Gospel topics essays

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In his clarification in the recent kerfuffle over Richard Bushman talking about "reconstructing the narrative," he said he still believes the same things he did as a missionary 60 years ago. So whatever new thing has been disclosed, it has not changed the thrust of the overall message -- not in Bushman's perspective, at least.

Nobody believes the "same things" he/she believed as a teenager decades later, Scott.  Bushman's statement/reversal tells even the half-awake reader he's under extreme duress, chained in Daniel C. Peterson's basement learning the hard way a Dowser can be put to more than one use...

;0)  

--Erik

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Five Solas said:

Nobody believes the "same things" he/she believed as a teenager decades later, Scott.  Bushman's statement/reversal tells even the half-awake reader he's under extreme duress, chained in Daniel C. Peterson's basement learning the hard way a Dowser can be put to more than one use...

;0)  

--Erik

 

Seriously, it's certainly not uncommon to maintain the same core beliefs from young adulthood to old age, which is what I think Bushman was getting at. 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

1.  I don't have my old professors names and qualifications handy.  I trust they were well vetted by the University.  Is your argument here that the church-owned and managed institution of higher learning is not qualified to teach church history and doctrine?  I understand that changes in understanding and knowledge of history develop and grow over time.  Go ahead and insult my "familiarity with real scholarship" it only supports my point.  I believe I adequately represent your average born/raised LDS, college-educated, middle-aged church member.  The information published in the essays was known and published during my lifetime (as has been repeatedly stated here).  The Church chose to eliminate certain aspects from the narrative that they taught us via curriculum and general conference.  Do you disagree?  Because I am failing to see whatever point you are trying to make.

2.  My parents were not familiar with the full history of the church.  One was a life-long member, the other was a convert.  Both attending seminary and were BYU grads but they, like me, were taught only a specific church narrative with many details (some of which now constitute the "inoculation") left out.  That's the problem.  The curriculum, created by church leaders and the staff they hired, chose to present a certain narrative.  It was apparently so bad that now they need to inoculate the younger generation against the full truth.

3.  The quote is provided in the OP, it is what the thread is about.  I assumed that you listened to it.  That's part of responsibly participating in a thread.

4.  I don't have numbers but I am not opinion/rumor-mongering... I'm citing two general authorities of the church.  You are free to listen to their remarks and make your own conclusions.  I assume you don't want me to spoon-feed you.

You're proud to be an "average born/raised LDS, college-educated, middle-aged church member."  That reminds me of a president of the USA who was proud that he got a C average at Yale.

Really, rockpond?!  You were clearly never taught any sort of scholarship, whether because the department you studied in had poorly trained professors, or because the subject matter you learned had nothing to do with actual history, theology, or the like.  Scholars quote rather than putting words into the mouths of others, and thus making them say something other than what they have actually said.  Had you been well-trained, you would never do such inappropriate things.

The dates of attendance of both you and your parents, along with the subjects majored in, would tell me the status of BYU at that time, and I would be better able to examine your obviously false claims.  I also have a degree from BYU.  How odd that I received good training and that you and your loved ones did not.  Or did you expect to be spoon-fed everything without ever making an effort to search out the truth for yourself?  You clearly live in a static, synchronic world, while I live in a diachronic one.  In other words, you expect that everything is always the same, regardless of time and circumstance, never showing any curiosity nor making any personal effort to inform yourself.  How humdrum and meaningless.  But I guess that goes along with finding fault with not having the essays, as well as finding fault for having the essays -- damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

It might matter to you but do you really think when you stand before God at judgement he is going to give you a knowledge test of LDS history?  One will not gain salvation by knowing a lot of history but one can lose their salvation but letting history issues get in the way of more important things. 

We will be judged according to our knowledge.  I want to past the test. 

[bsjkki]

The essays are referenced in the new Teaching The Saviors Way manual which should be used in the new teacher training councils. 

Refer to Official Church Resources

The best sources for answers to difficult gospel questions are the scriptures, the words of living prophets, and other official Church publications. For example, the Church has published Gospel Topics essays to help answer questions about Church history and controversial issues (see lds.org/topics). Become familiar with official Church resources, and encourage those who have questions to study them as well.                            

Most members who teach in church should be getting exposed to the essays.  When I brought up the Race and the Priesthood essay while teaching RS, most sisters did not know it exhisted but we're grateful to know about it so they could help answer questions about the topic for their children and friends. 

Edited July 23, 2016 by bsjkki
Grammar

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Imagine how differently things would have turned out had the Brethren not put a stop to Leonard Arrington's work in the late 1970s. The information now causing the church so much grief would have been greeted with a shrug. Too bad no one could have seen this coming. 

I am reading the Arrington biography right now and last evening came upon a shocking quote from Arrington's diary.

I marked it and planned to bring it to work today and post it and then forgot the book!

I will give you the gist, however.

Arrington, as you know, was famous for telling more of the truth about Church history than many GA's were happy to have told and ended up getting shut down as a result.

What Arrington wrote in his diary in 1981 (one year before the complete shut down of his history department and transfer away from the archives in SLC to BYU) was this:

He first said the part I already knew.  He likened the negative aspects of Church history to cats that were out of the bag; and said that some GA's were upset because they thought Arrington was letting cats out of the bag; but that what the GA's didn't understand was that the cats were already out of the bag through anti-Mormon publishers and that it was important to put those cats in context in order to help take the impact out of them for members.

That much I got.

It was the second part of the quote that floored me.

Arrington said that not only did he consider it his purpose to contextualize the "cats" that had been let out of the bag already, but he also said it was his purpose to "keep the lid on" damaging information that hadn't gotten out yet; information that could be found only through an in-depth research of the archives; information that would be "very damaging" to the Church and all its officials.

 

Nope.

Not making this up.

That's why it floored me.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I am reading the Arrington biography right now and last evening came upon a shocking quote from Arrington's diary.

I marked it and planned to bring it to work today and post it and then forgot the book!

I will give you the gist, however.

Arrington, as you know, was famous for telling more of the truth about Church history than many GA's were happy to have told and ended up getting shut down as a result.

What Arrington wrote in his diary in 1981 (one year before the complete shut down of his history department and transfer away from the archives in SLC to BYU) was this:

He first said the part I already knew.  He likened the negative aspects of Church history to cats that were out of the bag; and said that some GA's were upset because they thought Arrington was letting cats out of the bag; but that what the GA's didn't understand was that the cats were already out of the bag through anti-Mormon publishers and that it was important to put those cats in context in order to help take the impact out of them for members.

That much I got.

It was the second part of the quote that floored me.

Arrington said that not only did he consider it his purpose to contextualize the "cats" that had been let out of the bag already, but he also said it was his purpose to "keep the lid on" damaging information that hadn't gotten out yet; information that could be found only through an in-depth research of the archives; information that would be "very damaging" to the Church and all its officials.

 

Nope.

Not making this up.

That's why it floored me.

You mean there might be more???

[JulieM]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The dates of attendance of both you and your parents, along with the subjects majored in, would tell me the status of BYU at that time, and I would be better able to examine your obviously false claims. 

Why would you accuse Rockpond of lying about what he was taught while attending BYU?  He can only state what his personal experience was.

I also got my degree at BYU and had to take many religion classes. I was not taught details about church history that are now in the essays or have come out in other ways.

It would be interesting to know how many on here who went to BYU learned the details about how polygamy was lived (and polyandry), the numerous versions of the first vision, and etc., from their professors there.

Edited July 23, 2016 by JulieM

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You mean there might be more???

I mean that, according to Leonard Arrington, who was in a position to know, as of 1981, there was most definitely more!

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Why would you accuse Rockpond of lying about what he was taught while attending BYU?  He can only state what his personal experience was.

I also got my degree at BYU and had to take many religion classes. I was not taught details about church history that are now in the essays or have come out in other ways.

It would be interesting to know how many on here who went to BYU learned the details about how polygamy was lived (and polyandry), the numerous versions of the first vision, and etc., from their professors there.

While at BYU I took a Church History class about the Nauvoo period. Holzapfel was the professor and he'd just written a book Women of Nauvoo. Polygamy didn't come up at all. Seriously. How does that happen in a class about women in Nauvoo?

Edited July 23, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

While at BYU I took a Church History class about the Nauvoo period. Holzapfel was the professor and he'd just written a book Women of Nauvoo. Polygamy didn't come up at all. Seriously. How does that happen in a book about women in Nauvoo?

I also took a Church History class at LDS Business College when I was younger and there was zero in it also, could have helped if there were more, could have helped a great deal. But I guess I'm glad my eyes are opened to the church being less than perfect, helps a great deal. Now if others can see it, and not beat themselves up over not being...perfect.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I am reading the Arrington biography right now and last evening came upon a shocking quote from Arrington's diary.

I marked it and planned to bring it to work today and post it and then forgot the book!

I will give you the gist, however.

Arrington, as you know, was famous for telling more of the truth about Church history than many GA's were happy to have told and ended up getting shut down as a result.

What Arrington wrote in his diary in 1981 (one year before the complete shut down of his history department and transfer away from the archives in SLC to BYU) was this:

He first said the part I already knew.  He likened the negative aspects of Church history to cats that were out of the bag; and said that some GA's were upset because they thought Arrington was letting cats out of the bag; but that what the GA's didn't understand was that the cats were already out of the bag through anti-Mormon publishers and that it was important to put those cats in context in order to help take the impact out of them for members.

That much I got.

It was the second part of the quote that floored me.

Arrington said that not only did he consider it his purpose to contextualize the "cats" that had been let out of the bag already, but he also said it was his purpose to "keep the lid on" damaging information that hadn't gotten out yet; information that could be found only through an in-depth research of the archives; information that would be "very damaging" to the Church and all its officials.

 

Nope.

Not making this up.

That's why it floored me.

Well that is disappointing to hear. 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well that is disappointing to hear. 

What made it even more surprising to me was that Greg Prince does absolutely nothing with this bombshell.

He makes no comment on it but just moves on.

It is like he is citing it for the first part of the quote, which has been documented in so many other ways during the first 300-pages that my eyes are starting to roll up in the back of my head.

But then he completes the quote, and says nothing about the bomb he just dropped.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Again, CFR.

I would like a precise quote and citation, if possible.

I have been told more than once that the new  youth curriculum is, among other things, a forerunner to how the adult curriculum will eventually be restructured. I presume this would include selections from the Gospel Topics essays when appropriate and applicable.

I've not seen a response from rockpond to this CFR. I'd like to know precisely what Elder Snow did say. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Nobody believes the "same things" he/she believed as a teenager decades later, Scott.  Bushman's statement/reversal tells even the half-awake reader he's under extreme duress, chained in Daniel C. Peterson's basement learning the hard way a Dowser can be put to more than one use...

;0)  

--Erik

It is clear from your comments that you entertain fantasies far more outlandish than dowsing rods. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Why would you accuse Rockpond of lying about what he was taught while attending BYU?  He can only state what his personal experience was.

I also got my degree at BYU and had to take many religion classes. I was not taught details about church history that are now in the essays or have come out in other ways.

It would be interesting to know how many on here who went to BYU learned the details about how polygamy was lived (and polyandry), the numerous versions of the first vision, and etc., from their professors there.

Hi Julie,

I attempted to point out to rockpond that BYU has changed over time, and he even admitted that.  However, as with most static thinkers, he still ignored the need to assess BYU performance over time.  He apparently also believed that the vetting process for BYU professors was the same over time, for all departments, and in all respects every bit as good as any other university.  That is certainly not true.  I have closely watched BYU performance over time, and there have been vast improvements in all departments, although CES education has typically lagged behind, and has never been committed to high scholarship -- that is why Hugh Nibley was so critical of it.  Nibley urged serious grad students to go to other universities if they wished to learn religious history.  Hugh himself was a product of the University of California system, never studying at an LDS college.

You speak of BYU religion classes (some of which are required for graduation) as deficient, and they are.  However, they were merely introductory survey courses never intended to  plumb the depths of history and theology.  Any serious student would have to do personal reading and research in those areas in order to be well-informed.  That is why I took rockpond to task for expecting to be spoon-fed such historical and theological issues.  Had he evinced a serious desire to understand Mormon history and theology, he could easily have done that personal research, or have attended regular MHA, Sunstone, and other symposia at which such matters were discussed in detail.  The information was always readily available to anyone interested.  I find it astonishing that I was familiar with it, but that others claim not to have been.  Did they live in a cocoon somewhere?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

What Arrington wrote in his diary in 1981 (one year before the complete shut down of his history department and transfer away from the archives in SLC to BYU) was this:

He first said the part I already knew.  He likened the negative aspects of Church history to cats that were out of the bag; and said that some GA's were upset because they thought Arrington was letting cats out of the bag; but that what the GA's didn't understand was that the cats were already out of the bag through anti-Mormon publishers and that it was important to put those cats in context in order to help take the impact out of them for members.

That much I got.

It was the second part of the quote that floored me.

Arrington said that not only did he consider it his purpose to contextualize the "cats" that had been let out of the bag already, but he also said it was his purpose to "keep the lid on" damaging information that hadn't gotten out yet; information that could be found only through an in-depth research of the archives; information that would be "very damaging" to the Church and all its officials.

Nope.

Not making this up.

That's why it floored me.

This only goes to show how wrong John Williams was in suggesting that firing Arrington shut down anything, because the "cats" were in fact already out of the bag.  Arrington's assistants were all moved back to BYU in Provo, but far from being shut down that merely meant that they were now writing books and articles based on those years at the Archives.  They were all delivering lectures at symposia.  This was the heydey of Mormon history writing and religious studies, the time when FARMS was founded and flourished.  A time for fertile interchange of facts and ideas.  A golden age for Mormon scholarship.  How could anyone mistakenly believe that the genie could be put back in the bottle?  And it has been arriba y adelante ever since.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Nobody believes the "same things" he/she believed as a teenager decades later, Scott.  Bushman's statement/reversal tells even the half-awake reader he's under extreme duress, chained in Daniel C. Peterson's basement learning the hard way a Dowser can be put to more than one use...

;0)  

--Erik

Bushman is just a bit older than me, but I can say the same:  plus ça change plus c'est la même chose.  Through it all, I have never found a reason to doubt my Restoration faith.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWcxfOlCI3M&list=RDXWcxfOlCI3M

[consiglieri]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This only goes to show how wrong John Williams was in suggesting that firing Arrington shut down anything, because the "cats" were in fact already out of the bag.  Arrington's assistants were all moved back to BYU in Provo, but far from being shut down that merely meant that they were now writing books and articles based on those years at the Archives.  They were all delivering lectures at symposia.  This was the heydey of Mormon history writing and religious studies, the time when FARMS was founded and flourished.  A time for fertile interchange of facts and ideas.  A golden age for Mormon scholarship.  How could anyone mistakenly believe that the genie could be put back in the bottle?  And it has been arriba y adelante ever since.

What I am concerned about is that Arrington said there were lots more cats that hadn't gotten out of the bag yet; cats that could only be found by "deep" research in the archives; research he and his associates had done; cats that would be very damaging to the church and all its officers; and not only that, but Arrington saw it as his role as to "keep the lid" on this extremely damaging information.

I have no way of knowing what this damaging information was that Arrington kept the lid on, nor do I have any way of knowing whether it has been published on since Arrington's time.

But I do know that Church leaders were very upset about Bushman's manuscript, "Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism," and some of the 12 thought the best way to proceed would be to pay Bushman for his work per the contract they had signed with him, not publish the manuscript, and stick it in a safe so nobody would have access to it.

And this was to hide stuff about the cats that had already been let out of the bag!

What does that say about the cats still hiding in that bag called Church archives?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

What I am concerned about is that Arrington said there were lots more cats that hadn't gotten out of the bag yet; cats that could only be found by "deep" research in the archives; research he and his associates had done; cats that would be very damaging to the church and all its officers; and not only that, but Arrington saw it as his role as to "keep the lid" on this extremely damaging information.

I have no way of knowing what this damaging information was that Arrington kept the lid on, nor do I have any way of knowing whether it has been published on since Arrington's time.

All that stuff has since become available to anyone going to the Church History Library (including any anti-Mormon).  Arrington's pioneering spadework made sure of that, even though he wisely understood that such materials required contextualization.  He was clearly not shocked by any of that information, but we do have some people (even on this board) who find such information shocking, and he was likely thinking of such innocent and naive persons.

But I do know that Church leaders were very upset about Bushman's manuscript, "Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism," and some of the 12 thought the best way to proceed would be to pay Bushman for his work per the contract they had signed with him, not publish the manuscript, and stick it in a safe so nobody would have access to it.

Well, Bushman did not take any money not to publish it (as with many other volumes planned during the Arrington era, which were published), and he published it with the Univ of Illinois Press in 1984.  It was far more tame than his later Rough Stone Rolling.  Can't see why any of the Brethren would be upset with it in any case.  Perhaps you could explain to me what was so damaging within that book, Counselor.

And this was to hide stuff about the cats that had already been let out of the bag!

What does that say about the cats still hiding in that bag called Church archives?

I don't credit such notions all that much.  As I say, it is all out there now, and may the Devil take the hindmost !

 

[consiglieri]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This only goes to show how wrong John Williams was in suggesting that firing Arrington shut down anything, because the "cats" were in fact already out of the bag.  Arrington's assistants were all moved back to BYU in Provo, but far from being shut down that merely meant that they were now writing books and articles based on those years at the Archives.  They were all delivering lectures at symposia.  This was the heydey of Mormon history writing and religious studies, the time when FARMS was founded and flourished.  A time for fertile interchange of facts and ideas.  A golden age for Mormon scholarship.  How could anyone mistakenly believe that the genie could be put back in the bottle?  And it has been arriba y adelante ever since.

I should also add that access to the archives was restricted after the move to BYU. 

There is a story in the book about a Church History Division staff member scrambling to do research on a book he/she was writing before access was restricted, but the research could not be completed in time and the book was never finished.

[consiglieri]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, Bushman did not take any money not to publish it (as with many other volumes planned during the Arrington era, which were published), and he published it with the Univ of Illinois Press in 1984.  It was far more tame than his later Rough Stone Rolling.  Can't see why any of the Brethren would be upset with it in any case.  Perhaps you could explain to me what was so damaging within that book, Counselor.

The book says Bushman did get paid per the contract because he was one of the handful that had completed the manuscript before Church leaders put the kibosh on the 16-volume Church history project.

All the rest of the historians who had not completed their manuscript got paid pro rata for work done up to that point.

What had Church leaders so upset was likely the stuff about Joseph Smith's treasure digging, folk magic involvement, and the actual method he used to translate the Book of Mormon.

But these are still not the "cats" Arrington referred to in his 1981 diary entry.

Those must be some cats . . .

 

[ALarson]

 

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All that stuff has since become available to anyone going to the Church History Library (including any anti-Mormon).

You can't possibly know if "all that stuff" in the church archives (Arrington was referring to) has been made available.  

[rockpond]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Again, CFR.

I would like a precise quote and citation, if possible.

I have been told more than once that the new  youth curriculum is, among other things, a forerunner to how the adult curriculum will eventually be restructured. I presume this would include selections from the Gospel Topics essays when appropriate and applicable.

The last 30 seconds of the audio clip in the OP. 

[rockpond]

21 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Imagine how differently things would have turned out had the Brethren not put a stop to Leonard Arrington's work in the late 1970s. The information now causing the church so much grief would have been greeted with a shrug. Too bad no one could have seen this coming. 

Amen