Church Or Individual? Who Is Most Accountable For Lack Of Correct Understanding?

[robuchan]

Issue: after dedicating thousands and thousands of hours to gospel study, serving mission, graduating from BYU, etc, I did not learn many of the difficult facts about the restoration until well past my 30's and into the internet age. I believe this is extremely common. I talk to other people I know, and they're all in the same boat. Nobody I've ever met is like what 90% of the faithful here claim: that all these issues were freely discussed and very common and they knew them all along. Most learn to deal with the issues and stay Mormon. For some, like me, it causes them to lose their testimony.

Who is principally accountable for that? I maintain it is "The Church".

Sexual harassment corporate blame comparison

I understand it is very difficult to define "The Church". It is also very difficult to put precise blame on any person or entity of why I never knew many pertinent facts of the restoration. When there is sexual harassment in the workplace, a corporation can be sued if it can be shown that if the company has a hostile working environment. So the corporate officers living in New York City wearing suits and acting very proper and appropriate towards women can be sued because of policies that create a situation where workers on an assembly line in the backwoods of Tennessee are not punished or stopped from making inappropriate sexual advances and jokes at female workers. Even if they are completely unaware of what is happening. Is this right? Yes, I think we can see that it is right. Since that law was introduced, companies started having training and quickly following up on complaints, and work environments have improved dramatically for women.

“Hostile Learning Environment” of the Church in the 80's and 90's

I'm focusing on this time period because that's when I became an adult in the church, and that's the general age category of my peers that so many are being tripped up by this issue. Intellectual analysis of church history and issues became more common and there was a retrenching by the church, to put a stop to it. See September 6, see the language in the TR recommend about “affiliating with other groups”, etc. Arrington was not replaced. General Authorities were inserted as BYU Presidents. There was an environment that it was not good to read anti-Mormon material even just to understand it. There was anti-Sunstone, anti-Dialogue sentiment. There was an understanding that you should be careful which study and readings you should supplement your scripture study with and stick to the mainstream. In my mission the following study materials were approved: scriptures, missionary guide, and a handful of books like Jesus the Christ. When I came home, I was free to read anything, but there was still an understanding that you need to be careful which voices you listen to. The prophets and apostles, Talmage, McConkie, Nibley, Madsen, and some of the rah rah CES types, but don’t go outside of that or you will damage your testimony. The brethren were our models, and the books they quoted in GC were the books that became our study material. The books our religious instructors referred to became our study material. D Michael Quinn was not one of these. He was a bitter apostate we should avoid.

You had many pat answers to anti-Mormon questions or apologetic issues which floated around the church and were just assumed. ie Joseph’s marriages were all spiritual. Masonic temple ceremony matched LDS because they both date to Solomon’s temple. Lamanites were the principal ancestors of Native Americans. Magic in BOM translation and treasure hunting were anti-Mormon lies that you should stay away from investigating. No discussion of polyandry. Thomas Marsh was offended by a milk cow. The fact that First Vision was not emphasized or discussed in the early days of the church. The fact that the Peter, James, John visit was never mentioned or discussed until years later. You have art like the Joseph/Oliver painting that manipulates the understanding of BOM translation. You have poor/incorrect defense of Book of Abraham issues floating around the mainstream. All this I call part of a hostile learning environment. Reading RSR alone will provide at least 30 or 40 gotchas to the average Mormon in my generation that make you think “wow never heard that before! That certainly is different than I had been taught or left to assume.”

How is this the church’s responsibility?

Just like the corporate officers sued for sexual harassment, church leaders are responsible for this environment. Sunday School may not be the place for correct historical analysis. But certainly the manual for a class for college credit at the university level called History of the Church should be the place for it. The church is responsible for threatening scholars that got too close to anything negative. The church is responsible for the anti-Sunstone sentiment. The church is responsible for allowing all the assumptions and mistruths to perpetuate. The church is responsible for the feelings I had that discouraged open analysis and study of these issues from non-approved sources. The church is responsible for the contentment I had, and so many thousands of my peers had, on dozens of obviously false and immature apologetic arguments. (note: I don’t mean to say that all apologetic arguments are false and immature. I would characterize none of the current apologetic arguments as obviously false and immature)

Is the individual accountable? Who bears more accountability the individual or the church?

Are all these good, active, faithful LDS who are surprised by these facts, are they accountable for not knowing the truth earlier? Let’s see what a faithful LDS would need to do in order to understand the RSR type facts and not be surprised when they hear them in the internet age.

1. Since you have no reason to prioritize an LDS scholar’s writing over one of the brethren or a CES/Education Week kind of author, you would literally have to read a book a day to get the coverage required to even get exposure to some of the issues. For every true Mormon Scholar, you’d read 10 or 20 doctrinal/fluff type books published by Deseret Book. Some of the issues (like Oliver’s divining rod) have already been shown that they exist NOWHERE in Mormon mainstream literature available in the 80’s/90’s.

2. Because you have taught to distrust any non-mainstream treatment of LDS issues, even if you had exposure to some of the more accurate apologetic arguments which destroyed the first level false apologetic arguments that were widely accepted in the church, you would have no reason to trust these facts. You would probably go back to mainstream sources or your trusted advisors like father, bishop, seminary/institute instructor to get their advice, and these men are all cut out of the same conservative cloth. It’s called breathing your own exhaust.

3. Outside of this, you would need to have a rebellious/liberal bent to prioritize non-mainstream and to seek out edgy material that you knew was outside what you were counseled to read and study. I don’t think this is reasonable to expect LDS to go against church counsel in order to learn the true facts about Mormonism. Or I would need to have doubts in my testimony. There would need to be something driving me towards unsanctioned sources, like a feeling that there was something wrong with how I was taught. If I have faith in the brethren and a testimony of the gospel, I am satisfied with all the fluffy/incorrect answers. There is no need to challenge them.

This explains the environment I grew up in the church, and I believe so many of my peers did also. The church created an insular environment where certain facts and ideas were suppressed and whitewashed and going to outside sources to study was discouraged. This is why The Church and not the individual is mostly accountable for why so many thousands of people don’t learn important historical details about the church until late in life and after the internet age.

Edited February 10, 2013 by robuchan

[Duncan]

don't know but I love the way you wrote this, so for that I gave you a rep. point!

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Personally, I think this problem is not limited to the Church; it extends to historiography in general, the different social functions communities use history for, and the narratives that crop up at a popular level. It is extremely, extremely common for communities to stifle far-ranging inquiry. On the other hand, some of us actually do at least attempt a book a day; my book today is a reread of Mary Lefkowitz's fine volume Not Out Of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History. Read some of the Amazon reviews and note the sense of betrayal some people have that their intellectual community did not provide them with accurate information. America in general has such a piss-poor grasp on world history that outrageously false claims can be accepted as unquestioned (and sometimes unquestionable) "givens" in popular media without batting an eye. (Incidentally, Lefkowitz's reliance on Brooke and her implied criticism of Nibley's scholarship relegated to a dismissive footnote on pseudohistory is ironically under-informed.)

The point is, it's not just the Church that does a crappy job of teaching history, it's everyone. You think Catholics don't go through the same process of disillusionment? You think Protestants and Atheists and every other Ism and Philosophy don't have things in their history they'd rather sweep under the rug because they don't match up with contemporary morality? There is no solution except personal effort. There's no way around it. (Tomorrow's book is The Enlightenment Bible by Jonathan Sheehan, which I'm expecting will revise my view of Biblical translations. Next up is Gatherings in Diaspora: Religious Communities and the New Immigration, by Warner and Wittner. Etc. I'm not being graded, there will be no test, so why bother studying?)

Everyone should do a better job. The institutional Church, the individuals, everyone. I get annoyed as anyone at the lowest-common-denominator strategies used by the Church, the media, schools, parents, whoever, but blacing "blame" on one single disassociated malevolent entity as if we're not all in this together is counterproductive. I get ulcers thinking about all the stuff I don't know yet, which can be cause for despair when I'm depressed or cause for excitement when I remember to treat the past like a treasure hunt. It's worth pointing out that in the Doctrine & Covenants, we are counseled that it is God's will that we "obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion." Presumably, this includes our own history.

[Edit to add: It's also worth pointing out that the paradigm in which a previous understanding contradicted by new information is interpreted as "disillusionment" is predicated on a very different foundation than one which interprets revision as interesting new light to be eagerly examined.]

Edited February 10, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Storm Rider]

I dislike any paradigm that does not begin with me, myself, and I. As I have reviewed my lengthy life the only person that has been present every time that things have gone wrong, that I have screwed up, or anything negative, is me and no one else. I dislike any tendency to shift blame to another person or entity. If you honestly feel that the Church should be the source of all challenging information then you probably need to reassess the purpose of the Church and the need to appeal to both the lowest common denominator and the highest. The highest because the information you indicate you did not know was there all along. Should the Church discourage the general membership from delving deeply into anti-Mormon literature? You betcha! Without a shred of doubt. The objective is to build faith, to learn faith, to exercise faith. There is nothing that you could learn in any history book that should destroy your faith because nothing that you will learn in any history book, any writings, etc. can deny the facts that the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and through him restored the Church upon the earth. If you want to argue that Joseph was a man; no contest. I assure you he was a man and that during his entire life it was his goal to emulate the Savior and to follow the Spirit and he failed at times and he succeeded at others.

[DavidB]

Both.

But what does a person need to know to gain a testimony?

[Tacenda]

Personally, I think this problem is not limited to the Church; it extends to historiography in general, the different social functions communities use history for, and the narratives that crop up at a popular level. It is extremely, extremely common for communities to stifle far-ranging inquiry. On the other hand, some of us actually do at least attempt a book a day; my book today is a reread of Mary Lefkowitz's fine volume Not Out Of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History. Read some of the Amazon reviews and note the sense of betrayal some people have that their intellectual community did not provide them with accurate information. America in general has such a piss-poor grasp on world history that outrageously false claims can be accepted as unquestioned (and sometimes unquestionable) "givens" in popular media without batting an eye. (Incidentally, Lefkowitz's reliance on Brooke and her implied criticism of Nibley's scholarship relegated to a dismissive footnote on pseudohistory is ironically under-informed.)

The point is, it's not just the Church that does a crappy job of teaching history, it's everyone. You think Catholics don't go through the same process of disillusionment? You think Protestants and Atheists and every other Ism and Philosophy don't have things in their history they'd rather sweep under the rug because they don't match up with contemporary morality? There is no solution except personal effort. There's no way around it. (Tomorrow's book is The Enlightenment Bible by Jonathan Sheehan, which I'm expecting will revise my view of Biblical translations. Next up is Gatherings in Diaspora: Religious Communities and the New Immigration, by Warner and Wittner. Etc. I'm not being graded, there will be no test, so why bother studying?)

Everyone should do a better job. The institutional Church, the individuals, everyone. I get annoyed as anyone at the lowest-common-denominator strategies used by the Church, the media, schools, parents, whoever, but blacing "blame" on one single disassociated malevolent entity as if we're not all in this together is counterproductive. I get ulcers thinking about all the stuff I don't know yet, which can be cause for despair when I'm depressed or cause for excitement when I remember to treat the past like a treasure hunt. It's worth pointing out that in the Doctrine & Covenants, we are counseled that it is God's will that we "obtain a knowledge of history, and of countries, and of kingdoms, of laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of Zion." Presumably, this includes our own history.

I'll bet some of us place the church at a higher standard, when told we have direct revelation from God, unlike the others. That is the difference!

[thesometimesaint]

We, individually, are responsible for our own salvation. I can't think of a single issue that hasn't been addressed long before the internet was ever invented. From the First Vision, to Polygamy, to Blacks and the Priesthood, to Proxy Baptism. It is all there in books. We get to decide what evidence, if any, we personally believe.

[robuchan]

On the other hand, some of us actually do at least attempt a book a day; my book today is a reread of Mary Lefkowitz's fine volume Not Out Of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History.

I guess it's a good question. How much reading of books outside the scriptures should be expected. I don't know how fast you read, but I'm a college grad with above average qualifications and would have a very difficult time reading a book a day, even dedicating the entire day to it. Let's say I'm a faithful kid who just wants to do his best, and I ask people in my life: my bishop, stake president, etc, how much time should I spend reading non-scripture church related books per day. During this time period, I have young children, a busy job, and a busy church calling. i want to have enough time to allocate to all of them and include temple and other church service. You think he would counsel me to spend more than 1/2 hour a day? Take a step back and really think about real life and what you're expecting of the average member to remove this accountability issue from himself.

Edited February 10, 2013 by robuchan

[volgadon]

Jeremy is spot on. Has anyone seen the links to the Osprey survey I posted in the other thread?

[Sky]

I'm not crazy about the idea of placing blame on any one particular person or the Church.

The leaders of the Church are imperfect men, but they are honest, and striving for the ideal or the divine. I truly believe this. I believe this about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, too. And their primary role is to unify the Saints and teach the doctrine of the Church, not history. As fascinating as the history of the Church can be, our salvation lies in how well we grasp the doctrine and apply it in our lives.

I regret that anybody would lose their testimonies simply by reading a history book, and encountering information that they haven't heard before. I doesn't have to be that way, though.

[BlueDreams]

This explains the environment I grew up in the church, and I believe so many of my peers did also. The church created an insular environment where certain facts and ideas were suppressed and whitewashed and going to outside sources to study was discouraged. This is why The Church and not the individual is mostly accountable for why so many thousands of people don’t learn important historical details about the church until late in life and after the internet age.

I have no idea. Don't feel very qualified to talk about half of your points because I was between 0-12 during the period you covered. Much of it is not an issue in my gen. Yeah, I don't know a number of things, but I can't blame it on my environment, I blame it on specialization and narrowing down on my interests instead of casting a wide blanket over a ton of issues. Some things are just like, huh, well that's interesting (like the thomas marsh thing...just googled it. That was literally my response after reading google. I won't lie: I won't be researching much beyond that. Mildly interesting is enough for me. That's basically the story of my gen's lives). I have a large body of scholarly, rigorous LDS works that I could peruse....if I wanted to. I have the internet....if I need it. I have professors I could talk to....if I cared. I'm a spoiled information brat who takes for granted what toys she has and hardly uses them.

Minus google/internet, there were a variety of things that I was still exposed to as a teen and young adult from church. Without the internet there were a number of those things I learned in church, seminary, and at a school university. Just the other day I was in my PoGP class and had a reading about the differing vision accounts as well as a discussion as to why it wasn't talked about that much in the early church.

Minus college and I could still understand why it's not discussed a ton. Honestly, most concerns and criticism that I've ran into outside the church were shoddy at best. There was minimal correct information and little reason for massive dialogue on the intricacy of Joseph Smith's marital patterns and what Marsh did or did not do to get him out of the church. Most of the argument still had little to do with history and more to do with doctrine. When there's no real push/conflict, there's really not much of a need in the first place. It's like wondering why someone doesn't push on the gas peddle while going down hill.

Again, this is me entirely guessing: but if I didn't have the internet and all I had to come up against were the general complaints, concerns, or questions that I received growing up and on my mission, there just wouldn't be much of a demand to know. I got those answers by reading my scriptures, praying, and church/seminary.

I wouldn't blame the church. I'd blame the whole enchilada: you, the people, the means of getting information in the first place back then, and the church.

I'd flesh this out, but I'm running late.

With luv,

BD

[daz2]

I was a member of debate teams in high school and in college. My father blamed my faith crises as a teenager on my being a debater. One learns quickly as a debater that there is more than one side to any question. That there is evidence and usually good arguments to be made on both sides on almost any matter. Growing up where Mormons were a small minority, and having intellectual friends, some of whom did not believe in God, caused me to explore arguments in favor and against my own faith tradition. Not because I wondered about its truthfulness so much as, frankly learning what the best arguments were for and against, and hoping to persuade my friends.

And I continued exploring those issues at the Lord's university. Dialogue and Sunstone (after it started publication) were available at BYU's library at that time, but they had to be specifically requested at the research desk, rather than finding them on the shelves like other journals. I suppose that was a compromise between those higher ups who thought those journals should not be on campus at all and those who thought they should. Or perhaps it was because the journals were so popular that people would steal them if they were kept on the shelves. In any event, I felt almost rebelious by checking them out and reading them. Same for No Man Knows My History, and even for Nibley's response, No Ma'am That's Not History.

None of those really shook my faith. My parents had taught me growing up that Church leaders are just as human and just as prone to error as anyone else, and that the Church was true in spite of their humanity and deep flaws. That I should not take anything said by a Church leader, including the prophet, as true, just because he said it. (I use the word "he" advisedly, this was in the 1960s and 1970s).

I read all of the standard works, including the Old Testament, several times, making careful notes and noting questions and contradictions and open issues. I even read the Book of Mormon in Spanish.

What shook me up however, was reading works on philosophy and epistemology in particular. That is, my beliefs were challenged not so much by divergent multiple versions of the First Vision as by more fundamental questions like how could I "know" there was a God or The God? How could I "know" anything? Could free will exist in a universe of determinism (or of God's foreknowledge)? I ultimately came to a pragmatic approach to truth while serving a mission, and have since felt comfortable with my beliefs and commitment to the Church.

It wasn't until after my mission that I read BH Roberts History of the Church, which in my judgment is a surprisingly open and balanced history for its time and publication by the Church. And a year of two later Brooks Mountain Meadows Massacre. I felt like a rebel, reading things that other people, including some Church leaders, would claim were not "useful." But I really wanted to know truth as best I could, and I knew that required for me, understanding as much as I possibly could.

All of this is a long winded way of saying that information on controversial issues was available, even at the Lord's university, decades ago, even though they were either not mentioned and certainly not emphasized in correlated sources. But it was possible to be and remain a dedicated member and explore them. But it certainly was not widely encouraged within the Church culture. I don't think it is widely encouraged in Church culture today. But the culture and the institution are much much much more transparent and open about them today then when I was growing up.

[omni]

Issue: after dedicating thousands and thousands of hours to gospel study, serving mission, graduating from BYU, etc, I did not learn many of the difficult facts about the restoration until well past my 30's and into the internet age. I believe this is extremely common. I talk to other people I know, and they're all in the same boat.

them.

What is it with this age group and loss of faith? It seems that for so many of us once we reach our thirties, have a few kids, everything comes crashing down (spiritually speaking). Oh well, maybe a topic for another day...

Back to the OP, I'm not sure what the correct answer is to where we need to teach our "warts and all history". It seems to me that church is a place that we need to focus more on the spiritual rather than the historical. That being said, I know of no other church that places as much emphasis on its history than we do. If we're going to teach our history, we might as well do it correctly.

As you alluded to I think the best vehicle would be through seminary and institute (or required church history at BYU). This day and age most people are eventually going to learn of all the less than faith promoting aspects of our history, why not do it in a controlled environment where questions can be explored and answered? It's often said that it's not in the action, but the cover up (perceived or real) where the damage is done.

[Calm]

America in general has such a piss-poor grasp on world history that outrageously false claims can be accepted as unquestioned (and sometimes unquestionable) "givens" in popular media without batting an eye.

I remember being quite shocked when we went up to Canada and I started hearing about NA history from the Canadian POV, including some pretty horrendous acts. Nor did the current pressure tactics on Canada to force her to accept contracts that were detrimental to her and overly useful for US interests make me proud of my own country. A half year in Russia gave yet another viewpoint.

There is a standard approach to history in the US it seems to me---if it is useful to our current purpose, let's teach it, if not...let's make it so...and if we can't, ignore it. Anyone who intends to teach history to Americans these days have a huge hurdle to overcome due to this attitude as well as the one that prefers historical myths to actual history, such as Brown's Da Vinci Code (of which I heard one professor of history bemoan its existence due to people refusing to accept it was fiction). There is a reason why the History Channel is showing the shows they are instead of the ones they once did (or so I've heard not having access to it for many years).

I would be very curious to see any church that taught full and deep history as historians teach it to their everyday members. If there is not a church out there that does it, then at the very least inventing a process where the Church can fulfill its actual mission AND train its typical member in well done history may take awhile to experiment with and develop to a point of usefulness. To me, the obvoius focus place would be institute...demanding Institute to be as challenging as any other class rather than one that was often more or less a freebie. In looking back and seeing the choice being made for the current Church History in the Fulness of Times being chose over the previous two volumes, where details were sacrificed for looks to a great deal, though visual aids are very useful in teaching I still wonder why so many details lost. The previous BoM text was three times as large, I believe. Can't check because a student saw my copy and begged to be able to take it in order to endure the class.

From what I hear there is significant overhauls being done so I am looking forward to it. Add to that the massive push to get out the documentation on which history is most accurately constructed and making it accessible not only to scholars, but to everyone....it seems to me we are moving into a dramatic different time where study of church history will be able to be accomplished by those who desire it. What the Church seems to be doing is creating a massive online library.

[Calm]

I'll bet some of us place the church at a higher standard, when told we have direct revelation from God, unlike the others. That is the difference!

But unless we also place ourselves at a higher standard, what good is accomplished? Will a student who chooses to study at best at a community college level come out of Stanford (assuming they allow him to stick around) with that much more knowledge? My sister, Ph.D, taught college lit classes for a couple of decades and then switched to fifth graders for a change of pace. She works hard to give them the best teaching she can from her great well of knowledge and experience, she goes above and beyond winning for her school a 1million library from Walmart. And yet the kids leaving her class are pretty much identical to all the other classes save for a few kids who catch fire on their own. They have learned what was expected of them in other classes and places and have no intention on putting effort into doing stuff outside the box they feel comfortable in. And for some reason it is getting worse every year.

That attitude is prevalent in our society these days and behaviours and attitudes tend to cross lines. People are going to bring to church the same attitudes towards learning they possess for math, English, history, science. There may be many exceptions out there, but unless you expect the church to start teaching "gifted" courses, then teachers are going to be required to teach at the level students will accept. I was in an honours BoM class, there was a seriously different expectation there than among the regular...but it was the students who made the difference, not the teacher. Religion wasnt his field and his choice of "teaching" was to give out projects and the kids would form groups, study and then teach. One doesn't even have a grading system to motivate the learners, motivation must come from within and from what I've seen only a small minority of Saints have learned the value learning history as opposed to historical myths. The BYU religion classes in the 200+ halls were not the ones that required serious work when I was there from what I saw.

When it comes to teaching, one should never ignore the student's contribution. I had a brand new geometry teacher who was nice, but useless. So I read the text, did all the work in it (and I mean all, not just the assigned) and then taught when I could what we were learning to about 5-10 other students. I did well in that class in spite of the teacher. It is highly unlikely if the teacher had been fantastic and me uninterested, I would have come away with anything beyond a superficial understanding.

Edited February 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

But unless we also place ourselves at a higher standard, what good is accomplished? Will a student who chooses to study at best at a community college level come out of Stanford (assuming they allow him to stick around) with that much more knowledge? My sister, Ph.D, taught college lit classes for a couple of decades and then switched to fifth graders for a change of pace. She works hard to give them the best teaching she can from her great well of knowledge and experience, she goes above and beyond winning for her school a 1million library from Walmart. And yet the kids leaving her class are pretty much identical to all the other classes save for a few kids who catch fire on their own. They have learned what was expected of them in other classes and places and have no intention on putting effort into doing stuff outside the box they feel comfortable in. And for some reason it is getting worse every year.

That attitude is prevalent in our society these days and behaviours and attitudes tend to cross lines. People are going to bring to church the same attitudes towards learning they possess for math, English, history, science. There may be many exceptions out there, but unless you expect the church to start teaching "gifted" courses, then teachers are going to be required to teach at the level students will accept. I was in an honours BoM class, there was a seriously different expectation there than among the regular...but it was the students who made the difference, not the teacher. Religion wasnt his field and his choice of "teaching" was to give out projects and the kids would form groups, study and then teach. One doesn't even have a grading system to motivate the learners, motivation must come from within and from what I've seen only a small minority of Saints have learned the value learning history as opposed to historical myths. The BYU religion classes in the 200+ halls were not the ones that required serious work when I was there from what I saw.

When it comes to teaching, one should never ignore the student's contribution. I had a brand new geometry teacher who was nice, but useless. So I read the text, did all the work in it (and I mean all, not just the assigned) and then taught when I could what we were learning to about 5-10 other students. I did well in that class in spite of the teacher. It is highly unlikely if the teacher had been fantastic and me uninterested, I would have come away with anything beyond a superficial understanding.

That's the problem I guess. It's difficult to teach someone who is satisfied with the status quo and doesn't want to learn more.

[Calm]

I guess it's a good question. How much reading of books outside the scriptures should be expected. I don't know how fast you read, but I'm a college grad with above average qualifications and would have a very difficult time reading a book a day, even dedicating the entire day to it. Let's say I'm a faithful kid who just wants to do his best, and I ask people in my life: my bishop, stake president, etc, how much time should I spend reading non-scripture church related books per day. During this time period, I have young children, a busy job, and a busy church calling. i want to have enough time to allocate to all of them and include temple and other church service. You think he would counsel me to spend more than 1/2 hour a day? Take a step back and really think about real life and what you're expecting of the average member to remove this accountability issue from himself.

How much time do you spend watching tv, playing vid or other games or playing around on message boards?

[thesometimesaint]

I read about 400 per minute. So in about 10hrs I can read the entire Book of Mormon. But like most of us I do lots of other things. I guess it just boils down to how we want to spend our time.

[Calm]

And I continued exploring those issues at the Lord's university. Dialogue and Sunstone (after it started publication) were available at BYU's library at that time, but they had to be specifically requested at the research desk, rather than finding them on the shelves like other journals. I suppose that was a compromise between those higher ups who thought those journals should not be on campus at all and those who thought they should. Or perhaps it was because the journals were so popular that people would steal them if they were kept on the shelves. In any event, I felt almost rebelious by checking them out and reading them. Same for No Man Knows My History, and even for Nibley's response, No Ma'am That's Not History.

Unfortunately there is probably a less appealing reason for the restriction. There were among a few who hung out at the library...and they might not have been even students but members of the town as this kind of stuff went on for years...who apparently felt it was a calling to deface anything they felt should not be present in the Lord's University. Nudes in art books were a top target, but I remember being told it was not limited to solely art books.

[thesometimesaint]

While every generation has more than It's fair share of iconoclasts(The icon defacing type), It has always baffled me that they somehow rationalize their atrocious behavior. If they don't want to read articles or look at pictures they personally don't like that's fine with me, but to prevent others from doing so. The ironies abound.

[Calm]

That's the problem I guess. It's difficult to teach someone who is satisfied with the status quo and doesn't want to learn more.

I blame it on Sesame Street which has taught children for 50ish years that learning should be fun and not take longer than five minutes. Then they get to school, look around for the razzle dazzle and when they don't find it sulk for the next 15 years.

[robuchan]

How much time do you spend watching tv, playing vid or other games or playing around on message boards?

So you are sticking with your story that it was my fault for not reading enough? Could you be more specific in addressing my points in the OP related to how much volume would be required to cover all the proper scholarly books, especially considering there is no reason to prioritize them over general authority and CES authored books and other similar Desert Book publications?

To answer your question: during the time in question message boards didn't exist (pre-internet age) and my time was consumed with work (or school), a young family, and busy church callings. I honestly didn't spend much time at all in any of those leisure activities. I even gave up my BYU football tickets one year to accept the calling of volunteer temple worker.

Edited February 10, 2013 by robuchan

[thesometimesaint]

It would be near impossible, in this life, for any one person to read all there is on any subject, especially one as broad as the LDS religion is. However there is enough information to make an informed opinion. God doesn't demand we hear/read all points of view. Just that do the best we can with what we do have.

While I view history as important, knowing every detail of every understanding of LDS history won't save you or me.

Edited February 10, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

So you are sticking with your story that it was my fault for not reading enough? Could you be more specific in addressing my points in the OP related to how much volume would be required to cover all the proper scholarly books, especially considering there is no reason to prioritize them over general authority and CES authored books and other similar Desert Book publications?

To answer your question: during the time in question message boards didn't exist (pre-internet age) and my time was consumed with work (or school), a young family, and busy church callings. I honestly didn't spend much time at all in any of those leisure activities. I even gave up my BYU football tickets one year to accept the calling of volunteer temple worker.

No, I am just asking how much time you had for leisure activities. Since it sounds like you had little time to spare, not much would have changed even if the stuff was available to you.

As to priorities...if one is looking to learn history, I would assume one would assume history books are the best sources. If one doesn't care specifically about history, the chances of coming across a good history book is much, much lower.

Edited February 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[Paloma]

I remember being quite shocked when we went up to Canada and I started hearing about NA history from the Canadian POV, including some pretty horrendous acts. Nor did the current pressure tactics on Canada to force her to accept contracts that were detrimental to her and overly useful for US interests make me proud of my own country. A half year in Russia gave yet another viewpoint.

There is a standard approach to history in the US it seems to me---if it is useful to our current purpose, let's teach it, if not...let's make it so...and if we can't, ignore it. Anyone who intends to teach history to Americans these days have a huge hurdle to overcome due to this attitude as well as the one that prefers historical myths to actual history, such as Brown's Da Vinci Code (of which I heard one professor of history bemoan its existence due to people refusing to accept it was fiction). There is a reason why the History Channel is showing the shows they are instead of the ones they once did (or so I've heard not having access to it for many years).

I would be very curious to see any church that taught full and deep history as historians teach it to their everyday members. If there is not a church out there that does it, then at the very least inventing a process where the Church can fulfill its actual mission AND train its typical member in well done history may take awhile to experiment with and develop to a point of usefulness. To me, the obvoius focus place would be institute...demanding Institute to be as challenging as any other class rather than one that was often more or less a freebie. In looking back and seeing the choice being made for the current Church History in the Fulness of Times being chose over the previous two volumes, where details were sacrificed for looks to a great deal, though visual aids are very useful in teaching I still wonder why so many details lost. The previous BoM text was three times as large, I believe. Can't check because a student saw my copy and begged to be able to take it in order to endure the class.

From what I hear there is significant overhauls being done so I am looking forward to it. Add to that the massive push to get out the documentation on which history is most accurately constructed and making it accessible not only to scholars, but to everyone....it seems to me we are moving into a dramatic different time where study of church history will be able to be accomplished by those who desire it. What the Church seems to be doing is creating a massive online library.

Calmoriah, you said lots here that makes me think!

As Canadians, we often think of the USA as very much self-focussed, and still living out the dream and calling of Manifest Destiny. We don't tend to have the same intense sense of national preference and identity, and sense of "sacred soil" as our neighbours to the south. (Some fellow Canadians may say ... "speak for yourself!" And I realize I'm very much speaking in generalizations, and even that from my own perception. I should also mention that I have family members who are American, and I love the States!)

And so, I think there's a bit of "my country, right or wrong" in the American psyche. I would hate to say that carries over to the LDS Church, especially when the Church claims direct authority and revelation from God. But perhaps there is an American bent toward unquestioning loyalty? (And I think that's a human bent, as well, though more pronounced in some cultures than others.)

As for teaching church history, "warts and all", in a church setting, that is something that we have often done in my own particular church. We have been intent on not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the past. While we celebrate what's good throughout church history, we grieve (and believe that God grieves) the history of Christendom where what's been done (and is being done) in the name of Christ has not been representative of who He is. We don't come at this so much with a judgmental stance, as with an attempt to see what went wrong and why, and to set our own priorities to follow Christ.

This is not something we do all the time, but I can recall at least four or five times in the last ten years when we've had long teaching series (anywhere from 4 to 12 weeks) on church History. (Our weekly teaching time during Sunday worship time is at least 45 minutes.) We have a Teaching Pastor and a couple of other pastors who are trained and well equipped to teach.

I can see that this approach would not work in an LDS sacrament meeting or perhaps even in Sunday School, where lay members are called to speak and to teach.

I realize that I'm describing only my own church, which is one out of my own denomination. And my denomination is one out of many Protestant denominations.

Through my connections with Christian friends beyond my own church and my own denomination (and through my own post-grad studies at an interfaith Theological University), I think that there's generally a tendency to seeing the history of Christendom in an open and objective way. We see the advantages of such an open approach. It is probably more difficult for the LDS Church to take such an open approach, with issues of the restoration of authority, and the prophetic mantle. But I don't think that would be insurmountable.