- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
A couple gems from this interview with Terrl and Fiona Givens:
Quote:Terryl: … in writing The God who Weeps, we came face-to-face with a remarkable fact: Joseph was utterly alone in the Christian world in promulgating … five ideas[:]… we believe God’s heart beats in sympathy with ours; that we lived with Him as pre-existent beings; that life is not a fall, but an ascent; that God has the capacity and the desire to save the entire human family…; and that heaven is a perpetuation of those relationships we cherish here and now. Quote:LDS.net: … now that the internet has exploded and every bit of dirt or every bit of glory about the Church can be found, and we have members who have a mistaken conception of what the doctrine is and what we’re about, many are kind of shaken when they hear things, and they’re defensive, and they have a very difficult time maneuvering through what to them is new information. They were never aware of what for many is problematic, so they hear it and then they read secondary sources or someone else talks to them, and they’re shaken. Some parents are really reluctant to even bring those things up, for fear that their kids will start to leave and question. Do you have an opinion on how parents should help children maneuver through these issues as time goes on? A lot of parents are not aware of this history. And most members of the Church were not raised with this open, transparent history that we now have. And as a result of which, their paradigms are being shifted rather abruptly and rudely, so they’re struggling with details.
Fiona: We need to understand that a lot of parents are not aware of this history. And most members of the Church were not raised with this open, transparent history that we now have. And as a result of which, their paradigms are being shifted rather abruptly and rudely, so they’re struggling with details. They never heard about them before. So I think, well first of all, the Church is making an incredible effort to make history transparent, and quickly. And so that this is available to members, and to parents, so that they can actually learn their history.
But I think one of the things that Terryl and I really try to clarify when we’re speaking is that this is not a covert enterprise by the leaders of the Church. They have not deliberately hidden those things that are disconcerting about the Church’s history. They were raised on the same history we all were. It’s only recently that scholars have gone into the vaults and are bringing out a fuller and richer account, and all history is going to be messy. We’re going to learn unfortunate things.
But if we understand that Joseph Fielding was the son of Joseph F. Smith, who actually saw the bodies of his father (Hyrum Smith) and uncle (Joseph Smith) lying on the table in the Nauvoo House, and hearing everybody — just the bereavement and the incredible drama — from which he never recovered. And he passed it on to his son Joseph Fielding who was involved with church history from 1921 to 1970. He felt that his primary responsibility was to protect his family. Then we can understand why we got a history that elided things that were troublesome in the Smith family and Smith family practices.
So I think it behooves us all that the records are there; the history is there; to educate ourselves, that’s our primary responsibility as parents. And we’ve been told so many times that this is not the Church’s responsibility. The Church’s responsibility is not to educate your children; it’s your responsibility.
So as parents, we need to grapple with that responsibility and teach your children accordingly. The good and the not-so-good, but quite honestly, when one looks at our history and compiles that with our theology, we have really, really beautiful things in our church of which we should be inordinately proud.
Thanks for sharing Shoshin. I’ll head on over there when I have time. Frankly I’m surprised a group like that would host them. The part that you quoted was probably the best part of that interview. Although I did like his response to the Baptising of Jewish ancestors question. DJ – I agree with you about the surprise that they would interview them. That site is a little much at times. Even though I used to be a moderator for that site, I now spent most of my time here than over there.
Thanks for this post. I loved those quotes. :clap: :thumbup: :clap: Wow, this is just awesome. I actually felt some relief by reading this. I felt some sympathy for Joseph F. Smith – he was only five years old when his dad and uncle were killed. I’m sure his mother told him only the good things about Hyrum and Joseph, and I can’t blame her. That’s what people do for dead family members – De mortuis nihil nisi bonum. It is saidI finally got around to reading the whole thing. Here’s what I liked from Fiona: Quote:That one feels that during testimony meeting, one can only go to the podium if one can recite a litany of “I knows.” And this is most unfortunate. I think that this is where a lot of people have issues, because, I mean the restoration scriptures themselves — we have a scripture that says “To some it is given to know that Jesus is the Christ; to others it is given to believe on their words.” So, God doesn’t make a difference between, at least it doesn’t seem to me at any rate, knowledge and belief. And then we have that lovely story in Mark, where Christ is approached by a man who is desperate to save his son, and he doesn’t believe. You know, he doesn’t have any faith at all. And so his plea to Christ is “Help thou mine unbelief.” And what is Christ’s response? He heals his son. So I think as a culture, we need to divest ourselves of this rhetoric of certainty to allow people to bear authentic testimony.
Those of you who have been here and read what I write know why this speaks to me. Fiona is absolutely right – we need to lose that expression of certitude because almost none of us have it – most of us do believe very strongly. However others of us only have hope. That should be OK.
(Here’s a line from an upcoming talk I’m giving: “In the absence of knowledge or faith, there is always hope.”)
I thought this was interesting. (He was talking about his new book.) Quote:Atonement theology turns out to be the least theorized area of Mormon theology. In other words, Joseph Smith revealed new doctrine pertaining to most every vital issue in Christendom, but he never addressed the atonement. He never made a sermon on the atonement; he never contributed a single new idea or insight into the theology of the atonement, which seems remarkable if that is truly the foundation, the bedrock, of our faith. But I think it’s because Joseph thought that for the most part the Christian world got atonement right.
But I think that if one examines the Book of Mormon, and some of the greatest thinkers in our past like BH Roberts, that one discovers that we do have a fairly unique understanding of atonement. So I try to flesh out what I think is Mormonism’s unique contribution to atonement theology. That would also be an innovation.
Quote:
But I think one of the things that Terryl and I really try to clarify when we’re speaking is that this is not a covert enterprise by the leaders of the Church. They have not deliberately hidden those things that are disconcerting about the Church’s history. They were raised on the same history we all were. It’s only recently that scholars have gone into the vaults and are bringing out a fuller and richer account, and all history is going to be messy. We’re going to learn unfortunate things.I find this part of the interview hard to take. One one hand, we go on about how inspired leaders are, but then we resort to claims of ignorance about our own history. It’s not as if there was all this history in the vaults that no one had time to look up — people have known about the MMM for a long time. The church chose not to explain it in Truth Restored, lesson manuals, etcetera. They did, in a covert way, cover up the history to prevent causing challenges to the members’ testimonies. And now, with the unstoppable internet, they have HAD to be transparent, because hiding the truth, or refusing to acknowledge it is more damaging than exposing it, quietly, on the LDS.org. Even the way they a revealing the truth is very subtle, perhaps so they can say they are transprent, without broadcasting the truth? Does that pass the transparency test?
Quote:So I think it behooves us all that the records are there; the history is there; to educate ourselves, that’s our primary responsibility as parents. And we’ve been told so many times that this is not the Church’s responsibility. The Church’s responsibility is not to educate your children; it’s your responsibility.
Yikes – what an example of containment! It IS the church’s responsibility to teach the truth to its investigators! And the church does supplement instruction in the home!!! THEY provide the lesson manuals, the FHE videos etcetera — I see this as an abdication of responsibility because its convenient to the Givens’ argument that this lack of transparency is “not so bad after all”.
They aren’t abdicating responsibility. They said clearly that the Church leaders are having lots of things rewritten to reflect their own better understanding. They simply said that, ultimately, we as parents are the ones who need to teach our children the truth as we see it. We say that all the time here – that we need to recognize the conflicting messages our children hear and find a way to teach them authentically – that we are the primary teachers of our children. That is what I get from the Givens’ words – and I would have been EXTREMELY uncomfortable if they had said the Church should be the primary teacher of our kids.
Ray, you seem to imply that I think the church should be responsible for teaching our kids. That’s not what I’m saying — my comment was not a discussion about where responsibility should like for teaching. And naturally, I like the idea of the responsibility resting in the home. However, the Given’s argument appears to imply that the whitewashing of history shouldn’t be something the church should be held accountable for, because its parents responsibility to teach this to their children.
This to me, is abdication of the church’s significant role in providing its members with accurate information about its history — so they can teach their children the facts. Prior to the internet that was absolutely critical as there wasn’t a lot of easily accessible information about church history to the average person in the world. Most of it you found in manuals.
I think it’s still important that the church be fully accountable for teaching its members the truth about its history — if not for providing the members with the truth, but also for the integrity of the church’s reputation as a purveyor of truth. They do write manuals, FHE videos and other materials for use in the home — so they do have influence over what is taught there. To put the responsibility for teaching the truth wholly on the parents (who are not historians, mostly) isn’t right. It represents abdication of at the church’s responsibility to be transparent about its own history and to support its members in their quest for truth.
And when it comes to teaching adult investigators with no family in the church (like I was 30 years ago), the church has FULL responsibility to teach the truth. Some will argue that they don’t want to hurt the faith of the members. But remember, faith is a belief in things where are unseen, but are TRUE.
So, developing faith by portraying a watered down version of the truth doesn’t build faith. It generates baptisms, but not faith.
Remember, our church is in the truth business. The church has to own up to that, and not offload responsibility to families for the full skinny while they teach only the unobjectionable parts.
Quote:you seem to imply that I think the church should be responsible for teaching our kids.
No, I didn’t imply that, I don’t believe you think that, and I would never say that. I think exactly the opposite of that – and, honestly, after re-reading my comment, I have no idea how you got that message from my words.
I NEVER try to imply anything. I try hard to say exactly what I mean and not force people to read between the lines. I fail at that quite often, but if it’s not in my words it wasn’t in my mind or my heart.
Quote:the Given’s argument appears to imply that the whitewashing of history shouldn’t be something the church should be held accountable for, because its parents responsibility to teach this to their children.
No, that implication isn’t in their words. They said leaders shouldn’t be blamed for teaching what they grew up being taught, especially since they are doing what they can to change what was taught in the past according to what they have discovered as they and the people they have commissioned have dug more deeply into the original source documents. Regardless of that, the Givens simply reiterated that parents are the primary educators of their children – and the alternative is frightening.
Quote:I think it’s still important that the church be fully accountable for teaching its members the truth about its history — if not for providing the members with the truth, but also for the integrity of the church’s reputation as a purveyor of truth. They do write manuals, FHE videos and other materials for use in the home — so they do have influence over what is taught there. To put the responsibility for teaching the truth wholly on the parents (who are not historians, mostly) isn’t right. It represents abdication of at the church’s responsibility to be transparent about its own history and to support its members in their quest for truth.
I agree 100% – and so, I’m sure, do the Givens. Again, neither they nor I are saying the whole responsibility to teach accurately rests on the parents. That message simply isn’t in anything they or I have written – anywhere. Seriously, read everything I’ve ever written anywhere. I guarantee I’ve never said or implied that message.
IMO, the problems described here are about having unrealistic expectations of the GA’s being infallible, and will always lead us in the proper direction. The OT and NT are full of stories of prophetic screw-ups, at least as the text has come down to us. So does the BofM and D&C. I find the problem to be with over anxious Correlation Committee who are scared to death they will say something that can be criticized, and yet is written for the lowest common denominator for the new members in Botswana, Mongolia and other remote places. But the very same lessons go to members who are ex-high councilmen, bishops, stake presidents, and returned mission president and 5 generation members who’s ancestors crossed the plains. To say that members living high on the foothills of Bountiful must use the same material as someone in the swamps of Bangladesh is IMO ludicrous. There is no way to write 52 lessons a year and it be beneficial. The result are lessons that vary from boring to overwhelming, But the manual intros says don’t deviate from the manual, standard works and Ensign That will continue until the Q15 recognize we are not all cut from the same mold, have vastly different experiences, and many are learning startling things from anti-mormon sites. And far to often I have seen good teachers chastised not for teaching falsehoods, but not using “approved” materials
There are many good things that the Church does that is so powerful. The Givens books really tell the story well of it’s remarkable theology.
The church essays are a good start, but they need to be brought to the attention of the general membership in the Ensign, Conference and curriculum materials. IMO, otherwise the Church will continue to loose faithful members who feel betrayed by a perceived cover- up.
Old-Timer on December 5 2011 wrote:The whole responsibility to teach accurately rests on the parents.
There it is in black & white. What do you say about that?
:think: Oh Yes I did!:silent: Roy, I just searched my posts from that day and can’t find that statement. Can you give me a link, so I can make a proper apology for having said something that stupid? 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.