Brant Garner'S Mormon Stories Podcast

[Freedom]

Seminary IS the place to make sure that what we are teaching is accurate. Primary is the place. What the missionaries are teaching out in the world with Preach My Gospel is the place. I didn't think that the point in the discussion was about teaching a comprehensive view of history to those audiences, certainly, but even now I can go back in any manual whether it be Primary or Young Men or Sunday School and find things that even the leaders of the church probably don't believe to be accurate or true. Start with the visual aids produced by the church -- often inaccurate, as you yourself said in your interview. Films such as the one about Thomas Marsh, so many inaccuracies and misleading points in those films, and there is no reason for it. And those films are shown in Seminary, Sunday School for the adults, maybe even Primary sometimes. Isn't there is a responsibility to depict things in the very truest way we possibly can even to the youngest Primary children? The topic was not, as mentioned above, dotting all the i's or making sure that every little historical detail is made clear. Making sure that what we DO teach is right however is not too much to hope for. I couldn't agree more with you that teaching IS really an issue. I think it matters so very much.

The church is working on this, however the challenge is to determine what is correct. Since we don't know what Adam and Eve looked like, how would we correct such art? I doubt they were blond blue eyed beauties as depicted in some of the art work, but how to you propose to change it? It is true that the views change, but this does not mean that the statements are false, only that interpretations have changed. The doctrines are being taught and these are correct, it is the examples of application that, perhaps, could be updated.

[Pahoran]

I am specifically talking about what we teach and are taught at church and about the inaccuracies that have been perpetuated through the years in the church curriculum. I admit to wanting to hold the church to a higher standard of truth-telling than secular schools. I wish maybe like you do also that US history and other topics could be taught more accurately in our school system, yes, but that is beyond the scope of a discussion about whether or not the church has a responsibility to get the record straight on various topics.

Mathilde,

Have you ever taught a class in Church? Classroom teaching is like leading a convoy across the ocean: the whole group has to progress at the speed that lets the slowest ship -- or the least-informed student -- keep up. That's why secular institutions, especially of higher learning, like to have minimum entrance qualifications, so that they can forge ahead a bit faster.

But we don't have that luxury in the Church. So with 45 minutes available to a teacher on Sunday morning, what should the teacher do? Focus upon his (or her, let's be inclusive here) favourite doctrinal or historical hobby-horse? Delve into obscure and little-known old writings? Pull out a couple of volumes of Patrologia Cursus Completus? What is the best use of her time?

To help the rest of us understand where you are coming from, can you please tell us how you rank the following items in order of importance?

• Principles directly relevant to the salvation and exaltation of the class members;
  
• The strengthening of the testimonies of members;
  
• Helping members to live more Christ-like lives, in helping and serving others;
  
• Covering off controversial or less-known historical facts to ensure members know "exactly what happened" and to "set the record straight."
  

Thanks,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

Around the 10 minute mark, Brant Gardner talks about the filmstrip Ancient America Speaks. Like many missionaries he showed this film on his mission. When he went to BYU after his mission he found professors who used this film as comedy because of its many errors. I think I can understand how Mr. Gardner interprets revelation, that the Lord works through imperfect humans.

However, I can still do a search of Quetzalcoatl on the church website and find quite a few articles that link him to Christ -- no correction of this information anywhere on the church site that I can find. It is one thing to be accidentally misleading in the 1970's because of a lack of understanding or incorrect scholarship. But to not have openly corrected that misinformation more than 40 years later is definitely misleading.

I did a search on the Church's website, and found exactly 11 articles (out of thousands) that make any mention of Quetzalcoatl, most of which do not categorically identify him with Christ. Only one of these articles were written by a General Authority (a Seventy); the rest were written by ordinary Church members or academics. So why do you thing that the Church needs to "correct" anything? The Church is not responsible for everything that every Church member says.

As regards that filmstrip, I haven't seen it or don't recall it. But assuming that it was an official Church production, and teaches that doctrine, the fact that it is no longer in use amounts to a "correction". What else do you think the Church needs to do to "correct" anything?

I understand the idea that historical momentum behind any idea takes a long time to change. I however do not think that correcting the inaccuracies of this particular film should be dependent on your own or any one person's research, especially in light of the fact that you said there were BYU professors years ago laughing about its flaws, and I do think that 40 years is long enough.

Slow change does not have to be par for the course for relatively small changes like this.

See above.

[zerinus]

I think the point is not that "Mayan artifacts are Nephite artifacts" the point is that the Nephites possibly existed within the larger Mayan culture the way that LDS people exist in the modern world culture.

If that is what Brant is arguing for, then I would definitely disagree with him. By no stretch of the imagination can we assume that the Nephites existed within another larger culture (Mayan or any other), without it having been mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Didn't those people (if they existed) take any sides in all the wars that the Nephites and Lamanites had? If they existed, how could they not have had? And if they did, how could it not have been mentioned in the Book of Mormon? The Book of Mormon mentions two different civilizations that it comes into contact with: the Mulekites and the Jaredites (and mentions the sole survivor of the Jaredites); but you expect me to believe it doesn't mention the larger civilization into which it was assimilated for a thousand years? Come on now, say something that makes sense for a change. The Book of Mormon even theologically militates against such an idea. Early on in the history of the Nephites, Lehi makes this declaration:

2 Nephi 1:

8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.

So Lehi isn't even expecting such a situation to exist. And it makes absolutely no sense for it to have existed and not mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Looking for "Nephite artifacts" would be like looking for "LDS artifacts" in the ruins of America, thousands of years from now. The other factor of course is that the Book of Mormon is about the extinction of the Nephites, so factoring that into the analogy, it would be more like looking for LDS artifacts 1500 years after the LDS church ceased to exist, all the chapels and temples being torn down or built over, and anything specifically LDS being absorbed into the larger culture.

In short there would be nothing left but hints that we had even been here. What will be left of this thread 1500 years from now, even if the church prospers?

I think that there are plenty of hints that they existed; but we have no way of linking them with the Book of Mormon. I think that the ancient civilizations of South America are all remnants of the Book of Mormon people; but we have no way of linking the two, because the same cultural and historical continuity that exists between the Bible and the Holy Land (for example) doesn't exist with the Book of Mormon people.

[zerinus]

The question was about getting the record straight. It wasn't about what is important or not important to teach, about how high school students are just trying to survive high school. It doesn't matter whether there is not even one single high school student interested in any tiny iota of history. Doesn't matter. The question was about the responsibility to get the record straight.

Is the church invested in getting the record straight for truth's sake? I'm not sure there is much momentum in this direction except for the momentum that the internet and easily accessed information is causing.

It is true, I do agree with Mr. Gardner, I shouldn't feel betrayed because I haven't been taught what I need or because I have clearly been taught some things that aren't true. The fault is mine for accepting any of it on good faith.

Setting what record straight? I am not aware of any record that needs to be set straight. See my earlier post.

[Brant Gardner]

I admit to wanting to hold the church to a higher standard of truth-telling than secular schools.

And that is why knowing more historical perspective helps in understanding such things. I do understand that when religion is involved it often leads to fundamentalist assumptions about perfection, but even those assumptions are the result of a historical process. Many of them are not the result of explicit teaching. At what point do you believe that LDS historians were not relating history as they understood it? The type of history taught at different times in the church has a pretty direct parallel to the types of histories one sees from other religions, and particularly in a religion at a parallel time in its establishment.

In the case of Ancient America Speaks, when it was discovered that it wasn't a good representation of the facts, it was no longer shown (hasn't been for 30-40 years).

I understand the higher purpose of the church to be religious education and that perfecting souls is more important than perfecting history. Nevertheless, I have seen quite a bit of influence from modern histories altering the way the faithful present history. Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling is biography, not hagiography. That is a significant improvement in history. Nevertheless, I don't see very many people in wards I have known in the US, Spain, Mexico, Guatemala, or Indonesia being all that interested in reading it. They have more personal spiritual concerns that they consider much more important. What the church elects to teach and where they elect to teach it is, to me, very clearly dependent on the needs of those to be taught.

[Brant Gardner]

If that is what Brant is arguing for, then I would definitely disagree with him.

I am, and we clearly disagree.

I think that there are plenty of hints that they existed; but we have no way of linking them with the Book of Mormon.

I agree that there are textual hints that they existed (though I suspect that you were speaking of material remains, and for those there are more than hints). However, I disagree that we cannot link them to the Book of Mormon. I think there is some very good evidence for both their existence in the text and for their cultural trends and pressures to be reflected in and in some ways dictate the actions in the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

I am, and we clearly disagree.

That is right, I am sure we do. But which side has a more credible argument to support his case? I think that I do!

Another area where we would disagree (after listening to the remaining podcasts) is your claim that by the Lamanites being cursed with a "black skin" is meant only their unrighteousness, and is not to be understood literally. I think that the text doesn't leave any room for any other interpretation than a literal one.

I agree that there are textual hints that they existed (though I suspect that you were speaking of material remains, and for those there are more than hints). However, I disagree that we cannot link them to the Book of Mormon. I think there is some very good evidence for both their existence in the text and for their cultural trends and pressures to be reflected in and in some ways dictate the actions in the Book of Mormon.

That is quite possible. I don't have enough expertise in Book of Mormon archaeology to definitively state otherwise.

[Ariarates]

This quote from the interview was fascinating: John Dehlin asks, "How do you feel about the fact that we're still not depicting this accurately?" The context was the method Joseph Smith used for translation of the plates. Brant Gardner: "I guess I am too much of a historian to worry about that, my questions are always, how did we get to this point? I am always surprised that people feel betrayed because somebody else hasn't taught them something where there is information that they could easily go learn something about."

I call BS on this "blame the victim" lie.

I live in Europe and before the mid-1990s, it was virtually impossible to get any of this information. Whenever a relative would visit the US and happened to visit SLC (the odds of that happening are already small), you could ask them to drop by Deseret Book because that's the only bookstore you knew about. Sam Weller? Never heard of him until I actually visited SLC myself (and bought a nice hardcover "Eternal Man" from Truman Madsen, as well as a hardcover Mormonism & Masonry by Ivins).

Sure, Dialogue and Sunstone and the Mormon History Assiciation probably existed back then but we didn't know. All we had was the Miracle of Forgiveness and the Ensign. Maybe it was different for those in the Mormon Corridor but I doubt it. Even if they knew these materials existed, ecclesiastical and peer pressure will have prevented most LDS to touch the materials of these dangerous (gasp) "intellectuals".

The church actively suppresses whatever doesn't fit its purpose. They don't give in an inch unless their hand is forced by others who ARE sufficiently intellectually honest to tell the truth (and yes, telling or tolerating half-truths is lying too).

Now, I am not disputing the church's right to do this and to define themselves any way they please. However, it is a fundamentally dishonest way to do business and you shouldn't be surprised when people feel screwed over when they find out.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Ariarates

[Ariarates]

Satisfying borderline apostates, not-so-borderline apostates, nit-pickers and self-appointed attention-grabbing ark-steadiers is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- not very responsible. At all.

You forgot "self-righteous".

[Freedom]

That is right, I am sure we do. But which side has a more credible argument to support his case? I think that I do!

Another area where we would disagree (after listening to the remaining podcasts) is your claim that by the Lamanites being cursed with a "black skin" is meant only their unrighteousness, and is not to be understood literally. I think that the text doesn't leave any room for any other interpretation than a literal one.

That is quite possible. I don't have enough expertise in Book of Mormon archaeology to definitively state otherwise.

It is one thing to have a differing opinion, it is quite another to be so sanctimonious about it. I disagree with you, I believe the text indicates quite strongly that there are other people there. I also believe the text leaves most room for the dark skin to refer to righteousness rather than pigmentation.

[zerinus]

It is one thing to have a differing opinion, it is quite another to be so sanctimonious about it. I disagree with you, I believe the text indicates quite strongly that there are other people there. I also believe the text leaves most room for the dark skin to refer to righteousness rather than pigmentation.

Judging by our past exchanges, you have a tendency to make broad declarations without producing evidence to support it. This post does not exactly raise my hopes that this time things are going to be any different.

[Pahoran]

I call BS on this "blame the victim" lie.

The only lie in view is the one in your sentence, above. There is no "victim," Brant is not blaming any "victim," and he has told no lie. I call BS on your entire post.

I live in Europe and before the mid-1990s, it was virtually impossible to get any of this information.

And that is, of course, the Church's fault.

Whenever a relative would visit the US and happened to visit SLC (the odds of that happening are already small), you could ask them to drop by Deseret Book because that's the only bookstore you knew about. Sam Weller? Never heard of him until I actually visited SLC myself (and bought a nice hardcover "Eternal Man" from Truman Madsen, as well as a hardcover Mormonism & Masonry by Ivins).

And that is, of course, the Church's fault. It diligently censors all information leaving Utah for Europe to remove all references to any bookstores apart from DB.

Sure, Dialogue and Sunstone and the Mormon History Assiciation probably existed back then but we didn't know. All we had was the Miracle of Forgiveness and the Ensign.

And that is, of course, the Church's fault. It diligently censors all information leaving Utah for Europe to remove all references to any of those organisations -- don't ask me how.

Maybe it was different for those in the Mormon Corridor but I doubt it. Even if they knew these materials existed, ecclesiastical and peer pressure will have prevented most LDS to touch the materials of these dangerous (gasp) "intellectuals".

Pure unmitigated rot.

The church actively suppresses whatever doesn't fit its purpose.

Really? How, exactly?

I've seen a number of outright false statements in my time, but few quite as brazen as that.

They don't give in an inch unless their hand is forced by others who ARE sufficiently intellectually honest to tell the truth (and yes, telling or tolerating half-truths is lying too).

And this explains (as just one example) the Joseph Smith Papers project -- how, exactly?

Now, I am not disputing the church's right to do this and to define themselves any way they please. However, it is a fundamentally dishonest way to do business and you shouldn't be surprised when people feel screwed over when they find out.

Well, you've certainly been "screwed over" by whoever sold you on that tissue of lies you have so uncritically swallowed and regurgitated. You should never trust a single word they say to you. Ever again.

You forgot "self-righteous".

True. Borderline apostates, not-so-borderline apostates, nit-pickers and self-appointed attention-grabbing ark-steadiers are frequently very self-righteous. You can tell by they way they preen themselves on their "intellectual honesty" while trashing the Church of Jesus Christ.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nevo]

Pure unmitigated rot.

Pahoran,

As much as I appreciate your robust defense of the Church against charges of dishonesty, it is nevertheless true that prior to the advent of the Internet, most members of the Church did not have ready access to uncorrelated, scholarly books and articles on LDS history. I certainly didn't. My local community library did not carry Dialogue, BYU Studies, the Journal of Mormon History, or University of Illinois Press titles on Mormon history. I didn't encounter any of these publications until I searched out the Mormon section of the stacks at a major university library as an undergraduate. Most of the Mormons I know are still blissfully unaware of them.

[Freedom]

Judging by our past exchanges, you have a tendency to make broad declarations without producing evidence to support it. This post does not exactly raise my hopes that this time things are going to be any different.

I do provide evidence, as do many other posters, you just tend to dismiss all those that disagree with your own opinions.

[Freedom]

Pahoran,

As much as I appreciate your robust defense of the Church against charges of dishonesty, it is nevertheless true that prior to the advent of the Internet, most members of the Church did not have ready access to uncorrelated, scholarly books and articles on LDS history. I certainly didn't. My local community library did not carry Dialogue, BYU Studies, the Journal of Mormon History, or University of Illinois Press titles on Mormon history. I didn't encounter any of these publications until I searched out the Mormon section of the stacks at a major university library as an undergraduate. Most of the Mormons I know are still blissfully unaware of them.

Most Canadians are unaware of the history of Afghanistan and of the nature of the NAFTA despite 12 years of schooling 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for 10 months. The information is available, it is just that most people do not bother to seek it out. As a teenager in the mid 80's I was easily able to find the information even living in Vancouver BC, far from the resources of BYU. The lesson manuals are very clear on their intended purpose; they only refer to historical events to reinforce a gospel principles such as faith, forgiveness or enduring to the end. Those that are blissfully unaware just do not care and would not read if it was sitting on their coffee table.

[zerinus]

I do provide evidence, as do many other posters, you just tend to dismiss all those that disagree with your own opinions.

I am all eyes and ears, waiting with eager anticipation.

[Pahoran]

Most Canadians are unaware of the history of Afghanistan and of the nature of the NAFTA despite 12 years of schooling 6 hours a day, 5 days a week for 10 months. The information is available, it is just that most people do not bother to seek it out. As a teenager in the mid 80's I was easily able to find the information even living in Vancouver BC, far from the resources of BYU. The lesson manuals are very clear on their intended purpose; they only refer to historical events to reinforce a gospel principles such as faith, forgiveness or enduring to the end. Those that are blissfully unaware just do not care and would not read if it was sitting on their coffee table.

From what I've been told, most Americans are unaware of the existence of Canada, and that apparently includes the US Customs officers at the border.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

As much as I appreciate your robust defense of the Church against charges of dishonesty, it is nevertheless true that prior to the advent of the Internet, most members of the Church did not have ready access to uncorrelated, scholarly books and articles on LDS history. I certainly didn't. My local community library did not carry Dialogue, BYU Studies, the Journal of Mormon History, or University of Illinois Press titles on Mormon history. I didn't encounter any of these publications until I searched out the Mormon section of the stacks at a major university library as an undergraduate. Most of the Mormons I know are still blissfully unaware of them.

I agree that they didn't have ready access. I vigorously dispute that there has ever been a time when the Church was anti-intellectual, or that there has ever been any "pressure" not to read anything apart from scriptures and lesson manuals.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I agree that they didn't have ready access. I vigorously dispute that there has ever been a time when the Church was anti-intellectual, or that there has ever been any "pressure" not to read anything apart from scriptures and lesson manuals.

Regards,

Pahoran

In fact it is a virtual commandment TO read things other than scriptures and lesson manuals and to SEEK wisdom.

D&C 88, verse 118

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and ^bteach one another words of ^cwisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best ^dbooks words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

Edited January 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Nevo]

As a teenager in the mid 80's I was easily able to find the information even living in Vancouver BC, far from the resources of BYU.

Where did you find it?

[mfbukowski]

It is a ridiculous assumption that somehow the church should be blamed for not publishing volumes of every counter argument against some members literalistic misunderstanding of the gospel

Education is learning to look at both sides of an issue. If people don't know how to do that- who's problem is it?

[Kemara]

I agree that they didn't have ready access.

As you are intimately aware Ngaruawahia, while not totally destitute of resources, is hardly a bustling New Zealand metropolis even today. In 1992 it was even less so. but somehow I still managed to use a telephone (gasp!) to track down Bill Forrest, who at the time was working with Van Hale on Mormon Miscellaneous. It certainly took some time, some effort, lots and lots of international phone calls and a rather large telephone bill but I managed to get a hold of him at his place of work (a high school if I recall correctly) and I got my very first lot of Mormon Miscellaneous materials. It was shortly after my discussion with Bill that I again used that marvelous invention, the telephone, to get my very first article published by the then Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, a very interesting piece regarding Nephi’s bow. It was not until I moved to Australia in 1994 that I managed to track down my first edition of Sunstone, which contained rather interesting views on Elder Boyd K. Packer’s tyrannical crusade against the intellectuals, and I did so by again using the telephone.

If I can track down non-correlated materials by telephone from Ngaruawahia in 1992 do you think it is too much to expect that others from places such as Europe and most anywhere else, with a little of effort, could have done the same….or am I just super human?

[Kemara]

Just a litte side note, since this thread is supposed to be about Brant Gardner's views, I have just started Volume 5 of Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, all four volumes which I have read to date are brilliant pieces of scholarly work.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Kemara

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Just a litte side note, since this thread is supposed to be about Brant Gardner's views, I have just started Volume 5 of Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, all four volumes which I have read to date are brilliant pieces of scholarly work.

How did you get that info? I hear the church is actively seeking to get rid of those materials. After all they are not church approved nor are they found in the scriptures.

Edited January 11, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram