New Era: "Balancing Church History"

[tagriffy]

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.

This is not a bad approach. I consider myself lucky I had the New Mormon History to wrok with when I was reconsidering the Church.

[CA Steve]

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.

Except the criteria isn't whether or not he made mistakes in MMM, rather if he is respected as a historian; certainly Bagley fits in that category. By using the word respectable, Elder Snow allows for someone like Bagley, in my opinion, because he is considered a respectable historian regardless of how one views his MMM book. (Though I am not sure Elder Snow would be comfortable with that conclusion.)

I agree with you on Marquardt, even with a clear agenda his books are excellent reference sources.

Thanks Nevo

[Glenn101]

I am trying to understand just how the Joseph Smith Nauvoo polygamy could be presented historically so as to present it in a less faith damaging light.? Is the church supposed to admit that Joseph was wrong? That he never had a revelation on plural marriage? That Joseph was not confronted by an angel with a drawn sword when he procrastinated in obeying God's command in the matter? That Joseph made it all up to feed his own libido?

On the book of Abraham, is the church supposed to admit that Joseph made it all up? That Joseph thought he was translating the text from what is now known to be a funerary document?

On the Mountain Meadows Massacre, is the church now supposedto admit that Brigham Young was the actual instigator of that indicent, then covered it up?

On the priesthood ban, is the church supposed to admit now that Brigham Young instituted the ban because he was a racist and mad because a Negro was successful in marrying several white women, and that Brigham Young was lying when he said that the policy came via Christ?

Have any of you had a revelation on those matters? If so, you need to check in with Thomas S. Monson. He definitely needs to hear from you so that you can set him and the church straight.

If not, then all of us are looking through a glass darkly and often cynically. None of us here knows what went on in those situations. We only have bits and pieces of information. But we also do have the words of the prophets in their declarations.

If anyone wishes to base their testimony and faith on church history, that is their perogative. It does not matter when a person finds out any of the details of church history that they find troubling. There have been people pop in here who have been members many years and found out about something that troubled them and found their faith crumbling. There have been people who have popped in here after being on missions, only to find out something about church history that troubled them, and they found their faith crumbling. And there are pretty new members who find out sooner, rather than later, and their faith is still challenged.

And there are none of us who have the answers to any of those troubling questions. We can only acknowledge that that there are some things in the history of God's dealings with man that are troubling to us.

It is the job of the church to teach the gospel. To teach people how to obtain a testimony. Teaching church history will not do that. The way that a person receives a testimony is through the study of the scriptures, fasting, and prayer and receiving a confirmation from the Holy Ghost. The scripture says "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God", not ask of church history.

Surely there are things in the Bible which trouble me. Even in the Book of Mormon. And in church history. But my conversion was not through any man, or any text, but via the Holy Ghost. I have faith that all things that I see darkly now, I will see clearly and fully at some time in my life, whether in this life, or the next, it does not matter. That all things will be explained.

Glenn

[omni]

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

And this is why you are one of my favorite posters;)

[tagriffy]

I am trying to understand just how the Joseph Smith Nauvoo polygamy could be presented historically so as to present it in a less faith damaging light.? Is the church supposed to admit that Joseph was wrong? That he never had a revelation on plural marriage? That Joseph was not confronted by an angel with a drawn sword when he procrastinated in obeying God's command in the matter? That Joseph made it all up to feed his own libido?

The Church could discuss Joseph's polygamy at least as openly as Bushman and Compton did. They could admit Joseph lied about the practice, and that he was wrong to do so. They could admit the Nauvoo Expositor largely told the truth about polygamy and admit Joseph was wrong to destroy it. The other questions are matters of faith. It need not, for example, say Joseph never had a revelation on plural marriage.

On the book of Abraham, is the church supposed to admit that Joseph made it all up? That Joseph thought he was translating the text from what is now known to be a funerary document?

The Church could say something about Joseph thinking he was translating what turned out to be a funerary document. If memory serves, Church History in the Fulness of Times did at least mention it. I wasn't dissatisfied with it on that account. It could be mentioned if the topic at hand is the Book of Abraham itself.

On the Mountain Meadows Massacre, is the church now supposedto admit that Brigham Young was the actual instigator of that indicent, then covered it up?

The historical evidence that BY was the instigator of MMM is debateable at best. Unless there is such an admission by BY, I see no reason to admit something that isn't settled. OTOH, I would be thrilled if the such commemorated September 11 as a day of mourning and repentence.

On the priesthood ban, is the church supposed to admit now that Brigham Young instituted the ban because he was a racist and mad because a Negro was successful in marrying several white women, and that Brigham Young was lying when he said that the policy came via Christ?

I don't think the Church needs to say BY was lying. Just acknowledge the circumstances of the ban being enacted and admit he was wrong.

[Thinking]

If anyone wishes to base their testimony and faith on church history, that is their perogative. It does not matter when a person finds out any of the details of church history that they find troubling. There have been people pop in here who have been members many years and found out about something that troubled them and found their faith crumbling. There have been people who have popped in here after being on missions, only to find out something about church history that troubled them, and they found their faith crumbling. And there are pretty new members who find out sooner, rather than later, and their faith is still challenged.

The LDS Church has long proclaimed a rich history and supports that by maintaining many historical sites. Missionaries are assigned to these sites and relate stories and bear testimony to members and non-members alike. I have witnessed the effect that these stories and testimonies can have on people. Consequently, there will be those whose testimonies have foundational elements that are historical. Historical facts that shake that foundation threaten such a testimony.

[Senator]

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.

So, faith is like the sugar coating on a bitter pill?

[omni]

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.

I agree, in fact our issues don't hold a handle compared to those of most of the churches you mentioned, however we're on an LDS board so naturally we're going to focus on our issues. Besides, if we're the one true church shouldn't we be held to a higher standard? Saying we're just like them doesn't really help your cause.

[USU78]

I agree, in fact our issues don't hold a handle compared to those of most of the churches you mentioned, however we're on an LDS board so naturally we're going to focus on our issues. Besides, if we're the one true church shouldn't we be held to a higher standard? Saying we're just like them doesn't really help your cause.

Just how is the integrity of a people best tested?

In the cauldron of persecution, hatred, rapine, murder and war.

Does one lack integrity because of a single, serious and monstrous lapse? Or does charity demand that we look at the single aberration as just that, an aberration that doesn't detract from an otherwise laudable life?

Problem with your approach is, you don't allow for the saint ever to sin, a very puritanical approach and one not suited to judging fairly any group or individual. Peter wept bitter tears when the rooster crowed. Isaiah married a hooker to make a political point.

Cinepro uses such things to invalidate the whole of Mormondom or the life of each and every saint. Do you think that's either fair or wise?

[why me]

The Church could discuss Joseph's polygamy at least as openly as Bushman and Compton did. They could admit Joseph lied about the practice, and that he was wrong to do so. They could admit the Nauvoo Expositor largely told the truth about polygamy and admit Joseph was wrong to destroy it. The other questions are matters of faith. It need not, for example, say Joseph never had a revelation on plural marriage.

And if they admit all this, would you be happy? Or would you want more and more? I don't disagree with you but I see it as a process that will never end. Let me put it this way: the church could also mention the spiritual experiences of the women before they agreed to be sealed to Joseph. The church could also stress the negative press against the mormons when they were in Nauvoo and just how having a negative press in Nauvoo could be a security threat for the members. Or they also admit that since the church members were receiving threats from mobs when in nauvoo admitting to plural marriage may would hasten their doom.

And then the church can spend time arguing with its critics over historical interpretations through its website. How would that sound?

[tagriffy]

Isaiah married a hooker to make a political point.

You meant Hosea, right?

[why me]

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.

But if you look at it from a believer in lutheranism or calvanism or in anglicanism the history could be quite damaging. This is one reason why Hitchen's book God is not Great and Dawkin's The God Delusion had such an impact when they were published. Both books stressed historical issues and the harm that religion had done historically. But for some reason, members expect lds history to be perfect with their leaders leading perfect lives. Thus, the difficulty with Joseph's behavior or BY's statements. However, I remember that back in the day there was a very useful phrase that members would use: the church is perfect but its members are not. And that would include all members both past and present.

Edited May 30, 2013 by why me

[omni]

Does one lack integrity because of a single, serious and monstrous lapse? Or does charity demand that we look at the single aberration as just that, an aberration that doesn't detract from an otherwise laudable life?

I think this is a very generous description of our history and leaders. While much of their lives were noble and laudable they also left much to be desired considering their prophetic role. The church is the one who set the high standards, a new book of scripture that is the "most correct book on Earth", a prophet of God who communes with Jehovah and who will not lead us astray.

We place a huge emphasis on our leaders being specifically chosen by God and those leaders being worthy of such callings. So when we learn about the less than perfect actions of our two most revered modern prophets BY and JS, you can understand how it might be troubling, right?

[tagriffy]

And if they admit all this, would you be happy? Or would you want more and more? I don't disagree with you but I see it as a process that will never end. Let me put it this way: the church could also mention the spiritual experiences of the women before they agreed to be sealed to Joseph. The church could also stress the negative press against the mormons when they were in Nauvoo and just how having a negative press in Nauvoo could be a security threat for the members. Or they also admit that since the church members were receiving threats from mobs when in nauvoo admitting to plural marriage may would hasten their doom.

And then the church can spend time arguing with its critics over historical interpretations through its website. How would that sound?

It would make me happier--and I wouldn't mind it at all if the Church brought the other issues you raised into the discussion as well. Elder B. H. Roberts covered what needs to be done in the prologue of his Comprehensive History. Explain the facts and the circumstances as best we are able, then let the sword of exoneration or condemnation fall where it may. If the Church has to admit errors along the way, then so be it. In the long run, the Church only makes its case stronger that way.

Would I want more and more? Yes and no. As you should already know, I have put some thought into what should be taught and how it should be taught when it comes to problem issues, and that I've come to no satisfactory conclusion. I don't think that everything mentioned at mormonthink.com needs to be raised and addressed by the Church. And while some would like to brush them aside, the Bible has at least as many problem issues as LDS history that I'd rather not see ignored either. If that hypothetical insane orthodox bishop appointed me to teach, I'd probably just wind up taking things on a case-by-case basis.

You are probably right that critics in general are going to keep demanding more and more. My general answer to that would involve using a word that isn't allowed in this forum. As long as reasonable people can see the Church is generally addressing the topics they do discuss with accurate information, they will see the critics for what they are. This is what Bushman and Quinn are talking about when it comes to innoculating the Saints.

[Glenn101]

The Church could discuss Joseph's polygamy at least as openly as Bushman and Compton did. They could admit Joseph lied about the practice, and that he was wrong to do so. They could admit the Nauvoo Expositor largely told the truth about polygamy and admit Joseph was wrong to destroy it. The other questions are matters of faith. It need not, for example, say Joseph never had a revelation on plural marriage.

Since Bushman, Compton, and many others are already, and have been lo these many years, discussing polygamy, why does the church need to do so? That it was practiced is not in dispute or hidden. Since everyone knows that Joseph "lied" about polygamy, what more do you want? The fact that he wasn't really lying, but misdirecting people a bit (a la Abraham with Sarah) has been discussed in many venues.

Have you actually read the Expositor article in question? If you have, I do not see how you can say that the article was largely correct about polygamy. If you have not read it, please do. Whether it was wrong to abolish it is debatable (since it is still being debated). It may not have been the wisest thing to do, but it was a legal action in the day,

And the bottom line, was Joseph commanded to the practice of polygamy by the Lord or not?

The Church could say something about Joseph thinking he was translating what turned out to be a funerary document. If memory serves, Church History in the Fulness of Times did at least mention it. I wasn't dissatisfied with it on that account. It could be mentioned if the topic at hand is the Book of Abraham itself.

However, it has not been established that Joseph was using the funerary text at all. If one reads all of the evidence, that text does not fit the description of the one Joseph was actually using. No one in or out of the church actually knows what papyrus Joseph used, or if the Book of Abraham is more of a revelation like the Book of Moses.

The historical evidence that BY was the instigator of MMM is debateable at best. Unless there is such an admission by BY, I see no reason to admit something that isn't settled. OTOH, I would be thrilled if the such commemorated September 11 as a day of mourning and repentence.

At least we agree on Brigham Young's role.

I don't think the Church needs to say BY was lying. Just acknowledge the circumstances of the ban being enacted and admit he was wrong.

If the church admitted that Brigham Young was wrong, it would be saying that Brigham Young was lying because Brigham is on record that the ban did not originate from him but with Christ.

Now, have you a revelation on the subjects, or just your own feelings?

Glenn

[Questing Beast]

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.

Do you put Todd Compton in the same group with Bushman, or with Palmer? I put him with Bushman, absolutely. And yet it was "In Sacred Loneliness" that alerted me to the full extent of JS's "patriarchal marriage", especially the polyandry side of it. Teetering, my efforts to retain and grow a testimony in the Church had been already, and that revelation put paid to the effort....

[tagriffy]

But if you look at it from a believer in lutheranism or calvanism or in anglicanism the history could be quite damaging. This is one reason why Hitchen's book God is not Great and Dawkin's The God Delusion had such an impact when they were published. Both books stressed historical issues and the harm that religion had done historically. But for some reason, members expect lds history to be perfect with their leaders leading perfect lives. Thus, the difficulty with Joseph's behavior or BY's statements. However, I remember that back in the day there was a very useful phrase that members would use: the church is perfect but its members are not. And that would include all members both past and present.

I'd have to look at the books and gauge their impact before I could say anything one way or the other. I am otherwise familiar with Hitchens' other screeds on religion. And let's just say if what he says about history is enough to leave a church, then that church probably better off without such idiots anyway.

In any case, if members expect LDS history and their leaders flawless, might that not be a result of what the Church is (or had been, as the case may be) putting out? You said "back in the day." Unfortunately, we are in a post-Correlation era, and your "back in the day" is gone. It was gone enough back in my day that relying on official or semi-official Church channels only made me conclude the anti-Mormons were right. That I joined the Church at all is more due to thanks owed to Fawn Brodie than than to anything the Church itself was putting out.

[Tacenda]

Do you put Todd Compton in the same group with Bushman, or with Palmer? I put him with Bushman, absolutely. And yet it was "In Sacred Loneliness" that alerted me to the full extent of JS's "patriarchal marriage", especially the polyandry side of it. Teetering, my efforts to retain and grow a testimony in the Church had been already, and that revelation put paid to the effort....

I forgot to add the post!

Anyway, just wanted to add that Todd Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness" was life changing for me. After reading it, it changed everything in my life as I once knew it.

I'm sure that's the reason they pulled it and "Mormon Enigma" off the shelves at the Deseret bookstore.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Tacenda

[Nevo]

Brigham is on record that the ban did not originate from him but with Christ.

Do you have the reference for this?

[tagriffy]

Since Bushman, Compton, and many others are already, and have been lo these many years, discussing polygamy, why does the church need to do so? That it was practiced is not in dispute or hidden. Since everyone knows that Joseph "lied" about polygamy, what more do you want? The fact that he wasn't really lying, but misdirecting people a bit (a la Abraham with Sarah) has been discussed in many venues.

Have you actually read the Expositor article in question? If you have, I do not see how you can say that the article was largely correct about polygamy. If you have not read it, please do. Whether it was wrong to abolish it is debatable (since it is still being debated). It may not have been the wisest thing to do, but it was a legal action in the day,

And the bottom line, was Joseph commanded to the practice of polygamy by the Lord or not?

However, it has not been established that Joseph was using the funerary text at all. If one reads all of the evidence, that text does not fit the description of the one Joseph was actually using. No one in or out of the church actually knows what papyrus Joseph used, or if the Book of Abraham is more of a revelation like the Book of Moses.

At least we agree on Brigham Young's role.

If the church admitted that Brigham Young was wrong, it would be saying that Brigham Young was lying because Brigham is on record that the ban did not originate from him but with Christ.

Now, have you a revelation on the subjects, or just your own feelings?

I will answer your last question first. I was expressing my feelings about what the Church might do with regard to the specific questions you posed. That is why I used the suggestive could rather than the prescriptive should. As I said, I am still trying to figure out the shoulds myself. I'm hoping that working case-by-case like this will help me figure out the shoulds and prepare a strong case for them. I also agree with Bushman and Quinn on the need to innoculate the Saints. Since the Church is the Saints' first resort for information, the Church itself is the best position to do the innoculating. That should also answer the question of why it needs to be the Church discussing the issues even though other historians have covered the ground.

It wasn't my intention to get into a full-blown debate about the particulars. I do not find the answers I gave to those questions particularly troublesome or faith-damaging. I'm already advocating full context, so that wouldn't exclude discussions of the issues you raised. Are you looking for such a debate, or would you rather keep the discussion to what "balancing church history" might look like?

Right now, the only nit I would pick would be your equating Brigham Young being wrong with him lying. Joseph Smith himself already established the precedent on that score when he said some revelations are from God, some from the devil, and some from man. If the Church were to admit Brigham was wrong, it need only to point to that precedent. As I'm sure Brigham did believe the ban came from Christ, he was not lying about it.

[Calm]

So, faith is like the sugar coating on a bitter pill?

More like a needed enzyme for proper digestion perhaps?

[Calm]

Just how is the integrity of a people best tested?

In the cauldron of persecution, hatred, rapine, murder and war.

I don't know. I think sometimes it is harder to maintain integrity in an easy environment that doesn't provide people with such a bright line of where to stand. Probably depends on the person which is the better way to be tested. Edited May 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[tagriffy]

So, faith is like the sugar coating on a bitter pill?

More like a needed enzyme for proper digestion perhaps?

I'm at a loss as to why it would have to be that way. Perhaps someone could explain?

[Senator]

More like a needed enzyme for proper digestion perhaps?

Perhaps. But in why me's statement he is admitting that all religion has damaging history, and that all that is needed to make bad/damaging things not bad/damaging, is faith. I just watched a NOVA presentation last night about the reunion of two half-brothers where one had converted to radical Islam. The other brother, who was narrating and filming, was constantly astonished at how his brother could come to hate the nation he once loved, and love an ideology he once hated. It made me address the potential implications of my own faith/belief. In other words, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with why me, but rather expressing a disturbing agreement. Faith can be dangerous.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Senator

[cdowis]

I think the best counsel for me was from a commencement address at BYU.

He talked about the "shelf of disbelief". If I don't understand something, put it up on the shelf, take it off the shelf from time to time to see if I have any more insight on the answer. As I gain in time and experience, the answer should be more clear.

It is a matter of time and experience, more so than apologetics. You have to have a testimony based on the scriptures and prayer, and not on the winds of adversity. I have found my own personal answers to many of those questions, line upon line.