Changing ordinances

[Pheidippides]

Waxing somehwat more prolix, I'll add what I consider to be "the basics." As a full-time missionary I learned from my "white bible" what our message to the world is:

1. The divine sonship of Jesus Christ.

2. The divinity of Joseph Smith's mission.

3. The divinity of the Church today.

I think those elements are still accurate and valid today. To have a real "testimony" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you need all three of those. And to me there is leeway, except for #1. Regarding #2, Joseph did not need to be perfect or lead a mistake-free life in order to have a divine mission and to have been the means by which divine knowledge and authority were restored and the last dispensation begun. Regarding #3, the Church today need not be perfectly managed and directed in order to be divine. There is room for disagreement and varied opinion and for anyone who wants to serve and seek discipleship.

I hope that most people agree in the leeway concept, because it is what keeps me a member. But on numbers 2 and 3 (which is where I struggle - number 1 never has been and is not an issue), what do we do with that leeway? If not everything that JS and the Church does is right, how do we discern? I do not subscribe to the "it won't harm us to follow counsel even if it's wrong" bit in the slightest - that statement is ridiculously hollow and even flat wrong. At some level, doesn't that just imply that we are left to our own devices in figuring out what is true and what is not? And if that's the case, what's the need for a church and church doctrine at all, other than authority (to the extent that is something we don't reject) and to present the cafeteria of doctrinal options?

More simply put, can I utterly and absolutely reject small things (such as the inclusion of beer and green tea in the WoW, in theory) and big things (such as polygamy as an eternal principle, in practice if it ever came to it - implying a lecherous and pretty flawed JS, btw) and yet believe in other restorative principles? Can I believe JS to have been a fallen prophet at the end of his life and yet accept the BOM? I am not saying I necessarily believe these things, yet the thoughts are something that I must at least entertain based on my readings and feelings.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't know how long the church can continue to put their head in the sand and let members and investigators fall to the wayside as they learn about this information from non-church sources.

.

This worries me.

This was a wedge issue to me. I is difficult to trust those who are not honest about their own history. I still contend that you will lose fewer members by airing the dirty laundry than you will retain because of honesty and transparency. The infallibility of the church is a sham that many people see right through. When church leaders try to defend, deflect or are apologetic about the warts, it pushes people away.

[Moliere]

I don't have much to add on changing ordinances via apostasy vs. changing ordinances via revelation. I do think, though, that LDS have an unhealthy and unproductive belief in continuity and timelessness when it comes to liturgical rites.

Thanks for your insights. This was a great post.

[Moliere]

I didn't find out until well after my mission either. I know plenty of adults who still don't know.

I found out on my mission. It was no big deal to me since I knew BY practiced polygamy so it was natural to learn that JS practiced as well. It wasn't until later that I found out just how weird some of JS's polygamy really was.

I'll try and be clear that I'm not advocating for our lessons to be centered around parts of the church's history that are not well documented or substantiated. But with events and facts such as the translation of the BoM happening sometimes when JS wasn't even looking at the plates or when the plates were buried out somewhere away from the house it would be good to be able to discuss this openly without people saying it wasn't true. This would then be a good lead into the same problems that we have with the translation of the Book of Abraham. In fact, I'd say that finding out about the BoM translation helped me get over my concerns with the translation of the papyri. I would think a lesson on that would be enriching, but I guess I'm in the minority.

[LA Ute]

I found out on my mission. It was no big deal to me since I knew BY practiced polygamy so it was natural to learn that JS practiced as well. It wasn't until later that I found out just how weird some of JS's polygamy really was.

I'll try and be clear that I'm not advocating for our lessons to be centered around parts of the church's history that are not well documented or substantiated. But with events and facts such as the translation of the BoM happening sometimes when JS wasn't even looking at the plates or when the plates were buried out somewhere away from the house it would be good to be able to discuss this openly without people saying it wasn't true. This would then be a good lead into the same problems that we have with the translation of the Book of Abraham. In fact, I'd say that finding out about the BoM translation helped me get over my concerns with the translation of the papyri. I would think a lesson on that would be enriching, but I guess I'm in the minority.

Is this well-substantiated? Bushman didn't mention it at all.

[Pheidippides]

Is this well-substantiated? Bushman didn't mention it at all.

The not looking at the plates at all was well substantiated by Bushman as well as others. I can't speak to the buried away from the house issue.

[LA Ute]

The not looking at the plates at all was well substantiated by Bushman as well as others. I can't speak to the buried away from the house issue.

That was the part I was wondering about.

[Moliere]

That was the part I was wondering about.

I heard a talk by Elder Marlin Jensen that mentioned it. Maybe he shares my concern.

[pellegrino]

That was the part I was wondering about.

I remember reading that in Rough Stone Rolling. I'll check.

[CardiacCoug]

But with events and facts such as the translation of the BoM happening sometimes when JS wasn't even looking at the plates or when the plates were buried out somewhere away from the house it would be good to be able to discuss this openly without people saying it wasn't true. This would then be a good lead into the same problems that we have with the translation of the Book of Abraham. In fact, I'd say that finding out about the BoM translation helped me get over my concerns with the translation of the papyri. I would think a lesson on that would be enriching, but I guess I'm in the minority.

One thing that I have noticed some LDS people do before (in Sacrament Meeting talks or otherwise) is always call what Joseph Smith did an "inspired translation" or words to that effect, rather than just calling it a translation. You can obviously believe it was inspired without believing it was translated, and letting Church members know this fact could potentially keep more intelligent and analytical people in the Church.

The Anthon transcript is a stumbling block for some that is also cleared up if you accept that the BOM is a product of inspiration rather than translation.

Especially with the Abraham papyri, there is not a single knowledgeable person, no matter how devout, who thinks these were translated in any type of literal way. So this is absolutely an area where it doesn't hurt to stop obfuscating and tell members that these are funerary scrolls - not related to Abraham - that helped inspire Joseph.

[Pheidippides]

.

Especially with the Abraham papyri, there is not a single knowledgeable person, no matter how devout, who thinks these were translated in any type of literal way. So this is absolutely an area where it doesn't hurt to stop obfuscating and tell members that these are funerary scrolls - not related to Abraham - that helped inspire Joseph.

I guess that makes FARMS ignorant.* At least some of their work claims that the papyri isn't the real thing and therefore it's still a translation of some other papyri. It's exactly the Solomon Spaulding deal from the other side, although I doubt many people there have the wits to realize it.

*Not that I needed you to convince me of this.

[UtahDan]

The not looking at the plates at all was well substantiated by Bushman as well as others. I can't speak to the buried away from the house issue.

I may be misquoting, but I believe it is Grant Palmer's claim that among the many accounts of how the translation took place from the people involved, there is not one instance where anyone says they saw him looking at or otherwise handling the plates.

[CardiacCoug]

I guess that makes FARMS ignorant.* At least some of their work claims that the papyri isn't the real thing and therefore it's still a translation of some other papyri. It's exactly the Solomon Spaulding deal from the other side, although I doubt many people there have the wits to realize it.

*Not that I needed you to convince me of this.

Sure, it's impossible to prove that there weren't other papyri that were undiscovered or were taken up into heaven. That sounds like something that an apologist could fall back on. It's tough to prove a negative.

Of course Joseph's explanation/interpretation of the facsimiles is also pretty definitively incorrect. And it's hard to make the same argument regarding the facsimiles.

Also, for the record, I have no problem saying that the funerary scrolls and the facsimiles were the means through which God inspired Joseph to provide us with the Book of Abraham. Seems to make a lot more sense to say that the scrolls (and the plates if they existed) were vehicles for Joseph's inspiration rather than to continue to claim there was some type of literal translation from Egyptian or from another language (Reformed Egyptian) for which there is absolutely not a shred of corroborating evidence whatsoever, but what do I know?

[Jeff Lebowski]

As for the translation issue, what difference would it make if he was looking at the plates or not? He didn't understand any ancient languages so I fail to see how the process would have been any different with the plates in his physical presence. Either way, the words would be planted in his head somehow.

[CardiacCoug]

As for the translation issue, what difference would it make if he was looking at the plates or not? He didn't understand any ancient languages so I fail to see how the process would have been any different with the plates in his physical presence. Either way, the words would be planted in his head somehow.

Agreed. Have you tried explaining that in Sunday School or in a Sacrament Meeting talk?

If you decide to, let me know and I would like to come watch what happens.