[wl44]

cwald wrote:

What?

I was just agreeing with you. I ask people on this forum all the time to quit beating around the bush and just call it the way it is.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Hahaha…I’m an idiot.

[wl44]

cwald wrote:

wl44 wrote:

… call a spade a spade.

Now where have I heard that before?

Your post got me worried so I googled the phrase. I wasn’t aware that the phrase had racist overtones. I apologize if it was offensive to anyone. I’ll edit it.

[wl44]

Old-Timer wrote:

Polygamy is a classic example of the tendency to see things in black-and-white terms

Sometimes I feel like you throw-out the “black and white thinking” idea as a way to discredit someone’s view without discussing their view. I’d appreciate an explanation of how people are “thinking in black and white” instead of a sweeping dismissal. It also seems that heavy aversion to “black and white thinking” is just simply a refusal to call it like it is.

[wl44]

Ann wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

But why doesn’t the church give a wide berth to its membership on this subject in particular? It feels like they are preparing to dig and go the distance (Jeffrey Holland’s PBS interview: We will never disavow it) in justifying Joseph and polygamy.

I agree with other posts; this is a very good question. I would imagine church leaders have a good understanding of the pervasiveness and importance of the doctrine and practice of polygamy in the nauvoo and early slc days, and the church’s position seems to reflect an understanding of both historical polygamy and the fact that the church has been backed into a corner on this issue. To disavow the practice would deal a huge blow to the character of JS, BY, and other key figures. That would create too many problems. The other problem the church faces is defending polygamy too much. I think you can spin the doctrine of polygamy into something that sounds in-line with the gospel but I personally think it would be a very difficult task for anyone to spin the practice of polygamy (as practiced in nauvoo and slc) into a faith-promoting principle that fits into the framework of the Gospel.I think the church is using the best short-run strategy: stay loyal to JS and don’t talk about things too much.

[wl44]

Old-Timer wrote:

wl44, you might be interested in the following post I wrote almost exactly six years ago:

“The Wonder of Warts” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007/10/wonder-of-warts.html)

One more:

“To Envy Less: The Vulnerability of Removing Our Masks” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/06/to-envy-less-vulnerability-of-removing.html)

Thanks for the links, Ray. I may not agree with your approach or perspective, but I can’t deny that you are a Christlike guy with a big heart and a desire to promote peace.

[wl44]

turinturambar wrote:

I’ve been following this thread with interest. Even taking the purpose of this site into account, I think an exasperated reaction to E Christofferson’s comments is somewhat justified. The relative transparency of the Church is a highly sensitive topic for the disaffected. I think this is especially true considering the huge investment the Church requires of its members, and the standard of perfection that is expected. Depending on the local priesthood leadership, a member with relatively few flaws can be treated very poorly. Yet, one finds that the Church wants a member to forgive relatively large faults with ease. I think disaffected members deserve some patience from the Church on the process of trust building and forgiveness.

I am glad to hear one of the Q15 stating that JS had flaws and wasn’t perfect. I think this might be an understatement. Those who find a way to stick with the LDS Church and are well-informed have to find a way to deal with Joseph’s magical past, his revelatory processes, his translation methods, his temper and fierce need for loyalty, and his polygamy/polyandry. I think we have to go through an epistemological change to handle it (literal to symbolic). That’s going to be difficult or impossible for some.

I like the focus on the “fruits” of Joseph’s endeavors. The Church has its problems, but it does stand for good things—strong family relationships, good personal character, the importance of community-building, access to holy spaces and ordinances, and a personal relationship with God and Christ. These things might just be enough for some people to balance against the things we don’t know, and the things we know but wish weren’t true.

I am a little perturbed by the pointing out of the JSPapers as “proof” that the Church is transparent. The JSP has only been going on for ten or twelve years at the most. What percentage of the church membership even knows about it? What percentage of those people can articulate specific content from the papers? What percentage of those can articulate content that problematizes or contradicts the traditional narrative taught in the correlated church? It’s only been twenty years since the September Six. They were ousted in part to suppress “less than useful” truths in the years before Google. As I’ve read through the DAMU, I find there is a pervasive sense of betrayal and loss of trust. It’s going to take a longer track record of glasnost from the Church to rebuild that trust, IMO.

In the long run, I think those who are able to Stay LDS are going to have to learn to be “glass half-full” people when it comes to these things (recognizing the good developments, and forgiving the flaws seventy-times seven). I am trying. It might take a while, though. :problem:

I think your post is one of the best I’ve read in any forum. Your message is clear and your tone makes me want to be a better person. Well done!

[wl44]

Old-Timer wrote:

Yes, credibility is a huge, central issue – but accepting real fallibility is the foundation that allows credibility to be an issue.

Someone has to be accepted as fallible (truly fallible, even with really important things, not just theoretically fallible, limited to relatively unimportant things) before credibility even can be discussed. When someone is assumed to be infallible in important matters, credibility is assumed and ceases to be an issue. Getting past that assumption is a critical step, so it’s important to understand that Joseph and subsequent prophets / leaders were and are flawed and capable of making mistakes even in important things and, in fact, did and do make mistakes in important things.

I think you’re spot on. Discussing credibility begins with discussing fallibility. If you don’t accept true fallibility then credibility doesn’t even enter the arena.

In light of your insight, I guess my issue is that discussing fallibility while leaving credibility untouched seems wrong. I don’t expect the 12 to discuss credibility head-on. I wouldn’t if I were in their shoes. The problem is that they are discussing a fallibility that is trivial:

“We should be careful not to claim for Joseph Smith perfections he did not claim for himself. He need not have been superhuman to be the instrument in God’s hands that we know him to be. In May, 1844, Joseph declared: “I never told you I was perfect, but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught.” (http://www2.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2013_9_24_Christofferson.htm)

True fallibility, as you have defined it, would include admitting the possibility that JS or other leaders could have been wrong in the big things, like their revelations. The fallibility that E Chistofferson is discussing would never allow the idea of credibility to enter the discussion, because he essentially states that the validity of JS’s words/revelations are not dependent on JS’s character. Under JS’s definition of fallibility (and by extension, E. Christofferson’s definition), JS could have been a pathological liar and yet his revelations would remain credible. That is a very convenient view of fallibility to have.

As a side note, the church clearly understands that credibility may be an issue, hence, the “a prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as a prophet and a man when he is speaking like a man” doctrine. This doctrine allows the church to completely side-step the issue of credibility. And it is doctrines like these that shut down the critical thinking centers in the brains of those that accept them under the guise of faith. I can’t help but find the reasoning of the church in these matters to be deplorable. I highly doubt the church would give any other church the same concessions that it reserves for itself.

[wl44]

Old-Timer wrote:

Joseph was human: therefore, he was flawed; therefore, he made mistakes even in important things. That doesn’t disqualify him from being a prophet in every meaningful sense of the word and, actually, makes him more like other people who are accepted as prophets in other times; that means current prophets and apostles also can be wrong and mistaken about important things; that means on-going revelation and progress can be meaningful – truly and deeply meaningful, as can the concept that many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God yet can be revealed. Take away Joseph’s real humanity, and all of that incredibly important stuff crumbles, as well.

It really is that simple.

Making mistakes may not technically disqualify JS from being a prophet but it certainly undermines his credibility. What bothers me about this whole debate is that when someone raises an issue about some crap JS did, the common response is that “he was not infallible and that doesn’t disqualify him from being a prophet”. Infallibility is not the issue. Of course he was fallible like every other human. CREDIBILITY is the issue. Every time we learn of some crappy thing JS did in the name of God, or “by revelation”, it undermines the credibility of his other claims. If he’s willing to abuse the authority of revelation to screw with people in one doctrinal area, the logical question then is what else did he make up? What other “revelations” were crap? Those are legitimate questions to ask if you view JS as making some major mistakes, and I don’t understand why people keep going back to the fallibility/infallibility nonsense.

[wl44]

Old-Timer wrote:

That acutally isn’t the same question even I answered. I just realized that, so let’s address that question.

I appreciate the redirection and refocus, Ray. That’s some good moderating! 🙂

[wl44]

Old-Timer wrote:

Yep, you are right – and the exact same thing can be said legitimately about lots of things I’ve said in my life, including here. I’ve done a poor job of communicating lots of things – but we have had the benefit of a forum that allows us to clarify and discuss. I would hate to have some of the things I’ve said here published without the follow-up commentary.

You actually bring up a good point (indirectly): nothing’s stopping E. Christofferson or any GA from joining a well moderated discussion and clarifying any points that may be misinterpreted. I know that sounds laughable but they have the means to address these issues head on. Why not hold live forums with pre-submitted questions and let them respond and clarify. E. Jensen did that in Sweden (though with a small number of people) and I felt like it was a very respectable move by the church. Such a forum for discussion would foster a lot more respect and understanding than standing behind a pulpit in Rexburg, ID creating straw-men and talking around the issues.

[wl44]

Heber13 wrote:

wl44, I don’t see it in extremes. They are not ALL open and honest, or ALL lying and deceptive. Can you say they have been completely dishonest in everything?

That is my point. Our internal level of comfort of honesty and others’ is not always the same.

Forget it.

[wl44]

Heber13 wrote:

But the extreme positions that are being stated in this thread to me are just unrealistic, for any earthly organization, inspired or not.

Is it really extreme or unrealistic to expect the church to be open and honest about it’s history?

[wl44]

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t deny that, and I never will. My only point was that the Church isn’t doing that now, and it’s not fair to claim it is doing that now. Having listened to Elder Christofferson say lots of things, I think he was trying to say that it’s interesting to criticize the Church for being an organization that hides its history when it is trying so hard now to publish unvarnished, unwhitewashed history – and that is a valid point.

I agree with you Ray. But if E. Christofferson was really trying to say what you think he was then he did a poor job communicating it. A better way to communicate that would be “the critic’s argument regarding the hiding of history isn’t as valid since the beginning of the JS papers project.” It’s just too easy to misinterpret his words as stating that critics are a bunch of irrational people who are only looking to attack the church with unsubstantiated claims.

[wl44]

Heber13 wrote:

wl44 wrote:

Given that level of investment, full disclosure is completely rational and within a person’s right to ask for

Give me another good example where full disclosure is required, and shows the church is lacking compared to other comparable organizations.

I realize I may sound like I’m defending or excusing the church. I’m not. I’m just trying to keep it realistic, and less personally emotional for me. That’s just how I deal with it.

You’re using a poor standard. You’re essentially stating that it’s unfair to expect the church to be open if no one else is being open. I don’t care what other organizations are doing. My issue is with the relationship between the church and its members. You and the church shouldn’t base the correctness/fairness of the church’s actions on what other organizations are doing. If other organizations require as much from their members and have a history of hiding/withholding information then they are wrong too.

[wl44]

Heber13 wrote:

Are you, mackay, able to hold yourself to the same standard you are holding the church to? Have you told all your friends and family and work associates everything about your history…I mean EVERYTHING?

That’s a really bad comparison. The church holds itself up as GOD’S CHURCH. It claims it has GOD’S AUTHORITY and that GOD established it through a PROPHET of GOD. Then it encourages/requires its members to be open and honest with it and dedicate literally every aspect of their life to it. I think apologists and the church leaders sometimes forget the size of the investment they are requiring from people. Given that level of investment, full disclosure is completely rational and within a person’s right to ask for, and it’s absurd that people have to press the church so hard for something it should have always been doing.

Now if you think mackay is requiring the same of his/her friends and family that the church is requiring of its members then you have a good comparison. I doubt that he/she (sorry mackay, I don’t know your gender) is, so I think that comparison is garbage and inappropriate.

[Author]

Posts