Todd Christofferson addressed crisis of faith issues

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

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

I like this. I worry about the inertia of the past, though.

[Anonymous]

Well said, friend. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

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 think you’re spot on. Discussing credibility begins with discussing fallibility. If you don’t accept true fallibility then credibility doesn’t even enter the arena.

In light of your insight, I guess my issue is that discussing fallibility while leaving credibility untouched seems wrong. I don’t expect the 12 to discuss credibility head-on. I wouldn’t if I were in their shoes. The problem is that they are discussing a fallibility that is trivial:

“We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself. He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be. In May, 1844, Joseph declared: “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (http://www2.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2013_9_24_Christofferson.htm)

True fallibility, as you have defined it, would include admitting the possibility that JS or other leaders could have been wrong in the big things, like their revelations. The fallibility that E Chistofferson is discussing would never allow the idea of credibility to enter the discussion, because he essentially states that the validity of JS’s words/revelations are not dependent on JS’s character. Under JS’s definition of fallibility (and by extension, E. Christofferson’s definition), JS could have been a pathological liar and yet his revelations would remain credible. That is a very convenient view of fallibility to have.

As a side note, the church clearly understands that credibility may be an issue, hence, the “a prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet and a man when he is speaking like a man” doctrine. This doctrine allows the church to completely side-step the issue of credibility. And it is doctrines like these that shut down the critical thinking centers in the brains of those that accept them under the guise of faith. I can’t help but find the reasoning of the church in these matters to be deplorable. I highly doubt the church would give any other church the same concessions that it reserves for itself.

[Anonymous]

turinturambar wrote:

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:

I think your post is one of the best I’ve read in any forum. Your message is clear and your tone makes me want to be a better person. Well done!

[Anonymous]

wl44 wrote:

True fallibility, as you have defined it, would include admitting the possibility that JS or other leaders could have been wrong in the big things, like their revelations. The fallibility that E Chistofferson is discussing would never allow the idea of credibility to enter the discussion, because he essentially states that the validity of JS’s words/revelations are not dependent on who he was as a person. Under JS’s definition of fallibility (and by extension, E. Christofferson’s definition), JS could have been a pathological liar and yet his revelations would remain credible. That is a very convenient view of fallibility to have.

Very well said. To a lessor extent I find it funny how we treat perfection in the church. The joke goes that Mormons say the prophet is fallable but nobody really believes it. It has been my experience that we tend to say that we are imperfect and then act as though we were perfect. I think this applies to multiple areas – from our reluctance to talk about or confess personal shortcommings to our aversion to innovation in church programs (I would personally love to innovate in the primary – we are encouraged to magnify callings but only within certian prescribed bounds).

DW and I were in an LDS parenting class with 4 other couples and it was great how we could be real with each other about our challenges, failures, and personal struggles. The next series was a marriage class with 12 couples and I got an elbow in the ribs for agreeing too enthusiatically that we all have imperfect marriages. When I later asked, “What gives?” DW explained that I can agree with the class but only to the degree that others do – by nodding their heads. It’s ok to not be perfect but only in the general form and degree that everyone is imperfect. We can’t let on that our imperfection might be different and/or greater than anyone else’s.

[Anonymous]

I remind myself in moments like this of Hugh Nibley’s quote:

Quote:

“There’s no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We’re to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit.

Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they’d better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things.”

Hugh Nibley

http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=books&bookid=103&id=1154

It doesn’t matter to me if Joseph was 50% wrong on everything he said any more. Given I probably have an even higher miss rate I can’t really be too critical.

The point is that I do follow many of the Mormon standards but not simply because “the prophet said so.” At least not any more.

I select and apply teachings that I believe to aid me in my progress on my path to godliness. Lots of them are via the standard works and Joseph’s perspectives. But I do so because they work for me. Not because I am bound to follow the words of another imperfect human.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the LDS prophet actually never can lead me astray. Only I can do that. I often say to the kids (after they blame bad behaviour on a sibling) “if he’d told you to jump off a cliff would you have done it?”

I know there are some Mormons who say they would metaphorically jump off a cliff for the prophet. That’s still not the prophet’s fault. It’s the person’s choice to follow.

I have absolutely no idea, in absolute terms, where the words of revelation ends and the words of a fallible humans start. I don’t know what is true. But I do know what works (for me). I keep applying the things that work. Many happen to be things taught by Mormon prophets. But it’s still my choice and responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Mormon Stories Episode #441: Pope Francis, the September Six – 20 Years On, and Elder Christofferson’s Joseph Smith. John Dehlin discusses with three (“left, right and center”) panelists. The segment about the talk begins at about :56. Very mild-mannered overall.

http://mormonstories.org/

[Anonymous]

wl44, you might be interested in the following post I wrote almost exactly six years ago:

“The Wonder of Warts” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007/10/wonder-of-warts.html)

One more:

“To Envy Less: The Vulnerability of Removing Our Masks” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/06/to-envy-less-vulnerability-of-removing.html)

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

wl44, you might be interested in the following post I wrote almost exactly six years ago:

“The Wonder of Warts” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007/10/wonder-of-warts.html)

One more:

“To Envy Less: The Vulnerability of Removing Our Masks” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/06/to-envy-less-vulnerability-of-removing.html)

Thanks for the links, Ray. I may not agree with your approach or perspective, but I can’t deny that you are a Christlike guy with a big heart and a desire to promote peace.

[Anonymous]

Credibility is part of the issue, but that’s actually the part I have little trouble with. It’s apparent some people have a difficult time getting past the gross imperfections of JS, and I think I understand that – it’s quite a bit to digest and there are tons of questions. I have questions, too, and I do not like all the things he is apparently guilty of and I do believe the church has purposely glossed over the warts and attempted to make JS appear much more saintly than he actually was. The release of these papers doesn’t change most of that because most people aren’t going to take the effort to wade through the stuff and/or study the volumes of material. It’s much easier to wait for someone else to do it for you and read what is in the Ensign.

Back to credibility, then. Despite his faults, I believe Joseph Smith did indeed have a heavenly visitation as he described and I believe his intentions, especially early on, were mostly pure. I do believe he did receive at least some revelation relative to reestablishing true Christianity on the earth at a time when Christians had drifted away from that purity. I agree with Elder Christofferson in all the other points of his talk (which I watched BTW to get intonation). While the church has evolved into something that JS may not have envisioned and while he may not have even agreed with the way it was evolving in Navuoo, the basic elements of the gospel he taught were sound Christianity. We need not try to instill 21st Century values on his 19th Century world, nor do we even need to try to understand the values and culture of his time. We simply need to learn and believe for ourselves that at least some of what he did was inspired of God and that makes him credible.

[Anonymous]

mackay11 wrote:

I have absolutely no idea, in absolute terms, where the words of revelation ends and the words of a fallible humans start. I don’t know what is true. But I do know what works (for me). I keep applying the things that work.

I want to be like mackay11 :thumbup: …this is exactly what I’m trying to do too. Which just means there will be many things I will never really know in this life, but have to make something work, so I start where I can and move forward.

DarkJedi wrote:

We simply need to learn and believe for ourselves that at least some of what he did was inspired of God and that makes him credible.

I think so too. Faith includes trusting enough to overlook the “unknown” parts.

For me, Joseph lost a lot of credibility when I read about polygamy and the way it was handled. It is so puzzling to me. So I revisited the history with a different view, a skeptical view, and even being skeptical, I still found credibility for other parts. So I had to refashion my faith with a new perspective and still believe Joseph had intentions of following what he thought God wanted done.

The church also lost credibility with me when it seemed to be obvious there were things hidden, even to the most devoted, life long members. It just didn’t lose enough credibility for me to walk away from it.

Elder Christofferson’s talk gains some credibility back that they are willing to try to address some obvious things that are out there now. Not enough credibility to overcome all the years I was not taught this stuff openly by the church I was dedicated to.

So that loss of credibility still sits with me. I cannot trust them 100% any longer. I assume there are other things hidden from us still, and mistakes they will make. They are only willing to go so far with opening up the archives. They get points for trying, but probably not enough points for me to fully trust them again.

But somehow…I feel that was what God wanted me to learn. Don’t trust anyone else too much (including the prophet or church leaders).

Would God honestly tell my spirit that??? Yes. I need to have my own beliefs, my own faith…despite less than 100% credibility from other sources. I needed to wisen up. And some days I miss the old days when I could just trust everything the church said and did. But no more.

I can totally understand that for some people, too much credibility was lost for them. I can understand that more now than ever. But it is why I think this forum is for each of us to share our opinions and experiences, because there is no hard and fast line for everyone of when too much credibility loss is too much for every individual. So I respect everyone who honestly searches, and honestly comes to their own conclusion on what they can or cannot trust any more. There is no one right answer. Elder Christofferson’s words are enough for some people, not enough for others.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

For me, Joseph lost a lot of credibility when I read about polygamy and the way it was handled. It is so puzzling to me. So I revisited the history with a different view, a skeptical view, and even being skeptical, I still found credibility for other parts. So I had to refashion my faith with a new perspective and still believe Joseph had intentions of following what he thought God wanted done.

That is the most charitable way I can characterize it. But why doesn’t the church give a wide berth to its membership on this subject in particular? It feels like they are preparing to dig and go the distance (Jeffrey Holland’s PBS interview: We will never disavow it) in justifying Joseph and polygamy.

[Anonymous]

I agree Ann that it does seem the church is entrenching the polygamy stance. I believe it was Hawkgirl that wrote in another forum the question of why was JS even asking about polygamy in the first place? It seems that out of all the old biblical practices that he could have inquired about he choose to focus on polygamy. I’m not sure but it certaintly seems odd that he asked in the first place if he wasn’t already “looking”. And no I’m not trying to be rude about the prophet and can still support many of his revelations. I do believe it is appropriate to question his motives about something so serious as a persons sexual autonomy though in as respectful of a manner as possible.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

But why doesn’t the church give a wide berth to its membership on this subject in particular? It feels like they are preparing to dig and go the distance (Jeffrey Holland’s PBS interview: We will never disavow it) in justifying Joseph and polygamy.

Why, indeed, Ann. That’s the million dollar question.

I can speculate:

1) According to the interview with Hans Mattson, many of the senior leaders don’t know things. It just doesn’t impact them and they don’t spend time researching them. So, they just keep saying what they’ve been saying…no need to change the message because the message is good for them.

2) Its a calculated position. As Ray has said…if the majority of believers are OK with the current position, then it might do more damage than good to disavow it. If a majority of people had issues with it, or there was data to support it was a major hindrance to missionary work, I bet it would rise to the top of matters that should be changed.

3) They don’t know. If they really don’t KNOW that it was wrong and if it must be disavowed, then there is lack of evidence to support a change. Heck, look what it took to put the polygamy manifesto in place to begin with…jail. Even then, it wasn’t easy to get a change made that reverses prior church leaders practice and teachings. Same with blacks and the priesthood. It seemed pretty obvious a changed was needed, but it sure took a while for it to become an issue the prophet was grappling with, and even then, still took long for the quorum to feel revelation required change. If they don’t KNOW for sure … they are conservative and keep to the same message they’ve told in the past. Remember, mavericks in thoughts and progressive changes aren’t rewarded in the leadership of this church.

Those are my guesses.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

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.

The glass is always full. Half full of water, half full of air.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

[Author]

Posts