question than seeing all religious people  as laughable knuckle-dragging weirdos.

Edited December 5, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 12/2/2022 at 3:08 PM, pogi said:

 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. 

My attitude is that in my days before I did my research and feel that I can now justify religion as "rational", I would have been seeking for those answers already.  " Is there a way to see religion as "rational"? for me was almost an obsession- and yes of course that is cognitive bias- but what belief is NOT?

I had to thread my way through Western philosophy to find the winding path that did that for me.   There ARE times for turning over the tables of the moneychangers but I can't see how a cultural change toward postmodernism will "sew discord" when active members who see it as a problem understand that yes, they had it right all along, it IS rational to believe in religion, as much as it is to believe in global warming, human rights and morality.

It's all about understanding that their whole epistemological understanding has gone down the wrong path from Aristotle on.   Heraclitus should have won that battle, and the world would now be a better place.

I cannot imagine a world that started out with postmodernism 2500 years ago!   Where would we be now?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm afraid I don't understand the analogy.  Could you elaborate?

Broadly ,yes.

I have not done this.  To acknowledge that Joseph Smith and other men are not perfect is not to "defend" their imperfections.

I also commented on Martin Luther King's "errors," and Gandhi's, but I did not "defend" those errors, either.

What you say here is very far removed from what I think.  As for the former ("Prophets ... cannot make mistakes"), you are 100% reversing what I think.  As to the latter, you are substantially oversimplifying my position on historicity.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I have discussed historicity many, many times.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry for the misunderstanding

[Calm]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Improvement and progress aren't only about changing what is wrong (good, better, best, etc.). There are no unfair laws in Zion. Church councils are better than government and non-profit mechanisms for establishing Zion and resolving problematic issues along the way.

But Zion doesn’t magically appear, it will be built on at least the remains of other cultures and it will exist within a government setting at least until Christ comes (or government collapses and we are therefore in the middle of a global disaster).  Just as happened when the gospel was restored, converts brought in their cultures, their bigotry, their misunderstandings of scripture, etc and imported it into the new church’s culture…some of these effects we are still dealing with (antiCatholic attitudes for example where some members still believe the Great and Abominable is the RCC and the fact we are working with Catholic Charities offend them and I have even seen the Church’s participation with Catholics, Muslims, etc used as evidence the Church is going astray).

You appear to be talking about the end result while Pogi is thinking about how to get there…at least I don’t see how church councils are going to be able to deal with business disputes and such between members or law enforcement, etc. At this point any attempt at a Zion community will be a hybrid at best even if the community tries to isolate itself as it will still be within a nation’s borders.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

I think you are largely misunderstanding me and jumping to conclusions.  

I am happy to be corrected.  Hence my request for you to clarify what you are saying ("As for 'propagated by some in leadership,' you would need to provide some examples" ... "I guess I'd need to see some examples of this" ... "You would need to explain what you mean by 'the Orson Pratts of our day'" ... "I guess you'll have to explain what 'vocally disagree' means" ... "This is too abstract for me.  I guess I'd need to see some examples" ... "Could you elaborate on the difference between 'acknowledging fault' (in others) and 'fault-finding' (in others)" ... "I'm not sure what you mean by this" ... "I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here")

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

Read my last response to CV75.  

Okay.  You said to CV:

Quote

We clearly are not a zion people yet.  The point isn't oneness in and of itself.  It is to be one in Christ.  

I agree.  We need more unity and cohesion, not less, in order to improve here.  Members of the Church appointing themselves to publicly criticize the leaders of the Church are not, I think, going to facilitate that.

Again, we have plenty of critics, apostates, and so on who are very willing to publicly castigate the leaders of the Church.  We have no shortage of second-guessers, fault-finders, ark-steadiers, and so on.

Quote

If a culture leads too many away from Christ, than we should not seek to be one in that culture, but to anxiously engaged in good work to increase oneness in Christ and hedge up our way against unnecessary pitfalls.  The point of the gospel is to lift others, to be an example, to be an influence for good. 

Sounds wonderful.

I don't think that objective is advanced by publicly dwelling/focusing on the faults and mistakes of past and present leaders of the Church.  From Elder Oaks:

Quote

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.
...
My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. The Bible commands us to avoid “evil speakings.” (See 1 Pet. 2:1.) It tells us to “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you.” (Eph. 4:31.) Modern revelations direct us to avoid “backbiting,” “evil speaking,” and “find[ing] fault one with another.” (See D&C 20:53–54; D&C 42:27; D&C 88:124; and D&C 136:23.)

We are given these commandments for a reason. The Apostle Paul advised the Saints to “grieve not the holy Spirit of God” (Eph. 4:30) by evil speaking. Of faultfinders, President Brigham Young said, “The Spirit of God has no place in [such] persons.” (Journal of Discourses, 8:13.) The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize.
...
One who focuses on faults, though they be true, tears down a brother or a sister. The virtues of patience, brotherly kindness, mutual respect, loyalty, and good manners all rest to some degree on the principle that even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it to any and all persons at any and all times.

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: “The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.” (3 Ne. 11:29.) Paul taught the Romans: “Mark them which cause divisions … and avoid them.” (Rom. 16:17.) In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)
...
Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.)
...

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

 

There is nothing new about this counsel. Even though King Saul sought to kill him, David would not allow his companion to strike the king, saying, “for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” (1 Sam. 26:9.) The prophet Isaiah denounced those who “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate” (Isa. 29:21; see also 2 Ne. 27:32.) (Those who reproved in the gate in Isaiah’s time were the religious leaders.) This modern revelation from the Doctrine and Covenants is to the same effect:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.” (D&C 121:16.)

The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people.

President David O. McKay said this about what he called “murmurers” and “faultfinders”:

“‘Speak not against the authorities.’ What does it mean? Be not a murmurer; that is what it means. It is one of the most poisonous things that can be introduced into the home of a Latter-day Saint—this murmuring against presidents of stakes, high councilors, Sunday School superintendents, etc. …

“Better stop murmuring and build. Remember that one of the worst means of tearing down an individual is slander. It is one of the most poisonous weapons that the evil one uses. Backbiting and evil speaking throw us into the class of malefactors rather than the class of benefactors.” (Gospel Ideals, Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953, pp. 142–43.)

The entire article is worth a read.

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

You seem to think I am on a mission to highlight mistakes and imperfections in the church and our leaders.  That is not me.  

I am glad to hear that.  Though this sure seems to come across that way: "Some may accuse me of grass-roots activism for change in the church, I am ok with that."

And this: "It is the silencing and shaming of those who vocally disagree..."

And this: "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)."

And this: "I don't know how to move forward towards what I believe is a healthier culture and faith without sewing some discord."

And this: "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."

And this: "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."

These various remarks sound an awful lot like Kate Kelly, Bill Reel, Sam Young, and so on.  I am concerned that in pursuing your stated objective you will end up on that "mission."  These and many others have ended up that way.  I think they all started out with likely good intentions, but they opted to utilize methods that, well, tended for focus on finding fault, criticizing, second-guessing, and so on.

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

I am out to tame the fears of acknowledging mistakes and human side of our religion and leaders.  

Again, I don't know what this means.  It sounds like some sort of code to obscure and/or preemptively justify doing what the scriptures, then-Elder Oaks, and other leaders have told us to avoid.  Hence my request for examples of what you have in mine.

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

I want to highlight the good, but not view other with suspicion or shame for acknowledging their perspectives of imperfection.  It seems our culture is comfortable acknowledging that our leaders our imperfect, but the SECOND anyone addresses a specific problem they see in the church or a leader, then they are a villain and a fault finder out for blood.  That, too me, is unhealthy.  There is a better way.  

I'm not saying candid discussion of our history can't be done.  Richard Bushman has done it quite admirably, as have the Hales.  But there are far more examples of people who, though initially well-intentioned, end up . . . not well.  So what a proposed "better way" of discussing such things involves things like self-appointed members - such as yourself, apparently - resorting to "grass-roots activism for change in the Church," to "vocally disagree{ing}" with the Brethren, to "sowing some discord," and so on, I tend to get a bit leery.

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

I don't think I am exaggerating the culture of fear.  

I think you are.  I think most observant Latter-day Saints avoid publicly criticizing the Brethren not because they live in a "culture of fear," but rather out of love, out of a desire to sustain and support, and so on.  

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

Anytime I acknowledge what I perceive to be a mistake or room for improvement in the church, I am usually attacked, demanded, compared to Bill Reel, John Dehlin, Kate, kelly (not saying you are doing this, but there definitely seems to be some suspicion), told that I am "playing with fire" that I am a "fault-finder", etc. etc. etc. etc.  

C'mon, Pogi. 

I have read and listened to Bushman, the Hales, and many others who speak candidly about the flaws and errors of the Church and its leaders, and have come away with appreciation because it is pretty clear that they love and are devoted to the Church. 

But look at the risible terminology you are using: "grass-roots activism for change," "sowing some discord," "changing a dominant, damaging culture ... {via fomenting} resistance, competition, enmity, judgement," "holding up a light creates division and tension..."  How on earth can you say such things and then get tetchy when someone responds . . . precisely in the way you intended?

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

There is a clear difference in tone and openness from others within our faith who are not so blinded by this need to uphold this facade of perfection among our leaders.  

See, I think you are really off base here.  I just don't see the Latter-day Saints being "blinded" by a "need" to "uphold" a "facade of perfection among our leaders."  You are asserting, but not demonstrating, that this is a problem.  So can you?  Can you cite to articles, social media posts, etc. which substantiate this claim?

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

I am simply asking for suggestions on what we can do to hedge up against this all too common reason for lost faith.

It's not that difficult, I think.  People who do not harbor unrealistic expectations of perfection are, in the main, staying true to their covenants and are doing fine.

Conversely, folks who have - either intentionally or accidentally - fallen into the "Cancel Culture"-saturated mileu are the ones who encounter problems.  They reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities.  They define the individual by his flaws, giving no real consideration to his virtues.

I again ask you these two questions:

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?

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

I am not imagining the risk and danger in this culture to faith.  What can we do to change culture for the better?

Any number of things.  Publicly speaking against the Brethren, however, is not one of them.  Frankly, it is not our job.  The Brethren can (and do) correct each other, and again, we already have tons of critics, apostates, etc. who are all too willing to point out GA's flaws, mistakes, errors, etc.

I admire the desire to improve the Church, but I think you are running a real risk in trying to do this by resorting to "activism," "vocally disagree{ing}," "sowing some discord," etc., and doing these things by what will either start with or end up as publicly criticizing and finding fault with the Brethren.

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

It seemed like we were on the same page until I insinuated that there might be an imperfection in leadership in propagating this culture. 

Nope.  I have no notions of "perfection in leadership," so it wouldn't make sense for me to objection to the notion of "imperfection in leadership."

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

That seemed to have triggered something in you to view me with suspicion and warning of "fire".  What happened?  You don't even know what I am talking about specifically. 

See above.  In this context, phrases like "grass-roots activism for change in the church" and "vocally disagree{ing} {with the Brethren}" and "sewing some discord" come across rather badly.  

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

To answer your question - definitely ala Richard Bushman.  

Do you really think Richard Bushman speaks of  "grass-roots activism for change in the church" and "vocally disagree{ing} {with the Brethren}" and "sewing some discord?"

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

Many seem to be more comfortable to talk about our history in a more open way without triggering fear and shame.  I hope that one day we can talk in the same peace and openness with a lens of faithfulness regarding the present as well.  That still seems to be off-limits. 

When couched in risible, adversarial, coercive, politically-tinged terminology, "off-limits" seems to be apt.

You continue to speak in broad terms, and not give examples of what you have in mind.

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

I agree with you that the pendulum is swinging the other way, I am simply asking how we can help it along.  Nothing to be afraid of here. 

Again, 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.

Look, I hope I'm misunderstanding you.  But your rhetoric sounds far more like Kate Kelly, Bill Reel, Sam Young, Julienna Viegas-Haws than Richard Bushman and the Hales.

I just don't think political tactics are appropriately deployed publicly against the Brethren by self-appointed members.  Back in 2016, jkwilliams started a thread about (politically) "progressive Mormons."  In that thread I made some comments that, though directed at "ProgMormons," has equal utility as to people of any political persuasion when describing members who, via rhetoric, tactics, etc., start treating the Brethren like politicians:

Quote

1. Fusing Politics w/ Religious Belief is Dangerous: I think there is danger in fusing religious belief with political ideology.  The former can and should inform the latter, but there are always going to be some incompatibilities between them.  So the two need to be kept somewhat separate.

2. The Church is Not a Political Construct: I think there is danger in Latter-day Saints treating the LDS Church as a political construct.  That is, that the leaders are somehow elected by the membership of the Church, that they are "answerable" to us in the sense of developing and promulgating teachings and practices that should conform to the expectations of self-selected agitators within the Church.  There is also quite a bit of encouragement of "factionalization," with agitators working to divvy up the body of the Church, and then pitting the subgroupings against each other (gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, socioeconomic condition, etc.).  Consequently, some members feel at liberty to seize upon these tactics and rhetoric, which are normally used to pressure / coerce political leaders into taking a particular course of action, and deploy them against the Church and its leaders.  This tendency is destructive, divisive, and inappropriate.  See, e.g., Elder Oaks' remarks here.

3. Some "ProgMormons" Treat the Church as a Political Construct: I think the foregoing tendency - deploying politically-derived tactics and rhetoric in and against the Church and its leaders and members - is very off-putting to most active Latter-day Saints - including some (many?) "progressive" ones.  Kate Kelly is a good example of someone who views the Church in this way.  So is Julienna Viegas-Haws.  And more recently, Carol Lynn Pearson.  

I am open to correction on this, but my general sense is that so-called "Progressive Mormons" are more susceptible to this sort of thing.  (NOTE: I should note here that Latter-day Saints with other-than-"progressive" ideologies also create problems in the Church when they inject their politics into Church settings.)

4. Political Ideology Should Not Predominate Over Religious Principles: I think there is danger in letting the political ideology predominate over religious principles and beliefs.  As noted above, there is no political party or platform or ideology that perfectly meshes with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This has never happened, and it never will, not until "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess {at Judgment Day that Jesus Christ is our Lord}."  (Mosiah 27:31).  So we all make compromises and accommodations.  We look for political candidates, parties, and ideologies that hew most closely to those principles we deem important.  The Church reminds us every election cycle that all political parties have principles consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that we each should use prayer and research to study each individual candidate and issue and reach decisions relating thereto.

Nevertheless, political ideology should not dictate our religious views and decisions.  That is, some of us look at what trends are politically (and socially) popular with our peers, and then let that popularity have greater influence over us than the scriptures, the counsel of modern prophets and apostles, and the Spirit.  I think this is a mistake, as our moral code will be better when it is based on principles revealed to us from God through prophets and through personal revelation.  This will keep us well-grounded amidst the storms of varied opinions and ideologies.  In other words, faith should predominate.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4).

In contrast, letting popular social/political trends and ideologies determine our moral code will, I think, not work well for us.  There are too many conflicting and contradictory ideas being thrown into the mix.  Too many secret combinations.  Too many notions which sound nice superficially, but which in reality are corruptions and perversions.  So a person whose moral code is determined by the prevailing sociopolitical trends of the day is going to have a hard time, perhaps even to the point of abandoning the Restored Gospel.  "But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they."  (Mormon 5:18).

5. Some "ProgMormons" Let Political Ideologies Dictate Their Moral Code (and So Do Some Conservatives):  I think the foregoing tendency (letting political/popular ideologies and trends predominate over prophetic/apostolic counsel and the Spirit) is a problem for some "Progressive" Latter-day Saints.  I also think this is not a problem restricted to the "Progressives" among us, as I see plenty of politically "conservative" Latter-day Saints (and members with other political inclinations as well) doing the same thing.

6. We All Need Wiggle Room: At the end of the day, in terms of holding religious and political points of view, there will always be issues about which reasonable minds can disagree as to both spheres.  We need to give each other some substantial elbow room to allow for principled and respectful disagreement, while remaining brothers and sisters in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by smac97

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Philosophers have led the way with new theories of epistmology, now back to the end of the Enlightenment in the days of Kant and Hume that show serious serious problems in these kinds of old theories, and they have led, long story short, to what is called "Postmodernism"

And so to the title of disillusionment leading to an even more enduring faith, I think that concept is right on the money.

People felt and had religious experience and yet science told them that that could never be "true".  After all there was no visible evidence of God therefore He did not exist.  After all for statements to be true there had to be EVIDENCE.

But wait a minute!!   Where is the evidence that nothing is true without "evidence" that must be seen?  Is it true that killing people is wrong?  Where is the evidence?  Do humans have rights just for being human?   There's no objective evidence for that either.

And then there is all the stuff only scientists can know for themselves- like the existence of atoms, lotsa stuff in astronomy and the age of the earth and all that.  I posted earlier about my great grandmother's difficulty in believing that her solid rocking chair is "actually" space and squirming atoms.   SHE had no evidence for that personally- she was born in the 1870's in a small town in Poland.   So IF she was a positivist and demanded evidence for atoms, good luck- she had to listen to scientists.   So how is that different than listening to the Priest?  One says God exists and the other says God doesn't exist!   Who do you want to believe?

At any rate I don't know of an influential philosopher today who accepts the "correspondence" theory of truth today- all have moved TOWARD other theories of truth

There are NO active serious arguments today that "evidence" is the only path to "truth"; that view is called Positivism, and it is dead.  Just google "positivism is dead" to see the zillions of articles you will find agreeing that positivism is dead and virtually none disagreeing with that point.

I'd also note that radical empiricism is the only epistemological method I am aware of which allows infants and animals to have knowledge. 

Think of a 6 month old baby who is playing with a puppy (or being played with by the puppy, considering the relative motor skills of puppies and 6-month olds). Both parties know that the other exists, and they further know that their counterpart is friendly. However, neither of them are capable of contemplating the concept of evidence. Neither of them are capable of the communication which will allow them to verify their experiences intersubjectively. Neither of them can formulate arguments as to the veracity of their beliefs. Yet it is intuitive that babies and animals know things about the world they live in. Furthermore, it is necessary that babies know things about the world that they live in because all of our beliefs are one way or another descended from things we learned as babies. It is unreasonable to suggest that babies only get "knowledge" when they pass a certain fixed point of maturity, and not before.

Therefore, radical empiricism must be true. 

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'd also note that radical empiricism is the only epistemological method I am aware of which allows infants and animals to have knowledge. 

Think of a 6 month old baby who is playing with a puppy (or being played with by the puppy, considering the relative motor skills of puppies and 6-month olds). Both parties know that the other exists, and they further know that their counterpart is friendly. However, neither of them are capable of contemplating the concept of evidence. Neither of them are capable of the communication which will allow them to verify their experiences intersubjectively. Neither of them can formulate arguments as to the veracity of their beliefs. Yet it is intuitive that babies and animals know things about the world they live in. Furthermore, it is necessary that babies know things about the world that they live in because all of our beliefs are one way or another descended from things we learned as babies. It is unreasonable to suggest that babies only get "knowledge" when they pass a certain fixed point of maturity, and not before.

Therefore, radical empiricism must be true. 

Is this a statement based IN radical empiricism, or another way of seeing it as "true" ?

 

[OGHoosier]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Is this a statement based IN radical empiricism, or another way of seeing it as "true" ?

 

Heh, you got me. More of the latter I expect. 

It's more like a shot against competing epistemologies.

[Calm]

Quote

Anytime I acknowledge what I perceive to be a mistake or room for improvement in the church, I am usually attacked, demanded, compared to Bill Reel, John Dehlin, Kate, kelly (not saying you are doing this, but there definitely seems to be some suspicion), told that I am "playing with fire" that I am a "fault-finder", etc. etc. etc. etc. 

 

Quote

Look, I hope I'm misunderstanding you.  But your rhetoric sounds far more like Kate Kelly, Bill Reel, Sam Young, Julienna Viegas-Haws than Richard Bushman and the Hales.

 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

C'mon, Pogi. 

I have read and listened to Bushman, the Hales, and many others who speak candidly about the flaws and errors of the Church and its leaders, and have come away with appreciation because it is pretty clear that they love and are devoted to the Church. 

I don't have the time or energy to respond to everything you have said.  I clearly said that I want to do this ala Bushamn, and this is your response???   You don't think I am aligned with the style of Bushman because you think that I don't love and am not devoted to the Church?  "C'mon" smac, that is completely unfair.  Why would you even say that? How long have you know me by now?  How much more do I need to prove my intentions?  This is just shaming fear culture hard at work. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

But look at the risible terminology you are using: "grass-roots activism for change," "sowing some discord," "changing a dominant, damaging culture ... {via fomenting} resistance, competition, enmity, judgement," "holding up a light creates division and tension..."  How on earth can you say such things and then get tetchy when someone responds . . . precisely in the way you intended?

Who said anything about "fomenting".   Why are you intentionally putting that word in my mouth?  That is not fair and is misaligning of my intentions, which I have made pretty plainly clear that "fomenting" is NOT what I am all about.  Yet you persist with such accusations.  What member hasn't "sown some discord" in the membership by holding up a standard?  As I stated, by simply holding up a light one will sow some discord.  So please don't take my quotes out of context.   I am not seeking to sew discord.  I have made plainly clear that I want to avoid that but am simply acknowledging the reality that such things are probably unavoidable - no matter what standard you hold up.  I am no different from you.  You seem to sow plenty of discord around here.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

See, I think you are really off base here.  I just don't see the Latter-day Saints being "blinded" by a "need" to "uphold" a "facade of perfection among our leaders."  You are asserting, but not demonstrating, that this is a problem.  So can you?  Can you cite to articles, social media posts, etc. which substantiate this claim?

And yet you post threads that exemplify exactly what I am talking about with members leaving because the leaders aren't perfect or because they church history isn't spotless.  Seriously, how do you not see it?  The church created this illusion, and now it is dealing with the fallout and consequences of its unsustainable nature.  30 years ago, Bushman would have been disciplined and possibly excommunicated for trying to publish what he has published today.  That is our history.  Yes, it is changing and that is refreshing, but don't pretend like the church doesn't have a long way to go to fix the damage that this illusion has created.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's not that difficult, I think.  People who do not harbor unrealistic expectations of perfection are, in the main, staying true to their covenants and are doing fine.

Great.  What about the others who were raised by the culture I speak of and DO have unrealistic expectations.  Just stand by and let them fall?  Or, can we be more active like Bushman and assist them to maintain faith and have a more realistic expectation.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, folks who have - either intentionally or accidentally - fallen into the "Cancel Culture"-saturated mileu are the ones who encounter problems.  They reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities.  They define the individual by his flaws, giving no real consideration to his virtues.

Why are you bringing up "cancel culture"?  Where have I done that?  Knock it off.  All of this is a straw-man you are attacking. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I again ask you these two questions:

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 clearly explained my intentions and what healthy criticism means to me.  I clearly stated that I am not out to look for wrong or accentuate it.  When I said I wanted to "highlight" the human nature of our religion.  I didn't use that word to mean I want to go around and look for and highlight mistakes.  I meant that in the way that Bushman is highlighting the more "rough" and realistic human nature of religion and leaders in his writings.  This helps prevent unrealistic expectations.  Perhaps I could have used a better word than "highlight", but simply to make it more acceptable to where it doesn't trigger a defensive position in members when something critical is said of the church or leaders. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Publicly speaking against the Brethren, however, is not one of them.  Frankly, it is not our job.  The Brethren can (and do) correct each other, and again, we already have tons of critics, apostates, etc. who are all too willing to point out GA's flaws, mistakes, errors, etc.

I admire the desire to improve the Church, but I think you are running a real risk in trying to do this by resorting to "activism," "vocally disagree{ing}," "sowing some discord," etc., and doing these things by what will either start with or end up as publicly criticizing and finding fault with the Brethren.

What is wrong with finding a fault (vs looking for fault and intentionally defaming/demeaning) with the brethren, exactly?  Thank you for demonstrating the culture I speak of.  Bushman publicly aired "roughness" of Joseph Smith and his human fallibilities.  I find that refreshing.  I am not suggesting anything other than a willingness to accept that and speak about it openly and honestly in a fair-balanced and holistic perspective, couched in the good.  We NEED to know that they are HUMAN!!!  By suggesting that we should not find (I am not speaking of this in an active way - but I already said that - you should understand that by now), acknowledge, or vocalize fault with the brethren is to strengthen the culture that causes so much disillusionment today.  You are NOT helping.  You are hurting a more resilient faith in the gospel.   

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  I have no notions of "perfection in leadership," so it wouldn't make sense for me to objection to the notion of "imperfection in leadership."

You have no problem generally acknowledging imperfection, but the second that someone actually verbalizes a specific fault - then the pitchforks come out.  Talk about sowing discord!!!  Out comes the "cancel culture" and "nazel gazing" and warning of fire!!!   

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

See above.  In this context, phrases like "grass-roots activism for change in the church" and "vocally disagree{ing} {with the Brethren}" and "sewing some discord" come across rather badly.  

I used that phrase preemptively, knowing that's how I would be judged.  I am ok with that.  I am not talking about changing doctrine or even policy through grass-roots measures.  I am talking about the things we do have dominion over like the culture we project and influence on others.  Is that contrary to anything the brethren have taught?  I think not. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

When couched in risible, adversarial, coercive, politically-tinged terminology, "off-limits" seems to be apt.

I specifically stated that I want to couch healthy criticism in the good of the brethren and through faith-PROMOTIMG measures.  There is nothing coercive or political about what I am speaking of.  "grass-roots" simply means not top down.  Do we seriously have to be spoon fed everything by the brethren, or should we be anxiously engaged in good from a grass-roots level?  I can't believe you are accusing me of being coercive.  Your judgments of me are really pitiful.  This is the resistance I was expecting, so I guess it is not surprising.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

You continue to speak in broad terms, and not give examples of what you have in mind.

And yet you view me with complete suspicion and intentionally misalign me to be out to "foment".  I haven't given specifics because I don't know what I have in mind.  I clearly stated that in the OP.  I am asking for suggestions.  Why don't you just offer some suggestions of what you think would be helpful to create more realistic expectations instead of attacking me with suspicion and warning judgment? 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, 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.

I am trying to help the brethren by creating more realistic expectations of them.  Why do you insinuate that I am not keeping the covenants, obeying the commandments, etc?

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Look, I hope I'm misunderstanding you. 

I already told you that you are.  Why do you keep pushing it instead of listening to me?  Despite several attempts to clarify and prove my faithfulness to this gospel, you continue to misalign me with fault-finders.  I think I made it PRETTY DARN CLEAR that is NOT ME.  So please stop going there.  I clearly explained the difference, why are you ignoring what I said?

It seems that most faithful members on here seem to get what I am saying and seem to understand how it could serve to strengthen faith.  Why do you view me with such suspicion?  

Edited December 5, 2022 by pogi

[manol]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes this is exactly right- the problem is that the entire civilization has gone down the path of the "correspondence theory of truth"- meaning that since language perfectly "mirrors" nature (👎🏾) truth then is correspondence with "reality".  And it gets confused farther.  Truth is reality.  And so things that are true must be real- and real things must be 

The view is based on the idea that what humans see IS reality- cars and pianos and trees and bugs really ARE as the way we perceive them and THEN of course since since we SEE things perfectly then we can make up perfect words to capture those mirrored things and not only SEE reality but SAY it and so communicate to another precise statements of truth and falsity.

So right there we have    multiple levels of ambiguity between what is "real" /true and what is not.

1- My Rorty quote- YES of course there is a world out there- we are not talking about brain in a vat stuff or ANYTHING close.   But what we SEE / HEAR/FEEL/TASTE/ SMELL ARE ultimately neural events in our brain.

So what we call "reality" CANNOT ultimately BE "reality" but what our brains make up out of the CAUSES of our sensory responses.

That's one level of ambiguity we cannot avoid.

2- So now we have to put those brain perceptions into language.

We do that with symbols- grunts and whistles and every sound the human mouth can make OR since now we can write also, clever beings that we are- we can make little squiggles on a page that of course represent the grunts which represent the brain perceptions which represent reality.  You get the idea.

3- Then we put those squiggles or grunts out into the world and other beings receive them and they receive them perfectly and identically  reconstruct them into identical copies of what was said- in THEIR brains and then perfectly convey to their own perfect brains our perfectly understood  notions of reality not filtered by human consciousness.(sarcasm)

So how many layers of ambiguity are there?  Much more than I have represented yet here.   But I won't go on- you get the idea.

So we start with a cause of perceptions we can never see directly- because all we can perceive is what our brain shows us, and assume that we have a perfect mirror of reality in our minds, which of course we don't.   But we can agree on the perceptions of others because their brains are doing the same as our brains, so we agree with those who see things as we do

So this is the illusion- but now the cracks are appearing.

Philosophers have led the way with new theories of epistmology, now back to the end of the Enlightenment in the days of Kant and Hume that show serious serious problems in these kinds of old theories, and they have led, long story short, to what is called "Postmodernism"

And so to the title of disillusionment leading to an even more enduring faith, I think that concept is right on the money.

People felt and had religious experience and yet science told them that that could never be "true".  After all there was no visible evidence of God therefore He did not exist.  After all for statements to be true there had to be EVIDENCE.

But wait a minute!!   Where is the evidence that nothing is true without "evidence" that must be seen?  Is it true that killing people is wrong?  Where is the evidence?  Do humans have rights just for being human?   There's no objective evidence for that either.

And then there is all the stuff only scientists can know for themselves- like the existence of atoms, lotsa stuff in astronomy and the age of the earth and all that.  I posted earlier about my great grandmother's difficulty in believing that her solid rocking chair is "actually" space and squirming atoms.   SHE had no evidence for that personally- she was born in the 1870's in a small town in Poland.   So IF she was a positivist and demanded evidence for atoms, good luck- she had to listen to scientists.   So how is that different than listening to the Priest?  One says God exists and the other says God doesn't exist!   Who do you want to believe?

At any rate I don't know of an influential philosopher today who accepts the "correspondence" theory of truth today- all have moved TOWARD other theories of truth

There are NO active serious arguments today that "evidence" is the only path to "truth"; that view is called Positivism, and it is dead.  Just google "positivism is dead" to see the zillions of articles you will find agreeing that positivism is dead and virtually none disagreeing with that point.

So yes, we have come full circle.

Folks used to be disillusioned that God COULD exist without scientific evidence and holding that opinion, but they had an enduring faith that now has been justified through different theories of truth like Neopragmatism and others.  There are now serious theological schools called "Empirical Theology" and "Radical Orthodoxy which seek to include forms of postmodernism to see religion with different eyes, and William James' Radical Empricism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy

https://www.religion-online.org/article/empirical-theology-a-revisable-tradition/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism#:~:text=Radical empiricism is a philosophical,a place in our explanations.

Grunt.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you are.  I think most observant Latter-day Saints avoid publicly criticizing the Brethren not because they live in a "culture of fear," but rather out of love, out of a desire to sustain and support, and so on.  

Do you seriously not see how you yourself are propagating this fear culture?   You make people afraid to be honest and open and reduce them down to navel gazers, cancel culture participants, fault-finders, Kate Kelly's, etc, etc, etc.  You shame them and warn them with fire.  How is that helpful, honestly?  talk about sowing discord!  We don't feel safe with you. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by pogi

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

How come no one has brought up this article from the Salt Lake tribune? How activists influence The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sltrib.com)

Is it because the newspaper is incorrect in that the changes were the result of "vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change" 

That's my biggest issue with the article.

Quote

She floated her idea by President Eliza Snow

Doesn't seem like activism to me

Quote

Scottish convert to the faith, Richard Ballantyne is credited with holding the first Sunday school in the Salt Lake Valley in 1849. It was copied throughout the valley.

Doesn't seem like activism to me

Quote

Latter-day Saints flooded church headquarters with queries about what their faith was doing about the horrific Ethiopian famine that left millions of starving people looking for food. 

Doesn't seem like activism to me

---

 

Apparently making suggestions, copying other people's ideas, and asking questions is now counted as activism.

Edited December 5, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[pogi]

On 12/2/2022 at 1:13 PM, pogi said:

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?      

On 12/3/2022 at 5:21 PM, pogi said:

If a culture leads too many away from Christ, then we should not seek to be one in that culture, but to anxiously engaged in good work to increase oneness in Christ and hedge up our way against unnecessary pitfalls.  The point of the gospel is to lift others, to be an example, to be an influence for good. 

My intention is to influence and inspire a more enduring faith.  We are taught in the gospel to seek improvement where improvement can be made in ourselves and all around us.  On our missions we counseled as a mission and companionships on what can be improved.  What is working, what is not working.  What can be changed to improve our efforts to increase faith?  I am proposing nothing other than that.

On 12/3/2022 at 5:40 PM, pogi said:

You seem to think I am on a mission to highlight mistakes and imperfections in the church and our leaders.  That is not me. 

 I want to highlight the good, but not view other with suspicion or shame for acknowledging their perspectives of imperfection.   

I am inspired by wanting to strengthen faith, to highlight the good that our faith is.  I want people to stay.  

I am simply asking for suggestions on what we can do to hedge up against this all too common reason for lost faith.

  What can we do to change culture for the better?

To answer your question - definitely ala Richard Bushman.  

I agree with you that the pendulum is swinging the other way, I am simply asking how we can help it along.  Nothing to be afraid of here. 

On 12/3/2022 at 5:54 PM, pogi said:

I am trying to find pragmatic solutions to a massive problem of disillusionment leading to lost faith.  

On 12/3/2022 at 7:27 PM, pogi said:

All I can do is suggest that mistakes, as big and enormous as they may be, should not define a person or diminish from the good that they did.   I am not one who believes in dwelling on mistakes (although I do believe in acknowledging them - and that it is unhealthy not to) when I could be basking instead in the light.  

What they did in this specific issue you bring up is troubling to me, but what they have given me from the rest of their works and life is priceless.   I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water.   I don't disown my mother or father for the trauma I experienced at home.  I love them.  But I don't to hide the trauma and never address it or speak about it is a mistake.  You are right, it is delicate.  But tucking it away is even more dangerous, I think.

I agree that it is a fine line.  That is why I am asking for suggestions.  I do want to point out that it is not about exposing mistakes, for me.  I am not about finding and pointing out weaknesses and mistakes, but I am about being willing to discuss and acknowledge them as we see it without fear of being shunned or shamed by other members, and without being perceived in suspicion and warning.  Allowing oneself to acknowledge, heal, and move on - always looking forward towards the light and never getting entangled in the darkness of the mistakes.

Take the good, leave the bad.  It is as simple as that. 

I think those are all fair questions, but I think it is important to couch them in a more holistic context that includes the good.   Keep a holistic perspective and don't myopically focus on the mistakes.  Look forward towards the light, not backwards towards the darkness.  Acknowledge the wrong, but don't get entangled in it.  

On 12/3/2022 at 7:50 PM, pogi said:

I am not actively looking for, or trying to find fault.  Period.  I am not out to publicly discredit, defame, or shame anyone. 

There are those who pretend like they have no faults (think of certain politicians) and put forward an image of total strength, control, and shames/attacks anyone who even looks at them crooked.  They divert attention to the critic and criticize them - they are the ones in the wrong.   Then there is the opposite extreme who obsessively shame themselves for their mistakes and get completely entangled in them and can't escape.  I am weak! I am a failure!  I am a mistake!   Then there are those who acknowledge faults and human weakness in themselves, address the issue, seek to make restitution for any harms made, ask forgiveness, heal, and move on.    These types of personalities exist in cultures too.   I am of the firm belief that if we can get our culture more toward the latter example, we will be more firm in our faith, resilient with mistakes and failure, and humbly realistic with our nature.  

There is healthy criticism and toxic criticism.  Unfortunately, there is a culture in our church that views any form of criticism as toxic.  I think that culture is what is toxic. 

For me, a healthy criticism = the analysis and judgment of both merits and faults.   Criticism is NOT just about finding faults (aka "fault-finding") it is also about giving honest assessment and acknowledgment of merits as well.  It is a holistic approach that doesn't overemphasize one or the other.   That is the difference between being holistically critical of the good and the bad and being a "fault-finder".  

On 12/3/2022 at 8:13 PM, pogi said:

I neglected to include the most important part.  Maintain a close intimate relationship with the Lord through daily prayer.  Be meditative and listen for his voice.  Always seek how to be one with Him.  He will always direct you for good.   I am confident that I am where the Lord wants me, and here I will stay until He directs me otherwise.  I will not leave on my own.  He is my shepherd, and I will follow wherever he may send me.    It is all about where we place our attention and intention.  You are safe with the Lord.  There is nothing that Joseph or Brigham or any current prophet has done or could do that could cause me to not go where my shepherd leads me.  It is not about them or what they did.  It is about Me and HIM.   Once we understand that, history is just history.  Mistakes are mistakes.  Sins are sins.  Those can all be overcome.  We don't need to be afraid of looking at them and discussing them when the Lord is our shepherd.

The gospel is true.  People (leaders)...not always. 

9 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think faith should be defined in terms of "the church" or "the prophet", etc.  Faith, for me, should be placed in principles/gospel and God only. 

The restored gospel is something I have faith in, which is distinct from the institution of the church.  I have some questions and concerns with how it came about and the people surrounding it, but what I have to judge is the seed - not the man, or the institution it came through.  They are fallible, I shouldn't expect differently.   The seed, is what I have faith in through the application of Alma 32.   It is good.  I can't deny it.  There is nothing more empowering and good than the fundamental gospel truth that was restored via Joseph Smith that we are the literal children and family of God.  That we have inherent in us godliness and the potential to realize/actualize it through the application of Godly principles.  Personal revelation is the foundation of His church - not Peter.  Those are the core truths that I can't leave or deny.  The plan of a near universal salvation is the best paradigm I have found.  While the earthly institution has faults, while Peter and the prophets have faults, the kingdom of God is pure.  We need to tie our faith to it, and not the earthly institution of the church and its leaders that administer it.  I couldn't depart from all that fruit if I wanted to.  I am forced to acknowledge the source of this seed, and it would be foolish of me to expect it to be through anything or anybody but an imperfect and faulty institution/man.  That is kind of the beauty in it!  That God works with and through us - mortal, fallible, complex, confusing, human beings/children of God.  

Above is what I have said, to provide context for quotes that @smac97 took out of context.  In case there was any confusion.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

When couched in risible, adversarial, coercive, politically-tinged terminology, "off-limits" seems to be apt.

But your rhetoric sounds far more like Kate Kelly, Bill Reel, Sam Young, Julienna Viegas-Haws than Richard Bushman and the Hales.

Does it really sound like that?  I think not.   It seems like most faithful members here understand that I am not a John Dehlin, or Kate Kellly, or promoting cancel culture or navel-gazing, or fault finding, etc, etc, etc.  They seem to get what I am saying.  Are they just blinded by my sophistry, smac?  Warning, warning, pogi is an "adversarial, coercive, politically-tinged" member who is like "kate Kelly, Bill Reel, Sam Young, and Julienna Viegas-Haws"  of the church to be avoided.  Stay FAR away!  Danger! Danger!  Fear! Fear! Warning!  I mean, you really would have to make an effort to completely ignore the context above. 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by pogi

[gav]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think faith should be defined in terms of "the church" or "the prophet", etc.  Faith, for me, should be placed in principles/gospel and God only.  I think this culture I speak of wrongfully intertwines faith with the church and with leadership.  They promote faith in people and faith in the church.  That is a good recipe for disillusionment, if you ask me. 

 

9 hours ago, pogi said:

Personal revelation is the foundation of His church - not Peter.  Those are the core truths that I can't leave or deny.  The plan of a near universal salvation is the best paradigm I have found.  While the earthly institution has faults, while Peter and the prophets have faults, the kingdom of God is pure.  We need to tie our faith to it, and not the earthly institution of the church and its leaders that administer it.  I couldn't depart from all that fruit if I wanted to.  I am forced to acknowledge the source of this seed, and it would be foolish of me to expect it to be through anything or anybody but an imperfect and faulty institution/man.

Perhaps I am not getting what you are trying to say, but how do you think to have a kingdom without its administration, this side of the millenium? and even during the millenium. It almost seems like you are calling for the family without parents.

All parents get stuff wrong but there is still no better institution than the family for raising kids and that requires a certain respect for fallible parents for the family to function. Even then many children are disillusioned with their parents in their teens and 20's until they gain experience and learn a little humility. Perhaps that is the phase that those who become disillusioned with church leadership and history find themselves in. Do the parents suddenly rewrite the past so that their children have a newfound respect for them in later years or does something change in the child's perspective as they get older?

Disillusionment in my mind is a maturity issue.

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, gav said:

Perhaps I am not getting what you are trying to say, but how do you think to have a kingdom without its administration, this side of the millenium? and even during the millenium. It almost seems like you are calling for the family without parents.

Clearly we need prophets and administrators of the gospel.  They are the seed sowers.  We need them, if I haven't made that clear.  Just curious, what did I specifically say that gives you the impression that we don't need administrators or prophets?  

35 minutes ago, gav said:

All parents get stuff wrong but there is still no better institution than the family for raising kids and that requires a certain respect for fallible parents for the family to function.

I made that very point in my response to Tacenda. 

35 minutes ago, gav said:

Even then many children are disillusioned with their parents in their teens and 20's until they gain experience and learn a little humility. Perhaps that is the phase that those who become disillusioned with church leadership and history find themselves in. Do the parents suddenly rewrite the past so that their children have a newfound respect for them in later years or does something change in the child's perspective as they get older?

Disillusionment in my mind is a maturity issue.

The illusion I am talking about is the childlike impression that our parents can't make mistakes.  I think we have always taught that our leaders are fallible, but there is a culture that doesn't seem to believe it.  There are even jokes made it, I don't remember the set up but it goes something like this - Catholics doctrine teaches that the pope is infallible, but the members don't believe it.  Mormons teach that the prophet is fallible, but the members don't believe it.  The culture is so palpable that it is easily identifiable in that joke, which makes it comical. 

Do you think it is healthy for a child to live in fear of questioning their parents?  Is it a healthy environment if siblings make it unsafe to dare disagree with their parents?  Children often view their parents as god-like when they are young, and you are right that maturity corrects that.  If the family continued to make it unsafe to acknowledge mistakes or identify imperfection in parents, do you think that is going to create a healthy dynamic in the home?   It is a lot easier to leave the church than it is a family over disillusionment.  It is not about re-writing the past, it is about being open and honest about the past, and PRESENT.   The child is going to be disillusioned either way, but don't you think it would create a healthier and more enduring family dynamic if the family allowed more open and honest discussion about how parental faults affect them?  Where a child felt safe to be open and discuss their feelings honestly without fear of scorn or ridicule?  

Edited December 5, 2022 by pogi

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

That's my biggest issue with the article.

Doesn't seem like activism to me

Doesn't seem like activism to me

Doesn't seem like activism to me

---

 

Apparently making suggestions, copying other people's ideas, and asking questions is now counted as activism.

From the article, I think a good example of activism was the reversal of the November 2015 policy of exclusion, which Nelson later said was a revelation.  The church faced immediate and wide spread feedback on this, none of which was supportive.  The result was a full 180 reversal three years later.