[Orson]

Hi Becky! I hope you’ll feel welcome around here. We like all flavors!

[Orson]

So many good comments here already.

The way I look at it prophets are human and make mistakes. I think many things said on polygamy were wrong – spoken from the human mind. I think Brigham Young’s Adam-God preaching was wrong – created from his human mind. This may seem harsh but the way that Hinckley quote comes across – I think it is another example of how prophets are human and make mortal mistakes. You just can’t hang on every little word that comes out, there is a personal spiritual filter that everyone has, and I believe we’re told to use it. One day I was sitting in Elder’s quorum and the teacher actually said: “false doctrine is everywhere around us, you can hear it in sacrament meetings, you can hear it in Sunday school, and you can hear it in general conference!” We all need to get the rust out of our own spiritual filters, and not worry about (rather be thankful for) how much crud it actually filters out!

Now coming off the harsh edge, I also agree with many of the things Ray said – but sometimes it’s nice to hear a few words straight and cold. Valoel also said something months ago (on another forum) that I like: “even if Joseph thought he was a fraud – he still got some things right!” This is what I hold on to in the darkest moments, I think there is something to it.

[Orson]

Hi CJ! Welcome to the challenging journey. Yes it is difficult when your youthful dreams or perceptions get shattered. I commend you for not “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” Yes, it never returns to a pre-‘crisis’ state, but in many ways for those who stick around activity in the church can become even more rewarding (at least I’ve heard those words a lot). There is a growth that comes through struggle. For me, all those things you list demonstrate how much humanity is mixed into life, even spiritual life that I used to picture differently. Over time it is possible to see the spirituality even among the human frailties, but you have to look for it. I don’t mean that in the typical ‘apologist’ way as a defense of exclusive authority, but in a personally meaningful way still. It sounds like you’re on the road already.

Again, welcome!

[Orson]

JustMike wrote:

I thought my wife would accept me no matter what, but after I broke the news to her, she was suddenly talking about divorce and saying she never would have married me had she known the outcome.

That is definitely a hard thing to hear. I remember listening to my wife say “do you realize I never would have married you?” and thinking ‘this can’t be real’. There is nothing fun about that situation. The hardest part is the confusion – speaking what you believe to be the truth is supposed to be the right thing to do, but your integrity gets poisoned and thrown back into your face. I was lucky, when the smoke cleared my wife clarified that she didn’t regret marrying me, she was simply stating something that we both always knew – she always had the goal to marry a ‘strong member’.

I think one of the keys to getting through this rough patch is to become the bigger person. Go out of your way to show your love, do nice things without expecting anything in return. Work on building a personal relationship and hopefully she can make an effort to put the spiritual stuff ‘on the shelf’ for a while. My wife was able to do that, and over time she began to look at some of the ‘bigger’ problems that other people have in their marriages – and became thankful that I was ‘at least’ a good person in most ways. I think a common fear is that a spouse will lose their standards along with their belief, if you can demonstrate you will always be the same person with the same foundational morals, I think that helps a lot. For me, I pictured myself as increasing my standards if anything, because I was unwilling to imply that I believe something if I don’t – and my overall focus turned to unconditional love. Over time I have come to a different understanding of spiritual truth, and I’m not so concerned with how others may view some things more literally than I do (this may be a subject for a later date). I also realize the limit to my own spiritual knowledge, and I’m much more willing to allow the possibility of (elements of) spiritual truth in places where my earlier disaffection held to be extremely unlikely. You might say I’ve softened my hard rules of spiritual ‘truth’ (the books and DVD’s in my earlier post were the start for me down this path), but you can’t press that idea on yourself, you need to allow time for things to develop naturally.

I think it also helped when I tried to see the root of what my wife was looking for. You could say “active priesthood holder” but what does that mean deep down? I believe it’s a sense of security. My wife had a tremendous fear that I wouldn’t be with her in the next life. I tried everything I could think of to express to her that (if there is a next life) I would be right there with her – she wouldn’t be able to get rid of me. It just doesn’t make sense that a God who wants us to grow love in family relationships on earth would chop it down over small details in the next life. I’ve seen very orthodox members that don’t “grow the love” in their family as well as many fringe or liberal Mormons seem to – in my mind it doesn’t make sense that the more cultivated and nourished love on earth would be penalized in heaven. The loving God that I believe in rewards nourished love, he doesn’t cut it down. I think most members would generally agree with this detail, and admit that “we don’t really know” all the details of any afterlife. I think it also helped when I could say I see the good in the church, I told her “the church is true in many ways.” She was obviously still upset that I wanted to put a “just not literally” at the end, but I think she appreciated that I would leave that off and recognize the good that I saw.

So I think the key for me in the end was to realize that I am locked into some sort of relationship with the church. Like any relationship I can try to be a peacemaker, or I can dig in and fortify my position. Personally I would rather be a peacemaker, but I knew I had to remain honest to myself. If there was a TR question on the historicity of the BoM I would have more difficulty, but thankfully there isn’t. I had to consider everything on a strictly metaphorical level for a long time, I think that’s healthy and helpful (you actually see a lot of symbolism you otherwise miss). Reading Richard Bushman, Leonard Arrington, Lowell Bennion, Eugene England and other ‘faithful’ intellectuals also helped me to see that there is more than one way to frame your belief. I no longer worry if my definitions line up exactly with what other members are thinking – I realize that my youthful impression of all ideas aligning in the church was unfounded anyway, the church is much more diverse than I had ever imagined (there is a list of books for this topic too).

I hope something here is helpful. Good luck to you Mike, keep posting on the thoughts and questions that you have.

Dr. Wendy Ulrich’s article on relationships: (you can skip down to the “how do we deal with …betrayal” and read between the lines for the betrayal part)

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Faith_Cognitive_Dissonance_and_the_Psychology_of_Religious_Experience.html

[Orson]

Quick update: I had a brief conversation with my Bishop, asking how firm of a conviction is needed for a TR. He answered with a few references to testimony as not being a perfect knowledge, but is often more of a desire to know – and most importantly a willingness to act on that hope. In the end he basically said ‘if you want a recommend come in and get it’ which I found encouraging, that he didn’t seem to have any reservations about giving me one (in the past I have told him how clearly I “didn’t believe” – at least literally). So I have an appointment and don’t anticipate any problems “passing” the interview. I gather that “testimony” (as in “do you have a testimony of…”) can be defined as a hope for further insight that leads to understanding truth (or discernment between what is of man and what is of God), and that hope is something that I do have. I do see elements of the divine at work in the church.

Thanks for all your comments!

[Orson]

Salo, I hear you. Believe me when I say we all see things that we would like to change if we had the chance. Acknowledging that, what can I honestly do? If someone is troubled by watermelon seeds (excuse the lack of a meaningful metaphor) should they discard the watermelon all together? Is it worth dealing with some flaws to get to something worthwhile? I can see how you draw parallels to all positive speaking and apologists, you’re right in many cases. On the other hand I see some major differences between the mission of StayLDS and apologists. We are not in a position of defending anything, other than personal worth. We try to illuminate a new way to look at the Church that makes it more “do-able” from the eyes of disaffection. Illuminate, not compel or anything close to it. We recognize there are things about the church that will never align with our preferences, and try to personally grow to a point where we can tolerate it. Yes, we try to see a positive spin where possible. I think it’s like any relationship – if I hated my wife’s cooking I could always bug her about it (hear Dr. Phil: “how’s that working for you?”) or I could learn to see past it. If I’m locked into a relationship I need to consider doing most of the ‘peacemaking’ work (at least from my viewpoint) and be content with that to reap the rewards.

I hope this doesn’t sound to preachy, I don’t intend it that way. Just trying to keep it real. Maybe some other topics could help to build the desire for this end. We’re still trying to feel our way around here – the blind leading the blind so to speak.

[Orson]

I think I understand a little about what you are feeling, and all I can say is to look deep within your own soul – then do what you feel is right. Some people need a little personal time at different points in their life, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I’m all for stretching yourself in the service of others, but only you know if you’re being asked to run faster than you have strength. Earlier this year I personally resigned as a home teacher, and I didn’t really have a calling (I do a small administrative ‘behind the scenes’ duty that I’m fine with) – for me at the time it was the honest thing to do, I didn’t feel I could represent the church in any official function. For me it released tension and allowed me the space I needed to rethink a lot of things. Today I think I’m close to accepting another HT assignment, and moving forward with a fresh start.

I hate to give the impression that stepping back can help you move forward, ultimately we all have to admit that doing the right thing for us is the right thing to do. I’m sure you’ll make long term progress in your journey however you go about getting there. Just make sure you take care of your personal needs so you don’t self-destruct along the road. Some people can slow the pace to catch their breath while others need to sit for a minute and rest.

[Orson]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

…as a stinging reminder that the gospel of Jesus Christ is pure and true, but is instantly corrupted (to varying degrees) when it comes through human beings. We have to learn to find truth for ourselves and not rely on others to tell us everything or to interpret everything for us. That shouldn’t be an excuse for us to do less, but rather a reason to do much more and to become strong enough to rely on ourselves.

I love that, to me it speaks volumes. I can’t imagine that to become more God-like means to lean heavily on others interpretations. What does it mean when our thoughts and inspirations don’t align perfectly with someone else’s? To me it demonstrates the human condition, but does not automatically mean we need to surrender our position and quit seeking our own way.

[Orson]

Thanks for you comments, you make some good points.

I remember reading a post somewhere sometime that quoted a few scriptures with the interpretation that maybe every person on the earth is not meant to have a “knowledge” type testimony. I think D&C 88:118 “and as all have not faith” was used, as well as something relating to Laman and Lemuel (I think). The point was how people can act through hope even when they are unsure – and how blessed they may be through those actions.

Anyone know what the other related scriptures may be?

[Orson]

Hi Mike! I hope you feel at home around here, I’m glad you registered. I appreciate and can relate to your experience with your wife helping you to reconsider your thoughts on the church. My wonderful wife opened my eyes in a similar way. At one point I wasn’t sure if I would want a long-term relationship with the church. Today I’m confident that I do, even if the family link dissolved (if my wife’s perspective happened to turn for example I would encourage continued participation). Fowler’s “Stages of Faith” was a key for my personal turning in this way, I highly recommend it if you haven’t read it already. It helped me to understand why the church (and most members) see and believe as they do – and it also helped me to see how faith (or mythology if you prefer) is a valid perspective, even among mature scientists. It’s not what I thought it was in my youth, but what it IS is still valid, and a meaningful part of the human experience. Joseph Campbell’s “The Power of Myth” was also helpful in shifting my mindset. I also enjoyed “Mormon Scientist” about President Eyring’s father. I loved the way he had no reservations about believing what he personally felt was true, and saw the gospel as supporting, or demanding that much from him.

Again welcome! I look forward to more from you.

[Orson]

Thanks for that, I found it in my copy of ISL. The reference makes it look like it was published in Bushman’s first book, in 1984.

[Orson]

Yes, I think it is possible for some to reach the conclusion that Rigdon is the primary source of the BoM. If you read Craig Criddle’s essay (link in previous post) you will see that he has come to that conclusion. After reading RSR I thought as Bushman said “even Fawn Brodie dismissed the Rigdon/Spalding theory” but Criddle brings up some interesting evidences that Brodie would not have had access to.

Can we know for sure what happened? I think it’s pretty obvious that we can’t, there just isn’t enough solid evidence to make a firm ‘conviction’ in my mind. A mountain of circumstantial evidence that Criddle suggests? Possibly, but I don’t think it makes a water tight case for primary authorship. The most plausible naturalistic explanation? On some days I might agree with that one. I could see some people even viewing Rigdon as the primary conduit for revelation when the opinion that the BoM is inspired is joined with the naturalistic view that he is the major source of its content. He could have personally felt it was inspired – greater than himself – and felt an urgent need to get it out to the world to serve God’s purposes. If he thought people would automatically assume he wrote it if the connection could be made – he may have considered putting it in the hands of a young visionary to give it the best chance for wide acceptance. This makes me think of an early revelation where Joseph is told his gift is translation, and he should not anticipate or pretend to any other gifts. Other interesting parallels come in as well, like his fear of losing his position after losing the first manuscript pages, and witnesses to the translation process thinking he was reading words. In places he could have also ‘improvised’ or used his own language. I think the evidence along this line of thought (considering IF) is that when Rigdon first read the book he was so disappointed with the final product that he threw it across the room in disgust. (This event did happen, but he spoke of blasphemy or some other reason for his reaction.) This theory would also explain all the reasons why Joseph didn’t act like the author of a fictional work, knowing the story and characters forward and backward.

Anyway, waaay too much speculation in my mind (I just can’t help it sometimes). The point – again – is that I don’t think the HOW it was brought about is as important as WHAT it is. If I can find a divine message in its pages I will cherish that.

[Orson]

Salo, I’m kind of with Valoel – pondering different angles is interesting, but ultimately I’m trying to be content in not knowing all the physical details but focus instead on spiritual worth. It is an interesting discussion, but I don’t think it directly serves the purpose of StayLDS.

[Orson]

Salo wrote:

An example this Bushman quote I found ” I am a practicing Mormon who considers himself believing but who rejects absolutist elements of the fundamentalist world view, eg, the view of Joseph Smith as omnisent or morally perfect or recieving revelation unmixed with human and cultural limitations. However I do except non-absolutist incursions of the supernatural into the human experience.”

That is a great quote. Do you have a reference?

[Orson]

Over time I have considered most of the questions around authorship, and have wondered if some of the views that Salo expresses might be the most rational. I have also entertained the question of Sidney Rigdon’s possible contribution. (http://www.mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm) In some ways I agree that Joseph Smith could have never produced the entire book on his own. In other ways it’s easy to draw parallels from his life that Salo mentioned.

Today I try to follow the words of Leonard Arrington “I don’t care one whit whether it’s historical or metaphorical” (he was not talking specifically about the BoM) “that it has relgious truth is all I care.” I try not to be attached to any conclusion around its historicity, I want to find the divine truths that exist in its pages and value it for that.

[Author]

Posts