Mormon Discussion podcast and negativity

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Robert, what do you think of the dominant narrative the church has put forward since the church's inception? Are there any problems with it? Is it just fine the way it has always been? 

I've been over this at great length with Bill in past threads, attempting (perhaps unsuccessfully) to make the point that there is considerable variety in the narratives of LDS history put forth by general members (some of them disaffected) and some speaking officially on behalf of the Church.  Some of that material was published early on in LDS journals like Times & Seasons, much of it gathered assiduously by a generation of scribes, and finally edited by B. H. Roberts into the multi-volume official History of the Church.  Roberts went on to write his own Comprehensive History of the Church, and others have likewise sought to write extensively on that subject, some of it published by the Church.

The "dominant narrative" mentioned by Bushman is a product of both official and unofficial writings of church history, some of it by Bushman himself and by others such as Leonard Arrington -- both of whom began their work over half-a-century ago.  That "dominant narrative" is not an official production of the LDS Church, but of writers who have been contributing to that historiography for several generations already.  Some of them were disaffected from the mainstream, such as John and David Whitmer.  Some were never members of the Restoration, but were first-hand witnesses to some aspects of the history of the Restoration.  CES personnel have sometimes synthesized the sources available to them into a narrative dominant within LDS Correlation and in seminary and institute teaching materials.  But that is a relatively recent phenomenon, being very selective and not informed by recourse to professional historiography.  CES personnel were simply not professional historians, and the results of their work has been something less that auspicious.  Meantime, many professional LDS historians (along with some non-Mormon professionals, like Jan Shipps) have managed to write far more wholistic and penetrating histories of the LDS Church, some of that noticed in the LDS Gospel Topics Essays and the current incorporation of that into seminary & institute teaching materials. 

The clear need for a more professional approach was a long time in coming, but was particularly emphasized by the work of Hugh Nibley, and other professional historians.  Leonard Arrington's decade of service as the Church Historian was very helpful in organizing the LDS Archives and in writing professional histories, culminating today in the important Joseph Smith Papers Project - being edited by professional historians such as Richard Bushman.

Through all of that, the details of Mormon history have always been readily available to serious historians, and there was never a plot to keep it from the general membership.  Rather there was great ignorance among non-historians (some of them hicks from the sticks) about what sources were available, and what they in fact said -- none of which actually fit in with Bill Reel's negative assessments.  Indeed, Bill tends to be as poorly informed as the CES personnel who got it so wrong for so long.

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I've been over this at great length with Bill in past threads, attempting (perhaps unsuccessfully) to make the point that there is considerable variety in the narratives of LDS history put forth by general members (some of them disaffected) and some speaking officially on behalf of the Church.  Some of that material was published early on in LDS journals like Times & Seasons, much of it gathered assiduously by a generation of scribes, and finally edited by B. H. Roberts into the multi-volume official History of the Church.  Roberts went on to write his own Comprehensive History of the Church, and others have likewise sought to write extensively on that subject, some of it published by the Church.

The "dominant narrative" mentioned by Bushman is a product of both official and unofficial writings of church history, some of it by Bushman himself and by others such as Leonard Arrington -- both of whom began their work over half-a-century ago.  That "dominant narrative" is not an official production of the LDS Church, but of writers who have been contributing to that historiography for several generations already.  Some of them were disaffected from the mainstream, such as John and David Whitmer.  Some were never members of the Restoration, but were first-hand witnesses to some aspects of the history of the Restoration.  CES personnel have sometimes synthesized the sources available to them into a narrative dominant within LDS Correlation and in seminary and institute teaching materials.  But that is a relatively recent phenomenon, being very selective and not informed by recourse to professional historiography.  CES personnel were simply not professional historians, and the results of their work has been something less that auspicious.  Meantime, many professional LDS historians (along with some non-Mormon professionals, like Jan Shipps) have managed to write far more wholistic and penetrating histories of the LDS Church, some of that noticed in the LDS Gospel Topics Essays and the current incorporation of that into seminary & institute teaching materials. 

The clear need for a more professional approach was a long time in coming, but was particularly emphasized by the work of Hugh Nibley, and other professional historians.  Leonard Arrington's decade of service as the Church Historian was very helpful in organizing the LDS Archives and in writing professional histories, culminating today in the important Joseph Smith Papers Project - being edited by professional historians such as Richard Bushman.

Through all of that, the details of Mormon history have always been readily available to serious historians, and there was never a plot to keep it from the general membership.  Rather there was great ignorance among non-historians (some of them hicks from the sticks) about what sources were available, and what they in fact said -- none of which actually fit in with Bill Reel's negative assessments.  Indeed, Bill tends to be as poorly informed as the CES personnel who got it so wrong for so long.

While I agree with much of what you’ve written, we need to admit that there has been efforts made by the institutional church to alter the narrative.  For example, the use of one specific version of the first vision (while a prophet hid Joseph’s account in a vault), repeatedly placing inspirational stories in manuals about women who were wives of our founding prophet without making mention of that fact, stripping the PH/RS manual on Brigham Young’s life and teachings of all references to plural marriage (when he spent his life preaching and practicing that principle of the gospel), Pres Hinckley’s attempts to distance the church from King Follet discourse theology... 

Would I like Bill Reel to be less negative?Yes.  But your response that there were no attempts to keep things from general membership is demonstrably false.  We need to approach this with balance on both sides. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

Robert, do you agree that there is an official narrative of the church that it tells the world?  Certainly the official narrative can be found in the official publications (missionary publications, manuals about church history, etc.) of the church, right?  Does that narrative have problems?  Has that narrative told the entire story or only part of the story?

Edited September 30, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom
Addressed to Robert

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, rockpond said:

While I agree with much of what you’ve written, we need to admit that there has been efforts made by the institutional church to alter the narrative.  For example, the use of one specific version of the first vision (while a prophet hid Joseph’s account in a vault), repeatedly placing inspirational stories in manuals about women who were wives of our founding prophet without making mention of that fact, stripping the PH/RS manual on Brigham Young’s life and teachings of all references to plural marriage (when he spent his life preaching and practicing that principle of the gospel), Pres Hinckley’s attempts to distance the church from King Follet discourse theology... 

Would I like Bill Reel to be less negative?Yes.  But your response that there were no attempts to keep things from general membership is demonstrably false.  We need to approach this with balance on both sides. 

I think some of this can be chalked up to differences of perspective and/or interpretation.  

For example, I was serving a mission when Pres. Hinckley gave that interview on t.v. and we watched it as it aired from a member's home.  None of us in attendance, or anyone i had spoken to personally afterwards, interpreted what he said as him trying to distance the church from the couplet.  I know some members did and do, and i'm not going to argue whether or not they should.  I only bring up my experience to show that what you've listed as 'facts' to support your argument (for lack of a better term) aren't necessarily facts.  

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

For example, I was serving a mission when Pres. Hinckley gave that interview on t.v. and we watched it as it aired from a member's home.  None of us in attendance, or anyone i had spoken to personally afterwards, interpreted what he said as him trying to distance the church from the couplet.  I know some members did and do, and i'm not going to argue whether or not they should.  I only bring up my experience to show that what you've listed as 'facts' to support your argument (for lack of a better term) aren't necessarily facts.  

What do you think his purpose was in saying what he did, if it wasn't to distance the Church from the Snow couplet?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

What do you think his purpose was in saying what he did, if it wasn't to distance the Church from the Snow couplet?

To me it seemed like he was distancing the church from speculations about Snow’s couplet. 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To me it seemed like he was distancing the church from speculations about Snow’s couplet. 

Which amounts to the same thing. Sort of like disavowing explanations for the ban doesn't represent distancing from the ban itself . . .  

Seriously. It's less than helpful to disavow speculation about something (especially deep-seated), and to not offer an alternative explanation. That's the big shortcoming of President Hinckley on the Snow couplet, and the gospel topics essay on the priesthood ban.

Edited September 30, 2017 by rongo

[llama]

Them Radio Free Mormon podcasts are great tho--thanks for bringing him on Bill.

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, rongo said:

Which amounts to the same thing. Sort of like disavowing explanations for the ban doesn't represent distancing from the ban itself . . .  

Seriously. It's less than helpful to disavow speculation about something (especially deep-seated), and to not offer an alternative explanation. That's the big shortcoming of President Hinckley on the Snow couplet, and the gospel topics essay on the priesthood ban.

I don't think it does amount to the same thing.  Does the church currently teach that God is an exalted man?  Yes (we just heard a talk today that confirmed that).  Does the church currently teach that we can all someday be exalted men and women like He is? Yes.   There has been no distancing from the doctrine behind the couplet.  

There has been distancing from personal interpretations and speculations behind the couplet though.  

And I agree that it would be awesome if there was an answer to every 'why'.  But when there's not, i'd much rather the church not make up reasons, as they have done in the past trying to be 'helpful'.   

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it does amount to the same thing.  Does the church currently teach that God is an exalted man?  Yes (we just heard a talk today that confirmed that).  Does the church currently teach that we can all someday be exalted men and women like He is? Yes.   There has been no distancing from the doctrine behind the couplet.  

So which parts of the Snow couplet was he distancing from (I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we understand it. I'm aware of it, but don't think anyone knows much about it)?

I empathize with him. I've done radio interviews, and it isn't nearly as easy as people think. Especially since there are time constraints (you get a voice in your ear telling you 30 seconds to break), and it's really hard to explain complex things in a brief, sound-bite format. You want to avoid getting pulled out into the weeds when you might not have the time or space to explain. He was trying to move on from it quickly, and avoiding that. 

I think it would have been better to have briefly taught and affirmed that we do believe XYZ. Leaders in PR or public settings try to avoid controversy or "weird" items (this bothered me about Mitt Romney, too. Better in the moment and in hindsight to have simply acknowledged certain things), and they create later problems having to explain their prevarication or caginess. 

I had a concerned missionary once ask me if we didn't teach the Snow couplet any more. I assured him that of course we do. But what about what President Hinckley said? It isn't true I told him. But, but, it was President Hinckley. What is in your heart, Elder? What do you know to be true? You know that it is a teaching of the Church. It's even in the Joseph Smith manual (that was year of that, and there was a chapter on the KFD). Then why did he say it? PR and interview considerations. 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

So which parts of the Snow couplet was he distancing from (I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we understand it. I'm aware of it, but don't think anyone knows much about it)?

I empathize with him. I've done radio interviews, and it isn't nearly as easy as people think. Especially since there are time constraints (you get a voice in your ear telling you 30 seconds to break), and it's really hard to explain complex things in a brief, sound-bite format. You want to avoid getting pulled out into the weeds when you might not have the time or space to explain. He was trying to move on from it quickly, and avoiding that. 

I think it would have been better to have briefly taught and affirmed that we do believe XYZ. Leaders in PR or public settings try to avoid controversy or "weird" items (this bothered me about Mitt Romney, too. Better in the moment and in hindsight to have simply acknowledged certain things), and they create later problems having to explain their prevarication or caginess. 

I had a concerned missionary once ask me if we didn't teach the Snow couplet any more. I assured him that of course we do. But what about what President Hinckley said? It isn't true I told him. But, but, it was President Hinckley. What is in your heart, Elder? What do you know to be true? You know that it is a teaching of the Church. It's even in the Joseph Smith manual (that was year of that, and there was a chapter on the KFD). Then why did he say it? PR and interview considerations. 

Let's just put the exact quotes up.  They'll be easier to discuss if we don't paraphrase or just provide one or two statements.  

• The interviewer asked "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"  
• To which Pres. Hinckley said, "I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it."

I personally think that Hinckley was distancing the church from the way many members had taught and interpreted the 'a man like we are' part of that question.  

Here's how Robert Bowman interprets what Hinckley was saying-"Hinckley says “I don’t know” six times in seven short sentences, obviously uncomfortable with the question. After stating, “I don’t know that we teach it,” Hinckley immediately stated, “I don’t know that we emphasize it”—a peculiar comment to make about a doctrine if they don’t teach it at all. Of course, one would think that the president and prophet of the LDS Church would know whether his religion teaches that God the Father was once a man like us. The only reasonable and fair way to understand Hinckley here is that his second statement was meant to clarify or qualify the first statement: it may be included in their teachings, but it isn’t something they “emphasize.” The rest of what he said is consistent with this interpretation. He claimed that it had not been discussed publicly for some time (more on this shortly). The one thing he admitted knowing was “the philosophical background behind” the doctrine. In saying that neither he nor others “know a lot about it,” Hinckley was simply saying that Mormonism doesn’t provide much in the way of details about God the Father’s life before he became a God. In saying that he didn’t “know a lot about it,” Hinckley was admitting implicitly that he did know something about it, as he had just admitted in saying that he understood the philosophy behind it."

It's too bad you couldn't find a way to affirm the church's teachings about the exaltation of man to the elder without calling into question Hinckley's honesty.  

Edited September 30, 2017 by bluebell

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

While I agree with much of what you’ve written, we need to admit that there has been efforts made by the institutional church to alter the narrative.  For example, the use of one specific version of the first vision (while a prophet hid Joseph’s account in a vault), repeatedly placing inspirational stories in manuals about women who were wives of our founding prophet without making mention of that fact, stripping the PH/RS manual on Brigham Young’s life and teachings of all references to plural marriage (when he spent his life preaching and practicing that principle of the gospel), Pres Hinckley’s attempts to distance the church from King Follet discourse theology... 

Would I like Bill Reel to be less negative?Yes.  But your response that there were no attempts to keep things from general membership is demonstrably false.  We need to approach this with balance on both sides. 

I made no claim that "there were no attempts to keep things from general membership."  I instead made the point that the efforts by rare individuals to secrete an item here or there is not evidence of a plot.  Moreover, such obscurantist efforts were notably unsuccessful in preventing serious historiography.  Worse, you make the false claim that such individual obscurantist efforts were "made by the institutional church."  Most General Authorities have been notably unfamiliar with early Mormon history, as ignorant of it as any general member.  The same was true of CES personnel.

In addition, you draw a hasty and negative conclusion about the late Pres Hinckley's public comments on the mysteries:  I saw his responses to such questions as an effort to hold close to the vest any such beliefs as expressed in the non-canonical source you mention (the King Follett Funeral Sermon) and not to allow mockery based on exposure of that heretical belief on national television.  In addition, he was no sophisticated theologian prepared to argue the finer points of Mormon theology.  There is a reason why missionaries never begin with the mysteries.  Do you know why?  Could "milk before meat" have something to do with it?

I am a strong proponent of full disclosure and discussion in venues such as this board, but think it unwise to delve into such controversial matters in sunday school -- unless someone asks a relevant question.  I feel the same way about politics at church, and tend to shut down that nonsense immediately.  It is difficult enough to get people to acknowledge the value of the first principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the other basic principles of our religion expressed in the Articles of Faith.

I see no good purpose to be served at church by getting people riled up about issues on which they are wholly ignorant.  On rare occasions, the bishopric might broach something controversial during a combined priesthood & relief society mtg on a 5th sunday -- perhaps from the Gospel Topics Essays -- but such needs to be well prepared and authoritatively presented.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Robert, do you agree that there is an official narrative of the church that it tells the world?  Certainly the official narrative can be found in the official publications (missionary publications, manuals about church history, etc.) of the church, right?  Does that narrative have problems?  Has that narrative told the entire story or only part of the story?

There have been missionary tracts which provided introductory lessons only, and they have been used without much change for over a century.  And "Preach My Gospel" is pretty basic as a missionary manual.

There has never been an official narrative of LDS history and doctrine.  I went over some examples of the types of sources available -- from Times & Seasons, B. H. Roberts, Arrington, Nibley, Bushman, and a recent profusion of other sources -- including most notably the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  The sunday school, priesthood & relief society, seminary and institute materials have varied over time, and Correlation tried to control that beginning in the 1970s.  At the outset, most of those writing the manuals and teaching regular church classes knew very little about LDS history & doctrine.  Now that there is a cadre of professional historians and a body of published research available, along with a commitment to use them, this problem has been in the throes of change.  One ought always cite the LDS Gospel Topics Essays (2013 --  ), online at https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng .

[strappinglad]

In my 60 + years in the Church, the first part of the couplet has rarely if ever been expounded upon from the pulpit. " I don't know " seems quite a responsible answer. The second part of the couplet is spoken of quite a bit. It is heresy to say that man may become as God according to many Christian sects. To say that God was once a man really messes with most Christians and yet they admit that God , in the form of Christ , did become a man for a while. Would it take more than a 30 second sound bite to explain the nuances ? Oh ya !

[Kenngo1969]

Strappinglad,

Good Sir, if you've logged "60+ years" in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you're something more than a wee lad!  (Though, come to think of it, you're yet a Young Lad in Eternal terms ... ) 

Sincerely,

Kenngo1969, who's not so young himself! 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There have been missionary tracts which provided introductory lessons only, and they have been used without much change for over a century.  And "Preach My Gospel" is pretty basic as a missionary manual.

There has never been an official narrative of LDS history and doctrine.  I went over some examples of the types of sources available -- from Times & Seasons, B. H. Roberts, Arrington, Nibley, Bushman, and a recent profusion of other sources -- including most notably the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  The sunday school, priesthood & relief society, seminary and institute materials have varied over time, and Correlation tried to control that beginning in the 1970s.  At the outset, most of those writing the manuals and teaching regular church classes knew very little about LDS history & doctrine.  Now that there is a cadre of professional historians and a body of published research available, along with a commitment to use them, this problem has been in the throes of change.  One ought always cite the LDS Gospel Topics Essays (2013 --  ), online at https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng .

Wasn't the seven volume comprehensive history of the church official history? Wouldn't you say as well that the 1838 cannonized first vision account is part of the official history? Wouldn't you say that a priesthood manual about the life of Brigham Young should be considered an official account about some of Brigham Young's experiences in the context of lessons?

Shouldn't one be able to trust these accounts (7 vol history, 1838 account and BY manual) as being accurate? They are from the church of course? Also, would you agree that there are problems with not telling the full and complete history of the 1838 first vision (many contradictkry accounts not discussed) or the BY manual (no mention of polygamy, a big part of BY's teachings)?

I think I know your response already but how does one square a "no fault of the church" for any narrative problems, if any with what Elder Snow said about problems with the church not giving access to documents, not telling the full story?

 https://mi.byu.edu/truth-in-church-history-excerpts-from-the-religious-educators-qa-with-elder-steven-snow/

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Wasn't the seven volume comprehensive history of the church official history? Wouldn't you say as well that the 1838 cannonized first vision account is part of the official history? Wouldn't you say that a priesthood manual about the life of Brigham Young should be considered an official account about some of Brigham Young's experiences in the context of lessons?

Shouldn't one be able to trust these accounts (7 vol history, 1838 account and BY manual) as being accurate? They are from the church of course? Also, would you agree that there are problems with not telling the full and complete history of the 1838 first vision (many contradictkry accounts not discussed) or the BY manual (no mention of polygamy, a big part of BY's teachings)?

Some people (Bob Crockett for example) think that anything published by the LDS Church is official, even if they vary widely over time, but they are really no better than the individuals who put them together -- and those individuals are not General Authorities.  You may be confusing two separate histories which carried the name of B. H. Roberts.  Roberts' Comprehensive History is his personal work, even though it was published by the Church.  That work by him includes details on such odds and ends as Joseph's seer stone.  Anyone not bothering to read it won't know that.  His other big historical work, which also discusses seer stones, was to edit the History of the Church, which is the official history begun in 1838, in which scribes spoke in the first person on behalf of Joseph Smith, saying many things which Joseph did not in fact say. I like the long series of lesson manuals which contain a summary of views of the presidents of the LDS Church.  They are published by the Church and are very helpful, but any of them might be organized to contain different materials and emphases.  All such sources take a particular point of view, and are not actually comprehensive.

33 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I think I know your response already but how does one square a "no fault of the church" for any narrative problems, if any with what Elder Snow said about problems with the church not giving access to documents, not telling the full story?

 https://mi.byu.edu/truth-in-church-history-excerpts-from-the-religious-educators-qa-with-elder-steven-snow/

Some people personify the LDS Church, just as they would personify and anthropomorphize any particular church, unaware of the fallacy which this entails.  I prefer to focus on individual actions, views, and written works on specific subjects.  Individual actions by non-GAs in preventing access to certain items in the LDS Archives is legendary in some quarters.  Hugh Nibley used to tell a story of being prevented from having access to his great grandfather's diary (Alexander Neibaur) -- which Hugh himself had contributed to the Archives!!  The idiotic behavior of certain yokels should not be characterized as normative for everyone or for the Church.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I made no claim that "there were no attempts to keep things from general membership."  I instead made the point that the efforts by rare individuals to secrete an item here or there is not evidence of a plot.  Moreover, such obscurantist efforts were notably unsuccessful in preventing serious historiography.  Worse, you make the false claim that such individual obscurantist efforts were "made by the institutional church."  Most General Authorities have been notably unfamiliar with early Mormon history, as ignorant of it as any general member.  The same was true of CES personnel.

In addition, you draw a hasty and negative conclusion about the late Pres Hinckley's public comments on the mysteries:  I saw his responses to such questions as an effort to hold close to the vest any such beliefs as expressed in the non-canonical source you mention (the King Follett Funeral Sermon) and not to allow mockery based on exposure of that heretical belief on national television.  In addition, he was no sophisticated theologian prepared to argue the finer points of Mormon theology.  There is a reason why missionaries never begin with the mysteries.  Do you know why?  Could "milk before meat" have something to do with it?

I am a strong proponent of full disclosure and discussion in venues such as this board, but think it unwise to delve into such controversial matters in sunday school -- unless someone asks a relevant question.  I feel the same way about politics at church, and tend to shut down that nonsense immediately.  It is difficult enough to get people to acknowledge the value of the first principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the other basic principles of our religion expressed in the Articles of Faith.

I see no good purpose to be served at church by getting people riled up about issues on which they are wholly ignorant.  On rare occasions, the bishopric might broach something controversial during a combined priesthood & relief society mtg on a 5th sunday -- perhaps from the Gospel Topics Essays -- but such needs to be well prepared and authoritatively presented.

Your response strikes me as a series of rationalizations for not telling the complete and accurate narrative.  I stand by my previous comments.

To address a couple of your specific points:  the institutional church publishes the manuals (referenced in the points I made) and it is the same institution which has, and has had, a substantial history department and university system at its disposal.  A prophet hiding Joseph Smith’s account of the first vision in a vault isn’t a lack of historical knowledge nor is the purposeful removal of plural marriage from the life and teachings of our second prophet. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some people (Bob Crockett for example) think that anything published by the LDS Church is official, even if they vary widely over time, but they are really no better than the individuals who put them together -- and those individuals are not General Authorities. ...

With due respect, Brother Smith, I'm not sure it was necessary for you to name names to illustrate your point here.  Brother Crockett posts here on occasion: I'm sure he is more than capable of speaking for himself, and does not need you to speak for him.

[Kenngo1969]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your response strikes me as a series of rationalizations for not telling the complete and accurate narrative.  I stand by my previous comments. ...

Largely, "completeness" and "accuracy" are in the eye of the beholder.  One can please some of the people, some of the time, and he can please most of the people, some of the time, some of the people, one cannot please any of the time.  I haven't read much of Peter Novick (any, really), and my only real exposure to him is second-hand, from people who've mentioned him (along with thumbnail sketches of his views) here and in other, similar fora.  He calls objectivity "a noble dream."  I think, perhaps, that "completeness" and "accuracy" also fall into that category.  Try as he might to avoid filtering, such filtering is endemic to the human condition.  Likewise, readers and listeners also employ their own filters.

[Danzo]

I'm still waiting for  complete and accurate US history to be taught in schools.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Danzo

[Danzo]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

. . .the purposeful removal of plural marriage from the life and teachings of our second prophet. 

If you  didn't know about Brigham's plural marriage because it wasn't in the manual then I'm afraid you will just have to get used to feeling  disappointed. If that was the best attempt the church had for trying to hide polygamy, then someone should be fired.

When I was on my mission in a foreign country polygamy was about the only thing anyone knew about the church.

 

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I'm still waiting for  complete and accurate US history to be taught in schools.

Move to Canada.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Move to Canada.

So that's where they hid the history books. 

[Mystery Meat]

Can someone tell me what is meant by the phrase "Dominant Narrative"? To me that phrase could mean any number of things. For me the dominant narrative would be:

The fullness of the Gospel was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith.

This would include the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the priesthood, its associated keys, the first vision (that God appeared to Joseph), the expansion and revelation of doctrine and the continuation of priesthood authority through prophetic succession. 

In my (above average) study of church history I have seen nothing that discredits the fundamental claims of these narrative highlights. I have seen a lot that adds details (peep stones, different accounts of the 1st vision, for example, but neither of those disprove the important truths), a bit of nuance, or that at most corrects tidbits on the periphery of the narrative.

Is Polygamy an essential part of the narrative of the restoration? I don't think so. I have studied it and find it interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to us in our day and time. I could see why it wasn't a focus for so long. What about Danites? Or Kinderhook? Or the Kirtland Safety Society? Or Thomas Marsh and the cream?

Are there gaps and inaccuracies in parts of how our history is taught and understood? Surely, and we should replace that with sound study and information where possible. Do any of those diminish or disprove the essential components of the Restoration:

1. That the gospel was restored through the prophet Joseph Smith

2. That the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God

3. That Priesthood Keys are held by the Lord's anointed in this, HIS Church

4. That the COJCOLDS is led by prophets, seers, and revelators in this day

5. That Christ is the head of this Church

I don't think so. If people want to strain at gnats, I pity them.