Why do we have history-based lessons?

Ann,

I have no idea why we have those lessons or how this one even made it into a manual. I about fell over when I heard it as the lesson introduction today. A large part of me wanted to cheer that we would state something that boldly since we avoid so many other historical issues and pretend they didn’t exist. As for why it was there, I think it was intent to warn us and keep us on the narrow road that is set up.

I don’t know that it’s a bad thing to do, but I can imagine the ideas laid out finding a very narrow judgemental presentation in places. Our wards went pretty well and didn’t get too stuck in those weeds, but the potential was there. A few class comments ran borderline to my comfort zone as women were using modest dressing as an example of being pulled by the world and causing many of life’s ills. But enough other comments steered the day back to higher ideals and the teacher did a great job in the steering.

But history and LDSdom is a weird combination in my mind.

In a word, Tradition …because we have always recounted our history.

Warren Parrish, who had been an officer in the bank and had apostatized from the Church, made this statement: “I have listened to him [i.e. Smith] with feelings of no ordinary kind, when he declared that the AUDIBLE VOICE OF GOD, INSTRUCTED HIM TO ESTABLISH A BANKING-ANTI BANKING INSTITUTION, who like Aaron’s rod SHALL SWALLOW UP ALL OTHER BANKS (the Bank of Monroe excepted,) and grow and flourish and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins.” (Painesville Republican, February 22, 1838, as quoted in Conflict at Kirtland, page 297)

Wilford Woodruff, who remained true to the Church and became the fourth President, confirmed the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have a revelation concerning the bank. Under the date of January 6, 1837, he recorded the following in his journal: “I also herd [sic] President Joseph Smith, jr., declare in the presence of F. Williams, D. Whitmer, S. Smith, W. Parrish, and others in the Deposit office that HE HAD RECEIVED THAT MORNING THE WORD OF THE LORD UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE KIRTLAND SAFETY SOCIETY. He was alone in a room by himself and he had not only [heard] the voice of the Spirit upon the Subject but even an AUDIBLE VOICE. He did not tell us at that time what the Lord said upon the subject but remarked that if we would give heed to the commandments the Lord had given this morning all would be well.” (“Wilford Woodruff’s Journal,” January 6, 1837, as quoted in Conflict at Kirtland, page 296)

According to Lorenzo Snow, this apostasy was fueled by speculation, or, in other words, unusual business risks in hopes of getting rich quickly. Blinded by a desire for the temporary things of the world, people turned away from the eternal blessings of the gospel.

I agree that it was speculation but it was speculation organized by the church leadership. JS himself claimed to have received special instruction from God about it. Some people lost everything. I think it only normal that some in this situation also began to question the similarly speculative revelations that promised heavenly riches.

How many would leave the church if TSM did the same today? Would they be justified?

Currently I teach a primary class and we are studying D&C this year like the adult sunday school class. I have also been starting to wonder about why the lessons are almost entirely about the history, with a tiny tie in to some actual gospel principle in the end. I sort of feel like church should be about gospel principles more than history. Next year is old testament, and I really hope they don’t try to teach those lessons as actual history. I really think most of the old testament is myth. We can certainly learn lessons from myths, but I hope the lesson focus is on the principle and not the “history”. I am trying to change how I present the lessons, but it takes so much effort to completely re-write the lessons that I usually don’t have time to do it as I would like. Plus I might get in trouble for not following the lesson plan!

I wouldn’t so much mind the emphasis on history if I felt it was a complete and unbiased history. As it is, it seems the CES picks and chooses what they want to say based on what is going to paint the history of our church and its anointed leaders in a completely positive light. And they don’t even stop at picking and choosing what they want to present. They then make unfounded claims and interpretations about the things that happened. For instance, from one of our lessons about the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, a passage was read from Our Heritage that made me cringe:

The governor of Illinois, Thomas Ford, wrote to Joseph Smith, insisting that the city council members stand trial before a non-Mormon jury on a charge of causing a civil disturbance. He said that only such a trial would satisfy the people. He promised the men complete protection, although the Prophet did not believe he could fulfill his pledge. When it appeared that there were no other alternatives, the Prophet, his brother Hyrum, John Taylor, and others submitted to arrest, fully aware that they were guilty of no crimes.

Now everything before the last comma seems like a fairly unbiased historical account. I believe full-well that Joseph completely doubted the ability of Thomas Ford to protect them from those who wished Joseph harm. What is completely unnecessary, IMO, is the last statement, “fully aware that they were guilty of no crimes.” Regardless of governor Ford’s intentions, Joseph and the other leaders were en route to stand trial for the “civil disturbance,” which if I’m not mistaken was linked to the destruction of Thomas Sharp’s printing press. Now, my beef is that Joseph MAY have been innocent, but he never stood trial so we don’t have court documents or the official arguments from either side. Basically, we have no business saying Joseph, Hyrum, John, and the others were “guilty of no crimes.” Were they innocent of their brutal murders at the hands of an angry mob? Absolutely! However, that’s not what this statement claims, and I think it’s a prime example of the whitewashing that has deeply damaged my trust in the CES.

And hence, the reason I also currently dislike our emphasis on (biased) history in our lessons.

I don’t know all of what Lorenzo Snow said in Logan. But I think it’s interesting that it’s the headnote to the lesson that says people “turned against the Prophet Joseph Smith.” The quotes from Lorenzo Snow’s address seem centered on the spirit of speculation which “swept over the hearts of the saints. . . and many fell.” So the manual portrays the reaction of Kirtland saints to personal financial ruin as rejection of Joseph Smith/everything good and right. But you could take LS’s comments as a caution against ALL who speculated, and that certainly included JS who, if Rough Stone Rolling is accurate, promised that “every brother that would take hold and help . . . .should be rich.” (p.332) And he apparently lost more money than anyone else.

We seem obsessed with loyalty to Joseph Smith. Really grates on me.

Then again, perhaps we expect too much from God – that is, that if we covenant with him and keep commandments that he will protect us from bad judgment and the storms of mortality. It wasn’t just the Saints in Ohio who faced this massive financial challenge.

Yes, we do both then and now. It was a terrible time to start a bank (or anti-bank). We also expect more from prophets perhaps than any mortal man could fulfill. This is especially true of our sanitized collective portraits of JS.

I don’t know all of what Lorenzo Snow said in Logan. But I think it’s interesting that it’s the headnote to the lesson that says people “turned against the Prophet Joseph Smith.” The quotes from Lorenzo Snow’s address seem centered on the spirit of speculation which “swept over the hearts of the saints. . . and many fell.” So the manual portrays the reaction of Kirtland saints to personal financial ruin as rejection of Joseph Smith/everything good and right. But you could take LS’s comments as a caution against ALL who speculated, and that certainly included JS who, if Rough Stone Rolling is accurate, promised that “every brother that would take hold and help . . . .should be rich.” (p.332) And he apparently lost more money than anyone else.

Exactly! At the very least, he used his position as Prophet to help convince investors. There was a financial incentive. It was Joseph that chose to stake his prophetic credibility on this business venture.

It would seem that, here as in other areas, Joseph seems to believe his own message.

There was also some serious comingling of church assets and smith assets that continued at least until the martyrdom (and we think we have concerns about financial transparency now?!?!). Part of the difficulty between Emma and BY was about how to disentangle the two.