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

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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

😆 

[Calm]

Also:

Quote

In categorizing Smith’s larger project of retranslating the Bible, Barlow has argued that Smith’s changes can be categorized into five different categories.5 While this essay has only dealt with some of Barlow’s proposed categories of changes, it is helpful in conclusion to see the larger constellation of changes made to the Bible. Barlow’s five categories can be summarized briefly as follows: 1. Long insertions that interrupt the biblical narrative and have no obvious textual source (we have defined these as belonging to Smith’s revelatory intent), 2. Theological corrections, 3. Interpretive additions that seek to clarify the text, 4. Harmonization, particularly in the Synoptic gospels,6 5. Grammatical changes including technical clarifications and the modernization of terms.

Given the new evidence presented in this paper, it would seem prudent to recognize that Barlow’s numbers three through five appear to be frequently influenced by Clarke’s commentary. In fact, it is arguable that Clarke is the primary source Smith used to make these types of changes, and as such these changes may not actually represent Smith’s initial impetus for translating the Bible, but may demonstrate that Smith was induced to change the Bible in certain ways through the encouragement of Clarke. In attempting to simplify what was a very complicated process, it is apparent that Clarke was not utilized for the long emendations. It is more likely that Clarke provided grammatical, historical and linguistic aide to Smith as he carried out his work. Therefore, it can be argued that Clarke was less a theological resource than he was a practical one and, by means of Sidney Rigdon, Smith likely became familiar with the commentary and utilized it at varying levels of engagement throughout the “translation” process.7 Finally, characterizing the overall intent and purpose of Smith’s retranslation of the Bible has been a somewhat elusive endeavor. The translation of the Bible done by Alexander Campbell is representative of a denominationally oriented academic translation whereas Smith’s translation represents something else entirely. It preserves the KJV text as the foundation upon which it adds a prophetic rephrasing and reshaping with an academic veneer that originated in Methodist scholarship of the early nineteenth century that was both linguistically and historically informed.8 One of the larger questions raised by this study is whether this new information would alter the reception of Smith’s translation as a canonical or nearly canonical text.9 With some of the changes that Smith introduced into the text of the Bible resulting from academic sources, albeit modified and altered, the question arises as to whether the changes that arose via Clarke would have the same claim to canonicity that the longer revelatory insertions might have.

http://jur.byu.edu/?p=21296

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

I guess I’m guilty of accusing someone of asking a silly question and my unwillingness to enter debate.  Yep

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Wallowing in doubt sounds like a comment from a person in the first group. The corresponding comment from a second group member would be to accuse people in the first group of wallowing in faith.  
 

But at any rate I don’t know that anyone neatly fits into any of the groups, we’re likely overlapping to various degrees all over the spectrum.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I called your question silly ...

It wasn't my question.

Quote

... and you saw my silly and raised it by labeling those who may disagree as apostates.

I did no such thing. Please read for comprehension.

Quote

I saw that kind of rhetoric coming.

You saw it in your imagination, and then you somehow managed to see it in my words. Funny how that works.

[pogi]

11 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. 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

11 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Exactly!

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

I have heard general accusations before but have never seen any solid evidence.  hope-for-things may have viewed my question as silly (not sure why), but it was an honest question.  From my perspective, I could see how a bishop/stake president in the 80's who may have had limited knowledge of church history might have viewed some academic endeavors into church history as spreading/teaching "false doctrine" and excommunicating members for such teachings.  As the OP stated, "times-are-a-changin'".  I could reasonably see that happening in the past, and thought it would be an interesting discussion to have.  If there is any evidence of it happening, I would like to see it.    

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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).

I have always liked the fact that one could attend a ward or branch of the Church of Jesus Christ virtually anywhere in the world and feel comfortable and at home. I hope that continues. I don’t think it’s a matter of culture so much as a matter of the Saints being one as we were commanded by Jesus Christ in the early days of the Church. 

We can still enjoy a diversity of cultures in less formal ecclesiastical settings. While a missionary in Sweden, for example, I enjoyed a midsommar celebration (though I didn’t stay up all night to see the midnight sun) and my companions and I were invited to the homes of members for the uniquely Swedish Christmas Eve feasts. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/12/2020 at 9:58 PM, 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?

 

Yes, typically. If a division or department  is not directly answerable to one or more General Authorities, it is apt to be under an umbrella department that is. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have heard general accusations before but have never seen any solid evidence.  hope-for-things may have viewed my question as silly (not sure why), but it was an honest question.  From my perspective, I could see how a bishop/stake president in the 80's who may have had limited knowledge of church history might have viewed some academic endeavors into church history as spreading/teaching "false doctrine" and excommunicating members for such teachings.  As the OP stated, "times-are-a-changin'".  I could reasonably see that happening in the past, and thought it would be an interesting discussion to have.  If there is any evidence of it happening, I would like to see it.    

I know through the different discussion forums I remember people saying they were chastised for talking about the warts in church history. Also, on this board I recall a GD teacher in trouble for sharing the Gospel Topic Essays with the class. Do you remember that? Also, Pres. Packer wasn't too happy that the CES teacher's might share unsavory church history, by saying some truth isn't useful. So I can see how someone might get in trouble for it. His quote was: "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful." 

[sunstoned]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

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

 

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

*****This implies a smaller percentage:

 

That very well maybe the case, but as I mentioned in my post as a qualifier, there are different ways to interpret the research findings.   My point was this research is a bit controversial, and yet the author remains in good standing  in the church.  

[CA Steve]

10 hours ago, sunstoned said:

That very well maybe the case, but as I mentioned in my post as a qualifier, there are different ways to interpret the research findings.   My point was this research is a bit controversial, and yet the author remains in good standing  in the church.  

It hasn't really been published yet though i think the book is due out in the next month. Hard to see him being punished based on a blurb. I am not saying he will be but it might be a bit premature to conclude anything at this time. It would also be interesting to know if he has faced any backlash from other BYU scholars for some of his work. Maybe Calm can ask him.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Maybe Calm can ask him.

I am not going to ask anyone to share details of their work or family life or anything that might affect relationships if it became known they shared them.  Now if they volunteered the info, that is different.  I especially wouldn't do it for professors after watching academic/staff politics for the last 35 years (husband is a prof).

Sorry, I am curious too.

Given his description of where they found the parallels and his published opinion Joseph used the book as a practical guide for grammar, harmonization, etc and it was not present in the long revelations or theological corrections, I see little different from what has been already published in the Ensign save for having the source now for many/most of Joseph's 'reasoned out' corrections.  (I may go find the article I am thinking of for its specific language later).

Edited February 14, 2020 by Calm

[stemelbow]

On 2/12/2020 at 10:24 PM, 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

That research (by Wayment and Wilson) hasn't been published, yet, as far as I know.  The goal, last I heard was it would be published through the UofU somewhere around late 2019 or early 2020.  Has it been published?

If what I heard is correct, though, it doesn't sound like this is a case of the Church being more open.  

 

ETA:  I see CA Steve beat me to this.  But whatever.  

Edited February 14, 2020 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

That very well maybe the case, but as I mentioned in my post as a qualifier, there are different ways to interpret the research findings.   My point was this research is a bit controversial, and yet the author remains in good standing  in the church.  

For those interested, Haley Wilson seems to have a different take on their findings and research.  For more of her take, Bill Reel did an interview with her some time back:

https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/05/haley-lemmon-joseph-smith-translation-revelation-plagiarism/

 

(I know this board has a problem with sharing information through links, but I don't think this one should present a problem.  If it does, please delete).

Edited February 14, 2020 by stemelbow

[mfbukowski]

On 2/12/2020 at 2:24 PM, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, I'm looking forward to seeing Harriet.  My wife and I were really impressed with the lead actor singing at the Oscars, she sounded amazing.  

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I just came across a Wikipedia article, that is absolutely the best I have ever seen about my point of view.

It might be a bit obtuse for the general reader.

But this is it.

If one was interested in exploring this way of thinking this is the best article I have seen as a starter. Perhaps you will understand that my point of view represents an entire School of philosophy and is not just old wacko Mark.

I see this as the best approach for LDS beliefs from a philosophical point of view, in understanding The Language game / paradigm of Mormonism

Excellent article. Don't know who wrote it, but he knows this stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism

[hope_for_things]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, but I just came across a Wikipedia article, that is absolutely the best I have ever seen about my point of view.

It might be a bit obtuse for the general reader.

But this is it.

If one was interested in exploring this way of thinking this is the best article I have seen as a starter. Perhaps you will understand that my point of view represents an entire School of philosophy and is not just old wacko Mark.

I see this as the best approach for LDS beliefs from a philosophical point of view, in understanding The Language game / paradigm of Mormonism

Excellent article. Don't know who wrote it, but he knows this stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopragmatism

Excellent!  Nice to have someone else out there write up a good summary of this school of thought.  FWIW, I still think you're wacko!  

Just kidding of course.  This is interesting, I'll take a look at it and save it for future reference.  

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Excellent!  Nice to have someone else out there write up a good summary of this school of thought.  FWIW, I still think you're wacko!  

Just kidding of course.  This is interesting, I'll take a look at it and save it for future reference.  

I just might take that article and insert comments, and make it a thread.... hmmm...

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/13/2020 at 10:16 AM, Tacenda said:

I know through the different discussion forums I remember people saying they were chastised for talking about the warts in church history. Also, on this board I recall a GD teacher in trouble for sharing the Gospel Topic Essays with the class. Do you remember that? Also, Pres. Packer wasn't too happy that the CES teacher's might share unsavory church history, by saying some truth isn't useful. So I can see how someone might get in trouble for it. His quote was: "There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful." 

The Packer quote is an old, old anti-Mormon talking point. My take on it is that a thing is not very useful if it does not promote a broader understanding of truth. I’ve long maintained that a fact served up without clarifying context can be as bad, if not worse than, an overt lie. 
 

That may not have been what Elder Packer meant, but it’s what I say. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Packer quote is an old, old anti-Mormon talking point. My take on it is that a thing is not very useful if it does not promote a broader understanding of truth. I’ve long maintained that a fact served up without clarifying context can be as bad, if not worse than, an overt lie. 
 

That may not have been what Elder Packer meant, but it’s what I say. 

Guess what Scott, if Pres. Packer hadn't stopped the CES teachers from sharing the information earlier the church wouldn't be trying so hard to now share that information. Now the Gospel Topic Essays and other information is actually causing members to leave. But I understand that it is a most difficult situation the church is in right now. 

The other day I heard that the narrative was even changed in the early church when Brigham Young took the helm. But I don't have a reference for now. Have you heard anything like that?

Edited February 14, 2020 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Guess what Scott, if Pres. Packer hadn't stopped the CES teachers from sharing the information earlier the church wouldn't be trying so hard to now share that information. Now the Gospel Topic Essays and other information is actually causing members to leave. But I understand that it is a most difficult situation the church is in right now. 

The other day I heard that the narrative was even changed in the early church when Brigham Young took the helm. But I don't have a reference for now. Have you heard anything like that?

No, I’ve not heard anything like that, nor do I know what you mean by saying that he “changed the narrative.” 

But your post did not really respond to my point, which is that “facts” that are ostensibly true but that mislead because they lack clarifying context are as potentially harmful as an overt lie. Do you disagree with that? 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Packer quote is an old, old anti-Mormon talking point. My take on it is that a thing is not very useful if it does not promote a broader understanding of truth. I’ve long maintained that a fact served up without clarifying context can be as bad, if not worse than, an overt lie. 
 

That may not have been what Elder Packer meant, but it’s what I say. 

Sounds to me like he was teaching them that, even if something is true, if it doesn't promote faith - it may not be "useful" (which, in this context, I take to mean: worth teaching to your CES students).

[smac97]

On 2/12/2020 at 12:38 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

What a wonderful account, Smac. I should like to have known your father. 

Thanks.  He's still around.  I chatted with him for about an hour last night

On 2/12/2020 at 12:38 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It sounds like you grew up with questions about the Church as distinguished from doubts.

Well, "to doubt" means "to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe."  It can also mean "to distrust."

So there's quite a spectrum of meaning there.  Certainly nobody in the Church can be blamed for feeling "uncertain" about some of the doctrines of the Church.

But are we allowed to approach some doctrines/teachings as "questionable or unlikely"?  I suppose so.  I have opinions about some few topics relating to the Church.  I find the idea of a global deluge difficult to accept.  I have reservations about the priesthood ban being implemented by God (though I believe it was ended by God).  There are a few others.  Are these "doubts"?  Well, I'm not sure.  If they are, I feel okay with where I am.  I feel that I need to give myself a bit of latitude on such peripheral and secondary questions.

Meanwhile, I believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.  I believe in the Atonement.  I have a testimony of the Restoration, including the ownership of the Church.  I think we are supposed to have faith in these things.

Faith requires some measure of uncertainty.  And faith needs to have a proper object.  That is, I think we need to differentiate our approach to the object of our faith (Jesus Christ), and, well everything else.  I think Davis Bitton's essay is very helpful on this point: I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church.

On 2/12/2020 at 12:38 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

We’ve discussed the distinction here on the board recently. 

One minor picking point: I thought the “Salt Sermon” was what Sidney Rigdon gave back in Missouri that led up to the violent conflict between Church members and Missourians. I do know that George A. Smith gave incendiary speeches in southern Utah to rally the Saints against the dreaded approach of Johnston’s army. Perhaps he gave a talk called the “Salt Sermon” as well. 

Oh, you are quite correct on that.  My bad.  Thanks for the correction.

Here's a link to George A. Smith's recounting of what he said while in southern Utah.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

... Perhaps you will understand that my point of view represents an entire School of philosophy and is not just old wacko Mark. ...

What if we split the difference, recognizing that your point of view represents an entire school of philosophy, but still thinking that you're an old wacko?  Is that OK? 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thanks.  He's still around.  I chatted with him for about an hour last night

Well, "to doubt" means "to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe."  It can also mean "to distrust."

So there's quite a spectrum of meaning there.  Certainly nobody in the Church can be blamed for feeling "uncertain" about some of the doctrines of the Church.

But are we allowed to approach some doctrines/teachings as "questionable or unlikely"?  I suppose so.  I have opinions about some few topics relating to the Church.  I find the idea of a global deluge difficult to accept.  I have reservations about the priesthood ban being implemented by God (though I believe it was ended by God).  There are a few others.  Are these "doubts"?  Well, I'm not sure.  If they are, I feel okay with where I am.  I feel that I need to give myself a bit of latitude on such peripheral and secondary questions.

Meanwhile, I believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.  I believe in the Atonement.  I have a testimony of the Restoration, including the ownership of the Church.  I think we are supposed to have faith in these things.

Faith requires some measure of uncertainty.  And faith needs to have a proper object.  That is, I think we need to differentiate our approach to the object of our faith (Jesus Christ), and, well everything else.  I think Davis Bitton's essay is very helpful on this point: I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church.

Oh, you are quite correct on that.  My bad.  Thanks for the correction.

Here's a link to George A. Smith's recounting of what he said while in southern Utah.

Thanks,

-Smac

I still resist what I see as a current thought trend that, as pertaining to the restored gospel, doubts are to be honored, reveled in and celebrated. I think they are to be alleviated and resolved if possible. I see great meaning and application for our day in the scriptural injunction to “be not faithless, but be believing. 

As reflected in your definition, doubt certainly encompasses uncertainty, but to me it goes far beyond that to mistrust and considering a thing unlikely. Hence, my differentiation between doubting and questioning. 

Thanks for the George A. Smith link. I haven’t explored it yet, but it does appear interesting. 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I still resist what I see as a current thought trend that, as pertaining to the restored gospel that doubts are to be honored, reveled in and celebrated. I think they are to be alleviated and resolved if possible.

Same here.  Doubts as to other matters (such as historical issues) are understandable, but I'm not sure they are appropriately "honored, reveled in and celebrated."  Doubts are present when we lack sufficient information to draw a substantiated and reasoned conclusion.  

Thanks,

-Smac