- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Do you think the church will ever focus less on the church history than on our actual spiritual journey? I think it is interesting if you listen to conference talks, they always focus on the our spiritual growth but at church, in sacrament or RS there is so much talk about the history of the church. I know they are trying to use the history to strengthen us, but when so much of the history is questionable why is that necessary? I think that is what makes me feel that a testimony of the history is required to move forward with this church? (Please keep in mind I have only been active in the church a few years, so this is just my experience with it!) I totally understand how you feel – so much, so much. I know that we are taught that “man will be punished for his own sins, and NOT for Adam’s transgression”. We need only focus on ourselves, the children we are raising, our spouses, grandchildren, friends and those we directly influence. We don’t need to worry about Adam’s transgression, or Cain’s or Joseph Smith’s alleged transgression with plural wife Fanny Alger. So why the emphasis on Church History?
I pondered that today. I frame my prayers, my questions and all of my supplication to the Lord not as, “Was Joseph Smith a true Prophet of the Lord”?, but as “Is Thomas S. Monson a true Prophet of the Lord”? When I really think about it, the weight of the whole entire world rests on President Monson’s shoulders. Smith was a Prophet to a few thousand people – Monson to over 13 Million. The decisions and actions of Thomas S. Monson will have far greater impact on my life, the lives of my children and grandchildren than JS ever had or ever will. Hey, I don’t know why JS “married” young women. I don’t know if he was completely loyal and faithful to his wife Emma because so many people have questioned him on this (Oliver Cowdry, for example). What matters to me is that Thomas S. Monson is faithful to his wife.
I’m sorry, but I am tired of so much emphasis being placed on pioneer women and Prophets of the 19th Century. If they were so important, then why do we need a living Prophet today. I think that the people who lived in the 19th century made mistakes – a hell of a lot of mistakes -EVERY GENERATION DOES. My generation spent billions on nuclear bombs – whoops!!!! 100 years from now, our grandchildren will be looking back at us and saying – WTF???? (excuse the terminology), but there are no other words in the English dictionary that adequately describe our stupidity.
We need to move forward. The time has come. GBH said, “Go forward with faith”. It takes NO faith to look backwards, but it takes perfect faith to move ahead.
I do think it’s possible. Maybe not in our lifetimes but someday I like to think the drift will be toward candor with our history – and focus on our spirituality. Honestly, phaseIII, I’m not sure I have experienced that kind of imbalance. Perhaps it’s a local ward thing, but in the last three wards I’ve attended there is very little focus on history in Sacrament Meeting. PH and RS are focused on prophets of the Church, but even most of those lessons are supposed to be focused on the teachings of the prophets – not the “historical” issues. Recent lessons on Joseph Smith are focused on his final days, so there is an inherent historical / non-doctrinal slant to them, but most of the rest of the lessons even in that manual are doctrinal rather than historical. In fact, there is a charge commonly heard in the Bloggernacle that the Church has NOT included enough history in its lessons – that it has white-washed too much of its history – that it has let go of many of the teachings of former prophets. (I personally don’t have a huge problem with that, but I understand totally the issue for many people.) I’m not sure how to respond to your question, given my own experiences and the more common complaint I just mentioned.
When lots of people blast the Church for NOT addressing its history and some complain that it does so too much . . .
I think this year has been an anomaly with regard to the church’s focus on history. We have simultaneously had D&C / church history as the GD topic, and a 14-month JS manual watered down to 24 months in RS / PH. You’ll see an immediate shift next year when we have a new RS / PH manual and the topic in GD changes. Another good way to shake it up is to switch from the GD track to Gospel Essentials. There’s always plenty of great basic gospel discussion in there. It’s not just for the new members! The history isn’t questionable. At least it isn’t to The Church. The revelation of today is what members both need to focus on and trust. Judging from the recent “Talk” on the BOM at GC I would say The Church “Knows” 100% that the BOM was inspired of God and “True”. Which leads to JS was in fact a “True” prophet. I believe the Church NEEDS that history. The JS “Story” or w/e you want to call it (First vision) .. The Church version is inspiring .. The crossing over of the plains shows sacrafice .. The Church version of JS with his wife is something people (woman 😳 ) lust after .. The Church version of JS and his martyrdom shows sacrafice. There are just too many examples of sacrafice and inspiration for “The Church” .. for “The Gospel”. It strikes a cord in people. The stories in the history scream “Look at what I did B/C the Church is True” and maybe they were right! It doesn’t strike a chord really with me anymore .. But it does with other people. I think the Church has every right to be proud (?) of their history and make it known BUT I don’t agree 100% with the way they portray it … But then again they have to make it faith promoting I guess.
I guess this why I do not think I can stay. It seems like it would be like torturing myself if I do not want to praise JS and the other prophets and the church and its members do. Thanks for the replies. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but that sounds like a cop-out to me. Like I said, both sides of your charge can be made against the Church, and there is LOTS of stuff from our history that can and should be praised. If you don’t want to praise in the same way that others do, fine; don’t. But leaving because an organization talks about its past and praises the people who played a major role in building it? That’s like saying you are going to move to another country and renounce your citizenship because the history books focus too much on the leaders and key figures of the country’s history without fully exploring their vices and shortcomings.
Understand, I’m not insisting that you stay. I’ve never done that here. If someone is determined to leave, I’m not going to try to stop them.I just think you haven’t articulated your reason for leaving in this post, and your quick response sounds like an easy way out to me. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s what hits me right now.
Old-Timer wrote:But leaving because an organization talks about its past and “praises the people who played a major role in building it”? That’s like saying you are going to move to another country and renounce your citizenship because the history books focus too much on the leaders and key figures of the country’s history without fully exploring their vices and shortcomings.
I’ve heard this comparison before, and I’m not quite sure I agree with it. We have to clarify the level of “man praise” that is going on in the country/church, and the level that you are comfortable with. An occasional reference in school, a statue outside a government building, a face on a dollar bill – sure, most of us could handle that. But consider examples like Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Stalin’s Russia. If I lived in a country like that, I would consider renouncing my citizenship and hopping the fence. (The “man worship” in these countries certainly wouldn’t be the only reason for leaving, but you get my point).
Another important differentiation is that in many western countries dissent from leaders is allowed and even patriotic. In other countries, if you criticize a leader you will find yourself in a bad situation. Do we have a taboo against criticism in the church? Sometimes we do.
Is the church “man worship” comparable to Stalin? No. But does it go overboard a bit sometimes? Yes.
I’m not saying everyone would see this as a good reason to leave the church, but suggesting that someone who does so is “taking the easy way out” only belittles a legitimate concern, imo. It’s never easy to leave the institution you were brought up in, country or otherwise.
I agree with everything you just said, MapleLeaf. Remember, I said I don’t think the reason to leave has been articulated very well – not that it is not a legitimate concern. It is a legitimate concern, as I’ve said elsewhere, but I just don’t think it can be boiled down to “they talk about their history too much” – especially when perhaps the most freqent complaint is, “They don’t talk about their history enough.”
If “they talk about their history too much” is all that is said, I think it’s a cop-out; if there is more to it, then it hasn’t been said yet.
Frankly, I also feel as I do based on the last comment. Citing our responses as a justification to leave just sounds like someone looking for support for a decision that already has been made. Seriously, read the responses again and see if, devoid of background and isolated from the original post and standing on their own, they would lead someone to think they need to leave over this concern as it was phrased in the original post. That message simply isn’t there.
Thank you so much Mapleleaf for your comments. My words were not meant to be a cop out, or a final decision. Just my thoughts. I did not realize I needed to write so articulately here to be heard, or understood. I was hoping if anyone had a question about what I was saying they would simply ask for a clarification. To be honest your response Ray was very surprising to me. I thought this was a place were I could “talk freely,” I did not expect anyone to read so much or judge so harshly what I was saying. What exactly was your motivation in responding that way? Was that supposed to help me? Maybe it is different for you? I have never heard of anyone saying there was not enough teachings of the history of the church, ever. I am also not trying to speak for the people of the church collectively. Personally, right now I am having a problem with the history of JS and how this church came to be. Trying to see if there is someway I can ignore all of the discrepancies in his teachings and behavior and take what is good in this church. Having only come across this in the last couple weeks, it is seeming clear to me (your comments included) that this might be an impossible thing to do? Most importantly I am worried about being held accountable to God for feeling like JS was not a true prophet and following his teachings anyway. It was suggested that I take all the good things in the church, that I do not have to agree with its origins and history to be a good active member. When people in the church want to hear more about JS history (and other disturbing things) then it seems that would be pretty tough to do. PhaseIII I think that Ray is just trying to have you look carefully at the issue, he does try awfully hard to be fair and open with everyone. So the core of that discussion isn’t that you would leave the church because it talks too much about history but that you would leave the church because of its problematic history that causes you to lose faith. Is that more or less correct? There are two things that I would like you to think about.
1. The whole process of the gospel from the time of Adam has been the “reavealing” of God’s dealing with his children IN and BY history. The “revolution” that the Hebrews brought to the religious thought of the early Middle East wasn’t so much worship in a single God but a strongly held conviction that all of history had a purpose and direction. In contrast most religions at the time were based on cyclical/fatalist notions in one way or another as history/life a “wheel” where things kept repeating. There, that is probably as close as I can come but still it seems inadequate, sorry.
😳 But the idea is that a focus on history is built into the gospel and clearly the Church and many other Christians focus on the historicity of Jesus, that he was actually here on the earth and then actually resurrected. The Church carries on that tradition and whether we recognize it or not there is/has been/will be a continued emphasis on our recent history as another example of the “Exodus” from Egypt (representing the evil corrupt world view) to the “promised land”.2. The real process that keeps me in the Church is that I have had too many personal revelations of one kind or another including two that saved my life that I simply can’t turn away from the Church. There is truth in the Church and a way to grow spiritually and a way to serve others (which is probably the key to growing spiritually anyway) that brings the deep connection with the “still small voice” on many occaisions. I know those truths and if you have some of those truths in your life then you need to consider what they mean and how to go forward. My feeling is that in these spiritual journeys that you can find on this board some stay, some go, but we all appreciate the strength and courage and willingness to share. Even if you decide to leave you will need a place at least for a time where you can talk about issues and ideas with people who understand because they are in the midst of the struggle themselves and willing to share it.
Phase III, I understand where you are at because I am in the same place. Joseph Smith was the founder of this church. The church would not be here without him. Then I read the history and wonder how can it be true? Do I even want it to be true? But the church is not the church it was then. Thank goodness. It has many wonderful things, I know that. But I still can’t get past the history. I know Ray that I should but I can’t. Maybe someday I will be able to. It is hard to imagine. It would take a big spiritual experience for that to happen. So Phase III because I have my whole family that are totally active in the church I go for them. I’m really not sure what I would do if it was just me alone. Also, I believe in a loving God that knows what we are going through and we will not be held accountable for our feelings about Joseph Smith. I would hope just the opposite. You sound like a kind and loving person that is trying to find the truth and do the best you can. All I can do is to continue to pray and follow the spirit wherever it may lead me.
Let me try to be even more clear: I didn’t write ANYTHING in my comments as a criticism or in an attempt to stop discussion. I write the analytical ones in an attempt to provide clarity. I hope Bill’s comment made sense to you, because he is correct.
Please realize that I write carefully and slowly – or, at the very least, that I re-read and edit each comment mutiple times before I post – trying to make sure I am saying exactly what I mean. When I am blunt, I am blunt for a reason. WIth that in mind . . .
I never said anyone should “get over the history”. What I’m saying is that, in order to find peace and happiness in anything, each person simply has to slow down, think and write carefully, and get to the heart of the issue for himself or herself personally. As I read your post and subsequent comments, I just don’t see your personal issue as being the Church’s focus on its history. I see it as a problem with DETAILS of that history – and I think your latest comment is MUCH more reflective of that than the original post and comments.
Being articulate has nothing to do with it for me.
I’m trying to help everyone be precise – since it’s impossible to address a concern that actually is hidden within a tangential issue.I think that is (or was) the case here – and I hope my comments somehow helped bring out the real concern so that it can be discussed. I think it is important to clarify that if people on the bloggernacle are complaining it is about the the lack of honest history not the quantity of whitewashed history that is spoon fed just about every week at church. I agree entirely with phaseII. It is extremely difficult having to go to church( and yes this year has been particularly bad) every week and learn about the “HIstory” instead of focusing on the doctrines and principles and ultimately JESUS CHRIST. It DOES make it hard!. This subject has been discussed many times on this forum, I don’t understand why PhaseII’s comments have not resonated with more people.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.