Things MUST be changing.

[Anonymous]

I spent hours in the car with my daughter driving to our holiday turkey dinner together. Her and her new BYU student RM husband had some wonderful discussions.

They were married in the Logan temple, and have callings in their Provo ward, and are happily active.

I asked them how much they know about certain things, like many of the topics in the essays the church has put on its website.

Of course, my daughter has talked to me about those topics for years, but I wondered what my SIL thought. He was very open about how BYU classes teach about Joseph using a stone and a hat, and the book of Abraham. He shared his thoughts on how shocking it was to him, but since he has talked with room mates and friends and they are more familiar with things that did not happen as it is drawn in pictures in mormon art, or told in sunday school. They shrug some of it off, but are being more aware of things.

He also talked about things on the Internet, and that not all websites are anti-mormon, even if he doesn’t agree with how some people interpret the things found on websites. But he checks out some stuff just so he is aware of what others are saying about the church.

I honestly got the impression that at BYU, they are teaching this generation new stuff. They HAVE to…the stuff is out there to be found. They are changing and more open. He referenced the Joseph Smith Papers project, and many other things around LGBT issues and Book of Mormon geographical issues, and DNA testing.

Perhaps the change was painful for many of us, or perhaps it wasn’t done to our liking where they slowly let things out or taught people, and maybe they had too much of a “You should have known this stuff” attitude as the church opens up about topics it can’t avoid….but my honest impression is that the universities and the professors there are more aware of these things than I thought.

And my kids seem to be less shocked by not uncovering stuff by surprise, but actually have avenues with friends and leaders and professors to discuss these things that I felt I learned on my own online.

Give this a few more years to keep becoming more mainstream knowledge…and things must be changing for the better.

[Anonymous]

:thumbup:

Despite the criticism of the new CES/Institute curriculum, and acknowledging that the details have not yet been released, I want to believe that this is the aim of it. That is, rather than parroting the same old stuff people have heard in Primary, Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, Seminary, etc. for years, I want to believe the new curriculum will broaden the horizon in ways which you reference, Heber. I have hope that the essays will be incorporated into the new adult curriculum as has been reported. I have hope that things ARE changing, that the ship is turning.

Thanks for sharing, Heber.

[Anonymous]

My BYU graduate daughter has two thoughts –

1st – The Hundred Hour Board – lots of discussion happens there and the campus lets it keep running. There are even disaffected moderators or at least agnostic ones. For her this is where she processed much of her parents faith transition and it helped a lot.

2nd – Many of the religion professors she TA’d for are much more broad religionists then they can be in class. She helped them with their scholarship projects and research and she said it’s like a Jeckyl and Hyde thing. The person in class and the person working on the projects are two different people.

The future has some bright spots in it.

[Anonymous]

I had not heard about the 100 hour board, so I looked it up and instantly found something informative and funny:

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/62542/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/62542/

I like the blunt, “Who told you those lies?” and then the real way dinosaur bones were placed on the earth. :clap:

[Anonymous]

I think it’s good it’s changing. I welcome the change. The thing that kind of frustrates me is that if all these things are true, then to me, the church CAN’T be the divine institution with a prophet who “never leads the church astray”, with leaders who are always inspired — the very premises in which I believed no longer hold true. IT means the people at the top can’t be completely trusted either. Not that they are evil, but they are not the divine oracles I once thought they were.

And for me, that means I no longer have to maintain a TR, that eternal family is a theory, and that the church is like any other church in Christianity.

I’m not trying to dissuade anyone from being active == in fact, I think it is easier to be active and involved in the church if it acknowledges these things above. Easier than being fully active in a church that finally comes clean about the history, and questionable claims (albeit quietly), yet maintains the one true church concept, and all the other divinity claims that fill our culture. Does anyone see this? How do you acknowledge the false premises, yet still make the sacrifices associated with full blown,TR-holding activity?

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Does anyone see this? How do you acknowledge the false premises, yet still make the sacrifices associated with full blown,TR-holding activity?

I see what you are saying, SD. I am not sure how to best express it in words.

First of all, I disagree there are “false premises”, but more often, false interpretations and perpetuation of incorrect premises. I completely understand the frustration that comes from it, and don’t devalue others who see it as having been lied to or falsely taught. There is culpability to go around. But…it doesn’t mean there were false premises on truth claims, in my view.

Second, the comparison that works for me is similar to other relationships…not other historical facts. Trust in relationships can exist whether or not someone else has been perfect, or whether they make mistakes or not. So…when I became an adult and learned of the problems my parents had…it shook me to see them as the authority figure in my life on truth and then to learn of their imperfections, that they didn’t know much more than I did, but they were good for me to trust when I was a teenager and couldn’t trust myself to be on my own making decisions. But now that I’m an adult, I see them different, accept them (flaws and all), and adjust my expectation of them as a source of truth in my life. I can still trust them, even if I see them differently. There is still value in investing in the relationship with them, to a point. I don’t let them send me to my room anymore, but I do value their advice and I invest in ways to keep a loving relationship with them.

That is how I still invest in the church, and believe the divinity claims. Perhaps on different terms than in the past, but still in an honest way, and a sincere way, and find value in it.

And I see the changes occurring because people in the church truly seek to become better and keep to truth, and believe we are seeing things more clearly to correct the past, not seeing things as dishonest in the past. And so the church will keep trying to change to the times and the needs of the people.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

First of all, I disagree there are “false premises”, but more often, false interpretations and perpetuation of incorrect premises.

I hope I don’t sound anti-Mormon here — I’m not trying to be. But I find it hard to believe in the idea JS was a prophet when he engaged in practices that were very anti-prophet — even allowing for the norms in his day (an oft-used apologetic argument). Issues of hidden sexuality with other men’s wives, young girls, for example. And then, racism regarding the priesthood under BY, and then a repudiation of that policy, which previous prophets and first presidencies described as doctrine.

These are things that I think shake the premise on which I joined the church. Had I known about the eventual repudiation (and its implications for the counsel of a prophet) and JS’s sexual habits, I’m pretty sure I would not have joined. Had I known about some of the history, particularly MM Massacre, I think that would have also been a contributing deal breaker. So for me, the premises on which I joined were false.

I find it hard to recast these problems as misinterpretations — they are facts — facts hidden from me that I think are deeply material to the steps of faith I took, and my lifelong commitment.

Now, if I found reasons to go forward without those premises intact – that is fine — but I can’t seem to embrace the one true church concept while knowing the actual premises on which I joined were not true. I can’t seem to embrace all the policies and practices of today hinging on the fact that JS is a prophet, therefore the BoM is true, and then the church is true — the logic we often receive, and that I taught repeatedly as a full time missionary. Particularly given the sacrifices our church demands.

Quote:

SD speaking — So, can you really reframe these hidden historical facts, and character issues associated with JS as “misinterpretations” that don’t affect the premises of our religion? I ask that question hoping to hear what others who see these facts as having no impact on their presmises and belief in the one true church concept. This is what I would like to hear about, from others.

Heber said…

Quote:

Second, the comparison that works for me is similar to other relationships…not other historical facts. Trust in relationships can exist whether or not someone else has been perfect, or whether they make mistakes or not.

See, I’m not sure if I can trust in the Brethren given their past “deceptions” — at least those who decided to perpetuate and hide our history, such as with the publication of Truth Restored.

Their “deceptions” are too entwined with the reasons they provided for believing in the one true church concept. Now, local leadership errors, non-critical mistakes with funds, administrative errors, fine — but these are BIG ISSUES in my view. The moral character of the founding prophet, the correctness of doctrine that affected millions of people for decades upon decades (Africans, African Americans), and the lives of scores of people (MMM) — these things I find are too big to be classified among the mistakes that don’t rock premises. They challenge the “one true church” concept, in my view.

You mentioned an analogy of the church, as being like your parents….I find this analogy difficult to assimilate. Parents are yours because they gave birth to you. There were long stretches of time when they nurtured you and raised you. They never claimed to be perfect. And most parents don’t require the huge financial and time-based sacrifices our church does — claiming these things are necessary for salvation. We remain faithful because we owe our lives to them — not because they promise us a path to salvation like the church does.

Quote:

And I see the changes occurring because people in the church truly seek to become better and keep to truth, and believe we are seeing things more clearly to correct the past, not seeing things as dishonest in the past. And so the church will keep trying to change to the times and the needs of the people.

I don’t know — I see the sanitization as deliberate non-disclosure about our history, and forgive me, deliberate deception. The recent essays do not, in my view, represent ‘seeing a previously unclear or murky set of facts more clearly’, but an actual “coming clean” or “confession”. And that has a lot of implications that rock premises for me.

Now, if they stopped claiming the one true church concept, and said they were just like any other church, then I think I could recommit at a higher level than I am now. I would respect their honesty, their coming clean, etcetera. But much of the reasons we are given for joining the church and remaining active would disappear — and there would have to be new ones harped upon.

Reasons that might motivate me are — the fact that the church attracts good people, provides clean standards for living life, good programs for youth and children (some of the time),meaningful service opportunities, opportunities for mentored growth while serving others etcetera. But not because the finger of the Lord rested on the LDS Church as we currently believe. That premise allows the church to dictate a lot to us as members, and the essays blow a huge hole in it.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Quote:

First of all, I disagree there are “false premises”, but more often, false interpretations and perpetuation of incorrect premises.

I hope I don’t sound anti-Mormon here — I’m not trying to be. But I find it hard to believe in the idea JS was a prophet when he engaged in practices that were very anti-prophet — even allowing for the norms in his day (an oft-used apologetic argument). Issues of hidden sexuality with other men’s wives, young girls, for example. And then, racism regarding the priesthood under BY, and then a repudiation of that policy, which previous prophets and first presidencies described as doctrine.

These are things that I think shake the premise on which I joined the church. Had I known about the eventual repudiation (and its implications for the counsel of a prophet) and JS’s sexual habits, I’m pretty sure I would not have joined. Had I known about some of the history, particularly MM Massacre, I think that would have also been a contributing deal breaker. So for me, the premises on which I joined were false.

I find it hard to recast these problems as misinterpretations — they are facts — facts hidden from me that I think are deeply material to the steps of faith I took, and my lifelong commitment.

Now, if I found reasons to go forward without those premises intact – that is fine — but I can’t seem to embrace the one true church concept while knowing the actual premises on which I joined were not true. I can’t seem to embrace all the policies and practices of today hinging on the fact that JS is a prophet, therefore the BoM is true, and then the church is true — the logic we often receive, and that I taught repeatedly as a full time missionary. Particularly given the sacrifices our church demands.

Quote:

SD speaking — So, can you really reframe these hidden historical facts, and character issues associated with JS as “misinterpretations” that don’t affect the premises of our religion? I ask that question hoping to hear what others who see these facts as having no impact on their presmises and belief in the one true church concept. This is what I would like to hear about, from others.

Heber said…

Quote:

Second, the comparison that works for me is similar to other relationships…not other historical facts. Trust in relationships can exist whether or not someone else has been perfect, or whether they make mistakes or not.

See, I’m not sure if I can trust in the Brethren given their past “deceptions” — at least those who decided to perpetuate and hide our history, such as with the publication of Truth Restored.

Their “deceptions” are too entwined with the reasons they provided for believing in the one true church concept. Now, local leadership errors, non-critical mistakes with funds, administrative errors, fine — but these are BIG ISSUES in my view. The moral character of the founding prophet, the correctness of doctrine that affected millions of people for decades upon decades (Africans, African Americans), and the lives of scores of people (MMM) — these things I find are too big to be classified among the mistakes that don’t rock premises. They challenge the “one true church” concept, in my view.

You mentioned an analogy of the church, as being like your parents….I find this analogy difficult to assimilate. Parents are yours because they gave birth to you. There were long stretches of time when they nurtured you and raised you. They never claimed to be perfect. And most parents don’t require the huge financial and time-based sacrifices our church does — claiming these things are necessary for salvation. We remain faithful because we owe our lives to them — not because they promise us a path to salvation like the church does.

Quote:

And I see the changes occurring because people in the church truly seek to become better and keep to truth, and believe we are seeing things more clearly to correct the past, not seeing things as dishonest in the past. And so the church will keep trying to change to the times and the needs of the people.

I don’t know — I see the sanitization as deliberate non-disclosure about our history, and forgive me, deliberate deception. The recent essays do not, in my view, represent ‘seeing a previously unclear or murky set of facts more clearly’, but an actual “coming clean” or “confession”. And that has a lot of implications that rock premises for me.

Now, if they stopped claiming the one true church concept, and said they were just like any other church, then I think I could recommit at a higher level than I am now. I would respect their honesty, their coming clean, etcetera. But much of the reasons we are given for joining the church and remaining active would disappear — and there would have to be new ones harped upon.

Reasons that might motivate me are — the fact that the church attracts good people, provides clean standards for living life, good programs for youth and children (some of the time),meaningful service opportunities, opportunities for mentored growth while serving others etcetera. But not because the finger of the Lord rested on the LDS Church as we currently believe. That premise allows the church to dictate a lot to us as members, and the essays blow a huge hole in it.

Sorry to reprint SD’s long answer, but I could have written it myself. In the moments when I’m thinking clearly, these are the thoughts I have. SD, you asked earlier in this thread how people can feel this way and continue to be active, TR holding memebers. I manage it because it makes my family happy, I love many of the people there, and occasionally, I hear things that make me feel good. I no longer believe in the LDS church as the one true church, but there are some good nuggets there, just as in any other worthwhile institution. I also feel the changes are too few, too late for me to accept. I also believe they are happening as a result of external pressure.

[Anonymous]

My kids’ generation and world are different than mine at their ages, and things are changing for that simple fact (among others). We have some traditionally orthodox leaders who are hanging onto the past, but we also have some leaders who are not doing so – and, frankly, those who are not hanging onto the past (who are open to change) outnumber those who are closed to change. This is proven simply by the fact that changes are happening, albeit not as quickly as some people, including myself, would like in an ideal world. We don’t live in an ideal world, so I am okay with change happening as quickly as the tree root can handle it.

Again, my kids’ generation constitutes a different tree root than existed when I was their age, so the pruning is starting to happen faster than it did back then.

[Anonymous]

I am thread jacking a bit here, but will address my thoughts on SD’s question, too.

Ray wrote –

Quote:

We have some traditionally orthodox leaders who are hanging onto the past, but we also have some leaders who are not doing so – and, frankly, those who are not hanging onto the past (who are open to change) outnumber those who are closed to change.

Two weeks ago I spoke with a person who is “in the know”, who knows top leaders and what not and his best comprehension is that the top quorum is divided in a 10 to 2 or 9 to 3 split as all of this moves forward. The 9 or 10 want to take a page out of Marlin Jensens book and make bolder statements, the other 2 or 3 are more reticent. One of the guiding principles of the LDS leadership is common consent. That is what President Kimball took advantage of when the Priesthood change came about. He knew the crack in the door was slight, and he worked speedily to use the moment.

Back to SD’s question. MockingJay wrote,

Quote:

SD, you asked earlier in this thread how people can feel this way and continue to be active, TR holding memebers. I manage it because it makes my family happy, I love many of the people there, and occasionally, I hear things that make me feel good.

I see this as the key. For many people in this process they are attached to people they love. That’s the bottom line. Michael Barker wrote in his piece at Rational Faiths yesterday

Quote:

5.Relationships are more important than truth

. It still boils down to love. Many people I know attend the temple with family and use the time for meditation, quiet, etc. Others can still appreciate the baptism by proxy idea and so they do that while the rest of the group goes to the endowment.

SD you wrote,

Quote:

that eternal family is a theory,

Maybe? I can’t prove it is or it isn’t I can see Heavenly Father smiling at us when we arrive in heaven, all impressed with our temple work, and him saying it didn’t matter but thanks anyway. I can also see him being proud of our ingenuity and intent, however messy it was. Just like a parent is proud of their kids attempt to build a tree house. I, myself, don’t know if LDS eternal families do/will exist – but I know 2 families whom the idea of eternal families has been a huge positive life change of hope for them. In both cases that idea has actually saved lives and made room for personal healing. Even as a doubter/questioner I am not interested in ripping their faith from them. So if they want a temple buddy once in a while, I will/can go. It doesn’t harm me or put me at risk and I don’t feel dishonest.

[Anonymous]

The Hundred Hour Board at BYU fills a similar role to the bloggernacle or staylds.com/forum IMO. Good board. Great mods. Mostly the questions don’t make me want to eat glass, and when they do the mods take them out with verve and humor.

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

Two weeks ago I spoke with a person who is “in the know”, who knows top leaders and what not and his best comprehension is that the top quorum is divided in a 10 to 2 or 9 to 3 split as all of this moves forward. The 9 or 10 want to take a page out of Marlin Jensens book and make bolder statements, the other 2 or 3 are more reticent. One of the guiding principles of the LDS leadership is common consent.

I am glad to hear this. I do wonder if this is true, why doesn’t one of those of the 9 or 10 even casually mention in a obscure place about mormonsandgays.org? I fear we are setting ourselves up for another wave of faith crisis’ when one day the prophet President Ballard suddenly announces a dramatic change on the LGBT issue? I know a TON of folks that are not exactly going to be excited. It is going to feel very jarring for the church to do what they would consider an about face. These folks might very well feel like they were battling the evils of LGBT (and paying the price with jobs and family/friends) partially because the church was “telling” them that is what they were supposed to do.

As others have said, the biggest issue in my faith crisis and even into my faith transition is the betrayal I felt and the current trust I can place in church leaders and what they say.

I have said it before – I am glad I am not a top-level church leader right now. I am sure it is hard if you are one of the alleged 9 or 10 and you see all the pain and need for a change, yet you realize 1 or 2 people are standing in the way of what you see as inevitable. That has to be frustrating not to be saying anything.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I fear we are setting ourselves up for another wave of faith crisis’ when one day the prophet President Ballard suddenly announces a dramatic change on the LGBT issue? I know a TON of folks that are not exactly going to be excited.

I think based on history, when a leader gets to be prophet, they are less jarring and less likely to make controversial changes than when they were GAs or apostles with a stewardship in an area or even having opinions that they voice boldly.

Ezra Taft Benson was an example of that.

Sometimes they are even too old to be the ones to launch a major change.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

I fear we are setting ourselves up for another wave of faith crisis’ when one day the prophet President Ballard suddenly announces a dramatic change on the LGBT issue? I know a TON of folks that are not exactly going to be excited.

I think based on history, when a leader gets to be prophet, they are less jarring and less likely to make controversial changes than when they were GAs or apostles with a stewardship in an area or even having opinions that they voice boldly.

Ezra Taft Benson was an example of that.

Sometimes they are even too old to be the ones to launch a major change.

Hmm. I think there is some truth in that. There can be some aberrations from the pattern, such as BYK’s Oct 2010 conference talk on gays, SWK’s pronouncement of the priesthood going to all worthy men, and the grand-daddy of them all – GBH’s “the 6 B’s”!!!! [/sarcasm]

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

There can be some aberrations from the pattern, such as BYK’s Oct 2010 conference talk on gays,

Can you clarify for me…which talk are you referring to?

LookingHard wrote:

SWK’s pronouncement of the priesthood going to all worthy men

I am not suggesting they don’t make changes, I’m suggesting they don’t make sweeping controversial changes. SWK’s pronouncement was met with relief and rejoicing, for the most part (and a lot of “what took so long”). And it was a much softer approach than when he was younger and wrote “The Miracle of Forgiveness”, right?

I think that is what I meant…they seem to get more broad as prophet, not more issue minded. Am I wrong?

[Author]

Posts