Root of my faith crisis - trust

[Roy]

The new ministering program is a step in the right direction. So were the Joseph Smith Papers and the gospel topics essays. The problem with these is that it is doing too little too late. It might help to inoculate from future disaffection, but only in small part.

I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change.

I believe that the church is trying to find the right balance between making no changes/admissions and a disorienting and jarring for many "so sorry, we were wrong". Some of the older generation that the church is trying to keep are the current crop of bishops and SP's. That is the core and workhorse of the church right now.

I imagine in 20 or 30 years the church will point to the essays and say - "This information was not hidden, we put it all out there decades ago."
As a side note, the essays have no author or revision date. Therefore new information could be added today (or 20 years from now) with the perception that the information was there all along.

[LDS_Scoutmaster]

I imagine in 20 or 30 years the church will point to the essays and say - "This information was not hidden, we put it all out there decades ago."
As a side note, the essays have no author or revision date. Therefore new information could be added today (or 20 years from now) with the perception that the information was there all along.

That's an interesting side point, I'm sure there will be 'snapshots' of what the essays say today and if there are changes there will be a change log of sorts to follow, not necessarily from the church.

I agree that trust is a part of most faith crises because almost all of us here feel as though we had been duped at some level. And it is something I still struggle with.

This was a big part of mine as well, not so much with leadership or the church in general, but with trusting my own spiritual influences and feelings. I was wrong or perceived I was wrong about something that I thought I was being prompted on, and when it all crashed I wondered how I could trust any of my spiritual feelings going forward.

[Beefster]

I imagine in 20 or 30 years the church will point to the essays and say - "This information was not hidden, we put it all out there decades ago."
As a side note, the essays have no author or revision date. Therefore new information could be added today (or 20 years from now) with the perception that the information was there all along.

That's an interesting side point, I'm sure there will be 'snapshots' of what the essays say today and if there are changes there will be a change log of sorts to follow, not necessarily from the church.

archive.org's wayback machine will do that job quite nicely. So long as the URL stays consistent and the page doesn't rely too heavily on Javascript.

[LDS_Scoutmaster]

archive.org's wayback machine will do that job quite nicely. So long as the URL stays consistent and the page doesn't rely too heavily on Javascript.

I'll have to check that out. I figured there would be copies of internet pages in people's hands so to speak but I didn't think about a site dedicated to it.

[Beefster]

Yesterday was 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Step forward: reading FAIRLDS and discovering that there is no evidence that Joseph's polyandry was sexual in nature. Points for Joseph Smith.
2 Steps back: the church has taken down a few statistical websites: https://ldschurchtemples.org/statistics/units/ and http://ldsunitgrowth.blogspot.com/

[Roy]

Step forward: reading FAIRLDS and discovering that there is no evidence that Joseph's polyandry was sexual in nature. Points for Joseph Smith.

For me this is not an area I worry about.

Q: Did JS behave immorally and unethically in coercing marriage and sex from women that he had significant control and authority over? A: Yes

No matter how you slice it, JS acted poorly and it left collateral damage in the lives of people involved.

I cannot pat JS on the back for "no evidence" that he would/might have taken advantage of my wife when there is substantial evidence that he would/might have taken advantage of my daughter.

The question for me is how to reconcile the church being good and worthwhile when its founder could do bad things and hurt people.

[Beefster]

I never said anything about the other marriages. Lucy Walker's in particular is reprehensible given the circumstances.

[DancingCarrot]

I think this thread goes along nicely with the concurrent threat we have:

Kirby and Misplaced Faith viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8894

The first question I want to ask after my trust has been broken or lost is "Do I want to put my trust in X again, and why?" There are lots of potential answers:

-This was a mistake on their/both our parts, and overall the relationship is good so I want to do the work necessary to gain back trust.
-I put too much trust in X, but we can continue to have a relationship if I lower my expectations.
-I just have to stick it out for X amount of time (school, job, relocation) because I know it'll be over. I don't have to trust, but I do have to deal.
-I misplaced my trust in the first place through ignorance, naivete, etc. and I need to learn to place my trust in different ways or in different entities/relationships.

And on and on.

What's most difficult for me lately is dealing with the fact that I misplaced my faith and trust, and even though that is what my family/friends/community was doing, it didn't make it right and still doesn't today. I believe that everyone does the best they think they're capable of, so I can't blame anyone and that includes myself. I believe I know differently so I will now act differently.

Additionally, organizations act like organisms (probably because they're run by organisms, namely humans) - they're wired for survival. Especially in our litigation-happy society, I can't blame the Church for wanting to survive while not doing certain actions that would be simultaneously cathartic for some people yet open the flood gates for litigation. I don't care how many times lay members or GAs say that this church is single-handedly driven by Christ; humans are the ones carrying out the work so a human organization is what we get. I'm the fool if I expect anything different.

Or, if Jesus really is driving the Church, perhaps sometimes this happens:

[DarkJedi]

Yesterday was 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Step forward: reading FAIRLDS and discovering that there is no evidence that Joseph's polyandry was sexual in nature. Points for Joseph Smith.
2 Steps back: the church has taken down a few statistical websites: https://ldschurchtemples.org/statistics/units/ and http://ldsunitgrowth.blogspot.com/

The two steps back is also interesting. I often (usually weekly) visit both of those sites. ldschurchtemples.org in particular offered stats about individual units (down to the ward/branch level) that were created or discontinued pretty much day by day. I always wondered where they got this information from. Not to shake anybody's faith here, but it was surprising to me how many units were discontinued in a week when I first discovered the site . FWIW, there were always several wards or branches and often entire stakes (usually reassigning the words/branches, but some of those discontinued as well). It was a good indicator of where the church is doing poorly (which was often pointed out on the blog as well). FWIW, the church is doing poorly in Asia (particularly South Korea), all of Europe, parts of the US and Canada, and parts of South America. I honestly suspect Pres. Nelson may step up unit closures/combinations. Lastly, I do see this action as at least two steps back in transparency.

And FWIW on the 1 step forward, there doesn't appear to be evidence that JS had sex with any of them - but there's no evidence the other way around either. It's pretty hard for me to believe he did not have sex with the mysterious Fanny Alger, and given the circumstances of some of the later ones I don't buy he didn't have sex with at least some of them as well.

[dande48]

And FWIW on the 1 step forward, there doesn't appear to be evidence that JS had sex with any of them - but there's no evidence the other way around either. It's pretty hard for me to believe he did not have sex with the mysterious Fanny Alger, and given the circumstances of some of the later ones I don't buy he didn't have sex with at least some of them as well.

Here's what I believe. JS got into trouble with Fanny Alger. That's the only way I can explain all the hush-hush, suspicious circumstances, and historical records. It was adultery, and JS was ashamed of it.

As for the rest... We know BY bore children with 16 of his wives. BY also had many other wives that were non-conjugal; so it is possible that Joseph Smith only had sexual relations with Emma. Joseph Smith only had children with his own wife. That's not to say you can't engage in "marital relations" without having kids. But then there's also the fact that Brigham Young was not a good, honest man IMHO. I could easily see him twist the truth concerning Joseph Smith's polygamous practice.