Saints: the Standard of Truth

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

DarkJedi wrote:

So if this was a book about you, what would you do?

Fair point, DJ. I do think it’s more important to be upfront with a religious organization, though. Many lives hang in the balance, and the Church is heavily reliant on its truth claims.

As I said earlier, I think the church (JFieldingS) dug itself into a hole, compounded by years of not being forthright and further compounded by correlation. That’s why we don’t lie in the first place, right? Because once you lie, you either have to continue lying (which inevitably includes more lies to cover the original lies) or come clean and lose credibility but perhaps gain respect. The latter, which I think the church is trying to do, isn’t easy especially in light of the other idea promulgated here – some of those who have been lied to aren’t willing to admit they’ve been lied to (which really loops back to the credibility thing). In other words, it’s pretty hard to have been saying the whole time “this is the true church and these are our truths” and then one day turn around and say “this is the true church, but that part may not have been the whole truth.” The Asian cultural idea of saving face needs to play a part here – I think those of us who accept the idea that the church actually lied on purpose need to allow the church to save face when they are attempting to make things right.

Again, let’s not turn this book into something it’s not supposed to be – it’s not an expose. It is just part of an attempt to make things right and I believe in due course (and as the more conservative/orthodox generations pass on) the full truth will be admitted because the rising generations will already know the truth.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I am about where SD is on this.

But clearly this book isn’t written to help those that have gone down the rabbit hole.

It is a softer version of the essays and written down a few grade levels and are written to help your average member feel they have seen all the “bad” stuff and can still believe (and probably look down on those that still have issues with church history assuming they know better than the doubters).

And maybe this is “Being as transparent as they know how”, which isn’t fully transparent.

It’s certainly a lot more readable than some of the stuff that’s been published officially.

I think the mistake that some people make about the bad stuff is that it is all objective.

Joseph Smith and the early church had enemies. Not everything they said was true, or fair either. Some people were inclined to sensationalize early church history too.

One example would be the origin of the Book of Mormon. There are a number of competing claims made against the official story, which can’t all be true, because they contradict each other.

Soviet history is highly controversial too and much darker, and much worse than that of the LDS. But that hasn’t stopped a few phoney accounts from slipping out or being taken seriously. We know for a fact that the Soviets had large numbers of prison camps in Siberia. That’s true. Sławomir Rawicz’s 1956 book “The Long Walk”, on which the film “The Way Back” was based, appears to be a lie. Rawicz’s book claims to be a true account of how he, a Polish POW, escaped from obe of these Siberian camps and walked to India across Siberia and China. It contains accounts of supposed Soviet atrocities.

The only trouble is that Rawicz’s account is full of holes, from geography (which was picked up early on) to the fact he was recorded as being released in Iran by the British! But does that mean every anti-Soviet account is false? No siree. We have many better attested ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%82awomir_Rawicz

[Anonymous]

I suppose with all the emphasis on “imperfect” people in this book I expected to see a more human representation.

Question: Does imperfect mean people that have serious flaws and sometimes do harmful things to each other OR does it mean people who are committed to following their God but do so imperfectly? Perhaps both? People with serious flaws and a commitment to following God sometimes doing harmful things to each other? Why do we even need to say imperfect people when the state of being a person also includes imperfection? Isn’t that redundant?

[Anonymous]

When we talk about perfection/imperfection as it pertains to church leaders it comes with a lot of additional baggage.

What do we mean when we say a prophet is not perfect?

Here I think that some level of belief in the prosperity gospel influences people’s views. Every member knows that the prophet is not perfect, we reserve the label of “perfection” (meaning without flaw – the definition I’ll use for perfect from here out) for Jesus and Jesus alone. Claiming a leader is perfect is a line I don’t think any member would cross… but in observing what is said during our meetings I believe there’s a more general belief that the prophet and top church leaders are closer to perfection than others. Perfection becomes relative.

We all like to know the reason for things and it seems natural for people to arrive at the conclusion that someone is called to be a prophet or apostle because they are more obedient. I see this phenomenon at all levels of the church and I think it’s an extension of the prosperity gospel. Person X got a prestigious calling because they are “better” than person Y. It’s naturally human.

In 2018 I think we have this idea that by the time a prophet has attained the calling they have proven themselves worthy, they earned the calling through their obedience. That’s not to say he’s perfect… but the general consensus seems to be that he’s better than you/me. In Mormonism I think we have some concept of relative perfection. Some are more perfect than others and those rise up the ranks. Where I’m going with this is that I feel it feeds into the culture, the culture where we have that joke where we say the prophet isn’t infallible but no one believes it. We need our leaders to be near perfect because it helps to prop up the leader>follower dynamic.

I also think we have a more general problem when it comes to how we look at perfection in leaders. Here again I’d say that very nearly all members would say that the leaders are not perfect, but what does that mean?

To some that means the prophet is obedient enough to not commit serious sin, most of their sins would be limited to the “foibles of human nature” but never fall into the category of “great or malignant sins.”

But there is a way where I very much feel the culture believes the “prophet” is infallible. I put prophet in quotes because I’m more referring to the mantle of prophet than the person. A prophet “the man” is not infallible but a prophet “the mantle” that produces the doctrines, teachings, and polices is infallible. That’s the dynamic I see in the culture of the church. We can tell ourselves that the man is imperfect but we are extremely reluctant to ever call the doctrines that a prophet teaches into question. Probably because once you pull on that thread you become your own prophet of sorts.

😳 I didn’t mean for the reply to be so long.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I suppose with all the emphasis on “imperfect” people in this book I expected to see a more human representation.

Question: Does imperfect mean people that have serious flaws and sometimes do harmful things to each other OR does it mean people who are committed to following their God but do so imperfectly? Perhaps both? People with serious flaws and a commitment to following God sometimes doing harmful things to each other? Why do we even need to say imperfect people when the state of being a person also includes imperfection? Isn’t that redundant?

Honestly, I think when many people say they are “imperfect”, they use their admission as evidence for how “good” they really are. In other words, you can’t be as close to perfection as you are without admitting, however vaugely, that you are imperfect. Imperfect means, “not perfect”, which still allows for a very wide range on the “goodness” scale. What it’s NOT, is an expression of humility. It’s not admitting “I am failed, flawed, and broken” (which would be accurate for all of us). It’s not admitting guilt. It’s pride.

JSH 1:19 wrote:

“They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”

I also think it’s used in order to hold oneself blameless… “I already told you I’m imperfect and make mistakes, so you really can’t hold it against me.” You can’t hold Joseph Smith accountable, or address the faults of the Book of Mormon, or hold Church leaders accountable, because they already admitted to everyone that they aren’t perfect. The blame is on you.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

When we talk about perfection/imperfection as it pertains to church leaders it comes with a lot of additional baggage.

What do we mean when we say a prophet is not perfect?

Here I think that some level of belief in the prosperity gospel influences people’s views. Every member knows that the prophet is not perfect, we reserve the label of “perfection” (meaning without flaw – the definition I’ll use for perfect from here out) for Jesus and Jesus alone. Claiming a leader is perfect is a line I don’t think any member would cross… but in observing what is said during our meetings I believe there’s a more general belief that the prophet and top church leaders are closer to perfection than others. Perfection becomes relative.

We all like to know the reason for things and it seems natural for people to arrive at the conclusion that someone is called to be a prophet or apostle because they are more obedient. I see this phenomenon at all levels of the church and I think it’s an extension of the prosperity gospel. Person X got a prestigious calling because they are “better” than person Y. It’s naturally human.

In 2018 I think we have this idea that by the time a prophet has attained the calling they have proven themselves worthy, they earned the calling through their obedience. That’s not to say he’s perfect… but the general consensus seems to be that he’s better than you/me. In Mormonism I think we have some concept of relative perfection. Some are more perfect than others and those rise up the ranks. Where I’m going with this is that I feel it feeds into the culture, the culture where we have that joke where we say the prophet isn’t infallible but no one believes it. We need our leaders to be near perfect because it helps to prop up the leader>follower dynamic.

I also think we have a more general problem when it comes to how we look at perfection in leaders. Here again I’d say that very nearly all members would say that the leaders are not perfect, but what does that mean?

To some that means the prophet is obedient enough to not commit serious sin, most of their sins would be limited to the “foibles of human nature” but never fall into the category of “great or malignant sins.”

But there is a way where I very much feel the culture believes the “prophet” is infallible. I put prophet in quotes because I’m more referring to the mantle of prophet than the person. A prophet “the man” is not infallible but a prophet “the mantle” that produces the doctrines, teachings, and polices is infallible. That’s the dynamic I see in the culture of the church. We can tell ourselves that the man is imperfect but we are extremely reluctant to ever call the doctrines that a prophet teaches into question. Probably because once you pull on that thread you become your own prophet of sorts.

😳 I didn’t mean for the reply to be so long.

I absolutely hear and agree with what you’re saying Nibbler. I’m also going to say that all of is is pseudo-doctrine if not just plain false doctrine. Those cultural perceptions or whatever we want to call them exist without a doubt, and some of them are probably related to Catholic ideas whether or not we want to admit that. (We also don’t want to admit the influence of Calvinism and Methodist influence in our theology, pseudo-doctrine, etc.) And part of the problem is the old whitewashing of history and placing the prophet on a pedestal.

[Anonymous]

I will put this in my frame of context:

nibbler wrote:

What do we mean when we say a prophet is not perfect?

I will answer this indirectly. It seems we can clearly read that past prophets have made mistakes, but we can’t say, “I firmly feel that the Nov 15th policy was not of God and that whomever in the COB and top leadership tried to slip that in is wrong – even if that is President Nelson.” That is what Sam Young was doing before he started the “Protect LDS children” and even that got him called into his SP’s office and somewhat clearly told, “you have to stop or you might get ex’ed”.

For me it seems like obedience to and worship of the current prophet and to church leaders is paramount and there is not much room to “follow your heart and what the spirit is telling you” if it doesn’t line up with the top dudes.

I am going to read the book, but I expect it to just make me even more upset.

[Anonymous]

I think a lot of it may come down to loyalty to top leaders but I also think a lot of it comes down to alignment with current teachings.

Example:

Looking at the quotes from Saints: the Standard of Truth that Always Thinking shared, the current teaching is that polygamy was very much commanded by god. Check out the quote (emphasis added):

Quote:

After receiving the commandment, Joseph struggled to overcome his natural aversion to the idea. He could foresee trials coming from plural marriage, and he wanted to turn from it. But the angel urged him to proceed, instructing him to share the revelation only with people whose integrity was unwavering. The angel also charged Joseph to keep it private until the Lord saw fit to make the practice public through His chosen servants.

The portions highlighted in blue firmly establish that polygamy came from god. No current leader practices polygamy but because we still teach polygamy in this manner it wouldn’t be culturally acceptable to believe that polygamy was a human imperfection and not of god. We still tie the practice directly to deity.

The portions highlighted in red interest me. Joseph may very well have made those claims in his defense but it really feels like the author is attempting to steer thought. The reader that feels aversion to polygamy can now identify with Joseph. See, Joseph felt the same way as you! The reader that wants to turn away from polygamy can see that Joseph wanted to turn away from it as well. And of course he was a prophet so Joseph knew how negatively the practice would later be viewed. Joseph thought it was bad, he even knew others would think it was bad… so don’t get upset with Joseph.

That’s beside the point though. I think there are certain beliefs that serve as tribal boundaries that mostly tie back to agreeing with the correlated message, whatever it has evolved into in the present. How we reverence top leaders of the church is a part of that correlated message.

Step outside of the correlated belief, the thing that sets Mormons apart from others, and it seems natural for the in group to start viewing and treating people that believe differently as the out group. The beliefs define the boundaries.

But back on topic. Booooo that paragraph I quoted. Booooo.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

That’s beside the point though. I think there are certain beliefs that serve as tribal boundaries that mostly tie back to agreeing with the correlated message, whatever it has evolved into in the present. How we reverence top leaders of the church is a part of that correlated message.

Step outside of the correlated belief, the thing that sets Mormons apart from others, and it seems natural for the in group to start viewing and treating people that believe differently as the out group. The beliefs define the boundaries.

Did anyone watch the Face to Face with Elder Cook? It was done to launch the “Saints” book. He and two church historians at Nauvoo answering YA questions. I often watch live events “with” my kids while texting each other our thoughts. It’s clear they belong in the out group. There was no boundary moving tonight to make a space for them.

The historian launched into the polygamy discussion with the unstated assumption – of course it was commanded by God himself.

Same for First Vision. Of course these versions all combine to make perfect sense. We should be rejoicing. There’s no room for the out group kid who’s struggling because of her belief that the handwritten account is closest to the truth. If she doesn’t think God and Christ appeared, it’s best for her to stay quiet.

The Face to Face is already on the church website, if anyone wants to watch. There’s a beautifully sung duet at the beginning.

[Anonymous]

I set it to record and I turned it on for a few minutes and it was covering. They asked about polygamy. Elder Cook asked the Sister historian (Kate Holbrook) to answer (interesting). It was typical apologist stuff and “I am glad to have been born of that lineage”. The historian then said something like, “nobody was forced to do it” and I turned it off. It was going to ruin my day.

And does Elder Cook seem to have a forced smile a bit too often to anyone else, or is it just me being too critical?

I did go download the podcast version of the book (they don’t have it published as a true podcast that I can find, it is just a set of MP3′).

[Anonymous]

My husband and I watched it.

I had a mental brain lapse and thought it was supposed to start an hour later than it did. However, I got the dishes done and the kids put to bed and idly decided at 8 PM Eastern time to “idly” check if it was still being broadcast at 9 PM (when in reality, it started at 8 Eastern time).

I am proud of myself for biting my tongue from commenting about the angel and the sword for Emma when the lady historian said that all parties entered into it “willingly”.

My husband and I have talked about legitimacy of online sources periodically, so Brother Grow’s answer for the YSA question we found useful and uplifting (and common sense ish).

Yes, I picked up on the Elder Cook forced smile. To me, his non-verbal communications implied that he felt he was “pampering” a generation and placating them by setting up space to answer questions that he felt they should not be asking. My husband thought that they were champions on screen because the people there must have been dealing with a ton of mosquitos – and did not let it show on camera. He cited that he saw several mosquitos though out the broadcast, so the number that he didn’t see must have been enormous and eating all those people up.

I am in my late thirties (and married), so I felt more like Hans Solo while listening to Elder Cook’s wrap-up about the golden generation of Luke Skywalker-like YSA’s. Actually, it’s not a bad thing to be a Hans Solo – he got the girl, and got to fly around the galaxy with his friend Chewy rather then draw the ire of Darth Vader.

[Author]

Posts