Elder Cook #LDSDevo 9-Sept from Nauvoo

[rockpond]

Starting a thread for thoughts and discussion on Elder Cook's devotional with Sister Kate Holbrook and Brother Matt Grow.  Link.

I liked that they did not shy away from the tough questions.  Also, the two PhD historians "Kate" and "Matt" were impressive.  Sister Holbrook's testimony of the Book of Mormon (toward the end) really stood out to me as a highlight.

I wish that Elder Cook had fielded more of the tough questions himself, I would have enjoyed hearing his take on them.  And I wish there had been some more direct answers to those questions... but I know those direct answers are troublesome and may not be the best for a worldwide broadcast.

[Duncan]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Starting a thread for thoughts and discussion on Elder Cook's devotional with Sister Kate Holbrook and Brother Matt Grow.  Link.

I liked that they did not shy away from the tough questions.  Also, the two PhD historians "Kate" and "Matt" were impressive.  Sister Holbrook's testimony of the Book of Mormon (toward the end) really stood out to me as a highlight.

I wish that Elder Cook had fielded more of the tough questions himself, I would have enjoyed hearing his take on them.  And I wish there had been some more direct answers to those questions... but I know those direct answers are troublesome and may not be the best for a worldwide broadcast.

I think some answers are too long and complicated. Like, can you imagine trying to publicly answer the question why did WW1 start?  I like Elder Cook but i'd put more stock in what the Historians had to say about historical matters than him, now if they asked him legal questions or what was it like to live in San Francisco as a member of the Church

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

I think some answers are too long and complicated. Like, can you imagine trying to publicly answer the question why did WW1 start?  I like Elder Cook but i'd put more stock in what the Historians had to say about historical matters than him, now if they asked him legal questions or what was it like to live in San Francisco as a member of the Church

Have you listened/watched yet?  They weren't strictly historical questions.  They were faith-based.  I would have appreciated an apostles answer in addition to the historians.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Have you listened/watched yet?  They weren't strictly historical questions.  They were faith-based.  I would have appreciated an apostles answer in addition to the historians.

parts of it

[bluebell]

Since it was for the YSA, I haven't watched it and probably won't (because my list of things to watch and read is already really long) but it sounds like it was really interesting!

[cinepro]

Here's the link for those who are interested.

https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/face-to-face/cook?lang=eng

 

[PacMan]

I was quite impressed with the broadcast.  And, on the whole, I was very impressed with the answers.  There was one towards the end where the answer seemed to fade away from the question as asked, but it was still very impressive.

I particularly liked that they didn't try to softball the church's history.  They got right to the point that Joseph had multiple wives and spoke frankly and honestly as possible in the time available.

[rockpond]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Since it was for the YSA, I haven't watched it and probably won't (because my list of things to watch and read is already really long) but it sounds like it was really interesting!

Totally understand. 

I’m not a YSA either but I was so curious about what questions would be asked and how Elder Cook would answer that I downloaded it last night and listened on my commute this morning. 

 

 

[rockpond]

46 minutes ago, PacMan said:

I was quite impressed with the broadcast.  And, on the whole, I was very impressed with the answers.  There was one towards the end where the answer seemed to fade away from the question as asked, but it was still very impressive.

I particularly liked that they didn't try to softball the church's history.  They got right to the point that Joseph had multiple wives and spoke frankly and honestly as possible in the time available.

Yep, they definitely took on the questions that exposed many of the tough issues.   That’s commendable and, IMO, is meeting the charge that Elder Ballard gave back in 2016 to inoculate the youth. 

While they talked about those challenging issues, I felt like most of the answers drifted away from addressing the actual question.  And it seemed that Elder Cook didn’t really speak to any of them directly.  But, I’ll either need a transcript or a second listen to validate my first impressions. 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Starting a thread for thoughts and discussion on Elder Cook's devotional with Sister Kate Holbrook and Brother Matt Grow.  Link.

I liked that they did not shy away from the tough questions.  Also, the two PhD historians "Kate" and "Matt" were impressive.  Sister Holbrook's testimony of the Book of Mormon (toward the end) really stood out to me as a highlight.

I wish that Elder Cook had fielded more of the tough questions himself, I would have enjoyed hearing his take on them.  And I wish there had been some more direct answers to those questions... but I know those direct answers are troublesome and may not be the best for a worldwide broadcast.

The Dnews posted a summary article on the devotional, it sounds interesting and I’ll try listening to it in full.  

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/history-revisited/2018-09-10/what-elder-cook-and-historians-said-about-polygamy-seer-stones-and-church-transparency-during-nauvoo-face-to-face-47951

You said Holbrook’s testimony of the BoM was impressive, and they quoted part of it in the linked article.  It sounded very nuanced even allowing for a non historical approach, here was the relevant quote.  “What matters to me is the content of the Book of Mormon,” she said, adding “the Book of Mormon has shaped who I am and how I see the world.”

Did you come away with the same impression?

One other quote I liked from Grow was “Be careful about sources of information that just seek to tear people down. Look instead for sources of information that are based on the records left by the people themselves and that seek to be fair to them.”

I think that’s excellent advice, and honestly applies quite well to the information put out by the church as well, which I’ve found to be frequently biased in unfair ways.  

[USU78]

Whip it good.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Starting a thread for thoughts and discussion on Elder Cook's devotional with Sister Kate Holbrook and Brother Matt Grow.  Link.

I liked that they did not shy away from the tough questions.  Also, the two PhD historians "Kate" and "Matt" were impressive.  Sister Holbrook's testimony of the Book of Mormon (toward the end) really stood out to me as a highlight.

I wish that Elder Cook had fielded more of the tough questions himself, I would have enjoyed hearing his take on them.  And I wish there had been some more direct answers to those questions... but I know those direct answers are troublesome and may not be the best for a worldwide broadcast.

I am well acquainted with both Kate Holbrook and Matt Grow. They were news sources of mine. I think very highly of both of them.

Matt attended my retirement reception and on behalf of the Church History Department gave me a leather-bound copy of the latest Joseph Smith Papers letterpress volume.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

I like to see leaders of our faith in the room to field tough questions. More and more members are asking for it.

But, I’ve come to accept that these men were called largely because of their administrative skill, not historical knowledge. I give them all a pass for not directly answering.

But again, the fact that Elder Cook is in the room pleasantly reminds members that ‘the brethtren’ aren’t ignorant of the challenges of the current LDS historical narrative.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You said Holbrook’s testimony of the BoM was impressive, and they quoted part of it in the linked article.  It sounded very nuanced even allowing for a non historical approach, here was the relevant quote.  “What matters to me is the content of the Book of Mormon,” she said, adding “the Book of Mormon has shaped who I am and how I see the world.”

Did you come away with the same impression?

Yes.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

One other quote I liked from Grow was “Be careful about sources of information that just seek to tear people down. Look instead for sources of information that are based on the records left by the people themselves and that seek to be fair to them.”

I think that’s excellent advice, and honestly applies quite well to the information put out by the church as well, which I’ve found to be frequently biased in unfair ways.  

Agreed.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I like to see leaders of our faith in the room to field tough questions. More and more members are asking for it.

But, I’ve come to accept that these men were called largely because of their administrative skill, not historical knowledge. I give them all a pass for not directly answering.

But again, the fact that Elder Cook is in the room pleasantly reminds members that ‘the brethtren’ aren’t ignorant of the challenges of the current LDS historical narrative.

The questions asked may have had history as their topic, but the questions were faith-based.  While I think that our current Brethren are less ignorant than their predecessors, I still haven't seen anything suggesting that they are fully aware of the challenges.  And their unwillingness to address the questions head-on, doesn't fill me with confidence.

But I don't want to come across as too negative.  This broadcast was a HUGE leap forward.  And Kate Holbrook should be called as the next Church Historian.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I am well acquainted with both Kate Holbrook and Matt Grow. They were news sources of mine. I think very highly of both of them.

Matt attended my retirement reception and on behalf of the Church History Department gave me a leather-bound copy of the latest Joseph Smith Papers letterpress volume.

Sister Holbrook commented, at one point, that her church calling is currently that of Gospel Doctrine teacher.  How I would have loved to have been in her ward during the D&C year of Sunday School!

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

Starting a thread for thoughts and discussion on Elder Cook's devotional with Sister Kate Holbrook and Brother Matt Grow.  Link.

I liked that they did not shy away from the tough questions.  Also, the two PhD historians "Kate" and "Matt" were impressive.  Sister Holbrook's testimony of the Book of Mormon (toward the end) really stood out to me as a highlight.

I wish that Elder Cook had fielded more of the tough questions himself, I would have enjoyed hearing his take on them.  And I wish there had been some more direct answers to those questions... but I know those direct answers are troublesome and may not be the best for a worldwide broadcast.

Ok, a couple more thoughts from the quoted portions of the broadcast in the Dnews article I linked to earlier that I wanted to comment on.  

Quote

“The message to me of this openness is that the history of the Church can withstand scrutiny,” said Grow. “We don’t need to be afraid of it. It is inspiring. Sometimes we will have questions. But there are good answers.”

This part is from Grow in the section on the church and transparency.  I think its important to help people not be afraid of church history.  This message is really for the believers that fear actually learning about history, and in that sense its a good message.  Don't be afraid, there are good answers.  But what this message doesn't say is that some of those good answers don't jive with the correlated narrative at all.  The "good answers" explain how complex and messy the story of the Mormon movement truly is.  It takes the bloom off the rose.  

Quote

Elder Cook said there has always been a balance to teaching things that are essential, things that will lead to exaltation, and answering questions that are of concern to some in the Church.

Does this mean that the church's justification for not more fully engaging in historical transparency is that they are doing it for the good of the members?  Is this a sort of benevolent protecting of people from information, for their own good?  You can't handle the truth!  

Quote

Elder Cook said there are many areas of knowledge where the Internet is helpful. But in some areas — including politics and religion — there is “misinformation” and an “effort to distort things.”

He encouraged the congregation to seek credible sources, including “Saints.”

“It reads like a novel, but don’t be fooled by that,” said Elder Cook. “Everything in it is backed up by facts. If it says it was raining, it was raining. If it says that Parley Pratt was angry with the Prophet Joseph, he was.”

The book includes 71 pages of endnotes that will take the reader to other sources, said Elder Cook. “This is a book that you can use to answer questions. But if you read it, you are going to find that it builds your faith and helps you understand our ancestors and what they accomplished."

My observation about what the brethren know about history is that they haven't truly explored history, that they ultimately are still black and white thinkers, and that they use the church historians as cover for their lack of engagement with historical issues.  These statements are confirming my observation.  Elder Cook wants you to know that you can really trust those endnotes, they are slam dunk historical facts.  No room for interpretation at all.  Unfortunately his views about what constitutes a fact shows how ignorant he is about how history is written.  And he wants you to be ignorant as well, because he is essentially laying out the strategy for coping with the controversies of church history in this short segment.  

Cue the music:  

Because you know I'm about those facts bout those facts, no bias, I'm all about those facts bout those facts, no bias.  I'm all about those facts bout those facts, no bias, I'm all about those facts bout those facts...

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, a couple more thoughts from the quoted portions of the broadcast in the Dnews article I linked to earlier that I wanted to comment on.  

This part is from Grow in the section on the church and transparency.  I think its important to help people not be afraid of church history.  This message is really for the believers that fear actually learning about history, and in that sense its a good message.  Don't be afraid, there are good answers.  But what this message doesn't say is that some of those good answers don't jive with the correlated narrative at all.  The "good answers" explain how complex and messy the story of the Mormon movement truly is.  It takes the bloom off the rose.  

Yes, it did feel to me like the broadcast was more aimed at inoculating believers than delving into the problems that challenge the dominate narrative.  Which also seems to be an aim of "Saints".

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

My observation about what the brethren know about history is that they haven't truly explored history, that they ultimately are still black and white thinkers, and that they use the church historians as cover for their lack of engagement with historical issues.  These statements are confirming my observation.  Elder Cook wants you to know that you can really trust those endnotes, they are slam dunk historical facts.  No room for interpretation at all.  Unfortunately his views about what constitutes a fact shows how ignorant he is about how history is written.  And he wants you to be ignorant as well, because he is essentially laying out the strategy for coping with the controversies of church history in this short segment.  

I agree.

[rpn]

I thought the broadcast was intended to persuade young adults to read "Saints" including subsequent volumes.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, rpn said:

I thought the broadcast was intended to persuade young adults to read "Saints" including subsequent volumes.

What I found interesting was the comment about how much it was vetted.

There was all this talk about the facts, and then there was the subtle comment about the approval process.

Very revealing.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What I found interesting was the comment about how much it was vetted.

There was all this talk about the facts, and then there was the subtle comment about the approval process.

Very revealing.

I thought that was an intriguing comment:  I wonder who all had to approve it?  Did the approvals go beyond the list of people identified as "Contributors"?  I recall my old CES supervisor telling me that anything published with the name of the church on it had to be approved by the First Presidency.  But my memory is a little fuzzy on that comment of his.

[cinepro]

The Deseret News reports that Matt Grow (the historian in the broadcast) said this:

Quote

“The history of the church can withstand scrutiny,” he added. “We don’t need to be afraid of it. It is inspiring. Sometimes we will have questions. But there are good answers.”

 

I'm sorry, but that is the worst message to convey.  And it isn't true.

The Church has been afraid of its history almost since the day it was founded.  And there are countless questions about Church history that just don't have "good answers." 

The only reason the Church is talking about this stuff is because it has to.  If there was any way to avoid it and continue down the primrose path of the pre-internet days, they would take that option in a heartbeat.  I can understand the desire to put on your game-face and try and be positive, but if you're talking to the youth and young adults who are going to scrutinize the history and have lots of questions that don't have "good answers", then that's the worst thing you could say.

Edited September 11, 2018 by cinepro

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The Deseret News reports that Matt Grow (the historian in the broadcast) said this:

 

I'm sorry, but that is the worst message to convey.  And it isn't true.

The Church has been afraid of its history almost since the day it was founded.  And there are countless questions about Church history that just don't have "good answers." 

The only reason the Church is talking about this stuff is because it has to.  If there was any way to avoid it and continue down the primrose path of the pre-internet days, they would take that option in a heartbeat.  I can understand the desire to put on your game-face and try and be positive, but if you're talking to the youth and young adults who are going to scrutinize the history and have lots of questions that don't have "good answers", then that's the worst thing you could say.

I see two possibilities here:

1)  Either the general authorities of the church believe Grow's statement to be true (meaning that, as a body, they are naive about the lack of good answers), or...

2)  They understand that the lack of good answers means that there is no way they will keep those who do scrutinize church history (though they may continue to hold callings and attend church as non-believers).  So, they instead are concentrating on inoculating those who have not yet scrutinized the history.  This broadcast had a lot of that:  just read Saints - it's full of historical facts, don't look at the internet - it's full of misinformation and distortion, and Elder Cook reiterating the transparency of the church.  They need those who have not dug too deep to be satisfied that by reading Saints and the LDS.org essays they've been exposed to all there is.

 

[cinepro]

For fans of Arrested Development, here is how that quote plays out in my head:

 

Grow: “The history of the church can withstand scrutiny,”

Narrator: *It couldn't*

Grow: "We don’t need to be afraid of it. It is inspiring."

Narrator: *It wasn't*

Grow: "Sometimes we will have questions. But there are good answers.”

Narrator: *There weren't*

 

And the Church after publishing the essays.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm sorry, but that is the worst message to convey.  And it isn't true [that there are good answers].

Mileage varies on this. There are "good answers" for many, so it is not untrue or disingenuous to state that there are good answers. It may turn out that for many questioners, answers are unsatisfactory, but this doesn't mean that there are none at all. 

And I say that as one who has experience meeting with and talking to people CES letter concerns, for whom my responses and explanations weren't a silver bullet panacea, but also for whom our meeting helped. I think that from the top down, if more people were able to intelligently and frankly just talk about these issues, it would work wonders. 

 And there are countless questions about Church history that just don't have "good answers."

Again, this is in the eye of the beholder. Even where the answers are perceived to be lacking, demonstrating that one is indeed conversant with the issues and able to give as good of an explanation as possible does a world of good, even if unable to fully answer in a satisfactory manner. 

I can understand the desire to put on your game-face and try and be positive, but if you're talking to the youth and young adults who are going to scrutinize the history and have lots of questions that don't have "good answers", then that's the worst thing you could say.

I'm interested in what you think we should say instead. "Let me be frank. There are no good answers, repeat, no good answers." How is that better than "the worst thing you could say?" I'm not seeing it. Talk about inciting panic in people who are not "gone" yet!