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?'"