- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DarkJedi wrote:
But the fireside was intended or a much younger audience and probably an audience that is wary of the apologetic stance, at least many of them to some extent.Ithink that’s what some of the leadership don’t understand – I think this generation really does want a “we report, you decide” kind of thing. Tell the story, don’t make excuses or talk about what could have been or why it could have been.I do think the top leadership recognizes and is concerned about the bleeding of this age group but I don’t think they know what to do about, and frankly neither do I. As a parent of four of them, some active and some not but all with questions, I’d say they want honesty and they don’t want to be told what to think or what to do.
Just curious, do the footnotes in the polygamy chapter include “In Sacred Loneliness?” If they have the guts to include something like that, it will go a long way with kids like mine. But, otherwise, they don’t want one or two cherry-picked examples and nothing meatier in the notes. The book is written for a 9th grade reading level. (I think I read that somewhere.) Meatier info in the notes would also show that they realize some readers can digest much more.
I have been listening to the Saints podcast today talking about this. It is good that they are being MORE open. They seem to be implying that they are FULLY open now. They are talking about “new” history ? what??? Revised maybe, Corrected maybe. To me “new” history sounds like they are making it up. But what still irks me even why I am trying hard to be objective is, (a) I am convinced that many top church leaders did in fact know of some of the “unsavory” history and hid it and (b) in my lifetime the church has excommunicated people for writing books that in essence says nearly the same thing as this new book. So once again I go back to my main issue with the church is the honesty and integrity of the leadership.
I just come back again to the fact that I seen this book as not much more than the essays round 2. This round they made it easier and more enjoyable to read and they are doing the opposite of burying them like the essays. They are not geared to help someone “struggling” with church history issues. They are ceding ground already lost by polishing it as good as it can sound without digging in deep. To me this is in effort to make someone that has read these book feel like, “I know all the problem areas and I have no issues”.
LookingHard wrote:
But what still irks me even why I am trying hard to be objective is, (a) I am convinced that many top church leaders did in fact know of some of the “unsavory” history and hid it and (b) in my lifetime the church has excommunicated people for writing books that in essence says nearly the same thing as this new book. So once again I go back to my main issue with the church is the honesty and integrity of the leadership.
In their defense, I think all of the controversial stuff the Church leadership dismissed as “irrelevant”, and never dug into. To quote from the BOM:
Moroni 7: 16-17 wrote:Wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil;
The above scripture, in all honesty, is my least favorite in all of scripture, because of its implications. But I honestly believe most GAs approach Church History in that light. Anything that helps strengthen faith in Christ (meaning “The Church) should be emphasized. Anything that detracts from that faith, is irrelevant at best and “of the devil” at worst. On top of that, most GAs don’t dig into the Church archives themselves. The Church employs historians (my cousin is one), who do the most of the “research” for them. If the GAs like what they turn up, they’ll use it. Otherwise, they’ll toss it. I can guarantee that’s how they wrote “The Standard”. But their main concern is conversion; it’s NOT delving into Church history.
Marlin Jensen did incredible work as the Church Historian to make all of the recent stuff possible. There is a lot to do, and cramming too much down the throats of faithful people who can’t digest it would be cruel. This broadcast was FAR from perfect, as is “Saints”, but sometimes perfect is the enemy of good – and this is good. I truly believe this movement will continue – too slowly for many here, but also too quickly for many not here.
Often, proper balance is a *^%~^.
Old Timer wrote:
Marlin Jensen did incredible work as the Church Historian to make all of the recent stuff possible. There is a lot to do, and cramming too much down the throats of faithful people who can’t digest it would be cruel.This broadcast was FAR from perfect, as is “Saints”, but sometimes perfect is the enemy of good – and this is good. I truly believe this movement will continue – too slowly for many here, but also too quickly for many not here.
Often, proper balance is a *^%~^.
Agreed. In this week’s email from my missionary son he stated that he was surprised at how many missionaries (he’s in a mission with mostly Americans) didn’t know anything about the seer stone or how the BoM translation really worked. He said they’ve never been taught it, even though they were active and most are seminary graduates. And some of them still don’t believe it, even when shown the evidence. Saints has been a hit in his mission, BTW.
I want to revisit a lasting concern I’ve had. Good for the church for taking steps to get better. Good for the youth that will be inoculated.
What of the people caught in the middle? What are we going to do for them? The people that we routinely label as having been led by Satan but their only shortcoming was being ahead of the curve.
Kids 10 to 20 years from now will only have the corrected narratives but I think as a culture we’ll continue to look down on the people that arrive at non-correlated conclusions. I worry about the people in the middle, we’re too adept at pushing them further away.
Maybe that’s just the price of admission with high demand, highly authoritative, highly certain organizations. Some subgroup has to end up on the chopping blocks during periods of change.
Quote:
What of the people caught in the middle? What are we going to do for them?I think this is why I keep attending. It’s a stupid reason, but I will be damned if you get to exile me. I try to speak up gently. But I can’t yet drop the rope and be okay.
Quote:Good for the youth that will be inoculated.
As for inoculated youth and people, I am not sure it’s a guarantee. For those of us -middle wayers- who have kids that know more, they aren’t going to buy in as easily. Sunday morning, before the Face to Face Fireside even happened, my MBM millenial daughter texted about “Saints” I told her I knew little about it, but that it appeared to have an apologist slant on it. She said she wouldn’t be reading it because she knew she would spend hours hunting the source material and eventually unable to be a “More Believer”.
mom3 wrote:
Sunday morning, before the Face to Face Fireside even happened, my MBM millenial daughter texted about “Saints” I told her I knew little about it, but that it appeared to have an apologist slant on it. She said she wouldn’t be reading it because she knew she would spend hours hunting the source material and eventually unable to be a “More Believer”.
Smart kid! I’m glad the youth have become the “Need Citation Generation”.
:thumbup: I have hope everything will be ok.I have six kids, 16-30. Three of them are classic, heterodox believers on their own terms; one is completely inactive but totally chill and not opposed in any way; one is traditionally believing with elements of personal disagreement; one has unique beliefs and a schedule that creates a Sunday attender only. I wouldn’t be surprised by any path the last one takes, except traditionally orthodox. This isn’t my father’s world, so this can’t be my father’s church. As a social scientist by nature, it is fascinating to watch it all unfold.
Old Timer wrote:
I have six kids, 16-30. Three of them are classic, heterodox believers on their own terms; one is completely inactive but totally chill and not opposed in any way; one is traditionally believing with elements of personal disagreement; one has unique beliefs and a schedule that creates a Sunday attender only. I wouldn’t be surprised by any path the last one takes, except traditionally orthodox.
I am the oldest of 9. 8 out of the 9 of us buck automatically believing what others tell us/expect us to believe pretty regularly (1 sister is mentally handicapped and functions developmentally approx. 10 years old). Four out of the 8 siblings (taking that sister out of the equation) I believe attend a church regularly (including myself). I think that 7 out of the 9 kids believe in God (omitting myself and 1 brother), but there are 2 more siblings that I don’t think God plays a role in their lives. NOTE: While we question authority, we are mostly a bunch of law-abiding citizens (except for speed limits and parking the car in the wrong place sometimes).
Old Timer wrote:
This isn’t my father’s world, so this can’t be my father’s church. As a social scientist by nature, it is fascinating to watch it all unfold.
It is interesting when I listen to older sisters in R.S. at church, or when I talk to my mom. The church teachings and church culture are changing as we all learn what the best practices are in our time.
Old Timer wrote:
This isn’t my father’s world, so this can’t be my father’s church. As a social scientist by nature, it is fascinating to watch it all unfold.
Unfold.
Kinda reminds me of:
The Spirit of Revelation, David A. Bednar wrote:The first experience occurred as we entered a dark room and turned on a light switch. Remember how in an instant a bright flood of illumination filled the room and caused the darkness to disappear. What previously had been unseen and uncertain became clear and recognizable. This experience was characterized by immediate and intense recognition of light.
The second experience took place as we watched night turn into morning. Do you recall the slow and almost imperceptible increase in light on the horizon? In contrast to turning on a light in a dark room, the light from the rising sun did not immediately burst forth. Rather, gradually and steadily the intensity of the light increased, and the darkness of night was replaced by the radiance of morning. Eventually, the sun did dawn over the skyline. But the visual evidence of the sun’s impending arrival was apparent hours before the sun actually appeared over the horizon. This experience was characterized by subtle and gradual discernment of light.
For some the transition away from Old Timer’s father’s church (
Not to put one group ahead of or better than another, but there’s bound to be an interesting dynamic between the people that have had sudden illumination and the people that have a more gradual illumination, so gradual it could span generations. The sudden illumination people probably feel the gradual illumination people are moving much too slow while the gradual illumination people probably feel the sudden illumination people are moving much too fast or are misguided.
Quote:the sudden illumination people are moving much too fast or are misguided.
The painful part, as you point out earlier, the sudden illumination people are of little concern to anyone. Sure they may be blind right now, but it was their fault. At least as the over arching narrative stands.
Sadly the small invitations to be kind to the suddenly illuminated have been hijacked. Thus adding to the pain of the suddenly illuminated. And it hurts really bad.
nibbler wrote:I’ve noticed that sometimes when people openly express their aversions to polygamy it puts descendants of polygamous relationships on the defensive, as if people are expressing aversion towards their family and heritage and not the practice itself. Is it possible to untangle the practice from the people?
IMO, yes it is possible. FWIW, my grandfather (not great or great-great… my two generations back grandfather) was a child from a polygamous marriage (second wife).From our standpoint, the way to promote untangling is to see polygamy as not the fault of those who practiced it. It was invented by JS. Everyone else was just doing what they thought was expected of them by God. So, if we acknowledge that THEY were following the teaching of the Church, usually at great personal sacrifice, then we can separate out their devotion from the nature of the commandment itself.
I do understand why people would have a tendency to become defensive. They’ve heard all their lives about their progenitors who passed this test of faith, so it might seem like an attack on their family’s identity if that sensitivity is not understood and acknowledged. I find myself being defensive when I hear people who suffer a FC referred to as ‘apostate’ or described as having fallen into sin or having been deceived by the devil. Defensiveness for one’s own kind is natural and reasonable.
nibbler wrote:Acknowledged four accounts.
Weren’t there a lot more, I don’t know.
Yes, but there are only four first-hand accounts, where JS either wrote it out himself or had scribes write it at his direction. There are second-hand accounts where people recorded what they remembered JS telling them. Any historian would give less weight to a second-hand account, compared to a first-hand account. It doesn’t mean that it’s not accurate, only that it can’t be viewed as definitive.An example of a second-hand account was written by Orson Pratt in which OP says that the light was so intense that JS expected the trees to have caught fire. I noticed that this tidbit made its way into
Saints. Another example was the journal of a man named Neibaur. In his entry, just a month before JS was killed, Neibaur refers to ‘fire’ rather than light, which works well in view of the OP account. As an aside, OP also described it in a spiritual, visionary way:
Quote:When [the light] first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system; and, immediately, his mind was caught away, from the natural objects with which he was surrounded; and he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision…
I applaud the increased transparency and honesty. I had three predictions for the event, all of which came true.
1. The church is pushing “Saints.”
2. There still isn’t the barest hint of reconciling with anyone who discovered what’s now in “Saints” and lost belief, trust, friends and family over it.
You can’t repent of dishonesty – by omission, whitewashing, paltering, lying, what have you – just by telling the truth more. But maybe it feels close enough to tell the truth more and wait until the people you’ve hurt are safely dead. And maybe there’s less shame in doing that.
3. It’s always, always, always your fault if you doubt. Even with the so-called “new history” and all its glorious human messiness, there’s still no room for doubt.
#2 will continue to ensure that people who have lost trust in the church never recover it.
#3 will come off as fanatical and strange to a lot of youth. If they leave, because of #2, most will be gone for good.
I predict a lot of pain. I don’t know if there will be less pain than if the church had stuck with the old dominant narrative.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.