"Bad parts" of Mormon History...forget about it?

[_BishopRic]

On another thread, it was suggested that in order to move forward, we should forget about the bad parts of Mormon history. You know, exclusion of blacks from the priesthood, polygamy, MMM, "curing homosexuality," etc..

Start with a clean slate. We all make mistakes. Sounds good, in the spirit of repentence, forgiveness and love -- right?

Here's the problem I have with it. It is this same history that created the essence of the church! The magical money-digging seer stone that facilitated the translation of "the most perfect book on earth." The revelation that eternal marriage (polygamy") was required to get to the highest degree of heaven. That this priesthood withheld from the blacks was required to perform the ordinances to get us all into heaven...

How do we separate all that?

I'll make you a deal: you forget yours, and I'll forget mine. You stop promoting the first vision (especially the one you like to talk about), the claim of "the only true church on earth," the claim that the Book of Mormon is a true history of the America's for 1000 years, etc. -- and start teaching ONLY love, service, compassion, respect of differences, repentence, forgiveness, sekf-worth....

And I'll stop talking about the "bad parts" of your past too.

Deal?

How do you suppose this "deal" will work in improving relations between members and former members? Or has your former intent become so much smoke--not unlike your Church and marital covenants?

Far be it from me to deny you the "bad" LDS history. Clearly, it is of extreme importance to you, and likely the very justification for your apparent scorn for the Church and your sense of moral superiority. Without those things what else do you have to define yourself as a former member?

So, no deal. I wouldn't think to rob you of your precious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Point is, for those that think like Wade that it is best for "relations" to ignore the warts of our past, that it is only in getting past denial that true healing can begin. Apologize for the past wrongs. Apologize to the blacks. Apologize to the gays. Only then can we have true negotions about real improved relations.

Anything less is denial, and without getting past it, no healing is possible.

[_Mercury]

No, no, no, BishopRic. :)

Wade doesn't like other people passing judgment. He likes to do it himself. :)

Wade, you been to a Hooters lately? I'm thinking that you need to do so or else I'm going to assume you're still stereotypical and gossipy... just sayin' you might wanna get on that. Soon.

I don't think wade would set foot in a Hooters. Now a chippendales show, that might be more his thing.

[_Doctor Steuss]

History should never be forgotten. As the foibles of the past can conceptually repeat themselves, arming oneself with knowledge of said past is the best defense against the repetition of the inevitability of human error.

That, and history is fun.

[_Scottie]

Its the only choice they have. Would you honestly still take them seriously as a world religion if they confronted the bad history upfront?

This is the funny thing. I really think I would have!

I had known about BY polygamy for as long as I can remember. Never bothered me one bit. I swallowed the apologetic garbage of "cause too many men died crossing the plains" BS just fine.

It wasn't until I learned about the secret past that I left. Had I known about these other warts from an early age, I doubt I would have been at all concerned with them.

Plus the fact that there is PLENTY of weirdness that is openly available for everyone to see, and they swallow that hook-line-and sinker.

[_Moniker]

History is fun!

BishopRic, I agree with you about the Church and the history. If they didn't dwell on certain aspects then it would seem that fewer would have qualms with them just being a Church. Yet, this Church in particular seems to make it a point to dwell on the early Church history, the founder, the trials of Joseph Smith and those early members, etc... They WANT certain history being repeated and focused on -- well, there's some unsavory history there, as well. Most mainstream Protestants don't talk about the early Church, the persecution of Christians, etc... etc... etc... -- it's 'cause it's not necessary for them to focus on the message of Jesus.

[_BishopRic]

How do you suppose this "deal" will work in improving relations between members and former members? Or has your former intent become so much smoke--not unlike your Church and marital covenants?

I guess you feel the need to get personal today Wade. No, my desire to improve relations between members and former members is as strong as ever. As I said many times, the key to that process is simple acceptance of the other as they are. A huge stumbling block to the process is when the members continue to see their exmo friend/family as steeped in sin, unwarranted disbelief, having lost the spirit, etc.. That attitude will never bridge the gap.

True healing starts with allowing and accepting that the differences in belief may be warranted. Of course "we" think those that still believe are naïve and unwilling to challenge their deep-seated convictions; and "you" think we are wrong in believing the "anti-Mormon" propaganda. When we get past that, and let the other follow their own path, we can love the other unconditionally.

That hasn't changed.

Your dig at my "church and marital covenants" appears to be just that -- a dig. If you can't understand that many of us made "covenants" under circumstances that we feel today were dishonest, and without proper disclosure to the truth of the organization's history -- thereby making any alleged covenant fraudulant, null, and void, then you are much more ignorant than I thought.

Let me ask you Wade, do you feel that the covenant made by one of Warren Jeff's 14 year old brides is a true and binding eternal covenant? One that should never be challenged? That these 400+ girls that have been rescued fron Eldorado should not be given the opportunity to learn of the other side of their FLDS background, and be given the chance to be free to live a new life independent of their upbringing?

I will agree that there are differences between today's LDS and today's FLDS churches. But the principle is EXACTLY the same! My "covenants" you speak of were made without disclosure of the real history of the church. There was no encouragement to study the information I've learned of today. How can there be a valid "covenant" when it is done the way it is?

I know you don't agree with what we exmo's believe. But at least you should be able to understand where we are coming from, and have a small amount of empathy towards it.

Or have YOU chosen not to help bridge the gap?

[_wenglund]

On another thread, it was suggested that in order to move forward, we should forget about the bad parts of Mormon history. You know, exclusion of blacks from the priesthood, polygamy, MMM, "curing homosexuality," etc..

Start with a clean slate. We all make mistakes. Sounds good, in the spirit of repentence, forgiveness and love -- right?

Here's the problem I have with it. It is this same history that created the essence of the church! The magical money-digging seer stone that facilitated the translation of "the most perfect book on earth." The revelation that eternal marriage (polygamy") was required to get to the highest degree of heaven. That this priesthood withheld from the blacks was required to perform the ordinances to get us all into heaven...

How do we separate all that?

I'll make you a deal: you forget yours, and I'll forget mine. You stop promoting the first vision (especially the one you like to talk about), the claim of "the only true church on earth," the claim that the Book of Mormon is a true history of the America's for 1000 years, etc. -- and start teaching ONLY love, service, compassion, respect of differences, repentence, forgiveness, sekf-worth....

And I'll stop talking about the "bad parts" of your past too.

Deal?

How do you suppose this "deal" will work in improving relations between members and former members? Or has your former intent become so much smoke--not unlike your Church and marital covenants?

Far be it from me to deny you the "bad" LDS history. Clearly, it is of extreme importance to you, and likely the very justification for your apparent scorn for the Church and your sense of moral superiority. Without those things what else do you have to define yourself as a former member?

So, no deal. I wouldn't think to rob you of your precious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Point is, for those that think like Wade that it is best for "relations" to ignore the warts of our past, that it is only in getting past denial that true healing can begin. Apologize for the past wrongs. Apologize to the blacks. Apologize to the gays. Only then can we have true negotions about real improved relations.

Anything less is denial, and without getting past it, no healing is possible.

Your point would make sense if: 1) each party perceived the other party's past in the same way (please don't forget that both sides view themselves as the ones "wounded" by the other parties' past and present), 2) each party had the same purpose for looking back at the past and will derive the same value when doing so, and 3) each party were in unanimity with the other in viewing each others' past as the real cause for that which is in need of true healing.

Since none of these conditions are the case, then your point doesn't make sense (except from each parties respective biased point of view). Both parties are of the mind that the other party is the one that has been wrong and hurtful and that unless they come out of denial and apologize, no true healing can occur.

Denial and wounds and apologies and true healing, then, is in the eye of the beholder, and neithr the twain shalt meet.

This has been the state of things since members began leaving the Church. And, this been the state of things because IT DOESN'T WORK!

If, or until, people, such as yourself, start to grasp this reality (and not ironically be in denial about it), and realize that true healing is enitiated from within rather than from without, then things will continue as is. The rift between member and former member will remain the status quo.

What is more important for you to hold on to: your precious "bad" LDS history, or improved relations with your faithful family and friends? Your choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

History should never be forgotten. As the foibles of the past can conceptually repeat themselves, arming oneself with knowledge of said past is the best defense against the repetition of the inevitability of human error.

That, and history is fun.

As you probably understand, I am not advocating forgetting history, but rather utilizing it judiciously as a means for growth, not discriminately and pervasively for judgementalism.

Also, I find it helpful to realize, as previously intimated, that perception of history and human error are often in the eye of the beholder. Even some of the most kind and loving people have been remembered for ill by some. So, whose perception of history should or shouldn't be forgotten and had fun with? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

How do you suppose this "deal" will work in improving relations between members and former members? Or has your former intent become so much smoke--not unlike your Church and marital covenants?

I guess you feel the need to get personal today Wade. No, my desire to improve relations between members and former members is as strong as ever. As I said many times, the key to that process is simple acceptance of the other as they are. A huge stumbling block to the process is when the members continue to see their exmo friend/family as steeped in sin, unwarranted disbelief, having lost the spirit, etc.. That attitude will never bridge the gap.

That is precisely my point--though you seem not able to see its application in reverse with yourself and other former members. You want the members of the Church to let go of what they perceive to be the "bad" history and warts of former members, and to accept them for who they are, while not being willing to do the same in reverse, but have chosen to hold tenaciously to what you perceive to be the "bad" history and warts of the Church.

That attitude, on either side, will never bridge the gap.

Your dig at my "church and marital covenants" appears to be just that -- a dig. If you can't understand that many of us made "covenants" under circumstances that we feel today were dishonest, and without proper disclosure to the truth of the organization's history -- thereby making any alleged covenant fraudulant, null, and void, then you are much more ignorant than I thought.

It was no more a "dig" of your disbelief than your OP and follow-up comments were a dig at my beliefs.

And, my intent wasn't so much to "dig" at you, but rather to use it as an object to waking you up to the realization of what you are doing in reverse--with the hopes that you would figure out that if you dislike being biasedly judged for your past, and am repelled rather than drawn closer by such things, then the Golden Rule would suggest to your mind not to do the same towards the Church.

The truth is, I don't at all view you as a marriage and covenant breaker. I view you, instead, as a good-hearted, decent man who wishes only the best for all, and who is passionately working towards that laudable end--though I may disagree with some of your beliefs and methods. My hope is that you will view me and my faith with as much respect and charity.

I know you don't agree with what we exmo's believe. But at least you should be able to understand where we are coming from, and have a small amount of empathy towards it.

I do and have such understanding and empathy. My intent here, though, has been in hopes of engendering the same in you towards my faith and fellow members. Since you didn't seem to grasp how you may have lacked understanding and empathy in what you have been saying, even after I intimated as much, I thought it may be instructional to subject you to some of your same uncharitable perceptions in reverse so as to chance cognition. Please know that it was just an object lesson, and not how I actually think of you in my heart and mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Steuss]

History should never be forgotten. As the foibles of the past can conceptually repeat themselves, arming oneself with knowledge of said past is the best defense against the repetition of the inevitability of human error.

That, and history is fun.

As you probably understand, I am not advocating forgetting history, but rather utilizing it judiciously as a means for growth, not discriminately and pervasively for judgementalism.

I assumed you were not advocating such, but I appreciate you laying it out plainly above.

Also, I find it helpful to realize, as previously intimated, that perception of history and human error are often in the eye of the beholder.

Fair enough. I know that my views of the priesthood ban not being of G-d aren't exactly widely accepted amongst LDS members.

Even some of the most kind and loving people have been remembered for ill by some.

As I said a few days ago in a conversation with Uncle Dale, I hope my mother's journal never sees the light of day for the periods of my youth.

So, whose perception of history should or shouldn't be forgotten and had fun with? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are not all perceptions beneficial to some degree?