Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Thinking]

In the recently locked Joseph Smith's Promise Made To Helen Mar Kimball thread there was some spirited discussion, and not just the typical critic vs apologist kind. It seemed that there were some (who I would classify as faithful LDS) that were uncomfortable with some of the information in the plural marriage essay.

 

I'm curious to learn the opinions about the recent essays on lds.org of those who post on this board.

 

 

[The Nehor]

I think it spells the doom of the LDS faith. DOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kenngo1969]

Yep.  The Brethren are simply a bunch of doddering old fools who don't know what they're doing.  They're asleep at the wheel! Meanwhile, a bunch of unsavvy dolts in LDS Public Affairs (after all, if anyone would employ a bunch of unsavvy dolts in that role, it would be the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) have seized that wheel, and they're about to drive the Church of Jesus Christ over the proverbial cliff.  Give it ten years, tops, and the Church of Jesus Christ as we know it today will have ceased to exist!

 

I said essentially as much here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63597-church-pr-open-letter-on-women-issues/?p=1209383948

[mikegriffith1]

In the recently locked Joseph Smith's Promise Made To Helen Mar Kimball thread there was some spirited discussion, and not just the typical critic vs apologist kind. It seemed that there were some (who I would classify as faithful LDS) that were uncomfortable with some of the information in the plural marriage essay.

 

I'm curious to learn the opinions about the recent essays on lds.org of those who post on this board.

 

The wheat is going to be sifted from the tares in a number of ways. If someone is uncomfortable with essays on lds.org, then that is signal that they may need to do some soul searching and that they need to get closer to the Lord. If someone finds the lds.org essay on plural marriage disturbing in any way, I fear they would be shaken to their core to read the early defenses of plural marriage made by Brigham Young, Parley Pratt, Orson Pratt, etc., etc. The Lord's ways are not man's way. That truth is highlighted in the difference between how the world sees plural marriage and how the Lord sees it.

 

I would recommend reading some of the defenses of plural marriage written by LDS women in the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s. I think those defenses provide a fascinating and inspiring perspective on the issue. It's been years since I read them, but I still remember how interesting and faith-promoting they were.

[Kenngo1969]

Wait ... Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage?

 

I thought that only started with Brigham Young.

 

That does it!  I'm resigning!

Edited June 14, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Teancum]

The wheat is going to be sifted from the tares in a number of ways. If someone is uncomfortable with essays on lds.org, then that is signal that they may need to do some soul searching and that they need to get closer to the Lord. If someone finds the lds.org essay on plural marriage disturbing in any way, I fear they would be shaken to their core to read the early defenses of plural marriage made by Brigham Young, Parley Pratt, Orson Pratt, etc., etc. The Lord's ways are not man's way. That truth is highlighted in the difference between how the world sees plural marriage and how the Lord sees it.

I would recommend reading some of the defenses of plural marriage written by LDS women in the 1850s, 1860s, and 1870s. I think those defenses provide a fascinating and inspiring perspective on the issue. It's been years since I read them, but I still remember how interesting and faith-promoting they were.

Oh goodness where to start. Nah. Not worth it. I will just agree that the wheat are separating from the tares. The wheat are having their eyes opened and understanding all is not well in Zion and that the LDS church is not what it claims. The tares, well it is essentially your entire post. Some wheat may stay in but if they do it is in the terms they choose. The wheat will use reason, knowleldege and evidence as well as prayers and study to make good choices for their lives rather then simply toeing the party line and putting every problematic issue into some sort of asinine test of faith.

I also recommend you read the defense of Wayne Bent's plural wives. This guy thought he was Jesus come again and of course he had the pick of the females of his flock. Their defense of him rings awfully familiar to the suggestion of reading you make above,

Edited June 14, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

The church did the essays out of pure necessity and now can to a certain extent contrite the message. I am still surprised on how few members I know are aware of them or care about them. For most it will have little difference. For some it will bolster their faith because the essays are presented in a faithful way, and it will be more so for those not inclined to drill into the issues more and just rely on the essays.

For some the essays may shake them and lead them to more study and detail and who knows where that will lead such a one.

[rockpond]

I vote "yes, they are backfiring" but that's really an oversimplified answer.  The issues need to be dealt with, so I commend the church for publishing the essays.

 

My "yes" answer is due to having come across many people who entered faith crises/challenges because of what they read in the plural marriage and/or priesthood/race essays.  IMO, the basic problem is that these essays paint of picture of prophets who have said/done things inconsistent with the restored gospel as we currently identify it.  This can create severe cognitive dissonance for someone who has always been taught and believes that the prophet will not ever lead us astray.

[Avatar4321]

Backfiring? Hardly.

Problem is people are using them as gospel truth instead of turning to the scriptures.

So teancum do you consider yourself among the wheat or the tares?

[bluebell]

I don't think they are backfiring.  

 

The issues they bring up for some are just growing pains as people learn to process the (new to them) information.  Once the inoculation period is over and the herd immunity kicks in, the essays won't be seen as any more problematic than any other historical happening that seems strange when it's new but then just becomes a normal part of the faith tradition.

 

Nothing kills intrigue and suspicion like familiarity.  

[Meadowchik]

I know of one friend who cites the essays as a major reason she left.  

 

This is a recent quote she mentioned, saying she could relate to it:

 

“Asked and answered,” the rabbi said, as if, once again, I was meddling in the affairs of greater minds than mine. “It’s a little bit . . . childish,” he added, pausing before issuing his insult, “to think that your questions are anything new.” I could see his patronizing gaze through the veil of his benign smile. “Go learn. Study. And then, if you look inside your heart, you’ll find the truth.”

But that was precisely it. my questions did not strike me as novel or profound, but basic and elementary. The evasiveness that characterized so many of the responses, from this rabbi and others, suggested that the answers were a tangled spaghetti of sophistry meant to obfuscate rather than illuminate. And always, there were instructions to look further, elsewhere. I hadn’t read the right books. I hadn’t spoken to the right people. I was asked to place my trust in authorities who had not earned such trust—who had, in fact, declared demonstrable falsehoods as truth, distorted ancient texts to mean things they clearly did not, and recast historical events and figures to align with current ideologies."

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/this_is_how_i_lost_my_faith_science_helped_yes_but_finally_i_accepted_the_holy_texts_were_written_by_man/

 

 

I don't know if she realizes it, but although she plans to replant herself somewhere else in Christianity, I don't think she realizes that similar issues can be found in all religions, not to mention science and even courts of law.  I haven't responded to her comment, though. I'm pondering about whether there's anything I can say in the right spirit.

 

To really answer the accusations, however, along with the discomfort and dissonance revealed by the Church essays, I think we as humans are caught up in some misconceptions which make it harder to deal with generational learning.  First, people have a tendency to idolize people they admire and, especially once the admired have passed away, to deify them.  This was the case with Albert Einstein: as soon as he passed, his wife and secretary cleared loads of papers out of his home, which had a sanitizing effect on his biographies.  Few people know that he required help from his first wife to get through trigonometry at university.  Yet his non-scientific statements about, God, the universe, and anything else are given the merit because of his notoriety.  Basically, people don't allow that he was a flawed person who accomplished great things.  Similarly, we do this to prophets and apostles.

 

IMO the old religions have the "advantage" of the mists of history to allow people the suspension of disbelief more readily. (On that note, earlier this year our family met a former monk in our travels in the south of France.  He told of translating documents that are only known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, before the scrolls were made available for publication.  According to him, the RCC and the EOC negotiated on how much would be translated and made available to the public and when.) Yet, the LDS Church is still in relatively early stages.  On top of that, we have an open cannon changeable by living, breathing, flawed people.  This reminds me of Christ speaking of the lack of faith of his apostles who could see him face to face.  It is hard to fathom divinity, including divine authority, when the person bearing it is wearing shoes and blowing their nose. So, secondly, there's no glossing over the fact that every human participant in the restoration sinned and was flawed and made/makes mistakes.

 

Third, when confronted with these two antagonistic tendencies, flawed beings and our desire to put them on pedestals, we and our leaders have the challenge of accepting callings when these tendencies are already in place, when the membership can have between no and extreme awareness of these tendencies, while having to address them, preach by the Spirit, and move the Church forward.

 

That's a whole lot to ask. 

 

Just expecting one person to answer to their own flaws years ago and live up to their ideals is one thing, asking a current leader to do that for themselves and scores of others from other times before them, this is nearly impossible.

 

((Edit, because I hit the wrong button before finishing!))

 

On the other hand, we as Latter-Day Saints have the opportunity to see how the grace and miracle of revelation in Church works, first-hand, with real, flesh-and-blood mortals.  I for one am cheered and awed by the prospect of being allowed to be an instrument of the Lord, as I am. For me, I see the Church and the gospel working in peoples' lives. I feel Christ because of the gospel and in Church.

 

I do think that the Church anticipated that there would be some shaking up as a result of the essays, but that any more delay would lead to worse. It is my hope that as those who are shaken continue on their faith journeys, some will endeavor again to nurture faith, albeit with a new understanding of a living, revelating Church.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Meadowchik

[CV75]

“The purpose of these essays has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.”

 

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

 

I think that purpose has been met. Accurate information from many different sources and publications can be more easily accessed and studied than ever before.

 

The Church also encourages us to use the essays as part of meeting the Lord’s injunction to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

 

Perhaps that injunction is not always met by individuals, but that is not the purpose of the essays. Stimulating people to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” is the purpose of just about everything else the Church does in the spirit of the “school of the prophets.”

[Nevo]

Backfiring or not, BYU professor J.B. Haws mentioned at the recent Mormon History Association conference that the essays will be required reading for all institute students starting this fall.

[Avatar4321]

You k ow, I find it interesting that the critics have for years claimed we are hiding the truth. We haven't been. The very existence of the essays shows we aren't going to do that and yet now it's almost a gleeful cry that the essays are backfiring. Almost excitement that the church is going to fall because of them. The church won't. But it does show the intentions of some people is less about the truth being widely known and more that the church should fall.

[Tacenda]

I went to dinner with some friends over the weekend, TBM mostly, and they are aware of the essays. The husband takes the line of thinking that every religion has a history, even the Jews, they killed Christ. The Catholics killed non believers. Mormons did too on a smaller scale with MMM. His take is what a lot of people's will be or are. And to add from my own thoughts I believe people will look at the good environment to bring up a family, and how the church encourages Christlike living, etc.

I think some of you here may be right though, in how some will get out right away. Without trying and searching. But those that like the two things I mentioned, will continue to search for reasons to stay.

[cinepro]

You k ow, I find it interesting that the critics have for years claimed we are hiding the truth. We haven't been. The very existence of the essays shows we aren't going to do that and yet now it's almost a gleeful cry that the essays are backfiring. Almost excitement that the church is going to fall because of them. The church won't. But it does show the intentions of some people is less about the truth being widely known and more that the church should fall.

 

I'm pretty sure you understand the concept of linear time.  The Church releasing the essays in 2013 doesn't prove a "critic" wrong if they said the Church was "hiding the truth" in 1994.

 

Obviously, there is a lot less reason to say this now, but your comment applied to what critics "have for years claimed."  I would even be so bold as to suggest that it was partly because of the critics that the essays were released. 

 

So you're welcome.

[cinepro]

Backfiring? Hardly.

Problem is people are using them as gospel truth instead of turning to the scriptures.

So teancum do you consider yourself among the wheat or the tares?

 

Yes, if only people would read D&C 132 instead of the polygamy essay, all their concerns would be resolved

Edited June 14, 2015 by cinepro

[CV75]

I vote "yes, they are backfiring" but that's really an oversimplified answer.  The issues need to be dealt with, so I commend the church for publishing the essays.

 

My "yes" answer is due to having come across many people who entered faith crises/challenges because of what they read in the plural marriage and/or priesthood/race essays.  IMO, the basic problem is that these essays paint of picture of prophets who have said/done things inconsistent with the restored gospel as we currently identify it.  This can create severe cognitive dissonance for someone who has always been taught and believes that the prophet will not ever lead us astray.

This kind of cognitive dissonance appears to be enabled by the theory or belief that prophetic changes in teachings and practices mean something was amiss—either before or after the changes—as opposed to the belief that prophetic changes reflect God’s will as world circumstances change. The objective nature of the essays does not interfere with anyone's reading of them with either of these preconceptions.

[why me]

Of course some people will leave because of the essays. But most of the damage began with the beginning of the internet war when the critics were making claims about church history and how the church is hiding its history. Many left during those years. The church was late to the battle and the members were sort of bombarded by critic interpretations of the past.

 

However, the old timers knew much about church history. For example, we read Leonard Arrington's The History of the Latter Day Saints which was published in the late 70s. Or we read his biography of Brigham Young. Both books had many details which the critics claimed that the church was hiding. But at that time people were reading books and the ensign had much information in it. But even in 2003, O' Driscoll published a biography of Hyrum and it contained much information about the polygamy of JS. But who read it? So, the old timers who remembered what was discussed in the past were not that shocked. However, the church dropped the ball at sometime in the nineties when the controversies were beginning to be overlooked. It was then that they dropped the ball. And now they are picking the ball back up and attempting to take the 'game' to the critics. But the critics will claim victory in this game anyway by claiming that the essays and the more information coming forth is because of them.

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mormon-Experience-HISTORY-LATTER-DAY/dp/0252062361

 

http://www.amazon.com/Brigham-Young-American-Leonard-Arrington/dp/0252012968/ref=pd_sim_14_1/175-2533793-0767122?ie=UTF8&refRID=14M9ZZKN5B0X6QBG5AZB

 

http://www.amazon.com/Hyrum-Smith-A-Life-Integrity/dp/1570088578

 

'

Edited June 14, 2015 by why me

[Russell C McGregor]

Oh goodness where to start. Nah. Not worth it. I will just agree that the wheat are separating from the tares. The wheat are having their eyes opened and understanding all is not well in Zion and that the LDS church is not what it claims. The tares, well it is essentially your entire post. Some wheat may stay in but if they do it is in the terms they choose. The wheat will use reason, knowleldege and evidence as well as prayers and study to make good choices for their lives rather then simply toeing the party line and putting every problematic issue into some sort of asinine test of faith.

I also recommend you read the defense of Wayne Bent's plural wives. This guy thought he was Jesus come again and of course he had the pick of the females of his flock. Their defense of him rings awfully familiar to the suggestion of reading you make above,

Thank you for so faithfully toeing the apostate party line.

You are, of course, wrong. The faithful don't stay "in the terms they choose." They keep their covenants, which are the Lord's terms.

Just so you know.

[The Nehor]

Yes, if only people would read D&C 132 instead of the polygamy essay, all their concerns would be resolved

 

Unless it promises me several dozen virgins in the afterlife I still have concerns.

[rockpond]

This kind of cognitive dissonance appears to be enabled by the theory or belief that prophetic changes in teachings and practices mean something was amiss—either before or after the changes—as opposed to the belief that prophetic changes reflect God’s will as world circumstances change. The objective nature of the essays does not interfere with anyone's reading of them with either of these preconceptions.

 

The essays do reflect that "something was amiss".  That's the problem.

[Calm]

I know of one friend who cites the essays as a major reason she left.  

 

This is a recent quote she mentioned, saying she could relate to it:

 

“Asked and answered,” the rabbi said, as if, once again, I was meddling in the affairs of greater minds than mine. “It’s a little bit . . . childish,” he added, pausing before issuing his insult, “to think that your questions are anything new.” I could see his patronizing gaze through the veil of his benign smile. “Go learn. Study. And then, if you look inside your heart, you’ll find the truth.”

But that was precisely it. my questions did not strike me as novel or profound, but basic and elementary. The evasiveness that characterized so many of the responses, from this rabbi and others, suggested that the answers were a tangled spaghetti of sophistry meant to obfuscate rather than illuminate. And always, there were instructions to look further, elsewhere. I hadn’t read the right books. I hadn’t spoken to the right people. I was asked to place my trust in authorities who had not earned such trust—who had, in fact, declared demonstrable falsehoods as truth, distorted ancient texts to mean things they clearly did not, and recast historical events and figures to align with current ideologies."

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/this_is_how_i_lost_my_faith_science_helped_yes_but_finally_i_accepted_the_holy_texts_were_written_by_man/

 

 

I don't know if she realizes it, but although she plans to replant herself somewhere else in Christianity, I don't think she realizes that similar issues can be found in all religions, not to mention science and even courts of law.  I haven't responded to her comment, though. I'm pondering about whether there's anything I can say in the right spirit.

 

To really answer the accusations, however, along with the discomfort and dissonance revealed by the Church essays, I think we as humans are caught up in some misconceptions which make it harder to deal with generational learning.  First, people have a tendency to idolize people they admire and, especially once the admired have passed away, to deify them.  This was the case with Albert Einstein: as soon as he passed, his wife and secretary cleared loads of papers out of his home, which had a sanitizing effect on his biographies.  Few people know that he required help from his first wife to get through trigonometry at university.  Yet his non-scientific statements about, God, the universe, and anything else are given the merit because of his notoriety.  Basically, people don't allow that he was a flawed person who accomplished great things.  Similarly, we do this to prophets and apostles.

 

IMO the old religions have the "advantage" of the mists of history to allow people the suspension of disbelief more readily. (On that note, earlier this year our family met a former monk in our travels in the south of France.  He told of translating documents that are only known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, before the scrolls were made available for publication.  According to him, the RCC and the EOC negotiated on how much would be translated and made available to the public and when.) Yet, the LDS Church is still in relatively early stages.  On top of that, we have an open cannon changeable by living, breathing, flawed people.  This reminds me of Christ speaking of the lack of faith of his apostles who could see him face to face.  It is hard to fathom divinity, including divine authority, when the person bearing it is wearing shoes and blowing their nose. So, secondly, there's no glossing over the fact that every human participant in the restoration sinned and was flawed and made/makes mistakes.

 

Third, when confronted with these two antagonistic tendencies, flawed beings and our desire to put them on pedestals, we and our leaders have the challenge of accepting callings when these tendencies are already in place, when the membership can have between no and extreme awareness of these tendencies, while having to address them, preach by the Spirit, and move the Church forward.

 

That's a whole lot to ask. 

 

Just expecting one person to answer to their own flaws years ago and live up to their ideals is one thing, asking a current leader to do that for themselves and scores of others from other times before them, this is nearly impossible.

 

((Edit, because I hit the wrong button before finishing!))

 

On the other hand, we as Latter-Day Saints have the opportunity to see how the grace and miracle of revelation in Church works, first-hand, with real, flesh-and-blood mortals.  I for one am cheered and awed by the prospect of being allowed to be an instrument of the Lord, as I am. For me, I see the Church and the gospel working in peoples' lives. I feel Christ because of the gospel and in Church.

 

I do think that the Church anticipated that there would be some shaking up as a result of the essays, but that any more delay would lead to worse. It is my hope that as those who are shaken continue on their faith journeys, some will endeavor again to nurture faith, albeit with a new understanding of a living, revelating Church.

Excellent response

[DBMormon]

About half the people who email me the cause of their faith crisis in the last year attribute the essays as part of the reason

[why me]

The essays do reflect that "something was amiss".  That's the problem.

 

I think that it is interesting that the lds church should be in the history business. I know of no other church that is in the history business. If I go to the vatican website, I will not be able to read catholic history. Nor to any protestant churches website either. History is left up to scholars and academics. However, exmormons have somehow convinced mormons that the mormon church should be in the history business. I attended catechism as a boy. I learned nothing of history. And this is still the case. I have not seen the vatican come out with a 1000 page history book. But I have seen countless scholars write about catholic and protestant history. So, what was amiss was neutral scholarship about lds history.

 

I have found this about black in the priesthood from a neutral scholar:

 

https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve

 

I think that this is a wonderful explanation about it. And it gives a wonderful historical context. This is what has been amiss. Scholars who are neutral writing lds history.