Seer Stone In A Hat

[pogi]

11 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Not here to say you're wrong, but in actuality I believe you might be part of the problem.... I read Arrington, Bushman, Vogel and many others.... in direct and indirect ways they claim the church lied to us.  

What if they did lie to us, would that destroy your testimony?  Should a person's faith be based in a fallible and imperfect institution or leader, or should it be based in something more eternal and enduring?   The Old Testament teaches us many important lessons on how we should and should not perceive prophets in terms of fallibility. 

Would you consider it a lie to intentionally conceal "difficult" history that the church thought would not be helpful?  If you consider that lying, then leaders have pretty much admitted to favoring a culture of lying about history:

Quote

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.

- Elder Boyd K Packer

Quote

Not everything that’s true is useful.

- Elder Dallin H Oaks

Hence, we get the Disneyesque narrative of history that has led to much disillusionment.  Couple that with the black and white teaching that it is all true or all fraud and you get shattered faith.  When disillusionment happens from a paradigm of "it's all true or all fraud", then the only conclusion can be that it is all fraud if everything I have been taught is not all true.   

The worst thing that one can do for the future of faith in our church is 1) continue to sustain the illusion that has been created by concealing "difficult" history, and 2) teach an all true or all fraud black/white paradigm of belief.   Have you ever wondered why so many who leave the church become bitter enemies?  It is because they were good saints who believed strongly in what they were taught.  They took it to heart and are a product of what they have been taught their whole lives - if it is not all true, then the conclusion can only be one thing...

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by pogi

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I almost feel like this is another poster that was banned. And you're just playing with us.

No, this is serous about how we are being accused of lying about our history... you don't have to respond if your mind is made up and your not worried about our youth haveing faith crisis and leaving the church.  I am concerned and don't play games.

I suggest you just go to another topic more to your liking... I'm not being rude but at the same time you are judging me incorrectly 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Most of what they have mentioned has come from this wikipedia page here.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I almost feel like this is another poster that was banned. And you're just playing with us.

No, this is serous about how we are being accused of lying about our history... you don't have to respond if your mind is made up and your not worried about our youth haveing faith crisis and leaving the church.  I am concerned and don't play games.

I suggest you just go to another topic more to your liking... I'm not being rude but at the same time you are judging me incorrectly 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Most of what they have mentioned has come from this wikipedia page here.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I almost feel like this is another poster that was banned. And you're just playing with us.

No, this is serous about how we are being accused of lying about our history... you don't have to respond if your mind is made up and your not worried about our youth haveing faith crisis and leaving the church.  I am concerned and don't play games.

I suggest you just go to another topic more to your liking... I'm not being rude but at the same time you are judging me incorrectly 

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

What if they did lie to us, would that destroy your testimony?  Should a person's faith be based in a fallible and imperfect institution or leader, or should it be based in something more eternal and enduring?   The Old Testament teaches us many important lessons on how we should and should not perceive prophets in terms of fallibility. 

Would you consider it a lie to intentionally conceal "difficult" history that the church thought would not be helpful?  If you consider that lying, then leaders have pretty much admitted to favoring a culture of lying about history:

Hence, we get the Disneyesque narrative of history that has led to much disillusionment.  Couple that with the black and white teaching that it is all true or all fraud and you get shattered faith.  When disillusionment happens from a paradigm of "it's all true or all fraud", then the only conclusion can be that it is all fraud if everything I have been taught is not all true.   

The worst thing that one can do for the future of faith in our church is 1) continue to sustain the illusion that has been created by concealing "difficult" history, and 2) teach an all true or all fraud black/white paradigm of belief.   Have you ever wondered why so many who leave the church become bitter enemies?  It is because they were good saints who believed strongly in what they were taught.  They took it to heart and are a product of what they have been taught their whole lives - if it is not all true, then the conclusion can only be one thing...

 

No, my testimony came from God thru the Holy Ghost.... let me ask you a question, would you remain a member if they decided to marry same sex couples, both civilly and in the Temple and women could hold the priesthood of God?  

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Most of what they have mentioned has come from this wikipedia page here.

Not by me, I never saw that page, I do my own  research and read and study a lot.  

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So let's clarify this, ok? History doesn't change. Our perception and understanding of history changes. There is something wrong with arguing (as you are) that the Church shouldn't make efforts to correct the understanding of its history and the perceptions of that history, when it turns out that the understanding and perceptions don't reflect what really happened.

Second, you keep using this term "progressive" as if it means something in this context. It doesn't. Progressive does not mean wanting to change the understanding or perception of the history of the Church to match the reality of that history. Progressive generally refers to the divide that is sometimes viewed between conservative and liberal views within a movement. Progressive Mormons are generally labeled as such because of issues over theology, doctrine, and policy - not history. Additionally, many of the names you have listed aren't Mormons at all - the idea of labeling them as 'progressive' in a Mormon context has absolutely no meaning at all. Labeling them as progressive in some other context doesn't really have any meaning either - at least for this discussion. And really, does anyone here think that Jerald and Sandra Tanner should be considered progressives in any context? (I am not saying this or using them as an example to disparage them, just to point out that being progressive requires certain characteristics that are not shared by everyone in this group that you claim are trying to change Mormon history).

In general, the notion of historical revisionism isn't itself particularly controversial, it isn't something that is divided along liberal and conservative lines - and so it isn't a progressive practice. Finally, the First Presidency of the Church has been involved in approving the new approaches to Mormon history on the LDS Church's official website. Do you think that they are progressive?

Richard Bushman:  RICHARD BUSHMAN ADMITS MORMON LEADERS MISLED MEMBERS WITH A FALSE NARRATIVE..... 

 

I think for the Church to remain strong it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true. It can’t be sustained. The Church has to absorb all this new information or it will be on very shaky grounds, and that’s what it’s trying to do. And they’ll be a strain for a lot of people, older people especially. But I think it has to change. Elder Packer had the sense of “protecting the little people.” He felt like the scholars were an enemy to his faith, and that of the grandmothers living in Sanpete County. That was a very lovely pastoral image. But the price of protecting the grandmothers was the loss of the grandsons. They got a story that didn’t work. So we’ve just had to change our narrative.

 

Yes, the question is will we leave room to experience Mormonism in different ways, or is our strength the fact that we can all hold on to same tree? [crosstalk] I actually am concern about that, and I think people who have a more progressive view or who are up to date on what’s going on, who know “a truer version,” have to be very sympathetic for people having trouble letting go. There have to be many branches for growth in the Church, we want them to be sympathetic of us as we struggle on. It has to be a brotherly and sisterly act. We don’t want to break up our community, which is our great strength and the beauty of the church in the name of finding some abstract truth that works better for each one of us. So it’s going to be its struggle for the next, I don’t know, two or three decades on the way as we go through this process.

https://www.Mormon*******.***/podcast/faithful-mormon-historian-richard-bushman-admits-that-mormon-church-leaders-have-been-misleading-church-members-for-generations/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by rjohnson7

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, rjohnson7 said:

Not by me, I never saw that page, I do my own  research and read and study a lot.  

So plagiarism then ...

Here is what you wrote -

On 9/1/2023 at 10:06 PM, rjohnson7 said:

New Mormonism is taught by some ar BYU.  Lenard Abington the LDS Historian for the Church wrote several progressive and revised history as did Richard Bushman.   If you google The New Mormonism it pretty much explains....

New Mormon history refers to a style of reporting the history of Mormonism by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars which departs from earlier more polemical or faith-based styles of history. Rather than presenting material selectively to either prove or disprove Mormonism, the focus of new Mormon history is to present history in a more humanistic and dispassionate way, and to situate Mormon history in a fuller historical context. Because it is a break from past historical narratives, new Mormon history tends to be revisionist. In many cases, the new Mormon history follows the perspectives and techniques of new history, including cultural history. The Mormon historian Richard Bushman described it as "a quest for identity rather than a quest for authority."^[1] New Mormon historians include a wide range of both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, the most prominent of which include Bushman, Jan Shipps, D. Michael Quinn, Terryl Givens, Leonard J. Arrington, Richard P. Howard, Fawn Brodie, and Juanita Brooks.

And this is from the wikipedia website I linked:

Quote

New Mormon history refers to a style of reporting the history of Mormonism by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars which departs from earlier more polemical or faith-based styles of history. Rather than presenting material selectively to either prove or disprove Mormonism, the focus of new Mormon history is to present history in a more humanistic and dispassionate way, and to situate Mormon history in a fuller historical context. Because it is a break from past historical narratives, new Mormon history tends to be revisionist. In many cases, the new Mormon history follows the perspectives and techniques of new history, including cultural history. The Mormon historian Richard Bushman described it as "a quest for identity rather than a quest for authority."^[1] New Mormon historians include a wide range of both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, the most prominent of which include Bushman, Jan Shipps, D. Michael Quinn, Terryl Givens, Leonard J. Arrington, Richard P. Howard, Fawn Brodie, and Juanita Brooks.

So you may not have realized where it was coming from in your google results, but now you know ...

[rjohnson7]

4 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So plagiarism then ...

Here is what you wrote -

And this is from the wikipedia website I linked:

So you may not have realized where it was coming from in your google results, but now you know ...

I sincerely apologize and honestly admit my bad.  I own it, and did not source correctly. 

[rjohnson7]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So plagiarism then ...

Here is what you wrote -

And this is from the wikipedia website I linked:

So you may not have realized where it was coming from in your google results, but now you know ...

So are you going to argue or debate this issue as a non threat to some members, mostly the youth and new members.   I have dealt with both, the youth and new members.  I was in the Bishopric and now serve as the Elder Quorum President but never teach or discuss any of this in our meeting or teachings.   Do you believe that some day our leaders will approve same sex marriage and women holding the priesthood and if they do are you fine with this?   One poster has called me a troll, I have to laugh at the judgmental judgment of some here.  I'm not a troll and have never been suspended from this forum...

 

Richard... 

Edited September 7, 2023 by rjohnson7

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

No, my testimony came from God thru the Holy Ghost.... let me ask you a question, would you remain a member if they decided to marry same sex couples, both civilly and in the Temple and women could hold the priesthood of God?  

I’d be happy to discuss that with you in a thread related to that subject.  
 

I am glad to hear your testimony wouldn’t be affected by them lying.  

Do you consider it lying to intentionally concealing “difficult” history because they didn’t view it as helpful?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Just now, rjohnson7 said:

Richard Bushman:  RICHARD BUSHMAN ADMITS MORMON LEADERS MISLED MEMBERS WITH A FALSE NARRATIVE

You are digging a hole here.

That is a statement made by John Dehlin. It is not how Richard Bushman would characterize it. If you go and listen to the video of the fireside that Dehlin is referencing, you will find Richard Bushman saying this:

Quote

As if the church authorities knew it all and they were just concealing it. There was a little bit of that. They did hide Mountain Meadows for a while. But on the whole the church authorities had no better knowledge of church history than the normal members and the general authorities also had to be educated in this new kind of history.

This fits much better with my descriptions of what is going on than it does with yours. One of the interesting features of the wikipedia description of historical revisionism (we can keep using Wikipedia sources since it's easy for you to find) is that it actually provides in its definition a statement of where it usually occurs. Here is that definition with my added emphasis:

Quote

In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account. It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or timespan or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.

When we start talking about Mormon history - and in particular orthodox Mormon history, the first thing that comes up is that until Arrington was made the official Church Historian, there had never been a professional historian or scholar that held that position in the Church. So we cannot talk of historical revisionism that begins with Arrington without recognizing that the traditional history was a collection of beliefs and not based on the conclusions of professional historians. This is what Bushman is referring to in the quote I took from his presentation: "the church authorities had no better knowledge of church history than the normal members and the general authorities also had to be educated in this new kind of history." And then we get to the quotes that you provide - and this is what I have been saying all along - that in changing the narrative, the LDS Church has recognized that while it will be difficult for some of us older members of the Church to process, this is a one time challenge. Once the narrative has been corrected, then all of the younger members as well as all of the new converts will never have to face this discrepancy between a traditional narrative and a historical narrative - the two narratives will be the same. The important thing is that the LDS Church becomes a participant in helping form that narrative instead of being on the sidelines watching it being created by everyone else.

But in any case, here we are again. Why is it that you are quoting a well known critic of the LDS Church? Why are you willing to adopt the way that they characterize the problem rather than the characterizations of the believing member historians (like Bushman)? This is not a good way to go here if your interest is in keeping people in the faith.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I do my own  research 

Using “Copy” and “Paste” is definitely not that.

[rjohnson7]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Using “Copy” and “Paste” is definitely not that.

Did I not apologize and admit my bad?  What else do you want from me, please expand on your criticism... 

[rjohnson7]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

I’d be happy to discuss that with you in a thread related to that subject.  
 

I am glad to hear your testimony wouldn’t be affected by them lying.  

Do you consider it lying to intentionally concealing “difficult” history because they didn’t view it as helpful?

I believe in truthful history and not by some 2nd and third hand account.... LDS history is complex and limited in some areas of JS and his money digging, seer stone in a hat, lazy youth and magic and occult practices. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Using “Copy” and “Paste” is definitely not that.

In his defense, we all end up needing to do this from time to time.

The trick, when doing armchair research, is learning to understand the quality of the sources and how those sources introduce bias into the discussion.

[rjohnson7]

8 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You are digging a hole here.

That is a statement made by John Dehlin. It is not how Richard Bushman would characterize it. If you go and listen to the video of the fireside that Dehlin is referencing, you will find Richard Bushman saying this:

Appreciate your review and opinion, I see it differently of course. 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This fits much better with my descriptions of what is going on than it does with yours. One of the interesting features of the wikipedia description of historical revisionism (we can keep using Wikipedia sources since it's easy for you to find) is that it actually provides in its definition a statement of where it usually occurs. Here is that definition with my added emphasis:

  Quote In historiography, historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of a historical account. It usually involves challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event or timespan or phenomenon, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then results in revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments.

Who to believe, yikes!   I have dug deeply and I assume you have also.   The more I take a deep dive the more I'm convinced the Church never lied about the seer stone in a hat or magic and occult practices by the Smith family and JS being a lazy youth.

Call me a traditionalist and yet there is a divide between us and the progressive BYU professors, Historians, etc. 

 

When we start talking about Mormon history - and in particular orthodox Mormon history, the first thing that comes up is that until Arrington was made the official Church Historian, there had never been a professional historian or scholar that held that position in the Church. So we cannot talk of historical revisionism that begins with Arrington without recognizing that the traditional history was a collection of beliefs and not based on the conclusions of professional historians. This is what Bushman is referring to in the quote I took from his presentation: "the church authorities had no better knowledge of church history than the normal members and the general authorities also had to be educated in this new kind of history." And then we get to the quotes that you provide - and this is what I have been saying all along - that in changing the narrative, the LDS Church has recognized that while it will be difficult for some of us older members of the Church to process, this is a one time challenge. Once the narrative has been corrected, then all of the younger members as well as all of the new converts will never have to face this discrepancy between a traditional narrative and a historical narrative - the two narratives will be the same. The important thing is that the LDS Church becomes a participant in helping form that narrative instead of being on the sidelines watching it being created by everyone else.

But in any case, here we are again. Why is it that you are quoting a well known critic of the LDS Church? Why are you willing to adopt the way that they characterize the problem rather than the characterizations of the believing member historians (like Bushman)? This is not a good way to go here if your interest is in keeping people in the faith.

 

 

Some LDS leaders supported Arrington’s project. Spencer Kimball supported Arrington, but was never that interested in history. Howard W. Hunter, an apostle who served as Church Historian for the two years between Joseph Fielding Smith’s relinquishment of the office in 1970 and Arrington’s appointment in 1972, supported Arrington’s approach. “Hunter was a strong supporter of the kind of history that Leonard and his colleagues produced …” (p. 155). Surprisingly, Bruce R. McConkie supported the independence of the history office as against supervision and a veto by the correlation department (p. 296). But Ezra Taft Benson and Mark E. Peterson, two senior apostles, were strongly opposed to the kind of professional history Arrington and the historians he brought into the Historical Department were starting to produce. They eventually scuttled Arrington’s grand vision for official LDS history and had the department’s remaining staff transferred (exiled?) to BYU in 1982. Surprisingly, that might have been the right thing to do (see below)

 

https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/16/leonard-arrington-and-the-writing-of-mormon-history/

 

 

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I believe in truthful history and not by some 2nd and third hand account.... LDS history is complex and limited in some areas of JS and his money digging, seer stone in a hat, lazy youth and magic and occult practices. 

Will you please answer the question though. I think it is pertinent for a couple reasons.  Would you consider it lying?

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In his defense, we all end up needing to do this from time to time.

The trick, when doing armchair research, is learning to understand the quality of the sources and how those sources introduce bias into the discussion.

I have done it but I cite it.

It is also a pet peeve to me that people think Google searches are “doing my own research”.

[Benjamin McGuire]

27 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Some LDS leaders supported Arrington’s project. ...

Google will only get you so far.

If you haven't read the Prince book that you reference, I recommend it. I would like to quote a little from Chapter 31 that deals with the topic that you raise in retrospect (pp. 456-457, 459):

Quote

The parallel to the disassembly of the History Division is quite appropriate, for the foundation that Leonard and his coworkers constructed with such enthusiasm was, upon their departure to BYU, so completely covered that most outsiders would not have known that it was there— that there had been any departure from the status quo that had reigned for decades. But when the time came to uncover the foundation, it proved to be fully adequate of supporting what ever structures were to be built upon it.

What changed in the interim? For one thing, Leonard’s two strongest adversaries, Ezra Taft Benson and Mark Petersen, passed from the scene— Petersen in 1984 and Benson in 1994— and the bureaucrats who had assisted them in their efforts to dismantle the History Division retired. For another, the Internet made it increasingly difficult— almost impossible—to conceal, and hence control data. “Even those who may still be there who had some question about it could see that this was inevitable, that we have to have a scholastically respectable history written,” observed Carol Madsen. “We can’t keep doing the eulogistic biographies and histories that we had before and expect anybody to take us seriously.”

...

How far Leonard’s ripples will extend and what their ultimate effect will be are questions to be addressed by future generations of historians, but one current historian, James Clayton, sets the bar high: “I am not optimistic that there will be, in my lifetime or even soon thereafter, any real appreciation for what he did. But eventually, I think his name will go down in the church records as someone like Galileo, who made a point and took a position that was unpopular at the time, but eventually the church came around.”

It is easy to talk about those in Church leadership that resisted this shift to a more open and accurate history - but you also need to include the fact that the Church did come around. The publication of the Joseph Smith Papers would not have happened without Arrington's work. And the 'New Mormon History' has effectively been embraced by the LDS Church. There isn't a going backward at this point - which really moots the argument that we shouldn't have gone that route at all.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

So are you going to argue or debate this issue as a non threat to some members, mostly the youth and new members.

 

@rjohnson7, what is the direction you would like to see the Church take in order to resolve the issue of youth having faith crisis?  Remember it needs to include what is happening elsewhere because the youth have access to the Internet now. 

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Will you please answer the question though. I think it is pertinent for a couple reasons.  Would you consider it lying?

I don't think the church lied...

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

I believe in truthful history and not by some 2nd and third hand account.... LDS history is complex and limited in some areas of JS and his money digging, seer stone in a hat, lazy youth and magic and occult practices. 

Why am I hearing a 3 year old temper tantrum in my head when I read this? I'm actually tending my granddaughter and she's having one now.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Tacenda

[rjohnson7]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

 

@rjohnson7, what is the direction you would like to see the Church take in order to resolve the issue of youth having faith crisis?  Remember it needs to include what is happening elsewhere because the youth have access to the Internet now. 

Answering their questions, we do a poor job of that and allow our enemies, progressives and even some of our BYU professors to set the narrative.

[rjohnson7]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why am I hearing a 3 year old temper tantrum in my head when I read this? I'm actually tending my granddaughter and she's having one now.

Was that necessary?  When have I ridiculed you?