tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26195116.post328061386412058061..comments2023-10-25T01:42:21.023-07:00Comments on The Fork in the Road: Bob Dixonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01011901559691393063noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26195116.post-8954253802328130722008-02-04T08:29:00.000-08:002008-02-04T08:29:00.000-08:00Varden:most of us by now acknowledge that everyone...Varden:<BR/>most of us by now acknowledge that everyone makes mistakes... BUT: when leaders make mistakes... Do they admit same, reverse things done in error? My experience has been NOT. Admitting or acknowledging mistakes is only the first step. In an authority-driven organization, leaders fear admitting AND Correcting will undermine their Power(s).I can't think of any such reversals of decisions, or even later repudiation of past failings...Can You?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26195116.post-42373009713769142682007-03-19T05:03:00.000-07:002007-03-19T05:03:00.000-07:00Varden, thanks for your comments. I also apprecia...Varden, thanks for your comments. I also appreciate you not leaving them as anonymous, because it's hard to spend the time writing thoughtful replies when I don't know the person I'm replying to will ever check back to read my comments.<BR/><BR/>>>1) people are human--even Joseph Smith and all the current general authorities. They have real, human struggles and make mistakes--you're right, that's one way God allows us to have faith and learn from our own experience. But those human qualities don't make their teachings any less true. Nor do imperfections in the Bible or the process of recording other Church revelations make them irrelevant.<<<BR/> I agree with what you say above. The problem we often have as LDS is that doctrinally we admit our church leaders are human, but culturally we're taught to place respect for authority and obedience above most other things. So inside we know the truth, while outside we treat them like they are much more perfect and inspired than they would usually claim for themselves. What I think they really want is respect for the office, and what we give them is respect as persons.<BR/><BR/>>>2) The missionary discussions, sunday school, gospel doctrine, etc., were never intended to be a comprehensive summary of Church history or complete doctrine. From what I've seen, the Church strongly encourages learning about these topics from well-researched and inspired sources outside of class. All of the church leaders I know have spent extensive time studying from these sources. Those are great places to learn about about church history--and are encouraged by Church leaders.<<<BR/> Regarding early church leaders especially the modern church is very careful to screen out most evidence of how "human" they were. My general issue with the church has less to do with how human Joseph Smith was than how much of his actual life and history gets filtered out in talks and lessons. Faithful members get blindsided with information they have never been exposed to and suffer a great deal of pain as a result.<BR/> As far as being encouraged to study outside sources, it sounds like your experience has been different from mine. In lessons instructors are always specifically prohibited from bringing in outside sources, and most people tend to want to carry that advice into their own study. I have yet to hear someone in a church meeting encouraging people to prayerfully study church history from a variety of sources and make up their mind. I believe most people would read books like Bushman's, Michael Quinn's books (for which he was excommunicated), "Mormon Enigma" (which the authors were prohibited from speaking about, and "Sacred Loneliness", and assume they were "anti" because they contain facts they have never heard of before that reflect a more negative side of church history.<BR/> Have you ever heard of the "September Six"? Granted this happened years ago, but in my experience the church doesn't encourage the writing of history that is not faith-promoting.<BR/><BR/>>>Complaining that you haven't heard about one specific problem in church history in a regular church meeting is like complaining that you haven't heard every detail of the tensions between congress and George Washington during the revolution in an introductory college class on American history. That's why we keep learning throughout a lifetime from lots of sources outside of class. Just make sure the sources are accurate and well-supported. <<<BR/> There's more than one specific problem. Space precludes a full list, but we could start with the use of seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon, Helen Mar Kimball, the council of fifty, the fact that Joseph Smith had 33 wives, many of whom were married to other men, and many of the reprisals the Saints conducted against non-members in Far West. We could talk about Sidney Rigdon's "Salt Sermon", and we could quit repeating the story about Thomas B Marsh and the milk strippings, when his issues with the church had more to do with the Danites than some silly controversy over a cow. From there we could move on to blood atonement, Brigham Young's comments on race, the Adam-God doctrine, etc.. It's a long list. Unfortunately "accuracy" is often relative. You can find well-supported sources for different versions of history. The various First Vision stories are a good example, and this is one person talking about a relatively simple event.<BR/><BR/>>>3) Finally--It loos like you have a choice to make. Where did the Book of Mormon come from? Is Joseph Smith a complete fraud, or was he inspired by God? If you've felt inspired, enlightened, motivated to do good through these things, and you feel the Church as a whole is a force for good, what does that mean? As Elijah said in 1 Kings 18:21: "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him." <BR/><BR/>It sounds like you already believe the LORD is God, you just have to decide whether the LDS Church is inspired by him. You can't sit on the fence forever.<<<BR/> Possibly you make some incorrect assumptions. I wouldn't waste time writing this blog if I didn't think the church was inspired. I would be off posting on RFM instead. I have had too many spiritual experiences in the church to claim otherwise. The church led me to Christ in a way that no other church tried to do. My "issue" is that I don't believe the LDS church to be an exclusive source of religious truth. I feel our Father in Heaven is reaching out to each of us in different ways more subtle and nuanced than we understand. I've spent a lot of time studying the Bible in the last couple of years and have visited many churches. I think different parts of the Bible and the LDS standard works speak to different people based on where they are in life, which is why we have so many churches. Even within the LDS church there are different viewpoints on the importance of Christ vs devotion to the leadership structure and the value of grace vs works. It's not one size fits all. There is more religious truth out there than can be contained in the LDS church, or any one church for that matter, and more range for interpretation of what is actually in the scriptures than can be satisfied by a strictly 21st century LDS view. God doesn't want us to just "follow the prophet". If he did our history wouldn't contain so many inconvenient details the modern church would prefer to keep out of public view. Faith is intended to be a wrestling match. Otherwise it's not our own. It's borrowed light. I think the 21st century LDS church is a very comfortable place for people who don't want to wrestle with details of faith and who crave simple answers. That's where I was for the first 20 years of my membership. For better or worse it's not where I am now. At 47 life experience has taught me that the simple answers just don't work anymore.<BR/><BR/>>>If the Book of Mormon inspires you to do good, and the Church is a force for good, why not jump in, join with it wholeheartedly and help make a difference for good? <<<BR/> What makes you think I'm not? :-) For years I've been inspired by the example of Jesus in the New Testament. By his compassion and by his concern for the poor. Meanwhile I've been in ward missionary, clerk, and scout callings. I've watched the main effort of most wards devoted not to relief of the suffering or reaching out to people in our own wards whose lives have been ripped apart by various things, but to just keeping the programs running. Teaching scout classes to five kids, running a cub pack with 12, teaching the same lessons over and over again, giving basically the same sacrament talks over and over again. Despite their best efforts the vast majority of bishops administer rather than minister because the programs are so complex to keep running. <BR/> Rather than putting my shoulder to the wheel in order to keep ward programs running, I now devote much of my time to paying attention to the wife I have been ignoring all these years because I had scout meetings and campouts to put on. I spend at least 30 minutes a day in the scriptures, still contribute 10% of my gross income to charity, still don't drink alcohol, look at pornography, or watch R rated movies. I ride my motorcycle and *worship*. I look at the people and the things around me and thank God for what I have been blessed with and try to see my mission in the world apart from just doing what my bishop or stake president told me to do. I am more fully alive in the Spirit than I have ever been in my life, because for once the message of the Holy Spirit to me trumps the inspiration church leaders have for my life.<BR/> Despite being at somewhat of a crossroads I still home teach and fulfill a ward calling to the best of my ability. So I believe I *am* making a difference for good. The difference is that I can follow the inspiration I have received and have always received in ways I never could before.<BR/><BR/>>>I can already tell you're a wonderful person and could your thoughtful outlook is needed in the Church. <BR/><BR/>If you just made the decision to become "hot," (Revelation 3:15-16), you could do some tremendous good! Don't drag on forever being lukewarm. <<<BR/> I am "hot". Otherwise I wouldn't spend time writing this blog, or replying to your comment. :-) I am just not hot in a way that may fit paradigms you have been taught. I feel the love of God and of Jesus Christ in ways I never have before. I appreciate Joseph Smith in a way I never have before. I have just come to the realization that there's more than one way to look at the LDS church and doctrine, and following the inspiration of the Holy Ghost I am doing so.<BR/> Thanks again for your comments. Feel free to keep commenting if you want to. We're unlikely to change each other's minds fundamentally, but the discussion is always enlightening.Bob Dixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011901559691393063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26195116.post-55575938606988189232007-03-18T10:30:00.000-07:002007-03-18T10:30:00.000-07:00I just discovered your blog. Very interesting and...I just discovered your blog. Very interesting and thoughtful commentary. I'm an active, but thoughtful LDS member, who also appreciates Richard Bushman's book about Joseph Smith and church history. I also very much enjoy the outdoors and liked your comments about the two temples. Many of my most spiritual experiences have been in both places. <BR/><BR/>I appreciated your analysis of the worldwide teaching broadcast. I also attended and thought it was excellent. I don't think President Monson gave his talk because he couldn't do the teaching part--but because they were trying to provide some balance and different types of training. <BR/><BR/>I share with you a longing for more "meaty" discussions in gospel doctrine classes. I've also come to understand the purpose of the actual church lessons--they have to reach both the lifetime member and the person who joined last week.<BR/><BR/>Here are some of my thoughts on your commentary:<BR/><BR/>1) people are human--even Joseph Smith and all the current general authorities. They have real, human struggles and make mistakes--you're right, that's one way God allows us to have faith and learn from our own experience. But those human qualities don't make their teachings any less true. Nor do imperfections in the Bible or the process of recording other Church revelations make them irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>2) The missionary discussions, sunday school, gospel doctrine, etc., were never intended to be a comprehensive summary of Church history or complete doctrine. From what I've seen, the Church strongly encourages learning about these topics from well-researched and inspired sources outside of class. All of the church leaders I know have spent extensive time studying from these sources. Those are great places to learn about about church history--and are encouraged by Church leaders.<BR/><BR/>Complaining that you haven't heard about one specific problem in church history in a regular church meeting is like complaining that you haven't heard every detail of the tensions between congress and George Washington during the revolution in an introductory college class on American history. That's why we keep learning throughout a lifetime from lots of sources outside of class. Just make sure the sources are accurate and well-supported. <BR/><BR/>3) Finally--It loos like you have a choice to make. Where did the Book of Mormon come from? Is Joseph Smith a complete fraud, or was he inspired by God? If you've felt inspired, enlightened, motivated to do good through these things, and you feel the Church as a whole is a force for good, what does that mean? As Elijah said in 1 Kings 18:21: "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him." <BR/><BR/>It sounds like you already believe the LORD is God, you just have to decide whether the LDS Church is inspired by him. You can't sit on the fence forever.<BR/><BR/>If the Book of Mormon inspires you to do good, and the Church is a force for good, why not jump in, join with it wholeheartedly and help make a difference for good? <BR/><BR/>I can already tell you're a wonderful person and could your thoughtful outlook is needed in the Church. <BR/><BR/>If you just made the decision to become "hot," (Revelation 3:15-16), you could do some tremendous good! Don't drag on forever being lukewarm.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes in your choices. I look forward to seeing how your journey progresses. I'd love discuss more if you want to e-mail me at vardenh@gmail.com.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!<BR/>--VardenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26195116.post-18776857691994158062007-02-15T09:15:00.000-08:002007-02-15T09:15:00.000-08:00Enjoyed your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!!!Enjoyed your thoughts. Thanks for sharing!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26195116.post-77228847988712741542007-02-12T13:44:00.000-08:002007-02-12T13:44:00.000-08:00CF,These are some great insights. Thanks for shar...CF,<BR/><BR/>These are some great insights. Thanks for sharing.<BR/><BR/>I think some of the church leaders have the nuanced view and some of them don't. The church as an institution is dogmatic and rigid. I can't tolerate church anymore, but for those who can, more power to 'em.Lunar Quakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06518360986322402467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26195116.post-69505404548659011142007-02-12T13:20:00.000-08:002007-02-12T13:20:00.000-08:00I too attended the Worldwide Training, but under d...I too attended the Worldwide Training, but under duress. I was seriously resentful of having to give up a Saturday morning to listen to more of the same. I thought, if they just say one thing I haven't heard before...<BR/><BR/>I thought it was very gutsy for Sis Hughes to admit she didn't always "recognize" when she was being led by the Spirit. And Br. Holland didn't always have the "correct" answer for every issue brought up. It was more like real life than I would have predicted.<BR/><BR/>Your question, "What church do you want to believe in" is exactly what I have been asking myself for many months. I don't think I can take the literalness any more. I don't want to believe in a God who is so conditional any more. Your view of a more flexible church is tempting and acceptable from a NOM point of view. Yet I don't think the leaders are as fluid in their beliefs as you give them credit for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26195116.post-3963496165576786162007-02-12T09:53:00.000-08:002007-02-12T09:53:00.000-08:00I somewhat agree with your conclusions. However, ...I somewhat agree with your conclusions. However, there are two lies that evengelical / conservative churches teach. It changes from church to church, some are outright overt about the teaching while others are very subtle. <BR/><BR/>1) If you follow the rules then you will be blessed here and now, usually with faithful kids and an upper middle class lifestyle. Big Lie of health and wealth. 2) To get to heaven you must follow all the rules now in order to earn that place. Works Salvation also known as legalism. Another Big Lie. <BR/><BR/>Truth is Jesus promised us trials in this life, but we can live the kingdom life anyway through loving one another. For Jesus, heaven was a side benefit to kingdom life today. Salvation is a free gift of God to be accepted in humility. There is nothing we can do to earn it.<BR/><BR/>All people and therefore churches / congregations are subject to sin / imperfection. Therefore the two lies above will appear at least a little bit in about any church. But ones that overtly push one or both of these lies should be avoided; even if some of the leaders obviously understand differently. We are permitted to align with another organization.<BR/><BR/>There are my initial thoughts on at least part of what you posted.<BR/><BR/>....rooomate...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com