[wl44]

IMO, I really like that the 12 are talking about this stuff, even though I think E. Christofferson’s talk was a bunch of PR crap. His talk, based on the article I read, was basically one big straw man. The bright side is that these things are at least being talked about. In a way I kind of feel bad for the many GAs that have to address these topics. I think the deeper they get into the debate the more they realize that the church has essentially screwed itself with regards to history. I’d ask to be reassigned.

[wl44]

cwald wrote:

Example…

To criticize the critic, who claims the church has hidden its history, and then cite the 24 volumes of JS Papers project as proof, is REALLY dishonest and will give my family more fodder to use against me.

Ya I have to call foul too. The JS papers argument seems to imply that the church has always been transparent. A more appropriate framing for the JS papers would have been to show an increase in transparency.

[wl44]

On Own Now wrote:

SamBee wrote:

Was wondering – would JS ever gone down this route? I like to think not.

No, I don’t think so. Evidence, quite to the contrary, is that JS was willing to be a martyr for the people. For example, the meeting minutes from the Nauvoo City Council meeting discussing the Nauvoo Expositor included this from JS: “Said he would rather die tomorrow and have the thing smashed, than live and have it go on, for it was exciting the spirit of mobocracy among the people, and bringing death and destruction upon us.”

I agree. I watched a Jonestown documentary a few months ago and thought that some of the events in JS’s and JJ’s lives seemed to parallel each other. But I can’t see JS instigating a mass suicide. As a side note, anyone ever wonder what the church would have been like had JS lived into his 70s or 80s? (sorry if that’s too big of a tangent for this thread)

[wl44]

Old-Timer wrote:

wl44, I’m going to say this as gently and kindly as I can, but I’m also going to say it directly. I hope it comes across on the screen the way I mean it:

If that is what you would say to God when you meet him, I think you need to focus away from the LDS Church for a while (not leave, necessarily, but change focus) and start working primarily on building your own faith and relationship with God – separate from institutional issues. If God exists, and if they are loving parents, I think those concerns would be second or third or twentieth in importance to them. I think they would be happy to answer those questions, but I think they wouldn’t want them to be the first things out of their children’s mouths when they had a chance to sit down and talk.

Now, if those questions still are paramount when you die, I’m sure God will be glad to listen – but, largely because of my unorthodox view of judgment, I tend to think there is lots and lots of time to get to them. More than anything else, when I see my own dad again, I want a hug and a smile. We can talk about “stuff” eventually.

Hey Ray, thanks for your reply. You bring up some excellent points that I feel I failed to consider. To clarify, my post was in response to a hypothetical question that I use to guide my thinking. I agree with you, my understanding of God would lead me to believe that such a series of questions would not be asked until after a lengthy discussion about other more important topics, if it is asked at all. I must admit, however, that I don’t see your view being advocated by the general leadership of the church or by the more orthodox members of the church, regardless of how wonderful your view is. I think the idea of judgement as taught in the Book of Mormon and by latter-day prophets (and as hinted at in the Temple Recommend interview) would include a serious evaluation of one’s acceptance of these events of the restoration. My concerns are admittedly petty in light of the attributes of God that you know of and understand, but my question was not posed in light of anyone in particular’s beliefs. I would love it if the teachings of the Church were more in line with your beliefs. My objective in answering the question was to see for myself if my concerns are legitimate in light of what the LDS church officially teaches. If I can’t articulate a well-reasoned argument for why I feel the way that I do, then I really don’t have any justification for feeling the way that I do. Are my concerns legitimate? I think so, but I don’t know for sure; they could very well be foolish.

I also appreciated your counsel to focus on my faith and relationship with God. I shy away from making a conclusive statement as to the existence of God, but I admit that I have had experiences that lead me to believe that He exists. I have found myself having a greater desire to focus on the simple teachings of the Savior regarding loving and serving others.

Let me also apologize for any offense I may have given to anyone. I guess I struggle a bit in articulating my thoughts. I can assure my tone when writing was one of dismay and perplexity and not contempt.

[wl44]

I appreciate all of you taking the time to respond to a very hypothetical and big “what if” type question. I asked this question because I found it helpful in articulating my concerns while trying to maintain a respectful tone. If I were to have such a conversation with God it would probably go something like this:

“I understand that in many respects the Church is a continuously changing group of people who are, for the most part, striving to do the best that they can. I also think that the current church leadership generally does a good job of teaching the core tenets of the Gospel (love, forgiveness, etc). However, the Church is also meant to be an entity that acts and speaks on Your behalf on the earth. Viewing the Church as a single entity acting in this capacity from 1830 to the current time, I am persuaded to believe that the Church has in many instances failed You. For example, knowing you as I do, I can’t accept that You were the author the priesthood ban and that You would leave the membership of the church hanging when they asked for a reason behind the ban. I can’t accept that You led the early church into polygamy and polyandry. I can’t see how You would command a prophet to marry a woman who is already married to a good man and pregnant with a child. I can’t see You threatening a prophet with is life and station should a woman choose to not marry him as a plural wife. I know that you are likely tired of hearing these same grievances but these are significant issues and they aren’t the only issues. If the Church represented you so poorly in the areas of marriage and priesthood, I can’t help but ask what else isn’t Your work? Did you really appear to Joseph Smith, inspire ancient American prophets to write the Book of Mormon, lead Joseph to find an Egyptian scroll containing Abraham’s writings, and restore the Priesthood that enables family to be together forever? I want to believe it and I was happy when I did, but when I came understand more pieces of the whole story, my heart and mind could not accept it without feeling that my integrity had been compromised. Please understand that I am trying to do the best I can with brain I have, and I am not trying to find petty reasons to justify a sinful life.”

[wl44]

Roy wrote:

Yup, I believe that the clearest example of this is in the case of the priesthood ban. The church has downgraded this over time from a doctrine, to a commandment without explanation, to a policy, and now to a misguided policy without clear origen that was belatedly corrected through revelation. During the evolution of thought on this topic there were all sorts of explanations and justifications for the ban (many coming from church leaders) that now seem to have been very misguided.

Very well said, in my opinion.

[wl44]

SilentDawning wrote:

As Ray said, people don’t always agree, but they sure are open minded. Welcome….

I really appreciate the open-mindedness. It seems people here are at least willing to see things from a few alternative perspectives, even if they don’t agree with those perspectives. You guys are great!

[wl44]

I agree with both of your points regarding the historicity of the OT. I guess my real concern is that so many (not just within the Church) don’t just accept the OT at face value but also seem to justify some of the horrific events. I guess I consider it a case of bad ideas breeding bad ideas: when a person accepts the OT as historical fact they must reconcile the uncomfortable passages with their understanding of the nature of God, and they do so by creating interesting doctrines or principles like God preferring to brutally exterminate an otherwise innocent people out of love for those that might be raised improperly.

[Author]

Posts