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

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Joseph Smith might have been a child murderer for all I care.

... personally, I would ... uh ... care.

[robuchan]

So in summary.

--No one wants to touch the corporate hostile environment comparison

--Most everyone seems to deny my logic and still conclude that it is the individual's responsibility

--Most everyone agrees none of these facts would be learned in church or in mainstream LDS books, but I should have expanded my books to include those outside the mainstream and outside the set of material referred to by the brethren and my local leaders (why? I still haven't gotten the why on that other than the Holy Ghost probably directed me to do it and I likely ignored the Holy Ghost)

--Most agree that I would have needed to expand my book study to an enormous amount of material to get the coverage needed to be exposed to the facts, even up to one book per day

--No one has addressed my question whether it is reasonable or prudent for a person with a young family, busy job (or college load), busy church calling, etc, should dedicate that much time to reading church books

[Storm Rider]

So in summary.

--No one wants to touch the corporate hostile environment comparison

--Most everyone seems to deny my logic and still conclude that it is the individual's responsibility

--Most everyone agrees none of these facts would be learned in church or in mainstream LDS books, but I should have expanded my books to include those outside the mainstream and outside the set of material referred to by the brethren and my local leaders (why? I still haven't gotten the why on that other than the Holy Ghost probably directed me to do it and I likely ignored the Holy Ghost)

--Most agree that I would have needed to expand my book study to an enormous amount of material to get the coverage needed to be exposed to the facts, even up to one book per day

--No one has addressed my question whether it is reasonable or prudent for a person with a young family, busy job (or college load), busy church calling, etc, should dedicate that much time to reading church books

That is a pretty effective way to pick and choose what you want to focus. Nothing like stacking a deck to rationalize yourself into a superior position. How about answering my question: what of all of this "knowledge" that you suppose is so vital that you would need to actually read in other books would assist in your salvation? If it does not assist in your salvation then what exactly makes it so bloody important that you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

[robuchan]

If it does not assist in your salvation then what exactly makes it so bloody important that you need to throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Good question. But it's a completely different subject. Maybe it would be good for a new thread. Here, I want to simply focus on who is primarily responsible for the fact that I didn't know many historical facts of the restoration until late in life. And if you think it's me, I'd like you to counter the logic from the OP on why. If the subject doesn't interest you or you think it's irrelevant, it's fine to skip over it.

[CV75]

For what it's worth: When I was a new convert in a college on the east coast (mid-1970s), I wanted to learn about the history of the church. So I went to the library and found all sorts of "30-40 points" stuff. This research did not affect my testimony or attitude toward the Church. It never crossed my mind that the Church suppressed my interest or the availability of these books, nor that the Church should make these matters known (apologetically or otherwise). My expectations had already been informed by D&C 123 and I suppose that was sufficient for me. As I mentioned before, the Church has been consistent in its prioritization to publish salvatory truth over interesting (and even perhaps relevant) historical facts. As resources develop over time, projects like the Joseph Smith Papers are made possible.

Why would the Church operate one way at BYU/Institute in the 1980-90s and another way in 1970's east coast college (and did it really?)?

[CV75]

counter the logic from the OP

The logic of the OP may be affected by your perspective.

The logic of the OP is faulty in that leadership’s responsibility and accountability for what goes on in its organization has to be in line with its rules, regulations, and policies (whether they originate within the organization or imposed legally from outside the organization). The LDS Church has no rule, regulation or policy about personal and group attitudes about exploring its history or the sources to be used and so it is not in conflict when certain approaches or sources are discouraged or ignored in the various sub-components of the larger organization (university, institute, ward, home, etc.). The environment would prove hostile only if practices contrary to policy were entertained and permitted and not addressed by leadership through the formal disciplinary channels.

Edited February 11, 2013 by CV75

[ERayR]

So in summary.

--No one wants to touch the corporate hostile environment comparison

Already done. Either you missed it or ignored it

--Most everyone seems to deny my logic and still conclude that it is the individual's responsibility

It is what you do with it after receipt of it that makes the difference.

--Most everyone agrees none of these facts would be learned in church or in mainstream LDS books, but I should have expanded my books to include those outside the mainstream and outside the set of material referred to by the brethren and my local leaders (why? I still haven't gotten the why on that other than the Holy Ghost probably directed me to do it and I likely ignored the Holy Ghost)

Not an accurate summary or assumption

--Most agree that I would have needed to expand my book study to an enormous amount of material to get the coverage needed to be exposed to the facts, even up to one book per day

A bit of hyperbole.

--No one has addressed my question whether it is reasonable or prudent for a person with a young family, busy job (or college load), busy church calling, etc, should dedicate that much time to reading church books

Still looking for absolution?

[ERayR]

Good question. But it's a completely different subject. Maybe it would be good for a new thread. Here, I want to simply focus on who is primarily responsible for the fact that I didn't know many historical facts of the restoration until late in life. And if you think it's me, I'd like you to counter the logic from the OP on why. If the subject doesn't interest you or you think it's irrelevant, it's fine to skip over it.

Can you really not see the connection or is this another dodge?

[robuchan]

Can you really not see the connection or is this another dodge?

I don't see the connection.

[ERayR]

I don't see the connection.

You seem to look at every thing very on dimensional. I will make only one attempt to connect the dots for you. You have spent 6 pages complaining how not being told about these "issues has affected your faith and trying to get absolution. Storm Rider is wondering why these "issues", that in no way affect ones salvation, are so important to you.

Dots connected, follow the line.

[robuchan]

You seem to look at every thing very on dimensional. I will make only one attempt to connect the dots for you. You have spent 6 pages complaining how not being told about these "issues has affected your faith and trying to get absolution. Storm Rider is wondering why these "issues", that in no way affect ones salvation, are so important to you.

Dots connected, follow the line.

I understand you might assume I'm complaining because you're attaching preconceived notions to the issue. I really am not complaining at the church about anything, and I'm not trying to get absolution (because I don't think I'm guilty of anything regarding my testimony and relationship with the church). I said a couple times, I believe the church not me is primarily accountable for me not knowing certain historical facts. But I'm not going anywhere with that other than to tell Kevin Christensen, Lou Midgely, etc to stop calling me lazy, stop telling me there was a defect in me while I was a faithful LDS all those years because I had not encountered those facts.

I might sound one dimensional in this thread because I'm trying to focus in on one issue and separate out everything else. I told you, I would entertain those questions in a separate thread if you really want to know my thoughts.

[robuchan]

For what it's worth: When I was a new convert in a college on the east coast (mid-1970s), I wanted to learn about the history of the church. So I went to the library and found all sorts of "30-40 points" stuff. This research did not affect my testimony or attitude toward the Church. It never crossed my mind that the Church suppressed my interest or the availability of these books, nor that the Church should make these matters known (apologetically or otherwise). My expectations had already been informed by D&C 123 and I suppose that was sufficient for me. As I mentioned before, the Church has been consistent in its prioritization to publish salvatory truth over interesting (and even perhaps relevant) historical facts. As resources develop over time, projects like the Joseph Smith Papers are made possible.

Why would the Church operate one way at BYU/Institute in the 1980-90s and another way in 1970's east coast college (and did it really?)?

Which books did you read to get those facts? I read dozens of church books and never got those facts.

If they were books on Mormon history from anti-Mormon or neutral sources, why were you seeking those books out? I had no reason to seek out a non-Mormon view of Mormon history. I was taught from a young age all about Mormon history and I read numerous books on my own to supplement that. I had no reason to think I had a tainted or incomplete view of Mormon history.

[The Nehor]

So in summary.

--No one wants to touch the corporate hostile environment comparison

--Most everyone seems to deny my logic and still conclude that it is the individual's responsibility

--Most everyone agrees none of these facts would be learned in church or in mainstream LDS books, but I should have expanded my books to include those outside the mainstream and outside the set of material referred to by the brethren and my local leaders (why? I still haven't gotten the why on that other than the Holy Ghost probably directed me to do it and I likely ignored the Holy Ghost)

--Most agree that I would have needed to expand my book study to an enormous amount of material to get the coverage needed to be exposed to the facts, even up to one book per day

--No one has addressed my question whether it is reasonable or prudent for a person with a young family, busy job (or college load), busy church calling, etc, should dedicate that much time to reading church books

In order:

I deny there is a hostile environment. I also deny that it is anything like a corporate environment. I say this as someone who has worked for multiple corporations.

Your learning is your own responsibility, yes.

The commandment was to seek wisdom out of the best books. The obvious implication is that it is your job to create that list. God does expect quite a bit from us. If his commandment was to read the approved reading list and the Brethren's "Best Books List" was defi cient you would have an argument here.

Yes, to get more then superficial knowledge there is a price to pay: time and lots of it. I have a few topics that fascinate me outside of my career: Quantum Physics, Greek and Roman politics and society, Chinese history and literature, Economics, World War II, and a few more. I read several books from each area every year and I know I am still paddling in the shallow end. If you do not have enough time to read the required volume of books to understand obscure points you might have a complaint but you should address it to God and ask why He made the day so short not why the Church cannot do mind imprints on you that would shorten the process.

That decision is up to the individual. It has been my experience that when something is important you make the time.

Do you realize how juvenile it is to stand there demanding validation and apologies? If you have decided that your circumstances denied you the time and/or opportunity to investigate everything fully then accept that and move on. I do not think anyone here expects that everyone should have the knowledge equivalent of post-graduate degrees in LDS history. They do expect that if someone wants that level of knowledge they should have the initiative to seek out the information they want and the discipline to spend the time acquiring that knowledge. If you either have no interest or feel your time is better spent elsewhere that is great. I do not think anyone would judge harshly someone who could not spend time studying because their time was needed for family or spent in church callings or needed for your job or spent in service to others. Just do expect anyone to be impressed with protestations of, "No one ever told me!" No one told me to read "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" or "Shattered Sword" or "The Wealth of Nations" but when I had the interest in the associated topics and wanted to know more I knew I had to bite the bullet, find out what books were helpful in my areas of interest by hunting or asking those who also studied these areas and read.

[CV75]

Which books did you read to get those facts? I read dozens of church books and never got those facts.

If they were books on Mormon history from anti-Mormon or neutral sources, why were you seeking those books out? I had no reason to seek out a non-Mormon view of Mormon history. I was taught from a young age all about Mormon history and I read numerous books on my own to supplement that. I had no reason to think I had a tainted or incomplete view of Mormon history.

None of these were "Church books." There were a dozen or so in the college library; some were 1850-ish and obviously of the "yellow journalism" variety, and some seemed reasonably neutral / respectable. I also looked up the history in Encyclopedias. I don't recall being aware of the multi-volume "History of the Church" until I served my mission (after college). To give you an idea of how much I expected by way of the Church educating me on its history, I was the only Mormon in my college, and I attended a weekly Institute at the Stake (we didn't cover Church History during my tenure there). But I wasn't in it for the history anyway.

A tainted or incomplete view of any history is part of being human since we have only 5 imperfect senses to work with. There is also a broad and narrow views to consider, since people may look to limited or diverse sources, or take a narrow or broad approach to their study. Whether one's view is tainted and incomplete is a function of his evaluation and processing of the historical information he seeks out from the chosen sources.

[robuchan]

If parents adopt a child and don't tell the kid he's adopted. And the child has no reason to assume he's adopted. He looks like his brothers and sisters. No one ever mentions anything about it. There's even a picture of his mom holding him at the local hospital hanging on the wall. Who is primarily accountable for this person not knowing he is adopted: the child or the parents?

[ERayR]

I understand you might assume I'm complaining because you're attaching preconceived notions to the issue. I really am not complaining at the church about anything, and I'm not trying to get absolution (because I don't think I'm guilty of anything regarding my testimony and relationship with the church). I said a couple times, I believe the church not me is primarily accountable for me not knowing certain historical facts. But I'm not going anywhere with that other than to tell Kevin Christensen, Lou Midgely, etc to stop calling me lazy, stop telling me there was a defect in me while I was a faithful LDS all those years because I had not encountered those facts.

I might sound one dimensional in this thread because I'm trying to focus in on one issue and separate out everything else. I told you, I would entertain those questions in a separate thread if you really want to know my thoughts.

If you are not seeking absolution then why are you so bent on having the church blamed for your lack of information. Your time commitments and restraints are/were greater than some, less than others. Let me tell you about time constraints. I raised a family of 11 children on jobs I could get with a high school education. At age 48 I went to college and in five yeas received a bachelors and then a masters degree. I then started a career path at age 53. I became acquainted with many of these issues in the midst of my greatest time constraints. I never but for a fleeting instant blame the church for not telling me these things. I never held any doubts longer than the time it took me to remember the spiritual witnesses I had received of the truthfulness of the gospel and the validity of Joseph Smiths mission. I realised it is not the information you have but rather what you do with what you have. One can whine "poor me" or one can do as Moroni teaches.

[CV75]

So in summary.

--No one wants to touch the corporate hostile environment comparison

--Most everyone seems to deny my logic and still conclude that it is the individual's responsibility

--Most everyone agrees none of these facts would be learned in church or in mainstream LDS books, but I should have expanded my books to include those outside the mainstream and outside the set of material referred to by the brethren and my local leaders (why? I still haven't gotten the why on that other than the Holy Ghost probably directed me to do it and I likely ignored the Holy Ghost)

--Most agree that I would have needed to expand my book study to an enormous amount of material to get the coverage needed to be exposed to the facts, even up to one book per day

--No one has addressed my question whether it is reasonable or prudent for a person with a young family, busy job (or college load), busy church calling, etc, should dedicate that much time to reading church books

Ooops--missed this; please see post #106 where I addressed the hostile environment comparison and your logic.

What you "should have done" would have been done if you had the desire and inclination, just as I did what I did. It wouldn't have been unreasonable, and when the time was right for you to explore, you did. Better late than never.

I only needed a dozen books from a public college library to get a non-church published history that included "problematic" historical claims.

The amount of time a person with a young family, busy job (or college load), busy church calling, etc, should dedicate to reading church books (or any other worthy pursuit) is up to him.

[ERayR]

If parents adopt a child and don't tell the kid he's adopted. And the child has no reason to assume he's adopted. He looks like his brothers and sisters. No one ever mentions anything about it. There's even a picture of his mom holding him at the local hospital hanging on the wall. Who is primarily accountable for this person not knowing he is adopted: the child or the parents?

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

[robuchan]

In order:

I deny there is a hostile environment. I also deny that it is anything like a corporate environment. I say this as someone who has worked for multiple corporations.

Your learning is your own responsibility, yes.

The commandment was to seek wisdom out of the best books. The obvious implication is that it is your job to create that list. God does expect quite a bit from us. If his commandment was to read the approved reading list and the Brethren's "Best Books List" was defi cient you would have an argument here.

Yes, to get more then superficial knowledge there is a price to pay: time and lots of it. I have a few topics that fascinate me outside of my career: Quantum Physics, Greek and Roman politics and society, Chinese history and literature, Economics, World War II, and a few more. I read several books from each area every year and I know I am still paddling in the shallow end. If you do not have enough time to read the required volume of books to understand obscure points you might have a complaint but you should address it to God and ask why He made the day so short not why the Church cannot do mind imprints on you that would shorten the process.

That decision is up to the individual. It has been my experience that when something is important you make the time.

Do you realize how juvenile it is to stand there demanding validation and apologies? If you have decided that your circumstances denied you the time and/or opportunity to investigate everything fully then accept that and move on. I do not think anyone here expects that everyone should have the knowledge equivalent of post-graduate degrees in LDS history. They do expect that if someone wants that level of knowledge they should have the initiative to seek out the information they want and the discipline to spend the time acquiring that knowledge. If you either have no interest or feel your time is better spent elsewhere that is great. I do not think anyone would judge harshly someone who could not spend time studying because their time was needed for family or spent in church callings or needed for your job or spent in service to others. Just do expect anyone to be impressed with protestations of, "No one ever told me!" No one told me to read "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" or "Shattered Sword" or "The Wealth of Nations" but when I had the interest in the associated topics and wanted to know more I knew I had to bite the bullet, find out what books were helpful in my areas of interest by hunting or asking those who also studied these areas and read.

It's possible I could have learned these 30 or 40 facts through independent study, before the internet age. I've shown only through sheer randomness or by going against how I was trained by my priesthood leaders (which is a function of the corporate environment the church established) would I have ever been exposed to these ideas on my own. I was being a good LDS, and it kept me away from all the facts.

[The Nehor]

If parents adopt a child and don't tell the kid he's adopted. And the child has no reason to assume he's adopted. He looks like his brothers and sisters. No one ever mentions anything about it. There's even a picture of his mom holding him at the local hospital hanging on the wall. Who is primarily accountable for this person not knowing he is adopted: the child or the parents?

The argument shifts again.........color me surprised. You complain that people will not address what you are saying but then instead of dealing with responses you either reiterate what you have already said or go off on a deranged tangent.

Edited out unnecessary snark.

Edited February 11, 2013 by The Nehor

[robuchan]

If you are not seeking absolution then why are you so bent on having the church blamed for your lack of information. Your time commitments and restraints are/were greater than some, less than others. Let me tell you about time constraints. I raised a family of 11 children on jobs I could get with a high school education. At age 48 I went to college and in five yeas received a bachelors and then a masters degree. I then started a career path at age 53. I became acquainted with many of these issues in the midst of my greatest time constraints. I never but for a fleeting instant blame the church for not telling me these things. I never held any doubts longer than the time it took me to remember the spiritual witnesses I had received of the truthfulness of the gospel and the validity of Joseph Smiths mission. I realised it is not the information you have but rather what you do with what you have. One can whine "poor me" or one can do as Moroni teaches.

I'm curious. Which books did you study to get these facts, and tell me about the motivation or natural progression that resulted in you studying these books.

[robuchan]

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

If you don't think it matters or if you don't think it matters or is interesting who is primarily responsible for my, and many of my peers, lacking information on certain historical facts, then you don't need to engage in this thread. Several on this board in the past have accused me and others of being lazy, etc, for not knowing the facts, so it matters to them. That's who I'm addressing.

[The Nehor]

It's possible I could have learned these 30 or 40 facts through independent study, before the internet age. I've shown only through sheer randomness or by going against how I was trained by my priesthood leaders (which is a function of the corporate environment the church established) would I have ever been exposed to these ideas on my own. I was being a good LDS, and it kept me away from all the facts.

I was being good LDS and found it all by the time I was 22 when the internet was still a weak thing and learned it without the internet. Of course I also had a burning thirst for knowledge and understanding.

I have a hard time believing your Priesthood leaders trained you to be ignorant but if they did you should have known that the scriptures trump them and the scriptures which you read (you were good LDS right?) enjoined the seeking of knowledge in all areas of life.

[robuchan]

The logic of the OP may be affected by your perspective.

The logic of the OP is faulty in that leadership’s responsibility and accountability for what goes on in its organization has to be in line with its rules, regulations, and policies (whether they originate within the organization or imposed legally from outside the organization). The LDS Church has no rule, regulation or policy about personal and group attitudes about exploring its history or the sources to be used and so it is not in conflict when certain approaches or sources are discouraged or ignored in the various sub-components of the larger organization (university, institute, ward, home, etc.). The environment would prove hostile only if practices contrary to policy were entertained and permitted and not addressed by leadership through the formal disciplinary channels.

The church was anti-Sunstone, and clearly set up an environment in the 80's and 90's where intellectual scholars had to walk a tight rope, and members were discouraged to seek information from non-mainstream sources. Those would all be considered policies and regulations.

[robuchan]

I was being good LDS and found it all by the time I was 22 when the internet was still a weak thing and learned it without the internet. Of course I also had a burning thirst for knowledge and understanding.

I have a hard time believing your Priesthood leaders trained you to be ignorant but if they did you should have known that the scriptures trump them and the scriptures which you read (you were good LDS right?) enjoined the seeking of knowledge in all areas of life.

Hold up, before you get so upset, maybe we're not talking apples to apples. I read quite a lot. Which book did you read, for example, to learn the account of Oliver's divining rod?