- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
curt wrote:
As I have read all of the posts on this particular thread
I just don’t understand how anyone, who has studied the issues, remains a member any longer. I just can’t get it. Save it is like belonging to the American Legion or something.Sorry. I think that’s the main reason many Church leaders basically try to hide from some of the contradictions and unflattering history and pretend these problems don’t exist because it is painful for them to really face the implications of it and they probably fear that if most active members knew about some of this then there would be a mass exodus. Whether they are TBM apologists or “pious” liars I can see why they would worry about how members will react if they suddenly lose their testimonies because it is a tough transition for people to go through sometimes. One of the reasons some members will continue to support the Church even after they know about these issues is mostly because it would be relatively painful and/or inconvenient for them to leave at this point.
It’s almost like the story of the emperor with no clothes where no one wanted to be the only one to say anything about it while everyone else around them was acting like nothing was wrong. Some apologists really want to believe the Church is everything it claims to be so because of this they will rationalize that maybe some of these allegations made by critics aren’t true or that it doesn’t really matter if Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. weren’t exactly perfect because they could still be inspired and trustworthy prophets in spite of any evidence to the contrary. Also, some members that don’t really believe in the Church’s major claims continue to go along with it mostly for the sake of their relationships because they worry how other members would react if they openly admit their honest doubts about the Church.
It would be hard for the Church to gracefully navigate its way out of this mess without completely falling apart even if they wanted to. Personally, I wouldn’t expect them to openly admit they were wrong about some of this any time soon but I do think they should start to de-emphasize the relative importance of prophets and focus more on trying to make the experience of individual members as positive as they can because at least that way there would be less for an increasing number of members to complain about when they inevitably find out about some of these glaring problems with the Church’s official story.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:I think that’s the main reason many Church leaders basically try to hide from some of the contradictions and unflattering history and pretend these problems don’t exist because it is painful for them to really face the implications of it and they probably fear that if most active members knew about some of this then there would be a mass exodus.
I honestly don’t think the church leaders are in fear, I think they are faithful and positive they are right, despite not having some explanations for things. Their reasoning is because they feel a witness that it is true, and on faith, can accept that despite not knowing or wanting to know the details in the past. The “contradictions” are from a point of view or an opinion, and cannot be proven contradictions or not contradictions. I’m not sure exactly how they reconcile things, but I am sure they are not hiding in fear that a house of cards will inevitably come falling down some day. I just don’t see their approach is such, whether I agree with them or not.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:One of the reasons some members will continue to support the Church even after they know about these issues is mostly because it would be relatively painful and/or inconvenient for them to leave at this point.
Again, I went to church yesterday, and I really don’t believe people are there out of fear or habit. There are a lot of people there who are enriched and fulfilled and worshipping God with all their heart, might, mind, and soul … and it works for them. I think that is why people continue to have faith in it.
There are lots of studies that show, even after a failed prophecy, that people still believe, and sometimes are even committed more strongly to their faith. Some people think they must be fooling themselves or that they are just plain stupid people … but the evidence does not support that.
I have come to believe that it just comes down to the choice people make. Believe it or don’t believe it. There is plenty there to support both arguments, and sustain both decisions. Remember the stages of faith …
Stage 3 – fully in the group, others outside are in the dark. Sometimes a person jumps from one side of the fence to the other, but stays in the authoritative stage, just now against the church instead of for it (Authoritative and group-based faith)Stage 4 – realization the others outside the group are not necessarily wrong, or that the it is actually the group that is wrong, -often with anger/frustration to the authority, and therefore turns inward to rely on one’s own perspectives and not authority (Individuative and Reflective faith)
Stage 5 – starting to realize there is no “us” or “them” – but just all of us trying to make the best with what we have (accepting paradoxical/conjunctive faith)
DevilsAdvocate wrote:It would be hard for the Church to gracefully navigate its way out of this mess without completely falling apart even if they wanted to.
They have survived this long so far, and I think wrestle with how much effort to put on these topics, but for the most part, they look forward to keeping the ship right going forward, despite the past. I don’t think they will be falling apart or going away any time soon. The Catholic Church is a pretty good example that it can keep moving forward.
At least, that’s how I see it.
Heber13 wrote:DevilsAdvocate wrote:I think that’s the main reason many Church leaders basically try to hide from some of the contradictions and unflattering history and pretend these problems don’t exist because it is painful for them to really face the implications of it and they probably fear that if most active members knew about some of this then there would be a mass exodus.
I honestly don’t think the church leaders are in fear,
I think they are faithful and positive they are right, despite not having some explanations for things. Their reasoning is because they feel a witness that it is true, and on faith, can accept that despite not knowing or wanting to know the details in the past…I’m not sure exactly how they reconcile things, but I am sure they are not hiding in fear that a house of cards will inevitably come falling down some day. I agree that some if not most top Church leaders honestly believe they are right, what I meant by that comment was simply that they probably fear that most rank-and-file members don’t have enough faith at this point to withstand being challenged by some of these historical issues. Basically, I think they are trying to protect members’ vulnerable testimonies with the general policy of whitewashed history and lack of full disclosure as if it is for their own good because a weak or non-existent testimony often leads to the end result of members falling away from the Church and committing various awful “sins” from their perspective.
Heber13 wrote:…Again, I went to church yesterday, and
I really don’t believe people are there out of fear or habit.There are a lot of people there who are enriched and fulfilled and worshipping God with all their heart, might, mind, and soul … and it works for them. I think that is why people continue to have faith in it…There are lots of studies that show, even after a failed prophecy, that people still believe, and sometimes are even committed more strongly to their faith. Some people think they must be fooling themselves or that they are just plain stupid people … but the evidence does not support that…I have come to believe that it just comes down to the choice people make. Believe it or don’t believe it. There is plenty there to support both arguments, and sustain both decisions. I agree that most active members probably don’t stay primarily out of fear of how other members will react if they leave; actually I think most active members don’t know about most of these contradictions to begin with and many don’t even want to seriously consider the possibility that maybe the Church isn’t everything it claims to be. I was mostly talking about a minority of active members that don’t really believe the Church’s claims but don’t feel comfortable about openly admitting this to other members. It would be hard to estimate how many members like this there really are at this point even in my own ward because they would typically keep quiet about their honest beliefs on purpose simply to try to blend in with everyone else.
I get your point, DA, and certainly with things like “Strengthening the Members” Committee, they do take their stewardship seriously to protect the flock. I agree. However, when it is put like this…
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Basically, I think they are trying to protect members’ vulnerable testimonies with the general policy of whitewashed history and lack of full disclosure as if it is for their own good…
…this doesn’t sound accurate to me.
“Whitewashed” and “lack of full disclosure” are your words you are putting on how you view what they do (or if not you specifically, then whoever else is making those claims). I honestly do not believe the leadership consciously views it that way, and they are men of integrity that could not live a duplicitous life.
My point is they do not view it as whitewashed or less than honest. They may have concern for the flock, but are viewing their actions as teaching truth as they see it. I think that is an important distinction to make and to see, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
Heber13 wrote:…they do take their stewardship seriously to protect the flock. I agree…However, when it is put like this…
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Basically, I think they are trying to protect members’ vulnerable testimonies with the general policy of whitewashed history and lack of full disclosure as if it is for their own good…
…this doesn’t sound accurate to me…”Whitewashed” and “lack of full disclosure” are your words you are putting on how you view what they do…
I honestly do not believe the leadership consciously views it that way, and they are men of integrity that could not live a duplicitous life…My point is they do not view it as whitewashed or less than honest.They may have concern for the flock, but are viewing their actions as teaching truth as they see it… Maybe they don’t realize it if they are acting sneaky as if they have something to hide but their general approach to dealing with criticism looks like it is based on the rationalization that “the ends justify the means.” Basically, if some information that is difficult or impossible to discredit or dismiss typically results in members losing confidence in the Church and its leaders then they don’t want people to know about it so they can decide for themselves what it means (I.E. “we know what’s best for you”). For example, the following quotes give the impression that to them strong faith in the Church and its leaders is much more important than being completely honest and open with each other which sort of makes sense if they think the Church is literally the Kingdom of God on earth and that Satan and his followers are determined to trick people with half-truths.
Boyd K. Packer wrote:“…Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful. That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith.A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master…Do not spread disease germs!” Dallin H. Oaks wrote:“It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God.
It does not matter that the criticism is true.As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, ‘when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’… The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord’s anointed…” DevilsAdvocate wrote:
Boyd K. Packer wrote:“…Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful. That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith.A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master…Do not spread disease germs!” Key word here for me is “delights.” It is possible for a good historian to tell the whole truth without delighting in bringing out the weaknesses – yet recognizing the importance of telling the whole truth, and even framing confusing elements in charitable ways. Without the
desireto destroy faith, I think honest faithful scholars can do a great good by telling the whole story. I think most of us can attest to the dangers of a policy of whitewashing. Only error fears truth. If some of our expectations are out of reach of reality maybe we can benefit from some forms of disillusionment that Dr. Ulrich talks about in her essay. Line upon line we get closer to God by gaining more truth, of course all truth will not be useful to any particular agenda – but God’s agenda is truth, and knowledge of how to more fully cultivate unconditional love.
I know my words have been taken the wrong way many times, I would hate to take Elder Packer’s words the wrong way. Though I can’t say for sure what he intended, I can listen to the spirit as live my life and try to fulfil God’s plan. That is a primary lesson that I take out of these seeming “conflicts.”
I think the “delights” issue is a key differentiator in how leaders evaluate scholarship. I know it makes a difference to me, honestly. If someone in church makes a comment, and someone else makes the exact same general point in a comment in a different meeting, I can have multiple reactions to those comments. The first might come across as sincere, hunble and believing, while the other might come across as sarcastic, arrogant and destructive of faith.
I’m not saying I believe in hiding things, but when it comes to the specific emphasis someone puts on things it often is fairly easy to evaluate their intent. Sometimes, it’s not; sometimes, it is.
At the extremes, we have the sunshine and roses versions and the nothing-good, cult accusations – and, frankly, most published works probably fall closer to the extremes than to some kind of balanced middle. That’s why I like Bushman so much.
Great discussion everyone. A couple of personal thoughts. History and it’s validation depends on so much. Take for example our own American Revolution. As Americans we have been raised with the glory of our conquest. That war was our birth, it sets the stage for how we progress. We’re rugged, individualists, etc. In British history it is nearly overlooked. Not even a blip on their historic scale. That is a shock to many Americans. Shouldn’t this event be paramount. It is for us. So which is right or who is right? Was it a big deal or not. Another part to consider when we try to determine the TRUTH about history is the present day requirements for qualifying history. In the simple case between B.H. Roberts History of the Church and say Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. In 1890 when B.H. Roberts work was completed the academic qualifiers of history look to be different. Any source was valid, it didn’t need a certain amount of supporting documentation. Today – scholarship demands a different objective. Bushman has said that he had to have sources that had second source support. This to shifts some of the history.
Finally – believing history, whether religious or not, is a leap of faith. I am an amateur historian. As you comb through things you find diverging information. As a writer you have to work with those and make decisions, a lot goes into those decisions, the writer has to select a point of view or premise to complete his work. None of us will ever have the time to look at every account or paper. We are at the hope and mercy of those who write. And maybe if it was up to us we would find something someone else never saw. Was it hidden no – but their objective took them past that or they couldn’t put it into that thesis – so it would wait for someone else. I believe that’s why Leonard Arrington and Dean Jessee both stood by the idea that their testimonies weren’t hinged on history alone. So can we know the Truth of History – maybe, maybe not. But we can use it like others have stated to help us frame our own truth or validate our own feelings.
That’s a great post, mom3. mom3 wrote:As you comb through things you find diverging information. As a writer you have to work with those and make decisions, a lot goes into those decisions, the writer has to select a point of view or premise to complete his work.
This process might similarly apply to prophets in teaching the word of God. Do you think?
I guess what I’m saying is, it is a worthwhile effort to get as close to the truth as you can, but realize there is always a degree of error inherent in the process. It is likely to me that this is by design.
I constantly argue with a friend of mine who is a history graduate… he thinks history is infallible, I say it is all too fallible, relying on documents etc. If I wish to annoy him, I’ll bring up archeology… but the point sticks… if you’re looking at writings, they’re all biased one way and another. We know some early Mormons were badly behaved, but it’s also true that plenty of lies and distortions were written by their opponents, and I’m not just saying that because I’m a member of the LDS.
I wonder if there will be a time in the eternities when we will all know beyond a shadow of doubt the truth of ALL things. What do you all think? Would it be any different then than how it is now for us trying to find the truth about history? Will there be some Angelic History book that has all the facts straight for us to read from? We read about prophets having visions of history and the future…I suspect it will be similar. However, with repentence and the Lord remembering things no more — will certain events be blotted out, at least, the actors who created them if they were sinful? Somehow I doubt it because people from all generations of time with firsthand knowledge will always remember…. I don’t mind if people see everything I’ve done – as long as everyone understands, doesn’t condemn and loves me anyway. That’s heaven, to me – knowing, not condemning and loving regardless of knowing. Old-Timer wrote:I don’t mind if people see everything I’ve done – as long as everyone understands, doesn’t condemn and loves me anyway. That’s heaven, to me – knowing, not condemning and loving regardless of knowing.
I suspect that won’t be such a problem, if the people know what everyone else has done, if you get my meaning.
If *all* hearts were opened, we’d understand more.
I’ve heard it said that at the end of our lives, when our life flashes by us, we get to experience everything from the other side, and know what the other person felt.
Quote:Can we ever know the truth about history?
I was thinking about this.
How well do you think you KNOW what happened to YOU yesterday? Please provide examples.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.