Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Joshua Valentine]

 

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, my statement about those who the essays should help is based on my years of experience with LDS and meeting and experiencing some who exhibit this type of attitude.

You, however, have never met me before (in person or online) and yet you tell me, "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."? And so soon after meeting me (this is the first comment you have replied to of mine (and one of my first on this board) you not only use the above statement against me but give my the Gandalf "The treacherous are ever mistrustful."?

Simply by the fact that my statement was based on many interactions with LDS over years and your statements are based on this sole interaction, I believe you have described yourself better than me.

Is it me who is not "making a very positive first impression"?

I hope you are not a first-impressionist, allowing your unfortunate impressions here to sway all future interaction with me. I have great expectations for our interactions in the future, may the sum experience sway the initial impression... for both of us.

 

 

[note - I apologize for the multi-comment format.  The quote limit issue required breaking it up into three comments.]

[KevinG]

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.

 

Did they really not know or did they tell you "I don't know that we teach that"?

[hagoth7]

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?

To second what readstoomuch said, the differing First Vision accounts were taught in detail in an Institute class I attended in the late 80's. And we were given photocopies of the differing accounts.

 

It's not that things were hidden. It's simply that some topics are more advanced than others, and you'd have to participate in a more advanced class than Sunday School (like seminary, institute, personal study, or college classes) to get some kinds of instruction.

[Tacenda]

Me:  They could be....I c/p from these NOM posts at http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=43856.  I'm not sure if their faith crisis was from the essays, but have seen others where it did, but on these two individuals it may not have.  I'm guessing the essays are there because of folks like these, and trying to avoid looking like the church hides information, IMO.  I resonate with these folks, I am these folks!

 

 Cross posting removed

[Glenn101]

   I do think that the essays have backfired in one way. After each General conference I have began what is probably an exercise in Morbid Curiosity and make the rounds of the Mormon Archipelago to see what new anti-GA articles will be posted. since those essays have been published, the criticism of the General Authorities, past and present, has ascended to a new level.

   My testimony of the gospel has never been based on the history of the church. It has been based upon what the Holy Ghost has taught me about the Gospel and the restoration. History is something that we all 'see through a glass, darkly" and all too often that glass is distorted by the lens of the raconteur.

   In my opinion, the essays will not help anyone who is or would be troubled by any parts of church history.

   And I have only been wrong once in my life. It started the day I started talking.

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

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.

I don't agree with your characterization at all.  Church manuals were never designed to deal with the controversial material, unless such materials surfaced and demand grew.  Like telling little Johnny about the birds & the bees before he is ready for it, it is foolhardy to address issues which no one is thinking about.  There is undoubtedly a proper time to address these issues, but I can think of a lot of venues in which they are not called for, and in which they would not get proper coverage.  The LDS Church membership did not create the problem of lack of historical sophistication -- that simply goes with the territory.

 

Reminds me of people who think that Fawn Brodie wrote a valuable history of Joseph Smith, when in fact she did a hatchet job filled to the brim with falsehoods.  It is a historical novel filled with bitterness.   Great style and no substance.  Honest men like Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman do a much better job, while not ignoring any problems.  Few members may read Bushman's books and articles, but those who do will find no malice and no mind-reading.  Instead they will come away with a rich understanding of Joseph Smith and the Restoration in proper context.  That is impossible with Brodie.  She had a score to settle.

[rockpond]

I don't agree with your characterization at all. Church manuals were never designed to deal with the controversial material, unless such materials surfaced and demand grew. Like telling little Johnny about the birds & the bees before he is ready for it, it is foolhardy to address issues which no one is thinking about. There is undoubtedly a proper time to address these issues, but I can think of a lot of venues in which they are not called for, and in which they would not get proper coverage. The LDS Church membership did not create the problem of lack of historical sophistication -- that simply goes with the territory.

Reminds me of people who think that Fawn Brodie wrote a valuable history of Joseph Smith, when in fact she did a hatchet job filled to the brim with falsehoods. It is a historical novel filled with bitterness. Great style and no substance. Honest men like Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman do a much better job, while not ignoring any problems. Few members may read Bushman's books and articles, but those who do will find no malice and no mind-reading. Instead they will come away with a rich understanding of Joseph Smith and the Restoration in proper context. That is impossible with Brodie. She had a score to settle.

You say that you disagree with my characterization but then what you wrote seems to agree. The Church left problematic and controversial issues out of the standard curriculum.

[rockpond]

To second what readstoomuch said, the differing First Vision accounts were taught in detail in an Institute class I attended in the late 80's. And we were given photocopies of the differing accounts.

It's not that things were hidden. It's simply that some topics are more advanced than others, and you'd have to participate in a more advanced class than Sunday School (like seminary, institute, personal study, or college classes) to get some kinds of instruction.

Well, I'd suggest that completing the BYU religion classes is advanced and I was not taught about multiple first vision accounts. I also taught seminary including the D&C year and it wasn't there either. John McLay had been a seminary teacher and institute director for years before learning the details of Joseph Smith's polygamy.

That said, now that the Church has published the essays and is working toward pulling these topics into the "basic" curriculum, what do you think they've learned about the previous decision to keep them only to the "advanced" classes?

[Thinking]

Church manuals were never designed to deal with the controversial material

 

In other words, the controversial material was left out.

 

Full Definition of Hidden

1: being out of sight or not readily apparent: concealed

2: obscure, unexplained, undisclosed

[Robert F. Smith]

You say that you disagree with my characterization but then what you wrote seems to agree. The Church left problematic and controversial issues out of the standard curriculum.

Of course they did, for the very good reason that sunday school is not the place to immediately traumatize people who are barely able to tolerate milk.  One does not begin Gospel lessons with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but we should all honor Juanita Brooks for making available an excellent book on the subject.  That and other books and articles on the subject are readily available to those who have questions.  Many such issues can be dealt with in LDS institutes and specialized college classes, but there are very few teachers who actually know anything about such matters.

 

Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian sunday school curricula likewise fail to deal with the historically negative features of their faiths, for the very good reason that sunday school is not the place to traumatize their members.  There is always time enough for delving into issues more deeply when and if someone shows interest.  For example, the failure of such denominations to eschew racism in the Southern United States and elsewhere.  Many good people have had to pay with their lives for that failure.

[Robert F. Smith]

In other words, the controversial material was left out.

 

Full Definition of Hidden

1: being out of sight or not readily apparent: concealed

2: obscure, unexplained, undisclosed

False.  It was not hidden, but was readily available to scholars, who have published widely on all such issues.  The controversial material was left out of introductory lesson manuals for the reasons I mention in post #260.  Do you take the opposite point of view that members should be given meat before milk, and that they should be regularly traumatized?

[carbon dioxide]

Though the church should make resources on controversial topics available on members, it is not the responsibility of the Church to teach or go over this stuff on Sunday.   It is the role of the parents to inform their kids of issues that are not discussed in Church or go into detail of issues that are discussed in Church.  If there is an adult member having trouble, they should perhaps ask their home teachers to help them with issues.  Going to the bishop probably is not the best thing to do.  The bishop has enough on his plate already to expect him to devote a lot of time getting answers to specific issues a member in the ward is having.  If the home teachers don't know the answers, there probably is somebody in the ward that does that they can find.  We need to all help each other than putting it at the doorstep of the Church or the bishop. 

[Nevo]

Two months ago, LDS youth all over the world were "traumatized" with information about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There was an entire seminary lesson dedicated to the topic—this despite the availability of scholarly accounts in local university libraries. If the Mountain Meadows Massacre can be introduced to 14-year-olds in a church setting, I see no reason why it can't also be taught to adults in, say, Gospel Doctrine class.

 

I happen to agree with the current Church Historian, Elder Snow, when he says: "I think we can build faith and better prepare people if we will weave some of the unusual threads in history into the curriculum. . . . We have an obligation to provide our members reliable information on some of these more difficult questions from our history."

Edited July 15, 2015 by Nevo

[stemelbow]

Two months ago, LDS youth all over the world were "traumatized" with information about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There was an entire seminary lesson dedicated to the topic—this despite the availability of scholarly accounts in local university libraries. If the Mountain Meadows Massacre can be introduced to 14-year-olds in a church setting, I see no reason why it can't also be taught to adults in, say, Gospel Doctrine class.

 

I happen to agree with the current Church Historian, Elder Snow, when he says: "I think we can build faith and better prepare people if we will weave some of the unusual threads in history into the curriculum. . . . We have an obligation to provide our members reliable information on some of these more difficult questions from our history."

Thanks for the quote and source. Wasn't aware of it. Good stuff.

[rockpond]

Of course they did, for the very good reason that sunday school is not the place to immediately traumatize people who are barely able to tolerate milk.  One does not begin Gospel lessons with the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but we should all honor Juanita Brooks for making available an excellent book on the subject.  That and other books and articles on the subject are readily available to those who have questions.  Many such issues can be dealt with in LDS institutes and specialized college classes, but there are very few teachers who actually know anything about such matters.

 

Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian sunday school curricula likewise fail to deal with the historically negative features of their faiths, for the very good reason that sunday school is not the place to traumatize their members.  There is always time enough for delving into issues more deeply when and if someone shows interest.  For example, the failure of such denominations to eschew racism in the Southern United States and elsewhere.  Many good people have had to pay with their lives for that failure.

 

This is the old argument that "the information was there if members were willing to go out and find it".  Where has that gotten us as a church?  We're now publishing essays trying to clean up the mess because the internet got ahead of us.

[carbon dioxide]

Two months ago, LDS youth all over the world were "traumatized" with information about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There was an entire seminary lesson dedicated to the topic—this despite the availability of scholarly accounts in local university libraries. If the Mountain Meadows Massacre can be introduced to 14-year-olds in a church setting, I see no reason why it can't also be taught to adults in, say, Gospel Doctrine class.

 

I happen to agree with the current Church Historian, Elder Snow, when he says: "I think we can build faith and better prepare people if we will weave some of the unusual threads in history into the curriculum. . . . We have an obligation to provide our members reliable information on some of these more difficult questions from our history."

How exactly is MMM related to gospel doctrine?  Its a sad event that occurred on one day involving a small number of people.  Perhaps there can be a separate Church history class during Sunday School.  That would be a better fit.

Edited July 16, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Joshua Valentine]

How exactly is MMM related to gospel doctrine?  Its a sad event that occurred on one day involving a small number of people.  Perhaps there can be a separate Church history class during Sunday School.  That would be a better fit.

FYI - that "small number of people" (approx. 120) was killed and was a greater number than the LDS killed in Missouri conflicts (approx.50+).

But I understand your point.

A possibly intriguing thought though... If the LDS Church does teach some history, like persecution, like Haun's Mill, in Sunday School, then MMM becomes not only fair game, but other related contextual history to events like Haun's Mill become required. Or else it's just propaganda.

[Teancum]

False. It was not hidden, but was readily available to scholars, who have published widely on all such issues. The controversial material was left out of introductory lesson manuals for the reasons I mention in post #260. Do you take the opposite point of view that members should be given meat before milk, and that they should be regularly traumatized?

I beleive people should have had and always should have full disclosure of all material issues before they commit their time, money and talents to any organization, endeavor, investment, business, church whatever before they commit.

Personally I find it a bit nonsensical to argue that the LDS church needs or needed to spoon feed its members and investigators and before they ask and expect such a large commitment that the church does. There are not many other things I committed so much to in my life without what I beleive integrity would require any organization to disclose to me. I was well committed before I started to recall understand some of the depth of the problems.

Robert honestly it really has not seemed to be in the best interest of the Church to promote openly anything other than a faithful almost mythical history until it was forced to. Sure scholars and those who may have been highly motivated to search things out when it was note so readily available could. But why should they have had to? Why couldn't lesson manuals have included some of this. Why couldn't a book like Rough Stone Rolling been available and used as say an advanced seminary text or institute?

Edited July 16, 2015 by Teancum

[Teancum]

Though the church should make resources on controversial topics available on members, it is not the responsibility of the Church to teach or go over this stuff on Sunday.   It is the role of the parents to inform their kids of issues that are not discussed in Church or go into detail of issues that are discussed in Church.  If there is an adult member having trouble, they should perhaps ask their home teachers to help them with issues.  Going to the bishop probably is not the best thing to do.  The bishop has enough on his plate already to expect him to devote a lot of time getting answers to specific issues a member in the ward is having.  If the home teachers don't know the answers, there probably is somebody in the ward that does that they can find.  We need to all help each other than putting it at the doorstep of the Church or the bishop.

Why isn't it the role of the church?

[omni]

False. It was not hidden, but was readily available to scholars, who have published widely on all such issues. The controversial material was left out of introductory lesson manuals for the reasons I mention in post #260. Do you take the opposite point of view that members should be given meat before milk, and that they should be regularly traumatized?

We study the OT in gospel doctrine class - warts and all. Would you recommend skipping over it it so as not to traumatized the participants?

[Thinking]

Do you take the opposite point of view that members should be given meat before milk, and that they should be regularly traumatized?

 

I would argue that in many cases milk is all that was ever served.

[Joshua Valentine]

False.  It was not hidden, but was readily available to scholars, who have published widely on all such issues.  The controversial material was left out of introductory lesson manuals for the reasons I mention in post #260.  Do you take the opposite point of view that members should be given meat before milk, and that they should be regularly traumatized?

 

What is "meat" here? I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument for appropriate info in appropriate classes and for appropriate ages. But how exactly are historical events "meat"? Are "less" historically accurate stories "milk"? Again, if any history is brought up in church curricula, then it should be done accurately and without convenient/"faithful" omissions.

 

But, really, Robert F. Smith, what is meat, here? It seems to be history, but is that what the principle of "Milk before meant" really entails? How can that not be suspicious?

[Nevo]

I would argue that in many cases milk is all that was ever served.

 

That reminds me of the classic statement from D. Michael Quinn: "I am personally aware of the need to reassure church members by cushioning evidence that is controversial. . . . Nevertheless, a diet of milk alone will stunt the growth of, if not kill, any child. That is true in nutrition and in religion" (Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian [and Its Aftermath]," 85).

[Robert F. Smith]

Two months ago, LDS youth all over the world were "traumatized" with information about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. There was an entire seminary lesson dedicated to the topic—this despite the availability of scholarly accounts in local university libraries. If the Mountain Meadows Massacre can be introduced to 14-year-olds in a church setting, I see no reason why it can't also be taught to adults in, say, Gospel Doctrine class.

 

I happen to agree with the current Church Historian, Elder Snow, when he says: "I think we can build faith and better prepare people if we will weave some of the unusual threads in history into the curriculum. . . . We have an obligation to provide our members reliable information on some of these more difficult questions from our history."

Good.  I have no problem with introducing such content at the proper time.  Fourteen may be the proper time to introduce MMM to youth in seminary, and I wouldn't mind teaching that and similar classes to youth.  Of course you and I might take a very different approach to teaching MMM, polygamy, recission of Black priesthood, etc., and I do not always follow what is in the manuals..  However, daily seminary does not have quite the same function as Gospel Doctrine class on sundays.  I'd say the same of institute classes, and college students could be expected to deal with a more in-depth approach.  I wonder how your and my lesson plans would differ, if at all??  That's where the rubber meets the road . . . 

[Robert F. Smith]

That reminds me of the classic statement from D. Michael Quinn: "I am personally aware of the need to reassure church members by cushioning evidence that is controversial. . . . Nevertheless, a diet of milk alone will stunt the growth of, if not kill, any child. That is true in nutrition and in religion" (Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian [and Its Aftermath]," 85).

Mike is very wise.  I also like his dictum (which he adapted from Socrates), "The unexamined faith is not worth having."