[Orson]

Welcome Buscador, I’m glad you found us! Hopefully together we can savor some of that meat.

[Orson]

Welcome LadyWisdom!

It sounds like you may have some valuable insights for us. I am one that looks forward to hearing more from you!

I am certainly with you in being “passionate about advocating for compassion of those who struggle with the church.” I think that is what StayLDS is all about.

Again, welcome!

[Orson]

Thanks for your comments, I agree with your observations. Yes, most churches claim possession of “THE” truth – the exclusiveness of the attitudes that follow is very unfortunate in my eyes. I see God as an inclusive unifier, not an exclusive divider. There is much talk, even in the Bible, that sounds more like men’s imperfect understanding than the true purpose of God. A “chosen” people being one of the primary items. I feel this can be put into a proper context (perhaps a better choice of words might include “faithful” or “blessed”, though they have their problems as well), but I also think as humans we all too often succumb to the “elitist” desires that are a part of human nature. We want to think we’re better than the masses in some definable way. I probably want to think that with my knowledge I’m more enlightened than the average member, I don’t fight this; I hope that by recognizing it I can step around some of the traps that it opens for me.

Anyway, my original post here was (in a way) proclaiming my independence from the traditions of “exclusive” truth. In my eyes truth is one of the gifts that God wants to give all of his children – and in some way all of his children have access to it. Exclusive truth to me makes as much sense as exclusive love, you just can’t tell people they don’t experience it. I think God wants everyone to have access to it from all different directions.

[Orson]

Old-Timer, I think you’re thinking of William McLellin. He also has famous published journals, and he did leave and oppose the church.

Curt, I for one am not disagreeing with your main point. I do not see anything divine about the way polygamy was practiced in our church. After you allow yourself some time to let it sink in then maybe you can come back to the tangents that we are trying to introduce. There was a time in my crisis where I did not see myself being able to ever have a positive productive relationship with the church again. Today that attitude has turned 180 degrees. The question you can consider – and it doesn’t have to be a rush decision – is do you want to have a positive and productive relationship with the church? The key for me was learning about Fowler’s stages of faith, about non-absolutist faith, it also came in embracing the metaphorical and not worrying so much about the literal (at least for a while). I wish you well.

[Orson]

Personally I think you can’t help but remember “the important stuff.” How much is symbolic? In my opinion the physical stuff is all symbolic. The true meaning is what I take as important, and the way I always find “the true meaning” is by remembering that it must be connected to the ‘love of God’.

How’s that for a non-answer?

I highly recommend the podcast by the master Mason – Greg Karney (is that his name?) it should be in the library section or somewhere here. Listen to it twice, I think Greg offers invaluable insight on the subject.

[Orson]

Hi Sally, in short – yes, I think many people experience a similar “altered” view that you describe. As Richard Bushman described in one interview “Mormonism embraces both the universalistic and the particularistic view (the “one and only”) at the same time.” Yes, this is paradoxical and many people have not learned to be comfortable with paradox (more on this in Fowler’s “Stages of Faith”). In my opinion when people can’t grasp the paradox they let go of one pole and hold onto the other with all their might. The result is a CULTURAL phenomenon that many (even most) LDS members experience. The important distinction (to me at least) is between the culture and the true doctrine.

SallyM wrote:

So I am at a point where I still feel much of what the GAs say is inpired, and yes they may have a high level of spirituality, but much of what they say is of them, not of God…yet the culture of the LDS community is to accept all as being “gospel”.

Notice you point out here it is the CULTURE to accept leaders words as gospel – it is not doctrinal to accept every word as gospel. We can get into a lot of trouble when we start seeing culture as doctrine, and I think a look into the short past can demonstrate several such situations.

To me “the gospel is perfect but the leaders are not”. I would not even say the church is perfect, the church is an organization of mortals – the programs are not perfect. Our collective grasp or understanding of the gospel is also probably far from perfect – but the gospel itself – what we are trying to understand, what I like to boil down to ‘LOVE’ in it’s purest essence, is the perfect thing that may elude us mere mortals through the remainder of time. I try not to be bothered when I see the gospel misrepresented in church. I don’t see the gospel, or even truth, as something in whole or in part held exclusively in the LDS church. It is a gift of God (no other way to describe it) given to his “children” on earth. I think God lets error enter our culture and our history to keep us humble, and he hopes that we will open our eyes to see it – and then learn from it.

My thoughts for today at least.

Very thoughtful post, thanks for that.

[Orson]

Hi Curt, this is an example to me of how revelation (that always must be interpreted through the imperfect human medium that we inhabit) can, and through notable example does get interpreted incorrectly. Or is applied incorrectly. There are many troubling things about polygamy. I have a hard time with the idea that God would command something against the law that would require the compromise of integrity and credibility through the necessity of a public stance that differs from the private practice. Even after all this I don’t – I can’t – claim that one mistake (or even many mistakes) proves that nothing is inspired. The things that feel inspired to me I cherish and I live by. I constantly desire to learn and live by what is right, good, and true. This to me looks like the path to becoming more “Godly.” Learning to forgive others of their mistakes is something else that I strive for. Not that I have learned to – but I want to.

I think this subject also ties back to the idea of “non-absolutist” faith. It doesn’t ALL have to be correct for some or even much of it to be useful and good.

[Orson]

I guess I read that phrase a little differently. To me it seems redundant in stating ‘worthy’ and ‘needs’ together. To me these words seem to define the same thing. I would compare the intent to the statement “if you ask the proper questions then you will receive meaningful answers.” The worthiness applies to what you are asking for – if it is something that you are meant to have then you shall receive. If your desires are “unrighteous” or “unworthy” then you are ‘not meant to have it.’ I put that in quotes because obviously Hitler and hosts of wicked people have obtained their “wants” “unworthily”, but for the purpose of our learning life’s lessons I think the phrase makes a good point.

[Orson]

Valoel wrote:

This reminds me of a story my brother-in-law told me. He was a supply officer stationed in Iraq. Some guys on his base thought they were really funny. They were bbq’ing some ribs outdoors. It was pork. They offered some to an Iraqi soldier they knew, who was of course Muslim. He ate it, not knowing what it was, just that it was really tasty. My brother-in-law was FURIOUS at the american soldiers when he found out! He went to the Iraqi soldier to tell him what had happened. My BIL thought for sure the victim of the prank would freak out. You know his response? He shrugged his shoulders and said “oh well, I did not know it was pork, so it is ok. It was not my desire to break our dietary law.”

That is a great story, and to me it reinforces how the spirit of the law, as Jesus taught trumps the letter of the law. The soldiers who pulled the prank obviously have lessons to learn and growth to achieve, but the victim sounds like he has a healthy attitude and comprehension.

[Orson]

Yes, exactly. Good thoughts.

[Orson]

Hi Magicmusician, your words remind me of a mindset I used to have at a point earlier in my life. Excuse me if I read things into what you wrote, I’m actually remembering my own thoughts from that earlier time more than I’m responding to your specific words – but maybe something will help.

I used to have the impression that “inspiration” or “revelation” was, for lack of a better word, infallible. Like what you said about the SP I thought leaders at any level should have the foresight to prevent erroneous or potentially damaging events from ever happening. I thought the powers of discernment would surely keep a forger from being able to sell “historic documents” to the church. I thought revelation would release the priesthood ban just before society as a whole would be ready to accept it. I thought many other idealistic and frankly “inhuman” things about the way God works with his children on the earth.

Now I see things a little differently. It was not easy to accept at first, but what I personally see as overwhelming evidence has caused me to view God’s dealings with humans as an imperfect science at best. God can want to inspire us, and I believe he does, but as we inhabit this mortal condition I see it as something similar to talking under water. The message just can’t get through as clearly as we would like it to. It comes with being human, there is an element of (fallible) interpretation to anything that God wants to communicate. Since I have embraced this view everything about the church seems easier for me to take. I cherish the good intentions, but I don’t expect anything close to perfection. I like to call this a “non-absolutist” view, in other words the church is not either all-true or all-false. There are degrees of truth in any human organization. The church is good (in my eyes), goodness is truth (one form of truth), and I believe that I and my family will benefit by our participation.

I hope you find some comfort and insight at StayLDS.

[Orson]

I appreciate that quote. To me it speaks to gratitude and counting your blessings. The grass is always greener on the other side, when you learn to truly appreciate what YOU have – then life becomes wonderful! (In theory at least.)

[Orson]

I have faith in goodness, I see God as the source of everything that is good. I have felt blessed in life, but personally I can’t correlate the blessings to any specific actions on my part. They do seem a bit random to me. I do however cherish the blessings – and try to “pay it forward” as best as I can. There does seem to be some connection to attitude – you see what you look for, and personally if that’s all it is I still think the role that the church plays in people’s lives is for the most part positive. Again, I hope to be able to accept the things that I currently do not understand.

[Orson]

I have wondered about that too – if Joseph was getting too far off course for the good of the church. In reading more about Brigham Young recently (Leonard Arrington’s American Moses) I can’t help but think Joseph would have handled some things differently than Brigham, and personally I probably would have preferred Joseph’s approach. According to William Marks Joseph was softening considerably on polygamy at the end of his life. Of course we’ll never know for sure what he was thinking because he didn’t live long enough to demonstrate it, but there is some evidence that he was moving away from the other “less public” (or secret) activities at the end. Some say he gave instructions to not wear temple garments any more. That quote is tenuous I agree, but the fact is that he, Hyrum, and John Taylor were not wearing theirs in Carthage. You could rightly argue that he was simply afraid that in captivity they might be used against him, but again – we’ll never know for sure.

I agree with the main points in this thread, that if we look for the things that are of spiritual value, and take those things for our own personal benefit and growth – then we can’t help but be enriched. We are in the drivers seat toward our own “eternal life”, I can’t help but believe that is what God would want anyway.

I love this quote by Leonard Arrington, I’ve posted it before but it fits well here so I’ll paste it in again:

Arrington addressed the subject of the miraculous foundational events of our Church and asks the question “can one accept all of the miraculous events that surrounded the restoration of the gospel?” (This can relate to Joseph’s “prophetic mission”) He then explains “that truth may be expressed not only through science and abstract reason but also through stories, testimonies, and narratives of personal experience; not only through erudite scholarship but also through poetry, drama, and historical novels. …[Religious myth] is an account that may or may not have a determinable basis of fact or natural explanation. The truth of a myth is beyond empirical or historical accessibility. Examples are the Christian story of the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and the creation of the world as described in the book of Genesis. These are ways of explaining events or truths having religious significance that may be either symbolical or historical.” He concludes “I was never preoccupied with the question of the historicity of Joseph Smith’s first vision (though I find the evidence overwhelming that it did occur) or of the many reported epiphanies in Mormon, Christian, or Hebrew history. I am prepared to accept them as historical or as metaphorical, as symbolical, or as precisely what happened. That they convey religious truth is the essential issue, and of this I have never had any doubt.” (Reflections of a Mormon Historian p.165)

Yes, this may be different from the mainstream church’s views, but I hold on to the idea that the true gospel is the actual truth, everything else is “false doctrine”. No, I don’t pretend to know for sure myself what is the “actual truth”, but I do hope I’m open enough to accept it and not cast it aside because it doesn’t align with my prior ideas – or the traditions of my fathers — or even the popular ideas of men (which I am probably more inclined to believe). What would God want me to do?

[Orson]

Curt, I can certainly feel for your quandary – I have mulled over the same topic and have found it difficult if not impossible to reach a firm “rational” conclusion (which I always love to do). So in the end, or at least for now, I have come to a place where the details are less important to me. Maybe I accept it as a mystery. I try to work with and appreciate (as much as I can) the church for what it is today – and make ‘what it used to be’ or ‘where it came from’ less urgent in my (growing less-absolutist) mind. I think most people would agree that the church is much different today than it was in the 1800’s. I love to try to understand what it was and where it came from (I will always read on the subject) – but from a practical perspective of my life, or how it affects me today, where it came from is not as relevant to me today as it used to be before my crisis.

Yes, members can place an impossibly high standard on the leaders. I also wonder if some may place a similar high standard on God – or his designs for us on earth. I like to say God exists by definition – the creator, the source of love, good, and truth. These things do exist, and in my mind God exists because he is the source of them (understanding what the true source is – whatever it is – will get me closer to God). Everything else can be a mystery – many things are “unknowable” at least in the physical sense. Personally I’m okay with that. I feel that if I’m striving to promote life, love, and truth – or everything that is “good” – then I am aligning myself with the purposes of God which will enrich my life and (if the idea caught on) make the world a better place. I’m not sure if this describes the literal “salvation” of the world, or if it could be something else, but I don’t think this line of thought will do any harm.

The puzzling thing to me, and what makes Joseph look like a prophet in my eyes, are all the things that Joseph said that agree with this mindset. “It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine” or “Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day saints is truth”, I take that to mean that the gospel is defined by what is actually true – everything else is false doctrine. Brigham young said “Mormonism embraces all truth that is revealed and that is unrevealed, whether religious, political, scientific, or philosophical.” I view the scientific method as inspired – look at all the “miracles” it has brought about. Not that it displaces the need for spirituality, in my mind science merely helps people DO better, while spiritual pursuits help people BE better.

Anyway, enough rambling for now.

Valoel, I really appreciate your analysis on this subject. It could be the best I’ve seen so far.

[Author]

Posts