Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Gospel topics essays


Recommended Posts

I think the Church is in trouble in terms of keeping the younger generations.  Elder Snow suggests the essays were written and made available in part because of the rising generation leaving.  He uses the term inoculate to describe the purpose of the essays.  They were written to inoculate the youngsters, it seems.  Inoculate suggests they were written to give some weaker strain of a disease to keep from full blown disease.  It was interesting choice of words.  I've long felt that the Church is way better off being open and honest about history and difficult issues and I think there's some effort to do this.  I would hope the Church would learn to be even more open and frank.  But the essays are a good start. 

Any thoughts on how the essays inoculate? 

https://clyp.it/gq0cdhf1#

 

Link to comment

I don't know..I would love to be a fly on the wall with a young person talking to his grandfather about the topics of these essays.  This isn't going to work until this young generation are parents themselves..then..you will notice the change in the church;  the change that wasn't supposed to happen in the church that never changes..I know this doesn't make muc sense, but kids are smarter than you think.  This is just opening doors to more questions..and the quest for change.

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I don't know..I would love to be a fly on the wall with a young person talking to his grandfather about the topics of these essays.  This isn't going to work until this young generation are parents themselves..then..you will notice the change in the church;  the change that wasn't supposed to happen in the church that never changes..I know this doesn't make muc sense, but kids are smarter than you think.  This is just opening doors to more questions..and the quest for change.

I agree... long term it is going to lead to significant change in the church.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Nevo said:

The essays take the wind out of the sails of critics that used to be able to exploit the Church's near-silence on certain aspects of its history. As late as 2014, typing "Fanny Alger" into the LDS.org search engine produced 0 hits. Now, the "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" essay comes up. Here is what it says about Alger:

A young person that reads this will learn that:

  • Joseph was commanded to practice polygamy 
  • The relationship with Alger was understood as a marriage
  • Fanny and her parents consented to the marriage
  • We don't know anything about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger

So when they later hear about Joseph being discovered in the barn with a servant girl, they'll have a context that allows them to process it. The story won't have the same shock value that it might otherwise have had. Hence, the inoculation metaphor.

I think you've described it perfectly.  But I still question the inoculation.  People will leave no matter what.  It'll always be so.  I think the effort to inoculate may cause some to leave, just as when people hear it and feel betrayed, later down the road.  I guess it helps.  But, even if the Church sends people packing through this inoculation, it still feels best to just lay it out there and let the chips fall where they may.  That Snow also suggests the essays were out there but in essence hidden, is kind of disturbing on this front.  Were they really to inoculate, at first, or to cover their own cabooses in a sense?  Maybe a little of both.  But most members don't seem to know much about them.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Well, never say never.  There's a place for secrets.

You're right I guess, those secrets that can hurt someone I guess. I'm watching "Prince of Tides" right now, I believe it's affecting my posts... :(

Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think the Church is in trouble in terms of keeping the younger generations.  Elder Snow suggests the essays were written and made available in part because of the rising generation leaving. 

Our church didn't have to publish the Essays, all the church has to do is explain (without ambiguous statements) how we can detect the Holy Ghost or mystical forces.  

In my opinion that will be far more effective in keeping younger generations.  

General Authorities need to explain how revelation is different from confirmation bias, patternicity, hallucination, the Improbability Principle, and false memory. 

24 minutes ago, Nevo said:

So when they later hear about Joseph being discovered in the barn with a servant girl

Joseph Smith was a very lucky man, plural marriage must be heaven on Earth! 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with the entire post but want to comment on the bold.

It feels like the church is setting the stage for greater division amongst family members. When different generations are taught different truths by the church it will create a good deal of tension and only muddy the waters further. Bushman said that the change in narrative will be hardest for the older generation and I agree, but it feels immoral for the church to essentially keep the older generation in the dark because of fear of the ramifications. The church created the problem and are trying to get out of it while saving face.

The term "inoculation" really gets to the heart of the problem. If the church was confident in the Capital T "Truth" I don't know that they would beat around the bush the way they are. They're acting scared.

I agree.  I feel it is very sad that the church treats themselves as a disease that even needs to inoculate members of any age.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Our church didn't have to publish the Essays, all the church has to do is explain (without ambiguous statements) how we can detect the Holy Ghost or mystical forces.  

In my opinion that will be far more effective in keeping younger generations.  

General Authorities need to explain how revelation is different from confirmation bias, patternicity, hallucination, the Improbability Principle, and false memory. 

Joseph Smith was a very lucky man, plural marriage must be heaven on Earth! 

A lucky man....hmm, I think we have a much different concept of what luck looks like.  To me his life looks like anything but lucky. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with the entire post but want to comment on the bold.

It feels like the church is setting the stage for greater division amongst family members. When different generations are taught different truths by the church it will create a good deal of tension and only muddy the waters further. Bushman said that the change in narrative will be hardest for the older generation and I agree, but it feels immoral for the church to essentially keep the older generation in the dark because of fear of the ramifications. The church created the problem and are trying to get out of it while saving face.

The term "inoculation" really gets to the heart of the problem. If the church was confident in the Capital T "Truth" I don't know that they would beat around the bush the way they are. They're acting scared.

I suspect that certain people will never be happy or accept anything the Church does as positive or helpful.  For them the Church will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Read those with captial D because, I guess, that has more impact and adds more drama.  

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I suspect that certain people will never be happy or accept anything the Church does as positive or helpful.  For them the Church will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Read those with captial D because, I guess, that has more impact and adds more drama.  

It is the damned if they do..and damned if they don't idea..let's face it, it is hard to understand a church that is not consistent.  It is not simply a misunderstanding anymore.  It is a change! How do people reconcile so many differences in what has been taught?  It is confusion and obscured by what is told.and what is not to different generations.  Why not let truth prevail..?  Whatever truths there are..let it be and be taught to all members.  Playing hide and seek is a game..but the players are tired of looking and tired of trying to find justification for what their lives have been based on..some for over 40 years! 

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I suspect that certain people will never be happy or accept anything the Church does as positive or helpful.  For them the Church will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Read those with captial D because, I guess, that has more impact and adds more drama.  

And some people will be happy with anything the church does.

The church can tell two very different versions of their story to different generations so as not to upset the older generation. Sure. No problem. Except it is a problem. Telling partial truths isn't full honesty. Telling different versions of truths to different people also isn't full honesty. Why would I defend that kind of approach?

If the church realizes the narrative they've been teaching for the last hundred years is inaccurate, then they need to tell everyone, not just the younger generation as an inoculation.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Nevo said:

The essays take the wind out of the sails of critics that used to be able to exploit the Church's near-silence on certain aspects of its history. As late as 2014, typing "Fanny Alger" into the LDS.org search engine produced 0 hits. Now, the "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo" essay comes up. Here is what it says about Alger:

A young person that reads this will learn that:

  • Joseph was commanded to practice polygamy 
  • The relationship with Alger was understood as a marriage
  • Fanny and her parents consented to the marriage
  • We don't know anything about the conversations between Joseph and Emma regarding Alger

So when they later hear about Joseph being discovered in the barn with a servant girl, they'll have a context that allows them to process it. The story won't have the same shock value that it might otherwise have had. Hence, the inoculation metaphor.

Good points.  Only time will tell how effective this tactic is at keeping people inside the church.  A little additional research will show just how messy the history around Fanny Alger is.  

I think the essays are an attempt to answer questions for those who don't want to research deeply themselves.  As soon as you start expecting these answers to satisfy people who critically think and study these issues, thats when I think the essays don't help anymore.  Those people are left to come up with their own explanation for the messy history.  Maybe those people are only a fraction of the membership, but I count myself in that category.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with the entire post but want to comment on the bold.

It feels like the church is setting the stage for greater division amongst family members. When different generations are taught different truths by the church it will create a good deal of tension and only muddy the waters further. Bushman said that the change in narrative will be hardest for the older generation and I agree, but it feels immoral for the church to essentially keep the older generation in the dark because of fear of the ramifications. The church created the problem and are trying to get out of it while saving face.

The term "inoculation" really gets to the heart of the problem. If the church was confident in the Capital T "Truth" I don't know that they would beat around the bush the way they are. They're acting scared.

I've already seen some of that division in my own family (all faithful, active LDS) wherein some of the "kids" (my generation) are raising issues that are addressed in the Gospel Topics Essays and my parents are denying them.  Both sides get defensive and there's a lot of tension.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree.  I feel it is very sad that the church treats themselves as a disease that even needs to inoculate members of any age.

I guess that's true.  For me, I am still at the point where I am just so relieved to see them finally beginning to publicly acknowledge the problem.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess that's true.  For me, I am still at the point where I am just so relieved to see them finally beginning to publicly acknowledge the problem.

I understand that.  I, too, was happy that at least they were bringing up important topics.  But when they first came out..I thought this would be part of all teachings..to the young and old..and part of every discussion.  I will grant that now there is at least some discussion but a lot of my friends in the church who are my age when I ask..what do you think of the church essays??  They go..huh??;)

Edited to add:  This is not a blemish on the church as it is not their responsibility..but I was really hoping that after the essays the family that I have lost would be more understanding.

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My "innoculation" experience began when I was about ten years old.  I became a fan of a series of books called "The Storm Testament" written by Lee Nelson.  These books were "historical fiction" along the lines of Gerald Lund's "The Work and the Glory" series.  That is, these books invented a fictional protagonist, Dan Storm, who was a young member of the 19th-century Church, and who had a series of adventures in Missouri, then Nauvoo, then Utah . . . and so on.  He interacts with real historical figures, and many of the stories take place in the context of real events in church history.  The fictional antagonist is **** Boggs, the cousin of Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs.

I enjoyed these books until I came to the fourth one, the plot summary for which is as follows:

This book then proceeds to give a fictionalized, but still more or less accurate, description of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  I still recall the feeling I had at reading how the members of the Church in Iron County ended up attacking the wagon train (dressed as Indians, along with some Paiutes), the detection of the deception, and the eventual horrific decision to kill all of the immigrants.  

I read the book from a naive point of view.  I remember feeling a bit uneasy, as I kept expecting the narrative to change, that the Mormon militiamen would have a turn of heart, would recognize the depravity of plan to attack and kill the migrants, and would figure out a way to change course and stop the carnage and let the migrants go.  But that's not what happened.  Instead, the story played out and . . . well, we all know what happened.

This bothered me.  A lot.  I had my first dose of "cognitive dissonance" in a fundamental way.  I could not reconcile the narrative of the MMM with the narrative I had been taught all my life about the early days of the Church and the heroic pioneers who crossed the plains.  I'm not sure I had a "crisis of faith," but if not, whatever I experienced was right next to it.

I took the book to my dad, who I knew was well-versed in the history of the Church.  I told him what I had read, and that I did not think it was true because . . . it was too horrible.  My dad, who was reading the newspaper at the time, but the paper down and we had a discussion for a bit over an hour.  He told me in clear and concise terms that the narrative I had read was pretty much correct (except the fictional part about Dan Storm helping a blind migrant woman escape the massacre).  He said he understood how disturbing this story is.  

He then spent quite a bit of time outlining the context of the event.  He explained the persecutions which the Saints had faced in Missouri and Nauvoo, how these persecutions had fomented some real anger and bitterness among some members of the Church which had probably never been fully addressed/resolved.  He explained the difficulties and privations of the trek West, which trek was the consequence of the persecution of the Church members in Missouri and Nauvoo.  He explained the first ten years the church members spent in the territory.  He explained the war hysteria which preceded the MMM, including A) the coming of Johnston's Army, B) the order from Brigham Young to stockpile supplies and the consequent friction with the migrants (who had anticipated being able to purchase food/materials in Utah before making the last leg of the journey to California), and C) George A. Smith's "Salt Sermon."  He explained the relative isolation of the Saints in southern Utah.  He was careful here, telling me that he wanted me to understand the whole situation, but that I should not take his explanation of the circumstances preceding the massacre as somehow justifying or excusing the acts of the members of the Church.

He then spent some time talking about the Church as a group of flawed people.  He also characterized the 19th century as being a very different place from our current life (this was in the 80s).  He said we should not condone or excuse the massacre, but neither should we ignore the context in which it happened.  He also said I should keep a distinction between the doctrines of the Church and the members of the Church and how they implement those doctrines, and that flaws and mistakes - even terrible acts like the massacre - do not change the reality that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, and that The Book of Mormon is true.

I remember feeling very different about the Church after this discussion with my dad.  I felt more sober.  I felt more . . . realistic.  Looking back, I think the Restored Gospel ceased at that point to be simply a series of stories sung about during Sunday School.  It became something more.  It became . . . more real to me.  It was not an altogether pleasant process.  My childish perception of the Church was idyllic, which was never going to be sustainable.

Some years later I graduated from high school and joined the Army.  During my training I had a series of written communications with my dad in which I asked him about all sorts of things about the Church, the Gospel, and so on.  I asked him what had happened to the Sword of Laban.  I asked him about polygamy.  I asked him about how women felt about polygamy (those who actually experienced it).  I asked him about blacks and the priesthood.  I asked him about Joseph Smith's polygamy.  I asked about the Liahona.  Anything that piqued my interest.

My dad, who had a large library of church history books (and also, IIRC, a set of "Infobase" CD-ROMS with additional materials), and who was our ward's Gospel Doctrine teacher at the time, wrote me long, detailed responses to my inquiries, with references and everything.  It was an amazing experience.  I was exhilarated at finding out that there were deep and complex and nuanced details about the simple Gospel stories I had been taught as a child (mostly by my mom, who created a series of illustrated church history lessons she kept in a looseleaf binder, which she used to teach lessons to us every Sunday).  And that the beautiful and profound truths of the Gospel can be accepted as true despite the many flaws and errors of the Saints (even terrible things like the MMM).  He closed most of his letters with an exhortation that I continue to study and be curious about the Gospel, but that I retain in focus what he called the "planks" of a testimony, which were, IIRC, that God lives, that Jesus Christ is His Son, that the Priesthood is His Power, and The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God.  Everything else, he said, is "parsley on the side of the plate" (or some such similar metaphor).

I will always be grateful to my parents.  To my mother, who through sheer force of will taught her children many lessons about Church history and the scriptures.  And to my father, who helped me in a time of cognitive dissonance, who taught me that faith and knowledge are complimentary to each other, that studying scholarship pertaining to the Church and to the Gospel can and should augment faith in the Gospel, even though such efforts have required me to move beyond the simplified and idyllic version I was taught as a child.  But that is, I think, as it should be.  As Paul put it: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

My parents "inoculated" me by teaching me to study through reading and prayer, and to seek to understand difficult truths in measured and circumspect and faithful ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

Very interesting.  It says something that you were 10 and it seems you were able to deal with the truth of MMM, even if it was difficult.  That event is difficult to deal with for adults.  We all have to face the facts at some point.  It must be better the more prepped we are when the difficult information comes. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I understand that.  I, too, was happy that at least they were bringing up important topics.  But when they first came out..I thought this would be part of all teachings..to the young and old..and part of every discussion.  I will grant that now there is at least some discussion but a lot of my friends in the church who are my age when I ask..what do you think of the church essays??  They go..huh??;)

I wish they would make them "5th Sunday topics" in our wards.  Just rip the band-aid off and deal with the problems now instead of dragging it out.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Very interesting.  It says something that you were 10 and it seems you were able to deal with the truth of MMM, even if it was difficult.  That event is difficult to deal with for adults.  We all have to face the facts at some point.  It must be better the more prepped we are when the difficult information comes. 

There is something to be said for early exposure.  The core problem for much of my faith crisis was that I had built my testimony and faith around a specific narrative and a set of certainties.  To have those pulled out from underneath me almost made me leave the church and has forever damaged my faith.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I wish they would make them "5th Sunday topics" in our wards.  Just rip the band-aid off and deal with the problems now instead of dragging it out.

This.  There is  healing for some that may be needed.  Doing it sooner and with others would be a whole lot better.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...