New Era: "Balancing Church History"

[cinepro]

So, if you read the following statement in "The Auditor" (the official newspaper of Scientology), would you agree with it?

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 Scientology and our 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 L Ron Hubbard and the tech 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 wogs.

Some young people are surprised and shocked by suppressive material on the Internet because they haven’t fortified themselves against it. They may not have spent enough time on the path 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 get clear, and having meaningful auditing with an approved auditor. Those basic things prepare people for all kinds of adversity, including anti-Mormon articles they’ll come across online.

Is the reason I'm not a Scientologist only because I haven't looked at their claims and history "in context"?

[Hamba Tuhan]

That's quite a month!

It shouldn't be. As Latter-day Saints, we pray multiple times a day and read from the Book of Mormon every day. Eighty-five per cent of members now live within 320 km of a temple; I'm one of those -- though just barely -- and consequently I travel to the temple every month. I can't remember the last time a month passed during which I wasn't called upon to give a priesthood blessing of some kind; often it would be several times a week. We repent daily and partake of the sacrament weekly. We get the Ensign each month. We have monthly visits and lessons with the families we've been assigned to assist as home and visiting teachers.

I was actually trying really hard just to describe a perfectly ordinary month and so left off my list more scattered events like receiving visions and enjoying the ministration of angels.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the man's response to all of the above might be something along the lines of 'These things I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing'.

But even [if] 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.

And yet that is the very process that missionaries invite investigators to engage in. The teaching of truth and the bearing of witness to true principles invite the Spirit. The Spirit touches and softens the heart of the listener enough to generate a willingness to pursue the issue just a bit further. The missionaries then invite the investigator to act on what s/he has been taught in order simply to see if it will bear fruit. When it inevitably does, this evidence provides further impetus for consideration and investigation. The majority of the people I worked with as a missionary were unchurched at minimum and more godless than not, and yet this process miraculously transformed them into faithful, committed Latter-day Saints.

Tonight, I'm thinking in particular of an atheist/agnostic investment banker who was dragged to sacrament meeting one Sunday afternoon by a zealous co-worker. Talking to him after the service (it had been a testimony meeting by design), we invited him to meet with us. He said he couldn't think of any reason why he would despite having been touched by the sincerity of what he'd witnessed. I told him that what we would teach him would make him happy. He explained to us that, by any of the world's standards, he was already a very happy man. (And he was!) I suggested to him that the restored gospel would make him happier. He doubted such a proposition, but he was a man who took risks for a living, so I challenged him to take this one: six nights of his life as the initial investment. If we were right, it was a small investment in something so great as the joy that would follow. If we were wrong, his only loss would be about 12 hours of either bad TV or even worse dancing in his favourite strip club.

He agreed to the proposition. The initial six nights turned into six months, but I remember well the evening of his baptism. We'd dressed and were about to exit the change room when he stopped me and asked, 'Do you remember when I told you I was happy, but you promised I could be happier than I'd ever imagined?' I nodded. 'You were right!' Then arms of gratitude around me.

I also remember sitting with him 18 months later when, his body wracked by both cancer and chemotherapy, he said to me, 'I never would have asked for this, but I would never trade it away now. I never before imagined that one could come to know the reality of the Saviour so intimately'.

[why me]

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.

I think that it was more or less underestimating the use of the Internet and also underestimating the scruples of the critics and the exmormons when it comes to internet use against the mormons.

[Glenn101]

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.

Well said.

Glenn

Edited June 1, 2013 by Glenn101

[oremites]

Sometimes "confirmation bias" isn't your friend.

I'm not sure I understand the point of your story, but I think a "shelf of disbelief" (or "shelf of trivialities" as I like to call it) is a great idea. I have a fairly large one and most of what's on there has nothing to do with church history. However, there's too much of eternal significance to accomplish to be sidetracked by inconsequential fluff.

I can only speak for myself, but the only reason I stick with the Church is because it's true. When I go to church on Sunday, I know that I'm in the right place and everything on the shelf fades away to nothing. When I actually sit down and read the Book of Mormon, I know it's true and all the questions I've built up in my mind disappear. It's strange and I can't explain it logically, but that's how it works for me.

I'm never going to get all my questions answered here and now. I've got all eternity for that. In this life, I only need to get one question answered.

[Senator]

It shouldn't be.

I know. That's the problem.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I know. That's the problem.

Indeed, I suspecct this is is the very core of the problem.

[CV75]

I'm never going to get all my questions answered here and now. I've got all eternity for that. In this life, I only need to get one question answered.

I believe this is the common lot of all mankind, and I suspect the Church leaders recognize (even experience) this, which is why they don’t take the subject of history (as with science or any other discipline) as “obsessively perfectionistically” as some might want them to.

I think if people were comfortable about and with their own history, they would understand Church history and the Church’s approach to and application of history.

[Tacenda]

Is it true that there are more inactive in the church than active? I read that from an unofficial source. It's is a little different right here in the middle of Mormondom where most everyone is active.

[cinepro]

Is it true that there are more inactive in the church than active? I read that from an unofficial source. It's is a little different right here in the middle of Mormondom where most everyone is active.

Only the Church knows for sure, and they ain't tellin'.

[cinepro]

I'm not sure I understand the point of your story, but I think a "shelf of disbelief" (or "shelf of trivialities" as I like to call it) is a great idea. I have a fairly large one and most of what's on there has nothing to do with church history. However, there's too much of eternal significance to accomplish to be sidetracked by inconsequential fluff.

If something is trivial or inconsequential, then there is no need to put it on a shelf.

[tagriffy]

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' date=' fall, and flood stories? [i']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.

I could be wrong, but I suspect the man's response to all of the above might be something along the lines of 'These things I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing'.

You may be right, but I think you've missed my point. My point was that, despite having said experiences, it would have been reasonable to such people to conclude those experiences were not what they thought they were when confronted with such evidence. The blind man could have rejected the God of Israel entirely, attributing his cure to something else. He could have taken your approach. Or he could have taken my approach, however heretical it would have been compared to traditional standards. Whichever track he would have taken, it would not have been unreasonable for him to have such problems to begin with.

And yet that is the very process that missionaries invite investigators to engage in. The teaching of truth and the bearing of witness to true principles invite the Spirit. The Spirit touches and softens the heart of the listener enough to generate a willingness to pursue the issue just a bit further. The missionaries then invite the investigator to act on what s/he has been taught in order simply to see if it will bear fruit. When it inevitably does, this evidence provides further impetus for consideration and investigation. The majority of the people I worked with as a missionary were unchurched at minimum and more godless than not, and yet this process miraculously transformed them into faithful, committed Latter-day Saints.

I can only speak for myself, obviously. I can tell you that for someone like me, who had already been exposed to the problems in LDS history (and mind you, this was before I got on the Internet), the process simply will not work. I got nowhere, even though there were things I liked about the Mormon gospel. The problem was I had no reason to expect the process would work, and therefore wasn't very surprised when it didn't. It was only later I found good soil in which to plant the seed.

Edited May 31, 2013 by tagriffy

[tagriffy]

I think that it was more or less underestimating the use of the Internet and also underestimating the scruples of the critics and the exmormons when it comes to internet use against the mormons.

You may be right, but I wonder that they should have been surprised by it. After all, most of the critics aren't doing or saying anything that people like the Tanners had been doing for years.

[Calm]

If something is trivial or inconsequential, then there is no need to put it on a shelf.

If one is just curious and wants to fill in gaps of knowledge, there is. I have a shelf of "I don't know" that is quite large and a shelf of "this contradicts with that" that has a few items on it that I have ideas on how the contradictions could be resolved but don't know for sure.

[USU78]

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.

Your "justifications" I call providing context for something wrested from its context in order to score a polemical point.

I don't expect Moses, or Adam, or JSJr, or Ezekiel to be perfect, and they all prolly would tell you the same thing.

Your straw-man compare's the 5-year-old's understanding within the Church to a 45-year-old ravening apostate's. We cannot take credit or responsibility for the ravening 45-year-old apostate's 5-year-old understanding of an issue.

The adult understand and welcomes nuance and context and grows wiser by the year understanding apparent dichotomies and thesis/antithesis/synthesis analyses. So sorry, but your puritanism reflects but a child's grasp of adult things.

[Closet Doubter]

I think that it was more or less underestimating the use of the Internet and also underestimating the scruples of the critics and the exmormons when it comes to internet use against the mormons.

Interesting that a church led by direct revelation from Jesus Christ to a living prophet and apostles can so easily underestimate what is about to happen thru information technology

[Glenn101]

Interesting that a church led by direct revelation from Jesus Christ to a living prophet and apostles can so easily underestimate what is about to happen thru information technology

It is no more difficult than knowing that a prophet could be deceived into giving the primary patriarchal blessing to the younger son as was the case with Isaac and Jacob. Or that a prophet could be deceived into marrying the wrong woman, as was the case of Jacob and Leach.

We have long left the law of Micro-Management also known as the Law of Moses behind us.

Glenn

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Please cite the most recent such instance in general conference where the speaker discussed "the perils of reading unflattering church history online as if it were pornography."

Or, failing that, any such instance.

Since it happens "way too often" in your view, I should think it would be easy enough for you to locate with a computer word search and there would be specific instances fresh in your memory.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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".

Perhaps not that, but detailing specific instances, contrary to being productive or testimony-strengthening, might feed a spirit of faultfinding.

Also, I've noticed over the years that what some people regard as Joseph's errors and imperfections are in actuality his earnest efforts to obey the commandments of the Lord under very difficult circumstances.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

Please cite the most recent such instance in general conference where the speaker discussed "the perils of reading unflattering church history online as if it were pornography."

"Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. . . . Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed." (Elder Quentin L. Cook, "Can Ye Feel So Now?" October 2012 General Conference)

[Scott Lloyd]

"Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. . . . Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed." (Elder Quentin L. Cook, "Can Ye Feel So Now?" October 2012 General Conference)

I don't see this as comparing the reading of "unflattering Church history online" with viewing pornography. Rather it warns against drawing incorrect conclusions after not just reading but "immersing oneself" in online content that doesn't merely present "unflattering Church history," but rather, magnifies, exaggerates and invents shortcomings of early Church leaders. Or are you saying there is no distinction?

And, whereas Church leaders clearly urge one course of behavior with regard to pornography -- avoid it -- this statement, on the contrary, does not forbid the reading of "unflattering Church history" online, it only warns against drawing incorrect conclusions that affect testimony. What Elder Cook is doing here is criticizing the presentation of facts in a misleading context or with improper or inadequate perspective and is warning people, in their reading, not to be taken in by such tactics. Do you object to that counsel?

Buckeye can answer on his own account if he chooses, but the above example doesn't sustain his assertion.

What else have you got?

Edited June 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

And, whereas Church leaders clearly urge one course of behavior with regard to pornography -- avoid it -- this statement, on the contrary, does not forbid the reading of "unflattering Church history" online, it only warns against drawing incorrect conclusions that affect testimony.

As I read Elder Cook's statement, he is saying that immersing oneself in unflattering Church history online is an "unwise choice" that can lead to loss of testimony. However, a person who has made such a choice can "repent." Presumably part of repenting of such a choice would entail avoiding critical websites in the future. I don't think Buckeye's analogy is far off the mark in this case.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Nevo

[Scott Lloyd]

As I read Elder Cook's statement, he is saying that immersing oneself in unflattering Church history online is an "unwise choice" that can lead to loss of testimony. However, a person who has made such a choice can "repent."

The unwise choice -- to be repented of -- is the drawing of incorrect conclusions. And perhaps "immersing" oneself in such content without balancing it out with more reliable information sources -- failure to "give the Lord equal time," to use Elder Ballard's phrasing. Again I ask: Do you object to such counsel?

Consider the fact that Elder Cook goes on to say in the very next paragraph:

Immersion in the scriptures is essential for spiritual nourishment.⁸ The word of God inspires commitment and acts as a healing balm for hurt feelings, anger, or disillusionment.⁹ When our commitment is diminished for any reason, part of the solution is repentance.¹⁰ Commitment and repentance are closely intertwined.

Presumably part of repenting of such a choice would entail avoiding critical websites in the future.

Nowhere in your quote -- or in any portion of his talk -- does Elder Cook tell people to avoid critical websites as a condition of repentance. You are reading this into what he is saying.

I don't think Buckeye's analogy is far off the mark in this case.

Buckeye didn't draw an analogy. He made a flat assertion regarding general conference sermons that he, as yet, has not substantiated.

Edited June 3, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

The unwise choice -- to be repented of -- is the drawing of incorrect conclusions.

Well, that's not how I read it. Agree to disagree.

Nowhere in your quote -- or in any portion of his talk -- does Elder Cook tell people to avoid critical websites as a condition of repentance. You are reading this into what he is saying.

Yes, Scott. That's what "presumably" means. I drew an inference that repenting from the choice of immersing oneself in critical websites would entail avoiding critical websites in the future. But maybe you're right. Maybe Elder Cook never intended to warn people against websites "that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders" and is simply indicating that such sites should be used with moderation.