New four-volume comprehensive history of the Church to emerge next year

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That depends on how long they were members of the church. I don't like the wording you used, it seems harsh to those that are going through being blindsided. Victimhood and entitlement, hum. 

It is within the capacity of most people to recognize their own deficiency in knowledge without blaming others for it. 

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not self evident that one cannot write in a ninth- or 10th grade reading-difficulty level without fictionalizing the content. If that were the case, it would be impossible to produce history texts for most grade-school and high school students without making them fictional. 

And that's not what I stated.  Note the words "historically factual" in my statement you quote.  I should have just said in story form rather than use the word "novel" to be more clear though.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is within the capacity of most people to recognize their own deficiency in knowledge without blaming others for it. 

Disappointment here.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And that's not what I stated.  Note the words "historically factual" in my statement you quote.  I should have just said in story form rather than use the word "novel" to be more clear though.

If you had not said "novel" it would indeed have avoided the miscommunication, since a novel is, by definition, fiction. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Disappointment here.

Well, let's take an example that's close at hand. I started this thread without knowing you had already mentioned the Church's forthcoming history in another thread and had even cited my article. I blame no one but myself for that lack of awareness. And I certainly don't accuse you of hiding the fact. 

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, let's take an example that's close at hand. I started this thread without knowing you had already mentioned the Church's forthcoming history in another thread and had even cited my article. I blame no one but myself for that lack of awareness. And I certainly don't accuse you of hiding the fact. 

When I posted that I had posted the article already, it wasn't a new topic post. I'm on limited again, so no topic posting for me. I just merely said I posted and linked on another thread. And was surprised no one replied about it but that was about it. 

Scott, it seems you are bypassing what I said. I edited my reply to you. I hope that you can read it again and see what I mean. I'm glad you're posting again, honestly.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Tacenda

[HappyJackWagon]

As long as the church, or its members, continues to blame people for having trusted it because they "should have known better" then more and more people will continue to leave because that trust is broken. Maybe there will be a day in the future when the correct information will be available for independent reading and taught regularly in meetings, curriculum and conference talks. After that time, it would be silly for someone to claim they didn't know what the church teaches. As it is, many of us know what the church has taught and we also know that those teachings don't match the historical record. Trust is broken and it will be hard for the church to regain it.

I can guarantee that trust will not be rebuilt by continuing to blame those who trusted them in the first place. It kind of seems like common sense...no?

 

[stemelbow]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, let's take an example that's close at hand. I started this thread without knowing you had already mentioned the Church's forthcoming history in another thread and had even cited my article. I blame no one but myself for that lack of awareness. And I certainly don't accuse you of hiding the fact. 

I think we all wish the type of oversight you mention is what the Church's wrong narrative amounts to.  But we all know it's a little more involved than that. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In an age of widespread entitlement mentality and avid victimhood I suspect there will always be those who claim they were blindsided regardless of how transparent the Church gets with its history.

Also, I note that Elder Snow said controversial points will be presented <in context> of the full story. I predict there will be some who won't like it that the context is given.

Scott, I think even you have to admit that if the Church can become MORE transparent, at some point they were being LESS transparent.
And less transparency legitimately caused some less studied members to be blindsided.  It's not a false claim, even if the blame is shareable.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like the wording you used, it seems harsh to those that are going through being blindsided or have been. Victimhood and entitlement, hum. Edited: What if you were robbed and the news said you felt entitled and you had a victimhood mentality? How would you feel? Being robbed doesn't even compare to what people that lose faith lose. They lose faith, and sometimes their families, and even their livelihoods. Tell me how they are supposed to feel now.

Tacenda, I think you may be proving his point a little bit.
As I said above, there is blame on both sides if a member doesn't know the history of their own religion and their Church didn't provide the learning opportunities.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Scott, I think even you have to admit that if the Church can become MORE transparent, at some point they were being LESS transparent.
And less transparency legitimately caused some less studied members to be blindsided.  It's not a false claim, even if the blame is shareable.

Tacenda, I think you may be proving his point a little bit.
As I said above, there is blame on both sides if a member doesn't know the history of their own religion and their Church didn't provide the learning opportunities.

Let's say someone feels blindsided when this person learns from the first hand accounts of the translation fo the BoM process.  "woe...I didn't realize".  Many, as it happens, have been through that.  You are saying it's partly the fault of the person for just taking the word and description the Church had offered that person.  I too might say there is some level of blame, afterall none of us should just take someone's word for it.  But we all do it.  No one follows up on each claim or statement thrown our way.  So, the individual's level of blame is miniscule.  The level of blame on the Church is much more significant.  The big problem is, the Church and its leaders, often, knew better. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Disappointment here.

Oh..me, too..big time.  Was i not to follow the teachings that I was taught?  Follow the prophet??  What??   I beli!eve what I was taught..I did not think there was more to know!

Edited June 8, 2017 by Jeanne

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Let's say someone feels blindsided when this person learns from the first hand accounts of the translation fo the BoM process.  "woe...I didn't realize".  Many, as it happens, have been through that.  You are saying it's partly the fault of the person for just taking the word and description the Church had offered that person.  I too might say there is some level of blame, afterall none of us should just take someone's word for it.  But we all do it.  No one follows up on each claim or statement thrown our way.  So, the individual's level of blame is miniscule.  The level of blame on the Church is much more significant.  The big problem is, the Church and its leaders, often, knew better.

And that is really what this comes down to.
Those in faith crisis blaming the Church.  Those who have had no struggle with these things blaming the members for not studying.

All I am saying is there is plenty of blame for both.
Kind of like an average American citizen who blames the government for everything but doesn't stay informed on current events.  Yes, the government is doing things you wouldn't approve of.  Yes, it's your responsibility to know what they are, not theirs to tell you.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is within the capacity of most people to recognize their own deficiency in knowledge without blaming others for it. 

Oh...I knew right off that I was deficient when I heard of other visions and Helen Mar..all of it..It was my fault..what good am I??

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And that is really what this comes down to.
Those in faith crisis blaming the Church.  Those who have had no struggle with these things blaming the members for not studying.

All I am saying is there is plenty of blame for both.
Kind of like an average American citizen who blames the government for everything but doesn't stay informed on current events.  Yes, the government is doing things you wouldn't approve of.  Yes, it's your responsibility to know what they are, not theirs to tell you.

I think people expect their government to lie to them.  For those countries that say they are the kingdom of God, I'm with ya, so there are exceptions I guess or possible ones.  

I think we agree in part.  I see far less reason to blame the member than you, I guess.  And see more reason to put culpability on the church.  

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And that is really what this comes down to.
Those in faith crisis blaming the Church.  Those who have had no struggle with these things blaming the members for not studying.

All I am saying is there is plenty of blame for both.
Kind of like an average American citizen who blames the government for everything but doesn't stay informed on current events.  Yes, the government is doing things you wouldn't approve of.  Yes, it's your responsibility to know what they are, not theirs to tell you.

Yes, and no.

Religion is obviously different than national citizenship even though there is significant trust put in both. In the US there is a healthy skepticism of the government and protections put in place to make sure the government doesn't overstep its authority. There is a competition of ideas. There is a freedom to question and debate. There is a great openness in seeking information. Those things don't exist in the church.

Instead of a healthy skepticism of leadership, any expectation of accountability is replaced by a call for faith and obedience to the church and its leaders as they represent God and His Kingdom. So an American citizen has more opportunity to appropriately seek information and question authority but in the church that is viewed as unfaithful. Government leaders don't proclaim that they are speaking directly for God and leading the people to eternal salvation. The church does. So the expectation of faith and trust in church leaders is much more ingrained and even required.

So when a church leader, who speaks for God, tells you to follow the prophet who is not sharing the complete/accurate story, then faith and trust in the leader and the institution claim an inordinate amount of control and power over a person's life.

BUT you are right that people shouldn't expect to be spoon fed by the church. I shouldn't accept or follow everything blindly like I once did. So I've learned my lesson to temper my level of trust and faith in leaders and the institution. I won't make that mistake again, but it's sad and unfair to blame a person for having the faith and trust they were urged to have. Lesson learned.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Speaking of Mountain Meadows, I saw Rick Turley at the airport gate en route to St Louis. I asked him if he is still doing a sequel to Massacre at Mountain Meadows. He said it is in the proofing stage now and should be appearing shortly. Said it will cover the trials. There will be an appendix that tells what eventually happened to the perpetrators. 

ETA: Turley's first Mountain Meadows book was not Church-published, and I presume the sequel won't be either. Oxford University Press was the publisher. 

I knew it was published by Oxford but I was under the impression (perhaps wrong) that it was directed by the Church. Sort of akin to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism which also wasn't Church published.

Edited June 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, and no.

Religion is obviously different than national citizenship even though there is significant trust put in both. In the US there is a healthy skepticism of the government and protections put in place to make sure the government doesn't overstep its authority. There is a competition of ideas. There is a freedom to question and debate. There is a great openness in seeking information. Those things don't exist in the church.

Instead of a healthy skepticism of leadership, any expectation of accountability is replaced by a call for faith and obedience to the church and its leaders as they represent God and His Kingdom. So an American citizen has more opportunity to appropriately seek information and question authority but in the church that is viewed as unfaithful. Government leaders don't proclaim that they are speaking directly for God and leading the people to eternal salvation. The church does. So the expectation of faith and trust in church leaders is much more ingrained and even required.

So when a church leader, who speaks for God, tells you to follow the prophet who is not sharing the complete/accurate story, then faith and trust in the leader and the institution claim an inordinate amount of control and power over a person's life.

BUT you are right that people shouldn't expect to be spoon fed by the church. I shouldn't accept or follow everything blindly like I once did. So I've learned my lesson to temper my level of trust and faith in leaders and the institution. I won't make that mistake again, but it's sad and unfair to blame a person for having the faith and trust they were urged to have. Lesson learned.

Here's my added take, for what its worth.

The Church has gone to great effort to tell its members that we need to operate in a top down structure.  God talks to the Church leaders and thus the Church is lead by God.  Thus many in the Church link all things that come from the Church as coming from God.  Thus, material published by the Church?  exactly what God wants us to learn.  So when the published material recounts the stories of the past in this misguided narrative which Bushman had alluded to, to members, quite often, it's not as if this material did not have the approval of God.  Why would a member feel the need to double check the Church's work when the Church has gone to great lengths to tell the member and train the member to think that checking the Church's work is akin to listening to the devil? 

I think JLHProf is mostly on our side in this whole the Church needs to be open and honest even if it was not at in times past.  Which makes his insistence that there are comparable levels of blame between the naïve member and the Church here seem odd.  I just don't agree with that part of his position. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Speaking of Mountain Meadows, I saw Rick Turley at the airport gate en route to St Louis. I asked him if he is still doing a sequel to Massacre at Mountain Meadows. He said it is in the proofing stage now and should be appearing shortly. Said it will cover the trials. There will be an appendix that tells what eventually happened to the perpetrators. 

ETA: Turley's first Mountain Meadows book was not Church-published, and I presume the sequel won't be either. Oxford University Press was the publisher. 

I thought Massacre at Mountain Meadows was really well done.  Is he teaming up with Leonard on this sequel?  Their product was well done, I'd say. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think JLHProf is mostly on our side in this whole the Church needs to be open and honest even if it was not at in times past.  Which makes his insistence that there are comparable levels of blame between the naïve member and the Church here seem odd.  I just don't agree with that part of his position.

I do believe the Church needs to be open and honest (and is slowly doing a better job, although the PR choices are still pretty evident).
But I have a hard time having sympathy for those who never picked up a book because the Church told them they didn't need to.

I really don't get the issue over the seer stone vs the urim and thummim.  The urim and thummim ARE seer stones.  I really don't see why it makes any difference if he used a brown one in a hat primarily and some clear ones in a breastplate occasionally.
Joseph Fielding Smith said in Doctrines of Salvation

• Joseph Smith received the same Urim and Thummim had by the Brother of Jared for it was the one expressly provided for the translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. (D. & C. 10:1; 17:1; Ether 3:22-28.) It was separate and distinct from the one had by Abraham and the one had by the priests in Israel. The Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been called by some a Urim and Thummim. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp.222-226.)
•  "We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 225.)
   

So if a member bothered to read Doctrines of Salvation they could maybe consider themselves deceived about which was primary in translation.  But the usage and existence of the brown seer stone was hardly a secret if they bothered to read a bit.

Polygamy and polyandry?  General Authority John A. Widtsoe addressed in Evidences and Reconciliations, published and republished and carried at Deseret Book.  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Source:Widtsoe:Evidences_and_Reconciliations:Did_Joseph_Smith_Introduce_Plural_Marriage:that_he_practiced_it_himself_are_amply_proved_by_existing_facts

Yes, the Church did not include things like polygamy, Adam-God, Seer stones, and other "surprises" etc in the instruction manuals.  But they are not the stuff of anti literature either.
If you walked into Deseret Book in 1980 (random year) you could have picked up books that discussed seer stones, polygamy/polyandry, Adam-God etc.
They may not have been the best scholarship around (cough...Mark Petersen), but the information was there in Church books approved by the Church for any member to read.
 

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I do believe the Church needs to be open and honest (and is slowly doing a better job, although the PR choices are still pretty evident).
But I have a hard time having sympathy for those who never picked up a book because the Church told them they didn't need to.

I'm full of sympathy, I guess.  I sympathize.  There is so much in books to read.  So much int he world to cover.  people simply can't catch up on everything.  I dont' blame people for being interested in other interesting topics in their reading and studying while thinking the church has told them the truth. 

Quote

I really don't get the issue over the seer stone vs the urim and thummim.  The urim and thummim ARE seer stones.  I really don't see why it makes any difference if he used a brown one in a hat primarily and some clear ones in a breastplate occasionally.
Joseph Fielding Smith said in Doctrines of Salvation

• Joseph Smith received the same Urim and Thummim had by the Brother of Jared for it was the one expressly provided for the translation of the Jaredite and Nephite records. (D. & C. 10:1; 17:1; Ether 3:22-28.) It was separate and distinct from the one had by Abraham and the one had by the priests in Israel. The Prophet also had a seer stone which was separate and distinct from the Urim and Thummim, and which (speaking loosely) has been called by some a Urim and Thummim. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp.222-226.)
•  "We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church. Statements of translations by the Urim and Thummim after that date are evidently errors. The statement has been made that the Urim and Thummim was on the altar in the Manti Temple when that building was dedicated. The Urim and Thummim so spoken of, however, was the seer stone which was in the possession of the Prophet Joseph Smith in early days. This seer stone is now in the possession of the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 225.)
   

So if a member bothered to read Doctrines of Salvation they could maybe consider themselves deceived about which was primary in translation.  But the usage and existence of the brown seer stone was hardly a secret if they bothered to read a bit.

Are you sure that the teachings found in DoS aren't what was used to inform many a teaching material over the past many decades?  Just curious.  I'm with Laura Hales who was recently interviewed by Dan Peterson, which I had linked a week or so ago, wherein she indicated, in the case of polygamy, the Church leaders like to squelch info on it because they feared it would hurt the leaders of the past (I guess their reputation). I think that's somehow part of this case of a rock in the hat as well. 

I too don't see a difference if Joseph dictated by sticking his head in a hat where he had put a rock versus Joseph looked through some weird ancient spectacles and dictated.  But there being no difference is the problem.  Why tell a story that was not true if it wouldn't matter?  Was it because the rock in the hat method was used to find treasures (which were never found, thus making the whole venture seem problematic)? 

There is plenty more about this whole "translation" story that the Church misled on, though. 

Quote

Polygamy and polyandry?  General Authority John A. Widtsoe addressed in Evidences and Reconciliations, published and republished and carried at Deseret Book.  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Source:Widtsoe:Evidences_and_Reconciliations:Did_Joseph_Smith_Introduce_Plural_Marriage:that_he_practiced_it_himself_are_amply_proved_by_existing_facts

Yes, the Church did not include things like polygamy, Adam-God, Seer stones, and other "surprises" etc in the instruction manuals.  But they are not the stuff of anti literature either.
If you walked into Deseret Book in 1980 (random year) you could have picked up books that discussed seer stones, polygamy/polyandry, Adam-God etc.
They may not have been the best scholarship around (cough...Mark Petersen), but the information was there in Church books approved by the Church for any member to read.
 

So you say a member in Peru in 1980 could have just walked into a Deseret Book and bought a fancy- book on Joseph's polygamous relationship with Fanny Alger?  That's quite a cute imagination, JLHP.  Some members might not have the money or means to have access to such things in 1980.  it is likely, though, that this random member in Peru, circa 1980, did not have anything from the Church teaching him/her that Joseph married teenagers while also married to Emma, nor that Joseph married other men's wives.  In other words, if the teaching on polygamy was divine and was meant to teach humanity a lesson, a Peruvian in 1980 would not have had any chance, likely, to have learned anything about it, how it was practiced and how it may have been a lesson. 

Edited June 8, 2017 by stemelbow
I accidently curs-ed

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Scott, I think even you have to admit that if the Church can become MORE transparent, at some point they were being LESS transparent.
And less transparency legitimately caused some less studied members to be blindsided.  It's not a false claim, even if the blame is shareable.

 

Straw man alert. I never denied there was room for improvement.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Oh..me, too..big time.  Was i not to follow the teachings that I was taught?  Follow the prophet??  What??   I beli!eve what I was taught..I did not think there was more to know!

I would guess I know at least as much as you do pertaining to Church history, and I've never seen any reason not to follow the prophet.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Straw man alert. I never denied there was room for improvement.

So you do admit?  Good. We're all in agreement on that point. 

[Duncan]

With any comprehensive history of anything there will be things left out and the authors would only cover the general shape of things. So, for example they could give a history of the Relief Society but I doubt you'd find any mention of the Relief Society operating in Moose Jaw, Sask.-This is how things generally work not necessarily specifically in each and every case

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Straw man alert. I never denied there was room for improvement.

Not trying to set up a straw man.

But it always seems to be the same old argument with you (although I really do respect your knowledge and loyalty).
You will say there is room for improvement but getting you to point out a flaw (ie, something to be improved) is like pulling teeth.

For example - If the Church can improve its transparency on polygamy then it stands to reason that the previous statements on polygamy by the Church were at best insufficient or at worst untruthful.
I have yet to see you accept any idea that the Church withheld or poorly stated anything concerning their history.

I personally don't think the Church was fully open and honest about its history.  It doesn't make me lose any faith in the Church to admit that.  And the change they are now making doesn't cause me any difficulty because I already knew this information decades ago.