r/mormon • u/askunclebart • 2d ago
Apologetics Come Back Podcast Event Last Weekend
As someone who is still deciding if there's a way to stay in the church.... I did indeed attend this event on Oct 10th. I had submitted a bunch of questions for the panel, and sure enough they picked one of mine!
"Why don't church leaders address shelf-breaking issues directly instead of leaving it to apologists?"
u/50Relics2021 (Casey Griffiths) and u/donbradley (Don Bradley) both had something to say regarding my question:
Casey:
"In my experience, historians are good at everything. Like, we're the best leaders, and we have a lot of emotional intelligence. And you know, we're good with finances, and we're the most spiritual, and so I don't understand why God doesn't just call historians to do everything in the church. It makes no sense to me"
Said for laughs, of course, but why DOESN'T the church call historians, even for the most obviously historian assignment of: "CHURCH HISTORIAN"? As an aside, he did pitch there is precedent is for a historian general authority in B.H. Roberts.
Casey:
"B H Roberts was the finest historian, I think, we've ever had in the history of the Church. He was a member of the 70"
And yet, we don't ever read or hear of anything from B H Roberts. Wasn't it a book by B H Roberts that helped Don Bradley LEAVE the church in the first place as a teen?
Casey:
"Rather than looking at our leaders and saying 'hey, how come they're not solving the problems', go back to what Elder Corbridge said with his restaurant analogy where if you don't like a restaurant, you may say 'I don't like this. The food isn't good'... No: The church isn't a restaurant. Its a potluck dinner." It's not 'what are they doing for me' it's "what am I bringing there, what am I doing to help the people around me, help me grow and become like Christ
I don't love how my honest question got recharacterized over and over until it was unrecognizable. But then again apologists never like to actually address the original questions, it's what they do, so I shouldn't be offended.
Casey:
"I think every church leader must have a huge burden placed on them because everybody thinks they have the answers to everything, and that leads us back to the point I made earlier, which is, if we expect perfection from them... If we think that they never get angry or upset, or kick the dog, or swear, or something like that. We're setting ourselves up for failure.
Again with the moving the goalposts. I'm not asking church leaders to have the answers to everything. Nobody I've ever met who is on the way out of the church is talking about leaders who are anger or swearing or kicking the dog. You need stop talking ABOUT us in such offensive generalities and you should know better.
You would think an event titled "Come Back" would want to talk TO us rather than AT us.
Casey:
"The only sure foundation that we can build on is Jesus Christ. Along the way, the Savior puts a lot of people in our path that can help us. Or maybe even, more important, we can help them, most of the time. It's honestly both, so I'm happy to fill my role in the body of Christ, which is to make a podcast and read a lot of history books and argue with a guy from BYU Idaho for 90 minutes every week. But I recognize that there are other people that have different gifts that are necessary to build the Kingdom. I'm happy to do what I'm doing to keep up my part of the line, but I want to respect what every single person does. I don't know if you are the pinky toe, or the eye, or the nose or the ear, Paul would say: We all matter. And all of us play a role in building the kingdom of God..."
I'll spare you from the rest of Casey's personal elaboration of the Body of Christ metaphor by Paul. Beautiful, but doesn't answer the question.
Casey:
"When I was watching General Conference last week, I wasn't disappointed because there wasn't an in-depth exploration of the Adam-God theory or anything like that"
Oh, I was. That would have been EPIC
Casey:
"I think that historical concerns, if I'm being really honest..."
Wait, was that a slip of the tongue? or was that a flat out admission that this whole time you were not being really honest?
Casey:
"I think that historical concerns, if I'm being really honest... The history of the church is sometimes listed as a top concern when people talk about struggling. In my mind, and when it comes down to it, it's sometimes kind of a smoke screen for deeper concerns. Things that they worry about. A lot of the times, saying "well, I think Joseph Smith was a shady character" or "I don't like Brigham Youngs attitude towards race" is a way of masking, maybe, some deeper concerns and some deeper problems."
Ah, the common insinuation that we who are on the fence with the church, we must be secretly harboring some deeper sin or desire to live more wicked lives.
Casey:
"We need to remember that answering their historical questions isn't really something that has a silver bullet. Your not going to say the right thing and everything's going to click into place.
Finally, after all that, the admission. There are no good answers. That's why the Church leaders don't address them. They leave that to people who have no shame peddling the bad answers.
Casey:
"If you show love, give them good information, and then remember that there's somebody else who's working the problem at the same time as you over a long period of time, It can make a big difference in a person's life".
Casey might well have said "A super smart person is looking at it, and they said don't worry about it." That's also what the Scientologists and Jehovah Witnesses said to my investigators when I was teaching them as a missionary. Really kills the spirit of studying and learning, by the way.
Don:
"General Conference is for everyone. This is for members of the church in Thailand and Australia, and Brazil. This is for the lifelong members and this is for the newest converts. Maybe some of these issues, if we were to put it at a sort of grade level in terms of someone's development in asking question about the history of the church or whatever... Maybe some of these are sort of a college level questions and general conference is addressing people all along that spectrum, so it might be inappropriate for the newest convert in Thailand to be hearing a general conference talk on polygamy or something right?
So much to unpack here, and I think Redditors will have a field day in the comments, but I'll plug Bill Reel's "The LDS Missionary Discussions If the Church was Honest". I very much do think converts should know the real messy history and doctrines and not the sanitized correlated history and doctrines. Members are DROWNING in 'milk', and so much of the college level 'meat' of the church is... problematic.
I invite Casey and Don to offer a more compelling answer to my original question. My exhibit A is the gospel topic essays written by historians, unsigned by the leaders and buried in the website curriculums, and rarely, if ever, quoted or referenced the the leaders.
72
u/Own_Boss_8931 Former Mormon 2d ago
Very interesting read. What I hate the most is always putting the responsibility back on the person asking the questions.
When 5000 came to listen to Jesus and got hungry, he didn't question them about why they didn't bring food or if some had, why they didn't think to bring food for their neighbors.
When a leper came asking for help, Jesus didn't ask him if he had followed purity laws or blame him for getting sick. He healed him.
When he was in a large crowd of sick people, he didn't tell them they all needed to have better hygiene. He once again healed the sick.
With the blind man, the disciples tried to blame the man or the parents. Jesus rejected that entire discussion.
When a woman was on the verge of being stoned for adultery, he didn't give her a worthiness interview and demand that she repent and abstain from taking the sacraments for a period of time. He restores her dignity and then offered guidance.
There are many more examples. Modern church leaders, who have the audacity to refer to themselves as the 12 apostles equal in authority to those who directly walked with Jesus and who claim to follow a prophet who is the mouthpiece of god on earth--consistently fall short. They're afraid to address difficult questions. They're afraid to let people record their words outside of closely scripted events like conference, they're afraid to have real theology discussions with people who devoted their lives to the priesthood in other religions. Hell, they don't even talk to average non-Mormons on the street to convert them to Jesus; they ask kids straight out of high school to do that. I think they like that apologists try to run cover for them because if they say something wrong, the church can say "they don't speak for the church" but if something gets positive reception they can slowly work it into their ever-changing doctrines.
10
u/That-Aioli-9218 2d ago
These are great examples of Jesus being a leader, not a manager. The management training I was given for my current position used the following analogy: "People are going to come into your office with a dozen monkeys (monkeys = problems), and it's your job to make sure that they leave with the same number of monkeys as they came with." This is what a manager does: deflect back on to his employees. A leader doesn't do that. In the examples you provide, Jesus didn't do that either.
13
9
u/spiraleyes78 2d ago
When I learned about "monkeys" in management classes, it was a totally different message. It's not that you send the people away with deflection, it's that you teach, help them navigate, and direct the person in how to solve their own monkeys (problems) rather than taking them on yourself.
5
u/That-Aioli-9218 1d ago
I think that's a best case scenario. I'm a department chair at a university, and I just met with one of my faculty who needed help with a project that affects the entire college. I offered to reach out to an associate dean on her behalf, who then stepped in to help her navigate the college-level issues. My faculty member needed someone of higher authority to step in a step up, not just train them on how to solve an issue that, honestly, was above their paygrade.
34
u/TheFakeBillPierce 2d ago
I can agree with the idea that the church is a potluck and it works best when everyone brings something. But the problem with this analogy is that you have people at the doors who turn people away or shame them or criticize them if what they bring doesnt line up with what is already there.
Man, just wholly unfulfilling answers. I look at LDS apologetics and if this is the best the church can do, it is in a lot more trouble than I thought.
8
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
Nice analogy indeed, but besides the problem you point out with it… (1) it’s just cherrypicked to make a point that has nothing to do with the original question from the OP, and (2) it is inconsistent with the actual core messaging and foundations of the church. The church claims to be the one true and living church and to have the fullness of the gospel. The church claims to BE something other than just the sum of the parts / its members. It claims authority, truth, exclusivity, access to eternal life, etc. as an entity. The Potluck Analogy falls short when this is acknowledged. The alternative is to dismiss that, in which case the church is… well, just that: a potluck.
5
u/spiraleyes78 2d ago
The potluck analogy is terrible. Shelf-breaking questions stem from what the CHURCH brings to us. The Truth was supposedly restored in the 19th century, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
3
u/PattyRain 2d ago
There is also the problem of when people have nothing left to bring.
4
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 1d ago edited 22h ago
And for many, the church takes from them far more than it gives in return. It's like bringing an entire turkey to the potluck and then getting half a slice of bread as your 'meal' in return. Top leaders make sure they get their 'modest 6 figure stipend' every year though, and ensure it is adjusted for inflation and such, while giving the wards pathetic budgets every year and asking more and more of lay leadership that works for free. And every member a janitor of course.
The church makes members prioritize it in giving, while the church puts members last in giving, even at times making them use the charities of other religions before offering any help itself.
2
31
u/Ok-End-88 2d ago
Leonard Arrington was the greatest person who ever served as church historian, (1972 - 1982), and was forced out of his job by Boyd Packer after a decade of service, for allowing too much access to previously hidden records.
It was the same Boyd Packer who was behind the excommunication of the September 6 approximately a decade later, for writing true history that wasn’t very faith promoting in Boyd’s assessment.
That was the downfall for all fabricated Mormon origin stories that ever littered the pages of correlated material taught in the church.
B. H. Roberts was a very smart and complicated man, but I would place him second to Leonard Arrington.
28
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 2d ago edited 2d ago
Agreed. Arrington wins 1st place, hands down.
They know this. But they can't say it. And they know very well why they don't dare say it.
"It is not that they disapprove of me as church historian; they would disapprove of any professional historian, any intellectual, any educated person, any independent-minded writer. They want someone like Joseph Fielding Smith, who (1) wrote little history; 2) colored history with scriptural allusions and references; and (3) obstinately refused to discuss any controversial matters. All of which means, they do not want a church historian; they want a trusted general authority who will not write history." -- https://mormonstudies.as.virginia.edu/leonard-j-arrington-diary-excerpts/church-politics/
13
u/westivus_ Post Mormon Red Letter Enthusiast 2d ago
He was absolutely right and the church proved his words by only hiring lawyers to be the 'church historian' ever since.
6
u/donbradley 2d ago
Yes, Leonard Arrington was wonderful. He was the one official church historian who was actually a professional historian. As a historian myself, I greatly appreciate how he filled that role.
33
u/CaptainMacaroni 2d ago edited 2d ago
"Why don't church leaders address shelf-breaking issues directly instead of leaving it to apologists?"
It sounds like they answered "Why aren't church leaders historians?" Not the question you asked. Two very different questions. Then they pulled the "Instead of asking A, you should be asking B."
Then it was a strawman. No one is saying leaders should have the answers to everything. Besides, you asked about leaders addressing questions, not having the answers to them.
No one said they had to address things during general conference either. Sure would be terrible for someone to give a memorable talk. This conference it was gambling=bad and a whooooooooooooooooole lot of completely forgettable nothing.
They dangled something shiny to distract and avoided the real question.
You would think an event titled "Come Back" would want to talk TO us rather than AT us.
They need to fucking LISTEN.
30
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 2d ago edited 2d ago
Absolutely agreed.
The only people saying that church leaders have the answers to everything are the church leaders themselves!
- "The gospel of Jesus Christ provides answers and solutions to all of the world’s problems." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2005/11/be-prepared-be-ye-strong-from-henceforth
- "There is no question—personal or social or political or occupational—that need go unanswered. [In the scriptures] is contained the fulness of the everlasting gospel. Therein we find principles of truth that will resolve every confusion and every problem and every dilemma that will face the human family or any individual in it." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/get-help/suicide/is-there-any-suicide-prevention-training-available
- "I also know that the gospel of Jesus Christ holds the answer to every social and political and economic problem this world has ever faced." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1996/04/a-handful-of-meal-and-a-little-oil
- "I can testify that the wise men who lead The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a grasp of moral and social issues exceeding that of any think tank or brain trust on earth." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/06/04-choose-the-lord-and-his-prophet
We're merely noticing that they don't have all the answers they claimed to have.
If they don't want people expecting them to have all the answers, they need to stop claiming that they do.
-7
u/donbradley 2d ago
Ah, okay. Got it. I've noticed a theme or thread running across your comments. It sounds like you're particularly frustrated that the church as an institution / the church's leaders set up a standard (e.g., of ethics, or of perfection) that you then don't see being met. What effect does it have for you if you perceive a standard being set up and then not met?
29
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 2d ago edited 2d ago
I'm not sure what you mean regarding what effect it has for me. I point these things out because it is unjust that members get blamed as though they imagined up these claims all by themselves. Blaming the members for having "unrealistic standards" when it was really the church that set those standards is both unfair and completely inaccurate. It also allows the church to avoid being held accountable for making false claims.
I prefer not to let injustices or inaccuracies go unchallenged. That's the end of the story for me. I don't really care about being "heard" personally. I care about people having accurate data with which to evaluate the situation. Whether the church decides to recognize that data or just throw another "lazy learner!" my way really doesn't matter to me.
My "perception" on this is demonstrably accurate. My conclusions are supported by data and evidence. It's fairly easy to demonstrate that the church cannot, and does not, clear a significant number of the bars they set for themselves. If the church is making false claims, then people who wish to walk away have a very good reason for doing so. It would be unwise to hand over all the things the church demands of its members (their time, talents, and everything with which the Lord had blessed them, including of course 10% of their income), to a church that has a demonstrable pattern of making false claims.
6
13
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
With all due respect Don, I don’t think you got it at all. Your comment is a reframing that, just like the answers provided by the OP from the event in question, makes the discussion about the commenter’s alleged predispositions, while deflecting a very simple and incredible pertinent question to many:
Why don’t senior leaders of the church (Q15) speak of or addressed difficult church issues and topics openly and transparently with members and with the world?
My suggestion would be, as the subreddit guidelines for apologetics posts suggest—let’s stay on topic :)
→ More replies (4)3
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 1d ago edited 22h ago
that the church as an institution / the church's leaders set up a standard (e.g., of ethics, or of perfection)
Why do apologists love to promote this 'expected perfection' trope? And as a member, I hope you are aware of things like how they define honesty, and the steps of repentence, two thigns off the top of my head that top leaders do not adhere to. So yes, their ethics. But enough of the 'perfection' trope, you know that isn't what we expect.
that you then don't see being met
That they are not meeting, not that 'we don't see being met'. More language that diverts the focus from leadership and tries to place it back on us. The phrasing of apologists is full of this kind of stuff.
What effect does it have for you if you perceive a standard being set up and then not met?
By their fruits ye shall know them. If they claim to be prophets but primarily teach false doctrines that lead the church astray and have done so from the very beginning, the 'effect' is we can know they are not prophets as they claim to be, and thus the mormon religion is not what it claims itself to be.
Additionally, as others pointed out, we are merely judging them by the bar they themselves set. Church apologists are constantly strawmanning our expectations, questions, accusing us of 'expecting too much', etc etc., but we are only judging them by their own words and claims about who and what they are supposed to be.
When people have real questions, and then those questions get sidelined with sleight of hand tactics like strawmanning/altering the question/insinuating our questions are just cover for wanting to sin, etc, and then they go on to subtly blame us for even asking the questions, it gets really old, and becomes really obvious when they are doing it.
Not saying you are doing this, but we see this common behavior even in the prophet himself, who recently made a mockery of the fact a woman had a personally impactful question about polygamy, and then shamed her for even having had the question in the first place, all while deflecting from and failing to even address the question he clearly did not want anyone asking. What a chilling and cold message to send to those who appropriately worry about the implications of mormon doctrine in their lives.
8
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
Unbelievable, you forgot the groundbreaking and very memorable “pay your tithing, you poor people” talk /s
0
u/donbradley 2d ago
I hear your frustration. Were you at the Come Back conference?
8
u/FlyingBrighamiteGod 2d ago
I was there for that one-off talk that likely resulted in his demotion. So what? What’s the relevance of a drop of truth in an ocean of contrary messaging?
27
u/CowboyJack1944 2d ago
Please don't take this the wrong way, but did you expect a straight answer? Apologists' role and job is to move the goalposts. If we are ever going to come to a meeting of the minds, it has to come directly from the top fifteen. I was fortunate to be a Bishop when "the church was for the people," and left when it morphed into "the people for the church." It's a hard reality.
21
u/askunclebart 2d ago
You should have seen the other questions I had submitted. This was one they considered safe
20
•
u/Obvious-Guidance118 17h ago
Around what year was that, that you believe it changed from for the people versus for the church?
26
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 2d ago edited 2d ago
If we think that they never get angry or upset, or kick the dog, or swear, or something like that. We're setting ourselves up for failure.
What the??
🎵 One of these things is not like the other. 🎵
Literally no one is expecting church leaders to never get angry or swear. They sure love that particular strawman. But I've known plenty of people who managed to go their entire lives without kicking a dog... It strikes me as a weird thing to say.
Or maybe they didn't want to get too specific with something like "If we think that they never ... behead a cat... we're setting ourselves up for failure." That would have been the historically accurate example to give, because that's exactly what Joseph F. Smith did once. During his mission. He wrote about it in his journal with waaaayyy too much glee. Transcript here: https://juvenileinstructor.org/joseph-f-smith-and-the-great-hawaiian-cat-massacre/
Original here: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/70f7061b-3c6e-4ff8-990d-30886f62c955/0/47
And that's the thing about church history. When you look at what these men actually did, it's never "just" kicking a dog, though that's a bad enough illustration. It's always something far worse.
11
u/9876105 2d ago
These are the things apologists and leaders ignore. They can't it pulls pillars away from how they construct a god with a plan. Speaking as a man, acting as a man is just code for everybody does bad things but we have crucial information nobody else has access to...in other words trust me bro even though I behead cats.
5
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 1d ago
Absolutely. It undermines their authority. They have no defense, and so they DARVO. When you bring up the cat they killed and try to hold them accountable for that, they say "Why are you attacking me!?!?!?!"
Facts aren't attacks. But if church leaders feel like they are, maybe they know that what they did is indefensible...
•
u/Educational-Beat-851 White Salamader Enthusiast 23h ago
I just want the leaders of the church to protect victims of CSA over the abusers. I don’t think that is unreasonable to ask.
3
23
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
“Members are DROWNING in milk”
So true. Meanwhile the meat is unattended, unrefrigerated, and literally rotting in front of our eyes, and the stench becomes unbearable eventually.
8
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
To keep pushing the Milk/Meat analogy:
They could just grill the darn meat. Many would pass on eating it, on dietary or other grounds. That’s fine. But for heaven’s sake—do something with it.
3
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 1d ago edited 22h ago
The meat was promised, but it doesn't exist. The only meat available is what you imagine up in your own mind as you convince yourself you are receiving revelation/deep doctrine from god that is 'too sacred to share'.
17
u/renob1911 2d ago
Your question is a GREAT QUESTION. They dismiss it, because they have no satisfactory answer. When I went through my faith crisis, I was asking the same question. Why don’t the q15 answer all these questions??? I thought they were “prophets, seers and revelators”? Should be light work for them. Why doesn’t the church have dedicated theologians to clarify the doctrine and tackle the tough issues? Instead I was left watching YouTube videos from Jacob Hansen and Jasmin rappleye, and some newly returned missionary that thinks they have all the answers. Their apologetic answers were so bad, it drove me further away. I thought, we are a $300 billion dollar church lead by Jesus Christ himself, but there are no good answers to the many MANY problems??? Just have more faith and don’t dig too deep, seemed to be the answer from the church. That was the beginning of the end for me.
7
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
You definitely didn’t have enough faith then! /s
(Though that’s what some of them may possibly think of people that go through what you’ve gone)
5
17
u/foxdogturtlecat 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well since the church believes that anyone leaving is leaving because that person is at fault and not the church there is no way they could say any answer that would insult the church or put any responsibility on the church.
The point of these events is to promote the idea that the church isn't at fault, the person is and that if the person is willing agree to that, they can be part of the church again.
Casey and Don could not offer a critical or even straight answer because their job isn't to answer the question but to disarm it and negate it. The problem isn't that the history is bad or you are bothered with a leader being racist, it's that there is something wrong with you.
0
u/donbradley 2d ago
I'm assuming from your comment that you weren't at the conference? It might help to clarify that the question wasn't addressed to me, but I went out of my way to offer a comment on it while I was being asked to address an entirely different question. I then tried to explain part of what I think the General Authorities are thinking in dealing with multiple audiences. I don't think there's anything wrong with the question or with the author of the question for asking it. In fact, having gone through at one time my own journey out of the church, I actually assume that the author is entirely sincere in his questions, and I would assume the same of you.
9
u/spiraleyes78 2d ago edited 2d ago
That's all fine, but if you went out of your way to comment, why not answer the question directly?
I don't think anyone is expecting Church leadership to answer shelf-breaking questions in General Conference. Most would agree it's not the time or place. But why don't they answer these questions ever?
-3
u/donbradley 2d ago
When you’re up on the stage at a conference and they’re waiting to ask you a question that’s assigned to you, you can feel free to take over someone else’s question and answer that instead.
I’ve offered various thoughts on the question on this thread.
10
u/spiraleyes78 2d ago
You're welcome to address the question right here. The original author is among our audience. The comments you've offered here don't actually answer anything head on, but I could very well be missing something.
→ More replies (4)7
u/foxdogturtlecat 1d ago
I don't think any clarification is needed but go for it if you do and no it doesn't "help" me. but I wasn't asking for help. You can make any assumptions you want as you have self agency although I personally don't find them beneficial and I can't control what someone else thinks my motives are (I personally love my LDS family and friends and would never try to get them or anyone to stop being members or stop having their faith).
To be clear I think Casey was doing the it's not the church that's the problem, it's that you have some other deeper issue that you personally have deal with approach as the OP highlighted
For you I think you did the "this isn't the time or place to talk about this and we should focus on the positives and not the negatives of the church."
There was never any question of if you think the question is wrong or if you thought the author is wrong for asking it. The question he had was why did you answer the way you did and why didn't you (collectively) directly answer it.
I do feel you gave a clue as to why you answered as you did in your reply. "so it might be inappropriate for the newest convert in Thailand to be hearing a general conference talk on polygamy or something right?"
You feel that in a event that's about trying to get back to the church, you should focus on the good things (it could also be the cultural conditioning of focusing on the positive) and not the things you feel are "college level" but just using your example of speaking about the history of LDS polygamy to Thai person because it might shake their new faith but the history of Thai culture especially the kings is one of polygamy so that person might A. not have a problem with church history B. value honesty more than perfection.
Maybe the faithful and the church could considered the situation that if they are honest about the past and current misdeeds, questioning people will actually trust and believe in the church more, not less because of the transparency, honesty and accountability.
I think questioning people have so much hurt and distrust because the church historically has been concerned about the appearance of the church than the reality of the church and hasn't been super transparent about historical issues and certainly hasn't educated the membership on them.
Other faiths and sects of Christianity have benefited and become stronger from their leaders publicly apologizing to populations they have historically harmed and being more transparent about ways in which leadership and previous doctrinal policies and actions has failed or harmed yet the LDS church does not take that approach. What could not being weighted down by the past but also not closing the door and pretending it never existed look like? , perhaps the prophet can have a revelation that humility and transparency is now a good and proper thing for the leaders and the organization to display?
As the OP said maybe it's better to talk with and not at the people you (collectively) would like to rejoin or stay in the church?
-3
u/pepe0001 2d ago
I think that we are putting the burden on the church to fix our unbelief, when we should own our own desire to know the truth. No amount of well worded logical explanation will convince someone that the church is where I need to be to attain the highest degree of glory. It's my own relationship with God and my own truth seeking efforts that lead to God and his truth.
8
u/famous_chalupa 2d ago
Your comment makes me think that there are two ways of looking at the truth claims of the church.
Unlike most other Christian denominations, the Church's claims are very specific and concrete. For instance, that there was an ancient Jewish civilization in the Americas that came from the middle-east and that North American indigenous people came from those ancient people (I do realize that opinions on this have changed in recent years).
Some of those very specific claims don't appear to add up to scrutiny. For many of us these are not spiritual questions. They are very concrete. Was there a substantial ancient civilization based on a migration of Jews or not?
However I'm hearing that some of these can actually be spiritual questions. You may feel that you can receive spiritual revelation that tells you with confidence that these concrete claims are true.
I think that's fair. I also think it's fair that people want to see some evidence of some of these concrete claims.
3
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 1d ago
I think that we are putting the burden on the church to fix our unbelief, when we should own our own desire to know the truth.
The church has been caught in many lies, it continues to falsify and heavily whitewash what it does decide to teach, and because of this complete loss of trust the church has with the truth, the burden is on the truth to come clean with the truth, all of it, and to then let people decide for themselves if it really is what it claims itself to be.
Blaming us because the church is continually tripping over its own lies and having to constantly change or reverse its 'restored doctrines' is not our fault, and is something the church needs to account for, including answering the many questions that exist precisely because of the church's dishonest and inconsistent behavior.
No amount of well worded logical explanation will convince someone that the church is where I need to be to attain the highest degree of glory
Simply false, if the church is actually what it claims itself to be. If it is not, then you are correct, no logical explanation will convince someone that they need a false religion to return to an as of yet completely unproven god.
Gave ya upvotes to help offset the downvotes as well.
16
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
An honest answer, trying to provide it without cynicism or snark, would have to include:
- That would be a question Q15/GAs would need to answer, not unofficial, non-authoritative apologists
- But if we were to offer some plausible reasons, the following are worth considering:
A. There are no good answers
B. They lack the courage to face and voice that reality
C. They estimate that the risks of doing so outweigh the benefits against their interests
D. Their interests may be varied, but don’t seem to be too concerned with transparency, openness, and seeking historical truth
E. They are oblivious to the existential risk of not addressing these issues with their followers, regardless of whether there are satisfactory answers or not
E.1. Or… they are fully conscious of the also existential risk of addressing these issues with their followers
F. They may simply be normal, uninspired men protecting their position of power and influence, and addressing these issues may undermine these interest.
G. Divine intervention—they are following God’s direction to focus on other things and ignore these… not realizing that this would make God dishonest
13
u/diogoilho 2d ago
I was thinking about this. A lot of the problems with those who are going through a crisis of faith, or have been through one, could be addressed by leadership taking responsibility for past mistakes, offering formal apologies, acknowledging prophetic fallibility—not just personal or moral fallibility—and changing the practice of demanding blind obedience, allowing for nuances, and acknowledging the lack of good answers. Instead of trying to hide questions and accusing those who ask of apostasy and sin. But let's be honest, doing that comes at too high a cost. There's the risk of losing the majority of members who lack nuance and view them as almost mystical entities, who see Christ coming every Thursday to decide policies like the use of church bathrooms by transgender people. It's better to let those who ask questions leave than to lose the masses.
7
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
100%. It’s likely a slow, painful death regardless of which path they choose, but the path of letting those who ask questions leave seems slower than the other, at least.
Not very inspiring when seeing it for like it is. Not a lot of Christian courage in it either. At least the other alternative is these two things.
5
u/moltocantabile 2d ago
The RLDS church went down the path of more openness, and they are struggling today in terms of membership. Maybe the LDS leaders are trying something different to see if it works better.
4
u/FlyingBrighamiteGod 2d ago
Probably, but hiding issues is dishonest and incongruous with a god-lead church (unless god is an immoral monster, I suppose).
2
u/donbradley 2d ago
Can you clarify what you're saying?
8
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
2 paths: (a) Be open and address issues, or (b) Don’t be open and avoid addressing issues. Both paths are painful, unsustainable and pose an existential risk, but B is the less disruptive one in the short term, so that the path we are on.
Hope that’s clear enough?
0
u/donbradley 2d ago
Ah, yes, that does clarify things! Thanks!
When the perception is that souls are at stake, it's absolutely natural to be exceedingly cautious. But risk aversion has its own risks, does it not?
Something I can tell you from having spent a little time at the Joseph Smith Papers Project is that the Church History Department is committed to complete transparency, and that that policy of transparency was instituted by Elder Marlin K. Jensen, with obvious support from the First Presidency and Twelve. So, while the church's old-school communication style may not make it obvious, I do think the intention is to address things head on. Perhaps it will take a while for us to fully understand what it *looks* like to do so?
11
u/FlyingBrighamiteGod 2d ago
God, the purported head of this church, is risk averse and prioritizes caution over truth? Are we so fragile that we can’t be exposed to the truth? How can our faith really be tested in this life if we aren’t given the truth? Faith in easy to digest falsehoods is no test at all. It feels like blithely following those falsehoods would actually be failing the test.
5
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
Oh I know about Marlin Jensen. One of the few recent GAs along with Steven Snow to move the needle in the right direction on this front. Though both also faced brick walls and the result of their service as GAs-turned-church-historians-despite-not-having-any-relevant-credentials was limited as a result. Plus despite their influential GA status… neither was a member of the 1P/Q15. They are the ones with the stature, institutional prominence, and expectations from members (expectations set by themselves), to be treated as ‘speaking for God’.
And if that’s the case, God’s silence on SO MUCH feels so painfully deafening.
It is precisely that point that takes us back to the OP’s original question: Why don’t they… address this difficult things directly and openly?
5
u/spiraleyes78 2d ago
When do you anticipate Church leadership will begin talking about the more "unsavory" details directly?
8
u/askunclebart 2d ago
This will be the thesis of many a disscertation in 100 years: How the polarization of American politics of 21st century, and the Church's effort to retain the Orthodox led to the mass abandonment of the faith. And how President So-and-so changed everything in 2053...
6
3
3
u/PattyRain 1d ago
I keep thinking about when I was worried about my son and not being interested in the church (to put it mildly). I was talking to people about it, trying to find some peace. Everyone kept telling me to have faith and all that did was make me feel they were not listening to me. Then one day someone said something along the lines of, "it is hard when you don't feel they will come back."
That was everything to me! Finally, I had some peace. It was like opening up the infected wound and letting the pus out.
I think it is the same with the church. While I no longer believe in the church so this wouldn't matter to me, I think there are some people who would be relieved that the wounds are being opened.
0
u/donbradley 2d ago
What specific questions do you have in mind that you think only the apostles should be answering?
10
u/diogoilho 2d ago
u/donbradley, I believe you will understand better than anyone that the feeling we experience during a crisis of faith is one of betrayal and grief for a magical worldview that is lost as we delve into complex questions.
What we observe—and u/ultramegaok8 and I seem to be aligned on this—is that the leadership, instead of adopting an honest and open stance about their limits and mistakes, past and present, prefers to maintain a posture of institutional pride, demanding blind obedience, and hinting at a lack of faith, hidden sin, or a lack of humility for trusting in oneself and one's own intelligence in anyone who questions them or queries the church and its history. No hand is extended here by the church's top leadership to those experiencing a crisis of faith. Elder Rasband's talk in the last conference was clear in this regard: he extended a hand to those who stay and suffer for those who leave, but those who left were accused of breaking covenants and not walking the path of Christ.
What we are observing here is an institutional choice, because recognizing flaws and mistakes officially and publicly would destroy the magical view that the average member has of living prophets.
An obvious example is the racial restriction on the priesthood and temple access. Official speeches and church essays attribute its prohibition to God and leave a major "we don't know why it was this way." Now, anyone who has read the book Second-Class Saints and understands the beginning and the process behind the end of the ban knows that God had nothing to do with it—the entire process was purely human. The leadership could acknowledge this, apologize officially, and recognize prophetic fallibility in the sense that their choices for the church may indeed not be the best ones. But doing so would make them lose their magical aura in the eyes of the orthodox member; therefore, they refrain from doing so, blame it on God, and claim they don't know why. So it is their choice to lose the more critical members while retaining the more orthodox ones who follow the prophet without question.
Apparently, any choice—whether transparency or institutional pride that preserves illusions of prophetic infallibility—will yield negative long-term consequences. However, the current choice might simply be the one that takes longer to show those negative effects.
1
u/donbradley 2d ago
Interesting. I wonder what the pressures of leadership are, in any religious community?
Historian Garry Wills wrote a book about the Roman Catholic leadership in which he argued that Catholic leaders would not roll back statements on divorce and birth control for fear of undermining the church's authority via infallibility.
WRT the idea that church leaders condemn questioning members, I'm wondering if you're familiar with President Uchtdorf's conference talk, "Come, Join with Us"?
7
u/diogoilho 2d ago
Yes, I know it and appreciate it. But it has already been 13 years. It was made at a time when Elder Uchtdorf was practically presiding over the Church, which was also when the gospel topics essays were created. I do not deny the movement toward transparency that happened back then. However, the subsequent result was a change in direction—Elder Uchtdorf returned to the Quorum of the Twelve, some essays were modified to take a 'we don't know' tone, and no new discourse of that kind can be pointed to as being directed at us. President Oaks' speech in the last conference is an invitation to put things on the shelf; it doesn't engage in dialogue with those who have already broken it.
0
u/donbradley 2d ago
I mention it, not because it is typical, but because it is there. And the man who gave it is the president of the Twelve, and a likely future president of the church. When you made a blanket statement that church leaders offer a certain view of those who doubt, I was curious whether you were familiar with that talk.
9
u/diogoilho 2d ago
My accusations are directed at the leadership as an institution, not at their individual personal positions. The choices of speeches, words, and stances in recent years point to the abandonment of the mea culpa approach that Elder Uchtdorf initiated in 2013 with his talk and the Gospel Topics Essays, turning instead toward an attitude of 'follow the leader, don't question, save questions for the future, don't speak to those who question, keep your covenants.' The hope for improvements under a future Uchtdorf presidency is one of the reasons I stay, despite my current crisis of faith.
4
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
All power to you, brother r/diogoilho. That ship has sailed for me. After years of carving my own space in the church I loved, served in, and embraced as an intricate part of me, it was the personal realisation that my sustained participation in the church made me implicitly complicit of things that in any other context I would find morally and ethically unacceptable, and that my participation also implicitly perpetuated those things, that led me to take the incredibly painful step to distance myself. It wasn’t a shelf that broke, it wasn’t doubts, or a crisis of faith. It was more like a painful breakup. But it is something I am incredibly proud of and at peace with, as I never thought I could do it, and there is no question in my mind that it was the right thing for me to do for myself and everyone I love, including those that stay till this day.
I commend you for your efforts to stay. I am sure you are making the life of others that are staying better with your presence. I hope my presence was also a benefit to at least some while I stayed on good faith.
Again, wishing you the best in this journey, and my deepest respect for you for trying.
3
u/diogoilho 1d ago
I would also like to express my respect and support for you and your choice. Today, I am on the path of trying to stay, but I understand how brave the path you chose by leaving is, and I have great respect for that. Also, your comments on this forum were very constructive and made me reflect—thank you for that.
3
u/askunclebart 1d ago
I appreciate the mutual care and solemnity. And I'm in the middle having not made my decision. Ha ha ha thanks for participating in the thread
6
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
I think your example (Uchtdorf’s groundbreaking 2013 talk)… is the exception that proves the rule.
I remember someone recently told me about some struggles they were having with church policy, positions, and current events, and they talked to a well-known local member that happens to be somewhat of a pseudo progressive church apologist. What this apologist told them was “just wait until President Uchtdorf is president of the church!” (Wink wink, implying that he somehow was poised to change all these problematic things they were dealing with)
I used to think a little bit like that. And I do have an appreciation for Dieter Uchtdorf for being a relative light amongst his peers on so, so many fronts. The church is indeed better that it would be without him where he has been. Now, I see that longing for someone like him to become president as a silver bullet to change things… to be quite revealing of a fundamentally flawed leadership structure. Rather than giving me hope about the future, it makes me horrified about the present and pessimistic about the future of a church where the likes of Uchtdorf are such an exception.
So, I appreciate your reference to his 2013 talk. But I think that, at least for me, it has the opposite of your intended effect.
And to finalise—what an irresponsible thing for this local brother to say to this struggling member. Apologists of the church: do better.
5
u/FlyingBrighamiteGod 2d ago
Re: “pressures of leadership”: Choosing the right and following God’s whisperings in their ears should not be burdensome at all. Why would being an unapologetic voice of truth be a burden?
3
u/westonc 1d ago edited 1d ago
Personally I'm pretty open to the idea that leadership face pressures most members don't understand. And even that a good deal of puzzling behavior in leadership is often a reflection of pressures from members themselves (which in turn may have been created by expectations flowing from solutions earlier leaders deployed).
At the same time, pressures created by infallibility expectations are among the least sympathetic of those I can think of.
For one thing, authority discourse in the church seems to be a mess that it's content with. The church certainly continues its long investment in ultra-conviction discourse about the superlative authority and reliability of its leadership. Efforts to even modestly walk it back such as Elder Uchtdorf's are rare and rarely amplified (and if some rumors are correct, perhaps even punished). Of course, it also officially invests in carefully measured formal fallibility claims. The fact that there's nowhere in official church programs where specific failures are unpacked with a lessons-learned conversation may mean that this is more of a emergency release valve hedge than substantial investment, but the official position that the leaders are fallible should mean that infallibility pressures are not an excuse. And if such pressures are a problem, what one would expect from good faith leadership is an observable consistent program to clean authority discourse up and create structures where people can productively direct dissent. I can't identify anything that fits that description, especially not anything like what the church does when it really wants something focused on (e.g. covenant path language, a certain proclamation). Can you?
But more importantly, the church also claims that it is truly God's and has God's divine power on its side. If that's true, presumably God's transcendent power would be able to call people to the church or to divine positions and teachings the church is working to forward. If that power is working with the church, what's the real need for any authoritarian approach to leadership? When the church reinforces an authoritarian program -- whether with claims of divine right to do so or out of claims of necessity -- it's trading whatever benefits it derives from that for implicit erosion of confidence that there's a real divine spirit moving people (not to mention expressing a certain degree of carelessness or even contempt for a divine order which operates "without compulsory means" and the claims that the texts which give us that vision are revelations).
I am sure that some members and even leaders are genuinely focused in a direction like the one Elder Uchtdorf managed to articulate in 2013. I respect it when people stay engaged in the church by a vision outlined by its aspirations and exceptional positive moments. Perhaps I'll even manage this. But the investment in the magical view /u/diogoilho outlines seems to be the primary momentum vector of the church and driving the typical experience one might expect within it. How can anyone blame people for making judgments and affiliation decisions based on the version of the church they're most likely to encounter?
And to pop up a question level: "What specific questions do you have in mind that you think only the apostles should be answering?" It might be reasonable for a church where the gospel of Jesus Christ is understood to be a gospel of repentance to be a church led by disciple practitioners of that gospel. It might be reasonable that such a church should see cases where institutional authorities answer, account for, and reconcile institutional mistakes. I wouldn't go so far as to say only the apostles should be answering those questions, others might reasonably answer them too. I would even acknowledge that there may be times and settings where other things should be the focus for institutional authorities. But it's reasonable to suspect there is something not quite right with an order where they rarely do this, or indeed an order where there's no particular program/place for this to be done regularly by anyone.
3
2
1
14
u/Rushclock Atheist 2d ago
Normal apologetics from believers. Block and run. u/donbradley is demonstrating what people here are frustrated by by blocking and hiding exactly what top leaders do.
7
u/GunneraStiles 2d ago
He blocked me, too.
8
u/Rushclock Atheist 2d ago
Typical of how they curate what they will and won't talk about. I am okay with reddit blocking as long as it is used for off the rail conversations but blocking to stifle pushback is something reddit has no answer for.
3
3
u/Bender1337 2d ago
Who got blocked?
16
u/Rushclock Atheist 2d ago
That would be me yours truly. He does this on other platforms also and while I think he is a nice guy and great historian he will not deal with the difficult issues directly. He sporadically appears on the mormon discussion board and then runs when issues get heated and people on that board know what they are talking about. It is exactly what top leaders do. Don is mimicking their behavior while simultaneously on this post offering generic excuses.
8
u/Trick-Error-1483 2d ago
I think he's not a great historian and only good at *playing nice*, but in actuality...
7
u/Rushclock Atheist 2d ago
Don't forget he also participated/participated in a group called the Calvary a group of apologists who have a Facebook group where missionaries can ask questions to help with investigators who ask questions they don't know. Leave the missionaries alone to have their own experience and keep you nose out of it.
9
u/Bender1337 2d ago
I didn't know he was in the Calvary group. I just lost all respect for him if that is true.
2
u/Prop8kids 1d ago
participated/participated
I think one of these is supposed to be a different word or I'm just not understanding what you said.
5
12
u/jordancooper8712 2d ago
The panel’s joke about historians being suited for everything sidesteps the narrower question: why aren’t difficult historical issues addressed more directly by church leaders rather than primarily through apologists? Mentioning B. H. Roberts also raises a useful follow-up: what role did his historical work play in official teaching, and why is that history not more visible to members?
14
u/Resident-Bear4053 2d ago
Wow! Just wow! Basically sit down shut up. Go back to being miserable. They made a joke about it from the beginning.
This is one of the main reasons I can't be associated with the Church. Even the apologists who are supposed to defend and keep people in or coming to the faith are blind.
The blind lead the blind into a ditch.
13
u/CaptainMacaroni 2d ago
I don't know if you are the pinky toe, or the eye, or the nose or the ear, Paul would say: We all matter. And all of us play a role in building the kingdom of God..."
More like "I don't care if you're a pinky toe, or the eye, or the nose or the ear, Oaks would say: We decided you're a pinky toe. It's wrong to refuse a calling even if refusing a calling is the right thing to do."
12
u/Simple-Beginning-182 2d ago
Not to mention that the Doctrine and Covenants is full of members asking the church leaders questions and then the church leaders providing revelation which provide answers.
Now, the church leadership asks that you not record their words ...
12
u/darkskies06 2d ago
That’s a great question you asked and one that I’ve often wondered myself.
Treating the church like a potluck instead of a restaurant sounds like a sensible answer, but in the context of the church I think the example misrepresents things. That example works if we are discussing people getting together to support and help each other, similar to many organizations in the world. We also should attend with the goal of contributing and helping others. It’s essential for a good organization to run properly.
The issue for me is, the church does not claim to simply be a man made institution created to teach and strengthen one another. If that’s all it claimed, then no leader would have the need to defend truth claims. We can’t expect members to simply judge the church as if it’s just another organization, while at the same time make claims that are arguably the biggest and most important claims in history. This is the issue when people work to defend claims that don’t hold up. It’s a constant struggle. Truth often slowly reveals itself and too often we fight too and nail to ignore it, or we turn the other way to not approach it head on.
20
u/Own-Farmer-431 2d ago
My issue with the potluck analogy is that they ask us to bring our own dish to share but then force us to eat what they are serving.
5
u/famous_chalupa 2d ago
The potluck analogy doesn't really work for me. I support the idea that church members need to contribute and be active but in all my years in a church I've never felt that doctrine or ideas were welcome from the members. All lesson resources and information strictly flows from the top down. At the time I left the church, many sacrament meeting talks were regurgitations of general conference messages. It didn't seem like contributions were really welcome from the members in this way.
5
u/wall_facr 2d ago
Potluck invokes the idea of picking a choosing what works for you. You bring your ideas and perspectives, then you find other things that work for you.
Maybe a more appropriate metaphor is that the church is a crappy cafeteria where you get enlisted to serve the approved food.
8
u/askunclebart 2d ago
That's an interesting catch 22.
The more they reinforce the inseparability of Christ and "His Work" (another theme of the event) the more weird it is that the leaders of His Church don't engage with the problems within the Church
7
u/darkskies06 2d ago
Exactly. To me it’s that they want to have their cake and eat it too. Endless time is spent reinforcing to each other that it’s the ONLY true and living church lead by Christ. It is THE selling feature. When I served my mission we didn’t teach Catholics to leave Catholicism and join this church because here we come closer to Christ. That wouldn’t have been enough. We emphasized the apostasy, the authority, the ordinances, the absolute need for them for exaltation, which can only be achieved in this church. But when hard questions come around, the answer is always “just focus on Jesus”.
3
u/rdwrer_711 2d ago
You can ignore what they claim. I may call myself the king of the world. Ignore the claim and eat my pizza. I'm too lazy to make something for a Potluck.
11
u/yorgasor 1d ago
Apostles and prophets are the only one who can answer these questions authoritatively, which is why they don't. They claim to be seers:
Mosiah 8:
16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.
17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.
Joseph looked in his seer stone all the time and got new revelations whenever someone had questions. Today, we even get chastised for asking questions they don't want to bother answering, like when Elder Runland said, "Demanding revelation from God is both arrogant and unproductive. Instead, we wait on the Lord and His timetable to reveal His truths through the means that He has established," Apr 2022 General Conference. Yes, he chastised the women for wanting more light and knowledge about Heavenly Mother, because women have so very little in the church and their role in the afterlife.
If the Q15 had the powers they claim to have, they would be astounding the world with their wisdom and answers. Their words would regularly set the stage where the world and science would consistently verify and validate their powers. Instead, the church plays catch-up continuously. When science makes a new breakthrough, the church has to change it's teachings in order to align, like when they had to change the introduction to the Book of Mormon after DNA evidence showed the American natives did not descend from the Middle East in 600BC.
As long as the Q15 doesn't make definite statements on these critical issues, they can't be proven wrong. That's why they rely on unauthorized apologists to make the wild, unsubstantiated claims that keep the Q15's hands clean. They're cowards who know they don't have the powers they claim, and keep the apologists around to hide that fact.
9
u/epluribusunum20 2d ago
Why has the church only appointed lawyers as church historian for at least the past 20 years? I am pretty sure even a Sunbeam can answer that one.
10
u/spiraleyes78 2d ago
Oof. What worthless answers to a simple question. This is why I have thought that Come Back was a pile of poo - none of the hosts or guests talk as though they actually deconstructed the truth claims of the Church. They appear to have only ever placed the Church as true, then molded every question or doubt into a shape that fits with the narrative.
Weak.
5
u/westivus_ Post Mormon Red Letter Enthusiast 2d ago
Yes. These are they who come back after leaving because they 'were offended'.
8
u/austinchan2 2d ago
I struggle with the historian excuse, and it does seem like an excuse. If the church was run my men it would seem very reasonable to hire historians to advise and tackle these questions. If it is run by God, as is claimed, then there are two alternative options: 1, God calls a historian (preparing them just like he did Nelson so he could face antivax sentiment in the church during a pandemic) or 2, the Lord can qualify who he calls (something others have brought up in their comments).
Instead they couldn’t name one historian in the history of the 15, and just one who was in the 70 — ever? When you’ve got that many leaders it’s shocking not to find one.
How many CEOs does a company need? Even a big one? How many chief legal officers? Alternatively, how many theologians would you expect in the upper ranks of a church? Matthew 6:21
8
u/TruthIsAntiMormon Spirit Proven Mormon Apologist 2d ago
I'd have questions for Don Bradley but focused on the Book of Mormon and whether he is of the opinion that the Book of Mormon is and was a translation off of ancient Gold Plates or is a wholly 19th Century authored book.
I've read Don's 116 pages book and it unintentionally highlights for me at least, Joseph Smith as Author.
I arrived at Joseph having authored a "Book of Benjamin" that part was lost before I read Bradley's book.
However, everything in the Book of Mormon to me makes it impossible to credulously believe it was ever an ancient production and more and more comes to light as modern invention.
I mean the first verse starts with an anacrhonism "Goodly Parents" (which gets worse and worse when Joseph uses the modern term 'First Parents") and it's even evidenced by Joseph's 1832 history stating "of goodly parents".
Prior to that however, we have Joseph Smith's notes on the Book of Lehi notes prefacing 1 Nephi.
Then we have Joseph inserting an entirely 19th Century conversation between his mother and father wherein the 19th Century slight "Visionary Man" is used that is entirely reliant on English and the two definitions extant in the early 19th Century (and confirmed by all printed uses of the term prior to 1830 meaning a hairbrained man or man of cockamanie ideas and further proven by Joseph's own brother William's stating the same.
Charles Anthon's name being used as a slight with "Gadd-i-anton", "Mor-i-anton" and "Cor-i-anton".
Heck the fact that Joseph wrote the land dispute "contention" between the Harris' and his parents in Palmyra while he was living at the "Camp of Moroni" translating in Alma 50:25 onward is just blatant and undeniable. We know Martin is Morianton, the only question is which character is Joseph? Is he Teancum or one of the others?
There is so much blatant (Joseph messing up that Alma baptized Helaman but Helaman hadn't been born yet so he just strikes out the 'an' to make Helam) that everyone IMHO should be approaching the Book of Mormon critically and holding it to the highest standard instead of lowing standards to accomodate faith needs.
4
u/donbradley 1d ago
FWIW, I find your comments to be some of the more interesting that I read on Reddit. While I frequently disagree with your conclusions, I'm interested in how you engage the historical and scriptural data. You posted something a few years ago about the Swedenborgian churches as an influence on Joseph Smith that I stumbled on and was quite interested in. And I'm fascinated with considering how Joseph Smith and his contemporaries would have connected Book of Mormon narratives and names with themselves, as you obviously are also, from your own angle.
6
u/diogoilho 1d ago
I'm also curious about your opinion, Don, regarding the Book of Mormon. Do you believe it is historical? That the characters and places described actually existed? Or do you believe it to be literary yet inspired, like the Book of Jonah or Job in the Hebrew Bible?
7
u/Del_Parson_Painting 1d ago
Considering Smith was creating the narrative, it's disingenuous to frame it as "he was identifying himself and others with the narrative" as if the Book of Mormon were some preexisting thing Smith was discovering.
3
8
u/FlyingBrighamiteGod 2d ago
It was historical issues that caused me to question the truth claims. After thousands of hours of research, I decided to “experiment on the word” and see what life was like on the outside. And my life immediately and significantly improved outside the church. That’s the real reason I know the church isn’t true. Not the history. The doctrine. It’s not helpful for me. It’s harmful. I wouldn’t return to the church for almost any reason at this point. And this is an exceptionally common story among exmos. If the gospel were true, wouldn’t we be able to observe the benefits of adherence?
13
u/Direct_Heron828 2d ago
Why do church leaders have to be historians to address these issues? Historians have already done most of the hard work, now we just have to read what they’re telling us. And a lot of shelf-breaking issues have little to do with church history. A lot of them have to do with statistics and science. You don’t need to be a statistician or scientist to understand those other problems either. We just need to read what they’re telling us.
16
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 2d ago edited 2d ago
And remember, they claim that they don't have to have any credentials in any field in order to dispense the revelations of God. They claim to have all the answers through the priesthood.
"A prophet need not have advanced educational degrees ... He needs no credentials from men. ... His words, above those of any other man, ought to be esteemed and considered by the Church as well as by the world." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/07/what-is-a-living-prophet
"The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/10/our-very-survival
The apologists always conveniently leave out exactly where these expectations come from. They are very careful to not say who exactly set these "ideal standards" for the church and its leaders in the first place. People are not coming up with these expectations out of thin air, and they know it.
-4
u/donbradley 2d ago
OK. I see those quotes, and can't help but wonder, if this is what the leaders overall think and claim, why do we need to dig up a General Conference talk from probably well before you were born and then a random Seventy quoting that same talk a decade and a half ago? What is the sufficient evidence that church leaders consistently think or claim that they are, in essence, experts on everything?
6
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 2d ago
If they do think differently, they are welcome to openly tell the church so and correct the perception they have created in past years. They had the opportunity to do so last week, in fact, but they curiously did not take advantage of it. I must conclude that they either think it's not important enough to address, or they still stand by what they said in prior years.
Instead, they seem content to let the "perception" stand, which they created with the things they explicitly said out loud on numerous occasions.
Since several leaders said it explicitly, and have gone uncorrected, I have no reason to believe that it's not what they think and claim overall.
They did, however, reiterate last January that if you disagree with the church's teachings, it's probably because you're prideful and think too highly of your own opinions.
"Another key principle is to avoid exceeding our authority or assuming roles we don’t have. These mindsets deceive us into thinking too highly of our own opinions, which naturally occurs when we think too lowly of the teachings of prophets and apostles." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2026/01/05-faithfulness-and-prophets-past-and-present
If Corbitt was going rogue on that view, they could have printed a retraction...
→ More replies (6)-1
u/donbradley 2d ago
Also, they *did* tell the church differently, not just in a random conference talk or YouTube post, but in an official First Presidency statement - which is how official doctrine is determined:
"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church."
- First Presidency statement on evolution, April 7, 1931
6
u/FlyingBrighamiteGod 2d ago
“Leave [science] out of” our factual, historical, and scientifically testable claims, is a begging the question isn’t it?
-3
u/donbradley 2d ago
I’m surprised you actually want the church leaders to try to dictate science. I would’ve thought that a more enlightened perspective would be exactly the one that they offered: let the scientists do the science.
10
u/FlyingBrighamiteGod 2d ago
They did dictate science when they told us the story about the literal Nephites and the Lamanites and the global flood and the Garden of Eden. We were told that science would corroborate the church’s factual claims. Then when it didn’t, the narrative changed to “we don’t teach science or history, leave that to the scientists.” Do you see why that would come across as problematic?
Edit to ask: didn’t I make that clear in my post? Doesn’t your comment beg the question?
→ More replies (2)•
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 23h ago edited 22h ago
You, a couple comments up:
why do we need to dig up a General Conference talk from probably well before you were born and then a random Seventy quoting that same talk a decade and a half ago?
You chide /u/Beneficial_Math_9282 for pulling quotes from the 70's and 2010, but rebut those with something from the 1930s? Seriously?
And if we are gonna be determining doctrine based on first presidency statements as you claim we should do, do you think this first presidency statement is still in effect, stating the reasons for the race based temple and priesthood bans in the church? How about this one stating that members can drink decaf coffee because caffeine, the offending drug, has been removed? Or what about this one encouraging segregation in the chapel to protect the emotional white sisters? Or this one stating oral sex in a marriage violates temple covenants?
Is it okay to use older quotes from claimed prophets of god or not? Do we use first presidency statements to establish doctrine or not, especially when those statements have never been formally retracted?
•
•
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 16h ago edited 15h ago
Getting lobbed a 1930s era letter after being told off for using a quote from the 70s, did in fact, send me. 🤣
I didn't trust myself to reply because I was about to pull the letters you correctly lobbed back, as well as allll the letters banning birth control, as well as the one banning oral sex in the early 1980s.
•
u/ammonthenephite Agnostic Atheist - "By their fruits ye shall know them." 6h ago edited 5h ago
I def don't have links to all the letters, if you ever have the urge you should do a post with all the first presidency letters ever, just to show how meaningless and non-objective truth based they really are. If members truly knew how wildly wrong church leaders are, both individually and even when they speak as a group, I'd hope they'd be far less willing to see current and future first presidency messages as being in any way authoritative or reliable enough to base your life around them. I think its one reason why church leaders refuse to talk about the fallibility and errors of past modern prophets, they don't want to destroy their carefully crafted facade of reliability and obedience they've convinced members to give them, lol.
6
u/ultramegaok8 2d ago
Very true. The SEC Fine is technically church history. But just 3-year-old church history, for offenses that started being perpetrated less than 30 years ago. That’s within the lifetimes of most of those commenting here or attending those apologetic events.
Other things are not history—especially around gender and other issues—they are literally the present of the church, and its future for who knows how much longer, as a change in direction seems unlikely in the short term.
6
u/Boy_Renegado 1d ago
This stuff kills me. No one expects the leaders to be perfect. I do expect them to have at least as much integrity as I do. I expected them to be accountable to their mistakes. I expect them to not do big things like breaking laws, locking up teenagers in marriage as 40+ year olds and not blame god for their mistakes. I expect men who speak for god to not use scripture to hurt and marginalize others. I expect people led by god to not be on the wrong side of history on almost every major issue. I expect them to value and honor women’s agency and fight for their basic rights vs. donating sacred funds to control their ability to care for their own health and call it “pro-life.” I expect them to emulate prophets like Abinidi and stand up to immoral secular leadership. To me, that doesn’t sound unreasonable. Until then, I’ll keep my 10% raise and second Saturday. 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
3
u/ink_enchantress 1d ago
This is wild. You asked why apologists are basically doing the dirty work when the brethren could stand in gc and address it. Why are they opposing Idaho's prop 1, adjusting garment sleeves, and fighting for a steeple when they could address the actual reasons people are leaving.
They used a lot of words to say, because they don't want to, or are incapable of getting the revelation to, address the issues.
2
u/Bender1337 2d ago
u/askunclebart did you address your questions to particular panelists or was that done by the MC?
3
•
u/Educational-Beat-851 White Salamader Enthusiast 23h ago
It’s great to hear apologists tacitly agree there are no “good” answers.
3
4
u/donbradley 2d ago
Hey there, askunclebart! I'm glad you came to the event. I hope you enjoyed it! Your question had been assigned to Casey, but I thought I'd comment on it as well, and I'm happy to offer a couple thoughts.
Just to be sure I'm clear on what sorts of questions you're asking *about*, can you offer a few specific examples of the 'shelf-breaking questions' you have in mind?
13
u/Thorough_8 2d ago
I’ll ask a question while you wait for clarification, but first, I think your response to OP’s original was engaging with a strawman. There are many other ways for apostles to « address shelf-breaking issues directly » outside of general conference.
For me, my « shelf-breaking questions » generally come back to doctrinal prophetic fallibility (i.e. prophets teaching false doctrine that eventually gets repudiated but they still claim the authority to speak for God).
Examples of doctrinal fallibility include:
- Brigham Young teaching the Adam God doctrine in the temple;
- The teaching that black people are to receive the priesthood after all other possible recipients;
- The teaching that black people were less valiant in the premortal life;
- The teaching that interracial marriage is such a significant sin that Jesus’ atonement cannot cover it as it requires the shedding of the sinners’ blood;
- The teaching that polygamy is essential for exaltation;
- The teaching that prophets can exalt people (think second anointing or Joseph’s promises that his polygamist wives and their families would be exalted if they agreed to the marriage);
- The changing of the promises and punishments made in the temple;
- Factual issues like: the historicity and location of the BoM and MoA, the reality of Adam and Eve, the age of the earth, the global flood, the success of the Kirkland safety society and the United Order, and the reality of evolution.
I could keep going, but that is probably enough for this instance.
1
u/donbradley 2d ago
I hear you. Thank you for offering your own sort of shelf-breaking questions. For the moment I'm mostly going to let the author of the OP clarify his own questions. But I'd be happy to engage further.
WRT my comment on the OP author's question at the conference, I may be useful to know that the question wasn't addressed to me, and I wasn't trying to give it a very full answer but only to add a comment to what someone else had said. General Conference is the main occasion and way that church leaders address the body of the church, but the same things apply for other venues. For instance, the Liahona is also aimed at the whole church, not just at some regions. There's an inherent pedagogical problem in trying to address a worldwide set of people who are quite varied.
What effect did the questions you list above have on you?
9
u/Thorough_8 2d ago
Understood. I appreciate you engaging notwithstanding.
I was confused, but I still felt like God was telling me that the LDS church was true, so I stayed. It wasn’t until I learned through experience that my spiritual confirmations/promptings were similarly faulty that I decided to step back entirely.
-1
3
u/Thorough_8 2d ago
I understand if you don’t want to, but were you planning to reply to my issue with doctrinal fallibility at all? I only ask because you said you would « be happy to engage further. »
-1
u/donbradley 1d ago
My very first Mormon history at the Church Archives (when I was 17) was looking into the origins of the Adam-God theory. And I had to wrestle with other of these issues as well.
I think there's no question that the fallibility you describe is real.
What do you make of that?
Also, if it's alright if I ask, where are you at spiritually now?
4
u/Thorough_8 1d ago
Thanks for acknowledging that is a real issue. How do you still find value in the modern prophets today?
I guess it led me to the conclusion that the LDS leaders want prophets to be authoritative enough to follow but fallible enough to excuse, and they haven’t given the members a clear way to know when they are speaking for god (and they have thus far refused to acknowledge times when they claimed to speak for god but were wrong)
When this combined with my conclusion that I have had contradictory spiritual experiences, and the feelings that I felt were generally just me appreciating the beauty of existence and my place in it, I no longer had a reason to give the LDS church any special pleading.
With all things being held equal (meaning I don’t know or believe any particular way pertaining to religion) I found the existing religions to be incredibly unlikely. The historical narratives always seemed to crumble when I looked into them (and I saw the religions’ efforts to hide or obfuscate their past), most seemed to be using some form of thought-stopping techniques on their members, and the leaders of various faith traditions have—almost all—abused their power at different points for their own benefit to their followers’ detriment.
So I unfortunately don’t know. But I think the religions we have today, including the LDS church, are unlikely to be « true » when they aren’t given special pleading. I feel pretty comfortable in the ambiguity, and I can be honest to my morals and critical thinking, but it has been a long road.
0
u/donbradley 1d ago
I can appreciate what you've described of your journey, and, honestly, much of it sounds familiar. When I left the church and looked around I initially didn't see how any other religion could be true either.
You describe a very human landscape---human fallibility shows up in every religious community. If that is seen as ruling out the divine in those communities, where are we getting that standard?
BTW, I assume you're somewhat familiar with the late Mike Quinn? Do you happen to know what he said about the church and finances in his massive book on the subject?
2
u/Thorough_8 1d ago
First, I am still hoping you will answer my questions to you in my prior responses, if you feel comfortable doing so. I am making sure to respond as best I can to your questions.
Second, I think you might be mixing the fallibilities a bit. I fully understand and accept that religious leaders will make moral mistakes. My issue is when leaders claim that they are guided by God in making those mistakes or in teaching those false doctrines. To me, such doctrinal fallibility would necessarily exclude the divine, at least as the LDS church believes the divine to be. Doctrinal fallibility seems to be most prevalent in the LDS church, because the LDS church seems to make the grandest claims. That’s why I asked you earlier what value you find in modern prophets if you recognize that the doctrines they teach may not actually come from the divine, or may be rescinded in the future.
Third, yes, I’ve read Quinn’s books on magic and power. I am not sure what he said on the church and finances though.
0
u/donbradley 1d ago
Apologies. I confused your main issue with another issue.
I agree with you that there have been teachings given that have been changed. The examples you gave above are sufficient to show that church leaders can teach mistaken things.
You asked my view, so I'll offer it. I realize yours may vary. Here's mine:
To your question on whether I see value in prophets . . .
If I were to list some of the mistakes of science, like, say, for starters, phrenology, spontaneous generation, scientific racial hierarchies, lobotomy as a treatment, classifying homosexuality as a mental illness, and eugenics, would that invalidate the contributions and value of science?
My sense of the value of prophets is based on the positive things that come from them, not on a list of mistakes.
I would also note that most of the doctrinal errors you listed, such as Adam-God and polygamy being essential to exaltation, were corrected by . . . subsequent prophets. For a religion that believes in progress through further revelation, that sounds to me like the system is working.
2
u/Thorough_8 1d ago edited 1d ago
No worries.
If science claimed that it had no error or that it was unchanging/eternal (like LDS prophets do with doctrine), then the people who took that initial position would be undermined by subsequent changes and errors, yes (even if the practical effects were good). But the whole idea of science is to challenge prior understandings to make more robust theories. It doesn’t claim to be « right. »
The idea of revelation and doctrine is to receive and provide the truths of an omniscient God. Which is why prophets have repeatedly claim that revealed eternal truths are unchanging. The claims and starting points are entirely different, so I don’t thing it is unreasonable to hold the LDS leaders and science to a different standard. The value of science is in its ability to be tested and refined. The prophets don’t claim the same.
I won’t deny that prophets often teach valuable and positive ideas. I also won’t deny that some of their teachings have been incredibly harmful and divisive. But it seems like I could find mixed-result teachings like that from any religious leader, so it leads me back to the question of why prophets have value.
→ More replies (0)13
u/Hungry-coworker 2d ago
Why did 57 year old apostle Lorenzo Snow marry a 15-year old girl?
→ More replies (43)10
u/askunclebart 2d ago
Thanks Don, I appreciated the time you were given and the presentation you offered. Your vulnerability about your journey and your son always inspires me.
My personal "shelf" I haven't organized in a long time, maybe it would benefit me to arrange them from heaviest to weakest.
I was more asking in generalities. There is a void of official statements or official answers, and that void is filling with podcasts these days. The leaders are never stepping in to get interviewed. They never do journalist visits. I think the most recent thing we got was when Oaks said "There is more we can do utilize the skills of women".
I don't imply it has to be General Conference, but I sense a complete aversion to even talk about the hard things. If I were to stay a member, knowing what I know now... I'd be loathe to bring any of it up either because it's hard to defend. And apologists who make the attempt end up saying things that are problematic and hurtful and sometimes, "if I'm being honest"... dishonest.
1
u/donbradley 2d ago
Thank you, Bart. Living without Donnie is tremendously difficult every day.
It sounds like you're disillusioned with apologists and wishing the church's leaders were more transparent.
An observation that has been made to me by a communications professional is that old-school communications and public relations was very formal and distant, but that in our time of big institutions people are craving something that feels personal and authentic. (Note for instance how the classic old authoritative male announcer voice in ads is now generally replaced by the exact opposite, an approachable sounding sparkly voiced conversation woman.)
The church's communications tend to be more old school.
I wonder if the distance and opacity you're noting may be in part just remnants of an old-fashioned institutional 20th century communication style that now comes off differently than it once did, seeming too impersonal?
6
u/askunclebart 2d ago
Yeah, sometimes I forget how big of a generational gap we are dealing with.
If I'm being honest, I did walk away from the event with a much deeper spiritual perspective than I had walking in. Something about foundations on rocks and floods, and how I have to adapt and build a boat, and let out my anchor ⚓ and wait until Christ snatches me on his ocean floor rock. Letting out rope by serving others instead of grasping for support or answers to our own needs and questions....
I always circle back to "there are no good answers" and "answers don't matter anyways" and "Christ will snatch us if we let him" which are all answers that don't necessarily point me to the LDS Church, but I'll keep pondering
5
u/PattyRain 2d ago
I'm glad it help you, but what you say they talked about really frustrates me.
I tried to serve as much as I could, but at some point there is just no water in your cup and you need it to be filled more before you can serve.
And sometimes when your doubts and needs are driving your service it makes your service begin to feel less than.
I love service. It just annoys me when it is given as the answer in situations like this.
4
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 1d ago edited 1d ago
Agreed. This is a huge problem, especially among the adult women of the church that are the ones keeping everything running. There is a point where "service" is so constantly demanded that it's actually just exploitation. A lot of members get manipulated into serving beyond what is healthy. And then they get blamed for feeling tired.
They saaaay not to run faster than you have strength, but that flies right out the window the minute you try to actually slow down or say no. Then it's "Oh but it's not us asking you to do this it's the Lord!! You wouldn't say no to Jesus, would you???" A lot of members at that point will give in and do what's asked - against their own good judgment, but with as good of an attitude as they can muster.
That is not sustainable.
Then when you're exhausted and feeling resentful for being overburdened, they'll whip it right back out again "Why did you do this to yourself!? Don't you know that you're not supposed to run faster than you have strength? You obviously failed to understand the teachings!! Of course you are allowed to say no!"
And then they follow that right up with "I'm sure you'll feel better if you serve more. Will you chair the activity committee for the Ward Christmas Party? I've been inspired by the Spirit of the Lord to ask you as your presiding priesthood leader..."
It's a vicious cycle. A lot of women are stepping off that penal treadmill (and no longer care if people call them selfish for it, or accuse them of misunderstanding).
-1
u/donbradley 1d ago
I'm glad the conference experience was a good one. =) There sure seem to be some good people there. And we are all just trying to figure things out.
I've tried many paths, and none of them are simple. The idea that we can leave this particular one and things will be simple on another path is, in my experience, an instance of "the grass is greener on the other side."
I hope you'll keep asking questions and seeking answers, pondering and living the best that you know. That, I'm convinced, will take each of us a a long way.
5
u/lando3k 2d ago
What you call "old school" is a product of early 1900's mass media. There was a style older than "old school" that the church previously embraced. The communication style used by prophets and apostles through the 1800s was much more direct and extemporaneous. But it's risky, and the church is an incredibly risk-averse institution these day.
2
u/donbradley 2d ago
Lando3k, agreed completely that the 1800s style was different - more direct and personal. I see *small* shifts toward a new style lately, with apostles like Elder Gong and Elder Causse' talking on YouTube about various subjects while not wearing a suit. I think we will see further shifts like this, and they will probably be gradual.
Too much risk aversion ironically leads to a new kind of risk, and the church is going to need to learn to manage that.
6
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 1d ago edited 1d ago
with apostles like Elder Gong and Elder Causse' talking on YouTube about various subjects while not wearing a suit.
Oh that's going to do wonders to clear up whether they're speaking as a man or as a prophet. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Of course, it wouldn't be a problem at all for them to wear casual clothing while speaking as apostles, if they hadn't absolutely DIED on the dress code hill like a thousand times and a thousand different ways over the last 75 years.
Nobody would care if they showed up in sweatpants to represent Jesus. Not a soul.
Except.... Except. They just spent basically the last century saying things like:
"We are now two to three generations into wearing casual apparel, and we may not all have had good parental examples of appropriate and modest dress. ... Consider why missionaries dress conservatively in a skirt and blouse or in a suit with a white shirt and tie. How might someone respond if the missionary had unkempt hair and if he or she were dressed in blue jeans, flip-flops, and a T-shirt with a tawdry printed message? That person might ask, “Is this a representative of God?” Why would that person want to engage in a serious conversation about the purpose of life or the Restoration of the gospel with such a missionary?" -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2008/08/modesty-reverence-for-the-lord
This wasn't just dead and gone leaders either, Oaks constantly fussed about the dress code during his days at BYU, and then there was Christofferson's little tantrum... Women can't possibly worship the Lord properly in pants...!
They made it a big deal. They made it awkward. They trip themselves up at every turn. They create their own problems. I object when they turn around and try to blame the regular members for it. We could have told them clear back in 1995 that it would be okay for us (and them) to represent the Lord in a T-shirt... Actually we did. And they thumped us over the head and called us irreverent for daring to say it.
When you die on a hill (and worse, publicly shame others on it) that dramatically, that publicly, and that frequently, you can't expect people to not notice when later you try to sneak down off that hill very much alive.
2
u/ink_enchantress 1d ago
One of my mom's most hilarious experiences with her very strict father was regarding church dress (all day Sunday). He drug her to the local catholic church to show her a thing or two about strictness.
Even in the 70s those teens were all in jeans.
And ask women working for the church when they were allowed to come to work without nylons. At least in some places, nylons as a standard was still in place around '16-'17 at least.
The strictness of dress and grooming standards might've loosened some now, but it still runs DEEP.
2
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 1d ago
Absolutely! I always hated wearing nylons, and yep, accurate. Don't need to ask - when I worked at church HQ in the early 2000s, they were absolutely required. They kept the requirement in place long after I left - for so long in fact that by the end, some friends I had who still worked there were actually having trouble finding any in local stores to purchase to wear to work because practically the entire world had all but stopped wearing them. All because the church is run by old men who are afraid to let women pick their own socks.
0
u/donbradley 1d ago
"Oh that's going to do wonders to clear up whether they're speaking as a man or as a prophet."
Then it's a great thing that has nothing to do with what I was talking about! =D
8
u/CheerfulRobot444 2d ago
Grateful to anyone who is willing to help sift through the nitty-gritty about life and the Church. I've seen a few of your videos and you seem to be genuinely interested in doing that.
There was a thread that was on here a few days ago titled Forbidden Questions (https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1x462he/forbidden_questions/). I think this holds many shelf-breaking questions.
The one I contributed had to do with the expectation of individual members in the church to be "honest in all that they do", but we have seen quite a few times where the institution of the church is not honest in all that they do. How do we reconcile that? Whether it is shell companies, whitewashing history, unpaid clergy, tithing uses, etc, it feels as though I'm asked to live to a standard the church doesn't uphold in practice.
Don't know if you were intending to turn this into an AMA session, but that is one that is sitting heavy for me right now.
-1
u/donbradley 2d ago
Ah, okay, so you were part of the conference too? Cool!
It sounds like you feel pretty troubled over institutional practices that don't meet the ideal standard.
13
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 2d ago
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands for the highest ideals, principles, and standards known to man." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1971/04/honesty-and-integrity
Members of the church are holding the church to some pretty high standards, sure.
But let's be very clear about who exactly set those standards in the first place.
Members aren't asking the church to jump over any bar that the leaders of the church have not already very publicly claimed to be able to clear.
1
u/CheerfulRobot444 2d ago
Yeah.
Sorry - didn't mean to try and hijack the thread.
0
u/donbradley 2d ago
Oh, you're fine. It's completely natural to have a discussion of 'shelf questions' bring up your own. Of course! Which of these ethical issues bothers you the most?
8
u/CheerfulRobot444 2d ago
The core issue to me is honesty. In many situations connected to the list of things I stated above, it shows that bending the truth or lying seems to be sanctioned or approved in certain situations.
The whole SEC debacle was framed as a paperwork woopsie. But SEC findings show:
To obscure the amount of the Church’s portfolio, and with the Church’s knowledge and approval, Ensign Peak created thirteen shell LLCs, ostensibly with locations throughout the U.S., and filed Forms 13F in the names of these LLCs rather than in Ensign Peak’s name.
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023-35
Connecting to that, President Hinckley stated that the funds to develop the City Creek Center would not be taken from tithing, but from:
“funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program.”
But where did those reserve funds come from? According to the SEC order:
The Church created Ensign Peak in 1997 as an integrated auxiliary of the Church to manage the Church’s investment securities. Ensign Peak has no shareholders or members. The securities portfolio managed by Ensign Peak consists of what the Church calls “reserve funds” or “reserves,” which include U.S. equity and debt securities purchased with excess tithing, income and returns generated by Ensign Peak, and the assets of other Church integrated auxiliaries. Ensign Peak does not charge the Church management fees.
Is that not dishonest? Tithing funds won't purchase the mall, but the money used to build the mall was built by taking tithing money that we didn't use for building the kingdom but instead put into the stock market. Is that technically true, but also, as President Kimball would condemn, a lie of omission?
So, maybe this is the thing that bothers me most. The church promotes the doctrine of tithing so that members can show their faith and keep themselves from serving "mammon", but the Church will use that on for-profit businesses? It will ask dirt poor members to ensure that SLC has this monument to mammon?
I'll stop there, but we could talk about so much more. This has just been more of my feeling of betrayal of this moment.
3
u/spiraleyes78 2d ago
crickets
4
→ More replies (1)1
u/CheerfulRobot444 2d ago
He was making a lot of comments, going back and forth with a lot of people. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
2
u/donbradley 1d ago
Ah, thanks for that. I only just saw your comment.
Also, I don't spend a lot of time on Reddit.
1
→ More replies (1)0
u/donbradley 1d ago
On the financial issues, I'm wondering how familiar you are with the late historian Mike Quinn (D. Michael Quinn) and his massive work on this subject.
2
u/donbradley 1d ago
ALL - I apologize if I've offended anyone here in our conversation. Wrestling with issues of faith and doubt is difficult, and I understand the sense of having been betrayed by leaders and also at times by would-be defenders of the faith.
I haven't been at my best today. I have a family member in the hospital and it has weighed on me emotionally quite a bit. I wasn't really up for extended back and forth conversation here, but since I'd been tagged I figured I would chime in. While I don't spend much time on Reddit, I promise that when I'm here again, I'll be more of my best self.
For those of you who are seeking something . . . I hope you find it.
Don
3
u/spiraleyes78 1d ago
Thanks for engaging with us here, Don. We're a tough crowd, but I believe every challenge we've offered has been respectful and honest. Things most of felt like should have had straightforward answers when we had our respective faith crisis'. These are basic and common discussion topics for this group but quite a bit to handle if one isn't familiar with this style.
I appreciate the gesture of offering of an olive branch, but I haven't gotten the sense that anyone would be offended - with a very strong exception to those who you have blocked. They aren't going to see your comment anyway.
I'm curious as to why you used the word "offended". Why do you feel like anything you've said would be taken as offensive?
2
u/donbradley 1d ago
Thanks, spiraleyes78.
no particular reason for the word "offended." I just wanted to apologize for where I communicated in ways that fall beneath my own standard. I wish well to everyone engaged in these journeys.
2
u/CheerfulRobot444 1d ago
I appreciate that you ventured into the arena. I think that's really what most of us want. We want to feel like someone is going to "mourn with those that mourn, and comfort those who stand in need of comfort". This is obviously way lower on the priority level than dealing with real-life family health issues. Definitely defer to that over this! Take care of your own stress/mental health.
I apologize as well. I saw you respond and got so excited that I wanted to hear your opinions. Felt like I was one of the early forces that turned it into a big Q&A. It has been one of the hottest threads I've seen on here recently, so you've really weathered the storm on that.
Take care Don!
1
u/donbradley 1d ago
Oh, no problem. I'm glad you chimed in.
I love your allusion to Mosiah 18. I think that's exactly how we're supposed to be living.
•
u/thomaslewis1857 14h ago
Why are they all on bar stools? I guess it’s “we don’t need a bar, or a beer, to have a good time. And it reflects that we sit a little higher (and wiser?) than you guys”.
Still, if the seating arrangement gets a little uncomfortable after a while, perhaps that’s a good thing.
0
u/donbradley 2d ago edited 2d ago
I should mention, BTW, that church leaders don't claim to speak on every subject, but have officially, explicitly deferred to experts in various fields.
Official church doctrine is determined by official First Presidency statements - like this one:
"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church."
- First Presidency statement on evolution, April 7, 1931
8
u/Olimlah2Anubis Former Mormon 2d ago
Hi don, no idea who you are but everyone else seems to. I don’t have a single “question”. I merely learned facts. These facts actively undermine the claims of the church. Leaders either refuse or are unable to provide honest answers that in any way are able to explain these facts in a faith promoting way.
Here’s one. Feel free to block and/or ignore me, since that’s what your kind typically does. We learn from canonized scripture, both Book of Mormon and d&c that the purpose of polygamy is children. (“Seed”, gross)
How then can you possibly support church leaders who “married” very young girls, and sanctioned the “marriages” of young girls. 15,14,13,12,11? This is what they were doing in Utah. In case you’re not aware, having children requires sex. These men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers were using their positions of power to have sex with very young girls.
I’m a parent. I’m an adult. There is no way on earth I am interested in teens and preteens. You know who is? Perverts. Human garbage perverts.
Clearly that’s the type of people who founded and led the church for decades. I don’t believe a loving god would put sexual predator perverts in charge of his one true restored church.
So I don’t have a question. The answer is obvious. These were very bad people. I suppose a follow-up question is why was I never taught the truth? In 40 years of church membership I had no idea. I would have liked the truth. As an honest and decent person i could have quickly seen this could not possibly be gods church.
Another follow-up then. What kind of person is don bradley? Do you support perverted sexual predators? Or do you condemn this behavior. There are really no other options. Don Bradley likes child molesters? Or don Bradley condemns them?
Sorry to put you on the spot. You’re the one sticking your neck out here. I’d like to ask the apostles themselves. But their silence is telling. If they condemned the disgusting behavior, they would speak. But they don’t. I can only assume they’re on board with it.
-1
u/donbradley 2d ago
Hello, I get the Fac. 3 allusion in your username. I am winding down my participation on this thread just as you are showing up.
I am unaware of early 'marriage' relationships going as young as you report, but the idea makes me want to gag. Earlier cultures that allowed such things were wrong, and we live in a time that is much more enlightened in this way.
That said, I should note that you've framed this conversation as one for you to judge what kind of person I am. I'm not interested in participating. Your judgment on me as a stranger is irrelevant to who I am.
6
u/yorgasor 2d ago
Orson Hyde married 12 year old Helen Melissa Winters in 1857. This is the youngest wife of an apostle I’m aware of.
•
u/Beneficial_Math_9282 15h ago edited 14h ago
I can't see don's reply (guess I brought up too many awkward citations so I'm guessing he blocked me), but if there's any question on what was going on in Utah in the 1850s, here are a few snippets from people who were there...
"The young girls of Spanish Fork were fairly besieged by men old enough to be their fathers. The young women from 13 to 16 years of age were many of them sealed to men three times their own age. The girls were told that if any faithful man made them an offer of marriage it was their imperative duty to accept the offer. ... " -- George Hicks Autobiography (written 1878). Sign in to view the PDF - page numbers unclear, but it's image 77/118 in the PDF: https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/88059c20-b17e-4b72-b5d6-4d677d466d5c/0?view=browse
George was excommunicated for opposing the marriage of his 14 year old sister to the bishop of Spanish Fork. The marriage went ahead. She endured 3 weeks of abuse before George was able to help her crawl out a window to escape.
See also: The 14 year old whose stepfather took her to the temple one day and married her, on page 94: "I remember of knelling on the alter and a man talking. Mr. H. C. said yes and after they said to me to say yes. I wispered yes not noing what I was saying." On the return journey the stepfather put his arm around her shoulder and called her his "little wife." .... "I did feel so bad I wondered if all girls got married that way and would like to run away."" https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N03_86.pdf
See also Aaron Johnson, bishop of Springville - Married five of his own nieces (when they were ages 14-17) with the full approval and sealing ordinances of the church, witnessed and recorded. This guy was also involved in the Parish-Potter murders. -- https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/KWN5-6SX
I think anyone would say these forced child marriages were evil. The problem is that the church is currently telling everyone they're not allowed to criticize past church leaders.
"Condemning prophets and apostles, including those of the past, obviously exceeds our authority, ... What we may perceive as imperfections in their words or actions may, in fact, reflect imperfection in our perception or mortal understanding. ... However well-intentioned we may be, condemning and presuming to direct prophets and apostles both flow from pride and lead to deception and failure to follow prophetic authority." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2026/01/05-faithfulness-and-prophets-past-and-present
Prophets and apostles authorized, personally officiated, and witnessed all of these child marriages, including the incestuous ones, and participated in marrying children themselves (and no, this was not a common practice back in the day!!)
Pardon me for thinking "too lowly" of them for that. There's nothing amiss in my "perception." Damn right I'm going to condemn past prophets and "fail" to "follow prophetic authority" when this is what they did. We're not "misunderstanding" a damn thing.
This is why people get upset when their concerns are minimized as:
If we think that they never get angry or upset, or kick the dog, or swear, or something like that. We're setting ourselves up for failure.
Let's be real clear about what "kicking the dog" actually looked like.
•
u/Obvious-Guidance118 17h ago
I think this is a solid response as to the judgement in the question. Framing it that way is so judgmental and so unfair. He is basically asking it in such a way that either you agree with him or he is a perverted child molester, that’s not an honest attempt at a conversation
-5
u/50Relics2021 2d ago
Hi Uncle Bart! This is Casey. I appreciate you posting this. I really appreciated Don’s answer that he gave. General conference is a general thing. It goes out to all members, of all ages, and so the messages are kept pretty general. As to why Church leaders don’t address questions directly, they do in a lot of different ways. They may not be the authors of the gospel topic essays, but they oversaw and approved the essays. More essays have been published in the last year under the topics and questions tabs. I don’t think these are hidden. They are right in gospel library under the Church History tab, and in other easy to find places. They have also encouraged people like me to publish and share materials. They have never intervened in my work on my podcast or anywhere else, but just offered encouragement. I hope that helps. Feel free to message me if you want to talk further. Good luck on your journey.
18
u/Del_Parson_Painting 2d ago
I've read every essay the church has published on polygamy, and I've read In Sacred Loneliness.
I was shocked at the amount of relevant information the church just plain left out because it puts Smith in a bad light.
I don't think the essays are the "win" church leaders think they are.
I'd likely have stayed in the church if the leaders had just admitted over the pulpit that Smith acted like a sexual predator, that polygamy was just plain wrong, and apologized for the practice.
The dishonesty I perceived in their response to polygamy convinced me that I no longer wanted to be a member.
11
u/westivus_ Post Mormon Red Letter Enthusiast 2d ago
Their treatment of polygamy in the 'Saints' volumes was extremely superficial as well.
•
u/Obvious-Guidance118 16h ago
Aa a member who is open to outside sources and recently started looking into the past, where should I go to get honest unbiased historical sources on Joseph Smith? I just started reading Rough Stone Rolling.
•
u/Del_Parson_Painting 15h ago
Anything by Benjamin Park is very balanced and fair (Kingdom of Nauvoo & American Zion.) His YouTube channel is also great.
John Turner recently did a biography of Smith that was good.
If you want to know the truth about polygamy, no agenda just facts, In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton is unmatched.
If you want just a really fun read about Mormon history you've never heard about, King of Confidence will really change how you view Joseph Smith by comparison to his prophetic successor James Strang.
Good luck on your journey!
9
u/jpgr100 2d ago edited 2d ago
While the topics are easy to find now, they were not when they were first placed on the website.
I was serving as a Bishop at the time and many of my members had questions. I was never informed by the church they were there.
Back in the day the general church communicated to local leaders through Priesthood Bulletins and training when GA’s came to visit.
To me that was disingenuous of the Church to drop them online without any notice. They knew they had problems then with the topics. They didn’t want a wildfire to breakout.
It’s the same as the rock in the hat. Members were never taught that, but then point to a 1970’s Friend Magazine article-“See we told you.”
Nothing they say or do now would ever bring me back.
9
u/GunneraStiles 2d ago
Thank you for this, calling the essays ‘easy to find’ is very gaslighty. When the first batch came out I was curious to read the essay on polygamy, yet when I entered ‘polygamy’ in the search bar, no results. You had to know to search for ‘plural marriage’ in order to find the essay about polygamy. I mean, come on.
Also, my very devout mom (attends all services, listens to all GC talks, etc) had no idea what I was talking about when I asked her if she had read the essays.
•
u/Obvious-Guidance118 16h ago
Google AI is actually very useful and actually comes across as unbiased to me. that’s how I finally realized the second anointing was real, it sourced church documents.
6
6
u/FlyingBrighamiteGod 2d ago
My believing family refuses to read the essays or else says they are lies that are unsanctioned by the prophets. That’s because the essays are inconsistent with what they’ve been taught their whole lives. Such revelations need to come over the pulpit. Not in unsigned essays.
7
u/askunclebart 2d ago
Thanks Casey, I attending in good faith, and offer commentary in good faith, and I'm glad people who are replying to this thread more aggressively didnt scare you away from popping in to comment.
I agree with what Don said back to me about generational differences being part of the problem. Perhaps in 50 years they will be more likely to engage. It definitely has evolved since I was a kid.
I hope you take my comments as constructive criticisms and hopefully we can be Mormon to each other better.
I really wish you had answered some of the other questions, but maybe some of those were more "gotchas" than honest inquiries.
•
u/Obvious-Guidance118 16h ago
I think the age we live in has a lot to do with it. The internet and social media means anything they say lives on forever and is well documented.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Hello! This is an Apologetics post. Apologetics is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. This post and flair is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about apologetics, apologists, and their organizations.
/u/askunclebart, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.
To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.