Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think that this thread could fall into the category of the truth in history because it brings up the entire issue of historical memory and how we, as a nation and a people, decide how to remember that history. For instance, there is no monument to the Boston Massacre of 1770! You have to actually ask where did it take place? And they’ll point you to this area in the street and nothing commemorating it. Anyway, I think commemorating the MMM is kind of lame, even though I am a left-wing US historian who one might think otherwise that I would support it. I mean I don’t have a problem with it per se, but, yeah, where are the commemorations to the Mormons who were killed in other areas and eras? Is Carthage jail a National Monument? Maybe be it is but I doubt it. Then the question is, of course, should it be? I think with the Mormon Church, which is such a deeply rich cultural American movement, that probably things like it should be and/or that maybe many more should. Maybe the one good thing to come out of this move to turn MMM into a NM will result in more national recognition of the Mormon contribution to our history, esp of the Utah branch. Anyway, I am babbling but just love history and can’t seem to avoid getting involved in these discussions. And though no longer practicing I still love the church. Curt As I have read all of the posts on this particular thread I just don’t understand how anyone, who has studied the issues, remains a member any longer. I just can’t get it. Save it is like belonging to the American Legion or something. Sorry. I think Tom has it pretty much right. You can choose to believe in something or anything or nothing. It’s all what one decides. There are certain “wisdoms” that are eternal, and all of the truly great scriptures of times past touch upon them, usually with a simple lesson–do unto others as you would have them do unto you–a concept that is, arguably, not religious based at all. It’s when religions decide that they are the only true one that problems, historically, seem to occur. We have learned this but we’re still dealing with it obviously, esp in the case of Islamic fundamentalism. The Protestants and Catholics have generally put aside their differences and the Mormons even have given up some of their most egregious claims on that, as in the changes to the temple ceremony. For me, though, all of it just waters down the whole entire thing and leads me toward agnosticism if not atheism. It kind of gets boring at some point. Ha. But I can’t get away from it because it is all too interesting.
As a professional historian I definitely have a view on this matter. There is no such thing as objective history. Historians tried for years to find such a thing but anyone who does history (or even just reads it) should know that “truth” in history is fleeting. Like some others have said here we can know facts but facts themselves even can be interpreted in different ways. But certainly we can get closer to the truth by analyzing differing accounts and comparing and contrasting them. Some things we can write away as myth when we do this. What is troubling, in the case of the church (imo), is that it tends to hold to a “truth-based” history of a certain genre. So, as an example, The Ensign portrayals of JS dictating the BofM to OC, with JS on one side of the “veil” and OC on the other. This has been disputed sufficiently at this point to declare that a myth, although the church still promotes it. We know that JS dictated some of the book by putting his head in a hat and using a peep stone, upon which the words of the translation supposedly appeared. There are simply too many testimonies to this reality to ignore them. Yet, the church still pushes that version for its own purposes. (To be fair, in this particular instance, the head-in-the-hat version only dealt with the 116 lost pages but it isn’t clear that JS even needed the gold plates in his presence to complete the translation.) The problem for me is that the evidence such as it exists “proves” so much falsity with the official version of the church’s history that it becomes problematic to believe anything it says. There are certainly people who can accept this and still believe, others that simply refuse to accept the conflicting evidence, and those of us who feel sort of betrayed when we realize the story has so many holes.
But the larger point here is that it all comes down to faith. History will not prove or disprove anything, save certain kinds of basic facts, i.e., yes the United States exists, etc. etc. As a historian I do put a lot of faith in history, by which I mean, I won’t accept things without some basis in the sources. What historians are required to do, if they are worth their salt, is make logical, plausible arguments based on their reading of the sources. Then the rest of us just have to decide what we believe.
In the case of JS he certainly chose to write a history that painted a certain picture, a picture that has been called into question by other sources that have come to light. Did he have that First Vision? Who knows. It’s foundational to Mormon faith at this point but it can certainly be called into question. But what of it? If you believe he did, then act accordingly. If not, then act accordingly.
I do wish it was easier to figure out.
There is no question that the lack of other offspring presents the most compelling case that JS did not practice polygamy, at least in the carnal sense. It is quite possible that he sealed himself to many women but did not actually engage in sexual intercourse with them. I think that the lack of more offspring pretty much assures that is the case. Destroys the idea that JS was some kind of lecher and could even account for Emma’s refusal to believe he practiced polygamy. This is an area of inquiry that needs much more study. If JS didn’t view polygamy as something to be carnal, rather than spiritual alone, then it does seem to raise serious questions about BY and those who followed that path, and brings into question whether they were truly inspired by God let alone prophets. Of course, it also raises other, troubling issues. From the entirely negative side-why would JS have put down the “prophecy” anyway, if he did not seek to use it for sexual satisfaction? From a more positive side–did he not understand the prophecy? Was he confused by it? Did he carry it out reluctantly, even if only in a non-carnal sense? JS was a very powerful figure with a vast ego and a charisma that could bring men and women to him. The questions on his polygamous activity abound. Curt
I left and it wasn’t that hard for me. Granted, I didn’t have a family of my own at the time, no temple marriage or children, so one could argue I wasn’t as invested in it or faced with the consequences of that, although my parental family was unhappy and I had to deal with that. But I just couldn’t stay. And I felt very freed by my decision. There was just something about saying no to it that made feel really liberated, even though I didn’t necessarily believe the church wasn’t true. I totally sympathize with those who wrestle with this issue but I also think that the entire issue just demonstrates a problem with the church that places undue guilt on its members to remain in the fold. Granted, this is hardly unique to Mormonism but it becomes kind of ugly once you get outside of the Mormon “box” and see an alternative. It’s all fine and dandy when you think you’re living in the one and only true church and that those outside it just don’t get it. But once you get outside that box it becomes extremely disturbing–almost as though it is a cult. I mean it is really difficult to look at it the same again once one undergoes that experience.
Well, anyway, just my two cents.
It is, of course, all good if people find useful and good meaning in the church that leads them to live good lives. I doubt anyone with a soul would be against that. But the church’s claims are too bold to allow me to give any countenance to this kind of airy-fairy happy approach to “testimonies” that are delivered, especially by young members who likely have no clue of the problems inherent in the church’s history. I remember all too well being driven to testify on fast and testimony Sunday that (while starving) “I believe the church is true and that JS is a true prophet of God.” Geez, that was hard-core propaganda. I apologize that I did not take the time to read through all of the post on this thread, but the ones I did read through did not note the one main fact–that God and Jesus are separate beings. The whole basis of the church falls on that idea, does it not? I am really glad I opened up this thread as it has been very enlightening for me. As I said in my initial post I was unaware of this policy until recently and wanted to know more about it, and the list members have definitely supplied that. I believe my initial thoughts on it are right, that it did more harm than good. I think I would have been far more willing to continue in the church if it hadn’t adopted such a cookie-cutter outlook that made me, at least, feel ostracized. This, even way before I learned about some the problems with the orthodoxy. The church simply didn’t fit who I was as a person, and therefore made me feel unwelcome. But knowing now about correlation I can see how that happened. Not much insight, I realize, but just my two cents. I would really love to know what it was like being a Mormon in the early days. It’s impossible to totally capture the past, and I don’t agree with the polygamy, but just wonder what kind of licenses there was in believing. It seems it was a much more open church then than it became. I don’t like the authority aspect that correlation seems to have imposed on the church; it’s fascistic, is it not? I am not surprised that I got turned off by the church for the very reason of it, having grown up in the church when it happened. I suppose the elders had no idea that some of us would have reasons to disagree. They totally misjudged/misunderstood/could make no sense of the revolution in drug use that gave some of us a deeper reason to question authority. So it is.
Quote:“Thing that everyone has to remember is in history BOTH sides are biased. We know that the church account is whitewashed, but equally, the other side is blackened. Some of the charges against Smith may have been created, overblown etc. Maybe some local men felt threatened by his prowess with women, success and the devotion of his followers as much as anything else.”
I so disagree with this sentiment. There is no history that has only two sides. Please. That’s boring and embarrassing at the best. History can have many sides, not just two. And it is more often the fact that it is neither pure or blackened, but something in between. I think you probably meant that but you didn’t come off that way. At any rate, history is anybody’s game; just needs to be rational and legitimate in its claims.
Quote:Ray wrote: Do you understand, however, that there are MANY members whose experiences are different than yours? I haven’t created an alternate reality that doesn’t exist for others; I’ve lived a true reality that exists for many others. Neither is a falsely created reality; both are true realities. In dismissing mine as falsely created by wrestling and twisting reality, you essentially are destroying any chance of recognizing that your experience isn’t the only “truth” out there – which destroys any chance of understanding “my truth” as legitimate. It also paints the Church into a false corner from which it is impossible to escape, since it doesn’t allow for any other option than intentional dishonesty and disappointment.
Understanding that my experience really is true and legitimate, even though it isn’t yours, is the beginning of real charity – and, frankly, your current paradigm simply doesn’t allow for charity as you view church leaders. Even if you never rejoin the LDS Church or “regain a testimony”, finding charity for others and allowing for differing yet legitimate experiences and perspectives is important to gaining peace and understanding.
Ray, you’re correct. My experience is certainly not the experience everyone has had with the church and I did not mean to say that you were creating a false reality. Yes, that is what I said, but it isn’t what I meant in actuality, and thanks for pointing that out to me. Just having been hammered over the head with a certain view of the church year in and year out, and having that view expressed by all those around me (family, friends, church leaders), makes it hard for me to believe there was (or is) an alternative view. Perhaps the problem is generational. I left the church when I was quite young, in my late teens, in the early 1980s (although I remained a believer until the early 1990s). I could see how being raised in the church at a later time, when much of this info became more available, would allow one to develop, perhaps, a more nuanced view of the church and so on (I have no idea if that applies to you). My experience was it was one way or the highway. One reason I appreciate this site is because it helps me to learn and I apologize if I came off arrogant or uncharitable. I am just going off my own experience and I see the problem with that. It is sometimes easy to get worked up over issues such as these.
So, yeah, that’s it.
Quote:Ray wrote: “Why does curt insist that it’s the basic teaching of the church that there was always only one version of the first vision – since that’s never been the stance of the church, and since many, many, many members know about the multiple versions of the first vision. Why does he prove to be so dishonest about things like this?”
Well, it is just what my experience was in the church. I mean I am certainly not the only one who felt deceived or what not upon learning that there were different versions of the first vision. Clearly, the church has upheld an official version of it and has tried to promote that version alone (and still does). When I told my father (lifelong member born in 1938) about this in the early 1990s he full out rejected that it was even possible. I don’t think he ever accepted it as reality. When Chessman first brought the 1832 version to light, many people rejected it as untrue until they had to contend with the fact that it was authentic. I don’t remember who it was at the moment (I can find the info) but one of the church leaders went so far as to say at one point that (paraphrasing): “Joseph always only told one story of the first vision.” I suspect the leaders themselves didn’t even know there were other versions. So, I guess I just totally disagree that it was never the basic teaching of the church that there was always only one version. You seem to have the ability to wrestle with the problems, make sense of them for you, and then recreate some version of the church that never existed for the vast majority of people who were (have been) involved in it. Obviously, things have changed, and even Ensign did a piece on the various versions. So the info is now out there. But I question whether most Mormons really know that there are different versions and/or the problems posed by them.
At any rate, I was merely using the first vision to highlight a larger point–that the church’s troubled history, if the church is in fact true, does test our level of believability beyond what one would expect of the “restored church.” Why would God put us through the wringer like this? That seems to me what the original poster was getting at, and I just offered my own view.
I have to agree. This is one of those issues where the whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me. If this is the true and restored church of Jesus Christ, and if it was restored for the “last days,” that we might know the fullness of the gospel, why would the Lord have made it so difficult for Joseph and the others? And then subsequently for us, who are expected to believe despite all of the problems that exist with the church’s history? I know that the common answer is that we must be tested and so on, but the test is really almost beyond the pale. Especially since the church has proved so dishonest about its past. I mean it is really taxing to ask us to believe when we can so readily see the cover-ups and attempts at white-washing. And I have asked myself many times, why would God make it this difficult? Why would the church, if it is true, not have been always totally open? Why were we always told, and probably it is still the basic teaching of the church, that there was always only one version of the first vision, for instance, such that once we found out this wasn’t true (among many other things), it caused many of us to question deeply the church itself? Why would a true church led by God and Jesus do that to us? It’s almost as though God is playing tricks on us to see if we really believe, which just doesn’t comport with my view of a loving God. It would be cruel to do that. I confess (no pun intended) that I did not read through all of the posts for this particular post, but will add my two cents to the original, as I see it. I do not think there is any evidence for the Great Apostasy upon which Mormonism is based. I spent, in an earlier time, a lot of time debating and discussing with Catholic priests of the Jesuit order (I was the personal chef for a community of Jesuits for ten years and had many opportunities to engage with them about matters of religion). It wasn’t their opinions that made me believe this, by any means, but they did help me to understand better what the Catholic church is, and, frankly, it is a far more Christian enterprise than I think the Mormon church is. The Catholic church is of obvious long standing historically speaking, and has had its problems over the centuries (Mormons no less so in an even shorter time span). Those problems have continued into the modern era with the child molestation issues that have emerged. But there will always be, in any religion, people who don’t live up to its values, and always those that will, so we can’t simply castigate the Catholic church.
That said, the idea of the Catholic church is very freeing. The church is the body of the people, not the Vatican. To be sure, the Vatican exerts a certain level of control, but it is really a church of the people (the pope is, after all, merely the bishop of Rome, an equal among all bishops the world over). For instance, the church doesn’t dictate how a parish is created. If enough Catholics live in a certain area they can then ask that a priest be assigned to their parish. They then support that priest through their offerings (tithing). Furthermore, the church only guides certain aspects of a person’s life. It doesn’t demand that one not drink or smoke, as these are viewed as normal human activities (and not bearing on spirituality or salvation), albeit ones that can create problems, but leaves that up to the individual. But this leaves religion to the individual too. The main goal of the church is personal salvation in Christ. It requires good works, to be sure, but all as ways of knowing Christ. Otherwise, it doesn’t demand dictates on one’s life. In other words, it is a true community of people _willfully_ engaging in a community based on Christ.
Since the Catholic church has existed, arguably, from the beginning of Christ’s reign, and continues to profess and offer people a vehicle to salvation in Christ, I don’t see the argument that an Apostasy happened to be very valid. The idea of an Apostasy occurring did not, of course, originate with the Mormons. It is a Protestant versus Catholic argument, but, given the ugly history of that schism, can we necessarily say it was real? And Mormonism merely piggy backed upon that argument, so we do need to ask ourselves whether it is real and true, as Mormons state it. By this I mean, does Mormonism stand or fall on whether there was a Great Apostasy? I am not sure the answer to that question but I think it deserves consideration.
Well, it turns out that they only mentioned Joseph Smith twice and ignored the Mormons, for the most part. They did the same with the Christian Scientists and the Jehovah Witnesses, so not sure what the reasoning was. I think it is a disgrace, nonetheless. I am a professor of history and was considering purchasing this dvd to use in my classes, but now will not. It is really unforgivable to leave any of these sects out of a historical analysis of God in America, i.e., religion in America. Too bad.
