Being And Becoming A "well Read Member

[Calm]

"This is a common occurance and it may be uncharitable to blame the individual who trusted the church's previous teaching."

There is a certain arrogance or laziness imo in assuming there is nothing left to learn even from sources one has studied before. I do not blame him for being surprised, I just think it is an unrealistic and unhealthy attitude to think there is nothing left to learn.

[stemelbow]

This attitude abounds in the church...and irritates.

 

I was aware that JS probably had a couple of plural wives, quite possibly because he needed to support starving widows, but I had no details about the practice. The details are shocking. I think the OP asked a good question because the church has strongly implied, as recently as last conference, that you cannot trust what you read on the internet or books because they have no truth filter which puts the member at risk of falling prey to anti-mormon information. Good, faithful members tried to be obedient. They didn't want to read unauthorized materials so that left them to read the seminary/institute manuals, maybe some BH Roberts and then Bushman when it came out.

 

The church did not produce the information itself and cast a wide shadow of doubt on anything a member might read, so its not unreasonable for people to not know. It is also true that when a person thinks they know something, they stop searching. So it is also reasonable that a member who thought they knew all about Joseph's polygamy (based on seminary/institute/sunday school etc) would see no reason to dig deeper because they believed the church version. Besides, they didn't want to risk exposure to antimormon material.

 

Last week I asked an intelligent, lifelong member if he had read the polygamy essay. He said "No. I already know all of that stuff." So I asked, "When did you learn about Joseph having 30-40 wives, some of which were married to other men and some as young as 14 years old. His face went white and he sputtered for an answer. Clearly he didn't know everything, but he saw no reason to read the essay because he thought he did. He trusted the knowledge he had received previously from the church only to find out there was more to the story. This is a common occurance and it may be uncharitable to blame the individual who trusted the church's previous teaching.

I think in this day and age it’s become apparent that we really do need to provide a series of answers that will help our members better understand these chapters of our history.

--Elder Steven E. Snow https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-posts-two-academic-essays-on-history-of-plural-marriage?lang=eng&query=the+new+essays

Sure in this day and age something has given the apparent message that this information needed to be given by the Church. Sadly in many people's cases this apparent message came way too late.

[stemelbow]

"This is a common occurance and it may be uncharitable to blame the individual who trusted the church's previous teaching."

There is a certain arrogance or laziness imo in assuming there is nothing left to learn even from sources one has studied before. I do not blame him for being surprised, I just think it is an unrealistic and unhealthy attitude to think there is nothing left to learn.

Members exhaust the materials that are given for study and teaching. I have found many who do, think they already know the answers. They have mastered, after all, all the materials the Church has provided them.

I agree with you. I don't like the attitude, but it's pretty common among Church members. Nearly each time I ask, what I consider challenging questions, perhaps as they are prefaced with unknown information, I get people telling me they know stuff they have no knowledge of. I'm sure it's not just a Church members problem, though. I've seen it in nearly everything.

[ERayR]

Members exhaust the materials that are given for study and teaching. I have found many who do, think they already know the answers. They have mastered, after all, all the materials the Church has provided them.

I agree with you. I don't like the attitude, but it's pretty common among Church members. Nearly each time I ask, what I consider challenging questions, perhaps as they are prefaced with unknown information, I get people telling me they know stuff they have no knowledge of. I'm sure it's not just a Church members problem, though. I've seen it in nearly everything.

 

There is nothing more irritating than someone who thinks they know everything to those of us who really do.

[stemelbow]

There is nothing more irritating than someone who thinks they know everything to those of us who really do.

There are millions of things more irritating than folks who say they know things they simply don't know.

[Calm]

Members exhaust the materials that are given for study and teaching. I have found many who do, think they already know the answers. They have mastered, after all, all the materials the Church has provided them.I agree with you. I don't like the attitude, but it's pretty common among Church members. Nearly each time I ask, what I consider challenging questions, perhaps as they are prefaced with unknown information, I get people telling me they know stuff they have no knowledge of. I'm sure it's not just a Church members problem, though. I've seen it in nearly everything.

It is definitely not a Church member problem, it is human nature.

[The Nehor]

It is pretty much textbook Dunning-Kruger effect.

[HappyJackWagon]

It is definitely not a Church member problem, it is human nature.

One does not know what one does not know. I agree. It's human nature. I don't think it's helpful to blame people for not knowing what they did not know. And then blaming them for not studying what they think they know, as taught by the church, is classic victim blaming.

[Scott Lloyd]

One does not know what one does not know. I agree. It's human nature. I don't think it's helpful to blame people for not knowing what they did not know. And then blaming them for not studying what they think they know, as taught by the church, is classic victim blaming.

I'm never inclined to blame them unless they come forth spewing accusations against the Church or others for not telling them when the information was accessible all along.

 

A few nights ago, I had the delightful opportunity to sit next to Daniel and Deborah Peterson at the annual Junius F. Wells Award Dinner. At our table was the director of the Church History Museum. Conversation turned toward the new Church history exhibit that will open next year in the newly renovated museum. I took occasion again to express my hope that the exhibit will include the inferior pepperbox pistol that was given to Joseph Smith for defense against the mobs on the occasion when he was martyred in Carthage Jail. That is my hope, because when critics and detractors claim the Church hides or hid the fact that he had a gun at Carthage, it's nice to be able to point out that the very gun is on display at the Church's flagship museum and has been displayed there for the past quarter-century, as well as pictured in the Church Institute course text Church History in the Fulness of Times.

 

Dan commented something to the effect of "Sometimes, you get the idea nothing else will suffice short of going door-to-door and putting it in their hands."

 

Someone else put in, "And getting a signed statement."

Edited November 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm never inclined to blame them unless they come forth spewing accusations against the Church or others for not telling them when the information was accessible all along.

That's good.

 

I think people view "accessible" differently. If the details of polygamy were accessible in church materials and writings deemed appropriate by the church, ie not "anti-mormon books or websites" then you may have a point. But a member shouldn't have to be a historian to find the information from "faithful" sources.

[ERayR]

That's good.

 

I think people view "accessible" differently. If the details of polygamy were accessible in church materials and writings deemed appropriate by the church, ie not "anti-mormon books or websites" then you may have a point. But a member shouldn't have to be a historian to find the information from "faithful" sources.

 

In seventy years I have never seen a banned book list.

[HappyJackWagon]

In seventy years I have never seen a banned book list

Maybe not, but you have heard (if you are listening) numerous talks counseling members to beware of false and information on the internet and in books and implying that anything negative are lies or partial truths. We've also heard criticism of "intellectuals" and have seen church discipline of historians and academics who have published challenging information. This has a chilling effect and creates an expectation that anything NOT directly from the church is under suspicion and should be avoided. I think this is changing but to me, the culture I'm speaking of has been unmistakable. If you've experienced something different, great. But many of us have been a part of a church culture that marginalizes anything that could be construed as negative toward the church, even if true. People have been discouraged from looking so they haven't. Now the individuals and the church are dealing with it.

[ERayR]

Maybe not, but you have heard (if you are listening) numerous talks counseling members to beware of false and information on the internet and in books and implying that anything negative are lies or partial truths. We've also heard criticism of "intellectuals" and have seen church discipline of historians and academics who have published challenging information. This has a chilling effect and creates an expectation that anything NOT directly from the church is under suspicion and should be avoided. I think this is changing but to me, the culture I'm speaking of has been unmistakable. If you've experienced something different, great. But many of us have been a part of a church culture that marginalizes anything that could be construed as negative toward the church, even if true. People have been discouraged from looking so they haven't. Now the individuals and the church are dealing with it.

 

Sounds like pretty good advice.  Be careful how you let what you read affect important life decisions.  There are some who accept what they read  without any critical analysis and it has severely damaged their testimonies. 

 

IMNSHO this "chilling effect" is more imagined than real. 

Edited November 18, 2014 by ERayR

[HappyJackWagon]

Sounds like pretty good advice.  Be careful how you let what you read affect important life decisions.  There are some who accept what they read  without any critical analysis and it has severely damaged their testimonies. 

 

 

IMNSHO this "chilling effect" is more imagined than real. 

So if a fear is created to the extent that people are afraid to read and search then they will not become well-read members. It could certainly be said that the fear is justified, but still it is a culture created within the church that limits member's knowledge so blaming them for not knowing details of things found in books and websites they were warned against is disingenuous.

 

If we want members to be fearful and poorly-read, then we should own it instead of blaming them for doing what we suggest.

[ERayR]

So if a fear is created to the extent that people are afraid to read and search then they will not become well-read members. It could certainly be said that the fear is justified, but still it is a culture created within the church that limits member's knowledge so blaming them for not knowing details of things found in books and websites they were warned against is disingenuous.

 

If we want members to be fearful and poorly-read, then we should own it instead of blaming them for doing what we suggest.

 

So if you small child wants to use stove don't you think it wise to teach them of the possible dangers?

 

Hyperbole much.  Nobody said that ward members should be "poorly-read".  Instead what is taught is be careful while you are reading.  Don't let the stove burn you.   OOPS to late.

[Mars]

It's kind of a more complex animal than what I think you're boiling it down to, HappyJackWagon.  Guidance has always been given, not a list of "read this, not that" - but you know that.  As is always the case with guidance and counsel, you'll get a range of responses on the part of the hearers.  One man's response "Oh, I should be careful when I read" is another man's "I won't read anything at all that might challenge my testimony."

[HappyJackWagon]

So if you small child wants to use stove don't you think it wise to teach them of the possible dangers?

 

Hyperbole much.  Nobody said that ward members should be "poorly-read".  Instead what is taught is be careful while you are reading.  Don't let the stove burn you.   OOPS to late.

I see no hyperbole. All I'm trying to explain is that many people in the church have had a legitimate but nontrusting view of non-lds written, non-lds approved materials. So claiming that they should have known more and should have trusted materials the church implied they shouldn't is incorrectly blaming the member for the entirety of their ignorance.

 

I think the blame should be shared by the individual and the church.

[ERayR]

I see no hyperbole. All I'm trying to explain is that many people in the church have had a legitimate but nontrusting view of non-lds written, non-lds approved materials. So claiming that they should have known more and should have trusted materials the church implied they shouldn't is incorrectly blaming the member for the entirety of their ignorance.

 

I think the blame should be shared by the individual and the church.

 

D & C 109:7 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/gospel-study?lang=eng

Why should the Church be blamed?  It is clear the Church teaches study but warns of the dangers.  It is not the Churches fault that some over react.

[Mars]

I see no hyperbole. All I'm trying to explain is that many people in the church have had a legitimate but nontrusting view of non-lds written, non-lds approved materials. So claiming that they should have known more and should have trusted materials the church implied they shouldn't is incorrectly blaming the member for the entirety of their ignorance.

 

I think the blame should be shared by the individual and the church.

 

I think it's unproductive to focus on who needs the blame.  That's not to dismiss the difficulty, shock, anger, frustration, or betrayal a person may feel when learning about <hot-button topic>.

 

 

People in life are dealt crappy hands all the time.  Some are dealt amazing hands.  The ones who are successful and happy in any respect do something with their hand despite the (un)just circumstances they had at their origins.  I see the same parallel with the Gospel and sticky issues, but that's me.

[Mars]

I see no hyperbole. All I'm trying to explain is that many people in the church have had a legitimate but nontrusting view of non-lds written, non-lds approved materials. So claiming that they should have known more and should have trusted materials the church implied they shouldn't is incorrectly blaming the member for the entirety of their ignorance.

 

I think the blame should be shared by the individual and the church.

 

And fwiw, you come across to me as interpreting strictures and warnings against critical material as sowing a culture of fear.  I think that's hyperbole, but that's me.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Mars

[thesometimesaint]

Don't let what you don't know get in the way of what you do know.

[sdc999]

thesometimesaint,

problem is:  What one once 'knew' may not coincide with what one is now  learning. 

[thesometimesaint]

thesometimesaint,

problem is:  What one once 'knew' may not coincide with what one is now  learning. 

 

That is learning something new by definition.IE; I don't need to know all the intricacies of space travel to know man went to the moon.

[sdc999]

ah!  But did they really go to the moon?  Even that is questioned by some,

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Why should the Church be blamed?

Because the church has put forth considerable effort to discredit different sources and academics, like Todd Compton, only later to quote him in their essay and say "see, this information has always been out there." I can appreciate that you don't find this disengenuous but I do.

 

Example-

Church- Don't read Todd Compton. His work is anti-mormon

Member- I want to keep my testimony safe so I'll be obedient and I won't read Todd Compton

Church- New polygamy essay acknowledging polyandry and teenage wives. (cites Todd Compton)

Member- Wow. This is shocking. I never knew these kinds of details.

Church- If  you would have been a well read member and read Todd Compton, you would have known. The info has been out there.

Member- facepalm