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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Glen Leonard is not involved this time around. And Ron Walker, of course, is deceased.

This time, Turley is working with Barbara Brown, who has been associated with the Church History Department for some time.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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

I'd say it's reasonable that this works in some particular areas of Church history as it pertains to the Church teaching about it.  The Church simply could never have taught everything.  But in other cases, the Church clearly misled or withheld.  On that, I don't think there can reasonably be any doubt.  And those issues are two separate ones indeed. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So you say a member in Peru in 1980 could have just walked into a Deseret Book and bought a fancy-assed 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.

I've seen this argument before.
And there is some truth to it.
But I don't know if you've noticed, but the members who are having the biggest difficulties with these new surprises appear to be primarily lifelong members in the US, UK, etc.
When I read these forums of ex-members, questioning, faith crisis people, I see very few from other countries participating.  It is the born and bred multi-generational Mormons who apparently read the least.
Perhaps they've never had to exercise faith in order to be members before.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Glen Leonard is not involved this time around. And Ron Walker, of course, is deceased.

This time, Turley is working Barbara Brown, who has been associated with the Church History Department for some time.

 

Thanks.  Interesting. Looking forward to it. 

[pogi]

I have to say, I get pretty tired of the blame-game from both sides. 

I didn't know about a lot of our church history until I was mid to late 20's even into my 30's.  I was never interested in church history.  It seemed so bland and boring to me...little did I know!  I was always more interested in the simple and pure spiritual principles that the church taught me.  I took it seriously. They offered me a direct link to the source of living water and a deep well of life giving light.  That is what grabbed my heart and has never let go.  My experiences are so deep and profound from the application of the basic principles, that I am entirely satiated and edified.  Even the simple yet profound lesson called I am grateful for my ears is a great source of meditation which fills my soul with sustaining gratitude.  I could choose to spend my time in anger and resentment for not knowing difficult church history, but then I would be blinded by the object of my focus, barely being aware of the good and light in my periphery. 

I was surprised...shocked even, by what I learned!  Yet, here I remain.  Do have I valid reason to blame the church for not knowing ANY of this stuff?  Maybe I do. I believe that the church made a mistake by not making this information more available - and it seems obvious to me that they now recognize that mistake.  So yes, if I wanted to, I could spend my time blaming the church for not knowing this stuff.  Instead, I have chosen to forgive the church and its leaders in their human nature.  I see them as inspired, but not perfect.  I chose rather to spend my time in gratitude for the living water supplied to me via church teachings instead.  The church cannot make you lose your testimony...you are accountable for that.  And that is what this is all about in the end...testimony.  Yes, information can influence testimony, and should.  And even though I don't have all the answers for some of the information I am now aware of, I don't feel that I need the answers to those questions, because I have the answers I need to the infinitely more important questions.  The only reason that I have answers to those more important questions is because of the object of my focus.  What you choose to see (focus on) is what you get, and I have received abundantly, even to the point of overflowing. 

 

[stemelbow]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I've seen this argument before.
And there is some truth to it.
But I don't know if you've noticed, but the members who are having the biggest difficulties with these new surprises appear to be primarily lifelong members in the US, UK, etc.
When I read these forums of ex-members, questioning, faith crisis people, I see very few from other countries participating.  It is the born and bred multi-generational Mormons who apparently read the least.
Perhaps they've never had to exercise faith in order to be members before.

I think largely it may be because you mostly read these things from English speakers.  And also, from areas where the internet is in every home.  But that really misses the point, JLHp.  Information proves interesting to people.  That's why it gets shared.  If interesting information is hidden or kept from a population, then, when it hits and gets largely distributed, well you see what happens.  I'm not saying my explanation applies to Peru, although it likely did in 1980, but that these issues are out there for some people.  It may matter to you where the talk of these issues is coming from, but to me, we're all people in this together.  If Peruvians want to join the discussion (which I'm sure to some extent it has happened and does happen) by all means join. 

Truth is, most members in the US don't know about the rock in the hat method, I'd wager.  Most of those that do, most likely only heard about it within the past decade.  That's just me guessing because I've been talking about it for the past decade and I've seen the response.  Saying, "Joseph didn't look at the plates, but stuck his head in a hat and dictated the words to his scribe" today in church illicits a different response than if you said it 10 years ago.  Today 80% of the members would look confused and someone would ask.  10 years ago 98% of the members would have looked confused and you would likely get a number of them upset with you. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

My understanding is that, though the Church cooperated fully in making available its archived material (after all, Turley was managing director of the Church History Department and thus would have had full access) and in other ways, it did not "direct" the project or have oversight in any other way over the book that Turley and colleagues produced. They had a free hand throughout the project and pledged to go wherever the evidence took them. And it was not subject to the Church's correlation review process. The authors were under the supervision of no one except, perhaps, the publisher of their book, Oxford University Press.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I believe that the church made a mistake by not making this information more available - and it seems obvious to me that they now recognize that mistake. 

I agree with everything else you said.  But I think that this is VERY generous of you.
The internet gave them no choice.  Controlling the conversation is very important.  There was an interesting presentation at last year's MHA in Snowbird on how the Church has dealt with the press and public image.

Here is the question - Would the Church have published the polygamy essay if people weren't already discussing Joseph Smith's polygamy online?
What else would have cause that decision to be made?  Even if you consider it inspired, and a God directed response to publish the essay, the catalyst for the revelation is that they had no choice.

Kind of like the manifesto.
Would polygamy have ended in the Church if the Edmund Tucker act had never been passed?  Probably not.

[Duncan]

Just now, stemelbow said:

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. 

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. 

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. 

Well............if a member in 1980 were to walk into a DB they could have bought the Joseph Smith tapes by Truman Madsen, who at least (because I looked) introduces the idea of Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage but you're right he doesn't mention Fanny Alger or anyone specifically

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with everything else you said.  But I think that this is VERY generous of you.
The internet gave them no choice.  Controlling the conversation is very important.  There was an interesting presentation at last year's MHA in Snowbird on how the Church has dealt with the press and public image.

Here is the question - Would the Church have published the polygamy essay if people weren't already discussing Joseph Smith's polygamy online?
What else would have cause that decision to be made?  Even if you consider it inspired, and a God directed response to publish the essay, the catalyst for the revelation is that they had no choice.

Kind of like the manifesto.
Would polygamy have ended in the Church if the Edmund Tucker act had never been passed?  Probably not.

I repped you because you are exactly right, I think, and your questions are spot on.  I quote because I agree that much.  The polygamy addition to your post is an interesting consideration. 

[cinepro]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My understanding is that, though the Church cooperated fully in making available its archived material (after all, Turley was managing director of the Church History Department and thus would have had full access) and in other ways, it did not "direct" the project or have oversight in any other way over the book that Turley and colleagues produced. They had a free hand throughout the project and pledged to go wherever the evidence took them. And it was not subject to the Church's correlation review process. The authors were under the supervision of no one except, perhaps, the publisher of their book, Oxford University Press.

Were they Church employees while working on the book, or did they take a "sabbatical" for that period (or were they not Church employees to begin with)?

Edited June 8, 2017 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I've seen this argument before.
And there is some truth to it.
But I don't know if you've noticed, but the members who are having the biggest difficulties with these new surprises appear to be primarily lifelong members in the US, UK, etc.
When I read these forums of ex-members, questioning, faith crisis people, I see very few from other countries participating.  It is the born and bred multi-generational Mormons who apparently read the least.
Perhaps they've never had to exercise faith in order to be members before.

I think it just as likely due to them being more apt to be the ones exposed to career apostates like Dehlin. Even in Sweden, where they've had their own wave of faith crisis in recent years, it was largely Dehlin's doing.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

I doubt that. You seem determined to place the bulk of the blame on the Church. And you seem to be claiming repeatedly that the Church presented a false narrative.

I don't hold with that at all. Being selective about what is presented (and make no mistake about it: Everyone is selective, especially anti-Mormons, apostates and critics) is not the same thing as giving a false narrative.

 

Edited June 8, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Were they Church employees while working on the book, or did they take a "sabbatical" for that period (or were they not Church employees to begin with)?

As I understand it, they kept their day jobs. Turley continued to function as managing director over the Church History Department, and Leonard, as I recall, was still director of the Church History Museum, at least for part of the time that the book was being prepared. Walker, who was a history professor at BYU, might have been given emeritus status by then, but I don't recall for certain.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it just as likely due to them being more apt to be the ones exposed to career apostates like Dehlin. Even in Sweden, where they've had their own wave of faith crisis in recent years, it was largely Dehlin's doing.

See, sometimes I love your posts. 

There are many things that have caused the faith crises.  I think the Church needs to recognize that its PR decisions have been one of the causes.  That's all.
And like you, I love where they are heading with transparency.

Scholars waited for decades for them to release the Council of 50 minutes from their vault for study and publication.  Now they are public information.  That is beyond great.  But they weren't released to scholars for study until fairly recently.
 

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I doubt that. You seem determined to place the bulk of the blame on the Church. And you seem to be claiming repeatedly that the Church presented a false narrative.

I don't hold with that at all. Being selective about what is presented (and make no mistake about it: Everyone is selective, especially anti-Mormons, apostates and critics) is not the same thing as giving a false narrative.

 

Lies of omission are better than lies of commission?
Right?

Hey, I'm the one who has no issues with Joseph stating he only had one wife when he had a dozen.  There are times when withholding information is good.
 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

See, sometimes I love your posts. 

There are many things that have caused the faith crises.  I think the Church needs to recognize that its PR decisions have been one of the causes.  That's all.
And like you, I love where they are heading with transparency.

Scholars waited for decades for them to release the Council of 50 minutes from their vault for study and publication.  Now they are public information.  That is beyond great.  But they weren't released to scholars for study until fairly recently.
 

True.

But the ones calling the shots on the withholding and eventual release of the minutes were the First Presidency themselves. In fixing blame, are you willing to go there?

 

[cinepro]

On 6/8/2017 at 0:33 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it just as likely due to them being more apt to be the ones exposed to career apostates like Dehlin. Even in Sweden, where they've had their own wave of faith crisis in recent years, it was largely Dehlin's doing.

You give Dehlin too much credit.  The only reason he (or the CES Letter, or Mormonthink...) are doing any damage is because they are (for the most part) letting LDS members know the stuff from Church history and teachings that is most damaging to their "LDS worldview."  And I doubt that many people are first exposed to this information from Dehlin.  They most likely find Mormon Stories after first encountering it, and while his podcasts, forums and events may not do much to help people maintain their faith and belief, I can't accuse him of being the one to "expose" people to these things.

In the past, anti-Mormon materials were largely impotent because they relied on a mostly false caricature of the Church that was easily ignored by people with actual experience in the Church.  I read tons of anti-Mormon materials as a teenager, and I found it silly and unbelievable.  I still have my copies of DCP's "Offenders for a Word" and Gilbert Scharff's "The Truth About the Godmakers", which I bought when I was 15!  The anti-Mormon stuff at the Christian bookstores was almost fun to read, but they were mostly written not to convince LDS to leave the Church but to scare Christians away from investigating and joining the Church. 

This has obviously changed, and there is now very basic, solid evidence and information from Church history that seems to destroy the image many life-long members have of the Church, and the Church has to grapple with how to deal with this as people decide they can't incorporate this new information into their image of the Church and therefore don't want to belong to the Church, no matter how desperately the Church begs them to stay.

My theory on why there might be a preponderance of USA and Canada-based disaffected members would be that this is where the most active, life-long, English speaking members with internet access are.  It's like asking "Why are there so many ex-Mormons in Utah compared to North Carolina?"  It's not because Dehlin has been granted special powers over Utah compared to North Carolina.  It's because that's where the Mormons with internet access are.

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it just as likely due to them being more apt to be the ones exposed to career apostates like Dehlin. Even in Sweden, where they've had their own wave of faith crisis in recent years, it was largely Dehlin's doing.

You blame Dehlin for the Swedes who took issue with the church not being open, not teaching a correct or workable narrative? 

It's odd how in nearly every case when it seems obvious the Church is the cause of the problems, you blame someone else.  Those poor naïve Swedes would still be mesmerized members, I suppose, if it weren't for Dehlin. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

In the past, anti-Mormon materials were largely impotent because they relied on a mostly false caricature of the Church that was easily ignored by people with actual experience in the Church.  I read tons of anti-Mormon materials as a teenager, and I found it silly and unbelievable.  I still have my copies of DCP's "Offenders for a Word" and Gilbert Scharff's "The Truth About the Godmakers", which I bought when I was 15!  The anti-Mormon stuff at the Christian bookstores was almost fun to read, but they were mostly written not to convince LDS to leave the Church but to scare Christians away from investigating and joining the Church.

 

I'm a late bloomer, I guess.  I first read the Kingdom fo the Cults when some couple said "i'll read your book if you read mine" as a companion and I travelled door to door.   It was a silly mess, for the most part, and I realized as you suggest above, it carried such credibility amongst the conservative type of evangelicals back then, because it successfully steered Christians away from listening to anything about Mormonism and other Christian religions.  Then again, the notion amongst Church members at the time was near univocal shouting out anything that was not written by an LDS author.  So...well..

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Lies of omission are better than lies of commission?
Right?
 

It depends.

And leaving stuff out is not necessarily tantamount to lying. Sometimes the omitted material lacks relevance.

Quote

There are times when withholding information is good.

I'm in full accord with this. If I'm hiding a Jewish family in my attic, I'm not going to be forthcoming with information when the storm troopers come around to ask about it.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

As an owner of First Editions of the 7 volume History of the Church by BH Roberts I look forward to this new edition.  Incidentally I also own a more recent edition of those same volumes...when I was first going through my faith crises...I did a side by side review of both volumes...because someone had told me that the church had hid information from its membership and had edited out complete paragraphs and sections in its history and I didn't believe them.  At the time, I was a compete believer and naïvely didn't believe that the church would do something like this...Boy was I proven wrong.

This new Church History volumes will most likely be the most scrutinized Books to be published by the church...I'm guessing that they know this and will take steps to be open, honest and let the facts lay were they are but from recent GA comments I also fear that they will contextualize and spin the history in order to make it more palatable for those believing members who even dare delve into church history.

PS: Why are so many members afraid of church history?  Why have so many leaders admonished members to stay away from it as it is a faith destroyer?

Edited June 8, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You blame Dehlin for the Swedes who took issue with the church not being open, not teaching a correct or workable narrative? 

 

I blame Dehlin along with others for misleading people with sophistry.

Quote

It's odd how in nearly every case when it seems obvious the Church is the cause of the problems, you blame someone else.  Those poor naïve Swedes would still be mesmerized members, I suppose, if it weren't for Dehlin. 

I'm aware of many faithful Swedish members of the Church who are as intelligent and knowledgeable as those who have fallen away. The Church is not dying in Sweden, as my missionary son who has spent nearly two years there can attest.

[cinepro]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

As an owner of First Editions of the 7 volume History of the Church by BH Roberts I look forward to this new edition.  Incidentally I also own a more recent edition of those volumes...when I was first going through my faith crises...I did a side by side review of both volumes...because someone had told me that the church had hide information from its membership and had edited out complete paragraphs and sections in its history and I didn't believe them.  At the time, I was a compete believer and naïvely didn't believe that the church would do something like this...Boy was I proven wrong.

This new Church History volumes will most likely be the most scrutinized Books to be published by the church...I'm guessing that they know this and will take steps to be open, honest and let the facts lay were they are but from recent GA comments I also fear that they will contextualize and spin the history in order to make it more palatable for those believing member who even dare delve into church history.

It won't be hard to figure out what they're doing.  We'll just need to look at the way they deal with Joseph Smith's polygamy and the Book of Abraham translation (oh, sorry, "translation"). 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

As an owner of First Editions of the 7 volume History of the Church by BH Roberts I look forward to this new edition.  Incidentally I also own a more recent edition of those volumes...when I was first going through my faith crises...I did a side by side review of both volumes...because someone had told me that the church had hide information from its membership and had edited out complete paragraphs and sections in its history and I didn't believe them.  At the time, I was a compete believer and naïvely didn't believe that the church would do something like this...Boy was I proven wrong.

 

I'm calling BS on this. I don't believe the Church has ever published a redacted or censored version of History of the Church.

I suppose it could be that you are conflating two separate works. B. H. Roberts was the compiler of History of the Church, which was a journal-like work with chronological entries of events as they occurred. Later, Roberts wrote A Comprehensive History of the Church, which is a multi-volume, narrative history of the Church written in Roberts' words.