Church's Increasing Candor Re: Its History - Saints, Vol. 2

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

But you are willing to make a sarcastic accusation and structure it so no one can defend against it.  Not impressed.

Not trying to impress, just having some fun.  I thought the question was pretty silly.  

[Rain]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have always been thankful for my philosophical training because I have learned that it is the CONTENT of a world-view that captures men's souls, and not its history.

Nobody worries about the family foibles or infidelities of the framers of the US Constitution, nobody cares Beethoven's personal trials, or the personal character of any writer, composer, artist, scientist, or philosopher - and the list could go on and on- one cares about their WORK and its value to humanity.

This isn't true.  There are many books about those things and those my age and younger have been reading them and discussing about what happened in their lives for some time now.  Many have expressed quite a bit of disgust.  You just may not be where those conversations are taking place. 

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But not so with Joseph because he called himself a "prophet", and that one word brings with it an implication of perfection.  If one is imperfect, one cannot be a "prophet"- that is the usual point of view of his critics. 

That is not the view from most critics I know.  What I see is a line they draw and for them Joseph goes over the line.  For religious figures that line will be more strict a especially when some can't see that repentance may have taken place.

This doesn't mean that anyone with a small fault shouldn't be a prophet. It's just perfectly understandable that some will struggle or even be against JS and it doesn't mean they are uneducated or looking at it unfairly.  They have just come to a different conclusion.

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yet of course we have NO IDEA about the personal lives of Isaiah, Daniel, or any of the prophets - OR even the "true identities" of many those who's works ended up being grouped together in what we now call the "Bible"!

We have no clue about their personal lives so they are automatically free to be what our imagination can conjure up about them being "perfect"!

I think this understanding must be an essential part of the attitudinal change necessary that somehow we need to teach to take our church further forward.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

19 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I thought the question was pretty silly.  

Only silly if you don’t like the answer. It is a common apostate trope that the Church previously excommunicated historians for publishing data the Church is now publishing. There is no good reason not to care about the veracity of this oft-repeated claim. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

What does that even matter? ETA: Nevermind, just read the link, sorry. Also, I noticed that it mentioned Lavina Fielding Anderson. Off subject but I recently heard that Lavina has never gone inactive and continues to attend church and that she has tried to join the church again, but has been told no. Have you heard anything like this, curious if true. Nevermind again, just found the answer! I'm dumbfounded that the church would turn her down like that, upsetting to say the least. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/09/05/writer-excommunicated/

Lavinia Anderson is one of the few I wonder about.  A lot would depend on, I am guessing, if she is viewed as promoting/teaching her less traditional beliefs that are false doctrine according to church teachings.  As far as I understand, there has been no sense of her retracting her earlier positions.  Excommunications are not removed simply because time has passed, signs of repentance are necessary as well.  I understand there may be some who believe she has nothing to repent of, others do not.

Quote

She did, however, tell her leaders her concerns about church “exclusion” policies: barring worthy LGBTQ couples who are legally married from full participation; blocking “worthy and righteous women” from the male-only priesthood; and keeping Mother in Heaven “from her place in our understanding.”

 

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not trying to impress, just having some fun.  I thought the question was pretty silly.  

 

28 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Only silly if you don’t like the answer. It is a common apostate trope that the Church previously excommunicated historians for publishing data the Church is now publishing. There is no good reason not to care about the veracity of this oft-repeated claim. 

It’s not just harmless fun. It’s malicious sniping. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Steve Thompson said:

This isn't exactly what you are looking for, but David Wright....

No, I think that qualifies.  He may be the other one I wondered about actually.  I would have to read up on him to remind myself.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not trying to impress, just having some fun.  I thought the question was pretty silly.  

It looked more like a verbal sucker punch and then when confronted, saying 'sorry, not interested in fighting' to me.

There are those who might view such as fun, I do not.  You make an accusation, you are responsible for such and need to allow for debate.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not just harmless fun. It’s malicious sniping. 

One of my favourite ironies is people attempting to establish that the Church is somehow dishonest by uncritically repeating baseless claims. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The ironic thing is that those critics stuck in the antithesis stage are really a mirror image of orthodox members stuck in the thesis stage.  We need more people getting to the synthesis stage of life.  A thoughtful podcast on this very topic I recently listened to from Stephen Carter you might find interesting.  

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/episode-51-returning-to-church-without-returning-to-church/

I’ll take a look. 

But before I do, I’ll offer my observation that those in the first group are more apt to eventually wind up permanently ensconced in the antithesis stage than are those who, like Smac, considered questions and did the necessary work to find answers and resolution instead of wallowing in doubt after encountering things that prompted questions. 

The Smac model is, of course, the ideal. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, I think that qualifies.

In my opinion, publishing non-orthodox views that the Book of Mormon is not divine in origin does not equal 'publishing details about our history that the church itself is now publishing'.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The idea would be no National cultures at all only church culture. That's probably a pipe dream.

Pass it over here.

 

Culture comes from somewhere.  The bringing of the best of all the cultures members live in (national, ethnic, micro) to contribute to a greater church culture so all can benefit and not just locals is a sweet dream in my view.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In my opinion, publishing non-orthodox views regarding the Book of Mormon's origins does not equal 'publishing details about our history that the church itself is now publishing'.

True.  I was thinking more of being one of those many critics often point to as such examples rather than actually fitting that mold (since I have doubts that there is anyone who fits that specification).  And like I said, I think there may be a few that come close enough I wonder; I would like to have sat down with them at the time and talked, but at this point to the best of my knowledge even those seem to have been promoting/teaching ideas that are false doctrine, which qualifies as apostasy even if done as an academic endeavor or something else not meant to destroy faith.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

... but at this point even those seem to have been promoting/teaching ideas that qualify as false doctrine.  

Exactly!

And then it's convenient to try to snatch some martyr cred by claiming that one was disciplined just for 'telling the truth'. 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

Increasing candor means that in the past there was less candor. Yet I've been told many times that the Church's history was not hidden. OK, can we at least agree that the Church's complete history was not easy to find, especially before the internet?

I think the church is moving in the right direction.  One thing I think would really help the effort is to have professional historians oversee the history department. There hasn't been a professional historian in charge since Leonard Arrington. The current director is Elder LeGrand R. Curtis Jr. who is a Lawyer with a economics undergrad degree. 

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

Culture comes from somewhere.  The bringing of the best of all the cultures members live in (national, ethnic, micro) to contribute to a greater church culture so all can benefit and not just locals is a sweet dream in my view.

From customs to cuisine, I’m guessing there are traditions in the Church that stem from the nationalities of our ancestors who gathered to Zion. 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think things have changed much as far as I can tell in regards to interest and study in the last 45 years, as I remember in all my wards a few who were known to be more interested in history and scholarship, but most being more concerned with the quality of life for family, friends, and those they served.

Otoh, we now have a much more personally involved study program if done correctly that seems to me to be more than just encouraging members to read scriptures more (which has been the usual mode of past study programs imo) and people will need to find things to fill their study time, add more rigor in seminary and institute, there may be a significant movement.  

I do think there will likely be changes of certain attitudes, such as idealizing habits and seeing the Church as so American.  If the door is opened for other cultures to have impact, that could drive some major change there.  

I agree.  I think that shifting emphasis to personal study will (I think) give additional incentive to members to set up and stick to a study program.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think the church is moving in the right direction.  One thing I think would really help the effort is to have professional historians oversee the history department. There hasn't been a professional historian in charge since Leonard Arrington. The current director is Elder LeGrand R. Curtis Jr. who is a Lawyer with a economics undergrad degree. 

There are professional historians aplenty occupying staff and management positions at the Church History Department. The head position needs to be ecclesiastical. 
 

I liken it to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces being a civilian position (president of the United States). There is wisdom in that. 

[sunstoned]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are professional historians aplenty occupying staff and management positions at the Church History Department. The head position needs to be ecclesiastical. 
 

I liken it to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces being a civilian position (president of the United States). There is wisdom in that. 

I see your point, This is an honest question because I don't know, but do all church departments (IT, Transportation, media services) have a ecclesiastical leader?

 

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I think the church is moving in the right direction.  One thing I think would really help the effort is to have professional historians oversee the history department. There hasn't been a professional historian in charge since Leonard Arrington. The current director is Elder LeGrand R. Curtis Jr. who is a Lawyer with a economics undergrad degree. 

Isn't that more an administrative position though?

added:  see Scott made the point well.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I see your point, This is an honest question because I don't know, but do all church departments (IT, Transportation, media services) have a ecclesiastical leader?

 

Church historian is a revealed calling, isn't it?  Wasn't John Whitmer the first? Added:  sec 47

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/47?lang=eng

Edited February 13, 2020 by Calm

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Church historian is a revealed calling, isn't it?  Wasn't John Whitmer the first? Added:  sec 47

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/47?lang=eng

I think you may, and others, find this tidbit from this interview interesting

"Bennett: Some scholars have wondered why they don’t call an academic as Church historian. Is there any sense that there is a distrust of academic historians and scholars, or is that not on the radar?

Snow: I don’t know if it’s distrust; I think it’s more of tradition. If you go back to Willard Richards, George A. Smith, and Anthon Lund, they were all either members of the Twelve or members of the First Presidency who were historians. They had an office of assistants and clerks, Andrew Jenson being one of the most well-known Assistant Church Historians. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith obviously had a great influence over the office, with the many decades he was involved as Church Historian. It was much more restricted than we find it today. All the collections were in the old Church Administration Building, so it was different. I think when Elder Howard W. Hunter became Church Historian in 1970, he wasn’t really comfortable with the call. That is when it was decided to bring in Dr. Leonard Arrington from Utah State University as Church Historian. He had a remarkable decade. But there was a downside as well. I think that led to a time where there was a lot of scrutiny and questioning about what we should do in the future. Following Dr. Arrington, there were a couple of historians called, but there was a gap of about sixteen years when there was technically not a Church Historian. Elder Marlin K. Jensen had a vision of where it could and should go and gave great leadership in a very difficult time. He was here at a good time, because this facility [the Church History Library] was started and completed. It is a remarkable facility for Church history.

It’s been a good seven to eight years of Church history, and I think Elder Jensen is primarily responsible for that. And don’t underestimate, obviously, President Hinckley’s love of Church history. His fingerprints are all over everything. He and Elder Jensen were very close. Elder Jensen was an excellent historian. It’s the kind of calling where you have to have a steady hand, and you have to make sure you let the Brethren know what’s going on. I’ve always found if you are very up front, very forthright, and very open about what you are doing and what you plan to do and try to follow direction, generally you are fine. When that doesn’t happen, I think that’s when problems occur.

Part of my challenge is to make certain that I understand that if the Brethren have questions, we get to them and answer them quickly. We have an opportunity to defend positions with them and to state our case, but ultimately if we are given specific direction by the Brethren, we take it. My view is that being open about our history solves a whole lot more problems than it creates. We might not have all the answers, but if we are open (and we now have pretty remarkable transparency), then I think in the long run that will serve us well. I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation—with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open."

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-14-no-3-2013/start-faith-conversation-elder-steven-e-snow

 

What's ironic is Dr. Bennett is an academic historian and my former Stake President

[sunstoned]

In addition to the Saints project, another indicator that the church is becoming more open with regards to its history is the fact that Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University and Haley Wilson (BYU undergrad researcher) published research that indicates that the JS inspired version of the Bible was largely plagiarized from Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary.  I know there are different opinions on what this means, but my point is that a BYU professor published research that exposes some of the "warts" of church history, and he still (to the best of my knowledge) has his job and is still in good standing with the church

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

From customs to cuisine, I’m guessing there are traditions in the Church that stem from the nationalities of our ancestors who gathered to Zion. 

Definitely.  It would be great to now also see traditions from those who gather in their stakes of Zion since communication and sharing of info and ideas is so much more effective.  I think that would be better than the current culture becoming a generic world culture (the international branch in Moscow didn't feel hugely different from home and as the branch president was married to my Utahn husband's first crush who was the RS President, that's not surprising;  the Russian branch meeting right before us had a more unique feel).

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

In addition to the Saints project, another indicator that the church is becoming more open with regards to its history is the fact that Thomas Wayment, professor of Classics at Brigham Young University and Haley Wilson (BYU undergrad researcher) published research that indicates that the JS inspired version of the Bible was largely plagiarized from Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary.  I know there are different opinions on what this means, but my point is that a BYU professor published research that exposes some of the "warts" of church history, and he still (to the best of my knowledge) has his job and is still in good standing with the church

He was in my ward at the time (it has since split again, that ward lasted maybe 5 years) and is in very good standing.  Teaching Gospel Doctrine last I heard.

Quote

JS inspired version of the Bible was largely plagiarized from Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary. 

I think that might be an overstatement.  Do you have a percentage of the works that overlap?  Not saying it wasn't very significant***, just going for accuracy.*****

This has a summary from the work:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_is_the_Adam_Clarke_Commentary_and_what_do_critics_of_Mormonism_claim_about_it_as_it_regards_the_Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible%3F

Quote

Our research has revealed that the number of direct parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap. The parallels between the two texts number into the hundreds, a number that is well beyond the limits of this paper to discuss. A few of them, however, demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke and establish that he was inclined to lean on Clarke’s commentary for matters of history, textual questions, clarification of wording, and theological nuance. In presenting the evidence, we have attempted to both establish that Smith drew upon Clarke, likely at the urging of Rigdon, and we present here a broad categorization of the types of changes that Smith made when he used Clarke as a source.[1]

Quote

What we found, a student assistant (Hailey Wilson Lamone) and I, we discovered that in about 200 to 300 — depending on how much change is being involved — parallels where Joseph Smith has the exact same change to a verse that Adam Clarke does. They’re verbatim. Some of them are 5 to 6 words; some of them are 2 words; some of them are a single word. But in cases where that single word is fairly unique or different, it seemed pretty obvious that he’s getting this from Adam Clarke. What really changed my worldview here is now I’m looking at what appears obvious as a text person, that the prophet has used Adam Clarke. That in the process of doing the translation, he’s either read it, has it in front of him, or he reads it at night. We started to look back through the Joseph Smith History. There’s a story of his brother-in-law presenting Joseph Smith with a copy of Adam Clarke. We do not know whose copy of Adam Clarke it is, but we do know that Nathaniel Lewis gives it to the prophet and says, “I want to use the Urim and Thummim. I want to translate some of the strange characters out of Adam Clarke’s commentary.” Joseph will clearly not give him the Urim and Thummim to do that, but we know he had it in his hands. Now looking at the text, we can say that a lot of the material that happens after Genesis 24. There are no parallels to Clarke between Genesis 1–Genesis 24. But when we start to get to Matthew, it’s very clear that Adam Clarke has influenced the way he changes the Bible. It was a big moment. That article comes out in the next year. We provide appendi [sic] and documentation for some of the major changes, and we try to grapple with what this might mean.[3]

 

"Plagiarized" is also a presentist view, imo.  Dr. Wayment didn't view it as such:

Quote

When news inadvertently broke that a source had been uncovered that was used in the process of creating the JST, some were quick to use that information as a point of criticism against Joseph or against the JST. Words like “plagiarism” were quickly brought forward as a reasonable explanation of what was going on. To be clear, plagiarism is a word that to me implies an overt attempt to copy the work of another person directly and intentionally without attributing any recognition to the source from which the information was taken.

To the best of my understanding, Joseph Smith used Adam Clarke as a Bible commentary to guide his mind and thought process to consider the Bible in ways that he wouldn’t have been able to do so otherwise. It may be strong to say, but Joseph didn’t have training in ancient languages or the history of the Bible, but Adam Clarke did. And Joseph appears to have appreciated Clarke’s expertise and in using Clarke as a source, Joseph at times adopted the language of that source as he revised the Bible. I think that those who are troubled by this process are largely troubled because it contradicts a certain constructed narrative about the history of the JST and about how revelation works. 
The reality of what happened is inspiring. 
Joseph, who applied his own prophetic authority to the Bible in the revision process, drew upon the best available scholarship to guide his prophetic instincts. Inspiration following careful study and consideration is a prophetic model that can include many members of the church. 

I hope people who read the study when it comes out will pause long enough to consider the benefit of expanding the definition of the prophetic gift to include academic study as a key component before rejecting the evidence outright.[4]

*****This implies a smaller percentage:

Quote

Joseph was in control of the project for most of the time and only referred to Clarke for a fraction of the revisions he made.

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Only silly if you don’t like the answer. It is a common apostate trope that the Church previously excommunicated historians for publishing data the Church is now publishing. There is no good reason not to care about the veracity of this oft-repeated claim. 

I called your question silly, and you saw my silly and raised it by labeling those who may disagree as apostates.  I saw that kind of rhetoric coming.