The First Vision and "Hiding History"

[cinepro]

The discussion about the "Face to Face" with Elders Oaks and Ballard has reinvigorated the discussion about the Church "hiding" the history (both here and on boards more critical to the Church).  If you'll indulge me, I've just got to get something off my chest.

First, I have a posting history on this forum going back to 2003.  I have pointed out many times where the Church has, in my view, legitimately "hidden" the history.  Usually, this has to do with polygamy.  Articles are published that reshape the story, or quotes are changed in ways that change their meaning to conceal the original references to multiple wives.  

Second, let me say that this observation does not address the actual "truth claims" of the Church, or the "truthfulness" of the Church itself.  Nothing in this post actually touches on whether or not the Church is "true", and I'll explain why at the end.

But since 2003, as a new generation of LDS have grown up and become disaffected, there seems to be a new millennial strain of  critics and ex-Mormons that, for lack of a better term, are basing their disaffection on being ignorant and lazy and blaming their ignorance and laziness on the Church itself.

This was brought home to me most forcefully when one of my children, now in college in Utah, became themselves disaffected from the Church (although that term implies they were ever "affected" to begin with, which is debatable).  In talking with them, they expressed frustration and/or surprise over The Book of Abraham and the other usual topics, and criticized the Church for "hiding" this info from them.

But here's the thing.  I've been a critic of Church claims since before my participation here (let's say 2002), and part of my study has been to buy books that talk about Church history.  I already had a pretty good collection of the usual "LDS library" that would be expected for a voracious LDS reader, but starting around 2002 I began buying the popular books from Signature and other more critical presses.  So I've got "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon" and "An Insider's Guide to Mormon Origins" and "Rough Stone Rolling" and "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" and "Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview" etc.

And these books are kept in our "TV room"/ home theater, in large book cases along the wall.  So by my rough estimate, this TV and video-game loving child has spent between 1000 - 2000 hours over their teenage years sitting in that room, with these books about 10 feet away, and they never had the interest or energy to walk across the room and crack open one of the books and start reading.    So their feigned frustration at the Church having "hidden" this stuff isn't because of any personal experience.  It's more likely a parroted talking point that they've picked up from various forums and repeated without giving it even the slightest thought.

 

In another forum, when I pointed out that in addition to the 1970 article on multiple accounts of the first vision there were articles in the 1980s and 1990s, one participant said (sarcastically):

Quote

I guess it is my fault for not reading a handful of obscure articles... The most recent one being made when I was less than 5...

But doesn't that lead to the question "If it isn't your fault, whose fault is it?"  At some point, isn't the implication that you didn't know because you didn't care?   

Like I said before, this point doesn't actually speak to the actual truthfulness of the Church's claims.  The Church didn't become more or less "true" when it published the first article in 1970, or the second in 1985.  The Church didn't become more "true" when it published the Gospel Topics essays a few years ago.  Whether or not the Church is "true" hasn't changed.

And a last observation.  It has become more apparent to me that there are stupid people in the world, and smart people in the world.  And there are Mormons in the world of both types, and ex-Mormons of both types.  But the thing is, you don't change your type from "stupid" to "smart" when you change from "Mormon" to "ex-Mormon" (or vice versa in any combination).  But it's easy to think you did.  But Mormons who only had a superficial and shallow knowledge of the scriptures, doctrines and history of the Church don't suddenly become wise and deep-thinking ex-Mormons when they read the CES Letter and stop believing. They just become ex-Mormons with a superficial and shallow knowledge of Mormonism but now with a few dozen bits of trivia added on top that make them thing they're smart.    And the Mormons that had a deeper understanding of Mormonism tend to have a deeper and more measured take as ex-Mormons.

I should probably post this on the ex-Mormon forums, because this means that when an ex-Mormon "brags" about how little they know about the Church when they were members, they're not illuminating something about the Church.  They're just signaling that they were stupid as an LDS, and that would indicate that they're probably still just a stupid.  And experience would seem to bear this out.

Edited November 21, 2017 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

I have said before, the information has always been available, just not at Church.
So where does that leave responsibility to acquire the information?  

Is the Church responsible to teach a full honest account of things that relate to their history and the gospel?  Yes.
Does that mean super detailed?  No, but accurate, especially when it relates to the gospel topic.

Is the member responsible to read things outside of the Church curriculum?  Yes.
Does that mean reading anti rubbish?  Not at all.  Plenty of church published and authorized doctrine that goes unread.

This back and forth seems to never settle.  "The Church hid it".  "You never studied the available materials".  "I was lied to".  "Nobody lied."

If we are truly honest we would admit that the Church has taught whitewashed history in its manuals and lessons for many decades.
And we would admit that most members are shocked when they come across things because they are too lazy to pick up a book.

[stemelbow]

Very interesting, Cinepro.  You've got a bit of a binary view of people, it seems, but I'm largely in agreement with what you've posted.    

 

[HappyJackWagon]

57 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The discussion about the "Face to Face" with Elders Oaks and Ballard has reinvigorated the discussion about the Church "hiding" the history (both here and on boards more critical to the Church).  If you'll indulge me, I've just got to get something off my chest.

First, I have a posting history on this forum going back to 2003.  I have pointed out many times where the Church has, in my view, legitimately "hidden" the history.  Usually, this has to do with polygamy.  Articles are published that reshape the story, or quotes are changed in ways that change their meaning to conceal the original references to multiple wives.  

Second, let me say that this observation does not address the actual "truth claims" of the Church, or the "truthfulness" of the Church itself.  Nothing in this post actually touches on whether or not the Church is "true", and I'll explain why at the end.

But since 2003, as a new generation of LDS have grown up and become disaffected, there seems to be a new millennial strain of  critics and ex-Mormons that, for lack of a better term, are basing their disaffection on being ignorant and lazy and blaming their ignorance and laziness on the Church itself.

This was brought home to me most forcefully when one of my children, now in college in Utah, became themselves disaffected from the Church (although that term implies they were ever "affected" to begin with, which is debatable).  In talking with them, they expressed frustration and/or surprise over The Book of Abraham and the other usual topics, and criticized the Church for "hiding" this info from them.

But here's the thing.  I've been a critic of Church claims since before my participation here (let's say 2002), and part of my study has been to buy books that talk about Church history.  I already had a pretty good collection of the usual "LDS library" that would be expected for a voracious LDS reader, but starting around 2002 I began buying the popular books from Signature and other more critical presses.  So I've got "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon" and "An Insider's Guide to Mormon Origins" and "Rough Stone Rolling" and "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" and "Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview" etc.

1- And these books are kept in our "TV room"/ home theater, in large book cases along the wall.  So by my rough estimate, this TV and video-game loving child has spent between 1000 - 2000 hours over their teenage years sitting in that room, with these books about 10 feet away, and they never had the interest or energy to walk across the room and crack open one of the books and start reading.    So their feigned frustration at the Church having "hidden" this stuff isn't because of any personal experience.  It's more likely a parroted talking point that they've picked up from various forums and repeated without giving it even the slightest thought.

 

In another forum, when I pointed out that in addition to the 1970 article on multiple accounts of the first vision there were articles in the 1980s and 1990s, one participant said (sarcastically):

2-But doesn't that lead to the question "If it isn't your fault, whose fault is it?"  At some point, isn't the implication that you didn't know because you didn't care?   

Like I said before, this point doesn't actually speak to the actual truthfulness of the Church's claims.  The Church didn't become more or less "true" when it published the first article in 1970, or the second in 1985.  The Church didn't become more "true" when it published the Gospel Topics essays a few years ago.  Whether or not the Church is "true" hasn't changed.

And a last observation.  It has become more apparent to me that there are stupid people in the world, and smart people in the world.  And there are Mormons in the world of both types, and ex-Mormons of both types.  But the thing is, you don't change your type from "stupid" to "smart" when you change from "Mormon" to "ex-Mormon" (or vice versa in any combination).  But it's easy to think you did.  But Mormons who only had a superficial and shallow knowledge of the scriptures, doctrines and history of the Church don't suddenly become wise and deep-thinking ex-Mormons when they read the CES Letter and stop believing. They just become ex-Mormons with a superficial and shallow knowledge of Mormonism but now with a few dozen bits of trivia added on top that make them thing they're smart.    And the Mormons that had a deeper understanding of Mormonism tend to have a deeper and more measured take as ex-Mormons.

I should probably post this on the ex-Mormon forums, because this means that when an ex-Mormon "brags" about how little they know about the Church when they were members, they're not illuminating something about the Church.  They're just signaling that they were stupid as an LDS, and that would indicate that they're probably still just a stupid.  And experience would seem to bear this out.

I really appreciate your input on this board but there are a couple of things here I'll take issue with.

1- You seem to be arguing that the church didn't hide information because you had books in your house. What does that have to do with the church's behavior? Did they or did they not limit information? Did they or did they not sell a particular narrative that is incomplete and/or inaccurate? If I saw a 3 inch book about the importance of temple marriage on my parents bookshelf I can't say that I would have been too interested because I didn't know enough to realize that sealings had changed dramatically over time and that Joseph Smith had been sealed to 30+ women, including married women and young teens. I didn't know what I didn't know. And again, having a book available in your home doesn't mean the church has done anything to provide proper information and context. Perhaps it means someone else did, but not necessarily the church.

2- I'm sure there are lazy people who didn't know and are simply blaming the church because they didn't care enough to study but I think there are just as many people who didn't know because they trusted the church to the point that they didn't realize they needed to dig into info beyond what the church provided. Naïve maybe, but not necessarily lazy. At some point a person has to become aware of the questions. They can't ask before they know the question exists. So if your kids went to church, seminary etc, got one narrative consistently, is there a reason they should expect to find different information in all of the books in your house? I think many people simply trust too much and put too much faith in the institution. Why should a member think they need to read a 3 inch book about marriage, from a source other than the church, to get the true history of the doctrine and practice of sealings including plural marriage?

The blinders come off when people realize they can't trust the church to give them all of the information. Again, they may be naïve to think they CAN trust the church to provide them accurate and complete information but blaming the person who trusts is pretty cold. It's gaslighting.

The church teaches X but you should have known not to trust the church because the truth is closer to Y.

The church has done things to obfuscate the truth of its history and doctrines and practices. When a person comes to that realization they are likely to search out the information more. The last thing they need is for people to sit back, shaking their heads, saying "You should have known".

 

[Storm Rider]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I have said before, the information has always been available, just not at Church.
So where does that leave responsibility to acquire the information?  

Is the Church responsible to teach a full honest account of things that relate to their history and the gospel?  Yes.
Does that mean super detailed?  No, but accurate, especially when it relates to the gospel topic.

Is the member responsible to read things outside of the Church curriculum?  Yes.
Does that mean reading anti rubbish?  Not at all.  Plenty of church published and authorized doctrine that goes unread.

This back and forth seems to never settle.  "The Church hid it".  "You never studied the available materials".  "I was lied to".  "Nobody lied."

If we are truly honest we would admit that the Church has taught whitewashed history in its manuals and lessons for many decades.
And we would admit that most members are shocked when they come across things because they are too lazy to pick up a book.

All in the eye of the beholder. Is the Canonical version of the First Vision true? Yes  Is it accurate? Yes  Is it complete?  Depends on your definition of complete.  How about the translation process of the plates; is the Church's teaching true?  Yes.  Is it accurate?  Maybe, but to what degree.  Is there a person alive that knows the complete, accurate, total method of the entire translation process used by Joseph Smith?  Not a single person; not one, nada, zip.  We have very few accounts of the translation process and not a single one of them knows the entire process or as much as Joseph Smith did. Whose account should we put the most confidence in - Joseph's or those that saw him translate a few times?

For the most part, humans are lemmings.  The moment I hear the complaint the Church lied, blah, blah, blah, I know I am talking to a lemming who never spent the time studying the history of the Church to know anything.  They parrot whatever and whoever they think "knows" and they have swallowed that person's interpretation of events and opinion. 

As a teenager I read and I read almost all church printed materials and I have not learned anything new from whatever source that affects the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  More importantly, I came to understand the limitation of historical writings.  The history of the Church has nothing to do with the understanding of the priesthood keys; the value of being baptized, the reality of Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected; and an understanding of where I came from, why I am here on earth, and where I may go. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Storm Rider

[Jeanne]

Okay...I haven't even read the few replies..I am in hurry...but..if I could just answer to the topic.

When I found out that there was different first vision stories....I found myself immediately in an early Sunday School Class (Primary was on Wednesday)...I saw the Lord and His Son...in a grove with Joseph..and that an angel visited often.  I saw plates...and as I grew older, I realized that this was the very foundation of the Prophet Joseph...and the church..and it was so important that it was part of the first discussion of every missionary. 

So..it was kind of devastating from the get go for me.  It took the rock of the church from beneath me and it was the beginning of a fall.  Just know that it didn't have to be this way.  You either have a vision that is consistent because it was a VISION!  Or...you lost,..confused...or need to build a congregation of believers.

The polygamy issue has always been a thing with me..even in active days...but that little Sunday School class did a real number on me when finding out that there were so many vision stories and was one of the first points that set off a world of questions.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Jeanne

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I really appreciate your input on this board but there are a couple of things here I'll take issue with.

1- You seem to be arguing that the church didn't hide information because you had books in your house. What does that have to do with the church's behavior? Did they or did they not limit information? Did they or did they not sell a particular narrative that is incomplete and/or inaccurate? If I saw a 3 inch book about the importance of temple marriage on my parents bookshelf I can't say that I would have been too interested because I didn't know enough to realize that sealings had changed dramatically over time and that Joseph Smith had been sealed to 30+ women, including married women and young teens. I didn't know what I didn't know. And again, having a book available in your home doesn't mean the church has done anything to provide proper information and context. Perhaps it means someone else did, but not necessarily the church.

2- I'm sure there are lazy people who didn't know and are simply blaming the church because they didn't care enough to study but I think there are just as many people who didn't know because they trusted the church to the point that they didn't realize they needed to dig into info beyond what the church provided. Naïve maybe, but not necessarily lazy. At some point a person has to become aware of the questions. They can't ask before they know the question exists. So if your kids went to church, seminary etc, got one narrative consistently, is there a reason they should expect to find different information in all of the books in your house? I think many people simply trust too much and put too much faith in the institution. Why should a member think they need to read a 3 inch book about marriage, from a source other than the church, to get the true history of the doctrine and practice of sealings including plural marriage?

The blinders come off when people realize they can't trust the church to give them all of the information. Again, they may be naïve to think they CAN trust the church to provide them accurate and complete information but blaming the person who trusts is pretty cold. It's gaslighting.

The church teaches X but you should have known not to trust the church because the truth is closer to Y.

The church has done things to obfuscate the truth of its history and doctrines and practices. When a person comes to that realization they are likely to search out the information more. The last thing they need is for people to sit back, shaking their heads, saying "You should have known".

 

It seems like a big stretch to call people ignorant and lazy when we'd have no idea what they are up to.  There are millions of things out there for people to occupy themselves with.  I suppose that's why I responded by saying Cinepro's view is far too binary for me.  

My wife is neither ignorant nor lazy, if you ask me.  When we were married I carried into the house the same books Cinepro mentions.  They were collected and put on the bookshelf.  I read them and continued to add to the supply and I would reference them while talking to my wife.  I would unload info, in a sense, until one day I noticed she just wasn't taking it well.  Her eyes welled-up in tears until she burst.  Through her tears she told me her fears.  This was still really early on in our marriage (like in the first year).  She feared I'd leave the Church.  She'd be left alone at Church and that it would ruin our marriage.  I tried to reassure her but realized I had no answers, particularly then.  I didn't know where I was being led.  I might be out and it might get uglier and uglier.  But what I did was stop talking to her about it.  It sucked because I didn't have the outlet I had started to create.  But I also felt I understood where she was and the problem I was causing.  

I was pretty quiet until about 4 or 5 years ago.  Some facebook posts...some ideas shared...the year in polygamy podcast and my wife started to get interested in these things.  Sure, I think in a way she was still in a very surface area of research and perspective.  But how it unfolded for me was much different for her.  She quickly felt betrayed, not by me, nor anyone else (well except a little by her parents) but mostly by the church.  Sure the books were sitting there, at least for some of her adult life.  But to her there was no interest because she trusted what she was told at Church.  What I told her in the first few months was suspicious sounding, out there, crazy (perhaps), conspiracy theory stuff.  It also didn't matter much because to her religion worked, at that time.  

I think it's less about ignorant and lazy though.  Church is community to many people and as such the doctrines, the development of such, the history, and course of the Church...doesn't really matter.  Not because they are ignorant or lazy but because they simply aren't relevant.  Well, until, in the case of my wife, they are.  Truth is though, aside from getting her to read a couple of them like Mormon Enigma, she doesn't want to.  She doesn't want to wade through some of them, because to her it's only a source of more pain.  To her that doesn't do any good.   

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

They're just signaling that they were stupid as an LDS, and that would indicate that they're probably still just a stupid.  And experience would seem to bear this out.

Good post and I agree with much of it.  I think we have a generational change of thinking alongside an older model for religious experience and the two are coming into conflict.

The young generation, whatever they are calling those after the Millenials, seem less interested in religion in general.  I don’t see this as a moral failure or a lack of motivation or anything that is negative.  I think there are many complicating factors that contribute to this change of attitude.  

The older LDS narrative that authority is exclusive, that old white men hold it, that God is a supernatural agent working objective miracles in a modern scientific society, that we need religion to be “saved” and to solve the problems of our sinful nature, just don’t seem to translate well to this generation.  

I think the emphasis needs to change in order to address the needs of the rising generation and to become relevant.  The church could emphasize equality for all, an mechanism by which to find peace, an avenue for personal inspiration, a call for liberating the marginalized, a community to gather to be educated and uplifted and to serve.  Less focus on the restoration truth claims and more focus on contemporary actions that add real meaning and value to the current needs of society. 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems like a big stretch to call people ignorant and lazy when we'd have no idea what they are up to.  There are millions of things out there for people to occupy themselves with.  I suppose that's why I responded by saying Cinepro's view is far too binary for me.  

My wife is neither ignorant nor lazy, if you ask me.  When we were married I carried into the house the same books Cinepro mentions.  They were collected and put on the bookshelf.  I read them and continued to add to the supply and I would reference them while talking to my wife.  I would unload info, in a sense, until one day I noticed she just wasn't taking it well.  Her eyes welled-up in tears until she burst.  Through her tears she told me her fears.  This was still really early on in our marriage (like in the first year).  She feared I'd leave the Church.  She'd be left alone at Church and that it would ruin our marriage.  I tried to reassure her but realized I had no answers, particularly then.  I didn't know where I was being led.  I might be out and it might get uglier and uglier.  But what I did was stop talking to her about it.  It sucked because I didn't have the outlet I had started to create.  But I also felt I understood where she was and the problem I was causing.  

I was pretty quiet until about 4 or 5 years ago.  Some facebook posts...some ideas shared...the year in polygamy podcast and my wife started to get interested in these things.  Sure, I think in a way she was still in a very surface area of research and perspective.  But how it unfolded for me was much different for her.  She quickly felt betrayed, not by me, nor anyone else (well except a little by her parents) but mostly by the church.  Sure the books were sitting there, at least for some of her adult life.  But to her there was no interest because she trusted what she was told at Church.  What I told her in the first few months was suspicious sounding, out there, crazy (perhaps), conspiracy theory stuff.  It also didn't matter much because to her religion worked, at that time.  

I think it's less about ignorant and lazy though.  Church is community to many people and as such the doctrines, the development of such, the history, and course of the Church...doesn't really matter.  Not because they are ignorant or lazy but because they simply aren't relevant.  Well, until, in the case of my wife, they are.  Truth is though, aside from getting her to read a couple of them like Mormon Enigma, she doesn't want to.  She doesn't want to wade through some of them, because to her it's only a source of more pain.  To her that doesn't do any good.   

 

REP Point!!!

I hope you get taken off limited soon so I can give you some real rep points.

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- You seem to be arguing that the church didn't hide information because you had books in your house.

Cinepro starts out with this: "I have pointed out many times where the Church has, in my view, legitimately 'hidden' the history.  Usually, this has to do with polygamy.  Articles are published that reshape the story, or quotes are changed in ways that change their meaning to conceal the original references to multiple wives."

I am not sure what he means by "conceal the original references to multiple wives."  Perhaps he could clarify.

I think the Church's treatment of the topic of polygamy has been influenced by multiple factors, including the following:

A) Summarizing Means Leaving Some Stuff Out: Polygamy is a very broad and deep topic, such that the Church necessarily has to pick and choose, to summarize, to distill.  This leaves the Church open to critics who will seize upon a given source or a given facet of this topic and say something like "The Church isn't talking about this aspect of polygamy enough, therefore the Church is 'hiding' the topic of polygamy."

B) Polygamy is Not Presently Practiced: Polygamy is not a present practice of the Church, and the bulk of the attention it gets is from critics who want to use (exploit) it for its shock value.  Nevertheless, the absence of current observance of this practice limits the Church's treatment of it.  The Church likewise does not spend copious amounts of time and effort presenting analysis and information about animal sacrifice, and yet nobody seem to accuse the Church of "hiding" that religious practice.  Why is that?  My sense is that it lacks the same shock value as polygamy.

C) Polygamy was Divinely Mandated: No matter how the Church treats polygamy, it will always treat it as being a divine mandate.  So the Church defends it in principle, while also acknowledging flaws in how it was practiced.  But critics want to condemn both the practice and the principle as being innately weird, unpalatable, wrong, etc.  This is a fundamental difference of opinion and perspective that will never go away.  Critics and the church members who listen to them will never, ever be satisfied with the Church's treatment of polygamy as originating with God.  The Church will never move from that position.  Stalemate.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What does that have to do with the church's behavior? Did they or did they not limit information? Did they or did they not sell a particular narrative that is incomplete and/or inaccurate?

Note the pairing here of "incomplete and/or inaccurate."

Critics will always be able to plausibly accuse the Church of painting an "incomplete" picture of LDS polygamy, because it was a practice of 19th-century Mormons for around 50 years.  Thousands upon thousands of people participated in it.  There really isn't any way to pain a "complete" picture of polygamy, at least one which would satisfy critics bound and determined to find fault with the Church.  And since "incomplete" is paired with "inaccurate," the two descriptors are treated as synonymous.

Moreover, the Church has, I think, expected members to go and study the Gospel on their own.  And not just materials published by the Church itself, but from the "best books" referenced repeatedly in the Doctrine & Covenants.  Hence we have books published by General Authorities.  Hence we have Deseret Book.  Hence we have numerous publishing houses and outlets that publish all sorts of materials about the Church and its doctrines and history, some of which are referenced in Cinepro's post. 

I recently celebrated a birthday, for which I received an Amazon gift card from my wonderful in-laws.  I used that card to purchase Brant Gardner's Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, First Nephi, John Gee's An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, and Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.  I wish I could say that my LDS library was as well-stocked as it could or should be, but I can't.  I'm working on it.  But here's the thing: My library is not deficient for lack of available materials.  There are far more books and resources published about the Church than I can afford, or have time to read and ponder and scrutinize.  The problem, then, lies with me and my priorities.

I think the Church has, in decades past, been less comfortable with a warts-and-all approach to its history.  There is some justification for that, and some lack of justification.  In any event, the Church has made some very significant improvements in the last many years.  And in any event, I have seldom gone begging for informational/analytical content about the Church's doctrines and teachings.  So to the extent I am ignorant on a given topic, it is usually because of my choices (my priorities), and/or my negligence/laziness.  With some very limited exceptions, accusations of the Church "hiding" information are, at this point, not very well-founded.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If I saw a 3 inch book about the importance of temple marriage on my parents bookshelf I can't say that I would have been too interested because I didn't know enough to realize that sealings had changed dramatically over time and that Joseph Smith had been sealed to 30+ women, including married women and young teens.

I can respect that.  But I'm not sure you can say "It's all been hidden from me!", either.

As an attorney, I regularly go up against pro se litigants (people who are representing themselves in litigation, without an attorney).  My line of work centers on consumer residential finance disputes (borrower/bank disputes).  It sounds a bit dry and dull to those who are not regularly engaged in researching and writing about it, so I don't really blame people who choose to not spend precious free time perusing law journal articles about the Economic Loss Rule, the Statute of Frauds, the role of MERS in nonjudicial foreclosures, and so on.  However, pro se litigants tend to become very interested in these topics when they are facing foreclosure.  At that point they either A) frantically dive into this area of law (because they can't afford an attorney) and become experts at it in a matter of days/weeks (you can guess how often that works out), or B) they thrown their hands up in anger and frustration, claiming that the justice system is "rigged," that the banks have bought off the judges, that the attorneys are crooked, and so on.  Over time I have come to take these accusations in stride.  I recognize that these are otherwise good and decent people, but they are in very tough circumstances (getting foreclosed on is a very, very stressful ordeal), and they do not have the time or resources to educate themselves about the relevant points of law.  So they don't, and instead they lash out.  At me.  At the judge.  And "the system."  Anger borne of stress, frustration, and . . . yes, ignorance.

I think a similar dynamic can become manifest when Latter-day Saints do not do enough to educate themselves about their faith, and then encounter "very tough circumstances," such as critics who cull heavily-laden-with-shock-value data points from the Church's history and teachings, and compile them in a context-free medium that effectively weaponizes the Church's history and teachings against Latter-day Saints who, sadly, have not prepared themselves for such eventualities.  Perhaps they never thought it necessary (like homeowners seldom find it necessary to become well-versed in consumer finance law), and so in the moment they lash out.  At the Church.  At its leaders.  Anger borne of lack of preparation.  Ignorance.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I didn't know what I didn't know.

"I didn't know that I am supposed to study the Restored Gospel on my own" is not, I think, a valid excuse.  The Church has long encouraged us to do just that (in addition to attendance at Church meetings, Seminary/Institute, etc.).

I think studying the Gospel is a neglected duty amongst the Saints.  We can and should - and must - improve on this point.

Fortunately for me, I have long had a wonderful example in my parents.   They were both well-versed in the Church's history and doctrines, and both gave me plenty of guidance (some of it against my will) as pertaining to these areas.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And again, having a book available in your home doesn't mean the church has done anything to provide proper information and context. Perhaps it means someone else did, but not necessarily the church.

And that is a problem . . . how?  Since when has the Church limited us to books published by the Church and nobody else?  Since when has the Church encouraged its members to remain in ignorance of the Church's history and doctrines?  

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- I'm sure there are lazy people who didn't know and are simply blaming the church because they didn't care enough to study but I think there are just as many people who didn't know because they trusted the church to the point that they didn't realize they needed to dig into info beyond what the church provided. Naïve maybe, but not necessarily lazy.

The Church has long encouraged its members to study the Gospel on their own.  It's not a matter of "trust" or naiveté.  It's a matter of obedience.  More to the point, it's a matter of Church members not following sound counsel about these things.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At some point a person has to become aware of the questions.

Yes.  Through consistent study.  That is a far, far better way to encounter difficult issues than, say, relying on the dreck dished out by the likes of Jeremy Runnells.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They can't ask before they know the question exists.

I'm not sure what this means.  I come across difficult issues in the Church all the time.  Just yesterday I was reading John Gee's An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, and I realized that I had never thought of some of the issues he raises and addresses.  I didn't know the question or the answer, but that's okay because I encountered both in my studies (though I still have a lot of both).

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if your kids went to church, seminary etc, got one narrative consistently, is there a reason they should expect to find different information in all of the books in your house?

Yes.  From 2001 to 2004, I attended law school and received a "narrative" about the U.S. legal system.  And yet that preparation was not sufficient for me to become a good lawyer.  To do that, I have actually had to practice law, and to continuously study and research and update and revise my understanding of the law.  Law School was the beginning of my training, not the end.

So it is with "church, seminary, etc."  These are not sufficient.  We must each of us continue to study and research the Restored Gospel, and to refine and improve and update our understanding and application of it.  This is what the Church encourages us to do.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think many people simply trust too much and put too much faith in the institution.

Again, it's not a matter of "trust" and "faith."  It's a matter of obedience.  The Church has never said anything like "Everything you will ever need to know about the Gospel will be found during the three-hour block, and in seminary/institute.  No need to do any further study on your own.  Don't read any other books.  Don't exert any other effort in seeking to better understand the richness and complexity of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Just 'trust' in the Church and have 'faith' that we are giving you everything you need to know."

Nope.  That's not what the Church has taught.  It has, instead, taught us to study the Gospel on our own.  Consistently.  Regularly.  And to "seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why should a member think they need to read a 3 inch book about marriage, from a source other than the church, to get the true history of the doctrine and practice of sealings including plural marriage?

Because the Church has long encouraged us to study the Gospel on our own, including from sources "other than the church."

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The blinders come off when people realize they can't trust the church to give them all of the information.

The blinders come off when people realize that they have not been listening to the counsel from the Church to study the Gospel on their own, and have instead expected to be spoon-fed by the Church from cradle to grave.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again, they may be naïve to think they CAN trust the church to provide them accurate and complete information but blaming the person who trusts is pretty cold. It's gaslighting.

It's not a matter of "trust."  If it were, members would "trust" the counsel from the Church to study the Gospel regularly, including studying from "the best books."

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church teaches X but you should have known not to trust the church because the truth is closer to Y.

False.  The Church teaches X (including that members should be continuously studying the Gospel on their own, including the use of resources other than what the Church publishes), and members thereafter complain about Y (the natural consequences of their failure to follow X, namely, being surprised at things that they haven't bothered to study unless it's spoon-fed to them).

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church has done things to obfuscate the truth of its history and doctrines and practices.

And yet the Church teaches its members to study the Gospel, which would presumably lead to analysis of things which you claim the Church "obfucates" about.

And yet this board is populated with all sorts of people who are very well-educated about the Church's history and doctrines and practices.

So either the Church's obfuscatory efforts have not been very successful, or they never really existed.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

When a person comes to that realization they are likely to search out the information more.

But sadly, they sometimes don't do it very well.  They don't study the Gospel in a systematic way.  Or in a faithful way.  Or with patience.  Or with prayer.  Or with real effort (reading "Letter to a CES Director" does not, in my mind, count as "study").

"Search out the information more" = "Use Google a lot."  That's not a very good way to study, IMO.

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The last thing they need is for people to sit back, shaking their heads, saying "You should have known".

Okay.  But nor do I think these people should be told "Hey, don't worry about it.  You are only obligated to have passing familiarity with what the Church spoon-feeds you, and nothing more."

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

The discussion about the "Face to Face" with Elders Oaks and Ballard has reinvigorated the discussion about the Church "hiding" the history (both here and on boards more critical to the Church).  If you'll indulge me, I've just got to get something off my chest.

First, I have a posting history on this forum going back to 2003.  I have pointed out many times where the Church has, in my view, legitimately "hidden" the history.  Usually, this has to do with polygamy.  Articles are published that reshape the story, or quotes are changed in ways that change their meaning to conceal the original references to multiple wives.  

Second, let me say that this observation does not address the actual "truth claims" of the Church, or the "truthfulness" of the Church itself.  Nothing in this post actually touches on whether or not the Church is "true", and I'll explain why at the end.

But since 2003, as a new generation of LDS have grown up and become disaffected, there seems to be a new millennial strain of  critics and ex-Mormons that, for lack of a better term, are basing their disaffection on being ignorant and lazy and blaming their ignorance and laziness on the Church itself.

This was brought home to me most forcefully when one of my children, now in college in Utah, became themselves disaffected from the Church (although that term implies they were ever "affected" to begin with, which is debatable).  In talking with them, they expressed frustration and/or surprise over The Book of Abraham and the other usual topics, and criticized the Church for "hiding" this info from them.

But here's the thing.  I've been a critic of Church claims since before my participation here (let's say 2002), and part of my study has been to buy books that talk about Church history.  I already had a pretty good collection of the usual "LDS library" that would be expected for a voracious LDS reader, but starting around 2002 I began buying the popular books from Signature and other more critical presses.  So I've got "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon" and "An Insider's Guide to Mormon Origins" and "Rough Stone Rolling" and "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" and "Early Mormonism and the Magic Worldview" etc.

And these books are kept in our "TV room"/ home theater, in large book cases along the wall.  So by my rough estimate, this TV and video-game loving child has spent between 1000 - 2000 hours over their teenage years sitting in that room, with these books about 10 feet away, and they never had the interest or energy to walk across the room and crack open one of the books and start reading.    So their feigned frustration at the Church having "hidden" this stuff isn't because of any personal experience.  It's more likely a parroted talking point that they've picked up from various forums and repeated without giving it even the slightest thought.

 

In another forum, when I pointed out that in addition to the 1970 article on multiple accounts of the first vision there were articles in the 1980s and 1990s, one participant said (sarcastically):

But doesn't that lead to the question "If it isn't your fault, whose fault is it?"  At some point, isn't the implication that you didn't know because you didn't care?   

Like I said before, this point doesn't actually speak to the actual truthfulness of the Church's claims.  The Church didn't become more or less "true" when it published the first article in 1970, or the second in 1985.  The Church didn't become more "true" when it published the Gospel Topics essays a few years ago.  Whether or not the Church is "true" hasn't changed.

And a last observation.  It has become more apparent to me that there are stupid people in the world, and smart people in the world.  And there are Mormons in the world of both types, and ex-Mormons of both types.  But the thing is, you don't change your type from "stupid" to "smart" when you change from "Mormon" to "ex-Mormon" (or vice versa in any combination).  But it's easy to think you did.  But Mormons who only had a superficial and shallow knowledge of the scriptures, doctrines and history of the Church don't suddenly become wise and deep-thinking ex-Mormons when they read the CES Letter and stop believing. They just become ex-Mormons with a superficial and shallow knowledge of Mormonism but now with a few dozen bits of trivia added on top that make them thing they're smart.    And the Mormons that had a deeper understanding of Mormonism tend to have a deeper and more measured take as ex-Mormons.

I should probably post this on the ex-Mormon forums, because this means that when an ex-Mormon "brags" about how little they know about the Church when they were members, they're not illuminating something about the Church.  They're just signaling that they were stupid as an LDS, and that would indicate that they're probably still just a stupid.  And experience would seem to bear this out.

I am wondering if you ever told your children "Did you know that Joseph Smith never even looked at the golden plates when he translated what is now "The Book of Mormon"?  Instead he wrote it all by looking at a stone in a hat.  

Or how about "Did you know that Joseph Smith married 30+ women including some other wives husbands and 14 year old girls?

You might want to read these books that tell you way more than what you are receiving at sunday school or seminary.  Because you are getting a whitewashed version of church history at church.  If you want a more complete understanding, you have to do some research on your own.  This stuff will probably not be taught at church.  

When children don't know that what is being fed to them week after week, year after year is a very incomplete picture of the actual history of the church, you don't give them a reason to read outside books.  Frankly, they think they are getting plenty of church, going to seminary every morning and 3 hours every Sunday, reading the Book of Mormon in their spare time as well as other scriptures, youth conferences, girls camp, etc.  The last thing they want to do is spend more time on church stuff.  But drop a few shockers on them and they might well have been more motivated to do some personal study and crack open those books they had 10 feet from them in your family room.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church has, in decades past, been less comfortable with a warts-and-all approach to its history.  There is some justification for that, and some lack of justification.  In any event, the Church has made some very significant improvements in the last many years.

That's a bit of an understatement.  The Church has allowed incorrect ideas to fester uncorrected for years.  You still hear them from the rank and file.

Quote

"I didn't know that I am supposed to study the Restored Gospel on my own" is not, I think, a valid excuse.  The Church has long encouraged us to do just that (in addition to attendance at Church meetings, Seminary/Institute, etc.).

I think studying the Gospel is a neglected duty amongst the Saints.  We can and should - and must - improve on this point.

This.  Exactly this.  I refuse to put all the blame on the Church OR the members.  Both share some culpability in the ignorance of Church history and doctrine some members have lived with.

Quote

The blinders come off when people realize that they have not been listening to the counsel from the Church to study the Gospel on their own, and have instead expected to be spoon-fed by the Church from cradle to grave.

Agreed.

Quote

And yet this board is populated with all sorts of people who are very well-educated about the Church's history and doctrines and practices.

So either the Church's obfuscatory efforts have not been very successful, or they never really existed.

Disagree.  I think the Church's efforts to ensure that anything outside the story they want to tell stays away have been wildly successful.
Pick up a Church manual from the 20th century.  Counselor, the evidence is in the incorrect beliefs of those members who failed to do as recommended above.  Those incorrect beliefs did not appear in a vacuum, nor have they been removed from the Church.

[The Nehor]

I am not so sure 'stupid' is the best appellation. 'Ignorant' might be a better one and there is some blame in choosing ignorance. But yes, those who defect from the faith as a teen or an adult who have a Primary level understanding of the Gospel often leave for Primary level exmo reasons/justifications when they defect. Then again, in my experience, most of those who leave for infantile reasons tend to be using them as an excuse for why they left. I still believe more people leave the Church because they want to sleep in on Sunday morning or get a 10% raise then do because of polygamy, multiple First Vision accounts, or the Priesthood Ban.

I do not see this as a huge problem in the church. Many are not willing to dig through old accounts of Kirtland and Nauvoo to get a more complete picture of life there or to dig up old quotes about obscure doctrine. Such study takes time many just are unable or unwilling to commit. I can tell you that if I were a conventional LDS guy and had gotten married in my 20s and had four or five children now I would not know nearly as much about church history as I do now. Hell, I would not know as much about science, history, literature, and politics as I do now. I would not have the time to laze away several evenings every week with a book or on the web. If I did I would probably be shirking more important responsibilities to do so. As useful as a doctoral level understanding of the gospel is it is not a prerequisite for living a Christ-centered life or achieving exaltation. Many people's lives do take that kind path but we are off the general path of salvation and are into specific individual ones.

But some people's complaints do fall flat. I was reading a book about dinosaurs to my niece a couple of weeks ago and she asked what dinosaurs ate because she saw some eating plants and thought all of them ate other animals. I said some ate meat and some ate plants. She got a little huffy in the way young kids do and said: "No one ever told me that!" As if it is was someone's job to tell her about dinosaurs and her not knowing was the fault of someone else. Many who blame the church are (ostensibly) grown up versions of my niece. At some point you have to take some responsibility on yourself for learning how things work and seeking out the information you need or want on your own.

In the age of the internet the excuse grows more pathetic.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church has done things to obfuscate the truth of its history and doctrines and practices. When a person comes to that realization they are likely to search out the information more. The last thing they need is for people to sit back, shaking their heads, saying "You should have known".

 

Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."

 

[strappinglad]

I can see both points of view. Early in my marriage I bought all of Nibley's works and added to them over the years . They were a way to see that there was " the rest of the story " . I've read Rough Stone Rolling and stuff on the Book of Abraham and Hales? on polygamy and materials on the MMM etc. Every so often I go on a binge and I too got Gee's work and am currently on a Jack Welch search. I raised smart , church going kids but only one has bothered to read one of my library of books. Mea culpa. They trusted the Church narrative as being the whole story. I think the least the Church could do now is put links/references at the bottom of every lesson to places where more could be found about the topic. Should there be a " Recommended Reading list " for each manual?

      As much angst as there is over less than 200 years of LDS church history, imagine the fun a Catholic has perusing 2000 years of

shock and awe.

Edited November 22, 2017 by strappinglad

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."

 

And I think we should recognize that not caring about a particular issue is not necessarily a fault. For example, I could not care less about the personal life of Taylor Swift.  I simply choose to not invest any time or effort in researching or studying or understanding her life. At all. It is not important to me. I glory in my ignorance of the life of Taylor Swift. I feel no guilt at all in maintaining this ignorance. To my dying day, I hope.

I feel differently about the Restored Gospel.  I feel that understanding it and studying it on a consistent basis has been a very important goal and effort in my life.

When it comes to the history and teachings and practices of the church, different things can become important to us in different ways and at different times. None of us can be a subject matter expert as to everything, so we have to pick and choose. The point, I think, should be that we should be constantly studying the Gospel.  Studying it by reading and pondering and praying about it, and also living in accordance with it. This is the best way to come to understand the gospel.

On occasion, we will run into controversial or difficult to understand issues. The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Polygamy. Blacks and the priesthood. The church's teachings on same-sex marriage. And so on.  Some of these topics are inherently difficult to understand or accept. Others become considerably easier to understand and accept and appreciate if we give sufficient time and study and contemplation to them. At the end of the day, however, there will be far less surprise and shock when Jeremy Runnells runs out of unfamiliar/unencountered material to peddle to the Saints. It is this intended shock value that people like Runnells relish, and that can become disruptive to a person's progress in the gospel.

In contrast, someone who continuously studies and ponders and increases their familiarity with the church and its history and practices and doctrines will be inoculated against these sorts of disruptive events.  That is not to say that everything in the church is perfect and pristine and without flaw or error. Rather, a well-informed and well-educated Latter Day Saint will have better command of the overall context of the Gospel, and better coping mechanisms with which to address controversial or sensitive or difficult issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

40 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."

 

And yet...the reason so many of us never knew....was because we trusted our parents....our primary teachers...why search for more when we knew or thought we knew all the right answers. 

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

And yet...the reason so many of us never knew....was because we trusted our parents....our primary teachers...why search for more when we knew or thought we knew all the right answers. 

Because the LDS faith tells you over and over again to study, learn, and continue to grow.  It's right in the Articles of Faith that we seek after good things and have much more to be revealed to us.

[CA Steve]

So do we then apply this same standard to Joseph Smith?

I mean if the information was available to him, we can reasonably expect him to have know it, right?

 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by CA Steve

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Because the LDS faith tells you over and over again to study, learn, and continue to grow.  It's right in the Articles of Faith that we seek after good things and have much more to be revealed to us.

Yes!!  Study and learn...grow..I so agree and many of the articles of faith a good and true to me.  I still believe and hope for all good things.  But I could no longer take the blame for those things that we not taught.  They may have been in articles..or in deep scholarship..or books I could not afford.  The thing is..I really though everything I needed to know would come through church attendance..seminaries and institute.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am wondering if you ever told your children "Did you know that Joseph Smith never even looked at the golden plates when he translated what is now "The Book of Mormon"?  Instead he wrote it all by looking at a stone in a hat.  

Or how about "Did you know that Joseph Smith married 30+ women including some other wives husbands and 14 year old girls?

You might want to read these books that tell you way more than what you are receiving at sunday school or seminary.  Because you are getting a whitewashed version of church history at church.  If you want a more complete understanding, you have to do some research on your own.  This stuff will probably not be taught at church.  

When children don't know that what is being fed to them week after week, year after year is a very incomplete picture of the actual history of the church, you don't give them a reason to read outside books.  Frankly, they think they are getting plenty of church, going to seminary every morning and 3 hours every Sunday, reading the Book of Mormon in their spare time as well as other scriptures, youth conferences, girls camp, etc.  The last thing they want to do is spend more time on church stuff.  But drop a few shockers on them and they might well have been more motivated to do some personal study and crack open those books they had 10 feet from them in your family room.

It's not only children that may be getting an incorrect history, but adults as well. The "Teachings of the Presidents" on Brigham Young, takes out wives and puts wife. Also, in another history account, Joseph Smith in his own writing says he is having a beer at Moesser's, church has deleted it. There are several instances of the church portraying something different than the original. 

Hiding information or altering the past, does happen. It sure makes for some digging when one finds things out. I was and still am addicted to finding out the real church history. I am embarrassed to say I had books inherited from my mom that sat on my shelf. Also had the book Cinepro mentioned on it that I never cracked open, don't even know where it came from and it was "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus". I even sent it along with many other old books to the D.I. w/o knowing what was in them. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Tacenda

[Jane_Doe]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Yes!!  Study and learn...grow..I so agree and many of the articles of faith a good and true to me.  I still believe and hope for all good things. 

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The thing is..I really though everything I needed to know would come through church attendance..seminaries and institute.

In your view, what is the most important the most important thing you need to know?

[Atheist Mormon]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So where does that leave responsibility to acquire the information?  

Where else? If the information is out there? I never once thought it was Church's responsibility to spoonfeed the members, which church does that exactly? And yet Fundamentalist Christians were quick to judge that Chruch was hiding it's past. The information was always available.Few of  exmo friends always lament they didn't have the information.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Instead of saying "you should have known", the correct response would probably be "the reason you didn't know is because you didn't care."

 

I think it would help some if some people didn't make a big deal of others not knowing as if there was something wrong with them (not saying you did, though I think you came close using "stupid", but I can imagine you have some frustration with your child given you would have been very happy to spend hours discussing it with him...I had a son I did just that and a daughter who was often in the room occupied with something else, my son is very knowledgeable, my daughter not in this area or interested much at all in faith...it can hurt at time, I am also saddened neither child has read very many of the novels I bought to share with my kids because I enjoyed them).   Someone can be not interested in learning history because they would rather play video games than read Dad's books on the shelves or because they are filling their time with 6 hours a day practicing violin (my niece) or helping their widowed mother care for their 5 younger siblings (a young lady in my ward) or other "best" reasons.

I don't think assumptions of laziness should be made, even these days when books are not required with internet access.

However, this equally means imo that when someone discovers the level of their ignorance, they don't blame someone else for not insisting they choose to study history or somehow make it so easy they could have absorbed it in their sleep.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am wondering if you ever told your children "Did you know that Joseph Smith never even looked at the golden plates when he translated what is now "The Book of Mormon"?  Instead he wrote it all by looking at a stone in a hat.  

Pretty much, yes.

I find a seerstone process no stranger than a Joseph-tracing-each-character-on-the-plates-and-translating-them-through-divine-guidance process.  The translation process was, either way, beyond the abilities of Joseph Smith and required guidance from God.

Quote

Or how about "Did you know that Joseph Smith married 30+ women including some other wives husbands and 14 year old girls?

Well, not quite.  My kids all know that Joseph was a polygamist, and that their ages ranged from 50+ down to the teens.

Strange how nobody affects a leering tone when discussing Elizabeth Davis  (50), Sarah Kingsley (53), Fanny Young (56),  and Rhoda Richards (58).  Strangely enough, these ladies seem to escape the attention of the critics altogether.  They don't fit the oh-my-stars-and-garters!-Joseph-Smith-was-lecherous-because-he-married-teenagers! narrative, I guess.

I don't teach my children about important and sensitive topics using a lurid, let's-see-how-much-I-can-shock-and-disturb-them approach which appears to be favored by some.  I try to provide context (historical, cultural, doctrinal, etc.).  I go with the best information we have.  I try to explain my personal thoughts, including that it's okay to feel some discomfort at practices with which we are not acclimated (my children have also expressed some reservations about the biblical practice of animal sacrifice, but they seem to be able to accommodate it).

Quote

You might want to read these books that tell you way more than what you are receiving at sunday school or seminary.  

Yes.  That's what the Church has long taught.  We should not rely on the three-hour block and seminary/institute as the sole sources of information about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  We should also actively and consistently study the Gospel on our own.

Quote

Because you are getting a whitewashed version of church history at church.  

Whitewashed: "anything, as deceptive words or actions, used to cover up or gloss over faults, errors, or wrongdoings, or absolve a wrongdoer from blame."

Again with the lurid, sneering approach.

The leaders of the Church really do believe in the teachings of the Church.  It's not a front.  It's not smoke and mirrors.  There is a lot of sincerity going on.  So when it comes to the Church using the very limited time it has to provide the Saints with formal instruction (essentially, about 90 minutes or less on most Sundays), it goes with the broad strokes and general precepts.  There isn't really time for, say, a detailed analysis of Pat Bagley's famously fraudulent "grain allies" interpolation, or discussing "Does Facsimile 1 show fingers or wings?", or "Did Joseph screw up in the Fifth Lecture on Faith re: God having a body?"  Instead, the Church goes with the important, foundational stuff, and the stuff that the Saints really need to improve on (geneology, tithing, Word of Wisdom, Law of Chastity, treating family members with kindness, etc.).  Beyond that, the Saints are encouraged - rather consistently - to study the Gospel on their own.  This would be a rather odd instruction from a church bent on "whitewashing" its history.  

Further, I have a hard time reconciling a charge of "whitewashing" with the Church's Gospel Topics Essays:

• Are Mormons Christian?
• Becoming Like God
• Book of Mormon and DNA Studies
• Book of Mormon Translation
• First Vision Accounts
• Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women
• Mother in Heaven
• Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints
• Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Race and the Priesthood
• Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

These are thorny, difficult issues.  For example, the Church's essay on polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvoo specifically references Helen Mar Kimball as being the youngest of Joseph's wives, and that she was 14 ("several months before her 15th birthday").

Quote

If you want a more complete understanding, you have to do some research on your own.  This stuff will probably not be taught at church.  

Which is precisely what the Church teaches.

And is precisely the point being contested in this thread.  Some folks seem to think that the Church wants its members to limit their inquiries about the Restored Gospel to the three-hour block.  That's simply not the case.

Quote

When children don't know that what is being fed to them week after week, year after year is a very incomplete picture of the actual history of the church, you don't give them a reason to read outside books.  

Unless, of course, they are affirmatively encouraged to study the Gospel on their own.  That would be, I think, "a reason to read outside books."

Quote

Frankly, they think they are getting plenty of church, going to seminary every morning and 3 hours every Sunday, reading the Book of Mormon in their spare time as well as other scriptures, youth conferences, girls camp, etc.  

And yet . . . they are also taught to do more than that, and to study the Gospel on their own.

Quote

The last thing they want to do is spend more time on church stuff.  

That's understandable.  Unfortunate, but understandable.  As it is, though, I think LDS kids are becoming more interested in studying the Gospel, since they are running into controversial stuff online all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 22, 2017 by smac97