- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
@jmb275 – more food for thought
Quote:@hawkgrrrl
hawkgrrrl wrote:
When I speak of historical issues, I personally endeavor to be more accurate and more complete, similar to what you outlined in your last note, although I disclose even more.
Would you mind sharing some insight into how you do this? From my standpoint (our bishop is very VERY conservative especially for Bay Area, CA and has no clue about church history) this a very daunting thing for me. I don’t know how to raise my hand in class and answer a question with historical “fact” (as closely as we know) without being viewed as heretical.
Well, this is trickier given a conservative yet ignorant bishop (the worst opponent you could have). In THAT situation (which isn’t the one I’m in), you can insert real info, but cite benign sources (e.g. the Ensign, apostle quotes, church sources). Just be certain of your sources, and always cite them. If you cite sources that are questionable to a conservative TBM, you may end up in hot water.
In my ward, our previous GD teacher brought up many of these points in the course of the lesson. He is very scholarly and knowledgeable. Our current one, not so much. But as an example, the new guy threw out the question: “What was the process to translate the BOM?” A loaded question, if ever there was one. SSSA (Standard Sunday School Answer) might be “through the U&T,” but you could add the peepstone hat thing quite easily because it was in the Ensign (cite your source). You could answer that one method was that JS put his face in a hat to block out the light and the words appeared below as if written on a strip of parchment.
Quote:hawkgrrrl wrote:
I want to reiterate my argument that many of the church leaders aren’t aware of some of the intricacies in the history.
I must admit this is a bit hard for me to swallow in spite of the Marlin Jensen quote. Who looks in those vaults after all? And don’t they ever read the books written by the myriad of Mormon historians? Are they too busy writing their own faith-promoting obedience books? What about President Hinckley. He spent his lifetime in the church and wrote “Truth Restored.” Surely he had to run across some of this stuff?
I agree it’s hard to swallow this, and in a way I’m disappointed by it. OTOH, why are they in these roles? Probably because they live very good lives of service for a very long time, they are kindly, they are good examples, they have some leadership experience, some experience in the world, and to some extent, they’ve played the internal political game well enough to get where they are (or been pedigreed – that seems to help too) – in short, they “fit in.” There’s nothing on that list that says they read intellectual books or have depth of knowledge of history. Some doubtless do know quite a bit – I would bet that there are some that are interested. But the idea that any of them are spending time poring over dusty tomes in a vault is unlikely. GBH may have been more knowledgeable than TSM. Each person has his own interests to pursue.
The early apostles were fishermen, a despised tax collector, a doctor, etc. I wonder how much history they delved into when they taught of Jesus. Paul is the one whose writings we see most, and he was a highly educated and trained theologian. He also is the one whose writings are the most controversial. It’s worth considering how we would have responded to them.
@Ray No worries about the bluntness. In fact, I can hardly call that bluntness. I served my mission in Russia, I know about bluntness!
In any case, I must say, I already knew and understood much of what you said (even though I recognize I don’t demonstrate it very well). I understand becoming comfortable with uncertainty, and most of the time when I use the absolutes (which you’re right, I do use a lot) I really mean “I think it more probable that…” Maybe I should phrase it that way.
However, let me try to explain my view of things. You are right Ray, nuanced views and uncertainty, and understanding, and coming to peace is important and I have a long way to go in this regard. However, Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t effect change by merely coming to peace with his situation and understanding it. My point is, as Tom has pointed out there is a clear danger in relying too much on this nuanced view. That is to say, if taken too far it is easy to accept any type of behavior as acceptable, or maybe even unacceptable but we are unwilling to get “angry” enough to do something about it. Anger can be a very constructive thing. It brought me to where I am today, for which I am thankful. Sometimes this anger is justified and can be a key agent in revolutionizing old, broken, worn out, or immoral or incorrect conventions and tyrannies. It seems to me we have to strike a balance but remain open to the possibility of getting “angry” enough to grab the “torches and pitchforks” as it were. Clearly at this point I haven’t found the balance and am leaning toward the anger. But it seems to me that we must be vigilant to not root out all the potential anger with passive inevitability.
Maybe you have already found this balance. Thoughts?
Well said. I agree – with one caveat: We need to be very careful to choose “anger” and not allow it to choose us.
Old-Timer wrote:We need to be very careful to choose “anger” and not allow it to choose us.
Well said. Very “Obiwan Kenobi”-ish. I like it.
“God made man in his own image, and man has been returning the favor ever since”-Mark Twain Despite our anthropomorphisms and human weaknesses, let me come squarely against the value of anger. Not only is it ungodly, but it is handicapping and a very winding shortcut to where we want to be. Here’s a passage from Swedenborg’s Heaven and Hell I believe in.
“545 An opinion has prevailed with some that God turns away His face from man, casts man away from Himself, and casts him into hell, and is angry with him on account of his evil; and some believe also that God punishes man and does evil to him. In this opinion they establish themselves by the sense of the letter of the Word, where such things are declared, not knowing that the spiritual sense of the Word, by which the sense of the letter is made clear, is wholly different; and consequently that the genuine doctrine of the church, which is from the spiritual sense of the Word, teaches otherwise, namely, that God never turns away His face from man, and never casts man away from Himself, that
He casts no one into hell and is angry with no one[57.1]. Every one, moreover, whose mind is enlightened perceives this to be true when he reads the Word, from the simple truth that God is good itself, love itself, and mercy itself; and that good itself cannot do evil to any one, and love itself and mercy itself can not cast man away from itself, because this is contrary to the very essence of mercy and love, thus contrary to the Divine Itself. Therefore those who think from an enlightened mind clearly perceive, when they read the Word, that God never turns Himself away from man; and as He never turns Himself away from him He deals with him from goodness, love, and mercy, that is, wills good to him, loves him, and is merciful to him. And from this they see that the sense of the letter of the Word, in which such things are declared, has stored up within itself a spiritual sense, and that these expressions that are used in the sense of the letter in accommodation to man’s apprehension and according to his first and general ideas are to be explained in accordance with the spiritual sense. “ “549. The Lord from His Divine Essence, which is goodness, love, and mercy, is unable to deal in the same way with every man, because evils and their falsities prevent, and not only quench His Divine influx but even reject it. Evils and their falsities are like black clouds which interpose between the sun and the eye, and take away the sunshine and the serenity of its light; although the unceasing endeavor of the sun to dissipate the opposing clouds continues, for it is operating behind them; and in the meantime transmits something of obscure light into the eye of man by various roundabout ways. It is the same in the spiritual world. The sun there is the Lord and the Divine love (n. 116-140); and the light there is the Divine truth (n. 126-140); black clouds there are falsities from evil; the eye there is the understanding. So far as any one in that world is in falsities from evil he is encompassed by such a cloud, which is black and dense according to the degree of his evil. From this comparison it can be seen that the Lord is unceasingly present with every one, but that He is received variously.”
Tom, I agree with you. That’s why I phrased my comment the way I did. I personally don’t think that consciously choosing to act forcefully (even in a way that appears “angry”) is the same thing as “being angry” – and I don’t believe that we ever should act in anger. Old-Timer wrote:I personally don’t think that consciously choosing to act forcefully (even in a way that appears “angry”) is the same thing as “being angry” – and I don’t believe that we ever should act in anger.
I absolutely think there is such a thing as “healthy” anger. This type of outrage can motivate people to take a stand against injustice and evil, and make positive changes in the world and in their own lives. The trick is to not let anger cloud your emotions and control your actions, as that will almost certainly have negative results.
The only world in which anger would have no place at all would be a perfect one… and we are not living in that.
asha, I am an inveterate parser, so I draw careful distinctions between words. I agree totally that outrage can be a motivator for good; I don’t think we can act in anger – which I define as acting under the influence of anger. I believe any outrage we feel must be channeled (used to cause focused, intentional, “measured” action) – even if the “measurement” is expansive and forceful. I believe anger distorts and causes a disconnection from the Spirit (from clarity) – that we are commanded to not be angry with our brother for a vital reason.
A few thoughts one what has been said. @Ray
I have learned not to draw any conclusions about what you have written until I get a full explanation detailing the nuances as you see them. I agree with your last post. Anger is useful as a tool to motivate us to action. That action should be carefully planned and
notdone in the heat of the moment, or under the influence of the anger. Faith is a similar construct in my mind, and in the same way as anger, things should notbe done in the heat of the moment or under the influence of faith. That is to say, actions spawned from faith should be carefully planned using rational thought and reasoning. To do the opposite, I think, is “blind faith.” Hence, asha, I am agreement with you and Ray based on Ray’s nuanced explanation.
@Tom
I am opposed to the idea that God is only good and love. I much prefer the Hindu idea that there is diametrical opposition in things but that this comes out of the same God (referenced in “Power of Myth”). We try to tend toward the “good.” However, good is generally defined in a place, time, and culture.
From ‘jmb275’ and ‘just me’ raising some great points in the other thread about the book of mormon one liners and how the facts on the origin of the BOM from the church teachings are deceitful (correct me if the wording is not accurate, but that was the gist I got from the other thread), I posted this note: I can see there have been things in church history the leaders have not brought to the public’s eye, but I also think we live in an information age where we expect access to all information, good or bad. My grandfather who died of cancer had a different philosophy he lived by, and he would always draw my attention to the good things he was thankful for, and didn’t want me dwelling on the controversial because it didn’t help me. Certainly that point can be debated, but our generations see more value in that than older generations, IMO.
My question to the group is twofold:
1) Is my premise correct, that older generations tried to just focus on the good and not talk about the bad (not just church leaders but generations of society in general)?
2) If so, is our discussion on the decietfullness of the church leaders really a discusssion on
generation gapsMy grandfather lived through WWI and WWII – an age of intense, public propaganda. He was typical of his generation – and absolutely believed that some true things aren’t worth mentioning. I agree totally that the post-Vietnam/post-Watergate era can be characterized as craving all information be disclosed, while the former eras can be characterized as viewing information as both positive and negative – as believing in protecting people from TMI. The simple existence of that phrase (too much information) is insightful, I believe. Another example from my childhood:
I have described my mother’s disability and my father’s sacrifices to make sure she could function properly. Of relevance to this thread is the fact that he would not have dreamed of revealing her condition to anyone else. In order to protect and help her, it was critical to him that nobody see her negatively – so he “hid” her condition from everyone (including her children) and simply took on the role of father AND mother. That might have been seen as “deceitful” by others, but to him it simply was a case of avoiding TMI in order to protect someone he loved.
I don’t want to say that my father and grandfather were right or wrong in how they viewed things and in everything they did. I just see their actions and appreciate the effort. I would have loved to know of my mom’s condition much earlier than I did, but I understand my father’s reasoning and honor his dedication to her – even as I wish he would have explained her condition to me personally and not waited for her second breakdown when it could not be hidden any more.
Interesting thoughts on the generation gap thing. We are always evloving so of course we are different today than 100 years ago. I do think that loyalty was seen as more important than honesty (and full disclosure) in the past. Loyalty by itself is not a bad thing, however I see loyalty to something damaging as a bad thing. Allowing loyalty to blind us doesn’t seem good to me.
I also think the 1800’s were different from the 1900’s in the church. In the 1800’s I think there was more room for dissent and people did complain about things. In one conference BY told all the women they could either quit complaining (about polygamy) or they could all leave the valley (divorce). Thus we begin a trend where people suffer in silence, don’t question authority, etc. I see polygamy as a big catalist for deception among our people.
I can look at our history and see it, understand why they did what they did, forgive them, etc. But the more important thing is to learn and not repeat what I believe were mistakes. Does that make any sense? I would want my children to look at my life and learn from my mistakes not glorify them and think they came from God. That is why I look at past and present racism, sexism, lies, etc and decide where I stand on it (does it bring us closer to Christ).
Because we seem to worship our prophets and treat their words like they are infallible we are in a dangerous spot. Many people will not say “the PH ban was racist” because they believe all the words of the prophet come from God-that was me. So instead they rationalize the racism. Now, I think those men were trying to do the best they could, but I believe they made a mistake.
The finances of the church were fully disclosed until the 1950’s. Why did they stop? They still make a disclosure in the UK because it is the law. Guess what, less than 1% of money received is used for charity. Yet, the church is spending billions of dollars to beautify SLC. There are women in 3rd world countries who pawn their wedding rings to get a temple built! We tell poor people that 10% of all their income needs to be given to a church that is worth billions and billions of dollars. These people forgo basic needs to pay tithing. Of course they are darned if they do and darned if they don’t with disclosure-but error on the side of transparency.
I guess my problem is that I still believe there are very real evils and injustices in this world. I’m also naiave enough to think we can make a difference. If we are filled with love and compassion how can we not?
D&C 64:38-40 says:
38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.
39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.
40 And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead.
How do we know if these men are being faithful in their stewardship if a disclosure isn’t made?
Why do the brethren spend more time testifying of eachother than of Christ? Have you noticed this?
As you can tell I still have one foot in “question everything” mode. I’m really trying to figure out my responsiblility. Is it just to myself and my own journey or does it extend beyond my family? I’m truly sorry if I have offended anyone. These are just the issues churning in my heart and mind. Sorry for the novel.
Quote:1) Is my premise correct, that older generations tried to just focus on the good and not talk about the bad (not just church leaders but generations of society in general)?
Not entirely true, but on the whole, the older generations are more invested in maintaining the status quo than in pushing for change. Why? Because most of their lifetime is behind them, the stauts quo was good enough for them (they are comfortable), and change is threatening to them. At best, they probably won’t live long enough to experience the benefits; at worst, they will find it greatly disrupting to their lives and sense of morality.
Quote:2) If so, is our discussion on the decietfullness of the church leaders really a discusssion on generation gaps more than it is on integrity and honesty of church leaders past and present?
Actually Albert Nolan in Jesus Before Christianity suggested this very thing was the proper interpretation of Christ’s statements that he would divide families. All the examples of divided families were generational splits. I think that’s a key observation. Younger generations will interpret Jesus’ teachings based on their own cultural views and desire for positive changes. Older generations will interpret Jesus’ teachings based on their own cultural views and desire to maintain what experience has taught them to value.
In a gerontocracy-led church like ours, this is particularly an issue. But contrast that with some of these flighty young televangelical pastor led churches, and you can see that not all that glitters is gold. Both models have problems.
Quote:Both models have problems.
…and surely both models have advantages. Many anthropologists will argue the value of elderly in a community is to teach and remind the younger generations of the cultural values that have helped keep the community/society successful and avoid making the same mistakes forefathers have; And the natural course of progression requires change.
Perhaps the church does offer both advantages, holding on to a conservative resistance to changing values over time from the perspective of elders, yet allowing for change through modern revelations that allows the staunch faithful to accept change.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.