Recommended Books on Church History from Elder Jensen (Former Church Historian)

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think actual learning (gaining of knowledge) has been the goal for quite some time.
I think strengthening testimonies has become the primary goal.

So discussing with each other how the Lord has answered your prayers in order to help testimonies of prayer is now what passes for a "lesson" on prayer.
I think it will be some time before any attempt at academic style learning makes its way back into Sunday "school".

I agree and in a certain sense that's appropriate. When I teach, despite my love for the academic stuff, I always am more a kind of crying repentance to get people to take a few things to change in their lives and motivate them. That said, even though that's how I teach I kind of think a bit more academic stuff could perhaps be very helpful for members. It's been a while since I had a regular teaching calling. I wonder how I'd do it now.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree and in a certain sense that's appropriate. When I teach, despite my love for the academic stuff, I always am more a kind of crying repentance to get people to take a few things to change in their lives and motivate them. That said, even though that's how I teach I kind of think a bit more academic stuff could perhaps be very helpful for members. It's been a while since I had a regular teaching calling. I wonder how I'd do it now.

I think it's an issue of balance.
If we look back at Church history there was a much more balanced focus between the spiritual and the doctrinal.
School of the Prophets for just one example.  The Conference talks in the Journals of Discourses were hardly soft, warm, and motivational like they are today.
Brigham said that testimony meetings were better than the best sermons.  But his sermons were very doctrinal in nature.

 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think it's an issue of balance.
If we look back at Church history there was a much more balanced focus between the spiritual and the doctrinal.

I wonder how much this affected the typical member not in high profile leadership positions, especially given many callings were decades or life long that are now 5 years or so.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Hmm... I have a hard time believing this, but I trust that you're probably accurate with your assessment.  It makes me wonder if some of the messages are carrying some additional layers of interpretation that members perceive reinforces the idea of avoiding unfaithful materials.  For example, each time that a leader talks about the evil in our modern world, a member might interpret that to mean stay away from non church approved material.  Things like that.  

Its the tradition of the culture that might require more explicit language from leaders in order to break the chain of negative perception that has been inherited and interpreted over the years.  

I invited JLHPROF to support this with examples from the vast online database of Church curriculum materials. He took up the challenge.

I now extend the same invitation to you.

If it's as pervasive as you imply, you ought to be able to come with a clear-cut example or two without much difficulty.

Edited to add: I'll submit myself as an example. I daresay there is scarcely anyone more steeped than I in the Mormon faith or a traditional, Wasatch Front Mormon culture. I don't infer "don't look at outside sources" from anything authoritative that I have ever heard from a Church source.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[MormonVideoGame]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Something else to keep in mind is that I suspect most people assume Mormons are more educated than average. But I think that's a kind of bias due to the people doing most of the callings tending to be the high Mormon achievers.

I think Mormons are more educated than the average US population, but it is a mistake to point that out because half of the US population is Catholic and Evangelical, and that skews the numbers. Mormons are more educated than Catholic and Evangelicals, Mormon women are less depressed than Catholics and Evangelicals, Mormons live longer than Catholics and Evangelicals.  

Catholic + Evangelical = 46.2% of US population 

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I believe the significant data is that higher education is tied with higher level of commitment in the Church.

Do you have evidence that devout Mormons are more educated than committed Atheists and Agnostics? or secular Jews? or Buddhists?  

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Utah women showed a higher rate of college graduation than U.S. women, by 2000

I explain above why comparing Mormons to the general population is not very impressive. Let me know if you have more data. 

Edited June 3, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I think Mormons are more educated than the average US population, but it is a mistake to point that out because the US population is mostly Catholic and Protestant. So in other words Mormons are more educated than Catholic and Protestants, Mormon women are less depressed than Catholics and Protestants, Mormons live longer than Catholics and Protestants.  

They're slightly better than average (33% vs 27% for the average). I'm not sure "Protestant" is a useful category because it's so diverse though. However it is true that the very educated groups tend to either be self-selected congregations among the wealthy/elite (Unitarians, Anglican/Episcopal, Presbyterian) or else are biased by highly productive immigrants (Hindu, Buddhist). The exception of course is Judaism but it doesn't really break out those who are observant from those are are more ethnically associated. So one has to be careful how one uses the data.

As I mentioned, I think if we put more societal pressure on women to finish college and made it easier for them (cheap daycare at BYU) our statistics would go up considerably.

Quote

Do you have evidence that devout Mormons are more educated than committed Atheists and Agnostics? or secular Jews? or Buddhists?  

Usually the inverse is what gets measured. The numbers for Mormons are pretty staggering but then Mormons are already far more involved simply because that's an essential part of our religion in a way it just isn't for Catholics and Protestants. Even those who think it's important to go to church don't see it as a duty of service essential to ones membership the way Mormons do. So the beliefs of the religion tend to play into this a great deal.

I think though that the evidence is pretty strong devout Mormons are less educated. That's because the rates for Pew for Mormon self-identification tend to make the vast majority of Mormons devout.  82% of those self-identifying say religion is very important to them compared to 56% of the public. An extra 13% say it's somewhat important. Only 8% of self-identified Mormons say they seldom attend Church. So pretty much that means around 80-85% are likely devout and around 10% more are reasonably committed. 

It's hard to compare that with atheists or agnostics since it's not quite clear what it means to be committed there. But relative to those who self-identify they are better educated than Mormons. Given most Mormons are devout, that pretty much entails they're better educated than devout Mormons. The numbers for college are just so much higher (43% & 42% for atheists, agnostics vs. 33% for Mormons)

Regarding Utah women versus national, that's pretty biased due to the large number of non-members in Utah. 

It's worth noting the Church has been pushing women to get educated. I think the problem is the problem of telling them not to delay families yet not making it possible for poor college kids to find daycare easily. The rhetoric just doesn't quite match the incentives. So many women start college but drop out -- primarily due to finances and children.  

That said, one should also note that Pew's data has lots of problems I've mentioned before. The main problem is oversampling Utah counties leading to bias. (This may also account for the high rates of devout observance in Pew's numbers) The MSSA noted the following about ARIS data being more representative. 

Quote

This is another example of how findings from Pew’s study are skewed because they oversampled counties in Utah. The trend of women dropping out of college and the low percentage of Utah college students that are female does not square with the ARIS’s more representative sample, which shows no significant difference in the number of LDS men vs. women who have a college degree. Note as well that ARIS shows that significantly more LDS women in Utah than LDS women elsewhere are stay at home moms, so Pew is documenting a Utah Mormon phenomenon that is not as pronounced in the total U.S. LDS population.

I always prefer ARIS data to Pew. Alas the ARIS data is getting long in tooth. (And in the public report the women/male numbers for education weren't broken out) 

It'll be interesting seeing this in the future as while at present roughly the same number of men and women have college degrees that's biased by older men. Among the young women go to college much more than men nationally. There's a 7 to 8 percentage point gap between men and women aged 25-34.

Edited June 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

"Do you have evidence that devout Mormons are more educated than committed Atheists and Agnostics? or secular Jews? or Buddhists? "

That is not what I claimed unless you can prove the general population is primarily Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, or Buddhists.

"I explain above why comparing Mormons to the general population is not very impressive. Let me know if you have more data."

You are not really responding to what I am writing as usual.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

You are not really responding to what I am writing as usual.

You quoted Pew "Mormons are significantly more likely than the population overall to have some college education"

18 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think though that the evidence is pretty strong devout Mormons are less educated. That's because the rates for Pew for Mormon self-identification tend to make the vast majority of Mormons devout.  82% of those self-identifying say religion is very important to them compared to 56% of the public. An extra 13% say it's somewhat important. Only 8% of self-identified Mormons say they seldom attend Church. So pretty much that means around 80-85% are likely devout and around 10% more are reasonably committed. 

It's hard to compare that with atheists or agnostics since it's not quite clear what it means to be committed there. But relative to those who self-identify they are better educated than Mormons. Given most Mormons are devout, that pretty much entails they're better educated than devout Mormons. The numbers for college are just so much higher (43% & 42% for atheists, agnostics vs. 33% for Mormons)

Okay 

[Calm]

 

28 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

You quoted Pew "Mormons are significantly more likely than the population overall to have some college education"

Yes, I did.

I assume you understand what "population overall" means and why that would be different than saying "Atheists" or "secular Jews" or "Buddhists".

[MormonVideoGame]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, I did.

I assume you understand what "population overall" means and why that would be different than saying "Atheists" or "secular Jews" or "Buddhists".

I do, but you didn't understand my point.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I do, but you didn't understand my point.  

I understood it I believe.  I didn't make the claim that they were.  Why should I have to present evidence for something I never claimed?

Edited June 3, 2017 by Calm

[MormonVideoGame]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I understood it I believe.  I didn't make the claim that they were.  Why should I have to present evidence for something I never claimed?

You didn't, but what is the point of comparing Mormons to the General Population? Comparing Mormons to the General Population has no value because again the GP is primarily Catholic and Evangelical. 

Edited June 4, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Tacenda]

My husband teaches Primary to the 11/12 year old group. He's says that he can't teach things like the 'head in the hat' method of translation because it's not in the manual. He taught this lesson several weeks ago and a class member brought it up, and he didn't expound on it, just let it go. His co-teacher apparently didn't know a thing about it. So I sent my husband a link to the Ensign article in 2015. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng So that he wouldn't be afraid the bishop or parents would be upset for him saying anything. 

I sat in with his class today because his co-teacher wasn't there and he needed a last minute sub. Well after sitting through my husband's lesson, I think his class should be taught the true history of the church instead of fluff. I like how he integrated the subject of seeing the blessings come from our actions but he left out most of the story about Joseph Smith's tar and feather incident. I guess he's heard about the connection of it being because Joseph possibly talking to someone's sister and the brother didn't like it, thinking Joseph may have been propositioning her. I wouldn't have wanted him to even come close to bringing that up, but at least tell the story in the manual. He said the manual isn't current and it must mean the church doesn't want the teachers to teach anything different. But he strayed so far away from it I feel that the class would have learned and loved to hear some history of the church because I believe we really have a fascinating history that it should be taught. Then if any of these class members hear something critical about it down the road they can say they already knew about it.

I've sat in many Primary classes with a young man I helped that had special needs and it seems like the teachers don't even like using the manuals much. It's all about placating the members of the class with games and just a lot of fluff, IMO. Some teachers did a great job, others not so much.

So I'm asking...does anyone know if the new manuals will be out soon? Manuals with updated history, and the Joseph Smith's Papers integrated in, along with the church essays?

I even sent my husband the link about Elder Ballard stating that the CES teachers learn the essays like the back of their hands because the youth need to be innoculated. I told my husband that if someone had taught me more about the history maybe I wouldn't be where I am today. Here is that link.

Does anyone think Elder Ballard would say the same to my husband or is it just for the seminary students?

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng

 

[Tacenda]

21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My husband teaches Primary to the 11/12 year old group. He's says that he can't teach things like the 'head in the hat' method of translation because it's not in the manual. He taught this lesson several weeks ago and a class member brought it up, and he didn't expound on it, just let it go. His co-teacher apparently didn't know a thing about it. So I sent my husband a link to the Ensign article in 2015. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/joseph-the-seer?lang=eng So that he wouldn't be afraid the bishop or parents would be upset for him saying anything. 

I sat in with his class today because his co-teacher wasn't there and he needed a last minute sub. Well after sitting through my husband's lesson, I think his class should be taught the true history of the church instead of fluff. I like how he integrated the subject of seeing the blessings come from our actions but he left out most of the story about Joseph Smith's tar and feather incident. I guess he's heard about the connection of it being because Joseph possibly talking to someone's sister and the brother didn't like it, thinking Joseph may have been propositioning her. I wouldn't have wanted him to even come close to bringing that up, but at least tell the story in the manual. He said the manual isn't current and it must mean the church doesn't want the teachers to teach anything different. But he strayed so far away from it I feel that the class would have learned and loved to hear some history of the church because I believe we really have a fascinating history that it should be taught. Then if any of these class members hear something critical about it down the road they can say they already knew about it.

I've sat in many Primary classes with a young man I helped that had special needs and it seems like the teachers don't even like using the manuals much. It's all about placating the members of the class with games and just a lot of fluff, IMO. Some teachers did a great job, others not so much.

So I'm asking...does anyone know if the new manuals will be out soon? Manuals with updated history, and the Joseph Smith's Papers integrated in, along with the church essays?

I even sent my husband the link about Elder Ballard stating that the CES teachers learn the essays like the back of their hands because the youth need to be innoculated. I told my husband that if someone had taught me more about the history maybe I wouldn't be where I am today. Here is that link.

Does anyone think Elder Ballard would say the same to my husband or is it just for the seminary students?

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865681321/Church-Historian-details-forthcoming-new-comprehensive-Church-history.html

Quoting myself, to bump this up and to add this good news...

[theplains]

On 2017-5-10 at 11:29 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Marlin Jensen is my kind of guy.  This is indeed the thinking man's list of books necessary to an understanding of Mormon history.  Ordinary Mormons will not have read most of them, and likely never will.  In fact, one does not have to read any of them to be a faithful Mormon.

However, for those who truly care to push the envelope, once those books have been digested, there is another list of readings for those who want to delve more deeply into our very nuanced history -- including books and articles by Hales, Quinn, and others.

I would recommend Doctrines of Salvation - the 5 volume set (a history of Mormon doctrine).

Jim