Mormon Discussion podcast and negativity

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

So that's where they hid the history books. 

It was fascinating learning about history from the other side of the border, what they chose to emphasis and ignore...

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 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.  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.

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.

So, you agree that individuals did not give the entire story at times in the manuals they wrote, the articles they wrote and the histories they wrote? But you don't believe the church itself, the organization that approves of these writings is at fault? Is it because you acknowledge that organizations aren't real? They are just legal constructs, controlled by humans and shouldn't be humanized themselves? I agree with this. The individual G.A.'s obviously, collectively control the church entity. So, it is obviously the various individuals in authority, like Joseph Fielding Smith (hid the 1832 account for years) who are responsible for the mistakes that were made in the past as Pres. Uchdorft acknowledged a few years ago. And collectively, these individuals caused the entity to not put forward the entire history.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Calm]

"give the entire story at times"

How could someone do that and not have a manual end up being thicker than the 7 volume History of the Church?

There is always going to be editing in manuals that are not meant solely for the reconstruction of history...even there, writers will likely choose to leave out stuff they think is irrelevant, yet is part of "the story".  The question is what level of editing is acceptable for the purpose.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour 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.

Your comments would be meaningful if it were true that there was some sort of plot by those actually knowledgeable of history.  Since that is not the case, your comments are empty and meaningless.  Would I prefer that the LDS Church had always emphasized professional historiography and professional archivists?  Of course, but the same sort of negative attitudes and stupidity which drove the Mountain Meadows Massacre and prevailed generally in early Utah, also drove the rampant anti-intellectualism which had dominated rural members for so long.  Only yokels think that there was only one POV during all those early years.  Those of us who bother to learn of it, know that Orson Pratt, B. H. Roberts, James Talmage, John Widtsoe, et al., certainly took a very different approach and did not suffer fools lightly.  Surely you are aware of the public debates among the Brethren on many sensitive issues.  I deal in real history, not the phony monolithic version of it which you apparently believe.

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I wish that the LDS Church had indeed had and appreciated what you refer to as "a substantial history department and university system at its disposal" (not true then nor now), but there were strong anti-intellectual forces at work within the Church (and within CES) which actively sought to prevent actual engagement with real historiography.  I see your own diatribe as reflective of a similarly strong contempt for professional historiography by focusing on single issues (Joseph Fielding Smith's vault) and lack of emphasis on polygamy in the life of Brigham.  Again, why would that take place?  You could answer your own question, if you were of a mind to.  The foibles of one man (and his son-in-law) do not an entire Church make, and that carefully ignores the hard public debates between him and B. H. Roberts. It appears to me that you want to erase some very relevant history in order to verify your apriori POV.  When someone writes a manual and leaves out polygamy, you assume that it is a monolithic church plot.  I tend to think that it is an individual writer trying to make a non-threatening summary of Brigham's views. You or I would certainly write a very different summary, and probably put some very controversial material into it just to show just how outspoken and dynamic Brigham was.  However, it isn't as though anyone wanting a fuller treatment cannot find one quite easily -- including all the polygamy one could ever want.  You are great at making accusations, rockpond, but perhaps not so good at understanding.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So, you agree that individuals did not give the entire story at times in the manuals they wrote, the articles they wrote and the histories they wrote? But you don't believe the church itself, the organization that approves of these writings is at fault? Is it because you acknowledge that organizations aren't real? They are just legal constructs, controlled by humans and shouldn't be humanized themselves? I agree with this. The individual G.A.'s obviously, collectively control the church entity. So, it is obviously the various individuals in authority, like Joseph Fielding Smith (hid the 1832 account for years) who are responsible for the mistakes that were made in the past as Pres. Uchdorft acknowledged a few years ago. And collectively, these individuals caused the entity to not put forward the entire history.

You persist in the pathetic fallacy -- personifying the LDS Church as a living, breathing entity, which takes on a life its own -- perhaps some sort of Frankenstein monster flailing about in destructive fashion -- "an organization that approves of these writings," according to you.

A not very united group of GAs did not write the materials in question, and I doubt that they exercised tight control over them -- aside from the fact that none of them is a professional historian.  Moreover, I do not see the GAs exercising much vertical control of the Church, partly because the Church is too vast, but mostly because the LDS structure is primarily horizontal.

We already have a full history of the LDS Church available in a wide array of books.  The lesson manuals provided by the Church cannot be expected to do that job, and it is absurd to demand that they do so.  We barely have time once a week to cover a thin veneer of history, much less controversial details.  However, we do have some people who insist that the best way to get guys to show up for Elders Quorum is to have the controversial stuff front and center.  

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You persist in the pathetic fallacy -- personifying the LDS Church as a living, breathing entity, which takes on a life its own -- perhaps some sort of Frankenstein monster flailing about in destructive fashion -- "an organization that approves of these writings," according to you.

A not very united group of GAs did not write the materials in question, and I doubt that they exercised tight control over them -- aside from the fact that none of them is a professional historian.  Moreover, I do not see the GAs exercising much vertical control of the Church, partly because the Church is too vast, but mostly because the LDS structure is primarily horizontal.

We already have a full history of the LDS Church available in a wide array of books.  The lesson manuals provided by the Church cannot be expected to do that job, and it is absurd to demand that they do so.  We barely have time once a week to cover a thin veneer of history, much less controversial details.  However, we do have some people who insist that the best way to get guys to show up for Elders Quorum is to have the controversial stuff front and center.  

I think there are controls in the church that could either curb or allow controversial subjects to be in the curriculum. After viewing the MormonLeaks videos of the twelve's and ga's meetings discussing matters of the church. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I think there are controls in the church that could either curb or allow controversial subjects to be in the curriculum. After viewing the MormonLeaks videos of the twelve's and ga's meetings discussing matters of the church. 

True, and I am heartened by the current emphasis on incorporating the LDS Gospel Topics Essays into curriculum materials.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You persist in the pathetic fallacy -- personifying the LDS Church as a living, breathing entity, which takes on a life its own -- perhaps some sort of Frankenstein monster flailing about in destructive fashion -- "an organization that approves of these writings," according to you.

A not very united group of GAs did not write the materials in question, and I doubt that they exercised tight control over them -- aside from the fact that none of them is a professional historian.  Moreover, I do not see the GAs exercising much vertical control of the Church, partly because the Church is too vast, but mostly because the LDS structure is primarily horizontal.

We already have a full history of the LDS Church available in a wide array of books.  The lesson manuals provided by the Church cannot be expected to do that job, and it is absurd to demand that they do so.  We barely have time once a week to cover a thin veneer of history, much less controversial details.  However, we do have some people who insist that the best way to get guys to show up for Elders Quorum is to have the controversial stuff front and center.  

Ok Robert, I won't press you any more for a confession. As you know I said I don't agree with the personification of entities. Corporations are not people and neither are churches despite what Romney said on the campaign trail.

What do you think of someone who wants to delve deeper into church history? Should they do so? It would protect them from the "i never knew about this or that" "excuse" some seem to condemn these members for. What do you think? Where did you learn of the controversial issues that the church finally admits to in the essays?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Ok Robert, I won't press you any more for a confession. As you know I said I don't agree with the personification of entities. Corporations are not people and neither are churches despite what Romney said on the campaign trail.

What do you think of someone who wants to delve deeper into church history? Should they do so? It would protect them from the "i never knew about this or that" "excuse" some seem to condemn these members for. What do you think? Where did you learn of the controversial issues that the church finally admits to in the essays?

I know you didn’t ask me, but I heard about most of them on message boards like this one.  Then I turned to lds.org, FAIR, and Jeff Lindsay to learn more. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Ok Robert, I won't press you any more for a confession. As you know I said I don't agree with the personification of entities. Corporations are not people and neither are churches despite what Romney said on the campaign trail.

What did Mitt say on the campaign trail?  By the way, I do not consider him Presidential timber.  And I have the same doubts about CES which Hugh Nibley had.  Moreover, my mother was a lifelong Democrat, just like B. H. Roberts and Hugh Nibley -- all of whom I regard as particularly staunch Mormons.

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What do you think of someone who wants to delve deeper into church history? Should they do so? It would protect them from the "i never knew about this or that" "excuse" some seem to condemn these members for. What do you think? Where did you learn of the controversial issues that the church finally admits to in the essays?

For some reason, even though I was born and raised in California, I always knew that early Mormons (including my own ancestors) were polygamists, and it didn't bother me at all.  The non-Mormons I met in life all knew that early Mormons had practiced plural marriage, and that we didn't smoke or drink.  No one seemed scandalized by those facts, just as I was not scandalized by a girl in sixth grade who did not stand for the pledge of allegiance (Seventh Day Adventist) -- no one made fun of her, and we all liked her.

As a young college student at BYU, I saw lots of stuff on seer stones and witch hazel rods, and other weird things, but it didn't seem any more odd than the boiling cauldron of the Three Weird Sisters in Macbeth.

I keep wondering what cleft in a rock some people came from not to know of such things, but I suppose anything is possible.  I encourage Mormons in particular, and people in general to read lots of history.  Historical perspectives pose no threat to us, or to others, Pete.

[Atheist Mormon]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We already have a full history of the LDS Church available in a wide array of books.  

Yes we do...from Apologists to historians.....hundreds of them; It is up to the individual, create his/her own reality.

[readstoomuch]

The thread has morphed a bit, but probably got into the meat of the matter.  MDP seems to be trying to make sure that members know that realistic history has not always been taught correctly by the institutional Church.  I think that well into the 50s people were more familiar with polygamy, one of the big sticking points.  Fawn Brodie published No Man Knows My History in 1945.  John Widstoe and BH Roberts published some books in the 1st half of the century that also discussed polygamy.  BH Roberts was criticized for how blunt he was in the 6 volume Documentary History of the Church (not to be confused with the 7 volume History of the Church).  In the late 70s and early 80s The Story of The Latter day Saints and The Mormon Experience were available.  I remember from Quaker to Latter day Saint that was quite candid about Edwin Wooley Kimball, his plural wives and his somewhat stubborn nature.  This was another book by Leonard Arrington.  I remember saying to myself that we needed to teach more of this in Church.  Something that about 20-30 year really started to happen.  It was in fits and spurts before then.  In 1983 I went to hear Leonard Arrington talk.  I asked if I could spend some time talking to him and he asked me to have lunch with him.  I kind of in a round about way said that I had been disappointed and confused to learn so much after my mission about Lds history .  It was quite a positive experience to talk to him, much like talking to Richard Bushman.  He said they were just barely getting the papers catalogued and professionalized to a point that serious research could go on.  Restrictions on the archives were unfortunate and not unusual for institutions such as Churches and Universities.  He also felt that there was a new openness and that we don`t have any thing to be ashamed of and there "was no document that he came across that had caused him to lose his faith in the Church."  I know he had run ins with the general authorities.  You might even say that I had more sympathy for the Arrington side than what I saw the institution do.  I have read Prince`s book and others about Leonard.  That day talking to him gave me a lasting impression that a person who had dug through all of the muck and details I think Bill is trying to make sure we know was a true believer.  I have had some similar conversations with Larry Porter who I know the best.  Larry was out there digging in the trenches in documents all throughout New York and Pennsylvania.  

One of the things that gets lost in talking about the foibles is how much positive the Church has to tell.  Leonard brought that up.  The richness of the material that is positive is so vast that it takes forever to go through.  The every day saints who weren't general authorities have left numerous diaries and sources.  The Restoration is an interesting and profound group of people.  There is negative side or more blunly , we are human.  The human side of the story needs to come out more often.  Our manuals need updating in a serious kind of way.  I would love the Milk Strippings story to be told differently.  I think it will happen.  More has happened in the last 10 years than I even expected.  In the end the real job of our Church is to prepare the earth for the return.  I pray that we can tell the amazing story of the Mormons.  I fear that we spend too much time in the nineteenth century, when the twentieth has brought about so much.  The foundational stories are important, but as new lands open up there are many new pioneers this very day whose voice also needs to be heard.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Yes we do...from Apologists to historians.....hundreds of them; It is up to the individual, create his/her own reality.

Perhaps, if that individual can digest those sources meaningfully and make some coherent sense of them.  Often what we find that individual creating tells us more about what that individual brought to the discussion than actual reality.  Apriorism is our common enemy.

[Atheist Mormon]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps, if that individual can digest those sources meaningfully and make some coherent sense of them.  Often what we find that individual creating tells us more about what that individual brought to the discussion than actual reality.  Apriorism is our common enemy.

Well, that sounds like how faith works.

[drums12]

On 9/29/2017 at 7:12 PM, DBMormon said:

My stake president told in as much.  They asked him to sit with me and to apprise the situation so no jesting.

I don't doubt that the highest councils of the Church are aware of you, and have even reached out to your stake president.  But I doubt the are actively debating "from the highest to the lowest."  There is a big difference.  You have a tendency for exaggeration and hyperbole

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Well, that sounds like how faith works.

Not if you approach it in the kind of experimental fashion recommended in Alma 32.  The real problem comes with those who have already decided the answers before they ask.  The honest in heart have made no such prior decision.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not if you approach it in the kind of experimental fashion recommended in Alma 32.  The real problem comes with those who have already decided the answers before they ask.  The honest in heart have mode no such prior decision.

Asking with "a sincere heart" and "real intent": Ah, there's the rub!

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

... For some reason, even though I was born and raised in California ...

Heretic!  

 

[DBMormon]

On 9/29/2017 at 7:58 PM, CV75 said:

@DBMormon, does your podcast program / organization have a mission statement; if so, please post it?

we don't.  faith transitions are fluid and the hence the podcast is as well.  This would be the closest thing we have to that
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/05/new-developments-mormon-discussion-podcast/

 

Mormon Discussion Podcast has been going strong since August 2012. It has always been the desire of Bill Reel as creator and founder of Mormon Discussion to accomplish the following things with the podcast.

 

A. Provide a safe space to talk about and validate the messy, paradoxical, and even contradictory nature of Mormon Doctrine and History.

 

B. Provide a safe space to have conversations surrounding and even safe space to give voice to validating the unhealthiness of our faith community. A space where we could grieve, mourn, and lean on each other so no single one of us needed to be alone in these transitions.

 

C. Provide constructive criticism and better framings so that we could all improve that unhealthiness, reconcile the contradictions, and move into an healthy grasp of the paradoxes.

 

But most importantly, we have always wanted to

 

D. provide a space that one could come to grips with the messiness of Mormonism and still maintain a life of faith that remained connected to Mormonism if not wholly faithful within it.

 

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, drums12 said:

I don't doubt that the highest councils of the Church are aware of you, and have even reached out to your stake president.  But I doubt the are actively debating "from the highest to the lowest."  There is a big difference.  You have a tendency for exaggeration and hyperbole

no exaggeration or hyperbole.  There is a conversation occurring right now (I don't mean this very second in time but rather there is conversation occurring generally over the last year)   about what folks like me or me specifically can state, what I have said, and whether such folks can be safe inside the Church or whether such voices are apostate and whether my voice itself is apostate and a severing must occur.   Time will tell.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, drums12 said:

 You have a tendency for exaggeration and hyperbole

so does the Church.  It seems to be human.  Since I have a tendency for this, I am sure you can list 5 things I exaggerated? 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

so does the Church.  It seems to be human.  Since I have a tendency for this, I am sure you can list 5 things I exaggerated? 

Here is a sampling of your own words from this thread:

Quote

the messy, paradoxical, and even contradictory nature of Mormon Doctrine and History.
the unhealthiness of our faith community.
unhealthiness, contradictions, and paradoxes.
messiness of Mormonism
the Church provides no safe space to work out the learning the dominant narrative isn't true
the need to protect the flawed story
they recognize that much of what I actually say on Facebook and my podcast is data driven.  In other words while it makes them uncomfortable and it pokes holes in false but deeply held parts of our narrative that they recognize I am often sharing a data point and asking a hard questions and there is truth in what I am saying.
It is hard to one degree or another for them to place trust in something that chooses intentionally to not honor their questions or concerns and only wants them to see its most sanitized version of itself.
I criticize an institution for saying it honors questions while side stepping them at every turn.
As Patrick Mason said the truth cart was overloaded and much of it is rotten and falling out.  there is still some good fruit down there but it does need rinsed off.

No only is much of this hyperbole, but some of it is actually false -- as has been pointed out to you.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

we don't.  faith transitions are fluid and the hence the podcast is as well.  This would be the closest thing we have to that
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/05/new-developments-mormon-discussion-podcast/

 

Mormon Discussion Podcast has been going strong since August 2012. It has always been the desire of Bill Reel as creator and founder of Mormon Discussion to accomplish the following things with the podcast.

 

A. Provide a safe space to talk about and validate the messy, paradoxical, and even contradictory nature of Mormon Doctrine and History.

 

B. Provide a safe space to have conversations surrounding and even safe space to give voice to validating the unhealthiness of our faith community. A space where we could grieve, mourn, and lean on each other so no single one of us needed to be alone in these transitions.

 

C. Provide constructive criticism and better framings so that we could all improve that unhealthiness, reconcile the contradictions, and move into an healthy grasp of the paradoxes.

 

But most importantly, we have always wanted to

 

D. provide a space that one could come to grips with the messiness of Mormonism and still maintain a life of faith that remained connected to Mormonism if not wholly faithful within it.

 

Why would you want to validate unhealthiness?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Here is a sampling of your own words from this thread:

No only is much of this hyperbole, but some of it is actually false -- as has been pointed out to you.

Wow, all of that from a single thread?

This is why I don't pay much attention to what Bill produces anymore.

 

[churchistrue]

My take on this thread:

1. I think Bill has been adequately faithful to the Bushman and Mason quotes, and when you some of you have argued against that, I feel like the argument against that is essentially a splitting hairs/semantics type thing. 

2. I consider Bill a dear friend, even though we don't know each other that well IRL, and I deeply support his mission, which is to support and minister to those in pain over various LDS issues such as loss of faith, trust issues, marginalization, LGBT+ issues, gender equality, etc. But, there are times I wish Bill could do it in a more gentle way or be a little less negative. But, he has to be true to what he thinks his right. 

3. I don't appreciate at all some here that have questioned his intelligence or motives or whatever. He's not an academic but he's obviously a smart guy and well researched. And he's consistent and honest.

 

I hope he's not disciplined by the Church. I think he's modeling a middle ground that is extremely important not just to those in pain and marginalized right now, but for the viability and sustainability of Mormonism in general in the future. That said, I'd like to see him be a little bit more positive. Sorry, Bill.