- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As one who is on the border as to whether or not to keep my church membership, I found the threads on the first vision and BoM origins to be very interesting and got me thinking about the following interaction between Helen Whitney and President HinckleyThe Mormonson PBS. Quote:Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn’t true for you or for this church. I’m wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can’t there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that’s exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That’s our claim. That’s where we stand, and that’s where we fall, if we fall. But we don’t. We just stand secure in that faith.
This is the attitude that drives me furthest from the church. 90% of all the Mormons I have interacted with during my 41 years of membership have this same attitude. There is no room for doubt. It’s either true or a fraud.
Is there really no room for doubt. Is it possible that JS was a spiritual person, with faults (i.e. polygamy), who started a good religious movement? Can we think of him as we think of Martin Luther, Mohammad, or Buddha?
If I really have to decide between either all true or a fraud, I would have to vote fraud. But I would like another choice. Will people like me ever be welcome in the LDS Church?
The following is NOT directed at you, Kari. It simply is something I see all the time from people – inside and outside of the Church: One of my biggest problems with human nature, in general, and the way that members, in particular, tend to interpret things is the tendency to read something applied to one thing and extrapolate it to everything else.
This quote is not one of my favorites – not because I disagree with it relative to the First Vision, the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of the Priesthood (which I do think either happened – in one way or another – or were faked], but rather because so many people read it and think it says there is no ambiguity about ANYTHING. It doesn’t – nor does it dictate how those things mentioned are “real”.
Let me give two other examples to illustrate my point:
1) Oliver Cowdery was told how HE received a witness from the Spirit. HE felt a burning in HIS bosom, and HE experienced a stupor of thought in HIS mind. That passage says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how anyone else will or should recognize the influence of the Spirit in their own life – nothing, at all. However, members and missionaries alike tend to promise others that they will feel it in that exact same way. I rarely feel it that way, and I know others who rarely feel it that way, but thousands of people are being told that is how they can experience it. That really is a HUGE concern and pet peeve of mine.
2) Moroni 10:3-4 promises those who remember, read, ponder and pray that God will manifest the truth of the Book of Mormon unto them – but it says absolutely nothing about how that will be done – how any particular reader will experience that manifestation. It also does NOT say in those verses that everyone who reads will “know” it is true; all it says is that the truth will be manifest somehow. One person might feel it is true; another one might sense it is true; another might have a classic Cowdery burning; one might have a powerful dream; one simply might feel compelled to continue reading it and be drawn into it inescapably; one might experience it in a way that is unimaginable to you and me. Only one of these “manifestations” matches Oliver Cowdery’s method of manifestation, but each and every one is “real” to the person involved.
President Hinckley didn’t say, “Every single thing taught in the Church either is 100% true or else the Church is a fraud,” nor did he say, “The Church is never wrong or else it is not of God.” What he said, in essence, included three foundational claims: 1) Joseph spoke with God (somehow); 2) Moroni appeared to Joseph, who “translated” the Book of Mormon (somehow); and 3) the Priesthood authority to perform eternal ordinances was restored. Either those three things happened (again, somehow) or they didn’t. Either heavenly personages appeared to Joseph (somehow), or he made it up. They either are “real” or “fraudulent”. Joseph either believed in his visions, or he lied about them intentionally. He either was sincere, or he was a fraud. That’s essentially all Pres. Hinckley said in the quote.
To me, the crux of his comment is that either Joseph was telling the truth about the biggest things (the heavenly manifestations), or he was a fraud. Either he believed it, or he faked it. I can accept that, since I couldn’t remain faithful if I was convinced he lied about those foundation things. There are lots and lots and lots of things that I believe are totally open to ambiguity and mistakes; the heavenly visitations/visions aren’t among them – even though I think there are multiple, legitimate ways that those visitations could have occurred without being fraudulent.
Dichotomous thinking really causes a lot of problems. It is useful in some cases, but it isn’t the only way to see things. There’s a seductive temptation to make things too simple — because simple things are easier to deal with. It is a natural human tendency. While it sounds so passionate and confident, we look around and see a world that isn’t quite black and white. There are shades of gray, and even rainbows of truth. I agree with Kari, members make the mistake of using statements like this and pushing a binary ultimatum. It crushes some people with its brutal polarization. Is it really better to purify the flock to the point that no sheep are left? Sure, you would have a perfect group of … zero
It isn’t a mature point on faith that I would expect from someone as old as President Hinckley. On the surface, it sounds more like one of my teenagers telling me about how the world operates. I think Ray makes some good points about some of those very focused topics. Joseph Smith indeed believed his experiences (which makes him sincere) or he did not (which would make him a fraud). That is a matter of faith that everyone has to decide. There’s no proof either way that dodges the requirement for us to judge for ourselves. I could handle those statements from Pres Hinckley if that was the purpose.
I hope that the statement was also an example of leadership posturing. It is important to express positive confidence when you are leading a very large group. There he was on a national television, the leader of a major religion. He had to answer questions. I would like to read those statements as an expression of confidence more so than him saying “Believe it ALL or get out of my church!”
The LDS Church is *MY* church too. So those people who go all dichotomous on me are SOL. They can leave, or they are stuck with me. Its only one or the other.
Quote:They can leave, or they are stuck with me.
Absolutely classic! Thanks – for the profound nature of the comment AND for the terrific laugh.
Kari said: Quote:If I really have to decide between either all true or a fraud, I would have to vote fraud. But I would like another choice. Will people like me ever be welcome in the LDS Church?
I totally agree with Valoel’s reponse. My perspective on JS was always a little more nuanced that the polemic offered by Pres. Hinckley. I think there are many possibilities, to name a few:
– JS was sincere and exactly correct in all he said (would require him to not change in his own perspectives on his experiences also)
– JS was sincere and sometimes confused about things that happened to him (this seems like Bushman’s view)
– JS was deluded or crazy
– JS at times deceived himself in order to justify his sins or live up to his high calling
– JS deliberately deceived others (this is more like Fawn Brodie’s view)
I tend to mostly view it as #2 or sometimes #4 (frankly, we’re all guilty of that sometimes, IMO). I have sometimes wondered about #3. I think #1 and #5 are the least likely alternatives and the least consistent with all I have read.
But I agree with Valoel. Dogmatic people think they run the church. Look around. They also think they run your family and your work and your son’s little league team. But that doesn’t make it right. You are just as Mormon as they are. They don’t really own the place. Don’t let the “knowers” chase out the “believers” and the “hopers” and the “sincere doubters.” There’s room for all.
On an intellectual level, if I were required to conclude that it was all false if I can find a single flaw, then I would have to decide it was all false. I don’t believe in that decision though. I don’t want it to be that way. So tough! I refuse to play that game. It is so unsatisfyingly hollow. It does not match my direct experiences with God, nor my observations of the natural world around me. I seriously doubt that anyone is “right” in the absolute, unchanging way that people sometimes want to define “Truth.”
I confess that the devious part of me takes a little perverse pleasure in the fact that their own view of the Gospel *requires* them to deal with me, as uncomfortable as that may be. “The worth of a soul is great in the sight of the Lord.” How can they “save” me from my flawed views (from their perspective) if they are unkind, unloving and chase me away? That would not be Christ-like. They follow Christ’s example completely or they do not. God will judge them for their stewardship.
😈 (I am just being playful with the language I grew up with in the Church and as a missionary in a pretty hardcore mission).I attend Church. I want to be a part of them. I serve with a smile (sincerely, I don’t cause problems). I enjoy being there. I love them as they are. I am not out to push my views on anyone. I don’t believe I am right anyway, not in the sure and absolute sense that others view the Church (the way I used to).
So many good comments here already. The way I look at it prophets are human and make mistakes. I think many things said on polygamy were wrong – spoken from the human mind. I think Brigham Young’s Adam-God preaching was wrong – created from his human mind. This may seem harsh but the way that Hinckley quote comes across – I think it is another example of how prophets are human and make mortal mistakes. You just can’t hang on every little word that comes out, there is a personal spiritual filter that everyone has, and I believe we’re told to use it. One day I was sitting in Elder’s quorum and the teacher actually said: “false doctrine is everywhere around us, you can hear it in sacrament meetings, you can hear it in Sunday school, and you can hear it in general conference!” We all need to get the rust out of our own spiritual filters, and not worry about (rather be thankful for) how much crud it actually filters out!
Now coming off the harsh edge, I also agree with many of the things Ray said – but sometimes it’s nice to hear a few words straight and cold. Valoel also said something months ago (on another forum) that I like: “even if Joseph thought he was a fraud – he still got some things right!” This is what I hold on to in the darkest moments, I think there is something to it.
I just wanted to bump up this old thread because I like the posts here. Wisdom from the ages! Dicots and Monocots started out as agronomy terms. A dicot is any plant that comes from a seed that has two halves .. Like a bean. Monocots are plants that come from a seed that does not split. Wheat is an excellent example. Church culture would like us all to be wheat plants — they grow from a small wheat seed that never splits in half, they grow straight up, and have lots of side stems. They produce wheat just as expected. Wheat has been bred to have a shorter and thicker stem. Modern wheat varieties don’t get knocked down as easily by poor weather, and more plant energy can go onto increasing wheat kernel size. Modern wheat is all about uniformity and easy harvesting. Bean seeds split in half, the plants don’t grow straight, some climb and some bush out. There are lots of leaves and the pods are a little harder to find. A field of beans lacks the majestic uniformity of a wheat field.
But ..
Remember in the midst of your dicotomous thinking, that a single bean plant ends up producing much more than a single wheat plant. A uniform wheat field is majestic to look at from afar, but the beans will produce more more acre and their roots bind nitrogen which improves the soil. Planting beans will enrich the soil so that future wheat grows better. Monoculture planting practices — when a field is just one type of plant — makes harvesting really easy and makes it easy to find any plants that do not belong in the crop. Mixing plants within a field is healthier for the land and for the individual plants, it just makes harvesting very time consuming.
We have all heard so many church analogies about wheat fields and none about beans. Remember that wheat fields fail after a few generations of monoculture unless heavily fertilized and cared for, or alternated with crops that improve the soil.
All plants grew with sunlight, and water. They all grew heavenward, just like people.
I always wanted to be a wheat plant out there with my peers, but I am a bean.
AP…that is the best post I’ve read all year. I am sure at some point I will use this in a talk in my ward. This does not mean wheat is bad, beans are good, or that beans are better than the conformity of wheat. Thanks for posting.
Heber 13. Thank you. You made my day.
AP wrote Quote:
I always wanted to be a wheat plant out there with my peers, but I am a bean.What a beautiful image.
Amen.
Hawkgrrrl has some blogging competition from a fellow “stayer” – AP! http://www.wheatandtares.org/20846/a-parable-of-the-wheat-and-beans/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://www.wheatandtares.org/20846/a-parable-of-the-wheat-and-beans/ Way to go AP! Glad you could “germinate” the idea here just a bit before it went out to many other people.
Blush. My DH tormented me until I agreed to post.
A first for me.
Looks like the first of many…well done.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.