What Can We All Learn From Elder Jensen?

[why me]

Regrettably, in this technological age where information abounds—some of it critical of events and people in the Church’s history—some Latter-day Saints become shaken in their faith and begin to question long-held beliefs. To such questioning individuals I extend love and understanding and the assurance that if they will abide by gospel principles and prayerfully pursue their study of Church history—studying sufficiently to gain a more comprehensive rather than a fragmentary or incomplete knowledge—the Holy Ghost will confirm their faith in the essential events in Church history by speaking peace to their minds. In this way they can become settled in their convictions concerning the history of the restored Church and “be no more … carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). I have staked the course of my entire life on just such feelings of peace concerning Joseph Smith’s First Vision and other seminal events of the restored gospel, as have many of you, and I know we will never be disappointed.

History in its most basic form is a record of people and their lives, and from those lives come stories and lessons that can reinforce what we believe, what we stand for, and what we should do in the face of adversity. Not all of the stories that make up our history are of the epic nature of Joseph Smith’s First Vision or of Wilford Woodruff’s mission to England. In fact, some truly remarkable stories come from the lives of very ordinary Latter-day Saints, which most of us are. They are especially dear and helpful to us when the stories involve our own ancestors.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2012/01/stand-in-the-sacred-grove?lang=eng&query=stand+sacred+grove+%22stand+in+the+sacred+grove%22

I think that some people do seem to accept a more fragmentary aspect of church history from the Internet. The key however is to have a more comprehensive knowledge of church hsitory that may be more faith promoting. But where to find it?

[thesometimesaint]

Doctrine and Covenants; History of the Church... Vols 1-7; and A Comprehensive History of the Church... Vols 1-6 are good places to start.

[why me]

Doctrine and Covenants; History of the Church... Vols 1-7; and A Comprehensive History of the Church... Vols 1-6 are good places to start.

But would these readings cover the fragmentary problem with the internet?

[Tacenda]

Your post "Why Me" is why I love this board. The unabashedness of it all, in you & others knowing every nook and cranny of this church and still have faith. I'm beginning to see it, I really am. I've let the history of the church hurt the here and now of my testimony of the church but see that it's motives are good, it really does want to lead me to Christ, I believe. Sometimes man/woman and legalism get in the way but doesn't every church have that problem? Thank you for the open book you want the church to be, I'm tearing up, gotta go!

Edited February 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[rongo]

But would these readings cover the fragmentary problem with the internet?

It would give a solid and broad enough foundation with which one can then evaluate the fragmentary "sound-bite" approach to history prevalent in today's climate. I also believe that not having this broad foundation greatly weakens a critic's standing, because that critic's understanding is derivative and dependent. In other words, fragmentary.

[TomHagen]

The overall theme of the topic seems to be that while some small snippets of church history may be inconsistent with the church's "official" story, we should all paint over them with the broad brush of spiritual confirmation because, viewed as a whole, the church is "true" in the metaphysical sense.

This sounds an awful lot like the oft-criticized justification for watching an R-rated movie. "Yes, there are a couple of inappropriate moments, but if you ignore those, it really is wonderful and you should see it!" This reasoning is often compared to the most delicious bowl of ice cream that just has a couple of bits of fecal matter in it. Won't you have some?!

Moreover, this view tries to minimize and marginalize the problems in the church's history as being just a point, here or there, that can be overlooked. However, there are historical problems in almost EVERY aspect of the church's official story. The First Vision. Joseph's reliability as a prophet of God (whole host of issues here, from money matters and cons, to "prophetic" claims, to "translation," to marital infidelity). The Book of Mormon (discovery, translation, evidence of copying, AND doctrinal and historical content). Polygamy - its origins, practice, its stop-and-go termination, to modern "it's not doctrinal but we still teach it in whispers" standing. The temple ceremony. The three witnesses. The Book of Abraham. Blacks and the priesthood. The priesthood restoration. The Hoffman affair. There is not just one or two eyebrow-raising issues; there are cracks EVERYWHERE.

This creates a deep cognitive dissonance for some. The LDS church portrays itself as without flaw, so when these many flaws are discovered, it's hard to look the other way and keep pretending that the emperor has clothes. If the church wishes its members to move forward on faith alone, it should stop doing things to build false faith in a fictionalized narrative. That undermines genuine faith.

[rameumptom]

No, it is an issue that history is always messy, and is interpreted by those in the future from the data points they have access to. Unlike movies, where I can choose or not choose to watch a movie based upon a rating or recommendation, history doesn't have such an easy format to follow.

There are historians and specialists who say that Truman dropping the bomb on Japan was good and/or evil, necessary and/or unnecessary. There are some historians and specialists who say that the US Constitution is awesome, with others saying it is overdue to be replaced.

It will take time for all of our LDS history to come forth, neither as entirely faith promoting, nor entirely as an attack; but as a level and balanced reading based upon the culture and times back then. That we are taking steps to do this is a good thing.

No one is trying to overlook the problems, but are trying to understand them in light of culture and history. Joseph Smith's polygamy can be seen as abhorrent and as a sexual deviancy, or it can be viewed from the point that Joseph was trying to weave his way through obeying a commandment of God given to a very young and extremely dynamic and changing Church.

History is in the telling, but if we judge history from our current culture and values, we harm history just as much as if we were to hide it from the masses.

[TomHagen]

No, it is an issue that history is always messy, and is interpreted by those in the future from the data points they have access to. Unlike movies, where I can choose or not choose to watch a movie based upon a rating or recommendation, history doesn't have such an easy format to follow.

There are historians and specialists who say that Truman dropping the bomb on Japan was good and/or evil, necessary and/or unnecessary. There are some historians and specialists who say that the US Constitution is awesome, with others saying it is overdue to be replaced.

It will take time for all of our LDS history to come forth, neither as entirely faith promoting, nor entirely as an attack; but as a level and balanced reading based upon the culture and times back then. That we are taking steps to do this is a good thing.

No one is trying to overlook the problems, but are trying to understand them in light of culture and history. Joseph Smith's polygamy can be seen as abhorrent and as a sexual deviancy, or it can be viewed from the point that Joseph was trying to weave his way through obeying a commandment of God given to a very young and extremely dynamic and changing Church.

History is in the telling, but if we judge history from our current culture and values, we harm history just as much as if we were to hide it from the masses.

I don't disagree with your premise that history is messy, and it lies in the telling. However, the LDS church is not forthright about this. It presents its history in an affirmatively white-washed fashion. So what you suggest, and what is actually being done, are two different things. I agree with your suggestion - I wish the church did as well.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps the whole problem lies in fear of "the philosophies of men" leading to an anti-intellectual approach to these problems.

[Glenn101]

I don't disagree with your premise that history is messy, and it lies in the telling. However, the LDS church is not forthright about this. It presents its history in an affirmatively white-washed fashion. So what you suggest, and what is actually being done, are two different things. I agree with your suggestion - I wish the church did as well.

The LDS Church has always preferred faith promoting communications. They are very forthright in telling everyone that the truth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ and his atonement will not be found in any historical incantations, nor will the truthfulness of the restored gospel be found in any historical venues. Elder Jensen is spot on. It does not matter what one thinks of the history of the church. The knowledge of its truthfulness can only come from one source.

Glenn

[cinepro]

The key however is to have a more comprehensive knowledge of church hsitory that may be more faith promoting. But where to find it?

B.H. Roberts?

[Brian 2.0]

History is messy and it's tough to deal with multiple interpretations of things, and how to share something in it's proper context and all that... There are generally agreed upon "facts" and then there are the interpretations of those facts.

AGREED ASSUMPTION/FACT: JS entered into polygamous and polyandrous marriages and was not always forthright about it with those around him.

CRITICS may point to this as proof of JS sexual diviancy, dishonesty, lack of prophetic calling, etc.

APOLOGISTS try and provided added context and ways of looking at it where you can still come to the conclusion that he is still prophet and you don't need to come to the conclusions the critics are coming to.

A lot of people "in the pews" may see the "conclusions" of the critics and then dismiss the whole of it (including the agreed upon facts) and label it "anti-mormon" when sometimes it truly is one historians conclusions when looking at history.

FAIR actually does a good job of NOT doing this by agreeing up front with those facts.

Sometimes that throws people for a loop because they assumed the "fact" was not that and went looking for proof that it's not a fact.

Now the reader must look at the apologetic response and context and they often hope that it will provide the answers to relieve some of that dissonance.

For some it works. And for others it's just not convincing and they tend to side with another historian or somewhere in the middle.

And I'm not sure there is anything really FAIR or the Church can do about that.

Some people will look at the evidences provided by both sides regarding the authenticity of the BoA and see a way where it comes out as inspired scripture.

Others may look at the same evidence and just not find it probable enough to warrant belief it in as inspired scripture. It just doesn't work for them.

Is either wrong? or should they be blamed for their conclusions?

I personally think there should be space for people to disagree on their conclusions based on the facts and both view each other as being honest seekers of the truth.

[CV75]

But where to find it?

From faithful members who are making themselves as available as possible a la leaven, so honest seekers find where they can find truth. Perhaps D&C 123 (especially verses 12-17) includes an attempt to prevent a lot of incorrect knowledge being passed along through the years:

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness.

15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things.

16 You know, brethren, that a very large ship is benefited very much by a very small helm in the time of a storm, by being kept workways with the wind and the waves.

17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.

Edited February 13, 2013 by CV75