Trying to control information sharing

[stemelbow]

Transcripts of podcasts==awesome.  Who the hell wants to listen when you can read? 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/05/24/polygamy-questions-joseph-smith/

Dan Peterson interviews the Hales (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/)

Quote

Daniel Peterson:            Why hasn’t the church been more forthright about this? I mean, a lot of people say, “Look, I haven’t been told everything I should have been told. The church has been hiding this sort of stuff from me.” So, why do you think the church has been so reluctant to talk about it?

Two answers I find interesting.

First Laura:

Quote

Well, there was an attitude among some of the Brethren, that it was better to keep some aspects of our prophets’ lives private. We know this because recent interviews have come forth. One was an interview with Ronald Walker. He said that when Leonard Arrington was writing his biography on Brigham Young, he was asked by one of the Brethren to take out all references to polygamy. They did actually want to protect the prophets. In the case of Brigham Young, I don’t personally see the necessity of that because the whole world knows that Brigham Young was a polygamist because by the time he practiced polygamy, the eastern press got a hold of it.

I’ll mention that, even though most of us didn’t know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and we did know that Brigham Young was a polygamist, we didn’t get that knowledge from church curriculum. We got that from culture, so some people want to put those two in a different category. “Okay. We were told about Brigham Young, but we weren’t told about Joseph.” We weren’t told about either. They were silent on both. But we know it was practiced. So I can’t answer, “Why” questions very well, but I can say that things are changing.

I realize people get really defensive and upset when someone points out that the Church has hidden information from the members, or has tried to.  But it's true.  Is it better to hide information under the guise of "protecting the prophets"?  Does it protect anyone to try and hide it?  That is some backwards logic in my view.  We are better off telling people the truth and letting the chips fall where they may, I say.

She goes on:

Quote

Elder Russell Ballard gave a talk to CES employees. We call this a watershed talk because in this talk he admits that the well-meaning curriculum of the past did not meet the needs of what our youth today need. There needs to be more transparency about our past, so the Brethren are making efforts to change what maybe past leaders thought was important. They have made documents available on the Joseph Smith Papers project, the Mountain Meadows Massacre project was very transparent about what happened in an unfortunate incident. Then they brought forth the Gospel Topics Essays, where they talk about these hot button topics. They are making strides even incorporating these Gospel Topics Essays into our curriculum. So yes, perhaps they should have done more, earlier, but they’re doing the best they can right now to bring that information out.

Yeah for now.  (seriously I'm happy about this)

now Brian (responding to Dan's question):

Quote

Well, the Gospel Topics Essays are really helpful because they’re dealing with controversial topics that we never really talked about, or if you tried to talk about them just a few years ago, people would think that you were a heretic in church

I've noticed some locations are really behind the times on this.  Some still cry out things like heretic if it's brought up in Church.  Has anyone brought up polygamy and mentioned some details (like Joseph marrying teenagers, or other men's wives) and did not have someone get upset?  I haven't been successful.  These days it may not be the mention of polygamy so much as the devil's in the details.

Quote

One was with Elder Stephen Snow, as the church historian. I had noticed how much material, scanned documents, the church is now making available, without charge, for download by any researcher on the church history library’s website. It’s amazing, it’s staggering the amount of material that you can now download from that site. I complimented him on that, and he just said simply, “Transparency is important; the internet is allowing the church to do many things it couldn’t do before.”

I also had a conversation with the church historian, who related how he had asked President Uchtdorf of the first presidency, “How many of these documents should we make available online?” President Uchtdorf reportedly said, “All of it.” I’m sure that won’t include church discipline and temple items, but what President Uchtdorf is reflecting is that the church can withstand scrutiny. That’s why we’re willing to put up all these documents and let the critics as well as the believers have access to them.

I love it.  "what President Uchtdorf is reflecting is that the church can withstand scrutiny"

I still lament that it times past this wasnt' the case, but this is encouraging.

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

[HappyJackWagon]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Transcripts of podcasts==awesome.  Who the hell wants to listen when you can read? 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/05/24/polygamy-questions-joseph-smith/

Dan Peterson interviews the Hales (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/)

Two answers I find interesting.

First Laura:

I realize people get really defensive and upset when someone points out that the Church has hidden information from the members, or has tried to.  But it's true.  Is it better to hide information under the guise of "protecting the prophets"?  Does it protect anyone to try and hide it?  That is some backwards logic in my view.  We are better off telling people the truth and letting the chips fall where they may, I say.

She goes on:

Yeah for now.  (seriously I'm happy about this)

now Brian (responding to Dan's question):

I've noticed some locations are really behind the times on this.  Some still cry out things like heretic if it's brought up in Church.  Has anyone brought up polygamy and mentioned some details (like Joseph marrying teenagers, or other men's wives) and did not have someone get upset?  I haven't been successful.  These days it may not be the mention of polygamy so much as the devil's in the details.

I love it.  "what President Uchtdorf is reflecting is that the church can withstand scrutiny"

I still lament that it times past this wasnt' the case, but this is encouraging.

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

I think it's great that the church is attempting to catch up with the needs/desires of members for transparency. There will obviously be a lag time between when they release information, when it is discussed, and even later for when it is accepted. It took well over a year for my father to believe the essays were really from the church, even though they were on LDS.org. It will take time, but at least the ball is moving.

I don't agree that the church is doing "everything" it can to be more transparent. They could do more. Part of the reason there is so much lag time is because they are putting the info out online but aren't really discussing it otherwise. So there is a disparity between demographics for who is and who is not more likely to see and accept the information. The older generations will have a harder time accessing the new transparency and this seems to be by design of the church.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

 I think in class or a talk would be appropriate for some of the basics that might prepare people for a deeper discussion. But then it would be best to allow each person or family to progress at their own pace....and be there as friends, home teachers, and visiting teachers   as temporary challenges surface

Edited May 26, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[probablyHagoth7]

That said, I would  prefer that we could step forward together. Perhaps one day.

on 2nd thought, variety and agency are perhaps better. As long as that continues to be the plan, what I wish for is more charity and encouragement, even when or especially when we occasionally differ in the nonessentials. 

In essence,  peace.

Edited May 26, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[RevTestament]

I believe in the past the Church has felt it was best to teach the gospel in steps - line upon line kind of thing. But there is an argument to be made that it is the job of the Church to present everything the Lord has and to let people learn it line by line. I guess the question is timing, but it seems to me that what may not have been presented directly to an investigator sometimes never gets really officially presented, and is left to be found and processed on an individual basis. It is not the job of the Church to present and evaluate all the criticisms of the Church, but there is a need to address various criticisms the Church has faced over the years. Perhaps leaving this job to independent organizations like FARMS and FAIR is not enough.

However, to some extent to try to answer the charges of critics can become dismissive of the role of the Spirit in teaching investigators new principles of the gospel. To the extent that the Church does not have all the answers, it needs to be cautious that it does not become an obstruction to the role of the Spirit. Trying to address every criticism and alleviate every doubt an investigator may have is simply not the role of the Church. Christianity has always required faith, and LDS Christianity is no different, but actually requires faith by design. Investigators should not expect to have every doubt assuaged. They should expect their honest desire to seek after the Lord to be answered.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Transcripts of podcasts==awesome.  Who the hell wants to listen when you can read? 

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/05/24/polygamy-questions-joseph-smith/

Dan Peterson interviews the Hales (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/)

Two answers I find interesting.

First Laura:

I realize people get really defensive and upset when someone points out that the Church has hidden information from the members, or has tried to.  But it's true.  Is it better to hide information under the guise of "protecting the prophets"?  Does it protect anyone to try and hide it?  That is some backwards logic in my view.  We are better off telling people the truth and letting the chips fall where they may, I say.

She goes on:

Yeah for now.  (seriously I'm happy about this)

now Brian (responding to Dan's question):

I've noticed some locations are really behind the times on this.  Some still cry out things like heretic if it's brought up in Church.  Has anyone brought up polygamy and mentioned some details (like Joseph marrying teenagers, or other men's wives) and did not have someone get upset?  I haven't been successful.  These days it may not be the mention of polygamy so much as the devil's in the details.

I love it.  "what President Uchtdorf is reflecting is that the church can withstand scrutiny"

I still lament that it times past this wasnt' the case, but this is encouraging.

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

Outstanding post!  Thanks for sharing that with us!

[Jeanne]

This conversation alone...we have come a long ways baby..!

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 I think in class or a talk would be appropriate for some of the basics that might prepare people for a deeper discussion. But then it would be best to allow each person or family to progress at their own pace....and be there as friends, home teachers, and visiting teachers   as temporary challenges surface

Teachers open the door(s). But you must enter by  yourself. 

Chinese proverb

Quoted un geaduation talk today

[probablyHagoth7]

10 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 I think in class or a talk would be appropriate for some of the basics that might prepare people for a deeper discussion. But then it would be best to allow each person or family to progress at their own pace....and be there as friends, home teachers, and visiting teachers   as temporary challenges surface

Teachers open the door(s). But you must enter by  yourself. 

(Quoted in graduation talk today)

Edited May 27, 2017 by probablyHagoth7
Spelling

[clarkgoble]

Part of the difficulty of talking polygamy is people being unsure how faithful/sincere people are. Particularly with polygamy it wasn't that long ago that major apostate groups were breaking off based upon polygamy. So talking about polygamy often had people wondering if you were sympathetic to the Allreds or that Manti group from the 90's. Likewise some talking polygamy were doing so because they saw it as evidence that the prophet was false because it was so bad. People didn't want to talk about it because it inevitably led into a discussion of feminism and politics and led to anger on all sides. 

I don't think those fears justified people avoiding talking about it. Add in that I think most people who think Joseph and Brigham were prophets are still very uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy and it's not surprising it didn't get talked about. It's hard enough getting teachers to teach the basics accurately. Expecting the typical teacher to be able to deal with polygamy in gospel doctrine class is really asking a lot.

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What do you all say?  Are we better off letting our members discuss troubling issues in Church?  Afterall Church is a place where we ought to share with each other the welfare of our souls.

Only speaking for what my impressions are of my own ward, but I really don't see most people who show up on Sunday as being concerned abut these "troubling issues."  They're not troubled by them.  The members who are troubled are the ones who aren't attending.  I'm not sure how to reach out to them.  Most seem like they just don't want to be bothered.

[thesometimesaint]

D&C 132 has been in our Scriptures for a long time now.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

 I think in class or a talk would be appropriate for some of the basics that might prepare people for a deeper discussion. But then it would be best to allow each person or family to progress at their own pace....and be there as friends, home teachers, and visiting teachers   as temporary challenges surface

Upvote for you on this!

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

D&C 132 has been in our Scriptures for a long time now.

But how much do they discuss about polygamy on a scripture that means polygamy that is the question.

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

D&C 132 has been in our Scriptures for a long time now.

But I've found that many members haven't ever really read it in its entirety or studied it.

Also, whenever it's used as a reference in lessons, it's for temple marriage, not a discussion about polygamy from what I've experienced.

[JulieM]

41 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think those fears justified people avoiding talking about it. Add in that I think most people who think Joseph and Brigham were prophets are still very uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy and it's not surprising it didn't get talked about. It's hard enough getting teachers to teach the basics accurately. 

Even the basics hit many (most?) members in a negative way.  Then, attempting to discuss the details is really uncomfortable and hard for members to accept. That's why some just avoid wanting to hear them or teach them at all.

I will fully admit that I have huge issues with how Joseph lived polygamy (and others too).

Edited May 26, 2017 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

59 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Only speaking for what my impressions are of my own ward, but I really don't see most people who show up on Sunday as being concerned abut these "troubling issues."  They're not troubled by them.  The members who are troubled are the ones who aren't attending.  I'm not sure how to reach out to them.  Most seem like they just don't want to be bothered.

Well you got me there.  I will say I'd think most in my ward would be upset to the max if I tried to bring them up much.  I know that because that's what happens.  Ah well...that's our life.  keep fighting.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Part of the difficulty of talking polygamy is people being unsure how faithful/sincere people are. Particularly with polygamy it wasn't that long ago that major apostate groups were breaking off based upon polygamy. So talking about polygamy often had people wondering if you were sympathetic to the Allreds or that Manti group from the 90's.

What does it matter what people might think?  I may be misunderstanding what you mean.  If someone explores his feelings and thoughts and decides its best for him/her to run off to another Church or group, why is that bad?  We want people to decide and feel free to decide and feel free to explore their thoughts and feelings no? 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Likewise some talking polygamy were doing so because they saw it as evidence that the prophet was false because it was so bad. People didn't want to talk about it because it inevitably led into a discussion of feminism and politics and led to anger on all sides. 

On that note anything can lead to anger on all sides.  We can't hide behind excuses when it comes to people having the place and room to share the welfare of their souls.  If polygamy was of God, it must provide us some lesson.  if it was not, we ought to be able to discuss what that means about the Church, scripture, the Spirit and the like.  We can't hide truths because grown ups can't be grownups. 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think those fears justified people avoiding talking about it. Add in that I think most people who think Joseph and Brigham were prophets are still very uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy and it's not surprising it didn't get talked about. It's hard enough getting teachers to teach the basics accurately. Expecting the typical teacher to be able to deal with polygamy in gospel doctrine class is really asking a lot.

can't help it.  I like to ask a lot. 

[stemelbow]

55 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

D&C 132 has been in our Scriptures for a long time now.

Perhaps that's why its so sad that Laura and most members didn't know about Joseph's polygamy at all.  Add to that, that which is discussed in D&C 132 isnt' much about Joseph's polygamy anyway, even though it speaks as if it is, since Joseph didn't practice it like it is instructed in D&C 132.  As with many things the devil's in the details. 

[clarkgoble]

42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Even the basics hit many (most?) members in a negative way.  Then, attempting to discuss the details is really uncomfortable and hard for members to accept. That's why some just avoid wanting to hear them or teach them at all.

I will fully admit that I have huge issues with how Joseph lived polygamy (and others too).

By basics I meant basics of the gospel not basics of these historical/theological issues. I think it can be done. But I think everyone is understandably uncomfortable enough with the topic that I think it'll always be hard.

I'll completely agree that some of the ways they implemented the policy seem problematic. I certainly have questions about a lot. For instance while I can see God commanding the practice, it honestly seems to me that a significant number of Joseph's marriages were "dynastic." (And likely many of the dynastic marriages were non-sexual) But the later development of the theology of adoption, that seems so key to our contemporary understanding of sealings and priesthood pretty well means those dynastic marriages were unnecessary. Since those are the very marriages that are the most controversial why have it? There's a lot of questions like that which simply don't have good explanations and probably never will. Likewise, if God commanded polygamy, why not still limit the number of marriages per person? It seems like that would have resolved a lot of the problems. Limiting the number to say 3 spouses would have fulfilled the command but avoided many of the abuses and heartbreak. Ditto for marriages with too big an age difference. Say no plural marraiges where the age gap is more than 10 years. A simple policy directive could have severely mitigated a lot of the hardship associated with 19th century practice even if it ultimately wouldn't have avoided them all.

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

By basics I meant basics of the gospel not basics of these historical/theological issues. I think it can be done. But I think everyone is understandably uncomfortable enough with the topic that I think it'll always be hard.

He never said it'd be easy.  So why do we insist on taking the easy road? 

Just now, clarkgoble said:

I'll completely agree that some of the ways they implemented the policy seem problematic. I certainly have questions about a lot. For instance while I can see God commanding the practice, it honestly seems to me that a significant number of Joseph's marriages were "dynastic." (And likely many of the dynastic marriages were non-sexual) But the later development of the theology of adoption, that seems so key to our contemporary understanding of sealings and priesthood pretty well means those dynastic marriages were unnecessary. Since those are the very marriages that are the most controversial why have it? There's a lot of questions like that which simply don't have good explanations and probably never will. Likewise, if God commanded polygamy, why not still limit the number of marriages per person. It seems like that would have resolved a lot of the problems. Ditto for marriages with too big an age difference. A simple policy directive could have severely mitigated a lot of the hardship associated with 19th century practice even if it ultimately wouldn't have avoided them all.

Not to mention the rules that were put in place as per D&C 132, were largely ignored it seems, by Joseph and others. 

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

He never said it'd be easy.  So why do we insist on taking the easy road? 

Not to mention the rules that were put in place as per D&C 132, were largely ignored it seems, by Joseph and others. 

Understandable since Joseph's only real choice was to divorce Emma and he didn't want to do that. While you're completely right, I tend to cut him a bit of slack there. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Only speaking for what my impressions are of my own ward, but I really don't see most people who show up on Sunday as being concerned abut these "troubling issues."  They're not troubled by them.  The members who are troubled are the ones who aren't attending.  I'm not sure how to reach out to them.  Most seem like they just don't want to be bothered.

There might be some people in your ward who are troubled by these issues but don't speak up about.  People you might not imagine.

I recall about 5 years ago, I was serving as the 2nd counselor to the bishop when I noticed that our ward's RS president was also a member of the Mormon Stories Podcast Community and frequently posted there with questions and concerns.

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well you got me there.  I will say I'd think most in my ward would be upset to the max if I tried to bring them up much.  I know that because that's what happens.  Ah well...that's our life.  keep fighting.

Like I said, its only my impression.  I don't think anyone would be really upset either.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There might be some people in your ward who are troubled by these issues but don't speak up about.  People you might not imagine.

I recall about 5 years ago, I was serving as the 2nd counselor to the bishop when I noticed that our ward's RS president was also a member of the Mormon Stories Podcast Community and frequently posted there with questions and concerns.

I'm sure there are.