New Arrington Biography Makes Shocking Admission

[mapman]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

JLHPROF, it's already been established that some leaders in the church held back on some history if they thought it wouldn't be faith promoting.  Why not now also?  And it appears that some historians went along with it.  So why not now?  How are we to know if everything is covered in the JSP?  When are we going to get the Council of the 50 minutes? The cut and paste below is interesting, I don't how true it is.  And sorry I cannot share the link, in case of temple content.

Hey Tacenda,

If you are determined to find a conspiracy, I would look elsewhere than the Joseph Smith Papers people. I know several of the people that are in charge of them, and they are professional historians, committed to transparency, and not at all the kinds of people you seem to think they are. The church has been less transparent in the past with its history (and I think that church leaders have pretty much admitted as much), but times have changed. I suppose that it is possible that the First Presidency is holding onto Joseph Smith papers in their vault, but the Joseph Smith Papers Project is definitely publishing every Joseph Smith paper that they have access to.  And the Council of 50 minutes will be published later this year, by the way.

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, mapman said:

Hey Tacenda,

If you are determined to find a conspiracy, I would look elsewhere than the Joseph Smith Papers people. I know several of the people that are in charge of them, and they are professional historians, committed to transparency, and not at all the kinds of people you seem to think they are. The church has been less transparent in the past with its history (and I think that church leaders have pretty much admitted as much), but times have changed. I suppose that it is possible that the First Presidency is holding onto Joseph Smith papers in their vault, but the Joseph Smith Papers Project is definitely publishing every Joseph Smith paper that they have access to.  And the Council of 50 minutes will be published later this year, by the way.

Thank you, but burned once, twice shy, as the saying goes.  But then again there is forgiveness.  My faith crisis for many years stems from the church not being forthright with history.  Maybe it's the reason for the chip on my shoulder.  

I wonder if the Council of Fifty minutes will be in their entirety.  I hear there is some pretty controversial stuff in them.  But you know what, who reads everything in these JSP anyway?  

Edited June 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 7:54 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You need to learn to make correct statements and then to stand behind them with actual evidence.  That is the real issue.  You play fast and loose with any issue.  I don't.  For you it is all about winning.  For me it is about understanding reality.

If you want to claim that Mormon scholars claimed that the LDS Church did not hide historical materials, then you need to cite those sources.  It speaks volumes that you cannot cite such a source.  That is why your only defense is to call such an issue "absurd."  Yet the lie did not come from anyone but the anti-Mormon crowd.  In addition, people who hate Mormon scholars like to call them "apologists."  It never occurs to them to conduct themselves in a proper, well-mannered way, because it is all about hate and vilification.  Real discussion cannot take place in such a vituperative atmosphere.

CFR that I made an incorrect statement. CFR that I claimed Mormon scholars claimed the LDS church did not hide historical materials. If you want to call for precision I suggest you start with yourself. I kept my statements general and didn't even make the specific statements you're railing against here. Your made your attack specific about me. So back it up. Give me examples of how I play fast and lose with "any issue". Show me where I made incorrect statements. Regarding "winning", perhaps it was a poor choice of words since I was only using a common phrase.

When you are unable to fulfill the CFR I'll happily accept an apology.

I am both willing to give and seek apologies. 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 6/10/2016 at 9:38 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Ever hear of the Joseph Smith Papers Project?  Shocking, isn't it? 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Too little too late......

For those already left.

[Kevin Christensen]

6 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Too little too late......

For those already left.

It all depends on whether a person chooses to dismantle their grievance story, or whether they prefer to move in and add on rooms.  As long as we live, we have choices to make, and consequences and/or benefits to encounter.

Quote

And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

 14 ¶The sower soweth the word.

 15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

 16 And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness;

 17 And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended.

 18 And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word,

 19 And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.

 20 And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

As the years go by, I keep discovering more and more that enlightens my mind and enlarges my understanding, and is delicious and promising that I can see that I not only would have missed, but I would have no idea what I was missing, had I bailed on my first encounters with questions or issues or whatever. 

Asking whether the Gospel is Real, is a very very different thing that asking whether LDS society is everything I think it ought to be, or everything I want it to be.   The questions are different, and so the harvest is different.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[stemelbow]

Wow there is a lot in this thread that I find unfortunate.  There is tons to agree on, and tons to talk about, but instead it gets kind of silly and people talking past each other.

It seems we're all agreed that the Church has at various times found ways to try and hide things, tell an untrue story about historical events and such.  The other day, I was sitting in SS class thinking about this a little, because I've agreed with Teryl Givens and Dan Peterson in that the materials we've used for teaching in Church can be pretty bad.  I try to imagine going all the way back to when these materials are conceived and the beginnings of the work is done to compose them.  I'd imagine first, much is passed from manual to manual.  So there's that.  I think there are people employed by the church trying to appease managers, who in turn are trying to please GAs.  It's not hard for me to imagine how this process can result in poorly devised manuals.  Don't get me wrong.  I too am encouraged by steps to fix a lack of openness, and maybe what I'm describing doesn't have much to do with it, but it doesn't keep me from longing for a day when Church itself provides an environment where openness is encouraged.  Where people's deep true feelings are considered.  Where we prefer people over dogma, over fears of openness misleading someone.  For many years, no matter where I've been in Church, I feel and emptiness that I would love to see overcome.  I don't know quite how we are where we are.  I don't know quite how we fix it all.  But I think we will. 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Wow there is a lot in this thread that I find unfortunate.  There is tons to agree on, and tons to talk about, but instead it gets kind of silly and people talking past each other.

It seems we're all agreed that the Church has at various times found ways to try and hide things, tell an untrue story about historical events and such.  The other day, I was sitting in SS class thinking about this a little, because I've agreed with Teryl Givens and Dan Peterson in that the materials we've used for teaching in Church can be pretty bad.  I try to imagine going all the way back to when these materials are conceived and the beginnings of the work is done to compose them.  I'd imagine first, much is passed from manual to manual.  So there's that.  I think there are people employed by the church trying to appease managers, who in turn are trying to please GAs.  It's not hard for me to imagine how this process can result in poorly devised manuals.  Don't get me wrong.  I too am encouraged by steps to fix a lack of openness, and maybe what I'm describing doesn't have much to do with it, but it doesn't keep me from longing for a day when Church itself provides an environment where openness is encouraged.  Where people's deep true feelings are considered.  Where we prefer people over dogma, over fears of openness misleading someone.  For many years, no matter where I've been in Church, I feel and emptiness that I would love to see overcome.  I don't know quite how we are where we are.  I don't know quite how we fix it all.  But I think we will. 

I think you bring up the very problem we're having...church manuals.  If they were complete we would not have so many members feeling empty when they attend church.  It's pretty surreal when sitting in a classroom and you knowing more than half or more of them and have to keep your mouth shut.  The church curriculum or employees trying to please, contributed to this. But the fault lies with the leaders in charge.  

I get the feeling that the church feels like they are helping but they like to still keep the main group in the dark at church on Sunday. This is my opinion.  Of course I haven't attended a Gospel Doctrine class for quite awhile because I'm in the Primary or the Youth depending on where they have me go.   I too wish they'd open the dialogue up for people to let their true feelings out.  Great post stemelbow!

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Wow there is a lot in this thread that I find unfortunate.  There is tons to agree on, and tons to talk about, but instead it gets kind of silly and people talking past each other.

It seems we're all agreed that the Church has at various times found ways to try and hide things, tell an untrue story about historical events and such.  The other day, I was sitting in SS class thinking about this a little, because I've agreed with Teryl Givens and Dan Peterson in that the materials we've used for teaching in Church can be pretty bad.  I try to imagine going all the way back to when these materials are conceived and the beginnings of the work is done to compose them.  I'd imagine first, much is passed from manual to manual.  So there's that.  I think there are people employed by the church trying to appease managers, who in turn are trying to please GAs.  It's not hard for me to imagine how this process can result in poorly devised manuals.  Don't get me wrong.  I too am encouraged by steps to fix a lack of openness, and maybe what I'm describing doesn't have much to do with it, but it doesn't keep me from longing for a day when Church itself provides an environment where openness is encouraged.  Where people's deep true feelings are considered.  Where we prefer people over dogma, over fears of openness misleading someone.  For many years, no matter where I've been in Church, I feel and emptiness that I would love to see overcome.  I don't know quite how we are where we are.  I don't know quite how we fix it all.  But I think we will. 

When I was working on the new-for-then Gospel Doctrine manuals in the early 1990s, the goal was to get away from manuals that people would just stand and read, so the lessons were designed as open-ended questions with the answers being scriptures, not necessarily definitive answers. Elder Cook (Gene) was in charge of the project, and he repeatedly said that he wanted something that would force instructors and class members to dig a little deeper than just going through the motions. The emphasis was never on accurate history but almost exclusively on teaching gospel principles and helping people better understand and live by those principles. In other words, it wouldn't have occurred to any of us involved in the project that we were glossing over anything, let alone covering it up. The goal was teaching correct principles and blessing people's lives, so in that respect, we were trying very hard to put people ahead of dogma.

Granted, some of the stuff we produced was awful. See, for example, Why the Aaronic Priesthood Manuals Suck. But we did the best we could within the constraints of our purpose and process. I have often said that working at the Church Office Building strengthened my testimony because, given all the crap we had to deal with, it was pretty miraculous that most of the things we produced were pretty good.

I have no idea what the new materials look like. I would assume that, because of the proliferation of information on the Internet, there will be some effort made to contextualize and explain historical and doctrinal issues. At least I would hope so. But I do not feel it's fair to accuse those who write and edit church manuals of deliberately discouraging openness. 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think you bring up the very problem we're having...church manuals.  If they were complete we would not have so many members feeling empty when they attend church.  It's pretty surreal when sitting in a classroom and you knowing more than half or more of them and have to keep your mouth shut.  The church curriculum or employees trying to please, contributed to this. But the fault lies with the leaders in charge.  

I get the feeling that the church feels like they are helping but they like to still keep the main group in the dark at church on Sunday. This is my opinion.  Of course I haven't attended a Gospel Doctrine class for quite awhile because I'm in the Primary or the Youth depending on where they have me go.   I too wish they'd open the dialogue up for people to let their true feelings out.  Great post stemelbow!

 

I agree.  My bigger issue is by far how Church goes in practice rather than whether the organization can develop processes to best produce fine history, or whatever.  My wife blames the Church for cover ups, type of stuff, while I give the Church a pass being full of human's who tend to fail when ti comes to doing things perfectly.  I'd rather feel like I'm taking part ownership in how Church is experienced.  I'm just me just as anyone else is just them.  We cant' really foster the best of environments if we're leaning too negative about Church and it's people, and we can't really accept reality if we pretend all is well and there's nothing to fix or address. 

[mapman]

If only the history department wrote the Sunday School manuals!

For what it's worth, the seminary manuals have incorporated the Gospel Topics Essays into them. I know that those essays don't answer all of the questions, but I think it shows that the church is sincere in trying to be open about history and promote discussion of topics that we have tended to avoid in the past.

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

When I was working on the new-for-then Gospel Doctrine manuals in the early 1990s, the goal was to get away from manuals that people would just stand and read, so the lessons were designed as open-ended questions with the answers being scriptures, not necessarily definitive answers. Elder Cook (Gene) was in charge of the project, and he repeatedly said that he wanted something that would force instructors and class members to dig a little deeper than just going through the motions. The emphasis was never on accurate history but almost exclusively on teaching gospel principles and helping people better understand and live by those principles. In other words, it wouldn't have occurred to any of us involved in the project that we were glossing over anything, let alone covering it up. The goal was teaching correct principles and blessing people's lives, so in that respect, we were trying very hard to put people ahead of dogma.

Granted, some of the stuff we produced was awful. See, for example, Why the Aaronic Priesthood Manuals Suck. But we did the best we could within the constraints of our purpose and process. I have often said that working at the Church Office Building strengthened my testimony because, given all the crap we had to deal with, it was pretty miraculous that most of the things we produced were pretty good.

I have no idea what the new materials look like. I would assume that, because of the proliferation of information on the Internet, there will be some effort made to contextualize and explain historical and doctrinal issues. At least I would hope so. But I do not feel it's fair to accuse those who write and edit church manuals of deliberately discouraging openness. 

Yeah, I've been pretty sure my impression is based on ignorance, but the type of conflicts in purpose and the tension of meeting other's expectations is exactly what I imagined to be the biggest issues at bare in all of this.  I still feel the greatest responsibility on developing a questioning spirit and environment of welcome open dialogue in Church is on us--the typical members.  The messages from leadership sets tones, but we don't have to just go along with it if it doesn't work. 

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think you bring up the very problem we're having...the SS manuals.  If they were complete we would not have so many members feeling empty when they attend church.  It's pretty surreal when sitting in a classroom and you knowing more than half or more of them and have to keep your mouth shut.  The church curriculum or employees trying to please, contributed to this. But the fault lies with the leaders in charge.  I get

the feeling that the church feels like they are helping but they like to still keep the main group in the dark at church on Sunday. This is my opinion.  Of course I haven't attended a Gospel Doctrine class for quite awhile because I'm in the Primary or the Youth depending on where they have me go.   I too wish they'd open the dialogue up for people to let their true feelings out.  Great post stemelbow!

 

For many members their entire gospel study for their entire lives consists of only attending church on Sunday and learning whatever is taught there. They don't take advantage of all the other information that can be researched and that has been available for decades regarding all other information about the doctrines and history of the church. There have always been books and institute classes, etc.  available where they could have gotten deeper into some of these topics that can't all be covered in a Sunday school class.  Now that people are getting more involved in the internet they might be hearing about some of these things for the first time, sometimes from the wrong sources, and it is a shock to them, when it didn't need to be. 

[Jeanne]

On 6/11/2016 at 10:28 PM, salgare said:

Yes, and as I recall part of those reasons were fear, fear of Church discipline.  The 90's was a time of keep it to yourself.

Had to rep this the old fashioned way.  Credibility and keeping jobs were difficult in the 90's.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, mapman said:

If only the history department wrote the Sunday School manuals!

For what it's worth, the seminary manuals have incorporated the Gospel Topics Essays into them. I know that those essays don't answer all of the questions, but I think it shows that the church is sincere in trying to be open about history and promote discussion of topics that we have tended to avoid in the past.

But why not the SS manuals?  What, the church doesn't trust the adults with the information vs. the seminary students?  Kind of wrong IMO.

[consiglieri]

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 11:24 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a scholarly documentary editing project. To meet the criteria, the materials have to be something that Joseph Smith either wrote in his own hand or caused to be written. It is, well, a project comprising the papers of Joseph Smith. Period. Not papers belonging to someone else, but Josph. Smith's. papers. Hence, the name, Joseph Smith Papers.

Ironically, the Joseph Smith Papers Project provides evidence the Church has hidden its history.

If you look closely at Letter Book 1, you can actually see where Joseph Fielding Smith cut out the first three pages containing the 1832 First Vision account, only to have them taped back in circa 1964 when this knowledge became public.

[Jeanne]

38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Wow there is a lot in this thread that I find unfortunate.  There is tons to agree on, and tons to talk about, but instead it gets kind of silly and people talking past each other.

It seems we're all agreed that the Church has at various times found ways to try and hide things, tell an untrue story about historical events and such.  The other day, I was sitting in SS class thinking about this a little, because I've agreed with Teryl Givens and Dan Peterson in that the materials we've used for teaching in Church can be pretty bad.  I try to imagine going all the way back to when these materials are conceived and the beginnings of the work is done to compose them.  I'd imagine first, much is passed from manual to manual.  So there's that.  I think there are people employed by the church trying to appease managers, who in turn are trying to please GAs.  It's not hard for me to imagine how this process can result in poorly devised manuals.  Don't get me wrong.  I too am encouraged by steps to fix a lack of openness, and maybe what I'm describing doesn't have much to do with it, but it doesn't keep me from longing for a day when Church itself provides an environment where openness is encouraged.  Where people's deep true feelings are considered.  Where we prefer people over dogma, over fears of openness misleading someone.  For many years, no matter where I've been in Church, I feel and emptiness that I would love to see overcome.  I don't know quite how we are where we are.  I don't know quite how we fix it all.  But I think we will. 

You know..what you want and what wish to see in the church is hopeful.  I see the next generation fixing things because they know so much more than we did..or our parents did. For my young family members who are LDS, I wish for this also.  An openness that is inclusive not just in honest doctrine, but the sharing of ideas regardless of gender or authority.

[mapman]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But why not the SS manuals?  What, the church doesn't trust the adults with the information vs. the seminary students?  Kind of wrong IMO.

I'm not sure. My impression is that the Sunday School manuals are more simplistic than seminary manuals, but I don't know the reasons why.

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Ironically, the Joseph Smith Papers Project provides evidence the Church has hidden its history.

If you look closely at Letter Book 1, you can actually see where Joseph Fielding Smith cut out the first three pages containing the 1832 First Vision account, only to have them taped back in circa 1964 when this knowledge became public.

Holey Moley!

[Jeanne]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But why not the SS manuals?  What, the church doesn't trust the adults with the information vs. the seminary students?  Kind of wrong IMO.

I so agree with this.  Young seminary students talking to their grandparents about the essays alone would cause a war of words.

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But why not the SS manuals?  What, the church doesn't trust the adults with the information vs. the seminary students?  Kind of wrong IMO.

Sabbath day worship and what we learn in Sunday School is more concentrated on worshiping God and learning the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's not really the proper time and place to dig into the details of church history and more obscure doctrines of the church. Some historical events might be brought up, but only to teach a specific gospel principle.  The Church does trust the adults to study these topics on their own time and get deeper into the details.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Sabbath day worship and what we learn in Sunday School is more concentrated on worshiping God and learning the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's not really the proper time and place to dig into the details of church history and more obscure doctrines of the church. Some historical events might be brought up, but only to teach a specific gospel principle.  The Church does trust the adults to study these topics on their own time and get deeper into the details.

Good point, when are they going to advertise or even have adult church institute classes like they have in the past?  That could be the place for some of us to let it all out.  

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Sabbath day worship and what we learn in Sunday School is more concentrated on worshiping God and learning the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's not really the proper time and place to dig into the details of church history and more obscure doctrines of the church. Some historical events might be brought up, but only to teach a specific gospel principle.  The Church does trust the adults to study these topics on their own time and get deeper into the details.

I don't think discussion of history is incompatible with worshiping God and learning the gospel. Learning that the work began and flourished due to the efforts of flawed humans ought to be a good lesson to all of us. The challenge for the church, IMO, is that they are going to have to regain some control over the message and weave what is known now into the narrative they want to project.

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Asking whether the Gospel is Real, is a very very different thing that asking whether LDS society is everything I think it ought to be, or everything I want it to be.   The questions are different, and so the harvest is different.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Harvest is not there and whatever little remained it was almost destroyed with self serving "Public Relations"  philosophy which thought omitting unfavorable history would help to pull wool innocent & investigative eyes.

This is why I did embark into an innocent collection of newspaper clipping & editorial collections & manuals of Church publications...

Anyway, to me these collections are not important as they used to be but here & there I encounter them ever since I moved. I have some Church News from 1980 about my ward in Switzerland, I was looking at it....a 1980 Church News 15oTh anniversary issue and the middle page occupied the church chronology of history. It mentions 1857 Elder Parley Pratt's Murder but can you guess what was omitted?

Omission of history was not the exception, it was a common practice. And Kevin, if you feel OK about this, it's fine because it is the only way you can stay a member in this Church....You have to feel good.....

[Jeanne]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good point, when are they going to advertise or even have adult church institute classes like they have in the past?  That could be the place for some of us to let it all out.  

I took an adult seminary class years ago..it was so great and I got to ask weird questions and everyone was patient with me.  Seriously, this is what the older generation needs.  Mine was on the Book of Mormon..but we discussed so many other things.  How I wish I had a do over on that!.

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Good point, when are they going to advertise or even have adult church institute classes like they have in the past?  That could be the place for some of us to let it all out.  

Besides institute classes associated with colleges and universities for young adults ages 18 to 30, many local stakes offer study groups or adult religion classes which anyone can attend and get deeper into the doctrines and church history. It depends on what each stake decides as to whether they offer such a class or not. 
https://arc.byu.edu/

Forty Five years ago I took an institute class where we studied the so-called hidden subjects such as, blood atonement; polygamy,  the temple endowment and masonry; Danites, Council of 50; Adam/God doctrine; Calling and election; blacks and the priesthood,  etc.  We didn't study LGBT issues because there weren't any gays back then ;-)  
Students picked a subject and wrote a research paper on it and presented it to the class for discussion. 
The class was especially of benefit to me because that's where I met my soon-to-be wife. :-)