Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Curtis wrote:
People who see in black and white color everyone in one of those two colors. In this case, that means Waterman HAS to paint Brigham as completely black (how’s that for irony?
😆 ) in order to paint Joseph in glowing white.I don’t accept either coloring as even close to accurate.
This is good, Curtis.
I’ll admit that I’m playing a bit of devil’s advocate here, as I’ve been having some personal discussion with Rock via email and I’ve been trying to bounce around his ideas in my head. I’ve done so much deconstructing of Joseph Smith as a prophet over the last few months, I decided to try my hand at looking at him differently even with all of the information that is out there.
Let’s assume a few things for a moment. First, let’s assume that the church’s claim that the Bible has had many “plain and precious” things removed from it, and one of those things was more information about the organization of the church.
Let’s also assume that the BoM does indeed hold “the fullness of the gospel” and that one of its purposes is to help fill in those gaps that the bible lacks due to the plain and precious things being taken out.
So, that would lead us to 3 Nephi to understand how Christ wants his church organized. How did he do it? What can we learn from how he organized the church when he visited the Nephites? Some things stand out to me:
First, he organized the sacrament, but quite differently than we practice it today.
3 Nephi mentions MULTIPLE times that those who partook of the sacrament did so “until they were filled.” It’s quite apparent to me that this isn’t just some shallow spiritual euphemism. They literally ate bread and drank wine until their stomachs were full. Quite the juxtaposition to the small scraps of bread and shots of tap water we do today.
Second, Christ explicitly instructed his called disciples to partake first until they were full, THEN give to the multitude. Again, not how we do it today. Other ways our sacrament differs: he commanded them to sit “on the earth.” We sit in pews. Also, Christ ordained ONE to bless and administer the sacrament to the disciples, to then distribute to the multitude. We use multiple priests.
Interesting that Christ closes out his sacramental instructions with the explicit charge that doing “more or less” than this is not of him and doing so is expressley forbidden. Yet, in our modern church we have taken it upon ourselves to change the ordinance, with no clear understanding as to why.
The only other information we have from Christ on the specific organization of his church is his calling of the 12 disciples in 3 Nephi 11 and 12.
Of note: he did not call 12 disciples plus an over-arching First Presidency. The first time we learn anything about a First Presidency being used is through Joseph Smith in D&C 81. It seems that the 12 disciples Christ called in the Americas were supposed to be a presiding council, with no one person being above another.
He also outlined the requirements for baptism: repentance and desire. That’s it!
There’s more, but I think you get my point, that it’s very curious to me that how Christ chose to organize his church among the Nephites is so very different than we observe it today, yet he explicitly instructed them that doing “more or less” than his instructions would put them on shaky ground and was not of him.
Orson wrote:jhp33 wrote:I don’t find the evidence overwhelming as it pertains to Joseph Smith implementing and practicing polygamy. I find, instead, overwhelming evidence that he condemned the practice with the utmost vehemence even until his dying day.
Simply off the top of my head I recall multiple witnesses not all friendly to Brigham Young’s leadership also verified Joseph’s polygamy. The earliest being Oliver Cowdery, and it seems most of those who lost faith in Joseph at Kirtland. William Law, participating in the Nauvoo Expositor and I also believe gave additional testimony to it years later. William Marks also claimed Joseph did practice polygamy, and it would have been in his interest to proclaim the “true gospel” as he believed it should be (he never agreed with polygamy) as taught by Joseph was free of the practice.
Doesn’t even the Community of Christ today admit that Joseph did practice polygamy? There are so many personal witnesses of people that were in fact close to Joseph during his life time that to me the evidence is overwhelming.
It was my understanding that the accusation of polygamy against Oliver came from BY himself.
Am I wrong in remembering that the actual document containing the revelation that is Section 132 is written in BY’s handwriting and that he claimed that Emma destroyed the original? Convenient story.
Keep in mind that Emma herself defended Joseph against charges of polygamy her whole life according to all the primary sources. You have to rely on some less-than credible evidence from secondary sources to even come close to establishing that Emma had knowledge of Joseph’s practice of polygamy. I find it hard to believe that, even after BY had left and there was no real pressure to keep up the facade, that Emma would continue to defend Joseph’s reputation if he was indeed guilty of it.
I admit I’m not as up to speed on the William Law references. Need to look into those.
I’m intrigued by the back-and-forth regarding polygamy. The thing that intrigues me the most is that it seems virtually impossible to arrive at a definite conclusion either way regarding to origins of polygamy.
My problem with ascribing polygamy to Joseph Smith is that it is 100% reliant on secondary sources.
Any primary sources we have about polygamy and Joseph Smith don’t pass the *sniff* test to me. There is very strong evidence that the history of the church was doctored after the saints arrived in Utah. There is strong evidence that there was a faction of the church that wanted to put pressure on Joseph to implement the practice. Therefore, it’s hard for me to trust those primary sources.
So, we have to rely on secondary sources, which is always problematic for coming to conclusions about historical issues.
I don’t find the evidence overwhelming as it pertains to Joseph Smith implementing and practicing polygamy. I find, instead, overwhelming evidence that he condemned the practice with the utmost vehemence even until his dying day. It seems very odd to me that Joseph would choose to introduce and implement so many new and unusual doctrines openly, and yet keep polygamy secret until his dying day. In fact, it would seem that his passion for defending himself against the charges was his ultimate undoing (ie, Nauvoo Expositor).
The storyline that Brigham Young and other apostles implemented secret polygamy before Joseph’s death, then openly practiced it after, and doctored the history of the church in order to pin it on Joseph, seems plausible to me. Not an argument without holes, but plausible.
Either way, it’s all very mind-boggling, but with very real implications for how you view church history and even the modern church.
I think I’ve said this before, but I think it is applicable here. I have come to believe that the way I have viewed the temple recommend interview in the past is no longer compatible with my view of God. I do not believe that we can rely on the arm of flesh to judge worthiness. I do not believe that the purpose of a temple recommend is for the interviewer to judge our worthiness. I believe the purpose of the interview is for the interviewer to stand as a witness of us declaring ourselves worthy or unworthy.
Usually, the bishop stands up in sacrament meeting with a new deacon and says “I have found Johnny to be worthy to receive the Aaronic Priesthood.”
I had a bishop who explicitly avoided this verbiage, and it was something that always stuck with me. Instead, he would consistently say “Johnny has presented himself worthy to receive the Aaronic Priesthood.” As in, “I interviewed Johnny, and he declared himself worthy, and as a judge in Israel, I accept his declaration of worthiness.”
Earthly leaders aren’t here to judge us. They are here to act as witnesses.
This is how I choose to approach the temple recommend interview.
As such, I do not worry what the interviewer thinks about or how they interpret my answers. If the interviewer ever strays from the questions, I am VERY quick to correct them and emphasize that they are required per the CHI to read the questions verbatim and not stray from them. I don’t need to explain to them what I define as a full tithe. I don’t need to explain to them how I understand the Word of Wisdom. I don’t need to quantify my testimony, only that I have one.
My worthiness is between me and the Lord. Honestly, I really don’t understand why anyone would ask for a recommend interview if they don’t already feel worthy. Doesn’t make sense to me. That’s for you and the Lord to work out between yourselves privately, then go receive multiple witnesses and get your signatures and you’re good to go.
My $0.02.
LDSThomas wrote:3. The January 2014 movie — Just released yesterday. My understanding is that this one is still English-only.
Whoa…this is the first I’m hearing of a new movie as of this month.
Quote:Footnote: There were 2 films produced in the 1990s. The “Michael Ballam as Satan” film is the one still in use. The other one (which was the 2nd one released in the 90s — the “Derryl Yeager as Satan” film — he was the
George-Michael-with-blonde-hairSatan) 
Oh, I totally remember that. The actor in the original was almost middle eastern looking, and they photoshopped the face of a polynesian looking fellow. I remember being in the temple and he showed up and I almost said out loud “What the??? They’ve photoshopped a new head on John!”
Old-Timer wrote:So, in accordance with the mission of this site, how do each of us move forward and stay LDS (and do so with peace and happiness) no matter what happens with regard to the Word of Wisdom – and, especially, if nothing changes from the current situation?
What I have committed to do is remember that my personal spiritual journey depends on personal revelation. Just as at some point children have to stop relying on the testimony of their parents, at some point we have to stop relying on the testimony of the prophets and form our own — about EVERYTHING. Even the Word of Wisdom.
Now, do I have to accept that I am bound within some limits if I want to remain a member of the church. That means when I am asked in a TR interview if I keep the Word of Wisdom, I must answer honestly. But I am not required to give details, as that introduces the inherent biases of the interviewer. There are two sides to the equation.
My definition of what constitutes the WoW has absolutely changed. Does that mean I need to share that with the person interviewing me? Absolutely not. Does that mean I need to ponder and pray and meditate upon what that new interpretation means for me in my spiritual journey and my walk with God and make sure it aligns with my spirit? You better believe it.
Heber13 wrote:jhp33 wrote:Am I welcome here? Do you want me here if I think/feel those things?”
jhp33, your whole post is really excellent. Well worded, very sincere, very positive. Well done!! And I think that is a good question to ask the bishop…putting it back on him to think. this isn’t about you being lost and needing him to help you fix it, this is now your journey to decide what you want to do or not want to do and how you choose to believe. Take his feedback as good things to consider, like a friend who has an opinion to offer you so you can think about it, but just like a friend is not an authority for you, neither is he. He is a volunteer servant who will try to care, but may not understand you and where you are, and that is OK, he still might have some inspired things to help you consider.
Exactly! That feeling permeated throughout our meeting. Never before have I sat in a bishop’s office before in that kind of setting and felt like I was equal to the person sitting across from me.
Quote:My question:
Do you want callings in the future? Maybe not teaching seminary, but do you want to stay involved in the ward in other capacities?
Very much so. Where can I serve with where I’m at right now? I’m not really sure.
During our meeting, we read a scripture in D&C about fellowship that really resonated with me, because I told him that I still crave that fellowship, and I feel that fellowship is essential in understanding ourselves in many ways. He then said something to the effect of “Well, we’ll figure out some other calling for you to do.”
Now, the old me definitely wouldn’t have said or thought anything more about it, but I immediately piped up and said “Well, I’d also like to figure out what I where I would like to serve going forward as well.” When I was in a bishopric before there was this one lady who I extended a couple of callings to, who always thanked me for coming and asking, and told me she would think about it, pray about it, and get back to me with an answer. I remember that at the time, I felt so put off by this, like “how dare you…this calling is from the BISHOP. You’re just supposed to say YES!” Now I recognize how backward that way of thinking is. So, that was my way of saying to him that his word on where I serve in the ward is not necessarily the final word.
Thanks, Jedi. I do understand the essence he was trying to convey. And I really appreciate that talk from Elder Uchtdorf. It really resonated with me back in October, for this very reason. In fact, one of the reasons I’m so convinced that I’m on the path that God wants for me is that I’ve consciously taken time as I’m thinking/meditating/praying to doubt my doubts. And they still remain.
(Warning, this is going to be long) All in all, I think it was a pretty good meeting. It was over an hour long, so I can’t really go into great detail, but I’ll try to hit the high points.
First some background, based on some of your comments/questions:
Here in our area, we have three teachers who split up all the students that comprise the two wards that meet in our building. So, while my resignation was indeed abrupt and causes a significant hiccup for the other teachers, I knew when I resigned that this would not cause an actual disruption in the teaching of the students. If it had, I wouldn’t have done it like I did. I have apologized profusely to both of the other teachers and the bishop and explained that I wish very much that I hadn’t had to make the decision that last minute, but it was a huge wrestle for me and I just came up to the deadline and had to pull the trigger based on how I felt.
I emailed the bishop on Sunday night, probably around 7 p.m., but kept it very vague. Just said that for personal reasons, I would not be able to teach seminary anymore. He emailed back early the next morning and asked why (naturally) but that he would work on finding an arrangement/new teacher. I responded and said, again, trying to keep things very general, that I was confused about a lot of things with the church, and that because of that I didn’t think it was a very good idea for me to be teaching the youth every day about the BoM.
He didn’t respond to that email. I didn’t hear anything from him until I got an email from his Exec Sec Tuesday afternoon, saying that the Bishop wanted to meet with me Wednesday night.
So, as for last night…
His first question was just “What’s going on?”
I laid out to him how we all have doubts and questions and things that don’t make sense, and since I was a missionary, I’ve just always swept many of those doubts and questions aside because I think we kind of have in the Mormon culture the sense that it’s bad to explore them. So I had never really explored them all that much.
But then, I said, the church’s involvement with Prop 8 and same sex marriage always just made me uncomfortable, and I couldn’t understand why. I mean, I understood the doctrine, but it just all still gave me a feeling that I identify as being opposed to the spirit. But, again, I pushed that aside because I was determined to “Follow the Prophet.”
I then explained how I had read the church’s statement on race and the priesthood, and a light just really clicked on for me. I said “It was then I realized that prophets — even modern prophets — are fully capable of preaching and teaching and promoting false doctrine.” I told him that was never a concept I had really considered before.
That, I told him, just threw the doors wide open. I felt now obligated to open up myself to the possibility that ANYTHING I had been taught by the mouths of the prophets was essentially false doctrine. This point really threw him. He wanted to get into a little bit of a side debate over whether it really was “false doctrine” that BY taught, but I was having none of that.
The conversation then turned to what I believe. He wanted me, essentially, to bear my testimony. I told him, the way I see things RIGHT NOW, is I can kind of put things into three buckets.
1. Things I know
2. Things I believe/have faith in/hope for
3. Things that really just don’t make sense to me
I told him that the one thing in my life I know to be true without a shadow of a doubt is the love I have for my family. That can and will never change. I don’t know if you want to call it a cosmic power or force or principle, but the concept of love and compassion and humility is something that is very very very real to me. I can feel it inside my soul. That also is real.
There are some things that I believe and have faith in. I told him I don’t know for a surety that God exists, or that Jesus really was the Son of God and executed a sort of Atonement for me and that it is through him that I am “saved” (whatever that means). But I have hope for those things. I hope they are true. But do I know them? Absolutely not.
He seemed very surprised at this, but not in a bad way. He didn’t really say anything, but kind of just had a “that’s an interesting way of looking at it” kind of look on his face.
Everything else, I said, just doesn’t really make sense to me. The Book of Mormon? I mean, I know I feel good when I read parts of it, and parts of it point to that cosmic/eternal sense of love and charity, but does that really mean it is an actual historical record and that Lehi and Nephi and Alma were real people who lived and breathed? I really don’t know and I don’t really know that right now I have a hope for that. I don’t know that it’s that important to me right now.
I said basically the same thing about the structure of the church and the prophets and apostles. This is when, for some reason, I began to feel a sense of defensiveness from him. Around this same time, he also asked me if I had been reading the scriptures lately. I told him I had “Okay, let’s talk about some of the things you’ve read.”
I told him about how I pulled out the scriptures the other day and I kind of just opened up to Matthew 23. Now, I’ve always read that chapter and felt the impression, naturally, guiding me toward looking inwardly at myself and the hypocritical things I do. But when I read Matthew 23 the other day, I had the very distinct impression to pay attention to WHO the savior was talking to. He was talking to the pharisees and scribes “who sit in Moses’ seat.” And I told him that I began to read that chapter and I got the very distinct impression that, were Christ to visit the earth today as he did in the bible, he would have some of the very same things to say as he said in Matthew 23 to the leaders of the church.
At that point he got really defensive. “So you’re saying the prophets and apostles are hypocrites?” he said. Well, in some ways, yes, I responded. I believe that there are many ways in which they follow God, but like all flawed mortals, there are ways that they sin, and sin very publicly, we just turn a blind eye to it.
He then said “Well I just think you don’t know them like I know them. I’ve met several of them and that’s just not the men I know.”
“I’ve met several of them too, and I have to say that my interaction with them has not necessarily been the best, so I think you can’t hang your hat on just one person’s impression.” (This is a story for another day)
But, I told him, that doesn’t mean I don’t sustain them (in the sense that I recognize that they are the ones that lead the church…that’s my personal definition of sustaining).
He then asked me what questions I had for him. I realize now that he was expecting me to come into his office and ask him all these questions I had and have him pull out his scriptures and resolve them for me.
Instead, I told him there was only one real question I had for him. And it’s a question I stole from John Dehlin’s podcast in which he recounts meeting with an Apostle and being invited to ask a question. I asked the bishop “Is there room in the church for someone like me who won’t stand up in sacrament meeting and say ‘I know the church is true’ or who doesn’t necessarily believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon or doesn’t really give an incredible amount of credence to the specific words of the prophets? Am I welcome here? Do you want me here if I think/feel those things?”
His response kind of disappointed me. I mean, I don’t mean to nitpick, and I don’t mean to judge, but I guess I expected the kind of reaction Christ would have given, a very compassionate “of course you belong here, we want you here, we need you here.”
Instead, he scoffed. And kind of laughed, and said “Why on earth would you think that?” I understand what he was trying to communicate, but the delivery was still a bit off-putting, and I told him that.
We talked about a lot of other stuff, and I think I helped him understand that I’m not really looking for him to resolve my doubts or bring back my testimony. I just need him to understand why I am different now, and what implications that has on my calling as a seminary teacher. He agreed that it’s probably best right now that I not teach the BoM, so I thought that was good. He also asked me why I’ve been going with my wife to Primary lately, instead of to HPG. I told him simply because I don’t feel comfortable in HPG. There are many times I have to bit my lip and keep my mouth shut, and I’m the youngest one in there (by a long shot) and I just don’t feel right when I’m in there. Plus, if you had to pick an auxiliary that comes closest to teaching the pure doctrine of Christ, it’s the primary, so that’s where I go. He laughed and agreed with me on that one.
Last thing, before I left he told me “Don’t wait too long before you come and ask me another question.” Not really sure what he meant by that, because I don’t really have any more questions for HIM, but I guess we’ll see.
Anyway, I hope that was helpful. Appreciate you all providing some insight and thoughts as I was preparing for this.
On Own Now wrote:I don’t think that declaring yourself the bread-winner and therefore that you will pay no tithing as a family is the loving approach. That sounds very 1950s.
Thanks, everyone. I think the above rings most true to me. I don’t want this to be a heavy handed “its my money” thing at all between us, because that’s never been the way we’ve operated.
I think we’ll have a discussion about this tonight, and your responses have been very helpful.
You guys are amazing. Seriously. Just hearing “I know how you feel” multiple times is a huge support. I have some other things I want to talk about, but I’ll leave this thread for what it is meant for…introductions. I appreciate each and every one of you for reaching out and showing me a hand of fellowship. I stand in need of comfort now, and I know you are all here to help. As I continue to grow and learn, I hope I can provide that same level of comfort and support you have shown me.
