Explanation Of New Gospel Topics Topics Video

[Calm]

Don't have time to discuss at the moment, but thought many would find this interesting (don't remember seeing it posted yet, pardon if it has), especially the point of why they are doing this now:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=11373505780672488714-eng

[Buckeye]

Very interesting that the historians created the first draft of the statement.

[Buckeye]

Here's another very pertinent discussion: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/revisiting-blacks-and-priesthood

 

I have to wonder if Marvin Perkins and Margaret Blair Young were some of the historians consulted for the new statement.  Even more than Bushman's quote in the SL Tribune article, these two are very very clear that the church statement repudiates the ban and not just the "theories" used to justify it.  Following them is everyone's favorite, John Dehlin, to point out what we'll be wrestling with next. 

Edited December 12, 2013 by Buckeye

[Palerider]

Don't have time to discuss at the moment, but thought many would find this interesting (don't remember seeing it posted yet, pardon if it has), especially the point of why they are doing this now:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=11373505780672488714-eng

 

 

I found this to be a little propagandistic (to coin a term).

 

He starts out by telling us that most members understand all of this in it's context but there are a few who are surprised by the history.  So immediately a "questioner" is made to feel like they are outside the big group and looking kind of silly.

 

I do think it's a brave step to finally have answers that are approved by the brethren rather than having all of these unofficial sites and blogs running interference for the church. 

 

But then one is asked to take their word for it that the info they provide is the accurate story, knowing full well that there's stuff in the "vault" that no one gets access to. Kind of makes it tough to believe them now since they have been so "forthcoming" in the past. 

 

The fact that LDS scholars outside the church history department have done some of the studies isn't comforting to begin with and completely overshadowed by the editing and approval process conducted by the department and GA's after the submissions have been made. They may as well have done it themselves and cut the charade. 

 

I don't buy the excuse that, paraphrasing, "we've been busy with other stuff so we didn't pay any attention to the weird historical questions." I agree though that the internet has forced their hand and now they have to engage in damage control.   They can no longer afford to tell people in conference that the doubters can take a hike because we don't need them and that the church will "roll on" without them. 

 

The "beautiful tapestry" analogy is a good attempt at obfuscation, but sometimes those little threads are the giveaways as to whether you're looking at a truly valuable tapestry that has provenance or a recent copy that has been made to appear valid. 

 

The devil is in the details.........

Edited December 12, 2013 by Palerider

[Calm]

I found this to be a little propagandistic (to coin a term).

 

He starts out by telling us that most members understand all of this in it's context but there are a few who are surprised by the history.  So immediately a "questioner" is made to feel like they are outside the big group and looking kind of silly.

 

I suggest you go back and listen to it again....this is not what was said.

[Palerider]

I suggest you go back and listen to it again....this is not what was said.

 

Respectfully I disagree. I listened to it twice before posting my comment. It is a subtle attempt to "poo poo" those who have questions when they discover difficulties in church history.

[Calm]

He said "most who have studied our history well" understand context...and then he said "but some members of the church, many...really, are surprised".

 

Last time I checked "few" was not equivalent to "many" save in certain "propagandistic" statements.

 

edits to correct typos as I am rotten at transcription, punctuation my own choice and differs from seeking understanding's...

Edited December 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I found this to be a little propagandistic (to coin a term).

 

He starts out by telling us that most members understand all of this in it's context but there are a few who are surprised by the history.  So immediately a "questioner" is made to feel like they are outside the big group and looking kind of silly.

 

The actual quote is 

Most who study our history well understand the context of these matters as far as time and place. But some members of the church, many, really are surprised by some of the things they learn in our history and we want them to go to a place...

 

I'd say he is saying that historians who study the history understand the context, but many members do not. I'd say this is true.

[Calm]

The actual quote is 

 

 

I'd say he is saying that historians who study the history understand the context, but many members do not. I'd say this is true.

Thank you for providing the whole quote.

[Buckeye]

He said "most who have studied our history well" understand context...and then he said "but some members of our church, many are really surprised".

 

Last time I checked "few" was not equivalent to "many" save in certain "propagandistic" statements.

 

The bigger point is that most membes have not studied church history well.  I don't think Elder Snow was talking about the typical member, but members of the church who have academically studied church history.  That's a pretty small group. 

[Calm]

The bigger point is that most membes have not studied church history well.  I don't think Elder Snow was talking about the typical member, but members of the church who have academically studied church history.  That's a pretty small group.

I agree.  

 

The "few" I was responding to was Palerider's claim that Elder Snow was referring to "few" members when he was talking about those who were surprised, not those who had studied history well.  Palerider is the one claiming that Elder Snow is implying most members are not surprised and thus he is dismissive of those who are and he is making those who are surprised feel silly.

 

"He starts out by telling us that most members understand all of this in it's context but there are a few who are surprised by the history.  So immediately a "questioner" is made to feel like they are outside the big group and looking kind of silly."

And

It is a subtle attempt to "poo poo" those who have questions when they discover difficulties in church history.

 

To me, he sounds more reassuring.  He treats the research and the articles to provide answers very seriously and is very approving of them and thus by implication, imo, the questions.

Edited December 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Buckeye]

I agree.  

 

The "few" I was responding to was Palerider's claim that Elder Snow was referring to "few" members when he was talking about those who were surprised, not those who had studied history well.  Palerider is the one claiming that Elder Snow is implying most members are not surprised and thus he is dismissive of those who are and he is making those who are surprised feel silly.

 

"He starts out by telling us that most members understand all of this in it's context but there are a few who are surprised by the history.  So immediately a "questioner" is made to feel like they are outside the big group and looking kind of silly."

 

I'm with you.  I should have been more clear that I responding generally to the issue of who Elder Snow was addressing, not specifically to you or Palerider.

[Calm]

Got it....

[Palerider]

Having gone back a third time and reviewed the statement in question, I see where I have made an error and I retract the following:

 

"He starts out by telling us that most members understand all of this in it's context but there are a few who are surprised by the history.  So immediately a "questioner" is made to feel like they are outside the big group and looking kind of silly."

 

I was assuming that "most" referred also to the majority of members which it doesn't neccessarily. I also assumed that "many" of the "some" which do begin to study, could easily be a smaller number. I see now that it wasn't said with the intent of "many of the "some" that do study.....etc.

 

My mistake.

[Tacenda]

http://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_8607.shtml

Local news broadcasted the new videos from the church. Associate Professor of History at U of U, Paul Reeve, made a statement that the genie has been let out of the bottle and this is needed to answer questions that don't get answered in Sunday School, not in those exact words. Phillip Barlow is commenting also.

Interesting change in the church. But it was inevitable. I'm so glad it's come to this. I no longer sit on my computer thinking "Am I the only one that sees this?" I think a lot of members have been just like me but don't say anything. I think the church is doing the right thing. Mental health will take a turn for the better! As long as the church is entirely honest, no holds bar, on the speaking of history!

Edited December 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[BCSpace]

Don't have time to discuss at the moment, but thought many would find this interesting (don't remember seeing it posted yet, pardon if it has), especially the point of why they are doing this now:

 

https://www.lds.org/...80672488714-eng

 

Just as I thought.  Informational and not condemnational nor an attempt to distance.

[canard78]

I think he's made some very good points. I agree that following individual threads can lead to missing the beauty of the tapestry. It's a nice analogy.

Having said that, I can still see why some people's view of the tapestry is different. History is not as simple as having a tapestry in front of you. We read the threads (or sometimes view them as images/artifacts) but tr image each of us constructs will not be identical. I don't think a "beautiful" tapestry is a foregone conclusion, even after following many, many threads.

[theplains]

But then one is asked to take their word for it that the info they provide is the accurate story, knowing full well that there's stuff in the "vault" that no one gets access to. Kind of makes it tough to believe them now since they have been so "forthcoming" in the past. 

 

Thank God for old books containing teachings of the LDS Church of the past and their

scanned copies. The vault is open if you can find them at ebay, confettibooks, or the like.  

The church has even stripped down its Gospel Principles manual, but fortunately the

older version in book and pdf is still available. Once its on the Internet, it usually will

forever stay on the Internet.

 

Regards,

Jim

[volgadon]

Thank God for old books containing teachings of the LDS Church of the past and their

scanned copies. The vault is open if you can find them at ebay, confettibooks, or the like.  

The church has even stripped down its Gospel Principles manual, but fortunately the

older version in book and pdf is still available. Once its on the Internet, it usually will

forever stay on the Internet.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

The "vault" is also open to the public at places like the church's library in SLC. You forgot to mention other free resources like internet archive, where just last night I downloaded an awesome, rare, old church book.

[strappinglad]

As a point of grammar, does the word ' well' modify the word' history' or the word 'understand' ? To me , there needs be a comma after 'well' if it meant to modify ' history ' . Probably doesn't matter much, but it does change the statement a bit.

[Calm]

As a point of grammar, does the word ' well' modify the word' history' or the word 'understand' ? To me , there needs be a comma after 'well' if it meant to modify ' history ' . Probably doesn't matter much, but it does change the statement a bit.

The way he said it, it modifies "study".

[strappinglad]

True enough , although there is the 'study history well' group and the 'well understand' group that confused me.