Consequences of not being forthcoming with history

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

1. I assure you that I do not presume to be any smarter than anyone else here, but if I have given that impression, then I apologize. Yes, I have strong opinions, but I do try to be civil and courteous in discussions here. I admit it is not easy to lash out when I am attacked personally (which I find you do quite often, which does not serve you well), and I'm sure I slip, but I do try to carry on a professional conversation about real issues.

2. My presentation upsets some, while others seem pleased (based on the feedback I've received). I wish the presentations of many on this bb would change (such as the incessant personal attacks), but we all have to put up with different personalities on this bb and in life.

3. I am clearly in the minority here, which may explain why such "a large group" here doesn't like my style. Perhaps it's me ... but it could also be "them" who need to change and be more accepting of diversity.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

It was hyperbole. I agree that I never should say "never."

[sibling]

3. I am clearly in the minority here, which may explain why such "a large group" here doesn't like my style. Perhaps it's me ... but it could also be "them" who need to change and be more accepting of diversity.

Perhaps, but I remain unconvinced of this when e.g. you enter a thread very clearly marked "Apologists Only, Please". Makes your sincerity a bit suspect, wouldn't you agree?

[KevinG]

I think declaring "incessant personal attacks" is a cop out on your part. You are too quick to discount the opinions of others using that excuse, while still demanding your words be understood regardless of how your tone effects others.

I've been a non-mormon and I'm now a Mormon, and trust me, even inside of Utah (I was only there for two years) I was a minority figure as a "TBM". The proposition that the LDS Church is suffering from Majority group blinders and unopen to feedback and new information is very flawed.

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

We are in agreement, then, that this is our "substantive disagreement." I believe, based on the Church publications I have reviewed, that there has been an intentional and clever downplaying of the Church's polygamous past. It has been my contention that such a unique and important part of early Mormonism (which still exists today in a modified form) is not alloted nearly enough time in Church classes that discuss LDS history. If the Jubilee of 1880 can be part of the "pertinent infomation" in Gospel Doctrine class, then so can polygamy.

Honestly, I don't see how any member can be disciplined simply for revealing historical fact. It's real, it's true, it just is ....

[Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps, but I remain unconvinced of this when e.g. you enter a thread very clearly marked "Apologists Only, Please". Makes your sincerity a bit suspect, wouldn't you agree?

I apologized and withdrew from that thread. Was that wrong?

[Rollo Tomasi]

I think declaring "incessant personal attacks" is a cop out on your part.

The real "cop-out" is when folks respond to my posts by attacking me instead of addressing the issues and facts I raise.

[KevinG]

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.

We are in agreement, then, that this is our "substantive disagreement." I believe, based on the Church publications I have reviewed, that there has been an intentional and clever downplaying of the Church's polygamous past. It has been my contention that such a unique and important part of early Mormonism (which still exists today in a modified form) is not alloted nearly enough time in Church classes that discuss LDS history. If the Jubilee of 1880 can be part of the "pertinent infomation" in Gospel Doctrine class, then so can polygamy.

Honestly, I don't see how any member can be disciplined simply for revealing historical fact. It's real, it's true, it just is ....

If you limit yourself to Official Church Publications (meaning Sunday School, missionary or public relations materials) I can see how this is your conclusion, but there are many, many, many publications in association with the Church, that the Church has never tried to repudiate, that deal with these issues. You yourself have said the Bishop is quite aware of your opinions and you have not beed disciplined for them.

It's the insistance of preaching questionable, unresolved or incoplete conclusions that distract from preaching the basics of the Gospel that cause a problem. I don't know if there ever was a case of excommunication for publishing truth (other than sacred ordinances and rites) without the author also insisting on their interpretation being the only right one, and in conflict with the Churches mission at that.

One very big point. For you to assume you have more access to or more accurate historical fact than others is dangerous. Mere posession of old information doesn't make it fact or complete in it's context.

If a member hears what you have to say and declares, "no big deal", dimply discounting them as putting their head in the sand is a judgement you do not have the information to make. They may have additional information they choose not to share becauase it is personal, or of a revelatory nature, and therefore know more than you, but simply choose to keep it sacred and risk being misunderstood.

In a Church of personal revelation and complex history assuming you know more than others becuase they don't articulate it as well or as often, is dangerously egocentric.

[asbestosman]

I believe, based on the Church publications I have reviewed, that there has been an intentional and clever downplaying of the Church's polygamous past.  It has been my contention that such a unique and important part of early Mormonism (which still exists today in a modified form) is not alloted nearly enough time in Church classes that discuss LDS history.

I'm curious Rollo, do you think that the Catholics should devote more time to discussing the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition ). Maybe the Protestants should speak about the anti-semitism of Martin Luther.

[USU78]

I think declaring "incessant personal attacks" is a cop out on your part.

The real "cop-out" is when folks respond to my posts by attacking me instead of addressing the issues and facts I raise.

Then stop trying to defend the indefensible notion that you are evenhanded in your criticism of LDS history.

Accept the fact that you are an apologist for the notion that our ancestors were bounders, lechers, racists, murderers, and thieves.

Glory in the self-knowledge that, if there is any way to spin events so as to put the modern Church of G-d in a bad light, you will surely embrace it.

Be humbly grateful that you recognize, as recognize you must, that you are plainly and unadornedly superior to the contemptible TBM, and your views on all subjects, great and small, are unassailably, vastly and securedly superlative.

And that's no hyperbole.

[KevinG]

I think declaring "incessant personal attacks" is a cop out on your part.

The real "cop-out" is when folks respond to my posts by attacking me instead of addressing the issues and facts I raise.

You use this statement too often for it to retain much credibility. Your discussions are confrontational by their very nature, and you have accused others of having thin skin. You should be expected to play by the rules you have established and have a thicker skin yourself.

[Rollo Tomasi]

I'm curious Rollo, do you think that the Catholics should devote more time to discussing the Spanish Inquisition (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition ). Maybe the Protestants should speak about the anti-semitism of Martin Luther.

Yes, if we are talking about a class of Catholic history or church publications about Catholic history, particularly if that history remains as part of their canon and doctrine, as it does in the LDS Church.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Accept the fact that you are an apologist for the notion that our ancestors were bounders, lechers, racists, murderers, and thieves.

You are mistaken. I do not view our ancestors that way at all.

[Rollo Tomasi]

If you limit yourself to Official Church Publications (meaning Sunday School, missionary or public relations materials) I can see how this is your conclusion, but there are many, many, many publications in association with the Church, that the Church has never tried to repudiate, that deal with these issues.

...

One very big point. For you to assume you have more access to or more accurate historical fact than others is dangerous. Mere posession of old information doesn't make it fact or complete in it's context.

1. The Church generally frowns on teachers using materials in their lessons other than approved materials. So I have limited my analysis to the materials designated for teachers and students in this year's Gospel Doctrine class, and have found them woefully lacking on this issue.

2. I do not presume to have more accurate info or better access to info than anyone else. Nothing is hidden, if one looks hard enough.

[noel00]

Abestosman, Evangelical Scholar Alister McGrath writes that "Luther was a brillant man with some serious flaws." Funny thing was he suggested polygamy when at the end of a long war there was a shortage of men.

[charity]

Rollo, How many psychologists need to explain to you that your use of cognitive dissonance is incorrect?

What you should be using are the Piagetian concepts of accomodation and assimilation. Piaget described two ways in which cognitive structures change through the processes of adaptation. Those processes are assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation is the interpretation of events in terms of existing cognitive structures, or schemas, whereas accommodation happens when we change the schema to make sense of our environment. When you have a square peg to fit into a round hole, do you shave the corners off the peg, or enlarge the hole?

It is interesting to me that when the same new information comes in, some of us choose to use accomodation and accept the new information uncritically and change the schema. Other of us use assimilation (e.g., we can question the completeness or accuracy of the information) to keep our schema that Joseph Smith was an honest, moral man, who was a Prophet of God, striving to keep God's commandments to the best of his ability.

The real question should be, why do some go in one direction and maintain our testimonies of the prophetic calling of the prophet, and others choose to deny it?

[asbestosman]

Abestosman, Evangelical Scholar Alister McGrath writes that "Luther  was a brillant man with some serious flaws." Funny thing was he suggested polygamy when at the end of a long war there was a shortage of men.

My question was not perfect, but Rollo answered it clearly. Maybe I should have brought up witch hunts hunts instead.

Many of us take comfort in the fact that severly flawed people can do great things.

[KevinG]

If you limit yourself to Official Church Publications (meaning Sunday School, missionary or public relations materials) I can see how this is your conclusion, but there are many, many, many publications in association with the Church, that the Church has never tried to repudiate, that deal with these issues.

...

One very big point.  For you to assume you have more access to or more accurate historical fact than others is dangerous.  Mere posession of old information doesn't make it fact or complete in it's context.

1. The Church generally frowns on teachers using materials in their lessons other than approved materials. So I have limited my analysis to the materials designated for teachers and students in this year's Gospel Doctrine class, and have found them woefully lacking on this issue.

This may be the basis of our disagreement then. You conclude "the Church is downplaying information" and the members are "sticking their heads in the sand."

WHile I would conclude that the Church and it's membership are perfectly aware of these issues but the time and resources allocated to Preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ do not include a detailed analysis of the history of the restoration with all it's flaws and warts, and shiny parts included.

Choices must be made by the curricula committee, and these choices are expedient to teachig the basics of the Gospel and our History without going down more rabbit trails than the publications of the Church and Sunday lesson time permits.

This is not however a denial or suppression of information that the members of the CHurch are more than welcome to explore and publish on their own.

2.  I do not presume to have more accurate info or better access to info than anyone else.  Nothing is hidden, if one looks hard enough.

That's good to know. Remember that none of us can have all the information in this mortal sphere.

[Tarski]

I wonder if she was distrought and Shattered when she found out that David commited adultury?

What might be the point of this comment?

Adultery is OK as long as it is an alleged prophet?

[Zakuska]

Again... Adultury is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Dale]

Certainly God would have the right to define adultury for himself. LDS believe he said Joseph Smith was not guilty of adultury? Who can argue with God? The only counterpoint could be God didn't talk to Joseph Smith.

If Joseph Smith had a bonified spiritual experience the source may have been God, or the Devil.

I see way to much whining coming from the critics. The LDS church doesn't agree Joseph Smith was a false prophet so they mock that believing belief. Nothing less than admitting he was a fraud & adulterer will satisfy the critics.

Let's say LDS manuals were revised to be more forthcoming. I would then see whining but you should have done it sooner. Before now you were hiding facts from readers. I see nothing but whining & more whining coming out of critics who gripe about every presentation they don't like. Perhaps it's not whining maybe it's just listening to others points I don't like.

[sibling]

Perhaps, but I remain unconvinced of this when e.g. you enter a thread very clearly marked "Apologists Only, Please". Makes your sincerity a bit suspect, wouldn't you agree?

I apologized and withdrew from that thread. Was that wrong?

It was wrong of you to enter the thread in the first place, when the originator had very clearly asked for participation only from apologists (which you ain't). I actually brought this up to you, yet you continued to post. It was only after Pace specifically requested that you stop participating that you finally honored his initial request. This does not strike me as any sort of good-faith effort.

[Dan Vogel]

Beowulf,

Don

[charity]

Since Vogel's book starts out with the basic assumption that the Book of Mormon is not historical, then what makes his book anything other than yet another anti-Mormon smear piece?

[koakaipo]

I'm no historian, but I was a little junior historian in college(got my undergraduate degree in it-which of course means I get a one way ticket to grad school to make it worth something--).

And one of the basic things you understand about history pretty quickly is that historians aren't simply regurgitating facts. It's about finding facts here and there, and then attempting to fill in the gaps between all those facts with some interpretation on the historian's part. They play an active role in their work.

Historians don't attempt to hide this reality, so I'm not sure why people would cite interpretations(or even just basic summarizing) as an example of bad scholarship or something. That's part of their job-to form some sort of historical narrative out of random bits and pieces.

Read any basic history book and keep a highlighter close by. Mark all the documented stuff, and then notice the lack of highlighted "stuff" on each page. That'll give you a clue about where the historian is going to work. Faith promoting or not, you'll see the same basic pattern of documentation and interpretation.

If history was just about fact finding, why would we have sooooo many different takes on historical subjects?Why is it that each new generation of historians may approach a historical subject and give it a fresh new light? It's cause each author has a vision of what their evidence is saying to them.