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

[ERayR]

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.

You are indeed one dimensional. It does not matter where the information comes from(books, well meaning friends or some anti-Mormon) it is what you do with that information.

Read and think about what I wrote.

[robuchan]

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.

I firmly believed that going to sources outside the mainstream to read about church history was wrong. We were constantly warned of the dangers of anti-Mormon material. And back then just about anything that wasn't mainstream was considered anti-Mormon, ie Sunstone, D Michael Quinn, etc. I would go so far as to say if you read any of that stuff in the 90's, you were not following the brethren.

[robuchan]

You are indeed one dimensional. It does not matter where the information comes from(books, well meaning friends or some anti-Mormon) it is what you do with that information.

Read and think about what I wrote.

Of course it matters where the information comes. We're establishing how a good LDS like me would have learned these facts.

[ERayR]

I firmly believed that going to sources outside the mainstream to read about church history was wrong. We were constantly warned of the dangers of anti-Mormon material. And back then just about anything that wasn't mainstream was considered anti-Mormon, ie Sunstone, D Michael Quinn, etc. I would go so far as to say if you read any of that stuff in the 90's, you were not following the brethren.

For you it seems it was wrong. It appears that you accepted these "facts" in the worst possible interpretation and without reservation.

[The Nehor]

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?

I am not upset. I am being snarky.

I found out about it when I was reading up about the gift of Aaron. I asked a friend about it and he said he heard there was a change. He told me I should check out the original D&C so I hunted down a replica of the Book of Commandments and saw there was a rod of Aaron reference as opposed to gift. I went digging and found a paper by an LDS writer and read about journal entries referring to it and divining. Later on my Mission I asked my Mission President about it and he copied some information he had and gave it to me for study. Do not remember where it came from. I think I still have it somewhere. I think the key here is that I wanted to know and was actively seeking information.

[robuchan]

I am not upset. I am being snarky.

I found out about it when I was reading up about the gift of Aaron. I asked a friend about it and he said he heard there was a change. He told me I should check out the original D&C so I hunted down a replica of the Book of Commandments and saw there was a rod of Aaron reference as opposed to gift. I went digging and found a paper by an LDS writer and read about journal entries referring to it and divining. Later on my Mission I asked my Mission President about it and he copied some information he had and gave it to me for study. Do not remember where it came from. I think I still have it somewhere. I think the key here is that I wanted to know and was actively seeking information.

I am not upset. I am being snarky.

I found out about it when I was reading up about the gift of Aaron. I asked a friend about it and he said he heard there was a change. He told me I should check out the original D&C so I hunted down a replica of the Book of Commandments and saw there was a rod of Aaron reference as opposed to gift. I went digging and found a paper by an LDS writer and read about journal entries referring to it and divining. Later on my Mission I asked my Mission President about it and he copied some information he had and gave it to me for study. Do not remember where it came from. I think I still have it somewhere. I think the key here is that I wanted to know and was actively seeking information.

What's the LDS paper and what author? I'm trying to determine if these are anti-Mormon, Sunstone type "edgy" voices or if they are mainstream.

[volgadon]

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

What, you haven't planned on joining the Herodians? Can't get much more biblical than that!

[ERayR]

Of course it matters where the information comes. We're establishing how a good LDS like me would have learned these facts.

It appears to me that "good" LDS like you would have been better off without these "facts". Again it is what you do with that information

[The Nehor]

What's the LDS paper and what author? I'm trying to determine if these are anti-Mormon, Sunstone type "edgy" voices or if they are mainstream.

No idea; it was over a decade ago. Pretty sure it was not Sunstone and it was not from the Ensign. The writer seemed to be faithful LDS from what I remember. So neither edgy or mainstream. Just obscure and only around for those few with an interest which I had.

[robuchan]

No idea; it was over a decade ago. Pretty sure it was not Sunstone and it was not from the Ensign. The writer seemed to be faithful LDS from what I remember. So neither edgy or mainstream. Just obscure and only around for those few with an interest which I had.

Interesting, how did you find it? I didn't have the benefit of search engines.

[The Nehor]

Interesting, how did you find it? I didn't have the benefit of search engines.

A library. I think I used a computerized search. I guess that means that poor disadvantaged you are justified in complaining that you would not have found it?

[ERayR]

Interesting, how did you find it? I didn't have the benefit of search engines.

Neither did I but that kind of information has a way of finding you.

[The Nehor]

Neither did I but that kind of information has a way of finding you.

On that note I should add that I prayed about it and asked God to help me find more information.

[BlueDreams]

Of course it matters where the information comes. We're establishing how a good LDS like me would have learned these facts.

I don't mean this in a rude way. And again, I wasn't raised in the same context as you were. I'm a generation younger than you. But honestly, I feel that at least a part of the problem was your interpretation of what was meant by seeking out good books: ie church publications and publications from GA's, etc. I've never taken it that way, not even close. I haven't read the last few pages....but I remember this somewhere in these pages and thinking that was a super weird interpretation of it.

And I still believe you're placing too much emphasis on the church for your lack of knowledge. I mean I know I'm a gen younger, but for pete's sake, that message should have still been there somewhat...It's not what I grasped, at least as a child and young adult. My memory focuses on learning about seeking out the good from everything and everyone. That you can find good from different beliefs. Etc.

My point is is that the message received, though coming from the same place, is taken differently by how we react and interpret said data.

With luv,

BD

[ERayR]

On that note I should add that I prayed about it and asked God to help me find more information.

I also used Moroni's model. I am happy to say it works for information other than the BoM. Of course it helps to have a mindset of being responsible for ones own progression and not just accepting others interpretation of the "Facts"

[ERayR]

I don't mean this in a rude way. And again, I wasn't raised in the same context as you were. I'm a generation younger than you. But honestly, I feel that at least a part of the problem was your interpretation of what was meant by seeking out good books: ie church publications and publications from GA's, etc. I've never taken it that way, not even close. I haven't read the last few pages....but I remember this somewhere in these pages and thinking that was a super weird interpretation of it.

And I still believe you're placing too much emphasis on the church for your lack of knowledge. I mean I know I'm a gen younger, but for pete's sake, that message should have still been there somewhat...It's not what I grasped, at least as a child and young adult. My memory focuses on learning about seeking out the good from everything and everyone. That you can find good from different beliefs. Etc.

My point is is that the message received, though coming from the same place, is taken differently by how we react and interpret said data.

With luv,

BD

Well said BD. That is what I have been trying to get across.

[robuchan]

I don't mean this in a rude way. And again, I wasn't raised in the same context as you were. I'm a generation younger than you. But honestly, I feel that at least a part of the problem was your interpretation of what was meant by seeking out good books: ie church publications and publications from GA's, etc. I've never taken it that way, not even close. I haven't read the last few pages....but I remember this somewhere in these pages and thinking that was a super weird interpretation of it.

I never interpreted the brethren's message that we should only read from church publications or those authored by GA's. The only material I actively avoided was anti-Mormon literature, Sunstone, LDS intellectuals with negative stigma like D Michael Quinn. If I failed to read anything else, for example Bushman's 1985 book, it was only because I didn't know of it or I hadn't prioritized it high enough. I prioritized which church books to read based on criteria like: prophet or apostle or GA, Talmage, McConkie, Nibley, Madsen, Skousen, BYU or CES instructor, or other books referred to in these books or otherwise quoted in general conference or mentioned by bishops, religion instructors, etc.

[ERayR]

The only material I actively avoided was anti-Mormon literature, Sunstone, LDS intellectuals with negative stigma like D Michael Quinn.

And somehow it still found you and you seem to have accepted it.

[The Nehor]

And somehow it still found you and you seem to have accepted it.

[CV75]

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.

Let's say such an environment existed; you believe it did. But I disagree that the things you mention are policies and regulations. If anything, they are considered cultures and attitudes. And even if they were policies, a corporate hostile environment would only apply where the policies are broken to the the point of victimization of a member. This is why the comparison and the logic both fail.

[CV75]

I firmly believed that going to sources outside the mainstream to read about church history was wrong. We were constantly warned of the dangers of anti-Mormon material. And back then just about anything that wasn't mainstream was considered anti-Mormon, ie Sunstone, D Michael Quinn, etc. I would go so far as to say if you read any of that stuff in the 90's, you were not following the brethren.

So you felt that going to sources outside the mainstream to read about church history was wrong, but clearly you were wrong (as you were in equating "outside" with "-anti"). I lived through the 80's and 90's as a Church member too (and at BYU in the early 80's for masters work), and that is not my recollection of the environment. I recall a few minor flare-ups, but that's just part of good discussion. I can't condemn you for your perceptions and beliefs, but your logic about a corporate hostile environment keeping you in the dark still doesn't hold water. Again, even as you perceived it, the environment was not hostile because it was not a) a policy in the first place; and b) not in contradiction with any existing policy anyway.

[robuchan]

Let's say such an environment existed; you believe it did. But I disagree that the things you mention are policies and regulations. If anything, they are considered cultures and attitudes. And even if they were policies, a corporate hostile environment would only apply where the policies are broken to the the point of victimization of a member. This is why the comparison and the logic both fail.

Thank you for staying with me on this. You see exactly what I mean. In the sexual harassment comparison, of course the hostile environment doesn't come from policies and regulations. There is no policy that says, "please sexual harass your female coworkers". The hostile environment in many cases is simply an unchecked natural culture and attitude. The corporation is responsible to make sure that culture is fixed.

[CV75]

I never interpreted the brethren's message that we should only read from church publications or those authored by GA's. The only material I actively avoided was anti-Mormon literature, Sunstone, LDS intellectuals with negative stigma like D Michael Quinn. If I failed to read anything else, for example Bushman's 1985 book, it was only because I didn't know of it or I hadn't prioritized it high enough. I prioritized which church books to read based on criteria like: prophet or apostle or GA, Talmage, McConkie, Nibley, Madsen, Skousen, BYU or CES instructor, or other books referred to in these books or otherwise quoted in general conference or mentioned by bishops, religion instructors, etc.

So if you took a non-scholarly approach, why would you expect scholarly results?

[robuchan]

So you felt that going to sources outside the mainstream to read about church history was wrong, but clearly you were wrong (as you were in equating "outside" with "-anti"). I lived through the 80's and 90's as a Church member too (and at BYU in the early 80's for masters work), and that is not my recollection of the environment. I recall a few minor flare-ups, but that's just part of good discussion. I can't condemn you for your perceptions and beliefs, but your logic about a corporate hostile environment keeping you in the dark still doesn't hold water. Again, even as you perceived it, the environment was not hostile because it was not a) a policy in the first place; and b) not in contradiction with any existing policy anyway.

If you're not aware of the anti-Sunstone/anti-intellectual enviornment that existed in this time period, then you weren't paying attention. I was a good member. I did follow the brethren. I did stay up on all of these issues and did my best to stay in line with the brethren.

[robuchan]

So if you took a non-scholarly approach, why would you expect scholarly results?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. As far as I understood I was applying the best scholarly approach I could take. I studied my religion at the university level and read as much material as I could possibly read, given reasonable time constraints. I only avoided material I was explicitly instructed to avoid.