Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Nevo]

 You young whippersnappers imagine that Rome was built in a day.  Not so.

 

Okay. But, really, the Vermont Warning Book was not a key piece of information (and is still largely ignored). Walters's discovery of Justice Neely's bill of costs was a big deal but that happened in 1971. Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism and Newell and Avery's Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith were both published in 1984. How much documentary evidence regarding Mormon origins and Joseph's polygamy has been discovered since then? Not a whole lot. Certainly nothing that's a game changer. In fact, Bushman just copied chapters from his 1984 book wholesale into his 2005 biography of Joseph Smith.

 

The major difference between now and mid-1980s is the Church's new attitude of openness and transparency about its history. The information itself hasn't really changed.

[rockpond]

You young whippersnappers imagine that Rome was built in a day.  Not so.

 

What I imagine is that while there is always new information to discover, plenty was known about JS & polygamy, the race- based ban on priesthood & temple participation, multiple first vision accounts.  Enough was known on all of these issues to place them into curriculum but the Church chose not to do so (when I say "we" I am speaking collectively of us as a church).

 

Now we are dealing with the fallout because we lost control of the narrative.  The internet gave members access to information that many (if not most) were not aware of.

 

If you want to argue that we needed to wait until we had a more perfect knowledge to share information, that's fine.  But recognize that rather than proactively teaching, the Church is now in a reactive, damage-control mode.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Not true.

Most denominations have longer and more complex histories than the LDS Church, and far more historical documentation.  Their archives are managed pretty much the same way the LDS Historical Dept is managed.  I have used several of those Protestant resources and their archivists were very nice to me, despite my being a Mormon.

 

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.

What I said, although Catholics I have met pass along the responsibility to know the history and tradition (the sacred deposit of the faith) along to their priests.  Ordinary members of most religious groups know very little of the history of their church, and this is true of LDS as well.

 

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).

There is a growing number of Mormon Studies departments at major universities (Claremont, UC Berkeley, Uof Virginia, etc.), and many Protestant seminaries will allow a thesis or dissertation to be written on a Mormon subject.

 

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.

Actually, aside from military chaplains, there is a growing number of LDS scholars who have been formally trained in theology, religion, Near Eastern studies, languages and cultures, archeology, etc., and many have already served as bishops.  I know several.  The LDS Church doesn't care about academic rank or specialty in such callings.

[Robert F. Smith]

Okay. But, really, the Vermont Warning Book was not a key piece of information (and is still largely ignored). Walters's discovery of Justice Neely's bill of costs was a big deal but that happened in 1971. Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism and Newell and Avery's Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith were both published in 1984. How much documentary evidence regarding Mormon origins and Joseph's polygamy has been discovered since then? Not a whole lot. Certainly nothing that's a game changer. In fact, Bushman just copied chapters from his 1984 book wholesale into his 2005 biography of Joseph Smith.

 

The major difference between now and mid-1980s is the Church's new attitude of openness and transparency about its history. The information itself hasn't really changed.

I guess you didn't read my previous posts in which I specified the 1970s and 1980s as the key decades, and those documents are merely examples for those who think that everything had already been discovered.  There are many more such documents (and forgeries) which had to be evaluated in context.  If you spend no time working in archives and doing such research, it is easy to imagine that it is all just a piece of cake -- if those horrible Mormons had not been hiding everything -- which is just not true.  You desperately need a sense of perspective, Nevo.

 

As for Bushman (PhD Harvard), he was a specialist in American colonial history at Columbia and spent decades absorbing the available information and earning a well-deserved reputation as a solid scholar.  He didn't just suddenly author a bio on Joseph.  He first delivered papers at learned societies, such as his "Joseph Smith and the Palmyra Magicians," paper presented April 13, 1978, at the annual meeting of the Organization of American Historians.

 

See Richard L. Bushman ed., The Great Awakening: Documents on the Revival of Religion, 1740-1745 (N.Y.:Atheneum/Williamsburg: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1969/ 1970/ reprint Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1989).

[why me]

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?

Because the critics have pressured the church to do so by implying that the church is hiding it. And members have rather weak testimonies and leave the church over it. It is really that simple. So, all the issues addressed by the critics need to be countered by the church. What this has shown me is that lds testimonies are rather built on sand.

[why me]

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.

 

The pope has just recently apologized for church atrocities committed against latin american peoples. So, this means that the catholic church did do some terrible things in its history. But who is leaving the faith because of it. And should the catholic church now teach its members the true history of catholicism in latin america and other parts of the world? And we need to remember that many mormons in the 19th century were persecuted by protestants. How ,many protestants are taught such history and how many know about the religious wars fought between protestants and catholics in europe and the atrocities that were committed? Most don't. All religions start with a story. The catholics can start from Peter. The protestants can start from the reformation.

 

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.

 

LDS history is young and up close. Not many people would relate to a history that is centuries old. So, the lds have a short history and it is very relational for many because of it. So, the critics can get away with pointing something out that happened in

1842 etc. So, the lds church will probably be the church that educates its members the most conprehensively of any other faith, covering the negatives and positives. By the way, the lds church has much positives in its history that it also ignores., One has to read books published by desseret etc to find it.

Edited July 16, 2015 by why me

[Nevo]

See Richard L. Bushman ed., The Great Awakening: Documents on the Revival of Religion, 1740-1745 (N.Y.:Atheneum/Williamsburg: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1969/ 1970/ reprint Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1989).

 

I have to admit that I sometimes find your posts a bit hard to follow. I think we must be talking past each other. I didn't see anything in your last post that responded to any of the points I made. Yes, I am aware of your previous posts in which you specified the 1970s and 1980s as key decades in Mormon historiography. I don't disagree. I recognize that Richard Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith was decades in the making. I'm also pretty familiar with Bushman's C.V. What I was challenging was the idea that the the controversial aspects of Joseph Smith's history have only become settled facts in the last decade or so. I'm saying that they were settled facts 30 years ago.

[rockpond]

Because the critics have pressured the church to do so by implying that the church is hiding it. And members have rather weak testimonies and leave the church over it. It is really that simple. So, all the issues addressed by the critics need to be countered by the church. What this has shown me is that lds testimonies are rather built on sand.

 

Well, the Church has taught a sanitized version of its history for many decades now.  And I don't necessarily think that members are becoming weaker.  Further, the Church has always had critics who have been raising these issues since before I was born.  So I don't see any of those things really explaining the relatively recent decision to publish the essays and incorporate them into standard curriculum.

[why me]

Well, the Church has taught a sanitized version of its history for many decades now.  And I don't necessarily think that members are becoming weaker.  Further, the Church has always had critics who have been raising these issues since before I was born.  So I don't see any of those things really explaining the relatively recent decision to publish the essays and incorporate them into standard curriculum.

 

And yet, the internet was full of exmembers parroting the line of the critics. I posted on a couple of such sites before I was banned. So, I know what was going on with certain members and with their claims of the church hiding its history or the church lying about its history etc. The essays were a direct result of the internet war. And we need to remember that these essays should be publshed in many languages so that members outside the english speaking world can read them.

 

My surprise was in seeing just how many members were affected by the internet and what the critics were saying. Their spiritual experiences were chucked out the window with the bath water.

Edited July 16, 2015 by why me

[Calm]

I have to admit that I sometimes find your posts a bit hard to follow. I think we must be talking past each other. I didn't see anything in your last post that responded to any of the points I made. Yes, I am aware of your previous posts in which you specified the 1970s and 1980s as key decades in Mormon historiography. I don't disagree. I recognize that Richard Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith was decades in the making. I'm also pretty familiar with Bushman's C.V. What I was challenging was the idea that the the controversial aspects of Joseph Smith's history have only become settled facts in the last decade or so. I'm saying that they were settled facts 30 years ago.

My feeling---and it could be simply my own familiarity growing over time that has lead to this---is that it has taken significant time to create a sufficient overall context to lead to new insights and growth, to put it all together enough that the synthesis yields new avenues of work instead of just going over new ground to try and do it better.

 

For example, from what I've heard Paul Reeve's book on what was going on with the Priesthood ban and the culture that created it and then tried to live with it looks at the ban and Mormon culture in a significantly new way that has been only hinted at before.

 

I think doctrine, history and the study and experience of all of it has led us far enough along we can start to find the gaps that are actually significant and that need to be developed where before there was so much to pay attention to and it was so much piecework with just a few major anchors of work relatively speaking to the amount that was being studied, the meaningful gaps were less noticeable.

 

Now that may have nothing to do with the reason why the Church has come out with the essays now, but I see it as being able to be confident in what is known enough to take some risks in pushing boundaries.  Granted the essays are not much of a risk knowledge wise, they are things that have been known for awhile...but what the Church puts out is more or less the foundation that its members start off from and the deeper the foundation goes, the more the members will be willing to explore for themselves imo and knowing this, I think the leadership wanted to be sure the exploration would have available a solid structure to wander around in that held together as opposed to too many gaps that could lead to wandering down unfortunate detours.

Edited July 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Further, the Church has always had critics who have been raising these issues since before I was born.  

Once polygamy was settled and the newspapers stopped presenting Mormons as the latest barbaric sensation, imo the critics didn't have much of an audience beyond their immediate followers. Not having cable limited shows focusing on criticizing LDS on TV (at least I don't remember ever seeing any as a kid when visiting Grandma here in Utah or hearing any complaints about them at church or school).  Never listened to talk radio so can't report on that.  None of my friends and acquaintances growing up in the 60s and 70s no matter what Church they went to or if they did not had any info about LDS except that the men had more than one wife, maybe they knew the name of Brigham Young or Joseph Smith and a few asked if my dad had horns.  Nothing was in the local libraries even in the 90s...I was really ticked off to see the selected volumes of the EoM the Church donated to the local library up in Calgary never made it onto the shelf but ended up in the $1 per book sale bin.  There was nothing new in the Mormon section for the 13 years we lived there, not even new anti-stuff.

 

No one I knew was interested in talking about church history save for on occasion one or two ward members that kept it to themselves pretty much, let alone the anti-stuff.  There were others that had their church hobbies (WoW, last days prep, politics), but they tended to be pretty shallow in other areas of knowledge.

 

The Internet changed that.

 

But maybe I am missing your point here.

[Nevo]

What the Church puts out is more or less the foundation that its members start off from and the deeper the foundation goes, the more the members will be willing to explore for themselves imo and knowing this, I think the leadership wanted to be sure the exploration would have available a solid structure to wander around in that held together as opposed to too many gaps that could lead to wandering down unfortunate detours.

 

I think there's something to that. J.B. Haws recent MHA presentation, reported by Scott Lloyd here, noted some of the reasons why the essays are coming out now (as opposed to 20 or 30 years ago). To quote from Scott's article:

 

Other factors that should be acknowledged in the dawning of a new age of openness in church history, Haws said, are Assistant Church Historian Richard E. Turley’s book Victims [1992], that gave the church’s perspective on the Hofmann episode, the book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre that Turley co-wrote with Ron Walker and Glen Leonard [2008], the influence of the Joseph Smith Papers project [2005- ]; “and, of course, the way the Internet has changed the world.” But timing is everything, Haws noted. “Richard Bushman and the colleagues that joined him in leading the seminars — like Claudia Bushman and Terryl Givens — shaped a generation of scholars just at the time that their church was ready for their services. And this generation of scholars, with their publications and their positions in the classrooms across the country, nudged their church community to think in new ways and provided tools for doing so.

[Joshua Valentine]

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.

While perhaps already known by both of you, this seems salient:

Rather, it was ata fireside in November of 2011 at Utah StateUniversity thatElder Jensen, in responding to someone else in theaudiencesaying members of the Church wereleaving “in droves”, acknowledged thattheroleof theInternetin bringing up controversial aspects of Mormon history and doctrinehas become significant, and has led to what he called a period of apostasy in the Church. Below is a transcriptof thefireside:

Q: Has the Church seen the effectsof Google on membership?Have the been…isthe Church leadership aware of—and, I don’t know, maybe I’m overstating what’s going on, but it seems like the people Italk to about Church history are people who find out and leave, quickly—

A: Yes.

Q: Is the Church aware of that problem?Is there anything…Imean, the new manuals would help, I guess, “inoculation” within terms of youth would help. What about people whoare already leaving in droves?

A: We are aware. Maybe I’ll just say this: You knowwhat, Ioften get this question, “Dothe brethren really know?” They do.

Q:[obscured by cross-talk]

A: And I’m not speaking of me; I’m speaking of the fifteen men that are above me in the hierarchy of the Church. They really doknow. And they really care. And they realize that, maybe, since Kirtland we’ve never had period of—I’ll call it apostasy—like we’re having right now, largely over these issues.

Sowe dohave another initiative that we’ve called “Answers to Gospel Questions.” We’re trying to figure out exactly what channels to deliver i and exactly what format to put it in, but we want tohave a place where people can go.

We’ve hired someone that’s in charge of “search engine optimization.”T Church is very tuned in tothe world that we’re living in, and we realize people basically get their information through Googling. They don’t com to LDS.org; if they get there, it’s through Google.

Q:Yes. [?]

A: So we are trying tocreate an offering that will address these issuesa be available for the publicat large, for Church leaders, because many o them don’t have answers either, which can be very disappointing to Church members, and topeople who are losing their faith or have lost and we hope toregain tothe Church.

Sowe’re right in tune with you. We know it’s there. It just takes awhile.

Q:Right.

A: It’s one thing of anumber that we’re working on, but you’re very mu in point with what we’re talking about.

See:

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2013/01/15/reports-of-the-death-of-the-church-are-greatly-exaggerated/

And

site containing temple content removed

[sunstoned]

There is going to be an adjustment period as the members who bought into the story a hundred percent are going to be upset (like my parents).  But these people are older and in ten or fifteen years will be gone.  better to educate and inoculate the upcoming generation.

[Thinking]

I dont know why the lds church should be any different from other churches.

 

Well...let me see. The LDS Church claims to be God's restored church in the latter days. It has rejected the others as drawing near unto God with their lips, but denying the power thereof. Why should it then be able to stoop to their level when it comes to historical dissemination?

[rockpond]

And yet, the internet was full of exmembers parroting the line of the critics. I posted on a couple of such sites before I was banned. So, I know what was going on with certain members and with their claims of the church hiding its history or the church lying about its history etc. The essays were a direct result of the internet war. And we need to remember that these essays should be publshed in many languages so that members outside the english speaking world can read them.

My surprise was in seeing just how many members were affected by the internet and what the critics were saying. Their spiritual experiences were chucked out the window with the bath water.

I too believe that the essays were a response to what was/is happening on the Internet. But what you see as a war, I see as the Church having lost its control over the narrative that it wanted people to hear.

You write here that you were surprised at how many members were affected by what critics were saying. My biggest faith challenges haven't come from what critics say but what church members say.

Have you thought about what kind of information life-long faithful members must have come across to make them move counter to past spiritual experiences?

[Calm]

Have you thought about what kind of information life-long faithful members must have come across to make them move counter to past spiritual experiences?

A lot of times the information issues identified in the past in my experience were easily answered, though not satisfying once they were questioning their own experiences.  Most in my experience reported coming across anti material and the antimormon mostly evangelical ministries were kind of lame back then, but they still got results for some reason.  More recently it is plural marriage or the priesthood ban and those are very difficult ones to address imo and boil down to being willing to trust the Lord based on past experiences...if they've been able to maintain a trust in themselves that they weren't deceiving themselves about those experiences.

 

OTOH, in the past the hard question in my experience to answer most often was not an informational one, but a doctrinal one: "why do bad things happen to good people?"

 

Still a hard one to answer when one knows the personal tragedies that have led them to consider the question on a gut level as opposed to a thought experiment.

[Robert F. Smith]

Because the critics have pressured the church to do so by implying that the church is hiding it. And members have rather weak testimonies and leave the church over it. It is really that simple. So, all the issues addressed by the critics need to be countered by the church. What this has shown me is that lds testimonies are rather built on sand.

This is a false characterization.  Very few Mormons leave the faith, and those that do leave for reasons other than questionable history.  Most Mormons know very little about Church history, or other religious subjects.  I can still remember the first time I heard Hugh Nibley lecture.  I had no idea what he was talking about.  Years later I began to understand.  The difference can be astonishing.

 

Most LDS testimonies are built on the witness of the Holy Spirit, and that is the most solid foundation one can build upon.  The anti-Mormons do rant and rave, but they are largely incoherent because they so easily bear false witness or are very poorly informed -- and make their ignorance the basis for apostasy.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................................I see as the Church having lost its control over the narrative that it wanted people to hear.

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

The LDS Church has never had control of the narrative and was long under constant assault from other peoples who thought of Mormons as weirdos and barbarians -- until the period of great accommodation, in which Mormons became more American than Americans.  The Mormon message is still only acceptable to a small minority of the population.  Our enemies have always had the upper hand.  They tolerate our existence because we don't cause trouble.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.

The fraud comes in with the financial piece. The fraud could come in when money is collected based on falsified or inaccurate history.

[Gray]

The fraud comes in with the financial piece. The fraud could come in when money is collected based on falsified or inaccurate history.

 

There are thousands of churches out there that teach young earth creationism. I don't think any of them are in danger of losing a lawsuit for fraud.  Religious beliefs don't need be evidence based. There are broad protections for belief. 

[HappyJackWagon]

There are thousands of churches out there that teach young earth creationism. I don't think any of them are in danger of losing a lawsuit for fraud.  Religious beliefs don't need be evidence based. There are broad protections for belief. 

Religious beliefs don't need to be evidence based, but there's a difference between a religious belief and a stated religious history that is falsifiable.

[Gray]

Religious beliefs don't need to be evidence based, but there's a difference between a religious belief and a stated religious history that is falsifiable.

 

I don't think it makes a difference - at least not in the US

[Joshua Valentine]

This is a false characterization.  Very few Mormons leave the faith, and those that do leave for reasons other than questionable history.  Most Mormons know very little about Church history, or other religious subjects.  I can still remember the first time I heard Hugh Nibley lecture.  I had no idea what he was talking about.  Years later I began to understand.  The difference can be astonishing.

 

Most LDS testimonies are built on the witness of the Holy Spirit, and that is the most solid foundation one can build upon.  The anti-Mormons do rant and rave, but they are largely incoherent because they so easily bear false witness or are very poorly informed -- and make their ignorance the basis for apostasy.

So you disagree with Elder Jensen's assessment and explanation for the essays I quoted in #313?

[Guest]

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

You mean we are on the Eve of Destruction?