President Oaks' advice to young married couples in Chicago

[california boy]

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the current inoculating approach is a good thing.  But aren't millennials leaving the church in record numbers?  Does anyone think that possibly they are simply questioning many of the foundational claims the church makes because of these multiple first vision accounts, Joseph marrying other men's wives, the Book of Mormon coming forth through looking at a stone in a hat, the Book of Abraham having nothing to do with the scrolls that could not have possibly been written by Abraham himself, etc?  

Just curious how those that are teaching the youth feel these stories are being received.  I personally have no idea.  Having taught seminary for a number of years, I know I would find it tough to expect all students to just nod their head and take it as no big deal.  Maybe this should be another thread and is too far off track.  

[Calm]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

Come on....really?

So, he's fine with doing research on church history issues and doctrines as long as it's not your spouse who is having the faith crisis?  

How about if it's your son....or your daughter....or your fiancee?  A friend?  Then it's ok and it is the answer?

I think he is talking about solutions to potential conflict and trauma in a relationship. A faith crisis is not something that is purely an educational endeavor. It has impact on relationships. 

And like every other problem in a relationship, one person can’t solve the other’s issues, but only figure out how they can respond to it themselves. 

Me becoming knowledgeable about issues has helped my friends and loved ones a lot less than becoming aware of how to be a better listener and supportive of their choices to change their lives. And I do a lot of research so I can offer that kind of advice if they ask for it. Most don’t.   But all want me to listen and support them.

Thinking that research will solve what is often more of an emotional/value issue (how many are reassured that the variations on the visions have been published, for example) is going to set up the other trying to help for disappointment and possibly anger.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Calm

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree with this statement.

Where you and I might differ is that I believe those FV accounts are doctrinally significant.  And, whether it is the differences or the simply the fact that members weren't told about them, we are now losing people because of those FV accounts.  And the struggle I'm having is that we don't have great answers to the concerns they raise.  The Church seems to be putting forth some apologetic answers but the Brethren themselves, the prophets, seers, and revelators to whom we often look for guidance are relatively silent other than to advise us to have faith and look the other way.

Have you ever read through the four JS FV accounts with a class of Priests/Laurels and discussed them?  Not an easy task.  (Honestly speaking from experience.)

Not with the YW. I haven't believed yet that that is something I should do, but I have with my teenage sons.  I should probably do it again.  But having read through them myself and finding nothing concerning (in my opinion), that probably impacts how my sons reacted to the subject.  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I am being honest. That I disagree with you doesn't mean that I'm not being honest.  

I'm sorry if I was confusing but yes, the fact that the different First Vision accounts have been taught over the years in the Ensign does support what I stated.  In my opinion, that is adequate enough for members to know about it if they were following the church's counsel regarding its magazine.

I get what you're saying bluebell.  But just because they were mentioned (with no text to study) a few times over the past decades in a few Ensign articles, that is definitely not the same as them being "taught".  Unless you have a different definition of what teaching is.  The leaders most definitely could have included them in the teaching materials and lessons as well as teaching about them themselves to the members.  

And regarding what I put in bold, do you have a link to where the First Vision accounts were actually quoted for the members "over the years in the Ensign"?   If not, how could the "accounts have been taught" if the text wasn't provided?

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[Kate]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

If you don't like my comments and have another perspective to share please feel free to support your different perspective, I welcome participation and engagement.  I'm using the article as it has been reported and this seems to be a straightforward reading of the meaning reported in the article.  Is it possible that things were taken out of context by the reporter whether intentionally or not, sure, anything is possible.  A person could speculate all day about the possibilities. 

That's what I'm saying...all this speculation. You really think Church News gives you the whole context of a talk? ...Mostly highlights, and that is from the ears and understanding of the person reporting. I choose not to share my perspective because I haven't heard the talk...just like everyone else here has not. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the current inoculating approach is a good thing.  But aren't millennials leaving the church in record numbers?  Does anyone think that possibly they are simply questioning many of the foundational claims the church makes because of these multiple first vision accounts, Joseph marrying other men's wives, the Book of Mormon coming forth through looking at a stone in a hat, the Book of Abraham having nothing to do with the scrolls that could not have possibly been written by Abraham himself, etc?  

Just curious how those that are teaching the youth feel these stories are being received.  I personally have no idea.  Having taught seminary for a number of years, I know I would find it tough to expect all students to just nod their head and take it as no big deal.  Maybe this should be another thread and is too far off track.  

I referenced this in a post a few minutes ago, so I'll respond to your inquiry...

Last year I taught the First Vision lesson to our Priests Quorum.  I did it with the Bishop and a local CES guy in the room with me (lest anyone be tempted to think I went off the rails).

We read all four FV accounts that are attributed to JS and available in the Gospel Library app and we discussed the differences and the similarities.

They did not all just nod their head and take it as no big deal.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not with the YW. I haven't believed yet that that is something I should do, but I have with my teenage sons.  I should probably do it again.  But having read through them myself and finding nothing concerning (in my opinion), that probably impacts how my sons reacted to the subject.  

It is part of the Come Follow Me YM curriculum now.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The very next sentence of my post answers your question.  It was "I don't think our leaders knew that such a vaccine would be necessary until a few years ago, and that's why we see the coverage of it now that we didn't see them."  

Well, that is why I am confused by your statements.   First, you say it is no big deal and a non-issue, that nothing was done wrong,  The next sentence you are saying that the new approach of inoculating is a good idea.  Which is it?  Should church leaders have taught multiple accounts of the first vision and all the other issues on a regular basis or was how they did it in the past adequate?

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree that we taught it adequately enough for most active members to know that multiple accounts exist.  I have met far too many lifelong active members who had no idea for me to agree.

I grew up in the church in an active family with parents who were serving in every level of ward and stake leadership.  We attended every week.

I graduated from early morning seminary and from BYU.  Served a mission.  I attended institute post-grad.  I taught early-morning seminary, including the D&C/Church History year.

It wasn't until years AFTER all of that that I learned of the differing accounts.  If I seem offended by the suggestion that members should have known and shouldn't feel upset that they didn't... It's because I am offended when I'm told that.  Throughout my life I have been 10-20 hours per week to my church callings.  Nobody has the right to tell me I should have known. It is offensive.

Then, when I finally do start to study the church narrative and truth claims in more detail... then I find out that there are differing FV accounts.  Then when my entire testimony and faith crumbles to pieces, I'm told it is MY fault for failing to know these things before.

Hopefully this crisis of faith that the church is going through can at least help us be more charitable towards each other.  

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he is talking about solutions to potential conflict and trauma in a relationship.

Possibly.  Do you believe he would give different advise if it was another loved one having a crisis of faith (other than a spouse)?  That he would recommend researching the difficult church history issues and doctrines so there could be a discussion about them?

Most members who I've seen go through a crisis have wanted to have someone who they can talk to about their issues and questions.  

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I referenced this in a post a few minutes ago, so I'll respond to your inquiry...

Last year I taught the First Vision lesson to our Priests Quorum.  I did it with the Bishop and a local CES guy in the room with me (lest anyone be tempted to think I went off the rails).

We read all four FV accounts that are attributed to JS and available in the Gospel Library app and we discussed the differences and the similarities.

They did not all just nod their head and take it as no big deal.

Thanks for responding.   Sorry I missed your earlier post.  How do you think they handled all the discrepancies?  Did any of them ask how the accounts be so different and still credible?  Or is that something that probably wouldn't happen with a bishop and CES guy in the room.  I personally can't see how it would be troubling to at least some of them.

[SouthernMo]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the current inoculating approach is a good thing.  But aren't millennials leaving the church in record numbers?  Does anyone think that possibly they are simply questioning many of the foundational claims the church makes because of these multiple first vision accounts, Joseph marrying other men's wives, the Book of Mormon coming forth through looking at a stone in a hat, the Book of Abraham having nothing to do with the scrolls that could not have possibly been written by Abraham himself, etc?  

Just curious how those that are teaching the youth feel these stories are being received.  I personally have no idea.  Having taught seminary for a number of years, I know I would find it tough to expect all students to just nod their head and take it as no big deal.  Maybe this should be another thread and is too far off track.  

Another possibility (something that I face) is that people are beginning to question the value of church at all.  How does doing what is expected of a “good Mormon” make one’s life better?

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I disagree that we taught it adequately enough for most active members to know that multiple accounts exist.  I have met far too many lifelong active members who had no idea for me to agree.

I agree with you. However would you not concede that prior to the rise of lds.org this was regularly in the Ensign and that if people were reading the Ensign each month they'd have encountered this? (I recognize that likely most people don't read the Ensign regularly - but I'm simply pointing out that it was there)

With the rise of lds.org and its ubiquity in the current millennium I think things have significantly changed. The emphasis on the account isn't, as someone claimed earlier, merely something of the last 5 years. It's true that the Gospel Essays came out and were heavily pushed only starting in 2013. The Church History page came out in 2011 and started pushing such things including the versions of the First Vision. This included prominent pushing of the Joseph Smith Papers. Further over the years the different versions of the First Vision were discussed in Conference talks. But if you were only reading the First Presidency Message for Home Teaching on lds.org you'd never encounter these.

So I'd completely agree it wasn't emphasized. It's not even a topic in the Joseph Smith Manual from PH/RS. It was there but it was completely understandable that people not doing research would never encounter it. I think if one did a search on First Vision at lds.org even back in the naughts one *would* quickly find the material.

There's lots of things the Church doesn't emphasize that are still easily available to learn if one is studying. I bet I could make a list of 10 mainstream important doctrines that the average member knows nothing about.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the "prophet, seer, and revelator" thing didn't help much.  They didn't see this crisis coming?

It sounds like you believe they should have seen it coming.  Maybe.  From my perspective, I don't think that's a given.  I don't think it's a given that that's how God works with His prophets, seers, and revelators.  I don't think He's in the business of preventing every crisis of faith. 

People learn a lot when their faith is tried (as much as it completely sucks rocks).  The scriptures even teach that it is through trials of faith that people receive a witness of truth.   It can be as beneficial as a refiner's fire.  

My expectation of a prophet, seer, and revelator, does not include God showing them every problem before it comes so that they can mitigate or prevent it but it sounds like your expectation is different.  That's probably one reason that we see this issue so differently.  I don't really blame our leaders for not preventing this but it seems like you do (if i'm misunderstanding you on that, I apologize).

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, thanks, I don't really have much I can think of to respond to in a productive way, but its interesting to see how others work through these things.  

Hopefully I’ve clarified what the counsel means to me and how I would approach something if I had a issue with it.

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Everyone seems to be in agreement that the current inoculating approach is a good thing.  But aren't millennials leaving the church in record numbers?

Depends upon the source. Some have used the GSS to indicate that but there are problems using the GSS in this manner (n is typically very low -- only 52 for Millennials). However according to Pew in 2007 70% of respondents raised Mormon still self-identified. In 2014 it was 64% and among Millennials it was 62%.

So it's worse than 15 years ago but the difference between the general rate and the Millennial rate appears within the error boundary.

It's also worth noting that according to Next Mormons retention has a ton to do with activities while young. Quoting Jana

• Retention is even stronger among those who were weekly attenders during childhood. Only 9 percent of those who were active growing up and served a full-term mission are no longer Mormon today, compared to 29 percent who served a partial mission and nearly half, 45 percent, who didn’t serve at all. Put another way, the LDS Church is losing almost half of previously active youth if they didn’t serve a mission and nearly a third of those who started a mission but returned early, but only one in ten of those who served the full term. (Riess, Jana. The Next Mormons p. 46)

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the "prophet, seer, and revelator" thing didn't help much.  They didn't see this crisis coming?

It seems to me they've been talking about this since the early 90's at least and arguably earlier. However the strategy for dealing with it in the 80's and 90's simply is different from today. The big difference, as our critics enjoy repeating, is the ubiquity of anti-Mormon and critical materials towards the Church due to the internet. However again I don't see any evidence that Pres. Hinkley was surprised by the internet.

While I normally don't like referring to MormonLeaks, it seems clear from the leaks of internal meetings that they were discussing this quite a long time ago. I'd imagine that they were discussing this well before people started talking about inoculation.

As I said earlier the start of the push of history on lds.org goes back to at least 2013 and perhaps 2011. Many of these materials (although admittedly not all) could be found in an article in the Ensign every 6 - 8 years prior to the ease of search and publication with the Internet. Given that we're talking about people typically many decades older than the key demographic and tasked with many duties, I think they've done a pretty good job.

 

 

 

Edited February 6, 2019 by clarkgoble

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I get what you're saying bluebell.  But just because they were mentioned (with no text to study) a few times over the past decades in a few Ensign articles, that is definitely not the same as them being "taught".  Unless you have a different definition of what teaching is.  The leaders most definitely could have included them in the teaching materials and lessons as well as teaching about them themselves to the members.  

And regarding what I put in bold, do you have a link to where the First Vision accounts were actually quoted for the members "over the years in the Ensign"?   If not, how could the "accounts have been taught" if the text wasn't provided?

 

I've mentioned before that the church didn't publish the quoted accounts (though they seem to have always include footnotes telling the reader where they could find the accounts if they wanted to study more).  In my opinion though, that doesn't mean they weren't taught.  I've already put up some articles so I don't really want to do it again but this article discusses each of the 4 different accounts fairly in depth.  I think it's very reasonable to describe the article as teaching about the different accounts. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Those are some nice sounding words ("divine learning"), but can you give me an example of how that works say with learning about specific difficult topics from church history.  How about starting with the polyandry that Joseph and others practiced in the early days of the church?

So your response here is an example of focusing on a secondary issue (the nice sounding words of a recently used term) and not attending to the primary issue (what the nice sounding words refer to: the principles taught for at least 188 years).

I described above Posted 8 hours ago how I would handle a difficult topic, first recognizing that one's difficulty with Church history and doctrine is a perfectly subjective reaction.

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for responding.   Sorry I missed your earlier post.  How do you think they handled all the discrepancies?  Did any of them ask how the accounts be so different and still credible?  Or is that something that probably wouldn't happen with a bishop and CES guy in the room.  I personally can't see how it would be troubling to at least some of them.

Some accepted our explanation of the discrepancies (Bishop and the brother from CES were also weighing in), others questioned the differences and left with unresolved concerns.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is part of the Come Follow Me YM curriculum now.

Nice!  We always let the girls choose the topic for each month and they haven't chosen that section yet.  Hopefully they will!

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It sounds like you believe they should have seen it coming.  Maybe.  From my perspective, I don't think that's a given.  I don't think it's a given that that's how God works with His prophets, seers, and revelators.  I don't think He's in the business of preventing every crisis of faith. 

People learn a lot when their faith is tried (as much as it completely sucks rocks).  The scriptures even teach that it is through trials of faith that people receive a witness of truth.   It can be as beneficial as a refiner's fire.  

My expectation of a prophet, seer, and revelator, does not include God showing them every problem before it comes so that they can mitigate or prevent it but it sounds like your expectation is different.  That's probably one reason that we see this issue so differently.  I don't really blame our leaders for not preventing this but it seems like you do (if i'm misunderstanding you on that, I apologize).

 

In my world these issues are tearing families apart and causing a lot of heartache.  Much of that could have been resolved or diminished had the church approached this differently.  So, yes, I see receiving guidance that would help preserve families as something that should be part of the role of a prophet, seer, and revelator.  The pain and trauma coming from not just the issues but how it is being handled by the church is immense for some of us.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've mentioned before that the church didn't publish the quoted accounts (though they seem to have always include footnotes telling the reader where they could find the accounts if they wanted to study more).  In my opinion though, that doesn't mean they weren't taught.  I've already put up some articles so I don't really want to do it again but this article discusses each of the 4 different accounts fairly in depth.  I think it's very reasonable to describe the article as teaching about the different accounts. 

We are just going to have to disagree on them being "taught" over the years.   I believe they have not actually been "taught" until recently.  Even now, I hesitate to use that word if I'm referring to the leaders teaching the members or making sure they are being taught.  I do see an effort being made though and I applaud them doing this.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So your response here is an example of focusing on a secondary issue (the nice sounding words of a recently used term) and not attending to the primary issue (what the nice sounding words refer to: the principles taught for at least 188 years).

Not much of that is very helpful when actually dealing with a member who is experiencing a real faith crisis.  Telling them their issues are only "secondary issues" isn't going to help much and will probably just cause more harm and pain.  Your nice sounding words are pretty empty to someone who is really struggling with very real issues.

Edited February 6, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree with you. However would you not concede that prior to the rise of lds.org this was regularly in the Ensign and that if people were reading the Ensign each month they'd have encountered this? (I recognize that likely most people don't read the Ensign regularly - but I'm simply pointing out that it was there)

An article in 1985... I was 15, not really an Ensign reader back then.  Another in 1996... 26 and in college, I don't know if I had a subscription at that time.  Is that regularly?  Neither featured the full text of the different accounts.  But, technically, yes, if a member had been reading every page of every Ensign, they should have known.

 

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

With the rise of lds.org and its ubiquity in the current millennium I think things have significantly changed. The emphasis on the account isn't, as someone claimed earlier, merely something of the last 5 years. It's true that the Gospel Essays came out and were heavily pushed only starting in 2013. The Church History page came out in 2011 and started pushing such things including the versions of the First Vision. This included prominent pushing of the Joseph Smith Papers. Further over the years the different versions of the First Vision were discussed in Conference talks. But if you were only reading the First Presidency Message for Home Teaching on lds.org you'd never encounter these.

So I'd completely agree it wasn't emphasized. It's not even a topic in the Joseph Smith Manual from PH/RS. It was there but it was completely understandable that people not doing research would never encounter it. I think if one did a search on First Vision at lds.org even back in the naughts one *would* quickly find the material.

There's lots of things the Church doesn't emphasize that are still easily available to learn if one is studying. I bet I could make a list of 10 mainstream important doctrines that the average member knows nothing about.

I disagree that there has been much emphasis on the differing accounts in addresses to the general membership.  I don't believe it was in the curriculum until about 5 years ago, if that.

I disagree that he Gospel Topics Essays have ever been "heavily pushed".

The "Church History page"?  Prominent pushing of JSP?

Can you cite where the differing FV accounts were discussed in Conference talks?

 

24 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There's lots of things the Church doesn't emphasize that are still easily available to learn if one is studying. 

So, it's my fault that, as 38 year old lifelong member, BYU grad, and early morning seminary teacher that I didn't know that JS had written/dictated four different accounts of his First Vision that contradicted one another?  I wasn't studying enough?  I have no right to feel that the Church leaders should have taught this to me in all the thousands of hours I had given to them?

 

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well, that is why I am confused by your statements.   First, you say it is no big deal and a non-issue, that nothing was done wrong,  The next sentence you are saying that the new approach of inoculating is a good idea.  Which is it?  Should church leaders have taught multiple accounts of the first vision and all the other issues on a regular basis or was how they did it in the past adequate?

Actually I said that it seems like the leaders didn't believe that the existence of the different versions was that big of an issue (compared to other things) and that's why they didn't spend a lot of time teaching it.  But to answer your question, I think it's both.  I don't think the leaders saw it as something that would cause a faith crisis but since it is for some it's good that they are addressing it.