Trib Article: Mormons Tackling Tough Questions In Their History

[smac97]

Here.

Read the article, then I have a few questions:

The article states:

The church has assigned a staffer to create “a strategy to get church history onto the Web,” he said. “We are also working on an initiative to answer some of these more pressing questions.”

Is "a staffer" sufficient resources for such a daunting task?

From the article:

Late last year, the church’s publishing arm, Deseret Book, put out No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues to address some of the hot-button issues of Mormon history and doctrine, offering members ways to answer critics.

Has anyone read this book? Any reviews online?

From the article:

(Elder Marlin) Jensen insists critics overstate the LDS exodus over the church’s history.

“I have heard that our overall activity, especially in the United States, is as good as it’s ever been,” he said. “To say we are experiencing some Titanic-like wave of apostasy is inaccurate.”

Other Mormon observers, though, see such defections as a major trend, especially among 20-somethings.

“I definitely get the sense that this is a real crisis,” said Mormon scholar and writer Terryl Givens. “It is an epidemic.”

There is a “discrepancy between a church history that has been selectively rendered through the Church Education System and Sunday school manuals, and a less-flattering version universally accessible on the Internet,” Givens wrote in an email from Virginia. “The problem is not so much the discovery of particular details that are deal breakers for the faithful; the problem is a loss of faith and trust in an institution that was less that forthcoming to begin with.”

Who, do you think, has a more realistic perspective on this point, Elder Jensen or Terryl Givens?

Richard Bushman has, I think, the right idea:

LDS scholar Richard Bushman, author of the critically acclaimed biography Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, has become a kind of historical therapist, he wrote in an email from his home in New York, “counseling with distraught wives and parents or disaffected Mormons themselves.”

For those who discover unwelcome information about the church’s history online, Bushman said, “the whole picture changes in a flash — like those optical illusions that show a beautiful woman and a hag.”

The best way to prevent this from happening, Bushman said, is to give Mormons “the whole story from the beginning. If the disruptive facts are worked into the history Latter-day Saints learn as they grow up, they won’t be turned upside down when they come across something negative.”

Indeed, said Givens, “if you tell a 12-year-old child that Joseph Smith used a ‘peep stone’ in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, he’ll think that’s cool or interesting.”

But when Latter-Day Saints find out about that on the Internet at age 50, he said, they’ll ask, “Why didn’t the church tell me?”

By then, Givens said, you may have lost them.

Thoughts?

-Smac

[Sky]

Wasn't it just last week that Elder Jensen said how the Church was experiencing a Kirtland-like apostasy over this? So I guess I'm slightly confused. I do think this is a real issue. Anything the Church does to address this is a good thing, in my opinion. FAIR has a lot of good information, but it's not an official Church source. Of course, some critics will never be satisfied no matter what answers are given or in spite of the good faith efforts and intentions of the Church. They will always have an axe to grind.

[Duncan]

Wasn't it just last week that Elder Jensen said how the Church was experiencing a Kirtland-like apostasy over this? So I guess I'm slightly confused. I do think this is a real issue. Anything the Church does to address this is a good thing, in my opinion. FAIR has a lot of good information, but it's not an official Church source. Of course, some critics will never be satisfied no matter what answers are given or in spite of the good faith efforts and intentions of the Church. They will always have an axe to grind.

I was thinking the same thing about Elder Jensen, maybe he taking a more moderate view then some

[Storm Rider]

I am certain that at different times throughout the history of the Church men chose to "whitewash" (I don't like the word, but I can't think of another, sanitize?) the history and dropped out information that could be viewed as not as faith promoting as other parts of the story. In a period where information can be controlled or when it is just not known, this worked. However, now that type of picking and choosing what will be emphasized in the Church is past and the history should just be taught.

This is a time when the Church can remove all the cards from the critics and those who are true anti-Mormons hands. Once the Church has done so, there is not more shock value to their statements. Further, the Church needs to be much more clear on what is and what is not the doctrine of the Church. This is also an area where anti-Mormons run rampant with quote-mining in the attempt to say what the Church believed and taught.

I have been one that has always thought that we need not be afraid of history. To the contrary, history will vindicate the reality of the restoration and the life's work of the prophet Joseph. While men may no longer be placed on high pedestals, their service to God and to the Savior will shine clearly to all.

[why me]

Wasn't it just last week that Elder Jensen said how the Church was experiencing a Kirtland-like apostasy over this? So I guess I'm slightly confused. I do think this is a real issue. Anything the Church does to address this is a good thing, in my opinion. FAIR has a lot of good information, but it's not an official Church source. Of course, some critics will never be satisfied no matter what answers are given or in spite of the good faith efforts and intentions of the Church. They will always have an axe to grind.

It is a good idea that the lds church address its historical issues head on by offering a faith promoting version of it while at the same time, confronting critic interpretations of lds history. Lds history can be very faith promoting and most critic interpretations can be dissected and put into a faith promoting history that will be beneficial for members and investigators. I would rather have critics and lds historians battling it out over interpretation than to have critics cast doubt on truth claims based on a 'lds hiding its history' mantra.

[why me]

I am certain that at different times throughout the history of the Church men chose to "whitewash" (I don't like the word, but I can't think of another, sanitize?) the history and dropped out information that could be viewed as not as faith promoting as other parts of the story. In a period where information can be controlled or when it is just not known, this worked. However, now that type of picking and choosing what will be emphasized in the Church is past and the history should just be taught.

This is a time when the Church can remove all the cards from the critics and those who are true anti-Mormons hands. Once the Church has done so, there is not more shock value to their statements. Further, the Church needs to be much more clear on what is and what is not the doctrine of the Church. This is also an area where anti-Mormons run rampant with quote-mining in the attempt to say what the Church believed and taught.

I have been one that has always thought that we need not be afraid of history. To the contrary, history will vindicate the reality of the restoration and the life's work of the prophet Joseph. While men may no longer be placed on high pedestals, their service to God and to the Savior will shine clearly to all.

For the people who lived the history nothing was hidden. I just think that somewhere along the line, certain things were pruned and overlooked because it wasn't useful anymore for our salvation. But now things have changed because the internet is full of critic interpretations and these interpretations are very effective in casting doubt among the members. I think that it is a good time to come out fighting by offering a different interpretation to controversial events.

[Duncan]

Historians write a general history and also a more specific history. For example you couldn't possibly write everything that is known about WW1. So historians have to write generally what happened and if you want to learn more specific details then you can hopefully find a book or article.

[Thinking]

Jensen insists critics overstate the LDS exodus over the church’s history.

“I have heard that our overall activity, especially in the United States, is as good as it’s ever been,” he said. “To say we are experiencing some Titanic-like wave of apostasy is inaccurate.”

Jensen insists, but offers no real data.

[Storm Rider]

Jensen insists, but offers no real data.

What data would really suffice? Heck, people don't even believe membeship numbers. It seems like the Church is in a no win situation with critics. When you notice that the LDS Church is no longer building ward houses then this argument that there is a mass exodus may have legs, until now it remains and has been the position of anti-Mormons for the last twenty years.

[Calm]

I am certain that at different times throughout the history of the Church men chose to "whitewash" (I don't like the word, but I can't think of another, sanitize?)

I find the word "idealize" to work for me.

[Calm]

"The problem is not so much the discovery of particular details that are deal breakers for the faithful; the problem is a loss of faith and trust in an institution that was less that forthcoming to begin with."

I would like to know if Givens sees this as primarily a problem of perception.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know about anyone else but I don't go to a Ford dealership and expect that salesman to trash talk Fords and talk up Chevy's. The Church is in the business of getting and keeping new members. We do a good job of it. No we're not perfect, not by a long shot. But we hopefully are getting better.

http://www.allaboutmormons.com/ENG_Video29.php

[Darth_Bill]

I would like to know if Givens sees this as primarily a problem of perception.

I don't think so. I think we are in an echo chamber in here. My wife doesn't know nearly any of the history of the church. I asked her the other night if she ever heard of x, y and z and she didn't know any of it. We are very aware of things here in this forum. Outside of this forum, not so much. It can be very troubling to some that a church so intent on preserving its history really doesn't do a very good job telling it. Note, I'm not saying that these things can't be found or explained, just that many are insulated to a particular narrative. I know when some people mention some things to me I'm personally surprised that the never heard of it before, but we are freaks here.

[thesometimesaint]

Darth_Bill:

I joined the Church 41 years ago this year. Long before the Internet even existed. I heard the "stories" from at least those times. It's not a good idea to believe anything you read on the internet without other outside confirmation and that includes this Site.

Edited January 31, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Darth_Bill]

Darth_Bill:

I joined the Church 41 years ago this year. Long before the Internet even existed. I heard the "stories" from at least those times. It's not a good idea to believe anything you read on the internet without other outside confirmation and that includes this Site.

That's fine. I never claimed this data wasn't available...kind of went out of my way to say that...so not sure what the issue is. My comment was directed to people of this forum, or perhaps their interest. I love history and trying to make sense out of what I may believe. My wife doesn't have that interest so her personality type might be disturbed at a different narrative.

[Senator]

A new mantra:

Every member an apologist.

This could get interesting.

[thesometimesaint]

Darth_Bill:

I meant no offense. I kinda like history myself, but I have no testimony of it.

[Senator]

Of course, some critics will never be satisfied no matter what answers are given or in spite of the good faith efforts and intentions of the Church. They will always have an axe to grind.

Who cares about the critics?

This is to address members with questions.

O wait, that's a distinction without difference, I've come to understand.

[Jaybear]

Holy cow!!

The article was posted last night, and there are already over 400 comments. Lots of former members weighing in.

The most recent comment, posted by an ardent member, included this gem:

vayapues: Polygamy is an easy one to come to terms with. It existed since the beginning of time, and was a compassionate way for the church to care for the thousands of women who were left widows after being murdered by mobs.

Edited January 31, 2012 by Jaybear

[Sky]

Who cares about the critics?

This is to address members with questions.

O wait, that's a distinction without difference, I've come to understand.

There is nothing wrong with members having questions. But we run into problems when it starts becoming a source of doubt and skepticism or when a questioner turns hostile. I think this is what the Church would like to do something about. I hope it works.

[bluebell]

Holy cow!!

The article was posted last night, and there are already over 400 comments. Lots of former members weighing in.

The most recent one comment, posted by an ardent member, included this gem:

I don't see that that comment is all that interesting as it's a common misconception, probably as common as many of the misconceptions that some ex-mormons continue to share.

I'm sure though that there are many 'gems' on there from the pro and anti arguments for the church. We all know that idiots and hypocrites exist on both sides of the line.

[Jaybear]

I don't see that that comment is all that interesting as it's a common misconception, probably as common as many of the misconceptions that some ex-mormons continue to share.

I'm sure though that there are many 'gems' on there from the pro and anti arguments for the church. We all know that idiots and hypocrites exist on both sides of the line.

Its a common misconception because your church allowed this false but faith promoting narrative to spread and take root to assuage its members and prospective converts.

I found the comment especially ironic considering that the point of the article is to discusses the crisis of faith members have when they found out that they been spoon fed a false history of the church.

BTW, what are some of these misconceptions that you think ex mormons harbor about thier past faith?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

BTW, what are some of these misconceptions that you think ex mormons harbor about thier past faith?

How bout that BYU is a bad school. FTW Jaybear.

[Buckeye]

My view is that there certainly needs to be more "innoculation" - for lack of a better word - but that does not mean forcing members to learn all the "dirt" and then explaining it away. Most members in Brazil could really care less about Mountain Meadows. And talking about Joseph's polygamy with an 8-year old primary class is pointless.

Instead, what we need are manuals and teachers that do not shy away from the troubling points when they come up. It means not setting up unrealistic expectations for our leaders. And it especially means helping members to gain real testimonies connected to the spirit that are ok with nuance and grey and not knowing everything. In this regard, we don't "innoculate" against certain issues like we innoculate against certain diseases. ("Time for your MMR shot - that's Mountain Meadows and Race Relations"). Rather, we help members ponder and pray and come to terms with issues when they discover them themselves.

For me, my innoculation came when I was called as 12-year old Deacon's Quorum President and instructed that I had keys and the rights to revelation within my sphere equal to the Prophet's in his sphere. I quickly came to realize that being a Prophet did not make one omniscient or perfect. I had to work to know the needs of my quorum; there was no magic. I made mistakes and learned from them. For this reason, I've never struggled with imperfect leaders. I don't expect much more from the Prophet than I do from the deacon's quorum president - just maybe a little more maturity.

Lastly, I agree that it is much better to teach the youth the issues than to hide them, provided that the youth actually care. I taught 11 year old primary a few weeks ago. The lesson was on how the BOM was translated. Someone asked if it was true Joseph used some "armor and special glasses". I took 3 minutes to explain those devices, and also that Joseph used other means at other times, including a stone in a hat. I also explained that there were always two individuals involved in the process and bore my testimony. Everyone left the class uplifted and better informed. I've also taught teenagers who ask about the racial priesthood ban. I explain that the church does not have a position on why the ban was in place, but that they should investigate and come to a view of their own. If asked my view, I say that I think the leaders were racist and the explain how that doesn't mean God can't work through them. Peter and Nephi were racist too. None of the teenagers left the church. Innoculation works.

[Jaybear]

How bout that BYU is a bad school. FTW Jaybear.

Two problems.

1. I think BYU is a fine school.

I simply don't believe it should be held out as an example of religious tolerance.

2. I am not a former member.

So again what are these misconceptions?

Edited January 31, 2012 by Jaybear