- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
D. Todd Christofferson, of the Q12 gave a talk at BYU Idaho that directly addresses some issues facing many people on this forum. Following are some points I pulled from the article which I thought was particularly relevant, and perhaps worth a discussion. A link at the bottom leads to the full talk. • Joseph Smith has flaws
• Don’t be superficial in studying JS
• We don’t have all the answers
• The absence of evidence is not proof
• Don’t confuse honest issues with unexamined assertions or incomplete research.
• Projecting 21st-century concepts on 19th century people is misleading
• Some accuse the Church of hiding secrets, as the Church is publishing the 24 volumes of the Joseph Smith papers, without filtering out
uncomfortable facts.
• Don’t claim JS was perfect.
• The wonder is this imperfect man succeeded in his mission. His fruits are undeniable and incomparable. (The church he founded has
survived and now has nearly 15 million members, 29 thousand congregations in 160 different countries, active members have fewer
divorces, higher educations, better health and live longer than their peers)
The whole talk can be viewed here:
http://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-gives-compelling-counsel-to-study-the-life-of-joseph-smith?lang=eng I read the article. It is condescending, and very dishonest, IMO.
Example…
To criticize the critic, who claims the church has hidden its history, and then cite the 24 volumes of JS Papers project as proof, is REALLY dishonest and will give my family more fodder to use against me.
Btw, how many of you have read the 24 volumes of JS papers?
Didn’t think so.
Anyway,
That is my opinion today.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
This talk was obviously given to reassure the faithful. It was not given to help the doubter or those who struggle. It was apologetic and was meant to give ammo and talking points to those who confronts family members who are questioning the church. IMO, if course.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Hm…I didn’t really feel like this addressed anything. It seemed quite defensive. He encourages us to study Joseph’s revelations and how he lived his life. That’s exactly what I did and that’s exactly what led me to where I am today….on my way out. cwald wrote:Example…
To criticize the critic, who claims the church has hidden its history, and then cite the 24 volumes of JS Papers project as proof, is REALLY dishonest and will give my family more fodder to use against me.
Ya I have to call foul too. The JS papers argument seems to imply that the church has always been transparent. A more appropriate framing for the JS papers would have been to show an increase in transparency.
My brother and sister in law sent me the DVD cd’s of the JS papers. I watched them all and they had no real answers for why JS did with polygamy, behind Emma’s back etc. But it looks like the church is trying and at least recognizing that many are having a crisis of faith in the church. A friend of mine, with her husband and gay son met with Elder Christofferson recently regarding her gay son. He was instrumental in starting mornongays.org and has a gay brother. Here is what she posted online:
We were fortunate to meet with Elder Christofferson yesterday. My anxiety was high and I wondered what he could do to help us on our journey. There are barriers that not even he can knock down. If I expected the dynamics of our world to change, I knew I would be disappointed.
My wife and I needed our hope re-energized. As we told him our story and the ugliness we had experienced in the Church, he cried with us. I needed to see the tears on his cheeks. He validated everything that we have done to protect and guide our son. He blessed us with words that encouraged us to continue doing what we are doing. We went into our meeting with him looking for hope, but I think, in the end, he was looking to us for hope. The revelation we need to change the Church can’t come until the hearts of members change and they can overcome their own pride. She spook at a Affirmation conference recently and said it was awful how her son and their family was treated by ward members and their bishop and stake leadership. Her son is only 14 and totally worthy but would not pass the sacrament to him and told the family they do not belong in the church and many other things. This made Elder Christofferson cry and they told him that non of the leaders even knew about the new church mornongays.org website where he talks and to announce it in GC or sacrament meetings. Elder Christofferson called their hostile bishop and suddenly he is all nice to them. Still need some changes.
cwald wrote:I read the article.
It is condescending, and very dishonest, IMO.
Example…
To criticize the critic, who claims the church has hidden its history, and then cite the 24 volumes of JS Papers project as proof, is REALLY dishonest and will give my family more fodder to use against me.
Btw, how many of you have read the 24 volumes of JS papers?
Didn’t think so.
Anyway,
That is my opinion today.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
I’m inclined to agree. The article says:
“Individuals must not form conclusions based on unexamined assertions or incomplete research, or be influenced by insincere seekers, the Apostle taught. Drawing from the words of the Church’s assistant Church historian, Rick Turley, Elder Christofferson said, “Don’t study Church history too little.”
They are probably right. I should study it more. I look forward to the church offering good sources to do this, rather than solely spending time on the ‘playground’ looking at the ‘dirty’ version. I look forward to these 24 volumes of (often meaningless) papers shedding light on:
– why Joseph married and had sex with other men’s wives and hid it from Emma.
– why Brigham, with no revelation, banned an entire race from both priesthood and temple based on racism and prejudice
– why a health code that was never a commandment got twisted into one of the make or break principles in the 1930s (while others like eating and sleep are laughed off)
– why the church have only decide to open up their books in the last 10-12 years after actively hiding its history for decades
– why, despite on the one hand teaching that prophets are fallible and shouldn’t be expected to be perfect they also hold those prophets up as models to follow.
/end rant
(Sorry)
These things can be and are seen through the prisms we bring to them. I don’t disagree that there are statements that can be taken in multiple ways, and that some of them don’t ring at all with people who have been burned in the past, but I love that the general issue is being addressed by someone who is an advocate for members who are “non-mainstream” and who are focused on finding ways to include those who have been excluded for too long.
Elder Christofferson, I believe, is in a unique situation to help change things that need to be changed. I don’t want to complain about attempts to start that needed change, even if they aren’t as complete as we might like.
mackay11 wrote:– why Joseph married and had sex with other men’s wives and hid it from Emma.
– why Brigham, with no revelation, banned an entire race from both priesthood and temple based on racism and prejudice
– why a health code that was never a commandment got twisted into one of the make or break principles in the 1930s (while others like eating and sleep are laughed off)
– why the church have only decide to open up their books in the last 10-12 years after actively hiding its history for decades
– why, despite on the one hand teaching that prophets are fallible and shouldn’t be expected to be perfect they also hold those prophets up as models to follow.
/end rant
(Sorry)
I like these questions and would like answers to them.
Quote:To criticize the critic, who claims the church has hidden its history, and then cite the 24 volumes of JS Papers project as proof, is REALLY dishonest and will give my family more fodder to use against me.
I agree that things like the JS Papers Project will mean different things to different people. But it is not an interpretative history project. It is instead one gigantic duplication project. The thrust of the project is to use rigorous standards defined and supervised by the Smithsonian Institution to present every document by and about JS and his contemporaries. The project is publishing EVERYTHING that can be found. By Smithonian rules, they add only objective analysis of the context and any ambiguities. They are not presenting a historical interpretation of the facts. This means that they are publishing the good, bad, and indifferent. It is published with warts but without added lipstick.
In addition, 20 volumes will be published in books, while that plus an additional 10 volumes will be published on the internet for anyone with internet connection to see. As someone mentioned above few read this, but it is expected that only those with a seriously scholarly interest will really dig into them and try to make sense of those documents. Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling is an example of that process. Also, many enemies have a hay day, quoting from it to rattle members who know little or nothing about such things.
I know of no other comparable effort by any other church to come clean, with an unabashed publication of a very difficult period in its history. Sure, this kind of openness is new to the Church, but IMO the Church should be congratulated, not condemned for its opening up. That doesn’t mean that the Church Correlation Committee is in sync. IMO, they are the tail that wags the dog. Their idea is that orthodoxy and obedience trumps the uncomfortable facts of history, and don’t have the foggiest idea what it epistemology is. ( see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ).Nevertheless, I feel encouraged by Elder Christiansen’s talk to BYUI, which directly took on many of the epistemological challenges facing Church members. He gave encouragement and support to those who experience a crisis of faith. Sorry, but I just don’t see his remarks as defensive, but believe he was teaching people how to think clearly.
Look at his major points again, as he encourages increases objectivity and rationalism and against traditional blind faith pontifications we typically hear.
Quote:• Joseph Smith has flaws
• Don’t be superficial in studying JS
• We don’t have all the answers
• The absence of evidence is not proof
• Don’t confuse honest issues with unexamined assertions or incomplete research.
• Projecting 21st-century concepts on 19th century people is misleading
• Some accuse the Church of hiding secrets, as the Church is publishing the 24 volumes of the Joseph Smith papers, without filtering out
uncomfortable facts.
• Don’t claim JS was perfect.
• The wonder is this imperfect man succeeded in his mission.
The entire JS papers project is a defensive reaction to the critics claim of the church hiding its history. IMO. it should have been done decades ago.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
[Admin note: I wrote the original comment when I was upset. It contained some offensive statements, so I have edited it (in the places where there are brackets) to remove them, while still maintaining the heart of what I wrote – about which I feel strongly. Ray] Love you, cwald – [original statement deleted]:
Quote:it should have been done decades ago.
So what![This is a case of] damned if [they] don’t – and now damned [when they] do.
put away the bitterness of the past for a minute and at least be grateful it’s being done now. If a friend came to me and said, “I’m sorry about what I said years ago. I’m putting it all out there to the world now,” should I say, “Should have happened already. Go to Hell!” or, “Thank you. I appreciate it.”
Very few things set me off, but this is one of them. It’s one thing to complain about whitewashing, but it’s an entirely different thing to complain when the whitewashing stops – and when the opposite occurs. What is the Church supposed to do, if it’s wrong no matter what it does?
be happy for good things. It’s not worth it to be [upset] about everything – even the good things.
[Worst part of original rant deleted.]
That was an unnecessary rant Ray. I dont like being called a hypocrite
You call me a hypocrite…I’ll start pointing out every hypocritical statement made on this board. Consider this the first one…your post to me is as hypocritical as it gets. If I was to attack another poster like just did to me, you’d have this thread locked in a New York second.
Dash asked for opinions. I gave one. I even used your rules and used the ol “IMO” several times.
If you don’t want my opinion, just say so.
Is it not dishonest for the church to criticize me for claiming the church has hidden its history and then use the JS papers as proof. And that is exactly what this speech did. It was condescending to those of us who have been labeled apostates for our concerns about the correlated and hidden history of the church.
Maybe christiferson should have said, “we are trying to be more open about our history now,” rather than dismiss my concerns with a shrug and basically call me a liar and pretend that it never happened?
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Btw Ray, did you read the article or just the OP? I think it makes a difference…kind of like the ensign article last month. The OP made the church look bad…the article was actually quite good…and I said so…pointed out so folks did not jump to conclusions from the abbreviated version.
I’ll think this is a case of an op that makes the church look good but the article is not so “faith promoting.”
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
One more PS…I didn’t complain about the white washing coming to end. I complained that this article criticizes the critic for saying that it ever happened to begin with. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.