Are The Essays Backfiring?

[jkwilliams]

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

 

I think we do people a disservice when we tell people why they left instead of listening to what they have to say. I'm sure it's reassuring to some to believe that people who leave are simply bearing false witness or are poorly informed, but that kind of dismissiveness doesn't do any good if you're trying to maintain good relationships with friends and family who leave--not to mention trying to bring them back into the fold. 

[rockpond]

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.

 

I see what you've described here as the way things used to be.  The problem we have today is active, faithful members discovering truths that don't fit with what they've been taught.  Cog dis, betrayal, etc. result.  I think the essays were published to deal with that reality but I think to some degree they are backfiring because acceptance of the implications of the essays requires a reworking of the belief system of many church members.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith, on 17 Jul 2015 - 01:40 AM, said:

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?

You may have been confused by the "yeses" Jensen used in tracking the questions being asked during the typical Q&A.  These were not his prepared remarks, and his stating that the Brethren were aware of the issue and have been encouraging a search for alternatives makes good sense to me.  After all, the Brethren have been saying that for years, e.g., praising FARMS for the usefulness of their publications in answering the critics.  So I agree with Jensen that the Brethren are not themselves historians and do not have easy answers to some complex questions.

 

We have had the demographic debate on this board before, as you may recall, and the numbers just are not there to justify the conclusions you assume.  On the one hand, one should not minimize the importance of just a few leaving, but should not also exaggerate the  numbers.  Moreover, it might be a healthy thing to have a certain number of dissatisfied members leaving rather than staying and suffering.

[Robert F. Smith]

I see what you've described here as the way things used to be.  The problem we have today is active, faithful members discovering truths that don't fit with what they've been taught.  Cog dis, betrayal, etc. result.  I think the essays were published to deal with that reality but I think to some degree they are backfiring because acceptance of the implications of the essays requires a reworking of the belief system of many church members.

It is true that many LDS members are quite naive.  Particularly those raised in strict homes without being encouraged to think for themselves.  Such a brittle, unquestioning faith can indeed be easily broken.  This is the fault of narrow, superficial thinking by some parents, not any fault of the Brethren or LDS theology -- which have great depth and strength.

 

Most instances of cognitive dissonance or feelings of betrayal are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the Gospel, or stem from anger and bitterness for wholly other reasons.  I don't see any need to rework the LDS belief system based on any of the essays.  Naturally, anyone foolish enough to believe in the infallibility of the prophets is bound to be disappointed.  Again, very few people are so foolish, but certainly there are such people.  You say "many" while I say "few."

 

For the anti-Mormons, of course, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

[rockpond]

It is true that many LDS members are quite naive.  Particularly those raised in strict homes without being encouraged to think for themselves.  Such a brittle, unquestioning faith can indeed be easily broken.  This is the fault of narrow, superficial thinking by some parents, not any fault of the Brethren or LDS theology -- which have great depth and strength.

 

Most instances of cognitive dissonance or feelings of betrayal are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the Gospel, or stem from anger and bitterness for wholly other reasons.  I don't see any need to rework the LDS belief system based on any of the essays.  Naturally, anyone foolish enough to believe in the infallibility of the prophets is bound to be disappointed.  Again, very few people are so foolish, but certainly there are such people.  You say "many" while I say "few."

 

For the anti-Mormons, of course, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

 

Wow.  Not too judgmental.

[jkwilliams]

It is true that many LDS members are quite naive.  Particularly those raised in strict homes without being encouraged to think for themselves.  Such a brittle, unquestioning faith can indeed be easily broken.  This is the fault of narrow, superficial thinking by some parents, not any fault of the Brethren or LDS theology -- which have great depth and strength.

 

Most instances of cognitive dissonance or feelings of betrayal are based on fundamental misunderstandings of the Gospel, or stem from anger and bitterness for wholly other reasons.  I don't see any need to rework the LDS belief system based on any of the essays.  Naturally, anyone foolish enough to believe in the infallibility of the prophets is bound to be disappointed.  Again, very few people are so foolish, but certainly there are such people.  You say "many" while I say "few."

 

For the anti-Mormons, of course, we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't.

 

Seems like the same thing goes for us apostates. We couldn't possibly have spent a lot of time, study, and prayer in deciding to leave the church. Nope, we have a narrow, foolish, superficial understanding of the gospel.

 

Such attitudes don't offend me, as I know what I have been through and why, but I can't imagine it's particularly helpful to struggling members.

[Thinking]

It is true that many LDS members are quite naive.  Particularly those raised in strict homes without being encouraged to think for themselves.  Such a brittle, unquestioning faith can indeed be easily broken.  This is the fault of narrow, superficial thinking by some parents, not any fault of the Brethren or LDS theology -- which have great depth and strength.

 

It's also the fault of that anonymous lesson manual committee that kept including instructions like this in the lesson manuals.

It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text. Members are encouraged to turn to the scriptures that have been suggested for further study of the doctrine.

[KevinG]

There is a correlation between overly authoritarian parenting (lack of respect for agency), and a difficulty of children to adopt their values.  In one study on parenting* there was a much stronger link to love shown by fathers in children adopting their values, than there was to affluence, discipline or other factors.

 

*OSU extension fact sheet, Ann K. Smith PhD. 1996;, “How Fathers Fit In” Civitas.org 2004; “The importance of Father Love; History and Contemporary Evidence”, Ronald P Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, April 2001

 

There has been more than one poster here in opposition to their parents belief system, yet shared their stubbornly rigid and fundamentalist world view.  Some infamous posters have even switched their view on the truth claims of the LDS Church, but stayed completely consistent in their rigidity of views and their use of polemics. 

[why me]

The problem we have today is active, faithful members discovering truths that don't fit with what they've been taught.  Cog dis, betrayal, etc. result.

This is not exactly true.  The problem is that members,  under the influence of critic interpretations and what they are told they should believe by the critics, have swallowed what the critics are saying. If a member wants to know aspects of church history I would have church sponsored books for them to read or books by faithful members who have published books by Knopf etc.

 

However, it is ashame that the members do have not constant lds history lessons on sunday or during the weekday that are mandatory to attend. Hopefully, someday the lds church will have each member take lds history exams and write essays from independent research. That may stem the flow of members throwing out their spiritual experiences with the bathwater.

[why me]

It's also the fault of that anonymous lesson manual committee that kept including instructions like this in the lesson manuals.

However, this did not discourage independent reading. We do know that members have been encouraged to read critic books by the critics and many did. So, why couldn't they also read books published by lds scholars such as Bushman and Arrington? One reason may be that such members actually wanted to find fault with the church. Back in the 70s many of us read Arrington's book called The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter day Saints. It was actively discussed in church. However, back then, we had books and journals and not the sensational internet to poison our minds.

Edited July 17, 2015 by why me

[rockpond]

This is not exactly true.  The problem is that members,  under the influence of critic interpretations and what they are told they should believe by the critics, have swallowed what the critics are saying. If a member wants to know aspects of church history I would have church sponsored books for them to read or books by faithful members who have published books by Knopf etc.

 

The essays are published by the Church and they are causing the problems I mentioned among members:  faith crises, cog dis, feelings of betrayal, etc.

 

However, it is ashame that the members do have not constant lds history lessons on sunday or during the weekday that are mandatory to attend. Hopefully, someday the lds church will have each member take lds history exams and write essays from independent research. That may stem the flow of members throwing out their spiritual experiences with the bathwater.

 

Nope, no need.  We're talking about the issues in the essays not just about history.

[KevinG]

I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that the essays have not caused discomfort among LDS who were not informed of their content from other sources (be it through over promotion of faithful history in Sunday School and homes, lack of interest, or conspiracy to hide uncomfortable truths).

 

But a good question would be on the whole do the essays help more people avoid shaken faith syndrome from anti-mormon shock and awe tactics than they hurt by exposing those issues that some Saints were previously insulated from?

[HappyJackWagon]

It's always fun to blame the members for not knowing the details the church tried hard to brush into the corner and the parents who raised them to orthodoxly. Blame the members. Blame the idiots who believed in prophetic infallibility and taught it to their families. They came up with that all on their own. The church had no influence on their interpretation of the religion.

 

Some day we may be blaming the unlearned/unwise/naive members who believe in the historicity of the BoA or angelic visitations. Give it a hundred years and we'll still be blaming the individuals and not the perfect church. The members should know better than to believe the church after all.

[jkwilliams]

It's always fun to blame the members for not knowing the details the church tried hard to brush into the corner and the parents who raised them to orthodoxly. Blame the members. Blame the idiots who believed in prophetic infallibility and taught it to their families. They came up with that all on their own. The church had no influence on their interpretation of the religion.

 

Some day we may be blaming the unlearned/unwise/naive members who believe in the historicity of the BoA or angelic visitations. Give it a hundred years and we'll still be blaming the individuals and not the perfect church. The members should know better than to believe the church after all.

 

I've had a number of people tell me my problem was that I took the church too seriously. I somehow missed the lesson on "blessed are the casual, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

[KevinG]

It's always fun to blame the members for not knowing the details the church tried hard to brush into the corner and the parents who raised them to orthodoxly. Blame the members. Blame the idiots who believed in prophetic infallibility and taught it to their families. They came up with that all on their own. The church had no influence on their interpretation of the religion.

 

Some day we may be blaming the unlearned/unwise/naive members who believe in the historicity of the BoA or angelic visitations. Give it a hundred years and we'll still be blaming the individuals and not the perfect church. The members should know better than to believe the church after all.

 

I don't believe I've ever used the word idiot to describe someone who only adhered to faith promoting materials, or who dismissed all non Sunday School publications as Anti-Mormon...

 

100 years from now we will all look naive, that is a given.  However we're not talking Saints from 100 years ago.  We are talking about those who live today, in the era of the internet, who do not avail themselves of multiple information sources, personal revelation, and reason in forming a rigid fundamentalist view of the world.  Then blame others for "hiding" things from them.

 

I am quite astonished that as a convert I knew many things about the Church that many members never bothered to know, or dismissed out of hand because it didn't fit their world view.  That phenomenon is not limited to antis or pros- but a fundamentalist view can lead to rigidity either way.

Edited July 17, 2015 by KevinG

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't believe I've ever used the word idiot to describe someone who only adhered to faith promoting materials, or who dismissed all non Sunday School publications as Anti-Mormon...

 

100 years from now we will all look naive, that is a given.  However we're not talking Saints from 100 years ago.  We are talking about those who live today, in the era of the internet, who do not avail themselves of multiple information sources, personal revelation, and reason in forming a rigid fundamentalist view of the world.  Then blame others for "hiding" things from them.

 

I am quite astonished that as a convert I knew many things about the Church that many members never bothered to know, or dismissed out of hand because it didn't fit their world view.  That phenomenon is not limited to antis or pros- but a fundamentalist view can lead to rigidity either way.

People are availing themselves of the multiple media sources...hence the problem. But growing up when those sources were not readily available and then finding them now creates a problem. Apparently my problem is I trusted my leaders and what I was taught too much. It just couldn't hold up to scrutiny when the resources were available to me. I accept full responsibility for my naivete.

 

I never said you called anyone an "idiot". But others have implied such as this...

 

I don't see any need to rework the LDS belief system based on any of the essays.  Naturally, anyone foolish enough to believe in the infallibility of the prophets is bound to be disappointed.  Again, very few people are so foolish, but certainly there are such people.

They're not idiots, only fools. My bad

[KevinG]

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him, I am fearful lest they (LDS) settle down in a state of self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the paths the Lord dictates or not.”( Disc. of B.Y., p.209 / Journal of Disc. Vol. 9 p. 149-150 )

 

 D&C 88:118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is true that many LDS members are quite naive.  Particularly those raised in strict homes without being encouraged to think for themselves.  Such a brittle, unquestioning faith can indeed be easily broken.  This is the fault of narrow, superficial thinking by some parents, not any fault of the Brethren or LDS theology -- which have great depth and strength.

 

It's also the fault of that anonymous lesson manual committee that kept including instructions like this in the lesson manuals.

It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text. Members are encouraged to turn to the scriptures that have been suggested for further study of the doctrine.

I agree, but again, why would anyone be foolish enough to believe that the manual writers are infallible?  I would never take such a phrase seriously.  Would you?

Edited July 18, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Thinking]

I agree, but again, why would anyone be foolish enough to believe that the manual writers are infallible?  I would never take such a phrase seriously.  Would you?

 

If only a fool would take such a phrase seriously, then why would such a phrase be included in the introduction of a lesson manual?

[Calm]

I always read it as reassurance for teachers who were not able to purchase additional aids to increase their familiarity with the texts, that just because they weren't as financially or educationally well off as other teachers might be, this would not prevent them from being good teachers.

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree, but again, why would anyone be foolish enough to believe that the manual writers are infallible?  I would never take such a phrase seriously.  Would you?

If only a fool would take such a phrase seriously, then why would such a phrase be included in the introduction of a lesson manual?

Is that what I said?  Why not react to what I actually said and then answer my question?

Edited July 18, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Thinking]

I agree, but again, why would anyone be foolish enough to believe that the manual writers are infallible?  I would never take such a phrase seriously.  Would you?

 

If only a fool would take such a phrase seriously, then why would such a phrase be included in the introduction of a lesson manual?

 

Is that what I said?  Why not react to what I actually said and then answer my question?

 

I can play too. Did I say that following the direction in the introduction of a lesson manual means that the reader believes the manual writers are infallible? Nope. You introduced the word infallible all by yourself.

 

When I was still TBM I took seriously the counsel I read in official church publications. You act like that's a bad thing. The first time I had questions I met with my bishop. He told me that he didn't know the answers, but that I should just focus on the basics. All these other questions would be answered in the Lord's due time, possibly in the next life. Two other bishops told me essentially the same thing.

[sunstoned]

I always read it as reassurance for teachers who were not able to purchase additional aids to increase their familiarity with the texts, that just because they weren't as financially or educationally well off as other teachers might be, this would not prevent them from being good teachers.

I first encountered that statement in the then new BY manual,  I was the EQ instructor at the time.  I had most of the source material in my library and I did check the references and quotes from the lessons.  The results were extremely disappointing.  Many quotes were taken completely out of context to the point that the original meaning was completely changed.  Some were actually changed.   It was my first big wake up call.

[Robert F. Smith]

I can play too. Did I say that following the direction in the introduction of a lesson manual means that the reader believes the manual writers are infallible? Nope. You introduced the word infallible all by yourself.

 

When I was still TBM I took seriously the counsel I read in official church publications. You act like that's a bad thing. The first time I had questions I met with my bishop. He told me that he didn't know the answers, but that I should just focus on the basics. All these other questions would be answered in the Lord's due time, possibly in the next life. Two other bishops told me essentially the same thing.

I have no problem with taking something seriously.  At that point (provided a member does not buy into infallibility), one can disregard or modify such statements as needed.

 

Time and again, I have found that rigid adherence to such human recommendations, even when it is clearly not necessary, can lead to severe problems.  It is precisely the brittle member who breaks under the false impression that the Brethren are infallible and that the manuals are official doctrine.

[rockpond]

I'm not a Reddit user but Bill Reel posted some quotes from Richard Bushman's "ask me anything" on Reddit over the weekend.  Here's one that pertains to this discussion.

 

When asked If the Top 15 were aware of the messiness of Mormon history and how the Top 15 men feel about the messy history of the Church filtering down to lay members, Brother Bushman responded:

 

"They were not for many years, but recently they have had to get up to speed. The recent Church historians have done a great job of informing the Brethren. The gospel topics were a surprise to many. They are often charged with concealing the truth. I think the fact is the old narrative was all they knew. I don't think that all believe we have to tell the whole story. Why bring all that up they are wont to say. But those on the side of transparency are prevailing."