New Era: "Balancing Church History"

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

I'd suggest a further option:

4. Encourage youth to learn and act upon the principles of the restored gospel early so that their lives will be so filled with personal experiences of its reality that their faith isn't really in a position to be damaged.

As I have expressed on this forum before, I have a difficult time understanding how a Latter-day Saint who in the past month has (a) received clear answers to prayers, (b) received revelations, © experienced the power of the priesthood, (d) enjoyed the peace of the temple, (e) acted on inspiration and thereby been the anwer to someone else's prayer, (f) received insight from the pages of the Book of Mormon, (g) experienced the lifting of the burden of sin through repentance and partaking of the sacrament, (h) felt his/her heart change in response to repentance and prayer, (i) seen his/her life be blessed by the teachings of living prophets, (j) witnessed the gospel bless the lives of those she/he visiting/home teaches, etc. can somehow read something and just conclude that none of the above actually happened.

To me, it would be like the man who was born blind saying, when questioned by the Pharisees, 'Well, yes, I did once think that Jesus healed me, but then I read this bit in the scriptures about a talking donkey, and, well, I just don't know what I know anymore'.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

To me, it would be like the man who was born blind saying, when questioned by the Pharisees, 'Well, yes, I did once think that Jesus healed me, but then I read this bit in the scriptures about a talking donkey, and, well, I just don't know what I know anymore'.

Love the analogy (no points to give you though...maybe later).

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . . 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.

One of the problems is that the official information coming from the Church in the regular Sunday lessons and articles in Church magazines often leave so much out and by doing so distort the truth that I no longer give the official Church writings any more credence than the anti-mormon writings. I basically don't believe either of them until I check it out and it seems that I throw out just as much of the official Church writings as I do the anti writings. I'm excited about the Joseph Smith Papers project because so far, as far as I can tell they are trying include everything. I should be able to accept everthing that comes out officially by the "One True Church" but the Church hasn't consistently stepped up to the plate on honesty and openness IMHO.

[Senator]

As I have expressed on this forum before, I have a difficult time understanding how a Latter-day Saint who in the past month has (a) received clear answers to prayers, (b) received revelations, © experienced the power of the priesthood, (d) enjoyed the peace of the temple, (e) acted on inspiration and thereby been the anwer to someone else's prayer, (f) received insight from the pages of the Book of Mormon, (g) experienced the lifting of the burden of sin through repentance and partaking of the sacrament, (h) felt his/her heart change in response to repentance and prayer, (i) seen his/her life be blessed by the teachings of living prophets, (j) witnessed the gospel bless the lives of those she/he visiting/home teaches, etc. can somehow read something and just conclude that none of the above actually happened.

That's quite a month!

[tagriffy]

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.

That isn't inconsistent with my experience. The answers I finally wound up accepting probably wouldn't make traditionalists happy, but I figure I'm the one who has to live them.

[tagriffy]

I'd suggest a further option:

4. Encourage youth to learn and act upon the principles of the restored gospel early so that their lives will be so filled with personal experiences of its reality that their faith isn't really in a position to be damaged.

As I have expressed on this forum before, I have a difficult time understanding how a Latter-day Saint who in the past month has (a) received clear answers to prayers, (b) received revelations, © experienced the power of the priesthood, (d) enjoyed the peace of the temple, (e) acted on inspiration and thereby been the anwer to someone else's prayer, (f) received insight from the pages of the Book of Mormon, (g) experienced the lifting of the burden of sin through repentance and partaking of the sacrament, (h) felt his/her heart change in response to repentance and prayer, (i) seen his/her life be blessed by the teachings of living prophets, (j) witnessed the gospel bless the lives of those she/he visiting/home teaches, etc. can somehow read something and just conclude that none of the above actually happened.

To me, it would be like the man who was born blind saying, when questioned by the Pharisees, 'Well, yes, I did once think that Jesus healed me, but then I read this bit in the scriptures about a talking donkey, and, well, I just don't know what I know anymore'.

I don't have any problems with teaching the youth to learn and act on gospel principles from youth. However, I think you are incorrectly gauging what is happening to people who were having these experiences but loses faith because of information they come across. It is not that they conclude that none of the above happened; it is that they conclude there must be some other explanation for what happened. And it usually isn't some one little thing that does it; it is a number of things that add up.

The man who was born blind might bracket the talking donkey. But could he also bracket evidence Moses didn't write the Torah? And the problem of evolution as it relates to the creation, fall, and flood stories? And the problem of the exodus? And the problem of the conquest of Canaan? And the problem of the United Monarchy? And the problem of Ezekiel's failed prophecy about Tyre? And ... ? If confronted with those problems, he might well conclude that, whatever cured his blindness, it had nothing to do with the God of Israel.

But even your fourth way works for the youths, it is utterly useless to an investigator. Investigators are not going to waste time acting on something they have no reason to believe will bear fruit. Mormonism may well be a good seed, but even the best seeds need good soil to grow in. This is why a Church so dependent on its history for its doctrine cannot afford to even have the appearance of lying or hiding that history. It doesn't take much to pull apart a sanitized version of history. If the difference between the Church and its critics were merely a matter of interpretation, one might go ahead, take a risk, and plant the seed. Not so when the difference is a matter of the facts; indeed by having the facts on their side, the critics get to control the interpretation. This is the main reason I say the Church's case becomes much stronger if it is accurate in its presentation of history.

[edited for spelling and clarification]

Edited May 31, 2013 by tagriffy

[Darren10]

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.

First of all, polygamy (and I'll include polyandry) and especially the translation of the Book of Abraham are hardly problematic when viewed in context. Second, I hope you're not suggestion the Church has taken the position of hoping nobody learns of its history. If you think they have I'd be at a loss as to an example of how and where they've taken that position. I can agree tha it may be embarrassing for some to talk about sex but that's not exactly the same thing as hoping people would ignore history.

[Darren10]

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?

I only know of two of these people. I find no respect for John Turner either as a person nor as a historian. He's terrible at both. While Dan Vogel's work is truly unparellelled n terms of digging up Mormon documents, I find myself lacking respect for him in terms of opining his narrative over Mormon historical documents. The story he puts together regarding Mormon history are propaganda-driven.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

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.

I agree. I've no problem saying Joseph Smith "stunk at business" cuz he did.

As for his temper, I kinda like it.

Good post.

[Darren10]

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.

Exactly. That's precisely what I rely upon when presented with anti-Mormon stories. I know it's the Holy Spirit which has revealed the truth ofthe LDS Church to me ad so what man says contrary to that is irrelevant. Using the testimony as a base, I have sought ways to understand the anti view and to answer them. There's a lot of great resources available to do so. Not least of which is prayer and scripture study. Just as Elder Snow says.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Darren10

[tagriffy]

First of all, polygamy (and I'll include polyandry) and especially the translation of the Book of Abraham are hardly problematic when viewed in context. Second, I hope you're not suggestion the Church has taken the position of hoping nobody learns of its history. If you think they have I'd be at a loss as to an example of how and where they've taken that position. I can agree tha it may be embarrassing for some to talk about sex but that's not exactly the same thing as hoping people would ignore history.

I don't think the Church self-consciously chose to take the position of hoping nobody would learn its history. I think it was more an unintended consequence of Correlation, which was reinforced by certain authorities in certain talks.

[Nevo]

I only know of two of these people. I find no respect for John Turner either as a person nor as a historian. He's terrible at both.

Thanks for the laugh.

By the way, I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that John Turner is a terrible person and a terrible historian.

[Glenn101]

Do you have the reference for this?

It was in a February 1852 address to the Utah Territorial Legislature. In it he said: "Because [these] are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it. Men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure."

I don't have a current link, but it can be found on the internet. I think that UTLM has it posted, along with their comments.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

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.

I think that is a good take on the situation. And, it would take a revelation to ascertain that Brigham was wrong about that revelation being from the Lord.That has been my contention in all of my posts here and there on the matter. Until their is some revelation on the matter, we are left with the ban being and no prophet past or present has intimated that Brigham was in error.

Glenn

[tagriffy]

I think that is a good take on the situation. And, it would take a revelation to ascertain that Brigham was wrong about that revelation being from the Lord.That has been my contention in all of my posts here and there on the matter. Until their is some revelation on the matter, we are left with the ban being and no prophet past or present has intimated that Brigham was in error.

I would think that is what the 1978 revelation did, even lacking an explicit statement Brigham was wrong. YMMV, of course.

[USU78]

You meant Hosea, right?

Oopsie.

[USU78]

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?

Nope.

I had in mind MMM when I posted that, as there isn't much else that I look at as anything particularly interesting.

Your view seems to be, any deviation from perfection is evidence of damnability.

How did you become such a puritan in your views?

'Cause that ain't Mormonism.

[Nevo]

It was in a February 1852 address to the Utah Territorial Legislature. In it he said: "Because [these] are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it. Men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure."

Thanks for the quote. I don't believe I've seen it before. The Mormonism Research Ministry website gives the reference as The Teachings of President Brigham Young: Vol. 3, 1852-1854, ed. Fred C. Collier, p. 43. Speech given to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852.

If President Young is claiming here that Christ decreed the priesthood ban, then I guess I have to disagree with him. But is this just his (mis)interpretation of the Pearl of Great Price or did he receive an actual revelation on the subject? I think the quote allows either possibility.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Nevo

[USU78]

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.

Wouldn't be at all surprised.

[omni]

Nope.

I had in mind MMM when I posted that, as there isn't much else that I look at as anything particularly interesting.

Your view seems to be, any deviation from perfection is evidence of damnability.

How did you become such a puritan in your views?

'Cause that ain't Mormonism.

It is the church that has created the perception of infallibility even though they would not ever call it that. Popular songs like "Follow the Prophet" and "Praise to the Man", statements such as "the prophet will never lead us astray, and talks like the 14 Fundamentals of a Prophet are just a few of the things that contribute to this.

Ask your average TBM and you probably couldn't find one who believes prophets are infallible, but almost every one of them will believe whatever over the conference pulpit or in print is doctrine, no questions asked. I read on this board often that prophets aren't infallible, but when these failings are pointed out all I read are justifications.

[Glenn101]

I would think that is what the 1978 revelation did, even lacking an explicit statement Brigham was wrong. YMMV, of course.

The only thing that we can be certain of was that Brigham Young and any other person who thought that the ban would not be lifted until the resurrection was in error. The original reason for the ban was not spelled out in the 1978 revelation. So, we are left with to speculate, which is something that I am not going to do.

Thanks for the quote. I don't believe I've seen it before. The Mormonism Research Ministry website gives the reference as The Teachings of President Brigham Young: Vol. 3, 1852-1854, ed. Fred C. Collier, p. 43. Speech given to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852.

If President Young is claiming here that Christ decreed the priesthood ban, then I guess I have to disagree with him. But is this just his (mis)interpretation of the Pearl of Great Price or did he receive an actual revelation on the subject? I think the quote allows either possibility.

There are too many ways that we can speculate on this, and I am not going to do that. Until further word of revelation is received, we are left with Brigham's words on the subject, which have not been disputed by any prophet since. So, I am content to let the matter lie until further light and knowledge are received. But, to get back to my point, it would be presumptuous of anyone to confess for Brigham that he had made a mistake without a revelation to the effect.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

Ask your average TBM and you probably couldn't find one who believes prophets are infallible, but almost every one of them will believe whatever over the conference pulpit or in print is doctrine, no questions asked. I read on this board often that prophets aren't infallible, but when these failings are pointed out all I read are justifications.

It is not about justifications. It is about judgment. Since the church, its leaders, and those on this board have all acknowledged that our leaders are fallible, imperfect men and have made mistakes, what more do you want? Myself, I think that the savior had some good advice for all of us in Luke 6:42 when he said "Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye."

Matthew recorded that saying also, and the Savior repeated it to the Nephites. People are judging and condemning Joseph and Brigham Young for things that they do not have all of the facts on. None of us do. We are in no position to judge from this point in time and space with the paucity of information that we have.

And I am not an average TBM. I am a died in the wool, full blown believer in the restoration of the Gospel through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the Book, of Moses, and the Book of Abraham (that all of this was brought forth by the power and agency of God through those fault filled, human beings)..

Glenn

Edited May 31, 2013 by Glenn101

[Darren10]

Thanks for the laugh.

By the way, I'm curious to know how you came to the conclusion that John Turner is a terrible person and a terrible historian.

Oops, got the wrong guy. Sorry John, thanks Nevo.

[blackstrap]

I often wish that the bright light of public scrutiny would be shone on those who report the foibles and failings of others. We are exposed to the mistakes of politicians and the famous and powerful on a daily basis and in some cases rightly so. If , however, that same spotlight were brought to bare on the personal lives of the reporters and critics themselves , the glare would occasionally reveal depths of hypocrisy and acts of desperation and/or depravity beyond anything reported or criticized about others.

[cinepro]

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.

Believer dies and gets to the pearly gates.

God: Welcome believer. You certainly tried your best on Earth, but I'm afraid you were in the wrong Church, and didn't get everything done that you needed to.

Believer: How is that possible? I studied and prayed continually, and felt the spirit. Why didn't you tell me I was in the wrong Church?

God: I did my best, but every time I tried to show you, you just put it on the shelf and stopped thinking about it. Sometimes "confirmation bias" isn't your friend.

Edited May 31, 2013 by cinepro