Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

JAHS · January 25, 2023

2 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

I mean, driving the moneychangers out of the temple and scolding them is much different that speaking publicly and sharing the messages referenced in the OP. We are commanded to love our brothers and sisters, not to judge them. Look at the example of the adulterer and Jesus. Instead of calling out the people around us, have empathy and compassion (when needed) and at others times, just love people for who they are. I often tell my wife "Think how boring this life would be if we all liked the same things and acted in the same way."

I love my friends that are different than me. I love when a large, diverse (in all ways) group of us meets together. We all benefit from staying out of the decisions of others (especially the bedroom), except when there are legal/human rights issues.

I do think a true christian, and especially leaders of religious groups can honor the name that they live by and say hurtful words to the their fellow man. We as members of the Church often hear or say "the Lord will figure that out in the next life," if that is what we truly believe, then lets let Him figure it out, and show love to all those around us that deserve it.

I don't disagree with any of this. I just mean that it is possible for a church leader to say what he believes is right and inspired by God and still be able to love the people the words are directed at. If people heard what I have sometimes said to my own children, they might think I don't love them when that is of course not the truth. I am not going to let them do something wrong that I could have prevented by letting them know what is right. There are some things that we can't wait to see how God figures it out.

CV75 · January 25, 2023

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don’t disagree that faith can exist under different paradigms, but I have come to learn that commitment to certain beliefs are not always direct choices that we can make. Beliefs don’t exist in isolation from contextual paradigms and larger belief systems. Without fruits, commitment to belief is often untenable. Telling someone to “just choose to believe” rarely, if ever works. They have to first nurture and create fertile soil for seeds to even sprout, let alone bear continuous fruit. Certain paradigms can work for a time, until they don’t. If a person doesn’t adapt their soil to the new environment (perceptions), previous fruit will shrivel and be forgotten.

An “active belief in the gospel of JesusChrist” only acts as a counterbalance when it is “active”. I don’t see that activity as a direct conscious choice or decision in every situation. It is the result of working on the soil (which can involve our paradigms and perceptions).

I can assure you that active belief in the church for me would be impossible under my previous paradigm. I had to adapt to new environments or allow my faith to wither away and be forgotten. My work has paid off with a more enduring and fruitful faith.

Spiritual beliefs don’t exist in isolation, but since they are spiritual in nature and arise from a spiritual process, they form the foundation in addressing all these matters impacting faith including thought patterns, types of thought and thinking preferences. These more fundamental components are what I’ve been referring to when I used “paradigm” in reference to black-and-white thinking.

I would say that working on the soil, or how we think, is a conscious choice or decision since work is intentional. This is why, when active belief is the result of working on the soil, it too is a conscious choice or decision, especially in maintaining it when responding to discovery. Thought types and patterns also change developmentally as one matures, and so are not so much the result of intentional work. But active spiritual belief, because it is active, persists through each stage, while inactive belief doesn't.

Craig Speechly · January 25, 2023

16 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Dear Smac. You asked me to correct you if your assertions about me are wrong. They are. However, I accept that you seem adept at dismantling an argument with the apparent skill of an attorney. Well done. I have no such ability. What I do have are some feelings I don't know how to process, so browbeating me (or others) into submission is counterproductive unless your aim is simply to make people feel inadequate.

I have never paid any attention to anti-Church material, and I still have no interest in it. People can't even be trusted to be transparent about current issues such as COVID and political agendas. What hope is there that apostates won't fabricate their arguments? None.

However, when I stumbled across Elder Petersen's Wikipedia page (probably because I was trying to find out some key setting-apart date or something, I don't remember now), I found myself intrigued by how a man such as he was (whom I probably even quoted on my mission because he died only after I finished serving) should have been the author of anything controversial at all. I don't believe everything on Wikipedia, of course, but I figured the Church wouldn't allow the defamation of one of its former prominent leaders to go unchallenged. So I took the bait, even though I have never previously gone looking for sensationalist material about any Church leader, living or dead, local or otherwise. Perhaps if I were more exposed to their frailties, I wouldn't find myself so unsettled. In the UK where I live, the Church is almost never in the media, so we are just about exclusively presented with the Church and its leaders as the Brethren wish us to see them.

By coincidence, we had a stake Q&A fireside coming up at the time I was preparing my talk. I have no interest in attending such an event because I figure I know our doctrine at least as well if not better than the esteemed leadership panel that answers members' concerns on these occasions. I would also never dream of lobbing in a grenade, such as airing my convictions that evolution is part of the Plan of Salvation. Anyway, since I'm the longest-serving member of the High Council (having been called this time in mid-2019), I decided to message the stake president (whom I have known for almost 20 years) and mention that if I were to attend such an event, I would want to address difficult issues such as the speech by Elder Petersen, but that would likely cause huge upset. He read the article and agreed that it was challenging material. It was then that my interest was piqued as to whether there might be any controversial material about our current leaders in the public domain.

And why would I do such a reckless thing? Had it not been for the pandemic when our sacrosanct Church routines were upended (no meetings, no ministering in person, no temple service), I would probably have filed my confusion in a figurative box somewhere in the recesses of my consciousness and continued as normal. Since early 2020, however, all my routines have changed. My children who are all adults have derailed from the Gospel, and I find myself wondering about all the things I have taken for granted my entire life because I have always taken everything on face value.

I have a testimony of and support the Family Proclamation, but I am beginning to suspect (hate speech alert) that the Abrahamic faiths are at least partly if not entirely responsible for gender and identity complications on account of something not unlike the "mass hysteria" associated with the Salem Witch Trials. Moses began the witch hunt, and the Apostle Paul added a form of identity profiling when he used the term "effeminate" amongst other things. Since then, faith-based societies have enthusiastically vilified individuals it suspects of being "deviates"--as so many of our eminent priesthood leaders referred to those who were trying to make sense of what society may just have made of them.

No, I do not approve of same-sex behaviour because it goes against what I believe both spiritually and biologically, but I am able to accept that it probably stems from a place of great pain that we, in what we attest to be the Lord's Church, continue to reinforce.

While we don't worship church leaders many tend to accept what they teach as scripture and fail to give further scrutiny or thought to what they teach. I know that is what I used to do. I accepted their teachings whole cloth.

Learning that these men are very human and subject to the frailties of being human, subject to mistakes, errors in judgement and yes even teaching falsehoods was a difficult pill for me to swallow. It seems that the iron rod has some twists and turns in it and isn't as straight as we might have once believed.

Taking prophetic pronouncements with a grain of salt has helped. Church leaders are not super human, they do not wear a large "S" on their chest, they are just mortals doing what they believe is best at the time and often stumble in that attempt particularly when viewed through history. Some prophetic pronouncements have not aged well.

Because of this view, I'm willing to give Elder Peterson some slack. Was he a racist and white supremacist? Yes, I believe the evidence is clear on that point. But so was much of America in the years that he served. Should we have expected better? Yes I would have preferred that the church, given our claim of revelation, would have been ahead of the times instead of decades behind. Given the church's teachings that these men are prophets, seers and revelator's, I think its only fitting that we should feel disappointed when we discover that by any standard they haven't lived up to our expected standard of their calling.

I suspect that in 50 years time some of the current prophetic pronouncements will also be cringe worthy for that generation.

PS: Both my grandparents immigrated from Nottingham and I still have cousins living there. I love the UK and visit often. In fact, I'll be back in April.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Craig Speechly

Craig Speechly · January 25, 2023

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You don't think that allowing Elder Petersen to voice his opinion on the matter was a major focus of the phone call? I have a hard time understanding how that could not be the case, but to each his own ("Oh, by the way, Mark, all of your Brethren except the ailing Elder Stapley voted to lift the ban. Just thought you should know", versus, "We wanted to get your feelings on the matter before doing anything official").

Offer what opinion? It was already a "fait accompli".

california boy · January 25, 2023

4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Perhaps the source of my problem is that I literally spent decades devoutly believing that Church leaders, programmes, and principles were synonymous with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Call me deluded, gullible, ridiculous, or whatever, but that was the outcome of my upbringing. I never entertained doubts about our leaders; never read news reports about shortcomings; never imagined these men (and women) were anything less than entirely noble and honourable. In my formative years, I tried so hard to keep myself "unspotted from the world" that when my stake president asked me in my first mission-prep interview at the age of 18 if I masturbated, I had no idea what he meant, nor, when he awkwardly explained it to me, that it was even possible. I genuinely believed sex was something only achievable between a man and a woman as an outcome of some type of magical hormone trigger or something like that. Go ahead, mock me, but it's true. My Church upbringing turned me into some type of naïve joke figure.

I tried to be a living example of the Gospel because that's what I understood to be necessary to avoid going to hell. So I was incessantly bullied throughout my childhood and youth. And I'm only just coming to terms with the truth that my outlook on life has been totally distorted. I spent years being one of those folks who bleated in testimony meetings: "I know without a shadow of a doubt that the Church is true." Well, my belief in the Church as an untarnished organisation seems to have swiftly withered on the vine, and I suppose I feel betrayed. More fool me.

I guess a fundamental grievance I'm left with is that I now strongly suspect that the "Church" has inadvertently caused untold emotional damage to certain types of individuals in two ways: (1) in my case, the institution seems rather like the Wizard of Oz in presenting a facade that is shiny and perfect—and expecting innocent members to doggedly pursue the impossible, leading to crushingly low self-esteem—while at the same time attempting to obscure its own decidedly imperfect underbelly; and (2) for the countless individuals who are figuratively the babies thrown out with the bathwater as a result of our faith-based culture's pursuit of morality. I believe that something good has produced something bad. We profile individuals on account of how we perceive then. Children who fail to display the required attributes for their adult sexual roles are shaped by society's contempt into the personification of its fears. I strongly suspect there is a direct correlation between identity-and-gender issues and our cultural obsession with men becoming manly and women becoming Stepford Wives.

Attempting to "let it go" simply because the perpetrators are either dead or espousing a different path in no way mitigates my internalised damage. I am broken while my priesthood leaders all live happily ever after.

I certainly identify with your experiences in the Church growing up. I always felt the need to do everything perfectly and anything short of that was a huge failure. The mantra that constantly went through my mind was a statement by Marion G. Romney who said something like Magnifying the priesthood is doing more that anyone except the Lord expects or requires. Knowing I was gay since I was 12 made this goal the only thing I could possibly do to please God. It also mean that no matter what I did, I could never please God. While I did try to magnify every calling I received from the time I was a deacon to the time I left the Church, always trying to do more than was required of me, I knew it would never be enough and that in the end, there would never be a Celestial Kingdom for me. There is no path to the Celestial Kingdom without being straight. What changed is that I finally became ok with that.

It really wasn't until after I left the Church that I could see all the blind spots in what the Church teaches and the many flaws in what it teaches. I think a lot of those flaws have come to the surface for a lot of members since I left the Church. You have to either figure out a way around those flaws even when such work-arounds make little sense, or you begin to loose faith in the whole institution. I began to understand that while I believe the Church is run by good men trying the best they can to do the will of God, the claims of revelation, which is really the only reason to hold on to that belief, start to be revealed as not actually what I was taught about prophets and revelation. There are no visits from Christ in the holy of holies. The Church is run by gut instinct. Sometimes Church leaders are right and sometimes they are not. To infinitely connect my belief and understanding of God to that kind of "revelation" was pretty tenuous at best.

My path lead to a different place than yours. It is a challenge to navigate whatever path we follow back to God. I wish you the best.

smac97 · January 25, 2023

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Dear Smac. You asked me to correct you if your assertions about me are wrong. They are.

Then I retract them and apologize. Truly. They were surmises based on what you have said, but I will defer to you as to your motives and thoughts.

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

However, I accept that you seem adept at dismantling an argument with the apparent skill of an attorney. Well done.

I think the conversation would be more productive if you responded to the points I have raised instead of sidestepping them.

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I have no such ability. What I do have are some feelings I don't know how to process, so browbeating me (or others) into submission is counterproductive unless your aim is simply to make people feel inadequate.

I am not browbeating you. You are asking hard questions about a difficult topic, and I am doing the same thing. I have not called you names. I have not insulted your intelligence or your character. I have, instead, critiqued your presented-to-the-world commentary on the leaders of the Church. And since you have injected your personal feelings and emotions into the discussion, I have addressed them as well.

The worst things I have said are (A) to suggest that you may have a faultfinding mindset, that you are "mired in faultfinding, presentism, and popular trends regarding sexual licentiousness", and (B) that you might be a part of that particular cadre who "want the Church to change its doctrines to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex."

As to suggestion (B), I stated that "{i}f I am wrong, please correct me and I will retract the foregoing and apologize." You have now corrected me, and I have now apologized.

However, you continue to elide past questions about what it is you are proposing or claiming. You are, of course, under no obligation to answer any question put to you. But as you seem to aspire to having an open mind, to addressing difficult questions about the Church, I think that door ought to swing both ways. If you are willing to ask and have answered questions you are posing that are critical of the Church, I would hope that you would likewise be able and willing to ask and have answered questions that are in defense of the Church, and/or that you indulge me as I do so.

If so, here are my questions:

1. How do you define "hate speech"?

2. Do you think you are indulging in "presentism" in your critique of Elder Petersen? If not, why not?

3. Have you, in assessing how you feel about what you call "historical hate speech by senior church leadership," reviewed Approaching Mormon Doctrine? If yes, how are you applying it to your inquiry? If not, why not?

4. What application, if any, do you think Mormon 9:31 has to the problematic remarks by Elder Petersen under discussion? You previously obliquely responded to this by pointing to OD-1. I do not understand how this is responsive to my question.

5. You are critiquing comments from an apostle from many, many decades ago, while making no reference whatsoever to the various and extensive comments from more recent and current prophets and apostles condemning racism and such. Why is that?

6. You previously said that Elder McConkie's "Forget everything that I have said" comment "saddens" you, and that it is "like a get-out-of-jail card." Could you clarify what you mean relative to Elder McConkie and/or Elder Petersen and "a get-out-of-jail card"?

7. What do you think we (individually as collectively as the Church) should do relative to Elder Petersen?

8. Do you harbor implicit or explicit expectations of infallibility for "senior church leadership"?

9. Do you think you need to "forgive" Elder Petersen, a man long dead and whom you likely never met? If so, what's preventing you from forgiving him?

10. I previously quoted an article paraphrasing Dan Reynolds (of Imagine Dragons fame) : "{T}he church's 'platitudes are empty words' until and unless it changes its doctrine to accommodate gay marriage and homosexual sex." Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Please explain.

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I have never paid any attention to anti-Church material, and I still have no interest in it.

Okay. I pay attention to such material, and I do have an interest in it. As Hugh Nibley put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.”

Michael Ash gave a pretty thoughtful presentation on this topic back in 2002: "The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship"

As an attorney, I have long appreciated the effectiveness of our legal system's adversarial processes. Adversarial scrutiny of competing claims and arguments about the same set of facts tends to have a crucible-like purifying effect for both sides (or, at least, it ought to).

For me, my years of examining Restored Gospel in an adversarial context (this board, mostly) have had a comparable "purifying" effect on my perspective on the doctrines and history and practices of the Church and its leaders and members. I feel that I know a lot more about the doctrines than I would have otherwise. I feel that I know a lot more about the purported flaws and weaknesses in the Restoration than I would have otherwise. My son, having previously served as a Church Service Missionary in the MTC's Referral Center (he manned the "chat" feature of Mormon.org), has repeatedly told me that his discussions with me really helped him be prepared to address doctrinal disputes and concerns with people he meets in his missionary service. He has since very much "come into his own" as far as having a spiritual, but also pragmatic, testimony.

In sum, I think engaging the critics, or at least considering their points and arguments and evidence, can be a constructive exercise.

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

People can't even be trusted to be transparent about current issues such as COVID and political agendas. What hope is there that apostates won't fabricate their arguments? None.

That's a bit too ad hominem for me. I think some critics (including apostates) can sometimes raise legitimate points of criticism, and some of those may even do so with decent motives, such as having a sense of honor and devotion to seeking truth and accuracy.

This is why I have been on this board since 2004. I want to listen to what our critics have to say, and use their critiques as part of my examination of what I believe and why I believe it. This has been a difficult, but ultimately rewarding, experience. A lot of what critics have to say about us is crapola, but the only legitimate way to differentiate crapola from legitimate points and evidence is to give the critics a hearing, and then weigh what they say and the evidence they present with what the Restored Gospel says and includes (and, surprisingly often, what it does not say and include).

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

However, when I stumbled across Elder Petersen's Wikipedia page (probably because I was trying to find out some key setting-apart date or something, I don't remember now), I found myself intrigued by how a man such as he was (whom I probably even quoted on my mission because he died only after I finished serving) should have been the author of anything controversial at all.

America is not wholly unique in its struggle to overcome racism. However, we had a few centuries of baked-in prejudices to overcome, and not just by white folks against black folks.

The senior leaders of the Church have acknowledged their flaws and limitations, and have also acknowledged errors and mistakes of past leaders. So we ought not have implicit expectations of perfection regarding them. 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 milieu 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.

This is, I surmise (and again, I am open to correction) your view of Elder Petersen. You seem to be defining - and judging - the entirety of the man solely by his faults and errors. Again, 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."

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I don't believe everything on Wikipedia, of course, but I figured the Church wouldn't allow the defamation of one of its former prominent leaders to go unchallenged. So I took the bait, even though I have never previously gone looking for sensationalist material about any Church leader, living or dead, local or otherwise. Perhaps if I were more exposed to their frailties, I wouldn't find myself so unsettled. In the UK where I live, the Church is almost never in the media, so we are just about exclusively presented with the Church and its leaders as the Brethren wish us to see them.

Well, no. That won't do at all. We are several decades into the Internet era, and the Church has made tremendous strides in providing more data about its history, practices, etc. And even prior to that, the Latter-day Saints have had their own responsibility to study the doctrines and history of the Church. And if and when a Latter-day Saint encounters troubling information for the first time (an inevitability, really, given the flaws of the Saints), I would recommend they read I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church by Davis Bitton. It really helped me contextualize the Restored Gospel relative to troubling and disturbing issues (Mountain Meadows, the Priesthood Ban and racism, treatment of Native Americans, paternalism, etc.).

I encourage you to consider the assessment of the Church's "narrative" by Richard L. Bushman ( an American historian and Gouverneur Morris Professor Emeritus of History at Columbia University,, and author of a biography of Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling) as in the one being advanced by the institutional Church. I previously commented on this here. Essentially, Bro. Bushman - a devoted and faithful Latter-day Saint - has nevertheless said previously that the Church's "dominant narrative" needed to be "reconstructed" (that is, some errors had crept into our popularized accounts of the early history of the Church, and that these errors should be straightened out). He has been saying this for some years, and more recently he has said that the Church has largely accomplished this objective. I previously commented on this here:

Quote

So to sum up, Bushman - who seems to have started the whole "reconstruct the dominant narrative" thing back in 2016 - has stated that

the rumors that he had renounced his faith in the foundational truth claims of the Restored Gospel are false,

he remains "on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations,."

"the Church was lying {about its history}" claim being bandied about is "not a fair judgment,"

his "dominant narrative" comment is being inaccurately construed as him admitting that he has lost confidence in the basic history of the Church,

what he had meant was that some errors had crept into our popularized accounts of the early history of the Church, and that these errors should be straightened out,

the entirety of the Church, "from top to bottom," has needed to "reconstruct" our historical narrative so as to "adjust to the findings of our historians," and

the Church has done what he had been proposing, that it has produced a "reconstructed narrative" of the history of the Church by publishing Saints, the Joseph Smith Papers project, the Gospel Topics Essays, and so on.

Based on this, I must respectfully disagree somewhat with your comment that "{w}here the improvements are really needed are in Church," and that "unless the average member goes looking for the scholarship the problem of an uninformed membership remains." I think the Church has been working hard to provide members with meaningful and substantive resources which provide a considerably improved "narrative" of our history. The resources Bushman has specifically credited as reconstructing the narrative (Saints, Volume 1 ("The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846"), Volume 2 ("No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893") and Volume 3 ("Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955"), the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays - 14 in all) are freely available to the world online. Additionally, the "Church History" section of the Church's website includes many other resources that I think Bushman would construe as even further reconstructing the narrative:

Saints Podcast (112 episodes over three seasons, and counting)

Historical Sources (extensive information about the Doctrine & Covenants)

Revelations in Context ("The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants")

Joseph Smith's Revelations ("A Doctrine and Covenants Study Companion from the Joseph Smith Papers")

Joseph Smith Papers Podcasts (14 episodes)

First Vision (examining the various accounts of the First Vision)

Prophets of the Restoration (extensive biographies of all presidents of the Church)

Church History Topics (brief but annotated treatments of dozens of Church History items)

Answers to Church History Questions (answering questions about difficult areas of Church history, such as Mountain Meadows, treatment of Native Americans, translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Safety Society, polygamy, etc.)

Stories from Saints (discussion of various "local" stories about members of the Church and how they have influenced both the Church and history generally)

Global Histories (extensive historical summaries of the Church throughout the world)

At the Pulpit ("185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women")

The First Fifty Years of Relief Society

Daughters in My Kingdom ("The History and Work of Relief Society")

Moreover, the Church also maintains https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/, which includes all of the foregoing historical resources plus many more:

The Church Historian’s Press ("Search diaries, journals, discourses and documents")

Pioneers in Every Land (various resources about members throughout the world)

Joseph Smith (extensive resources about Joseph's life and ministry)

The Trek West (various maps, stories, etc.)

Museum Treasures ("Learn about the art and artifacts available at the Church History Museum.")

Perspectives on Church History ("Explore insights on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.")

Experience Church History (selections from exhibits and materials housed in the Church History Museum)

Research Church History Collections (links to the Church History Library, Church History Catalog, Church History Biographical Database, Treasures of the {Church History Museum} Collection, Pioneer Resources)

Church History Museum ("Discover the spiritual, artistic, and cultural legacies of the Latter-day Saints.")

Church Historic Sites

Way back in the 1990s, I returned from my mission and found that my dad had purchased "LDS Infobases," a collection of Church history/doctrine publications and materials originally published in 1993 (with perhaps other iterations published earlier than that). I was amazed at having access to something like 1,800 books on these discs, all searchable! Back then individual members really did have to go "looking for scholarship," but for the last many decades there has been a huge improvement in readily-available resources, including various free resources published by the Church which - as Bushman put it - "reconstruct" and improve past recitations of our history.

Studying the doctrines and history of the Church has, in years past, been considerably more difficult than it has been since the advent of the Internet, and has become even more feasible due to the foregoing efforts by the Church.

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

By coincidence, we had a stake Q&A fireside coming up at the time I was preparing my talk. I have no interest in attending such an event because I figure I know our doctrine at least as well if not better than the esteemed leadership panel that answers members' concerns on these occasions. I would also never dream of lobbing in a grenade, such as airing my convictions that evolution is part of the Plan of Salvation. Anyway, since I'm the longest-serving member of the High Council (having been called this time in mid-2019), I decided to message the stake president (whom I have known for almost 20 years) and mention that if I were to attend such an event, I would want to address difficult issues such as the speech by Elder Petersen, but that would likely cause huge upset. He read the article and agreed that it was challenging material. It was then that my interest was piqued as to whether there might be any controversial material about our current leaders in the public domain.

There is a time, and place, and manner, for airing concerns about "difficult issues." A Q&A fireside intended to edify and uplift and strengthen faith is probably not the appropriate venue to talk about a talk given 69 years ago that has since been both roundly and plainly disavowed by the Church for some years now.

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

And why would I do such a reckless thing? Had it not been for the pandemic when our sacrosanct Church routines were upended (no meetings, no ministering in person, no temple service), I would probably have filed my confusion in a figurative box somewhere in the recesses of my consciousness and continued as normal. Since early 2020, however, all my routines have changed. My children who are all adults have derailed from the Gospel, and I find myself wondering about all the things I have taken for granted my entire life because I have always taken everything on face value.

I can appreciate what you are going through. Pretty much all of us are in the same boat.

In 2018 I posted the following: Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith. It may have some utility for you. An excerpt:

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 the volume, lived stories — like a Latter-day Saint being challenged by an agnostic coworker — blend with the doctrinal discussions one might expect from university-level lecturers. As the authors put it, “untested idealism,” “naïve simplicity” or a gospel that’s little more than “a firm handshake, a high-five, and a smiley face” is unlikely to foster the requisite conviction in order for faith to survive today's trials.
...

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 {Stage 1, which is} 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, {Stage 3, which is} a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

It sounds like you may be transitioning out of Phase 2. I hope you can make it to Phase 3.

Being a Latter-day Saint in 2023 is, I think, a fairly tough gig. It's a high-demand faith, and not a very popular one. But for my convictions regarding the reality and truthfulness of the Restoration, I probably would not be in the Church today. But those convictions are pretty strong. My overall experience in the Church is that it is what it claims to be. Asking hard questions has been a big part of that process, but again, that door has to swing both ways.

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

I have a testimony of and support the Family Proclamation, but I am beginning to suspect (hate speech alert) that the Abrahamic faiths are at least partly if not entirely responsible for gender and identity complications on account of something not unlike the "mass hysteria" associated with the Salem Witch Trials.

I can't go along with the "entirely responsible" thing, but "party" responsible? I suppose. There are all sorts of influences that amalgamate into what we call "community" or "society." Religion is certainly one of such influence, but there are many others. I find much of that you call "hysteria" to be the product of pop culture trends, some of which have been implemented by calculation and design.

These days, the shoe is on the other foot. The "mass hysteria" is directed against the majority by the minority. To disagree with modern LGBT orthodoxy in pretty much any way, or to fail to affirmatively celebrate and ratify and endorse homosexual behavior, gender-dysphoria-based "identities," "preferred pronouns," supposedly "kid-friendly" drag shows and "drag queen story hours," and so on, is to risk being labeled a bigot / homophobe / transphobe, etc.

Kinda hard to lay this entirely (or even mostly) at the feet of "the Abrahamic faiths."

17 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Moses began the witch hunt, and the Apostle Paul added a form of identity profiling when he used the term "effeminate" amongst other things. Since then, faith-based societies have enthusiastically vilified individuals it suspects of being "deviates"--as so many of our eminent priesthood leaders referred to those who were trying to make sense of what society may just have made of them. No, I do not approve of same-sex behaviour because it goes against what I believe both spiritually and biologically, but I am able to accept that it probably stems from a place of great pain that we, in what we attest to be the Lord's Church, continue to reinforce.

First, I don't understand. Are you saying that homosexuality is the result of "what society may just have made of" those who experience it? That's not what the Church teaches, nor do I think it is accurate. I think same-sex attraction reflects a confluence of several factors ("society" and social influences being one).

Second, you put "diviates" in quotes. Which of "our eminent priesthood leaders" have - as you put it - used this word? You mention "so many of" them have used this word, so I assume you have some sort of compilation.

Third, I think the leaders of the Church have previously not fully distinguished behavior from the person engaging that behavior. For myself, I largely reject "homosexual" as an "identity" (it's a nearly brand-new concept, after all). But for the last several decades, the Church has made significant improvements in its understanding and perspective and approach to same-sex attraction.

Fourth, I have found this framework, from our own Hamba Tuhan, to be pretty helpful:

Quote

I have a PhD in history, so my approach is certainly shaped by that. I don't have children of my own, but I have long worked with young men and young missionaries and have taught them the following facts that are fully supported by historical and anthropological research:

the concept of fixed, gendered sexual identities (both hetero- and homo-) is a late 19th-century social construct that has no historical precedent and, despite 150 years of Western colonisation of the imagination, these still haven't become natural categories across all cultures

same-sex sexual behaviour has been ubiquitous since the beginning of recorded history (along with opposite-sex and other behaviours too numerous to list), though it has been framed in a dizzying number of ways across both time and space, with some cultures (for example, many Melanesian ones) having once required it as part of normal human development

it is perfectly normal to experience various kinds of attractions to both males and females

it is also perfectly normal not to be attracted to an entire class of people; for example, a male does not have to be attracted to females as a class, and to be honest, this can make living the Law of Chastity much easier!

whilst some cultures offer very narrow gender stereotypes, there are actually an infinite number of ways to be a righteous man or woman

the one constant is that all these things are fluid because humans are dynamic

To which I add the following:

God, aware that sexuality is powerful, has provided guidelines to keep us safe and happy and help us to become most like Him

we are currently in a historically unique time that presents a number of complications for Saints, so don't worry if you feel confused at times

you are going to screw up in one or more areas of the Law of Chastity; I know because I have done the same

don't panic when you find yourself in a headspace that doesn't fully match your eternal desires; this is a perfectly normal part of discipleship, which is why we have so many scriptures about it

NEVER listen to someone who wants to place you in a box and keep you there; the whole point of the gospel is to free us from such limitations

wherever you are in this process, I love you, and you are important to me

it is essential that we are all nice to each other since we're all works in progress

remember that perception is reality, so when people believe things about themselves that aren't true, those things are true to them at that point in time; try to be someone people might listen to when they're ready to shift their perceptions

I've had several young men and at least one former missionary thank me for taking this approach with them. They report feeling empowered by knowing the truth.

I find much of the dialogue and commentary about important matters (race and racism, sexuality and sexual behaviors, etc.) to be of very uneven quality. I am grateful to have living prophets and apostles to help us sort things out. They are far from perfect, but in the main they are cumulative getting things right.

Again, being a Latter-day Saint at the present time is a toughie. We are a record-keeping church, and some of those records include objectively or subjectively problematic statements from leaders of the Church. We now live in the Age of the Internet, where anyone and everyone has a soapbox, where the Marketplace of Ideas is far larger than it was in years past, and where the foregoing "objectively or subjectively problematic statements" can be presented, often in slanted ways to maximize shock value and to offend and foment ill will. Our job as Latter-day Saints is to continue to build the Kingdom despite our flaws. A big part of that is addressing accusations and characterizations directed against us. Our response needs to be a combination of things. We need to

rebut outright falsehoods,
point out and correct distortions and mischaracterizations,
correct the errors in our "narrative,"
abstain from conflating revealed doctrines with personal opinions,
acknowledge errors and mistakes, make corrections as necessary, and move forward,
resist notions of collective guilt,
avoid faultfinding and presentism,
sustain the Brethren notwithstanding their imperfections,
stand by doctrines and defend the faith, even when they are unpopular,
regularly apply Mormon 9:31 and similar exhortations regarding repentance and avoidance of condemning others,
serve others in society, in the Church, in the temples, and
proclaim the Gospel, all while "{l}ooking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." (Hebrews 12:2.)

I will close by again extending an apology to you. Full stop. You are asking tough questions, and I respect and appreciate that (and I ought to have respected and appreciated it more previously).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 25, 2023 by smac97

pogi · January 25, 2023

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Spiritual beliefs don’t exist in isolation, but since they are spiritual in nature and arise from a spiritual process, they form the foundation in addressing all these matters impacting faith including thought patterns, types of thought and thinking preferences. These more fundamental components are what I’ve been referring to when I used “paradigm” in reference to black-and-white thinking.

I would say that working on the soil, or how we think, is a conscious choice or decision since work is intentional. This is why, when active belief is the result of working on the soil, it too is a conscious choice or decision, especially in maintaining it when responding to discovery. Thought types and patterns also change developmentally as one matures, and so are not so much the result of intentional work. But active spiritual belief, because it is active, persists through each stage, while inactive belief doesn't.

Ok. I can't tell if we are in agreement or not. Spiritual foundations can crumble when the person doesn't know how to amend the soil to adapt to new environments. Often they are told by church leaders that such amendments are wrong or even evil. So they question their conscience, as they are taught. It isn't always spiritually sustainable without outside assistance and support. Sometimes hope, rather than belief, is all one needs to hang on.

If I understand you correctly though, my concern is that this line of thinking can lead many members to view people in faith crisis or who have left the church as being unrighteous enough, or that their spiritual foundation must have been weak to begin with, or they didn't put in enough effort to maintain it, or that they aren't praying hard enough, or that it must be sin that is causing them to lose faith. I don't believe that for a second in many, many cases. That is all simply untrue. Sometimes their soil just needs work and the church ecclesiastical leaders are not providing them with the tools needed to amend it in a way that is useful. They often reinforce the problem by sustaining the old black and white ways of thinking that are causing the crisis in the first place. Their loss of faith is often not due to a lack of desire or effort, but they are often led to believe that the black and white ways of thinking IS the gospel, and the only right way to think. THAT is the problem. That is why so many can't endure - because other people falsely stuff their cultural and philosophical views of the gospel down the throats of others saying THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO SEE IT. And as good members, they believe their leaders.

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

california boy · January 25, 2023

38 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

While we don't worship church leaders many tend to accept what they teach as scripture and fail to give further scrutiny or thought to what they teach. I know that is what I used to do. I accepted their teachings whole cloth.

Learning that these men are very human and subject to the frailties of being human, subject to mistakes, errors in judgement and yes even teaching falsehoods was a difficult pill for me to swallow. It seems that the iron rod has some twists and turns in it and isn't as straight as we might have once believed.

Taking prophetic pronouncements with a grain of salt has helped. Church leaders are not super human, they do not wear a large "S" on their chest, they are just mortals doing what they believe is best at the time and often stumble in that attempt particularly when viewed through history. Some prophetic pronouncements have not aged well.

Because of this view, I'm willing to give Elder Peterson some slack. Was he a racist and white supremacist? Yes, I believe the evidence is clear on that point. But so was much of America in the years that he served. Should we have expected better? Yes I would have preferred that the church, given our claim of revelation, would have been ahead of the times instead of decades behind. Given the church's teachings that these men are prophets, seers and revelator's, I think its only fitting that we should feel disappointed when we discover that by any standard they haven't lived up to our expected standard of their calling.

I suspect that in 50 years time some of the current prophetic pronouncements will also be cringe worthy for that generation.

PS: Both my grandparents immigrated from Nottingham and I still have cousins living there. I love the UK and visit often. In fact, I'll be back in April.

I think you just said what I was trying to say better than me. The biggest blind spot of this whole revelation claim seems to be about social issues which the Church has always lagged behind on. It is still those issues that the Church, without even any claim of revelation seems to want to double down on STILL. Remember when Elder Nelson claimed such a revelation concerning calling gays apostates and refusing to baptize their underaged children? There were some on this board who used that as PROOF that anti gay policies came from God... until it was reversed and now they are silent on those revelation claims. They still cling to the idea that current LGBT policies are God's will and those policies have noting to do with personal opinions of current Church leaders.

Taking prophetic pronouncements with a grain of salt does help, but I don't think there are many active believing TBM feel they can take that path. It is to central core to the claims of the Church.

HappyJackWagon · January 25, 2023

On 1/23/2023 at 11:29 AM, smac97 said:

I read the main question as "should we condemn past leaders of the Church because they had less-than-fully-enlightened views on race and racism?"

The answer, I think, is "No, not really. That would be an exercise in presentism. In the spirit of Mormon 9:31, we ought to acknowledge their errors and work to avoid emulating them."

Sounds like you are not willing to "extend grace" after all. If there was "the possibility/opportunity for an individual" to avoid an error, and if he did not avoid it, then we are free to condemn him?

Where's the "grace" in that?

I sense a "but" coming.

And there it is!

I don't understand what you are saying here.

So much for "extend{ing} grace," then.

I note the passive voice here.

I also note the implicit expectation of infallibility.

I also note the failure to fairly address the various and repeated admonitions we have received from the Brethren to not - as you put it - "pedestalize" them.

And yet, you don't seem to be recognizing that they weren't perfect or infallible.

Certainly.

I dread the day that the entirety of my life's efforts are adjudicated solely on the instances where I have failed or erred or fallen short in some way.

Such are the noxious fruits of presentism.

This is why we need to listen to the counsel we have received on this issue (Mormon 9:31 being a notable example).

I don't understand what you are saying here.

And in other news, water is wet and circles are round.

Meanwhile, the Brethren have given us ample sound counsel that, if followed, negates the need to endlessly litigate and re-litigate the failings and errors of our forebears.

Notably, you aren't answering that question.

Thanks,

-Smac

Clearly it is unimportant to you and apparently obvious that previous apostles and prophets would be bigoted.

The problem is, when some of their "sound counsel" also includes bigoted teachings then it becomes harder to trust their other statements.

It's not hard to understand why people might expect a prophet not to be a bigot when you consider the enhanced level of righteousness and ability to understand the teachings of the spirit. If a prophet teaches bigoted things and he can't discern the problem, then that is itself a problem. We're not just talking about misspeaking once or twice. Some of these individuals were very consistent in their bigoted teachings. Either God didn't care or that individual wasn't attune enough to recognize the repeated error.

Edited January 25, 2023 by HappyJackWagon

smac97 · January 25, 2023

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

The list of sexual behaviors notably involves several heterosexual ones, yet nobody accuses Elder Oaks of hating heterosexuals.

While I agree with much of what you are saying, there is a fundamental difference in that he condemns only some heterosexual behaviours while it reads as if he is condemning all homosexual behaviour in that particular quote (technically it would be any homosexual behaviour that was criminalized, so I assume he is essentially condemning only some forms of heterosexual intercourse while condemning all forms of homosexual intercourse),.

I agree with you, but I don't see how this is a problem. First, regarding "some heterosexual behaviors" which Oaks finds problematic (namely, adultery and fornication), nobody is accusing him of "hating" those who engage in those behaviors.

Second, "adultery" and "fornication" are not exclusively "heterosexual" behaviors.

Third, I don't agree with the notion that "all homosexual behavior" is something only engaged in by people who, at the time of the behavior, "identify" as gay, or as having same-sex attraction in some sense. All sorts of people indulge in all sorts of sexual experimentation, including homosexual behaviors. And some (many?) of these folks - prior to, during, and/or after having engaged in such sexual experimentation - conclude that they are "straight" / "heterosexual."

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I do not believe that means he hates homosexuals, but it does suggest a different view of homosexual attraction and I find it understandable why some go to hate though I believe in context of both talk and time it is being overblown.

I also understand "why some go to hate." I think they are wrong to do so.

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

those results are pretty bad

Some of them are pretty bad, others not that bad, some quite positive.

For example, medical cannabis is helping many, many people live better quality lives (it certainly made my life more bearable while it was helping me) while its recreational use, especially among the younger population is having some very nasty results imo.

I suspect Dallin H. Oaks in 1974 did not have an across-the-board objection to reasonable and properly-supervised administrations of mind-altering substances for medical purposes.

Regarding recreational use, for every "Hey, this has really helped me"-story over here, I think we are going to see many, many more "Oi, this stuff has really damaged my life"-type stories over there.

There are times when a well-intentioned cure ends up being worse than the disease.

Thanks,

-Smac

Dario_M · January 25, 2023

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I certainly identify with your experiences in the Church growing up. I always felt the need to do everything perfectly and anything short of that was a huge failure.

Ooh well i don't have that problem.

You can not do more then your best right. Mistakes may be maken. That is what we are humans for.... right?

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

The mantra that constantly went through my mind was a statement by Marion G. Romney who said something like Magnifying the priesthood is doing more that anyone except the Lord expects or requires. Knowing I was gay since I was 12 made this goal the only thing I could possibly do to please God. It also mean that no matter what I did, I could never please God. While I did try to magnify every calling I received from the time I was a deacon to the time I left the Church, always trying to do more than was required of me, I knew it would never be enough and that in the end, there would never be a Celestial Kingdom for me. There is no path to the Celestial Kingdom without being straight.

That is what the church claims indeed. 🎭

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

What changed is that I finally became ok with that.

It really wasn't until after I left the Church that I could see all the blind spots in what the Church teaches and the many flaws in what it teaches. I think a lot of those flaws have come to the surface for a lot of members since I left the Church. You have to either figure out a way around those flaws even when such work-arounds make little sense, or you begin to loose faith in the whole institution.

I hear so manny stories of people that have left the LDS church. And i must admit that the LDS church is all about you must do this, need to do that. Need need need. Must must must. 👈

Well...not on my watch. In my ward they also put presure on me you know. But if i don't wanna do something i just don't do it. They just can't make me do it. And I have been really clear about that as well.... to my bishop and a few missionaries.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

My path lead to a different place than yours. It is a challenge to navigate whatever path we follow back to God. I wish you the best.

Do you still believe

pogi · January 25, 2023

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Clearly it is unimportant to you and apparently obvious that previous apostles and prophets would be bigoted.

The problem is, when some of their "sound counsel" also includes bigoted teachings then it becomes harder to trust their other statements.

It's not hard to understand why people might expect a prophet not to be a bigot when you consider the enhanced level of righteousness and ability to understand the teachings of the spirit. If a prophet teaches bigoted things and he can't discern the problem, then that is itself a problem. We're not just talking about misspeaking once or twice. Some of these individuals were very consistent in their bigoted teachings. Either God didn't care or that individual wasn't attune enough to recognize the repeated error.

Yep. You just hit the nail on the head for many people I know personally, and has been an issue I had to work through myself. It is largely a matter of trust. How can we trust leaders who can make such monumental mistakes while thinking they are on the side of truth/spirit? How can we trust them on other big issues? It is a tough thing to work out when one has been raised to doubt their own inspiration if it is contrary to the position of the brethren, or that when the leaders speak the thinking has been done, or where taking a position contrary to that of the brethren makes one a suspected enemy of the church or on the road to apostasy. Like I said previously, the church has created a perfect scenario for faith crisis in that regard. BECAUSE we believe what they teach us about following them, it is VERY easy to lose trust in them when we place our faith and trust in them, sometimes uncomfortably against our better judgment, only to find out that they were wrong all along. That can lead to unhealthy disillusionment and crisis, and I think the church has some accountability in that.

In the balance and tension between "follow the prophet, don't go astray" and "spiritual self-reliance", I think the church has been devastatingly heavy handed to the former side of the equation without giving enough emphasis to the later. That has been my personal experience in the church in my neck of the woods. I would be surprised if I am alone in that assessment. I think that is starting to change more and more though. I think that in a well-intentioned response to dissenters thrown about by every wind of doctrine, the church has bred an unhealthy dependence of trusting the brethren above our own conscience. When our faith (which can only be in things that are true) lies in men (the brethren), and is dependent upon them, then it will all come tumbling down when they fail and make mistakes. Those in faith crisis need to learn to counter-balance with more emphasis on spiritual self-reliance and being willing to be a "cafeteria Mormon". We need to learn to remove our faith in men and place it in God. We need to learn that men can be led and inspired by God AND make HUGE mistakes. It is weird that we claim to believe in the Bible and old-testament but can't seem to grasp that concept. Well, it is not really that weird when one considers how we were raised to believe.

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

smac97 · January 25, 2023

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

Quote

Have there been past church authorities who have said and taught bigoted things? Yes.

And in other news, water is wet and circles are round.

Meanwhile, the Brethren have given us ample sound counsel that, if followed, negates the need to endlessly litigate and re-litigate the failings and errors of our forebears.

Notably, you aren't answering that question.

Clearly it is unimportant to you

Right. My extensive participation in this thread is based on me thinking this topic is not important.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

and apparently obvious that previous apostles and prophets would be bigoted.

The "People in the 19th Century Were Racist!" merry-go-round is pretty much always an exercise in presentism. That is how I took your comment.

My (admittedly caustic) response was not because your comment is "unimportant," but because its observation is, at this point, stale and axiomatic.

I apologize for the sarcasm. I should have been more circumspect.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The problem is, when some of their "sound counsel" also includes bigoted teachings then it becomes harder to trust their other statements.

"The problem is, when we see that Martin Luther King, Jr. regularly stepped out on his wife, it becomes harder to trust his efforts to secure civil rights for black people."

Doesn't really work, does it?

Back in February I made the following observation:

Quote

There is a strong temptation in our "Cancel Culture"-saturated milieu 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.

The root defect in this, I think, is implicit expectations of perfection or infallibility.

I think it is possible to admire and find tremendous value in the United States Constitution, and appreciate and broadly admire its drafters, even though "{o}f the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, about 25 owned slaves."

I think it is possible to admire the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and appreciate and broadly admire Martin Luther King, Jr. for his efforts in advancing the civil rights of black people in America, even though he plagiarized his doctoral dissertation, his purported "numerous extramarital affairs," and other failings.

I think it is possible to admire the "Greatest Generation" who fought - and many of whom died or were wounded - in World War II, even though many of them harbored notions regarding race, gender and sexuality that would not pass muster in 2023.

I think it is possible to admire and respect people who are in favor of elective abortion, even though I find elective abortion to be a pretty horrible thing, and participating in it to be a substantial moral failing.

Historical figures ought to be viewed in ways that involve more than condemning them for their failures and mistakes and errors.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's not hard to understand why people might expect a prophet not to be a bigot when you consider the enhanced level of righteousness and ability to understand the teachings of the spirit. If a prophet teaches bigoted things and he can't discern the problem, then that is itself a problem.

Classic presentism.

Classic (though implicit) expectations/requirements of infallibility.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We're not just talking about misspeaking once or twice. Some of these individuals were very consistent in their bigoted teachings. Either God didn't care or that individual wasn't attune enough to recognize the repeated error.

I think this says very little about the actual subject matter, and much more about your personal and subjective expectations of others (including God). What you are saying here is drenched in presentism and after-the-fact fault-finding.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · January 25, 2023

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

Offer what opinion? It was already a "fait accompli".

Apparently it was not a "fait accompli" until there was unanimity. Every decision made by Twelve or Seventy must be by unanimous voice (D&C 107:27).

See, e.g., here:

Quote

The significance President Kimball attributed to unanimity can be seen in how President Tanner presented the matter to the Church at the next general conference:

President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

He then proposed acceptance as “the word and will of the Lord.”¹⁸⁴

Two of the Twelve had not attended either meeting. Elder Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Elder Delbert L. Stapley was seriously ill in the LDS Hospital. Later in the day of June 8, Spencer telephoned Elder Petersen in Quito, Ecuador, informed him what had happened, had Francis Gibbons read him the announcement about to be published, and received his approval. Elder Petersen later recalled, “I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation’s coming was more striking than the decision itself. On the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent.”¹⁸⁵

All three of the First Presidency visited Elder Stapley. He responded, “I’ll stay with the Brethren on this.” Thus, support from the Twelve was unanimous.¹⁸⁶

And here:

Quote

The Decisions of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Are Unanimous

To teach how unanimity is achieved in the governing councils of the Church, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained:

“I can best tell you how you are governed today … by explaining the principles and procedures we follow in the meetings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These procedures protect the work from the individual weaknesses apparent in all of us.

“When a matter comes before the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a temple meeting, one thing that is determined very quickly is whether it is of serious consequence or not. One or another of us will see in an apparently innocent proposal issues of great and lasting consequence.

“It is clear from the revelations that the decisions of the presiding quorums ‘must be by the unanimous voice of the same. … Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings’ (D&C 107:27, 29). In order to ensure that to be the case, matters of consequence are seldom decided in the meeting where they are proposed. And, if the proposal is a part of a larger issue, sufficient time is taken to ‘bring us all along’ so that it is clear that each of us has either a clear understanding of the issue or, as is often the case, has a very clear feeling about it. …

“It would be unthinkable to deliberately present an issue in such a way that approval depended upon how it was maneuvered through channels, who was presenting it, or who was present or absent when it was presented.

“Often one or more of us is away during regular meetings. We all know that the work must proceed and will accept the judgment of our brethren. However, if a matter has been studied by one of the Quorum in more detail than by the others or he is more familiar with it either by assignment, experience, or personal interest, the matter is very often delayed until he can be in on the discussion.

“And, always, if one of us cannot understand an issue or feels unsettled about it, it is held over for future discussion.

“I remember occasions when a delegation was sent to the hospital to discuss with a member of the Council who was ill some urgent matter that could not be delayed but which needed that ‘unanimous consent.’ There are occasions, as well, when one of us will leave the meeting temporarily to call one of our number who is abroad to get his feelings on a matter under discussion.

“There is a rule we follow: A matter is not settled until there is a minute entry to evidence that all of the Brethren in council assembled (not just one of us, not just a committee) have come to a unity of feeling. Approval of a matter in principle is not considered authority to act until a minute entry records the action taken—usually when the minutes are approved in the next meeting.

“Sometimes an afterthought keeps one of us restless over a decision. That is never dismissed lightly. It cannot be assumed that that restless spirit is not in fact the Spirit of Revelation.

“That is how we function—in council assembled. That provides safety for the Church and a high comfort level for each of us who is personally accountable. Under the plan, men of ordinary capacity may be guided through counsel and inspiration to accomplish extraordinary things” (“I Say unto You, Be One,” Brigham Young University 1990–91 Devotional and Fireside Speeches [1991], 83–84; emphasis added).

President James E. Faust (1920–2007) of the First Presidency explained why unanimity is so important: “This requirement of unanimity provides a check on bias and personal idiosyncrasies. It ensures that God rules through the Spirit, not man through majority or compromise. It ensures that the best wisdom and experience is focused on an issue before the deep, unassailable impressions of revealed direction are received. It guards against the foibles of man” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1989, 11; or Ensign, Nov. 1989, 10; emphasis added).

The men who serve in the Quorum of the Twelve are men of strong opinions and differing backgrounds. Nonetheless, President Gordon B. Hinckley noted an absence of discord or feelings of enmity between the brethren:

“Any major questions of policy, procedures, programs, or doctrine are considered deliberately and prayerfully by the First Presidency and the Twelve together. These two quorums, the Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, meeting together, with every man having total freedom to express himself, consider every major question. …

“And now I quote … from the word of the Lord: ‘And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other’ (D&C 107:27).

“No decision emanates from the deliberations of the First Presidency and the Twelve without total unanimity among all concerned. At the outset in considering matters, there may be differences of opinion. These are to be expected. These men come from different backgrounds. They are men who think for themselves. But before a final decision is reached, there comes a unanimity of mind and voice.

“This is to be expected if the revealed word of the Lord is followed. Again I quote from the revelation:

“‘The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;

“‘Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord’ (D&C 107:30–31).

“I add by way of personal testimony that during the twenty years I served as a member of the Council of the Twelve and during the nearly thirteen years that I have served in the First Presidency, there has never been a major action taken where this procedure was not observed. I have seen differences of opinion presented in these deliberations. Out of this very process of men speaking their minds has come a sifting and winnowing of ideas and concepts. But I have never observed serious discord or personal enmity among my Brethren. I have, rather, observed a beautiful and remarkable thing—the coming together, under the directing influence of the Holy Spirit and under the power of revelation, of divergent views until there is total harmony and full agreement. Only then is implementation made. That, I testify, represents the spirit of revelation manifested again and again in directing this the Lord’s work” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1994, 74–75; or Ensign, May 1994, 54, 59; emphasis added).

Obtaining the consent of Elders Stapley and Petersen was not an empty formality, but was instead a substantive requirement.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 25, 2023 by smac97

CV75 · January 25, 2023

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Ok. I can't tell if we are in agreement or not. Spiritual foundations can crumble when the person doesn't know how to amend the soil to adapt to new environments. Often they are told by church leaders that such amendments are wrong or even evil. So they question their conscience, as they are taught. It isn't always spiritually sustainable without outside assistance and support. Sometimes hope, rather than belief, is all one needs to hang on.

If I understand you correctly though, my concern is that this line of thinking can lead many members to view people in faith crisis or who have left the church as being unrighteous enough, or that their spiritual foundation must have been weak to begin with, or they didn't put in enough effort to maintain it, or that they aren't praying hard enough, or that it must be sin that is causing them to lose faith. I don't believe that for a second in many, many cases. That is all simply untrue. Sometimes their soil just needs work and the church ecclesiastical leaders are not providing them with the tools needed to amend it in a way that is useful. They often reinforce the problem by sustaining the old black and white ways of thinking that are causing the crisis in the first place. Their loss of faith is often not due to a lack of desire or effort, but they are often led to believe that the black and white ways of thinking IS the gospel, and the only right way to think. THAT is the problem. That is why so many can't endure - because other people falsely stuff their cultural and philosophical views of the gospel down the throats of others saying THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO SEE IT. And as good members, they believe their leaders.

I don’t take these conversations as a matter of agreement/disagreement but of exchanging ideas. Oftentimes they largely reflect agreement with some nuance and uncertainty thrown in. But I find them helpful.

Good point about hope. I would say that spiritual foundations crumble once external environments take priority. The admonitions to keep our eye single, take His name upon us, etc. are matters of the spirit, and yes, we deal with these as so much around us competes. The coping methods for staying active in Church attendance that I’ve seen discussed in this thread are largely environment-focused. But these do not nurture a belief (or hope, or a desire to believe, etc.) in the restoration, which is very different from Church attendance.

Granted, someone hanging around Church members is more likely to remember the restoration than those who do not, but they still have to come to believe/hope it for their actions to match their beliefs/hopes, assuming that is their source of consternation. This will see them through all sorts of offending situations.

Whatever one’s motive or rationale for staying involved, their level of belief/hope in the restoration is not determined by their thought patterns, types or preferences and their capacity to adapt (either themselves or their surroundings). This is why I object to people adopting this narrative to describe why they are leaving when it is sufficient, and more accurate, to say they don’t believe in it. I see no harm, no foul in acknowledging or saying that; the Lord teaches us not to judge them.

On the positive side, I also object to adopting this narrative to encourage people to stay because a) it prioritizes the external and b) people of all types can still have faith/hope and the Lord has shown the way to handle our offenses.

california boy · January 25, 2023

39 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Ooh well i don't have that problem.

You can not do more then your best right. Mistakes may be maken. That is what we are humans for.... right?

That is what the church claims indeed. 🎭

I hear so manny stories of people that have left the LDS church. And i must admit that the LDS church is all about you must do this, need to do that. Need need need. Must must must. 👈

Well...not on my watch. In my ward they also put presure on me you know. But if i don't wanna do something i just don't do it. They just can't make me do it. And I have been really clear about that as well.... to my bishop and a few missionaries.

Do you still believe

Sounds like you have figured out a way to make the Church work for you. That is something I couldn't really figure out how to do for myself. I no longer believe the Church's claims of revelation. Without that, it is hard to believe in the claims of being something other than like minded people who worship God in their own unique way. If it works for them, then more power to them. Most of my children are still in the Church. I support them and their families on that path. It doesn't have to be true in order for it to be good for some people.

Grug the Neanderthal · January 25, 2023

On 1/23/2023 at 7:28 AM, The Great Pretender said:

During the Saturday Morning Session of General Conference on October 1, 2022, President Nelson said, “Any kind of abuse ... is an abomination to the Lord.”

That's a heartwarming soundbite, but what if some statements of prophets, seers, and revelators of yesteryear now qualify as abuse and/or hate speech according to dictionary definitions in 2023? Should it no longer matter because we've moved on?

I can’t think of any “hate speech” from prophets, seers, and revelators of yesteryear. I can think of speech that would be considered insensitive and prejudiced by today’s standards, but nothing that would constitute “hate speech.”

In the current political climate, many people consider insensitive and prejudiced speech to be a cardinal sin, but this was not the case even twenty years ago. It’s not fair to judge the people of the past, even great people, by the social norms of the present.

In my opinion the political climate in the west is completely bonkers right now. People are way too sensitive and quick to assume the worst of intentions or demonize those whose views they disagree with.

So with this in mind, while I don’t get worked up about insensitive and prejudiced speech from yesteryear, I recognize that the cancel culture crowd will continue to go on the war path over past speech that offends them today. I think this is a shame, but it is what it is.

smac97 · January 25, 2023

19 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Quote

Quote

But then when you realize that even by the standards of his day, he was still a racist then what? He welded much influence in keeping the priesthood ban in place. In fact Kimball waited to hold the vote to lift the ban until Peterson was out of the country. I think that speaks volumes.

CFR, please. Evidence as to Pres. Kimball having "waited to hold the vote" as you describe.

Fair enough. I do not personally KNOW that Pres Kimball "Waited" until Elder Peterson was out of the country...only that Elder Peterson was OUT of the country when the vote was taken.

It is a rather significant leap, in both evidence and reasoning, to declare that Pres. Kimball "waited to hold the vote," and then conclude that this "speaks volumes."

19 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

Still it seems rather convenient to hold a vote on a subject so close to Elder Peterson's heart while he was unable to interject his opinions into the discussion for the lifting of the ban.

Absent evidence to the contrary, imputing ill motives to Pres. Kimball ("it seems rather convenient...") is not warranted, either generally or in a Latter-day Saint context and paradigm.

There is also an an apparent imputation here against Elder Petersen. From the Kimball article:

Quote

On May 25, Mark E. Petersen called President Kimball’s attention to an article that proposed the priesthood policy had begun with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, and he suggested that the President might wish to consider this factor.^{148

...

148.}The article almost surely was the 1973 article by Bush, “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,” 11; Anderson, “History of Dialogue, Part Two,” 64 (possible influence of Bush article). Mark E. Petersen, “Discussion Re: Utah Historical Quarterly,” memo, Kimball Papers, notes that at the time, President Kimball considered taking on the subject of blacks and the priesthood prayerfully.

Have you read the Bush article? Here's a link to it. An excerpt:

Quote

Though it is now popular among Mormons to argue that the basis for the priesthood denial to Negroes is unknown, no uncertainty was evidence in the discourses of Brigham Young. From the initial remark in 1849 throughout his presidency, every known discussion of this subject by Young (or any other leading Mormon) invoked the connection with Cain as the justification for denying the priesthood to blacks."
...
Through three decades of discourses, Brigham Young never attributed the policy of priesthood denial to Joseph Smith, nor did he cite the Prophet's translation of the Book of Abraham in support of this doctrine.

I think if you read it in its entirety, you will only find arguments and reasoning against the Priesthood Ban, both as to its origins and provenance, its continuation, the works. Elder Petersen purportedly disagreed with its overall substance (see here), that he called Pres. Kimball's attention to this article is, in my view, noteworthy. If Elder Petersen was so immutably entrenched a racist worldview, why recommend an article which decries that worldview to the Presiding High Priest? Is it possible that Elder Petersen was open to reconsidering his views?

19 hours ago, Craig Speechly said:

I mean what was the rush? Blacks had already waited nearly 180 years...what's another week to allow Elder Peterson enough time to return from his assignment?

I don't know that there was either a "rush" or a "delay." Elder Petersen was apparently in South America organizing a stake. Such assignments are pretty common.

And FWIW, another member of the Quorum of the Twelve, Delbert Stapley, was in the hospital in the summer of 1978. In fact, he had been too ill to attend General Conference in April of that year, and he died on August 19 of that year, about 2.5 months after the revelatory events on June 1, 1978. Elder Stapley is, along with Elder Petersen, viewed as a "holdout," as having racialized proclivities that made them less likely to agree to a unanimous vote lifting the Priesthood Ban. Per this article, "Stapley had been ill for several months when he died of cardiac arrest while walking near his home on August 19, 1978, in Salt Lake City." If machinations were afoot, Pres. Kimball would likely not have been in a "rush." To the contrary, if Elder Stapley was correctly seen as an impediment to a unanimous vote, and if he had been in ill health for months (including a hospitalization, which is seldom a good sign for someone in their 80s), wouldn't a calculating Pres. Kimball have been more inclined to delay the matter? (To clarify, I don't think Pres. Kimball was calculating in this way.)

Thanks,

-Smac

pogi · January 25, 2023

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don’t take these conversations as a matter of agreement/disagreement but of exchanging ideas. Oftentimes they largely reflect agreement with some nuance and uncertainty thrown in. But I find them helpful.

Thanks for the explanation.

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would say that spiritual foundations crumble once external environments take priority.

It depends on how you define "external environments". I don't think we are seeing eye-to-eye on that. What I am describing is not an "external" environment at all, but an internal, and even spiritual environment. When that internal environment is out of sync with how one was raised to believe in the church. They have to either adapt how they perceive the church (and perhaps even truth itself) or let it go. There are no other options in that scenario that do not include unsustainable cognitive dissonance and constant anxiety/fear. This is the source of the crisis. It is not a crisis of spirit necessarily, all though it can become so without support, it is a crisis of perspective.

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The admonitions to keep our eye single, take His name upon us, etc. are matters of the spirit, and yes, we deal with these as so much around us competes.

I agree. Sometimes that distraction can include the church and its leaders. That is a hard pill for some to swallow without proper soil.

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The coping methods for staying active in Church attendance that I’ve seen discussed in this thread are largely environment-focused. But these do not nurture a belief (or hope, or a desire to believe, etc.) in the restoration, which is very different from Church attendance.

The environments I speak of are internal, and I can testify to you that they absolutely do foster and nurture hope, desire, and belief in the restoration.

42 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Whatever one’s motive or rationale for staying involved, their level of belief/hope in the restoration is not determined by their thought patterns, types or preferences and their capacity to adapt (either themselves or their surroundings).

We will have to agree to disagree. Our thought patterns are critical. That is what determines everything we do and how we perceive the world. They can foster spiritual growth and survival, or they can eventually drown beliefs flame. It is all about perception/thoughts/interpretations which lead to spiritual experience/fruit...or not.

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

Craig Speechly · January 25, 2023

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently it was not a "fait accompli" until there was unanimity. Every decision made by Twelve or Seventy must be by unanimous voice (D&C 107:27).

See, e.g., here:

And here:

Obtaining the consent of Elders Stapley and Petersen was not an empty formality, but was instead a substantive requirement.

Thanks,

-Smac

I've done some more research into this question.

According the LeGrand Richards:

Quote

And then the next Thursday – we meet every Thursday – the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement – to see how we’d feel about it – and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it – the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

So it appears that Elder Peterson WAS involved in the vote and DID vote his approval in the meeting that lifted the ban.

Nevo · January 25, 2023

1 hour ago, Craig Speechly said:

So it appears that Elder Peterson WAS involved in the vote and DID vote his approval in the meeting that lifted the ban.

I've done a bit more reading about this, too, and it looks like there was quite a bit of consultation before the final decision was taken.

Several apostles were invited to submit memos on the question in the weeks leading up to the announcement (Elders Packer, Monson, and McConkie). Neal A. Maxwell, who was not a member of the Q12 at the time, also seems to have prepared a brief. And David B. Haight related that "in the weeks prior to the June 1 meeting, Kimball had met individually with each apostle, and again with some small groups of apostles, to discuss the implications of changing the policy" (Gregory A. Prince, Leonard Arrington and the Writing of Mormon History [Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2016], 319, 324, 326).

Bruce R. McConkie's memo was titled, "Doctrinal Basis for Conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood Upon the Negroes," and is briefly described in Matthew Harris's recent Dialogue article, "Joseph Fielding Smith's Evolving Views on Race: The Odyssey of a Mormon Apostle-President."

Edited January 25, 2023 by Nevo

smac97 · January 25, 2023

24 minutes ago, Craig Speechly said:

I've done some more research into this question.

According the LeGrand Richards:

Quote

And then the next Thursday – we meet every Thursday – the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement – to see how we’d feel about it – and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it – the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

So it appears that Elder Peterson WAS involved in the vote and DID vote his approval in the meeting that lifted the ban.

Well, not exactly. Per the Edward Kimball article, the operative event occurred on June 1, 1978 (the first Thursday of the month), and in the next meeting on the next Thursday, June 8, was when the First Presidency presented to the Twelve the proposed announcement, and when those present (all but Elders Stapley and Petersen) made comments and discussed how to announce the change. Later that day (June 8), Pres. Kimball called Elder Petersen and obtained his sustaining vote.

I think June 8 is the "next Thursday" referenced by Elder Richards above. There may be a slight discrepancy here, as Elder Richards says that the telephone call was "right while we were in that meeting in the temple," whereas Edward Kimball states that the weekly Thursday meetings were held in the morning, and that the call to Elder Petersen occured "{l}ater in the day on June 8." The matter was announced the next day, on June 9.

So there were essentially two meetings, and Elder Petersen was not present at either. He was either called on the telephone during the second meeting or later in the day after it.

Thanks,

-Smac

HappyJackWagon · January 25, 2023

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Yep. You just hit the nail on the head for many people I know personally, and has been an issue I had to work through myself. It is largely a matter of trust. How can we trust leaders who can make such monumental mistakes while thinking they are on the side of truth/spirit? How can we trust them on other big issues? It is a tough thing to work out when one has been raised to doubt their own inspiration if it is contrary to the position of the brethren, or that when the leaders speak the thinking has been done, or where taking a position contrary to that of the brethren makes one a suspected enemy of the church or on the road to apostasy. Like I said previously, the church has created a perfect scenario for faith crisis in that regard. BECAUSE we believe what they teach us about following them, it is VERY easy to lose trust in them when we place our faith and trust in them, sometimes uncomfortably against our better judgment, only to find out that they were wrong all along. That can lead to unhealthy disillusionment and crisis, and I think the church has some accountability in that.

In the balance and tension between "follow the prophet, don't go astray" and "spiritual self-reliance", I think the church has been devastatingly heavy handed to the former side of the equation without giving enough emphasis to the later. That has been my personal experience in the church in my neck of the woods. I would be surprised if I am alone in that assessment. I think that is starting to change more and more though. I think that in a well-intentioned response to dissenters thrown about by every wind of doctrine, the church has bred an unhealthy dependence of trusting the brethren above our own conscience. When our faith (which can only be in things that are true) lies in men (the brethren), and is dependent upon them, then it will all come tumbling down when they fail and make mistakes. Those in faith crisis need to learn to counter-balance with more emphasis on spiritual self-reliance and being willing to be a "cafeteria Mormon". We need to learn to remove our faith in men and place it in God. We need to learn that men can be led and inspired by God AND make HUGE mistakes. It is weird that we claim to believe in the Bible and old-testament but can't seem to grasp that concept. Well, it is not really that weird when one considers how we were raised to believe.

Nicely said.

I'll just emphasize your point about how the church teaches to follow the prophet/apostles because they won't lead us astray. Except, sometimes they do. We didn't create high expectations for prophets, seers, and revelators out of thin air. We were taught to trust in their teachings. After all, they "are scripture"...except when they're wrong. The church itself has created a massive problem by requiring members to have faith in men and their teachings because those same members lose faith when those men aren't reliable.

Think about someone like Brigham Young who lived during a time when racial matters in the US were a huge issue. He lived through the Civil War. It's not like the issue of race was some ancillary issue he wouldn't have thought about or hopefully prayed about, yet we get teachings about Cain, and fence sitters etc. Or think about Peterson who lived during the civil rights era. Again, major issues he would have been very aware of. There was a correct side and a wrong side yet as a prophet he still came down on the bigoted side. It doesn't instill much confidence. Or we have someone Like Ezra Taft Benson who lived through the same time and was even a part of the US government and he came down on the side of civil rights being a communist ploy. These things are not ancient history.

CV75 · January 25, 2023

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the explanation.

It depends on how you define "external environments". I don't think we are seeing eye-to-eye on that. What I am describing is not an "external" environment at all, but an internal, and even spiritual environment. When that internal environment is out of sync with how one was raised to believe in the church. They have to either adapt how they perceive the church (and perhaps even truth itself) or let it go. There are no other options in that scenario that do not include unsustainable cognitive dissonance and constant anxiety/fear. This is the source of the crisis. It is not a crisis of spirit necessarily, all though it can become so without support, it is a crisis of perspective.

I agree. Sometimes that distraction can include the church and its leaders. That is a hard pill for some to swallow without proper soil.

The environments I speak of are internal, and I can testify to you that they absolutely do foster and nurture hope, desire, and belief in the restoration.

We will have to agree to disagree. Our thought patterns are critical. That is what determines everything we do and how we perceive the world. They can foster spiritual growth and survival, or they can eventually drown beliefs flame. It is all about perception/thoughts/interpretations which lead to spiritual experience/fruit...or not.

Certainly, our internal environment (cognition, mental states, the thought styles I mentioned before, etc.) can affect faith in many ways. I would say everyone submits their cognitive dissonance, anxiety and fear to their belief, whether the point of belief is conducive to Church activity or not. I’ve been using belief in the restoration as an example. I take “unsustainable” and “constant” to refer to pathology, which I am not qualified to comment on, but my opinion is that many people in need of mental health services also believe in the restoration (or don’t), or find their belief bolstered (or put to rest) with treatment. I haven’t been referring to clinical issues in my comments on this thread.

My belief is that the Lord speaks to everyone regardless of their thought pattern, and these patterns – severe pathology aside -- are not an impediment to belief in the restoration. This is how we have so many types of thinkers in the Church, which is good because every perspective has value for the rest, if tolerated.

When I say “external environment” I do mean what is going on in the world around us whether we perceive these things or not, and our perceptions are influenced by internal factors and our internal environment. I’ve taken this thread to be about how relatively well-adjusted people can prioritize their observations and conclusions about others over their personal belief, how a subset of these wish to remain active in the Church despite the pull not to, and how another subset uses a narrative of improved thought patterns to justify leaving or staying. When it is really a matter of believing or not. Maybe I didn’t have to write that last sentence !

MustardSeed · January 25, 2023

41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

just emphasize your point about how the church teaches to follow the prophet/apostles because they won't lead us astray. Except, sometimes they do.

We really need to redefine what “lead us astray” means.

Should anyone care about historical hate speech by senior Church leadership?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

The Decisions of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Are Unanimous

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Recently Browsing 0 members