Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Tom m]

I don't think so it's important to no the truth what speculation and what is not

[mfbukowski]

I looked at the graph at the top representing the results.

 

It reminded me of something familiar, but I can't quite place it.

[mfbukowski]

Must be my affinity for symbolism or something.

[Tom m]

I don't think they are backfiring

[sunstoned]

I took a break from the boards for several months and you know how many times I heard about the essays from LDS friends, Ward and Stake members, and others interested in religion?

 

Zero, Zip, Zilch, Nada, Null, None...

 

That is the huge impact the essays are having.  On the other hand apologists and critics alike have a handy reference section to link to support their opinions.

Agreed.  The only references to the essays that I have encountered have been on discussion boards such as this one.  Not one time have they come up IRL conversations that I have had with any members or non-members.  I don't know if this is good or bad.

[readstoomuch]

I can't speak to seminary curriculum in the 70's but since it didn't have us teaching the details of polygamy or first vision accounts in the 2000's, I suspect that your teacher departed from the curriculum to teach those things.

 

Your post here seems to suggest that members had abundant access to and were taught about the details of polygamy and multiple first vision accounts.  So what happened?  Why are so many people now shocked to learn of these things?  Why did the church need to publish the essays if the information was already being taught as part of the curriculum?

I think we took to putting less history in Church publications and emphasized the spiritual needs of members. There were more books available over the years. There were more journals and the sources were easier to come by. No traveling to archives or the nearest big library to get books or articles. I didn`t like it (less history in Ensign for example) personally, but I am convinced they weren`t trying to hide or cover up the truth. I also found that similar to history, my gospel reading and interests have to be supplemented outside of three hours on Sunday. I have also found the quality of Sunday School and Sacrament meeting improving, especially over the last two years.

[Robert F. Smith]

I can't speak to seminary curriculum in the 70's but since it didn't have us teaching the details of polygamy or first vision accounts in the 2000's, I suspect that your teacher departed from the curriculum to teach those things.

 

Your post here seems to suggest that members had abundant access to and were taught about the details of polygamy and multiple first vision accounts.  So what happened?  Why are so many people now shocked to learn of these things?  Why did the church need to publish the essays if the information was already being taught as part of the curriculum?

The LDS Church has grown enormously in the last 40 years, and even in the best of times very few people take a direct interest in historical matters.  Most people are too busy raising children and making a living, and we shouldn't begrudge them that, or hold the Church responsible for their lack of interest.  Even at present most members do not read the manuals, which are really lesson guides for instructors and those who happen to take a deep interest.

 

Your comment here suggests that you expect the Church to force-feed this stuff to members and that such subject-matter is of prime importance for salvation, which it is not.  I suggest that a sense of perspective is called for, and that we should not expect everybody to show a monomaniacal interest in such issues.  It is enough that vast resources were in fact available to those interested.  The subject was not in fact hidden from anyone, even if most people don't know anything about it.  It just isn't on the radar, for the very good reason that it is not of central importance in most people's lives.  The information has always been available to those interested in it, for whatever reason -- including prurient interest.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, there were scads of items of Church history in Church magazines in the 1970s and early 80s. How many of them discussed Joseph's involvement in folk magic, his 1826 trial, the Fanny Alger incident, his secret marriages to teenage housemaids and to other men's wives, etc.? The only way for a Church member to learn about any of this before the late 1970s was to read Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History (first published in 1945). Of course, most Mormons up to the present day are still in the dark on these issues.

Some of the items you mention here were still matters of cutting-edge research in the 1970s and 80s, the forgeries of Mark Hofmann interfering at a number of points.  New discoveries were being made (the Warning Book which forced the Smiths out of Vermont and put them on the road to Palmyra; and the 1826 Trial Bill of Costs which Wes Walters found mouldering in a jail cell, and immediately took to Yale Univ).  Many of us were discovering the very poor quality of Brodie's work, which was a travesty from the point of view of authentic historiography.  Some of us were in constant contact on such matters, even before lectures and articles began appearing.  The ferment was very helpful in placing everything in context, but you are far off the mark if you imagine that it was all settled history.  It was not.  You lack that one essential element:  Perspective.  It is crucial to good historiography.

 

The bottom line is that you were not around and you were not a participant in that process.  So naturally it is very easy for you to pass facile judgment.

[Joshua Valentine]

For anyone who realizes that a lot of what is in the essays was denounced by the Church, Church leaders, and members as "anti-Mormon lies" for the past forever, they should backfire.

For those that know what is still missing from the essays, or being misrepresented by them, they should backfire.

The only people these essays should help are the same people that still don't know about them - those who will just be "reassured" that they're there and so those "issues" have been answered, no need to actually read them.

I've heard that these essays are suppose to be integrated into church curricula. Anyone heard the same? Or even have a link? Anyone think they'll be anywhere but the notes/citations?

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not sure about Dachau in particular, but I do know that the SS abandoned a number of the concentration camps as the allies got closer, turning them over to ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers. So while I understand the sentiments of those 7th Army troops, they may have been somewhat hasty.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hasty," but they may have been very angry at the SS (= Schutzstaffel, the political & military Nazi elite) since an SS sniper had killed an American as they approached the camp.  No one could ever mistake a common Wermacht uniform for that of the SS.  Hugh Nibley visited Dachau at around that time.

 

One retired BYU professor was a young gunner on a B-17 back then, got shot down, parachuted, and was imprisoned in Stalag-17 (which was exclusively for enlisted men, contrary to the movie version).  When U. S. troops liberated Stalag-17, American inmates immediately took the German camp commander into the forest and executed him.  He had been unnecessarily brutal and was a murderer.  Such extra-judicial justice is often quite normal.

 

Edited to add:  Have you seen the true-to-life series "Band of Brothers"?  Nearest you will get to actual WW II.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

For anyone who realizes that a lot of what is in the essays was denounced by the Church, Church leaders, and members as "anti-Mormon lies" for the past forever, they should backfire.

For those that know what is still missing from the essays, or being misrepresented by them, they should backfire.

...................................................................  

With a few noreworthy exceptions, the material in those essays was never denounced as anti-Mormon drivel by the Brethren, and presenting them should not be seen as some sort of cynical and dishonest zero sum game.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, my comment about being an apostate is sarcasm and in the mode of Daniel Peterson and his sarcastic self deprecation based on what others say about him. One person on this board had labeled me such so I am playing around with it.

Next I picked 1995 because that is when the internet started becoming more widely used. It is from that point that the average person...more so as time moved on...had much more access than what you refer to above.

I never claimed that there were not scholarly papers or journals on sensitive topics. Just that the average member did not have access nor did the church do anything to make such info readily available . Your comments about having read a lot of these issues seemed to apply otherwise. If I misunderstood I apologize.

I am happy to have civil dialogue. It seems you tossed a volley at my first post in this thread because you found it strident. I am happy to attempt to change the tone with you, I have typically found you reasonable and calm.

Makes sense to me, and deserving a rep point -- though I don't know what they are good for . . .

[mapman]

For anyone who realizes that a lot of what is in the essays was denounced by the Church, Church leaders, and members as "anti-Mormon lies" for the past forever, they should backfire.

For those that know what is still missing from the essays, or being misrepresented by them, they should backfire.

The only people these essays should help are the same people that still don't know about them - those who will just be "reassured" that they're there and so those "issues" have been answered, no need to actually read them.

I've heard that these essays are suppose to be integrated into church curricula. Anyone heard the same? Or even have a link? Anyone think they'll be anywhere but the notes/citations?

They are quoted extensively in the new institute manual, Foundations of the Restoration, which is also now going to be a required religion class at BYU. If you look at the manual almost every single essay is required reading for the course. Despite what people keep saying, all the evidence points to the idea that the church actually does want people to read these. In my opinion, the fact that we are talking about these issues outweighs the flaws the essays have. There has been a shift in the way we think about our history in the church, and while the transition may be rough, in the end members will have stronger testimonies based on a solid foundation, and the church will be stronger for it.

[KevinG]

Agreed.  The only references to the essays that I have encountered have been on discussion boards such as this one.  Not one time have they come up IRL conversations that I have had with any members or non-members.  I don't know if this is good or bad.

 

We can always start another internet Mormon vs. chapel Mormon discussion.  Everyone enjoys those.  

[mapman]

I've heard the essays referenced a few times in classes here at BYU. I'd guess that a majority of students are aware of the essays and that many have read them. In my ward back home I'd guess awareness is a lot lower.

[Nevo]

Some of the items you mention here were still matters of cutting-edge research in the 1970s and 80s, the forgeries of Mark Hofmann interfering at a number of points. . . . The ferment was very helpful in placing everything in context, but you are far off the mark if you imagine that it was all settled history.  It was not.

 

So you're saying that reference to Joseph's involvement in folk magic, his 1826 trial, the Fanny Alger incident, his secret marriages to teenage housemaids and to other men's wives, etc., did not appear in Church materials in the 1970s and 80s because that history was still not well understood. Fair enough. I was trying to counter the idea that everything was in the Ensign and that members had only to pay attention. That wasn't the case.

 

Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith, well-researched and powerfully presented, put the Church on the defensive for decades afterward. As Terryl Givens notes, Brodie's book was "taken seriously by historians and general readers, and added a new dimension—a credible scholarly dimension—to attacks on the truthfulness and legitimacy of Mormonism's orthodox rendering of its own history. . . . something the church had never confronted to any significant degree" (Givens, People of Paradox, 211).

 

The Church's official rebuttal to Brodie, John Widtsoe's Joseph Smith: Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God (1951), has not aged well. Widtsoe argued, for example, that Joseph was never involved in money-digging except during his brief employment with Josiah Stowell (p.34, taking Joseph's denial in JS—H 1:56 at face value). He also denied that Joseph used a seer stone to locate lost treasure: "Enemies have suggested, and widely circulated the suggestion that Stoal employed Joseph because he was said to have a peepstone by which lost treasure could be located. The suggestion is of course based upon his claim of having had communications with heavenly beings" (p. 34). Widtsoe also claimed that Joseph's 1826 charge of being a disorderly person "was found groundless" and suggested that "it was done to get him out of the country and away from Emma" (p. 35). Hugh Nibley's 1961 The Myth Makers went even further, suggesting that there was never an 1826 trial: "if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith" (p. 142).

 

Fortunately, trained historians began to look at these issues in the 1970s and 80s. Richard Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (1984) was a landmark work that effectively confirmed a number of Brodie's claims. Joseph Smith and his family were involved in treasure hunting, he did use a seer stone, the 1826 trial did happen and the purported transcript is probably fairly accurate. Now the Church is officially acknowledging these things and making members aware of them. I think they waited too long, but I applaud it all the same.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Nevo

[Calm]

Agreed.  The only references to the essays that I have encountered have been on discussion boards such as this one.  Not one time have they come up IRL conversations that I have had with any members or non-members.  I don't know if this is good or bad.

My brother and his family heard about them in Singapore and a few ward members here in little town Utah are talking about them to me at least (I don't get to church much so don't know if they are talking about them there).

[Calm]

Makes sense to me, and deserving a rep point -- though I don't know what they are good for . . .

Primarily to make me look good.

[rockpond]

I think we took to putting less history in Church publications and emphasized the spiritual needs of members. There were more books available over the years. There were more journals and the sources were easier to come by. No traveling to archives or the nearest big library to get books or articles. I didn`t like it (less history in Ensign for example) personally, but I am convinced they weren`t trying to hide or cover up the truth. I also found that similar to history, my gospel reading and interests have to be supplemented outside of three hours on Sunday. I have also found the quality of Sunday School and Sacrament meeting improving, especially over the last two years.

 

 

The LDS Church has grown enormously in the last 40 years, and even in the best of times very few people take a direct interest in historical matters.  Most people are too busy raising children and making a living, and we shouldn't begrudge them that, or hold the Church responsible for their lack of interest.  Even at present most members do not read the manuals, which are really lesson guides for instructors and those who happen to take a deep interest.

 

Your comment here suggests that you expect the Church to force-feed this stuff to members and that such subject-matter is of prime importance for salvation, which it is not.  I suggest that a sense of perspective is called for, and that we should not expect everybody to show a monomaniacal interest in such issues.  It is enough that vast resources were in fact available to those interested.  The subject was not in fact hidden from anyone, even if most people don't know anything about it.  It just isn't on the radar, for the very good reason that it is not of central importance in most people's lives.  The information has always been available to those interested in it, for whatever reason -- including prurient interest.

 

I recognize that resources are available and I don't think that the church needs to "force-feed" historical matters to members.  I also really appreciate the efforts to improve Sacrament meetings and curriculum.

 

My point is this:  The church chose to include history as part of our curriculum including the teachings of the prophets over the past 185 years.  But they chose to teach it in way that stripped it of problematic issues.  Now we're dealing with the consequences of that and these essays are a response to those consequences.

 

While I see them as a step in the right direction, they remain a reaction to a problem that we (the church) created.

[Russell C McGregor]

For anyone who realizes that a lot of what is in the essays was denounced by the Church, Church leaders, and members as "anti-Mormon lies" for the past forever, they should backfire.

For example?

Call for references, please.

For those that know what is still missing from the essays, or being misrepresented by them, they should backfire.

What is "being misrepresented by" the essays?

Call for references, please.

The only people these essays should help are the same people that still don't know about them - those who will just be "reassured" that they're there and so those "issues" have been answered, no need to actually read them.

I have long observed that those who are quickest to assume bad faith on the part of others are the least likely to be showing good faith themselves.

Or, in the words of Gandalf, "The treacherous are ever mistrustful."

You're not making a very positive first impression, Joshua.

[Russell C McGregor]

So you're saying that reference to Joseph's involvement in folk magic, his 1826 trial, the Fanny Alger incident, his secret marriages to teenage housemaids and to other men's wives, etc., did not appear in Church materials in the 1970s and 80s because that history was still not well understood. Fair enough. I was trying to counter the idea that everything was in the Ensign and that members had only to pay attention. That wasn't the case.

 

Brodie's biography of Joseph Smith, well-researched and powerfully presented, put the Church on the defensive for decades afterward. As Terryl Givens notes, Brodie's book was "taken seriously by historians and general readers, and added a new dimension—a credible scholarly dimension—to attacks on the truthfulness and legitimacy of Mormonism's orthodox rendering of its own history. . . . something the church had never confronted to any significant degree" (Givens, People of Paradox, 211).

 

The Church's official rebuttal to Brodie, John Widtsoe's Joseph Smith: Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God (1951), has not aged well. Widtsoe argued, for example, that Joseph was never involved in money-digging except during his brief employment with Josiah Stowell (p.34, taking Joseph's denial in JS—H 1:56 at face value). He also denied that Joseph used a seer stone to locate lost treasure: "Enemies have suggested, and widely circulated the suggestion that Stoal employed Joseph because he was said to have a peepstone by which lost treasure could be located. The suggestion is of course based upon his claim of having had communications with heavenly beings" (p. 34). Widtsoe also claimed that Joseph's 1826 charge of being a disorderly person "was found groundless" and suggested that "it was done to get him out of the country and away from Emma" (p. 35). Hugh Nibley's 1961 The Myth Makers went even further, suggesting that there was never an 1826 trial: "if this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith" (p. 142).

Permit me to point out that the 1826 "trial" (it was actually an "examination," or preliminary hearing) provides support for one, and only one, instance of "money-digging:" namely the one where Joseph worked for Stowell.

Funny, that.

And the outcome of the hearing was that he was not bound over for trial. Meaning, that the charge was "found groundless."

And Ms Brodie's psychobiography "has not aged well," either.

I don't know why you are so eager to overlook its glaring flaws, but that's your prerogative, I suppose.

[Nevo]

Permit me to point out that the 1826 "trial" (it was actually an "examination," or preliminary hearing) provides support for one, and only one, instance of "money-digging:" namely the one where Joseph worked for Stowell.

Funny, that.

And the outcome of the hearing was that he was not bound over for trial. Meaning, that the charge was "found groundless."

And Ms Brodie's psychobiography "has not aged well," either.

I don't know why you are so eager to overlook its glaring flaws, but that's your prerogative, I suppose.

 

I don't overlook Brodie's flaws, but in a forum like this one where it is customary to dismiss the book outright, I try to make a point of noting its merits (which are considerable).

 

Regarding Joseph Smith's 1826 legal proceeding, Gordon Madsen has demonstrated to my satisfaction that it was a trial. I also accept Madsen's argument that Joseph was acquitted. Widtsoe held that the disorderly charge was "groundless" because Joseph never used a seer stone to look for buried treasure. Madsen, on the other hand, acknowledges that he did but suggests that Joseph was acquitted because a crime hadn't been committed according to the case law in place at the time. According to Madsen, "Justice Neely was obliged to find that some public rather than private fraud or harm had taken place; that implicit in Joseph's activities there was either some apparent danger or mischief already done; and that the acts complained of were willful or done with a 'vicious' or criminal state of mind." Josiah Stowell was the only witness who parted with any money to Joseph Smith and did so "for part-time work on his farm in addition to services rendered in pursuit of treasure," and moreover "emphatically denied that he had been deceived or defrauded," Consequently, Joseph was discharged.

[mnn727]

Strange thing, My home teachers came last night - (yes the 30th of the month) both life long members, both HP, one had been a Bishops counselor. The subject was pioneers and we got talking about JS and BY. These 2 had never heard of MMM or knew that JS had plural wives. Come on, I'm a convert and I know all that - and did when I converted.

[Joshua Valentine]

 

For anyone who realizes that a lot of what is in the essays was denounced by the Church, Church leaders, and members as "anti-Mormon lies" for the past forever, they should backfire.

For example?

Call for references, please.

 

Well, Russell C McGregor, anecdotally, I can tell you that my wife was told by a bishop that Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year old was an "anti-Mormon lie". Also, if you do a Google search of "lds essays and anti-Mormon lies" you'll find people who, in discussing the essays, volunteer their recognition that much of what is in the essays was what they were told were only "anti-Mormon lies".

I concede the quite probable fact that the LDS leadership has never "officially" claimed anything in particular was an "anti-Mormon lie". Although, I suspect something could be found among the more open, direct, and brisk early leaders. "Anti-Mormon lies" is a quasi-official policy mostly practiced by lower leadership in the LDS Church and, of course, the laity. It has never been officially condoned or refuted by the higher Brethren. But that's something in itself. 

[Joshua Valentine]

 

For those that know what is still missing from the essays, or being misrepresented by them, they should backfire.

What is "being misrepresented by" the essays?

Call for references, please.

 

While I could go into a detailed response of things missing or misrepresented, I will use what is probably the biggest misrepresentation as a single but significant example. The claim in the essay that the Priesthood/Temple Ban on Blacks was a policy and not doctrine is refuted by the very consistent statements and teachings of the contemporary Brethren. There are plenty of quotes by numerous apostles that explicitly called the Ban a commandment of God (and thus Doctrinal), doctrine, or implied that it was doctrine and a commandment from God.

And before you ask me for examples, Russell C. McGregor, I'll tell you that such is off topic and will have to wait for another post, perhaps sooner rather than later.