Episode #126 – Sitting Fatty

33494 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fthisweekinmormons.com%2F2012%2F07%2Fepisode-126-sitting-fatty-2%2FEpisode+%23126+-+Sitting+Fatty2012-07-03+15%3A56%3A02Geoffhttp%3A%2F%2Fthisweekinmormons.com%2F%3Fp%3D3349

1. guest

   July 3, 2012

   

   Sorry guys, I gotta disagree with ya'll. While there have been diverse opinions in the Church regarding evolution, many leaders have taught as doctrine that evolution is false. I don't personally agree with them, but I think it is inaccurate to say that they were just presenting what they believed was their opinions. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie taught that evolution is false and dangerous and they presented this as doctrine, not as their own opinion see (Mormon Doctrine and Man, His Origin and Destiny) .

   A certain pet peeve of mine is that whenever we are confronted with contradictory quotes from apostles and prophets we like to say that they were just speaking as men and they were just presenting their opinion. I have studied quite a bit of these problematic quotes and one thing is certain, these men usually thought they were speaking eternal doctrine and not merely their opinion (not just regarding organic evolution, but other controversial subjects like birth control, blood atonement, blacks and the priesthood,and the Adam-God doctrine). While they may not say "Thus saith the Lord" President Benson made it clear in "The 14 Fundamentals of a Prophet" that leaders do not need to say "Thus saith the Lord" for their words to be doctrine. We often don't like the fact that prophets have taught contradictory things as doctrines because if prophets and apostles could be wrong before then they could be wrong now and that certainly doesn't sit comfortably in many of our world views. Ultimately, I believe it comes down to our responsibility "prove all things" through prayer and study. I totally understand that interpreting the spirit can be difficult and that the prophets and apostles are doing their best within their human ability to do what is right, but that does not enable us to assume everything they teach as doctrine is necessarily truth. It becomes our burden to find out for ourselves.

   I have listened to almost every episode of Mormon Expression and I assure you that the issues they have with the Church are not as simple as you presented. They are good people that found out problematic issues with Church history and tried to remain in the Church for years and tried to work out satisfying answers but ultimately they didn't find any. They (and probably many of the people at the mass resignation) are not the type of people who just don't like the Church and so they find reasons to leave. They are people that tried very hard to make the Church work after stumbling upon difficult issues and ultimately decided the Church was not what it claimed it was. I personally do not agree with everything John and Zilpha Larson say or do, but I know their story well enough to know that they were sincere in the journey. Assuming they are like a boyfriend that is finding fault with a girl he wants to break up with may help their actions and words fit more comfortably into your world view but it is judgmental and inaccurate. I think you should invite them on to TWIM to have them share their stories. I assure you that they could clearly describe why they left.

   I love the Church and the inspiration within it, but we as a people need to stop denigrating those who leave our flock. We need to stop assuming that they are lazy, or that they just want to sin, or are too nitpicky, or that they are too easily offended. I use to think something similar to that until I went through my own faith crisis and found that those who leave the Church usually do not do it for the reasons that I initially suspected. They are usually sincere and they try very hard to make the Church work with their doubts, often for years.

   Lastly, Geoff said that he thinks that it is "bunk" that the Church teaches things that ostracizes former members. However, that is not true when looking at this temple recommend question:

   Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

   Taken in its literal sense, one cannot affiliate with any individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to the Church. That would disqualify most former Mormons. Luckily, most people ignore this, but there are some, and I know them, who do not ignore this and they are willing to break all contact with those who leave the Church.

   I am not trying to be contentious, I am only trying to use my experience with my own faith crisis to inform members of harmful attitudes in the Church so that they can be better at loving and fellowshipping those who lose their faith.

   Reply
   • TWiM

     July 10, 2012

     

     Hey dude, excellent response here, lots of good thoughtful commentary, which I love!

     First, the prophets not speaking as prophets thing, I would agree with you I think, more often than not, I'd imagine they feel confident in the conclusions they reach and have every expectation to suppose that it is from God. I'm not sure why we get conflicting understandings of doctrine over the years, but we do. I wonder if it's maybe that game we played as kids where you could go into a room for a few seconds and then had to come out and describe what you saw. Maybe they get glimpses of doctrines and understand them in the capacity that they have to understand them. I dunno, honestly, I don't. I think we are mistaken in assuming they speak perfectly and understand perfectly, really I think we're safe to appreciate that they are continuing to learn and grow just as we all are.

     Also, we weren't trying to be trite about John and Zilpha, I'm sure they had their reasons, I have no idea what their reasons were. It would be an interesting discussion to have with them, but I've had many discussions with people about why they leave the church, I can promise you I'd learn nothing new from their experience of losing their faith. I mean, I live in the hotbed of anti mormonism, I've heard it all, and frankly could expound on most of the anti mormon literature out there, but all of it falls short of supplanting truths we all know. There is no other religion out there that is supported by logic as beautifully as ours is in my opinion, but we still have plenty of gaps that require us to go on testimony and that's it. That lens fits every dissenting argument against our faith.

     Great point on the temple recommend interview, I hadn't ever considered that in that light, it is kind of "don't talk to those people" esque. Geoff was wrong! I honestly hadn't ever considered it like that, I always saw it as a group, but never thought about the individual. Let me mull on that for a bit.

     Great points man, great dialogue, make the intro to mormon expressions if you'd like, I'd be happy to chat with them so I can do a bit more justice to their story – contact@thisweekinmormons.com

     best,
     Al

     Reply
     • ccpoul

       July 12, 2012

       

       Well, I have a thought about the temple recommend interview question. I think that the ambiguity has played on the back of my mind in the form of what exactly we're trying to avoid, but I haven't put serious thought into it until 'guest' made his point. I can certainly see where some members, unfortunately, see that they need to interpret the question as, "Don't be friends or associate with anyone who doesn't agree exactly with the Church." So what I'm going to say is that the problem's in semantics; the question says "support, affiliate with, or agree with". Now, it does NOT say "associate with, talk to, show love towards", thereby outlawing those actions. And that would be a different matter…and it would be un-Christlike. The Master didn't shun or disassociate with non-Jews, or non-believers, or even those who hated Him. But my point is that none of the words have to do with severing a brotherly relationship of love with/towards any individual. They have to do with supporting/agreeing/promoting the teachings.

       I don't think that the question was ever meant to incite ostracization of anyone, but I do agree that it is a little ambiguous. What about one of these rewordings?
       "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with teachings or practices that are contrary to or which oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whether promoted by a group or individual?"
       -OR-
       "Regarding any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; do you support, promote, affiliate with, or agree with their teachings or practices?"

       A little more wordy, unarguably. But perhaps leaving less room for error? In any case, 'guest' has made some insightful, well-worded comments.

       Reply
       • TWiM

         July 12, 2012

         

         Good insights. The difficulty is that some members who leave the church do so because of some personal struggle but still respect others beliefs and views, but others actively seek to tear down others faith and act as poison to a healthy branch. I wonder if it's sort of a "for the weakest of the saints" type of commandment? I wonder at the semantics of it as well, this is actually really interesting to mull over for me. Still pondering

         -Al

         Reply