- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I really like Elder Christofferson and his “Give Us This Day” is one of my favorite talks. And if teeny, tiny baby steps are all I need, then I should be happy with this faith crisis talk. But I need bigger steps. For me it doesn’t work to say, Hey, look. It’s ALL here. We’re doing a Smithsonian Institution-level document dump and you all should just pick through it. And you don’t really have standing until you do.
It doesn’t speak at all to my biggest issue, which is that I don’t much trust and respect a man who treated his wife the way Joseph Smith did. I guess that’s my problem. He is who he is, and I wasn’t married to him. By the way, are his wives included in the papers? The records for them probably don’t meet Smithsonian Institution standards, or maybe they haven’t gotten to it yet. But I think this is the problem. The church seems to have an absolute tin ear for what its members with a crisis of confidence in JS need. We need straight talk. I need to NOT be scolded for “projecting 21st-century concepts and culture backward onto 19th-century people.” To state the obvious: 19th-century men in the U.S. did not have dozens of wives.
And it isthe churchthat projects its own 19th-century doctrine of plural marriage forwardonto 21st-century women. What do thousands of pages of documents really mean when I’m betting that 98% of the Gospel Doctrine lessons that just covered Section 132 didn’t say a peep about polygamy? And you’re a rabble-rouser, a dissident, if you bring it up. Joseph was flawed, Joseph was flawed! But we can never discuss it. Was his implementation of polygamy/polyandry a flaw? Nope! I feel marginalized and commoditized by the language in Section 132. Is it possible that I feel this way because this isn’t actually the mind and will of God? Nope!
He says, “There are those whose research relating to Joseph Smith is not for the purpose of gaining added light and knowledge, but to undermine his character, magnify his flaws, and it possible destroy his influence.” How does one read about Joseph’s polygamy/polyandry/deception and hurting of Emma with the goal of gaining added light and knowledge? It’s just what he did. I don’t get any light from it. Am I supposed to?
Bottom line, I am uncomfortable with the lionizing of Joseph Smith. I wonder sometimes if I am a Mormon at heart because I bristle when I read Elder Christofferson say that without Joseph Smith we wouldn’t have
“true Christianity.”But I’m going to church tomorrow.
You’re right, cwald. I went way overboard, and I apologize. I am going back to my comment and editing it as if it was someone else who went over the line. To be more precise, it really does set me off when the Church does something to address a problem and gets criticized for it – and it was your dismissal of the Joseph Smith Papers Project that got to me. That project is a massive step forward in not whitewashing our history, so criticism of it . . . I really do think that’s wrong and letting bitterness cloud judgment. It really is a case of damned when they did and still damned when they don’t.
Quote:Maybe christiferson should have said, “we are trying to be more open about our history now,” rather than dismiss my concerns with a shrug and basically call me a liar and pretend that it never happened?
I actually believe that’s what he meant, fwiw.
I had to wait until I had time to listen to the talk before responding – and I did watch the video, I did not simply read the article in the original link. I don’t mind apologists, but I also do see that they sometimes make some leaps that simply are not there. Apologists to an extent have kept me in the past from having my name removed. That said, I do agree that Christofferson is making a somewhat apologetic effort here. I do take issue with this assertion that the church has not tried to hide its history as evidenced by the release of the JS papers. It is obvious that the church hid this for many years – very few privileged people were ever allowed into the church archives and then what they accessed was limited. This release is much more in response to critics than an attempt by the church to be open on its own, IMO. I believe the same thing about Mountain Meadows – the church did not come clean on MM until pressed by descendents of the victims who were being aided by antis. The internet has made it so much easier for people to interact and share information, that the church is in a place where they must come clean or be outed. I agree with Ray’s assessment that the church is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. (Please note that when I refer to the church here, I am actually referring to the church hierarchy).
On the other hand, I think Christofferson was being frank in this talk and I like much of what he said. He bears his testimony of JS, which is his and his alone, and no one can question someone else’s testimony and beliefs based on their own – each individual’s experiences are uniquely theirs. I don’t expect he’ll give a similar talk in GC because I think it would shake too many trees, but I certainly wouldn’t mind if he referenced the idea that JS was not perfect, that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church and not JS, and that studying the JS papers might give us a greater insight into the world at the time and how JS came to believe that which he believed.
I am all for the church trying to address the problems and issues of church history and other things. In fact, I liked what Elder Christopherson said in the last GC : “Just because a general authority, apostle or prophet says something over the pulpit, or writes something, doesn’t make it doctrine.” I also liked what was said in a lds.org newsroom:
At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It made it seem they realize denying blacks the priesthood was never revelation but racism from lds leaders.
The thing that bothers me is that even though the church admits JS had flaws and even JS himself said he had weakness, (but nothing serious)…, it disfellowships, excommunicates and condemns behavior such as dishonesty in business or dealings with others., spousal abuse, masturbation, homosexuality, fornication, and adultery yet overlooks JS lying to Emma and secretly marrying other women, promising members who gave money to the Kirkland bank they would not loose it, it and other serious things. If those are not serious and deserving of excommunication, then I don’t know what its. Yes, JS did some great things and said alot of great things, but he also said alot of arrogant things. I just feel there is a double standard here. We as members are told we can use nothing but the standard works, ensign, in our lessons or talks, but the GA’s can because they are superior to us.
I just have lost alot of trust.
My husband just gave me a great analogy of what church apologists do sometimes. He said it is like someone who claims to be able to do repairs in a house. He sees the marks, and painting chips, on a wall and repairs those, but does not want to get into the wall and clean out the mold and deep infestation inside. I think we should appreciate that this weekend is probably an emotionally difficult one for our buddy Ray. Hope you’re able to find peace during your sadness. mackay11 wrote:I think we should appreciate that this weekend is probably an emotionally difficult one for our buddy Ray. Hope you’re able to find peace during your sadness.
May I ask what is going on?bridget_night wrote:mackay11 wrote:I think we should appreciate that this weekend is probably an emotionally difficult one for our buddy Ray. Hope you’re able to find peace during your sadness.
May I ask what is going on?Ray posted about it in the ‘General’ forum. His father recently passed. I believe yesterday was the funeral.
Thanks Mackay…I will go check it out. Ann wrote:Joseph was flawed, Joseph was flawed! But we can never discuss it. Was his implementation of polygamy/polyandry a flaw? Nope! I feel marginalized and commoditized by the language in Section 132. Is it possible that I feel this way because this isn’t actually the mind and will of God? Nope!
This is a great point. What were his “human failings” and how might these flaws influence the work that he did.
“Insofar as we can, we want to know what he knew; we want to understand what he understood; we want to draw near to God as he did.”
My initial major surprise in studying the life of JS was what he did not know. Kind of sounds silly, but I did have an unreasonable expectation and was disappointed that JS didn’t have supernatural knowledge of how things would turn out or even what was transpiring at the moment in other parts of the church. He set in motion some bad ideas and then had to wait for the letter carrier to bring news of disaster – just like everyone else.
The next big surprise for me was that JS sometimes spoke as if he did know things and then later it turned out that he was wrong. If he could be wrong when seemingly speaking as the prophet and with a matter of fact sense of certainty, he could be equally wrong about things that we cannot confirm as of yet (such as the 3 degrees of glory). Is it a flaw or a gift to be able to present your impressive speculations as divine knowledge. Both?
Finally, I’m not sure that anyone in the modern church leadership would want someone to “Draw near to God as [JS] did.” From seeing God and announcing that all current churches are corrupt, to challenging marital and sexual norms, to adding new procedures (endowment) for approaching God – I’m with Bridget that any of this would be enough to get someone excommunicated.
I personally am very impressed with what JS accomplished – but I do not find him as a good role model to be emulated or for that matter as someone I would want my DD to marry. Does that make sense? I don’t think that I could say even that last sentence in church without being attacked.
Anen Roy!! I have always enjoyed your posts! Quote:I personally am very impressed with what JS accomplished – but I do not find him as a good role model to be emulated or for that matter as someone I would want my DD to marry.
As much as I love Joseph, I agree completely with this statement. I certainly am glad I didn’t live in his time and that I wasn’t Emma’s father or any of the other (few) men whose relatively young, single daughters were sealed to him.
Thanks, mackay11 – but that isn’t an excuse. I was wrong. Period. Old-Timer wrote:You’re right, cwald. I went way overboard, and I apologize. I am going back to my comment and editing it as if it was someone else who went over the line.
To be more precise, it really does set me off when the Church does something to address a problem and gets criticized for it – and it was your dismissal of the Joseph Smith Papers Project that got to me. That project is a massive step forward in not whitewashing our history, so criticism of it . . . I really do think that’s wrong and letting bitterness cloud judgment. It really is a case of damned when they did and still damned when they don’t.
Quote:Maybe christiferson should have said, “we are trying to be more open about our history now,” rather than dismiss my concerns with a shrug and basically call me a liar and pretend that it never happened?
I actually believe that’s what he meant, fwiw.
Ok.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
IMO, I really like that the 12 are talking about this stuff, even though I think E. Christofferson’s talk was a bunch of PR crap. His talk, based on the article I read, was basically one big straw man. The bright side is that these things are at least being talked about. In a way I kind of feel bad for the many GAs that have to address these topics. I think the deeper they get into the debate the more they realize that the church has essentially screwed itself with regards to history. I’d ask to be reassigned.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.