Is The Church Being Completely Honest?

[JLHPROF]

The Brigham Young manual (for RS & Priesthood) was perhaps one of the most egregious examples of the curriculum department (whoever that is and whoever oversees it) being deceptive about our history as a faith.  I don't think it's one of those big issues that seems to cause faith crises but producing a manual about the teachings of Brigham Young and not mentioning polygamy (or even his polygamous marriages) is mind blowing.  I don't think that today's church would write it the same way.

 

I can just imagine brand new converts having just finished up the course of study on Brigham Young's teachings in Priesthood/RS.

 

Husband - "I really enjoyed what Brigham had to say"

Wife - "Me too.  He was a really great prophet."

Husband - "We should find out more and be diligent in our personal studies.  Let's google Brigham Young's teachings.  I bet they're so inspirational."

Wife - "Ok....hey what's this?  Adam-God?  What's that about?"

Husband - "Blood Atonement?  Negro and the priesthood?  Mountain Meadows?"

Wife - "POLYGAMY??!!!"

Husband - "What is all this?  We'd better go ask our Bishop."

...

Bishop - "Well, we don't really talk about those things...but it's ok, I promise.  Just have faith."

Edited March 21, 2014 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

Maxwell, Neal A. (1988), Not My Will, But Thine, Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, p. 26, "Jacob censured the "stiffnecked" Jews for "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14). We are looking beyond the mark today, for example, if we are more interested in the physical dimensions of the cross than in what Jesus achieved thereon; or when we neglect Alma's words on faith because we are too fascinated by the light-shielding hat reportedly used by Joseph Smith during some of the translating of the Book of Mormon. To neglect substance while focusing on process is another form of unsubmissively looking beyond the mark."

 

The "substance" here is not the light-shielding hat or even polyandry.  The substance is honesty and betrayal of trust.

[Damien the Leper]

So now we're to go to non-canonical sources for what we teach. 

 

Your quip is fallacious. If you do not value and teach and learn accurate history then you are destined to repeat the 11th grade.

[Damien the Leper]

I can just imagine brand new converts having just finished up the course of study on Brigham Young's teachings in Priesthood/RS.

 

Husband - "I really enjoyed what Brigham had to say"

Wife - "Me too.  He was a really great prophet."

Husband - "We should find out more and be diligent in our personal studies.  Let's google Brigham Young's teachings.  I bet they're so inspirational."

Wife - "Ok....hey what's this?  Adam-God?  What's that about?"

Husband - "Blood Atonement?  Negro and the priesthood?  Mountain Meadows?"

Wife - "POLYGAMY??!!!"

Husband - "What is all this?  We'd better go ask our Bishop."

...

Bishop - "Well, we don't really talk about those things...but it's ok, I promise.  Just have faith."

 

Such a response from a bishop should grant a kind excommunication.

[BCSpace]

"If you're 45 years old and you learn for the first time that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with a peepstone, you have every right in the world to feel betrayed. "Why wasn't I taught the truth in seminary or in Sunday school?" I haven't heard a good answer to that.

 

The answers are:

 

1) JS translated with both the Urim and Thummim and the seer stone.

2) Both methods are by the gift and power of God.

3) Pictures of JS translating with the U&T are just as peculiar as pictures of JS translating with the seer stone to someone seeing them for the first time.  However, we've gotten used to the one so that only the second looks peculiar, Enemies of the Church like to capitalize on and emphasize this.

 

Said 45 year old person is too far gone by the time he or she gets to the point of heeding anti Mormon material because by then one has stopped being rational and reasonable.

 

I'm surprised that Givens would have such difficulty understanding this.

Edited March 21, 2014 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

Sorry for being snide, but I think you set a new record for most contradictions within the fewest words.  You say (i) the church has presented a full history and, yet, it is not possible or responsible for the church to present a full history, and (ii) nothing in the church needs to be changed ... except the members who are the church.

 

Contradictions aside, I would wage that Brother Givens has a much better pulse as to the average members' mindset than does anyone on this board.  There are many, many members who feel betrayed, including especially members who hold high positions of responsibility.  Givens knows what he's talking about.

 

Full enough.  I've taught the seer stone in the hat multiple times in GD class, referring to, for example:

 

Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign (July 1993), 61

Richard Lloyd Anderson, “By the Gift and Power of God”, Ensign (Sept. 1977)

 

Senator is absolutely correct when he says "Nothing needs to change as far as the church is concerned. It's the false expectations, and lack of responsibility of its members that need correcting."

 

The critics aren't interested in Gospel teaching, they want more stumbling blocks and diversions from faith. I'd say it's more likely Givens has given in to that pressure.

Edited March 21, 2014 by BCSpace

[Senator]

 

Senator is absolutely correct when he says "Nothing needs to change as far as the church is concerned. It's the false expectations, and lack of responsibility of its members that need correcting."

 

 

Dang!

 

I'm right even when I don't want to be.

[BCSpace]

Dang!

 

I'm right even when I don't want to be.

 

 

Taking back your words?  I'll carry them forward.

[rockpond]

Said 45 year old person is too far gone by the time he or she gets to the point of heeding anti Mormon material because by then one has stopped being rational and reasonable.

 

I'm surprised that Givens would have such difficulty understanding this.

 

 

Senator is absolutely correct when he says "Nothing needs to change as far as the church is concerned. It's the false expectations, and lack of responsibility of its members that need correcting."

 

The critics aren't interested in Gospel teaching, they want more stumbling blocks and diversions from faith. I'd say it's more likely Givens has given in to that pressure.

 

You can blame the disaffected members, or you can blame the critics, or you can look at the data that shows our rate of growth as a church is decreasing... and decide that maybe something does need to change.  Your choice.

 

p.s.  Givens is not a critic nor has he given into pressure from critics... he's actively out there trying to rescue members.

[Kevin Christensen]

Whenever I run across anything I didn't expect, I give things time, keep my eyes open, and re-examine my assumptions.

As in, "Oh that is interesting. I didn't know that. I wonder where I can go to find more?" I've found that when I look, I can always for more and better information from interested and informed scholars within the church. Such sources are, to me, as much the church as a few people on limited budget, and predictable personality traits, assigned to produce manuals that get past a committee of people that I doubt have degrees in history. It is, in my view, the church, the eklesia, the assembly, the people that provides for me when I seek and knock. I've found that it helps to have realistic expectations of the kinds of things that have to pass through institutional committees, how long it takes to change anything in that environment, due largely to the kind of conservative people who aspire to work for the church. Such sources are not my only resource when I have questions, and are certainly, far from the best available.

I've even realized that Bishops don't go to The Bishop School of Sources and Secrets to Keep from the Unwashed Masses, any more than Sunday school teachers go to Graduate School of Mormon Mysteries and Oddities. I don't remember ever asking a bishop about scholarly questions. After all, the D&C directs me to "the best books." Not "approved books" or "nearest authority figure."

I've learned from recovery literature that expectations are "premeditated resentments." Novelist Tony Hillerman titled his autobiography, "Seldom Disappointed." The basis of that title was his being taught at his mother's knee that if you don't expect much, you won't be disappointed. So what naturally happens if "I expect to be treated as though I were the most important and deserving person in the entire universe, entitled to everything from anyone, and unburdened of any reciprocal obligations in return. It is all about me and what I want, nay, what I deserve, and not later, but now." Babies can get away with that for a while, but part of growing up is getting over it. It is part of what Enos calls the enlargement of his soul, a simple matter of thinking about and empathizing with other people and their differing situations.

Given a set of realistic expectations of what is likely to come from the kinds of conservative people that aspire to work for church curriculum, I'm position to not be disappointed by the manuals, and pleased when my expectations are exceeded by things like the Joseph Smith Papers Project. By far the biggest disappointment I have felt from anything institutional was the firing of Daniel Peterson from FARMS. But I notice that even that did not cut off my resources for getting questions answered.

Back in the 80s I heard Sam Taylor criticizing the institutional church for not producing better history, or addressing various criticisms. He was all about presenting the unvarnished truth, the real thing. So I thought it interesting to see that in Nightfall at Nauvoo, he presented as plain historical fact, that Joseph Smith had sent for the Nauvoo Legion from Carthage. Later, Mark Hofmann provided the note that Joseph had sent. Later it was debunked, and still later, Mike Quinn forgot, and then had to justify himself by relying on other historical documents, one a diary entry by a person who was not at the scene, but who reported an "it is said" rumor, and then a late account from a man who had been in England at the time. And still later Richard L. Anderson wrote a lovely and eye-opening essay on what happens to all of this "honest facing difficult issues" when you rely more on first hand, eye-witness accounts, and then read them in historical context.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1127&index=17

There was some unattributed gossip in Nauvoo and rumors in Carthage, but the contemporary first-hand eye-witness accounts (John Taylor) observe that Joseph refused to send for the legion. And Anderson also examines the way that Dunham was treated by the church leadership in ways that demonstrate that he obviously had not received and then refused a request for aid, and then carelessly dropped a note to be found in the streets and gossiped about until forged by Mark Hofmann. I've learned that sometimes, even the people who make it a point of pride and honor to give me the unvarnished truth (Taylor and Quinn in this case) manage to stumble quite badly on this point. In this case, I think they stumble because they think that public proclamation of unsavory tidbits becomes a badge of integrity, evidence they are are completely honest. More so than just offering apologetic, faith promoting stories would be. So at times the critics stop being critical enough because of a need to be seen as critical enough to bring the bad news. Most of the time, they are sincere, but that doesn't make them all that different in such cases, than those who produce the lesson manuals they judge so harshly. It's just people doing the best they can according to their lights and less than infinite resources.

The trend, I think, is that things are getting better as far as institutional materials. My responsibility, I think, is removing beams from my own eyes.

Jesus seemed to think that the word being sowed is not the only thing that matters. Soil, and nurture counts for a lot, and can make a hundred fold difference in the yield. "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited March 21, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[MiserereNobis]

Whenever I run across anything I didn't expect, I give things time, keep my eyes open, and re-examine my assumptions.

As in, "Oh that is interesting. I didn't know that. I wonder where I can go to find more?" I've found that when I look, I can always for more and better information from interested and informed scholars within the church. Such sources are, to me, as much the church as a few people on limited budget, and predictable personality traits, assigned to produce manuals that get past a committee of people that I doubt have degrees in history. It is, in my view, the church, the eklesia, the assembly, the people that provides for me when I seek and knock. I've found that it helps to have realistic expectations of the kinds of things that have to pass through institutional committees, how long it takes to change anything in that environment, due largely to the kind of conservative people who aspire to work for the church. Such sources are not my only resource when I have questions, and are certainly, far from the best available.

I've even realized that Bishops don't go to The Bishop School of Sources and Secrets to Keep from the Unwashed Masses, any more than Sunday school teachers go to Graduate School of Mormon Mysteries and Oddities. I don't remember ever asking a bishop about scholarly questions. After all, the D&C directs me to "the best books." Not "approved books" or "nearest authority figure."

I've learned from recovery literature that expectations are "premeditated resentments." Novelist Tony Hillerman titled his autobiography, "Seldom Disappointed." The basis of that title was his being taught at his mother's knee that if you don't expect much, you won't be disappointed. So what naturally happens if "I expect to be treated as though I were the most important and deserving person in the entire universe, entitled to everything from anyone, and unburdened of any reciprocal obligations in return. It is all about me and what I want, nay, what I deserve, and not later, but now." Babies can get away with that for a while, but part of growing up is getting over it. It is part of what Enos calls the enlargement of his soul, a simple matter of thinking about and empathizing with other people and their differing situations.

Given a set of realistic expectations of what is likely to come from the kinds of conservative people that aspire to work for church curriculum, I'm position to not be disappointed by the manuals, and pleased when my expectations are exceeded by things like the Joseph Smith Papers Project. By far the biggest disappointment I have felt from anything institutional was the firing of Daniel Peterson from FARMS. But I notice that even that did not cut off my resources for getting questions answered.

Back in the 80s I heard Sam Taylor criticizing the institutional church for not producing better history, or addressing various criticisms. He was all about presenting the unvarnished truth, the real thing. So I thought it interesting to see that in Nightfall at Nauvoo, he presented as plain historical fact, that Joseph Smith had sent for the Nauvoo Legion from Carthage. Later, Mark Hofmann provided the note that Joseph had sent. Later it was debunked, and still later, Mike Quinn forgot, and then had to justify himself by relying on other historical documents, one a diary entry by a person who was not at the scene, but who reported an "it is said" rumor, and then a late account from a man who had been in England at the time. And still later Richard L. Anderson wrote a lovely and eye-opening essay on what happens to all of this "honest facing difficult issues" when you rely more on first hand, eye-witness accounts, and then read them in historical context.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1127&index=17

There was some unattributed gossip in Nauvoo and rumors in Carthage, but the contemporary first-hand eye-witness accounts (John Taylor) observe that Joseph refused to send for the legion. And Anderson also examines the way that Dunham was treated by the church leadership in ways that demonstrate that he obviously had not received and then refused a request for aid, and then carelessly dropped a note to be found in the streets and gossiped about until forged by Mark Hofmann. I've learned that sometimes, even the people who make it a point of pride and honor to give me the unvarnished truth (Taylor and Quinn in this case) manage to stumble quite badly on this point. In this case, I think they stumble because they think that public proclamation of unsavory tidbits becomes a badge of integrity, evidence they are are completely honest. More so than just offering apologetic, faith promoting stories would be. So at times the critics stop being critical enough because of a need to be seen as critical enough to bring the bad news. Most of the time, they are sincere, but that doesn't make them all that different in such cases, that those who produce the lesson manuals they judge so harshly. It's just people doing the best they can according to their lights and less than infinite resources.

The trend, I think, is that things are getting better as far as institutional materials. My responsibility, I think, is removing beams from my own eyes.

Jesus seemed to think that the word being sowed is not the only thing that matters. Soil, and nurture counts for a lot, and can make a hundred fold difference in the yield. "Know ye not this parable? How then shall ye know all parables?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

There is some good stuff in this post that applies well beyond the topic of LDS church history.  Thanks.

[mtomm]

I don't understand why some of these issues and this knowledge isn't taught in Seminary.  That's where I learned the Gospel,  it's the perfect time to teach about sticky gospel subjects. 

[CV75]

Terryl Givens seems to think there could be more openness.

In context of what was quoted in the footnote, don't think Givens used the word "forthcoming" in the sense of being honest or open, but rather in the sense of having readily available answers about its history. So I don't think anyone can rightly hold him to be saying that the Church isn't being completely honest.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't understand why some of these issues and this knowledge isn't taught in Seminary.  That's where I learned the Gospel,  it's the perfect time to teach about sticky gospel subjects. 

I learned about all sorts of twinkie doctrines in seminary. So not sure if that is the best place. The funny thing about it is that when I found out those twinkie doctrines were not real I didn't storm off and say "I was lied to, they didn't tell me the truth." I think the best place to learn these difficult topics is at home.

[rockpond]

So let's attempt a little exercise here...

 

Suppose that I want to prepare a family home evening lesson to teach my kids about the early practice of polyandry within the church. Or perhaps I want to educate the youth of my ward regarding polyandry during a 5th Sunday lesson so that they are aware before they get hit with it on their mission or find it online.

 

Which readily available church source(s) do I use to teach such a lesson?

[california boy]

I am with those who argue that the church should present it's true history, warts and all, and let the chips fall where they may. Starting in Primary, teach the peepstone method of translation alongside the U&M version (is one really more preposterous/outlandish than the other?), teach of Joseph's participation in plural marriage just as the plural marriages of Brigham Young are discussed, teach of the differing, sometimes conflicting versions of the First Vision, etc.

 

IMO, to do otherwise is to practice deceipt by ommision.

 

The real problem with teaching the peep stone translation method is how do you answer the question of why the golden plates were even necessary?  Smelting gold, painstakingly editing the record, engraving, binding burying them in a hill to be preserved and then it sits in a closet while Joseph Smith peers into a hat and looks at a rock?  Someone better figure out the answer to that question before the start teaching about the translation method.  And they also should be prepared to explain why the U&T method was rarely used.

[Kevin Christensen]

The real problem with teaching the peep stone translation method is how do you answer the question of why the golden plates were even necessary?  Smelting gold, painstakingly editing the record, engraving, binding burying them in a hill to be preserved and then it sits in a closet while Joseph Smith peers into a hat and looks at a rock?  Someone better figure out the answer to that question before the start teaching about the translation method.  And they also should be prepared to explain why the U&T method was rarely used.

Like this:

http://gregkofford.com/collections/scripture/products/the-gift-and-power

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[Kevin Christensen]

So let's attempt a little exercise here...

 

Suppose that I want to prepare a family home evening lesson to teach my kids about the early practice of polyandry within the church. Or perhaps I want to educate the youth of my ward regarding polyandry during a 5th Sunday lesson so that they are aware before they get hit with it on their mission or find it online.

 

Which readily available church source(s) do I use to teach such a lesson?

This is readily available:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Walden]

I don't understand why some of these issues and this knowledge isn't taught in Seminary.  That's where I learned the Gospel,  it's the perfect time to teach about sticky gospel subjects. 

 

Agreed....I'm not sure if they still have the same structure in seminary as they did when I was in seminary from 89-92, but back then, one year was dedicated to the Old Testament, one year was dedicated to the New testament, one year was dedicated to the Book of Mormon, and one year was dedicated to the D&C/church history. I think that they could reasonably find a way to work some of this material into the year spent studying the D&C/church history.

[Buzzard]

So let's attempt a little exercise here...

 

Suppose that I want to prepare a family home evening lesson to teach my kids about the early practice of polyandry within the church. Or perhaps I want to educate the youth of my ward regarding polyandry during a 5th Sunday lesson so that they are aware before they get hit with it on their mission or find it online.

 

Which readily available church source(s) do I use to teach such a lesson?

One thought. How old are your kids? Unless they are at least 14, "Polyandry" is the name of a cheesy old Disney movie. Time and a place for everything. 

[Walden]

It should also be noted that Givens made his comment in the summer of 2011, before the publication of No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, before the new Gospel Topics essays, before the new seminary D&C and Church History curriculum. I don't think Givens would make the same criticisms today. The Church is proceeding cautiously, as it should, but there is no question that momentum is shifting towards greater openness and transparency.

 

When it comes to truth and honesty, why does gods one and only true church on earth need to "proceed cautiously?" If truth and honesty come from god, and deception or deceit from satan, then I would think that truth and honesty should be shouted from the rooftops, not rolled out some tightly controlled, PR-savvy manner.

[CV75]

It should also be noted that Givens made his comment in the summer of 2011, before the publication of No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues, before the new Gospel Topics essays, before the new seminary D&C and Church History curriculum. I don't think Givens would make the same criticisms today. The Church is proceeding cautiously, as it should, but there is no question that momentum is shifting towards greater openness and transparency.

Yes, and I would say this momentum is not a funciton of honesty but is facilitated by having "readily available answers" by pulling together the proper resources and expertise to do so (hence the "caution")--this is also consistent with his explanation as quoted in the OP.

[rockpond]

One thought. How old are your kids? Unless they are at least 14, "Polyandry" is the name of a cheesy old Disney movie. Time and a place for everything. 

 

First, I don't think there are many kids of any age who are aware of Pollyanna.

 

Second, my kids are not old enough yet (it was a theoretical question) but the youth in my ward (who I do teach in a combined group on 5th Sundays) are old enough.

[williamsmith]

The Church IS being honest.....

 

The Translation didn't occur with a hat, and didn't occur with a peepstone.  Those were simply "some" of the ways the translation occured, not "how" it occured, which includes him having nothing at all with him.

The Church generally presenting one of the ways the translation occured, the most simple to understand, with Joseph at a table and the plates in front of him is not being dishonest, it's presenting the most clear way in picture form to tell the story of "translating" the plates.  How are you going to show Joseph Translating with "nothing" with him?  So why should the head in the hat be the way we tell the story?

 

Period.

Edited March 21, 2014 by williamsmith