Church history and ‘Brochure’ Church History

I do not want to put a lid on this issue. It is clearly wrong for us to make a glossy Prophet out of a warty prophet. It causes real pain and real deviation from the plan of Heaven. I think the best we can do as we StayLDS is find some way to state the truth assertively. But how do we do that? My mouth is paralyzed shut on Sundays, even though my bishop and quorum president are aware of my, er, non-conformity. I would like to talk about that. How do we move beyond paralyzed silence? How do we begin to talk freely and lovingly? How do we overcome our fears and live with truth and integrity? Ideas?

Just to add a quick tidbit that I have always found interesting about Joseph Smith and his military days in Navoo. He did not just give himself the rank of General. In fact he gave himself the rank of Lieutenant General. The reason this is both interesting and important is that the first person in United States history to be given that rank was George Washington and no one was given that rank after him until Winfield Hancock after the Mexican American War (well after Smith was killed). When Smith gave himself that rank it angered a lot of people in America. Washington was just as revered in Smith’s time as he is today (if not even more so) and when Smith tried to equate himself with the Father of the Country, well you can imagine that didn’t go over well.

Lots of interesting posts.

I certainly don’t feel like I can bring these things up, even with my bishop, and I don’t feel like I can say much in Priesthood or Sunday School, for reasons cautioned in the staylds home page. Frankly very few bishops have enough understanding of church history to even grasp some of this. I’m sure the response would be to delve and find out if there is any sin in my life that has caused this apostacy. There is simply no forum for a reasoned discussion and always an assumption of guilt per many talks I have heard in conference.

I find the dismissal of academics as troublesome. It is automatically relagated to the ‘ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth’ category.

I remember a couple of years ago, a young wife in the ward expressed how she wished that her husband could be as romantic and caring as Joseph had been with Emma. While I don’t doubt Joseph’s feelings for her, I think much of the romance this woman was referencing was the victorian prose in use at the time. I seriously doubt that anyone would be knowingly choose to be treated in total as Emma was, both while by Joseph while he was alive and by the church leadership after the martyrdom. I have the same thoughts as I see the Joseph and Emma sculpture at the Temple Square complex.

I stay quiet, because of the stigma associated with ‘troublemakers’, and I don’t want my wife and kids to have to deal with that. Also, I do understand that while I’m church, I’m on their nickel and they have every right to determine what is taught and discussed.

I express unorthodox opinions all the time in Church – but I NEVER do it in a challenging manner, I ALWAYS speak softly and gently and slowly, and I generally begin with a softening disclaimer. (“That’s interesting. I’ve always wondered . . .” or “I like what Bro/Sis said. To build on that a bit, I heard someone say once that . . .” or “I know that’s how many people see this, but I’ve talked with quite a few memebrs who think . . .” – etc.)

People generally react negatively only when they feel threatened – and I’ve reached a place where I almost never sonud like a threat to them.

That is interesting. I guess I lack the courage & tact that you have. I generally can’t find it me to say something in Church that will cause others discomfort, and the few times that I have, the reactions are generally negative. I can relate to Tom’s feeling “paralyzed” on Sundays. The Brochure History is frustrating, and it is all I’ve heard since I was two years old. I think that there are some people who have the ability to say controversial things in an unthreatening manner, but I–and most people–am not one of them. I don’t know that there is a way to overcome this issue, ultimately. Lots of people that find their way to uncensored history leave the Church, and the Church knows this. They “censor” because the truth frightens people and they prefer not to deal with this challenge. I think, in many ways, that a complete unmasking of the Church History would ultimately help the Church. People like me wouldn’t find out about after 22 years of black and white thinking about Church Leaders and gospel topics. I can’t say for sure, but I really believe that if all of the censored history had been part of the story the whole time, I would probably still have a “testimony”. That still doesn’t mean it would be true, but the “indoctrination” would be more thorough. The way one is raised to belief is extremely powerful. That is why many of us are here; we can’t let go completely.

I don’t know if I started the idea on community capital, but I am glad Ray brought it up. Like Ray, I feel like I can normally get away with bringing up controversial or challenging angles. I do it whenever I feel prompted to alter the angle of the lesson just a little bit. People in my ward know that I know a lot about Church history. I also contribute positively on a regular basis to bring up good historical points too.

When it comes to the controversial topics, I just give a little nudge in the right direction. Instead of unloading the whole dump truck (which would kill my “capital” to spend), I might say something like “Well, It isn’t quite as simple as Oliver Cowdery being weak or just possessed by the devil. He had serious concerns about some issues in the Church that did not get resolved between Joseph and him.” and just sort of leave it at that … the details left to those who know, or those who wonder and choose to find out.

But the bottom line at StayLDS is not to come up with a nicely packaged answer for everyone, the new “one true” answer. Each of us has to decide how we reconcile the issue of Joseph’s practice of polygamy, or else figure out how to reject it and move forward.

This is my personal reconciliation, at least how I deal with it at the moment. I think Joseph probably got out of control with an idea. That was his personality. He was a religious genius, and he seems to have lacked a sense of fear or self awareness about how crazy some of his ideas really were. That made him a really great candidate for being a prophet to build a new church. I can’t deny that he did things that frustrate me. I also can’t deny that he came up with ideas I find to be divine and inspired. It was the major issue that brought him down, as a martyr for the cause. So I entertain the idea he may have been wrong or taken things too far.

I also sometimes consider he was exploring a form of detachment. This is pretty far out there, but I consider it might be possible. The “free-love” concept comes up in religious movements from time to time. The same lack of fear, and intense drive to explore religious concepts could have found a home for Joseph in poly amorous relationships — of trying to make marriage a concept detached from the romantic notions of his day. I am not convinced of this, but I consider it as a possibility. I am not the best person to explain the idea. It is better explained by people who are more into the concept, and who are consciously involved in mature polygamous practices. As much as we ignore it in the western world, it is still a part of culture among the majority of the world.

.

Maybe this question should be it’s own thread but I think a consencus on this thread is what role does a stayLDS-er play in their individual wards? Devils advocate? Voice of heretical reason?

I get the sense that most people are here at staylds.com for at least two big reasons: they really want to stayLDS and they’d like to perhaps be an instrument for change. If I’m not right then everyone just ignore my post (probably will anyway 😆 😆 )

I’ll also add that someone in the last general conference gave a talk that essentially demonstrated that doubt eventually led to disobedience. I know someone else probably loved this talk, so, please enlighten me. But I see this as an important part of what everyone here is talking about: why can’t I speak up at church? Maybe because we’ve heard GA’s say that if you doubt, you must also be disobedient in some way. (sorry for the: Rash generalization, over-zealous interpretation, crazy-talk )

UGH on that talk. The 6 D’s. It was part of our RS lesson on Sunday. I try to be a voice of spiritual or heretical reason depending on the situation.

Acutally, my questions (doubts if you must) have brought me closer to Christ than I have ever been in my life. But, that might be seen as a threat to the institutional church (middle man).