Utchdorf, Sometimes we have made mistakes

[eddified]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of this I feel confident: Brigham Young did not believe that Adam was Elohim.

What do you think he believed then, and how were his words misunderstood?

[The Folk Prophet]

52 minutes ago, eddified said:

What do you think he believed then, and how were his words misunderstood?

Honestly, it's complicated. If you take the so-called "history" of it at face value then it seems plain that he wasn't misunderstood. Of course my comment is completely misleading. Even within the context of the factual "what he said", he never "taught" that Adam was Elohim. Rather, he "taught" that Elohim was Adam's father, but that Adam was Jesus's father and the father of all our spirits, and that Elohim was, thereby, God the Grandfather, as it were.

But here's the thing -- just like with the "gold-digger" idea. History is complicated. And really it all becomes a bunch of "may have" this and "may have" that.

So, yeah, Brigham "may have" believed that Adam was an exalted being who fathered us all in the spirit and in the flesh. He "may have" meant something else. He "may have" censored Orson Pratt for debating with him. He "may have" tried to include these concepts in the temple ceremony. He "may have" been wrong. Or he "may have" meant something else. He "may have" postulated a theory but never intended to have it ratified as doctrine. He "may have" intended to try and have it ratified.

Who know...and more importantly...who cares?

The not "may have"s are simple. We don't believe or accept the ideas that are proclaimed as what Brigham "may have" said and believed. Period. They (the concepts explained above) have been explicitly denounced as wrong (note: this is different than someone explicitly claiming Brigham was wrong).

And so I am quite comfortable with these two fact -- what people believe Brigham taught is wrong. Declaring Brigham Young wrong is unnecessary and, potentially, harmful.

Our doctrine is plain: Elohim is the father of our spirits. Jesus was his first born and his only begotten in the flesh. Adam was Michael and is one of Elohim's spirit children. Adam is the father of mankind in the flesh, a spirit brother to Jesus, the same as us all.

What Brigham Young said or didn't say isn't, in my opinion, worth working out -- primarily because it's not really possible, and secondarily because it doesn't much matter.

Personally, for what it's worth, I don't think Brigham was stupid enough to believe such a thing that directly flies in the face of truth. Beyond that... 

[eddified]

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate someone finally giving an explanation. I'm trying to figure out how to reconcile Utchdorf's statement that there have been mistakes made, with the general consensus I'm feeling here, which is that the prophets haven't made mistakes, nor the apostles (excepting the ones which were ex'ed). Or at the very least, if they have, we should not point them out. We are only allowed to point out mistakes made by general authorities that were later excommunicated, is the feeling I'm getting here. I understand and empathize with the sentiment that if it were otherwise, then we could just chalk up any teaching we don't like with a mistake. I totally get that. It sounds like the consensus is that Utchdorf was referring mainly to local leaders, is that it?

I don't intend to use Utchdorf's statement to mean that I can dismiss whatever teaching I want -- quite the contrary. I am only feeling like it applies to obviously incorrect doctrine (at least to our modern sensibilities), such as Adam-God theory, and inability of the blacks to hold the priesthood... So I ask this question: for those such as @The Folk Prophet who seem to be indicating that the general authorities have not made any mistakes regarding doctrine (aside from the obvious cases of authorities which were ex-communicated, etc), how do you explain the priesthood not being extended to worthy black members? I honestly am not wishing to debate this (did it seem like I wished to debate the Adam-God Theory stuff? I hope not). I really just want to hear where you are coming from as I am trying to figure out how and if Utchdorf's statement relates to priesthood and black members... Does that make sense?

[Vort]

1 hour ago, eddified said:

I am only feeling like it applies to obviously incorrect doctrine (at least to our modern sensibilities), such as Adam-God theory, and inability of the blacks to hold the priesthood.

Exhibit A in why people shouldn't try to use President Uchtdorf's words to support their own biases. "The inability of blacks to hold the priesthood" was not and is not "obviously incorrect doctrine." That is what the apostates and anti-Mormons say, of course, but they're liars. Shame on anyone who says or even believes such things. Shame on you for repeating it.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, eddified said:

 the prophets haven't made mistakes, nor the apostles (excepting the ones which were ex'ed).

Not what was said.

8 hours ago, eddified said:

Or at the very least, if they have, we should not point them out.

How can we point out things that we don't actually know? What I'm claiming is that an assumption of mistakes by prophets based on our own understanding is pure arrogance on our part. That is different than accepting that there may have been doctrinal mistakes made. It is saying that we don't know what those mistakes are.

8 hours ago, eddified said:

We are only allowed to point out mistakes made by general authorities that were later excommunicated, is the feeling I'm getting here.

Allowed?

You have agency as do we all. We may do as we want. We don't have to exercise wisdom in these matters. No one is forcing our hands.

8 hours ago, eddified said:

It sounds like the consensus is that Utchdorf was referring mainly to local leaders, is that it?

I don't agree with that at all. Some have viewed it that way. I do not. I think Pres Ucthdorf was giving general guidance to be forgiving of the fact that men and women at all levels are imperfect. Within the full context of what he said, however, the idea was to trust that God leads His church the way He means to in spite of imperfections and mistakes that might have been made at any level, so even when and if we (also certainly imperfectly) perceive mistakes, let it go and move on in faith.

I don't believe that he specifically meant doctrinal mistakes, but he didn't disallow the idea either. What I don't believe is that God allowed the church to go astray in important doctrinal matters. The Adam-God idea is a prime example. Whether Brigham made a "mistake" or not is immaterial. The church was not led astray. So what good is it to pick apart Brigham's comments?

There are several things leaders have said over the years that I consider mistakes. Of course, reasonably speaking, if I'm going to allow for the reality that prophets and apostle make mistakes, should I not then allow for an even greater possibility that I might be mistaken? After all, who is the Lord more likely to guide correctly? The one who has spent his entire life serving God in leadership roles, working the majority of his life as an apostle, later to become the prophet, humble, faithful, and dedicate? Or me -- sits around on the computer all day, tv junky, has a hard time getting off his butt and serving, and has engaged in a variety of stupid sins over the years, that I won't go into?

8 hours ago, eddified said:

I don't intend to use Utchdorf's statement to mean that I can dismiss whatever teaching I want -- quite the contrary. I am only feeling like it applies to obviously incorrect doctrine (at least to our modern sensibilities), such as Adam-God theory, and inability of the blacks to hold the priesthood... 

Can you not see what you are saying here? Let me restate it the way it reads:

"I don't believe I can dismiss whatever teachings I want to -- but I'm going to dismiss the teachings that I want to anyhow."

8 hours ago, eddified said:

or those such as @The Folk Prophet who seem to be indicating that the general authorities have not made any mistakes regarding doctrine

You need to read more carefully. This is not what I have said.

8 hours ago, eddified said:

how do you explain the priesthood not being extended to worthy black members? 

I don't.

8 hours ago, eddified said:

I really just want to hear where you are coming from as I am trying to figure out how and if Utchdorf's statement relates to priesthood and black members... Does that make sense?

It can be applied to statements such as by Elder McConkie for which he later admitted a mistake. It can be applied to the disavowed theories concerning why the policy was in place.

That being said -- and here's the danger of viewing things with a "what might be a mistake based on current popular trends" view of things: (and see my initial post in this thread for a summary of the irony). Maybe the mistake made was the fact that the church disavowed the theories. (Please note that I'm not suggesting this is the case. Just trying to point out where the logic leads if one is open minded and looks past emotion based arguments.) I mean, the article on race and the priesthood was hardly a "thus saith the Lord" revelation, now, was it? How do we even know the views therein are accurate?

Edited July 11, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[eddified]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

Exhibit A in why people shouldn't try to use President Uchtdorf's words to support their own biases. "The inability of blacks to hold the priesthood" was not and is not "obviously incorrect doctrine." That is what the apostates and anti-Mormons say, of course, but they're liars. Shame on anyone who says or even believes such things. Shame on you for repeating it.

I just want to understand. But I typically get condemnation from @Vort. <sigh> It's a common thing I see in these forums. @Vort, I respect you. You're a smart person with valuable comments. I know you mean well. But so do I. I've never doubted the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, I always have sustained my leaders, and would retroactively sustain all past church presidents, including Brother Brigham, if it were possible. I have no faith crisis. I have a testimony that the Standard Works that we have are all revealed word of God. I have a firm conviction that Jospeh Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. I'm at the level spoken of previously where anti-Mormon arguments do not affect my testimony, I've learned a little of Church History but would like to know more because knowledge. Again, not for faith, since you can get that without studying church history, but for knowledge just for its own sake. I did not try to make anyone believe I was an apostate. I did not play devil's advocate. I just merely wanted to discuss somethings I don't fully understand, but get labeled an apostate and said I should be ashamed. This is not how you treat people if you want to be charitable. In charity you listen for understanding, not so that you can quickly condemn. No @Vort, it's you who should be ashamed for being so abrasive and judgmental on occasion. At least that's how I see it; I could be wrong. Again let me be clear: I think you are a wonderful person with extremely valuable comments, but sometimes you're just over the top. 

It's fine to disagree. It's when you start attacking someone because of a  disagreement, that's where it must end, it's called an Ad Hominem attack. Look it up. 

As to the subject matter, I'm lacking in knowledge which is why I started asking questions. I'm not professing to know the truth about these various subjects. It's more like I'm coming to tentative conclusions and trying them out for awhile. Did it sound like I was playing the part of the apostate? I sure didn't mean that, those listening for understanding could probably realize that. 

@The Folk Prophet, I appreciate the dialog. 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, eddified said:

What do you think he believed then, and how were his words misunderstood?

See the paragraph prior to the last quote in this post:

Whatever, here is a re-post

First, we still don't know what Young was saying about Adam-God.  The text reveals a missing logical step in his words.  The sentences just before don't lead up to the sentences on this topic.  This indicates a missing segue and therefore, pertinent information.

Edited July 11, 2017 by Guest

[docjohn]

I'm new to this forum. I left the church about 12 years ago and have missed many things. My primary desire is to have a relationship with Christ and use my talents to help my fellow man. 

I've been inwardly conflicted for a long time about some aspects of church history that cause great mental and emotional pain - for example, can anyone help me to settle the conflict between trusting in the divine heritage of the church and leader's (big) mistakes? Pres. Uchdorft referred to mistakes in our history, without naming them, but I believe he meant things like Brigham Young's blood atonement teaching - this bothers me to my soul as it totally defies all that current leaders teach as well as the power of our Lord Jesus Christ - it angers me in fact. The only way I can align my 'mental map' with this new territory (reality) is to include both the divine heritage AND that leaders do make mistakes - if I do this, however, I need to leave room in my mind for mistakes in the present as well and learn to use the church as a vehicle only - not rely on anyone's work 100% - just learn to trust my heart and conscience. 

I am seriously considering rejoining the church but the missionaries (online) have no clue how to answer me - and it's so easy in our digital world to label, generalize attributes, and minimize people (e.g., he's 'anti') - which is so hurtful because I'm sincere and have always loved the Lord. 

Any perspectives would be greatly appreciated! 

[zil]

Welcome, @docjohn!  Glad to have you here.  I don't know that I can help you personally (history has never been my thing), but if you haven't been there already, https://www.fairmormon.org/ has some really smart people answering questions about Church history.  There are also folks here who could address your concerns.  You might want to start a new thread for each separate concern (easier to keep the discussion on track that way).  Anywho, I just wanted to welcome you to the forums.

[estradling75]

Welcome  @docjohn 

 

The answer to your question about Prophets being in error and what not....  Is the Lord's law of witnesses found int 2 Corinthians 13

1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

When the Church was young and just starting out the Lord commanded Sidney Rigdon to prove all the revelations from Joseph Smith using his great understanding of the bible, thus becoming a Second Witness.

While many member think that they must follow a singular flawed human, God's Law of witnesses has always been enforced.  When the church became fully organized it required the Prophet his councilors and the leading Quorum to be "One."  Per the command of Christ to his leaders  (Aka in agreement  aka 15 witnesses).

When one ignores the Law of Witness in evaluating teachings one can get confused quite easily between what is God's command and what is an opinion and potentially wrong to greatly misunderstood idea of a person, who is called to lead.

 

[docjohn]

That makes sense - which is why leaders need to know all the scriptures and look at the larger picture over time and space - and not subjugate to senior leaders for the sake of approval. Truth and Christ's views must guide the church, not the other way around - I've watched this happen in the past; no thinking, just accept everything. I'm learning the importance of a personal relationship with God, which is spiritual maturity. I also see the need for help from people, in and out of the church, as we struggle to learn and grow. If God wanted to just give us everything and make life easy He would have designed it that way; but we have to learn to trust, fail, get up, see what brings us closer to our 'true self'.  

[Jane_Doe]

37 minutes ago, docjohn said:

I'm new to this forum. I left the church about 12 years ago and have missed many things. My primary desire is to have a relationship with Christ and use my talents to help my fellow man. 

I've been inwardly conflicted for a long time about some aspects of church history that cause great mental and emotional pain - for example, can anyone help me to settle the conflict between trusting in the divine heritage of the church and leader's (big) mistakes? Pres. Uchdorft referred to mistakes in our history, without naming them, but I believe he meant things like Brigham Young's blood atonement teaching - this bothers me to my soul as it totally defies all that current leaders teach as well as the power of our Lord Jesus Christ - it angers me in fact. The only way I can align my 'mental map' with this new territory (reality) is to include both the divine heritage AND that leaders do make mistakes - if I do this, however, I need to leave room in my mind for mistakes in the present as well and learn to use the church as a vehicle only - not rely on anyone's work 100% - just learn to trust my heart and conscience. 

I am seriously considering rejoining the church but the missionaries (online) have no clue how to answer me - and it's so easy in our digital world to label, generalize attributes, and minimize people (e.g., he's 'anti') - which is so hurtful because I'm sincere and have always loved the Lord. 

Any perspectives would be greatly appreciated! 

Hi @docjohn, welcome to the forum.  I applaud you desire to be closer to the Savior and aide your fellow man through your talents.

I'm not sure what you're meaning by "divine heritage of the Church".  But yes, leaders have made mistakes before, including (in my personal opinion) BY's idea you mentioned here.  No church leader is perfect, and this church does not belong to BY or any other mortal.  Rather, it is Christ's church.  I would recommend not building your faith on what any mortal individual alone says, but listening to the Spirit and the unified voice of His Prophets (capital P).  

If you have any other thoughts, I look forward to hearing them.  Again, welcome to the forum!

Edited December 18, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

24 minutes ago, docjohn said:

That makes sense - which is why leaders need to know all the scriptures and look at the larger picture over time and space - and not subjugate to senior leaders for the sake of approval. Truth and Christ's views must guide the church, not the other way around - I've watched this happen in the past; no thinking, just accept everything. I'm learning the importance of a personal relationship with God, which is spiritual maturity. I also see the need for help from people, in and out of the church, as we struggle to learn and grow. If God wanted to just give us everything and make life easy He would have designed it that way; but we have to learn to trust, fail, get up, see what brings us closer to our 'true self'.  

The Church teaches all of us (Not just leaders) that we must study and pray and seek the Lord's will in all things.  This is hard continuous never ending work.  It is human nature to some times try to short cut this process.  Sometimes the short cut is solid, sometimes it is not, sometime a short cut that once worked, does not work.  The only way to be sure is to be solidly grounded in study and prayer, as the church teaches

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, docjohn said:

I've been inwardly conflicted for a long time about some aspects of church history that cause great mental and emotional pain - for example, can anyone help me to settle the conflict between trusting in the divine heritage of the church and leader's (big) mistakes? Pres. Uchdorft referred to mistakes in our history, without naming them, but I believe he meant things like Brigham Young's blood atonement teaching - this bothers me to my soul as it totally defies all that current leaders teach as well as the power of our Lord Jesus Christ - it angers me in fact. The only way I can align my 'mental map' with this new territory (reality) is to include both the divine heritage AND that leaders do make mistakes - if I do this, however, I need to leave room in my mind for mistakes in the present as well and learn to use the church as a vehicle only - not rely on anyone's work 100% - just learn to trust my heart and conscience. 

Hi docjohn, I'll give two answers.  First, here are some LDS church leaders directly addressing your last sentence:

Quote

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.
   - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4

Quote

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
 - President Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973

Quote

What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

 

Second, if you believe the Bible, but are skeptical about LDS claims that we have prophets again, it might do you some good to take a second look at the Old Testament, and maybe come to a deeper understanding about what OT prophets were and weren't, what they did and didn't do.  Here's a big dang list to get you started:

Could a prophet...
- Kill? Jg 14:19 (Samson); Ex 2:11-16 (Moses). 
- Lie? Gen 12:10-29 (Abraham); Jer 38:24-28 (Jeremiah); 1 Ki 2:8-9 (David); 2 Ki 8:10 (Elisha); and Mt 26:69-75 (Peter). 
- Get drunk? Genesis 9:21 (Noah). 
- Boast? 2 Cor 11:16 (Paul). 
- For a small fee, use his supernatural powers to tell where to find lost animals? 1 Sam 9:6-8, 20. 
- Prophesy of an event which fails to occur? Jon 3:1-10; Jer 18:5-10.
- Gamble? Jg 14:12-20. 
- Be angry at God? Jon 4:1, 9. 
- Believe something unscientific? Lev 11:6; Deu 14:7 (the hare does not chew the cud). 
- Curse children? 2 Ki 2:23-25 (Elisha). 
- Want vengeance? Ps 137:9; Jer 18:19-23. 
- Contradict a former prophet? Mt 19:3-8 compare Deu 24:1-4 (divorce); 2 Sa 24:1 compare 1 Ch 21:1 (who caused David to sin?); Ex 34:7 compare Ez 18:20 (are children punished for the sins of their fathers); Ex 23:7 compare Ro 4:5 (does God justify the ungodly?). 
- Fail to understand a revelation? Ac 10:3, 17; 1 Cor 13:9-12. 
- Advocate divorce? Ezra 9, 10:3, 11, 19, 44. 
- Institute strange sounding rituals? Ex 29. 
- Give counsel not approved by the Lord? 2 Sa 7:1-5 (Nathan). 
- Worship false gods? 1 Ki 11:9-10. 
- Accept a position as the chief of magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers? Dan 5:11. 
- Break God's moral law? Jg 16:1 (Samson visits a prostitute); 2 Sa 11 (David and Bathsheba). 
- Give two contradictory prophecies? 1 Ki 22:14-18? 
- Lie to another prophet in the name of the Lord? 1 Ki 13:11-32. 
- Accuse God of deception and betrayal? Jer 20:7. 
- Go out in public naked? Is 20:1-6 (Isaiah); 2 Sa 6:20-22 (David); Mic 1:8 (Micah). 
- Be wrong about what God wants?  1 Chronicles 17, verses 2-5:
- Teach doctrines which contradict earlier scriptures or were totally unknown to earlier prophets?   Peter's revelation concerning the consumption of unclean animals (Acts 10:9-20) contradicts earlier revelations given to Moses (Leviticus 10:10-11; 11:4-47; 20:22-26; Deuteronomy 14:1-20). Paul received a revelation that the Gentiles would be heirs with Israel through adoption in Christ. He taught that this information had been hidden from earlier generations (Romans 11:25; 16:25-26; Ephesians 1:5, 9-10; 2:11-13, 19; 3:3-6, 9; Colossians 1:26-27).

Basically, if you believe the Bible, and accept those flawed, human, error-prone, agenda-driven OT prophets as prophets of God, then maybe that'll ease your mind thinking about how our modern prophets might have some flaws and occasionally be wrong.   My worry is that it'll just make you angry at the bible, like you're angry at the church - I honestly hope that doesn't happen.  

God bless!

Edited December 18, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[anatess2]

On 7/7/2017 at 12:17 PM, Vort said:

"So THAT'S why Primary children don't sing 'Give, Said the Little Stream' any more!"

Say what???  It wasn't so long ago that I was the Primary Song Leader and we sang that song a lot!  I even have the props!

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, docjohn said:

That makes sense - which is why leaders need to know all the scriptures and look at the larger picture over time and space - and not subjugate to senior leaders for the sake of approval. Truth and Christ's views must guide the church, not the other way around - I've watched this happen in the past; no thinking, just accept everything. I'm learning the importance of a personal relationship with God, which is spiritual maturity. I also see the need for help from people, in and out of the church, as we struggle to learn and grow. If God wanted to just give us everything and make life easy He would have designed it that way; but we have to learn to trust, fail, get up, see what brings us closer to our 'true self'.  

@docjohn,

I'm not LDS, but I've had things that shook what little knowledge I have.  Fortunately, I got the right answers in time.  The very first thing I did was just ask for peace on a topic.  Mormonism is a very complicated religion, in many ways because its members are encouraged to ask questions and pay attention to their personal revelations.  There is no possible way to work through all the questions and issues that come up, so just drop back to the core of your beliefs and ask God to bring you peace with the rest until you can figure it out.  

The other thing I did was wise advice I was given by a Stake President.  He reminded me that God speaks to us through a triangle.  We have the Prophet and Apostles to bring us revelation.  We have the Scriptures.  We have personal revelation.  Because we are imperfect people, it's often hard for us to understand God's divine word.  If you are having trouble with one point of the triangle, fall back on the other two to examine what is giving you trouble.

I'm a crappy speaker and this probably makes zero sense to a normal person, but it really helped me.

[zil]

45 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not LDS yet,

There, fixed that for you.

[docjohn]

Wow, thank you sooooo much for all the answers. You have no idea how much this helps me to feel like I'm not insane or just some rebel  God blessed me with a good mind and it's hard to just ignore new information - that's why I really wish the senior leaders would just come out and give answers like this....it would help members, former members, and those earnestly seeking truth to engage in honest dialogue and feel at peace. Just the respectful process alone is validating and encouraging. I'm so glad I found this site. Some awesome people on here for sure. No judging, just honest answers; that's all I'm looking for. I think the missionaries might benefit by some deeper training in this new era of the Internet. They probably get frustrated with people like me who ask so many questions. Maybe even a separate unit of missionaries with special training. 

The old testament is very hard to understand - I think Brigham and Joseph both loved the new testament and borrowed many ideas from there (e.g., temples). 

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, docjohn said:

Wow, thank you sooooo much for all the answers. You have no idea how much this helps me to feel like I'm not insane or just some rebel  God blessed me with a good mind and it's hard to just ignore new information - that's why I really wish the senior leaders would just come out and give answers like this....it would help members, former members, and those earnestly seeking truth to engage in honest dialogue and feel at peace. Just the respectful process alone is validating and encouraging. I'm so glad I found this site. Some awesome people on here for sure. No judging, just honest answers; that's all I'm looking for. I think the missionaries might benefit by some deeper training in this new era of the Internet. They probably get frustrated with people like me who ask so many questions. Maybe even a separate unit of missionaries with special training. 

The old testament is very hard to understand - I think Brigham and Joseph both loved the new testament and borrowed many ideas from there (e.g., temples). 

Happy to help  .   Let us know if there's anything else we can help with.

[zil]

17 minutes ago, docjohn said:

Wow, thank you sooooo much for all the answers. You have no idea how much this helps me to feel like I'm not insane or just some rebel  God blessed me with a good mind and it's hard to just ignore new information - that's why I really wish the senior leaders would just come out and give answers like this....it would help members, former members, and those earnestly seeking truth to engage in honest dialogue and feel at peace. Just the respectful process alone is validating and encouraging. I'm so glad I found this site. Some awesome people on here for sure. No judging, just honest answers; that's all I'm looking for. I think the missionaries might benefit by some deeper training in this new era of the Internet. They probably get frustrated with people like me who ask so many questions. Maybe even a separate unit of missionaries with special training. 

The old testament is very hard to understand - I think Brigham and Joseph both loved the new testament and borrowed many ideas from there (e.g., temples). 

FWIW, if the general authorities (GAs), or missionaries, got caught up in all the stuff that (for example) FairMormon does, or that interaction like this forum between active members and people who need serious questions answered, the GAs and missionaries would never have time to do what they've been called to do, which is preach the doctrine.  For most people (as far as I can tell), simply hearing the doctrine preached and being taught by the Spirit is sufficient to go on.  But for some, there are other questions they need answered.  I think the Church is doing some of that in its gospel topic essays and projects like the Joseph Smith Papers, and letting other stuff be handled by members who have the time and inclination to do so.  I think this is a new and changing landscape and there's no telling what or how much the Church will do in this arena, nor how it will do it.

In other words, be tolerant with the leaders and the missionaries - they're doing their best to answer the call they've been given.  If it doesn't change quickly enough (or ever) to what you would like it to be, just be glad for your fellow members and for scholars and folks like Fair Mormon who are filling the gap as best they can.  Trust God, who will give you peace regarding any remaining gaps until the day finally comes when all is revealed - that day will come.

[estradling75]

In addition to what @zil says...  

Everyone is going to have something we struggle with.  We do not all struggle with the same things but we all struggle. 

Everything someone posted as an answer to your question @docjohn I have heard in church at some point or another.  I can't 100% say that you did, but chances are you did, but it just did not click into place.  It did not click until you studied it, until you pondered it, until you wrestled with it.  It was only after the struggle that you were ready to receive it.

This is normal... only the details of the subject matter really change.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

48 minutes ago, docjohn said:

I think the missionaries might benefit by some deeper training in this new era of the Internet.

Well, full disclosure, it's not like I keep all that stuff I said in my brain.  I pulled all those OT verses and church leader quotes from a file I started back in 1997.  Some real scholar did the work and posted it on the internet, I just put it in a file where I could find it if I needed.  I think I did actually go through all those verses once, just to make sure that yes, they do all say what is being claimed.  

Basically, I agree that more internet-saavy missionaries would be a good thing, but that doesn't mean teaching them more church history, it means teaching them how to do effective internet searches, and how to tell the difference between crap and truth. 

Edited December 18, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[docjohn]

I like some of the changes in church culture - based on my readings and following LDS.org, it's much more Christ-centered; less about JS based on my experiences. I think the JS Papers and the Essays were much needed. They would have prevented the shock effect for me; learning about JS and polyandry from the church would have been seen in a more favorable light than learning about it through historians. I never agreed with BK Packer's view of keeping history from members. I see JS as having a weakness for women - the old testament had a profound influence on him as well - but I also see him as very spiritual and inspired. What he compiled, even if he borrowed some or much of it is from other sources (e.g., the Bible) or other books, leads people to live well and do good.  I had this picture (fantasy/magical view) of this perfect guy who only did what God directed him to do. I see him much differently now - just as human and imperfect as us, maybe more so, but God still used him for His purposes. That also tells me God must be more merciful than I thought because the history is quite clear about many of his bad behaviors, including ad hominem attacks on women who did not comply with his wishes (proposals) or who made them known against his wishes. That's the only way I know to deal with the cognitive dissonance - he was a sinner and a saint.  

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, docjohn said:

That's the only way I know to deal with the cognitive dissonance - he was a sinner and a saint.  

We are all sinners and (hopefully) at least partially saints.  Joseph Smith is included with "everyone".

Why do you think such a statement is "cognitive dissonance"?

[docjohn]

no, I don't think the statement was cognitive dissonance; I experienced cognitive dissonance (contradictory beliefs) because my original beliefs about JS were so different; I didn't know what to do with all the new information about him (or BY); I only heard great things about him growing up. It's like buying a new vehicle, expecting all these great benefits and finding post-purchase experiences to be very disappointing.