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

[hagoth7]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Mattsson is a fairly common surname in Sweden. And as a given name, Hans is even more common.

Yep.

I served in Scandinavia too. :0)

Or,  rather New Scandinavia.

Edited June 9, 2017 by hagoth7

[Calm]

Here is the corrected transcript myself and several other FM members worked on.  It is, imo, better than the original one as in there was one or two significant iirc mishearings, but mostly we just got more of the text:

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/resources/primary-sources/2010-sweden-fireside-with-marlin-jensen-and-richard-turley-held-november-28-2010

There were 16 questions in total dealt with...they are listed here along with what FM sees as appropriate answers.  I recognize not everyone will see them as such.

I am posting them as FYI, not to debate them myself as I have a mucky cold and am too vegged out for analysis.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Firesides/28_November_2010_-_Sweden

[Calm]

Reviewing it, questions were submitted, so they were just overly ambitious in answering a number of them...edit:  going further it looks like they are pulling them from the audience as I remembered...sorry, just can't focus, so someone else needs to check if they care...I think I will take a nap.

"No, I’m just talking about brother Turley and me who have received questions from some you in preparation for this meeting."

Edited June 9, 2017 by Calm

[Oliblish]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have listened to the Swedish Rescue, I think his and some others there had their minds made up before that from their comments.  

I listened to the recording as well.  These people had read things on the internet about Joseph Smith and the church that they found shocking.   I feel many of the members were still holding out hope that the church leaders would tell them that these things were not true.  Instead the leaders confirmed that much of it was true.  Remember this was before the essays had come out and it was unclear to many members where the church stood on these issues, if they had heard of them at all.  

Also, the area president prohibited the members from talking about the meeting with anyone and instructed Stake Presidents and Bishops to interview each member that attended the meeting to decide whether they were in or out of the church.  So they were pressured to make up their minds quickly.  Hans says told his bishop he needed more time to make that kind of decision.

These new history volumes are surely part of the "inoculation" program that has been designed to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/8/2017 at 7:44 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

It's good to see that the church is making more information available. Hopefully it is a more complete and accurate reckoning of church history so all of those silly people who want to leave the church can no longer claim to be blind-sided be a changing narrative.

I simply want to point out that just because a more complete history will be out in 2018, and the essays were released over the past few years, people have been legitimately surprised (blind-sided) by the changing narrative of the church. I suspect there will be many more years of angst and confusion and faith crisis over these next years as people learn a more correct history and how the church teachings throughout their entire lives are proven to be inaccurate.

As long as we have adult yokels reading and thinking no better than a 9th or 10th grade level, we will always have "silly people" who claim to be blind-sided, people who are bedeviled by unending "angst and confusion."  They'd be better off reading James Michener's Tales of the South Pacific (he got a Pulitzer for it), or better yet, seeing the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, "South Pacific," and wash Joe Smith right out of their hair.  

.

[hagoth7]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As long as we have adult yokels reading and thinking no better than a 9th or 10th grade level, we will always have "silly people" who claim to be blind-sided, people who are bedeviled by unending "angst and confusion."  They'd be better off reading James Michener's Tales of the South Pacific (he got a Pulitzer for it), or better yet, seeing the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, "South Pacific," and wash Joe Smith right out of their hair.  

I respectfully disagree. Completely.

The preaching is to be to all, in their own language, to their own understanding. Many (too many to ignore) simply don't/won't interface with an academic tome....just as I hardly ever touch a novel. Why not couch the message in a narrative more in tune with how memory and learning are known to work best - in the context of story? And in doing that, make the core message more approachable to reach/touch/benefit more people?

Edited June 10, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

Reminds me of early missionaries to northern Europe who retold the NT narrative (same events/message) to align with Germanic cultural values. 

A shift from a Greek tragedy culture to an emphasis that people of the north might better appreciate/accept the King of Kings.

Did they change the meat of the message? 

No. Simply swapped out the temporal/regional condiments.

So in our day, I don't think we need to wring our hands that some (i.e many) are better served by a different approach to the message.

Thoughts/impressions?

Edited June 10, 2017 by hagoth7

[Johnnie Cake]

"You don't have to like the truth for something to be true" - Fargo

[hagoth7]

7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

"You don't have to like the truth for something to be true" - Fargo

K. (That can be taken a couple of different ways.) What was your intended meaning?

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

I respectfully disagree. Completely.

The preaching is to be to all, in their own language, to their own understanding. Many (too many to ignore, as if four dozen would be too few to ignore) simply don't/won't interface with an academic tome....just as I hardly ever touch a novel. Why not couch the message in a narrative more in tune with how memory and learning are known to work best - in the context of story? And in doing that, make the core message more approachable to reach/touch/benefit more people?

When you appeal to the lowest common denominator, that is what you end up with -- the lowest common denominator.  I'm just glad that Joe Smith, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Richard Bushman didn't go there.  I don't mind at all that the story is made as shallow as possible for the nursery and for primary children, etc., but should that continue eternally?  Or as Wagner put it in his Tannhauser, "in ewigkeit," 

 .

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When you appeal to the lowest common denominator, that is what you end up with -- the lowest common denominator.  I'm just glad that Joe Smith, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Richard Bushman didn't go there.  I don't mind at all that the story is made as shallow as possible for the nursery and for primary children, etc., but should that continue eternally?  Or as Wagner put it in his Tannhauser, "in ewigkeit," 

 .

Richard Bushman even said the narrative was not true. What is he saying that is different than the people you call yokels?

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

K. (That can be taken a couple of different ways.) What was your intended meaning?

Well I thought I would contribute to Roberts derail by quoting movie lines , like he did. But I think the quote speaks for itself

Edited June 10, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Richard Bushman even said the narrative was not true. What is he saying that is different than the people you call yokels?

You might want to quote what Bushman actually said, in context, Tacenda.  The anti-Mormons regularly lie about what Bushman has said, and when challenged are unable to make a viable case for their crass claims.  It is so easy to believe the jackals and hyenas when they keep repeating their empty claims -- the way Trump keeps repeating his lies -- and there are actually people who believe that stuff.  That's how he got elected.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to quote what Bushman actually said, in context, Tacenda.  The anti-Mormons regularly lie about what Bushman has said, and when challenged are unable to make a viable case for their crass claims.  It is so easy to believe the jackals and hyenas when they keep repeating their empty claims -- the way Trump keeps repeating his lies -- and there are actually people who believe that stuff.  That's how he got elected.

http://www.mormonstories.org/richard-bushman-reaffirms-his-testimony-of-angels-plates-translations-revelations/

I read it as Bushman saying that the church needs to change its narrative because the dominant narrative isn't true, as in the church has been pushing a narrative that isn't true, so it must be changed to absorb the "new" true, actual narrative. Am I missing something?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to quote what Bushman actually said, in context, Tacenda.  The anti-Mormons regularly lie about what Bushman has said, and when challenged are unable to make a viable case for their crass claims.  It is so easy to believe the jackals and hyenas when they keep repeating their empty claims -- the way Trump keeps repeating his lies -- and there are actually people who believe that stuff.  That's how he got elected.

https://medium.com/@jellistx/transcript-of-claudia-and-richard-bushmans-remarks-at-faith-again-e9d03bdea0e3

I read it in context. I know Bushman has had to do some damage control. And I don't blame him. He doesn't want anyone to think he doesn't believe. He wrote Rough Stone Rolling so we know he was shedding the light on the true narrative right there. 

We discussed about it already, I had forgotten. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67824-bushman-comments-on-lds-narrative-of-its-history/

Here is the recording with a letter from Richard Bushman about it.

http://www.mormonstories.org/richard-bushman-reaffirms-his-testimony-of-angels-plates-translations-revelations/

You may as well call me silly, or a hyena, jackal, or a yokel. Or that I have the reading level of a 9th or tenth grader.  Heavens, I'm not even smarter than a 5th grader! But sometimes I try to have common sense.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://medium.com/@jellistx/transcript-of-claudia-and-richard-bushmans-remarks-at-faith-again-e9d03bdea0e3

I read it in context. I know Bushman has had to do some damage control. And I don't blame him. He doesn't want anyone to think he doesn't believe. He wrote Rough Stone Rolling so we know he was shedding the light on the true narrative right there. 

We discussed about it already, I had forgotten. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67824-bushman-comments-on-lds-narrative-of-its-history/

Here is the recording with a letter from Richard Bushman about it.

http://www.mormonstories.org/richard-bushman-reaffirms-his-testimony-of-angels-plates-translations-revelations/

You may as well call me silly, or a hyena, jackal, or a yokel. Or that I have the reading level of a 9th or tenth grader.  Heavens, I'm not even smarter than a 5th grader! But sometimes I try to have common sense.

Big rep Tacenda!  From your local yokel!

Edited June 10, 2017 by Jeanne

[hagoth7]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

When you appeal to the lowest common denominator...as shallow as possible...

A well-crafted narrative can be *more* rich in subtext and sweeping meaning than any highly annotated tome. 

A children's book can have more richness and beauty than any textbook.

But I believe you already know that.

So I don't quite follow why you opt to pretend the church is dumbing down its history.

[Robert F. Smith]

29 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

A well-crafted narrative can be *more* rich in subtext and sweeping meaning than any highly annotated tome. 

A children's book can have more richness and beauty than any textbook.

But I believe you already know that.

So I don't quite follow why you opt to pretend the church is dumbing down its history.

I suppose we shall all have to wait and see what sort of committee-product we end up with in years hence.  Meanwhile, it would be a good idea not to personify as "the Church" what will be something written by particular people, assigned the task, and given the usual correlation guidelines.  How much beauty and richness such a text may have we all await with interest, and just how "well-crafted" it will be is still up in the air.  Whether any annotations are even necessary (as footnotes or endnotes?) is probably less important than whether it is well-written and accurate.

Some of the best, most interesting writing about the LDS faith is being done by Terryl L. Givens.  In both content and style, he manages to appeal to any competent reader, without ever dumbing down his work-product.  How can that be?

[JulieM]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As long as we have adult yokels reading and thinking no better than a 9th or 10th grade level, we will always have "silly people" who claim to be blind-sided, people who are bedeviled by unending "angst and confusion."  They'd be better off reading James Michener's Tales of the South Pacific (he got a Pulitzer for it), or better yet, seeing the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical, "South Pacific," and wash Joe Smith right out of their hair.  

Are you referring to the new four-volume histories from the opening post that will be written at a "9 or 10-grade reading level" and "in a style similar to James Michener or David McCullough"?

Do you believe this is why they are being written at a 14-16 year old level and in story form?

Edited June 10, 2017 by JulieM

[longview]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is so easy to believe the jackals and hyenas when they keep repeating their empty claims -- the way Trump keeps repeating his lies -- and there are actually people who believe that stuff.  That's how he got elected.

You actually believe the "narrative" of the mainstream press?  

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, longview said:

You actually believe the "narrative" of the mainstream press?  

I sure don't. 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://medium.com/@jellistx/transcript-of-claudia-and-richard-bushmans-remarks-at-faith-again-e9d03bdea0e3

I read it in context. I know Bushman has had to do some damage control. And I don't blame him. He doesn't want anyone to think he doesn't believe. He wrote Rough Stone Rolling so we know he was shedding the light on the true narrative right there. 

I know Richard, and he is not concerned with "damage control" or the like, but what does come forth clearly from the transcript here is that the person making it is not very good at it.  I saw the same phenomenon with tapes transcribed from Hugh Nibley.  So poorly done that they often make no sense:  I see this same problem with this transcript.  Here is a sample:  "Perhaps you could look nearly at Epoch and Abraham, you have to look nearly at Joseph Smith’s marriages. Everywhere in that crucial founding period, the story has been changed."  He has "Epoch" instead of correct "Enoch," and "nearly" is certainly wrong.  I also note that the transcriber puts in his own biased section titles, such as "Richard Bushman on New Mormon History," which contains a phrase which is very fraught with special baggage, and not really part of what Richard does.  However, the story he tells is a good one and it involves the various yokels who thought then that they and they alone had the key to Mormon history -- be they anti-Mormons or true blue Mormons -- and both were wrong.

The light being shed on Mormon society, Mormon history, and Mormon religion by scholars like Nibley, Arrington, and Richard Bushman was of immense importance because it followed the rigorous demands of academe, and was not dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator.  Naturally, as we have discussed on this board many times, and as Bushman puts it, there was a psychological reaction by Mormons who knew nothing of history:  "Why wasn’t I told this before? A sense of betrayal and even rage, anger, and this somewhat illogical but understandable view, they’ve been lying to you all along. As if the church authorities knew it all and they were just concealing it."  Bushman's response is that "on the whole the church authorities had no better knowledge of church history than the normal members and the general authorities also had to be educated in this new kind of history."  The message which you took from all this was a very different one, Tacenda, and it does not comport with what Bushman himself said.

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

We discussed about it already, I had forgotten. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67824-bushman-comments-on-lds-narrative-of-its-history/

Here is the recording with a letter from Richard Bushman about it.

http://www.mormonstories.org/richard-bushman-reaffirms-his-testimony-of-angels-plates-translations-revelations/

You may as well call me silly, or a hyena, jackal, or a yokel. Or that I have the reading level of a 9th or tenth grader.  Heavens, I'm not even smarter than a 5th grader! But sometimes I try to have common sense.

Here again, you misread what I have written:  You are taking the hyenas and jackals at face value, thinking perhaps that they have your best interests at heart, when common sense should have told you otherwise.  Had you instead read for context, you would know that the word "silly" was used by someone before me, to whom I was replying.  The same for the reading level of 9th or 10th grade, which is what Scott attributed to the objective for these projected volumes.  That was not me attributing it to you.  The jackals and hyenas are not your friends, Tacenda.

A good example is this dishonest excerpt from John Dehlin, carefully ripped out of context:

Quote

Questioner: In your view do you see room in Mormonism for several narratives of a religious experience or do you think that in order for the Church to remain strong they would have to hold to that dominant [orthodox] narrative?

Richard Bushman: I think that for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds and that’s what it is trying to do and it will be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change.

In the full context of what Richard had been saying in the full transcript, it makes sense, but Dehlin misuses it.  So the letter from Richard becomes essential.  For those of us familiar with the real Mormon history for a generation now, there is nothing new here, but it is heartening to see the developments which Richard highlights.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

40 minutes ago, longview said:

You actually believe the "narrative" of the mainstream press?  

There is no mainstream press any longer, and has not been for a long time.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Are you referring to the new four-volume histories from the opening post that will be written at a "9 or 10-grade reading level" and "in a style similar to James Michener or David McCullough"?

Do you believe this is why they are being written at a 14-16 year old level and in story form?

Michener and McCullough are pretty good storytellers, but I don't put their work at the 9th and 10th grade level -- just one of the contradictions from the OP.  Perhaps you could explain it to me, Julie.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

http://www.mormonstories.org/richard-bushman-reaffirms-his-testimony-of-angels-plates-translations-revelations/

I read it as Bushman saying that the church needs to change its narrative because the dominant narrative isn't true, as in the church has been pushing a narrative that isn't true, so it must be changed to absorb the "new" true, actual narrative. Am I missing something?

Yea, you are missing the context in which he said that, which I point up in my response to Tacenda.  By the way, I agree with Richard completely on this, but it is not clear to me that you understand what he has been saying.