- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I read this quote on a thread John Dehlin posted about the Church essay on the Moroni/Nephi dilemma (Church essay is here https://www.lds.org/languages/eng/content/history/topics/angel-moroni This is the quote from Sterling McMurrin from a Dialogue interview that really resonated with me:
“To a remarkable degree, the Church has concealed much of its history from its people, while at the same time causing them to tie their religious faith to its own controlled interpretations of its history. So there is no point in arguing whether a serious study of Mormon history may have a deteriorating effect upon the faith of large numbers of Mormon people. It certainly will in countless cases. But that is the Church’s fault or the fault of the weakness of the faith, not the fault of today’s historians, most of whom are both honest and highly competent. The Church shouldn’t tie religious faith to its history. Religious faith should be faith in God and in one’s fellowmen — not faith in some historical events and their official interpretation.”
“In my opinion, no church can stand a very close scrutiny of its origins and history without a good deal of moral and intellectual cringing. Mormonism should judge itself by its accomplishments, its fruits, the strength and happiness that it brings to its people, and hopefully someday to large numbers of others as well, rather than by its early beginnings where it encounters a good many unsavory things that must be faced and should not be distorted and misrepresented simply because they have become stones in the foundations of the faith.” -Sterling M McMurrin
I think he brings up a very good point, tying faith to historical events is a dubious proposition. When new evidence changes the historical narrative, it can weaken or destroy faith. I agree that our faith should be in our accomplishments, our community and the strength and happiness of our people. By their fruits, ye shall know them. But, this flies in the faith of truth and authority claims that are central to Mormonism and demand a reliance on history.
Steve Harper, a Church historian, did this interview about difficult questions in Church history
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Is0Z8aq8F4 . He uses a Santa Clause analogy to say that when you learn the truth about Santa Clause you shouldn’t toss out Christmas, but it may make the celebration more meaningful. I think that is a great analogy and was a little surprised he would use it, as it logically leads to a less literal and more metaphorical approach to scripture and authority claims. Is the Church trying to gently move in this direction, or trying to make space for people who are already there (most of the people on this forum)? Does this naturally lead to less devotion in observance (church attendance, wearing garments when it’s hot, paying fast offerings, etc.)?felixfabulous wrote:
Is the Church trying to gently move in this direction, or trying to make space for people who are already there (most of the people on this forum)?
Yes, I believe so.Quote:Does this naturally lead to less devotion in observance (church attendance, wearing garments when it’s hot, paying fast offerings, etc.)?
Not necessarily. I think it depends on how individuals rebuild their faith. Mine became much less focused on truth claims and whether or not the church (or BoM or whatever) is true and the God of the Lost Car Keys and much more focused on Christ and loving my neighbor (I’m still not very good at that). Can paying fast offering show love for your neighbor? It can, but it’s not the only way. Does wearing garments help you remember the things from the temple and/or bring you closer to Christ? It could. Does attending church and partaking of the sacrament help you? Again, it could. I think some people might become more devoted in some ways. I have said this before here – my faith is stronger in many ways post faith crisis/faith transition and in some ways I’m happy it happened. (Really, really!)
I am positive the “orthodox” narrative 20 years from now will be VERY different than it is now. I have NO problem with that. I hope for it. Some people will complain loudly and bitterly, even though those same people have complained that the Church should do exactly what I believe will happen.
A more realistic representation always is good. This change will be good.
Quote:Religious faith should be faith in God and in one’s fellowmen — not faith in some historical events and their official interpretation.
Great quote!!
I really feel like many Catholics I talk to accept this about the Bible and are ahead of the game in grasping this approach because of the overwhelming evidence we have, and the mistakes if the past.
I think our church must move towards this to survive. And they will.
Another thought I had from this quote Quote:Mormonism should judge itself by its accomplishments, its fruits, the strength and happiness that it brings to its people, and hopefully someday to large numbers of others as well, rather than by its early beginnings where it encounters a good many unsavory things that must be faced and should not be distorted and misrepresented simply because they have become stones in the foundations of the faith.” -Sterling M McMurrin
Is this suggesting that as the church was “growing up” in a manner if speaking, it is likely some mistakes were made, as they worked it out?
If yes…is it ok to forgive the past and focus on the fruits and the accomplishments that have been achieved despite imperfections?
If yes…should we not view our own lives this way? Perhaps I was foolish when younger, and made mistakes. I can let go of the past, or perhaps embrace it all, the good, bad and unknown…all of it making me who I am today and bringing me to where I stand today.
Perhaps the past mistakes are not as important as the perserverance through the imperfections as I grew, and as I continue to grow.
If I view my past “mistakes” in this light…part of the journey….well…perhaps I can view the church in the sane light.
Less important than what was said or done or taught or hid in the past is what it brings me today if I have faith in a new perspective of it, not in a fabricated hope of what I wanted it to be based on how I processed what I was taught. The prior santa Claus type faith does not need to be discarded, but becomes part if the stone foundation of my new faith, upon which I can build further deeper faith.
The good, the bad, the unknown. Embrace it all as part of my faith today.
Heber13 wrote:
If yes…should we not view our own lives this way? Perhaps I was foolish when younger, and made mistakes. I can let go of the past, or perhaps embrace it all, the good, bad and unknown…all of it making me who I am today and bringing me to where I stand today.Perhaps the past mistakes are not as important as the perserverance through the imperfections as I grew, and as I continue to grow.
If I view my past “mistakes” in this light…part of the journey….well…perhaps I can view the church in the sane light.
As I believe that there is a path for me to journey on in my future, a belief/knowledge that there was a path a for me to journey on that got me to this point becomes visible. There were places in the path where I stumbled royally and got back up, and where I was able to use the challenges in my life as stepping towards to greater maturity, stability, and personal progress.
The challenge I face is knowing when to guard my tongue when talking to others in up coming generations who are experiencing similar choices/transitions as I did previously – what do I tell them that would help them, and what do I not tell them because I run the risk of ill-advising them, alientating them, and getting it wrong anyways.
Heber13 wrote:
The good, the bad, the unknown. Embrace it all as part of my faith today.
The good, the bad, and the unknown are universal life truths – right up there with death and taxes.
AmyJ wrote:
The challenge I face is knowing when to guard my tongue when talking to others in up coming generations who are experiencing similar choices/transitions as I did previously – what do I tell them that would help them, and what do I not tell them because I run the risk of ill-advising them, alientating them, and getting it wrong anyways.
I often hear in church the old guard talk about how they walked up hill both ways to church in the snow … things were better for them but hey worked hard, not like today’s generation. They almost glamorize the difficulties as a blessing to grow, and didn’t always like church but went anyway because they had no choice, they just did it. They see the youth who skip 3rd hour as weak and lazy.
So…I would say we try to avoid that tone.
Nor do we paint a rosy picture of “all is well in zion” which makes the younger generation think something must be wrong with them if they are struggling or doubt logical or historical stuff.
Being open and honest, but uplifting, is best for the younger generation to hear. The church can do that too. I was hoping that more essays make this the norm in church discussions.
We found our own path. They can be encouraged to find theirs. And still focus on the fruits that come from church.
felixfabulous wrote:
Is the Church trying to gently move in this direction, or trying to make space for people who are already there (most of the people on this forum)?
Yes, I believe the church is in a pickle. The needs of the church membership are changing/shifting and I believe the church is trying to adapt.
Speaking very generally and broadly – Some of it’s most stalwart members are the older established generation that grew up hearing that things like JS treasure digging were all anti-Mormon lies. Richard Bushman has referred to this group perhaps somewhat jokingly as grandmothers from Sanpete County. They are very comfortable with what was the traditional Mormon narrative. Most of their sacrifices for the faith are in the past and they are coasting forward to their well deserved heavenly reward and leaving a legacy of faith for their progeny.
Then there is a middle generation of stalwarts that served missions, got married in the temple, and are currently raising families and serving in the church. This is the generation that is torn down the middle. They have already made many sacrifices for the church but many sacrifices still lie ahead. They are in the thick of it. They are also fairly tech savvy and more likely to be exposed to divergent details from our church history and experience a faith crisis.
Lastly there is the rising generation. It is this group that may not yet have served missions or married in the temple. They are even more accustomed to looking things up on the internet. With a few clicks of a mouse they can show that the old traditional narrative was riddled with falsehoods and exaggerations. I believe that a huge concern is that this group will check-out and depart from the faith (mentally and/or physically) even before they reach full adulthood.
That is why the church is trying to gently change the narrative. Even church leaders in my Sunday School meetings have called this “inoculation”. We have to start telling our youth some of the less faith inspiring aspects of the history, lest they find out on their own and lose all faith in us as a trustworthy or authoritative source. I believe that they are trying to do this gently and by degrees. We do not want to give the “grandmothers from Sanpete county” heart attacks but if we do not do something we will lose the rising generation and become more disconnected and less relevant as a church.
I believe this inoculation effort and gentle prodding is what the church is attempting with the “Essays” and information on the church website, also the JS papers project, the publication of Rough Stone Rolling, and many other small adjustments.
I find it interesting that there is some pushback to this inoculation effort. Some feel as though the church is just trying to be politically correct to pacify outside society, to give the milk before the meat, or to not throw our pearls before swine. I believe that the church is content to allow members that must believe this to protect their faith foundation to continue to believe this.
Then there are some that seem to think that “progressive LDS historians” have somehow infiltrated the communications department of the church to spread a revisionist history at odds with the revealed gospel narrative.
http://ldsanswers.org/joseph-smith-translate-plates-book-mormon-came-forth/ Quote:A New Narrative
Progressive LDS historians are trying to change the historical narrative regarding the translation process. They claim:
For most of the translation, Joseph Smith used a seer stone which he placed in a hat.
Joseph obtained his “seer stone” years before he obtained the plates. Before he used his seer stone for translating the gold plates, he used it to find hidden objects and buried treasure.
The gold plates were not used during most of the translation, but lay covered with a cloth on the table or concealed somewhere in the house, or even outside.
I believe that this pushback is only natural because church leaders have for many years discredited the very historical sources and historian methods that we are now trying to weave back into our narrative.
felixfabulous wrote:
Is the Church trying to gently move in this direction, or trying to make space for people who are already there (most of the people on this forum)?
I think most religions are slowing making this shift. They have to. As science progresses, it often undermines religious authority when the two contradict (and they often do). Neil Degrasse Tyson put it better than I could:
Quote:“Every great scientific truth goes through three phases. First, people deny it. Second, they say it conflicts with the Bible. Third, they say they’ve known it all along.”
First with print, then with high rates of literacy, and now with access to the internet, we have reached the glorious age where we have access to all the information, and opinions on that information, are accessible to everyone. The Church cannot make or stand by the absolute truth claims they made in the past. We can see that Church history is not often as cut and dry as they’ve made it out to be. We can see current Church leaders contradicting past Church leaders. We can see points of doctrine disproven through scientific and/or archaeological inquiry. We are exposed to different religious ideologies from adherents as faithful and good-intentioned as our own (despite holding different views, and being heretics according to our ancestors).The religion today itself is very different from any historical religion. It holds much less power than it ever has before. A religion must evolve if it is to endure.
I think another contributing factor is the dissemination of logic and critical thinking skills. I don’t think they were taught in the generation before mine, but going to elementary school in the ’90’s meant being exposed to critical thinking teachings as a teenager and beyond that. Children now are taught to be critical thinkers in school much more than happened with my generation. I see that all the time when talking with my children’s generations and FAR less often when talking with friends with whom I went to school. One simple example:
Intentionally false, fabricated memes are shared on Facebook exponentially more often by older, highly conservative people than by every type of younger person. It is a safety /, protection reflex for the older, more conservative paradigm, whereas the younger generations are much more willing to be exposed to, explore, and question things.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.