I'm here to listen and learn

[LeoWinegar]

Leo did you watch the mormon channel interview with Dr. Harper? What are your thoughts on his analogy comparing learning church history being like learning Santa Claus isn't real? I felt he used a large amount of uncomfortable doublespeak throughout the interview which made it somewhat uncomfortable. I understand that he probably couldn't be as honest and forthright on camera as he was with you given the threat to his career.

Yes, for sure. I didn't really love Amy Iverson's interview style, and that might be due to the fact that she hasn't ever experienced a crisis? That's my best guess. But, as far as the integrity Steve has, and his willingness to be open, I can tell you that he is one of the best we have. I think he tailored his message in that interview for a certain audience, and I think that's why you see a lot of frustration from former/progressive members. It's similar to the recent firesides from the Renlunds and Elder Corbridge. Our leaders and our scholars are not really speaking to people who are already very upset with the church. They are trying to assist those who will soon experience a faith transition, or who have just started a faith transition. If you want the best stuff, best to work with people like Mason, Bushman and Givens. I hope this helps, and no, I don't believe Steve would lose his job if he started speaking more directly to people who are upset with the church. He just chooses not to do that. I'm sure he could, but his focus is elsewhere (i.e. speaking to a different audience).

Have a good one!

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

You are Leo of the Uplift Study Group? I have been somewhat fascinated with those who return to faithfulness.

I looked at some of the videos on your youtube channel. The one with Dan Ellsworth was interesting, these stories help me get perspective. I have been a student of Fowler's stages of faith and I have been trying to decide what Stage 5 Mormonism looks like. Sometimes Fowler's framework is a good fit, but often it mis-categorizes those who step into stage 4 then retreat back to a nuanced stage 3 as true stage 5 persons of faith. Stage 5 is difficult to attain in Mormonism because of the strict need to adhere to the creed.

Hey, yes, that's me. I run Uplift and y'all are welcome to join any time. I agree with you about Fowler. It seems to pedestalize a secular-religious position, where progression through the stages is ideal. But, when you look at the type of lives that the example stage sixers led (e.g. Mother Teresa) you begin to wonder why people are adhering to Fowler in the first place. In Uplift, we actually developed a more dynamic model that you can review here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GceCr ... UcRn8N7rAG

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback. I don't want to ever box someone into a particular group, but this model has been quite helpful for self-reflection among many.

Take care and thanks for the conversation.

I would ask if your new dynamic model was designed by Dan and yourself or if you had consultation with anyone with a psychology background. Dr. Fowler drew from studies in development by Piaget and Kohlberg. Were any psychology studies utilized in defining your stages or was it merely born out of your own observations in an lds context?

[LeoWinegar]

Our model isn't based on any research, but was built through collaboration in our group. We have a decent sample size there, with over 1,300 members and growing. Not everyone gave feedback, but we've distributed this quite a bit, and other than 1-2 people feeling like we're trying to "box people in", we haven't had any real negative feedback. In fact, Gina Colvin responded positively!

Gina Colvin.png (19.83 KiB) Viewed 25857 times

I'd love to have research done, but we don't have funding to do that. At some point we might find someone who is interested, but who knows.

My undergrad is in psych, and I have worked in marketing/CX for the past 8 years. I've been around the survey business for a while, and although I don't have a PhD, I feel pretty confident in what we've put together. Either way, if you see things that don't jive with your experience, I'd love to hear about it. Thank you.

[Corsair]

Do NOM's have a specific set of beliefs, or some kind of unifying position? Great to be here.

No, not really. We are largely unbelievers and most of us still engage with the institutional church, usually because we are married to believers. Still, you can find some with Christian or at least deist beliefs.

A lot of our discussion is around dealing with what our faithful family members do as temple recommend holding Mormons and what they are told by LDS leaders. The recent talks by Elder Corbridge and Elder Renlund have been much discussed recently, primarily due to the disdain they implicitly offer most of us. It would be charitable to simply say that we profoundly disagree with their recent messages.

A significant concern we have is that there is no official forum to explain our position and concerns. The perhaps "uncharitable" position is that the institutional church has done the math and figured that holding onto the conservative believers is better for their organizational longevity than worrying about us. I would be happy to simply leave the church and leave the church alone, but, having a faithful extended family, that is simply not possible.

[wtfluff]

... Joseph being adoption-sealed to men ...

Do you have any references for this?

[Hagoth]

Do NOM's have a specific set of beliefs, or some kind of unifying position? Great to be here.

No, not really. We are largely unbelievers and most of us still engage with the institutional church, usually because we are married to believers. Still, you can find some with Christian or at least deist beliefs.

I would add to this that we generally feel like a subset of people who have discovered the joy of realizing that we are all free to think for ourselves, blaze our own path, and follow our own moral compass through the zany adventure that we call life.

Another thing many of us have in common, that you can probably relate to, is that we were in that subset of Mormons who really needed to know IF the church is true, not merely THAT the church is true. The people who I consider NOMs have spent orders of magnitude more time sincerely studying, pondering, praying, and wrestling with matters of truth and religion than the vast majority of believing members. That's why we often feel so wounded by the leadership's common characterization of us as people who just didn't try hard enough or who didn't care enough.

One more thing that many of us share is a newfound fascination with Mormonism as a historical/philosophical phenomenon, once we have had the privilege of looking at it from a distance. Many aspects of the church are more interesting from the outside than from the inside.

[Corsair]

... Joseph being adoption-sealed to men ...

Do you have any references for this?

The Law of Adoption: The sealing of men and women as children to prominent Latter-day Saint leaders

[wtfluff]

... Joseph being adoption-sealed to men ...

Do you have any references for this?

The Law of Adoption: The sealing of men and women as children to prominent Latter-day Saint leaders

Thanks Pirate!

I'm not really looking for the Fairmormon explanation of the law of adoption, I understand what the law of adoption is.

I'm looking for Leo's references for "Joseph being adoption-sealed to men." Preferably with dates and names.

[Hagoth]

I'm looking for Leo's references for "Joseph being adoption-sealed to men." Preferably with dates and names.

I would like to see this too. As far as I can tell this is something that was instigated after Joseph's time and well after polygamy had been established and generally promoted, and has been projected back onto Joseph Smith to smooth over concerns about his polyandry.

[slavereeno]

Hey, yes, that's me. I run Uplift and y'all are welcome to join any time. I agree with you about Fowler. It seems to pedestalize a secular-religious position, where progression through the stages is ideal. But, when you look at the type of lives that the example stage sixers led (e.g. Mother Teresa) you begin to wonder why people are adhering to Fowler in the first place. In Uplift, we actually developed a more dynamic model that you can review here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GceCr ... UcRn8N7rAG

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback. I don't want to ever box someone into a particular group, but this model has been quite helpful for self-reflection among many.

Take care and thanks for the conversation.

I took a look at the dynamic model. I can see some characteristics in the squares in the model that map well to parts of my journey.

Is this a supplement to Fowler's stages or a replacement?

Fowler outright admits that his model is not a constant progression and that individuals may indeed move between or straddle different stages of faith. I see your dynamic model as a good way to discuss or reflect for those who vacillate between Fowler Stages 3-4, particularly within the Mormon church, so a good fit for the purpose you designed it.

I guess I never saw Fowler's stages as a path to follow, by my reading of the book I am sure he doesn't either. While he suggests that you can't get to 6 without having experienced 1-5, he admits his model is merely a framework for discussion. For example, by stage 5 the individual can appreciate in a universal way the beauty and truth in other faiths. Not just a placating pat on the head appreciation mind you, but a genuine acknowledgement that other faith traditions have every bit as much, and possibly more access to truth as your own. How can you achieve this if you have not faced the fact that your own religion is not God's objective singularity, as one does in stage 4?

Long story short; I see the value in your dynamic faith model for working within or about a singular faith tradition, but it cannot achieve the universal relevance of Fowler's stages.

There is my honest feedback for what its worth, I appreciate the discussion here, thanks for coming back to respond.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Hey, yes, that's me. I run Uplift and y'all are welcome to join any time. I agree with you about Fowler. It seems to pedestalize a secular-religious position, where progression through the stages is ideal. But, when you look at the type of lives that the example stage sixers led (e.g. Mother Teresa) you begin to wonder why people are adhering to Fowler in the first place. In Uplift, we actually developed a more dynamic model that you can review here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GceCr ... UcRn8N7rAG

I'd be interested in hearing your feedback. I don't want to ever box someone into a particular group, but this model has been quite helpful for self-reflection among many.

Take care and thanks for the conversation.

I took a look at the dynamic model. I can see some characteristics in the squares in the model that map well to parts of my journey.

Is this a supplement to Fowler's stages or a replacement?

Fowler outright admits that his model is not a constant progression and that individuals may indeed move between or straddle different stages of faith. I see your dynamic model as a good way to discuss or reflect for those who vacillate between Fowler Stages 3-4, particularly within the Mormon church, so a good fit for the purpose you designed it.

I guess I never saw Fowler's stages as a path to follow, by my reading of the book I am sure he doesn't either. While he suggests that you can't get to 6 without having experienced 1-5, he admits his model is merely a framework for discussion. For example, by stage 5 the individual can appreciate in a universal way the beauty and truth in other faiths. Not just a placating pat on the head appreciation mind you, but a genuine acknowledgement that other faith traditions have every bit as much, and possibly more access to truth as your own. How can you achieve this if you have not faced the fact that your own religion is not God's objective singularity, as one does in stage 4?

Long story short; I see the value in your dynamic faith model for working within or about a singular faith tradition, but it cannot achieve the universal relevance of Fowler's stages.

There is my honest feedback for what its worth, I appreciate the discussion here, thanks for coming back to respond.

I agree, I also don't understand the claim that fowler's stages champion a secular viewpoint when clearly stage 5 mentions an acknowledgment of the limits of logic and a return to appreciating sacred symbolism from one's faith tradition. That criticism seems borne of the mormon resistance to anything brought about by "the world" when Fowler himself is a Methodist minister and Christian.

[LeoWinegar]

Do NOM's have a specific set of beliefs, or some kind of unifying position? Great to be here.

No, not really. We are largely unbelievers and most of us still engage with the institutional church, usually because we are married to believers. Still, you can find some with Christian or at least deist beliefs.

A lot of our discussion is around dealing with what our faithful family members do as temple recommend holding Mormons and what they are told by LDS leaders. The recent talks by Elder Corbridge and Elder Renlund have been much discussed recently, primarily due to the disdain they implicitly offer most of us. It would be charitable to simply say that we profoundly disagree with their recent messages.

A significant concern we have is that there is no official forum to explain our position and concerns. The perhaps "uncharitable" position is that the institutional church has done the math and figured that holding onto the conservative believers is better for their organizational longevity than worrying about us. I would be happy to simply leave the church and leave the church alone, but, having a faithful extended family, that is simply not possible.

I hear you about the lack of an official forum! We began Uplift in 2017, and when I heard Elder Cook say these words in GC, I was surprised/pleased:

"In the home-centered, Church-supported portion of this adjustment, there is flexibility for each individual and family to determine prayerfully how and when it will be implemented. For example, while this will greatly bless all families, based on local needs it would be completely appropriate for young singles, single adults, single parents, part-member families, new members,10 and others to gather in groups outside the normal Sunday worship services to enjoy gospel sociality and be strengthened by studying together the home-centered, Church-supported resource. This would be accomplished informally by those who so desire."

I see our church leaders as purposely keeping an arms length from anything that could be misconstrued as an official forum for apologetics. Because, as we know, any place that allows for people to "explain our position and concerns", we would have a need for our members to dialogue to these concerns.

Church meetings are a place for simple worship, and I'm glad it has been kept that way. Every member is on a very different level when it comes to church history knowledge and concerns around contemporary issues (i.e. the Nov 5th policy).

So, when I started Uplift in 2017 with a good friend of mine, I remember feeling extremely clear direction from God. Not that I'm anything special, but looking back, God's hand has been in Uplift. It's a place for people to express concerns constructively, meaning that they want to heal from crisis by rebuilding faith.

Communities like ExMo Reddit, ATF and MSPC (just to name a few) have filled this void for some time, but there really wasn't a faithful alternative. So, for anyone who reads this, and is interested in rebuilding faith over time, maybe check out Uplift? There's nothing in it for me, other than I get the honor of becoming friends with people, and helping people to reduce the painful cognitive dissonance that we all know too well.

Maybe give it a thought, and you can certainly message me privately (leowinegar@gmail.com) if that is more comfortable.

Have a good weekend!

[LeoWinegar]

... Joseph being adoption-sealed to men ...

Do you have any references for this?

Yes, as others have mentioned, we know that Joseph was sealed to men posthumously. It also appears that Joseph taught and performed adoption in Nauvoo, for example: "I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God." - Wilford Woodruff

This is also helpful:

"No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed; any conclusions as to whether the ordinance was practiced during Joseph Smith’s lifetime must be viewed as tentative.13 It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Joseph Smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842." (Source: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/law- ... -1830-1900)

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that other than the number of wives, Joseph really doesn't seem interested in sex. I guess it's possible that he was primarily motivated by sexual opportunity, but the data doesn't really paint that picture, at least not to me.

Thanks for asking, and I hope you have a nice weekend.

[wtfluff]

Yes, as others have mentioned, we know that Joseph was sealed to men posthumously. It also appears that Joseph taught and performed adoption in Nauvoo, for example: "I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God." - Wilford Woodruff

This is also helpful:

"No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed; any conclusions as to whether the ordinance was practiced during Joseph Smith’s lifetime must be viewed as tentative.13 It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Joseph Smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842." (Source: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/law- ... -1830-1900)

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that other than the number of wives, Joseph really doesn't seem interested in sex. I guess it's possible that he was primarily motivated by sexual opportunity, but the data doesn't really paint that picture, at least not to me.

Thanks for asking, and I hope you have a nice weekend.

Correct: There is no valid evidence that Joseph "practiced" the law of adoption. So folks saying that "Joseph sealed himself to other men" are spouting pure speculation. "No consensus," and "possible, perhaps probable" = pure speculation.

As far as Joseph being motivated by sex? That's pure speculation also, but I'll leave the "data" to Occam's Razor: Normal heterosexual males are motivated by sex. The most logical answer as to why any heterosexual male would "need" more than 30 "wives" is sex.

Also: The biggest reason religions folks (and especially mormons) get married, is so they have their god's permission to have sex.

And also: The "commandment" from D&C 132 as to the reason for polygamy? Multiply and replenish. How does that happen without sex?

[Hagoth]

The dynastic marriages apologetic makes absolutely no sense. The supporting evidence is supposed to be Joseph's purported sealings to other men, of which there is absolutely no evidence. But let's assume it actually happened. If Joseph could seal other men to him as sons (or whatever) he could certainly seal girls to him as daughters without having to have secret marriages performed behind his wife's back, and fake marriages performed for her benefit to women to whom he was already secretly married. You know what wouldn't seem fishy and need a lot of apologetics? "Hey Emma, aren't the Kimball's great people? Let's all go over to the temple and get sealed to each other."

Non-sexual dynastic sealings, like the supposed sealings to men, would mean that those girls could go on to marry whomever they chose and remain connected to the prophet's family for eternity, along WITH their husband of choice and their children. If it's about salvation that is a much better option; it helps even more people without destroying anyone's life. But that's not what happened, as was clearly demonstrated by Helen Mar Kimball's complaint that she was prevented from having a social life with her friends because she was a married woman at age 14. You only have to take about two steps back to see how flimsy the apologetic constructs are. If all of this was on the up and up there would be no need for all of this excuse making. Even if there was no sex in this life (highly unlikely, as is even admitted by the church's essay) why do we really, really think it was fine and dandy for Joseph to seal himself to these girls and women for an eternity of procreation after this life? Especially the married ones, and double-especially the ones married to worthy priesthood holders. Steal them away from their husbands and potential husbands for freakin' eternity? That's ok as long as we tell ourselves they were sexless marriages? Even those who followed in Joseph's footsteps, and even his contemporaries who were marrying and having children with his approval, did the same thing with no pretense of nonsexual sealings? Why was it ok for them but not for Joseph?

Sorry, I didn't intend to go off the rails with this (WTFluff made me do it!). If you want to keep discussing it I will be happy to move it to another topic.

[jfro18]

The dynastic marriages apologetic makes absolutely no sense. The supporting evidence is supposed to be Joseph's purported sealings to other men, of which there is absolutely no evidence. But let's assume it actually happened. If Joseph could seal other men to him as sons (or whatever) he could certainly seal girls to him as daughters without having to have secret marriages performed behind his wife's back, and fake marriages performed for her benefit to women to whom he was already secretly married. You know what wouldn't seem fishy and need a lot of apologetics? "Hey Emma, aren't the Kimball's great people? Let's all go over to the temple and get sealed to each other.

And why would Joseph marry pairs of sisters if it was simply a dynastic thing?

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

The dynastic marriages apologetic makes absolutely no sense. The supporting evidence is supposed to be Joseph's purported sealings to other men, of which there is absolutely no evidence. But let's assume it actually happened. If Joseph could seal other men to him as sons (or whatever) he could certainly seal girls to him as daughters without having to have secret marriages performed behind his wife's back, and fake marriages performed for her benefit to women to whom he was already secretly married. You know what wouldn't seem fishy and need a lot of apologetics? "Hey Emma, aren't the Kimball's great people? Let's all go over to the temple and get sealed to each other."

Non-sexual dynastic sealings, like the supposed sealings to men, would mean that those girls could go on to marry whomever they chose and remain connected to the prophet's family for eternity, along WITH their husband of choice and their children. If it's about salvation that is a much better option; it helps even more people without destroying anyone's life. But that's not what happened, as was clearly demonstrated by Helen Mar Kimball's complaint that she was prevented from having a social life with her friends because she was a married woman at age 14. You only have to take about two steps back to see how flimsy the apologetic constructs are. If all of this was on the up and up there would be no need for all of this excuse making. Even if there was no sex in this life (highly unlikely, as is even admitted by the church's essay) why do we really, really think it was fine and dandy for Joseph to seal himself to these girls and women for an eternity of procreation after this life? Especially the married ones, and double-especially the ones married to worthy priesthood holders. Steal them away from their husbands and potential husbands for freakin' eternity? That's ok as long as we tell ourselves they were sexless marriages? Even those who followed in Joseph's footsteps, and even his contemporaries who were marrying and having children with Joseph's approval did the same thing with no pretense of nonsexual sealings? Why was it ok for them but not for Joseph?

Sorry, I didn't intend to go off the rails with this (WTFluff made me do it!). If you want to keep discussing it I will be happy to move it to another topic.

The early concept in sealings before the priesthood ideas evolved is when Elders would "seal up" entire congregations "to eternal life". If he wanted the sealing concept to be all encompassing and altruistic, he could have stayed with that version and not the exclusive marriage/adoption version. I understand the current COC view of sealing doctrine is much more aligned with this universal early view.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Hagoth]

And why would Joseph marry pairs of sisters if it was simply a dynastic thing?

And did he ever seal himself to unmarried boys, which prevented them from getting sealed to women? And did he then pass those boys on to Brigham, John, and Heber?

[slavereeno]

If Joseph could seal other men to him as sons (or whatever) he could certainly seal girls to him as daughters without having to have secret marriages performed behind his wife's back, and fake marriages performed for her benefit to women to whom he was already secretly married.

I came here to ask this, but Hagoth beat me to it.

Another question though, what about the next few prophets after Joseph Smith? If all the apologetic dismissal of sex is true, why did Brigham Young take Zina a married woman and young teens? If one were to believe the apologetic response, that the marriages weren't about sex and that makes it OK, then aren't I now obligated to disavow the Brighamite branch of Mormonism? If Joseph Smith was altruistic and had no sex in mind but then Brigham Young went on to father children with other men's wives and child brides, then should I go join the Community of Christ, because they didn't follow the polygamy practice?

That's my problem, either its about sex or it isn't. If it was about sex, then say so. If it wasn't, then the church fell with Brigham. The church is in a damned it they do, damned if the don't on this one.

[Vlad the Emailer]

And why would Joseph marry pairs of sisters if it was simply a dynastic thing?

And did he ever seal himself to unmarried boys, which prevented them from getting sealed to women? And did he then pass those boys on to Brigham, John, and Heber?

Precisely.

And not only that, but the dynastic apologetic also ignores things like the fact that Helen's mother Vilate turned down her proposal from Joseph. Why say no to a dynastic eternity only sealing to the great prophet of the last dispensation??

It also ignores the anguish Helen Mar describes her mother experiencing when she said no and the proposal was switched to Helen.

From Helen's journal -

----"None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart-when Joseph asked her if she was willing...She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come...; but it was all hidden from me.”

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-He ... imball.htm
Also quoted in "In Sacred Loneliness".

Is this in any way consistent with the concept of a glorious heavenly relationship?? With all due respect, these are the reasons I have such difficulty with Mormon apologetics and anyone that can remain faithful because of them. To me, all that is saying is that you're okay with living in denial.