Mormon Mythology

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

The misunderstanding seems to me that you read something in a book that resonated with you and feel like that's some sort of proof positive of it's value. I disagree and that seems to bug you.

At the risk of being dis-courteous again, let me clarify that our differences did not start in this discussion. In fact, I'm pretty sure, we discussed this before, but I could be wrong. Edited October 1, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's me, splitting the difference:

 

1.  I think the Givenses are pretty awesome (their son, Nathaniel Givens also has a pretty interesting and occasionally-brilliant blog at http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com ).

 

2.  I like Weed a lot, but having read through what I *think* are the extracts of Miracle of Forgiveness that he found so troublesome--I don't remember seeing much in MoF that can be said to be factually or doctrinally *wrong* based on a plain-text reading.  Now, certainly there are a lot of loaded words when one discusses homosexuality at all; and maybe some of the words Kimball used evoked some very painful connotations for Weed or other LDS readers.  But frankly, my impression is that--admiration for Weed aside--his representations of MoF and how it affected him, don't quite give President Kimball a fair shake; and that his own experiences may be leading him to read Kimball in a way Kimball himself would never have intended.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

How so?

 

I thought the sentence above it was pretty clear... But I will break it down

 

"If we think that help should be individualized in nature"   aka if we think our help should be tailored to the person in question and their concerns.  Then we should have a name or at least some identifier.  Who specifically is this thread helping.. what are there names(handles).  Its one thing when a person comes on this forum and says I am having this particular problem with this particular Leader.  To remind the poster that the leader is human and can make mistake  can and  be part of addressing the persons direct concerns.  This thread does not do that.  The closest it has is Average Joe, and I don't read his post as asking for help... as much I as see it as an attempt to stir things up.  (Which is counter to the individualized help)

 

"and trying to avoid offense should be generalized..."  aka we should be thinking about whom might be hurt (or otherwise offended) by our words and post and generally try to avoid doing so.  Sometimes that can't be helped, but we should try.  After pointing out the dangers of alienating people we might never see or hear of I think it is clear this thread fails there to.

 

So this thread gives general offense with out addressing one singular individual's specific concern (aka the opposite)

[The Folk Prophet]

At the risk of being dis-courteous again, let me clarify that our differences did not start in this discussion. In fact, I'm pretty sure, we discussed this before, but I could be wrong.

 

At the risk of being discourteous myself, I'm pretty sure we all have people we get along with and people we don't. There are many I have conversations with who understand and converse rather well with me even when we disagree. There are others who do not. My perspective is, and has been, that when people take offense at me, it's usually more related to the way they read things than how I meant them.

 

In this particular case, I did mean to be sarcastic and jokingly caustic. For some reason (apparently I've forgotten that -- we don't get along??? (this is actually news to me)) I expected you to take it well. The fact that you didn't surprised me. I apologized accordingly.

 

Where we go from here is entirely up to you. But as for me, I won't be cowed into silence by people accusing me of "tone" problems. When I'm blatantly rude with intent, I either stand behind it or work to change it. In this case, it was not my intent, and if you can't accept that, it's on you.

 

But as I said, I really have no idea what you're talking about our "differences" (the inference being that you mean personal differences rather than disagreeing -- I'm well aware we don't agree on everything). As far as I'm aware, I thought we had a history of being rather civil to one another, sharing thoughts and whatnot in AG, etc.... So I had no idea you, apparently, harbor some sort of ill will toward me.

Edited October 1, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

1.  I think the Givenses are pretty awesome (their son, Nathaniel Givens also has a pretty interesting and occasionally-brilliant blog at http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com ).

 

Just to be clear: I have nothing against the Givenes and expect they have many valuable insights. I just don't believe they hold up as any sort of authority as to the issue of there being some sort of major problem with hero worship running rampant in the church.

[Vort]

What is your point? I'm certain you know just what I meant.

 

No, LP, I do not. What was your point? What do you think is "the truth" about Joe Paterno?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Here's me, splitting the difference:

1. I think the Givenses are pretty awesome (their son, Nathaniel Givens also has a pretty interesting and occasionally-brilliant blog at http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com ).

2. I like Weed a lot, but having read through what I *think* are the extracts of Miracle of Forgiveness that he found so troublesome--I don't remember seeing anything in MoF that can be said to be factually or doctrinally *wrong* based on a plain-text reading. Now, certainly there are a lot of loaded words when one discusses homosexuality at all; and maybe some of the words Kimball used evoked some very painful connotations for Weed or other LDS readers. But frankly, my inclination is that--admiration for Weed aside--his representations of MoF and how it affected him, don't quite give President Kimball a fair shake.

Thanks, I'll check out that blog.

I love Pres. Kimball. On eof my favorite church quotes comes from him. He said, referring to Christ. "No matter how much we speak of him, it is never enough."

About Josh, perhaps because of the nature of this conversation his point (and mine in mentioning him) was missed. I appreciate Josh's story because even though he read something that was hurtful to him, he found away to live with it. People have gotten offended and left the church for far less. I felt that his message was meant to encourage others who felt hurt in similar ways to not leave, but continue to support and follow our leaders. In part this was implied by his example, since that is what he is doing.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I thought the sentence above it was pretty clear... But I will break it down

"If we think that help should be individualized in nature" aka if we think our help should be tailored to the person in question and their concerns. Then we should have a name or at least some identifier. Who specifically is this thread helping.. what are there names(handles). Its one thing when a person comes on this forum and says I am having this particular problem with this particular Leader. To remind the poster that the leader is human and can make mistake can and be part of addressing the persons direct concerns. This thread does not do that. The closest it has is Average Joe, and I don't read his post as asking for help... as much I as see it as an attempt to stir things up. (Which is counter to the individualized help)

Sorry, I guess we're just talking about different parts of the elephant here, but it seems like this is rehashing what we talked about before.

[classylady]

I know that my church leaders are human and have human frailties.  So, I guess by that I am not a hero worshipper.   But, I love my leaders and appreciate their inspired messages and try to follow the counsel given even though I fall short.  I do not look for faults in them.  Why would I do that?  It makes no sense to me.  We all have weaknesses.

 

Something that has been going through my head on this is that when I meet my Maker, I would rather be a hero worshipper than one who was always finding fault with my church leaders.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I do not look for faults in them. Why would I do that?.

To my knowledge no one in this thread has suggested that. That was certainly not my intention.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

But as I said, I really have no idea what you're talking about our "differences" (the inference being that you mean personal differences rather than disagreeing -- I'm well aware we don't agree on everything). As far as I'm aware, I thought we had a history of being rather civil to one another, sharing thoughts and whatnot in AG, etc.... So I had no idea you, apparently, harbor some sort of ill will toward me.

Wevery disagreed many times before, even in PMs. IMO, the civil discourse started when I stopped debating with you. I prefer the civility and the goal of friendship and that is why I'm not going to debate with you about this issue.

I'm not trying to censor yout in any way. Post what you like.

[estradling75]

Sorry, I guess we're just talking about different parts of the elephant here, but it seems like this is rehashing what we talked about before.

 

 

So you agree that help should be individualized?    If so name the individual to whom we are addressing our answers to help.

[The Folk Prophet]

the civil discourse started when I stopped debating with you

 

Then by your own admission the lack of civility is your fault.

 

I prefer the civility and the goal of friendship and that is why I'm not going to debate with you about this issue.

 

It strikes me that telling someone that you don't like talking with them and always taking issues with their "tone" is not a good way to civility or friendship. Whereas I thought we had friendship, I see now that I was mistaken, that you have never, apparently, cared much for me, and the only way you can handle dealing with me is by simply not dealing with me.

 

I'm not trying to censor yout in any way. Post what you like.

 

Then what, exactly, was your objective in explicitly telling me that you don't like to have discussions with me and that you don't like my tone? Because it strikes me that your objective was merely to cut me down, hurt my feelings, drive me from the conversation, and let me know how distasteful I am.

 

Objective achieved.* I now consider myself right properly unfriended by you.

 

*edit: except driving me from the conversation, of course.

Edited October 1, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

To my knowledge no one in this thread has suggested that. That was certainly not my intention.

 

It seems to be the exact intention suggested by the OP.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Then what, exactly, was your objective in explicitly telling me that you don't like to have discussions with me and that you don't like my tone? Because it strikes me that your objective was merely to cut me down, hurt my feelings, drive me from the conversation, and let me know how distasteful I am.

Hurting your feelings was never my intention. But I think you know that.

You are right I'm uncivil. If I were you I'd stop talking to me entirely. Maybe put me on ignore so you don't even see my posts.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So you agree that help should be individualized? If so name the individual to whom we are addressing our answers to help.

We discussed this exact thing earlier in the thread. I haven't changed my mind in the last few hours.

Edited October 1, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

We discussed this exact thing earlier in the thread. I haven't changed my mind in the last few hours.

 

So name the person we are helping?

[The Folk Prophet]

Hurting your feelings was never my intention. But I think you know that.

 

How could I possibly know that when you went out of your way to tell me that you didn't like conversing with me?

 

You are right I'm uncivil. If I were you I'd stop talking to me entirely. Maybe put me on ignore so you don't even see my posts.

 

Haha. Nice try.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So name the person we are helping?

Remember I said that we can't help the individual because they generally won't talk about it but slip quietly away from the church.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Haha. Nice try.

At last common ground. I thought it was funny too. Joking is so much more pleasant than debating. Did you hear the one about the guy who walked into a bar? (kidding)

[estradling75]

Remember I said that we can't help the individual because they generally won't talk about it but slip quietly away from the church.

 

So in order to help one unknown stranger you are willing hurt/alienate other unknown strangers?

 

Now let me tell you why I think the idea that the church needs to somehow do more to teach about the flaws of its leaders... is total bull crap...  The reason is simple.  It already does.

 

The church instructs, informs, asks and otherwise highly encourages all it members to read the scriptures daily.  They use words like feast and ponder in association with this.  Do you know what you find in each of the 4 standard works we call scriptures?  Stories and examples of very human people with very human flaws.  For example you can't say you have studied the Doctrine and Covenants, without finding several instances of the Lord himself rebuking Joseph Smith for his sins and weakness.  Lets repeat...  Joseph Smith, the Lord, in canonized scripture that every member should be studying regularly.

 

New Testament its about the Leaders of the church hand picked by Christ in the flesh.  The gospels are full of their denials, their disbelief.  Even after the resurrection they have their disagreements with each other.

 

Old Testament oh man don't get me started.

 

Book of Mormon... ok that is a bit harder...  But Lehi who murmurs when Nephi breaks his bow, Mormon who who acts on incomplete information and unjustly rebukes Pahoran.  You have the Alma(s) who clearly had a lot of sins to deal with as part of their conversions.

 

The simple fact is that if people are doing what they have been asked to do by the leaders of the church they are getting repeatedly shown by examples that people that God calls as leaders have weakness, flaws, and imperfections from some of the most authoritative sources the Church recognizes.

 

In addition to, and to help with the primacy of personal study, the church also offers as additional helps things like gospel doctrine and other classes.

 

So really what more do you want the church to do to reach out to these people who aren't following their councils in the first place?  Do you want the church to treat them like baby chicks and regurgitate into their mouths the information they seem unwilling or unable to acquire on their own?  And if so how does this reduce the members reliance on the Church as an organization and put it where it properly belongs. (On to the Lord and themselves)

 

 

Simply put if these quite unassuming folks you are worried about are listening and following the instructions of the leader of the church they can't help but be exposed from very high and authoritative sources that our leaders have flaws, and that God will work with them anyways.  But if they are not listening and following, how do you expect more actions from the church to address the subject to make any difference?

 

Now to change subject just a bit...  After pointing how many stories are in the scriptures about leaders and their flaws some people might say "well then what is the problem with posting threads like this one if the scriptures say the same thing?"  The answer is simple. balance and the spirit.

 

The scripture document their flaws but it also documents their callings as someone called of God.  This makes it very clear that calling and flaws are not mutually exclusive.  And ultimately supports them and God.  Now read the OP...  All flaws... nothing about their calling or their successes.  There is absolutely nothing there that shows that God made the right call.  I can't see that as anything but faith destroying to those that "generally won't talk about it but slip quietly away"

 

So posts like this are very unlikely to help the people you are saying it might help... but very likely to hurt those you wish to help.  So how is it wise?

Edited October 1, 2015 by estradling75

[Average Joe]

You mean there Not Perfect ..... Say it ain't so

oops...I went there 

[Average Joe]

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency(the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

 

Taylor confused the doctrine of polygamy (as expressed by his father) with the practice of polygamy (Wilford Woodruff).  The doctrine is still in effect, the only change is how it is practiced.  And it cannot be practiced unless the one who  holds the key (the President of the Church) permits it.

 

His excommunication was not over polygamy but over the issue of who holds the keys

 

 

1. Get your facts straight.

2. "I really don't know what I am talking about."  No you don't.  You are just repeating rumors and gossip.

 

++++++++++++++++

Just an observation -->>

You are walking down a path which may lead you to a place where you do not want to go.  My personal attitude to this issue is that there are some things I do not understand, and it is ok to ask questions.  In some cases it will take many years to understand what is going on, as I get more knowledge, insight,  and spiritual maturity.

 

@ Brigham Young:

Changed the endowment ceremony to add a Lecture at the Veil concerning Adam/God (source: Lecture at the Veil)

As I said, Orson Pratt was the only apostle that didn't give at least tacit support to Adam/God and Brigham had no problems calling him out for it

I have read talks of many apostles and leading Mormons of the day in favor of Adam/God, So yes, Brigham carried his day. 

 

@ John W. Taylor: Thank you for your well considered rephrasing of what I said :)

 

@ John P. Lee & Paul H. Dunn

John P. Lee (source: http://gapages.com/leegp1.htm)

Paul H. Dunn (source: http://www.gapages.com/dunnph1.htm)

Is there something else you'd like to say right about now?

 

@ your closing observation: You don't know me from Adam, so I'll lust let you know, I'm doing just fine, thank you very much :)

Edited October 1, 2015 by Average Joe

[james12]

Do I sustain my church leaders, yes I do. However, I don't believe in infallibility. Let the stoning begin.

Actually I think the stoning has fallen on LiterateParakeet for agreeing with you and then trying to support why she feels the way she does. 

 

So where is there room in all of that to accept human frailty?  I'm not complaining, I've ceased expecting things to be easy--whether in the gospel or in life.  This life is messy, and I'm learning to live with questions and uncertainty.  That said, I think Average Joe's reminder is an important one.

I'm not sure I agree with the exact format of Avg Joe's post, but I do feel that it is good to see human frailty and how apostles and prophets overcame it. Such a lesson is extremely valuable. Why? Because there are a number of members in this church that place apostles and prophets on such a high pedestal that what they have accomplished appears unobtainable to we who fight through common difficulties and challenges. For example, have apostles ever faced depression? How did they overcome it? Have they ever dealt with anger? What did they do? Knowing such details could give people hope and direction.

Now there is another problem. I feel part of the reason why such personal issues are almost never discussed may be because some members, if they see how human our apostles and prophets are, may reject them as called of God. They have gotten it into their head that a prophet or apostle must be close to perfect. But such a notion is false. It seems best to disabuse people of it as soon as possible. Yes these are good, sincere, humble, men but they are not perfect.

I think there is a need for more open dialogue on this issue Avg Joe has brought up. With less finger pointing and accusing and more understanding.

[Average Joe]

What is the point of this thread?

 

Ecclesiastes 3(KJV)

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven

If you don't see a particular point to this post you can move along to something which is more interesting to you or spending a little time here posting jokes about it, whatever makes you happy, I don't mind :)

But since you seem like a fairly bright fellow, why don't you try answering "Was Mormonism, according to Pratt’s argument, to become a religion primarily bound to scripture or would it continue to find its fundamental strength in the living oracles who led the church, the position espoused by Brigham Young?"