You should have known better!

[Anonymous]

To be fair, Dan Peterson’s article doesn’t seem to be directed to every questioning member or those trying to stayLDS.

He specifically refers to “newly-minted apostates” who “loudly abandon their faith, claiming that the Church kept such things from them.”

[Anonymous]

Shawn wrote:

To be fair, Dan Peterson’s article doesn’t seem to be directed to every questioning member or those trying to stayLDS.

He specifically refers to “newly-minted apostates” who “loudly abandon their faith, claiming that the Church kept such things from them.”

True, Shawn, but many more orthodox members do consider us apostate just because we believe differently or don’t believe everything, and many of us feel the church did (and does) hide things from the general membership as well as the general public.

[Anonymous]

OK so now we know about it. The leaders know about it. We all know Joseph was behaving strange at best or deviant at worst. Where do we go from here? Do we make excuses for his behavior? Do we claim it was a different era, thus standards of conduct were different? The true test of the church and members is if they are going to swallow this bitter pill in the future,and continue to put Joseph on his pedestal.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

OK so now we know about it. The leaders know about it. We all know Joseph was behaving strange at best or deviant at worst. Where do we go from here? Do we make excuses for his behavior? Do we claim it was a different era, thus standards of conduct were different? The true test of the church and members is if they are going to swallow this bitter pill in the future,and continue to put Joseph on his pedestal.

I think the true test also includes recognizing the amazing positive contributions he did make, and by accepting a paradox…see him on an appropriate pedestal, and speak of him for the good and evil…for which he (along with all mortals) have within us simultaneously.

Honestly, if there was no good he did…I would not hang on to my belief in him as a prophet. But I can’t dismiss the good things, just because there were bad things. Instead, like the podium in fast and testimony meeting, I just try to lower the pedestal appropriately so it fits reality.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Cadence wrote:

OK so now we know about it. The leaders know about it. We all know Joseph was behaving strange at best or deviant at worst. Where do we go from here? Do we make excuses for his behavior? Do we claim it was a different era, thus standards of conduct were different? The true test of the church and members is if they are going to swallow this bitter pill in the future,and continue to put Joseph on his pedestal.

I think the true test also includes recognizing the amazing positive contributions he did make, and by accepting a paradox…see him on an appropriate pedestal, and speak of him for the good and evil…for which he (along with all mortals) have within us simultaneously.

Honestly, if there was no good he did…I would not hang on to my belief in him as a prophet. But I can’t dismiss the good things, just because there were bad things. Instead, like the podium in fast and testimony meeting, I just try to lower the pedestal appropriately so it fits reality.

That is the dilemma for sure. We have this church that is so integral to so many. Yet it really is built on a sandy foundation. How to we shore it up? How can we take the good and learn to acknowledge the bad without it overwhelming us.

I think their are many members who can do this. I think I could do it if their was more direction from the top to do so. But it seems the church is willing to throw God under the bus to protect the character of Joseph. How do we change this?

[Anonymous]

I believe the greatest instrument for change is the Internet. We have seen more changes come through the pipes due to the apparent influence of the internet/bloggernacle than any other source. GA’s can come here and see the themes in our posts – problems with church culture, problematic history, leadership abuse, and whitewashed history.

They can also see the things that keep us in the church.

Blunt, speaking up at the local level only leads to censure, loss of opportunity, and further obstacles (like hoop jumping required to restore one’s formal or informal status in the church).

The best thing is to keep on posting here, and on other bloggernacle sites as individuals.

The next best thing is to rock the boat without sinking the ship locally. That means planting seeds in the membership about our sometimes destructive culture, breeding self-awareness in leaders and members at large, and speaking on topics that are not considered apostate, but which link to the gospel. Use talks from more liberally minded GA’s, and maintain your credibility in the ward. Without that credibility you have no influence.

Avoid being part of anything that looks like a movement — these are still dealt with harshly in my view. We have cWald’s example from a while ago when there was rumor of a middle-way movement. Same with Kate Kelly — the way she was excommunicated with ordain women shows that starting a movement nullifies one’s influence and prevents a person from achieving the goal of staying LDS.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

How can we take the good and learn to acknowledge the bad without it overwhelming us.

I might even take that a step further and say how can we take the good and learn to acknowledge the bad without trying to convince ourselves that the bad is somehow good. Any talk of us versus them is bad in my opinion. I felt like there was a lot of that during this most recent general conference. The best way to defend yourself from your “adversaries” is to love them not to delineate difference.

[Anonymous]

I mostly agree, Nibbler. It has to be all us without an them. It’s really not an us vs. them situation – we’re all in this together and we all see through glass darkly.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I mostly agree, Nibbler. It has to be all us without an them. It’s really not an us vs. them situation – we’re all in this together and we all see through glass darkly.

In my primary class manual the parable of the good samaritan was presented from the viewpoint of the samaritan and choosing to make the good campasionate choice amid personal sacrifice. I really felt that the heart of the parable had been left out – that the hero of the story was considered to be “one of them” and much maligned. I believe Jesus was teaching against categorizing people as good and bad and putting them into little boxes. I retold the story with superheros and the “villan” played the part of the samaritan.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

I think I could do it if their was more direction from the top to do so. But it seems the church is willing to throw God under the bus to protect the character of Joseph. How do we change this?

IDK, Cadence. I’m trying to figure out what change I wanna make. For now, I’m making changes so I can still attend, which is internal change, and just let my example be what it is to others in the church. I wonder if eventually I’ll see ways to make external changes. But here are some thoughts:

1) Leadership has approved the essays with facts few mormons know about…use them. Bring them into sunday school discussions or lessons, and make people aware the church leaders approved these things.

2) Build social credits through loving actions and service, so the exaggerated points of Joseph’s legends become folderol to the true gospel principles.

3) Find ways to support the leaders when they do good, and criticize them when they don’t…so they are rewarded appropriately, not unconditionally.

I wish there was a way to feel like leaders could care about me and my little actions…I’m not sure they will. But my local leaders may…IDK. I think John Dehlin has caught their attention and learned things from him. But…the ship still turns s-l-o-w-l-y.

I best focus on shoring up the foundation in my home as a starting place.

[Author]

Posts