Prophets Saw Our Day

[Nevo]

In light of the recent discussions spurred by Hans Mattsson's "coming out" as a doubter, I decided to re-read some letters sent by LDS historians to Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1981 in response to his now-famous address, "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect."

Reading these letters, it is difficult to escape the impression that some of these historians truly saw our day. One letter, by James L. Clayton, struck me as being especially prescient:

By trying to make our history, our policies, and our leaders too perfect we set up our students for potential disaster. . . . I do know many, as I am sure you do, who have lost their faith by having had a naive, saccharine understanding of our history and then who have been exposed to our actual historical documents, some of which are less than faith promoting, without being able to turn to a knowledgeable and understanding teacher for assistance. By instructing our institute and seminary teachers to be "one-sided" and informed only about the "good" side of religion, you are, it seems to me, denying thousands of members the opportunity to turn to knowledgeable people within the institution who can help them with their spiritual difficulties.

You seem to be arguing that ignorance is the best defense against the challenges of secularism. This impression is based on your comment that "some things are to be taught selectively" and only to those "who are worthy," that historians know things that others should not hear, that we cannot "safely" be neutral, and so on. It seems to me that such an approach is like building a house without a roof to protect us against bad weather. The rain will fall whether we like it or not. Our job is to be prepared when it does. We need to strengthen the ability of the Church membership to face contradictions, controversy, and the underside of the Church like they face the underside of life generally. The great historians in our Church have always done this, particularly B.H. Roberts. We cannot escape the challenge [of] our past by ignoring it, postponing it, or dealing with it selectively. Why not face it early on, head on, and all out like Roberts did? Knowledge was his defense, and it was a very noble one. . . .

People, like God's other creations, are made stronger by exposure to the elements. Hot-house plants may be more beautiful than plants in their natural setting, but they are also more fragile. . . .

Another respondent to Elder Packer's talk wrote:

But Elder Packer does not advocate the gradual exposure of Mormons to historical truth. . . . Elder Packer is not advocating Paul's dictum of milk before meat (1 Cor. 3:3; Heb. 5:12), but he demands that Mormon historians provide only a church history diet of milk to Latter-day Saints of whatever experience.

No historian I know of is insensitive to prerequisites. We give presentations differently to high school students than to graduate students. We write about the same topic more complexly for professional journals than for church magazines. I am personally aware of the need to reassure church members by cushioning evidence that is controversial. . . . Nevertheless, a diet of milk alone will stunt the growth of, if not kill, any child. That is true in nutrition and in religion.

— D. Michael Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," in George D. Smith, ed., Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 84-85.

So here we are, 30 plus years later, with the Church now reaping the whirlwind from its policy of withholding uncomfortable truths and presenting a selective, sanitized history to its members (apparently not having anticipated the reach of Google and YouTube and the blogosphere).

The Church now appears to be in damage control mode (a belated but welcome development in my view), sending flying columns of historians and church functionaries out to stanch the bleeding. I think we can safely say that a major shift has taken place when we hear Elder Jensen telling the Swedish Saints that Elder Packer (!) has directed the Church History department to "put together a committee to create answers to difficult gospel questions."

Edited July 24, 2013 by Nevo

[why me]

So here we are, 30 plus years later, with the Church now reaping the whirlwind from its policy of withholding uncomfortable truths and presenting a selective, sanitized history to its members (apparently not having anticipated the reach of Google and YouTube and the blogosphere).

The Church now appears to be in damage control mode (a belated but welcome development in my view), sending flying columns of historians and church functionaries out to stanch the bleeding. I think we can safely say that a major shift has taken place when we hear Elder Jensen telling the Swedish Saints that Elder Packer (!) has directed the Church History department to "put together a committee to create answers to difficult gospel questions."

I remember years ago when I wrote that reading the church's account of Joseph Smith was like reading a Soviet account of Lenin. It was very sanitized. Not good at all. But luckily, it will now change and the church will become stronger. The problem comes from not having the courage to give faith promoting interpretations to its history. And for most of lds history faith promoting interpretations can be done to troubling issues. What is strange however it that through the D&C we learn that problems existed between the saints and such problems were far from perfect. And this is now lds history too. And so we can read about problems as they were addressed through revelation showing that imperfections were always apart of the church. Likewise when it comes to polygamy and the problem with Emma in section 132.

Edited July 24, 2013 by why me

[Storm Rider]

I have never enjoyed rose colored glasses and I dislike most things, including people, that are too saccharinely sweet. Last night I was reading the journal of one of my wife's ancestors who knew the prophet Joseph, was in Nauvoo, traveled the plains, lived in Salt Lake, served in the Mormon Battalion, was a prisoner of the US military, was a polygamist, avoided being arrested for his marital relationships, finally faced the penalty, sold his farm, and went to Mexico. It was interesting what he wrote about; what was important for him and what was not. Another relative had a similar experiences and wrote about different things. It is not helpful to discuss the merits of the argument of a "hidden" history when for anyone that cared could read whatever was supposedly hidden. Nor is it helpful to discuss that argument that some people do like rose colored glasses and when they finally take them off they act stunned that reality is not really rose colored and then blame reality for not being so. A valid, helpful discussion is how does the Church provide spiritually uplifting lessons while not avoiding history. Our lessons do not need to be history lessons, but they should be accurate when historical information is pertinent. More importantly we need to acknowledge that the primary objective of the Church is to preach Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. To fulfill this objective is not hiding the truth, avoiding history, or anything similar. It means that the FOCUS is to testify to the world of the reality of the Savior and how each child of God can return to him. I return to my wife's ancestor and what his focus was in his journal. He never talked about Joseph Smith's polygamy or Brigham's; he did not discuss the merits of the Book of Mormon except that it was true; he did not advocate the need for historical accuracy; he wrote about his life, his challenges, and his faith in Christ and his willingness to do all he could to provide for his family and lead them in righteousness. It remains and always will remain a question of where the focus needs to be in our lives. Focus is not avoiding or hiding; it is focusing that that which is of utmost importance.

[Rivers]

I wonder if President Packer has had any change of heart in light of the church's current plight.

[Paddy]

Nevo

I am interested in the source for the James L. Clayton letter...can you post it please....?

Thanks

Paddy

[cdowis]

In the past the church leaders did not ignore inquiries with difficult questions. They simply referred them to Hugh Nibley and others, and continued on with their duties of administering the church.

Apologetics is a rather specialized field, and a church administrator (bishop, stake president, general church leader) is not particularly equipped to handle such issues. Church leaders have not been reluctant to refer financial issues to the experts, for example, and why not apologetics.

Edited July 24, 2013 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

In the past the church leaders did not ignore inquiries with difficult questions. They simply referred them to Hugh Nibley and others, and continued on with their duties of administering the church.

Apologetics is a rather specialized field, and a church administrator (bishop, stake president, general church leader) is not particularly equipped to handle such issues. Church leaders have not been reluctant to refer financial issues to the experts, for example, and why not apologetics.

An accurate understanding of our history is not apologetics.

[CV75]

So here we are, 30 plus years later

I think this happens in many areas of Church endeavor, where those with advanced expertise in a particular area try to point out the wrong direction they see the Church going in. For example, i know a man who (in the 1970s as a contractor with the Church), who tells this story: he saw the leadership heading in the wrong direction with key decisions in the area of its IT infrastructure. He tried to advise an alternative, and shared his views openly. These views were largely presented as an objective "critique", but due to his personality he was very blunt and opinionated about it. At any rate, he was corrected and told by the key sponsor (a member of the Twelve), essentially, "I may be wrong, but I've got the keys and have to do what I have to do."

Who knows: sometimes those with surgical precision in their views fail to see the bigger and more general picture which those with the keys are working with and need to attend to at the moment. Or they fail to see the constraints set by other demands for resources, or other priorities. Maybe the Church's current efforts would have failed and created more trouble had they been attempted during a time of less developed methods and technology. For example, an emphasis on history prior to an emphasis on temples would have undermined what we have today to use toward historical, missionary, PEF or humanitarian efforts, or any number of other important things.

I trust that the Lord handles the direction of the efforts in His Church in their most optimal times and places.

[rongo]

An accurate understanding of our history is not apologetics.

s

No, but an accurate understanding of our history sure helps in doing good apologetics ---- bottom line: in helping people with concerns.

[Nevo]

I am interested in the source for the James L. Clayton letter...can you post it please....?

Hi Paddy,

You can read the full letter here. It is housed in the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah and the L. Tom Perry Special Collections at BYU, among other places.

[Nevo]

A valid, helpful discussion is how does the Church provide spiritually uplifting lessons while not avoiding history. Our lessons do not need to be history lessons, but they should be accurate when historical information is pertinent.

I agree completely. Some people are going to be disillusioned by certain aspects of Church history no matter what, but in most cases disillusionment can be avoided if there is no "illusionment" to begin with.

More importantly we need to acknowledge that the primary objective of the Church is to preach Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. To fulfill this objective is not hiding the truth, avoiding history, or anything similar. It means that the FOCUS is to testify to the world of the reality of the Savior and how each child of God can return to him."

Certainly. The Church's primary mission is to bring souls to Christ, not to discuss problematic history. But at the same time I don't think helping members to face difficult issues is incompatible with fostering faith in Christ and in the doctrines of the Restoration. To this point, I think the Church has been a bit like an over-protective parent. In its anxiety to nurture faith in its members, it has attempted to screen out anything that might potential threaten or challenge testimonies. As a result, to borrow James Clayton's analogy, we now have a lot of hot-house plants rather than the hardy outdoor variety.

[CV75]

I don't think helping members to face difficult issues is incompatible with fostering faith in Christ and in the doctrines of the Restoration. To this point, I think the Church has been a bit like an over-protective parent.

I don't think the Church had, until fairly recently, the right quantity and mix of secular tools and resources (historians, methods, technology, funding, global membership, societal acceptance --in teh USA or elsewhere--etc. ) to do this properly with anyhting but the Spirit and an apologetic bent, since those needing the help are obviously more reliant on secular tools for assistance.

[Questing Beast]

OP, odd title. Are you saying Roberts, Nibley, Quinn, et al. are "prophets"? Or being ironic?

I look at the BoM "prophecies" and see exactitude, including taking down names and times and places with precision, right up to the moment the BoM is published, then after that, nothing but vagueness. Anybody can write a prophecy after the fact, and the OT is crammed with them. The NT followed suit about Jesus Christ.

Yes, I am a doubter. And nothing the Church says about its history can remove an altered world religious view that has grown wider than what Judeo-Christianity teaches....

[Questing Beast]

I have never enjoyed rose colored glasses and I dislike most things, including people, that are too saccharinely sweet. Last night I was reading the journal of one of my wife's ancestors who knew the prophet Joseph, was in Nauvoo, traveled the plains, lived in Salt Lake, served in the Mormon Battalion, was a prisoner of the US military, was a polygamist, avoided being arrested for his marital relationships, finally faced the penalty, sold his farm, and went to Mexico. It was interesting what he wrote about; what was important for him and what was not. Another relative had a similar experiences and wrote about different things. It is not helpful to discuss the merits of the argument of a "hidden" history when for anyone that cared could read whatever was supposedly hidden. Nor is it helpful to discuss that argument that some people do like rose colored glasses and when they finally take them off they act stunned that reality is not really rose colored and then blame reality for not being so. A valid, helpful discussion is how does the Church provide spiritually uplifting lessons while not avoiding history. Our lessons do not need to be history lessons, but they should be accurate when historical information is pertinent. More importantly we need to acknowledge that the primary objective of the Church is to preach Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected. To fulfill this objective is not hiding the truth, avoiding history, or anything similar. It means that the FOCUS is to testify to the world of the reality of the Savior and how each child of God can return to him. I return to my wife's ancestor and what his focus was in his journal. He never talked about Joseph Smith's polygamy or Brigham's; he did not discuss the merits of the Book of Mormon except that it was true; he did not advocate the need for historical accuracy; he wrote about his life, his challenges, and his faith in Christ and his willingness to do all he could to provide for his family and lead them in righteousness. It remains and always will remain a question of where the focus needs to be in our lives. Focus is not avoiding or hiding; it is focusing that that which is of utmost importance.

Interesting, how much this reads like Palmer's advice to his readers at the end of his much maligned book "Insider's View"....

[Bikeemikey]

s

No, but an accurate understanding of our history sure helps in doing good apologetics ---- bottom line: in helping people with concerns.

I totally agree - to accurately know our history requires not apologetics.

Perhaps to accurately know our history and keep the faith does.

[Tacenda]

Interesting, how much this reads like Palmer's advice to his readers at the end of his much maligned book "Insider's View"....

And that was his mantra to focus on Christ. Once people get all that malarkey out of the way!

[Alan]

I particularly object to the charge by some that the church has "hidden" it's history. The documents have always been available, it's just that nobody bothered to read them. The difference now is that the internet has made them more readily available, especially to people who would ordinarily not have sufficient interest to seek them out.

It is not the mission of the church to be objective on these matters. The church will put the best interpretation or spin on difficult issues, our enemies the worst. This is nothing new and has been going on for years.

What I find interesting is that none of the historical information now appearing to trouble people is new or freshly revealed. It's been around for decades for the most part. It's just the same old stuff re-packaged. As the preacher said in Ecclesiastes, there is "nothing new under the sun".

[Nevo]

OP, odd title. Are you saying Roberts, Nibley, Quinn, et al. are "prophets"? Or being ironic?

Yes, the "prophets" in the title are the historians who accurately foresaw the problems that would arise from the Church's attempt to shield its members from anything that might potentially damage their faith and testimony. And, yes, I find that a bit ironic.

The voice of warning went unheeded, however, and for most of the 1980s and 1990s, Ezra Taft Benson's and Boyd K. Packer's views carried the day. They still dominate the Seminaries and Institutes organization (formerly CES). The result is a generation of leaders and teachers who are ill-equipped to deal with the hard questions.

[Calm]

I have never enjoyed rose colored glasses and I dislike most things, including people, that are too saccharinely sweet.

Perhaps why I was never too fond of JS as a child and youth, wasn't until I was old enough to start reading stuff on my own plus discussions with my mom on some of the more exotic things he got into studying that I grew to appreciate his efforts as something truly remarkable.

[Nevo]

I don't think the Church had, until fairly recently, the right quantity and mix of secular tools and resources (historians, methods, technology, funding, global membership, societal acceptance --in the USA or elsewhere--etc. )

I think the Church was on the right track in the 1970s with the professionalization of the Church History department and the appointment of Leonard Arrington as Church Historian. Had "Camelot" continued through the 80s and 90s, I think we'd be in better shape today.

Exposure to critical information on the Internet would not have had the same shattering impact on members who had already for decades been presented with nuanced, contextualized (yet faithful) treatments of the Church's past in official Church sources. (For a recent example of the sort of thing I have in mind, see here).

[CV75]

I think the Church was on the right track in the 1970s with the professionalization of the Church History department and the appointment of Leonard Arrington as Church Historian. Had "Camelot" continued through the 80s and 90s, I think we'd be in better shape today.

Exposure to critical information on the Internet would not have had the same shattering impact on members who had already for decades been presented with nuanced, contextualized (yet faithful) treatments of the Church's past in official Church sources. (For a recent example of the sort of thing I have in mind, see here).

I think this happens in many areas of Church endeavor, where those with advanced expertise in a particular area try to point out the wrong direction they see the Church going in (or in this post, how the Church should have gone). For example, I know a man who (in the 1970s as a computer systems contractor with the Church), who tells this story: he saw the leadership heading in the wrong direction with key decisions in developing its IT infrastructure. He tried to advise an alternative, and shared his views openly. These views were largely presented as an objective "critique", but due to his personality he was very blunt and opinionated about it, and confesses to have spoken to more people than necessary. At any rate, he was corrected and told by the key sponsor (a member of the Twelve), essentially, "I may be wrong, but I've got the keys and have to do what I have to do."

Who knows: sometimes those with surgical precision in their views fail to see the bigger and more general picture which those with the keys are working with and need to attend to at the moment. Or they fail to see the constraints set by other demands for resources, or other priorities. Maybe the Church's current efforts would have failed and created more trouble had they been attempted during a time of less developed methods and technology. For example, an emphasis on history prior to an emphasis on temples would have undermined what we have today to use toward historical, missionary, PEF or humanitarian efforts, or any number of other important things.

I trust that the Lord handles the direction of the efforts in His Church in their most optimal times and places.

Edited July 24, 2013 by CV75

[cinepro]

It has occurred to me that perhaps the only effective way for the Church to adapt to this situation will be a shift towards less emphasis on Joseph Smith. Perhaps one day, 50 or 100 years from now, he will be no more notable to LDS Church members than Howard W. Hunter or John Taylor.

[Nevo]

What I find interesting is that none of the historical information now appearing to trouble people is new or freshly revealed. It's been around for decades for the most part.

It has been around since Fawn Brodie, and even earlier. But Church members' exposure to such things was quite limited until the advent of Google. My extended family who are Mormons are only dimly aware, if at all, of such entities as FARMS (NAMI) or FAIR. I suspect most have never heard of BYU Studies or Dialogue or Sunstone.

If a member had come across Grant Palmer's book 20 years ago, they could easily write it off a pack of lies, half-truths, and distortions. But now anyone with an Internet connection can fact-check his claims, and find much other disturbing information besides. And then they can find lots of like-minded people online to hash it over with. That's a problem for the Church.

(By the way, I understand Google is the worst enemy of missionary work in our area. Missionaries rarely get a second appointment because the first thing prospective investigators do after the first visit is to look up "Mormons" and/or "Joseph Smith" on Google. If they get a second appointment at all, missionaries find themselves on the defensive, putting out fires—"correcting misconceptions" as they call it.)

[Duncan]

I don't know if History is the only or main reason people go inactive, I think Elder Scott was spot on when he talked two types of conversion social and doctrinal. I have a friend who did something she shouldn't, doesn't feel remorse for it and doesn't think she should confess but knows if she did she would be kicked out for sure, so she isn't active to this day

[Nevo]

I don't know if History is the only or main reason people go inactive.

I'm sure it isn't. But I think it may be the leading cause of active, highly-committed, temple-recommend-holding members going inactive.

I agree with you though. I think most inactivity stems from other causes—apathy, guilt, feelings of not fitting in/not connecting with other ward members, getting offended, addictions, dating/marrying non-members, being gay, etc.