Cameron, sounds like a familiar story! Glad you found theology so helpful; I can definitely relate.

This comment particularly made me wonder if you are on the same page,

though I have not completely rejected LDS exclusivity claims, I am still working to make sense of them, and I have strong pluralist leanings.

I think Mormons struggle more with Joseph’s failings because he did claim all of these things. While most Mormons have a grasp of the idea that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such, if a man makes the claim to be God’s one, true prophet, people are bound to feel much more angst in attempting to separate which of their teachings they gave as opinion, and which they gave as official doctrine.

So my LDS God is probably more a God of Guilt, lol.

Thank you for this interesting perspective! What a fascinating subject to study in depth.

Mark, you’re definitely raising some valid concerns about Luther. That’s a good question about how he’s viewed now; I agree that Lutherans don’t seem to have the same amount of angst over his faults that Mormons do over Joseph Smith’s. I have a good friend who’s a Lutheran pastor; I should ask him for his take on this.

This is somewhat related, I think, to the discussion on Eve’s thread about credentials. It’s the Heidegger being a Nazi problem: what do you with theologians or philosophers who also have commitments which you find morally problematic? Tillich is another example of this; his theology has been both influential and admired, but his personal life included a number of questionable elements. I’m hesitant to too quickly dismiss anyone’s ideas on that basis; I find much of value in Augustine despite his serious misogyny, and in Luther despite his disturbing anti-Semitism. And yet I don’t want to assert that that stuff doesn’t matter. So I’m not entirely sure what I think about that question.

Thanks, Belladonna. I like the both/and approach as well. I want to think that being a believing Latter-day Saint doesn’t preclude taking a pluralist approach to religion, even if I’m still working out all the details of that.

Jessawhy, I appreciate your observations. I think I value the bloggernacle for similar reasons, that it gives me different perspectives on all kinds of aspects of the Church.

I don’t enjoy theology because it provides neat answers to everything, but rather for the way in which it explores questions. And I also like that thought about how we should continually re-define our Mormonness.

On a much smaller scale and in a sloppier way, the bloggernacle does this for me. I haven’t thought about it that way before, so thanks for explaining your experiences in a way that I can relate to.

While I have a rock solid testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon and the authority of the restored Priesthood, where I have struggled the most is how insular I found the LDS church to be. I’ve embrassed religious pluralism for some time, feeling sure there was much truth to be had in other sources. It is a complicated journey to make the move away from either / or thinking to allow for both/and, but for me it is what makes sense.

Lynnette, I learned about Luther from a different angle (German cultural history) and I was astonished and appalled to read about his violent racism and anti-Semitism. He actually advocated pogroms and the killing of Jews. It has taken some time, but I’m now able to see him in the context of his time and to grant him some grudging respect.

Mormons sometimes experience anxiety about the more outlandish statements and doctrines promulgated by our early founders. Have you ever encountered Protestants who struggle with Luther? I haven’t, and I wonder why. I don’t think it is possible that they are all ignorant of his views. The passage of time might explain some of it, but probably not all. How is it that they are able to have such a charitable outlook on their beginnings while we LDS sometimes wallow in angst about ours?