LDS Personal Faith Crisis- 2013 study

[HappyJackWagon]

Apparently the results of this study was shared with the brethren in 2013. I can't confirm that, it's only what I've heard. But I find it interesting and I can see evidence that leaders began speaking more directly about the issue of faith crisis after 2013. It appears some of the recommendations of the study have been accepted while I don't see any evidence that others have been accepted. For example...

Quote

Close the History Gap

Insight

The gap between the history currently taught and factual history is—in

certain instances—highly differentiated..

Strategy

Inoculate current membership and future generations by closing the gap

between our historical narrative and factual history.

Possible Tactics

· Have a member of the First Presidency deliver a major address to all CES

leadership and staff that makes clear the urgent obligation of CES to teach

Church history openly and honestly (within a faith-based context).

· In an expeditious manner, update CES and other Church manuals and curricula

to more accurately depict Church history. Collaborate with respected,

non-Church employed historians to add credibility.

· Openly publish official position papers on difficult historical / doctrinal

topics. If known answers are inconclusive, concede uncertainty and advance

multiple ‘viable’ answers, including those that may be uncomfortable

for the Church.

· Strategically identify difficult issues already being highlighted in the

Church’s Joseph Smith Papers.

· Place Church history back into the adult curriculum (Relief Society and

Priesthood) and provide members a framework for better understanding

complicated Church history.

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/documents/faith_crisis_study/Faith_Crisis_Report_R24B.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0DhupYuGH3LtvgsyRyGL4D32TxAkswTv7x4H1Jr-DNbBhIIc4ezzFXO4U

 

 

What are your thoughts?

[cinepro]

Wow. That's quite a study.  It looks like many of their ideas were adopted (not saying that they were the source of the idea, of course), except for the last one:

Quote

Place Church history back into the adult curriculum (Relief Society and Priesthood) and provide members a framework for better understanding complicated Church history.

Looks like we're heading in the other direction on that one.

[phaedrus ut]

I just read through the reports and found them quite honest.  The details probably won't be a surprise to anyone here. 

There are 3 different reports.  The Faith Crisis Report prepared for Dieter Uchtdorf in 2013, The Faith Crisis Chronicles which are stories collected for the 2013 survey, and the Presentation at BYU-H. I found this list from the report extremely comprehensive.   

Quote

 

The Traumatized Believer can be described in these terms:

Awareness of Difficult Church History

• Multiple, varying First Vision accounts
• Joseph’s use of folk magic and treasure digging
• Book of Mormon translation (stone / hat)
• Masonry and endowment connection
• Joseph’s credibility as a translator
• Joseph’s polygamy / polyandry
• Kinderhook Plates
• Denial of priesthood to blacks / racism
• Perceived modified role of women’s rights
• Mountain Meadows
• Blood atonement
• Lying for the Lord
• Adam / God teachings
• Priesthood restoration credibility issues
• Post-manifesto polygamy
• Lack of historical candor

Awareness of Challenging Scientific Issues

• Book of Mormon anachronisms (e.g., horses, steel, chariots, Book of Isaiah, King James errors, etc.)
• Native Americans having Asiatic DNA
• Book of Abraham text not matching the papyrus
• Age of the earth (6,000 years old? No death on earth before the Fall?)
• Implausible scriptural accounts (e.g., Noah’s Ark, Jonah in Whale, Tower of Babel, etc.)
• Dark skin as a curse
• Past statements on evolution

Re-examination of Theology and Doctrine

• Apparent God-sanctioned genocide, sexism, racism
• One true church with exclusive authority
• Taking all scripture literally

Re-examination of Cultural Issues

• Feminist awareness and sympathies
• Historical racial inequalities
• Past and present stance on homosexuality
• Political and social conservatism
• Culture of perfectionism

Confronting Spiritual Issues

• Having had a spiritual witness but not being able to reconcile it with new learnings
• Never receiving a spiritual witness (after many sincere attempts)
• Feeling bored, unfulfilled, or spiritually unedified in Church activity
• Feeling burnt-out / not good enough
• Feeling spiritually led elsewhere

Re-examination of Institutional Issues

• Culture of unquestioning obedience
• Culture of patriarchy
• Closed finances
• Questionable spending priorities (e.g., City Creek.)

Members who pass through the Traumatized Believer stage tend to never return to the True Believer stage.

Faith Crisis Stages | 44

 

 

Phaedrus 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Wow. That's quite a study.  It looks like many of their ideas were adopted (not saying that they were the source of the idea, of course), except for the last one:

Looks like we're heading in the other direction on that one.

Revelations in Context perhaps doing it for SS and personal study instead of RS and PH?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-releases-historical-background-doctrine-and-covenants

Edited October 30, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently the results of this study was shared with the brethren in 2013. I can't confirm that, it's only what I've heard. But I find it interesting and I can see evidence that leaders began speaking more directly about the issue of faith crisis after 2013. It appears some of the recommendations of the study have been accepted while I don't see any evidence that others have been accepted. For example...

What are your thoughts?

"Report prepared for Dieter Uchtdorf in 2013, presented to him by Marlin Jensen. The report includes a recap of their* 2011 research and was meant to inform him and other general authorities so they could better understand what is happening (and take appropriate measures to compassionately address it)."

*Greg Prince, Travis Stratford, John Dehlin, and numerous anonymous scholars and professionals who donated their talent; “This project was pro-bono work (conducted without pay and without being commissioned by Church leadership).” https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/2013-faith-crisis-study/

I think it is good form for the Church to receive unsolicited input graciously.

Edited October 30, 2018 by CV75

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently the results of this study was shared with the brethren in 2013. I can't confirm that, it's only what I've heard. But I find it interesting and I can see evidence that leaders began speaking more directly about the issue of faith crisis after 2013. It appears some of the recommendations of the study have been accepted while I don't see any evidence that others have been accepted. For example...

What are your thoughts?

IMO, with the amount of information available today, I think the church was finally forced to grasp with the fact that the correlated narrative they have been pushing for so long will no longer work.  I think the essays are a good start, but I don't think the essays really address a lot of the issues as they should, or even come close to trying to fully reconcile some of the church's "difficult" or dark history.  

IMO, until the church is willing to openly admit to mistakes, or that false doctrine was taught, and apologize for some of its dark history, no real progress can be made.  Isn't part of the repentance process an admission of guilt?  I personally would find it much more acceptable to have some admission that serious mistakes were made in the past, instead of having the church make excuses/justifications for church leaders and its difficult history.

  

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently the results of this study was shared with the brethren in 2013. I can't confirm that, it's only what I've heard. But I find it interesting and I can see evidence that leaders began speaking more directly about the issue of faith crisis after 2013. It appears some of the recommendations of the study have been accepted while I don't see any evidence that others have been accepted. For example...

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for sharing this, I'm going to read through the whole thing, just skimming through this is fascinating.  A couple quick thoughts.  

I agree with you, that it looks like the church has definitely taken some of the recommendations in this report and moved forward on trying to implement them, somewhat effectively from my perspective.  

But on a more negative note, I'm very saddened to learn just how aware the church is about faith crisis and the real impacts that it is having on the membership.  They seem to have a very sophisticated process of gathering and understanding with very good clarity, the trends that are happening in the church.  The sad part is how they are addressing these issues.  So they have the knowledge and they have recommendations on how to address things and they are failing to act in substantive ways. 

At the least this is negligence, but at the most this is intentionally contributing to the suffering of members that they must see as collateral damage.  Church leaders are failing to lead and this is just one more example of that.  

[HappyJackWagon]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing this, I'm going to read through the whole thing, just skimming through this is fascinating.  A couple quick thoughts.  

I agree with you, that it looks like the church has definitely taken some of the recommendations in this report and moved forward on trying to implement them, somewhat effectively from my perspective.  

But on a more negative note, I'm very saddened to learn just how aware the church is about faith crisis and the real impacts that it is having on the membership.  They seem to have a very sophisticated process of gathering and understanding with very good clarity, the trends that are happening in the church.  The sad part is how they are addressing these issues.  So they have the knowledge and they have recommendations on how to address things and they are failing to act in substantive ways. 

At the least this is negligence, but at the most this is intentionally contributing to the suffering of members that they must see as collateral damage.  Church leaders are failing to lead and this is just one more example of that.  

I think of some of the conference talks since the time they would have received this report and I find the approach to be troubling. Whether it's Anderson's talk where he implores us to "Give Joseph a break", or Ballard's "Ask God, not Google" or other pleas not to search for info online, or Cook's "the church has never been stronger", they seem to ignore the information in the survey as if they can continue to obfuscate or avoid addressing the hard issues or even acknowledge the issues.

But then there are talks like Ballard's address to CES leaders to know the essays like the back of your hand, or many talks about faith crisis general, etc that show a much more proactive and positive approach and acceptance that an actual problem exists.

Edited October 30, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[rpn]

I wish there was more for those faithful spouses trying to navigate their marriages with those who know longer believe what they do.   The Another Testament of Marriage private facebook site and Kristy Money's Mixed Faith Workbook are really the only resources I know, and I'm not sure I could comfortably refer to the facebook page given that others have reported leaving it because they were encouraged to dump their spouses (which would be weird considering their stated purpose, but when you can't see what is going on, referring is a risky business).  

There are still people saying that they've been encouraged by TBM family and faith leaders to leave spouse who leaves church.  I find that hard to believe, given the doctrine, and the explicit handbook direction NOT to encourage divorce and not to tell people whom to marry, but those are the reports.

[Calm]

With family, one never knows, but my experience is often one thing said by family is focused on where the criticism is actually about a collection of issues.  This may be because that one thing is a sore spot or because the individual wants a reason to focus on the idea but doesn't want to be the 'source'....or probably hundreds of other possibilities or even unique in every situation.

Leadership could be misinterpreted if someone asks "should I divorce my unbelieving spouse" and then hears "you need to get confirmation of your choices from God", they may add in their mind that the leader was approving the choice and just telling them the final step.

I think it is also highly probable that many are projecting on to others the thought of divorce as just considering it as an option, that it exists can feel for some a fundamental betrayal of the relationship.  They ask someone about the possibility of divorce, maybe tell them they are feeling guilty about thinking about it and hear "it is an option you have a right to consider, don't feel guilty about it" as approval of divorce.  At the time it feels like a relief as it is now okay to think about because someone else brought it up in their interpretation, but as times goes on it becomes more negative and there is greater separation with the idea and therefore greater certainty someone else pushed them to consider it.

Parents and family also may see deep pain being felt by their family member and get very protective and want to help remove their relative from the painful situation.  In those cases, it may seem to the relative it is the loss of belief that is causing pushing for divorce when it could be anything that caused pain that triggered the protective behaviour.

Emotional subjects tend to lead to confused ideas on what was actually said and even more likely why something was said, imo.  People don't often provide enough explanation on why they say something in general conversation, I think the rate probably goes up when one just wants the other to stop hurting, things can just get thrown out one after another in a search for the magic words that will give the sufferer relief or a sense of control over their pain.  And then gaps of why get filled in incorrectly and memory may even make that what was said when it wasn't.

----

The older I get and the more I watch others' conversations, the more I believe memory and communication is more inaccurate than accurate once it moves past very concrete situations.

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

With family, one never knows, but my experience is often one thing said by family is focused on where the criticism is actually about a collection of issues.  This may be because that one thing is a sore spot or because the individual wants a reason to focus on the idea but doesn't want to be the 'source'....or probably hundreds of other possibilities or even unique in every situation.

Leadership could be misinterpreted if someone asks "should I divorce my unbelieving spouse" and then hears "you need to get confirmation of your choices from God", they may add in their mind that the leader was approving the choice and just telling them the final step.

I think it is also highly probable that many are projecting on to others the thought of divorce as just considering it as an option, that it exists can feel for some a fundamental betrayal of the relationship.  They ask someone about the possibility of divorce, maybe tell them they are feeling guilty about thinking about it and hear "it is an option you have a right to consider, don't feel guilty about it" as approval of divorce.  At the time it feels like a relief as it is now okay to think about because someone else brought it up in their interpretation, but as times goes on it becomes more negative and there is greater separation with the idea and therefore greater certainty someone else pushed them to consider it.

Parents and family also may see deep pain being felt by their family member and get very protective and want to help remove their relative from the painful situation.  In those cases, it may seem to the relative it is the loss of belief that is causing pushing for divorce when it could be anything that caused pain that triggered the protective behaviour.

Emotional subjects tend to lead to confused ideas on what was actually said and even more likely why something was said, imo.  People don't often provide enough explanation on why they say something in general conversation, I think the rate probably goes up when one just wants the other to stop hurting, things can just get thrown out one after another in a search for the magic words that will give the sufferer relief or a sense of control over their pain.  And then gaps of why get filled in incorrectly and memory may even make that what was said when it wasn't.

----

The older I get and the more I watch others' conversations, the more I believe memory and communication is more inaccurate than accurate once it moves past very concrete situations.

The church already has a template to use in these situations.  Any spouse who leaves the church should be labeled as an apostate and the children in those marriages should not be allowed to be baptized until they reach the age of 18 and denounce the choice the parent who left the church.  This, of course, is to protect the children from the conflict of what is happening at home and what is happening at church.  

[Calm]

 

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

The church already has a template to use in these situations.  Any spouse who leaves the church should be labeled as an apostate and the children in those marriages should not be allowed to be baptized until they reach the age of 18 and denounce the choice the parent who left the church.  This, of course, is to protect the children from the conflict of what is happening at home and what is happening at church.  

Not buying it.  This is significantly different than cases where both parents children are living with are nonbelivers as in cases of polygamy and SS marriage.  Where one parent is a believer, children can receive instruction in the home from the believing spouse, both by teaching and being an example of what belief means in one's life.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Calm said:

 

Not buying it.  This is significantly different when both parents are nonbelivers as in cases of polygamy and SS marriage.

Really. If both parents are "apostate" in any iteration, why would it be different? Should children of any apostate parent be refused baptism until age 18 and they denounce the decision of their parents?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really. If both parents are "apostate" in any iteration, why would it be different? Should children of any apostate parent be refused baptism until age 18 and they denounce the decision of their parents?

My POV is yes, with exceptions as merited as occurs now.

I tend to be less anxious about baptism for youth unless the child is proactive in attending or has significant support at home without conflict.  I would be hesitant about baptizing a child with unmarried parents, for example, or parents who did not attend due to lack of interest.

Having a parent to share and discuss beliefs when younger is very important, imo.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really. If both parents are "apostate" in any iteration, why would it be different? Should children of any apostate parent be refused baptism until age 18 and they denounce the decision of their parents?

It seems like the obvious difference is that the child's parents don't have to get divorced in order to bring them into harmony with church teachings.  A child of apostate parents can wish and pray for their parents to once again accept church teachings and doctrine without having to wish and hope that their parents get divorced at the same time.  That's not true for children from SSM or polygamous families.

Likewise, it's unlikely that a child of apostate parents who wished to be baptized would agree with a parent's beliefs about the church, so there would be no need to denouce them.  The act of baptism and joining the church is itself a denouncement of 'leaving the church.'  That is also not true in regards to polygamy or SSM.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think of some of the conference talks since the time they would have received this report and I find the approach to be troubling. Whether it's Anderson's talk where he implores us to "Give Joseph a break", or Ballard's "Ask God, not Google" or other pleas not to search for info online, or Cook's "the church has never been stronger", they seem to ignore the information in the survey as if they can continue to obfuscate or avoid addressing the hard issues or even acknowledge the issues.

But then there are talks like Ballard's address to CES leaders to know the essays like the back of your hand, or many talks about faith crisis general, etc that show a much more proactive and positive approach and acceptance that an actual problem exists.

I agree.  All of those responses look like typical human responses to criticism.  The type of things we see in politics every day.  Maybe my problem is that I've had too high of expectations, and I should just lowered my expectations down.  Perhaps I shouldn't expect mature and thoughtful approaches to these pressing problems, I should expect immature, irrational, knee jerk emotional reactions instead.  

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Apparently the results of this study was shared with the brethren in 2013. I can't confirm that, it's only what I've heard. But I find it interesting and I can see evidence that leaders began speaking more directly about the issue of faith crisis after 2013. It appears some of the recommendations of the study have been accepted while I don't see any evidence that others have been accepted. For example...

What are your thoughts?

Thanks for posting this.  I'm finding it fascinating to read through and extremely accurate (from what my personal experience has been with family, friends and ward members who have had or are still going through a crisis of faith).

These were interesting to read through (and accurate, IMO):

Quote

 

SURVEY KEY FINDINGS

1. The significant majority of survey respondents represent long-term members who were (until recently) actively engaged and holding leadership and other callings.

2. Members in faith crisis tend to be married, more educated than average, and earn higher-than-average incomes.

3. A little less than half of these disbelievers remain active in the Church, while over half no longer attend.

4. The majority of those who left did so in the past seven years.

5. Among historical issues, the Book of Abraham and Polygamy/Polyandry are the most significant factors leading to loss-of-belief.

6. Although some factors rate higher than others, respondents indicate the exposure to several factors (historical + social issues) collectively led to their disbelief.

7. Spouses tend to be aware of the Faith Crisis issue. Church leaders and friends tend to be less aware.

8. Members in Faith Crisis who attend Church regularly tend to suffer the most mental and spiritual anguish as a result of their discovering these issues.

9. For many, Faith Crisis extracts an extremely high cost in spousal and familial relationships.

10. A strong sense of betrayal often accompanies a member's loss-of-faith.

 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

Not buying it.  This is significantly different than cases where both parents children are living with are nonbelivers as in cases of polygamy and SS marriage.  Where one parent is a believer, children can receive instruction in the home from the believing spouse, both by teaching and being an example of what belief means in one's life.

You don't think there is conflict over this issue in the home in these situations?  I didn't say it was exactly the same as other situations,  I am only saying how the church solves issues for children when there is conflict in the home about church beliefs.  

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

You don't think there is conflict over this issue in the home in these situations?  I didn't say it was exactly the same as other situations,  I am only saying how the church solves issues for children when there is conflict in the home about church beliefs.  

Yes, therefore is conflict, but it is not automatically between child (who wants to belong to a church that contradicts their parents' beliefs) and disbelieving parents, but primarily between a believing parent and disbelieving parent. The child may get involved in the conflict, but if parents are halfway decent hopefully they keep the kids out of it.

This case would be closer to where there is shared custody with one parent in a SSM and another parent who is a believer.  The child can be baptized in this case.  The child is not alone in their beliefs, they know at least one parent thinks their beliefs are truth.

Edited October 30, 2018 by Calm

[SouthernMo]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

They seem to have a very sophisticated process of gathering and understanding with very good clarity, the trends that are happening in the church.  The sad part is how they are addressing these issues.  So they have the knowledge and they have recommendations on how to address things and they are failing to act in substantive ways. 

This is understandable in the context that the leadership of the church needs to be in unison when changes are made. As long as there is one apostle who believes the right approach is to “stay the course” or “double down”, there will not be a change in policy - no matter how informed “the brethren” are about faith challenges.

[Oliblish]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The church already has a template to use in these situations.  Any spouse who leaves the church should be labeled as an apostate and the children in those marriages should not be allowed to be baptized until they reach the age of 18 and denounce the choice the parent who left the church.  This, of course, is to protect the children from the conflict of what is happening at home and what is happening at church.  

About 10 years ago my wife and I were teaching the 7 year old primary class.  We were told by a member of the bishopric to avoid talking too much about baptism in our class.  There was one child whose father was excommunicated for apostasy.  I heard that he claimed to receive a revelation and refused to renounce it.  (They didn't really go into any detail about this.) I am not sure about the status of his wife.

Because of this the 7 year old was not allowed to be baptized when she turned 8.  So in order to not have her feel to bad about this we were not to make a big deal about baptism in the class.

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, therefore is conflict, but it is not automatically between child (who wants to belong to a church that contradicts their parents' beliefs) and disbelieving parents, but primarily between a believing parent and disbelieving parent. The child may get involved in the conflict, but if parents are halfway decent hopefully they keep the kids out of it.

This case would be closer to where there is shared custody with one parent in a SSM and another parent who is a believer.  The child can be baptized in this case.  The child is not alone in their beliefs, they know at least one parent thinks their beliefs are truth.

I see your point.  But I guess I feel similar about a gay couple whose child wants to be baptized.  If the gay parents are halfway decent, hopefully, they keep their kids out of their beliefs about the church as well.  While my children are all past the age of 18, I NEVER bring up issues about the church that I am in disagreement with, including how the church treats those that are gay.  

I don't really care about the church's policy on gay couples.  I just see their reasoning flawed when they claim they are doing this for the children.  That stance just has too many holes in it such as the ones you brought up where the parents aren't married or where the parents are of a different religious belief.  To me, if the stance is preventing baptism to avoid conflict in the home, there are way more situations where baptism should be prohibited than just gay parents and polygamists.  

Personally, I think ALL of these situations should be handled on a case by case basis rather than a blanket rule.  Certainly, there will be some situations where one parent has left the church because they believe it not to be true any longer where this idea should be considered.  

Edited October 30, 2018 by california boy

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

This is understandable in the context that the leadership of the church needs to be in unison when changes are made. As long as there is one apostle who believes the right approach is to “stay the course” or “double down”, there will not be a change in policy - no matter how informed “the brethren” are about faith challenges.

I think you’re correct that the structure of the system prevents significant changes from happening most of the time.  However it puzzles me how the Nov 2015 policy was implemented considering this dynamic.  But I have heard some who say not all of the 15 were on board with that policy, and that it was pushed forward as a powerplay while certain apostles opposed to it were out of town.  Who knows for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that portrayal was correct.  

[Calm]

Quote

 If the gay parents are halfway decent, hopefully, they keep their kids out of their beliefs about the church as well.  

I just don't get why you think this is good parenting technique for custodial parents that have full control on establishing their child's home, educational, and religious environment.  I am going to put my effort into teaching my children the best knowledge I have, whether spiritually based or scientific or psychological or whatever.  Why would I be happy with them learning stuff I believed was wrong and not correct that info, especially if I thought believing it could lead to harmful personal relationships later in their lives?

It would be like allowing a child to eat contaminated food when I knew they needed a healthy variety of good quality food in order to avoid sickness.

I would be fighting to put my kid in the best school I could afford to give them a strong educational foundation.  Why would I do less for a spiritual foundation?

Edited October 31, 2018 by Calm

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting this.  I'm finding it fascinating to read through and extremely accurate (from what my personal experience has been with family, friends and ward members who have had or are still going through a crisis of faith).

These were interesting to read through (and accurate, IMO):

5. Among historical issues, the Book of Abraham and Polygamy/Polyandry are the most significant factors leading to loss-of-belief.

With the issues related to polygamy/polyandry many of the faithful believing scholars also express frustration with the problems.  

Richard Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling):  "Nothing confuses the picture of JS's character more than these plural marriages.  What lay behind this egregious transgression of conventional morality?  What drove him to a practice that put his life and his work in jeopardy, not to mention his relationship with Emma? "

Terryl Givens:  NPR interview responding to "A heavenly being visited the founder of the Mormon church commanding him to take multiple wives, - twice he refused, but on the angel's third visit that angel came wielding a  sword and so Joseph eventually relented."  Terryl givens - do you swallow it?  "I don't know as an historian we don't have real good confirmatory evidence.  Doctrinally or theologically I find some problems with it, it doesn't sound like a very meek, gentle and persuasive angel, it sounds like a different kind of influence that is being exercised there. it seems inconsistent with the kind of God, and the kind of influence that generally is exercised in any righteous context that the Lord approves of."  

Sam Brown (In Heaven as It Is on Earth, and husband of Kate Holbrook who appeared on Quentin Cook Nauvoo Face to face recently with Matt Grow)

Interview w/ Russell Stevenson:  "You also show how death culture might have influenced Joseph's views of polygamy.  Obviously this plays into the idea of collective salvation.  Can we really draw a serious connection between polygamy and Joseph Smith's fear of death?"   Sam Brown:  "Polygamy is a mess.  I don't mean to by feeling like I've got an account of where it comes from theologically - I don't mean to smooth over the fact that people's hearts broke, and even now, people's hearts break about polygamy."
 
Laura Hales (responding to new seminary/institute courses which utilize polygamy essay information):
"Students will not be taught God commanded Joseph to marry teenagers, which is good because there is no evidence that he was ever commanded to marry teen aged brides, even though he did."

Andrea Radke Moss (interview on radiowest 2014):  When speaking about her frustrations with the Nauvoo polygamy essay said  that we should seek a “middle ground in how we see this” and concede that at least in 30% of the marriages Joseph had “sexual motivations for him exploring this very radical institution/revelation” i.e. we’re dealing with a “complex Joseph”.

Jana Riess (NPR interview):  Jana Riess what did you think when you heard this  "I have problems with it and . . . it's very convenient, I believe a lot of things, but this was hard to swallow."  

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by blueglass