Are The Essays Backfiring?

[Robert F. Smith]

 

I'm pretty sure you understand the concept of linear time.  The Church releasing the essays in 2013 doesn't prove a "critic" wrong if they said the Church was "hiding the truth" in 1994.

 

Obviously, there is a lot less reason to say this now, but your comment applied to what critics "have for years claimed."  I would even be so bold as to suggest that it was partly because of the critics that the essays were released. 

 

So you're welcome.

History is not linear.  It is oscillatory and unpredictable.  That said, it is true that the anti-Mormons have caused a good deal of soul-searching from time to time, but that has also been a factor in criticism from within -- from faithful critics (whether B. H. Roberts or Hugh Nibley).  Only honest and good-hearted people are going to allow the inside and outside critics to prey on their hearts and minds to the point that conscience brings them to say, This particular issue needs to be seriously addressed.  For those who are dishonest, it makes no difference at all which position is taken by the official leadership.  For them it is always a zero sum game.  The Church must be destroyed, and by any means necessary.

 

One of the important reasons why non-Mormon historian Larry Foster concluded that Jerald & Sandra Tanner actually strengthened the LDS Church is due to their reprinting of early Mormon documents.  The Tanners believed that modern Mormons would apostatize if confronted by the truth about early Mormonism, but they forgot that the early Mormon faith was powerfully dynamic and resourceful, and that those early documents would communicate that very effectively.  They didn't bank on a generation of faithful Mormon historians who found those documents faith promoting and deeply meaningful -- so much so that they found themselves transported into sacred time.

 

The essays we are speaking about here did not suddenly appear ex nihilo.  They assume the work of a generation of fine, professional historians -- such as Leonard Arrington and Richard Bushman and their associates.  Your comments are important, but they lack perspective.  We have known about this stuff for a long, long time.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

I visited a different ward in our stake today- a very conservative one, and I went to the Hight Priests group.

 

I have known the teacher for years and he is about as TBM as you can be, former bishop, served in most stake callings, scouter for 50 years and a wonderful man.

 

The topic was the Book of Mormon as seen through the eyes of Ezra Taft Benson.

 

The lesson was about the historicity of the BOM.   What do you think it was like??

 

Guess again

 

The teacher asked the class again and again "Is the BOM supposed to be History?"

 

Answers:

"Yes, partially, of one small group"

"To some extent but it is mostly a spiritual volume about the teachings of Christ"

"Somewhat but certainly not of everyone who was in America at the time"

 

NOT ONE in opposition, saying that it was supposed to be the "history" of all the peoples, or of the "Indians" in the Americas

 

20 typical high priests- NO OBJECTIONS.   NONE!

 

Are the essays working?  You bet your bippy they are working.

[mfbukowski]

"Pat, is there an 'n'?"

 

Sorry.  Couldn't resist!

I'm glad you cleared that up.

 

I thought he was calling someone a kow.  

[rockpond]

I think that it is interesting that the lds church should be in the history business. I know of no other church that is in the history business. If I go to the vatican website, I will not be able to read catholic history. Nor to any protestant churches website either. History is left up to scholars and academics. However, exmormons have somehow convinced mormons that the mormon church should be in the history business. I attended catechism as a boy. I learned nothing of history. And this is still the case. I have not seen the vatican come out with a 1000 page history book. But I have seen countless scholars write about catholic and protestant history. So, what was amiss was neutral scholarship about lds history.

I have found this about black in the priesthood from a neutral scholar:

https://divinity.uchicago.edu/sightings/wrong-side-white-w-paul-reeve

I think that this is a wonderful explanation about it. And it gives a wonderful historical context. This is what has been amiss. Scholars who are neutral writing lds history.

I think that the gospel topics essays do a good job of only dealing with history to the extent that it impacts doctrine.

[rockpond]

But you originally said, “the basic problem is that these essays paint of picture of prophets who have said/done things inconsistent with the restored gospel as we currently identify it.” You were trying to convey that the problem is change, and since it is a problem, the Church was led astray, right?

I learned and believed early on in my conversion that the prophet will not ever lead us astray. Yet the essays have not created any degree of cognitive dissonance for me. While there is correct light (“accurate information from many different sources and publications”) behind them, they are also subject to reflecting back the lesser light with which they are viewed, or only that which passes the filters with which they are viewed.

Now you are instead saying that the problem is that the essays “reflect” that something was amiss (your observation has changed!). Since what they reflect depends on the light (preconceptions, perspectives, etc.) with which they are viewed, that remains the underlying “problem.”

No, I wasn't trying to convey that the problem is "change" I was trying to convey that the essays portray aspects of the gospel and the role of prophets differently than many were taught and understand them to be. Thus, something amiss. And, cognitive dissonance.

Obviously not everyone has the same reaction. You didn't. I didn't. But I have met many for whom the essays have created serious faith challenges. Good, solid, believing members.

You seem to have some good insights and understanding. I hope we can all find ways to help these members who are struggling because of some of the issues raised in the essays.

[Rivers]

Now that all these essays have come out, the information contained therin doesn't seem as as interesting as it used to be. Its all becoming common knowledge.  I don't feel as special anymore for knowing things that are forbidden or hard-to-find.   

[Rivers]

No, I wasn't trying to convey that the problem is "change" I was trying to convey that the essays portray aspects of the gospel and the role of prophets differently than many were taught and understand them to be. Thus, something amiss. And, cognitive dissonance.

Obviously not everyone has the same reaction. You didn't. I didn't. But I have met many for whom the essays have created serious faith challenges. Good, solid, believing members.

You seem to have some good insights and understanding. I hope we can all find ways to help these members who are struggling because of some of the issues raised in the essays.

That's why it is good to have 5th sunday discussions on these essays.  It would provide an opportunity for members to discuss them together.

[Russell C McGregor]

Ah the vindictive apostate epitaph agian. Does it make you feel good to hurl that at those who you despise? But hey I will own it. By your hard line world view and how you see things I understand, I used to be a lot like you. I am glad I no longer am.

Am I wrong? Perhaps. I often am. Are you?

But your baseless accusation that I am is just that. Baseless. Some substance to your claim would be nice but I don't expect it. Substance is not your style.

As noted in another post, my comments to Mikegriffith's post were a tongue in cheek response to his post.

Just so you know,

An epitaph? I didn't even know you were sick!

[Robert F. Smith]

 

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

 

 

Are the essays working?  You bet your bippy they are working.

The correct phrase is "sweet bippy," Mark.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

The correct phrase is "sweet bippy," Mark.

I wasn't sure if anyone around here had one of those. 

[why me]

The LDS Church has been in the history business since it was organized on April 6, 1830. I'm glad to know that it was the exmormons (who couldn't have existed yet) that convinced Joseph Smith to begin keeping a history of the Church.

I suppose that all churches are in the history making business since human beings are the makers of history. But I know of no church that writes their own history for others to read. My point was that protestantism and catholicism have scholars and experts writing their history for students to study and for people to read. The lds church has had very few scholars interested in lds history. No matter how the church writes their essays, the critics will just consider it a spin of the facts. What mormons need are scholars who are neutral do research and write scholarly books about its history.

 

I hear of nobody claiming that the catholic church or the prostant church are hiding their history since their are many books published about their history. But....since they do not publicize their history,  I suppose that one can also claim that they are hiding it.

[Robert F. Smith]

...................................................... The lds church has had very few scholars interested in lds history. No matter how the church writes their essays, the critics will just consider it a spin of the facts. What mormons need are scholars who are neutral do research and write scholarly books about its history.

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

Not only has Mormonism had many scholars interested in LDS history, but there is not now and has never been a neutral historian.  Those who write history are subject to correction from other historians, both in and out of the LDS faith, currently and over time.  That is the way it works for Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish historians as well.  All historians receive similar university training and are expected to follow stringent methods of research and documentation.

[why me]

In short, our members are more brittle because we've "baked" them that way and all of the "neutral" scholarship in the world won't make them any more flexible so long as they are taught that our leaders are, for all practical purposes, infallible.

I have never been taught that church leaders are perfect. And I think that most members would view them as imperfect. But of course, with a a lack of critical thinking skills I can see why some members would believe in 'perfection'. But I also think that these members are the most likely to  fall away. Have you been taught that Monson is perfect?

 

The history debate is over what members know and don't know and what the church teaches and don't teach. I have said it a thousand times that the critics will not be happy until the church publishes a thousand page lds history book, complete with critic interpretations of the facts. And then church members can debate history in one meeting on a sunday. History classes must be given every sunday for the members entire life so that there can be no ignorance of critic lds history.

 

I have the feeling that this is what critics want.

 

What did you think of the link from the University of Chicago Divinty School?

Edited June 15, 2015 by why me

[why me]

Not only has Mormonism had many scholars interested in LDS history, but there is not now and has never been a neutral historian.  Those who write history are subject to correction from other historians, both in and out of the LDS faith, currently and over time.  That is the way it works for Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish historians as well.  All historians receive similar university training and are expected to follow stringent methods of research and documentation.

By neutral, I meant neither established critic or believer. Of course, all history can be tainted by bias and argument. But what the lds need are historians that are interested in lds history and write good scholarly books on the subject and with this, there can be an honest debate on the facts and interpretations.

 

For example, Bushman's book was published in 2005. It had much history of the church complete with details of Smith's life. However, the critics still claimed that the church is hiding its history. Why? Because Bushman's book was not published as a manual for all to read in sunday school. Likewise for O'Driscoll's book about hyrum. It may have been published by a church publisher in 2003 with many controversial facts but still the critics were claiming that the church is hiding its history. Why? Again because it was not published as a  manual to be read in priesthood etc.

 

So, the lds church is sort of in a black hole. Now we have the essays published on a church website which means that this is the stance of the lds church about the issues being discussed. I guess the question should be: why should lds history affect a member's faith unless of course, proof is uncovered that JS wrote the book of mormon?

[Avatar4321]

I visited a different ward in our stake today- a very conservative one, and I went to the Hight Priests group.

 

I have known the teacher for years and he is about as TBM as you can be, former bishop, served in most stake callings, scouter for 50 years and a wonderful man.

 

The topic was the Book of Mormon as seen through the eyes of Ezra Taft Benson.

 

The lesson was about the historicity of the BOM.   What do you think it was like??

 

Guess again

 

The teacher asked the class again and again "Is the BOM supposed to be History?"

 

Answers:

"Yes, partially, of one small group"

"To some extent but it is mostly a spiritual volume about the teachings of Christ"

"Somewhat but certainly not of everyone who was in America at the time"

 

NOT ONE in opposition, saying that it was supposed to be the "history" of all the peoples, or of the "Indians" in the Americas

 

20 typical high priests- NO OBJECTIONS.   NONE!

 

Are the essays working?  You bet your bippy they are working.

I don't think anyone would have made that mistake before the essays

[Avatar4321]

I have never been taught that church leaders are perfect. And I think that most members would view them as imperfect. But of course, with a a lack of critical thinking skills I can see why some members would believe in 'perfection'. But I also think that these members are the most likely to  fall away. Have you been taught that Monson is perfect?

 

The history debate is over what members know and don't know and what the church teaches and don't teach. I have said it a thousand times that the critics will not be happy until the church publishes a thousand page lds history book, complete with critic interpretations of the facts. And then church members can debate history in one meeting on a sunday. History classes must be given every sunday for the members entire life so that there can be no ignorance of critic lds history.

 

I have the feeling that this is what critics want.

 

What did you think of the link from the University of Chicago Divinty School?

I've never understood expecting our leaders to be perfect when Joseph was rebuked by the Lord again and again in the public revelations we have.

[The Nehor]

I've never understood expecting our leaders to be perfect when Joseph was rebuked by the Lord again and again in the public revelations we have.

 

Many think that the self-description of sinfulness of those in scriptures like Peter, Paul, Nephi, and Moroni is a kind of false humility that God winks at and thinks is cute. They knew instead that they were reporting the facts correctly. When Joseph Smith described himself as not very righteous I believe he was being accurate by a heavenly standard if not an earthly one.

 

"Many persons think a prophet must be a good deal better than anybody else. Suppose I would condescend - yes, I will call it condescend, to be a great deal better than any of you. I would be raised to the highest heaven; and who should I have to accompany me?" -Joseph Smith

Edited June 15, 2015 by The Nehor

[Thinking]

I've never understood expecting our leaders to be perfect when Joseph was rebuked by the Lord again and again in the public revelations

 

How much imperfection is allowed? I'm not talking about character flaws, but about doctrine.

[why me]

I've never understood expecting our leaders to be perfect when Joseph was rebuked by the Lord again and again in the public revelations we have.

This is one aspect of the lack of critical thinking skills.Joseph on quite a few occassions would claim unrighteousness and imperfection. My take on it was that people were expecting him according to their understanding to behave how a prophet should behave. And he knew that he could never live up to such expectations.

 

In an interview, edward kimball said that his father spencer was a father first. And I suppose that spencer was not a perfect human being in his son's eyes. He saw him as a human being etc complete with all a human's imperfections but with love and understanding.

 

I need to stop posting for awhile. I am running out of posts since I am on limited.

 

Thinking,

 

that is a good question. I think that the past is full of GAs speaking from the hip. Not sure if it was considered doctrine. Adam-God was never doctrine in my lifetime. And in the ensign, the church did warn people about the journal of discourses not being doctrine in the 70s (as an example)

 

Even in the early 90s the ensign had interesting I have a question pages. Here is one example about brigham young and the answer mentions the wentworth letter. Why they stopped is the question.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

It is quite an intellectual answer. How many members could understand the interpretation of such history today and how many understood it then? And how many would have the time to critically reflect on such an answer?

Edited June 15, 2015 by why me

[Avatar4321]

How much imperfection is allowed? I'm not talking about character flaws, but about doctrine.

I've yet to see flaws in the doctrine. In fact everyday I reflect on it it becomes more and more perfect.

[Thinking]

Thinking,

 

that is a good question. I think that the past is full of GAs speaking from the hip. Not sure if it was considered doctrine. Adam-God was never doctrine in my lifetime. And in the ensign, the church did warn people about the journal of discourses not being doctrine in the 70s (as an example)

 

Even in the 90s the ensign had interesting I have a question page. Here is one example about brigham young and the answers mention ofthe wentworth letter.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

I'm talking about established doctrines and practices, such as plural marriage and the priesthood ban. Could these have been mistakes made by the leaders of the true Church?

[mormonnewb]

I've yet to see flaws in the doctrine. In fact everyday I reflect on it it becomes more and more perfect.

 

This is what I mean by infallibility.

 

There are many members who think that the prophets have never erred when it comes to doctrine, policy, or pretty much anything as it relates to the church.  Interestingly, while I was never taught that, say, Pres. Monson is perfect, I've been told repeatedly that the "Church is perfect."

 

So what happens when a member comes to the conclusion that the Church has been, say, more perfect than at other times?  Or if they have a hard time coming to grips with the whole "several months before her 15th birthday" thing?

 

For someone raised outside of the Church, this has never bothered me very much at all.  Because I grew up reading a Bible FULL of imperfect prophets. If Peter could walk with Christ every day for three years, see him perform countless miracles, actual walk on water himself and still deny Christ three times, then I wouldn't put anything past anyone.  Yet, time and again, we have debates on this board where people try to prove the most questionable of assertions (e.g., the propriety of publicly denying polygamy while privately practicing it, that all 30-something men in the 1840s were marrying 14 yo girls, that God was racist until 1978, etc.).

 

And don't get me wrong.  If someone has a "testimony" of these things through faith, that's fine.  But many would claim that such beliefs are actually necessary for one to be a "real Mormon."

 

This is a unique proposition amongst Christians.  One need not believe in a global flood to be a Baptist (not all Baptists even believe in the necessity of baptism).  Nor need one believe that Samson actually killed 1,000 men (not 999, not just a whole bunch, but actually 1,000 exactly) to be a Methodist.  One need not believe that Martin Luther's statements about Jews were defensible or that his bigamy exception for Philip of Hesse was doctrinally proper to be a Lutheran.  In other words, you can actually belong to a church named after a man that you believe to have made mistakes, in both matters of morality and doctrine.  

 

The rest of Christianity has somehow figured out that faith in Christ does not require blind faith in His servants.  That, to paraphrase Pres. Uchtdorf, "Heavenly Father works through imperfect men, because that's all he has to work with."  In fact, to my knowledge, even Mormon apologists aren't trying to excuse Noah's drunkenness as being "normal for the times" or "necessary for the protection of his family."  We simply accept that Noah could be both the most righteous man of his day and still have a few issues.

 

So what is it about Mormonism that requires the notion of prophet infallibility (even if we won't admit to believing in it)?  Other than Pres. Woodruff's desperate assertion in OD1 that "If I'm lying, may God strike me down," what else requires the prophets to be perfect?  We admit that we see through a glass darkly.  We admit that there is more to be revealed.  We admit that Zion has not been perfected.  So what prevents us from admitting that maybe, just maybe, kinda possibly that once (or maybe even twice) a Church leader was just a "smidgeon" off on a revelation or policy?  Does that possibility cancel the Restoration?  Does it negate all of our sacred ordinances?  Does it negate the crucifixion, resurrection and the atonement?

 

Of course not, but what it would do is allow room in this Church for both those who believe in prophet infallibility and those who can no longer hold such a belief.

Edited June 15, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Teancum]

An epitaph? I didn't even know you were sick!

Poor word choice on my part. "Slur" would have been better.

 

But you better watch out as this is now a message from the grave.   

Edited June 15, 2015 by Teancum

[DBMormon]

This is no surprise. Many people do lack critical thinking skills. The ability to reflect critically through a questioning process is not something that many people possess. Most are surfing on the surface. People need to learn how to think and connect the dots and develop their logical interpretations and not depend on other people's facts. And they need to see the forest for the trees. The book of mormon exists. How did it come to pass and who wrote it is the foundational question of the church.

 

Unfortunately, quite a few members are forgetting this foundational question. Whether the church wished to pubicize its history during the last 40 years should not destroy faith if faith were strong.

or it could be that the essays raise very troubling facts that members had not heard of till they read them.... nawwwww couldn't be that.

[DBMormon]

I am pretty sure that that is the mother of all sampling biases.

CFR for where I said this was an unbiased survey.  You don't seem insecure at all.