Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[asbestosman]

The least common, imo, is to face up to the fact that there's a real problem that can't be swept under the rug or explained away.

Pray tell. Who, besides critics, employs this method? "Fact" and "can't" seem to say a lot about perspective.

Take the problem of evil. It is not unique to Latter-Day Saints. I have never seen all aspects of it fully explained, possibly because I can't comprehend it. But that does not mean I think there can be no explanation for it. It seems to me that the most difficult aspects in the problem of evil are how we feel about it instead of logical ones. I'm not denying logical difficulties, but the biggest arguments seem to rest on how we feel because of the problem of evil.

[USU78]

Anybody else annoyed at the sneering superiority evidenced by this ^?

Not me. It was neither "sneering" nor "superior."

You paraphrase Nietzsche's contempt for the Herdentiermoral [herd animal morality] of his Biedermeier contemporaries in your assessment of "TBMs," a term of derision on most boards, BTW, accusing them of sheeplike behaviors, which contrast oh so violently with your enlightenment.

Nietzsche, from the lofty climes of Uebermensch-dom sneered down his nose at the Philistines of middle class Europe.

When you generalize your contempt for TBMs' alleged sheeplike behavior, you sneer.

Let's not be disingenuous, shall we?

[Rollo Tomasi]

It is human nature to wrestle with things that don't fit our paradigm. It is not endemic to the LDS moreso than other groups. It doesn't indicate that we are more reluctant to accept other points of view either.

...

You are eager to "teach" the LDS things you assume (erroniously) that they don't know, but very quick to get defensive if you are told that your teachings are incomplete or one sided. (i.e. citing Zina Huntingtons experience while leaving out the critical prologue and epilogue to her marriage with Bro. Huntington from her own writings)

...

Your credibility suffers, and I among others tend to scroll past the one-sided lectures. Unfortunately innocents who are not as experienced or well versed may find touchpoints that damage their testimony of Christ and His Ordained Servants.

...

Even the truest of statements, in proper context, can damage someones ability to grow and eventually grasp the whole truth, if given to them in the wrong period of their development.

1. I agree that what we are discussing here is human nature, and cognitive dissonance is not limited to the LDS.

2. I'm not "teaching" anything, just providing more evidence so that those who ponder these issues are better informed. That's all. And the additional evidence I give is generally in response to posts that are "incomplete or one-sided" already.

3. I didn't leave out any critical information about Zina Jacobs.

4. Does anyone dispute that I am the subject of repeated personal attacks here? Don't think so.

5. I told Ben to get a thicker skin because he seemed overly troubled by evidence he considered "negative."

6. I prefer that you "scroll" past my posts, because you generally attack me instead of addressing my message. But when you'd like to insert some substance into the topic, I'd be happy to converse with you.

7. "Innocents"? How paternalistic of you. It's this very type of attitude that has led the Church to downplay embarrassing history that the "innocents" later discover and fret over. Stop treating the members like children; I think you'd be surprised how well they'd do if the Church were upfront with some of its history.

8. I know, I know ... milk before meat, "not all truth is helpful," and all that. I've heard the same talk by Boyd Packer. It sure doesn't reflect a lot of faith in the membership.

[Rollo Tomasi]

..."TBMs," a term of derision on most boards, BTW, accusing them of sheeplike behaviors, which contrast oh so violently with your enlightenment.

1. I honestly thought "TBM" was an acceptable shorthand acronym here. I did not intend it to be derisive in any way, just descriptive. If any took it this way, I apologize.

2. I have accused no one of "sheeplike behaviors" -- I have only made the observation that I have seen many orthodox members here (is that better term than "TBM's"?) employ this technique when they cannot explain a troubling episode or doctrine in LDS history.

[Deborah]

I have accused no one of "sheeplike behaviors" -- I have only made the observation that I have seen many orthodox members here (is that better term than "TBM's"?) employ this technique when they cannot explain a troubling episode or doctrine in LDS history. 

The error of your assumption is that the orthodox are troubled by these doctrines. They may simply understand something you don't.

[USU78]

..."TBMs," a term of derision on most boards, BTW, accusing them of sheeplike behaviors, which contrast oh so violently with your enlightenment.

1. I honestly thought "TBM" was an acceptable shorthand acronym here. I did not intend it to be derisive in any way, just descriptive. If any took it this way, I apologize.

2. I have accused no one of "sheeplike behaviors" -- I have only made the observation that I have seen many orthodox members here (is that better term than "TBM's"?) employ this technique when they cannot explain a troubling episode or doctrine in LDS history.

If you must have a label to describe those whose "noncritical" behaviors you abhor . . . I honestly wonder what salvific point you could possibly be making?

[USU78]

I have accused no one of "sheeplike behaviors" -- I have only made the observation that I have seen many orthodox members here (is that better term than "TBM's"?) employ this technique when they cannot explain a troubling episode or doctrine in LDS history.

[KevinG]

It is human nature to wrestle with things that don't fit our paradigm.

[sibling]

Anybody else annoyed at the sneering superiority evidenced by this ^?

Rollo Tomasi is merely covering for his wrong usage of the term "cognitive dissonance". His personal motto appears to be, "Never admit you were wrong". So instead of saying, "Uh, yeah, you were right, I misused the term and made a nonsensical statement doing it," he just presses the attack, hoping his mistake will be lost in the haze of battle.

Funny thing is, the "cognitive dissonance" error was not that big a deal, and simply acknowledging it would have spared him the trouble that has come since. Sort of like the consequences of not being forthcoming with history?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Of course I am paternalistic, I am raising chidlren who are well versed in these topics. I have even used your examples for discussion at times.

...

However not everyone is as well versed, or should be at this time. Your blatent disregard for the readiness to process and understand the data you readily share is shameful. You also disregard completely that some of the issues you bring up are very sacred, and people will be hesitant to share knowledge of some things, giving you the false impression that they do not know them.

1. I applaud the way you are raising your children, and I wish more LDS parents would address these issues.

2. Who's fault is it that members may not be "well-versed"? The member, for not researching enough? Perhaps. But I think the Church also carries some blame in this regard for deliberately downplaying these troubling issues, as I've detailed in prior posts in this thread.

3. Sharing facts and truth is now "shameful"?

4. How can some issues be so sacred that we can never talk about them? No wonder many members are not as "well-versed" as they ought to be.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo Tomasi is merely covering for his wrong usage of the term "cognitive dissonance". His personal motto appears to be, "Never admit you were wrong". So instead of saying, "Uh, yeah, you were right, I misused the term and made a nonsensical statement doing it," he just presses the attack, hoping his mistake will be lost in the haze of battle.

I explained how I understood "cognitive dissonance" and its causing the reactions we see among faithful members who discover history that conflicts with their beliefs. How was this wrong? I admit all the time when I am wrong; I have no problem with that.

I submit that the repeated claim that my use of "cognitive dissonance" is wrong is no more than your attempt to create a "haze of battle;" I prefer to call it a "red herring," but you can characterize your technique however you wish.

[USU78]

Schon wieder mit den Hoehnereien.

This: "I wish more LDS parents would address these issues."

is just more of the same old/same old. Why the sneering superiority, even when lauding another's parenting skills? Methinks it's simply too ingrained ever to be dislodged. Would I were wrong!

One tries not to take things personally, and to reconstruct equitably and, as far as possible, charitably, what another means from what he says inelegantly. But this ^ stuff is just plain offensive.

[sibling]

4.  How can some issues be so sacred that we can never talk about them?  No wonder many members are not as "well-versed" as they ought to be.

Who said "never"? That would be your addition. Don't represent it as something someone else said.

If you truly can't figure out how some issues are too sacred or simply inappropriate for certain forums, then LDS theology will utterly escape you. Reading the Bible will be an exercise in futility as you struggle unsuccessfully to digest the concepts of covenant and sacredness presented therein. You will be constantly confused at your chilly reception at social events as you attempt to make light conversation about your bedroom activities or your hemmorhoid surgery. You will agonize over why you got fired for truthfully telling your coworkers that your boss's daughter is a crack whore, and wonder at the legal action brought against you for making honest observations about the secretary's cleavage and tight panties.

Most grown-ups understand the concept of appropriate venues for certain topics of conversation. Sacred topics are really nothing more than another type of sensitive topic that need to be handled in an appropriate way.

[KevinG]

Of course I am paternalistic, I am raising chidlren who are well versed in these topics.  I have even used your examples for discussion at times.

...

However not everyone is as well versed, or should be at this time.  Your blatent disregard for the readiness to process and understand the data you readily share is shameful.  You also disregard completely that some of the issues you bring up are very sacred, and people will be hesitant to share knowledge of some things, giving you the false impression that they do not know them.

1. I applaud the way you are raising your children, and I wish more LDS parents would address these issues.

2. Who's fault is it that members may not be "well-versed"? The member, for not researching enough? Perhaps. But I think the Church also carries some blame in this regard for deliberately downplaying these troubling issues, as I've detailed in prior posts in this thread.

3. Sharing facts and truth is now "shameful"?

4. How can some issues be so sacred that we can never talk about them? No wonder many members are not as "well-versed" as they ought to be.

I argue with your presupposition that the members are not as well versed as they should be (in geneeral). I haven't seen as many ignorant Mormons in all the wards I've lived in as are reported to exist on this board by critics.

Those who are innocent (new converts and primary children) don't really need to deal with the historical (and sometimes debatable) details until they are firmly in posession of the basics of the gospel. For example how would multiple sealings make sense to someone if they had not first learned about eternal marriage?

I think the Church is in the business of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and not being in the business of apologetics and apoligies for past historical details (which are not as cut and dried as some think). There are plenty of outlets like this were items can be discussed, without going to the extreme of the Chruch itself sponsoring them and taking time and effort away from teaching the basics of the Gospel.

Sharing the wrong facts with the wrong person can be shameful if they will do that person more harm than good. For example I can go up to a woman and tell her I saw her husband at a strip club (without knowing or neglecting to add that it was to retreive her wayward son) and cause the marriage great trouble. It was the truth, but it was not useful to her.

Presentation of isolated facts and accounts without respect for the ability of a person to conceptualize the whole of their situation is irresponsible.

I have sacred witness of some very difficult issues that I would never present in a public forum like this. They have given me a greater understanding of early polygamists in a way I doubt you would comprehend. I will not treat them lightly or use themto argue with you or anyone else. For you to demand all knowledge including that which is sacred to be laid out in a public forum, so that your theories and facts may be corroborated is not right.

We can swim in isolated facts all day, without ever understanding the whole of truth. In fact assuming we can understand the whole of truth within our mortal experience is egotistical beyond measure.

Assuming you know more about Joseph, Emma and others than the general membership of the Church is a bad assumption.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Why the sneering superiority, even when lauding another's parenting skills?

I have been arguing for ore information for LDS members about their history, and Dad said he's doing this with his children; thus, I think that his teaching his children these issues is great. Why do you have a problem with that?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Most grown-ups understand the concept of appropriate venues for certain topics of conversation. Sacred topics are really nothing more than another type of sensitive topic that need to be handled in an appropriate way.

Can you point me to any examples where I have been inconsistent with this?

[Kenngo1969]

Teaching "history" doesn't help the Church grow, or increase Tithing revenues.

Well, strictly speaking, you

[koakaipo]

I think the reality is that whether it's a church or a society or nation or whatever, people tend to need time and distance to be able to look back more objectively at one's history. And even with time and distance, it can still be hard. Look at how Americans relay our nation's history usually-it tends to be streamlined and filled with ideals actually and we tend to look really good regardless of the subject.

I personally don't think our church is old enough to be in self inventory mode. If you look at other religions that have gone into "that" mode, it took a very long stretch to get to that point. Organizations are similar to human in terms of haveing stages of development. We Mormons are still youngins, we are in proselyting mode, spread the good news mode. We aren't looking back and second guessing yet.

America and Mormonism are very similar in terms of their youth and phase of existence. When Europe looks at us, they see a vibrant yet cocky and self centered youthful nation. We Americans tend to look at Europe as old gas bags, and yet we look up to them in many ways. Simiarly, I think people from older religions look at Mormonism and see us as the cocky new kid on the block too and we look at them as dinosaurs.

At the same time, I don't think that means we as individuals or even as a community shouldn't be more aware of our history, both it's inspired and very human parts. I personally didn't think polygamy sounded even odd. It wasn't until I read some more that I got a more varied picture and better understanding, and it's inspiring and tragic legacies.

[KevinG]

Why the sneering superiority, even when lauding another's parenting skills?

I have been arguing for ore information for LDS members about their history, and Dad said he's doing this with his children; thus, I think that his teaching his children these issues is great. Why do you have a problem with that?

Mind you I deal with these topics when they have questions and are willing to discuss them. I don't discuss birth control and Church policy with my four year old children. Even though it will be pertenaint to them as adults. In fact many of hte more difficult and esoteric topics I cover with them is precisely to defend them from the sophists out there that take secret glee in destroying others faith through the dissemination of disembodied "facts" and "history" that often sounds more scandalous than it really is. It is the same reason I bother to waste time here with more careful explanations and context so that innocents (those without as much exposure to these tactics) will not be scared away from putting their faith in Christ, and learning more about His Church.

I too find myself having to look past your apearent assumption that you are brighter than the rest of us (as a group) to dialogue with you. It doesn't serve you well.

If you truly don't feel that way, you need to work on your presentation, because that is the overwhelming impression you leave many with, and you have the feedback here to illustrate that.

If one person confronted you over your style it would be undertandable to attribute the issue to that person. When large groups of people tell you that you are coming across as condescending you may want to do some self examination as to why that is.

[USU78]

Why the sneering superiority, even when lauding another's parenting skills?

I have been arguing for ore information for LDS members about their history, and Dad said he's doing this with his children; thus, I think that his teaching his children these issues is great. Why do you have a problem with that?

Mind you I deal with these topics when they have questions and are willing to discuss them. I don't discuss birth control and Church policy with my four year old children. Even though it will be pertenaint to them as adults.

I too find myself having to look past your apearent assumption that you are brighter than the rest of us (as a group) to dialogue with you. It doesn't serve you well.

If you truly don't feel that way, you need to work on your presentation, because that is the overwhelming impression you leave many with, and you have the feedback here to illustrate that.

If one person confronted you over your style it would be undertandable to attribute the issue to that person. When large groups of people tell you that you are coming across as condescending you may want to do some self examination as to why that is.

What he said.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I think the Church is in the business of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and not being in the business of apologetics and apoligies for past historical details (which are not as cut and dried as some think). There are plenty of outlets like this were items can be discussed, without going to the extreme of the Chruch itself sponsoring them and taking time and effort away from teaching the basics of the Gospel.

....

Sharing the wrong facts with the wrong person can be shameful if they will do that person more harm than good.

...

We can swim in isolated facts all day, without ever understanding the whole of truth.

1. I have discussed my arguments within the context of official Church publications and classes discussing and teaching LDS history. If a major part of LDS history is intentionally downplayed in these contexts, then why shouldn't folks wonder about the motive in doing so? An example: it's ok for members to learn about the Jubilee of 1880 but let's cleverly downplay 50 years of polygamy, a doctrine for which many saints willingly went to jail or lost their property (and in Joseph's case, probably lost his life?)? Where is the logic in this? If the Church chooses to teach its history (like in this year's Gospel Doctrine class), then why shouldn't we expect some discussion of the major polygamy revelation that gave rise to today's doctrine of eternal marriage? What is there to hide? Nothing, other than embarassment.

2. How, pray tell, could discussing in an open way perhaps the most unique and major doctrine of early LDS history be "sharing the wrong facts"? The doctrine remains in D&C 132, and somehow it's now deemed "the wrong facts"? Or discussing something that remains in our canon (and it still practiced in a modified degree in the Church today) is now "shameful"? This makes no sense to me. Discussing doctrine that remains part of the canon can hardly be equated with telling a woman you saw her husband in a strip club.

3. How can we avoid the problem of "isolated facts" on this topic? Stop trying to hide or downplay it. Be open; include in the material when Church history is taught, instead of blaming the members for not researching enough. Give the full picture, from Joseph Smith until post-Manifesto polygamy; and do it without shame or embarassment.

[KevinG]

What he said.

just edited it... you may want to check and see if you still agree

[sibling]

Most grown-ups understand the concept of appropriate venues for certain topics of conversation. Sacred topics are really nothing more than another type of sensitive topic that need to be handled in an appropriate way.

Can you point me to any examples where I have been inconsistent with this?

Well, let's see. How about:

4. How can some issues be so sacred that we can never talk about them? No wonder many members are not as "well-versed" as they ought to be.

As I noted before, you added on the "never" part. So either you were (dishonestly) changing the subject to something that no other writer had implied, or you were merely using hyperbole to illustrate the seeming absurdness of the idea that there are things we don't talk about openly. I assume you are not a liar, so I ignored the first possibility and instead embraced the second. If there is a third possibility, let me know. Otherwise, consider this an example of where you were not consistent with the idea that certain topics are not appropriate for general discussion.

[USU78]

What he said.

just edited it... you may want to check and see if you still agree

You hereby have my durable, limited power of attorney gracefully and kindly to say what I'm too grumpy to put as well as you do.

[KevinG]

I think the Church is in the business of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and not being in the business of apologetics and apoligies for past historical details (which are not as cut and dried as some think).  There are plenty of outlets like this were items can be discussed, without going to the extreme of the Chruch itself sponsoring them and taking time and effort away from teaching the basics of the Gospel.

....

Sharing the wrong facts with the wrong person can be shameful if they will do that person more harm than good.

...

We can swim in isolated facts all day, without ever understanding the whole of truth.

1. I have discussed my arguments within the context of official Church publications and classes discussing and teaching LDS history. If a major part of LDS history is intentionally downplayed in these contexts, then why shouldn't folks wonder about the motive in doing so? An example: it's ok for members to learn about the Jubilee of 1880 but let's cleverly downplay 50 years of polygamy, a doctrine for which many saints willingly went to jail or lost their property (and in Joseph's case, probably lost his life?)? Where is the logic in this? If the Church chooses to teach its history (like in this year's Gospel Doctrine class), then why shouldn't we expect some discussion of the major polygamy revelation that gave rise to today's doctrine of eternal marriage? What is there to hide? Nothing, other than embarassment.

2. How, pray tell, could discussing in an open way perhaps the most unique and major doctrine of early LDS history be "sharing the wrong facts"? The doctrine remains in D&C 132, and somehow it's now deemed "the wrong facts"? Or discussing something that remains in our canon (and it still practiced in a modified degree in the Church today) is now "shameful"? This makes no sense to me. Discussing doctrine that remains part of the canon can hardly be equated with telling a woman you saw her husband in a strip club.

3. How can we avoid the problem of "isolated facts" on this topic? Stop trying to hide or downplay it. Be open; include in the material when Church history is taught, instead of blaming the members for not researching enough. Give the full picture, from Joseph Smith until post-Manifesto polygamy; and do it without shame or embarassment.

This is our substantive disagreement.

I don't feel that the Church has downplayed polygamy or the practice of it. They have put it in it's proper perspective and allotted as much time as it deserves given the vast amount of pertenant information on the Gospel of Jesus Chrsit that is more important to teach to members at this time.

Thus I don't see any intentional hiding of facts or obscuring of history.

Those who have been disciplined by the Church have crossed the line from revealing historical information (some of which is debatable or incomplete) to accusing the leaders and membership of the Church of hiding the truth. These accusations are what is wrong.

I recived a very full picture from my classes, visits to historical sites, discussions with members, and even conference talks and Church publications. There are the willfully ignorant among us and there will be in any group, but to portray them as the majority of Saints or to portray the mass of official publications as somehow intentionally keeping them in the dark on subjects is a very strong interpretation that I don't share with you.

Being a convert who knew most of these things prior to discovering the boards, indeed prior to being baptized, I find that conclusion in error.

By the way telling someone that their husband was in a strip club is a very similar accusation to inplicating Joseph or Brigham in a moral failing regarding the sacred ordinance of marriage. I think it is a fitting example and I'll let it stand.