Recently a few folks (Bookslinger, John Fowles, etc.) asked me where I personally stand regarding the Church. While part of me is a bit hesitant to reveal a bunch of personal stuff that would make people less interested in my podcasts (accusing me of bias), I guess that’s already starting to happen. I imagine that this is what it’s like to be an anchor for network news or a radio interviewer (e.g. Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Terry Gross, etc.). We can strive for objectivity, but it’s usually futile to do so.
So…the answer is long and boring and very nuanced….but since a few have asked, I’ll try to simplify. Here goes!!!
On one level, I can accept virtually everything that the average modern apologist or Sunstone Mormon would consider to be “the gospel” as a matter of faith (and just to clarify, I define faith as believing or hoping for something, without a knowledge or assurance). I mention apologist/Sunstone Mormon because I’ve read a bit about what Joseph Fielding Smith (Doctrines of Salvation), Bruce R. McConkie (Mormon Doctrine), and Brigham Young (JOD) considered to be “doctrine” or “gospel”, and I’m not sure I could make the same claim with them.
Anyway…..I feel comfortable answering every temple recommend question in the expected way, in good faith. I accept the gospel as I understand it (for the most part), and definitely have a strong testimony that the LDS scriptures and Church are divinely inspired. Also, there’s nothing I’ve ever come across that precludes for me the possibility that the Church is exactly what it claims to be, and I am even hopeful that it is all true (the good stuff, anyway). I have also had many spiritual experiences both within the church and while reading the LDS scriptures that are faith-affirming to me, that I cannot deny.
On another level–a more analytical and visceral level–there are several fundamental teachings in LDS doctrine/practice that I am very confused/uncertain about, and all of these things would be considered “shelf” items for me in terms of my being intellectually and viscerally comfortable with them. These items include:
- Historicity of the Book of Mormon
- Book of Abraham as a translation of the papyrus
- The divine origins of polygamy
- The divine origins of the black priesthood ban
- Proxy work for the dead
- Mormonism (and even Christianity) being the *only* literal path to salvation
- The level at which blind obedience seems to be encouraged in the church
- The disproportionately large place Joseph Smith has in our discourse, and the disproportionately small place Christ has
- The candor/honesty of the Church when dealing with tough historical issues
- An anthropomorphic God
- The notion of Jesus having to suffer for every sin, and every pain of every person that has ever lived, not only on this earth, but on other earths as well—and that all of us owe a huge debt to both Jesus and God, even though we were made, by design, to be imperfect from the start.
Now…to be clear—I have no certainty that the above teachings are false. I’m just being honest that I struggle with them (at this phase of my life, anyway).
So…on one level, I have a strong faith in the gospel/church–as a matter of faith/acceptance. On an intellectual/visceral level, there are several things that don’t make sense to me.
So….why the podcasts? What are my motivations?
- I have NO interest in encouraging people to leave the Church. None. This is absolutely 0% of my motive/ambition. So I hope this clears up the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” question.
- My motivations can be summed up in 3 goals: 1) More open forums, 2) More knowledge, and 3) Less pain in the church. I’m sure that all 3 of these motives have practical consequences regarding people staying in or leaving the Church, but I believe that this battle was already fought and decided in the pre-existence….and that we need not fight it again. Life has risks, and truth is hard…but we should embrace it, and not hide it, or shy away from it—regardless of the costs/risks.
- My primary target audience when I started the blog/podcast was the following: People who discover all sorts of historical and cultural issues in the Church that shock them, make them feel betrayed, and cause them to want to leave. My goal with them is to say, “Hey…there are people who know about all this stuff, and who have reconciled it and still stay in the church….so maybe you can too (if you want to stay).”
- As I’ve corresponded with many ex/anti Mormons over the past few months, my audience has widened a bit, to now include: People who are loved ones of those who have left or are estranged from the church….to say to them, “Hey….there are serious, important reasons why people leave, and you should seek to understand their issues before judging them, and most importantly, you should offer them love, not estrangement.
Finally, it’s true that the topics and people I choose to discuss/interview are non-traditional (and in John’s words, “controversial”). All I can say about that is…I’m not as interested in redoing the correlated content that we get 3 hours every Sunday.
I’m trying to discuss things that DON’T get covered well enough in Church, for whatever reason…so you’ll likely never hear or see me discuss the average LDS perspective on the average issue. I guess I’d ask…what would be the point of that?
Anyway, I hope this answers those of you who were wondering. I’m sure very few (if any) have made it this far…but if you did…let me know, and I’ll buy you an ice cream next time we’re together. :)
My question to you all would be….is there a place in Mormonism, and specifically in the LDS Church, for people like me–who feel these things, but want/need to be open about it?
John Dehlin
John,
Thanks for taking the time to organize your thoughts on where you currently stand with regards to LDS issues. After reading your post on LDSLF and your threads here on polygamy and peep stones, I was wondering where you stand … Your list of issues is fairly close to my own …
In my view, I can see that the ‘discussion’ of sorts that you are engaging us in through this blog and your podcasts is positive and much more thought-provoking than the average Gospel Doctrine class. I enjoy “Mormon Stories” and share it with “Mr. Hutchinson”. (He found the Powerpoint slide on “Why People Leave the Church” to be especially illuminating.)
I do look forward to the ice cream … make mine a scoop of blueberry cheesecake.
“Anne Hutchinson”
John: To what extent do you think that your pastoral goals are best served by self-consciously addressing them?
Here is what I mean: When I think of various rough spots that I have had with my testimony, etc., what has helped me through them has not really been that someone reached out and carried me through them. Rather, what I found helpful was engaging in substantive discussions aimed at understanding things, or reading things that gave me more information. The people who have helped me have by and large not been people who treated me as a spiritual project to be reached out to, but rather those who have been helped have been people whose example of robust faith, intellectual engagement, and intersting thinking have made various “challenges” seem more like intellectual adventures rather than spiritual crises. I am not saying this very well, but I suppose that one analogy might be missionary work: Often time the best missionary work is not a carefully honed message directed to the investigator but the example of a powerfully appealing Latter-day Saint life.
Here is a post from a while back at T&S that gets at some of what I am trying — badly — to say here:
“Ambivalence v. Delight”
“The divine origins of the black priesthood ban”
Well, you are in good company on this one–Pres. Kimball wondered about the same thing in a letter to his son.
“My question to you all would be….is there a place in Mormonism, and specifically in the LDS Church, for people like me–who feel things things, but want/need to be open about it?”
Yes.
P.S.–Mint chocolate chip.
Nate, the difficulty arises in that many people simply do experience the various discoveries under discussion here as spiritual crises. To tell them that it’s merely a voyage of discovery may not help. Instead, some people seem to need support from others who conclude that there are problems, but that there are also coping strategies for those problems.
For folks like you who have the sunny disposition or whatever necessary to see polyandry, for example, or the many lies historically associated with polygamy as an opportunity for intellectual discovery, I think some aspects of John Dehlin’s project may be irrelevant. However, there are lots of people who seem unable to view the difficult areas of Mormon history and doctrine in that upbeat light. For such people, it is often quite helpful to be given explicit examples of approaches to Mormon belief that accomodate areas of substantive concern.
P.S. John, I want mint chocolate chip, too.
RT: I am sure that you are right. I just hope that as we are talking in earnest tones about our coping strategies — learning to live with ambiguity, having a mature faith, treasuring free inquiry, being open about our history, etc. etc. — we don’t forget approaches like “Having fun with spirit fluid” or “The sunnier side of Adam-God and Blood Atonement.” ;->
Well, I’ve always had a blast thinking about the Quakers on the Moon, myself…
And I have always been able to see the sunnier side of Adam-God. But blood atonement? I think you kinda lost me there.
John D.,
Let me introduce myself quickly since this is the first time I’ve posted. My name is Angela and I am an investigator of the church as of about two years now. I have been a “Born-Again” Christian since I was eight. This journey was prompted by biblical/spriritual discussions with my Mormon friend who I was trying to show the error of his ways. Shockingly, his answers to my questions started making sense once I was finally willing to allow myself to be honest (many, many nights of wailing!). I have not been baptized yet, but am on the verge.
Based on what I got from your above message I don’t understand why you are in the Church… I don’t see what separates your beliefs with the Born-again’s. Everything you mentioned were your struggles are all the things that the Restoration exemplifies. Are you still in the Church because you it is where you are comfortable (and by that I don’t really mean comfortable in the traditional sense, I mean “familiar”)? Or are you still in the Church because, like you said, you are not saying you have reason to believe your concerns are false and you are trying to find out? In any case, you do have an interesting path ahead of you and ironically, perhaps your podcasts/blogs really aren’t for anyone else, rather really for you. I’m not making that bad, or wrong in any way. In fact, I think many of our altruistic endeavors in life are, unbeknownst to us, really for us.
Thanks and I look forward to your answer.
John Dehlin,
I am sure you have made everyone clear about your come-from with this thread. Thanks for sharing.
Since this is a Blog, and not a discussion forum, we cannot start a Blog, but only respond to ones you start.
I for one am asking you to start a blog or 3, about a few of your top 10 topics, and ask for input, explanations, beliefs, etc. This creates an open blog to get some of the issues on the table, so people can discuss them.
I’m more than willing to get the ball rolling if you’ll start the blog(s). My suggestion is to only use 1 topic per blog.
Mark
SpeakTheTruth
John,
I’m not in any of the categories you listed above as the audience you’re trying to reach. I’m not Mormon, never have been, and as such I think I may have a different perspective to offer.
First, let me tell you something of my background. I was born to a Mormon father and a Protestant mother; my mother refused to convert and wouldn’t permit any of us kids to be raised in the Church or even go to church with our father. Consequently, we all grew up pretty unchurched, although we did attend Lutheran Sunday school for a time.
As luck would have it, various vacations, business trips, and other travel have taken me all over the place. I’m a bit of an obsessive tourist; if there’s anything historic or interesting within 50 miles of someplace I happen to be, wild horses can’t keep me from it. So, over the years, I’ve seen quite a bit of the LDS world, not just in Utah but also Palmyra and the hill Cumorah and two pre-dedication temple tours.
Along the way, something happened.
I don’t know what it is, and I can’t tell you exactly when it happened, but somewhere sometime I started to feel that there was, well, something there. I’m not prepared to say the Church is 100% true, but I’m also not going to say it’s 100% false. I don’t know whether or not Joseph Smith was directed by God in everything he did, but after reading the Book of Mormon I can’t see how he could have written it himself–and if it was dictated by staring at a stone in a hat, that doesn’t lessen my awe at its complexity and power. Frankly, from a non-LDS perspective, it’s no more or less ridiculous than the Urim and Thummim–which, after all, are supposed to be stones in a breastplate, if I recall correctly.
So, what next? I don’t think I’m ready for a couple of earnest 19-year-olds in white shirts to show up at my door for the pre-programmed discussions, but I do want to learn more. And this is where your podcast and the rest of the LDS blogs come in. It’s a relatively safe place to explore and learn, and I can deal with whatever blemishes are revealed in the process. Far more important is the mere fact of the existence of this community that some call the Bloggernacle. As far as I can tell, while some may question the faith or sincerity of those posting, no one’s been excommunicated for their blog posts. That may not sound like much of an endorsement of the Church’s tolerance for diversity of opinion, but there are groups out there that would do exactly that.
To sum it up, what I’m trying to say is thank you. I am one person–investigator, seeker, call me what you will–who finds what you do to be a powerful testimony in favor of the Church. Without places like this, I’m not sure I’d still be investigating. I hope that anyone who’s questioning your motives in putting together the podcasts will stop and think about that for a minute.
As for the ice cream, I’ll save the mint chocolate chip for later. Since I’m not bound by the Word of Wisdom, make mine coffee. :-)
L.A.
L. Anderson,
Thanks for sharing your story.
I thought I’d jump in here and see if we can give John Dehlin a little help in the “Starting a blog with which question”.
Do you have any specific questions/concerns that you’d like explained or understand better?
Maybe John will use that to start a new blog.
Mark
SpeakTheTruth
I’m curious as to the one thing you list: the disproportionate large place Joseph has in our discourse vs. Jesus. Maybe I’m just living in the wrong places, but I just don’t see this. Admittedly this year, while we study the D&C he gets mentioned more. But in my home in Nova Scotia, the meetings I’ve attended in Alberta, and certainly all the wards on my mission in Louisiana or here in Utah County I’ve never seen that.
I know others have mentioned this though. I wonder if there is a way to track down this issue.
On the other hand, if we are discussing issues that distinguish us from other Christians, then Joseph will of course come up as a matter of necessity, if only in terms of explaining why we believe what we do.
All,
I appreciate John’s willingness to answer those that are calling you out.
It seems to me that everyone has their own ideas about what makes one a good/acceptable member of the church…and those ideas tend to preclude all the others based on the assumption that anything less/other than ones own ideas would not provide sufficient reason or motivation for staying aboard.
I mean, how can you even consider staying if the church isn’t everything it says it is? …and yet, vast numbers of people remain faithful members their whole lives without even knowing what the church actually teaches. Clearly people benefit greatly by remaining active and committed whether they know too much or too little.
So what I’m thinking is that maybe we could help each other out by accepting each others reasons for staying without demanding an explanation or justification?
Personally, I am greatly edified by the stories that we share with each other and those that John has chosen so far to highlight. These stories have given me hope that we can take what our ancestors have given us and make it better, without judging them because we don’t expect them to have been any more perfect than we are…in fact; the stories of their imperfections and ours are what gives me the greatest hope for the future.
Please, John, keep up the good work.
Watt-
Speakthetruth, anybody can start a blog. Just go to http://www.blogspot.com and sign up. It’s free. Submit your link at Mormon Archipelago so others in the bloggernacle know about it, put the link in the “website” box every place you comment, and if anybody is interested in participating, they’ll come.
I think the “one blog per question” concept will never, ever fly. Just my .02.
John already has a project. If this is something you want done, do it yourself.
Ann,
It would be better to keep the blogs on John’s site, rather than have links sending people to other sites. Many people do-not/will not know they can click on your name to go to another site (I didn’t know that until 5 minutes ago when a friend just taught me).
It defeats the purpose for all the people that don’t know they need to click on a name to go yet another site/blog, rather than keeping it here on John’s site.
Mark
SpeakTheTruth
Mark,
Maybe what you mean to suggest is making separate entries in this blog…as opposed to separate blogs?
Nevertheless, I think the main point is that before you try to guide someone else’s blog, you should make your own. Unlike discussion groups, blogs are directed by the owner.
It’s good to see that you’re learning about blogs. Keep learning, create your own blog, comment on and link to other people’s blogs…you’ll find that purpose cannot be defeated. :-)
Clark,
Others will likely disagree, but in my mind, if Jesus did the things that we say He did in the garden, then even the most important prophet of all time, on his 1000th anniversary, shouldn’t get more than 10% of the mentions relative to Christ Himself. In my experience, it’s at least 50/50 (not counting the close to every prayer and testimony).
And certainly not get the cover on the church magazine the month of Christ’s birth–the month of CHRISTMAS, no less.
I think we worship Joseph in this church….even though we don’t really know much about his life (like who he was married to, what led to his martydom, etc.).
It’s just so ironic.
To me, this smells too much like idolatry. Even the greatest man is just a man, and pales in comparison with the Son of God. That’s how I see it.
And I should make it clear that I love Joseph Smith–I really do. I think he was amazing, and inspirational, and visionary, and courageous, and inspired. All I’ve ever learned about him make me love him more and more. Even Brodie made me love him more.
I just don’t think any man belongs on stage w/ the Son of God. Just my personal view.
John
Interesting. I guess I’d just disagree. What people perceive is what they perceive. I think that I tend to react the other way, because I’ve been turned off by the “say Jesus as much as possible” style of things in the South. To me it turns into vain repetitions. I like having different covers on the Ensign. I really liked the First Presidency message this month on Joseph Smith (and ironically a message that seemed quite relevant to blogging) I just don’t think I need to say Jesus so often to think of him. I like reading about Moses, Elijah, Joseph, John the Baptist, Paul and other figures.
Different strokes for different folks I guess. I wonder if it does have to do with background. My bad taste to seeing Jesus too much tends to arise from my mission in the south. I even get uncomfortable with all the extensive photos and paintings people have in their homes. One or two I could see, if they are tastefully done.
To church discussion, I just don’t hear people mentioning Joseph that much, whereas I hear people giving thanks to the savior all the time. The atonement seems the constant discussion, even in wards where discussions aren’t exactly thrilling me.
Whoops. That was supposed to say, “I guess I’d just disagree. Which isn’t to criticize your perspective. What people perceive is what they perceive.”
John, thanks for this disclosure. I must admit, though, that I feel bad because it was never my intention to make you feel that you had to justify anything that you were doing.
In your post, you wrote I’m trying to discuss things that DON’T get covered well enough in Church, for whatever reason…so you’ll likely never hear or see me discuss the average LDS perspective on the average issue. I guess I’d ask…what would be the point of that?
This is why I was so curious about why you would have wanted to do a podcast with me! It seems to me that a discussion with me will be a discussion of the average LDS perspective on the average issue. My beliefs are shockingly unnuanced, John, you really need to be aware of that.
My question to you all would be….is there a place in Mormonism, and specifically in the LDS Church, for people like me–who feel these things, but want/need to be open about it?
My answer to this would be that of course there is a place in the Church for people like you with your interests and beliefs. I have always believed that. I don’t see why defending traditional doctrines or arguing about these issues somehow makes those on the defend-the-party-line side of the argument into intolerant bigots who don’t want to see people with different views at Church.
Clark, I second John Dehlin’s concern on this point. I’m not calling for us to “say Jesus as much as possible.” Instead, I’d suggest that we preach nothing but Christ and Him crucified, in the sense that the New Testament uses that phrase. Let’s talk about the gospel, not messengers. Joseph Smith was a messenger for Jesus, not a part of the message!
Putting Joseph on the cover of the Ensign, having a special broadcast for him, and all the rest right before Christmas does make us look bad. You wouldn’t believe the number of snarky “Merry Smithmas” emails and such that I’ve gotten from my ex-Mo friends…
Hey JohnF!
To me, and to several others, you would be interesting as it relates to objective #1. Anytime I can find someone who knows all the history and cuture issues, but chooses to stay–that is a very helpful example/role model for those who are looking for a way to stay. That’s super interesting and important to myself, and to many others. I have people lining up who have left and are angry…it’s much harder to find someone who’s still in, but knowledgable.
I’m glad you think there’s a place for folk like me to stay in the church. The one qualifier I made was–“who want/need to be open about it”. I am finding it very hard/challenging to be open about things within the Church. If I keep these feelings to myself at Church, I am fine. If I speak up, it becomes much more challenging….for them, and for me.
But so far I’ve been able to find a balance…and I’m not gonna give up!!! Leaving, I think, would be even harder.
John
Clark–
I definitely could have been clearer. I’m not saying that we should “Jesus-ify” our discourse (especially regarding using His name more often).
What I will say is, I’d like to hear much more about how to live a Christlike life, and a lot less about obedience to LDS authority, praise to the Man (Joseph), and “We’re the one true and only living Church with authority, and everyone else is inferior”. I guess this is also what Grant Palmer is trying to say in his new book.
““We’re the one true and only living Church with authority, and everyone else is inferior”. ”
I don’t think the first half of this entails the second, and I don’t hear this taught over the pulpit. If that’s how people feel, it’s inferred, and wrongly, in my opinion.
John, now Ben S. is a man you want to talk to.
Hey John,
I don’t want to come here to cause problems. I just wanted to tell you how much I appreciate your post. Sometimes I just wish I could get my wife to make a list of where she stands as well. Not to get her out of the church, but to understand her better.
I must say that I get dry heaves with stuff like the Joseph adoration and the “we’re the only true church” stuff. I believe that it’s quite fundamental, extremist, cult-like etc. One thing that encourages this is the old temple ceremony. It’s dangerous in my opinion, to not talk about this stuff anymore. Like most Internet savvy people know, pre-1990 the temple allegory had a Christian preacher in cahoots with Satan. The section of the “ceremony” that talked of Christians and their beliefs was very graphic and demeaning. Once this was taken out of the ceremony, no one in church authority talked about an attitude shift that should be applied as well. People were to just accept the changes and never really talk bluntly about what this implies regarding overall church attitude. Do we respect Christians more now? Are Christian preachers Satanic still? Does the BOM couplet still apply about 1 true church and every other one being from Satan? Personally, I see a very strange phenomenon in the more mature crowd of Mormon followers. They still do business and have small talk or casual friendships with Christians, but when it comes to exchanging of ideas, expressing values and that sort of thing, older Mormons still have a tendency to actually look down on Christians. This is SO NOT CHRISTIAN. Christ was all about getting over the nit-pickiness of the Law of Moses. The Pharisees were called hypocrites, even though in their own mind, they were guaranteed salvation because of their following of certain steps and rules. I see quite the similarity here, and it SHOULD CHANGE. To me, it’s not useful to deny outright that this issue exists. Of course it does. Maybe I see it through a magnifying glass, but I don’t think so.
Though LDS members don’t pray to Joseph, they don’t pray to Jesus either. They can’t say, “Well, we don’t PRAY to Joseph” because this logic can’t be used to qualify them as Christians either. In fact, from what I understand regarding the feminist movement within Mormonism, recent apostles and prophets have discouraged a “personal relationship” with Christ. If doing things “in the name of” Christ, qualifies them as Christians … then they better be careful, because they TEACH, STRIVE TO BE LIKE, and ADORE Joseph Smith’s name a lot too! Hymns like this don’t do much for the cause either:
https://family.phelpsinc.com/bios/w_w_phelps_hymns.htm#PraisetotheMan
The lyrics speak for themselves.
I suppose I’m just seeing the irony and extremist nature in followers that can’t turn and see even the slightest problem with their own logic. Missionaries are instructed to manually remove statues of Buddha, images of Saints, etc. etc. from investigators’ homes who want to be baptized. Enthusiast converts are to replace these myths and adorations with images of “current prophets”, restoration myths, and the like.
The feeling of teaching my children this stuff gives me the willies. This seems to me, to be a church that has such a double standard. The following photos of the NATIVITY SCENE at BYU speak volumes:
https://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjsmith/index.html
I appreciate what you’re doing. If people want to stay in the church, while having doubts, or even deciding that it’s not the only truth, etc. etc., then the resources should be there. My goodness, Christ didn’t require that Thomas believe everything to be an apostle. His own apostles betrayed him many times. This is what I take from the whole fallible leaders thing. The church COULD STILL ACCEPT people like Quinn, McMurrin, feminists, homosexuals, non-traditional believers, historians, AFRICAN AMERICANS, etc. etc. But, right now, I see that too many people get worried about open discussion because they might be exposing themselves to “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed.” These attitudes are certainly not Christian. I believe it’s good to try and help them change.
-Hyrum
I recognize to many that the very idea of authority is anathema for how they think about religion. I think Hyrum provides that perspective well. I disagree, of course. I do think the church is the only true church and I think that an important thing. Yes that does raise the risk with some who have a hard time interacting with others. But then that happens whenever one makes truth claims. Look at some of the reactions of scientists to rival claims of ID in the evolution debate. Truth is always a problem. The result is we can abandon truth claims and focus on tolerance. That tends to adopt a more relativistic approach.
Or we can do the harder thing and find a way to both claim truth yet be tolerant and loving to those we disagree with. And yes that’s harder and yes many people because of human nature will screw up in that regard.
With regards to Jesus, I’m not just saying I’m worried about the perhaps over-emphasis on symbols and utterances about Jesus that I see in some sects of Protestantism. I think though that there is a big difference between thinking about the meanings and thinking about the forms. To me a lot of what people are discussing here seems to be confusing the forms of the discussion with the content. Once again I recognize we disagree. I’m just explaining why I’m somewhat uncomfortable with what some here are suggesting what we ought do. Frankly I was uncomfortable with my wife wanting to do the traditional LDS thing and hang pictures of Jesus everywhere. (Especially since I don’t exactly appreciate the artistic merit of most of those paintings you find at the church outlet store, Deseret Books, or Seagull)
As to the hanging of GA pictures – while I do agree that many homes have pictures of the First Presidency, I think it is far fewer than have pictures of Jesus and pictures of Jesus definitely outnumber those of GAs. But I think it is more analogous to how many government offices tend to have a picture of the current President of the United States. I’d note that very, very few homes tend to have pictures of Joseph Smith in them.
As to how the “ex-mos” react to happening to put Joseph Smith on the Ensign cover. I honestly don’t care that much. I think that many ex-mos tend to look for anything to criticize they can. I think it a minor point honestly. To me it is on par with the silliness some are doing regarding the whole “Happy Holidays” vs. “Merry Christmas” debate that is raging. Some clearly do get fired up on that. And I suppose from a purely PR perspective the Church ought keep that in mind. So from that point of view I’d probably have not made the Ensign cover the way it was. Although I honestly do think it a superficial issue.
One last point. It seems to me that the very different focus of LDS on the godhead does tend to change how we view Jesus. For many Protestants, to speak of Jesus is to speak of the Father. Yes the actual theology is more complex, but frankly few regular members of most Christian religions have any clue about the actual details of the Trinity. (Which I don’t think is actually as different from LDS thought as most believe) However this does affect the rhetoric of Mormons.
Consider what Hyrum brought up. We don’t pray to Jesus. We pray to the Father. And we frequently delineate talk about the savior from talk about the Father. I think many LDS get uncomfortable at some Protestant approaches to Jesus precisely because they see them as confusing the issues. I don’t think this entails that we don’t see the Atonement as central in our theology. But in a certain sense while we see Jesus as God, how we see him as God is different. The Father ought be central in our thought. We do things through Jesus Christ. But Jesus isn’t the Father, except in a narrow sense.
I wonder how much about this debate over rhetoric relates to this. I also think that for various reasons the religious significance of Christmas, while still present, is also modified somewhat by Mormons. For us, given the way we view the atonement, I think easter is the big deal. Admittedly even there we don’t get quite so riled up and ritualistic as many of our other Christian friends. But it seems that there is a big difference between the significance of the baby Jesus and Christ crucified. If you can see the distinction. Don’t get me wrong, I love Christmas, but it never has quite the religious significance for me that I think easter does or other meditations on the savior.
As it usually happens, I probably won’t spend much time on this board. However, I do appreciate the open discussion that Dehlin promotes. I think this is gracious. Of course, my usual antics do not promote this type of behavior, because I choose to make the exmo world an entertaining one for other post Mormons.
Anyway, Clark mentioned how the different debates are going in his opinion. I got the feeling that he sees them as mostly trivial or minimal things. I respect this. I think this is usually where many knowledgeable members of this church go once they have a better understanding of history. Points he brought up are true. The majority of picture-hanging Mormons put up portraits of Christ. There are those who do have restoration imagery displayed. Who am I to whine about this anyway? My wife probably doesn’t like the plethora of wall hangings that I have in regards to ExMormon artifacts. LOL. I did like that you pointed out about the current trend with the red-headed, Arian Jesus. This is ironic, being that the church claims to eventually be the one taking the gospel to the Jews. How would a middle-Eastern citizen react to a blue-eyed Jesus? If it’s going to be a more tolerant world-wide church, wouldn’t this give way to a more realistic portrait of Christ?
https://familyartcenter.com/graphics/christsloveLG.jpg
I guess the only point I’d like to emphasize is the difference between the mass membership and those who are more knowledgeable. Internet Mormonism came along and changed a lot of things. I still believe that, actions speak louder than words, and these ARE NOT SMALL ISSUES. In schools, via seminary, children are taught from a young age that they have the truth, and others are ignorant for not accepting it. The temple recommend interview question of associating with people who teach principles that aren’t in line with the church is right on the mark with what I’m talking about.
Whether or not the Book of Mormon is historical, the whole pattern of pride and what human nature makes men do comes into play. I believe, feel, and see every day in Utah that the general Mormon membership has a hard time socializing, accepting, and loving other individuals whose religious ideals differ from their own. Then, most of them back up these actions with old doctrines and teachings. I’m not saying this isn’t the case with other cultures. The Deep South in the US, Islam, and some other religions do this as well. It’s just not my cup of tea, LOL, to encourage this type of behavior. Mixed and sewn into the BOM’s and BOA’s very doctrine is a symbol of horrid proportions. Skin turning darker shades based on church allegiance. Women should follow a certain role to be in God’s good graces. The list goes on and on. I believe mindsets are very hard to change, and the majority of the faithful Mormon membership is in need of that change.
One quick example: When a person sees no irony in the teaching that a child’s parent is not welcome to their wedding simply on the basis of belonging to a different religion, this is NOT CHRISTIAN. It is my belief that Christ would NEVER do such a thing. But, I could be wrong. I suppose I just don’t see a loving God doing anything of this nature. Again, Clark said, “I think it a minor point honestly.” In his own behaviors, family values, and belief system, these things are probably very minor to Clark. My point is that as a whole, the church does have quite of bit of modification to do to be in line with what they SAY they are. To deny this is probably not useful because of what is happening right now. The church IS slowly changing these things. If Clark’s logic were to be used in 1990, death oaths would still be part of the temple. The church would never have changed anything, because EVERYTHING would have been considered a minor issue. Again, in my humble opinion, if the church is going international then they probably should hasten these changes. The RLDS church understood this in part when they recently posted their statement of, “The Community of Christ encourages its members and other interested parties to explore all issues pertaining to its history in an open atmosphere. Doing so allows people to draw their own conclusions based on how they weigh the evidence.”
To see a more graphic depiction of what I’m getting at just compare these two viewpoints.
LDS message this December:
https://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,2043-1-3294-1,00.html
RLDS message this December:
https://www.cofchrist.org/
The Community of Christ is a tough example to use w/ LDS folk..because many would argue that their changes and openness have led to their demise. Apparently, they (Community of Christ) are a shadow of what they used to be membership wise–and the slide happened as a result of 1) acknowledging their errors in denying Joseph’s polygamy, and 2) giving women the priesthood.
Whatchu talkin’ about ben? If only we have the truth and others do not. How can that possibly not imply that others are in an inferior position?
how isn’t a baptism without authority inferior to one with?
how isn’t an interpretation of the bible by a dude with fancy clothes inferior to one guided by divine revelation?
BTW. I think you should have Ben S. on the show. He’s one of the smarter, well read fellows I’ve had the pleasure of knowing.
John, I think it’s unfortunate the church itself isn’t a good environtment to discuss questions and concerns for you; it is good however that you’ve found an acceptable medium for yourself though. Keep doing what you’re doing.
John-
Are you going to answer Angela (TruthinScripture)’s question? While I have a very similar issue shelf as yours, and many of these issues need not affect someone’s testimony, if you take away these:
• Historicity of the Book of Mormon
• Proxy work for the dead
• An anthropomorphic God
• The notion of Jesus having to suffer for every sin, and every pain of every person that has ever lived, not only on this earth, but on other earths as well—and that all of us owe a huge debt to both Jesus and God, even though we were made, by design, to be imperfect from the start.
…..then what of Mormonism do you have left? As Angela says, it seems like you could be any Christian at all, what keeps you in the LDS church in particular? Or in other words, which things about Mormonism, that are unique from other Christian churches, keeps you going as a Mormon?
Oops. I was trying to preface that post with a blockquote of this:
“I have NO interest in encouraging people to leave the Church. None. This is absolutely 0% of my motive/ambition. So I hope this clears up the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” question.”
Hyrum, I think you are vastly twisting what I said. I was discussing imagery and many similar criticism. The marriage issue is slightly different. Personally I think it would be a good idea to allow separate civil and temple ceremonies precisely because of that issue. However it seems to me you push things beyond that where obviously I disagree with.
The underlying issue though is really how claims to truth affect people. Yet, even if psychologically people are affected by claiming to know truths, it doesn’t follow that they don’t know truths. It seems that this is a crucial issue you’re not addressing. I’d assume you’d not make these sorts of criticisms regarding scientific truths, only religious truths.
John wrote: “The Community of Christ is a tough example to use w/ LDS folk..because many would argue that their changes and openness have led to their demise.”
—
I’m pretty sure the RLDS church was already significantly in recession when these changes were made…in fact, they may have been made in an effort to keep the church alive. If anything, this comparison should be warning to members of the Brighamite church that teh stone can and will roll uphill given sufficent openess among the membership. It’s no wonder that the conservative alarms are wailing right now…celebrating JS is one of them…the church is feeling vulnerable, no?
While the RLDS were already having troubles, the changes in the 90’s dramatically sped it up.
I’m not sure what you mean by the church feeling vulnerable.
Clark,
Good comments.
I crack up at how people love to judge a belief system based on actions of people. It shows how little truth is involved in their claims. Here is a good example:
When I was a boyscout, I was molested by the friend of a leader. Since I was molested, that means the Boy Scouts are evil, it should be closed, all Troops have child-molestor leaders etc.??? Can I say to myself “I don’t believe in the Boy Scouts anymore, but I’m choosing to stay in it? I don’t like what they claim, they stole their whole program from the Girl Scouts, but I’ll stay in the program… I’m not a believer and I don’t trust the leadership, but I’m staying in it anyways”. Makes me want to shake my head and say “What?”
What does pictures on an Ensign and pictures in people’s home, have to do with anything? How does that make a church true, false, or anything inbetween?
I find it amazing how people can take experiences (one or several) of choosing to feel hurt, attacked, abused, or whatever, and then put blame on an organization.
I’m sure many of the original Apostles had Jewish symbols in their homes while still being an Apostle and a Christian. Does that mean Christ’s original church isn’t true because of something hanging on a wall in an Apostles’ home?
I also agree with you about Easter and how that should be a bigger event to all Christianity instead of Christmas. It’s one thing to celebrate someone’s birth, and another to celebrate the Atonement and the Resurrection. It’s simply made into what seems to be a lesser celebration because of the commercial & advertising aspect, children receiving presents, etc.
Mark
SpeakTheTruth
“I think we worship Joseph in this church….even though we don’t really know much about his life (like who he was married to, what led to his martydom, etc.).”
“Instead, I’d suggest that we preach nothing but Christ and Him crucified, in the sense that the New Testament uses that phrase. Let’s talk about the gospel, not messengers. Joseph Smith was a messenger for Jesus, not a part of the message!”
Worship – I think – is too strong of a word. I know of no active member that has ever prayed to Joseph Smith, nor asked for joseph’s intervention with Christ. There are those that may come close to venerating him, but not worship.
As for the emphasis on Joseph vs. Christ – Yes we need to promote Christ and His message, but Joseph was HIS messenger in this dispensation (if you believe in dispensations) and is one we can hope to emulate in his courage to put forth a message regardless of it’s popularity, his ability to recieve revelation and his “personal relationship” with God the Father and Christ.
In all honest, I feel our Christology is a bit watered down because we have spent so much time defending ourselves for the beliefs John mentioned, that we have not been able to formulate a good Mormon view of the Savior – we only borrow C.S. Lewis quotes or 19th Century Protestant images. “The Living Christ” is a nice start to fleching out an LDS Christology.
Aside from my poor spelling –
Merry Smithmas is hilarious.
Katie,
I have been in 100’s of conversations with Angela (TruthInScripture) during the past couple of years. Being a devout Born-Again, she wouldn’t talk about anything LDS or Book of Mormon, but required all discussions to be through the Bible. It’s been quite a journey, and 100’s of hours on the phone and emails. She probably owns more Anti books than LDS books. Every month she’d buy another book or 3. She’s thrown every concept she could at me, but learned at each opportunity. I was quite impressed with how over time she’d go through Anti-books, and see through the many inconsistencies, the storytelling/blaming/mistakes of leaders and be albe to see the truths through their attacks. I’ve been amazed at how she’s even responded to members with varying or wavering beliefs, showing them their inconsistencies in their beliefs, and especially for someone who isn’t even a member yet.
I appreciate your belief in the basic tenants that must be true to consider ourselves LDS. I realize there is no religion or belief system that will have 100% believers, and those that just don’t believe. There will always be a multitude of believers with varying beliefs.
Mark
SpeakTheTruth
Clark,
What I mean by vulnerable is the sense of vulnerability/insecurity that all organizations/organisms experience when “too much” change is in the air…a self-preserving process kicks-in, which in the case of our church is a turn to fundamental or distinctive facets of its identity; things like:
– getting reaquainted with the BoM
– celebrating “the Messenger” aka Joseph Smith
– emphasizing authority and obedience
At the same time taking additional self-preserving actions like:
– predominance of warnings regarding “outside” threats like “the internet” and “homosexuality” and “bad/failed religion”, while on the flip-side;
– a relative toning-down of internal calls to repentance for the more common sins of pride, racism, sexism, jingoism, war-mongering, and avarice
– etc…
Basically, the church reacts to the environment in such a way as to retain its members by not offending and by appealing to the uniqueness and specialness of being a member.
You may not see it that way but it seem pretty obvious to me.
Clark,
I did not mean to twist your words. I apologize if I did so. I was just trying to summarize what I personally got out of your post.
I would like to post my personal feelings in regards to the whole actions of people vs. the church as a whole debate. I am not trying to twist anyone’s words or say anyone is wrong for thinking one way or the other.
I see the issue a couple of different ways:
First of all, if the LDS church is going to the say that the church isn’t the people, or that church is perfect but the people are not … I suppose this could justify ALL sorts of misbehavior on anyone’s part. The founding members could be murderers, but the organization would always perfect. I don’t agree with that if this is the case. Of course there’s always the couplet, “God will take out a prophet if he tries to lead the church astray.” I don’t agree with this, because what does it really mean? It’s so vague. Does that mean God will make that prophet die on the spot? Will the organization cease to exist? Or, just because the organization continues, does this imply that it’s ‘true’? If followers, leaders, and founders of an organization never really have to own up for anything they do, how is there any accountability? Of course, as a whole, the mass movement of an organization’s members speaks for itself. If it’s a hate group now, who cares about whether it was founded to be a church? (I’m not saying this is the case with Mormonism at all. It’s just that this justification COULD be used with that logic.)
Second, I NEVER implied that the current situation with the general membership is the ONLY problem. I stated issues that are the very fabric of Mormon doctrine and belief. The BOM still has the whole darker shade = sign of punishment from God. The BOA still contains references that state that polygamy was commanded by God, as well as lying to law enforcement about polygamy. The temple ceremony is FULL of stuff that I don’t feel is Christian at all. The “Proclamation to the Family” is also full of things that, in my opinion, are doctrines straight from the horse’s mouth, which encourage intolerance. So, I never said that based on member actions alone can someone verify veracity. There are very basic tenants of Mormon doctrine regarding the pre-earth life that are racist in nature. The “plan of salvation” has many things that are flawed in my opinion. So, I never said that solely based on actions of the membership can one determine the “truthfulness” of the organization.
Although, who’s to say this can’t be done? LOL. Didn’t Christ say, “By their fruits ye shall know them”? Anyway, personally, I feel that there is a lot within Mormon DOCTRINE, practice, and the official worldview, that is probably due for modification. Why can’t we make suggestions? That’s what Christ did with the Law of Moses. It was time for a change. So why not encourage members to change their intolerant attitudes. What’s wrong with continuing to “try to be more like Jesus”?
Hyrum wrote: “What’s wrong with continuing to “try to be more like Jesus”?”
Well, that’s the thing isn’t it?
The State can kill, the Corporation can steal, the Church doesn’t need to repent…
All thee things are man’s way of scape-goating his own sins to an entity that’s above the law. Ingenious! :-)
I’d never say that the people and the church can be easily separated. Yet also clearly the church asks more of the people than the people are willing to do. (Something true of religion in general – do we judge Christianity by the actions of self-professed Christians?) I think we need keep in mind that the church is, in a way, a hospital run by the infirmed. We all fall short of the glory of God and all are working to do better through Christ.
I think that just as superficial judgments based upon some members are wrong, so too is how some discount the relationship of the members to the church. So in that I agree with you.
The issue of what is or isn’t Christian is, of course, a whole other matter. I’d say that I think you’re applying a double standard. There is, I suspect, a lot in both the OT and NT that you’d also judge as unChristian yet which is promoted.
As for being more like Jesus, I fully agree that is our aim. The question is how we achieve it. Certainly people can criticize LDS doctrine, much like atheists criticize Christian doctrine in general. Whether they are correct is an other matter…
Watt, one problem is that I think cries like that have been ubiquitous in religion in general throughout its history. To attribute it to a fear of “too much change” seems difficult. I think that a lot of the rhetoric is simply common. I’d also add that I’ve seen no shortage of cries to repentance among the saints. Indeed such things seem rather ubiquitous at conference.
I stand relegated to irrelevance. :-)
BTW…
Neither the ubiquity nor the commoness of rhetoric is reason to discount the validity of an idea…but the attempt to do so a very common method in the repression of ideas.
And I said “relative toning-down” not “shortage of”…the distinction is subtle but real.
The point is Watt, your criteria gives us no way of discerning whether something fits your claims, precisely because it is simply a regular feature of religion.
What ever do you mean?
That’s twice now that you’ve suggested that my ideas are unfounded/irrelevant/indiscernible…this time rephrasing as: “because it is simply a feature of religion”.
But it’s not clear to me what exactly you’re taking exception with…
I’m correlating acts of self-preservation with the increased perceived need to self-preserve. It’s a simple idea. It’s an idea that makes sense as an explanation for the actions of the church from my perspective.
The argument that it must be questioned/discounted simply because of the ubiquity, commonness, and regularity of such actions is similar to claiming that a person found dead on a beach is not likely to have drowned based on the ubiquity, commonness, and regularity of atmospheric oxygen. It’s not an argument…it is intellectual hot air.
I don’t mind you disagreeing with me. I don’t mind you requesting that I provide further evidence. But I do mind my ideas being brushed-off as lacking merit simply because they correlate to a “regular feature of religion”.
But we may agree on something…these things that I call acts of self-preservation may very well have been with religion from the beginning. I believe they have been…of necessity.
A question for you: why does religion act the way that it does?
Obviously there is an explanation.
Mine is that it does what it does to survive and extend itself…survival of the fittest, speciation, religious Darwinism. I’m extending these ideas to religion and I believe it is not unfounded. Why would religions be any different than other types of organization?
Watt, I don’t think religion acts. I think people act. That might seem a small point and that I’m being pedantic, but it is an important one. I think that certain aspects of religious behavior are simply common to human actions. So it is, I think, less helpful to ask, “why does religion act the way it does” than to ask “why do people act the way they do.”
The issue of evolution and religion is a common one. Interestingly I’m working through Atran’s In Gods We Trust on my blog on this very issue right now. It deals with some speculations regarding cognitive science and the evolution of religious behavior.
With regards to what I had trouble with in your comments, you suggested that the aspects of LDS religion were a result of fearing change and that it was at that point of too much change that these behaviors erupted. My rejoinder was that quite contrary to only appearing when there was change, a fear of change, these behaviors seem almost always present in religion.
The point is that given that they are always present in religion it doesn’t seem helpful to argue that they are a result of fearing change. Quite the contrary they are simply an innate aspect of many religions.
Now you could argue in response that religions always fear change. Perhaps, although I think that is a more difficult case to make. In either case it seems to invalidate the claim that religions behave this way in response to change.
I appreciate your clarification and I think we agree on more levels than I initially had thought.
I do not think there’s a difference between the actions of religion and the actions of people…I believe religion is simply an extension of the minds of people…though it’s often convenient for people to make a distinction…
So what is it from your perspective about religions that give them these “innate aspects”? What drives these traits? I don’t accept the argument that they are “just born that way”…it’s more complicated than that…but if you’re arguing that it’s just how religion is, then I’d say that your argument seems at least as unhelpful. How is your case less difficult to make then mine?
It seems to me that I’m arguing from observable cause/effect (need to survive/survival mechanism) while you’re arguing from “it’s just how it is”…see what I mean? How is your argument an easier case to make?
If this is not your argument, then why exactly do you think religions/people do the things I listed in my original post?
PS. I’m enjoying the conversation. Thank you.
Hyrum,
I don’t think anyone is justifying any misbehaviors. Prophets have screwed up in all dispensations of time. And the peoples are even worse. One of the best examples is Moses and the Hebrew people. These people watch Moses strive to free them, bring every plague he can muster, then kills off the first borns, they experience fire to stop Pharoah’s Army, they watch as the Army is later drowned by the water they just walked through, and they instantly start feaking out that Moses in gone into the Mountains for 30 days. They won’t wait for him, and want a Golden calf to worship. What’s up with that. So if get to judge a church by their people, all of bibles are false, all of our scriptures are worthless because they continually share the mistakes of Prophets and God’s chosen people. There is no differnce in this time either. None. Prophets, leaders and people will make mistakes… it’s called ‘welcome to life’.
I find it very concerning if someone chooses to set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner. It is not our place to judge. It is our responsibility to be close to Christ, to forgive all men and that includes people outside of a church, inside of a church, leaders in a church, leaders outside of a church… all men.
I choose to not stand in judgment.
Mark
SpeakTheTruth
Watt, I think the things you outline (in their more general sense) are simply characteristic of all people in general. While I can understand why thinking that we’re “just born that way” is insufficient, the alternative is speculative cognitive science and evolution. There are theories about a lot of these things with respect to evolution. But they are somewhat speculative.
On the topic of Joseph Smith having been given more attention than Jesus this December. Is everyone oblivious to the fact that the church is celebrating the 200th anniversary of Joseph Smith’s birth? Is having Smith’s picture on the Ensign this particular December really a sign of Joseph worship?
Clark,
Though it baffles me, I can accept your insistence on arguing from such a vague and indirect position…
I see your bias clearly now.
But I’ll take the “theories” and “speculations” of science–though I wouldn’t so readily use those terms–any day, over the theories and speculations of religion and/or personal cosmology…just my bias.
Thanks for the ride. :-)
MahNahvu,
What? Over the quasi-pagen-christian celebration of Winter Solstice which has more recently been converted to a celebration of consumerism and pseudo-piety with a sprinkling of inter-religious symbolic rivalry? I guess you have a point there.
At least Joseph’s birthday really was in December!
Note Watt that I do enjoy reading the speculative cognitive science on the issue. I just think that for things we empirically find, needing explanations is secondary. Certainly we should seek after explanations, but also be aware of when the explanations we have aren’t strong.
Some people sing Praise to the Lord, others sing Praise to the Man.
Angela/Katie!
Sorry it’s taken me so long to respond!
You guys ask good questions and make good points. Why do I stay in the Church? Because I love the Church, and love being a member, and have faith in it being divinely inspired.
I just don’t believe that…
–Total agreement with all doctrines/policies
–A knowledge of its truthfulness, to the exclusion of other faiths
–A willingess to be open about questions/concerns/doubts…
…disqualify one from valid membership.
The list of things I love about the Church dramatically exceed the list of criticisms. I love General Conference. I love most sacrament meetings. I love most members. I love many of the fundamental teachings, especially those around service, clean living, etc. I love a great deal of what I read in the scriptures. I love the ordinances–I love the sacrament, and baptism, and the personal promises of worthiness and committment made in the endowment ceremony. Most importantly, I love the hymns.
I’m Mormon to my bones–which is why I dig deep to understand stuff, and care so much about these issues.
Does that make things more clear for you?
I think we should moves Joseph Smith’s birthday to another month so it does not conflict with the Birth of the Savior. It should not be really that big of a deal since we Celebrate the Saviors birth on Dec 25 even though we all know he was born in April. If we can do it with the Son of God, let’s do it with Joseph.
John Dehlin: thanks for the post.
L. Anderson: My favorite ‘non-correlated’ book that teaches the Gospel by topic is “Marvelous Work and a Wonder” by LeGrand Richards. You can usually find used copies for sale on Ebay.
I would regret to see people getting all their information about the church and what is official doctrine from the blogs. There is much misunderstanding, even among active faithful members, about what is official doctrine, and what is true but is not official doctrine, and what is “binding upon the members.”
Almost everything that is “official” and “binding on the members” is in the Sunday School manual “Gospel Principles.”
For a correlated book, nothing beats the “Gospel Principles” manual, that is used in the investigators and new-converts class. It presents things on a level same as the missionary discussions, but is much broader. 47 chapters.
It costs $3, but you can get it free in most wards. If you want to buy it secretly, go to http://www.ldscatalog.com and order it on line (still $3, and free shipping), or call their toll free order line, 800-537-5971. Use credit card, or mail in an order with check/money order.
That phone number is the distribution center, and they do not share your name/phone/address with the missionary department. And you don’t have to be a member to order stuff (except temple garments/clothes).
John Dehlin,
I know you were speaking to Angela/Katie, but thanks for sharing that.
You said:
I just don’t believe that…
–Total agreement with all doctrines/policies
–A knowledge of its truthfulness, to the exclusion of other faiths
–A willingess to be open about questions/concerns/doubts…
Would you be open to blogging about any of those 3 (or all 3)?
What Doctrines to you struggle with?
Why do you put so much emphasis on what ‘people’ (leaders) do? Do you realize by doing so you give your power away?
By that I mean, a Bishop could expend much control over people’s lives, but that doesn’t mean he should, nor does that mean it’s right? It doesn’t make the church true or not true. It could make the church look bad via the media, but what does the actions of a bishop, 70, home teacher, apostle, prophet, have to do with us being close to the Lord, being a forgiving person, having faith, charity and love?
I believe too many people look to the church instead of within themselves. We are the temple of the lord, and he can dwell in-us/with-us. We are the body of Christ, and I mean we the people, not the ‘church’. To many people put their faith in men, and not in themselves and their relationship with God.
I do not believe in accidents. I believe we co-engineer our lives with God. We came to earth to fulfill many agreements, and to learn specific lessons. My lessons aren’t your lessons, your lessons aren’t anyone elses. I believe you had your experiences on your mission for many purposes, and that none of them were mistakes for your life. There are many lessons for many people from your experience. I wish you could see that. I wish you could see that your life has been perfect. If your mission hadn’t happened the way it did, we wouldn’t be here right now having these conversations. Do you see the value of what you went through for so others can grow from your experience? Do you see how you experiences lead you to where you are now? Do you see the value in those lessons?
I too have many stories about my mission. I went through 3 Mission Presidents. We went from 225 Elders and Sisters to 185 in 3 days. We went from 36 sisters down to 2. Joseph B. Wirthlin had to fly to instantly be our Mission President, and remained there for 3-4 months until they could call another one.
But regardles of all of the experiences I went through as well, those experiences are not mistakes. People may have made bad choices. People may have made what most people would call mistakes. I believe I was in that Mission at that time for many reasons. When the poop hit the fan, Thomas S. Monson flew in and released everyone, sending many home and many to other missions, and when he spoke to us, he said the exact same thing. He said, “You are not here by accident. You get to experience this situation, so that some day in the future, you will look back upon this experience to draw strength from. I promise you in the future other church leaders will fall, even Apostles, and it will be your duty to assist in holding the people together, and you will be able to use this experience for your strength and wisdom.”
I have used that experience many times. It continues to show me the church can be true, even though any of or leaders can make mistakes. There is only 1 perfect person, Jesus Christ. Everyone else is making tons of mistakes and they are human. Thank God they are human. Thank God for the fraility of man. Thank God for our weaknesses to keep humility a part of our beings. No one can judge the church by any man except Christ.
Every Prophet screwed up. I love the Old Testament. I’ve highlighted every mistake the old Prophets made. I’ve also highlighted every mistake the Apostles made in the New Testament. Does that mean Christ is a liar because his Apostles screwed up all the time? Does it mean the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob is false, simply because Abraham and Isaac were proven liars, and that Abraham and Jacob (Israel) were Polygamists?
Is Noah a false prophet because he was the son from a Polygamist family, and later in life was found druck and naked in his tent and then damned his own son for finding him out?
Is Moses not a prophet for killing an Egyptian?
Prophets and Apostles make mistakes. They have since the beginning of time. And someone’s point is….?
If someone wants to bash mistakes of Prophets, they better become another religion other than Christian, because all the Christian Prophets made mistakes.
If you are wanting the leadership to just open up and say “Prophets screwed up, even in this dispensation of time, and other church leaders make mistakes all the time”, I for one don’t think that will happen. So why do you need that to feel better?
I hope you feel my sense of brotherhood. I am striving to be one with you. I am not strving to be harsh to you. But let me try the same principle on (leaders make mistakes or won’t talk about mistakes) as a example and you can hear how it sounds:
I am pissed that we are decendants of Cain. If you didn’t know that, we are. Read Genesis.
I am pissed that Noah is the son of a Polygamist and later on was drunk and naked in his tent. Then he damned his own son for catching him. This is crap that people want me to accept him as a prophet when he did this. This proves that Jehovah is crap for saying he is a prophet, or wants us to accept him as a prophet.
I am pissed that Moses killed an Egyptian and gets away with it in God’s eyes. Now this isn’t self defense, this isn’t manslaugter, this is Murder in the first degree. If you read Exodus 2:11-13, you will read where Moses looked left and looked right (to make sure no one was watching what he was about to do), he slew the Egyptian. What kind of God takes a Murderer and calls him to be a Prophet? That can’t be my God. That can’t be your God. I am calling you out on your Christian belief. How can you claim that God’s plan as a murderer for a prophet? What kind of House of Israel is that? What kind of God is that? What do you believe? Jesue came to fulfill the law of Moses? He did? the law of the murderer? What kind of Christ is that?
Again, please don’t feel attacked. Notice how silly it sounds when we attack an Old Testament Prophet. Notice how stupid is sounds to attack a Biblical Apostle, but oh,…. heaven forbid we talk about a Prophet or Apostle in this dispensation of time. Give me a break. People who want to beat up any prophet or apostle in this dispensation of time, can come over to my house, as I have a Bible that has every mistake that every Prophet made cut out of it. So people can take this bible with 100’s of holes cut out and say “these are the scriptures I believe in because I have a hang-up with God’s messengers that make mistakes”. But many with think “he did what”? He cut up a bible? But these same people want to claim to be Christians and believe the Bible, but want to pretend their Prophets or Apostles don’t make mistakes. They want to say it’s OK for previous people to make mistakes, but not in this dispensation of time.
As you can see, it makes no sense.
Believe in your God and your Savior Jesus Christ above all. Next realize the church is here to serve the Saints, and the Saints get to learn and grow by serving others in and out of the church as well.
I’m sure this thread will explode now that I’ve laid the gauntlet down, but I hope I’ve shared some things that make some sense to you.
Your Brother in Christ.
Mark
SpeakTheTruth
P.S. I was typing 100 miles an hour, so I apologize for any typo’s.
John,
Another point for me that I see in many who leave the church is how much they set themselves up to judge people.
I’d be the first to admit I’ve seen abuse in power from those in authority, but what does that have to do with the Truth? Is this the church of God, or the church of man.
Is it my place to judge? Is it ours?
I am amazed how people want to set themselves up as judge, jury & executioner. The bible is very clear about those that set themselves to judge others. One of my favorites is the woman caught in the act of adultry and taken straight to the Savior. Let’s face it, everyone had the right to say “Christ, we just dragged this woman from the act of Adultry, so let’s get her”. This is such a perfect example, because in how many other places does the scriptures take about how bad adultry is? This is no small thing. In Moses’ day, the penalty was death.
What the heck was our Savior doing? How dare he forgive her. How dare he say he accuse her either. He cannot be the Messiah that the people of Israel were waiting for. He can’t be. Their Messiah would come and follow that Mosiac Law. Their Messiah would have stoned that woman. So who’s Messiah came? Who is this Jesus Christ, and how dare he not allow us to judge others?
It is simply not our place to judge. Once I learned this lesson, it is freeing to not have to live a life full of wondering if people are going to pass my judgment, and if I get to make them wrong.
Playing the right/wrong game can get very dangerous when we want to ‘be right’, and have the right to pass our judgment onto others. It is not our place to decide what is their perfect-life-lesson.
Because I had a Mission President sent home and Disfellowshipped for a minimum of 5 years, it isn’t my place to judge him. He came to learn his lessons, and I’m here to learn mine. I would hope you would respect me for the person I am today, and not hold me in judgment for all the mistakes I’ve made in my life.
It is not my place to judge you. It is not my place to judge, period.
Mark
SpeakTheTruth
Bookslinger,
Thanks for the recommendation about the Richards book and the Gospel Principles book. I’ll probably try to pick up both of them.
Don’t be concerned that I’m getting “all” my “information about the church and official doctrine” from the blogs. I know better than that. My doctrinal information so far comes from the scriptures (I have a BOM, a quad and a triple), “Jesus the Christ” by Talmage, the Brigham Young volume in the series “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church,” “Discourses of President Gordon B. Hinckley,” and a variety of secondary sources, most of which were either published by the Church or purchased from a Church-owned facility. So I think I’m getting my doctrinal information from solid sources. History is another matter; I reserve the right to study a variety of sources with respect to the historical record.
The blogs are interesting, and often discussion can take place that is freer and more wide-ranging than would take place in the official setting of a missionary discussion. However, no way am I going to mistake them for gospel truth.
Oh, and would all of you folks please relax a bit and enjoy the celebration of the birth of Joseph Smith? Nothing you are going to do will please the ex-Mormons, and nothing you are going to do will please the anti-Mormons. Meanwhile, most people are going to recognize that whatever you’ve built and accomplished in the last 175 years started with Joseph Smith, and you’re entitled to celebrate. After all, my Baptist grandmother was born on Dec. 24, and nobody ever complained that we were taking away from Christmas by letting her blow out the candles on her favorite strawberry birthday cake. So enjoy the party, and have some cake for me, will you?
L.A.
Quote:
“I’m not a big believer in BOM historicity.
I’m open to it, but not banking on it.
Just to let you know where I stand.
John Dehlin”
If the Book of Mormon is not historical, as many scientific evidence suggests, how can it be the
“most correct book on earth” and a keystone to the LDS religion?
How can a ficticious story be correct?
How can an ethical system and a church system be based on events which never happened?
Either the Book of Mormon is historically true, or people should stick to more historical records like the bible.
Just my opinion,
Micheal.
Micheal Schneider:
The historicity of parts of the Bible is much in doubt also.
I learned just this year that there is no historical or archeaological evidence that the Israelites (Hebrews) were held captive in Egypt, or ever in Egypt as a group, or had left Egypt en masse. There’s no record or history of the plagues mentioned in Exodus either.
That really surprised me because the ancient Egyptians were such meticulous record keepers. Maybe the pharoah got real ticked off and removed all references to them so future people wouldn’t know they got their butts kicked so badly. Or maybe that Moses guy just made it all up.
And if Moses made it all up, then his religion must have been bogus. And if Moses’ religion is bogus, then Christianity, which claims to be the fulfillment of the Law of Moses is suspect also. Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be the “I am” who talked to Moses.
Those spontaneous cures of leprosy, raising people from the dead, and ascending to heaven in fiery chariots doesn’t have much scientific backing either.
If you’re a believer in the Bible, be careful with what stick you use to bash the Book of Mormon, because the same stick can be used against the Bible.
John,
For what it’s worth if anyone reads this far down…
I have enjoyed your podcasts. Keep doing them. Some I enjoy better than others, but I’m the one with the on/off switch…it’s my choice to listen.
Your question about whether there is room in Mormonism for someone like you is a great one. My answer is, “It depends on who you ask and when you ask them.” The faith and doctrine I was raised with suggests that there is no place for someone who questions the historicity of the BoM, questions the validity of the Book of Abraham translation, etc. After all, there is the law of consecration. Are you willing to sacrifice everything for something that is still so apparently unsettling? Having said that, however, I think it’s nice that at this time in history, the church seems to tolerate open questioning like yours and your guests. In a way, I kind of hope that it continues.
But how can it? Our faith is black and white. I can’t count how many times the “luke warm…spew you out of my mouth” thing from Revelation has been used in lessons and talks I’ve heard. Either the BoM is what the church says it is or it’s not. Either Joseph Smith saw the Father and Son or not. Either the Book of Abraham is what the “prohpet of God” who translated said it is or it isn’t. Either homosexuality is a sin or it isn’t. The church leaves no room for a middle position that is not at least moving toward the LDS dogma. As Tevye said in Fiddler on the Roof, “…a bird might love a fish, but what then?” Paraphrased from a bad memory. The point is that somewhere there has to be a union or departure.
Again, just my thoughts. Keep up your good work and keep an open mind. My favorite guest so far is Hyrum (that tells you kind of where I am on a lot of things), but your candid and thoughtful questions make-up for most of the “bias” you may have. From the only Maryland listener that I know you have, “Good job and thanks!”