How important is the history of this church?

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

…but no evidence confirms Church claims…

My take is well represented in the question: “Is it supposed to?” I know that is a little different from many members, but at the heart of it I don’t think it’s that different.

Yes, I used to think that physical evidence was supposed to confirm something from our teachings. Today I see things differently. Yes, this can be a “painful” transition – but also a wonderful one. Personally I think our job here (on earth) is to learn something valuable, at least that’s what I’m trying to do.

This thread may be of interest, I think it’s related to your question:

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=642

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

wordsleuth23 wrote:

…but no evidence confirms Church claims…

My take is well represented in the question: “Is it supposed to?” I know that is a little different from many members, but at the heart of it I don’t think it’s that different.

Yes, I used to think that physical evidence was supposed to confirm something from our teachings. Today I see things differently. Yes, this can be a “painful” transition – but also a wonderful one….http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=642

Orson, the thread you directed me to is definitely related–thanks. As for your question, “Is it supposed to?” Yes, if the Church is true/real. Consider the following scenario: FARMS researches find original scrolls, that carbon date to the time Lehi was alive according to the BoM, and they talk about Lehi, Nephi, Laman, etc; would the Church tout this evidence in defense of the BoM? Absolutely. It can’t be both ways, disregarding negative evidence, yet accepting positive evidence. If historical truths really didn’t matter, then no one in the Church would cite them, or attempt to prove their reality, but they do–look at the history of the Egyptian Papyrus Scrolls and the PoGP. Whether every historical thing can be confirmed or not isn’t the main issue, the bigger problem is the number of historical truths that contradict the BoM, PoGP, Joseph’s stories, etc. No evidence is better than contrary evidence.

[Anonymous]

If scientific and historical evidence isn’t important, why are we all here? Why do we struggle to stay LDS if not for facts that alter our view of the church? Why are entire organizations set up by the church to solely refute any new evidence that is deemed faith-damaging?

Look over this site and you will see a large majority of us offer loose views of LDS cannon and theology. This is the overall problem the church has with its original claim. JS saw the BoM history all over New England, every skeleton dug up or arrowhead found had a place in the BoM, the kinderhook plates were an account by a descendant of Ham, Far West had BoM history all over it, the BoA papyri, Kirkland, Independence, Native Americans ect….

We cannot escape the words of the prophet, nor can we escape the evidence that refutes such claims. To me that is the struggle.

[Anonymous]

and all of that simply points to the subjectivity and fallibility of his understanding – and how we each define and accept the role of a “prophet”. Since I don’t need a “prophet” to be right in anything he says outside of spiritual teachings that bring me closer to internal harmony and “God” as I understand that title, I really don’t give a large rodent’s hairy hindquarters about the other stuff. I know that doesn’t jive with the VAST majority of LDS members – or even members of any other organization and their view of their leaders, but I believe he was sincere in what I personally consider to be his mistaken suppositions.

For example, as I’ve said before on other threads, I don’t think he really understood all that well what the Book of Mormon really says – so I’m not surprised one bit at all of the speculation about related things – and they don’t bother me. I think his understanding of God changed dramatically over the years, as did the eventual vision of “godhood” which was absent completely from his earlier statements. If I can reconcile the idea that he didn’t understand the BofM very well in his lifetime, and that the nature of God was an evolving understanding for him . . . really, that’s pure blasphemy to many members. The other stuff is just trifling by comparison.

[Anonymous]

Scientific and historical evidence is indeed important but, I respectfully submit, we should keep that in perspective and not fall into worshipping science instead of diety.

It wasn’t long ago that science proved the earth to be flat, etc…. In a hundred years or so, IMHO, our science will be considered primitive, full of errors, and maybe even laughable. Just look at the science from 100 years ago.

Is it wise to throw the gospel out the window if it doesn’t seem to agree with today’s science?

“Why are entire organizations set up by the church to solely refute any new evidence that is deemed faith-damaging?”

Gosh, I don’t thing the organizations are set up to “refute” any evidence…rather they are set up to objectively challenge accusations and provide a balanced viewpoint….although I certainly see how you could view it that way.

“JS saw the BoM history all over New England, every skeleton dug up or arrowhead found had a place in the BoM, the kinderhook plates were an account by a descendant of Ham, Far West had BoM history all over it, the BoA papyri, Kirkland, Independence, Native Americans ect….”

Well, maybe the skeletons/arrowheads do fit into the BoM. Brother Joseph tells us that the BoM is a history of the principle ancestors of the American Indians. “Principle” can simply mean “most important” as opposed to what the critics have accused him of implying.

Some research into the kinderhook thing shows that he really didn’t “sign on” to that as much as the critics would have us believe.

BoA papyri?….not a problem. Another lame attempt by the critics. The critics’ claims really don’t hold water.

I’m not sure where you’re going with “Kirtland, Independence, Native Americans” but I remember a comment from the PBS special “the Mormons”.

“If you insist on empiricism (sp?), you have no business with a religious view” (or something like that)

“We cannot escape the words of the prophet, nor can we escape the evidence that refutes such claims. To me that is the struggle.”

Nor should we. I simply suggest that we be careful with the term “evidence”. We’re Christians for goodness sake. We don’t seem to have a problem with the lack of “evidence” that a person can rise from the dead…why all this obsession over things that are, comparitively, small potatoes?

My opinion only…

Usual disclaimer…

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

Scientific and historical evidence is indeed important but, I respectfully submit, we should keep that in perspective and not fall into worshipping science instead of diety.

It wasn’t long ago that science proved the earth to be flat, etc…. In a hundred years or so, IMHO, our science will be considered primitive, full of errors, and maybe even laughable. Just look at the science from 100 years ago….

I agree that science will progress a lot over the next 100 years, but the good thing about science is that it is self correcting, and it continues to add to its overall knowledge base. That means that errors in science now are much smaller than they were 100 years ago. Also, it isn’t “worshipping” science, it’s respecting the method, and that method has given us all the progress we see in this modern world. Can we thank religion for any progress in this world? Vaccines? Planes? Cars? Scientific advancements may not be “good” for traditional, fundamentalist religious views, but it is good for humanity.

[Anonymous]

Ray, I am about 80% with you on that perspective of JS’s limited understanding of the BoM. His sermons were more towards the nature of things and a better understanding of God. He spoke with such certainty on those subjects, even though he was a rookie on the knowledge himself. I wonder if his true knowledge was the glimpses he had of God and the heavens that allowed him to evolve his view of things. The translations may have been just an attempt to touch God in some manner.

Bruce, I think the BoA papyri argument is pretty strong. It is my understanding that even the church accepts that the original papyri were not the literal account in Abraham’s hand. Also, there are facsimile’s printed in the scriptures as well to work off of. Do you dispute that the pieces recovered in the 60’s were not the original pieces, or that the Egyptologists, LDS and non-member alike, were wrong in their admission that the text was a polytheistic funeral script?

And were the Kinderhook plates not printed in the History of the Church until they were even eventually deemed fraudulent in the 1980’s? Why if they were not held as BoM relics?

As for JS seeing physical remnants of the BoM all over New England, I got all those quotes out of Rough Stone Rolling. I’m making the point that JS invoked a literal history to his own backyard. Countless times. That’s why Kirkland and Independence were so important, he could see the BoM and OT in those places.

I’m just trying to make the point that JS spoke of literal things that can be argued as dubious, and that is a struggle for many folks.

But I’m definitely with you about not fully accepting science. Actually, that is my view about everything. Lets not forget what Christians did to scientists (Copernicus) when proving facts that countered Biblical notions of the world. (Galileo anyone?) We can never know for sure. I think we speak of kites and dandelions and tumbleweeds, and God speaks of the wind.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Since I don’t need a “prophet” to be right in anything he says outside of spiritual teachings that bring me closer to internal harmony and “God” as I understand that title, I really don’t give a large rodent’s hairy hindquarters about the other stuff. I know that doesn’t jive with the VAST majority of LDS members – or even members of any other organization and their view of their leaders, but I believe he was sincere in what I personally consider to be his mistaken suppositions.

Excellent insight and point, Ray!

I especially like that you equate this problem with any other organization. It got me thinking.

There’s a trend in corporate America right now in which employees are incentivized to bring ideas for better efficiency, business practices, customer service, etc. to supervisors/managers and those managers are encouraged to make an honest effort in discovering whether the idea will create the intended outcome.

In some companies, this has been insanely effective. (apparently google has been doing it for some time and they’re doing REALLY well right now)

It’s definitely a new paradigm in corporate America, where ideas trickle and percolate up rather than always being directed down from above. Employees on the “front lines” will always know what works and what doesn’t, often before management even gives a directive. So, it seems obvious that implemented in the correct way, this methodology could become an important part of corporate life in America in the future.

My point, obviously, is, why can’t the church do this?

In relation to the “history” of the church, members on the “front lines”, home teachers, eq presidents, rs presidents, bishops, certainly could get a feel for what ideas could fly and what wouldn’t. Maybe the heirarchy is too entrenched and the systemic top-down approach is too inflexible but…. the idea is captivatingly thought-provoking.

Especially when applied to lots of “problems” in the culture/community.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

My point, obviously, is, why can’t the church do this?

I would submit that “The Church” does – but “the local church” varies radically in doing so. The LDS Church might not publicly ask members to send suggestions to the FP & Q12, but many of the changes that occur regularly are the direct result of what happens “on the frontlines” and the input that the GA’s get from the “middle managers” – the Stake Presidents. That input is solicited openly and directly; the global leadership practically begs to get it from the local leadership.

Having said that, the central organizational issue is that only the most self-confident, secure, innovative managers (and employees, frankly) are able to “risk” taking new ideas to upper management. Far more are content to do their jobs and let others take the risks and gain the rewards of “rocking the boat” – then praising and/or criticizing those who try to affect change. Even the example of Google you cited follows the 80/20 rule, I’m positive.

So, going back to the Church, 80% of the membership (including those who are struggling) probably live in stakes where the SP is not seeking actively to change or evolve but rather “keep the peace” – since doing so is MUCH easier than dealing with thousands of people and their widely disparate ideas of what should change (and risking envy and contention when some ideas are implemented / passed along and others are not). That means that 80% of those who want change have different church experiences than the other 20% who experience it – and the conflicting views between those two groups is what drives much of the type of discussion that happens here. I would think that most people who comment and read here live in the 80% territory, while I have been fortunate to know some of the 20% on a personal level. It really makes a difference at the individual perspective level, imo.

I have a hard time blaming those who maintain the status quo and wait for others to innovate, even as I celebrate the innovators.

[Anonymous]

A former BYU philosophy professor–now at UVU–Jeffrey Nielsen, wrote a book called “The Myth of Leadership: Creating Leaderless Organizations”. If I’m reading things accurately, the early Church was a lot like this. I’m not a big fan of hierarchies–they seem to stifle innovation. The creation of so many organizations with hierarchies by Joseph strikes me as someone that got used to, and liked, power.

As for today’s Church, with the hierarchy we have in place, how do we innovate? How do we change the 80/20 dynamic, if its even that high? If SP’s are the ones that get to pass on ideas to GA’s, we’re not going to get much change. Most SP’s become SP’s by toeing the line, being good, faithful, orthodox members. They like being SP’s, and they aren’t looking to rock the boat and be viewed as rebellious, so they aren’t going to pass on unorthodox views to GA’s. If your luck enough to get a Bishop with less than orthodox views, you might see minor changes in the ward, but the odds that the SP is going to feel the same way are slim. My bishop isn’t terribly orthodox, but my SP is. My bishop has taken some ideas to the SP and they get rejected–stopping the innovation.

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure I would have liked to live in the early Church. It was absolute chaos in many ways – and it absolutely wasn’t effective as an organization in creating cohesiveness and avoiding splinter groups. It was exciting – but brutal. I would have loved the excitment; I would have hated the brutality and extreme elements. Six of one; half-dozen of the other.

There is an element of greener grass in much of how we characterize organizations in which we were not an active participant.

[Anonymous]

There have been some good comments on this thread.

spacious maze wrote:

I’m just trying to make the point that JS spoke of literal things that can be argued as dubious, and that is a struggle for many folks.

I agree, and I wanted to clear up that I do agree in case my position on that has been misunderstood. This struggle is why we are here.

I’m also trying to say that I see a solution to this quandary in learning to recognize the fallible human at work as well as the inspired leader – much like what Ray said. Humans take on much of their surrounding culture, it’s to be expected. The culture for hundreds of years leading up to Joseph Smith was to take biblical stories literally, and everything else spiritual/religious just as literally.

My point is maybe we should consider this as a human tendency and not necessarily as divine will. After all, our doctrine is to accept newly revealed truth no matter if it’s revealed through revelation or through science:

“Mormonism embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical.” (JoD 9:14)

“Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. . . . The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men…” (Teachings of Joseph Smith RS/P manual p.264)

This is not to say that every scientific theory is fact, but where things can be verified I believe it is our responsibility to accept them.

So back to the subject of reconciling the struggle – I think the key lies in learning to accept the fallibility of humans (whatever that may be – in others or in ourselves), no matter their calling, and without letting that fallibility become an absolute barrier to seeing divine inspiration at work also.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Orson.

I think perhaps it is ok to accept weakness in both camps. Science after all has been wrong before and certainly hasn’t been able to answer all the questions man has. Perhaps it is gaining knowledge by degree.

[Anonymous]

Umm .. Well DH is in the military. Sometimes he feels like his service is worthless/pointless etc. – I’ve told him before that when he feels like his participation is worthless and means nothing.. that it really means everything .. IMO it goes along with the history of the Church. When I hear that Histoy means “Nothing” or is not “Important” that is the moment when I realize it means Everything.(I view it as negitive and a type of cop out now) The importance of it is priceless for that of the investigator, the struggling member and the believing member.

How important is the history of anything? Of your babies new sitter .. Of your babies new daycare? Of the bank you plan on trusting with all of your assets? .. Of that used car you wish to purchase? … Certainly religion – should be throughly checked out … I would at least think and hope it would be taken and studied seriously-b/c after all it really is a serious matter when push comes to shove, or at least if you plan on taking it seriously and trusting in it.

[Author]

Posts