- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
http://simplemormonspectator.blogspot.com/2012/01/i-recently-attended-q-and-session-at.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://simplemormonspectator.blogspot.com/2012/01/i-recently-attended-q-and-session-at.html Marlin Jensen was church historian until just recently when he turned 70 (GAs automatically go to emeritus status at age 70). A few excerpts:
Quote:The questioner then asked, “Has the church seen the effects of Google on membership? It seems like the people who I talk to about church history are people who find out and leave quickly. Is the church aware of that problem? What about the people who are already leaving in droves?”
“The fifteen men really do know, and they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues. . .
Where has the prophet laid his emphasis right now? It’s on something called ‘The Rescue’. And with good reason, because we are suffering a loss; both in terms of our new converts that come in that don’t get really established in the church, as well as very faithful members who because of things we’re talking about, as well as others, are losing their faith in the process. It is one of our biggest concerns right now.”
. . . I also asked how he would educate the rest of the membership on how to treat those that feel uncomfortable with church history and, thus, the church. . .
I was happy to hear the following response from Elder Jensen: “I could see a committee of forty people working on your question for ten years and not coming up with an answer. I think that the question has an application to gay members of the church or of society. I don’t think that straight people have done a good job yet, of providing an atmosphere of safety and a welcoming place. We need to do the same for those people who are feeling disaffected – for whatever reason… doctrinally, or socially. I mean, if we really are truly Christian, it has to start there. Being less judgmental. Being more open and welcoming and inclusive. Someone asked Robert Frost once, ‘What’s the ugliest word in the English language?’ And he said, ‘Exclusive.’ I think it is, too, in a way. So, if that environment can be created, and it should be, but often in the church, when someone comes with a bit of a prickly question, he’ll be met with a bishop who number one, doesn’t know the answer. Number two, he snaps and says, ‘Get in line and don’t question the prophet, and get back and do your home teaching.’ And that isn’t helpful in most cases. So, we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what’s brought them to the point they are at. What they have read, what they are thinking is, and try to understand them. Sometimes that alone is enough to help someone through a hard time. But beyond that, I think we really need to figure out a way to live a little bit with people who may never get completely settled.”
For me it’s come down to not saying anything other than when the discussion is on basic Christian principles. I know that if I speak up with questions about the issues that have no answer for me, there will be trouble and I’ve had enough of that in my life. That’s why I like being a clerk. You’ve always got a place to hide out. When he said: Quote:we need to educate our leaders better, I think, to be sympathetic and empathetic and to draw out of these people where they are coming from and what’s brought them to the point they are at. What they have read, what they are thinking is, and try to understand them. Sometimes that alone is enough to help someone through a hard time. But beyond that, I think we really need to figure out a way to live a little bit with people who may never get completely settled.”
IMO, the change has to come from the “rank & file” membership before it comes from the leadership of the church.
I have had some very good hometeachers recently that have helped me change the way I think. (About church, God & other things.)
Training leadership can’t hurt, but real change comes from us (the members). Especially when you talk about sympathy or empathy.
It comes down to a person’s core beliefs & being more Christ like.
Very interesting interview.
Mike from Milton.
I love it. Thanks for the link! I found this very interesting. I feel the membership overall needs nudging and maybe some spoken permission from the top down to relax and start being more accepting. In my many years of membership now, I find the everyday majority of membership to be very protective of certain stances and attitudes. Maybe some of that is coming from fear that their families will be affected negatively by having too much acceptance in the atmosphere or that their children might be led astray as those who struggle might be in direct callings with their children. I have always felt we should be more accepting and loving and that has been a big struggle for me all these years, particularly in the wards we’ve attended where there have been exclusive cliques which leads to people feeling they are invisible. I have loved Elder Jensen for a long time, and this interview only confirms what I’ve believed about him. I especially love what he said about straight members and their responsibility toward gay members – that the “primary fault” is not with the gay members. Great man – and I think his desire in this case is not even close to rare among the global leadership. I think it still will take a while to get this water to the end of the local rows, and I hope they focus even more on the overall watering process, but I really do believe it’s happening.
Something about Jensen’s answers struck me as Democrat thinking, which could be behind why his perspective is different. He considered “exclusive” to be practically a dirty word. I imagine a good chunk of the Q15 would consider “exclusive” to be the crown jewels. Reconciling those two perspectives is nearly impossible, but they are two completely different ways to run the church and deal with those who have encountered belief issues. I think that in general people are more tolerant of backsliders that have WoW issues than testimony problems. Our Branch President is fond of saying he loves the smell of tobacco in church. Not being able to say you “know” and being open about it implies that you have reasons for why you doubt and that can make people nervouse and defensive. A SS teacher would usually have people follow the script than have to deal with unanswerable questions. Being “exclusive” is something that some would say is a hallmark of the church ( see HG above) since they consider it to be “true” with a capital T. I expect that doubters will always be tolerated but only if they keep it to themselves and taking those concerns to your bishop is something we’ve already gone over. hawkgrrrl wrote:Something about Jensen’s answers struck me as Democrat thinking, which could be behind why his perspective is different. He considered “exclusive” to be practically a dirty word. I imagine a good chunk of the Q15 would consider “exclusive” to be the crown jewels. Reconciling those two perspectives is nearly impossible, but they are two completely different ways to run the church and deal with those who have encountered belief issues.
In SS the lesson was on the tree of life in Lehi’s dream and how “strait (not straight) is the way and narrow is the path” and only few shall make it. We also talked about how the tree represents Christ. The temple was also brought up and my mind was spinning on how the tree of life is Christ and how the Temple is Christ and the metaphorical implications. I thought it was cool. I also thought that equating Christ to the tree reinforced the exclusive and exclusionary view of Christ. Ditto for equating Christ to the temple. While I processed this it didn’t make me angry because I realize that it is just one way to view things.
Quote:We also talked about how the tree represents Christ. The temple was also brought up and my mind was spinning on how the tree of life is Christ and how the Temple is Christ and the metaphorical implications. I thought it was cool. I also thought that equating Christ to the tree reinforced the exclusive and exclusionary view of Christ. Ditto for equating Christ to the temple.
After reading Kevin Barney’s Dialogue article on Heavenly Mother, I’ll never read that passage the same way again. One of the things he talks about is that Asherah (who was worshipped pretty widely in the OT) was God’s wife (Heavenly Mother). Over time, many of her characteristics were re-assigned to Jehovah (Christ) as her worship was outlawed and denigrated by the later OT prophets. What was the symbol of Asherah? A tree (also a pole or a grove of Asherah trees). Likewise, the temple is also a female symbol in almost all ancient religions, right down to the veil (hymen) before you enter the holy of holies. We only see our theology in a modern context, so we don’t consider these parallels.
Here’s a link to Daniel Peterson’s article on that passage:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=2&id=223 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=2&id=223 Thanks so much for posting this hawkgrrl. I never would have seen it otherwise. Interestingly, a discussion on the topic of leaving the churc over historical issues was ongoing at the mormon dialogue board today. I was so excited to share Elder Jensen’s words. I love that he said if we are truly Christian we need to be less judgmental.
:thumbup: Thanks for sharing this, Hawkgrrrl – it was inspiring. The loving approach Elder Jensen displays is nice to hear and I believe many church leaders see it the same way, and care more than we think or ascribe to them some times.
However, it does seem easier or more comfortable for stringent members to openly embrace the 14 fundamentals approach more than this open and tolerant approach. But I can have hope the large ship is turning, it just takes a while, and the more training the local leaders get on this the better, so they have permission to allow members that are struggling with some of these issues to stay and participate in church.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Here’s a link to Daniel Peterson’s article on that passage:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=9&num=2&id=223 Wow! Cool – Mindboggling, but cool! Thanks Hawkgrrrl!
The last paragraph of Petersen’s paper: Quote:The inclusion in 1 Nephi of two authentically preexilic religious symbols (Asherah and Wisdom) that could scarcely have been derived by the New York farmboy Joseph Smith from the Bible strongly suggests that the Book of Mormon is, indeed, an ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition.
Petersen is a respected scholar as well as an active apologist for the church but I believe his conclusions are a bit of a stretch given JS’s familiarity with the bible and the inclusion in the BoM of all sorts of biblical quotes and themes. For me it’s all part of the quandry of people looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions about what’s right and true. When the people I respect the most, Elder Jensen, Bushman, Richard Poll, and Dan Petersen can look at these “facts” and believe, it makes it even harder to try and stay but at the same time figure out how.
GB, fwiw, due to the pretty large number of things similar to what Bro. Peterson mentions in the BofM, my chosen default is to accept the “historical translation” conclusion for now – BUT if that phrase was changed to “inspired revelation / teaching” would it make it any easier? Iow, if the historical accuracy weren’t an issue and it was “acceptable” to see it as inspired fiction that Joseph really believed was historically accurate, would that make it easier? Again, I choose to see it as a “translation / transmission” of a real record (and I mean consciously choose), but I also am fine with others seeing it as much more like the Bible (and I don’t mean “inerrant” when I say that
😆 :shh: ). I see the Bible as a record of how people saw God and their relationship to God, so if someone wants to see the BofM in the same way (as Joseph’s record of how he saw God and our relationship to God), I’m cool with that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.