https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/the-widening-tent/
This article was written by a guy I went to highschool with. Two thought s
1. Funny how almost all historians seems to really question the church
2. This is all too common situation with guys I went to highschool with who are my age. The church should find an alarming but I doubt they do
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
I'm disappointed this thread has stalled. It opened strong.
I enjoyed the Sunstone article and agree with its conclusions, namely that the LDS Church has become more open about its real history (and not the watered-down versions of history taught in Sunday school and seminary for decades) and that being more open is a good thing.
The Internet, no doubt, has hastened this new openness, as many Gen Xers (like me and the author of the Sunstone piece) found that actual history of the church's origins differ in significant ways from what we had been taught all our lives -- and that is a disconcerting conclusion to realize as an adult. It has led some to question, some to leave the church outright -- and others to simply shrug it off and figure that the current leaders knew best and had good reasons for cleaning up some of the questionable aspects of the church's origins and the whitewashing is no big deal.
I'm not privy to the current Sunday school and seminary ciriculum, but I would hope that they at least stress the humanness of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young more than they did in the past. For instance, the folklore of young Joseph refusing even a drop of scotch to help him with the excutiating pain of leg surgery shouldn't be taught as a reason to keep the word of wisdom unless they acknowledge that adult Joseph had a fully stocked bar in his Nauvoo home and enjoyed drinking spirits on occasion.
What the church leadership is hopefully learning, its that It isn't the information itself that is the root of much of the concern, but more the tactics used to suppress/hide information that causes many to fall away.
I think you are right.Originally Posted by Jarid in Cedar
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I think you got this right. And, my hope is that some of the "happiness" of church history is tempered by its reality. Balance is good.
Like Michael Quinn's books that focus on the ignored part if lds history, too much happy or brutally honest is out of balance and therefore skewed. Fullness is what we are about, right? That means an honest history warts and koolaid and all.
I don't think Sunday School is the place to teach church history, especially controversial material. It's 35 or 40 minutes in front of an audience with widely varying backgrounds, levels of understanding and belief.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I am confused... Every 4 years Sunday school focuses on church history and the D&C. Are you saying that should be replaced with something else because Sunday school isn't the place to talk about church history?
A few thoughts kept popping into my mind during reading his article.
When I was in college, I was trying to figure out what I wanted to do with my life. I had taken a bunch of pre-law classes, followed around ER docs, thought about police work, etc. One avenue I was interested in was Seminary Teacher. I spent time looking into it, taking classes for it, etc. The one thing they kept pushing on us was this:
Don't do your BA/BS in religious studies. They said this was for 2 reasons: 1 - They didn't want us stuck with a worthless degree if we didn't become a seminary teacher (it is a lot harder than you would think), and 2 - they pushed the idea that too much of anything is not a good thing. They wanted well rounded teachers.
At the end of the day, nothing will "prove" anything when it comes to God (unless he comes down and smacks you in the face, even then, I would imagine doubt could creep in after time had passed).
Faith is the only thing that will see you through. Not fanaticism, not a wife, not children, not anything. Either you want it or you don't. If you do, follow Alma 32, then move onto Moroni 10:3-5. If you don't, then don't worry about it. No sense in obligating yourself to something you aren't going to follow.
The thing to remember, is that this church is run by people like you and me, and they aren't even paid for their time. They make mistakes. They take things too far (such as Mountain Meadows). My father was screwed over by an overzealous bishop, who later came back to my father after his dream to be a stake president/general authority didn't work out and apologized for what he had done. People make mistakes. People get caught up in themselves. People aren't perfect.
Also, why does this guy find it outrageous that if you badmouth a person/group/organization that they won't want you to come into their house and rip on them? Nothing abnormal there. The Pope won't let you go into the Vatican and preach anti-Catholicism, nor would Steve Jobs allow you to go into an Apple store and pimp Microsoft.
Another thing I find funny, Mormons in the US lose their testimony over Joseph Smith's polygamy, where I taught Africans on my mission that were surprised they would not be allowed to practice polygamy.
I guess my point is, you will find whatever truth you want to find. If you want to discover if the Book of Mormon is true, and if the LDS church is the true church, then you will find your answer if you do the work.
If you want to prove to yourself that it isn't true, then you will find your answers.
"I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to theiradesire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their bwills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction." - Alma 29:4
Good point. I could say it better: Sunday School's purpose is devotional. That's really all it can be, given the limits of time and the makeup of the class. It isn't the right place to explore controversies of any kind. (In my opinion, of course!) So where is the right church-sponsored place for such exploration? I am not sure. But I think there needs to be one.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I'm finding that the more I read that is out there from the various groups and the more that is out there in other media forms (podcasts, etc...) the more I realize how truly difficult it is for people to shake the "us vs. them" mentality. Some will argue that this is a function of being members of the church and at times this is encouraged. I can buy that to a degree, but I also think it is something that we see outside of the church as well and as such falls more into the good old fashioned human nature category, for me at least.
Back to the point, I think that the biggest challenge is not necessarily how to widen the tent, but how to narrow the gaps that are created between the believing, the fringe, and the non-believing. I would hope that there would be some common ground that people can come together on...and I believe I'm seeing that in my own ward which has a pretty diverse group of people and opinions, where there is plenty of respect and deference given to each opinion shared in GD. Now, how to take that and extend it beyond to the larger church, and narrow the great divide and start to break down the "us vs. them" mentality that is so pervasive throughout the church and all of the one-off communities that has been/are being formed, that is the challenge.
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
I do have the sense that we are entering a new phase in the church's approach to historical issues. It is going to be interesting.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I can only assume you are referring to the ward and stake levels. Outside of that, people are getting paid. From the First Presidency to the employees in the correlation and CES departments, people that are making decisions that affect the membership and establishing policy are getting paid for their time. Even mission presidents get living expenses, etc.
The unpaid lay ministry only goes so far up the ladder.
It is a tiny percentage that receives a living allowance, Port. No one's getting rich as a GA. And those men live pretty consecrated lives that are anything but cushy.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
If they are making more than 154k that would put them in top 5% (Slide #2)
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
Sure. But I was responding to Port's statement that "The unpaid lay ministry only goes so far up the ladder." It goes pretty far up that ladder, until you get to about 120 people, out of the 14 million members, who devote all their time to the ministry and travel all over the world in their assignments (including virtually every weekend; they do get Mondays off). The spiritual ministry of the church that the members see with their own eyes is done by unpaid people, except for one stake conference each year and two GCs each year.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
fair enough and good point.
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
Actually, I think they are finding it alarming.
No doubt about that (in my mind, at least).
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
This. I have said for years that I am infinitely more interested / concerned with the actions of current Church leadership than that of the past. Joseph Smith's Wives or even the Priesthood Ban mean much less to me than Prop 8 for example.
I think the big problem we have is that for better or worse, church history and the lionization of the early members and pioneers is so much a part of the culture that divorcing the two is really hard. When completely non-religous anecdotes from the lives of the Smith's, Youngs, etc. have been passed down for generations as evidence of how nearly perfect these people were, then everything that comes to light can be shocking. If the focus had been on what was accomplished (religiously) by humans with all their human traits and foibles, we wouldn't be in this situation today.
I gues it's true that you reap what you sow.
In addition to the impact of discovering the imperfections of the early leaders after years of their lionization, I think it can also be harmful because it causes people to expect perfection from their leaders. It would probably make it easier for people to accept that their bishops, stake presidents, and even those higher than that can make mistakes when they understand that JS, BY, and so many others were far from perfect.
As long as I never discover that LA Ute is less than flawless. There's only so much my faith can endure.
There are far more than 120 people that influence the policies and direction of the Church and/or teach/instruct that get paid. The COB is full of them. The church is filled with bureaucrats in SLC.
I don't know why you cite the 14 million figure. The point was made the the "ministry" is unpaid. The ministry is paid/compensated, except the first two levels, bishoprics and stake leadership. There aren't 14 million in leadership in the Church.
I guess "cushy" is a relative term. I'm sure there are billions of people in the world (since we are using big numbers here) that would find their "spartan" existence to be quite, quite "cushy."
This is just one of those things that I don't understand: The need for members to defend this idea that the leadership of the church is unpaid when, frankly, not only is it untrue, but it simply doesn't matter. The ministry above the ward and stake level get paid or compensated in some way. GAs, seminary teachers, institute teachers, mission presidents, etc. All get paid. All live lives that are, by most standards, "comfortable" lives.
So the GAs only get Monday off? Most church members, when including their employment and church callings only get Saturday off. I don't see that as much of a deal.
Last edited by UteBeliever aka Port; 06-10-2013 at 12:01 PM.
I'm just making a narrow point. The church's ministry -- the part made up of people who hold set-apart callings -- is a lay one, with an exception for only a miniscule percentage of such ministers. CES, the church bureaucracy, etc. are a different subject.
As far as days off go, all I was saying is that the GAs work pretty hard and live pretty consecrated lives. (So do mission presidents, for that matter.) None of us in his or her right mind would want to trade places with them.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Portland, I think there's an insinuation being made when people say "getting paid." I know many people skeptical of monies spent on church officers won't be satisfied until the GAs and others are buying clothes only from the DI, eating only from the Bishop's Storehouse, and sleeping on a used matress on the floor of an empty office in the Church Office Building. But these men and women aren't "paid" as a reward for what they do. These church expenses have more in common with a utility bill than a career salary (in more ways than one).
With that said, my understanding it that eventually even bishops will fall into a similar category of having consecrated properties used to support them (D&C 42:71-73). Though, I don't think we'll see that pre-Millenium -- but that's just pure speculation on my part. But if those scriptures are true, we'll eventually see it if I'm reading them correctly. And frankly I already think that need could be justified today and I wouldn't flinch or be surprised to see it happen. There is WAY more work in my ward than our bishopric can manage to do in their spare evenings and weekends.
Anyway, any living expenses church officers receive are not a reward or compensation for work they do. It's not tied to incentive or performance at all. In that kind of a dynamic, I don't see it as officers "getting paid." It's more like living on welfare than having a job. As for how much is spent on these things, from the little I see, nothing raises an eyebrow. There's a fine line the church tows between presenting these men and women as respectable, clean, and healthy heads of an international organization and establishing a modest mode of living that spares expenses where possible. No private jets or church-paid resorts on Kauai.
After a quick search, I coudn't find if these expenses come out of tithing or from the for-profit arms of the church's holdings, but I swear I've heard somewhere that it's the latter.
Here is the problem (and I use the word problem with some hesitancy), let's say the Church actively tears down the already paper thin wall of the infallibility of prophets and local leaders in the minds of church members (I have never heard leaders at the highest position of church authority preach that they are perfect). How do everyday members maintain their faith in a church that claims it is led by modern day revelation? You brought up prop 8 as a good example. Blacks were once held back from the priesthood. Was that the action of imperfect, yet chosen men? If so, is prop 8 the same? What about women in the priesthood? Furthermore, what if my bishop, a man likely to be my neighbor in some respects, asks me to do something I don't want to do for whatever my reason may be? Am I justified in skipping that instruction under the doctrine of divine callings and assignments because he is an imperfect man and I THINK the Lord's will is different?
I have already answered all of these questions for myself. But I think this is in part why the Church as an organization has to be careful in how they treat the issue. I think there is a lot of truth and value in the doctrine of priesthood authority. I believe that there are men called to lead and they have certain rights to receive revelation and guidance from God in behalf of the congregations they have keys and authority for. I also believe these men are all imperfect and prone to make mistakes. Including the highest leaders of the Church. The question is how do you teach the susceptibility of these leaders to be wrong, even if innocently, while maintaining the members faith in their role as leaders with the associated rights and responsibilities to lead?
It's a tricky question. I have answers for myself. I am sure not everyone is comfortable with my approach, but the Church as a whole has to consider it as they handle the teaching of church history.
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
The answer is pretty simple to me. It's in a book called Moroni. A foundational principle of Mormonism in fact. I am not SUPPOSED to just do something, believe something, or act a certain way because a leader said so. The responsibility is on me to get personal revelation to guide my actions. Sometimes that may appear to be at cross purposes with the guideance from the Church. I don't see that as inconsistent because God knows each of us and our circumstances individually and there is a lot of nuance there. What we hear from Prophets is "in general, for the whole world". To say God can't modify that for us individually based on our circumstances would be ridiculous.
I don't disagree with this per se. But I think it can get tricky for church members at large. Afterall, deciphering the Spirit is probably the hardest thing we can learn to do as members of the Church. Yet it is essential. But, you see, Church leaders have said as recently as last conference that Gay Marriage is not the Lord's way, and that it is not the Lord's will that Women have the priesthood. Yet, there are members of the Church who claim they have had spiritual experiences saying otherwise. Both cannot be correct. Either the leaders are wrong or the members are. And under Church doctrine that sort of revelation comes through Church leadership.
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
We've already seen it 'pre-millenium' in the early days of the church, LDS bishops received money to support them. Of course, at the time it was typically a lifetime calling, and they were asked to do much more than Bishops are asked to do today (colonize communities, settle civil disputes and more).
Other positions had some compensation or stipends like ward and stake clerks. In fact, you may remember a story of Spencer W Kimball who was in the stake presidency and they lost their clerk and so he took the job because he owned a typewriter. After he got chastised by a lady in the stake because she thought he changed to a 'paying position.'
Most of that has gone away, and I can only presume it is to pay for President Monson's gold rocket car I see rolling around in the Holladay area on occasion.
On a funnier note, I remember a seminary teacher teaching a particularly false doctrine (I may have even talked about it here) and coming home to complain and my dad said, "This is what happens when you have paid clergy."
This kind of binary thinking is the problem though. They could be (and are) many circumstances where the general counsel for everybody is not what is best for individual circumstances. Take a less extreme example. President Benson's talk "Mothers in Zion Come Home". Based on your logic above, no female member of the Church with children at home could receive an answer to prayer saying that for her family's circumstances, it was best for her to continue working. Life is rarely black and white like that.
Regarding your examples. Someboyd activtly saying the leaders are wrong is one thing. And there are some like that. But the vast majority are saying "I don't agree with the Church's position on this and I am hopeful the Lord will inspire them to change it". That is completely different. I would hope that had I been a member of the Church prior to 1978, I would have been in that camp regarding blacks and the priesthood.
Last edited by FMCoug; 06-10-2013 at 08:27 PM.
I think the example you gave about a woman deciding to work outside the home is perfect and one I support. A family, for a variety of reasons unique to them may decide by the Spirit that Mom needs to be working. Church leaders have said as much fairly recently. The general counsel still applies and I think you agree with that. Just like missionaries shouldn't rely on memorized discussions anymore (the fact they ever did astounds me), members of the church have to rely more on the spirit.
As it relates to doctrinal issues such as gay marriage and women and the priesthood, I think my "both cannot be correct" statement still stands. Either the Lord is in favor of same sex marriage or he isn't. Each member of the Church should determine by the Spirit what they believe the will of the Lord is. I feel at peace and you might say have received spiritual confirmation in the Church's current position on both gay marriage and women and the priesthood. It is fair to say that others have received confirmations of their own that contradict mine. The Lord is not going to tell me that gay marriage is not his appointed way or that women have a different role while at the same time tell others the exact opposite. So I believe using the Prophets words is a good starting point, but not the finish line.
Bringing it back around to the original point I was trying to make: I think as we approach LDS history it is important to remember that even the best of mortal men (Thomas S Monson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and yes Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) are flawed and prone to error. I agree with you that each member of the Church should seek to know by the Spirit what the prophets say is true with the caveat that disagreement COULD (not will) lead to dangerous spiritual territory. Such disagreements SHOULD be rare, and in my view, are best treated with an eye of hope that the policy will be changed through inspiration (just how I view the Church's view on scouting...and by that I mean I hope they get rid of it altogether).
"The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching."
Joseph Smith, Jr.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote