Trib Article: Mormons Tackling Tough Questions In Their History

[cdowis]

I was a recent convert when I attended BYU. I took a church history course, and the teacher gave it to us "warts and all". He gave the reasons why church members were disliked in Missouri, from their point of view-- we were clannish, unified voting, claiming that this land was given to us as Zion and we would take over, anti-slavery, etc. Not that they deserved the persecution, but we were not perfect.

[Nevo]

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.

I agree. But the Church has a long way to go yet.

I was at a stake-sponsored teacher in-service on Saturday and one of the instructors warned us against "reinterpreting" church history by attempting to "humanize" Church leaders. We're supposed to teach an idealized history.

It turns out he was just paraphrasing from the manual, Teaching, No Greater Call:

Reshaping Church History

President Ezra Taft Benson cautioned: “There have been and continue to be attempts made to bring [a humanistic] philosophy into our own Church history. . . . The emphasis is to underplay revelation and God’s intervention in significant events and to inordinately humanize the prophets of God so that their human frailties become more apparent than their spiritual qualities” (“God’s Hand in Our Nation’s History,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [1977], 310). Speaking of these attempts, President Benson later said, “We would warn you teachers of this trend, which seems to be an effort to reinterpret the history of the Church so that it is more rationally appealing to the world” (The Gospel Teacher and His Message [address to religious educators, 17 Sept. 1976], 11).

—Teaching, No Greater Call, p. 53.

[stemelbow]

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.

I didn't say any of that, of course. I think you may have missed my whole point. have fun.

[Analytics]

I didn't say any of that, of course. I think you may have missed my whole point. have fun.

Apparently I did.

Was your point that Joseph Smith was exaggerating when he said his personal records were sufficiently detailed to prove he wasn't engaged in polygamy, because it had holes of “personal time” that were large enough and vague enough to allow for getting married a few dozen times?

Perhaps that’s the case, but it’s ironic that you fault me for taking Joseph Smith at his word.

Anyway, I think you see my point about how so many aspects of this don’t have very satisfying explanations.

[stemelbow]

Apparently I did.

Was your point that Joseph Smith was exaggerating when he said his personal records were sufficiently detailed to prove he wasn't engaged in polygamy, because it had holes of “personal time” that were large enough and vague enough to allow for getting married a few dozen times?

Perhaps that’s the case, but it’s ironic that you fault me for taking Joseph Smith at his word.

Anyway, I think you see my point about how so many aspects of this don’t have very satisfying explanations.

I had hoped to question you regarding your claim that Joseph Smith had feared understanding truth. Considering he seemed to me to be the opposite of that characterization, I questioned you and got little direct answer other than a, "I didn’t say he feared understanding the truth himself". You seemed to have contradicted yourself. It seems you were just going for some sort of reaction when you said that which you apparently did not mean, initially. With that, I don't know what you are hoping I do mean.

[Analytics]

I had hoped to question you regarding your claim that Joseph Smith had feared understanding truth. Considering he seemed to me to be the opposite of that characterization, I questioned you and got little direct answer other than a, "I didn’t say he feared understanding the truth himself". You seemed to have contradicted yourself. It seems you were just going for some sort of reaction when you said that which you apparently did not mean, initially. With that, I don't know what you are hoping I do mean.

Hi Stem,

Here is the quote from the "wiki" I was responding to.

"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...."

The way I read this, the author is claiming that Joseph Smith didn't keep records because if he did, people would misunderstand what he was doing.

My point is that if he kept records, people would understand what he was doing. Doesn't this thread prove the point? We all misunderstand what was going on to one degree or another, precicely because he didn't keep records. Saying he didn't keep records "because of the fear of misunderstanding" is ironic and a cop out.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Analytics

[Pahoran]

Hi Stem,

Here is the quote from the "wiki" I was responding to.

"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...."

The way I read this, the author is claiming that Joseph Smith didn't keep records because if he did, people would misunderstand what he was doing.

My point is that if he kept records, people would understand what he was doing. Doesn't this thread prove the point? We all misunderstand what was going on to one degree or another, precicely because he didn't keep records. Saying he didn't keep records "because of the fear of misunderstanding" is ironic and a cop out.

What is "ironic" is that someone who claims to be "taking Joseph Smith at his word" is trying to argue that the records that were kept were some kind of conspiracy intended to "hide" something.

As I'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand, Analytics, had there been any any official confirmation of plural marriage at Nauvoo, the public would have widely assumed it to have confirmed the whole body of rumours that were circulating at the time. Thus, such records would indeed have contributed to misunderstanding, and as I fully understand and you cannot credibly deny, that misunderstanding would no doubt have contributed to anti-Mormon violence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Apostates are in a separate category from non-members. By apostatizing from the Church, and thereby breaking their covenants, they already would have violated the honor code they had sworn to uphold. BYU and the Church are under no obligation -- moral, ethical or legal -- to enroll (and thus subsidize the education of) covenant breakers.

And I don't see that this makes the Church particularly intolerant, not in the sense that is being employed in this discussion.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Wasn't it just last week that Elder Jensen said how the Church was experiencing a Kirtland-like apostasy over this?

Do you have a link or a cite? I'ld like to evaluate what he said in context.

[Analytics]

What is "ironic" is that someone who claims to be "taking Joseph Smith at his word" is trying to argue that the records that were kept were some kind of conspiracy intended to "hide" something.

Touche. If I fully took Joseph Smith at his word, I'd be in the RLDS camp which rejects he practiced polygamy at all.

As I'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand, Analytics, had there been any any official confirmation of plural marriage at Nauvoo, the public would have widely assumed it to have confirmed the whole body of rumours that were circulating at the time....

I honestly believe being sneaky and dishonest causes more misunderstanding than being sincere and forthright. I guess I'm not as intelligent as you give me credit for.

Apostates are in a separate category from non-members. By apostatizing from the Church, and thereby breaking their covenants, they already would have violated the honor code they had sworn to uphold. BYU and the Church are under no obligation -- moral, ethical or legal -- to enroll (and thus subsidize the education of covenant breakers.

And I don't see that this makes the Church particularly intolerant, not in the sense that is being employed in this discussion.

But put the shoe on the other foot. If a private, secular university had a small handful of Mormon students, yet considered joining Mormonism to be grounds for expulsion, would you consider such a place to have “excellent” religious tolerance?

Religious tolerance is about not punishing people for following their own consciences. If BYU’s policy was merely about the alleged lack of honor entailed in breaking commitments to religious institutions, then it should expulse people who break covenants to their former faiths by joining Mormonism.

But as I already said, it's the church's prerogative to kick out apostates. Just don't act suprised when the world sees this as less than "excellent" religious tolerance.

[Deborah]

If BYU’s policy was merely about the alleged lack of honor entailed in breaking commitments to religious institutions, then it should expulse people who break covenants to their former faiths by joining Mormonism.

No BYU policy is about breaking LDS codes of honor. Anyone of a different faith who attends agrees to live the standards set and sign a paper saying so. This isn't about beliefs but about behavior.

[Duncan]

Do you have a link or a cite? I'ld like to evaluate what he said in context.

the link of which the audio was on

http://simplemormonspectator.blogspot.com/

doesn't exist anymore, so what is left now is hearsay and a write up or two which may or may not reflect the QA session with Elder Jensen. He is also reported to have said this about people leaving the Church

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53408134-78/church-lds-mormon-faith.html.csp

So some people say he is contradicting himself about the numbers of people leaving like Kirtland but not like the Titanic and some say he isn't contradicting himself

[Sky]

I'm not quite sure why an apostate would want to be at BYU in the first place, but that's just me...

[Sky]

Do you have a link or a cite? I'ld like to evaluate what he said in context.

Here is a link and a partial transcript of his comments at USU:

Partial transcript of Q&A session with with Elder Marlin Jensen (recently released church historian) and LDS students at Utah State on Jan 18, 2012:

Female questioner: I too have often been confused by how we view history, especially as I've come to study church history in the last few years. And I'm wondering if that will be reflected in the manuals. Have you had any time? And I'm not trying to be goading here, but I'm wondering when the stuff that I hear from Richard Bushman or Leonard (inaudible), when I read that kind of stuff, when am I going to see that reflected in the Sunday School lessons?

Elder Jensen: That's really a great, fair question. And it's one that was asked by the Institute faculty today, in a sense. And I mentioned there that we've actually been given the task of creating a way to respond. You know, I don't like to think that there are problems with church history. I know someone taught a course at the University of Utah once called "Problems in Church History." (laughter) And he only taught it once. (more laughter) This is what we have in mind: to develop our response to the tough issues, whether that's polyandry or DNA in the Book of Mormon or whatever it is. Then, with the cooperation with the Curriculum Dept and the Church Education System, to build into our curriculum, material that covers these areas. ... My daughter, one of them, came to me and asked me, "Dad, why didn't you ever tell me that Joseph Smith was a polygamist?" Well, Kathy and I never intended to dwell on Joseph's polygamy. (laughter) It didn't occur to us. (more laughter) It might occur to us today, though, to be quite frank with you.

Follow-up question: Has the church seen the effects of Google on membership? Are the church leaders aware? I may be overstating it, but it seems like the people who I talk to about church history are people who find out and leave, quickly. Is the church aware of that problem? What about the people who are already leaving in droves?”

Elder Jensen: We are aware. Let me say this, I often get this question: "Do the Bretheren really know?" They do. And I'm not speaking for me. I'm speaking for the fifteen men that are above me in the hierarchy in the church. They really do know. And they really care. And they realize that maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now; largely over these issues. We do have another initiative called "Answering Gospel Questions." We are trying to figure out exactly what channels to deliver it in and exactly what format to put it in. But we want to have a place where people can go. We have hired someone that’s in charge of search engine optimization. We realize that people get their information basically from Google. They don’t come to LDS.org. If they get there, it’s through Google. So, we are trying to create an offering that will address these issues and be available for the public at large and to the church leaders, because many of them don’t have answers either. It can be very disappointing to church members. And, for people who are losing their faith, or who have lost it, we hope to regain to the church.

[Jaybear]

I'm not quite sure why an apostate would want to be at BYU in the first place, but that's just me...

The answer, of course, is so that they can complete thier degree.

But your comment is interesting, as I doubt anyone would say the same thing about an ex catholic attending Notre Dame or Boston College.

[Sky]

The answer, of course, is so that they can complete thier degree.

Or they could transfer to a different school.

But your comment is interesting, as I doubt anyone would say the same thing about an ex catholic attending Notre Dame or Boston College.

I don't know about this one way or the other.

[Scott Lloyd]

Touche. If I fully took Joseph Smith at his word, I'd be in the RLDS camp which rejects he practiced polygamy at all.

I honestly believe being sneaky and dishonest causes more misunderstanding than being sincere and forthright. I guess I'm not as intelligent as you give me credit for.

But put the shoe on the other foot. If a private, secular university had a small handful of Mormon students, yet considered joining Mormonism to be grounds for expulsion, would you consider such a place to have “excellent” religious tolerance?

The analogy fails. There is no functional equivalent here of what, in the view of the Church, a Church member does when he or she apostatizes, which is to break solemn covenants.

Religious tolerance is about not punishing people for following their own consciences. If BYU’s policy was merely about the alleged lack of honor entailed in breaking commitments to religious institutions, then it should expulse people who break covenants to their former faiths by joining Mormonism.

Religious tolerance is about allowing people to make choices, not to escape the consequences of choices they make. Say, for example, a Baptist or a Presbyterian church refused to allow a person to retain membership in that church while at the same time embracing Mormonism. Would you think the Baptist or the Presbyterian church intolerant? I wouldn't. Not in the sense that we use the word tolerance in speaking of a pluralistic society, wherein a person is allowed freedom of religion but not given the right to demand fellowhip or association with those with whom his choices are not compatible.

Standards of conduct are made very clear to Mormons when they enter BYU. They don't have to enroll there, nor do they have to remain.

But as I already said, it's the church's prerogative to kick out apostates. Just don't act suprised when the world sees this as less than "excellent" religious tolerance.

It's no news that ignorance, misunderstanding and irrationality are rampant in the world.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Duplicate post. The board is slow again today.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is a link and a partial transcript of his comments at USU:

Partial transcript of Q&A session with with Elder Marlin Jensen (recently released church historian) and LDS students at Utah State on Jan 18, 2012:

Thanks for the link and the quote.

Based on what I see here, I really don't see a contradiction in the quoted statements from Elder Jensen. To say that there has not been such a period of apostasy since Kirtland, is not to say that conditions today are "Kirtland-like." Nor does it say that -- how did he put it in the other quote? -- there is "some Titanic-like wave of apostasy" going on today.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jaybear]

The analogy fails. There is no functional equivalent here of what, in the view of the Church, a Church member does when he or she apostatizes, which is to break solemn covenants.

Religious tolerance is about allowing people to make choices, not to escape the consequences of choices they make. Standards of conduct are made very clear to Mormons when they enter BYU. They don't have to enroll there, nor do they have to remain.

Utter and complete nonsense.

BYU does not "tolerate" its students leaving the mormon faith. You are engaging in an absurd game of semantics by arguing that students are not being kicking out for leaving the faith, they are kicked out for breaching a "covenant" not to leave the fatih.

I don't think you could convince your mother that these two situations are not analolgous.

Catholic student at Notre Dame converts to Mormonism, and completes his degree.

Mormon student at BYU coverts to Catholicism ... kicked out for apostacy.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Jaybear

[Analytics]

The analogy fails. There is no functional equivalent here of what, in the view of the Church, a Church member does when he or she apostatizes, which is to break solemn covenants.

The analogy holds up fine without special pleading—your view is based upon the belief that Mormon covenants are “solemn” and that it's inherently dishonorable to break them, while covenants made to other religions are not solemn and can be broken with honor.

Religious tolerance is about allowing people to make choices, not to escape the consequences of choices they make.

By that standard, Daniel was enjoying excellent religious tolerance as he was being thrown into the lion’s den.

[Pahoran]

I guess I'm not as intelligent as you give me credit for.

If you say so.

But put the shoe on the other foot. If a private, secular university had a small handful of Mormon students, yet considered joining Mormonism to be grounds for expulsion, would you consider such a place to have “excellent” religious tolerance?

Apples and onions. What promises does an atheist break when she chooses to join a church?

Religious tolerance is about not punishing people for following their own consciences.

No. Religious tolerance is about tolerating religions other than one's own. For example, I spend exactly zero percent of my internet time bagging faiths I do not follow on websites dedicated to discussing those faiths. That's an example of religious tolerance I recommend to everyone.

If BYU’s policy was merely about the alleged lack of honor entailed in breaking commitments to religious institutions, then it should expulse people who break covenants to their former faiths by joining Mormonism.

As you said: I've overestimated your intelligence.

When West Virginia seceded from the state of Virginia and applied for admission to the Union as a new state, some of Lincoln's supporters twitted him for permitting secession. He replied that secession in favour of the constitution was more acceptable than secession against it.

An alleged Latter-day Saint leaving the Church is contrary to the mission of the Church. A non-member joining the Church is in accordance with that mission. It would be absurd for BYU to act contrary to the stated mission of the Church, and ridiculous to expect it.

But as I already said, it's the church's prerogative to kick out apostates. Just don't act suprised when the world sees this as less than "excellent" religious tolerance.

Since BYU does not encourage LDS converts to spend their internet time bagging their former faiths on websites devoted to discussing those faiths, their religious tolerance clearly excels yours.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

The analogy holds up fine without special pleading—your view is based upon the belief that Mormon covenants are “solemn” and that it's inherently dishonorable to break them, while covenants made to other religions are not solemn and can be broken with honor.

See Pahoran's excellent analysis about the Church having the right to define its own mission.

By that standard, Daniel was enjoying excellent religious tolerance as he was being thrown into the lion’s den.

There is a vast difference between withdrawing membership or association from someone and killing him. If you can't see that, then I'm afraid Pahoran is right about having overestimated your intelligence.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Utter and complete nonsense.

BYU does not "tolerate" its students leaving the mormon faith. You are engaging in an absurd game of semantics by arguing that students are not being kicking out for leaving the faith, they are kicked out for breaching a "covenant" not to leave the fatih.

I don't think you could convince your mother that these two situations are not analolgous.

Catholic student at Notre Dame converts to Mormonism, and completes his degree.

Mormon student at BYU coverts to Catholicism ... kicked out for apostacy.

The Catholic Church's policies with regard to Notre Dame are their own business. That doesn't make the Church of Jesus Christ and BYU wrong in what they do.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Deborah]

BYU does not "tolerate" its students leaving the mormon faith. You are engaging in an absurd game of semantics by arguing that students are not being kicking out for leaving the faith, they are kicked out for breaching a "covenant" not to leave the fatih.

Neither one actually. If they are kicked out it is for breaking the honor code they agreed to when they entered. That includes such things as not smoking, drinking alcohol and living a morally clean life. Those are principles of behavior. I know LDS who never went to church but continued at BYU because the didn't break the honor code.