Mark
27 Oct 2008
A week or two ago I was sitting in Priesthood and I glanced over at Micah's lesson manual and saw this:
What caught my attention was that little note on the bottom left-hand side of the page.
While reading an article in the Ensign a couple of months ago I had that very same thought. I will be honest - this is a serious point of frustration for me. Why do we skirt around the fact that Joseph Smith had many wives? Why are we afraid to honestly and openly discuss difficult subjects? What are we afraid of? Does Joseph Smith having many wives weaken testimonies somehow? I don't think it should. If it does, obviously our testimonies were founded on incorrect ideas to begin with since in reality this man of God not only had multiple wives, but was physically intimate with them.
I remember, as executive secretary of a ward in California, when a leader in a closed-door meeting said in passing, "polygamy isn't discussed in the new lesson manuals. It is not to be intentionally brought up," as if that closed the subject once and for all. I think he was wrong in making that declaration. Yet when the church materials gloss over more difficult things in our collective or personal histories, such as times of serious personal doubt and darkness, bank failures, or polygamy, and we only give lip service to the depth and strength of our human experiences, one can't help but wonder if sometimes the church isn't making a conscious decision to remove subjects from the public dialogue.
I believe that the open and free discussion of ideas, struggles, and mistakes allows us to strengthen testimonies and grow as individuals. Does the church feel differently? If so, is this a mistake? What should we do?
Discuss.
Analyses
Essays
Posts
5 comments:
Someone emailed and asked why I have the year 1833 written next to my question. Joseph Smith began taking on wives in 1833. Many of the letters in that chapter were sent to Emma after 1833, so I couldn't help but wonder whether he sent letters to the others.
I think one reason why we don't discuss some aspects of Mormon history is because we worry about how the world will view us as a result. But this is problematic because most people already associate Mormons with the things that we try to hide. By being silent on those difficult matters we are probably not helping to clear up misunderstandings.
But perhaps an additional reason why we don't talk about parts of the past is because we worry about how we view ourselves. And this speaks more to your comments, Mark. There's a lot that I don't understand about certain church histories, say for example polygamy. It's easier to focus on the more coherent aspects of our past than to face the reality that hindsight often brings.
Would more discussion help testimonies to grow? I hope so. For me, being open to uncertainty and embracing ambiguity isn't a huge deal because I feel like my testimony has its foundation in something a little more... more... stable? A discussion on polygamy in Elders Quorum that results in more questions isn't all that disconcerting to me because the existence of polygamy in the church's history isn't the whole of what the church is to me.
Those are very random and incomplete thoughts. I'm excited to think more about it though, and I'll probably chime in later. Thanks for the post!
I have some disjoint thoughts to toss into the mix - we are good at that, are we not?
First, I should say that it's only the contrarian in me that even wants to write something that could loosely be termed a "reply" to your posts, Micah and Mark. Mostly, I just want to say "Amen." These questions have furrowed my brow not infrequently.
I'm trying to think just about this post, and I keep thinking about things I already said in "Give Us a Forum." Besides all that, I have some positive questions in my mind, like: Can discussion about topics in this genre really help us be more faithful? Am I the one who should decide what will or will not be the best thing to include in a churchwide program of study?
The more pertinent questions, though (I think...) are the normative ones: Should I just trust that my leaders have done that in an inspired way (or just "the right way," whatever that may be)? Should I just try to accept that some of these questions won't have answers and should I therefore focus more on a meta-analysis of what MY reaction to these conundra ought to be?
*mental meltdown*
I have some disjoint thoughts to toss into the mix - we are good at that, are we not?
First, I should say that it's only the contrarian in me that even wants to write something that could loosely be termed a "reply" to your posts, Micah and Mark. Mostly, I just want to say "Amen." These questions have furrowed my brow not infrequently.
I'm trying to think just about this post, and I keep thinking about things I already said in "Give Us a Forum." Besides all that, I have some positive questions in my mind, like: Can discussion about topics in this genre really help us be more faithful? Am I the one who should decide what will or will not be the best thing to include in a churchwide program of study?
The more pertinent questions, though (I think...) are the normative ones: Should I just trust that my leaders have done that in an inspired way (or just "the right way," whatever that may be)? Should I just try to accept that some of these questions won't have answers and should I therefore focus more on a meta-analysis of what MY reaction to these conundra ought to be?
*mental meltdown*
When I first read this entry, my thoughts went first to the book 1984 by George Orwell. Perhaps because I just read it over Christmas break I am comparing everything to it's eerie description of "the future." But what is intriguing to me is the idea that the past can be re-written and even changed by how it is interpreted in the present. Now, I am not accusing the General Authorities of the church of having such a scheme with our polygamous past, on the contrary. I have faith in their authority and therefore their decisions as it pertains to the general body of the church. But with that said, I think it is still appropriate to wonder about the reasons behind such omissions. I think I will add it to my list of "things to ask an apostle if I am even caught in an elevator with him" list. But I suspect that the intention is more for our good than to just keep us in the dark. Just some thoughts. Thanks for the post. :)
First, let it be known I'm a newbie. I just discovered this site today (magnificent!). Secondly, I am supremely relieved to know that I am not alone in this paradigm of questioning, but faithful mormons. I have often wondered about the apparent disregard paid to Joseph Smith's other wives in our culture. And from a woman's perspective, it is at times insanely frustrating. The lack of discussion lends a feeling of shame and secrecy. I have made attempts at discovering more about his wives, but have ultimately failed at uncovering anything satisfactory. I am intrigued to know the thoughts of others and perhaps glean some information/knowledge on the subject from this forum...
Post a Comment