Washington Post: Five myths about Mormonsim

[Pheidippides]

I've posted this before and I think it's relevant to this discussion. It's from "What Is Our Doctrine?" by Bob Millet of BYU:



The whole Millet piece is worth a read. I'm not endorsing all of it, but it is a serious effort at addressing the question of what is doctrine and what is not.

I know most who post and read here will reject Millet's approach (some will denounce it quite colorfully and in absolute terms, I'll bet), but I think the overwhelming majority of members of the church are comfortable with it. They feel they have testimonies of the Restoration and of the church's ongoing divine authority and they say to themselves, "Well, the early brethren sure did make some wild statements, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses, and those chapters in RSR about Joseph Smith's polygamy were pretty startling, but I like the horse I am on now and I am going to stay on it. It makes me very happy and gives me and my family peace, and I can't deny the feelings I have had about JS, the BofM, and the current leadership of the church, among other things. So I am still in with both feet."

I am pretty much in the category I just described. I do want to learn more (and this board has piqued my interest in the uncorrelated subjects, mainly because I am a little skeptical about the certitude of many others here), but I am not going to make that effort the focus of my study about the church. I'm not saying this because I think I am righteous; it just feels comfortable to me, both intellectually and spiritually.

Like Surfah, I doubt that the Internet and the increased accessibility to information it creates will cause more people to leave the church. I do think that more people will have serious questions, and that problems in the missionary effort will increase. My guess is that as a result, the church leadership (the "big" leadership in SLC) will start to realize they have to provide more answers to the controversial subjects that have historically been downplayed. The church moves slowly in that regard (understatement alert!) but it does move. There's some evidence they're moving already. The Joseph Smith papers are pretty candid about his polygamy, for example, at least in the parts I have read.

Sorry to ramble on so long. I am now back from vacation and actually have to work.

I agree with this (I've read the Millet piece and liked it) and your quotes approach is similar to my own and is why I stay in (perhaps replacing "BOM" and "JS" with other things for me personally). And that's not the truth I'm talking about. Eternal truth to me is unknowable. But very guessable.

Truth in this case is more of the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth concept. I understand that any organization will want to present itself in the best light possible, and that's fine, but what we have here is a swing of the pendulum too far wherein many people (such as me) feel like we were sold a bill of goods. I do agree that things are changing and I am happy to see it, but I'm still in a position where friends come to me and say they'd like to study more
Church history and where should they start and me replying that they may want to reconsider whether they are ready (in effect)

[Surfah]

A lot of people also want truth. And there's your problem.

There is truth in all those principles. And for many that is all the "truth" people want or need, and consequently will seek.

[Pheidippides]

There is truth in all those principles. And for many that is all the "truth" people want or need, and consequently will seek.

But we're not talking about those many, are we? Those many may or may not be a majority, but they are certainly not all. And I'm not talking about the intersection of truth and belief. I don't believe in polygamy as any sort of principle, eternal or not. I can't disprove it, however, and I have to accept - as with everything - that I am not God and therefore don't really know. I may be wrong. I can't claim to know these truths with any more credibility that you or anybody else can, testimony rhetoric notwithstanding.

But where truth and fact depart - where we are talking about things like funeral texts, destruction of printing presses, statements of "this is not the doctrine nor has it been," things I can disprove with fact, or at least provide significant doubt as to veracity - that's what I'm tired of. It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with obfuscation.

Now, you may say, the lime between those two types of truth is very blurry at best. And that is precisely the point, I would say. When the historical truth is suspect, many people - not all, but many - are going to question the belief truth as well. Except only one of those is even kind of verifiable. In other words, when you have a mishmash of "the restoration is true" testimony and "Jesus Christ is my Savior and the BOM is the word of God" testimony, what happens when it turns out that the picture that was painted for you about the former turns out not only to not accurately represent the scene, but leave several significant details out in such a way as to make the primary colors look nice and pretty? You've been intentionally given a paint by number with six colors as painted by a 10 year old. When a better, more accurate representation has a ton of ugly grays and browns and harsh scarlets maybe. And maybe you like the impressionistic work you've now found, and maybe you don't. And maybe you're missing some colors to complete the work. And the work isn't the subject. But it doesn't change the fact that you fell like somebody tried to pass a paint by number off as a Monet to you. And by necessity anything tied to that - even if circumstantially - comes under scrutiny. You've been deceived by a con man once, so you have natural suspicion. Never mind that the "con man" really only thought you were an inadequate art critic and was trying to make the call as to what was at your level.

I apologize for the exceptionally tortured metaphor. But the fact remains that I am a member of this church as much as any other and I not happy with being fed a story that is devoid of adult details and discussion and being treated - however unintentionally - like a stupid child. I'll be quiet about it if I ever leave, for then I'll have nothing to say but goodbye. But as long as I've made my choice to stay - and I have - I'm going to push for accuracy in areas where we can get it.

[pellegrino]

A lot of people also want truth. And there's your problem.

they also want their religion to have integrity.

[Surfah]

But we're not talking about those many, are we? Those many may or may not be a majority, but they are certainly not all. And I'm not talking about the intersection of truth and belief. I don't believe in polygamy as any sort of principle, eternal or not. I can't disprove it, however, and I have to accept - as with everything - that I am not God and therefore don't really know. I may be wrong. I can't claim to know these truths with any more credibility that you or anybody else can, testimony rhetoric notwithstanding.

But where truth and fact depart - where we are talking about things like funeral texts, destruction of printing presses, statements of "this is not the doctrine nor has it been," things I can disprove with fact, or at least provide significant doubt as to veracity - that's what I'm tired of. It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with obfuscation.

Now, you may say, the lime between those two types of truth is very blurry at best. And that is precisely the point, I would say. When the historical truth is suspect, many people - not all, but many - are going to question the belief truth as well. Except only one of those is even kind of verifiable. In other words, when you have a mishmash of "the restoration is true" testimony and "Jesus Christ is my Savior and the BOM is the word of God" testimony, what happens when it turns out that the picture that was painted for you about the former turns out not only to not accurately represent the scene, but leave several significant details out in such a way as to make the primary colors look nice and pretty? You've been intentionally given a paint by number with six colors as painted by a 10 year old. When a better, more accurate representation has a ton of ugly grays and browns and harsh scarlets maybe. And maybe you like the impressionistic work you've now found, and maybe you don't. And maybe you're missing some colors to complete the work. And the work isn't the subject. But it doesn't change the fact that you fell like somebody tried to pass a paint by number off as a Monet to you. And by necessity anything tied to that - even if circumstantially - comes under scrutiny. You've been deceived by a con man once, so you have natural suspicion. Never mind that the "con man" really only thought you were an inadequate art critic and was trying to make the call as to what was at your level.

I apologize for the exceptionally tortured metaphor. But the fact remains that I am a member of this church as much as any other and I not happy with being fed a story that is devoid of adult details and discussion and being treated - however unintentionally - like a stupid child. I'll be quiet about it if I ever leave, for then I'll have nothing to say but goodbye. But as long as I've made my choice to stay - and I have - I'm going to push for accuracy in areas where we can get it.

No need to apologize. As I said when I jumped into this discussion I certainly can understand the argument and frustration. Though I suppose I feel somewhat differently as I was fed the same story and don't feel as though I have been treated as a stupid child. My whole point was to contend SIEQ's generalization. There is just a great majority of LDS who don't care about Church history enough to ever feel as passionate about the "truth" as you and others here do. Whether that's the fault of inoculation and correlation or simple apathy I don't know. But we all know these people and worship with them. We probably have some in our families and may even be married to someone like that.

I also know there are many (though I believe a significant minority comparatively) that feel as you do. And as I said above to the Pilgrim I don't know what the Church should do to address them. I don't see correlation going away, simply because of the corporate structure inherent in the Church and a lay clergy. And I don't think any sort of honest discussion of adult details will ever become part of Sunday services. Meaning I don't ever see a meat and potatoes class at the other end of the Gospel Essentials spectrum as part of Sunday School curriculum. So I don't know what the answer is.

To that end, I suppose the bloggernacle and the Foyer serve a great purpose for the disaffected (don't condemn me for that word, just couldn't think of anything else and that is harsher than what I am after - disenfranchised maybe?). But it's also why I refrain from participating much in these arenas. Personally, they don't help my spirituality. This is also why I often avoid the Foyer. It may be of great benefit (and I am sure that it is) to many, but it's not for me. It doesn't do me any good to rehash the warts of the Church over and over or nitpick conference talks (I know I am generalizing). I know what the warts are and my testimony is still intact. We believe (or are taught) a lot of crazy shit to be frank. And to make sense of any of that without any application of faith is asinine to me which is what I find in many of these discussions. Yet, I also understand the difficulty and frustration with having to rely on faith for so much. I find myself saying I don't know to questions often, and I know that many will never be satisfied with that.

[Pheidippides]

No need to apologize. As I said when I jumped into this discussion I certainly can understand the argument and frustration. Though I suppose I feel somewhat differently as I was fed the same story and don't feel as though I have been treated as a stupid child. My whole point was to contend SIEQ's generalization. There is just a great majority of LDS who don't care about Church history enough to ever feel as passionate about the "truth" as you and others here do. Whether that's the fault of inoculation and correlation or simple apathy I don't know. But we all know these people and worship with them. We probably have some in our families and may even be married to someone like that.

I also know there are many (though I believe a significant minority comparatively) that feel as you do. And as I said above to the Pilgrim I don't know what the Church should do to address them. I don't see correlation going away, simply because of the corporate structure inherent in the Church and a lay clergy. And I don't think any sort of honest discussion of adult details will ever become part of Sunday services. Meaning I don't ever see a meat and potatoes class at the other end of the Gospel Essentials spectrum as part of Sunday School curriculum. So I don't know what the answer is.

To that end, I suppose the bloggernacle and the Foyer serve a great purpose for the disaffected (don't condemn me for that word, just couldn't think of anything else and that is harsher than what I am after - disenfranchised maybe?). But it's also why I refrain from participating much in these arenas. Personally, they don't help my spirituality. This is also why I often avoid the Foyer. It may be of great benefit (and I am sure that it is) to many, but it's not for me. It doesn't do me any good to rehash the warts of the Church over and over or nitpick conference talks (I know I am generalizing). I know what the warts are and my testimony is still intact. We believe (or are taught) a lot of crazy shit to be frank. And to make sense of any of that without any application of faith is asinine to me which is what I find in many of these discussions. Yet, I also understand the difficulty and frustration with having to rely on faith for so much. I find myself saying I don't know to questions often, and I know that many will never be satisfied with that.

I think it's really interesting that we're in the same place in the end: we admit we don't know jack. I actually find that to be a happy place.

And for all the stones I throw I have no answers either. I tend to think the place to talk about these things is seminary and institute. Just be being upfront their you are going to head off a lot of feelings of betrayal, and then maybe people can divorce historical questions from theological belief.

I used to think I was a member of a small minority. I now think I'm a member of an increasing minority. I'm not convinced it would not be a majority if the people who stop coming were to still attend, but the real point is the direction of growth.

[Surfah]

I think it's really interesting that we're in the same place in the end: we admit we don't know jack. I actually find that to be a happy place.

I used to think I was a member of a small minority. I now think I'm a member of an increasing minority. I'm not convinced it would not be a majority if the people who stop coming were to still attend, but the real point is the direction of growth.

I am happy in this place too.

[UtahDan]

I know what the warts are and my testimony is still intact. We believe (or are taught) a lot of crazy shit to be frank. And to make sense of any of that without any application of faith is asinine to me which is what I find in many of these discussions. Yet, I also understand the difficulty and frustration with having to rely on faith for so much. I find myself saying I don't know to questions often, and I know that many will never be satisfied with that.

I think this is very well said (the whole post). In the end this approach will satisfy some people and others not. The whole conversation is about what you do with your cognitive dissonance. Once you decide you aren't going to be affected by it, or on the other hand decide you can't take it any more, you lose a lot of interest in the conversation. All the talk comes from guys like Nikuman who clearly can't take it any more but lack the courage of their convictions.

[LA Ute]

No need to apologize. As I said when I jumped into this discussion I certainly can understand the argument and frustration. Though I suppose I feel somewhat differently as I was fed the same story and don't feel as though I have been treated as a stupid child. My whole point was to contend SIEQ's generalization. There is just a great majority of LDS who don't care about Church history enough to ever feel as passionate about the "truth" as you and others here do. Whether that's the fault of inoculation and correlation or simple apathy I don't know. But we all know these people and worship with them. We probably have some in our families and may even be married to someone like that.

I also know there are many (though I believe a significant minority comparatively) that feel as you do. And as I said above to the Pilgrim I don't know what the Church should do to address them. I don't see correlation going away, simply because of the corporate structure inherent in the Church and a lay clergy. And I don't think any sort of honest discussion of adult details will ever become part of Sunday services. Meaning I don't ever see a meat and potatoes class at the other end of the Gospel Essentials spectrum as part of Sunday School curriculum. So I don't know what the answer is.

To that end, I suppose the bloggernacle and the Foyer serve a great purpose for the disaffected (don't condemn me for that word, just couldn't think of anything else and that is harsher than what I am after - disenfranchised maybe?). But it's also why I refrain from participating much in these arenas. Personally, they don't help my spirituality. This is also why I often avoid the Foyer. It may be of great benefit (and I am sure that it is) to many, but it's not for me. It doesn't do me any good to rehash the warts of the Church over and over or nitpick conference talks (I know I am generalizing). I know what the warts are and my testimony is still intact. We believe (or are taught) a lot of crazy shit to be frank. And to make sense of any of that without any application of faith is asinine to me which is what I find in many of these discussions. Yet, I also understand the difficulty and frustration with having to rely on faith for so much. I find myself saying I don't know to questions often, and I know that many will never be satisfied with that.

I can't find anything in this post that I disagree with. (I'd say "stuff that to most rational people seems like crazy sh**," but that's no biggie.). Well said.

[Pheidippides]

I think this is very well said (the whole post). In the end this approach will satisfy some people and others not. The whole conversation is about what you do with your cognitive dissonance. Once you decide you aren't going to be affected by it, or on the other hand decide you can't take it any more, you lose a lot of interest in the conversation. All the talk comes from guys like Nikuman who clearly can't take it any more but lack the courage of their convictions.

You forgot the part about the guys who have read only enough to get themselves in trouble.

[Surfah]

I can't find anything in this post that I disagree with. (I'd say "stuff that to most rational people seems like crazy sh**," but that's no biggie.). Well said.

Yeah I should have edited that.

[Northwestcoug]

That I am not sure. I don't think it's simple.

It would be interesting to know if that number is growing. I think there has always been a number of the people SIEQ describes. But now there are places for them to congregate that didn't exist before. So perhaps the numbers aren't really growing. I don't know. What I really want to know is what affect the easily accessible, non-correlated history is having on Church members.

I might have mentioned this before, but my teenage daughter found out about all these controversies and more, thanks to the internet. I wonder if she would have even ventured to look, had it not been for unsatisfactory answers she was getting in seminary. It's sad, but I've already seen her 'cut her losses', so to speak, and decide what she can and can't believe about our teachings. I didn't have to go through this when I was her age, and I doubt her experience will be much different than others of her generation.

But we're not talking about those many, are we? Those many may or may not be a majority, but they are certainly not all. And I'm not talking about the intersection of truth and belief. I don't believe in polygamy as any sort of principle, eternal or not. I can't disprove it, however, and I have to accept - as with everything - that I am not God and therefore don't really know. I may be wrong. I can't claim to know these truths with any more credibility that you or anybody else can, testimony rhetoric notwithstanding.

But where truth and fact depart - where we are talking about things like funeral texts, destruction of printing presses, statements of "this is not the doctrine nor has it been," things I can disprove with fact, or at least provide significant doubt as to veracity - that's what I'm tired of. It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with obfuscation.

Now, you may say, the lime between those two types of truth is very blurry at best. And that is precisely the point, I would say. When the historical truth is suspect, many people - not all, but many - are going to question the belief truth as well. Except only one of those is even kind of verifiable. In other words, when you have a mishmash of "the restoration is true" testimony and "Jesus Christ is my Savior and the BOM is the word of God" testimony, what happens when it turns out that the picture that was painted for you about the former turns out not only to not accurately represent the scene, but leave several significant details out in such a way as to make the primary colors look nice and pretty? You've been intentionally given a paint by number with six colors as painted by a 10 year old. When a better, more accurate representation has a ton of ugly grays and browns and harsh scarlets maybe. And maybe you like the impressionistic work you've now found, and maybe you don't. And maybe you're missing some colors to complete the work. And the work isn't the subject. But it doesn't change the fact that you fell like somebody tried to pass a paint by number off as a Monet to you. And by necessity anything tied to that - even if circumstantially - comes under scrutiny. You've been deceived by a con man once, so you have natural suspicion. Never mind that the "con man" really only thought you were an inadequate art critic and was trying to make the call as to what was at your level.

I apologize for the exceptionally tortured metaphor. But the fact remains that I am a member of this church as much as any other and I not happy with being fed a story that is devoid of adult details and discussion and being treated - however unintentionally - like a stupid child. I'll be quiet about it if I ever leave, for then I'll have nothing to say but goodbye. But as long as I've made my choice to stay - and I have - I'm going to push for accuracy in areas where we can get it.

Great post. I feel the same way. It hurts to think the church would use deception with members, but this is exactly how I feel.

[Northwestcoug]

I've posted this before and I think it's relevant to this discussion. It's from "What Is Our Doctrine?" by Bob Millet of BYU:



The whole Millet piece is worth a read. I'm not endorsing all of it, but it is a serious effort at addressing the question of what is doctrine and what is not.

I know most who post and read here will reject Millet's approach (some will denounce it quite colorfully and in absolute terms, I'll bet), but I think the overwhelming majority of members of the church are comfortable with it. They feel they have testimonies of the Restoration and of the church's ongoing divine authority and they say to themselves, "Well, the early brethren sure did make some wild statements, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses, and those chapters in RSR about Joseph Smith's polygamy were pretty startling, but I like the horse I am on now and I am going to stay on it. It makes me very happy and gives me and my family peace, and I can't deny the feelings I have had about JS, the BofM, and the current leadership of the church, among other things. So I am still in with both feet."

I am pretty much in the category I just described. I do want to learn more (and this board has piqued my interest in the uncorrelated subjects, mainly because I am a little skeptical about the certitude of many others here), but I am not going to make that effort the focus of my study about the church. I'm not saying this because I think I am righteous; it just feels comfortable to me, both intellectually and spiritually.

Like Surfah, I doubt that the Internet and the increased accessibility to information it creates will cause more people to leave the church. I do think that more people will have serious questions, and that problems in the missionary effort will increase. My guess is that as a result, the church leadership (the "big" leadership in SLC) will start to realize they have to provide more answers to the controversial subjects that have historically been downplayed. The church moves slowly in that regard (understatement alert!) but it does move. There's some evidence they're moving already. The Joseph Smith papers are pretty candid about his polygamy, for example, at least in the parts I have read.

Sorry to ramble on so long. I am now back from vacation and actually have to work.

This is a sore spot for me, and it has been parsed way too much. I remember in a religion class at BYU where the First Presidency's statement on the birth of Jesus was read:

"Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior..."

Andrew Skinner read it solemnly enough so that the inevitable question came from another student: "so you're saying Heavenly Father had sex with Mary?" And he said, "I guess that's what it means".

You could see half the class give in to disbelief.

This is not a case of a 'rogue' BYU religion professor. You can easily find quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Ezra T. Benson (and many other 'less authoritative' apostles) that explicitly state this. I don't care if it wasn't officially pronounced (though it was 'winked' at in the First Presidency statement above). These are men I've been taught are prophets who will not lead me astray. Do I really need to check if it was an official pronouncement before I believe a prophet's words? Is this what we're teaching members? If so, I've missed it.

You are right, the majority of members are probably OK with Millett's opinion. I used to be. I am increasingly finding it difficult to follow this advice.

[myboynoah]

This is a sore spot for me, and it has been parsed way too much. I remember in a religion class at BYU where the First Presidency's statement on the birth of Jesus was read:

"Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior..."

Andrew Skinner read it solemnly enough so that the inevitable question came from another student: "so you're saying Heavenly Father had sex with Mary?" And he said, "I guess that's what it means".

You could see half the class give in to disbelief.

This is not a case of a 'rogue' BYU religion professor. You can easily find quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Ezra T. Benson (and many other 'less authoritative' apostles) that explicitly state this. I don't care if it wasn't officially pronounced (though it was 'winked' at in the First Presidency statement above). These are men I've been taught are prophets who will not lead me astray. Do I really need to check if it was an official pronouncement before I believe a prophet's words? Is this what we're teaching members? If so, I've missed it.

You are right, the majority of members are probably OK with Millett's opinion. I used to be. I am increasingly finding it difficult to follow this advice.

I don't understand why that is the only conclusion that could be drawn.

[LA Ute]

I don't understand why that is the only conclusion that could be drawn.

Agreed. I also don't understand why the statements of prior apostles and church leaders on this or that subject (most famously, the priesthood ban) are considered mistakes, and yet statements on this subject, based so much on surmise and conjecture, must be the ironclad truth, leaving no room for ambiguity.