- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Heber13 wrote:
…
There are no facts that show that the GAs are somehow dishonest or ignorant.Because there is more to talk about than historical facts. Those may be a piece of the puzzle, some parts of the puzzle we don’t all see yet, but it is not the whole puzzle… On Own Now wrote:Rob, that’s not how religion works. Religious belief bends and adapts history as it seeks to rationalize; to see it in the context of a larger and more certain spiritual truth…Then there is the resurrection. Jesus was resurrected. Or he wasn’t.
How you see it depends entirely on your own perspective; not on what actually happened.In fact, let me point out the irony of this particular case. The case for resurrection is supported by history and the case against it is based, in spite of the historical record, entirely on a very specific belief: that resurrection is impossible…I have exactly zero interest in categorizing the beliefs of other people. When faced with historical oddities or inconsistencies, or even down-right scary narratives, believers will frequently rely on the idea that those are anomalies for which we don’t have a clear picture, and that there must be an alternate version that matches the goodness of God… a truer version that is likely obscured to us specifically to make us rely on faith. That is not “suppression of history”…They are free to believe and to see “the history” how they see it and I concern myself only with my own beliefs.Having people interpret the same basic historical narratives differently is one thing, literally removing significant parts of the historical narratives and then having many typical chapel Mormons remain completely unaware of these points to this day as a direct result of them being left out of the story is something else entirely. For example, based on the Nauvoo plural marriage essay it looks like most of the top Church leaders already believe that Joseph Smith married women that were still married to other men and young teenagers but they apparently think there is nothing wrong with this because it was supposedly commanded by God. However, the first time I ever heard about these details was from what Church leaders would call “anti-Mormon” sources, “servants of Satan”, etc.
That’s why I don’t think there is any question that the Church already crossed the line as far as failing to live up to their own teachings about honesty regardless of what you want to call it. And I don’t think it is any mystery why this type of deliberate white-washing happened. Think about it, what would happen if the missionary discussions talked about Joseph Smith marrying other men’s wives and young teenagers as if it was an inspiring example of having faith and being obedient to God no matter what? My guess is that it would quickly result in significantly fewer convert baptisms and more importantly significantly more missionaries losing their testimonies before completing their missions.
I think that’s what Boyd K. Packer meant when he said, “Some things that are true are not very useful” and basically discouraged CES teachers from talking about information that he feared would destroy faith. Personally I see this as largely a by-product of overzealousness based on the general notion that, “We know what’s best for you” where Church leaders don’t really separate the Church from God and basically think it is not alright for people to reject the Church’s teachings and that’s why I don’t really expect things to change much anytime soon because the same general overzealous and overprotective mindset remains and entertaining ideas that are not faith-promoting toward LDS doctrines simply does not serve the purpose of getting people on board with the Church’s program and helping them remain loyal and committed followers after that.
Yep. This is pretty close to my position.
Rob4Hope wrote:Heber13 wrote:
I think when you are ready to move past those feelings, you’ll find a more realistic way to describe the brethren and how they see their roles and how they see others and how they want others to think for themselves. And then you’ll move closer to truth.Heber, this sounds condescending to me. How is my way of seeing something
not realistic?. You speak from a perspective of someone who, at least in his own eyes, knows better, because you have authoritatively said that “you’ll find a more realistic way”. I respectfully submit that there is nothing wrong with my way right now, nor is it “unrealistic”. I’ve read your posts in the past, and I don’t think you meant it the way I unfortunately have read it. Can you please elaborate a little so I can understand what you are saying better? Or can you say this in a different way so that it doesn’t come across condescendingly? Your way is not right (or wrong)…it is just your way. I see things differently and neither is my way right (or wrong).
Rob, first…apologies if my thoughts came across wrong and condescending, and I really appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt and a chance to explain myself more. Thanks, buddy.And “realistic” is a bad choice of words on my part. You are fair to bring that out. I was thinking more in terms of a “constructive” approach that leads to letting go of some historical problems (which seem to always exist since history is told by mortals).
This is not to give the church a pass, or to say it doesn’t matter if they lied or are in denial…all of that does matter and it impacts us and what we believe about the church.
I’ll give it some more thought and respond again when I have more time. Just wanted to try to clarify my intent and give apologies, because I felt that was needed.
Heber,…thank you. I look forward to your response.
I think the better question is “what should the leaders know? It is not sufficient to claim ignorance when running a large organization. No CEO of a large corporation can claim he is ignorant of the shenanigans going on in the company and get a pass by the stock holders. In the case of church leaders I think it is their responsibility to completely understand what they are asking all the members to believe. Anything less shows a lack of integrity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cadence wrote:I think the better question is “what should the leaders know? It is not sufficient to claim ignorance when running a large organization. No CEO of a large corporation can claim he is ignorant of the shenanigans going on in the company and get a pass by the stock holders.
In the case of church leaders I think it is their responsibility to completely understand what they are asking all the members to believe. Anything less shows a lack of integrity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Greg Prince gave, as his strong and informed opinion, that the majority of GAs don’t have any idea what is out there in history–they parrot the party line as that is what they have been taught themselves. When you get up in the higher levels,…the Q15,…I can’t imagine that some of these guys don’t know more.
Rob4Hope wrote:Cadence wrote:I think the better question is “what should the leaders know? It is not sufficient to claim ignorance when running a large organization. No CEO of a large corporation can claim he is ignorant of the shenanigans going on in the company and get a pass by the stock holders.
In the case of church leaders I think it is their responsibility to completely understand what they are asking all the members to believe. Anything less shows a lack of integrity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Greg Prince gave, as his strong and informed opinion, that the majority of GAs don’t have any idea what is out there in history–they parrot the party line as that is what they have been taught themselves. When you get up in the higher levels,…the Q15,…I can’t imagine that some of these guys don’t know more.
I think it is changing aBIT, but I think some that know a BITdon’t know how small % of the “hard stuff” they know and might think, “I have seen the stuff and it isn’t THAT big of a deal.” Just reading the essays does NOT tell the whole picture of things like Joseph Smith propositioning plural wives and telling them “God told me you needed to marry me and if you reject the proposal I will tell everyone you are a slut.” Rob4Hope wrote:Greg Prince gave, as his strong and informed opinion, that the majority of GAs don’t have any idea what is out there in history–they parrot the party line as that is what they have been taught themselves. When you get up in the higher levels,…the Q15,…I can’t imagine that some of these guys don’t know more.
I totally agree that the average GA is no different than the Primary teacher – parroting. I often feel surrounded by rooms full of parrots. And let’s not even talk about F&TM. In truth, I have actually envisioned parrots and chuckled to myself during meeting
🙂 And I agree that the Q15 at least should probably know more. That is indeed the question – how much do they know collectively and individually. I’m willing to bet that on an individual basis it varies widely. But I do think the most knowledgeable, with presumably unlimited access tot he vaults, are still too busy to do the kind of research the historians can do and really find what they want to know. (As a side note, I think that’s why the essays are the way they are – official and approved by the Q15 but written by historians.)
For me it all goes to show the church is very human, with specks of divine. Once I fully embrace that reality I don’t have to worry about the human part, I can focus on those wonderful little specks. Orson wrote:For me it all goes to show the church is very human, with specks of divine. Once I fully embrace that reality I don’t have to worry about the human part, I can focus on those wonderful little specks.
Let me pick (maybe too much) at your words. “Specks” of divine to me sounds like you are saying the vast vast majority is not divine – as in very rare to see the divine.Part of me wants to say this is equivalent of staying with an abusive spouse because they occasionally show true love. I realize that is an exaggeration as I do not see most church stuff as abusive (but certainly not saying there is some abuse and bad things). There are many benefits for being a member of the church.
Don’t take my asking on this as just bashing. I am seriously trying to figure out if I can really do as this website is named and “stayLDS” long term. I am having great side conversations with a few of you on this site that seem to have figured out how to do that. I thank you for taking the time to help me.
Is this something I might grow out of as I continue and just try to be more patient? At one level I do feel I have passed from my “pissed at being lied to” phase and I can see good and bad in the church. But as time goes on it is less about just being patient and I feel less general desire to associate with the organization. Part of me desperately wants to find a way to stay, but I don’t feel I am going to be doing it long term. The lack of church leadership or peers in the church admitting that there is much of anything less than perfect in the church just makes it harder for me to not stand up and point to the elephant in the room.
I feel like there is something I am just not getting that some of you have. And let me thank you again for many of your efforts to help others like me see/feel/do as you do. I really appreciate this site. I do think I might have left (at least stop attending) by now if I didn’t have this place to explore (and vent).
Orson wrote:For me it all goes to show the church is very human, with specks of divine. Once I fully embrace that reality I don’t have to worry about the human part, I can focus on those wonderful little specks.
This point is well taken.
It also, unfortunately for me, speaks to the topic that perhaps God isn’t as involved in our (meaning my) life as much as I was taught He was. Had this realization hit me years ago, it would have been quite disturbing–feeling as though “Oh Sh#T!….there is no safety net like I thought”. And indeed, it appears there isn’t much of a safety net after all.
The idea that there are specks of divine is reassuring,…but so much is “very human” that it is a whole different struggle to grapple with those.
I don’t think it is fair or kind to use the term ‘parrot’ about the faith of others. Religion is based on community of the like-minded who find supportive strength in shared beliefs and experiences. I think the assumption or expectation that the top leaders of the Church have special access to historical data that puts them in a position to know what REALLY happened lies at the heart of the issue. I don’t believe that they do. I don’t believe that they seek it. I don’t believe that they interpret ‘facts’ the way that non-believers or less-believers do. Let me point out a specific and illuminating example.
DAB was ordained an Apostle in Oct, 2004 and was immediately appointed to the Council on the Disposition of Tithes. It would stand to reason, then, that he would quickly learn the history of tithing; how it was implemented, how it changed, how it was re-implemented and re-explained. I mean, he has access to the vault and unlimited time, right? Yet, he gave a talk nine years later, in Oct, 2013 in which it became clear to me that I MYSELF understand “the history” and the “facts” of tithing better than he does… and I have never been ordained to the Twelve, I have no special vault at my disposal, and I have never served on any tithing council. At the time, I was pretty frustrated about this. But, over time, I’ve come to view this a little differently. It’s clear from that talk that Elder B sees the history of tithing in a much different way than I do. To him, his view is the truth. He hasn’t performed any exhaustive scholarly research into its deeper history because he already understands it perfectly (in his view). He wasn’t lying or in denial when he used variations on the word ‘simple’ eight times during his talk; that is what he believes. Even if he and I sat down for lunch and I explained to him what I ‘know’ of “the history”, I don’t think he would change his views or his stance or retract what he said in GC. To him, he has learned about tithing through spiritual means and he sees everything in that context. And, it’s not wrong that he does. He is a spiritual leader of a religion, not an unbiased historian.
Quote:I don’t think it is fair or kind to use the term ‘parrot’ about the faith of others.
People who see things differently than we do justifiably could say that we are a bunch of parrots in the way we communicate here. I think that is far from accurate, but it would be justifiable for others to say if they simply couldn’t understand it any other way.
The Golden Rule is important in discussions like this:
Quote:Characterize others as you would have them characterize you.
Strive to see others as you would have them see you.
Talk about others as you would have them talk about you.
Describe others as you would have them describe you.
Judge others as you would have them judge you.
ad infinitumOn Own Now wrote:
…which it became clear to me that I MYSELF understand “the history” and the “facts” of tithing better than he does… and I have never been ordained to the Twelve, I have no special vault at my disposal, and I have never served on any tithing Council.
I based my comments above on a discourse given by Greg Prince. Greg gave it as his opinion that even the Q15 don’t have a better understanding than most. So this makes sense what you said here.
On Own Now wrote:
It’s clear from that talk that Elder B sees the history of tithing in a much different way than I do. To him, his view is the truth. He hasn’t performed any exhaustive scholarly research into its deeper history because he already understands it perfectly (in his view). He wasn’t lying or in denial when he used variations on the word ‘simple’ eight times during his talk; that is what he believes.
I don’t think he is lying either.
On Own Now wrote:To him, he has learned about tithing through spiritual means and he sees everything in that context. And, it’s not wrong that he does. He is a spiritual leader of a religion, not an unbiased historian.
He is also a judge in Israel, because he does often sit in judgment on decisions and policies. So, if he sees something in his context, does that have an influence on his judgement, his teaching, his policy making? We would both agree it does.
I don’t disagree with anything you have said here. But it opens up a question of doctrinal drift.
Because the Q15 don’t know the deeper contexts and meanings of what was originally taught, it seems reasonable that they would substitute what they currently believe “through spiritual channels” as the authority for all their decisions. But, on this very site a large discussion happened describing the unreliability of “spiritual channels”,…and with recent events from RMN declaring that the LGBTQ policy is ‘revelation’, it shows what I believe is a discrepancy about the “spiritual channels”–individuals have received ‘revelation’ that this policy is wrong, and GAs, at least RMN, claim it came directly from God. To people like Bednar and the tithing issue, his way is the way, the only way because he is convinced it is the right way. Those who feel otherwise are, according to DHO, receiving answers from Satan.
I believe this GA approach has become, especially through correlation, autocratic and rigid. They decide policy, doctrine, what is and isn’t historically relevant (and what is censored), and “persuading with long suffering, patience, and love unfeigned” becomes edict driven pronouncement.
Doctrinal drift bothers me. Here is an example.
We don’t talk about HM much. I once learned the reason we don’t is because God the Father (and husband) has so much respect for HM, he doesn’t want her spoken of–so things are kept hush hush. This idea was traced back to an un-referenced footnote that appeared in a CES manual. It had no basis in anything other than it just appeared there.
If this is true, and I have reason to believe the researchers who found it were honest and credible,..then the whole idea (which I have been taught) is a pseudo-doctrine that has grown to immense proportions with no scriptural or revelatory foundation. It is a good example of doctrinal drift–something shows up, is believed, become viral, and all of the sudden it has become a type of doctrine. But, it is without basis.
Doctrinal drift happens along all kinds of lines. From what I have read, it was one of the reasons the original church under the apostles in Christ’s time disintegrated. If the Q15 hold onto ideas that have shaky foundations in what was originally taught, then they themselves are subject to doctrinal drift. If Bednar isn’t aware of what was taught along the lines of tithing, as originally intended by JS, then he needs to get into the history and learn. If he doesn’t do this,…then he is driven by the “traditions of men” and not the revealed word of God…unless of course he has received new revelation.
My assumption is he believes he has received revelation from God that what he currently believes is what JS taught, or at least what JS intended, regardless of what he taught. It all seems like potential doctrinal drift to me…..
What is your take on this?
Not to derail, but on the subject of parroting: I didn’t mean to imply that by parroting individuals don’t believe or even have a testimony of what they are parroting. I do mean to imply that things are often repeated without having a knowledge or testimony or even strong belief in it. A perfect example are the various reasons that were given for why Blacks could not have the priesthood. I was guilty of repeating such falsehoods because I had been taught them and read them in works like Mormon Doctrine and Doctrines of Salvation. I had no testimony they were true/correct and no abject proof either way – I repeated them because they were the accepted teachings. BRM, JFS, and many other GAs (and non GAs) may well have believed these things to be true and I don’t fault them for that (AoF 11). However, I am also sure many repeated these things the same way I did – including GAs. I think there are many, many examples, some of which reach almost doctrinal status. Much more common and less damaging are simple statements in F&TM such as “I know this church is true (or the more grating [to me] “I know this gospel is true”) and the myriad of what I call Sunday School Answers – things repeated which the people don’t necessarily have any knowledge or testimony of but are repeated because they have been taught it or they think it’s expected of them to say it. And there are the aforementioned “party lines” which are repeated as statements of the way things are and you should be in line with it only because it is the way things are. I have no problem with those who do bear honest heartfelt testimony of things or honestly believe what they are saying is true – that is not the same as parroting.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.