Should the LDS Church provide membership with full details of its history?

[UtahDan]

From my perspective, I have a spiritual witness that the core doctrines of the church are true which has been repeatedly reinforced by the application of those doctrines in my life. That renders most of this stuff that people wring their hands over as nothing more than academic exercise, rather than a fundamental, indispensable part of the search for spiritual truth.

You can't find these doctrines and be taught how they all fit together "at any church".

That is great for you, Indy. Seriously. But using the metaphor of hand wringing suggests that you are dismissive either of the idea that people stumble because of what they aren't taught but later learn or of the people themselves. I can assure you that the former is true. People do stumble over this and the numbers are growing. My guess is, at bottom, you think that someone who has had a spiritual witness is weak if they have difficulty over historical issues.

I think that is uncharitable, particularly when it could be prevented. Why contrive a situation that is going to test people in this way?

I do think, however, that you are representative of how a lot of people will feel about this.

[Indy Coug]

My guess is, at bottom, you think that someone who has had a spiritual witness is weak if they have difficulty over historical issues.

"Weak" definitely isn't the right term. I think "unnecessarily distracted" is closer to the correct characterization, but it still isn't quite what I mean. I'm short on time and can't find the right words to summarize what I mean.

[UtahDan]

"Weak" definitely isn't the right term. I think "unnecessarily distracted" is closer to the correct characterization, but it still isn't quite what I mean. I'm short on time and can't find the right words to summarize what I mean.

Pride is the word you are searching for.

[Indy Coug]

Pride is the word you are searching for.

[Pheidippides]

This approach devalues both exclusivity and the notion of a restoration in a dispensation of the fullness of times. It is popular with those who advocate a simpleton's approach.

There are plenty of moral lessons that you can apply to your life from situations like polyandry. Beware of the false dichotomy!

There are no easy solutions, and what you advocate seems to work for some Mormons.

That is because I comparatively devalue (not disbelieve, although I would not expect you to read it that way) exclusivity and the notion of a restoration. Moral lessons are everywhere, and not just in church settings.

I do agree that there are no easy solutions.

I should be very clear that when I advocate the simpleton's approach, as you put it, I am advocating what I enjoy the most about church worship service. And I am one of the people who is most open and, dare I say, most knowledgable about the history of the church in my congregation. But I have have become increasingly weary of the debate and the discussion, and the resulting blowing of peoples minds, so to speak. I am very selfish about it, which is why Primary is the perfect place for me.

That last bit may be a commentary on my ward as much as anything.

[UtahDan]

You thought I meant you? Ha!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I had my doubts when it started but this thread has been a pleasant surprise. Thanks everyone.

[Pheidippides]

That is because I comparatively devalue (not disbelieve, although I would not expect you to read it that way) exclusivity and the notion of a restoration. Moral lessons are everywhere, and not just in church settings.

I do agree that there are no easy solutions.

I should be very clear that when I advocate the simpleton's approach, as you put it, I am advocating what I enjoy the most about church worship service. And I am one of the people who is most open and, dare I say, most knowledgable about the history of the church in my congregation. But I have have become increasingly weary of the debate and the discussion, and the resulting blowing of peoples minds, so to speak. I am very selfish about it, which is why Primary is the perfect place for me.

That last bit may be a commentary on my ward as much as anything.

Not to quote myself or anything, but the more I think about things, the more I think I hate delving into history at church precisely because of the correlated approach. So maybe I'm the poster child for what I just said I didn't like.

[UtahDan]

Not to quote myself or anything, but the more I think about things, the more I think I hate delving into history at church precisely because of the correlated approach. So maybe I'm the poster child for what I just said I didn't like.

Score one convert for UD.

[Pheidippides]

Score one convert for UD.

Don't go off reporting the baptism to your zone leader yet - I'm still mulling it over.

[Sleeping in EQ]

SIEQ, we talk past each other in most forum threads, and it's probably not the right time to get into it, at least for me.

But here's what I think about your statement. I think you're generally very evasive with what you really believe while making occasional statements, like the one I quote here, that are actually very strong and very clear.

What you're saying is the apologists and anti's are arguing over black and white. Apologists say BOM is ancient record, JS saw God, BoA is account of Abraham. Anti's say BOM is not ancient record, JS didn't see God, BoA is fiction.

Here's what I hear you saying. It doesn't matter. God may or may not exist. If he does, all roads lead to Rome. If he doesn't, well that doesn't matter either. JS believed in God and had good intentions. Or he didn't. Doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Only how it makes you feel. Both the apologists and anti's would say it's a bunch of new age BS.

I'm not ready to say what I think of that opinion. My faith is evolving. I might end up in the same place.

But here's a problem I have with the approach. The apologist view is well defined and understood. The ground rules are there and we can break it down and analyze it. Same for the anti view. But this middle view you seem to be arguing for (and go ahead and tell me if you think I completely miss the boat) is completely hidden, intentionally vague and ambiguous, and impossible to analyze. If we define it and put some assumptions and structure to it and kick it around and analyze it, we might decide it's equally illogical. Let's define it and keep pushing for a logical end.

Now that I've posted my final grades I'm ready for one of my meandering, indulgent posts. Still, it might be better if you came up with some specific questions. If you are willing to do so, I'd be happy to address each one in turn.

[jay santos]

Now that I've posted my final grades I'm ready for one of my meandering, indulgent posts. Still, it might be better if you came up with some specific questions. If you are willing to do so, I'd be happy to address each one in turn.

Yeah I know my post was not easy to respond to, and I didn't really expect you to, and I probably did that because I didn't feel energetic to respond to your answers. The issue I struggle with is about this supposed middle ground between apologists and TBM's. I know that's where some people end up and I have respect for those folks and maybe it's a more attractive alternative to complete loss of faith, and maybe it should be something I explore. I get accused of being too binary and I really do think I'm pretty open minded, but I just can't get past thinking it really is a binary issue.

For example, BOM historicity. The middle ground says it doesn't matter, maybe Joseph made it up, but it's still the inspired word of God. OK, maybe. But then you analyze all the assumptions you would have to build into the case of Joseph making up the BOM but it's still the inspired word of God, and you get into all the prophets either being tricked by God or used by God in their ignorance, and you start detailing all the new assumptions. Then you apply this exercise to all the apologetic topics and you end up with something that seems so ridiculously devious, contrived, illogical etc. that I just can't put that on God. Either that or just completely watered down, weak, and basically meaningless.

So yeah, it might be better to just ignore these coherent ramblings.

[ERCougar]

Yeah I know my post was not easy to respond to, and I didn't really expect you to, and I probably did that because I didn't feel energetic to respond to your answers. The issue I struggle with is about this supposed middle ground between apologists and TBM's. I know that's where some people end up and I have respect for those folks and maybe it's a more attractive alternative to complete loss of faith, and maybe it should be something I explore. I get accused of being too binary and I really do think I'm pretty open minded, but I just can't get past thinking it really is a binary issue.

For example, BOM historicity. The middle ground says it doesn't matter, maybe Joseph made it up, but it's still the inspired word of God. OK, maybe. But then you analyze all the assumptions you would have to build into the case of Joseph making up the BOM but it's still the inspired word of God, and you get into all the prophets either being tricked by God or used by God in their ignorance, and you start detailing all the new assumptions. Then you apply this exercise to all the apologetic topics and you end up with something that seems so ridiculously devious, contrived, illogical etc. that I just can't put that on God. Either that or just completely watered down, weak, and basically meaningless.

So yeah, it might be better to just ignore these coherent ramblings.

I think it's a reasonable request. One of the problems I have with non-literalism is that it's so young that it hasn't faced the same scrutiny that the two polar opposites have faced. This is also my problem with those who bash Catholicism. Mormonism hasn't faced anything even close to the scrutiny that Catholicism has. Take the concept of the Trinity for instance--we claim that it's so illogical and senseless, and yet our concept of the Godhead as three separate beings introduces as many or more logical problems and complications.

[SoonerCoug]

In book straightforward answers to gospel questions Joseph Fielding Mcconkie told of a long distance phone call he had from a missionary in Texas,

Can I just say that that Joseph Fielding McConkie is my favorite Mormon name ever? It is the ultimate mullah name.

[Jarid in Cedar]

From my perspective, I have a spiritual witness that the core doctrines of the church are true which has been repeatedly reinforced by the application of those doctrines in my life. For me, that renders most of this stuff that people wring their hands over as nothing more than academic exercise, rather than a fundamental, indispensable part of the search for spiritual truth.

You can't find these doctrines and be taught how they all fit together "at any church".

I can understand your viewpoint here, and I can understand how this guides your belief's and actions.

I also know many people of differing faiths that have the same level of conviction about the doctrines and tenets of their faith/religious denomination.

The LDS doctrine works for you. The doctrine of their religion works for them. I am happy that all of the collective you have the faith in your teachings. But as someone who feels on the outside, all of the noise being made appears much like a political convention, with each faction loudy supporting their platform/candidate and the differences of each.