Historical Perspective

[Anonymous]

I understand the pain of living in it, Ann, and agree that we need to grow up fast (and I believe the current push toward more open, accurate historical awareness is part of that) – but I find great comfort and perspective in the allegory of the vineyard in Jacob 5. That chapter says that wild fruit will exist right up until the very end and that the pruning will have to occur right up until the very end – and it is talking about “the kingdom / the church” when it says that.

I see many troubling things in our history as bitter fruit that was introduced by sincere people, including prophets, who simply were unable to escape fully themselves and their times. I was raised in farm and dairy country, so I understand the analogy quite well – both the consternation of seeing bad fruit grow on trees that have been nourished faithfully and the unavoidable need to weed a garden and prune a tree. To me, it’s just part of the process of growth inherent in everything that is a process, and the restoration is a process for me, not an event. (I love that President Uchtdorf called it a process, as well.)

That is why historical perspective is so important to me. All of our noble, unique claims aside, we are regular people with ideals that don’t match our actual, practical abilities. We try to establish purity; we fail; we see things enter our gardens/vineyards that frustrate us greatly; we try again; we fail again; one eternal round continues. It’s frustrating, but it’s life – and I have come to believe that we simply can’t change that aspect of life. It’s messy, because we are messy – and that’s okay, even as perpetuating things that ought to be pruned is not okay. It’s just that pruning takes longer than we would like – and the need to prune never ends.

Finally, if you haven’t read it already, I recommend “The God Who Weeps” by the Givenses.

[Anonymous]

Why will God’s one true church simply not apologize to the 1000s of people like me and Christy for accusing us of being Anti mormon and misled by the devil for speaking the truth?

Maybe that should be part of the “growing up” process?

I blame the top leadership for allowing this to hapoen and get so out of hand.

Why can’t they simply apologize?

One talk by Urchtdorf is not going to cut it.

Baby steps. Sure. But it is not enough.

Their will be pain and casualties as the leadership attempt to dig their way out of this hole they have dug for themselves. .

[Anonymous]

I think in these times, a humble apology would do a lot more than a staunch effort to protect brand image for being correct with a prophet leading the Church at an unrealistic standard and expectation of fallibility.

I really do. Uchtdorf and Holland have kind of hinted of that approach…but it needs to come from the First Presidency like other important statements.

and you…cwald…deserve an apology face to face from local leaders.

[Anonymous]

Thanks heber13.

Just to be clear though, i do not blame or have any animosity towards my local leaders. They are simply doing what they were told, taught and trained to do.

This problem comes from the top…. over the past 40 years, the church leadership correlated the “truth” out of the church, and allowed concepts like the 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet to saturate the members and local leaders.

We can’t blame the local leaders and members for just being faithful to the truths they were taught and have come to believe.

[Anonymous]

There was a time of retrenching conservatism at the top leadership level that lasted for multiple decades that, imo, spread some bitter fruit – but the top leadership has been coming out of that time for the past couple of decades, generally speaking.

Again, from a historical perspective, that is natural – part of the never-ending pendulum swing of history. We now are on the upswing of the pendulum (not at the very beginning of the swing in the opposite direction), and I see it lasting for a while. I hope it lasts at least as long as the former swing in the opposite direction – and I believe it will. History is replete with cycles and counter-cycles, and I am grateful I live as an adult with older children now and not 40 years ago – or back in the 1800’s – or in the 1700’s in Protestant Europe – or in the Middle Ages under Catholic rule – or pretty much any other time in history. Maybe the ideal would have been to be at this point in my life 20 years from now, but that’s not my life, so I don’t stew about it. I’m just happy I live now.

Again, this post is about historical perspective – and I believe deeply that such perspective is important and healing / calming / settling in a very real way. We can’t escape the pain of our own times, but we can see more clearly its place in the larger scope of history.

[Anonymous]

“There is a temptation for the writer or 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.”…direct quote from President Packer.

This is why we cannot blame the local leaders and membership.

This issue was created from the top down.

Period.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I think in these times, a humble apology would do a lot more than a staunch effort to protect brand image for being correct with a prophet leading the Church at an unrealistic standard and expectation of fallibility.

I really do. Uchtdorf and Holland have kind of hinted of that approach…but it needs to come from the First Presidency like other important statements.

and you…cwald…deserve an apology face to face from local leaders.

I honestly believe Uchtdorf says those things (like his Oct. 2013 address) because Monson can’t (or to a lesser extent, won’t). I love Pres. Monson and his message, but over the years there has been an expectation built for him (mostly his own doing) to do exactly what he’s doing. He would have tipped some people over the edge were he to have given Uchtdorf’s speech. He’s old school, and he says what old schoolers expect him to say. On the other hand, when Uchtdorf, Holland, Christainsen, et al are the majority and one of their group is in the big chair the expectation will be different because that’s what they have built. Don’t we all listen to Uchtdorf’s talks now just because we have expectations that he’s going to give us a message we want to hear?

And I agree, cwald, you do deserve an apology from the local leadership – in my experience those don’t happen, though. To do so would be to admit they might have been wrong which would indicate that they might also have been wrong about other things. I’m not saying this in their defense, rather it is a condemnation of their unwillingness to think and try to see things from another perspective.

[Anonymous]

cwald, I didn’t say it was a local leader or membership problem. I said it was retrenchment at the top. The point is that this is not unique to us in ANY way, and that, right now, the top leadership actually is being more proactive and progressive about it than most religions and denominations are about their own past. Pope Francis is wonderful in that regard, but he absolutely is the exception – and even he isn’t addressing the really messy stuff in Catholic history.

Again, perception is important – and not arguing with someone when you agree with them is part of being perceptive. :ugeek:

Quote:

try to see things from another perspective.

That is exactly the focus of this post, and we ought to try to do so if we expect others to do so.

[Anonymous]

Point 1

Quote:

Pope Francis is wonderful in that regard, but he absolutely is the exception – and even he isn’t addressing the really messy stuff in Catholic history.

And yet Ray – Pope Francis has his own problems right now. He maybe captain of the ship, but not everyone is interested in rowing his direction.

Point 2 – I am quoting myself here –

Quote:

Not baby steps – crib standing

I wanted baby steps or teenage walking. We are not there yet. This really is just standing up. And the standing up is having fall out, and will continue to have fall out. It is healthy that we stand, but lets call it what it is that our hearts may be protected and our decisions guided.

Point 3 – Most of the other essays have not received national press. This also goes into the mix of our processing. Even in our own publications we have not presented all of the essays. For me that is a key part of growing. (I don’t need all of the essays to be national, but if we are going to grow and put the ship of Zion right – we should inform the passengers of what ship they are on.)

[Anonymous]

Baby steps, standing, walking.

I take comfort in the fact that I’ll be long dead by the time the church gets its driver’s license. :angel:

[Anonymous]

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/nyt-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives-357695043847” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/nyt-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives-357695043847

Here’s a good video that touches on the church being more open, historical perspective as mentioned in this thread, and how these things can lead to a crisis of faith. Richard Bushman and Laurie Goodstein are interviewed in this video.

[Anonymous]

Nibbler – Thanks.

My first cheer came when I saw The Joseph Smith Papers book was sitting in front of Laurie with a paper bookmark. It was a fist pump moment. How many members even own it, if so how many open it.

My second cheer was Laurie’s presentation – she wasn’t some witch hunter, she spoke with historians and used LDS materials. Fist pump 2.

My third cheer – An active LDS historian was being interviewed. Not some internet blogger (though the bloggers have done a great job, no complaints) but this squelches the old “nasty internet” meme. I did note that Richard Bushman is aging, he looked like he was falling asleep. It made me grin.

Fourth cheer – the interviewer bringing up his Catholicism and it’s growth or lack there of.

My only regret is – it won’t be seen by most members – It’s not FoxNews.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

My only regret is – it won’t be seen by most members – It’s not FoxNews.

😆

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/nyt-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives-357695043847” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/nyt-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives-357695043847

Here’s a good video that touches on the church being more open, historical perspective as mentioned in this thread, and how these things can lead to a crisis of faith. Richard Bushman and Laurie Goodstein are interviewed in this video.

Thanks for linking. I thought it was a good interview. It’s the first time I’ve seen the NYT times reporter in person.

Richard Bushman says that leadership realizes:

Quote:

There is no foundation on which you can really be secure unless it’s the whole truth.

I’d rather say, “unless it’s the known facts.” The facts don’t distress me anymore; it’s the “whole truth” the church is making of them that does.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

…the LDS Church is not unique in ANY way …

But that’s kind of the problem for me. If the church really is everything it claims to be then surely it should be different to all the other churches.

If a prophet doesn’t actually act like a prophet or if a church said to be led by Christ doesn’t act like it one, then what conclusion should we reach?

EDIT: Apologies to Ray, I ‘snipped’ his comment excessively. I was replying to the following statement: “…the LDS Church is not unique in ANY way when it comes to having historical issues and not addressing them proactively for a relatively long time.”

My concern and reply is still the same, though should have been more detailed and balanced and I’m sorry to have misrepresented Ray’s original comment. I didn’t mean to put words in Ray’s mouth.

A large part of my disaffection is with the both the reality of the “historical issues” and the way they have not “addressed them proactively.”

It was heart-breaking to discover the church I’d served for 30+ years had so many hidden “historical issues.” The cover up (or “not addressing them proactively) was hurtful and made me no longer trust the church, but what truly crushed my convictions was the actual detail of the issues. It’s not so much the lack of proactivity from the church and more simply that the ‘big’ claims made by the church are undermined by the detail of the “historical issues.”

Saying every other church has historical issues and doesn’t “proactively address them” doesn’t work for me any more. Mormon claims are nothing like every other church so should not be held to the same standard.

[Author]

Posts