Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

I don't know that "The Passion" (rated "R" for violence) is really appropriate for certain ages.  Heck, I even found it hard to take, and I am a former Marine who has seen combat.  Historical accuracy is not a legitimate excuse to traumatize children, and many children were taken to see "The Passion."  They were not ready for it, and many adults weren't either.  I trust that you are not calling for a lack of good judgment as to what is appropriate and at what age.  So what are you suggesting?

 

General Patton vomited when visiting his first German concentration camp.  The horrific scene of emaciated, dead bodies, and of the emaciated, barely alive prisoners, and the stench were clearly too much for him.  Is that how we need to present the Holocaust?  I prefer the method used in Los Angeles, Washington, DC, and Jerusalem, in which large numbers of schoolchildren are introduced to the history slowly and with compassion.  I  have been through all three exhibits many times and appreciate the thoughtful manner in which such horrid subject matter is introduced..

 

I am also a long-time supporter of the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose educational materials for children on tolerance are second to none, but who circulate much more hard hitting material exclusively to law enforcement (which is where I became familiar with them).  One must understand his audience and tailor the materials to fit.  That's what Jesus did . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

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

In most cases that is probably all that is appropriate.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

I have yet to see an OT Gospel Doctrine class which includes warts and all, and I am very cautious not to raise such disruptive issues.  Nearly everything is soft-pedeled and the real problems skipped over.  Most teachers wouldn't have any idea how to deal with such materials, and would need to attend a David Bokovoy lecture to obtain the full impact, but with verve and positive spirit.  A purely intellectual presentation has been harshly criticized by Elder Richard Scott because it lacked the proper spiritual dimension.  We must find the proper venue to let it all hang out -- here on this board, for example.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

When the Holy Spirit testifies to the hearts of potential converts, that is all that is needed.  Accepting the Gospel is not like buying a used car, but is based on a non-transferrable testimony.  Repentance, baptism, confirmation, and esoteric covenants and sealings can only be verified by that same Holy Spirit.  Everyone must judge for himself.  By all means read the history books, including those by non-Mormon historians.  Such books and articles on touchy subjects have been available all my adult life, and I am now 74.  Don't tell me that an enterprising young man cannot find such materials rather easily -- especially online.  It would not be in the best interest of any church, much less the LDS Church, to sponsor a mythical "fairy faith," with no substance, and we discuss such issues here on this board all the time.  It is all a question of informing members at the proper time and venue.  Surely we can agree on that.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

A fair point.  Recently I had to raise my voice in High Priests Group and argue that we would be hypocrites to ignore an inspired Constitution which affords minority marriage rights which we don't like.  After all, I continued, we were harshly persecuted and denied our minority marriage rights by that same Supreme Court in Reynolds v USA.  There is a proper time and place for such discussion.

[Thinking]

It is all a question of informing members at the proper time and venue.  Surely we can agree on that.

 

I would add investigators to the list.

[why me]

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.

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?

I dont know why the lds church should be any different from other churches. Should every catholic get indepth catholic history lessons from their parish? Should every protestant get indepth history lessons about their faiths. Why should it only be the lds? Or maybe americans should be forced to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States in 9th grade. Where is the pressure on other faiths to have full disclosure when it comes to their history for people who are thinking of joining those faiths?

 

I find it amazing that the lds church is being pressured to do so not just from critics but also from members. But on the other hand, why not? Mormons are rather well educated. I think that the lds church should only be in the history business. Lets have indepth history classes on sunday. Maybe a two hour block after sacrament. Much better to be better informed on secular matters than on faith matters, especially in this secular world.

 

New members will be experts on lds history and older members too. But of course, what then?

Edited July 16, 2015 by why me

[rockpond]

I dont know why the lds church should be any different from other churches. Should every catholic get indepth catholic history lessons from their parish? Should every protestant get indepth history lessons about their faiths. Why should it only be the lds? Or maybe americans should be forced to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States in 9th grade. Where is the pressure on other faiths to have full disclosure when it comes to their history for people who are thinking of joining those faiths?

 

I find it amazing that the lds church is being pressured to do so not just from critics but also from members. But on the other hand, why not? Mormons are rather well educated. I think that the lds church should only be in the history business. Lets have indepth history classes on sunday. Maybe a two hour block after sacrament. Much better to be better informed on secular matters than on faith matters, especially in this secular world.

 

New members will be experts on lds history and older members too. But of course, what then?

 

The Church doesn't *have to* teach any history.  It chooses to.  But that's not really the issue at hand.

 

Why do you think the Church has now decided to publish some of the problematic and controversial issues of its past in a newly created Gospel Topics section of LDS.org?  Any why begin making them part of the Sunday & seminary curriculum when they weren't before?

[Joshua Valentine]

I dont know why the lds church should be any different from other churches. Should every catholic get indepth catholic history lessons from their parish? Should every protestant get indepth history lessons about their faiths. Why should it only be the lds? Or maybe americans should be forced to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States in 9th grade. Where is the pressure on other faiths to have full disclosure when it comes to their history for people who are thinking of joining those faiths?

 

I find it amazing that the lds church is being pressured to do so not just from critics but also from members. But on the other hand, why not? Mormons are rather well educated. I think that the lds church should only be in the history business. Lets have indepth history classes on sunday. Maybe a two hour block after sacrament. Much better to be better informed on secular matters than on faith matters, especially in this secular world.

 

New members will be experts on lds history and older members too. But of course, what then?

 

I agree with you here in some ways. In an admittedly unexplored and untested way, I think the LDS Church's super exclusive claims to authority and authenticity as the only true church opens it up to higher demands than the no-authority, less than authentic false churches. The LDS Church also opens itself up to both scrutiny and criticism because it does not simply say "Here we are, pray about us and you'll learn if we are true or not." The LDS Church starts with a story, continues with a story, and constantly reviews these stories. This may be any religion, but the LDS faith's stories are much more recent. There is a lot more information available for the life and times of Joseph et al than there is for Jesus, so the LDS Church has a lot more it has to reasonably excuse for practicality's sake in spreading its gospel. This provides the means for scrutiny and criticism - "Why does the LDS Church tell the story this way when there is obvious evidence of this, that, and the other?" - more than for other religions.

 

But the LDS Church also relies on its recent history to gain converts. Again, its not just "here's our name, pray about us and let us know", its not even "here's our book, pray about it". The missionary lessons are as much about the story of Joseph as it is about the LDS gospel and BoM. The LDS Church uses its "refined" history to attract and gain converts. How the LDS Church chooses to "refine" these historical events should be scrutinized and critiqued. It also uses these stories to continue to inspire and motivate its members, so again, insofar as the LDS Church uses its history, it has a responsibility to do so ethically. If it uses it on Sunday, it opens itself up to criticism for everything it leaves out or refines too much.

[Joshua Valentine]

While it may not be "on" original topic, the conversation has strayed just enough to allow me to think this thought is shareable here.

 

Considering the points made in this thread, I can't help but think, at least for converts, that anyone who was approached by two twenty-something's-maybes with a pitch like the missionaries give - a little story about a young man and plates and doesn't there have to be a prophet? And why don't you read this and think about it for a week maybe more and then pray to know its true - and doesn't do the research that is demanded by such a momentous decision as your ultimate truth/religion/worldview/highest earthly leader choice, is getting what they paid for. They obviously didn't need church history classes if they really were ok with just the missionary lessons.

 

Now those born into it is a bit different. If their parents are devout/active, then there isn't going to be much time for history research in between all the meetings, activities, responsibilities, etc., etc. Unfortunately, for these folks, they don't have the time, and they have been conditioned since birth to obey, follow, and don't believe anything that sounds negative about the Church from outside the Church, or even inside it.

 

Given all the gullible converts and overburdened, over-conditioned born-Mo's(?), there seems few who would have the street sense and time and sincerity to do all the research, not knowing what to look for since they don't know what they don't know.

 

And the emotionally vulnerable? Forget about it.

 

A tough pickle.

[Joshua Valentine]

To quickly bring my two comments above together and then its off to sleep:

 

Ultimate Truth is of Ultimate Importance. If you are not a member, you still have to make the decision, so you got to be responsible IF you are TRULY sincere. Or you are a member (maybe born in or maybe suckered or maybe converted) of a church that emphasizes all learning is eternally beneficial (somehow) and thus sacred. Besides the doctrines and practices of the church what better thing to learn than the history (doctrinal/teaching, practical, personal) of the One True Church?

 

But that means...

The LDS Church claims you have to be sincere in order to gain a testimony from the Holy Spirit. How sincere are you if you don't check out its past?

The LDS Church claims learning is very important. How devout are you if you don't learn its past?

How serious is the LDS Church about sincere pondering and prayer and learning if it doesn't teach its past seriously?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

Why do you think the Church has now decided to publish some of the problematic and controversial issues of its past in a newly created Gospel Topics section of LDS.org?  Any why begin making them part of the Sunday & seminary curriculum when they weren't before?

I suspect that the reason is as I have previously stated:  After over a generation of preparatory work by professional historians (completion of a host of preliminary projects, in which many had a hand -- including me, oddly enough), the time is right for the substantive inclusion of that information in curricula and essays.  The Joseph Smith Papers Project is only one aspect of this, and such systematic history materials make it possible to reach well-based conclusions.  In the 1970s and 80s documents were still being discovered and evaluated, forgeries were being circulated.  There was no settled corpus of well-digested material yet available.  I was there, and I can recall the unsettled nature of it all.  The situation is wholly different now, and I'm glad of it..

[rockpond]

I suspect that the reason is as I have previously stated:  After over a generation of preparatory work by professional historians (completion of a host of preliminary projects, in which many had a hand -- including me, oddly enough), the time is right for the substantive inclusion of that information in curricula and essays.  The Joseph Smith Papers Project is only one aspect of this, and such systematic history materials make it possible to reach well-based conclusions.  In the 1970s and 80s documents were still being discovered and evaluated, forgeries were being circulated.  There was no settled corpus of well-digested material yet available.  I was there, and I can recall the unsettled nature of it all.  The situation is wholly different now, and I'm glad of it..

 

So publishing the essays now is a result of finally having the documentation available?

 

We didn't have enough information on Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy back in the 90's?

 

We didn't know about multiple first vision accounts two decades ago?

 

The race-based priesthood and temple bans were a mystery until now?

 

I suspect there are other reasons for the recent publishing of the essays.

[HappyJackWagon]

So publishing the essays now is a result of finally having the documentation available?

 

We didn't have enough information on Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy back in the 90's?

 

We didn't know about multiple first vision accounts two decades ago?

 

The race-based priesthood and temple bans were a mystery until now?

 

I suspect there are other reasons for the recent publishing of the essays.

Legal cover against charges of fraud?

 

Before you get offended and huff and puff, think about it. If the church chooses to teach a history that is verifiably inacurrate yet requires payment of tithing to receive the highest levels of worship, covenant making, ordinances etc, then one could argue the church is seeking $$$ based on falsified claims. By putting out the essays the church can now point to an official source that acknowledges some of the problems. Thay can say "see, we weren't misleading anyone because they had access to review this information."

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is the only reason for the essays but I think it does play a factor, similar to how they produced the proclamation on the family during the Hawaii SSM fight 20 years ago.

[rockpond]

Legal cover against charges of fraud?

 

Before you get offended and huff and puff, think about it. If the church chooses to teach a history that is verifiably inacurrate yet requires payment of tithing to receive the highest levels of worship, covenant making, ordinances etc, then one could argue the church is seeking $$$ based on falsified claims. By putting out the essays the church can now point to an official source that acknowledges some of the problems. Thay can say "see, we weren't misleading anyone because they had access to review this information."

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is the only reason for the essays but I think it does play a factor, similar to how they produced the proclamation on the family during the Hawaii SSM fight 20 years ago.

 

Interesting theory.  I don't agree.  But it's interesting.

[Caro]

This may be a stupid question... but what are these essays of which everyone is referring?  Where may they be found?  

~Caro

[Jean-Luc Picard]

I dont know why the lds church should be any different from other churches. Should every catholic get indepth catholic history lessons from their parish? Should every protestant get indepth history lessons about their faiths. Why should it only be the lds? Or maybe americans should be forced to read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States in 9th grade. Where is the pressure on other faiths to have full disclosure when it comes to their history for people who are thinking of joining those faiths?

 

I find it amazing that the lds church is being pressured to do so not just from critics but also from members. But on the other hand, why not? Mormons are rather well educated. I think that the lds church should only be in the history business. Lets have indepth history classes on sunday. Maybe a two hour block after sacrament. Much better to be better informed on secular matters than on faith matters, especially in this secular world.

 

New members will be experts on lds history and older members too. But of course, what then?

The Church is different than other churches. We have a lot of source material to work with (the Church is rather new, better record keeping), this leaves the history of the church open for scholars to study and for critics to pull things apart. I do take some issue with you saying Cathoics don't know their history. Most do, there are libraries filled with history books, same with Protestant sects. These religions and eastern religions have a theology department set up to study these issues and to train clergy (you can get a phD in Protestant XYZ studies, but not LDS studies). When was the last time you heard of a religiously trained LDS Bishop? I think these essays are more for leadership than anyone else. If I have a question with Catholic history, my priest probably knows it- he studied it. My Bishop or Stake President, not so much.

[mapman]

This may be a stupid question... but what are these essays of which everyone is referring?  Where may they be found?  

~Caro

 

They are a series of essays the church put on lds.org a couple years ago about controversial issues in church teachings and history. They can be accessed by clicking on "Scriptures and Study" on lds.org, then "Gospel Topics." There's a little blurb, that says "Gospel Topics Essays." There you can find the essays. Here's the link.

[stemelbow]

This may be a stupid question... but what are these essays of which everyone is referring?  Where may they be found?  

~Caro

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

Essentially a couple of years ago, or so, the Church decided to start addressing "difficult" topics in essay format and putting them up on lds.org for consumption.

[stemelbow]

They are a series of essays the church put on lds.org a couple years ago about controversial issues in church teachings and history. They can be accessed by clicking on "Scriptures and Study" on lds.org, then "Gospel Topics." There's a little blurb, that says "Gospel Topics Essays." There you can find the essays. Here's the link.

jerk! you beat me by one minute.

[mapman]

The reason why the church decided to publish these essays is pretty obvious since the website itself explains why they were made.

 

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. 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/essays?lang=eng

 

They are meant primarily for the members of the church who find out about controversial issues in church history and are disturbed by them. The internet is full of people who use our history to bash the church, so the church finally decided to show that we can be open about our history and still be the Lord's church (the essays aren't perfect but I think that they were made with good intentions and are a huge step forward for the church).

Edited July 16, 2015 by mapman

[mapman]

Legal cover against charges of fraud?

 

Before you get offended and huff and puff, think about it. If the church chooses to teach a history that is verifiably inacurrate yet requires payment of tithing to receive the highest levels of worship, covenant making, ordinances etc, then one could argue the church is seeking $$$ based on falsified claims. By putting out the essays the church can now point to an official source that acknowledges some of the problems. Thay can say "see, we weren't misleading anyone because they had access to review this information."

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is the only reason for the essays but I think it does play a factor, similar to how they produced the proclamation on the family during the Hawaii SSM fight 20 years ago.

I don't think that teaching distorted history can be counted as fraud or a whole ton of people would be in trouble. It's not ethical to intentionally teach bad history, but I don't think there's any legal danger.

[Robert F. Smith]

So publishing the essays now is a result of finally having the documentation available?

 

We didn't have enough information on Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy back in the 90's?

 

We didn't know about multiple first vision accounts two decades ago?

 

The race-based priesthood and temple bans were a mystery until now?

 

I suspect there are other reasons for the recent publishing of the essays.

When you say "we," who are you talking about?  A whole generation of professional historians fully conversant with the documents had not yet existed.  Items had yet to be catalogued abd evaluated.  The Vermont Warning Book which put the Smith family on the road to Palmyra had not yet been discovered.  So too, the 1826 Bill of Costs for Joseph's Money Digging trial had not yet been discovered by Wes Walters -- the first piece of contemporary evidence.  Dissertations, articles, and books had to be written.  Nothing can be done with raw data until it has been digested.  Mike Quinn and his many colleagues were in the thick of it.  Seminars, colloquia, and annual meetings of scholars helped us all get a handle on it.  It took me years to create the first Book of Mormon Critical Text, and then Royal Skousen took up where I had left off and is still generating important conclusions -- which are part of the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  You young whippersnappers imagine that Rome was built in a day.  Not so.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Caro]

Thanks for the info, Mapman & Stemelbow. 

(It doesn't matter to me who posted first.  It does matter to me that you both took the time and effort to respond.   )

[Caro]

Ummm....

that was SUPPOSED to be a smiling face.  I don't know what happened.   Oops!