Elder Oaks Settles The Matter Of The History Presented

[LifeOnaPlate]

You need to tread softly here. If you remember correctly Pres. Hinckley displayed this exact rigid fervor in General Conference when he said that JS and his story was either the complete truth and the greatest event to come to pass in the latter days or the biggest fraud ever concocted (forgive me for not remembering the exact GC address, but I just recently watched this same address not but a week ago on BYUTV). His statement did not leave any room for gray areas in our beliefs. Are you suggesting that the prophet himself is a fanatic?

I don't think Mormons want to be so black and white, but a combination of tradition and church doctrine has made it so. When I explain to my family or other members that I consider myself a progressive mormon, they instantly try to put me into the exmormon camp or the anti's.

Luckily, Pres. Hinckley didn't say the missionary force would just as soon become a bunch of freaking suicide bombers, like our friend Tal-iban Bachman.

SHE'S SO HIIIIGHH HIGH ABOVE ME!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Your "questions"? I see a single question above re what "you" (maybe that means me?) think of the church and how "you" know it. Is this what you are referring to?

I quoted you, typed a long response including questions. They weren't rhetorical, they were for you, sorry for the confusion.

[gtaggart]

Selek, there is no point in debating whether certain members of the Twelve have taken the position that not all truth should be told. I do not think this is disputed. Just look at the Oaks statements above.

You think wrong, and you often argue without context. A bad combination.

[mms]

You need to tread softly here. If you remember correctly Pres. Hinckley displayed this exact rigid fervor in General Conference when he said that JS and his story was either the complete truth and the greatest event to come to pass in the latter days or the biggest fraud ever concocted (forgive me for not remembering the exact GC address, but I just recently watched this same address not but a week ago on BYUTV). His statement did not leave any room for gray areas in our beliefs. Are you suggesting that the prophet himself is a fanatic?

I don't think Mormons want to be so black and white, but a combination of tradition and church doctrine has made it so. When I explain to my family or other members that I consider myself a progressive mormon, they instantly try to put me into the exmormon camp or the anti's.

Agreed. It was always black and white in primary, YM, Institute, MTC, etc. Why the surprise and disdain for those who did not see the grey earlier when all the Church presented was black and white? The GBH quote was recently supported by others who have stated that there is no room for believing the BoM to be inspired but not believing in its historicity. According to the Brethren, apparently, if it is not historically accurate, the whole thing is a fraud.

[mms]

You think wrong, and you often argue without context. A bad combination.

Please provide the reference for your claim that I am wrong.

[Deborah]

What is the "official Church magazine" and on what basis does one recognize and accept it as "offical"?

Milton V. Backman Jr., â??Joseph Smithâ??s Recitals of the First Vision,â? Ensign, Jan 1985, 8: "On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences."

Richard Lloyd Anderson, â??Parallel Prophets: Paul and Joseph Smith,â? Ensign, Apr 1985, 12: "Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smithâ??s spontaneous accounts of his first vision..."

Milton V. Backman Jr., â??Confirming Witnesses of the First Vision,â? Ensign, Jan 1986, 32: "In an article which appeared in the January 1985 issue of the Ensign, we discussed four written descriptions by the Prophet Joseph Smith of the vision he had in 1820 near Palmyra, New York, in which he was visited by the Father and the Son. This article is an extension of that summary and considers accounts of the First Vision given by contemporaries of Joseph Smith, who, they said, related the information to them personally...."

The Ensign is the monthly church magazine which virtually all members have in their homes. Someone who doesn't even know this has no business telling others what the church teaches or believes.

[gitxsanartist]

First, the missionaries are called to preach the gospel of repentance and avoid long wrangling discussions over every point of doctrine. As a missionary, when an investigator had a difficult question arise that couldn't quickly be addressed I would refer said investigator to other sources and encourage them to find answers as well, meanwhile to focus on the basics. Truly, the basics are enough to keep us busy for a long, long time.

If you read the Book of Mormon you won't find many instances of intellectual over spiritual conversion. Learning the gospel takes years and years; the quickest way being to learn it through the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Missionaries have seen, time and time again, good people slip through the cracks on extremely minor doctrinal or historicasls issues, and their hesitation to delve into such issues can be due to fear, lack of knowledge, or many other things.

The fact is, you either feel inspiration from God about the gospel being true or you don't. Focusing on the negative is negative; if you want to sow seeds of doubt into your spiritual garden you are free to do so. Sometimes they are instructive, and end up making us focus on our garden even more than before, strengthening it in the long run.

The cadence of this discussion seems to be that of argument, maybe a sense of betrayal or bitterness. These aren't the frutis of the spirit, and everyone ought to examine themselves to make sure they are cultivating that spirit in their investigations.

DCP- What think ye of B.H. Roberts as historian; namely, in his Comprehensive History of the Church?

You make some interesting points. I think one of the biggest flaws in our Mormon thinking is clearly reiterated in your statement above about feeling that the gospel is true or not feeling that it is true. We often try to link things together where rightfully that link may not exist. For example, I might go to a wonderful meeting/fireside and feel the spirit strongly or perform and ordinance for one of my children such as a baby blessing and likewise be overcome with the spirit and my own emotions. However, to then make the sweeping conclusion that this means that Joseph Smith was a true prophet or that the practice of polygamy was of God just doesn't make logical sense. As LDS we tend to make these sorts of illogical connections, honestly I don't know why, maybe it is a part of our culture.

We say things like we know that church is true. For many this means that everything about the church is without flaw, our history is perfect, no gray areas exist or should exist. Since it is God's church then naturally it should be like unto God himself, without flaw and perfect in doctrine and practice. It is no wonder than many LDS, myself included, find it very difficult when we do encounter the "warts", our mormon culture emphasizes that the restored gospel is now in its fullness and that all other religions are inferiour to our own. Our expectations are high, almost too high.

[gtaggart]

Please provide the reference for your claim that I am wrong.

You're calling for references on my opinion? Well, here goes.

You said

there is no point in debating whether certain members of the Twelve have taken the position that not all truth should be told. I do not think this is disputed. Just look at the Oaks statements above.

I dispute that notion. I maintain that when you put their statements in context--Elder Packer's for instance--and don't take their every word literally--Elder Oaks' use of the word "everything" in his Whitney interview for example--and acknowledge that, in fact, not all truth is of equal value or worth our time (as Dr. Peterson has pointed out), there's little if anything left to your silly little argument.

[mms]

You're calling for references on my opinion? Well, here goes.

You said

I dispute that notion. I maintain that when you put their statements in context--Elder Packer's for instance--and don't take their every word literally--Elder Oaks' use of the word "everything" in his Whitney interview for example--and acknowledge that, in fact, not all truth is of equal value or worth our time (as Dr. Peterson has pointed out), there's little if anything left to your silly little argument.

The lengths to which you have to go (e.g., "and don't take every word literally") to come out where you have indicates, in MY OPINION, that you start with a conclusion that results in the least conflict with your beliefs, and work backward. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I start with the statement and then draw the conclusion from the "literal" words (no need to rework them to fit my conclusion, because I have not gotten there until after reading the statement).

Oh yeah, and as for your argument that my "argument" is a "silly little argument", I'm rubber and you're glue and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

[gtaggart]

Did you not notice the brackets around the "W" or did you simply not understand what bracketing the "W" was intended to indicate? Please do not accuse me of misleading unless you are darn sure of it and if you are, you will find that I will correct my mistake (I do not think this has happened yet, but I will correct myself if it does).

The "out of context" argument is getting old. I posted the context and it simply made the admission even more clear, stating that the Church may ahve been "lagging" behind the times with the way it portrayed its history and stated again the fear the Church has that the full facts will cause doubt.

Context, often, is everything. Take Elder Oaks' statement in an interview with Whitney. In the first place, it's at least a bit ambiguous. Then there's the fact that all kinds of context is missing. For example, it was a verbal statement, one that he may have worded differently had he written it. It's probably not the only thing he has ever said on the subject of history. Finally, your interpretation does not take into account Elder Oaks' own historical writing (Carthage Conspiracy comes to mind). That's all context for what Elder Oaks said in one interview, yet you insist on nailing him to the wall based on one ambiguous statement. That's unfair. It's hardly truth seeking. And until you (and others) understand that principle, you'll continue to hear the context argument.

[mms]

Context, often, is everything. Take Elder Oaks' statement in an interview with Whitney. In the first place, it's at least a bit ambiguous. Then there's the fact that all kinds of context is missing. For example, it was a verbal statement, one that he may have worded differently had he written it. It's probably not the only thing he has ever said on the subject of history. Finally, your interpretation does not take into account Elder Oaks' own historical writing (Carthage Conspiracy comes to mind). That's all context for what Elder Oaks said in one interview, yet you insist on nailing him to the wall based on one ambiguous statement. That's unfair. It's hardly truth seeking. And until you (and others) understand that principle, you'll continue to hear the context argument.

Nailing him to the wall? I applaud him for is candor. Indeed, it is refreshing. It just so happens that he made some of you, here, look not-so-good in the process of admitting the rather obvious. All of your arguments (collective "you") about how stupid and naive those of us who doubt as a result of being blindsided by certain history are; about how we are 100% responsible for being such idiots; about how we "should have known" and how "sheltered" we must have been for not knowing; etc. just went down the drain with one statement. You will not deal with it well, but you will have to deal with it.

[gitxsanartist]

Comments such as these by Elder Oaks make me realize that the cat is finally out of the bag (Bushman's book helped a lot). Granted we still have a long way to go before the "truth" about our religion is fully disseminated but I can now see that progress is being made.

Elder Oaks comments are nothing more than damage control, a serious response is needed, so he spoke out. Let's face it the amount of material available on the internet and in other forms is so widespread now that it is nearly impossible to avoid some gray areas of our religion.

I visited my family in Utah over the weekend, and as I was driving to Provo I noticed a billboard for postmormon.org right there off the freeway in happy valley, shocking!

I doubt that this type of gray area material we ever find its way into the curriculum but I am sure that as it gains further acceptance by the members we may see a gradual shift in our mormon thinking and even in the way we view other christian religions. I think we will become a better church for it, more compassionate of others and their beliefs and practices.

[mms]

Comments such as these by Elder Oaks make me realize that the cat is finally out of the bag (Bushman's book helped a lot). Granted we still have a long way to go before the "truth" about our religion is fully disseminated but I can now see that progress is being made.

Elder Oaks comments are nothing more than damage control, a serious response is needed, so he spoke out. Let's face it the amount of material available on the internet and in other forms is so widespread now that it is nearly impossible to avoid some gray areas of our religion.

I visited my family in Utah over the weekend, and as I was driving to Provo I noticed a billboard for postmormon.org right there off the freeway in happy valley, shocking!

I doubt that this type of gray area material we ever find its way into the curriculum but I am sure that as it gains further acceptance by the members we may see a gradual shift in our mormon thinking and even in the way we view other christian religions. I think we will become a better church for it, more compassionate of others and their beliefs and practices.

Well stated. And stated in such a way that I (and probably many others that read but do not post, opting not to subject themselves to the attacks I and some others have) one can feel like there is a place in the church for those of us who think the church certainly has been "lagging" in stating its history. Indeed, it seems that you and I agree with Oaks and several others here want to change what Oaks said to make it fit the "you're a naive, sheltered moron" arguments they have made so often.

[gtaggart]

The lengths to which you have to go (e.g., "and don't take every word literally") to come out where you have indicates, in MY OPINION, that you start with a conclusion that results in the least conflict with your beliefs, and work backward. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but I start with the statement and then draw the conclusion from the "literal" words (no need to rework them to fit my conclusion, because I have not gotten there until after reading the statement).

Oh yeah, and as for your argument that my "argument" is a "silly little argument", I'm rubber and you're glue and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

There you go again. I've made my argument previously that it was ridiculous to take the word "everything" as anything other than hyperbole. If you think it's going to great lengths to point out that Joseph Fielding Smith wrote of polygamy and Mountain Meadows in his 1950 book Essentials of Church History and that therefore Elder Oaks couldn't have meant "everything" literally, then I've got a big case of the "Oh wells."

I could also point to B.H. Roberts' writing and to various articles on the Kinderhook plates, polygamy, Mountain Meadows, the various versions of the First Vision, conference talks that spoke of Joseph peering at a seer stone in a hat, and the like that have appeared on the pages of The Ensign. I could direct you to the discussion of Section 132 and polygamy and Joseph's practice of it in the 1981 D&C student manual (p. 334 in particular). All are matters that the critics point to as things unfavorable to the Church. All appeared before Elder Oaks' statement that so exercises you. All go to prove that Elder Oaks was speaking hyperbolically when he used the word "everything."

By the way, you didn't get there until reading his statment. You got there by jumping to unwarranted conclusions and ignoring other evidence.

[juliann]

Now, if I find statements from official Church publications discouraging one from looking to materials outside of the Church publications for information re the Church, will we then agree that if one simply listened to the counsel of Church leaders, one would not be familiar with the "warts and all"?

Be sure to include Elder Oaks' caution to not rely soley on leaders' commentary....including the article in which he was telling us that.

A little cheese with your whine?

[mms]

There you go again. I've made my argument previously that it was ridiculous to take the word "everything" as anything other than hyperbole. If you think it's going to great lengths to point out that Joseph Fielding Smith wrote of polygamy and Mountain Meadows in his 1950 book Essentials of Church History and that therefore Elder Oaks couldn't have meant "everything" literally, then I've got a big case of the "Oh wells."

I could also point to B.H. Roberts' writing and to various articles on the Kinderhook plates, polygamy, Mountain Meadows, the various versions of the First Vision, conference talks that spoke of Joseph peering at a seer stone in a hat, and the like that have appeared on the pages of The Ensign. I could direct you to the discussion of Section 132 and polygamy and Joseph's practice of it in the 1981 D&C student manual (p. 334 in particular). All are matters that the critics point to as things unfavorable to the Church. All appeared before Elder Oaks' statement that so exercises you. All go to prove that Elder Oaks was speaking hyperbolically when he used the word "everything."

By the way, you didn't get there until reading his statment. You got there by jumping to unwarranted conclusions and ignoring other evidence.

It appears that you simply cannot accept the fact that Oaks clearly understands that nearly all church history has been written adoringly by the Church, and did not deal with unfavorable matters, as he stated very clearly (no need to replace the literal words here). It also appears that you cannot accept the fact that he admitted that the Church had possibly been lagging behind the times. He understands it, I understand it, you do not understand it. So be it.

[mms]

Be sure to include Elder Oaks' caution to not rely soley on leaders' commentary....including the article in which he was telling us that.

A little cheese with your whine?

The pundits arrive and the ad hominems with them.

Why do you think that Elder Oaks did not simply call those who are "surprised" when learning certain aspects of history "whiners" and "silly"? No really, why do you think he did not?

[Yme]

The Ensign is the monthly church magazine which virtually all members have in their homes. Someone who doesn't even know this has no business telling others what the church teaches or believes.

Yes, we receive it in our house. But as i asked before, where does one go or where does the Lds Church claim it as the official magazine? Can you answer that??

And, again, was the Times and Seasons in Smith's day any less official based on your authority to declare the Ensing "official"?

Just asking for a little "think through" on this one!!!

[gtaggart]

Nailing him to the wall? I applaud him for is candor. Indeed, it is refreshing. It just so happens that he made some of you, here, look not-so-good in the process of admitting the rather obvious. All of your arguments (collective "you") about how stupid and naive those of us who doubt as a result of being blindsided by certain history are; about how we are 100% responsible for being such idiots; about how we "should have known" and how "sheltered" we must have been for not knowing; etc. just went down the drain with one statement. You will not deal with it well, but you will have to deal with it.

Deal with it? I've dealt with it. What I won't brook is your overstating the case and your careless, self serving reading of Elder Oaks' statement.

In any event, the basic issues have always been there--in official church publications--for all to see. That they could have been there in more detail, I'm guessing most everyone agrees. That they should have been there in every detail in every circumstance, I don't agree. But it's specious to the 10th degree to argue that our "dirty laundry" hasn't been out there for a long, long, long time--even in Church and Church friendly sources, not to mention the works of the Tanner's et. al. My first exposure to most of the arguments against the Church came in junior high school, 40 years ago. It was in a book published by Deseret Book no less, with footnotes to all the anti sources quoted in the book. Juanita Brooks' Mountain Meadows book was published to great fanfare in 1950 (David Bitton highly recommended her book as the standard in his 1977 review of new books and articles on Church history--in of all places, The Ensign. Don't misunderstand: he was comparing it to a couple of 1977 books on the tragedy). Fawn Brodies Joseph Smith biography has been around since 1945 I think. BYU Bookstore carried both of those books when I was there in 1973.

Anyway, I'm through with this thread.

[gtaggart]

It appears that you simply cannot accept the fact that Oaks clearly understands that nearly all church history has been written adoringly by the Church, and did not deal with unfavorable matters, as he stated very clearly (no need to replace the literal words here). It also appears that you cannot accept the fact that he admitted that the Church had possibly been lagging behind the times. He understands it, I understand it, you do not understand it. So be it. (emphasis mine)

Thanks for proving my point: "everything" is nothing like "nearly all," now is it? In fact, isn't your use of that phrase kind of like altering the "literal words"?

Apparently you've noticed the myriad of counter examples I've posted that in fact did deal with "unfavorable matters." Too bad you didn't take time to read them. If you had, you wouldn't have been blind sided.

And where oh where did I say anything about Elder Oaks' statment that the Church has been lagging behind the times in its history?

[sethpayne]

mms:

I think many Latter-day Saints have struggled with this overarching question of history and have indeed been surprised by some of the more "colorful" episodes they discover. Additionally, some may feel that the version they received in Sunday School was less than a complete and/or accurate account of how things "actually happened." The reasons for this are complicated and many. I recently wrote a lengthy paper on this very subject comparing the "official" Church history (if there even is such a thing) with newer publications such as Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. I won't post the link to it here for fear of appearing self-serving but if you are interested in reading it please feel free to contact me at :

seth (dot) payne (at) yale (dot) edu

I would welcome your thoughts and comments.

Additionally, you may be interested in a paper presented at Yale Divinity by Bushman back in Feb. Text is here:

http://www.faithandknowledge.org/liberation.pdf

Audio here:

http://www.faithandknowledge.org/mp3/liberation.mp3

[mms]

Thanks for proving my point: "everything" is nothing like "nearly all," now is it? In fact, isn't your use of that phrase kind of like altering the "literal words"?

Apparently you've noticed the myriad of counter examples I've posted that in fact did deal with "unfavorable matters." Too bad you didn't take time to read them. If you had, you wouldn't have been blind sided.

And where oh where did I say anything about Elder Oaks' statment that the Church has been lagging behind the times in its history?

I thought you were through with this thread? No, your counter examples were not my concern, as in none of them (I am only concerned with the official publications of the Church here, as that is all I have been writing of in this thread) are the truly difficult issues addressed (one can obviously address polygamy without addressing the more difficult aspects of it). As for my "nearly all" usage, I understnad Elder Oaks statement for what it is. It was clearly intended to mean that the "warts and all" have not been dealt with, yet you and others think I and others are sheltered, naive, idiots for not seeing the "warts and all" that WERE NOT WRITTEN ABOUT BY THE CHURCH. Why make something so simple so complicated? Because it suits your desire to label new doubters morons for having read the scriptures and institute manuals instead of the five books you mentioned.

[mms]

mms:

I think many Latter-day Saints have struggled with this overarching question of history and have indeed been surprised by some of the more "colorful" episodes they discover. Additionally, some may feel that the version they received in Sunday School was less than a complete and/or accurate account of how things "actually happened." The reasons for this are complicated and many. I recently wrote a lengthy paper on this very subject comparing the "official" Church history (if there even is such a thing) with newer publications such as Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. I won't post the link to it here for fear of appearing self-serving but if you are interested in reading it please feel free to contact me at :

seth (dot) payne (at) yale (dot) edu

I would welcome your thoughts and comments.

Additionally, you may be interested in a paper presented at Yale Divinity by Bushman back in Feb. Text is here:

http://www.faithandknowledge.org/liberation.pdf

Audio here:

http://www.faithandknowledge.org/mp3/liberation.mp3

Seth,

Forget about being self-serving, please do post a link as I think many would be interested.

mms

[mms]

Seth,

Forget about being self-serving, please do post a link as I think many would be interested.

mms

www.sethpayne.com

[sethpayne]

www.sethpayne.com

Wow.... Google is a powerful thing!

The precise link is:

http://www.mormonstudies.net/history.pdf