Podcast: MS#138 Edward Kimball

[Anonymous]

This Mormon Stories podcast from John Dehlin is one of my favorites.

I loved the candor and honesty and wisdom of the responses by Edward Kimball, son of the late prophet SWK.

The part that stuck out to me, was when he openly admitted he doesn’t know answers to all these questions John asked. He seemed so realistic with not understanding why the timing of the lift on Blacks and the Priesthood took so long, other than practically it took long to get consensus among members who had their own ideas, and possibly some church leaders had to pass away until there was consensus. Yet, he seems comfortable and confident in his faith and has a conviction that his father was a good man, and the leaders of the church are good people inspired but just doing things they feel is right for the church…it seemed to me he believes in a lot less of the mysticism and just accepts the practicality the church needs to be governed and there are good people doing it…not that they don’t ever make mistakes, not that there isn’t any politics and sometimes they have to judge how much “capital” as he put it needs to be expended on this issue or that issue, and not that the leaders don’t have their personal opinions on things.

At one point in the interview, he responds to John’s question of how to feel comfortable with this, and he responds,

Quote:

I don’t know. I am comfortable with it and I suppose I am the product of my parents and my education and my friendships and I guess asking hard questions has not been a problem. I’m quite content to say maybe you thinking the flood covered every inch of the earth’s surface but, I’m sorry, I don’t get that one yet. I’ve got lots of questions. I’m a believer/doubter. I try to believe as much as I can, and what I can’t, I don’t.

But I’m unable to write a prescription to somebody else. I can suggest it doesn’t bother me, a lot of things that I don’t know, and it shouldn’t bother them, but that doesn’t really change people very much. I think most of it comes from inside, that comes from a desire to want to believe, maybe. To want the sociological comforts that comes with a community that cares about one another, but…uh, how else? How else?

…

I simply do believe and that it is just a question of choosing. I can choose to try. I can choose to act in a way consistent with the gospel truth, the church’s validity. But ultimately, it is a question of whether you allow yourself to become overwhelmed by the doubts and difficulties or you say, “Those are things I don’t understand, they are mysteries to me. And if I’m going to be wrong, I’d rather be wrong on this side of the fence than on the other side of the fence.”

…

I don’t know how to persuade anyone else to believe me or follow me and my course and people have to make their own decisions. i’m open enough to think that many people are better off catholic, or baptist, or atheist than mormon. Each person’s life is made up of a surprising variety of circumstances.

…

Certainty is a burden. I’m one who is more comfortable being less sure. Ambiguity is not a threat to me, but it’s kind of a challenge, kind of a pleasure. And I don’t want to change and there is no reason I should change. Because if this isn’t true its the next best thing to truth, it’s the only thing I know that is the closest thing to truth. I’m more comfortable saying this is the “most” true church than that this is the only true church.

(my emphasis added, excuse my editing errors if any).

I thought this message was beautiful to me. I think this plays into our discussions we’ve had on this board around faith. It seems we can believe because we WANT to, even if we are not sure, and that I can try to learn to be comfortable with ambiguity and that somethings I don’t know or don’t understand, and may never be sure. But I can make a choice, and choose to believe there is enough truth and enough good in the church, that it will benefit my family and me to stay and be involved in it.

I really felt the spirit of these words as the interview went on. I wanted to share it with my friends, so I thought of sharing it here with all of you.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, Heber13!! I enjoyed the interview, also.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

But I’m unable to write a prescription to somebody else. I can suggest it doesn’t bother me, a lot of things that I don’t know, and it shouldn’t bother them, but that doesn’t really change people very much. I think most of it comes from inside, that comes from a desire to want to believe, maybe. To want the sociological comforts that comes with a community that cares about one another, but…uh, how else? How else?

…

I simply do believe and that it is just a question of choosing. I can choose to try….

Yes, some brutally honest statements…I love it when we get honest! Especially the statement that I think is so VERY much the case with most members — the “desire to want to believe.” From a science background, years ago this approach really bothered me. Today, I love the hope and purpose it gives people; and when you view our daily life from the ultimate “new-thought,” quantum physics perspective, it’s all an illusion anyway, so what’s wrong with living in a paradigm that is so purpose driven?

Thanks for posting this, Heber!

[Anonymous]

Rix,

Have you been following the conversation on teh 1611 KJV?

http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1397&start=20

HJ

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

Today, I love the hope and purpose it gives people; and when you view our daily life from the ultimate “new-thought,” quantum physics perspective, it’s all an illusion anyway, so what’s wrong with living in a paradigm that is so purpose driven?

Well said, Rix.

I also think your signature line is right in line with what Brother Kimball was expressing in his views:

Quote:

[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the truth.] – Friedrich Nietzsche

However, this still takes me back to what sometimes puzzles me in church. It seems that when you talk with really spiritual men, and you read some biographies like the one on David O McKay, to me it seems there are many people are really faithful and knowledgeable in the church that believe there is room for ambiguity and tolerance.

Yet even in this interview with John, Brother Kimball expresses he is reluctant to share these things too often, and mostly keeps them to himself because he knows of the consequences if he expresses it openly.

Why can’t this honesty be accepted in the church and by the church leaders? Why is it not celebrated, but made to feel like we should just keep our tongues, and let others who use the words “I know” to dominate the testimony meetings?

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Why can’t this honesty be accepted in the church and by the church leaders? Why is it not celebrated, but made to feel like we should just keep our tongues, and let others who use the words “I know” to dominate the testimony meetings?

Good question…and I think the answer is that there is a wide spectrum of spiritual experiences and levels in the church. Like Bro. Kimball said about the blacks/priesthood issue, where part of the “delay” was that some of the leaders had to “pass,” I’m sure we have the same issue wrt this. There are those that have an absolute conviction that it is “literally, historically true,” and frankly, (like the sig line says) that attitude may impede their ability to see the bigger truth. So maybe it is happening slowly because of the leadership/ascension system we have?

But I could be wrong…

[Anonymous]

Heber, maybe because we lack self-confidence. Maybe it’s not about the leadership. Maybe it’s about us.

There are LOTS of areas where I need extensive work still, but one area where I think I am fairly strong is knowing when and how to share something I believe that is unique or addresses something with which I disagree. (Just as an example, I edit everything I write as I type, and I just went through about five possible ways to say “addresses something with which I disagree”. I didn’t mean “challenges” – or “criticizes” – or anything else that could be interpreted as a negative action, since I don’t do so from a negative position.) Sometimes I have closed my mouth and not spoken out, but those were times when I applied the “doubtful disputation” aspect of charity and just let it go for the time – when it just wasn’t worth a potential argument.

I know some leaders will bristle at any perceived challenge, but my experience is that the VAST majority appreciate thoughtful, meek, gentle input – even when it expresses disagreement. That is true of local leadership, and it is true even more so of the global leadership. However, as I’ve said before, it helps when it comes from someone who has built up enough trust and social capital to not be seen as a threat.

As an example, I was in a meeting once when the relationship between a Bishop and a Relief Society President was discussed. The consensus among the brethren in the room was that the RS shouldn’t be off doing their own thing – that the RS Pres. should discuss things with the Bishop and “get his approval”. I don’t disagree with what I thought the general intent of the brethren was in saying this, but I shared the following to clarify my own view:

Quote:

I have worked in education nearly all my life. If a student only sees the principal in his office when that student is in trouble, the student will come to hate the principal. Conversely, if the principal steps outside her office, collaborates with the students and teachers and enlists them to help implement a vision with which they agree, she will be loved. The repsonsibility to make this happen is not on the students and teachers; it is on the principal.

I then made a brief, direct comparison to Bishops and auxiliary leaders (referencing unrighteous dominion) – and nobody was offended. Everyone agreed, and the conversation moved on.

[Author]

Posts