People leave the church because of a "trust gap"

[rongo]

Just now, Calm said:

There may be other groups who have similar testing problems, I am not suggesting this makes LDS obviously more honest than other groups or that we are unique in these ways.

The irony is that these tests are traps for people who really are completely honest. You have to have at least a little "wise as serpents" and not be completely "harmless as doves" for them --- it takes a little savvy. 

My two bookend children (oldest and youngest) are completely incapable of lying. If we were hiding Jews and the Gestapo knocked, they would not be able to pull a Sister Simplice (Les Miserables novel reference) and lie upon being asked if we were hiding anyone. I had to learn early on to not hurt their hearts by asking them not to tell mom about something (going out for ice cream or whatever). My other two children are not dishonest --- they are "normal," like their dad. 

I remember reading this article years ago, where LDS ethics professor Quinn McKay argues that lying is sometimes the only thing for an honest person to do. Very interesting.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/961127/Tell-the-truth-Do-you-really-tell-the-truth.html

[why me]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

 

 

On another message board,  non LDS, several years ago,  we were criticized by former memyers about the lack of history taight. I then created a separate thread where many (50-100, I can't  remember how many exactly) non LDS answered. There was only one person whose church taught any history and that was of their own specific congregation. 

This is what most would have replied. For some strange reason, former mormons believe that the church should have a 1000 page history book taught in sunday school. If former members wanted to know about polygamy, they should have read the biography of Hyrum that was published years ago by deseret. It was in that book.

https://deseretbook.com/p/hyrum-smith-life-integrity-jeffrey-s-odriscoll-76848?variant_id=21674-paperback

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2061601.Hyrum_Smith

This book would have informed them that hyrum was also a polygamist.

Edited April 20, 2017 by why me

[Calm]

"I had to learn early on to not hurt their hearts by asking them not to tell mom about something (going out for ice cream or whatever)"

You need to be careful as I imagine this will be intentionally interpreted by a few lurkers in a sinister fashion.

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I believe you are honest all the time..I didn't mean to imply otherwise.    Funny thing.  I had a job interview years ago where they asked me if I was truly honest..so I was honest and told them I am honest to the point where and unless I hurt someone's feelings...didn't get the job and this is why..

I don't believe it is being dishonest to leave out negative things. I can always find something positive to say about someone. I can't remember the last time I felt trapped into telling someone something hurtful, but I imagine this kind of thing might come up in customer relations jobs...

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

"I had to learn early on to not hurt their hearts by asking them not to tell mom about something (going out for ice cream or whatever)"

You need to be careful as I imagine this will be intentionally interpreted by a few lurkers in a sinister fashion.

I guess. I think most people know enough about themselves and human nature to know and have experience with family "mom/dad" dynamics and not read anything sinister into that. I'm definitely "good cop" to mom's "bad cop" when it comes to treats, etc. We have to be very frugal and careful with our finances, and I am, but like I quote her sometimes from "Fiddler on the Roof," --- even a poor tailor is entitled to some happiness . . .  

[why me]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Please explain what you mean by "something changed" and your inference that the Church did not stick with the plan. Are you referring to the change in the narrative, and apparently dropping the white-washed presentation? When do you see this change occurring? 

In the link that I provided, there was a plan to publish a complete history of the church. I don't think that these volumes were published. The ensign changed direction in the nineties  The seventies saw much church history published that would now seem controversial..But somewhere the late nineties the ensign changed direction. I think that it was a conscious policy not to concentrate on such history.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

And here is the head in the hat mention in the early nineties:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Just over one-third of millennials now live with their parents, and a quarter of those don't have a job and are not in school.  This is up from 26% in 2005.  Not a promising trend.  http://start.att.net/player/category//article/cnbc-power_lunch:new_census_study_1_in_3_millennials_live_with_pare-5min .

ETA: The consequences are dire:  http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/20/scariest-economic-indicator-more-millennials-living-home-commentary.html?__source=synacor&par=synacor .

Edited April 20, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, why me said:

In the link that I provided, there was a plan to publish a complete history of the church. I don't think that these volumes were published. The ensign changed direction in the nineties  The seventies saw much church history published that would now seem controversial..But somewhere the late nineties the ensign changed direction. I think that it was a conscious policy not to concentrate on such history.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

And here is the head in the hat mention in the early nineties:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament?lang=eng

OK, Thank you. So your are not talking about the more recent changes to missionary lessons, etc. It does seem to me that Pres Hinckley was trying to position the church into being "main stream." I noticed that the Lorenzo couplet, and that general teaching seemed to disappear from the manuals during his tenure. I personally believe Heavenly Father disagreed with that approach. Like Miserere says we should embrace our unique beliefs.

[why me]

Interestingly, I have an old teacher's manual for the D&C. I was just reading section 132 in the manual and what should be taught. And sure enough, there is inforation about joseph smith and polygamy. The manual was published in 1981. It also details the problems that emma had with it. How can members claim that the church hid such history when it is in the 1981 addition of the teacher's manual?

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just over one-third of millennials now live with their parents, and a quarter of those don't have a job and are not in school.  This is up from 26% in 2005.  Not a promising trend.  http://start.att.net/player/category//article/cnbc-power_lunch:new_census_study_1_in_3_millennials_live_with_pare-5min .

There's this, just in, too:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/most-millennials-are-finding-it-hard-transition-adulthood-report-n748676

But people generally are upset if I suggest that resilience and competency are problems/issues with many young adults.

[why me]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

OK, Thank you. So your are not talking about the more recent changes to missionary lessons, etc. It does seem to me that Pres Hinckley was trying to position the church into being "main stream." I noticed that the Lorenzo couplet, and that general teaching seemed to disappear from the manuals during his tenure. I personally believe Heavenly Father disagreed with that approach. Like Miserere says we should embrace our unique beliefs.

The lds church did not see the power of the internet when it changed direction. It was a huge mistake. If they would have deepened the ensign by covering what was covered in the past, the church would now be in a more powerful position. But they left themselves open to critic accusations and did not respond to it. Maybe they thought that it would all go away eventually or that members' testimonies would be stronger based on their own spiritual experiences.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Certainly.  One human flaw is that people often see what they expect to see and want to see, rather than what is there.  For instance, I noticed the phrase "One True Church" that you use in another response here, which it happens does not occur in D&C 1, which is the formal statement of "mine authority" and "the authority of my servants."  It does happen that the key phrase in D&C 1:30 is rather more tolerant and robust than "One True Church".  And it happens that Position 2 of the Perry Scheme, provides a very good human explanation for why so many people misread D&C 1:30.

Here is Position 2:

People at Position 2, nature rather than LDS measure, tend to deal with complexity in this way. The common misreading reveals a human tendency, not a formal LDS essential.

And here is D&C 1:30, and a bit more:

I've observed and written many times for decades that in verse 30 the "only" modifies "we pleased" relative to what qualities the merism "true and living" describes.  The Biblical passages which use "true" and/or "living" turn out to match the themes of D&C 1 overall point for point, verse for verse, and have to do with the voice of warning, scripture, revelation, priesthood, ordinances, Christ, the sacrament, baptism, the temple, the Holy Spirit, and such that in actual fact and practice distinguish the LDS assembly of people from others.  An D&C 30 emphasizes the expressly non-exclusive approach the Lord takes to this.  "All flesh," not just the church.  With that beam out of my eye, I find substantially more clarity in my vision, and a substantially different expectation against which to view Mormon culture and claims in light of broader human experiences.

The Spirit may not always strive with man or woman, true, but there is repentance, isn't there?  A person who has lost it may after all, get it back from time to time.

I did take the time to search out and discover 28 Biblical Tests for True and False prophets, along with a wide range of scriptures that describe what a person should to do see truth, and a wide range of scriptures describing how Bible peoples justified rejecting true prophets.  Joseph Smith, I find, measures up very well indeed.  Uniquely so, with his successors, since Bible times.  Hence, despite my publishing them at FAIR in 2009, most people prefer to use different measures, more subjective and personal.

By other measures, things can be different.  But that is the key... what measure do we use?  All of the Biblical examples turned out to be saying, that person is not what I want, not what I think.  But is what I want and what I think necessarily what is real?  Could I be wrong, and have a beam in my eye that obscures my vision, impairs my judgements?  Are human Fear and Desire just what Buddha found them to be, the temptations of Maya, the Illusion of the world through which he must pass to attain enlightenment?  The Biblical recommendations for seeing truth, turn out to involve a deliberate effort to offer up what we think and want, fear and desire, as potential sacrifices to enter into the Real, in fact, the sacrifices of a broken heart (my desire), and a contrite spirit (my preconceptions).

And I searched out a wide range of LDS scriptures that describe how the spirit communicates, both through the mind and through the heart, and sometimes through events.   It is most definitely not just feelings (though that is part of it), but also enlightenment, expansion of the mind, judgment, insight, understanding, study, and experiment.

Just somethings I notice.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

What I wanted was for Joseph to be the prophet. The hypothetical space in which that was possible grew smaller and smaller until it was gone. Now I see quite clearly indeed. 

I do think that there are many things about the LDS gospel which are mightily appealing and comforting, especially if we are careful to ignore a bunch of other things.

I think that all of us probably adapt Mormonism in one way or the other. Only now after the emotional attachment has been severed, can I see very clearly and obviously that the church is not what I thought it was.

I do agree with what you say here:

"And I searched out a wide range of LDS scriptures that describe how the spirit communicates, both through the mind and through the heart, and sometimes through events.   It is most definitely not just feelings (though that is part of it), but also enlightenment, expansion of the mind, judgment, insight, understanding, study, and experiment."

Edited April 20, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, why me said:

Interestingly, I have an old teacher's manual for the D&C. I was just reading section 132 in the manual and what should be taught. And sure enough, there is inforation about joseph smith and polygamy. The manual was published in 1981. It also details the problems that emma had with it. How can members claim that the church hid such history when it is in the 1981 addition of the teacher's manual?

Iirc, the teacher's manual had that info in an additional resources section with the advice that it was to be used if someone brought up the issue, but it was not made general to all members.  I may be mixing it up with other manuals though.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Nope. 

Is it limited for Joseph Smith?

[Jeanne]

57 minutes ago, rongo said:

Have you ever taken an honesty test for employment? They are l-o-n-g, and ask you the same questions over and over in different ways to try to get you to be inconsistent (i.e., you answer that you never take anything home from work, ever, but later, they ask about severity of taking home a paper clip or a pen). The key is to be a) consistent, and b) avoid extremes of never or always. My dad interviewed our bishop's son in Chicago, but he failed the mandated honesty test because he was . . . 100% honest. He was actually a very honest, trustworthy young man, but didn't have the savvy to know the test for what it was. 

I have never taken a test like that..I would probably fail! This is interesting as I have never heard of this before.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, why me said:

Interestingly, I have an old teacher's manual for the D&C. I was just reading section 132 in the manual and what should be taught. And sure enough, there is inforation about joseph smith and polygamy. The manual was published in 1981. It also details the problems that emma had with it. How can members claim that the church hid such history when it is in the 1981 addition of the teacher's manual?

Well, just because it is in the manual doesn't mean it got taught. I don't know that the Church purposefully hid those things, but I do believe they were often not brought up in class.  Me - I knew the church practiced polygamy although I can't say when I learned that Joseph Smith had. I personally don't have a problem with polygamy, but just how people live it, and possibly how Joseph Smith promoted it. I don't believe temporal polygamy is necessary for exaltation, nor do I believe a man can marry again without the consent of the first wife(s). Both beliefs have been taken to extremes by splinter groups.

I suppose the Church could have a church history class, and that day may come, but i believe that right now it would be more like the "controversial topics" class. I believe those things are presently best handled in the Gospel Principles class. Personally, I believe SS is best served by teaching the scriptures and getting the class involved. However, priesthood and RS classes may want to take up a little more history. As they teach about the various Presidents etc, that would certainly be a good time to do it.

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

"I had to learn early on to not hurt their hearts by asking them not to tell mom about something (going out for ice cream or whatever)"

You need to be careful as I imagine this will be intentionally interpreted by a few lurkers in a sinister fashion.

My folks used to babysit my kids once in awhile...I would tell them ..now don't give them too much this or that..when they learned to talk..I could tell that Mom had said..now don't tell your mother... 

[why me]

In Leonard Arrington's wonderful book, The Mormon Experience published in 1979 has quite a few pages about Joseph's polygamy and why it was practiced and the backlash from it. Arrington also describes the differing accounts of the first vision and mentions critic accounts of them. Many church members read this book when it was published. I don't remember one member who left after they read this book.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/515417.The_Mormon_Experience

I would give this as a present to any member of the family who left claiming that the church hides its history. This book was published by Knopf and leonard was the church's historian. But not all the church leaders were on the same page as he was.

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, why me said:

Interestingly, I have an old teacher's manual for the D&C. I was just reading section 132 in the manual and what should be taught. And sure enough, there is inforation about joseph smith and polygamy. The manual was published in 1981. It also details the problems that emma had with it. How can members claim that the church hid such history when it is in the 1981 addition of the teacher's manual?

Can you quote what was written about Joseph living polygamy?  

I'm just curious to read that because I think most members know Joseph had a few plural wives, but it's the details that were usually left out (and never a mention in church manuals or publications of his polyandry that I saw until the essays).  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Aren't you an investigative reporter Scott?  Consider this a tip....check out the stories and see if they stand up to reality.  Here's a start...the mission president featured in the Japan story made a post to his Mission web site a day or two after the tsunami...the facts posted within days of the earthquake and tsunami conflict in important details with the story given in general conference.  The truth while it could still be seen as faith promoting was less faith confirming than the story given in conference....thus the charge of Dunn-like liberties having been taken to make the story more faith confirming that it actually was in reality.

Again, could you be more specific in the claims? The only explication I found was in the blog post I linked to which basically just noted not all missionaries went to the meeting and one set had to flee to the second floor. But no one was injured. Further the talk even seemed to acknowledge not everyone came. The faith promoting part was about listening to the spirit to open up a meeting that was originally just for leaders. 

If this is what being untrustworthy consists of it's frankly being pretty picky. I don't see any evidence of Dunn-like liberties in the talk.

Again I don't mind pointing to people I think were being somewhat deceitful, however well intentioned. Again McConkie on Adam/God is the obvious example. I just think it's pretty rare and further people go out of their way to avoid even exaggerations due to close scrutiny. 

 

 

[why me]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well, just because it is in the manual doesn't mean it got taught. I don't know that the Church purposefully hid those things, but I do believe they were often not brought up in class.  Me - I knew the church practiced polygamy although I can't say when I learned that Joseph Smith had. I personally don't have a problem with polygamy, but just how people live it, and possibly how Joseph Smith promoted it. I don't believe temporal polygamy is necessary for exaltation, nor do I believe a man can marry again without the consent of the first wife(s). Both beliefs have been taken to extremes by splinter groups.

Teaching history is not easy. Also, the class is uusally only 45 minutes long. Not much can be taught. But in the manual of 1981 there is much about emma and her lying about polygamy and how she claimed that it was brigham's idea. Now why wasn't it taught? I have no idea. But it is in the manual to be taught as an explanation for the verses in section 132.

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, why me said:

The lds church did not see the power of the internet when it changed direction. It was a huge mistake. If they would have deepened the ensign by covering what was covered in the past, the church would now be in a more powerful position. But they left themselves open to critic accusations and did not respond to it. Maybe they thought that it would all go away eventually or that members' testimonies would be stronger based on their own spiritual experiences.

I believe it was more a feeling that the Church wanted to go main stream. Rather than trying to respond to critics which they probably felt would give critics an air of credibility, they were hoping people would overlook those issues in favor of a more main stream view. The general cry when I moved to Utah was to not read anti-literature. Well, I've always ignored that. I believe the Church will eventually need to learn to address those concerns in a way which disarms critics. If members are already familiar with the issues when they get brought up the power of "surprise" will be lost for critics, and feelings of "betrayal" of some members will fade.

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

OK, Thank you. So your are not talking about the more recent changes to missionary lessons, etc. It does seem to me that Pres Hinckley was trying to position the church into being "main stream." I noticed that the Lorenzo couplet, and that general teaching seemed to disappear from the manuals during his tenure. I personally believe Heavenly Father disagreed with that approach. Like Miserere says we should embrace our unique beliefs.

I tend to see Hinckley as trying to distinguish theological views with weak support from more core principles with abundant support. The meaning of how we are to be like God isn't clear and is somewhat disputed. See for instance Blake Ostler's three volumes on theology for a position that rejects the traditional view of the King Follet Discourse. (Note he's rejecting the traditional interpretation, not the sermon itself) Hinkley himself has preached on such matters around the time of the Time interview so I don't think he rejects the idea. Also around that time the King Follet Discourse itself was a two week lesson in the manuals if I recall - or a year or two earlier at best. (Minus the controversial stuff about resurrection of children)

[why me]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Can you quote what was written about Joseph living polygamy?  

I'm just curious to read that because I think most members know Joseph had a few plural wives, but it's the details that were usually left out (and never a mention in church manuals or publications of his polyandry that I saw until the essays).  

I don't think that any of the wives were mentioned. Just that he practiced it and emma's reaction to it. One reason for this would be because it was the doctrine that should be taught based on the verses and not whom he married. The problem for the lds church is simple: they need more books written about their history from historians who do not have a dog in the game. Most religious history is written by scholars. Not many historians who are not mormon care to write about lds history. There are tons and tons of books about catholicism and protestantism dealing with their history. Churches hardly ever publish history, but scholars do. We need more Arrington's and Bushman's in the lds church and we need scholars who can be neutral to write mormon history.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, why me said:

Teaching history is not easy. Also, the class is uusally only 45 minutes long. Not much can be taught. But in the manual of 1981 there is much about emma and her lying about polygamy and how she claimed that it was brigham's idea. Now why wasn't it taught? I have no idea. But it is in the manual to be taught as an explanation for the verses in section 132.

For a long time - arguably the whole period after they left Nauvoo until the 1990's - Emma was largely portrayed as a villain who rejected Joseph's revelations. There were reasons for that tied to the succession crisis of course. But I think by the 90's there were moves to rehabilitate her. I found the bigger problem starting then was a kind of hagiography of her so she could become a role model for women when we didn't have a lot of good role models. You started seeing Emma and Joseph portrayed as a kind of nuclear family. That wasn't exactly helpful either and was probably as misleading as portraying her as a villain.

I think now we get the balance a bit better but there's still the problem of using people to teach principles. That is the point of church isn't to teach the nuances of history but to teach correct principles and motivate us to be better people. How to do that is difficult and balancing a portrayal to teach a principle with the details of history can be tricky. I don't think I could do a good job of that despite seeing people like Zina Huntington as the great models of the restoration.