- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
There are nine things listed in the original post, and we have discussed only one of them as being dicey enough to cause reactions. The other eight are:
1) Joseph Smith has flaws.
2) Don’t be superficial in studying JS.
3) We don’t have all the answers.
4) The absence of evidence is not proof.
5) Don’t confuse honest issues with unexamined assertions or incomplete research.
6) Projecting 21st-century concepts on 19th century people is misleading.
7) Don’t claim JS was perfect.
The wonder is this imperfect man succeeded in his mission. His fruits are undeniable and incomparable. (The church he founded hassurvived and now has nearly 15 million members, 29 thousand congregations in 160 different countries, active members have fewer
divorces, higher educations, better health and live longer than their peers.)
If I can get eight out of nine things right in a forum like this, I’ve done really, really well – and if he had said only #1, #3 and #7 everyone here would be celebrating joyously.
Maybe that should be highlighted, and he should receive credit for it. Literally, he made seven points that are extremely positive for everyone here, one (#
that is so-so and only one that is problematic enough to cause an uproar. When you look at the totality of what he said, we really ought to be extremely happy about it.I haven’t contributed much to this thread, but I have been reading it with interest. Some of these points have caused me to think. I’ll try to put my thoughts into words and maybe some of you can help me out with your thoughts or perspectives.
#1-Of course JS has flaws. I don’t think any of us expected him to be completely perfect and I totally understand why these flaws aren’t mentioned in church manuals. I do think that they could be talked about in the sense of examining how his own human nature helped or hindered the work he was trying to accomplish.
#3-Of course we don’t. Nobody does. It is refreshing when we hear church leaders say this.
#2- Superficial means being concerned with only what is obvious or apparent. I don’t feel like I’ve been superficial in my study of JS. I’ve always tried to look at his actions, revelations, etc. from the point of view of trying to see the deeper meaning that he found in it. When I learned about his polygamy and polyandry, I didn’t just conclude that he must have been a sex maniac that wanted to marry lots of women. I’ve always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. I think what bothered me most when i was just starting to learn more about church history was that I hadn’t ever heard any of this mentioned, not even in the most casual aside. There was no “Joseph began the practice of polygamy….moving on.” I think that most of us who study and find it hard to stay are not guilty of superficial judgments of JS.
#4- This one just feels like it’s trying to make me feel guilty for wanting any sort of physical evidence at all for the BOM. I get that religion needs to be taken on faith. And, technically the lack of evidence can’t be called irrefutable proof. It’s just that when someone says this to me, it feels like my concerns are being trivialized.
#5- I’m not really sure I get what this one is trying to say. If anyone feels like expounding, that would be awesome.
#6- When I was teaching GD, I worked very hard to study about the time period and the environment of the early church and then put the events into that context. Some of that is what led me to even more questions and issues and some of that led to wide eyes and puzzled looks in my class on Sundays. I’m not sure which concepts he’s referring to. If he means polygamy, well, 19th century people had issues with that too. It wasn’t the norm. Marrying 14 year old girls wasn’t the norm either. Doing this studying did help me to feel a bit more understanding about some of the zealousness of those early days and it really helped me better understand why those in the communities in Missouri and Illinois were wary of the saints. It also showed me how much JS was influenced by his environment, which I think all of us are and prophets aren’t immune to that in any way. But when the lessons on WOW, for example, tout it as being absolute proof of Joseph’s ability to receive revelation directly from God because it was years and years ahead of what any of them knew at that time period and I, in my research, find that not to be true…well, then it becomes an issue for me. I’m not saying JS couldn’t have been inspired to write the WOW, but I don’t like how it is put forth as “proof”.
#7-Don’t claim JS was perfect. True, I’ve never heard them claim he was perfect and it is refreshing to hear Elder Christofferson say that he was not. We are very regularly told that he’s done more for the salvation of mankind than anyone besides Christ, but that doesn’t mean he was perfect. Again, if we included some of his flaws or maybe incidences where he had to repent and maybe went the wrong way on things in our SS teaching, then learning about his imperfections wouldn’t be such a shock to some people. DH subbed in primary last week and the lesson was on the martyrdom. He taught the 11 year old kids. When he asked them why JS was in jail, they responded that it was because he was the Mormon prophet. DH gently educated them on the issue surrounding the destruction of the press and how that led to them being in Carthage. Small details like that would have been helpful.
#8- Yes, it is amazing that what JS started is still around today and that so many people are involved in the church and are doing good through the church. I can’t argue with that. I’d be interested to see the study that the statistics in this statement are taken from. I thought I read somewhere in my studies that the LDS divorce rate is about the same as the national average.
So, there are my thoughts on these points. I do think it’s great that leaders are starting to talk about these things, even though the tone might not always rub me the right way. I’m also really glad that all of you are here talking about these things with people like me.
🙂 MayB wrote:I think that most of us who study and find it hard to stay are not guilty of superficial judgments of JS.
I would agree with that statement.
MayB wrote:DH subbed in primary last week and the lesson was on the martyrdom. He taught the 11 year old kids. When he asked them why JS was in jail, they responded that it was because he was the Mormon prophet. DH gently educated them on the issue surrounding the destruction of the press and how that led to them being in Carthage. Small details like that would have been helpful.
I teach 11 year olds too…and did the same as the lesson manuals talked about persecution…I explained how the mormons were becoming a large voting block in areas and people were threatened. The law didn’t protect people the same as today, people took things into their own hands…it is different than today. But it was not just because “they are mormons”. I also noticed the lesson manual specifically stated some mormons betrayed Joseph, and some non-mormons defended Joseph’s rights.
I think this generation will be given more info than I was when I was that age. I think me and your DH are not the only ones doing this in the church, and trying to teach a more balanced lesson so kids don’t grow up with a persecution complex.
MayB wrote:I thought I read somewhere in my studies that the LDS divorce rate is about the same as the national average.
I have heard this too. Although perhaps I am too superficial in my studies…I don’t know all the sources to know what the studies all show.
Temple divorce rates are lower; non-temple divorce rates are almost exactly the same; Mormon to non-Mormon divorce rates are the highest of all religious affiliation rates. At least, that was true last time I looked at the stats – which was about five years ago or so.
Old-Timer wrote:Yep, you are right – and the exact same thing can be said legitimately about lots of things I’ve said in my life, including here. I’ve done a poor job of communicating lots of things – but we have had the benefit of a forum that allows us to clarify and discuss. I would hate to have some of the things I’ve said here published without the follow-up commentary.
You actually bring up a good point (indirectly): nothing’s stopping E. Christofferson or any GA from joining a well moderated discussion and clarifying any points that may be misinterpreted. I know that sounds laughable but they have the means to address these issues head on. Why not hold live forums with pre-submitted questions and let them respond and clarify. E. Jensen did that in Sweden (though with a small number of people) and I felt like it was a very respectable move by the church. Such a forum for discussion would foster a lot more respect and understanding than standing behind a pulpit in Rexburg, ID creating straw-men and talking around the issues.
Old-Timer wrote:Temple divorce rates are lower; non-temple divorce rates are almost exactly the same; Mormon to non-Mormon divorce rates are the highest of all religious affiliation rates.
At least, that was true last time I looked at the stats – which was about five years ago or so.
This would make sense. I know that in my parents’ case, one of the reasons my mom didn’t divorce my dad sooner (they were married 19 years) was because of the eternal implications that she believed that would entail due to their temple marriage. I’ve seen other couples who choose to stay married in circumstances that many non-religious folk would see as grounds for divorce mainly because of their temple sealing and the commitment that they’ve associated with that for themselves. Most of the time this is a great thing, such as when it is something they can work on or get help with and have a healthier relationship afterwards. Other times, it’s painful to watch because of one spouse staying in an abusive relationship that isn’t getting any better.
When you say “Mormon to non-mormon” do you mean members who leave the church? Or do you mean divorce rates of Mormons married to non-members?
I mean divorce rates of Mormons married to non-members. When I checked, the published rate was around 41% – the highest among religious couples. For members married to members outside the temple, it was around 20% – dead solid average for religious couples. The temple marriage divorce rate was about 10-12% – the lowest rate among religious couples. Mormon to non-Mormon marriages have a 59% survival rate? Yikes! I’ll see if I can push that up a bit from my end. From rays list, 1 and 7 are important to consider. Joseph was fallible. When I’ve discussed Joseph’s possible fallibilities as a prophet (online/f2f) I’m often rebuffed. Apologists seem to want the fall-back position of “prophets are fallible” but will rarely concede evidence of a time of fallibility. Zelph? No, no, not recorded properly. Kinderhook? No, no never tried to translate them. Liar? No, no, lying for the Lord. Shouted at his kids once? Of course, nobody’s perfect. Oh well…
Quote:Apologists seem to want the fall-back position of “prophets are fallible” but will rarely concede evidence of a time of fallibility.
Yeah, they tend to forget or never consider the fact that
fallibility only in unimportant things is just another name for infallibility in practice. Joseph was human: therefore, he was flawed; therefore, he made mistakes even in important things. That doesn’t disqualify him from being a prophet in every meaningful sense of the word and, actually, makes him more like other people who are accepted as prophets in other times; that means current prophets and apostles also can be wrong and mistaken about important things; that means on-going revelation and progress can be meaningful – truly and deeply meaningful, as can the concept that many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God yet can be revealed. Take away Joseph’s real humanity, and all of that incredibly important stuff crumbles, as well.
It really is that simple.
Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, they tend to forget or never consider the fact that
fallibility only in unimportant things is just another name for infallibility in practice. If Elder Christofferson’s talk had had a Q & A component, and someone had asked about this, using your words, what do you think the response would have been?
Not trying to be overly-adversarial, but your line is IT in a nutshell for me.
Ann wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Yeah, they tend to forget or never consider the fact that
fallibility only in unimportant things is just another name for infallibility in practice. If Elder Christofferson’s talk had had a Q & A component, and someone had asked about this, using your words, what do you think the response would have been?
I won’t try to guess Elder Christofferson’s reply, but I will go out on a limb and speculate on a “typical” line of faithful thought on the subject.
When the spirit is involved the action or advice of a leader is true revelation. True revelation bears the signature of God so it is beyond the failings of the mortal realm. While it is technically possible that a leader may operate in his official position without the aid of the spirit, accusing him of such is more likely to put your own personal standing in jeopardy, so it becomes a risk that members are unwilling to assume.
Honestly, I think Elder Christofferson would agree. I think he understands that church leaders in the past have been wrong about some really important things. Old-Timer wrote:Joseph was human: therefore, he was flawed; therefore, he made mistakes even in important things. That doesn’t disqualify him from being a prophet in every meaningful sense of the word and, actually, makes him more like other people who are accepted as prophets in other times; that means current prophets and apostles also can be wrong and mistaken about important things; that means on-going revelation and progress can be meaningful – truly and deeply meaningful, as can the concept that many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God yet can be revealed. Take away Joseph’s real humanity, and all of that incredibly important stuff crumbles, as well.
It really is that simple.
Making mistakes may not technically disqualify JS from being a prophet but it certainly undermines his credibility. What bothers me about this whole debate is that when someone raises an issue about some crap JS did, the common response is that “he was not infallible and that doesn’t disqualify him from being a prophet”. Infallibility is not the issue. Of course he was fallible like every other human. CREDIBILITY is the issue. Every time we learn of some crappy thing JS did in the name of God, or “by revelation”, it undermines the credibility of his other claims. If he’s willing to abuse the authority of revelation to screw with people in one doctrinal area, the logical question then is what else did he make up? What other “revelations” were crap? Those are legitimate questions to ask if you view JS as making some major mistakes, and I don’t understand why people keep going back to the fallibility/infallibility nonsense.Yes, credibility is a huge, central issue – but accepting real fallibility is the foundation that allows credibility to be an issue. Someone has to be accepted as fallible (truly fallible, even with really important things, not just theoretically fallible, limited to relatively unimportant things) before credibility even can be discussed. When someone is assumed to be infallible in important matters, credibility is assumed and ceases to be an issue. Getting past that assumption is a critical step, so it’s important to understand that Joseph and subsequent prophets / leaders were and are flawed and capable of making mistakes even in important things and, in fact, did and do make mistakes in important things.
I liked Elder Christofferson’s acknowledgment of Joseph’s flaws and imperfection, since it opens the door to have this sort of conversation with traditionally orthodox members and start to break down the veneer of perfection and practical infallibility that has surrounded Joseph and subsequent leaders for too long – even after statements like Elder McConkie’s when the Priesthood ban was lifted telling people to forget everything any leader had ever said in justification of the ban because they (including himself) spoke with limited light and knowledge. It’s one of the central reasons I am excited about the Joseph Smith Papers project, as well.
I’ve been following this thread with interest. Even taking the purpose of this site into account, I think an exasperated reaction to E Christofferson’s comments is somewhat justified. The relative transparency of the Church is a highly sensitive topic for the disaffected. I think this is especially true considering the huge investment the Church requires of its members, and the standard of perfection that is expected. Depending on the local priesthood leadership, a member with relatively few flaws can be treated very poorly. Yet, one finds that the Church wants a member to forgive relatively large faults with ease. I think disaffected members deserve some patience from the Church on the process of trust building and forgiveness. I am glad to hear one of the Q15 stating that JS had flaws and wasn’t perfect. I think this might be an understatement. Those who find a way to stick with the LDS Church and are well-informed have to find a way to deal with Joseph’s magical past, his revelatory processes, his translation methods, his temper and fierce need for loyalty, and his polygamy/polyandry. I think we have to go through an epistemological change to handle it (literal to symbolic). That’s going to be difficult or impossible for some.
I like the focus on the “fruits” of Joseph’s endeavors. The Church has its problems, but it does stand for good things—strong family relationships, good personal character, the importance of community-building, access to holy spaces and ordinances, and a personal relationship with God and Christ. These things might just be enough for some people to balance against the things we don’t know, and the things we know but wish weren’t true.
I am a little perturbed by the pointing out of the JSPapers as “proof” that the Church is transparent. The JSP has only been going on for ten or twelve years at the most. What percentage of the church membership even knows about it? What percentage of those people can articulate specific content from the papers? What percentage of those can articulate content that problematizes or contradicts the traditional narrative taught in the correlated church? It’s only been twenty years since the September Six. They were ousted in part to suppress “less than useful” truths in the years before Google. As I’ve read through the DAMU, I find there is a pervasive sense of betrayal and loss of trust. It’s going to take a longer track record of glasnost from the Church to rebuild that trust, IMO.
In the long run, I think those who are able to Stay LDS are going to have to learn to be “glass half-full” people when it comes to these things (recognizing the good developments, and forgiving the flaws seventy-times seven). I am trying. It might take a while, though.
:problem:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.