- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I read an interesting post ( http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/02/23/inoculation-anti-mormonism-and-me/ Quote:We have lived through decades where we have failed one another by encouraging ignorance, and we are now paying the price. We have raised a generation of Mormons on a dumbed down curriculum that discouraged questions, and we have acted as though we have something to hide. The result has been fragile testimonies that cannot withstand even the most trivial questions. By assuming questions and tricky issues are to be avoided, we have pathologized the process of growing a mature faith. Our “all or nothing” approach has created fundamentalists who see the world in very simple terms.
Whadayallthink?
Sounds a lot like helicopter parenting to me. And I think he’s spot on. I so, so, so want to post that quote on my facebook feed. Remind me that I shouldn’t. I agree with the quote, when it comes to lots of people – but not lots of others. After all, his father was able to talk with him about those things – so it’s not like they were completely hidden. They are less hidden now, and, in some cases, not hidden at all anymore. I love the approach described in the post, but it took a father who knew about those issues and was comfortable discussing them. That’s my job, since I know about them and am comfortable talking about them.
I kind of like Ray’s approach to this one. There is a danger that if the Church tries to be “all things to all people” it risks being nothing to no one. I know that many TBM’ers are frustrated that the Church isn’t more doctrinnaire and emphatic and less ecumenical.
Not to thread jack here, but what would the result have been if rather than putting strait jackets on Widtsoe, BH Roberts, Talmage, Hugh Brown, et all, the Church had cut them loose to do their thing? Could we have evolved to a point where we could say “Yeah, JS ‘translated’ the BoM from a rock in a hat – so what; it’s still inspired”? Could we have gotten to a point where, rather than disembling a bit during his interview, GBH could have said “Yeah, I’m a prophet. I talk with God. It’s awesome. Deal with it.” I don’t know, but I think I agree that by either consciously or unconsciously trying to hide certain aspects of Church history and doctrine, we make them taboo and therefore attractive. We’d probably just be better off, over the long run, if we fronted up to that stuff. In the short run, though, I agree with Ray that there’d be a whole lot of members feeling confused.
I agree that the statement is accurate. However, I think the issue that the church has is not simply in ignoring its dubious history. Such an argument relies on religion and spirituality as a study of facts, an accumulation of analysis, and a debate of philosophy. Spirituality/religion are much more individual and amorphous. I recall observing an old man in a Catholic cathedral by himself. He had clearly had a hard life of manual labor. As he sat by himself with his head bowed and eyes closed, I imagine that he thanked God for his love, asked God to help his family, or simply sought to feel peace within himself… I am certain he wasn’t trying to sort out in his mind whether Pope Urban VI or Pope Clement VII was the authorized leader of the church in the 14th century, or whether the doctrine of transubstantiation was really correct, or if it was just the attempt by man to provide a human definition to something beyond our understanding. Adherents of the LDS faith “feel the spirit” and don’t need deep historical learning to do so. To me, the issue is more rooted in the way the church sets its members up for the Great Disappointment by the way the church perceives itself. It is the view of infallibility of its leaders, assumption of absolute knowledge of the things of God, and the concept that we approach God through strict adherence to our own brand of Pharisaical laws. With these views, the oddities of our history become magnified way out of proportion. If the church took the approach that we don’t know how it all works, but we know that as we strive to find God in our hearts, then we can feel his presence, and that the church is just an imperfect vehicle, but that within it, as a community, we are trying to reach God together, etc, then I don’t think it would really matter to us what JS saw when he looked at the papyrus.
We do not need intellectual curriculum that encourages questioning of past errors of the church. For example, I don’t think the church should have to try to explain or defend polygamy in its lesson manuals. Polygamy only affects us today as an attack on our distant history. All the church has to say is that we don’t know what the hell JS was thinking, but it wasn’t from God and it isn’t a part of our faith… now lets talk about how helping our less-fortunate brothers and sisters helps us to strengthen the Kingdom of God here on the earth.
I think you hit the nail on the head On Own Now. The church creates a lot of absolutes like the ones you mentioned. I think it has also painted itself into a corner with these absolutes. In public, the church is trying to appear mainstream but when someone investigates the doctrinal points they have to start to accept absolutes on many things. There is not a lot of wiggle room when you claim you are the one true church and Jesus Christ is at the head or you have the true priesthood passed down from Him, etc. Quote:All the church has to say is that we don’t know what the hell JS was thinking, but it wasn’t from God and it isn’t a part of our faith… now let’s talk about how helping our less-fortunate brothers and sisters helps us to strengthen the Kingdom of God here on the earth.
It would be great if Sunday’s were spent talking about this, but there probably isn’t a F&T meeting that does not go without someone making an absolute statement of some kind or ending a lesson with the same. The points are made over and over in lessons and talks. Aboslute statements always bring challenges. If I say I have a web site that will never be cracked or these facts are irrefutable or some other absolute, it will always be challenged.
Oh if only life were so easy. I love the idea of open discussion or inoculation. I think correlation became flawed, too narrow, etc. However I also know people who were inoculated or more studied, then they headed to the MTC or BYU and hit a massive crisis. This tells me inoculation alone is not a saving grace. I sense that portions of the struggle come from human interpretation of “the gospel”, of history, and so forth.
In short it would be great if there was one single answer to solve the pain that so many of the members find themselves in. It sometimes seems like your walking through land mines. Anyway that’s my 2 cents.
+1 own our own and for the initial concept! Unfortunate that it results in so many faith crisis!
I am of the opinion lately that you can do all the inoculating you want. You can be as open as you want about the history and I think it amounts to little. If it is fabricated then no amount of openness is going to make it into reality. On Own Now wrote:We do not need intellectual curriculum that encourages questioning of past errors of the church. For example, I don’t think the church should have to try to explain or defend polygamy in its lesson manuals. Polygamy only affects us today as an attack on our distant history. All the church has to say is that we don’t know what the hell JS was thinking, but it wasn’t from God and it isn’t a part of our faith… now lets talk about how helping our less-fortunate brothers and sisters helps us to strengthen the Kingdom of God here on the earth.
Does anyone in current authority call it an error? I don’t think we’re even close to a more gingerly-worded version of this. The Newsroom says that polygamy was “divine instruction” in response to “prayerful inquiry.”
This 1/7/13 post at feministMormonhousewives caught my eye:
By Diana M.
A couple of months ago, I had my birthday interview with the bishop ( its a youth thing), and ever since then have been troubled by something he said. Basically, being the young feminist I am, I have been pondering polygamy, especially polygamy in the afterlife. Nobody in the church ever talks about it, and since the bishop asked if I had any questions I thought why not take it up with him. He was somewhat surprised, stalled, then looked at me and said something along the lines of, “this is a very sensitive topic, blah blah, but yes, I believe there is.”
Then he went on to tell me not to worry, keep coming to church and trust in God to give me the “will to accept” this “eternal piece of doctrine.”Being troubled even deeper by his answer, I shared this story with the fine people of FMH group on facebook, who readily took up the discussion. While we all have slightly different theories, we do seem to agree on two things: 1. My bishop is probably full of it because no one knows what actually goes on up there is heaven, and 2. If he IS right, there is no way any of them will be participating. The discussion also touched on the topic of multiple sealings, particularly on how a woman can only be sealed to one man, but a man can be sealed to multiple women, etc. The original question thought, was, do you all believe there is polygamy in heaven? Have you ever heard an “authority” discuss this or have you ever been told explicitly one or the other way?
Do you think the topic is being consealed from converts? ( I felt like that was the case with me). So, people are talking about innoculation, but I don’t think we have pinned down what we’re innoculating against in the case of polygamy. Because it’s not just historical polygamy, which many or most modern girls and women will find repellant, but the quiet, widespread teaching that it will return and you’ll just have to be righteous to accept it.
Ann wrote:So, people are talking about innoculation, but I don’t think we have pinned down what we’re innoculating against in the case of polygamy. Because it’s not just historical polygamy, which many or most modern girls and women will find repellant, but the quiet, widespread teaching that it will return and you’ll just have to be righteous to accept it.
What could be inoculation to some, might be faith crisis inducing in others.
Old-Timer wrote:I love the approach described in the post, but it took a father who knew about those issues and was comfortable discussing them. That’s my job, since I know about them and am comfortable talking about them.
I do talk and plan to talk to my kids about these issues – but I wonder how that will all play out. What happens if my daughter says in YW (some 5-ish years in the future) that her dad believes that polygamy was essentially a mistake? How are the YW leaders or the other girls going to react? Will the resulting experiences produce a faithful member that believes the Gospel on her own terms or will she find the church culture intolerable to remain?
Hard to say. I will love and accept my children regardless of how it turns out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.