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

[JulieM]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I was just quoting from Scott's article and trying to clarify what you meant by your comments.

I do wonder how these volumes will be serious history when they are written for teens in story form and I wonder if they will be similar to The Work and The Glory type of histories.  But I guess we will just have to wait and see.  

Edited June 10, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

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:

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.

 

I apologise for not reading the thread posts as carefully as I should have. ETA: I see, now that I read through the DN's article thoroughly, that in it, is mentioned that the coming forth of these four volumes will be at a ninth and tenth grade level. Now I see what you were getting at, my bad. But I didn't like how you label the anti's.

Honestly, the anti's aren't what cause people to become unfaithful. The anti information usually never phased the faithful, because they knew they couldn't trust what the so-called anti's said.

It's when members read the church essays or FairMormon that the trouble begins. Or even Richard Bushman's RSR. It's not the fault of FM or Bushman, it's that they see where the narrative was not told accurately in the first place.

In a way it was the leaders who chose to hide certain aspects that become anti in a way. Why weren't they open? If something is true or right or God inspired, what is the need to hide? Unless some of these leaders weren't sure of it themselves. 

I believe Richard Bushman was recorded in that meeting without his knowledge, I've no facts to back this up, but I think if he'd known he was recorded, he may have worded what he said in a way that wouldn't cause such a stir. I appreciate his wanting to help members like me. He and others like him have kept me in for such a long time, and help members feel like they can accept the faults of leaders that messed up because they have allies like Bushman etc. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Tacenda

[mapman]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I was just quoting from Scott's article and trying to clarify what you meant by your comments.

I do wonder how these volumes will be serious history when they are written for teens in story form and I wonder if they will be similar to The Work and The Glory type of histories.  But I guess we will just have to wait and see.  

I didn't see anything in the article indicating that these would be novels, so I don't think you have to worry about these being historical fiction. Elder Snow made it pretty clear that it is going to be actual historical writing since it is going to have endnotes and explain the context of controversial issues. I imagine that it will read a lot like the Gospel Topics essays. Hopefully they will be able to get across some of these difficult issues in an effective way. In comparison to the Joseph Smith Papers, which is top notch but a little less accessible, I felt that the Gospel Topics essays, while more accessible, suffered a little bit in quality in trying to be simpler to understand and to not contradict any church teachings.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I was just quoting from Scott's article and trying to clarify what you meant by your comments.

I do wonder how these volumes will be serious history when they are written for teens in story form and I wonder if they will be similar to The Work and The Glory type of histories.  But I guess we will just have to wait and see.  

I thought I had addressed this already, but nothing in Elder Snow's talk or in my quotation of the same indicates that the new history would be "written for teens." Ninth and 10th grade reading level has to do with reading difficulty, not with target audience.

And it is not self-evident that a work written in narrative form   cannot be "serious history."

(I assume narrative form is what you mean by "story form." You keep using misnomers like "novel" when, apparently, that's not what you mean.)

Edited June 10, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 6/9/2017 at 3:33 PM, hagoth7 said:

Yep.

I served in Scandinavia too. :0)

Or,  rather New Scandinavia.

You mean Minnesota?

[JulieM]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 You keep using misnomers like "novel" when, apparently, that's not what you mean.

That's not true. CFR that I have used the word novel since I stated way back on page 2 of this thread:

"I should have just said in story form rather than use the word "novel" to be more clear though."

Edited June 10, 2017 by JulieM

[longview]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[longview]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[longview]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[longview]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[longview]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

That's not true. CFR that I have used the word novel since I stated way back on page 2 of this thread:

"I should have just said in story form rather than use the word "novel" to be more clear though."

I'm having difficulty determining what it is you do mean, since you said "novel," apparently not meaning fiction, even though a novel is, by definition, fiction.

And you keep drawing comparisons to The Work and the Glory, a work of historical fiction, even though there is nothing to suggest the new four-volume history will be any such thing. And you keep talking about it being directed to teenagers, when no one has said that either.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, longview said:

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?  

I certainly do, and would feel that way even if you hadn't repeated it five times.

In the profession, we call it pack journalism.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm having difficulty determining what it is you do mean, since you said "novel," apparently not meaning fiction, even though a novel is, by definition, fiction.

And you keep drawing comparisons to The Work and the Glory, a work of historical fiction, even though there is nothing to suggest the new four-volume history will be any such thing. And you keep talking about it being directed to teenagers, when no one has said that either.

You've falsely accused me of continuing to use the word "novel" after I clarified back on page 2 what I meant.  So what you claim is simply not true.

Are you saying that these new histories are not going to be written in story form, just so we're clear on that?

And why are they being written at a 14-16 year old reading level if not to reach the youth?  Is it as others have asked, to reach "adult yokels"?

Edited June 11, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

 

And why are they being written at a 14-16 year old reading level if not to reach the youth?  Is it as others have asked, to dumb down history for adult members?

Because there are a lot of adults out there reading at or about that level or below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html

It will also make translations into other languages much easier, I suspect.  Simpler language that includes many details doesn't have to be dumb downed.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

You've falsely accused me of continuing to use the word "novel" after I clarified back on page 2 what I meant.  So what you claim is simply not true.

Are you saying that these new histories are not going to be written in story form, just so we're clear on that?

 

After all this time, I still don't know what you mean by "story form," so I can't answer that. Especially with your repetitive comparisons to The Work and the Glory, which is a novel in the category of historical fiction.

Quote

 

And why are they being written at a 14-16 year old reading level if not to reach the youth?  Is it as others have asked, to reach "adult yokels"?

 

Not everyone who reads at an eighth- or ninth-grade reading level is a teenager. There are many, many adults who read at that level or who are more comfortable reading at that level.

And I would not be so disrespectful or arrogant as to call such individuals "adult yokels." My father, who in 1918 quit high school to take a job in order to support the family after his father died, read at that level. And I have great respect for his memory. No one I know was a more avid devotee of the daily newspaper than he. He had a native wisdom of the sort that doesn't necessarily come from a university degree.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

The average reading level for adults in the US is 8th or 9th grade:

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2012/09/doakchap1-4.pdf

 

[strappinglad]

Thou shalt not confuse ' reading grade level ' with ' age group ' . They are entirely different. They  probably shouldn't be but they are, as calm has so correctly linked to above. Most major newspapers have been written at an elementary reading level for the various readers comprehensions.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

The average reading level for adults in the US is 8th or 9th grade:

https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2012/09/doakchap1-4.pdf

 

Traditionally, journalists have been encouraged to write at a ninth-grade level so their writing will be more accessible to the public.

I dare say the bulk of the posts on this board are written at a ninth-grade-or-below reading level.

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not everyone who reads at an eighth- or ninth-grade reading level is a teenager. There are many, many adults who read at that level or who are more comfortable reading at that level.

And I would not be so disrespectful or arrogant as to call such individuals "adult yokels." 

I'm not the one who introduced that description here, I was quoting Robert.  So, maybe you should take that up with him.

Edited June 11, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because there are a lot of adults out there reading at or about that level or below.

I edited my post almost immediately to correct it to what Robert actually stated (I looked it up and corrected it.)

And its confusing how these histories have been described.  Will they be like Michener's writings (which are excellent but most were sagas or in story form)?  He was named in the article.  I guess we will just have to wait and see.  I'm looking forward to them being published.

Edited June 11, 2017 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I edited my post almost immediately to correct it to what Robert actually stated (I looked it up and corrected it.)

 

Before you edited it to say "adult yokels" you spoke of the new, four-volume work as "dumbing down history." Either phrase indicates contempt for adults who read at that level.

Quote

And its confusing how these histories have been described.  Will they be like Michener's writings (which are excellent but most were sagas or in story form)?  He was named in the article.  I guess we will just have to wait and see.  I'm looking forward to them being published.

No, it's not confusing. Michener wrote non-fiction as well as fiction. And Elder Snow also compared it to the writing of David McCullough. Are you acquainted with McCullough's work? His biography of Harry Truman, perhaps? Or his historical work, 1776? Would you regard him as "dumbing down history" or appealing strictly to "adult yokels" or teenagers?

Are you still laboring under the conception that writing at an eight- or ninth- grade level means one is only writing for teenagers? strappinglad stated it succinctly when he said, "Thou shalt not confuse ' reading grade level ' with ' age group ' . They are entirely different."

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Before you edited it to say "adult yokels" you spoke of the new, four-volume work as "dumbing down history." Either phrase indicates contempt for adults who read at that level.

No, it's not confusing. Michener wrote non-fiction as well as fiction. And Elder Snow also compared it to the writing of David McCullough. Are you acquainted with McCullough's work? His biography of Harry Truman, perhaps? Or his historical work, 1776? Would you regard him as "dumbing down history" or appealing strictly to "adult yokels" or teenagers?

Again, you'll have to ask Robert as I was quoting him and interpreting when he stated:

"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."  

We will all just have to wait and see how these histories are written.  I'm hopeful they will be excellent. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Again, you'll have to ask Robert as I was quoting him and interpreting when he stated:

"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."  

We will all just have to wait and see how these histories are written.  I'm hopeful they will be excellent. 

I don't read Robert as being uncertain as to whether the new history will be fictional or non-fictional. The only one here who appears to be confused on that point is you.

[longview]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

You don't believe The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN,  ABC News, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, et al are major news outlets and actually march in lockstep together?