Are The Essays Backfiring?

[jkwilliams]

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."

 

That's how I've always seen it. I do think there was some discomfort among the brethren in the late 70s and early 80s with opening things up, but I'm glad to see there's more willingness today. Too late for me, but maybe not for others.

[Nevo]

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."

 

I heard Terryl Givens say essentially the same thing at a lecture a few months ago. He said the Brethren weren't historians and that some of them were as surprised by the information in the essays as anyone else. He also opined that the Joseph Smith Papers project is our "Vatican II" and that Church history henceforth will be divided between pre-Joseph Smith Papers and post-Joseph Smith Papers the way Catholic history is divided into pre-Vatican II and post-Vatican II periods. He also mentioned the cost of the Joseph Smith Papers project. I don't remember the exact figure but it was much higher than I expected. So there's no going back now.

[Joshua Valentine]

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.

Is there much of a difference between "official doctrine" and "official teaching" in regards to evaluating the fruits of the LDS Church?

Also, don't manuals refer to their contents as "doctrine"? I believe Gospel Principles does.

[Okrahomer]

Is there much of a difference between "official doctrine" and "official teaching" in regards to evaluating the fruits of the LDS Church?

Also, don't manuals refer to their contents as "doctrine"? I believe Gospel Principles does.

You might find this brief article helpful: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Please note in particular the quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

Well, you would know about that.

 

For those who realise that the Hawn's Mill victims were murdered primarily because they were Mormons, and that the Missouri experience was a formative moment in the history of the Church, while the MMM victims were murdered largely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the MMM itself was a glaring exception to the normal conduct of the Mormon pioneers, there are valid reasons to see the two events differently.

[Joshua Valentine]

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.

 

 

Is there much of a difference between "official doctrine" and "official teaching" in regards to evaluating the fruits of the LDS Church?

Also, don't manuals refer to their contents as "doctrine"? I believe Gospel Principles does.

 

 

You might find this brief article helpful: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Please note in particular the quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

 

I'm not quite sure what you meant by all this. My point above was simply that whether the manuals have "official doctrine" or not takes little away from the responsibility of the LDS Church leadership to teach official teachings in their official teaching publication and for members to take official teaching publications seriously as the leadership wants them to.

 

As for your reply, like I said, I'm not sure what your point was.  You emphasize Joseph's quote, but that has nothing to do with the topic of official doctrine in manuals.  In fact, Joseph's statement almost seems useless in this regard, as those "fundamental principles" are shared with many non-LDS Christian groups.  To somehow imply that everything else about the LDS Church or other non-LDS Christianity is simply "appendages" and thus of significantly less import, is like saying that there is no significant difference between Mormonism and the LDS Church and Christianity and non-LDS Christian groups. We all know that is not the case.  We all know that there are significant differences and that they are not insignificant "appendages" but are rather foundational principles and beliefs taught by the LDS Church.  But I still can't quite find a way to connect this with the topic of "official doctrine" in the manuals.

 

I did note in the article you cited, however, that it does say the following:

 

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

 

 

So, thanks, here is an official church source declaring that official Church publications have doctrine in them, just as Gospel Principles says it does, and anyone would expect.  Going back to Thinking's original statement on this...

 

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.

 

Look, he even says "official church publications" was what he was taking seriously!

 

And, yet, Robert F. Smith said:

 

 

It is precisely the brittle member who breaks under the false impression that the Brethren are infallible and that the manuals are official doctrine.

 

Maybe I took Robert F. Smith incorrectly when I read him as declaring "that the manuals are official doctrine" is a "false impression". But it seems intuitive and simply non-self-contradicting that official church publications, even more so official church manuals, would in fact have doctrine and, even if you could argue that they were not quite "Official Doctrine", their being official teachings in official teaching curriculum preserves the fact that members are supposed to take them seriously, quite seriously. This is what Thinking said he did, and what Robert F. Smith seems to be saying is somehow inappropriate.  Okrahomer, your link confirms the appropriateness of taking manuals as, at least, containing official teaching and doctrine with the statement I quoted above from it. Perhaps Robert F. Smith was making a different, better point.

[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.

 

 

Well, you would know about that.

 

For those who realise that the Hawn's Mill victims were murdered primarily because they were Mormons, and that the Missouri experience was a formative moment in the history of the Church, while the MMM victims were murdered largely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the MMM itself was a glaring exception to the normal conduct of the Mormon pioneers, there are valid reasons to see the two events differently.

 

Russell C McGregor, what is the "that" of which you claim I "would know"?  Considering that you and I don't know each other nearly at all, I find it difficult not to take this sentence as insincere and, probably, contentious.  Is there a fault with my statement?  And which one?

 

I was simply pointing out (note the "FYI" I used) that what carbon dioxide had called a "small number of people" was in fact about 120.  For perspective, I compared this to the number of LDS people estimated killed during the Missouri conflicts (or "War"), which is some more than 50.  So I am not sure how I could cause offense with this information.  Perhaps your "would know" and "that" are in reference to the estimate of LDS killed in Missouri. If so, I can assure you that I would not know. It is actually an estimate made by a respected LDS historian.

 

As for your latter point, Russell C McGregor, about MMM and Haun's Mill being different.  I have no issue with that fact, except that my comment did not directly, or indirectly I believe, say that they were similar.  My point was not that since they are not different then they should both be taught by the LDS Church, as your reply seemed to assume.  Rather, all I said was that if the LDS Church takes on the task of teaching history, then it takes on some responsibility to do it justly.  Given this truism, if the LDS Church teaches Haun's Mill, perhaps to inspire its members, then, just by teaching a non-essential historical event, it opens itself up to criticisms for other non-essential historical events that it chooses not to teach.  As I said in the comment, "MMM becomes fair game".

 

The rest of my comment did not have to do with MMM at all, so I was a little surprised that you focused on it and came up with an interpretation I did not mean to convey at all.  I can see how my writing could have been clearer; I apologize.  I meant it to be read as two different points:

 

1) MMM becomes fair game (as another non-essential historical event that could have been chosen as soon as the LDS Church decides to teach non-essential historical events - in this case, Haun's Mill.)

 

2) "but other related contextual history to events like Haun's Mill become required"

 

#2 was meant to be a separate point. #1 states that a church that starts teaching, emphasizing, memorializing non-essential historical events takes on the responsibility of what particular non-essential events it chooses to do so with and which it does not choose. #2 states that once a particular historical event is taught by leadership, then that leadership takes on the responsibility of teaching that event justly.

 

I personally find that Haun's Mill is often taught without key historical details that are not only essential to giving a historically respectable version of events but that it is told over and over without the key elements that might give the story a quite different reception by the membership.  Memorialized history that is missing key details that might make the event less desirable to memorialize nears the status of propaganda.

[Russell C McGregor]

Russell C McGregor, what is the "that" of which you claim I "would know"?  Considering that you and I don't know each other nearly at all, I find it difficult not to take this sentence as insincere and, probably, contentious.  Is there a fault with my statement?  And which one?

The "that" is propaganda.

 

As for your latter point, Russell C McGregor, about MMM and Haun's Mill being different.  I have no issue with that fact, except that my comment did not directly, or indirectly I believe, say that they were similar.  My point was not that since they are not different then they should both be taught by the LDS Church, as your reply seemed to assume.  Rather, all I said was that if the LDS Church takes on the task of teaching history, then it takes on some responsibility to do it justly.  Given this truism, if the LDS Church teaches Haun's Mill, perhaps to inspire its members, then, just by teaching a non-essential historical event, it opens itself up to criticisms for other non-essential historical events that it chooses not to teach.  As I said in the comment, "MMM becomes fair game".

But that argument only works if they are similar.

On the one hand we have a group of Mormons murdered because they were Mormons, as part of what can only be called a pogrom. On the other, we have a group of people killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, by people who unfortunately happened to be Mormons.

The two situations are not symmetrical. Talking about one does not obligate us to give equal time to the other.

Survivors of Hawn's Mill were among the first settlers of Nauvoo. It was, as I mentioned, a formative event. The MMM, for all its gruesomeness, was not. The relative historical significance of the two events is not determined by the number of victims or participants, but by the consequences they brought about.

 

The rest of my comment did not have to do with MMM at all, so I was a little surprised that you focused on it and came up with an interpretation I did not mean to convey at all.  I can see how my writing could have been clearer; I apologize.  I meant it to be read as two different points:

 

1) MMM becomes fair game (as another non-essential historical event that could have been chosen as soon as the LDS Church decides to teach non-essential historical events - in this case, Haun's Mill.)

Hawn's Mill is not "non-essential" if we want to understand what happened in Missouri and why the Saints had to leave. The MMM, beloved of anti-Mormons since the day after it happened, is considerably less essential to understanding the settlement of Utah, or the wider American west; and it sheds absolutely no light -- none -- upon LDS life and teaching.

 

2) "but other related contextual history to events like Haun's Mill become required"

 

#2 was meant to be a separate point. #1 states that a church that starts teaching, emphasizing, memorializing non-essential historical events takes on the responsibility of what particular non-essential events it chooses to do so with and which it does not choose. #2 states that once a particular historical event is taught by leadership, then that leadership takes on the responsibility of teaching that event justly.

Meaning what? That the victims deserved it?

 

I personally find that Haun's Mill is often taught without key historical details that are not only essential to giving a historically respectable version of events but that it is told over and over without the key elements that might give the story a quite different reception by the membership.  Memorialized history that is missing key details that might make the event less desirable to memorialize nears the status of propaganda.

What "key details" are those?

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder if Joshua Valentine is aware that the most current and reliable book on Mountain Meadows was written with two of his colleagues by a man who currently holds the position of Assistant Church Historian and Recorder and that the book has been published for going on a decade now.

[Okrahomer]

I'm not quite sure what you meant by all this...

 

As for your reply, like I said, I'm not sure what your point was.

 

 

The article I linked indicates very clearly that "doctrine" and "teaching" are not always the same thing.  That this did not make sense to you only adds to an emerging impression (from your recently accumulated posts) that you are less interested in an actual conversation, than you are in arguing.

[Joshua Valentine]

The article I linked indicates very clearly that "doctrine" and "teaching" are not always the same thing.  That this did not make sense to you only adds to an emerging impression (from your recently accumulated posts) that you are less interested in an actual conversation, than you are in arguing.

Ah, I see what you mean. I now know what you were using the link for. But, come on, are you really going to hold it against me when you didn't actually say anything but just posted the link? Did you really want me to guess your meaning? If I was simply argumentative, then I wouldn't have bothered asking you.

So, I find it funny that the person who didn't actually say anything specific to the conversation is doubting my sincerity about communicating.

No, now that I know, I can respond to you. I'll be able to show why I didn't catch the part in the link you wanted me to (besides, you know-you not telling me). But it well have to wait. I got to go to work.

Have a good day all!

Joshua Valentine

[Okrahomer]

Ah, I see what you mean. I now know what you were using the link for. But, come on, are you really going to hold it against me when you didn't actually say anything but just posted the link? Did you really want me to guess your meaning? If I was simply argumentative, then I wouldn't have bothered asking you.

So, I find it funny that the person who didn't actually say anything specific to the conversation is doubting my sincerity about communicating.

No, now that I know, I can respond to you. I'll be able to show why I didn't catch the part in the link you wanted me to (besides, you know-you not telling me). But it well have to wait. I got to go to work.

Have a good day all!

Joshua Valentine

 

I won't hold it against you, if you won't hold it against me.  I do apologize for posting the link without my own explanation.

 

I do that sometimes when I think the link/article presents information reliably and accurately--more accurately than when I use my own words to repeat the same information.  In an unintended way, it is analogous to the difference between "doctrine" (the linked article) and "teaching" (my interpretation.)  And if you really are interested, you might take a long look at many of the posts by Mfbukowski and Mars to understand how "words" very often get in the way of truth.

 

Have a good day, Joshua Valentine!

[Joshua Valentine]

The "that" is propaganda.

So, it's to be read as "Well, you would know about propaganda."?

Hmm, seems unfounded and unnecessarily contentious. Next!

 

But that argument only works if they are similar.

On the one hand we have a group of Mormons murdered because they were Mormons, as part of what can only be called a pogrom. On the other, we have a group of people killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, by people who unfortunately happened to be Mormons.

The two situations are not symmetrical. Talking about one does not obligate us to give equal time to the other.

Again, I never said the two were symmetrical, and I certainly was not arguing that talking about one obligated the LDS Church to give equal time to the other. I didn't say anything about the LSD Church having to talk about MMM at all.

What I simply said is that both MMM and Haun's Mill are, at least technically, non-essential historical events. Once a religious organization goes beyond the necessary historical events of its origin and teachings, then it opens itself up to criticism as to why it chooses one non-essential event to teach and emphasize and not another.

I make no claim here that the LDS Church is obligated or even rightly criticized for not choosing MMM along with Haun's Mill.

 

Survivors of Hawn's Mill were among the first settlers of Nauvoo. It was, as I mentioned, a formative event. The MMM, for all its gruesomeness, was not. The relative historical significance of the two events is not determined by the number of victims or participants, but by the consequences they brought about.

I can accept this, but again I wasn't arguing that the LDS Church had to teach on MMM, just that it is ok to wonder and even critique its decision to cover one and not the other. You give a pretty good defense of that decision here.

 

Hawn's Mill is not "non-essential" if we want to understand what happened in Missouri and why the Saints had to leave. The MMM, beloved of anti-Mormons since the day after it happened, is considerably less essential to understanding the settlement of Utah, or the wider American west; and it sheds absolutely no light -- none -- upon LDS life and teaching.

I could argue with this last sentence. While Haun's Mill might be important for understanding the continuance of LDS History into Nauvoo, an argument could be made that MMM was important for understanding the life of Utah that led up to it. Is either really essential for the LDS Church's mission? Personally, I suspect not.

 

Meaning what? That the victims deserved it?

Huh? I feel like the quote you applied these questions to does not in ANY way justify your questions. But you do better with your next one...

 

What "key details" are those?

Well, first, any sense of the context of the "Missouri War". When I hear LDS leaders and members speak of Haun's Mill, all they seem to do for context is "Missouri" and "persecution". That hardly gives a sense of the rising tensions and actions on both sides that led to escalations in wrongs, on both sides.

Second, LDS love to mention how they are the only religion to have an "extermination order" given against its people. What they NEVER say is that Sidney Rigdon was the first to use the word "extermination" and the first to use it as a threat in his July 4th speech which was given weeks before the escalation to open violence. If they don't mention that, then they certainly don't mention that Joseph seemed to not only support this speech but actually published it among members, which inevitably led to non-member Missourians seeing it and not taking it so great.

Third, while I have seen this mentioned a couple of times, it has never been by LDS leaders or membership while relating the story of Haun's Mill. I am referring to the evidence that the word "extermination" primarily meant something non-lethal in the days of the Missouri conflicts. Instead, it seems, it's primary use was "driving out".

Fourth, there is no evidence that the men who perpetrated Haun's Mill Massacre actually had received the Executive Order 44. The evidence indicates that they were acting on suspicions most probably based on unfounded rumors.

All of these contexts seem to render the great story of innocent people murdered for their religion by an evil state quite different. It was certainly an evil event, but it was not the one-sided, one-dimensional mythic event that LDS leaders and members have made it out to be. Thus, insofar as these contexts that would otherwise temper the inspirational quality of the massacre are left out and the story is still used to inspire and motivate, then it seems pretty much propaganda.

To bring this back to the original tangent: all I was originally saying was that 1) if the LDS Church is going to teach any history then it opens itself up to inquiries as to the specific history it chooses to tell and the specific possible history it chooses not to tell, and 2) if the LDS Church chooses to teach any history at all, then it has a responsibility to teach that history accurately, not necessarily exhaustively, but justly.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Joshua Valentine

[Joshua Valentine]

Is there much of a difference between "official doctrine" and "official teaching" in regards to evaluating the fruits of the LDS Church?

Also, don't manuals refer to their contents as "doctrine"? I believe Gospel Principles does.

 

What I meant by this was simply that the LDS Church has the authority and thus the responsibility and the consequences in regards to what it deems "official doctrine" and what it officially teaches. I see a lot of people write off teachings as "not official doctrine" as though any religious authority could just teach whatever with impunity. No, if the LDS Church is to meet its lofty claims, then its teachings should be considered very important, practically as important as its doctrines.

 

 

You might find this brief article helpful: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Please note in particular the quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

 

 

The article I linked indicates very clearly that "doctrine" and "teaching" are not always the same thing.  That this did not make sense to you only adds to an emerging impression (from your recently accumulated posts) that you are less interested in an actual conversation, than you are in arguing.

 

So, my first comment did not say that they were the same thing, just that they don't make for much of a difference when it comes to the fruits, or evidence, of the LDS Church (and its authenticity). We dealt with the "that this did not make sense to you" a bit this morning and I will keep my word with the following.

 

I won't hold it against you, if you won't hold it against me.  I do apologize for posting the link without my own explanation.

 

I do that sometimes when I think the link/article presents information reliably and accurately--more accurately than when I use my own words to repeat the same information.  In an unintended way, it is analogous to the difference between "doctrine" (the linked article) and "teaching" (my interpretation.)  And if you really are interested, you might take a long look at many of the posts by Mfbukowski and Mars to understand how "words" very often get in the way of truth.

 

Have a good day, Joshua Valentine!

 

I appreciate your apology and willingness to hear me out, Okrahomer.

So, from the article, first I would say that I did catch the following:

 

 

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

 

I assume this is what you meant by showing that doctrine and teaching are not always the same.  And yes, I suppose it does.  Again, I never claimed the two were the same.  I have read this quote before and find it a bit silly.  I don't mean to be offensive.  I just don't think that the real issues with teaching and doctrine have anything to do with "single statements", "single leaders", or "single occasions", so I find this statement as being, at the least, ineffective.  This may be why I didn't entertain it as your intent of the link.

 

Also you asked me to pay close attention to the Joseph Smith quote. Which I think may have thrown me off your intent.  I've already said that that quote seems to claim that the birth, life, death and resurrection are the (only) important parts of Mormonism. But that can't be the case or Mormonism and Christianity would be the same and there would be no need for LDS missionaries to teach non-LDS Christians.  I think it was Dallin H. Oaks who said that the differences are significant and that is why missionaries are sent (to Christians).

 

As to my original comment you responded to: I simply think that trying to give a pass on teachings or manuals by saying that they are not "official doctrine" (as Thinker's statement was treated) misses the point completely that people like Thinker was making and that others make in criticisms of the LDS Church.  Whether teachings are "official" or not does not take away from the LDS leadership's responsibility in teaching accurately, correctly, and effectively.  Whether the teachings are "official doctrine" or not does not take away from their evidencing either the leadership's authenticity or lack thereof.

 

Many members speak of considering the "fruits of the Church".  Well, "official doctrine" is not the only fruit of the LDS Church.  And the teachings of the leadership cannot be written-off simply because they are teachings, teachings are fruit, too.

 

Although, you did not do it Okrahomer, I hope others here can better consider Thinker's experience and point and get this conversation closer to the OP.

 

I know it's late now, but hopefully everyone (and soon myself) are currently sleeping well.

[jkwilliams]

To bring this back to the original tangent: all I was originally saying was that 1) if the LDS Church is going to teach any history then it opens itself up to inquiries as to the specific history it chooses to tell and the specific possible history it chooses not to tell, and 2) if the LDS Church chooses to teach any history at all, then it has a responsibility to teach that history accurately, not necessarily exhaustively, but justly.

 

IMO, the church is walking a fine line between openness and faith promotion/damage control. I'm happy they are being more forthcoming about gray areas in church history, but I also recognize that they are going to spin things the way they wish. I would expect that from any organization, not just one promoting a religious faith. 

[Okrahomer]

What I meant by this was simply that the LDS Church has the authority and thus the responsibility and the consequences in regards to what it deems "official doctrine" and what it officially teaches. I see a lot of people write off teachings as "not official doctrine" as though any religious authority could just teach whatever with impunity. No, if the LDS Church is to meet its lofty claims, then its teachings should be considered very important, practically as important as its doctrines.

As to my original comment you responded to: I simply think that trying to give a pass on teachings or manuals by saying that they are not "official doctrine" (as Thinker's statement was treated) misses the point completely that people like Thinker was making and that others make in criticisms of the LDS Church.  Whether teachings are "official" or not does not take away from the LDS leadership's responsibility in teaching accurately, correctly, and effectively.  Whether the teachings are "official doctrine" or not does not take away from their evidencing either the leadership's authenticity or lack thereof.

 

 

I agree that the LDS Church has the authority and responsibility to teach what it deems to be "official doctrine."  So, I pointed you to an official statement of the Church indicating that there is a difference between "doctrine" and "teaching."  I think you will be frustrated in your attempt to communicate with members of the LDS Church, until you at least attempt to understand how we view it. 

 

I agree that the LDS Church has a responsibility to teach accurately; however, we do not believe our leaders are infallible.  Indeed, a "core doctrine" of the LDS Church is that there was only ever one perfect individual who lived on the earth--and he is Jesus Christ:  "He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

[Russell C McGregor]

Second, LDS love to mention how they are the only religion to have an "extermination order" given against its people. What they NEVER say is that Sidney Rigdon was the first to use the word "extermination" and the first to use it as a threat in his July 4th speech which was given weeks before the escalation to open violence. If they don't mention that, then they certainly don't mention that Joseph seemed to not only support this speech but actually published it among members, which inevitably led to non-member Missourians seeing it and not taking it so great.

Yes, I'm aware of this standard bit of anti-Mormon polemics. What the critics never mention is that this speech was given after the Mormons had lain down and simply taken it for five years.

Five. Years.

Third, while I have seen this mentioned a couple of times, it has never been by LDS leaders or membership while relating the story of Haun's Mill. I am referring to the evidence that the word "extermination" primarily meant something non-lethal in the days of the Missouri conflicts. Instead, it seems, it's primary use was "driving out".

And I'm also aware of this recent bit of historical revisionism. That it is clearly false can be seen from two irrefutable facts: (1) the Executive Order was accompanied by specific military orders to militia units, directing them to move into the north of the state and cut off the Mormons' retreat; and (2) when various Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, surrendered to the militia, the officer commanding thought he was authorised to order their summary execution.

You don't "drive out" someone by cutting off their means of escape. Even a drunken Missourian was smart enough to know that.

[carbon dioxide]

IMO, the church is walking a fine line between openness and faith promotion/damage control. I'm happy they are being more forthcoming about gray areas in church history, but I also recognize that they are going to spin things the way they wish. I would expect that from any organization, not just one promoting a religious faith. 

Would you expect a religious faith to not "spin" gray areas in a direction that they wished?  Would you expect it to spin it in the direction that the critics claim?

[jkwilliams]

Would you expect a religious faith to not "spin" gray areas in a direction that they wished?  Would you expect it to spin it in the direction that the critics claim?

 

I believe I just said I expect organizations, including religions, to spin things as they see fit. So, no, it would be kind of foolish to expect a religious organization to spin things in the direction of their critics. Is this a trick question, or something?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Well, first, any sense of the context of the "Missouri War". When I hear LDS leaders and members speak of Haun's Mill, all they seem to do for context is "Missouri" and "persecution". That hardly gives a sense of the rising tensions and actions on both sides that led to escalations in wrongs, on both sides.

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

People often overlook the extenuating circumstances, as they do, for example, in the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.  The attack had actually been predicted years before by Col. Billy Mitchell (and he was court martialed for it), who was merely looking at the matter as a military tactician and strategist.  From the Japanese standpoint, they had been left with no other option than to attack.  America was preventing them from obtaining crucial resources.

 

In the aftermath, it is very useful (and honest) to face the real history and to admit up front that mistakes have been made.  Repentance, if you will.

[jkwilliams]

People often overlook the extenuating circumstances, as they do, for example, in the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese.  The attack had actually been predicted years before by Col. Billy Mitchell (and he was court martialed for it), who was merely looking at the matter as a military tactician and strategist.  From the Japanese standpoint, they had been left with no other option than to attack.  America was preventing them from obtaining crucial resources.

 

In the aftermath, it is very useful (and honest) to face the real history and to admit up front that mistakes have been made.  Repentance, if you will.

 

Wise words. The Missouri conflict was complicated, and there is plenty of blame to go around. Did my family and the rest of the Saints deserve what happened to them in Missouri? Of course not. Did they contribute to the situation? Yes. 

[Joshua Valentine]

 

Second, LDS love to mention how they are the only religion to have an "extermination order" given against its people. What they NEVER say is that Sidney Rigdon was the first to use the word "extermination" and the first to use it as a threat in his July 4th speech which was given weeks before the escalation to open violence. If they don't mention that, then they certainly don't mention that Joseph seemed to not only support this speech but actually published it among members, which inevitably led to non-member Missourians seeing it and not taking it so great.

Yes, I'm aware of this standard bit of anti-Mormon polemics. What the critics never mention is that this speech was given after the Mormons had lain down and simply taken it for five years.

Five. Years.

 

Then, Russel C McGregor, you agree with me. Just as you have reasoned here - that it would be wrong for "anti-Mormons" to speak of Rigdon's July 4th/extermination speech without mentioning the context of the "Five. Years." - it is also wrong for the LDS Church and members to speak of Bogg's "Extermination Order" without mentioning the context of the events of just half a year before the order.  Thank you for proving my point.

 

If "anti-Mormon's" version of events without context is "polemics", then the LDS Church and membership's version of events without context is, indeed, propaganda.

 

 

Third, while I have seen this mentioned a couple of times, it has never been by LDS leaders or membership while relating the story of Haun's Mill. I am referring to the evidence that the word "extermination" primarily meant something non-lethal in the days of the Missouri conflicts. Instead, it seems, it's primary use was "driving out".

 

And I'm also aware of this recent bit of historical revisionism. That it is clearly false can be seen from two irrefutable facts: (1) the Executive Order was accompanied by specific military orders to militia units, directing them to move into the north of the state and cut off the Mormons' retreat; and (2) when various Church leaders, including Joseph Smith, surrendered to the militia, the officer commanding thought he was authorised to order their summary execution.

You don't "drive out" someone by cutting off their means of escape. Even a drunken Missourian was smart enough to know that.

 

I'm afraid your position - that Executive Order 44 was an "extermination order" as we would understand it today, as an order to kill Mormons - "is clearly false" because of just one truly irrefutable fact: the Mormons were not killed, en masse, exterminated to any degree by the men who were given this order.  Taking a note from your writing: You don't "exterminate" a people by not killing them. Anyone from today would be smart enough to know that.

You can make claims to understand the only reason to close off the north and you can make claims about what the commanding officer thought, but the actually irrefutable fact is that the Mormons were outnumbered, outmaneuvered, and outgunned, and, yet, they were most definitely NOT exterminated, according to our definition. They were, on the other hand, driven out from the state of Missouri, just as the contemporary definition of the word would indicate.

And one more thing, before you continue referring to it as "historical revisionism", you should know that dictionaries from the time period are pretty good evidence of the meaning of a word from that time period and you should know that your church agrees:

 

 

4. Lilburn W. Boggs letter to John B. Clark, Oct. 27, 1838, Mormon War Papers, Missouri State Archives. One contemporary meaning of the word exterminate was “to drive from within the limits or borders.” (Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language [New York: S. Converse, 1828], s.v. “exterminate.”)

 

That would be the fourth resource note from the Gospel Topics Essay "Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints".

 

Learn for yourself: https://www.lds.org/topics/peace-and-violence-among-19th-century-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

[Joshua Valentine]

I agree that the LDS Church has the authority and responsibility to teach what it deems to be "official doctrine." So, I pointed you to an official statement of the Church indicating that there is a difference between "doctrine" and "teaching." I think you will be frustrated in your attempt to communicate with members of the LDS Church, until you at least attempt to understand how we view it.

 

Okrahomer, let's look again at what I actually said.  Please note all the phrases in bold that counter your apparent interpretation of my comments (despite the repetition):

 

Is there much of a difference between "official doctrine" and "official teaching" in regards to evaluating the fruits of the LDS Church?

Also, don't manuals refer to their contents as "doctrine"? I believe Gospel Principles does.

 

Obviously there is a difference between doctrine and teaching.  I never said there was not a difference.  I said the above, with the critical specification in bold.

 

Let's continue looking at what I did say (again, please consider the bold):

 

... 

So, my first comment did not say that they were the same thing, just that they don't make for much of a difference when it comes to the fruits, or evidence, of the LDS Church (and its authenticity).

 

 ...

I assume this is what you meant by showing that doctrine and teaching are not always the same.  And yes, I suppose it does.  Again, I never claimed the two were the same.  I have read this quote before and find it a bit silly.  I don't mean to be offensive.  I just don't think that the real issues with teaching and doctrine have anything to do with "single statements", "single leaders", or "single occasions", so I find this statement as being, at the least, ineffective.  This may be why I didn't entertain it as your intent of the link.

 

...

As to my original comment you responded to: I simply think that trying to give a pass on teachings or manuals by saying that they are not "official doctrine" (as Thinker's statement was treated) misses the point completely that people like Thinker was making and that others make in criticisms of the LDS Church.  Whether teachings are "official" or not does not take away from the LDS leadership's responsibility in teaching accurately, correctly, and effectively.  Whether the teachings are "official doctrine" or not does not take away from their evidencing either the leadership's authenticity or lack thereof.

 

Many members speak of considering the "fruits of the Church".  Well, "official doctrine" is not the only fruit of the LDS Church.  And the teachings of the leadership cannot be written-off simply because they are teachings, teachings are fruit, too.

 

Although, you did not do it Okrahomer, I hope others here can better consider Thinker's experience and point and get this conversation closer to the OP.

 

I know it's late now, but hopefully everyone (and soon myself) are currently sleeping well.

 

So, 1) I hardly think that I was saying anything like what your comments indicated I said - anything about the doctrines and teachings being the same and 2) unfortunately you spoke to me as if I was not trying to understand the LDS perspective, when, in fact, the evidence indicates you failed to understand what I said clearly and explicitly twice and was assumed in my comments in several other places.  Who is not "at least attempt[ing] to understand"?

 

 

--------------

I said

What I meant by this was simply that the LDS Church has the authority and thus the responsibility and the consequences in regards to what it deems "official doctrine" and what it officially teaches. I see a lot of people write off teachings as "not official doctrine" as though any religious authority could just teach whatever with impunity. No, if the LDS Church is to meet its lofty claims, then its teachings should be considered very important, practically as important as its doctrines.

I agree that the LDS Church has a responsibility to teach accurately; however, we do not believe our leaders are infallible. Indeed, a "core doctrine" of the LDS Church is that there was only ever one perfect individual who lived on the earth--and he is Jesus Christ: "He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

What is the point of such a defense?  I make the simple point that teachings cannot be excused simply because they are not "official doctrine" and you reply that since only Jesus was perfect that what?...  That teachings can be given a whole lot of leeway - all the leeway between imperfection and perfection?  How is that not just another tactic of writing-off teachings that you just said "the LDS Church has a responsibility" to make accurately?

 

I find this "nobody is perfect" defense, given so often by LDS today, not only ineffective but insincere.  It does not engage the issue, and so seems to be an insincere offering really meant not to engage.  Your use of it here seems even more so, since it was given in response to my initial comment which was a critique of the insincere defense of "teachings are not official doctrine".  And now that I write that, I see that your entire interaction with me was just... well, it seems little more than a red herring.

 

Okrahomer, I refuse to think of you what the evidence and my analysis above indicate I should.  But, please, in the future before you question my sincerity with statements like "at least attempt", please read my comments more carefully.  And perhaps try to give me a better benefit of the doubt.  After all, you do not know me.  We might communicate more effectively that way.

 

Perhaps I should make a post about the philosophical principle of charity.

[Okrahomer]

Hi Joshua Valentine.  You must have been busy--it's been a while since we've seen you here.  Welcome back.

 

I see that I have offended you again, and I apologize for that.  Offending people certainly is not my goal.  People come here--to this board--for multiple reasons.  Some simply want to debate; others come seeking information; and I think there are actually quite a few of us who are mostly interested in being sociable.  I'm not really sure why you are here.  It might help, if you could explain a bit more about yourself--then perhaps communicating with you would be more fruitful.  If you already did this on another thread, would you mind providing the link, so I can read through it?  Until I have a more accurate picture of your beliefs and/or philosophy, I think it will be difficult.  At the end of the day, we simply may not be good "correspondents" for one another.

 

So you know a bit about me:  I am a believer in the doctrines of the LDS church, and I hold these doctrines dear.  While I have deep respect and love for my Church and its leaders, I don't believe they are perfect; indeed, I'm well aware that mistakes have been made; and I'm certain mistakes are still made.  This does not however negate the truth I find in the doctrine.  I come to this board mostly to read the thoughts and questions of like-minded people; although, I'm interested in the thoughts and questions of non-believers as well.  I seldom post anything, but when I do, it is sincere.  Whether or not you and I actually have any business communicating with each other, to a large degree, depends on who we are, what we believe, and what our respective purposes for being here are.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Joshua Valentine]

Hi Joshua Valentine.  You must have been busy--it's been a while since we've seen you here.  Welcome back.

 

Thank you!

 

I see that I have offended you again, and I apologize for that.  Offending people certainly is not my goal.

 

The part I took offense at was the following:

 

I think you will be frustrated in your attempt to communicate with members of the LDS Church, until you at least attempt to understand how we view it.

 

I took umbrage with "at least attempt to understand", which indicated that I was not trying or have not in the past tried to understand how LDS view doctrines and teachings. I can't help but find that offensive, as it assumes negatively about me. I have discussed Mormonism with Mormons of all types, many are my friends. I also believe I was quite clear about my understanding that "doctrine" and "teaching" are not the same, anywhere, not just in Mormonism. So this bit of snark seemed unfounded.

I do not believe that offending people is your goal, Okrahomer.

 

People come here--to this board--for multiple reasons.  Some simply want to debate; others come seeking information; and I think there are actually quite a few of us who are mostly interested in being sociable.

 

All of these seem appropriate for me, except the "simply". I enjoy a bit of mental and verbal fencing. I am all about learning. And I enjoy my fellow human beings and interacting with them.

 

I'm not really sure why you are here.  It might help, if you could explain a bit more about yourself--then perhaps communicating with you would be more fruitful.  If you already did this on another thread, would you mind providing the link, so I can read through it?  Until I have a more accurate picture of your beliefs and/or philosophy, I think it will be difficult.  At the end of the day, we simply may not be good "correspondents" for one another.

 

Perhaps, but I doubt it. Personally, I believe sincere people sincerely communicating, sincerely debating, sincerely exploring, and sincerely learning make for excellent correspondents, whatever their specific positions on issues, as long as they are charitable to one another.

 

So you know a bit about me:  I am a believer in the doctrines of the LDS church, and I hold these doctrines dear.  While I have deep respect and love for my Church and its leaders, I don't believe they are perfect; indeed, I'm well aware that mistakes have been made; and I'm certain mistakes are still made.  This does not however negate the truth I find in the doctrine.  I come to this board mostly to read the thoughts and questions of like-minded people; although, I'm interested in the thoughts and questions of non-believers as well.  I seldom post anything, but when I do, it is sincere.  Whether or not you and I actually have any business communicating with each other, to a large degree, depends on who we are, what we believe, and what our respective purposes for being here are.

 

Again, I do not think that who I am, what I believe, or what my purposes for being here should have too much to bear on whether we can communicate well and beneficially, unless one of us has the purpose of not speaking to certain people no matter their civility, insight, humor, or sincerity simply because we don't like who they are, what they believe, or what their purpose is for being here. Although, if your time here is limited, then priorities are understandable.  

Time permitting, I hope to learn more about you from your comments, ideas, and manner.  I prefer to represent myself by my comments, ideas, and manner, more than by any summary, baggage-laden labels, or team-patriotism. Again, time permitting, hopefully we will become good correspondents.

 

Thank you, Okrahomer.

Sincerely,

Joshua Valentine

 

P.S. - My wife and I love your handle and associated quotes.