Essays On Gospel Topics

Borrowing from a very honest blog, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2014/02/a-former-bishops-doctrinal-dilemmas/  Ganesh Cherian -- who is currently serving as a stake high counselor in New Zealand, expresses in his words my frustrations and concerns about the church's attempt at honesty.

"In what appears to be an attempt to deal with several vital historical issues propagated by the Church throughout the years, they have begun producing essays since late 2013 under its "Gospel Topics" section of its lds.org website, attempting to reconcile the facts with what has been taught by earlier leaders and church manuals.

In an October 2013 general conference talk, President Uchtdorft gave an impassioned plea to those who have left the church, admitting mistakes in leadership and promising a place for those who doubt. Since then, it feels like the church has changed. While Uchdorft's talk seemed extraordinary at the time, in retrospect it feels like it was a preface for that change. Change that is not without its challenges.

(Referring to a particular priesthood lesson) one of my fellow high-priests informed us that two friends (a former Bishop, and a Stake President) in England had recently left the church over the 'Race and the Priesthood' essay. As dutiful leaders. they had instructed their congregations, referring to 'the seed of Cain' explanation for withholding the priesthood from black members of the church until 1978. This recent 'clarification' had apparently undermined their understanding of both revelation and doctrine. Though I haven't left the church, this shift to more transparency is a challenge for me as well. Not because I don't welcome these revisions. They seem very fair and thoroughly researched. But like my fellow high priests, I too used these now discarded explanations and doctrines throughout my leadership to teach - and now I'm left to wonder.

 Each [of the essays] is a challenge to the seemingly authoritative version of our history. Drawing on historical evidence and scholarship, these essays go further than any previous official publications issued by the church in contradicting those narratives that good members have long repeated as justifications for our more curious doctrines and practices. And naturally, many are baffled.

After a careful reading of the new source material it would appear that the First Vision account as we have come to know it, was virtually unheard of for the first decade of the Church's existence. What we now regard as pivotal to our claim to divine mandate was absent for the first members, leaving many questions over what those founding Mormons actually believed about the nature of the Godhead, and what caused them to join the church?

I have repeated stories to my ward to justify particular church practices. I have given the hard line on church policies and doctrines and have held people accountable. As recently as June, I reasoned with a friend that polygamy was needed because there were so many more women than men at the time, an argument that the polygamy essay seems now to repudiate."

Imagine the position this man and so many others in the Mormon Church are in. For years, he followed party lines and repeated the history as he was instructed. Now, because the church is trying to 'come clean,' so to speak, by admitting historical problems of its past, there is a problem. Everything that the members were taught before these essays were printed was apparently based on lies or half-truths. This was the crux of the Complaint made in 2010 by a group of Swedish Saints. http://www.scribd.com/doc/155365831/Turley-Jensen-Stockholm-2010 (Notice how the first 30 minutes of answering questions is spent preaching and how, at the end, they have run out of time and can't [or won't] finish answering their questions.)

Cherian continues:

"All of this has caused me to grapple with my own questions. Is it possible that I have hurt people with doctrines and dogmas that in the light of these essays seem to sit on shaky ground? I understand how essential it is to 'sustain' the Brethren but, these days, I live with a caution that those ideals that I believe today could be dismissed by future First Presidencies. I also question myself regarding how blameless I am in my representation of these doctrines as definitive? Was I complicit in telling stories I suspected were problematic? Could I have asked more questions, been more thoughtful, mindful? How did I get to this place where I have cause to wonder about my own, and the church's integrity?

Today, I am reeling from the translation of the 'Book of Mormon' essay. Exactly how was I to know that Joseph Smith got the words to the Book of Mormon by burying his head in a hat? How was I to know that a stone he found in a well was instrumental in this process of translation? Every picture, or video I have ever seen has him sitting at a table with the gold plates before him pouring over these 'curious characters' by the light of a candle! Was I naive to have faith in this story? Was I wrong to retell this story as a teacher, as a missionary, or as a priesthood leader? What am I to make of a story I find confounding and frankly bizarre?

I am left to wonder where I go from here. I am torn. I love my church and credit where I am in my life to years of church service - but I cannot ignore the dishonesty. I feel aggrieved that in attempting to sustain and perpetuate stories of faith, the church has accredited doctrines to God that are simply fictions. Can such a chasm be bridged as President Uchtdorf suggests?

As we file out of class, a fellow high councilor remarks, 'Isn't it interesting that today's challenge to our faith is coming directly from the church?'"

Church History

In response to the talk at a Fair Mormon conference by Davis Bitton

"I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church"

by: Stuart Jensen

I have heard this argument several times now. We should not base our faith in the Church on the early historical events that framed the Church.  Instead, we should assess the validity of the religion (teachings, scriptures, what kind of a person it helps me become, ...) and decide if it is "true."

I have no problem with that process until you come to the "one true Church" and the "only Church with the priesthood of God" claims.

If those claims did not exist, I would have no problem living in my faith and "using" the Church as a tool to better myself, my family, and my neighbors.  But, these claims come with a whole set of "hooks" that make a semi-faithful journey in Mormonism quite uncomfortable.  Temple recommend questions, unquestioned authority of leaders, tithing, toe the line...

I keep coming back to the fundamentals.  There are, and have been, fraudulent people who have used religion to control people.  We know that is true. We see it time and time again, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Warren Jeffs, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven's Gate), to name a few contemporary examples. All of these people had loyal followers who were willing to die for their religion. 

My "task" when it comes to accepting a religion is to somehow detect these frauds. To do this, I have two tools: emotion and logic.

Most religions claim that emotion is a valid indicator of truth. If a religion "works" for a person, they will probably have good emotions about it and they could interpret that as a confirmation of truth. However, emotion is easily manipulated by outside parties and many people have fallen victim to becoming very "emotional" about very "bad" belief systems.

Very few religions claim that logic is an all encompassing (fail-safe) indicator of truth. In the Mormon culture, it seems to flip flop around depending on the audience and speaker.  I have heard several talks by Elder Oaks where he talks about the logical aspects of the gospel.  However, generally, the "Spirit" is promoted as the main divining rod in Mormonism.

I am struggling to use these two tools effectively.

I have tried the "spirit" approach for 40 some odd years and I have made no headway. I am still sitting right where I started. From a logical perspective, I question my ability (as well as anyone's ability) to take the fine measurements required to distinguish between "nice,"  "better," "best," and "the winner" truths. I cannot distinguish a "gradient" of emotions.

That only leaves a logical academic approach.  When you say that "religion is different" and we cannot apply the same historical evaluations to religion that we might to other histories, I get really worried. It seems to me that this is exactly what we should be doing.

One of the speakers talked about his experience coming to terms with the Masonic aspects of the temple ceremonies. I believe the term "horizontal revelation" was coined to describe Joseph using cultural objects to further his teachings. Critics of horizontal revelation would argue that such patterns of behavior are exactly what charlatans do. Especially highly charismatic leaders with holds over followers that are tight enough to overcome any internal questions that such behavior might provoke.

So, what is one to do?  The "spirit" does not work for me.  You are claiming that I cannot objectively examine history because that is not a viable alternative unless I am willing to allow the "divine" into the equation and turn it into a "sacred narrative."

A religion must earn my trust such that I am willing to allow the divine. I do not start out my search allowing the divine.  That path is dangerous and, in my opinion, has led too many people to destruction.  Therefore, it seems to me, an honest search for "the one true church" and "the only priesthood of God" must start with a critical logical examination of its origins. Once that passes muster, then the sacred narrative can be accepted, not the other way around.

Now, again, if I was just looking for a "nice" church to raise my family in, I think emotion would be an adequate tool to use. But Mormonism raises the bar on itself as to require much higher levels of scrutiny.