I told my wife about the Mark E. Peterson 1954 speech at BYU.

[Travis Henry]

My wife listened to my rundown of the speech and although she, of course, thinks Peterson is 100% wrong she also says "Honey, I don't like you when you bring up these kinds of things, I'd prefer that you not even tell me."

My wife was previously unaware of Joseph Smith's polymory and when I talked about that she was extremely uncomfortable. My wife is extremely faithful but she simply says that the church got polygamy wrong.

The more time that goes by the more I realize that I have arrived upon the same conclusion as my father. My father was a traveling assistant in Germany back in the late 50s and early 60s when guys were still serving for 30 months. His mission also split several times so he had the opportunity of dealing with a number of different mission presidents. Some, like Theodore Burton, my father talks about glowingly. Others, who I won't mention, he thought were either tyranical or lacking in judgment. But his personal experience with Alvin R. Dyer and his son made him question the church and his testimony for years. As I've shared before, Alvin R. Dyer used to tour the European missions with his son, who was also a set-apart missionary who basically just went all over Europe with his dad. My father saw Dyer and his son intimidate, many times, (psychologically and physically, though no violence was used) missionaries in order to find out if they were doing anything wrong or "disobediant." The effect on my father of viewing this was the same effect Peterson's talk and JS's polymory has on others. The effect is either you ignore it (like my wife which I think is probably a great approach for many people) or you let it stew in you and that either has the effect of making you leave the church or you come to the resolution that the church has generally been a very positive force in many people's lives and does bring them closer to God though, at times, many doctrines/protocols and the leaders of the church have been far from perfect and wrong.

The reason the church doesn't explicity repudiate statements like Petersen's and doctrines like polygamy is because it would provide carte blanche to many people who lack the "gift of discernment" to throw out more fundamental and uplifting doctrines and to question everything that comes out of the mouth of one of its leaders. Generally speaking, as I mentioned above, the advice coming from the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 is very good and if followed will allow for a happy, fulfilling life and they will come closer to God. I know this is a simple statement that is easily open for attack, but it's what I believe.

And this is the same conclusion that my father and I both came to. My father has been faithful all his life and has been high counselor, bishop, etc. He's a man that is blessed with wisdom and objective thinking. He believes in general adherence to the big principles of the church but disdains puritanical tendencies. He sometimes attends a ward in the Provo Riverbottom that has to be in the in the 99th percentile of wealthy wards in the church. On one hand he sees kids coming home early from missions in droves and testimony meetings where the various Stepford Wives get up and manage to include a story involving her and her husband's newest and most expensive toys. He then goes to Priesthood and Sunday School where the lessons tend to focus on the arcane. In my own ward the new Relief Society President passed on a message from our Stake President that stated something to the effect that women in the stake were dressing scandalously making the men in the stake immoral as a result. Needless to say, my own observation of our stake leads me to conclude that even if the women were auditioning for a remake of Cher's "If I Could Turn Back Time" video, and they most certainly are not, it would make me less likely, not more likely to attend church. I told my wife that it was just "puritanical horsecrap."

So in summation, dumb things happen in many wards all the time and some even come as proclamations from the Stake President. But it doesn't mean the church isn't a generally positive thing.

Part of the reason I would never leave the church is because of the grief it would cause my mother and wife coupled with the fact that I really don't mind going to church and fulfilling my callings. Another part is the fact that I have had a spiritual confirmation that the church is a very positive, not negative, force in people's lives and in the world. And the final part is that I want my children to grow up in the church because I believe it will instill in them (actually just "her" since I only have one infant daughter at this point) habits and morals which I believe will make them happy and allow them to avoid certain pitfalls. Simply put, the church won't totally prevent my daughter from appearing on a commercial for "Girls Gone Wild" come 2027, but you'd have to think it improves her chances exponentially (formerly morman porn stars notwithstanding) from not fulfilling the script of that particular SNL skit.

[Ma'ake]

Thoughtful post.

With widespread access to previous leaders' misstatements (to be kind), the obvious question arises of how much of today's message should be discarded. I like '71's position of careful scrutiny, heavy amounts of self interpretation. That strikes me as wise, but it does begin to break down some of the 'power' leaders once had to sway a high percentage of the faithful through nothing more than their position.

What pronouncements of today will tomorrow be viewed as simply erroneous, even hurtful, despite whatever genuine spirit of love is underneath the message? I would bet $1000.00 today that we'll see changes in the homosexual issue.

A member of the bishopric in 'my ward', a guy I went to high school with, has a homosexual son who has attempted suicide because of his feelings of being evil, being a freak, etc. I learned this through the 'insider' grapevine my wife is privy to. The 2nd counselor and his wife have experience a great deal of anguish at this predicament, you can see the suffering in his eyes. He looks 20 years older than he did 5 years ago.

How is this sort of anguish - over an issue that may very well be interpreted quite differently in the future - be of the gospel, the Lord's will? It's almost as though the choice in too many dichotomies comes down to love & acceptance vs obediance (to selective commandments from history).

It was precisely the same predicament before 1978.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

With widespread access to previous leaders' misstatements (to be kind), the obvious question arises of how much of today's message should be discarded. I like '71's position of careful scrutiny, heavy amounts of self interpretation. That strikes me as wise, but it does begin to break down some of the 'power' leaders once had to sway a high percentage of the faithful through nothing more than their position.

This is the primary reason the misstatements of past church leaders get so much focus today.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Travis Henry

My wife listened to my rundown of the speech and although she, of course, thinks Peterson is 100% wrong she also says "Honey, I don't like you when you bring up these kinds of things, I'd prefer that you not even tell me."

My wife was previously unaware of Joseph Smith's polymory and when I talked about that she was extremely uncomfortable. My wife is extremely faithful but she simply says that the church got polygamy wrong.

The more time that goes by the more I realize that I have arrived upon the same conclusion as my father. My father was a traveling assistant in Germany back in the late 50s and early 60s when guys were still serving for 30 months. His mission also split several times so he had the opportunity of dealing with a number of different mission presidents. Some, like Theodore Burton, my father talks about glowingly. Others, who I won't mention, he thought were either tyranical or lacking in judgment. But his personal experience with Alvin R. Dyer and his son made him question the church and his testimony for years. As I've shared before, Alvin R. Dyer used to tour the European missions with his son, who was also a set-apart missionary who basically just went all over Europe with his dad. My father saw Dyer and his son intimidate, many times, (psychologically and physically, though no violence was used) missionaries in order to find out if they were doing anything wrong or "disobediant." The effect on my father of viewing this was the same effect Peterson's talk and JS's polymory has on others. The effect is either you ignore it (like my wife which I think is probably a great approach for many people) or you let it stew in you and that either has the effect of making you leave the church or you come to the resolution that the church has generally been a very positive force in many people's lives and does bring them closer to God though, at times, many doctrines/protocols and the leaders of the church have been far from perfect and wrong.

The reason the church doesn't explicity repudiate statements like Petersen's and doctrines like polygamy is because it would provide carte blanche to many people who lack the "gift of discernment" to throw out more fundamental and uplifting doctrines and to question everything that comes out of the mouth of one of its leaders. Generally speaking, as I mentioned above, the advice coming from the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 is very good and if followed will allow for a happy, fulfilling life and they will come closer to God. I know this is a simple statement that is easily open for attack, but it's what I believe.

And this is the same conclusion that my father and I both came to. My father has been faithful all his life and has been high counselor, bishop, etc. He's a man that is blessed with wisdom and objective thinking. He believes in general adherence to the big principles of the church but disdains puritanical tendencies. He sometimes attends a ward in the Provo Riverbottom that has to be in the in the 99th percentile of wealthy wards in the church. On one hand he sees kids coming home early from missions in droves and testimony meetings where the various Stepford Wives get up and manage to include a story involving her and her husband's newest and most expensive toys. He then goes to Priesthood and Sunday School where the lessons tend to focus on the arcane. In my own ward the new Relief Society President passed on a message from our Stake President that stated something to the effect that women in the stake were dressing scandalously making the men in the stake immoral as a result. Needless to say, my own observation of our stake leads me to conclude that even if the women were auditioning for a remake of Cher's "If I Could Turn Back Time" video, and they most certainly are not, it would make me less likely, not more likely to attend church. I told my wife that it was just "puritanical horsecrap."

So in summation, dumb things happen in many wards all the time and some even come as proclamations from the Stake President. But it doesn't mean the church isn't a generally positive thing.

Part of the reason I would never leave the church is because of the grief it would cause my mother and wife coupled with the fact that I really don't mind going to church and fulfilling my callings. Another part is the fact that I have had a spiritual confirmation that the church is a very positive, not negative, force in people's lives and in the world. And the final part is that I want my children to grow up in the church because I believe it will instill in them (actually just "her" since I only have one infant daughter at this point) habits and morals which I believe will make them happy and allow them to avoid certain pitfalls. Simply put, the church won't totally prevent my daughter from appearing on a commercial for "Girls Gone Wild" come 2027, but you'd have to think it improves her chances exponentially (formerly morman porn stars notwithstanding) from not fulfilling the script of that particular SNL skit.

That was a well thought out good post. I congratulate you on being able to have such a long post done so well. I could never do that. By the time I get to the second paragraph I have forgotten even what I was posting about.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Great post, Mr. Henry.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well put, Travis. Thanks for sharing.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by Travis Henry

Needless to say, my own observation of our stake leads me to conclude that even if the women were auditioning for a remake of Cher's "If I Could Turn Back Time" video, and they most certainly are not, it would make me less likely, not more likely to attend church.

Nice post. I love that video. Those lucky seamen.

[Donuthole]

Yes, nothing like a mostly-nude, over-the-hill Cher to get those engines burning.

[Travis Henry]

Originally Posted by Donuthole

Yes, nothing like a mostly-nude, over-the-hill Cher to get those engines burning.

Tom Cruise's appearance on Oprah, the volleyball scene from Top Gun, and Kevin Bacon's punch-dance routine at Geneva in Footloose don't have anything on this Cher video. With all due respect to Bill Simmons, Cher has established the gold standard and has set the parameters of the unintentional comedy scale.