For Those Who Stayed After Researching Church History

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

What are any of these things compared to the word of the All Mighty in your soul?

This.

So much time is spent on researching mortals.  Oh that more time were spent on seeking immortal Deity and the wisdom and rest they’ve promised those who seek them with the proper intent.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What is the point of Joseph receiving the Urim and Thummim (interpreters) which were made specifically to interpret writings of an ancient date- if Joseph wasn't meant to use them? 

Using them for a time is not the same as not using them.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Devobah said:

thang ding

Had to look it up, but love the reference.

[bluebell]

I started learning about stuff early (I had a seminary teacher that taught us about all the wives of JS in class, for example) and in my experience, the earlier that hard/unflattering/unconventional things about the history of the church are learned, the better people tend to handle it.  I also have a degree in history and so have a basic understanding of how it works, what history (the stuff we learn) actually is, and probably most importantly, that there is no famous person or organization without something that could be considered sordid in their past.

For me, it just seems overwhelmingly obvious that imperfect and messy doesn't automatically equal untrue.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What is the point of Joseph receiving the Urim and Thummim (interpreters) which were made specifically to interpret writings of an ancient date- if Joseph wasn't meant to use them? 

I don't know. But the Church website says he used both. See HERE.

Quotation from the article:

Quote

Another scribe, Martin Harris sat across the table from Joseph Smith and wrote down the words Joseph dictated. Harris later related that as Joseph used the seer stone to translate, sentences appeared. Joseph read those sentences aloud, and after penning the words, Harris would say, “Written.” An associate who interviewed Harris recorded him saying that Joseph “possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Weird doesn't bother me at all- I gained a rock-solid testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. at age 16. But I choose scriptural and historical explanations over clouded memories by those who left the main body of the Church many years previously, or claims originating with enemies of the Church, when the choice between the two is given.

There's sufficient faithful testimony of Joseph using both the interpreters and the seer stone, I think, to accept that as a fact. 

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, Devobah said:

To make a little levity on the situation, I think Sarah Allen put it best when she said (I'm paraphrasing): You either believe in one "magic" rock, two, or both. it shouldn't change how we see the translation. And that changed my whole perspective on it. I never had the visualization of the spectacles like some did. The way that I visualized it was Joseph holding the stone over the plates and that was how he saw the English words. During this time I was probably more in the "tight translation" camp than anything else. The more I learned about languages and how we understand what is being said versus what is actually being said my views began to change. Funnily enough, I actually recently started to get stuff on Instagram that has to do with the translation of languages. Italian and Spanish are interesting languages because what we understand isn't what is being said. A "tight" translation wouldn't make sense to us, but a looser translation does. 

As a linguistics hobbyist, I am sometimes struck by how difficult it is to create tight translations that actually mean what was intended. 

I am bilingual in English in German, and let me tell you that there jokes in German, funny jokes, that just do not translate well at all into English. Either tightly or loosely. Well, I say "jokes," but I don't know very many German jokes, just one that I found hilarious, but translated into English just sounded odd.  Reading the Bible in German is a somewhat different experience than in English.

Here's the last verse of the hymn, High on the Mountain Top, each line in English, followed by the corresponding German line, and then with the German translated back into English:

For there we shall be taught The law that will go forth,
Von dort kommt das Gesetz, durch das der Herr uns führt;
From there comes the law by which the Lord leads us;

With truth and wisdom fraught, To govern all the earth.
mit Wahrheit und mit Weisheit er die Welt regiert.
with truth and wisdom he rules the world.

Forever there his ways we’ll tread, And save ourselves with all our dead.
Wir folgen dort des Heilands Wort, tun das Erlösungswerk auf Zions Berg.
There we follow the Savior's word, do the work of redemption on Mount Zion.

Interesting, no? The German kind of follows the English, but not quite. The original German hymn A Mighty Fortress has three verses in German, but the English translation only has one, the first one. And they kind of say the same thing, but not quite. Of course this is poetry in song, and the grammar of the two languages are similar, but not close.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree there are times it isn’t going to match as it could even come across as patronizing to perfectly or intending to insult if one chose to transcribe a sermon with all the ums and breaks and such, a good effort to write what you truly believe they were trying to say and not what you hope or wish they said is very different imo.

I listened to the talk in person, then afterwards tried to listen to a recording of it (my stake does its livestreams on YouTube, and one can go back and re-listen). Still couldn't make it work. So I put the audio through a speech recognition program and the resulting text was sufficient to pick out what she was trying to say. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

To be clear- I'm not saying Joseph didn't posses seer stones. That is not my contention.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So I put the audio through a speech recognition program and the resulting text was sufficient to pick out what she was trying to say. 

Smart

[Devobah]

On 6/1/2024 at 1:41 PM, blackstrap said:

am currently rereading " Rough Stone Rolling ". History is messy but interesting. For some , leaving the Church was a long and difficult struggle. For others , all it took was a misspelled name or a sideways glance from Joseph. When I read about those who had marvelous and extensive spiritual experiences and yet left ( some returned ), it reminds me to keep a watchful eye on my testimony. 

I think the worst part of the journey was coming to this realization. History is messy, and you can only get through so much. There's a reason that books continue to get written about certain events or people. It is impossible to write the history of the entire world, because to do so would require more than the time we have here.

I agree that all it takes for some is just the slightest thing and that "wrecks a testimony." I do believe that some are just looking for a way out, and church history becomes that out for those people. That's not to say that there aren't some valid criticisms and worries that I have. The big ones for me are the Book of Abraham and Joseph Smith's Polygamy. At the same time, I also need to take time to not let stuff like this dominate my life. I'm not putting it on my shelf, I'm putting it down and trusting that there are answers that we just don't have yet. It's the most frustrating thing sometimes, but it's what we have to do sometimes.

[Devobah]

23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe that is why I had such a crisis of faith. My parents didn't delve much into church history that I know of and then I grew up with the almost perfect church leaders in the various lessons I heard. So in my mid 40's I had a rude awakening when finding out about Joseph's specific polygamy. Already thought I knew all there was to know since I knew BY lived it. But now know he didn't live it like I thought. 

I stay in, but currently not active. I look active, haha, wear the g's. Have all LDS friends, for the most part. I can't escape it because it's in my blood, the LDS people are my tribe I guess. And having this board is probably how I hang on so long while reading posts, and feeling less lonely in my knowledge of the warts and all. 

I think the important thing for lots of us to understand is that for many who just study the gospel, or even just attend church and its meetings, a lot of times this doesn't come up. I've been in wards where lots of controversial history was brought up and discussed, and I've also been in wards where it hasn't. I think the issue is timing of a lot of things? Why don't we talk about Joseph Smith's polygamy a lot. My answer is because other than the advances (some might say the coercions of Joseph) we actually don't have a lot on them. Many still lived in their own homes, some stayed with Joseph and Emma, but we just don't have a lot on the matter. We only have a few interviews from the Temple Lot case, a few journal entries, and a few quotes from church leaders. I know Brian Hales has his volumes and Todd Compton has his book, but I will get those when I've finished the mountain of TBRs that I have.

Anyways, I digress. It's hard. I won't pretend it isn't. I still wake up with a pit in my stomach and a heavy heart a lot of days with my thoughts egging at me. I overthink and have anxiety; it's just the way I am. The board and writing things down helps me a lot. I don't know how long it's been for you, but I can tell you the things that have helped me are writing and talking about it. Sharing questions. I know you've started quite a few threads on this board and contribute a lot. Just knowing that you're being heard and understood can mean a lot. 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Devobah said:

I think the important thing for lots of us to understand is that for many who just study the gospel, or even just attend church and its meetings, a lot of times this doesn't come up. I've been in wards where lots of controversial history was brought up and discussed, and I've also been in wards where it hasn't. I think the issue is timing of a lot of things? Why don't we talk about Joseph Smith's polygamy a lot. My answer is because other than the advances (some might say the coercions of Joseph) we actually don't have a lot on them. Many still lived in their own homes, some stayed with Joseph and Emma, but we just don't have a lot on the matter. We only have a few interviews from the Temple Lot case, a few journal entries, and a few quotes from church leaders. I know Brian Hales has his volumes and Todd Compton has his book, but I will get those when I've finished the mountain of TBRs that I have.

Anyways, I digress. It's hard. I won't pretend it isn't. I still wake up with a pit in my stomach and a heavy heart a lot of days with my thoughts egging at me. I overthink and have anxiety; it's just the way I am. The board and writing things down helps me a lot. I don't know how long it's been for you, but I can tell you the things that have helped me are writing and talking about it. Sharing questions. I know you've started quite a few threads on this board and contribute a lot. Just knowing that you're being heard and understood can mean a lot. 

I appreciate this, you sound a lot like me by way of needing the board. When I first learned about JS's polygamy, I was on my computer in about 2006 (?) a link popped up out of the blue. I don't know what I was doing, it very well could have been something to do with my calling at the time. A link to Joseph Smith's wives popped up and I felt like you do in a car wreck, everything in slow motion. I then went outside and saw my neighbor across the street and asked if she knew, because I'd never known. She was in a good friend...and she said, "Oh, that's antimormon stuff". Her mother was anti and had told her about it. Then I stupidly asked my visiting teachers, at one of their visits and they both said they didn't think it was true. And one of them said, I don't care to know! Don't tell me anything. So I realized it wasn't something I should ever talk to members about. I remember driving down the street in my Utah neighborhood with nearly 90 percent being active LDS and thinking all of them were unaware and it felt like the Twilight Zone (I'm 62), you're probably too young to remember that black and white show. I felt so alone in the knowledge about this. Luckily this board came up too, a long with some anti sights and I was able to discuss with faithful members on here about what I couldn't discuss with my neighbor and visiting teachers. I tried attending other churches by myself, and I couldn't do it, I missed our Sacrament meetings. 

Sorry for the novel!

[MustardSeed]

Tacenda did you always know that Brigham was a polygamist? 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

It is impossible to write the history of the entire world, because to do so would require more than the time we have here.

And more information that would be possible to possess. 

History is just our interpretation of something based on the limited information that we have about it.  It's not a collection of facts or "what really happened".  It's the interpretation of incomplete and often very limited data by people who are often hundreds or more years separated from the event and the culture surrounding the event. 

It's a perspective of something and as such can be very subjective, even when written by really good historians.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Tacenda did you always know that Brigham was a polygamist? 

Yes, but it was told to me that there were widows that needed to be married along the pioneer trail or ? and needed to be taken care of. I was pretty naive!

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, but it was told to me that there were widows that needed to be married along the pioneer trail or ? and needed to be taken care of. I was pretty naive!

It is kind of interesting that many of Brigham Young's early marriages were actually widows, but they were widows of Joseph Smith which isn't really the type of widows we think about.  So the statement "Brigham Young mostly married widows" is both true and false at the same time.

[blackstrap]

1 hour ago, Devobah said:

It is impossible to write the history of the entire world, 

Don't say that to Will Durant or his wife. I think they wrote about 13  2 inch thick volumes. 😁

[Devobah]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

it felt like the Twilight Zone (I'm 62), you're probably too young to remember that black and white show.

My dad was born in 1954. I was raised in the **** Van Dyke show and Pee Wee’s playhouse, among many other things. While there are some gaps in my knowledge, the Twilight Zone is not one of them actually! Though I understand that it’s kind of weird to find someone under 30 who even knows anything before the rise of Tik Tok

[Devobah]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

Don't say that to Will Durant or his wife. I think they wrote about 13  2 inch thick volumes. 😁

So he did! I lay in bed corrected. Unfortunately it looks like it needs an update or two. Needs to be up to date on the current trends that are oh so important to the world. 

[Devobah]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

And more information that would be possible to possess. 

History is just our interpretation of something based on the limited information that we have about it.  It's not a collection of facts or "what really happened".  It's the interpretation of incomplete and often very limited data by people who are often hundreds or more years separated from the event and the culture surrounding the event. 

It's a perspective of something and as such can be very subjective, even when written by really good historians.  

It’s funny! I was just watching the Daredevil Netflix show and they brought this up. In the trial, Matt Murdock is defending a man who killed another person and is trying to say that the defendant killed the man in self defense. He talks about what the facts actually are, and, essentially, that it’s the accusation’s job to prove that he did so with malice without a reasonable doubt. He says something along these lines: “There are facts, and then there is how we are given the facts, and then how we perceive the facts. Our defendant killed a man. He is dead. These are facts. What isn’t a fact is that the man did so with murderous intent.”

When looking at history (church or otherwise) we are presented with facts. The internet, books, and speeches are full of them. However, we also tend to try and autofill some things in our minds to fill in the blanks, playing one huge guessing game sometimes. We will never find someone who writes something that is 100% neutral. It’s near impossible. 

[Stargazer]

On 6/2/2024 at 12:56 AM, Devobah said:

Ultimately what's kept me in are the doctrines. Mainly that of the plan of salvation. I still believe in God and Christ, and believe that Christ is necessary for salvation. And in order for God to be just, He must offer that salvation and the chance to hear to everyone, both living and dead.

What has energized me was, as you say, "for God to be just, He must offer that salvation and the chance to hear to everyone, both living and dead." I consider that to be the summum bonum of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The grace of Jesus Christ must be offerable to all who have ever lived, or else God is a respecter of persons. God not being a respecter of persons, it must follow that the true faith involves the salvation of the dead. Who else does this? And who else offers prophetic vision and guidance. There's only one.

When one goes online and asks the question “What happens to dead people who never heard of Jesus Christ” one finds numerous answers from non-LDS sources. Here’s a selection:

•    One answer is to answer without answering (as if to say “Who knows?”). 
•    Another starkly states: “The Bible is clear that those who perish without Christ will face an eternity in hell.” 
•    Yet another says that they had their chance in life, despite not hearing the Word, because if they didn’t hear the Word it was their own fault, because if they had really wanted to know God, God would have enlightened them in some way.
•    Another is to say that they get resurrected at the end of the Millennium and will then get the chance to believe, and presumably be saved. 
•    Catholic doctrine holds that some of those who never heard the gospel in this life are somehow saved via a so-called “baptism of desire.” 

Could mainstream Christianity be more confused about the subject? It is actually amazing that so many different, and starkly non-biblical answers could be trotted out, especially from some denominations that claim to follow the Bible and only the Bible.
 

[Stargazer]

On 6/1/2024 at 9:32 AM, Calm said:

My parents taught me there was value in other faiths and perspectives while still being devout themselves.  Mom was telling me about Swedenborg when I was ten or twelve

You were very fortunate, then!

I didn't grow up in a religious household at all. My dad had studied with the JWs for a few years, and finally decided that all religion was manmade. My mother died when I was 7, and I spent a year or so with my great grandmother who provided me with my religious education, but not much of that. My dad remarried, and my new mom was a Baptist, but only went to church twice a year. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was what brought me to Jesus Christ -- I mean, I knew who he was, and kind of believed in him, but it wasn't until I became a Mormon that I became a Christian. Which statement would probably make the anti-Mormon Christians grind their teeth -- but I digress.

I never heard of Swedenborg until I joined this board. I should probably read more about him.

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You were very fortunate, then!

I didn't grow up in a religious household at all. My dad had studied with the JWs for a few years, and finally decided that all religion was manmade. My mother died when I was 7, and I spent a year or so with my great grandmother who provided me with my religious education, but not much of that. My dad remarried, and my new mom was a Baptist, but only went to church twice a year. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was what brought me to Jesus Christ -- I mean, I knew who he was, and kind of believed in him, but it wasn't until I became a Mormon that I became a Christian. Which statement would probably make the anti-Mormon Christians grind their teeth -- but I digress.

I never heard of Swedenborg until I joined this board. I should probably read more about him.

There are great benefits to being brought up in a faith and great benefits to having a life changing conversion.  I cannot compare who I was before and after to know without a doubt which life I am better off in, for example.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There are great benefits to being brought up in a faith and great benefits to having a life changing conversion.  

I have sometimes envied those who were born in the church and had full advantage of the Primary and YM/YW, along with parents who were faithful in the Gospel.

But I have seen that not all children born into such a situation take advantage of their privileges, and some reject it, for one reason or another. But of course, even those born into the church have to have conversion experiences if they are to take full advantage. I have seen children born into the same family, having substantially similar early life experiences -- and yet, one could fall away upon adulthood while the other has a life changing conversion and remains.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I cannot compare who I was before and after to know without a doubt which life I am better off in, for example.

Perhaps. But you can look at others born in similar situations to yours, who did not "hold to the rod," as it were, and compare their lives with yours. 

My first missionary companion was born into the church, but in his later teen years branched off into somewhat forbidden paths. Fortunately, he had that life-changing conversion after a wrenching emotional challenge, and pulled himself off the bad path he had set himself on.

Edited June 4, 2024 by Stargazer

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But you can look at others born in similar situations to yours, who did not "hold to the rod," as it were, and compare their lives with yours. 

No one I know comes what I consider as close enough to be useful in comparing in that fashion.  My siblings come the closest and yet there are very good reason I don’t see their experiences as parallel to my own.

Edited June 4, 2024 by Calm