Deborah Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 My problem with the "inoculation" process is that not everyone cares about certain parts of history. So how do you begin to address issues that may be specific concerns of certain individuals but not of the church as a whole. Even if you tell the youth some of the details about the history, how do you know when they grow up they will remember any of it, particularly if at a certain point their faith starts to falter. We have a tendency to remember what we want to remember and hear what we want to hear.
Storm Rider Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 My problem with the "inoculation" process is that not everyone cares about certain parts of history. So how do you begin to address issues that may be specific concerns of certain individuals but not of the church as a whole. Even if you tell the youth some of the details about the history, how do you know when they grow up they will remember any of it, particularly if at a certain point their faith starts to falter. We have a tendency to remember what we want to remember and hear what we want to hear.I think the thread title is a little misleading. The request centers around teaching history in a more secular manner that addresses some of the more in-depth issues surrounding the evolution of plural marriage during the life of Joseph including his wives; a broader approach to the translation process from "by the gift and power of God" to discussion about the processes used; some of the legal conflicts, specifically the charges in 1826, treasure hunting, etc.What I find so interesting is the total ignorance of most Protestants about the historical evolution of their churches and the complete lack of interest by Catholics of the more interesting parts of their history (the reasons they give sound remarkably similar to our own) and the fact that so few churches attack them for their colorful history. Some of the popes have it all over the allegations against Joseph and Brigham. Strange how different standards are used for different groups.
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Jaybear:BYU is an example of excellent religious tolerance. There has been a small but visable minority of nonLDS students for many years. Believe anything you like, just follow the rules.
Buckeye Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 My problem with the "inoculation" process is that not everyone cares about certain parts of history. So how do you begin to address issues that may be specific concerns of certain individuals but not of the church as a whole. Even if you tell the youth some of the details about the history, how do you know when they grow up they will remember any of it, particularly if at a certain point their faith starts to falter. We have a tendency to remember what we want to remember and hear what we want to hear.That's why I'm not teaching "everyone", just the students in the class I'm asked to teach. If someone asks a question, I do my best to answer and to clearly set out where we don't know the answer. I have no idea whether the youth will remember or care about the answers in the long term. That's up to them. But I'm not going to hedge my teaching to things that I'm 100% sure every student will remember and treasure foreever. That's a certain recipe for never teaching anything.Jaybear - I had wonderful baptist and muslim friends at BYU. Yes, non-members are a small minority there. But a little yeast goes a long way.
Analytics Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I honestly doubt good answers to the legitimate questions really exist. To illustrate my point, I searched the Internet for a "good" response to the criticism of Joseph Smith marrying young women. The first one I found was this:http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_marriages_to_young_womenIt starts off by saying, "The information we have on Joseph Smith's plural marriages is sketchy, simply because there were few official records kept at the time because of the fear of misunderstanding and persecution...."I already find that problematic for a couple of reasons. First, keeping official records doesn't cause misunderstanding, it causes understanding. It's clear that understanding of the truth is what Joseph Smith feared.Second, the claim that few official records were kept at the time is categorically false. Joseph Smith himself said: I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions.The FAIR wiki is a valient attempt to deal with the issues, but it illustrates that many of the issues just don't have a good answer. 1
Analytics Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Jaybear:BYU is an example of excellent religious tolerance. There has been a small but visable minority of nonLDS students for many years. Believe anything you like, just follow the rules.If while at BYU a Mormon's conscience leads him to the conclusion that LDS Church is false, not faking it is grounds for expulsion. It's the church's prerogative to kick out apostates, but I wouldn’t call that excellent religious tolerance.
Deborah Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 That's why I'm not teaching "everyone", just the students in the class I'm asked to teach. If someone asks a question, I do my best to answer and to clearly set out where we don't know the answer. I think this is the best approach as well. Make it open so that people, especially young people can ask any question. I think the church ought to make a statement that there are many things out there which may cause them to question and let them know the resources for getting the answers.
Deborah Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I already find that problematic for a couple of reasons. First, keeping official records doesn't cause misunderstanding, it causes understanding. It's clear that understanding of the truth is what Joseph Smith feared.The key word is "few". We really don't have a lot of records during that time period so yes it can cause misunderstanding if things are not put into context.
Senator Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I honestly doubt good answers to the legitimate questions really exist. Of course "good" is a subjective determination, isn't it?
thesometimesaint Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Analytics:It never ceases amaze, and amuse me the lengths you will go to do object to the Church. NO ONE is required to go to BYU in the first place, NO ONE is required to stay. ANYONE can leave at any time, for any reason stated or not. I find it disingenous to voluntarily stay anywhere that I fundamentally disagree with.At nineteen I joined the US Air Force while most of my friends were going off to college, or being drafted. I can just visualize it now. Me going into my CO's office and telling him, as I no longer believed in the mission or purpose of the Air Force demand that I be permitted to leave while recieving my usual paycheck and benefits from the Air Force. Believe me my CO would have laughed me out of his office, telling me to go back to work. If I had presisted, well the Air Force does have jails.The BIG question is do you believe in keeping your word, or is your word something to be discarded when inconvenient?
stemelbow Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I honestly doubt good answers to the legitimate questions really exist. To illustrate my point, I searched the Internet for a "good" response to the criticism of Joseph Smith marrying young women. The first one I found was this:http://en.fairmormon..._to_young_womenIt starts off by saying, "The information we have on Joseph Smith's plural marriages is sketchy, simply because there were few official records kept at the time because of the fear of misunderstanding and persecution...."I already find that problematic for a couple of reasons. First, keeping official records doesn't cause misunderstanding, it causes understanding. It's clear that understanding of the truth is what Joseph Smith feared.How is that so clear? it seems just as clear that Joseph Smith feared being persecuted for his beliefs and what he may have considered personal religious practicing. You seem to have read the piece with your own fears.Second, the claim that few official records were kept at the time is categorically false. Joseph Smith himself said:The FAIR wiki is a valient attempt to deal with the issues, but it illustrates that many of the issues just don't have a good answer.Well if their so plentiful why is it so unknown when exactly polygamy began? Who was involved? I dont' see how its false.
Thinking Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 What data would really suffice?Resignation numbers. Jensen claimed there was no mass exodus. The only way to judge the accuracy of his statement is with actual numbers.
cinepro Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) 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.When people in England joined the Church in the 1840's, how much were they told about polygamy? I've heard stories of converts making the journey to Utah and only then discovering the truth.The Church, starting with Joseph Smith, has always presented the history in the best light, leaving out the parts that people might find objectionable. If the Church does actually start presenting a fuller view of the history (including parts that people commonly find faith-unpromoting), it will be the first time. Edited January 31, 2012 by cinepro 2
Duncan Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 When people in England joined the Church in the 1840's, how much were they told about polygamy? I've heard stories of converts making the journey to Utah and only then discovering the truth.The Church, starting with Joseph Smith, has always presented the history in the best light, leaving out the parts that people might find objectionable. If the Church does actually start presenting a fuller view of the history (including parts that people commonly find faith-unpromoting), it will be the first time.do you mean institutionally or individual members in the Church presenting the fuller view?
Analytics Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Analytics:It never ceases amaze, and amuse me the lengths you will go to do object to the Church. NO ONE is required to go to BYU in the first place, NO ONE is required to stay. ANYONE can leave at any time, for any reason stated or not. I find it disingenous to voluntarily stay anywhere that I fundamentally disagree with.At nineteen I joined the US Air Force..... I'm not objecting to the church, I'm objecting to your characterization of BYU being a place of "excellent religious tolerance." If BYU were to tell apostates they had to obey the non-member honor code standards and pay non-member tuition, I'd see the merit in your characterization. As it is, I don't.Of course "good" is a subjective determination, isn't it?Touche.How is that so clear? it seems just as clear that Joseph Smith feared being persecuted for his beliefs and what he may have considered personal religious practicing. You seem to have read the piece with your own fears.There is a subtle distinction between being persecuted for your beliefs and being persecuted for a misunderstanding of your beliefs. If you are afraid of being persecuted for your beliefs, you lie to the Honors Code Office about believing the church is false. If you are afraid of people misunderstanding your beliefs, you clarify what your beliefs are.Well if their so plentiful why is it so unknown when exactly polygamy began? Who was involved? I dont' see how its false.Again, Joseph Smith said:I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions.The reason the details of polygamy are unknown isn’t because Joseph Smith didn’t keep records. The reason is because the records he did keep prove he wasn’t practicing polygamy—you can’t point to a single day, time, or place between 1841 and 1844 where Joseph Smith could have practiced polygamy—his faithful servants contemporaneously created an alibi that proves he was doing something other than polygamy at every minute of every day.So what do we make from the LDS church’s claim that their founding prophet was secretly practicing polygamy in flagrant violation of the law of his church? Either he was telling the truth and really wasn’t practicing polygamy, or he was involved in a conspiracy to contemporaneously falsify his records so that he’d have "proof" he wasn’t doing what he was really doing. Edited January 31, 2012 by Analytics 1
Duncan Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I'm not objecting to the church, I'm objecting to your characterization of BYU being a place of "excellent religious tolerance." If BYU were to tell apostates they had to obey the non-member honor code standards and pay non-member tuition, I'd see the merit in your characterization. As it is, I don't.Touche.There is a subtle distinction between being persecuted for your beliefs and being persecuted for a misunderstanding of your beliefs. If you are afraid of being persecuted for your beliefs, you lie to the Honors Code Office about believing the church is false. If you are afraid of people misunderstanding your beliefs, you clarify what your beliefs are.Again, Joseph Smith said:I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ; they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions.The reason the details of polygamy are unknown isn’t because Joseph Smith didn’t keep records. The reason is because the records he did keep prove he wasn’t practicing polygamy—you can’t point to a single day, time, or place between 1841 and 1844 where Joseph Smith could have practiced polygamy—his faithful servants contemporaneously created an alibi that proves he was doing something other than polygamy at every minute of every day.So what do we make from the LDS church’s claim that their founding prophet was secretly practicing polygamy in flagrant violation of the law of his church? Either he was telling the truth and really wasn’t practicing polygamy, or he was involved in a conspiracy to contemporaneously falsify his records so that he’d have "proof" he wasn’t doing what he was really doing.have all these documents survived? That 's one thing about history is that what documents were generated at the time (which may have only been a fraction of what happened) may not have survived through the ages. I guess we will never know for sure what how many documents are left today as oppossed to how many were created. Like 500 pages of material was produced about polygamy for example but only 100 pages are still left and of that 500 pages it is only a fraction of what actually went on
Nevo Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 ...you can’t point to a single day, time, or place between 1841 and 1844 where Joseph Smith could have practiced polygamy—his faithful servants contemporaneously created an alibi that proves he was doing something other than polygamy at every minute of every day.That's nonsense. His journals, as even a cursory examination reveals, do not account for "every minute of every day" "between 1841 and 1844." Far from it.
stemelbow Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) There is a subtle distinction between being persecuted for your beliefs and being persecuted for a misunderstanding of your beliefs. If you are afraid of being persecuted for your beliefs, you lie to the Honors Code Office about believing the church is false. If you are afraid of people misunderstanding your beliefs, you clarify what your beliefs are.Ah well, I do not believe there is any thing to be said here. Other than: I do not believe you in any way know that Joseph Smith feared understanding truth. It seems you have decided to present it as though you had climbed in his mind in order to contradict the MO he described for himself. That's just very convenient anyway.It is absurd to take Joseph's words so literally on this, I think. No one expects to find records of every thing he ever did. Edited January 31, 2012 by stemelbow
Analytics Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) have all these documents survived? That 's one thing about history is that what documents were generated at the time (which may have only been a fraction of what happened) may not have survived through the ages…The point is that Joseph Smith was accused of secretly practicing polygamy in direct violation of the rules of his church, and he claimed that his journals proved that he was not. Maybe he was bluffing and his journals actually proved not only that he really was practicing it, but gave all of the details regarding who he married and when?That's nonsense. His journals, as even a cursory examination reveals, do not account for "every minute of every day" "between 1841 and 1844." Far from it.He is the one that claimed that his journals had sufficient detail to prove a negative: to prove he wasn’t practicing polygamy.Ah well, I do not believe there is any thing to be said here. Other than: I do not believe you in any way know that Joseph Smith feared understanding truth. I didn’t say he feared understanding the truth himself, I’m saying he went to great lengths to conceal the truth from the rank and file members of his church, and from the people he was trying to convert.The FAIR article is what claims Joseph Smith didn’t keep records because he “feared” he would be misunderstood and persecuted if he told the truth.It seems you have decided to present it as though you had climbed in his mind in order to contradict the MO he described for himself.The MO he described for himself is that he wasn’t practicing polygamy and that the honest, detailed records he kept proved he didn’t.It is absurd to take Joseph's words so literally on this, I think. No one expects to find records of every thing he ever did.I said “every minute of every day” to emphasize the point that Joseph Smith himself was trying to make: his point was that he didn’t practice polygamy and the records made his team of clerks was sufficiently detailed to provide an alibi that proves he wasn’t. Edited January 31, 2012 by Analytics 1
stemelbow Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I didn’t say he feared understanding the truth himself,Here are your words, " It's clear that understanding of the truth is what Joseph Smith feared." I don't really know what you were intending now. It appears you didn't mean that which you did say and which I found worth responding to.I’m saying he went to great lengths to conceal the truth from the rank and file members of his church, and from the people he was trying to convert.But you literally took JS' claim of every action being written down. Were you just mocking him for employing some hyperbole there? The FAIR article is what claims Joseph Smith didn’t keep records because he “feared” he would be misunderstood and persecuted if he told the truth.Yeah, and in you reply you said that's not so, if he kept records of it all then there would be no need for someone to misunderstand or persecute, which seems silly. Then you went on to claim JS feared understanding of truth, which you seem to not have meant. The MO he described for himself is that he wasn’t practicing polygamy and that the honest, detailed records he kept proved he didn’t.He did not fear truth according to his own description. He wanted the truth, he sought to have people embrace the truth. His personal life was his personal life and we're all entitled to a little privacy, thus I don't think it wrong if he didn't have, literally, every action he did recorded.
Calm Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 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.And I think this is a huge issue....how to increase people's interest in history enough so that they will not only retain what they are taught (I have personally seen too many people forget what has been talked about in church and other places if they are not interested in the subject to believe it is all a problem of not being taught), but also do enough personal study on the issues to avoid being thrown by them when they encounter them in overly negative presentations/interpretations.
Calm Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 A new mantra:Every member an apologist.This could get interesting.I think a more accurate motto would be "every member a student".
Analytics Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 His personal life was his personal life and we're all entitled to a little privacy.So, others aren't to judge if somebody secretely practices polygamy behind his wife's back in direct violation of the laws of the church because "your personal life is your personal life, and we're all entitled to a little privacy."Somehow, I doubt that's the approach the church will take when tackling this issue. We'll see.
sjdawg Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 So, others aren't to judge if somebody secretely practices polygamy behind his wife's back in direct violation of the laws of the church because "your personal life is your personal life, and we're all entitled to a little privacy."Somehow, I doubt that's the approach the church will take when tackling this issue. We'll see.It would be wonderful if the LDS Church practiced that concept themselves.
bluebell Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 BTW, what are some of these misconceptions that you think ex mormons harbor about thier past faith?The latest one i heard is that the church owns pepsi. Another common one is that tithing money is being used for the downtown redo of salt lake city.
Recommended Posts