New Era: "Balancing Church History"

[cinepro]

Interesting article in the June 2013 New Era (the official LDS Magazine for teenagers), written by Church Historian Elder Steven Snow:

Balancing Church History

Certainly, the world has changed in the last generation or two. The Internet has put all kinds of information at our fingertips—good, bad, truthful, untruthful—including information on Church history. You can read a great deal about our history, but it’s important to read about it and understand it in context. The difficulty with some information online is that it’s out of context and you don’t really see the whole picture.

Information that tries to embarrass the Church is generally very subjective and unfair. We should seek sources that more objectively describe our beliefs and our history. Some websites are very mean-spirited and can be sensational in how they present the information. Look for sources by recognized and respected historians, whether they’re members of the Church or not.

Some young people are surprised and shocked by anti-Mormon material on the Internet because they haven’t fortified themselves against it. They may not have spent enough time on the spiritual side to prepare and strengthen themselves for whatever may come. When life experiences come to knock their legs out from under them, it’s important that they do those basic things we always talk about: continuing to study the scriptures and having meaningful prayer with our Heavenly Father. Those basic things prepare people for all kinds of adversity, including anti-Mormon articles they’ll come across online.

It's a good start, but until he comes to understand that there is some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context", articles such as this will continue to inadequately address the issue.

Edited May 29, 2013 by cinepro

[CV75]

Interesting article in the June 2013 New Era (the official LDS Magazine for teenagers), written by Church Historian Elder Steven Snow:

Balancing Church History

It's a good start, but until he comes to understand that there is some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context", articles such as this will continue to inadequately address the issue.

Just as you think he needs to understand something you think he doesn't understand, the damaging impact of objective history is also subjective, and this subjectivity also provides significant "context."

[rockpond]

Interesting article in the June 2013 New Era (the official LDS Magazine for teenagers), written by Church Historian Elder Steven Snow:

Balancing Church History

It's a good start, but until he comes to understand that there is some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context", articles such as this will continue to inadequately address the issue.

I agree. I think the church is making good efforts to help prevent and prepare members for potential crises of faith, especially in our young people.

[Nevo]

Look for sources by recognized and respected historians, whether they’re members of the Church or not.

This is excellent advice. I feel very fortunate that my early exposure to some of the troubling issues in Church history was mediated by people like Richard Bushman, James Allen, Ronald Walker, Stanley Kimball, Eugene England, and for that matter even Michael Quinn. If my first exposure had been to Grant Palmer or the MormonThink site, things might have turned out differently.

[oremites]

It's a good start, but until he comes to understand that there is some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context", articles such as this will continue to inadequately address the issue.

Could you give specific examples of some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context"?

And what would adequately address the issue in those cases?

[CA Steve]

Where does one go to find a list of respected historians of the Church?

Would Will Bagley, John Turner, Todd Compton, Dan Vogel, Michael Marquardt, or Michael Quinn make such a list?

[cinepro]

Could you give specific examples of some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context"?

And what would adequately address the issue in those cases?

Nauvoo polygamy and the claims made regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham.

When it comes to potentially faith-damaging LDS Church history, there are three options available to the Church:

1. Don't talk about it and hope people don't find out about it (including trying to prevent people from reading certain kinds of material).

2. Have people learn about it from a sympathetic source and hope this normalizes the information (i.e. "inoculation")

3. Prepare a counter-explanation (i.e. faith-promoting or apologetic argument) to be presented only to those who find out about it from other sources.

While some people seem to like the idea of inoculation, the problem is that while you may be preventing some future faith crises, you may also be presenting information to people who otherwise would never have learned it. That's why this article doesn't actually mention any of the history that people need to put in "context". Like sex, we're still afraid to talk about specifics in embarrassing Church history and so we are reduced to implications and euphemisms.

[cinepro]

Where does one go to find a list of respected historians of the Church?

Would Will Bagley, John Turner, Todd Compton, Dan Vogel, Michael Marquardt, or Michael Quinn make such a list?

Hmmm...I'm suspicious of any historian that doesn't start his name with "Elder".

[Buckeye]

It's a good start, but until he comes to understand that there is some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context", articles such as this will continue to inadequately address the issue.

Agreed. A few points of my own:

1) I think we also need to change the tone of our dialogue regarding church history. Way too often, including in general conference, we hear about the perils of reading unflattering church history online as if it were pornography. Whether the speaker intends to or not, very often members take away the message that simply trying to learn about MMM, polygamy, the KEP, or any other difficult issue is morally wrong in itself. That message needs to stop. We are commanded to seek learning by study and by faith. I appreciate Elder Snow's emphasis on faith in this article. I wish he could point to specific resources for our members to also learn by study.

2) I appreciate Elder's Snow reference to Joseph and other church leaders being imperfect. That sentiment often comes up in gospel classes in my ward. However, what is often not addressed are any specifics. Perhaps we worry that providing specifics would be tantamount to "speaking ill of the Lord's annointed". But for me, the testimony-strengthening comes through learning the specific mistakes, not just an abstract "they weren't perfect". That can be done in proper and improper ways, sure. But let's at least try to do it in proper ways.

[why me]

Interesting article in the June 2013 New Era (the official LDS Magazine for teenagers), written by Church Historian Elder Steven Snow:

Balancing Church History

It's a good start, but until he comes to understand that there is some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context", articles such as this will continue to inadequately address the issue.

My problem is rather simple. When looking at any church's history, it can be rather faith damaging when viewed with a lack of faith. For example, Lutheranism can be faith damaging if its history is stressed. Catholicism can be very faith damaging when viewed just from history. Calvinism can also be faith damaging when viewed only from history. And Anglicanism can also be faith damaging if its history is viewed. And the same with Methodism etc. Show me an established church whose history is not faith damaging.

[why me]

2) I appreciate Elder's Snow reference to Joseph and other church leaders being imperfect. That sentiment often comes up in gospel classes in my ward. However, what is often not addressed are any specifics. Perhaps we worry that providing specifics would be tantamount to "speaking ill of the Lord's annointed". But for me, the testimony-strengthening comes through learning the specific mistakes, not just an abstract "they weren't perfect". That can be done in proper and improper ways, sure. But let's at least try to do it in proper ways.

I think that it is difficult to find serious specifics of Joseph's imperfections. Of course, we can point out his temper. This was a problem. Or we can also stress his feelings toward those he thought betrayed him. Or his poor business acumen. In his imperfections he was quite normal.

[Ahab]

My problem is rather simple. When looking at any church's history, it can be rather faith damaging when viewed with a lack of faith. For example, Lutheranism can be faith damaging if its history is stressed. Catholicism can be very faith damaging when viewed just from history. Calvinism can also be faith damaging when viewed only from history. And Anglicanism can also be faith damaging if its history is viewed. And the same with Methodism etc. Show me an established church whose history is not faith damaging.

It depends on the kind of faith we are talking about, specifically, who it comes from. What we need is faith from God, and when we get it... line by line and precept upon precept... we should simply trust what he has told us. What gets some people off track is when they rely on what other people tell them when it goes against what God can tell us through faith.

It's a very basic concept. Seems strange that some people seem to have some trouble understanding who we should rely on.

[Buckeye]

Nauvoo polygamy and the claims made regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham.

When it comes to potentially faith-damaging LDS Church history, there are three options available to the Church:

1. Don't talk about it and hope people don't find out about it (including trying to prevent people from reading certain kinds of material).

2. Have people learn about it from a sympathetic source and hope this normalizes the information (i.e. "inoculation")

3. Prepare a counter-explanation (i.e. faith-promoting or apologetic argument) to be presented only to those who find out about it from other sources.

While some people seem to like the idea of inoculation, the problem is that while you may be preventing some future faith crises, you may also be presenting information to people who otherwise would never have learned it. That's why this article doesn't actually mention any of the history that people need to put in "context". Like sex, we're still afraid to talk about specifics in embarrassing Church history and so we are reduced to implications and euphemisms.

Sign me up for the inoculation camp. At least for the youth, it is simply unrealistic that they will go their entire lives without running into some difficult issue. Yes, inoculation may kill off some patients, but we really have no other option. Better to die trying than to close our eyes and ignore the problem.

I would start with training in the MTC and then expand to YM/YW. I don't think inoculation needs to cover all issues. It can't. But it can build a skillset for members to build on when other issues arise. The instruction should include at least these elements: (1) present a modestly challenging but discreet issue, say Joseph drinking in carthage jail or burning down the expositor; (2) encourage the student to learn as much context as possible - all sides of the story, not just the apologetic response; (3) openly discuss the fact that we do not know all the facts and that, regardless of how much we learn, we will often need to be content with not knowing everything; (4) acknowledge that at points in our history we have tended to cover up controversial issues; (5) discuss how any institution that involves men/women will have serious flaws despite the best intentions (e.g., government, charities, etc.) and discuss how those institutions are better served when people remain and work to better them than simply throw their hands up and leave; (6) most importantly, discuss how many members have gone through periods of doubt and come out the stronger for it.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Buckeye

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Calm]

Could you give specific examples of some true, objective history that is utterly faith damaging even when viewed in "context"?

And what would adequately address the issue in those cases?

I would say the Mountain Meadows Massacre and examples of Saints attacking nonMormons in Missouri or engaging in speculation or defrauding nonMormons or even other Saints is perhaps not faith damaging, but it is 'faith disappointing' in that I would hope that a community of Saints---especially those who had shown particular spiritual strength in the past would be able to resist descending into vile and despicable behaviour. I don't think one ever wants to hear of a fellow believer behaving in criminal ways, but it can be especially disheartening when you hear of a group conspiring together to do so.

Adequately addressing the case is to simply point out that the Lord warned that even the highest can fall, that any may end up yielding to temptation even those who have walked with the Lord (Satan, Cain).

[Buckeye]

I think that it is difficult to find serious specifics of Joseph's imperfections. Of course, we can point out his temper. This was a problem. Or we can also stress his feelings toward those he thought betrayed him. Or his poor business acumen. In his imperfections he was quite normal.

For being difficult, you easily pointed to a few.

Poor business acumen is a great one. I've used it myself in counseling a woman who was declaring bankruptcy after putting all her savings into a buisness that failed. She felt like a moral failure. I told her of Joseph's business failures. I didn't play them down as we are often want to do - suggesting he was too charitable and gave away his goods to the poor/needy instead of turning a profit. No, I said, "Joseph stunk at business". The Lord still worked with him and never considered it a moral failure. This member was really helped by the discussion.

Other easy examples are found in the D/C when the Lord chastises Joseph for neglecting his family. Again, no need to rush to his defense. Let the members stew over the reality that Joseph was failing his family in some serious ways. It's ok. The Lord still worked through him.

Other examples for Joseph - his temper, pride, ambition.

And to be clear, I revere Joseph all the more for these failings, not in spite of them. He was a rough stone, but he kept rolling.

[Calm]

I think that it is difficult to find serious specifics of Joseph's imperfections. Of course, we can point out his temper. This was a problem. Or we can also stress his feelings toward those he thought betrayed him. Or his poor business acumen. In his imperfections he was quite normal.

Define "serious".

[Ahab]

Sign me up for the inoculation camp. At least for the youth, it is simply unrealistic that they will go their entire lives without running into some difficult issue. Yes, inoculation may kill off some patients, but we really have no other option. Better to die trying than to close our eyes and ignore the problem.

I was given several "anti-Mormon" books by members of my family when I first joined the Church, all because they really wanted to try to "help" me. Only made me much stronger, though, and helped me to rely more on the whisperings of the Holy Spirit. I was going through volumes of Church history and journals of Discourse in the ward library and was amazed by what I was reading, clearly seeing the truth of what happened while also clearly seeing the errors in the anti-Mormon books. To me it was clear the anti-Mormon writers were spiritually blind about what they were talking about.

I would start with training in the MTC and then expand to YM/YW. I don't think inoculation needs to cover all issues. It can't. But it can build a skillset for members to build on when other issues arise. The instruction should include at least these elements: (1) present a modestly challenging but discreet issue, say Joseph drinking in carthage jail or burning down the expositor; (2) encourage the student to learn as much context as possible - all sides of the story, not just the apologetic response; (3) openly discuss the fact that we do not know all the facts and that, regardless of how much we learn, we will often need to be content with not knowing everything; (4) acknowledge that at points in our history we have tended to cover up controversial issues; (5) discuss how any institution that involves men/women will have serious flaws despite the best intentions (e.g., government, charities, etc.) and discuss how those institutions are better served when people remain and work to better them than simply throw their hands up and leave; (6) most importantly, discuss how many members have gone through periods of doubt and come out the stronger for it.

All we need to know is what the Elder and others like him have already told us. Rely on testimony you receive from God and don't like the arm of flesh lead you astray. It's not a complicated issue.

[CA Steve]

That's a good question. Obviously it's a subjective thing. But I would say the list of MHA best book award recipients is a pretty good starting point for identifying some of the more recognized and respected scholars.

But as you note, even a respected scholar who provides plenty of context might not always be considered "safe" for the struggling member—Turner being a case in point.

(Personally, from your list I would include Turner and Compton pretty readily. Vogel and Quinn with caveats. I would not include Bagley or Marquardt, although both have done some good work).

I suspect that you would be more liberal than most on who you include or don't.

I personally don't see how any of those can be left off a list of "respected" Mormon historians by objective standards. But that begs the question now doesn't it?

Would it be unreasonable to expect the office of the Church Historian to produce and encourage the production of Church history?

Why not call someone to the office of Church Historian who is one?

Edited May 29, 2013 by CA Steve

[cinepro]

2) I appreciate Elder's Snow reference to Joseph and other church leaders being imperfect. That sentiment often comes up in gospel classes in my ward. However, what is often not addressed are any specifics. Perhaps we worry that providing specifics would be tantamount to "speaking ill of the Lord's annointed". But for me, the testimony-strengthening comes through learning the specific mistakes, not just an abstract "they weren't perfect". That can be done in proper and improper ways, sure. But let's at least try to do it in proper ways.

This illustrates a huge problem with that article (and the Church's general approach to the subject).

To put it simply, there are varying degrees of imperfection. When talking about prophets, most members are comfortable with the idea of our leaders being "imperfect", but most imagine it as a "burned toast" kind of imperfection, meaning they would make mistakes like burning the toast in their day-to-day lives. This is totally different than being imperfect "from the pulpit", where they make (huge?) mistakes in their application of teachings, policy or doctrine in the Church. And it gets much more complicated when the canon is part of the equation.

So just saying "Joseph Smith was imperfect" doesn't serve to prepare someone for one day learning about how polygamy was practiced in Nauvoo, or the Kirtland Bank failure, or the Book of Abraham. This discussion of "imperfection" needs to be specific, so the article should read something like this:

For example, Joseph Smith was a remarkable person. Was he perfect? No. We’re all mortal. For example, while leading the Church in Kirtland, Ohio (USA), Joseph and other Church leaders established a banking institution in which many Church members invested and lost money. This experience tested the faith of many members who expected Joseph's wisdom in the matter to be on par with his wisdom in spiritual matters. But this was not the case.

Now, after reading that, a church member would have a better understanding of what it means when we say "Joseph Smith was imperfect", and it introduces the Kirtland Bank fiasco as a mistake that Joseph made, with the understanding that such mistakes don't nullify his role as prophet.

Edited May 29, 2013 by cinepro

[theplains]

I think that it is difficult to find serious specifics of Joseph's imperfections. Of course, we can point out his temper. This was a problem. Or we can also stress his feelings toward those he thought betrayed him. Or his poor business acumen. In his imperfections he was quite normal.

If you change the context to everything Joseph Smith and the early LDS Presidents taught

and believed by the Latter-day Saints, then you may find some serious specifics of their

imperfections (if what they taught was false).

Regards,

Jim

[cinepro]

It would be interesting to have someone acknowledge a current Church leader's imperfections with specific examples. Could you imagine hearing a story in conference about a current Apostle's temper getting the best of them? Or of a doctrinal mistake being made by a member of the First Presidency?

Edited May 29, 2013 by cinepro

[Nevo]

I suspect that you would be more liberal than most on who you include or don't.

Well, more liberal than Ahab. LOL.

I personally don't see how any of those can be left off a list of "respected" Mormon historians by objective standards. But that begs the question now doesn't it?

I admit my list is arbitrary. But I don't apologize for leaving off Bagley and Marquardt. There were egregious errors in Bagley's Blood of the Prophets—not just typos and minor errors, mind you, but glaring misrepresentations of the evidence. Anyone seeking a careful, sober, dispassionate analysis of the Mountain Meadows Massacre won't find it in Bagley's book. Marquardt's work, on the other hand, is free of bluster and his research is generally trustworthy, but he has a definite agenda. I own his Inventing Mormonism and his self-published The Rise of Mormonism, 1816-1844. In the latter book especially, it is pretty clear that he is out to undermine the authority of Joseph Smith. All of his evidence is selected toward that end.

Would it be unreasonable to expect the office of the Church Historian to produce and encourage the production of Church history?

Yes, well, as you know the Church History Department did just that under Leonard Arrington. But I can't really complain about the way things are currently. The Church has poured considerable resources into the Joseph Smith Papers Project and are employing many of the best and brightest of the rising generation of LDS historians.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Nevo

[tagriffy]

My problem is rather simple. When looking at any church's history, it can be rather faith damaging when viewed with a lack of faith. For example, Lutheranism can be faith damaging if its history is stressed. Catholicism can be very faith damaging when viewed just from history. Calvinism can also be faith damaging when viewed only from history. And Anglicanism can also be faith damaging if its history is viewed. And the same with Methodism etc. Show me an established church whose history is not faith damaging.

The problem really isn't that simple. As I've pointed out before, Mormon doctrine and especially the Church is far more closely related to its history than is true for Lutheranism, Calvinism, Catholisim, et. al. The Church of England may have gotten started because Henry VIII wanted a divorce, but it's "truthfulness" is not dependant on the reasons why it was established. Likewise, as any Calvinist will tell you, Calvin's Institutes are dependant on fidelity to the Bible, not what happened to Michael Servetus. This is not so true of Mormonism, which does depend so much on the life and work of Joseph Smith. This is why inaccurate portrayals of Church history can be so damaging to faith.

[Buckeye]

Cinepro, in one of his last addresses, James E Faust mentioned a time he failed to carry firewood for his mother, or something similar. Not a huge failure by the worlds standard but it troubled him all his life.

As for doctrine, the best I can think of is elder McConkie's statement that he and others had a lesser light when the excluded blacks from the priesthood. It's not as an express renunciation as some would like, but it very importantly establishes that no current leadership can bind future leadership on a point if doctrine. If leadership in the 60's could operate under lesser light, so can current leadership.