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

[robuchan]

No, I am just asking how much time you have for leisure activities.

I probably have a few hours a day right now at this stage of my life. I don't watch much TV and don't play video games, but I do probably waste more time on the internet than I should.

[rpn]

1) the only one who will be accountable is the individual, whether that be individuals who are church leaders or teachers, or members who never had any calling at all.

2) The church mission --- a strictly earthly one--- is to perfect the saints, redeem the dead, proclaim the gospel, and caring for the poor and needy. It has 2 meetings (Sacrament and Priesthood --- the only required ones, 2 hours tops) to teach the gospel. And it uses members who are called of God, but not otherwise trained in history, ancient texts, or anything other than what programs and reading material that their parents and they decided to take advantage of. Adding it up, you get 104 hours a year, with supplemental time of 52 hours (second hour of Primary/SS), 104 for YM/YW, and during teen years 180 hours of seminary for 4 years, plus another 60 hours per year general activities, and 98 for scout/girls camp. Total hours at church 1872 required, 3174 optional if parents want to use church programs to raise their families. About 2.5 work years, less than the same child will spend eating if you est. 20 minutes per meal over 18 years. Not to mention that a hefty part of this interaction is NOT direct instruction of doctrine or how we got it.

3) Once you get a spiritual witness of the restoration of the Church, the facts of how doctrine was/is revealed, or how the people getting the revelation personally lived are no longer relevant. One of the great blessings of a lay ministry is that we all know from our personal experience that the Lord uses people who are willing to try to figure out what He wants us to do, and then go and do it. We have all messed up revelation, thinking we were to move forward one way, and coming to see how we interpreted that revelation wrong. We have all messed up in how we show our discipleship. It is not hard to understand that even if the most critical interpretation of an historical fact about how some leader behaved is correct, it doesn't mean the doctrine or the revelation is wrong.

4) So what point is there in teaching anything but those things that are mostly likely to promote faith in God and inspired to good works and firm and constant discipleship?

5) I'm willing to concede that it is quite possible that even if those who sit on the committees that draft and review the church curriculum were all knowing of every critical fact and historical interpretation and biblical and other scriptural history and scholarship, there could be some who might urge watering down some information to "protect the flock". But in order to get to a problem with that, you have to decide that the Lord knew both their intent to do that, AND what they did (and most importantly all the actual historical facts and doctrine) and allowed them to do so. I don't know any calling or volunteer committee that doesn't seek to do the Lord's will in carrying out its responsibilities. In order to find legitimate fault with those who write the curriculum, you have to assume that they intentionally subverted what the Lord wanted His children taught. And that is quite simply inconsistent with the idea that the Lord runs the church through prophets and others willing to follow Him. If He thought that the way the manuals are written would sabotage His plan, He would assure they were written differently.

5) Everything the church does is to help families. The family is the basic unit of eternal government.

6) Accountability is always an individual matter.

[Calm]

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.

Very interesting. Any chance you have a link to an online resource for one of those series. I am curious about it first and second, it would be interesting to see if it could be adapted.

[robuchan]

6) Accountability is always an individual matter.

This is being repeated over and over. But it's obviously not the complete picture. Institutions are accountable at times for things that happen within an organization. Like my example in the OP, a corporation is accountable for a hostile work environment. No one has addressed this yet.

Edited February 10, 2013 by robuchan

[why me]

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".

Maybe a mixture of you and the church. One cannot just say it is the church. Let me put it this way. If the church came out with their interpretation of church history, the critics would still have their interpretation. In the end, members would need to pick a side and go with it. Members would still leave the fold over interpretations. And maybe you would have also. Whose fault is it then?

If you had spiritual experiences in the church and if you had a testimony of the book of mormon and this was a powerful witness to the book, how then, could you have put it all to the curb? Also, joseph has not been proven to be a fraud nor have the witnesses been proven to be liars. Let me put it this way: what did the witnesses experience with the book of mormon? They left the fold but never denied their testimony. How sad is that. And on their deathbed they gave their testimonies again and david instructed his testimony to be on his tombstone. Why?

Edited February 10, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

5) I'm willing to concede that it is quite possible that even if those who sit on the committees that draft and review the church curriculum were all knowing of every critical fact and historical interpretation and biblical and other scriptural history and scholarship, there could be some who might urge watering down some information to "protect the flock". But in order to get to a problem with that, you have to decide that the Lord knew both their intent to do that, AND what they did (and most importantly all the actual historical facts and doctrine) and allowed them to do so. I don't know any calling or volunteer committee that doesn't seek to do the Lord's will in carrying out its responsibilities. In order to find legitimate fault with those who write the curriculum, you have to assume that they intentionally subverted what the Lord wanted His children taught. And that is quite simply inconsistent with the idea that the Lord runs the church through prophets and others willing to follow Him. If He thought that the way the manuals are written would sabotage His plan, He would assure they were written differently.

However, the Lord may be willing to to tolerate error for a time if it means in the long run things will be done better. Maybe we need to experience how not to teach so that when the time comes that multitudes are our students, the process will be purged of error and developed to its fullest capacity to teach. Perhaps this is something God is willing to let us learn for ourselves so we will experience the true value for us ofGod taking the podium himself.

[Libs]

I'm sure, both, the church and the individual have some accountability.

I donno. I guess, I have just gotten over blaming the church or myself. It seems rather futile to blame the church, as there is probably not much we, as individuals, can do to change the church and how it functions. We can, however, change ourselves, and that is where the real power lies. We can learn and improve our knowledge and take responsibility for our perceptions (which are not always accurate).

That's the only way I can reasonably deal with any of this, anymore.

[CV75]

This explains the environment I grew up in the church, and I believe so many of my peers did also.

Of course the Church will always advise us to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” which might lead one to non-Church sources, but that is between the individual and the Spirit. The general message is to stay or go where the Spirit is able to work on your soul and branch out from there as further directed by the Spirit, even in intellectual pursuits. The Church is accountable for the message, and the individual is accountable for what he does with that message—the same idea as correct principles and self-governance.

The Church and others are also accountable for how they convey this message (this would include the governing councils, a church college, a mission, a church unit, LDS families, a friend), etc. I’m not sure why they would convey the message so as to encourage people to go to where the wrong conclusion, spiritually, is (from their experience) likely. Can anyone be blamed for doing the best with what they had at their disposal?

[robuchan]

Let me restate exactly what the accountability question is. It is NOT who is accountable for me gaining a testimony. It is specifically who is accountable for the lack of awareness of the 30 or 40 historical and facts I finally learned in my 30s post Internet age. And to be clear it is not the interpretation. It is the actual facts that were never taught in the church but now are coming to light and being acknowledged by scholars like Bushman.

[ALarson]

I'm sure, both, the church and the individual have some accountability.

I donno. I guess, I have just gotten over blaming the church or myself. It seems rather futile to blame the church, as there is probably not much we, as individuals, can do to change the church and how it functions. We can, however, change ourselves, and that is where the real power lies. We can learn and improve our knowledge and take responsibility for our perceptions (which are not always accurate).

That's the only way I can reasonably deal with any of this, anymore.

I love what you wrote above and it describes where I'm at with all of this too.

Bottom line is, who care whose "fault" it is anymore?

The fact remains that the majority of active members do not know their complete church history. Most still believe the myths such as the one regarding Joseph Smith and polygamy (that he either did not even live polygamy or that if he did, he only married the old widows left behind because of the deaths of their husbands fighting for the church and so on).

I think the church leaders are finally recognizing this is a huge problem and they are also realizing the loss the church is incurring over this. That is why they are listening and paying attention to John Dehlin's study and more to help them combat this. Hopefully they will start teaching about church history more openly. They could set a great example by starting this at the next General Conference. Just think how interesting and exciting this would make conference for members who then would in turn do the same with their own sacrament meeting talks and lessons they teach. This would be a really good thing for the church, I believe.

They should take the opportunity to introduce members to their own church's history rather than leaving that open for them to learn elsewhere.

Edited February 10, 2013 by ALarson

[CV75]

Let me restate exactly what the accountability question is. It is NOT who is accountable for me gaining a testimony. It is specifically who is accountable for the lack of awareness of the 30 or 40 historical and facts I finally learned in my 30s post Internet age. And to be clear it is not the interpretation. It is the actual facts that were never taught in the church but now are coming to light and being acknowledged by scholars like Bushman.

It seems the Church is still as consistent as it was before in not teaching these facts but rather in sonveying the more important command to indivuduals and the Church (universities, misisons, families, etc.) to seek learning by study and faith. The Church operates fundamentally by normal men using the priesthood keys, not by scholarly rigor.

[ALarson]

Let me restate exactly what the accountability question is. It is NOT who is accountable for me gaining a testimony. It is specifically who is accountable for the lack of awareness of the 30 or 40 historical and facts I finally learned in my 30s post Internet age. And to be clear it is not the interpretation. It is the actual facts that were never taught in the church but now are coming to light and being acknowledged by scholars like Bushman.

I doubt that anyone is disagreeing that these historical facts are not taught from the pulpit or in Sunday school. And, of course that's not your fault. I believe the church is changing their approach of blaming the member for not knowing all the historical details. They have to know this did not work and that this method has just pushed members further away.

Hey, just be grateful you do know the facts as many still do not, even though it's easily found now online.

[awyatt]

Let me restate exactly what the accountability question is. It is NOT who is accountable for me gaining a testimony. It is specifically who is accountable for the lack of awareness of the 30 or 40 historical and facts I finally learned in my 30s post Internet age. And to be clear it is not the interpretation. It is the actual facts that were never taught in the church but now are coming to light and being acknowledged by scholars like Bushman.

The mere fact that someone else was able to learn such things is prima facia evidence of a couple of important things. (You cite Bushman, but there were obviously others, as well. For instance, you have learned those 30 or 40 things, and you had to learn them from somewhere. And those you learned them from had to learn them from somewhere, etc.)

First important thing: they aren't hidden. They may be obscure, but the fact that someone can find them and resell them demonstrates they aren't hidden.

Second important thing: it is individuals that find them and resell them. If one individual can do it, then others can do it, as well. Why don't others do it? That's an entirely different question.

-Allen

[Calm]

. I believe the church is changing their approach of blaming the member for not knowing all the historical details.

CFR please for "the church" meaning I assume church leadership blaming the member. I don't remember anything 'church published' that does this, but I haven't gone looking for it so I may have missed it.

Not saying no one does it, just not leadership as far as I know.

[robuchan]

Another clarification of a subtle point.

The issue is not whether the church is accountable for not teaching me these 30 or 40 historical facts in church lessons. I'm not taking my argument that far. My claim is that the church is accountable for the absence of my knowledge of these 30 or 40 points. The "hostile learning environment", that the church is responsible for, resulted in the perpetuation of myths, the anti-intellectualism that existed that dissuaded learning from outside sources, etc.

[robuchan]

The mere fact that someone else was able to learn such things is prima facia evidence of a couple of important things. (You cite Bushman, but there were obviously others, as well. For instance, you have learned those 30 or 40 things, and you had to learn them from somewhere. And those you learned them from had to learn them from somewhere, etc.)

First important thing: they aren't hidden. They may be obscure, but the fact that someone can find them and resell them demonstrates they aren't hidden.

Second important thing: it is individuals that find them and resell them. If one individual can do it, then others can do it, as well. Why don't others do it? That's an entirely different question.

-Allen

I only learned those things after the internet age. I don't think you can conceivably create a sample gospel study program that would have lead me to these facts before the internet age. We already hashed out one example in another thread: Oliver's divining rod. Kevin Christensen couldn't produce a source and in fact produced three false sources.

[thesometimesaint]

Another clarification of a subtle point.

The issue is not whether the church is accountable for not teaching me these 30 or 40 historical facts in church lessons. I'm not taking my argument that far. My claim is that the church is accountable for the absence of my knowledge of these 30 or 40 points. The "hostile learning environment", that the church is responsible for, resulted in the perpetuation of myths, the anti-intellectualism that existed that dissuaded learning from outside sources, etc.

I've never found the Church to be hostile to learning, just the opposite. What we do object to is reaching false conclusions from that "learning from outside sources".

[Sky]

With the new Church History Library across the street from Temple Square and the ongoing Joseph Smith Papers project, this demonstrates that the Church is open to a "warts and all history." I don't believe the Church is trying to hide anything from anybody. But there are limits to what can be taught or presented in a one-hour Sunday School or Priesthood/Relief Society class once a week, with teachers who most likely aren't scholars but are only part-time lay volunteers. If I have to choose, I'd rather have the doctrine than a history lesson.

I don't care if Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by putting his face in a hat with a rock. Is it interesting? Yes. But, I care the most that we have the Book of Mormon and that we can read it and study it and apply its lessons in our lives today. And that I can feel the Spirit and draw closer to Christ when I read it.

It doesn't bother me that there are multiple accounts of the First Vision. What I care about is the assurance that the Father and the Son did indeed appear to the boy Joseph Smith, and talked with him face to face, that they knew his name, and the implications of that momentous event for all of us.

I have learned to be content with not having all the answers, such as why Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the Priesthood, but the Brethren after him reached the conclusion that it was not what the Lord wanted for the time being. I am thankful that this is no longer the case in the Church.

But far more important to me is the knowledge that the ancient Priesthood's were restored to the earth through the resurrected John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John. On this I do not waiver.

I have learned that God uses imperfect and flawed men to accomplish his eternal purposes, and for this I am deeply grateful. It should give all of us a sense of hope. I know it does with me.

[robuchan]

I've never found the Church to be hostile to learning, just the opposite. What we do object to is reaching false conclusions from that "learning from outside sources".

I explain this in the OP. September Six, anti-Sunstone, etc.

[Calm]

Another clarification of a subtle point.

The issue is not whether the church is accountable for not teaching me these 30 or 40 historical facts in church lessons. I'm not taking my argument that far. My claim is that the church is accountable for the absence of my knowledge of these 30 or 40 points. The "hostile learning environment", that the church is responsible for, resulted in the perpetuation of myths, the anti-intellectualism that existed that dissuaded learning from outside sources, etc.

What of those in the same environment who did learn? How do you account for them if it was the environment that was the dominant factor?

[robuchan]

What of those in the same environment who did learn? How do you account for them if it was the environment that was the dominant factor?

I don't know anybody who did. I'm not sure those people actually exist. Everyone here on this board claims they're one, so I guess I'll have to trust you. I don't know a single person who knew about Oliver's divining rod before the internet age. I suspect if you did a poll in 1995, you would find less than 1 in 1,000 who did.

[cdowis]

I am frankly puzzled by the question.

But let me give the boring answer. (warning, this is probably the longest and most boring post I have ever written)

I have literally been thru it all. As you can see I have over 8000 posts in this forum alone, and goes back before Al Gore invented the internet, thousands of posts on compuserve and on usenet, alt.religion.mormon. I have personally communicated the Smithsonian Institute regarding their statement regarding the BOM, and was perhaps instrumental in the change in the wording of that statement. I have personally conversed with Dr. Brown at Emory regarding his DNA research and the amerindians and disclosed his startling admission (He is very upset with me but never denied the content of our conversation)

When the antis focused on the "principal" ancestors statement, guess what? I actually got off my a** and looked up the word in the dictionary. It does not mean what the antis claim it means. I have refuted other anti claims by a simple search of the dictionary.

I have researched and found an possible explanation to the Adam-God issue, the BOM DNA question, whether there were religious revivals in NY in the time frame, etc etc.

But underlying all of this was whether JS was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God. The answer was given to me, and it did not matter if the church used some "deceptive"painting of the translation process, whether there were issues on historical details, and even what kind of polygamy was practiced by JS.

With this long experience in personal communications with the antimomons, and personal research, by long experience, I discovered and disclosed that the antiMormons are deceivers, do not speak the truth, and follow the techniques as taught to them by the Prince of Darkness.

Now, you tell me whether some artistic license with the BOM interpretation, some opinions and misstatements by General Authorities will cause me to deny my testimony of what i know, but spiritually and intellectually, to be the truth.

Of course I don't have all of the answers, but I do have a "shelf of disbelief" where I place these unresolved issues and examine them from time to time.

There are at least 100 reasons to leave the church, and one one reason to stay.

Edited February 10, 2013 by cdowis

[pogi]

Another clarification of a subtle point.

The issue is not whether the church is accountable for not teaching me these 30 or 40 historical facts in church lessons. I'm not taking my argument that far. My claim is that the church is accountable for the absence of my knowledge of these 30 or 40 points. The "hostile learning environment", that the church is responsible for, resulted in the perpetuation of myths, the anti-intellectualism that existed that dissuaded learning from outside sources, etc.

Perhaps you misunderstand the purpose and mission of the church. The church is only accountable for fulfilling its clearly outlined mission and purpose which is to a) proclaim the gospel, b) perfect the saints, c) redeem the dead, and more recently d) care for the poor and needy. The church is not accountable to teach every single historical fact, this is not part of its mission. It only teaches those historical facts which it feels will further its mission and purpose in spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. You are personally accountable for any further knowledge of any historical facts that you wish to acquire outside of its mission.

[Bob Oliverio]

Interesting question proposed in the OP.

I did not grow up in the Church and joined primarily to appease my wife.  She was worth it!

But the more I look back on the history of the Church (that history that we know exists) in the context of how it was taught, I come back to two words:

Isolation and Insulation

I believe there were, and still are,  many leaders in the Church that were/are very much aware of the contradictions between teachings and factual history, claims vs realities, supposed revelations vs social pressure and many of the warts that make for a tough discussion and loyalty preservation.  It is not necessarily to our Church, but probably much more acute and troubling to membership.

I suspect that up until about the 50s or 60s, other than the issue of polygamy, not much of the rest of our US society really cared or focused on "Mormons or Mormonism".  It was fairly isolated or "contained" primarily in Utah and few parts of Arizona.  It was a religion and practice that was very isolated, relatively speaking.  I think that leaders really believed they had few concern about outside influence on the membership.  They could teach whatever version of Church history they found most compelling to the spiritual and disciplined direction they felt was best for the Church.  The membership was fairly insulated to documented history that has obviously surfaced over the last two decades or so.

Obviously with the national attention brought on from the designation of worthiness for African Americans during the 1970s and the advent of information access in the decades following, the issue of insulation and isolation changed drastically for the Church and members.  This situation probably hit it's apex w Romney running this past year.

But the point is that members became aware of so much more the Church did not want to explain, acknowledge or even discuss in the past and, in many ways, prefers to avoid today.  It seems, to me anyway, "apologetics" may have been a way to rationalize or address the question "responsibility" to members for failing to "know" about that which was finally becoming available to anyone with a computer.  Unfortunately, IMHO, this approach failed to deal with the bridge that has yet to be built between what members can find out on their own and what we are still being told by loyal teachers and ward leaders in Church today.  And while I don't necessarily think the objective of "apologetics" was ill conceived, from what I've seen it certainly should have been thought through and handled much better than it was for both members and those on the outside.  And, obviously, I'm not alone in this observation.

But don't see how you can blame members for not understanding many of the history and issues that most on the outside seem to know when the same issues are "officially" not taught, explained, or even discussed in the same level of detail as the are even here.  

[Calm]

I don't know anybody who did. I'm not sure those people actually exist. Everyone here on this board claims they're one, so I guess I'll have to trust you. I don't know a single person who knew about Oliver's divining rod before the internet age. I suspect if you did a poll in 1995, you would find less than 1 in 1,000 who did.

Bushman wrote about the rod (described it as likely used as other rods were to find water, etc.). This was in his In the Beginnings book, page 98 for about a page and a half. Published 1985. I read that book shortly after it was published....most of my husband's family read it shortly after it was published. My memory says it was a big Christmas present that year. It was a History Book Club selection so all and all there are likely a number who did know it, though I would not be surprised at all if it was less than 1 in 1,000. Edited February 10, 2013 by calmoriah