Who Cares?

[_Runtu]

The other day, I was talking to two coworkers, one of whom is an elders quorum president and very much a believer, and the subject of Joseph Smith's polyandry and Helen Mar Kimball came up. (Mind you, I didn't bring it up at all, as I have a policy of avoiding religious discussion at work.) The one coworker mentioned how he and his wife had been deeply troubled by these issues, and even after studying and talking and praying for quite a bit, hadn't been able to resolve the issue.

The elders quorum president said, "You and your wife sure have interesting conversations. That topic would never come up in my house. Who cares? What does it matter?"

I suspect that, for most church members, the origins and history of the church are not important. It is the here and now and how the church affects how people live that is more important to most church members. Although Wade and I have had our differences, one thing I appreciate about him is that he seems to be focused mostly on how people live their lives and how they can improve. His approach may well be the right one.

But what of us for whom the past is important? Are we supposed to put our concerns back on the shelf and try to make things work? I tried to do that, but it didn't work. I suspect that most people like me see a connection between the origins of the LDS church and how it works in our lives. After my crisis of faith, I came to recognize that, despite what I had said in testimony meeting so many times, I hadn't been happy in the church.

I know this is kind of rambling, which makes sense because I'm really just sorting out my thoughts. In the end, you cannot force anyone to examine the origins of the LDS church, and even then you can't make them connect those origins to their lives today. I'm happy to let people focus on their lives and how Mormonism enriches their lives.

But for those who are like me, who think history is important, we will most likely keep studying, thinking, and writing.

[_ajax18]

That's a smart policy of avoiding any kind of religious discussion at work. I wish I had always kept it. Sometimes I'm not sure it's really even possible to hide your feelings. I have kept a more strict policy to not say anything when I attend Church with some success. I make a strong effort in my life off the internet to agree with everyone verbally (perhaps not in practice) and tell each person what I think he would like to hear. I certainly would never put a political bumper sticker on my car. Yet it doesn't take people long to figure out that I'm probably a Republican. As much as I would like to, I can't hold it all in forever. My life experience and my conclusions are what they are.

[_sock puppet]

Well said, Runtu. As a lawyer, I am more interested in the more immediate past than most historians (or even in helping clients plan their legal situation for the future). The remoteness of the past does not legitimize it. That is, the passage of time does not sanitize, for example, the Mormon church from its tawdry past. The passage of time merely allows the facade to look better.

Just as a bad tree does not give good fruit, one of the analogies used in the Bible and If I recall correctly the Book of Mormon, the COJCOLDS is yet yielding rotten fruit because of the malignancies that plagued its formation and early years--primarily those malignancies being named JSJr and Hyrum Smith.

[_stemelbow]

But for those who are like me, who think history is important, we will most likely keep studying, thinking, and writing.

uh...I know this was not intended, but the way this came out is you and your kind study, think and write, while others do not. There are plenty of believers who do the same. So even some believers have some amount of concern for history and see it as important too. We often just see it differently, and perhaps view it from a different perspective. For instance, while some here say Joseph Smith was the worst of all humanity, judging by the descriptions of him, me knowing what i know realize he had his weaknesses and problems, but I can't view him with the same negative bias considering the good that I see in him (through his writings, and other stories that have him coming off good). The whole polygamy thing just seems reprehensible on the face of it, but even I can recognize that a good person can get wrapped up in polygamy. The whole destruction of the press, a hot topic currently going, seems absurd and problematic, but I also can recognize that even a good person can feel justified in doing such a thing. And so on.

Thanks for listening to my rambles, if indeed anyone did/does read it.

[_sock puppet]

But for those who are like me, who think history is important, we will most likely keep studying, thinking, and writing.

uh...I know this was not intended, but the way this came out is you and your kind study, think and write, while others do not. There are plenty of believers who do the same. So even some believers have some amount of concern for history and see it as important too. We often just see it differently, and perhaps view it from a different perspective.

Through rose-colored glasses.

[_stemelbow]

Through rose-colored glasses.

I would say we're all incapable of viewing things totally objectively. we can do our best, don't get me wrong, but just as you disagree with my perspective because of my bias, an LDS person could very well disagree with your perspective because of your bias. If LDS wear rose-colored glasses you wear chartreuse-colored.

[_Runtu]

uh...I know this was not intended, but the way this came out is you and your kind study, think and write, while others do not.

How you got that from what I wrote is a mystery to me.

There are plenty of believers who do the same. So even some believers have some amount of concern for history and see it as important too. We often just see it differently, and perhaps view it from a different perspective.

I do not disagree in the least. I was contrasting people who are interested and concerned about church history, and that includes believers, with those who don't care, such as my coworker.

For instance, while some here say Joseph Smith was the worst of all humanity, judging by the descriptions of him, me knowing what i know realize he had his weaknesses and problems, but I can't view him with the same negative bias considering the good that I see in him (through his writings, and other stories that have him coming off good).

I don't think he was all bad, but I don't think understanding the bad as well as the good constitutes negative bias.

The whole polygamy thing just seems reprehensible on the face of it, but even I can recognize that a good person can get wrapped up in polygamy. The whole destruction of the press, a hot topic currently going, seems absurd and problematic, but I also can recognize that even a good person can feel justified in doing such a thing. And so on.

Thanks for listening to my rambles, if indeed anyone did/does read it.

I understand how people get wrapped up in reprehensible things. Doesn't make them less reprehensible.

[_Quasimodo]

Hey Runtu,

Given the history, I would be very uncomfortable introducing Joseph Smith to my teenage niece (or any young lady).

I could never believe a man like that could be a spokesman for God on religion or anything else.

For me, that is the major argument (among others) against the LDS church.

[_stemelbow]

How you got that from what I wrote is a mystery to me.

You set up a dichotomy between those who are concerned about history and those who aren't. And in that those who are concerned, it seems, can't be those who don't see it as a problem, as you do. Thus, the way you made it sound is that those who are concerned about history but do not accept it as a problem, like me, aren't really those who study, think and write. I know that was not your intent, but that is how your post made it sound.

I do not disagree in the least. I was contrasting people who are interested and concerned about church history, and that includes believers, with those who don't care, such as my coworker.

Good. that's why I said I didn't htink it was your intent.

I don't think he was all bad, but I don't think understanding the bad as well as the good constitutes negative bias.

Me neither. I didn't even say that. While your bias is negative, towards Joseph Smith, mine is positive, but I wager to bet we both understand the bad as well as the good.

I understand how people get wrapped up in reprehensible things. Doesn't make them less reprehensible.

And that's why you'll see people have different conclusions about history, often. Some tend to think the bad is so bad that must mean it can't be the source of God's true religion, or whatever, and others do not draw the same conclusion even though they often know as much and/or more than a critic. The conclusions, jumped to, are often just inspired by certain biases.

[_Runtu]

And that's why you'll see people have different conclusions about history, often. Some tend to think the bad is so bad that must mean it can't be the source of God's true religion, or whatever, and others do not draw the same conclusion even though they often know as much and/or more than a critic. The conclusions, jumped to, are often just inspired by certain biases.

To be perfectly blunt, here's how I see it:

A man who does bad things can found a true religion.

A man who does good things can found a false religion.

But if a man who does bad things founds a false religion, there's not much left to defend.

Joseph's "reprehensible" behavior is not what leads me to believe that the religion he founded is false. That said, it was realizing that I was defending the reprehensible that was the last straw for me.