President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We don't have the full transcript of his address, here's what we've got from the Church News:

 

He acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

 

This is the redirect.  I felt like Elder Corbridge was giving the same message.  Oaks:  Church history and doctrinal issues can lead to inactivity and damage faith.  Rather than research them, work to strengthen your faith.  Corbridge:  Reading that material can give you a sense of gloom and a feeling of darkness.  Focus on the primary questions and the secondary ones may get answered too or they will pale in significance, whether or not you understand them.

At least that is how I am hearing those messages.  I agree that others may have a different interpretation.

That's how I am hearing the message as well but I don't see it as a redirect at all, because, from my perspective, it's the truth.  When faith in Christ is threatened, I believe that the best answer is to work to increase that faith.  That doesn't mean that there aren't other things (good and better things) that can't be done too, only that those other things aren't the best thing.

Good, better, best, and all that.  

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's how I am hearing the message as well but I don't see it as a redirect at all, because, from my perspective, it's the truth.  When faith in Christ is threatened, I believe that the best answer is to work to increase that faith.

But one can increase their faith in Christ and still lose faith in the leaders of the church (past and present).  The two are not synonymous (faith in Christ and faith in Joseph Smith, etc.....). 

If someone leaves the church over these issues, that does not mean they have lost their faith in Christ.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think so.  Saying that something is new to someone doesn't mean that the information was hidden before they found out about it.   For example, it's new to some people that there are multiple versions of the First Vision even though the church has been publishing articles about the different versions of the First Vision for decades in the Ensign.

You picked one example. I'll pick another.

Has the Church been publishing articles about Joseph's polyandry for decades in the Ensign?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Today the vast majority of full time missionaries I speak to have never heard of such a thing.  When a new set arrives I copy the 1832 and hand it to them as a welcoming gift.

You're talking about 18 year old kids who probably barely paid attention in seminary. Going by what the missionaries you've encounter say seems an unreliable indication of the availability of the knowledge  (And I bet you've not actually queried a large number of them) By the same token I bet if you were to ask them basic civics questions they'd get them wrong too despite the information being readily available. (Like say who the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader are)

As others note though, it's pretty quickly available on lds.org and has also been a linked to resource in most manuals. If you type "first vision" into lds.org you get a brief summary of what it was and then the first prominent button at the bottom is "First Vision Accounts." For the 1999 D&C manual lesson the Preparation section includes several links dealing with the multiple accounts including a page that summarizes them and includes links to each account. If you do a search on lds.org you'll quickly find that most of the resources discuss it. 

Now if you're talking the period before the internet was ubiquitous and lds.org in place, I'll grant you that most people likely had never encountered it. But as sad as I am to say it (since it seems like yesterday when I was complaining about AOL users getting on the internet) that's 25 years ago. There's been a lot of time for members as part of their personal study to do basic reading on lds.org. 

 

[MustardSeed]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You're talking about 18 year old kids who probably barely paid attention in seminary. 

Lol.  Edited because I didn’t read the title.  Welp, that enough internet today mustard. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Thinking said:

You picked one example. I'll pick another.

Has the Church been publishing articles about Joseph's polyandry for decades in the Ensign?

You missed my point.  My only point was that just because something is new to someone it does not automatically mean that the information was hidden.

[CA Steve]

52 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You're talking about 18 year old kids who probably barely paid attention in seminary. Going by what the missionaries you've encounter say seems an unreliable indication of the availability of the knowledge  (And I bet you've not actually queried a large number of them) By the same token I bet if you were to ask them basic civics questions they'd get them wrong too despite the information being readily available. (Like say who the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader are)

Over the past few decades my wife and I have fed the missionaries on average a few times a year. I realize these are young kids barely out of high school so the conversation pretty much sticks to who they are, how long they have been in the field and other personal information. But I have to agree with blueglass that in my own admittedly limited interaction with missionaries, they are pretty much uninformed of things like multiple first vision accounts, number of wives Joseph married, that the church is in possession of some of the Egyptian artifacts, documentary hypothesis and so on. And, given their age, this is to be expected. Again, I am not grilling them on what they know, so it's a pretty limited response pool.

 

Here's the problem. These are the people we are sending out to teach other people about Mormonism.

Edited February 6, 2019 by CA Steve

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's how I am hearing the message as well but I don't see it as a redirect at all, because, from my perspective, it's the truth.  When faith in Christ is threatened, I believe that the best answer is to work to increase that faith.  That doesn't mean that there aren't other things (good and better things) that can't be done too, only that those other things aren't the best thing.

Good, better, best, and all that.  

Not to derail, but bluebell if you came to determine the church isn't true, would that mean Jesus Christ isn't as well? I'm thinking that's why you and others hold so tightly that the church is true, and if so, I can sure understand the reasons for defending the church like you have. And just ignore, if I've crossed a line in asking this. I've gotten personal questions asked of me on this thread, so I understand if you ignore it.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Out of curiosity, how would someone who was born in say...1975 have accessed this article from 1970? How would this person have even known the article or the topic existed?

Another article was written in the Ensign around 1985. How would this (now 10 year old) person access this information and why would they expect that there would be anything different in an article than what they are taught every week at church?

Another article was written in the mid-late 90's...let's just say it's 1995. This (now 20 year old) person may very well be serving their mission, teaching about the first vision as it appears in the missionary discussion. This person memorizes the content of the first vision as recorded in the PoGP and teaches it to many, many people. Would this missionary reasonably think that there were different versions of the vision than what appeared in the discussions? Should he have sought after a paper copy of the Ensign to see if there was a discrepancy with the first vision? I didn't have access to the Ensign on my mission. Maybe others did.

Then the Gospel Topics essay comes out around 2013. This person is now 38 years old. He never had access to the 1970 Improvement Era article, nor did he have any reason to believe such a topic had ever been addressed or was even a thing.  He was a young child the next time the topic was addressed in the Ensign. How many 10 year olds read the ensign?  The next time it's addressed is while he's on his mission, focusing like a laser on teaching the discussions provided by the church. Finally, when he's 38, he learns that there were multiple first vision accounts. It's odd because he's only missed church a handful of times in his entire life. He's been to primary, sunday school, seminary, served a mission and been very active in church leadership after being married in the temple. Now he learns there are multiple first vision accounts. Now there's a problem.

In your mind, is the church responsible for failing to teach the multiple first vision accounts, or is this person responsible for not researching and learning about it?

 

Personally, I spotted Allen's 1970 article in a stack of Improvement Eras in the family room of our basement after I got back from my mission in 1975.   I'd decided to track down all things Nibley, after a member in Kendall England loaned me his copy of the 1957 Priesthood Manual, An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  After reading the Nibley stuff, I took interest and read Allen's essay, and soon acquired Milton Bachman's book on the First Vision accounts which I got off the shelves at the SLC Deseret book near the Temple.  And since I was becoming more interested in the kinds of things I was learning once I started seeking on my own initiative, rather than waiting to be spoonfed, I also got the Mormon Miscellaneous Reprint of the Dean Jesse article in BYU Studies that also included all of the then known accounts. 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/early-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision

And over the years, I watched for the additional books, essays, including three detailed discussions discussions that appeared in at intervals in the Ensign, various other books on the First Vision (Matthew Brown, and Stephen Harper, etc.), and as the internet became a source, found and valued FAIR and Jeff Lindsay and much more.  I got on the FARMS mailing list in around 1979 and began collecting reprints and new publications.  By then I had spent considerable time exploring the U of U and BYU libraries, looking through bound periodicals, and collected important issues of BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, Journal of Mormon History and such, finding many things of interest in the used sections of Sam Wellers, or Cosmic Areoplane or the BYU Bookstore.   I also xeroxed many things at both BYU and the U of U.  One of the reasons that I have never become bitter about not having everything spoonfed to me is that I found that a great deal of this stuff had come into my house in back issues of the Improvement Era, and I had never so much as peeked on my own. Whose fault was that?  But once I started seeking on my own initiative, pursuing my own questions, it became a continually rewarding and exciting treasure hunt.

"Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened you."

But not, "Blessed are they who sit like lumps, waiting to be spoonfed, for they shall never be caught off guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone."

I saw that D&C 1 nicely sets expectations regarding my LDS leaders.  "Inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest."  Not, "They shall be my omniscient sock puppets, never showing a trace of humanity or ignorance or prejudice or personality or individuality or culture."  D&C 1 formally and bluntly says that even the leaders have to seek and ask, and get information from time to time.  Not, all at once.  This means,  I should not put my trust in the arm of the flesh.

For me, "How come no one told me this?" always has an obvious two part answer.  1- They probably didn't know, and 2- I wasn't interested enough, or curious enough to ask or seek out those who did know.

So, alas, not being filled with a grievance story, and people to blame, and resentment to stew in,  I have to continue in seeking out of the best books words of wisdom, as though that is just plain sensible and rewarding.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Kevin Christensen

[CA Steve]

30 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Personally, I spotted Allen's 1970 article in a stack of Improvement Eras in the family room of our basement after I got back from my mission in 1975.   I'd decided to track down all things Nibley, after a member in Kendall England loaned me his copy of the 1957 Priesthood Manual, An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  After reading the Nibley stuff, I took interest and read Allen's essay, and soon acquired Milton Bachman's book on the First Vision accounts which I got off the shelves at the SLC Deseret book near the Temple.  And since I was becoming more interested in the kinds of things I was learning once I started seeking on my own initiative, rather than waiting to be spoonfed, I also got the Mormon Miscellaneous Reprint of the Dean Jesse article in BYU Studies that also included all of the then known accounts. 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/early-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision

And over the years, I watched for the additional books, essays, including three detailed discussions discussions that appeared in at intervals in the Ensign, various other books on the First Vision (Matthew Brown, and Stephen Harper, etc.), and as the internet became a source, found and valued FAIR and Jeff Lindsay and much more.  I got on the FARMS mailing list in around 1979 and began collecting reprints and new publications.  By then I had spent considerable time exploring the U of U and BYU libraries, looking through bound periodicals, and collected important issues of BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, Journal of Mormon History and such, finding many things of interest in the used sections of Sam Wellers, or Cosmic Areoplane or the BYU Bookstore.   I also xeroxed many things at both BYU and the U of U.  One of the reasons that I have never become bitter about not having everything spoonfed to me is that I found that a great deal of this stuff had come into my house in back issues of the Improvement Era, and I had never so much as peeked on my own. Whose fault was that?  But once I started seeking on my own initiative, pursuing my own questions, it became a continually rewarding and exciting treasure hunt.

"Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened you."

But not, "Blessed are they who sit like lumps, waiting to be spoonfed, for they shall never be caught off guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone."

I saw that D&C 1 nicely sets expectations regarding my LDS leaders.  "Inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest."  Not, "They shall be my omniscient sock puppets, never showing a trace of humanity or ignorance or prejudice or personality or individuality or culture."  D&C 1 formally and bluntly says that even the leaders have to seek and ask, and get information from time to time.  Not, all at once.  This means,  I should not put my trust in the arm of the flesh.

For me, "How come no one told me this?" always has an obvious two part answer.  1- They probably didn't know, and 2- I wasn't interested enough, or curious enough to ask or seek out those who did know.

So, alas, not being filled with a grievance story, and people to blame, and resentment to stew in,  I have to continue in seeking out of the best books words of wisdom, as though that is just plain sensible and rewarding.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Interesting post Kevin.

 

It sound like to me you have been doing your own research.

Edited February 6, 2019 by CA Steve

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

But not, "Blessed are they who sit like lumps, waiting to be spoonfed, for they that never be caught off guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone."

And....these are the types of statements that need to stop being expressed.  They just cause more damage and pain and are the worst things a member can say to another struggling member.  Let's just blame the member and call them lazy....how is that going to help?

No one is asking to be spoonfed and it's obvious these difficult issues have not been taught until quite recently (if one can be completely honest).  I think it's great that you had a drive which caused you to pursue information and dig deeper, but don't put down faithful, good members who trusted they were being taught all they needed to know and understand.  How many times were we taught that all the answers were in the scriptures....in the Book of Mormon and other writings?  Just study them and follow the counsel of the Prophets and leaders?

I agree that members have a responsibility to do their own research and study, but when they don't even know to look up "polyandry" for example, don't blame them for not searching for how Joseph Smith practiced it.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[SouthernMo]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

That has already been discussed. Do you want everything you say recorded and scoured for something just to make you look bad? 

Church meetings are not political or criminal activities. There are private and sacred things that are shared in a Church setting

I should be accountable for all I do and say. Whether or not someone makes me look bad is out of my control. I’ll admit that I’m human, and apologize or clarify if needed.

I didn’t realize church meetings are private. Maybe we should remove those “visitors welcome” signs.

[Thinking]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You missed my point.  My only point was that just because something is new to someone it does not automatically mean that the information was hidden.

You should also note that I never used the word hidden.

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

The fact that Oaks classified the information as new is evidence that the Church has not been as forthcoming with that information as some would like to believe.

Just because something could have been found does not mean that it was easy to find, especially if one didn't know to look for it.

[clarkgoble]

44 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Here's the problem. These are the people we are sending out to teach other people about Mormonism.

I largely consider the age drop a problem and have often noted that the drop in productivity by missionaries corresponds to the age change. I remain convinced it'll change back or at least get pushed more. Ideally though they should be going on splits with people who are more informed, although in practice most members aren't terribly interested in history or theology. So ignorance is pretty common even when the information is pushed at lds.org.

I do think that missionaries are great at teaching and identifying the spirit which is the basis of conversion, not historic knowledge. Although even there I think there are problems using 18 year olds. Also by the time missionaries figure out how to teach in practice, it's usually by their second year. 

Ultimately I've come to the conclusions that missions are more for the missionaries than for conversions - at least the past decade or so.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Out of curiosity, how would someone who was born in say...1975 have accessed this article from 1970? How would this person have even known the article or the topic existed?

Another article was written in the Ensign around 1985. How would this (now 10 year old) person access this information and why would they expect that there would be anything different in an article than what they are taught every week at church?

If we're talking faith crises in the 90's I think that's completely fair. By the 21st century though nearly all Americans were regularly using the internet and the Church was heavily pushing lds.org which had all back issues of the Ensign. If you're talking the last 10 years then there's even more information available and lesson materials were updated (both on lds.org and the Gospel Library app) with links to such resources. Of course the Church can't force personal study despite strongly encouraging it. So if we just go by a kind of minimal study and what they hear or pay attention to in Priesthood and Sunday School Lessons then the average person will get just a bare minimum of information.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And....these are the types of statements that need to stop being expressed.  They just cause more damage and pain and are the worst things a member can say to another struggling member.  Let's just blame the member and call them lazy....how is that going to help?

No one is asking to be spoonfed and it's obvious these difficult issues have not been taught until quite recently (if one can be completely honest).  I think it's great that you had a drive which caused you to pursue information and dig deeper, but don't put down faithful, good members who trusted they were being taught all they needed to know and understand.  How many times were we taught that all the answers were in the scriptures....in the Book of Mormon and other writings?  Just study them and follow the counsel of the Prophets and leaders?

I agree that members have a responsibility to do their own research and study, but when they don't even know to look up "polyandry" for example, don't blame them for not searching for how Joseph Smith practiced it.

All my years in the church and believing, gave me no reason to search for anything. I was an odd duck maybe, but I never doubted the church even during a time of inactivity during my young adult time after high school. When I would read the Ensign, I would often go to the personal stories, that's just how I rolled. And during all those years I raised my family and held some pretty busy callings and did my visiting teaching religiously and often alone. And also, concentrated on making sure my family was following the prophets' teachings such as FHE, a garden, food storage and going to the temple. But I slacked on the temple, often felt uncomfortable, and was always the last to come into the celestial room with my extended family. Couldn't memorize well the very end at the veil, so that stressed me out. But I think members rely on the teaching they get through Sunday classes and the supplied manuals for that. I wonder if ever there was once a lesson on the different versions of the FV in them, highly doubt it. And we aren't really suppose to be apologists in the church are we, lol.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But one can increase their faith in Christ and still lose faith in the leaders of the church (past and present).  The two are not synonymous (faith in Christ and faith in Joseph Smith, etc.....). 

If someone leaves the church over these issues, that does not mean they have lost their faith in Christ.

I agree.  Some people have great faith in Christ but never accept the gospel as taught by our church.  I still believe that when a loss of faith occurs, focusing on faith in Christ is the best option, especially when considering that though some people leave the church with their faith in Christ attached, it seems like the majority leave as atheists or agnostics.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

The implication of the following sentence which says study (i.e. research) is part of the solution is that he meant research alone. If he meant you shouldn't do research, as you are asserting, it makes very little sense to then two sentences later when he gives the solution to include research.

Now you might make an argument about the type of research but that is then projecting onto his comments and not something entailed by them.

Not following how that entails we can't know. In terms of public knowledge we don't know and I certainly don't claim to know but I don't think it follows we can't know. But again you're shifting the goal posts since the issue Oaks was addressing was this being a problem that leads someone out of activity. So following his argument even if we don't know the answer to the translation of the Book of Abraham we can know that it shouldn't bother us. Which is part of his larger argument.

That's not at all what I said. There are lots of ways to get wrong answers. Bad reasoning is a particularly common one. Less than careful reading too. (grin)

I am asserting that the reliable method of knowing that one shouldn't be bothered by historical or theological issues requires the spirit.

This isn't about misreading, its about disagreement.  From my perspective what you are advocating is exactly what I described.  Research with the spirit is totally subjective.  Any person can have the spirit and arrive at a conclusion that differs from another who concludes and researches with the spirit too.  When you speak of "requiring" the spirit in your research, you are going far beyond what Oaks is saying it seems to me.  He said research is not helpful.  THat research, I assume because it appears he doesn't specify, is with or without the spirit.  Let's say a spouse comes up with a concern about the 1st vision, it drives this one spouse to the point of questioning the whole 1st vision, which leads to further questions.  It seems to me Oaks is saying that the remaining believing spouse should not research to help the questioning spouse.  It is an unhelpful approach.  Perhaps you might say it could be helpful for the believing spouse to research but that person must do so with the spirit.  But of course, Oaks isn't going there.  He didn't say anything near that, at least not from what I've seen.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Of course someone may, without the spirit, just decide they don't matter. Say adopt a fideist approach to religion. But that seems rather uncommon.  I don't want to say one with always get wrong answers. But one will be much, much more likely to get wrong answers.

Again not what he is saying. You're just doing a ton of projecting onto this. Now you may think that the only research/study Oaks advocates is say just reading the scriptures or something like that. From the quoted excerpts though he doesn't say anything like that.  Again I think you're doing more projecting than carefully reading what he states. (Further this doesn't appear to be a carefully written talk, so getting so hung up on particular words seems uncharitable)

No Oaks says research is not helpful for a believing spouse who has a questioning spouse.  Again I disagree with him.  I'm quite certain, though, Oaks advocates studying the scriptures, at least in principle.  If people study the scriptures too much it might lead them to unanswerable questions--perhaps things like who wrote the bible.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

 

I think you're projecting a common view from the 70's and 80's (that had its own historic context) onto Oaks who clearly doesn't fall into that given his publications and talks over the decades. He was the main figure pushing against that. Rather than being charitable in your reading your making his words fit your preconceptions.

I fear your reading of me is about as accurate as your reading of Oaks and may signify a lot about how you read people. That's not at all what I'm saying and indeed I've outright rejected that position.
 

Clark, your position of researching requires the spirit only logically fits if one first assumes the answer.  Why?  Because anyone researching with the spirit can get any answer or learn anything that anyone without the spirit gets.  Also, two people researching with the spirit can conclude opposite things through their research.  You speak of right and wrong answers, but as it is, the only way to know the answers are right or wrong is to assume the answer.  It seems to me.  I don't know that we're doing much more than disagreeing here.  I just put it differently than you.  

[SouthernMo]

Perhaps one of the problems is that for some, the approach to religious and secular truth are separate and distinct.  For example, one person might ridicule prayer as a good way to study physics. That same person could ridicule research as a good way to know if priesthood authority resides in the LDS church.

Joseph Smith seemed to want to merge the two. “All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole” he taught.

Can I suggest that prayer and research are valuable in both religious and secular fields?  Truth is truth, and we can find it using a few methods. Let’s not fear either approach and invite people to use all the tools available.

It just so happens to be that religion teaches us how to use the tool of prayer.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Over the past few decades my wife and I have fed the missionaries on average a few times a year. I realize these are young kids barely out of high school so the conversation pretty much sticks to who they are, how long they have been in the field and other personal information. But I have to agree with blueglass that in my own admittedly limited interaction with missionaries, they are pretty much uninformed of things like multiple first vision accounts, number of wives Joseph married, that the church is in possession of some of the Egyptian artifacts, documentary hypothesis and so on. And, given their age, this is to be expected. Again, I am not grilling them on what they know, so it's a pretty limited response pool.

 

Here's the problem. These are the people we are sending out to teach other people about Mormonism.

They aren't really teaching people about mormonism though.  They are teaching people what the leaders believe someone needs to do know to be baptized, which is much less than everything there is to know about mormonism.  

Missionaries teach faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith/prophets, the Book of Mormon, the word of wisdom, and the law of chastity.  That's pretty much it.  Even if you met a missionary that knew all of the bolded things above, he or she still wouldn't be teaching those things while they were on their missions.  

Which isn't to say that missionaries would not benefit from understanding their religion better.  I think it just means that missionaries not knowing the bolded things above is not really a problem.

 

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

All my years in the church and believing, gave me no reason to search for anything. I was an odd duck maybe, but I never doubted the church even during a time of inactivity during my young adult time after high school. When I would read the Ensign, I would often go to the personal stories, that's just how I rolled. And during all those years I raised my family and held some pretty busy callings and did my visiting teaching religiously and often alone. And also, concentrated on making sure my family was following the prophets' teachings such as FHE, a garden, food storage and going to the temple. But I slacked on the temple, often felt uncomfortable, and was always the last to come into the celestial room with my extended family. Couldn't memorize well the very end at the veil, so that stressed me out. But I think members rely on the teaching they get through Sunday classes and the supplied manuals for that. I wonder if ever there was once a lesson on the different versions of the FV in them, highly doubt it. And we aren't really suppose to be apologists in the church are we, lol.

Tacenda, I think you are expressing what many have experienced.  I don't see members as being lazy for not knowing about many of the issues that are now being discovered through exposure on the internet or in other ways.  Most members are very busy with their families, with attending church meetings, serving in callings and trying to read the scriptures daily and just do all that they have been told to do by their leaders.

It is wrong to then call them lazy or blame them for not knowing what was not being taught or accuse them of wanting to be spoonfed.  

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Of course.  I'd imagine he has had some personal experiences related to this.

I just see that it's pretty obvious what he's saying here and he's referring to two different things when he uses the words "research" vs. "study and pray".  

The research he's discouraging above is regarding the bolded part (matters of church history and doctrinal issues).

What he's recommending doing (IMO) above is to read the scriptures more, read general conference talks, study church written materials....etc.  But avoid researching the issues that are causing your spouse to have their crisis of faith (ie. polygamy and so on....).  I see a great underlying feeling of fear in his words that the doubting spouse will infect the still believing spouse or expose them to what they are researching.  

That's how I read his words, but others obviously see that he's meaning the same when he uses the words "research" vs where he uses the words "prayer and study".  

I don't personally interpret his suggestion that research is not the answer to mean that people should avoid research.  

When someone says, for example, that for a person trying to lose weight, exercising isn't the answer I don't interpret them to be saying that a person trying to lose weight should avoid exercise.  I interpret them to be saying that since exercise has been shown not to impact weight loss very much, it's not going to give someone the results on the scale that they are looking for.

I do understand what you are saying though and appreciate you taking the time to discuss it with me.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If we're talking faith crises in the 90's I think that's completely fair. By the 21st century though nearly all Americans were regularly using the internet and the Church was heavily pushing lds.org which had all back issues of the Ensign. If you're talking the last 10 years then there's even more information available and lesson materials were updated (both on lds.org and the Gospel Library app) with links to such resources. Of course the Church can't force personal study despite strongly encouraging it. So if we just go by a kind of minimal study and what they hear or pay attention to in Priesthood and Sunday School Lessons then the average person will get just a bare minimum of information.

Clark,

You're a fair guy, but this is silly. The church encourages study ...but not research.  

Yes, the last 10 years information has become available and the church is now playing catch up. This info is now accessible and that is why people are finding it, often times before the church is/was willing to acknowledge the issue or write essays to address it. I am not a historian or a scholar, but I have faithfully read my scriptures, attended all lessons and meetings, and read many additional church books, all without having found any of the information that has become so readily available in the past 10 years.

37 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Personally, I spotted Allen's 1970 article in a stack of Improvement Eras in the family room of our basement after I got back from my mission in 1975.   I'd decided to track down all things Nibley, after a member in Kendall England loaned me his copy of the 1957 Priesthood Manual, An Approach to the Book of Mormon.  After reading the Nibley stuff, I took interest and read Allen's essay, and soon acquired Milton Bachman's book on the First Vision accounts which I got off the shelves at the SLC Deseret book near the Temple.  And since I was becoming more interested in the kinds of things I was learning once I started seeking on my own initiative, rather than waiting to be spoonfed, I also got the Mormon Miscellaneous Reprint of the Dean Jesse article in BYU Studies that also included all of the then known accounts. 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/early-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision

And over the years, I watched for the additional books, essays, including three detailed discussions discussions that appeared in at intervals in the Ensign, various other books on the First Vision (Matthew Brown, and Stephen Harper, etc.), and as the internet became a source, found and valued FAIR and Jeff Lindsay and much more.  I got on the FARMS mailing list in around 1979 and began collecting reprints and new publications.  By then I had spent considerable time exploring the U of U and BYU libraries, looking through bound periodicals, and collected important issues of BYU Studies, Dialogue, Sunstone, Journal of Mormon History and such, finding many things of interest in the used sections of Sam Wellers, or Cosmic Areoplane or the BYU Bookstore.   I also xeroxed many things at both BYU and the U of U.  One of the reasons that I have never become bitter about not having everything spoonfed to me is that I found that a great deal of this stuff had come into my house in back issues of the Improvement Era, and I had never so much as peeked on my own. Whose fault was that?  But once I started seeking on my own initiative, pursuing my own questions, it became a continually rewarding and exciting treasure hunt.

"Seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened you."

But not, "Blessed are they who sit like lumps, waiting to be spoonfed, for they shall never be caught off guard, and never ever disappointed by anyone."

I saw that D&C 1 nicely sets expectations regarding my LDS leaders.  "Inasmuch as they erred, it shall be made manifest."  Not, "They shall be my omniscient sock puppets, never showing a trace of humanity or ignorance or prejudice or personality or individuality or culture."  D&C 1 formally and bluntly says that even the leaders have to seek and ask, and get information from time to time.  Not, all at once.  This means,  I should not put my trust in the arm of the flesh.

For me, "How come no one told me this?" always has an obvious two part answer.  1- They probably didn't know, and 2- I wasn't interested enough, or curious enough to ask or seek out those who did know.

So, alas, not being filled with a grievance story, and people to blame, and resentment to stew in,  I have to continue in seeking out of the best books words of wisdom, as though that is just plain sensible and rewarding.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Kevin, it doesn't sound like my scenario really applied to you then, did it? You were already a late teen when the 1970 article came out, you were an adult when the next article came out in the 80's and were even an older adult when the next article came out in the 90's so you would have naturally been in a better position to hear about this. I honestly feel that there is a generation that this information hits particularly hard precisely because of the timing. It wasn't available when we were young and now that it is the church has to come to grips with the fact that it did a poor job of teaching us. Blame the student and defend the teacher if you choose. You can call us lumps if you want, but that just illustrates your lack of compassion. You seem to have been successful in doing a significant amount of personal research, but I wonder if Pres. Oaks would have approved   Your example illustrates that information was available to you long ago, and because you were aware you sought out more info. That's great. But you never really answered my question about how someone of the age I described would have become aware of the issues via church sources. IMO it would be the very rare case, and based on the negative effect on the church I'm seeing, it not only effects my generation particularly badly but also my children's since they were taught by parents who were largely left in the dark about this stuff.

And you left off the obvious 3rd answer for why someone didn't tell you something...3- They purposely decided not to share it with you. Whether they thought they were doing you a favor or not is immaterial, they may have simply decided that you didn't need to know, therefore they didn't tell you.

It's a very weak position to be in to say that a teacher didn't teach you something but you should have known. Example- the first time I took the ACT I got to a section in Math that asked a number of questions about graphing. Seems reasonable, right. Well, at that point I hadn't learned that AND the ACT prep Math class I took never addressed it either. So obviously I was to blame for not knowing something that my Math class failed to even acknowledge. Admittedly, I place some trust in teachers to adequately teach. When they don't, I lose trust. Seems reasonable to me.

[CA Steve]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They aren't really teaching people about mormonism though.  They are teaching people what the leaders believe someone needs to do know to be baptized, which is much less than everything there is to know about mormonism.  

Missionaries teach faith in Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith/prophets, the Book of Mormon, the word of wisdom, and the law of chastity.  That's pretty much it.  Even if you met a missionary that knew all of the bolded things above, he or she still wouldn't be teaching those things while they were on their missions.  

Which isn't to say that missionaries would not benefit from understanding their religion better.  I think it just means that missionaries not knowing the bolded things above is not really a problem.

You're right of course. Missionaries are there to just teach the basics. That is how I taught on my mission many years ago. And while missionaries not knowing about those things I mentioned might not be a problem for them, it is clearly a problem for those they convert. I don't know actual numbers, but I believe retention for converts is well below 50%.  Perhaps the leaders need to reevaluate what they think someone needs to know before baptism. No one is arguing they need to know everything but with the loss of membership we are experiencing today, clearly they need to know more. I think an adult that is considering converting to Mormonism might benefit from reading something like Rough Stone Rolling before making a baptismal commitment.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

We don't have the full transcript of his address, here's what we've got from the Church News:

He acknowledged that some Latter-Saint couples face conflicts over important values and priorities. Matters of Church history and doctrinal issues have led some spouses to inactivity. Some spouses wonder how to best go about researching and responding to such issues.

“I suggest that research is not the answer,” he said.

“But the best answer to any question that threatens faith is to work to increase faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,” he said. “Conversion to the Lord precedes conversion to the Church. And conversion to the Lord comes through prayer and study and service, furthered by loving patience on the part of spouse and other concerned family members.”

This is the redirect.  I felt like Elder Corbridge was giving the same message.  Oaks:  Church history and doctrinal issues can lead to inactivity and damage faith.  Rather than research them, work to strengthen your faith.  Corbridge:  Reading that material can give you a sense of gloom and a feeling of darkness.  Focus on the primary questions and the secondary ones may get answered too or they will pale in significance, whether or not you understand them.

At least that is how I am hearing those messages.  I agree that others may have a different interpretation. 

No redirection, but statements of sound principle addressing the topic at hand. A lack of faith in the primary fundamentals of our religion can set someone up to react badly to questions raised, either independently or by someone else, about such matters as church History and doctrine. Faith is strengthened through divine learning and conversion through prayer, study and service.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

But one can increase their faith in Christ and still lose faith in the leaders of the church (past and present).  The two are not synonymous (faith in Christ and faith in Joseph Smith, etc.....). 

If someone leaves the church over these issues, that does not mean they have lost their faith in Christ.

But they have lost their faith in the Church (that it is the kingdom of God on earth) and that the Lord wishes them to belong.