Is The Only Way To Win Not To Play?

[canard78]

From President Uchtdorf in Jan 2014:

An old proverb says, “The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second-best time is now.”

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/01/the-best-time-to-plant-a-tree?lang=eng

Ideally the church would have been open from the start about these issues.

I think the Givenses made a really good point on their recent podcast with Bill Reel when they discussed the influence of having Joseph Fielding Smith as church historian for so much of the 20thC.

They suggest that given he would have known people (including his own father) who saw the bodies of his grandfather Hyrum and great Uncle Joseph brought home after Carthage and lived through all the subsequent slander and turbulence that there would have been an emotional investment in defending the history of the church and his own family.

The whitewashed version of history can't remain as the only version from the church. I'm glad they've planted the tree today, even if it could have been done 20+ years ago.

[Duncan]

From President Uchtdorf in Jan 2014:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2014/01/the-best-time-to-plant-a-tree?lang=eng

Ideally the church would have been open from the start about these issues.

I think the Givenses made a really good point on their recent podcast with Bill Reel when they discussed the influence of having Joseph Fielding Smith as church historian for so much of the 20thC.

They suggest that given he would have known people (including his own father) who saw the bodies of his grandfather Hyrum and great Uncle Joseph brought home after Carthage and lived through all the subsequent slander and turbulence that there would have been an emotional investment in defending the history of the church and his own family.

The whitewashed version of history can't remain as the only version from the church. I'm glad they've planted the tree today, even if it could have been done 20+ years ago.

 

 

well, everybody on the planet knows about Mormons and the polygamist past, so that's no secret. "Whitewashed" history should also be known as General history-this is what Generally happened but not in every single situation what happened. Take WW1 for example. There is no book ever or will ever be written that describes in detail what all happened with every thing connected to WW1, there are just too many documents out there for any historian to go through, let alone what wasn't written or was and hasn't survived. So, historians who study it have to read as much as they can and write about what generally happened. Take the esteemed Prof. Desmond Morton's book "When Your Number's Up: The Canadian Soldier in the First World War"   It's only 400 pages. Do you think that book describes every single Canadian and their personal experience in WW1? Of course not. It's a book about what generally happened. Does anyone think Prof. Morton is lying? no, of course not! hahahha! So, these Gospel topics and general histories don't explain in detail everything that happened but what generally happened, the contours of the experience

Edited October 25, 2014 by Duncan

[Kevin Christensen]

The harvest is not completely dependent on the word, but also upon the nature of the soil where the seed falls, the patience and nurture provided, including protection from predation and response to competing growth, and the priorties and values of those involved.

One interpretation upon discovering new information is "I've been betrayed and lied to. My personal sense of entitlement to free omniscience to be provided by certifiably omniscient tutors and teachers has been betrayed. I am now and for always a victim and will never let anyone forget it."

Another interpretation is, "Oh.. that is interesting. I did not know that. I guess either my teachers didn't know, or I wasn't paying attention, or perhaps, I could have made more of an effort to find out things on my own. I have, after all, been charged to 'seek out of the best books, words of wisdom' and if I am honest with myself, I don't see a lot of self-directed seeking. I don't see why I should feel entitled to have everything provided to me, without any effort on my part. I have been given much, but that just increases my personal obligations. 'Where much is given, much is expected.' I wonder where I can go to find out more? It seems like FAIRMormon and the Maxwell Institute and now Mormon Interpreter have published a lot by some very well informed faithful Mormon scholars who seem to know about all of these things, and they seem to have strong testimonies. The most obvious thing that proves is that a sense of betrayal is not the only logical response to finding the information that I have just encountered. Nor should I think it an inevitable, inescapable response. Rather, it is an individual choice. So, not to worry. I have survived many things, and hope to be able to survive all things." Alma 32 tells me that my nurturing of the seed should lead to an expansion of my mind as the seed swells, sprouts grows, and bears fruit. So, let me see what happens if I make a personal effort to nurture the seed, rather than expect my gardners to do it all for me. Time will tell me things this moment does not, and cannot, given my current understanding.

In my essay on Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets I have this:

In practice the rejection arguments all boil down to people rejecting a prophet's claims on the basis of either fear or desire. That is, the prophets did not fit their preconceptions of what a prophet should be (that is, what they think or “fear” is so), or, the prophets say things that they did not want to hear (that is, contrary to their desire). There is a direct relationship between the failures to use appropriate tests, and the failure to inquire in the ways that lead to truth. Each failure leads to corresponding arguments against true prophets. Taken together, all of the arguments given against prophets show that rather than looking at what a prophet is, people judge them against false standards or false information. That is, those failing to recognize a prophet either apply inappropriate tests, or they misapply appropriate tests. What a person thinks or fears inevitably becomes barrier to discovering the real. Hence, the call for a sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit, a willingness to at least offer what a person wants and thinks as a necessary prerequisite to discover what is real.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited October 25, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Storm Rider]

Hello Newby, it becomes six of one and 1/2 dozen for the other. I have never felt as if we should fear history. Most people read the OT and just completely ignore all of the details that would make most people scream for blood if the same situation happened today.  

 

I realize that those who are critical of the church find something to complain about regardless of what the Church does or does not do; their actions and disagreements are independent of the Church and have more to do with their own way of being.  

 

It is interesting to see how things evolve, but I don't sense like it has a lot to do with me.  It is like watching CNN; I watch for a while and then I change the channel without another thought.  This type of stuff just does hold my attention.  More than anything it is a dead horse. 

[Nevo]

As some here may be aware, the Church commissioned Elder John A. Widtsoe to write a book-length response to Fawn Brodie's bombshell, No Man Knows My History, back in the late 1940s. Widtsoe's Joseph Smith: Seeker After Truth, Prophet of God  (1951) was the predecessor of today's Gospel Topics essays. It's interesting to see what has changed and what hasn't.

 

Widtsoe's treatment of controversial aspects of Joseph Smith's history would strike a lot of people today as a whitewash. But it should be remembered that he didn't have access to the past 50+ years of historical scholarship. His chapter on Joseph Smith's polygamy is preceded by a chapter called "The Clean Family Unit," which begins:

 

"It is nothing short of miraculous that the enemies of the Joseph Smith, who have resorted to almost every untruth about him, have seldom charged him with sex immorality. Forty-seven times he was obliged to defend himself in courts of law against trivial charges which were not sustained by evidence. In not one of these was he accused of unseemly relations with women. No woman's name was ever linked, sinfully, to his. He was so clean morally that even those who hated him and his doctrine most did not venture to accuse him of moral wrong."

 

This paragraph would not be written today. Joseph was, in fact, indicted for "adultery and fornication" with Maria Lawrence and others, on 23 May 1844. He just didn't live long enough to answer the charge in court. And Joseph was certainly accused of "moral wrong" in his lifetime (and not only by enemies).

 

But Widtsoe doesn't completely avoid facts. He notes, for example, that "it seems that Fanny Alger was one of Joseph's first plural wives. She lived many years after the Prophet's death and never denied her relationship to him. There were other noble, pure women who gave like testimonies. . . . Many of the women who were . . . sealed to Joseph Smith lived long after his death. They declared that they lived with the Prophet as his wives. These women were of unblemished character, gentle and lovely in their lives, who understood this to be a righteous principle as revealed to their Prophet-husband." Widtsoe even mentions the polyandrous unions: "Another kind of celestial marriage seems to have been practiced in the early days of plural marriage. . . . Zealous women, some of them married as well as unmarried, loving the cause of the restored gospel, considered their condition in the hereafter and asked that they might be sealed to the Prophet for eternity. They were not to be his wives on earth, in mortality, but only after death, in the eternities." That isn't really an accurate summary of what went on but I'm surprised that he mentioned it at all.

[CV75]

Of course, I've been wrong before.  What do you think?

Some people are/were/will be just more like you are/were/will be than you are/were/will be, and vice-versa.

[pogi]

Hi newb,

 

One thing I am looking forward to is the day when this information is common knowledge among the members.  We will no longer have to cringe at the ignorantly false teachings at church, where we want to voice a correction but fear lest others view us as dreaded anti-mormon literature readers, spreading unfounded dirty rumors to cause harm and doubt.  No longer will members vehemently deny these accounts, only to find out with embarrassment that non-members know our history better than we do. 

 

It may cause a ripple, but it will be a cleansing one. 

Edited October 26, 2014 by pogi

[WysteriaBlue]

I think you are right Pogi....the truth really will set you free and lying/obfuscation/white-washing/omitting the full truth just sets everyone up for doubt and hurt n the end. 

In a way it is not just lying but a form of pride and conceit that is an easy trap to fall in to.    I hope it will be a reminder to me and all to be more careful to use honesty as our "default setting"....even the little lies are words that can hurt.

I hope the church can get past this quickly, ease the pain of the hurts caused, and move on to fulfill its missions and relationships and responsibilities.

 

wb

[thesometimesaint]

People in grass houses shouldn't stow thorns.

[KevinG]

Before we hope to have every member of the church well versed in our history, perhaps we should make an effort to simply get them to read their scriptures?

[pogi]

Before we hope to have every member of the church well versed in our history, perhaps we should make an effort to simply get them to read their scriptures?

 

Good point!  I am still grateful for the essay for the reasons I mentioned.  I no longer will be in the dilemma at church of either keeping the peace by remaining silent, thereby letting a false and potentially damaging history propagate, or speaking the truth in fear of the judgement mentioned above.  It doesn't happen often but I have been in that position, asking myself what is the right thing to do.  Up to now, I have kept silent, but now I can gently reference this essay.

You are right though, there are bigger and better things to hope for and works towards as a church. This just takes a little burden off me though, and I am grateful for that. 

Edited October 26, 2014 by pogi

[KevinG]

I remember the first time I read about Lots daughters trying to breed with him. It was never discussed in Sunday School, or dealt with extensively in institute manuals. It was completely left out of the children's Bible Stories, but they still told about Lots wife being turned into a pillar of salt. The Church whitewashed the whole thing and hid it from the members. Lots wife was ridiculed in a mysogynistoc way, while he was made into a hero. I'm leaving Christianity because I was lied to, and the Chirch isn't what I thought it was.

(Your illuminating sarcasm for the day)

Edited October 26, 2014 by KevinG

[Blah]

I devoted some time in my Sacrament talk last week to this general issue. A brief excerpt: "The early brethren were not perfect. If your testimony is based on the belief that Joseph or Brigham never said or did anything that 21st century Mormons would find shocking, then I have some terrible news for you. ... With one notable Exception, no perfect man or woman has ever walked this earth. We should not be surprised to find support for this in the lives of even the most inspired men and women."

(For the record, I am not suggesting polygamy was a mistake.)

[KevinG]

I devoted some time in my Sacrament talk last week to this general issue. A brief excerpt: "The early brethren were not perfect. If your testimony is based on the belief that Joseph or Brigham never said or did anything that 21st century Mormons would find shocking, then I have some terrible news for you. ... With one notable Exception, no perfect man or woman has ever walked this earth. We should not be surprised to find support for this in the lives of even the most inspired men and women."

(For the record, I am not suggesting polygamy was a mistake.)

Imagine that! When is your apostasy hearing scheduled?

[JLHPROF]

If your testimony is based on the belief that Joseph or Brigham never said or did anything that 21st century Mormons would find shocking,

 

They never did or taught anything this 21st century Mormon finds shocking.  Maybe my mother was right.  Maybe I was born about 100-150 years late.

[KevinG]

They never did or taught anything this 21st century Mormon finds shocking.  Maybe my mother was right.  Maybe I was born about 100-150 years late.

 

I'm there with you brother,  Although I also have the ability to see people in the context of their own times.  

[ERayR]

I'm there with you brother,  Although I also have the ability to see people in the context of their own times.  

 

So many who now live sit in their comfort and ease and judge those who sacrificed to bring it to them.

[KevinG]

So many who now live sit in their comfort and ease and judge those who sacrificed to bring it to them.

 

Which reminds me.  I need to call my mother.

[stemelbow]

I'm going to make discussion board history by stating the following: I may have been wrong.

 

In the past, I have argued vehemently (and often, crassly) that the Church MUST "come clean" about some of the more controversial parts of its history, such as polygamy.  And apparently, the Brethren must very often consult this board for ideas on how to more effectively run the Church because they just released three essays that were more "revelatory" than I ever thought possible.  However, as I read scattered reports on the Bloggernacle about the devastation these essays are causing in the testimonies of a (very) few saints, I'm starting to think that, just like my wife and children, the Church would have been wise to ignore my advice.

 

I've often argued that the feeling of being "lied to" causes the greatest damage to testimonies, but these essays don't necessarily prevent that feeling of being deceived, especially not for saints who've been in the Church for their whole lives.  If someone has attended thousands of hours of Church instruction (e.g., primary, seminary, Sunday School, etc.) and learns for the first time about, say, Fanny Alger or polyandry, for the first time in this essay, they are likely to feel just as deceived.  It would be like confessing to my wife in 2014 about an affair that happened in 1994, and saying, "Don't you feel better about hearing it from me?"  To which she would likely reply (through her attorney), "I would have felt better hearing it from you in 1994.  20 years later, not so much!"

 

In the past, I've also argued that the Church should "get ahead" of the Internet rumors by publishing its own (and more faith-promoting) version of the events.  I did not take into account that the Internet would strike back; and with a vengeance.  And while someone is always criticizing the Church for something (we take shifts), the critics are often fighting shadows in the form of rumors and innuendo (e.g., "Apostle So-and-So has dementia," "Brigham Young contracted cooties in Nauvoo", etc.).  However, in this case, the critics have been able to latch unto the Church's own words.  And even when the Church has attempted to frame the message in a light most positive to JS, the Internet has been quick to pounce; in some cases, pretty much creating memes out of the Church's language.

 

For example, you can probably imagine what the Internet did to the statement that JS was sealed to Helen Mar Kimball "several months before her 15th birthday."  It was just hours before people were counting everything in terms of months before one's birthday.  "I let my son drive the car home last night.  After all, he is just 98 months shy of his 16th birthday."  "My grandmother died last night, but don't feel bad, she lived 789 months past her 15th birthday."  And you don't even want to know what people are saying about the angel with the flaming sword account.

 

Even worse, I'm starting to see some rather thorough "take-downs" of the essay in which people are using the Church's admissions of certain facts (e.g., public denials of the practice) to come to far less faith-promoting explanations for JS' actions.  This is different than just last week because, back in the good old days, a saint could always comfort themselves with the idea that it probably wasn't true and even if it was true, it wasn't important enough for the Church to mention it before so why worry about it?  By publishing these essays, the Church has taken both of those arguments off the table.

 

Also, by publishing these essays, the Church seems to be "back-pedaling."  It's like the politician who refuses to answer the question of whether he smoked pot in the 1960s finally succumbing to the pressure and holding a press conference to say, "Okay, I did try pot once at Woodstock, but I didn't inhale."  From just a PR standpoint, it would have been better to either remain silent or to deny usage outright.  Heck, it might even be better to make a full-throated confession (complete with dutiful wife standing by pitifully).  However, to say, "Yes, after all this time I'm going to tell you about JS' polygamy, but you should know that he didn't always 'marry for time'" is the kind of statement that the Bloggernacle lives for.

 

I'm starting to think that once a saint starts down this rabbit hole, they are much more likely to end up with one of their feet on a keychain than in the Celestial Kingdom.  As we all learned from the 80s classic movie, War Games, Ally Sheedy was kinda cute in the right lighting.  We also learned that "the only winning move is not to play."  I think this latter(-day) advice might not just apply to nuclear war, but also, the Church playing the apologetics game.

 

Of course, I've been wrong before.  What do you think?

Sure..people are leaving when they find stuff out. it happened before the essays and now it's happening after. That they read the essays now doesn't mean they wouldn't have left when they found the info otherwise, no?

Let the chips fall where they may. There will always be people headed for the exits. That won't be stopped. We just got to make sure their exit only elicits an invitation to come back, even if they get angry and call their mommies names on the internet.

[stemelbow]

So many who now live sit in their comfort and ease and judge those who sacrificed to bring it to them.

in all honesty the judgment is coming from a place of discomfort and unease, it seems to me. But because we think something done by someone of the past was wrong, does not mean we think he who did wrong is not to be commended for his sacrifice and the good he contributed.

[ERayR]

Which reminds me.  I need to call my mother.

 

Call her often and go see her.

[ERayR]

in all honesty the judgment is coming from a place of discomfort and unease, it seems to me. But because we think something done by someone of the past was wrong, does not mean we think he who did wrong is not to be commended for his sacrifice and the good he contributed.

 

Judgements are made from a 21st century paradigm without any knowledge of 18th century norms.

[Guest]

Is this sarcasm or delusions of grandeur about this board?

Wait, are you saying the Church does not get their ideas from this website? All this time I just thought they were just ignoring us, while benefiting from our brilliance. I am shocked to learn that we not the Internet are not the power behind the throne. Which site do they listen too, so I can go there and be ignored.

[Yirgacheffe]

Judgements are made from a 21st century paradigm without any knowledge of 18th century norms.

Isn't it supposed to be 19th century norms?

[The Nehor]

Huh, well found out yesterday my dad knew nothing about Helen Mar Kimball (though he did know Joseph was a polygamist). Time to loan him my copy of "Rough Stone Rolling".