Doubt Is Not A Sin: Deseret News On Mattson, Fair, Doubt And Faith

[why me]

Why should there be booing and hissing? It's not the circus.

Tell that to the critics. They are making it into one big bash by the swedes against the panelists. But lets look at it realistically. The recorders of the event brought up peep stones I believe. When I put peep stones into the lds.org search I got the head in the hat translation from an 1993 ensign article. What was hidden? Any swede can do this and see that the information is not hidden. And then if I google polyandry, I get the BYU studies Maxwell institute website. What is hidden? Again, any swede can do this. And they probably do.

[cinepro]

Tell that to the critics. They are making it into one big bash by the swedes against the panelists. But lets look at it realistically. The recorders of the event brought up peep stones I believe. When I put peep stones into the lds.org search I got the head in the hat translation from an 1993 ensign article. What was hidden? Any swede can do this and see that the information is not hidden. And then if I google polyandry, I get the BYU studies Maxwell institute website. What is hidden? Again, any swede can do this. And they probably do.

In order to adequately address the problem, you should probably figure out what your search results would have been back in 1998, 2004, and 2010.

In other words, if LDS.org posts an article or improves their search engine this morning, that's not equivelent to waving a magic wand and making it so everyone who has ever tried to research the issue in the past is suddenly given that information at that time.

I, as much as anyone, appreciate the improvements made over the past few years, but let's not forget where we've been when judging people who have walked that same road.

Edited July 28, 2013 by cinepro

[canard78]

Reading the critics about this event, I have the impression that the crowd listening was giving the panelists a hard time and the swedes were taking no malarky from the panelists. But this was far from the truth. If the guys who were recording the event did not ask the questions, very few people would have raised their hands to ask a question. And if they did, the questions would be respectful in tone. The recorders of the event wanted to sound hurt and disrespectful for the effect it would have when they posted it on the internet. I only heard disrespect from mainly the recorders and Hans.

Again, you draw your own conclusions about their motives with no knowledge of them.

They were so calculating and so eager to embarrass the panelists that they waited 3 years to post it. Why wait so long if their only desire was for a belittling 'scoop.'

[why me]

In order to adequately address the problem, you should probably figure out what your search results would have been back in 1998, 2004, and 2010.

I don't know about this. I just know what is being said now about this moment and this time. And there doesn't seem to be a problem now. I think that Scott would be better at this since he has more facts at his disposal being someone who works at the newspaper.

[why me]

Again, you draw your own conclusions about their motives with no knowledge of them.

They were so calculating and so eager to embarrass the panelists that they waited 3 years to post it. Why wait so long if their only desire was for a belittling 'scoop.'

I can only draw my own conclusions by listening to the recording and then compare this to what some of the critics are saying about the event. But you would be right...it can be only my conclusions. But I also think that most of us are drawing are own conclusions about the event. I think that a better rebuttal would be if I proven wrong about what I was hearing from the recording. And that could be. .

[Bikeemikey]

I don't know about this. I just know what is being said now about this moment and this time. And there doesn't seem to be a problem now. I think that Scott would be better at this since he has more facts at his disposal being someone who works at the newspaper.

Do you think the church has improved transparency on historical issues over the past twenty years?

[why me]

Again, you draw your own conclusions about their motives with no knowledge of them.

They were so calculating and so eager to embarrass the panelists that they waited 3 years to post it. Why wait so long if their only desire was for a belittling 'scoop.'

Why post it at all if it is 3 years old? Could it be to get some traction for the cause? Could it be to get some publicity since nothing much was happening in Sweden and the 'great' apostacy'? Why do you think they put it on the internet now?

[why me]

Do you think the church has improved transparency on historical issues over the past twenty years?

I think that they are improving now. And I do know that they were more open in the Ensign about certain issues in the 70's and 80's. . But I never thought such issues as multi first vision accounts, head in the hat etc as controversial. And neither did the Ensign when such articles on these subjects were published. I think that the critics have made them controversial. No tidal wave of resignations when the Ensign mention multiple accounts and the head in the hat back when I was much younger.

[Scott Lloyd]

But I never thought such issues as multi first vision accounts, head in the hat etc as controversial. And neither did the Ensign when such articles on these subjects were published. I think that the critics have made them controversial. No tidal wave of resignations when the Ensign mention multiple accounts and the head in the hat back when I was much younger.

(Bolded for emphasis)

Precisely.

I realize it's not politically correct to say so these days, but the seer stone in the hat is a trivial matter to have a faith crisis over.

My suspicion is that some (admittedly, not all) who profess to be having a faith crisis are well past the crisis stage, have made up their minds and now are trying to drag others along with them.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

I think that they are improving now. And I do know that they were more open in the Ensign about certain issues in the 70's and 80's. . But I never thought such issues as multi first vision accounts, head in the hat etc as controversial. And neither did the Ensign when such articles on these subjects were published. I think that the critics have made them controversial. No tidal wave of resignations when the Ensign mention multiple accounts and the head in the hat back when I was much younger.

The "critics" may have played a key role in making them controversial... but is not the case that a fairly broad based lack of knowledge of many "basic" components of the LDS history has also made members susceptible to the "critics" concerns? It also seems that those who received their church education in the last 20 years are more susceptible to this lack of historical awareness... this is entirely anecdotal and based on my personal observations.

If that is the case that many members do have serious gaps regarding "basic" church history it may or may not be the churches fault (institutionally speaking). Individuals are responsible for their own education and religious learning. That said, it does seem that the correlated curriculum taught via Sunday School, Seminary and Institute over the past 20-30 years has not provided a broad enough historical base for many members to adequately prepare them for some very basic historical objections currently being raised regarding Joseph Smith and the early church. Again, this may also be an issue with curriculum implementation and class room teaching as much as the material it self.

I think that there is a shared responsibility between the curriculum, the teacher and the religious practitioner.

Our church has no professional educators in the bulk of our wards and stakes. (Some members do attend classes with paid seminary and institute teachers.)

The lesson handbooks for teachers must be written with the recognition that the teacher is most likely not a professional teacher.

The teacher most often only has the knowledge they received from their (non-professional teacher).

The teacher almost always receives no additional training or support beyond the very general Sunday School or comparable manual.

Non-professional teachers tend to be less demanding on classroom participants.

With this model it is likely that the quality of education will continue to show a downward trend, even with the move by the Church to bolster the correlated material.

In my opinion the calling of teachers (especially Sunday School) should come with an hour or two a week in contact time outside the three hour block. The teachers from across the Stake could meet together with a Stake education supervisor (still likely unpaid - or possibly part time - possibly a local CES professional; assuming CES figure out how to stop being part of the problem). This education for educators concept could even be run online from a central church location for multiple stakes at a time. It would also allow for a bi-directional feedback process with questions that are coming in at local ward levels to be correlated across regional areas.

The Stake and Ward Sunday School Presidents should really be considered one of the most important callings - a calling critical to both missionary work and member retention.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

They've tried having teacher training classes before. In my experience, it was the ones that didn't need them that showed up the most. The ones that did didn't...and that attitude was why they did need them in the first place.

[pogi]

Judging others for doubting is just as harmful as doubting. Doubting and questioning are two different things. Questioning can lead to greater faith, while doubting usually leads a person to justify their doubts by searching for why the church is false rather than prayerfully searching for answers to your questions. While those who doubt often return to faith, they never return doubting.

While we should never judge those who doubt, we should not pretend that doubting is dangerous to faith. Doubt is a choice, so is hope, both are uncertain. If you want faith and eventual knowledge, the scriptures are clear that we should choose hope over doubt when uncertain.

Edited July 29, 2013 by pogi

[Bikeemikey]

They've tried having teacher training classes before. In my experience, it was the ones that didn't need them that showed up the most. The ones that did didn't...and that attitude was why they did need them in the first place.

Then perhaps the current LDS knowledge base regarding historical and doctrinal subjects is simply one of the tradeoffs of a lay clergy.

We so very well with a volunteer clergy all things considered. Limited teaching competency may just be what we are stuck with.

[why me]

(Bolded for emphasis)

Precisely.

I realize it's not politically correct to say so these days, but the seer stone in the hat is a trivial matter to have a faith crisis over.

My suspicion is that some (admittedly, not all) who profess to be having a faith crisis are well past the crisis stage, have made up their minds and now are trying to drag others along with them.

I think that you and I have been on the boards a long time and we can see the psychology of the critics at work when they are posting their information. They are basically posting to cast doubt in members minds. But it is up to the lds media to confront their interpretations and counter with faith promoting interpretations of those events. And certainly because church publications did have a lot of information in the past without repercussions from members, it can be done again. When this happens, the critics will be defeated because church history is basically faith promoting and filled with wonderful happenings with strong testimonies of the early members at that time. Not to mention their spiritual experiences.

[Calm]

Then perhaps the current LDS knowledge base regarding historical and doctrinal subjects is simply one of the tradeoffs of a lay clergy.

We so very well with a volunteer clergy all things considered. Limited teaching competency may just be what we are stuck with.

Yep.

I think it can be compensated to some degree with getting more and more historical information online, not only through lds.org and church sponsored projects such as the JSP, but also places like Maxwell Institute, Interpreter, and FAIR and others like it.

[why me]

Then perhaps the current LDS knowledge base regarding historical and doctrinal subjects is simply one of the tradeoffs of a lay clergy.

We so very well with a volunteer clergy all things considered. Limited teaching competency may just be what we are stuck with.

I think that the knowledge base will improve in the coming years. Manuals seem to be changing and more information is coming to light. Last sunday we discussed liberty jail in class. I brought up the events leading up to it, including the mistakes made by Joseph. And also by sidney with his salt sermon. But then it was also mentioned how joseph grew in prison and how he had time to reflect on his rhetoric at that time and change his attitude. He was growing into prophethood. Very faith promoting. It can be done quite easily. And then we could put the sections dealing with liberty into context.

Most lds history is wonderful and fantastic. No reason to fear it.

[canard78]

I think that you and I have been on the boards a long time and we can see the psychology of the critics at work when they are posting their information. They are basically posting to cast doubt in members minds. But it is up to the lds media to confront their interpretations and counter with faith promoting interpretations of those events. And certainly because church publications did have a lot of information in the past without repercussions from members, it can be done again. When this happens, the critics will be defeated because church history is basically faith promoting and filled with wonderful happenings with strong testimonies of the early members at that time. Not to mention their spiritual experiences.

So we need to get there first. If a critic said "oooh, did you know joseph claimed that an angel visited him in his bedroom" every member would say "uh, yes. I grew up knowing that."

Steal back the opportunity of the shock factor by teaching it properly in Sunday school/seminary, not putting it on only academic sites.

[why me]

So we need to get there first. If a critic said "oooh, did you know joseph claimed that an angel visited him in his bedroom" every member would say "uh, yes. I grew up knowing that."

Steal back the opportunity of the shock factor by teaching it properly in Sunday school/seminary, not putting it on only academic sites.

Which is what I did in the sunday school class that I mentioned above. I see no problem at all in doing this. Now next week is Nauvoo. No problem mentioning the problems that some of the immigrant saints had when they were in nauvoo. I wouldn't say steal back the opportunity. But I would say 'take back' the opportunity. No matter how a person cuts it, Joseph was a remarkable young man, someone who made mistakes but when one looks at the big picture, one can only marvel at his accomplishments from the early 1820's to his death in 1844.

Edited July 29, 2013 by why me

[Tacenda]

Which is what I did in the sunday school class that I mentioned above. I see no problem at all in doing this. Now next week is Nauvoo. No problem mentioning the problems that some of the immigrant saints had when they were in nauvoo. I wouldn't say steal back the opportunity. But I would say 'take back' the opportunity. No matter how a person cuts it, Joseph was a remarkable young man, someone who made mistakes but when one looks at the big picture, one can only marvel at his accomplishments from the early 1820's to his death in 1844.

I'll be in Nauvoo next Sunday and plan to attend Sacrament and SS that day, wow!

[why me]

I'll be in Nauvoo next Sunday and plan to attend Sacrament and SS that day, wow!

Sounds great. Hopefully it will all be a faith promoting experience for you!

[Tacenda]

Sounds great. Hopefully it will all be a faith promoting experience for you!

It's my pilgrimage of sorts. I've got to come to grips before it eats me alive.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think that the knowledge base will improve in the coming years. Manuals seem to be changing and more information is coming to light. Last sunday we discussed liberty jail in class. I brought up the events leading up to it, including the mistakes made by Joseph. And also by sidney with his salt sermon. But then it was also mentioned how joseph grew in prison and how he had time to reflect on his rhetoric at that time and change his attitude. He was growing into prophethood. Very faith promoting. It can be done quite easily. And then we could put the sections dealing with liberty into context.

We had the same lesson yesterday. But it was from the same manual that I taught from four years ago and eight years ago and perhaps 12 years ago (I don't remember how long I taught gospel doctrine). A lot depends on how the teacher chooses to present the material.

[canard78]

Which is what I did in the sunday school class that I mentioned above. I see no problem at all in doing this. Now next week is Nauvoo. No problem mentioning the problems that some of the immigrant saints had when they were in nauvoo. I wouldn't say steal back the opportunity. But I would say 'take back' the opportunity. No matter how a person cuts it, Joseph was a remarkable young man, someone who made mistakes but when one looks at the big picture, one can only marvel at his accomplishments from the early 1820's to his death in 1844.

A friend and I were discussing the same over lunch recently. We're both in our 30s and were feeling thoroughly impressed at what he accomplished in a similar lifetime as ours.

That he's not heralded as one of USA's literary and leadership over-achievers is a shame. Even if people don't accept the angel part of the story, they should still recognise his genius (even more so in fact if you believe he did it all on his own). I believe time will be a healer in that sense. Give it another 200-300 years and USA will probably be a stronger advocate.