Warts and all kind of history

[Scott26.2]

In light of recent threads about "discovering" church history "problems" or other things that were "hid" from members while investigating; and how the magic of the internet suddenly has opened the eyes of the ignorant deceived:

For the PBS documentary The Mormons, Elder Oaks was asked how the church deals with the imperfections of early church members and current members coming across this information themselves on the internet rather than through teachings of the church. Elder Oaks response:

"It's an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That's an old problem in Mormonism â?? a feeling of members that they shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should've been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life. There are several different elements of that. One element is that we're emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn't deal with anything that's unfavorable, and we're coming into a period of "warts and all" kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things â?? there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now."

My thought:

Some have expressed their dissapointment that our LDS history wasn't laid out bare to them from the beginning inorder to make a true, honest decsion about baptism and membership. Fine. In the spirit of Elder Oaks, perhaps there might be some real merit there. However, for those who have left in light of discovered "problems", why did it end there? In other words, did you approach the potential problems with the same eye of faith and open mind with which you initially approached mormonism? Did you take the time to "discover" a response?

The internet, while certainly a tool for discovering the "problems" is also a tool for finding the solutions.

Your thoughts?

Scott26.2

[JLFuller]

In light of recent threads about "discovering" church history "problems" or other things that were "hid" from members while investigating; and how the magic of the internet suddenly has opened the eyes of the ignorant deceived:

For the PBS documentary The Mormons, Elder Oaks was asked how the church deals with the imperfections of early church members and current members coming across this information themselves on the internet rather than through teachings of the church. Elder Oaks response:

"It's an old problem, the extent to which official histories, whatever they are, or semi-official histories, get into things that are shadowy or less well-known or whatever. That's an old problem in Mormonism — a feeling of members that they shouldn't have been surprised by the fact that this or that happened, they should've been alerted to it. I have felt that throughout my life. There are several different elements of that. One element is that we're emerging from a period of history writing within the Church [of] adoring history that doesn't deal with anything that's unfavorable, and we're coming into a period of "warts and all" kind of history. Perhaps our writing of history is lagging behind the times, but I believe that there is purpose in all these things — there may have been a time when Church members could not have been as well prepared for that kind of historical writing as they may be now."

My thought:

Some have expressed their dissapointment that our LDS history wasn't laid out bare to them from the beginning inorder to make a true, honest decsion about baptism and membership. Fine. In the spirit of Elder Oaks, perhaps there might be some real merit there. However, for those who have left in light of discovered "problems", why did it end there? In other words, did you approach the potential problems with the same eye of faith and open mind with which you initially approached mormonism? Did you take the time to "discover" a response?

The internet, while certainly a tool for discovering the "problems" is also a tool for finding the solutions.

Your thoughts?

Scott26.2

I am glad no one thought it was their duty to expose all my warts to every one who got to know me first. I am sure I would not only be toothless and fat but friendless and alone.

[dblagent007]

Since we are quoting Elder Oaks, here is a post that I put on the other thread:

This is from an article by Elder Oaks in the February 1987 Ensign. The article is principally about criticism, particularly of church leaders. However, there is a very good discussion of how "truth" should be handled.

Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn't it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that "the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it." A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as "contempt for the truth." (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven." (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is "a time to speak," and there is also "a time to keep silence." (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to mute our criticism is like the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Saints to abstain from eating meat offered as sacrifices to idols. In truth, he taught, the idol was nothing. But since some of the members were weak and might misunderstand, those who knew the truth needed to "take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak." (1 Cor. 8:9.) A Protestant theologian, Krister Stendahl, concludes: "The gist of Paul's though is that integrity is of no value in itself." (See Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, p. 61.)

The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, "If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died." (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it enobles it.

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. For example, it is wrong to make statements of fact out of an evil motive, even if the statements are true. It is wrong to threaten to reveal embarrassing facts unless money is paid, even if the facts are true. We call that crime blackmail. Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are forbidden to reveal facts they have received in confidence, even though those facts are true.

Just as the principle of justice must be constrained by the principle of mercy (see Alma 42), so must the use of truth be disciplined by the principle of love. As Paul instructed the Ephesians, we "grow up into" Christ by "speaking the truth in love." (See Eph. 4:15.)

</a>In a message titled "Truthâ??and More," Elder Russell M. Nelson contrasted the single-minded surgeon who coldly announces the truth about a terminal illness with the compassionate surgeon who mingles that message with assurances of love and support that help the patient and his family handle the truth. Truth is powerful and absolute in its existence, but its communication should usually be guided by companion principles. "Otherwise," Elder Nelson observed, "the sword of truth, cutting and sharp as a surgeon's scalpel, might not be governed by righteousness or by mercy, but might be misused carelessly to embarrass, debase, or deceive others. â?¦ Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid." (Ensign, Jan. 1986, pp. 70â??71.)

One who focuses on faults, though they be true, tears down a brother or a sister. The virtues of patience, brotherly kindness, mutual respect, loyalty, and good manners all rest to some degree on the principle that even though something is true, we are not necessarily justiifed in communicating it to any and all persons at any and all times.

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. The Savior taught: "The spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, [who] stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." (3 Ne. 11:29.) Paul taught the Romans: "Mark them which cause divisions â?¦ and avoid them." (Rom. 16:17.) In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that "Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself," and declared that "If ye are not one ye are not mine." (D&C 38:25, 27.)

However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command. When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is "a time to keep silence, and a time to speak." (Eccl. 3:7.)

This is very interesting (as is the entire talk). First, it seems clear that hard truths should be treated with silence for the reasons Elder Oaks outlined. It seems that, in large measure, this is how the Church is treating some hard truths regarding history and doctrine.

Second, Elder Oaks clearly does not feel that this silence constitutes "lying" or "falsehood." I think most of the apostates on this board feel differently about this.

I think that in principle, Elder Oaks is correct that certain truths are better left unsaid, which is why I don't tell a fat person that he/she is fat. It's rude. However, I'm not sure about the application of this principle to certain aspects of history and doctrine.

For example, a fat person probably has an inkling that he/she is fat without me opening my mouth. I withhold speaking the obvious truth because it serves no purpose other than to hurt the person. In the case of difficult history and/or doctrine, the rationale for silence seems to be the value judgement that the person is better off not knowing since it may destroy faith. I'm just not sure this is a good enough justification. Maintaining faith at all costs is too much.

Either way, I think a good case could be made that more open discussion of difficult aspects of history and doctrine is beneficial to members. This prevents the loss of trust that some feel when they do find out about these things.

The church doesn't seem to agree. The church may have data, or at least anecdotal evidence, that greater exposure to these hard truths is unwise because a great loss of faith will ensue. I don't know, but for whatever reason, the church seems to primarily engage in silence regarding most controversial issues, with an occassional Ensign article written about certain issues every 10-20 years (if the issue is non-controversial enough - I haven't seen the Ensign article about JS's polyandry yet).

[Mormon Questioner]

Well it seems that Elder Oakes has progressed somewhat. He used to stress this:

"the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it"

Link

and now he seems to be accepting that we will get warts and all history. I don't think he is advocating it though. You appear to be giving him credit for saying that maybe we were not giving the full picture, but his talk above, and Elder Packer's talk about the Mantle and the Intellect, are a big part of why church educators and historians were hiding the warts in the first place.

In other words, did you approach the potential problems with the same eye of faith and open mind with which you initially approached mormonism? Did you take the time to "discover" a response?

Yep... I spent ten years on this board, trying to find answers to the problems I was seeing, among lots of other things. Is that enough time for you? Or should I have spent my entire life? Honestly at some point you have to say enough.

Every issue I had, I discovered there was a possible apologetic explanation. That was generally enough for me to put it on my shelf. After 10 years of that study, and lots and lots of prayer, my shelf finally collapsed.

However, for those who have left in light of discovered "problems", why did it end there?

I think this might happen for some, but for most that I have known discovering these issues is not the end. It is the beginning. It usually is the beginning of an incredibly difficult heart wrenching period of study, prayer, doubt, feelings of betrayal, and yearning for truth. The discovery of these problems generally doesn't lead to people just immediately leaving, instead it leaves them confused and uncertain, and generally leads to more intense study. The end doesn't come until much later when you realize the possible apologetic answers are just not likely, and the whole world crashes down around you.

At least that is how it happened for me.

[cjcampbell]

I think that the skeptics and persecutors of the Church, if they are going to demand that the Church "come clean" on its history, need to also "come clean" on theirs.

[Jason]

For example, a fat person probably has an inkling that he/she is fat without me opening my mouth. I withhold speaking the obvious truth because it serves no purpose other than to hurt the person. In the case of difficult history and/or doctrine, the rationale for silence seems to be the value judgement that the person is better off not knowing since it may destroy faith. I'm just not sure this is a good enough justification. Maintaining faith at all costs is too much.

When a person first joins the church they often face fantastic amounts of opposition to their choice. By focusing on the important, true and correct principles of the Church and not focusing on personal faults of prior prophets or other "warts" we give a newcomer time to grow roots in the gospel and gain strength in testimony. We build faith and avoid raising doubts during an important time when someone really needs faith in order to not be "scorched by the sun" as the parable of the sower speaks of.

[thesometimesaint]

If anyone expects the members of the Church to be perfect. They ARE going to be disappointed.

[ERayR]

It all comes down to what the individual chooses to believe. They can either accept the worst explanation or they can accept the best expalanation or somewhere in between. The choice is there and no matter at what point the information is received the choice must be made. These choices are made within the framework of each ones knowledge, understanding and character. The choices we make tends to reveal our own character. Some tend to impugn the motives and actions of the church and its leaders while others come to a different conclusion. Some get hung up on the messenger and forget the message.

[Daniel Peterson]

Well it seems that Elder Oakes has progressed somewhat. He used to stress this:

"the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it"

and now he seems to be accepting that we will get warts and all history.

I don't see those as mutually contradictory.

And I don't think that Elder Oaks has "progressed" in the question-begging way you suggest he has: Before he became an apostle, he had written or co-authored several important items on the history of the Church, including the very honest and upfront University of Illinois Press book Carthage Conspiracy, with Marvin S. Hill.

[Mormon Questioner]

We build faith and avoid raising doubts during an important time when someone really needs faith in order to not be "scorched by the sun" as the parable of the sower speaks of.

Except according to Elder Oakes and Elder Packer, that period of time for allowing your testimony to take root never ends. They are the ones who were asking church educators and historians to let the non-faithpromoting history die. Elder Packer specifically says that it is better that books containing that kind of information are never quoted, and then are allowed to go out of print, so that the information falls down the memory hole.

I can understand a church wanting to give new members time to absorb the principles before getting into the depths. But that "milk" period seems to be the way the brethren would prefer all church history to remain in.

Either church educators and historians are allowed to explore the history objectively, or they are supposed to be subjective, examining each historical fact to determine its faith promoting ability. If it is faith promoting, let it be known and taught. If it isn't, then let it go out of print and disappear.

That is what Elders Packer and Oakes have taught to church educators and historians. That is why I say it is somewhat disingenuous of Elder Oakes to imply that it was unfortunate that we have had less access to the warts and all in the past. He was one of the authors of that policy, or at least one of the ones teaching it to the church.

[Daniel Peterson]

You're grievously misrepresenting Elder Oaks, as well as misspelling his name.

As I mentioned above, he has a personal track record of historical writing, and it clashes directly with your depiction of him.

[gtaggart]

You're grievously misrepresenting Elder Oaks, as well as misspelling his name.

I agree, and he's not doing much better with Elder Packer.

[Deborah]

I agree with Jason. I'm glad I wasn't given all the history before I joined the church. I joined because of the doctrine, not the history. Once I joined I had made the commitment and so when I started hearing all these colorful little pieces of history I was more willing to hold off on any hasty decisions. If I were to question what I felt was right when I was baptised then I might as well question anything else I ever knew or did with such certainty.

I wouldn't mind discussing more of the nitty-gritty in church but I don't see how the church can possibly be expected to cover everything the critics want before someone is baptised or in the church setting on Sunday.

[Scott26.2]

It all comes down to what the individual chooses to believe. They can either accept the worst explanation or they can accept the best expalanation or somewhere in between. The choice is there and no matter at what point the information is received the choice must be made. These choices are made within the framework of each ones knowledge, understanding and character. The choices we make tends to reveal our own character. Some tend to impugn the motives and actions of the church and its leaders while others come to a different conclusion. Some get hung up on the messenger and forget the message.

I think this is particularly wise. It is amazing how subjective truth can be sometimes. When viewed by two different people, the same truth can be seen in opposite ways. What is different? Ultimately, what we see depends on how we look at it. The attitudes, pre-conceived notions, and background of a person all affect what they choose to see of a truth.

MormonQuestioner...thanks for your honest response. You mentioned a "possible apologetic response" to the issues. Did you approach these possible responses with the same faith, hope, acceptance as when you first learned and were converted to the church?

Scott26.2

[John Larsen]

I think that the skeptics and persecutors of the Church, if they are going to demand that the Church "come clean" on its history, need to also "come clean" on theirs.

What thing is their for the skeptics to come clean on? I will come clean on anything you ask.

[Senator]

What thing is their for the skeptics to come clean on? I will come clean on anything you ask.

Why should you have to be asked? Apparently to some, all things should be engraved on you forehead, clear for all to see.

[Daniel Peterson]

I think John Larsen is suppressing vital data.

Why should I have to ask to know all about his personal information???? Why should I have to exert any personal effort at all?

How am I to know that there might be something about him that I should know?

[Jason]

I think this is particularly wise. It is amazing how subjective truth can be sometimes. When viewed by two different people, the same truth can be seen in opposite ways. What is different? Ultimately, what we see depends on how we look at it. The attitudes, pre-conceived notions, and background of a person all affect what they choose to see of a truth.

Truth isn't subjective at all, only our interpretations of what it means are.

[JLFuller]

Well it seems that Elder Oakes has progressed somewhat. He used to stress this:

"the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it"

Link

and now he seems to be accepting that we will get warts and all history. I don't think he is advocating it though. You appear to be giving him credit for saying that maybe we were not giving the full picture, but his talk above, and Elder Packer's talk about the Mantle and the Intellect, are a big part of why church educators and historians were hiding the warts in the first place.

Yep... I spent ten years on this board, trying to find answers to the problems I was seeing, among lots of other things. Is that enough time for you? Or should I have spent my entire life? Honestly at some point you have to say enough.

Every issue I had, I discovered there was a possible apologetic explanation. That was generally enough for me to put it on my shelf. After 10 years of that study, and lots and lots of prayer, my shelf finally collapsed.

I think this might happen for some, but for most that I have known discovering these issues is not the end. It is the beginning. It usually is the beginning of an incredibly difficult heart wrenching period of study, prayer, doubt, feelings of betrayal, and yearning for truth. The discovery of these problems generally doesn't lead to people just immediately leaving, instead it leaves them confused and uncertain, and generally leads to more intense study. The end doesn't come until much later when you realize the possible apologetic answers are just not likely, and the whole world crashes down around you.

At least that is how it happened for me.

I don't know what that all means. Do you require that every question must be answered in order to believe anything? If so, at least in religion, where is your faith that something is right? There are many who think and believe what you write but they seem always to be unhappy with whatever answer they are given to any question. I have to think they are not looking for truth in religion but absolution for something they did.

[Scott26.2]

Truth isn't subjective at all, only our interpretations of what it means are.

Which is what I meant.

Scott26.2

[Free Agent]

I don't know what that all means. Do you require that every question must be answered in order to believe anything? If so, at least in religion, where is your faith that something is right? There are many who think and believe what you write but they seem always to be unhappy with whatever answer they are given to any question. I have to think they are not looking for truth in religion but absolution for something they did.

For me, at least, the faith plays a part in the things I cannot see - i.e. God the Father, Jesus Christ, Heaven. I have faith that those exist. It took great faith for me to make the leap from Catholocism to Mormonism after much study, but now I no longer have the faith I did that Joseph Smith is a prophet, because there is too much evidence against it, that for me no amount of faith could overcome.

[Daniel Peterson]

I no longer have the faith I did that Joseph Smith is a prophet, because there is too much evidence against it, that for me no amount of faith could overcome.

While I, by contrast, think that there is too much evidence for the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims for me to reject them.

[ttribe]

... but now I no longer have the faith I did that Joseph Smith is a prophet, because there is too much evidence against it, that for me no amount of faith could overcome.

No amount of faith? You've completely closed that door at this point?

[Tarski]

Well it seems that Elder Oakes has progressed somewhat. He used to stress this:

"the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it"

Link

Perhaps he is just being a realist now. The historical cat is out of the bag.

Of course, there is more than history that is at issue as the accessibility of information expands. There is also the clash of science with commonly held beliefs that have implicitly been take as part of the doctrinal package.

[ttribe]

Perhaps he is just being a realist now. The historical cat is out of the bag.

Well, since the "historical cat" was never IN the bag in the first place, I'm not sure your statement that it is "out" is all that meaningful.