Trying to control information sharing

[Calm]

I may not have made my point earlier...there is no evidence that Teancum's post or any other got that thread locked quickly.  More likely since there are no warnings in the thread nor obvious contention, it was simply that no one posted after Teancum and in time the thread moved past the expiration date and got auto locked or it was locked when it was archived.  There are numerous short threads that were only autolocked.  [Just checked, there are 100 pages of threads of 17 or less posts (you can sort by "most replies").  Even in the archived Church History section that consists of 4 pages of threads, there are about 1 1/2 pages of threads that are shorter than the multiple versions of First Vision thread.]

Even more important, that thread was approved for being archived when hundreds, maybe thousands of other threads were disappeared.  If the very topic of multiple versions led to moderation and locking it down to prevent discussion, why would the mods approve it being saved?  The whole point of the Library is to keep those threads available as a basis for research or further discussion.

I understand why someone not around when the Library was being actively stocked would not understand the implications of threads being placed there, that the topic and the responses were considered of higher value than the typical discussion and worthy of being saved so others could read and discuss them if they so chose.  Hopefully now it is clear.  Any thread archived in the Library is deemed high end discussion.  Some may have eventually been shutdown due to contention, but none could possibly be considered banable or unwelcome topics.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Calm

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Do you feel the church actually hid the information or just did not publish it? Much of the information was available, just not readily accessible. 

I do.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Thought that the main problem was finding out about situation xyz after years of it not being taught or mentioned in church. What are the things you feel you have been misled about?

 

Too many details to list.  To summarize:  the narrative of the restoration that I was taught was inaccurate, incomplete, and white-washed.  

[Glenn101]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Too many details to list.  To summarize:  the narrative of the restoration that I was taught was inaccurate, incomplete, and white-washed.  

Are you speaking of the restoration narrative as laid out in the Pearl of Great Price?

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I do.

Do you believe that you now have enough of the facts to make an informed judgement?

[Jeanne]

17 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Do you believe that you now have enough of the facts to make an informed judgement?

Doesn't matter anymore.  I grew up with primary pictures of Gold Plates..one version of a vision...where we the facts then?  The LDS church IMO deals with feelings..no facts.necessary..I am open to learning more but at heart of it all...the big question is why.  Why?  I had encylcopedias and dictionaries and after that I relied on teachers and authorities of the church..was an 8 year old going to a library to look up polygamy? Whether it was out there or not..it wouldn't have affected my life because it was not taught.

[Calm]

"I had encylcopedias and dictionaries"

Which were unlikely to have been written by Mormons or directed by church leadership.

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

"I had encylcopedias and dictionaries"

Which were unlikely to have been written by Mormons or directed by church leadership.

My point exactly

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

My point exactly

So you hold nonMormons and Mormons responsible for not teaching you?

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Are you speaking of the restoration narrative as laid out in the Pearl of Great Price?

That and all that I was taught in my first three and a half decades of church membership.  (I consider the restoration to be an ongoing process.)

[california boy]

21 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Maybe they could add a fourth hour "Church History Class" for those who are interested.

Every 4 years the church studies church history in conjunction with it's study of D&C.  Yet during that entire year these issues that have been whitewashed continue to be whitewashed.  Adding a 4th hour is not going to change how the church chooses to portray it's narrative.  Seminary and institute classes also study church history on a daily basis, yet these issues are not taught.  I know because I taught seminary for many years.  There is nothing in the manuals about these issues.  

I personally can never see the day when the golden plates are minimized and the peep stone becomes the central way the Book of Mormon came about.  Do you?  I can never see the day when Emma stands with all the other wives of Joseph Smith.  Do you see the day when the sculpture in Temple Square adds all the additional wives to the statue of Joseph and Emma?  His 14 year old wife will look more like one of his children rather than another wife.  And will they include the other men these women were married to at the time?  

The church will always teach what it wants to teach and shove the rest of it's history in a place that is much more difficult to find.  Unfortunately for the church, Google is not going away either.  Most members of the church are going to learn the history through the internet, not another added hour on Sundays.

[BlueDreams]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

Every 4 years the church studies church history in conjunction with it's study of D&C.  Yet during that entire year these issues that have been whitewashed continue to be whitewashed.  Adding a 4th hour is not going to change how the church chooses to portray it's narrative.  Seminary and institute classes also study church history on a daily basis, yet these issues are not taught.  I know because I taught seminary for many years.  There is nothing in the manuals about these issues.  

This isn't exactly accurate anymore.

From the teachers manual for D&C, lesson 31 it has this small blurb: 

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. See also:

followed by three links. One to the gospel topics essay on plural marriage and the church, another to a story of Mercy Thompson, one of JS' plural wives, and plural marriage's end with one called "the messenger and the manifesto." The last two are from a collection called "revelations in context" that's also found in my gospel library app that I use for church. We've already used i at least once in my ward to go over the varying accounts of the first vision in Sunday school. 

I also scanned the seminary manual and found and entire section just about it links tot he Joseph smith papers website and Byu studies for further reaearch into this. 

I know they're working to have these things more readily available and accessible to members. That includes curriculum and manual changes. 

 

 

with luv, 

BD

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

This isn't exactly accurate anymore.

From the teachers manual for D&C, lesson 31 it has this small blurb: 

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. See also:

followed by three links. One to the gospel topics essay on plural marriage and the church, another to a story of Mercy Thompson, one of JS' plural wives, and plural marriage's end with one called "the messenger and the manifesto." The last two are from a collection called "revelations in context" that's also found in my gospel library app that I use for church. We've already used i at least once in my ward to go over the varying accounts of the first vision in Sunday school. 

I also scanned the seminary manual and found and entire section just about it links tot he Joseph smith papers website and Byu studies for further reaearch into this. 

I know they're working to have these things more readily available and accessible to members. That includes curriculum and manual changes. 

 

 

with luv, 

BD

I think this is exactly the kind of answer church members would get if the church did indeed add a 4th hour to sunday meeting devoted to church history.  The church is still very much trying to control the narrative without divulging exactly what was going on and how it was practiced.  I don't think it is news to anyone that early church leaders practiced polygamy.  But HOW it was practiced still remains something that only a Google search comes up with the facts.  

These kinds of answers from the church only reinfoces that the church can not be trusted to tell it's members its own history.  Does the church really want members to go to Google and anti-Mormon sites to find out exactly what was going on and how it was practiced.  Evidently the answer is yes.  And then they blame the members when they have a faith crisis.  If THEY only had more faith or prayed harder or were more worthy or whatever.  

 

[CV75]

On 5/26/2017 at 10:39 AM, 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.

Of course we are better off discussing troubling issues, but I’m not sure what “letting” refers to. I have a little trouble with it because the environment and atmosphere is mostly a group responsibility and effort (one form of common consent in action).

My observation is that those who govern themselves by the spirit of charity seem to fare better in discourse than those who employ the spirit of contention; the humble seem to facilitate discussion better than the proud; etc. There are all kinds of people at Church so those with reasonable expectations will fare better than those who don’t, and those who can express themselves constructively do better than those who don’t. It’s always good to cultivate good relationships with those with whom you are discussing troubling matters.

[Jeanne]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

So you hold nonMormons and Mormons responsible for not teaching you?

I believe they taught me what they were told to teach me..by the manuals..and instilled certain doctrines at a young age.  When I was in Seminary..heck ..nobody said to go to Fair Mormon is you want to learn some more....As a young girl..studying church came from assignments and different topics at church.  I was being  a little sarcastic about the encyclopedias and dictionaries..I didn't know there was more to know.  We didn't have scripture study at home..I guess I can blame my parents for that...but I think I knew more than they  did.

[BlueDreams]

On 5/29/2017 at 8:38 AM, california boy said:

I think this is exactly the kind of answer church members would get if the church did indeed add a 4th hour to sunday meeting devoted to church history.  The church is still very much trying to control the narrative without divulging exactly what was going on and how it was practiced.  I don't think it is news to anyone that early church leaders practiced polygamy.  But HOW it was practiced still remains something that only a Google search comes up with the facts.  

I didn't expect them to not control their narrative. How it was practiced isn't answered by google. How people interpret how it was practiced is. Including the Hales'. The discussion was following a point from their interview that JS as a polygamist wasn't known based on the curriculum but from culture. I assumed your post was tied to that theme. I don't expect them to be my history teachers or for them to not give a message that still focuses on a faith-oriented interpretation of history. That said, for the sunday school lesson mentioned, I wouldn't expect much because it was a short blurb in a larger lesson. It gave resources to explore the general history of this more. I can't say much though, because polygamy just isn't an area of great interest for me. The history one I cared about was race, not polygamy. What I've seen with changes in the lesson manuals (that also references the gospel topics) and scripture blurbs I'm good with and find appropriate. It's not a detailed analysis of all the ins and outs that happened over time. It doesn't give crazy details of all the racist things ever said or done. But it's pretty accurate, shows some nuance, and gives what's needed IMO. I don't have a lot of reason to believe they'd treat one controversial topic that people struggle with at times different from another. So I assume that in polygamy, though it's not all encompassing or super deep, it's enough for now and gives space for more to be done and integrated in how we teach over time. As I mentioned the lesson manual references other sources that had more of the "How's" per se. It references the Joseph Smith Papers.     

 

Quote

These kinds of answers from the church only reinfoces that the church can not be trusted to tell it's members its own history.  Does the church really want members to go to Google and anti-Mormon sites to find out exactly what was going on and how it was practiced.  Evidently the answer is yes.  And then they blame the members when they have a faith crisis.  If THEY only had more faith or prayed harder or were more worthy or whatever.  

I'm not getting that message from leaders. It was probably more common a few years back, but that's simply not what I'm seeing now. I'm getting more and more leaders trying to show nuance and to meet some of these concerns. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited May 30, 2017 by BlueDreams

[juliann]

On 5/29/2017 at 7:38 AM, california boy said:

I think this is exactly the kind of answer church members would get if the church did indeed add a 4th hour to sunday meeting devoted to church history.  The church is still very much trying to control the narrative without divulging exactly what was going on and how it was practiced.  I don't think it is news to anyone that early church leaders practiced polygamy.  But HOW it was practiced still remains something that only a Google search comes up with the facts.  

These kinds of answers from the church only reinfoces that the church can not be trusted to tell it's members its own history.  Does the church really want members to go to Google and anti-Mormon sites to find out exactly what was going on and how it was practiced.  Evidently the answer is yes.  And then they blame the members when they have a faith crisis.  If THEY only had more faith or prayed harder or were more worthy or whatever.  

 

It is generally scholars and historians that are getting the information out, not "the church." They are, however, making information available at a remarkable rate and there is simply too much of it to have any reasonable expectation that the average person will read it. But that doesn't mean it's not there. Are you up to date with the JS Papers? Do you even know all what is on LDS.org? I sure don't. I'm interested to see the changes in the narrative that the church hides information (and I'm not saying it didn't) as the digitization continues at an unabated pace. 

But as to what was going on with polygamy and how it was practiced, there is little information to be had. Until recently, it was all about telling the men's stories and they were a minor part of how polygamy was practiced. So it isn't the church is hiding it as much as it just wasn't there. Again, it is the scholars and historians, mostly women now, who are trying to put it together but it is still in bits and pieces with no overarching narrative.

One of the most valuable bits of information that came out over the Dehlin fracas was listening to the women who were tired of the critics that dug into pedantic lectures on tapirs and such. Women are going to be more interested in social issues and that is played out in feminist circles. So to expect everyone to have the multi volume set of JS Papers on their desks is unrealistic. To expect "the church" to have hundreds of scholars poring over it and piecing together pedantic lectures for members who do not respond to academics is also unrealistic. But most unrealistic is to expect those academics to be able to bring down the needed scholarship to a pedestrian level. It is next to impossible. You get things like the Essays.

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

It is generally scholars and historians that are getting the information out, not "the church." They are, however, making information available at a remarkable rate and there is simply too much of it to have any reasonable expectation that the average person will read it. But that doesn't mean it's not there. Are you up to date with the JS Papers? Do you even know all what is on LDS.org? I sure don't. I'm interested to see the changes in the narrative that the church hides information (and I'm not saying it didn't) as the digitization continues at an unabated pace. 

I think this is true, although I also think it's wise for the church to defer to individuals on many items. That's especially true with elements that are perhaps far more open to interpretation. So, for instance, the Hales have done a great job with what might be broadly construed as an apologetic of polygamy that still engages carefully with the scholarism and details of polygamy. But I agree that at a certain point there's simply too much data. Some trustworthy sites need to go to the top of the pack. While I think FAIR comes closest for that, I do wish that perhaps they had donations to have full time staff working on their web pages. There's simply a lot that could be done to make the site better for people first encountering questions.

[Gray]

On 5/26/2017 at 9:39 AM, 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 no matter what happens, it will be hard to overcome Mormon culture - meaning we as Mormons tend to avoid difficult, uncomfortable, and controversial topics (IMO). Even I feel uncomfortable in the rare occasion when topics like that are brought up in church. It's very hard to change culture. 

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think no matter what happens, it will be hard to overcome Mormon culture - meaning we as Mormons tend to avoid difficult, uncomfortable, and controversial topics (IMO). Even I feel uncomfortable in the rare occasion when topics like that are brought up in church. It's very hard to change culture. 

 

I agree (and feel the same way).  I think it stems from how most people don't enjoy conflict, and these types of discussions practically guarantee conflict in Sunday school. 

[probablyHagoth7]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think no matter what happens, it will be hard to overcome Mormon culture - meaning we as Mormons tend to avoid difficult, uncomfortable, and controversial topics (IMO). Even I feel uncomfortable in the rare occasion when topics like that are brought up in church. It's very hard to change culture. 

A suggested tweak, if I may...

The church is a woman. As such, the church doesn't need to so much to be overcome, but loved, served, and eventually (through the latter two) understood. (A guess from a hypocrite who has little clue about women, and still struggles at times to understand the church.)

My current take on things: overcoming, per the New Testament, comes through the testimony of Christ, in deeming our surrendered life to be a divinely-generous trade for something much, much better.

Uncomfortable issue? Fine, Let's wade through the toughest part together, if needed.

But instead of in a live class where a one-size-fits-all approach could instead hurt others, the greater good might be served if such discussions took place one on one (or in a smaller cohort of people wrestling with the same concern).

Example: I had a home teaching family once. Although we were already friendly, the husband and I became close during that process. Perhaps the closest adult friend I ever had in that part of the country. It was close enough, that he approached me one day in his backyard, and brought up the fact that he was wrestling with something, that just happened to do with freemasonry.

It just so happens that I had recently finished a fair amount of research on that very issue. I offered him just enough of a different perspective to help shift his engagement with the topic from doubt/fear to something that resonated more with hope/faith.

Back to the question you were addressing. It is mistaken to assume that the most effective learning always takes place in a classroom. As suggested elsewhere here, the best learning often takes place in private study, and in service, and in communion with God. And sometimes the best thing we can do for people is to take their doubts, transmute them briefly to empowering questions, equip them with a few resources, and point them to prayer.

I've gabbed more than enough. 

Thoughts?

Edited May 30, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[juliann]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think this is true, although I also think it's wise for the church to defer to individuals on many items. That's especially true with elements that are perhaps far more open to interpretation. So, for instance, the Hales have done a great job with what might be broadly construed as an apologetic of polygamy that still engages carefully with the scholarism and details of polygamy. But I agree that at a certain point there's simply too much data. Some trustworthy sites need to go to the top of the pack. While I think FAIR comes closest for that, I do wish that perhaps they had donations to have full time staff working on their web pages. There's simply a lot that could be done to make the site better for people first encountering questions.

FM realizes the problems. Unfortunately, we never were good fundraisers. The website is being redone though. To tell the truth, I have little understanding of a certain not for profit org that does have a well paid full time staffer yet complains it can't get necessary stuff done. That was our dream. I am no longer a board member so I can't speak for anything that is happening since I stepped down. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

A suggested tweak, if I may...

The church is a woman. As such, the church doesn't need to so much to be overcome, but loved, served, and eventually (through the latter two) understood. (A guess from a hypocrite who has little clue about women, and still struggles at times to understand the church.)

 

The modern church is an institution organized and controlled by men. I don't think it is helpful to put a woman in that situation, even as a metaphor.  All humans need to be loved, served and understood. 

[probablyHagoth7]

28 minutes ago, juliann said:

FM realizes the problems. Unfortunately, we never were good fundraisers. The website is being redone though. To tell the truth, I have little understanding of a certain not for profit org that does have a well paid full time staffer yet complains it can't get necessary stuff done. That was our dream. I am no longer a board member so I can't speak for anything that is happening since I stepped down. 

Non-profit funding thoughts/approaches...which may also resolve something that I and others have been wrestling with for a while. Perhaps this has been tried at FM.

What if anyone wanting to benefit from FM's content could decide for themselves what they choose to pay before/after reading or viewing something there....from free, on up, whatever they deemed to be fair? (Pun quasi-intended.) 

Brings to mind a restaurant in the Bible Belt that tried something similar, and is doing fine.  http://blog.al.com/live/2010/11/ransom_cafe_no_prices_menu.html

In the restaurant's case, someone who couldn't afford to pay anything would simply be asked to contribute a small amount of their time to help the restaurant serve others. ("If you haven't got a ha' penny...")

Which also brings to mind something else. I happened to visit a man a few months back who was a chicken farmer (among other things) and who was using a somewhat similar model. People could simply enter that unattended place of business, help themselves to what eggs they needed, and leave cash in the cash box. The owner said " Some people say you can't run a business like that." And he paused. Then he explained that instead of being shorted by his neighbors, there were more funds in the till at the end of each day than any suggested market value.  

Has FM tried something like that?

Edited May 30, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Calm]

FairMormon has donation options in a variety of locations throughout the site.  It is essentially the model you are describing.

As far as donating time, we get volunteers quite a bit.  Organizing them effectively is sometimes not easy.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Calm