- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I thought this was an interesting video on LDS.org about the Gospel Topics Essays. Our church historian indicates that the church paid independent researchers to do their own scholarly investigation of our history, and they provided their research. which then went through edits from the Q12. Interested in comments about this…what you think about his comments about the origin, purpose, and utility of the Gospel Topics Essays…as described by Elder Snow… It is not very long, and he gets to the meat of the essays and how they were developed early in the video if you want to watch only part of it.
I really appreciate how the Church has compiled this research. It brings candor and light into a lot of topics not generally discussed. Whereas most writings on these topics are either strongly in favor or strongly against the Church’s divinity, I was impressed how unbaised these essays were. I know some of the historians, and they are top-notch scholars – and actually lean heterodox and/or liberal in their views. I respect deeply what the leaders are trying to do with our history. It is an incredibly difficult task – far more so than most people realize.
I have mixed feelings about the video. First, I am glad they are being more transparent about addressing these issues. At the same time, the first couple minutes or more contain material that makes me question the objectivity of the essays. The historian (Snow) indicates they hired non-church scholars to review the historical data, and write the essays. This went through levels of approval, with the senior leaders in the church suggesting some wording changes. This to me, lacks objectivity. Its like a study published by a wine company who paid consultants to do a study to determine whether people are healthier drinking wine than abstaining from it. Similarly, I am suspicious of essays that were written by scholars (LDS or Not) who were on the church payroll. Especially since the GA’s were able to then change the wording.
I am happy Elder Snow was transparent about who was paid to write the essays, and how the church altered them. At the same time, I am not convinced the essays are free of whitewash.
I know this is difficult as Ray suggested, but sometimes the truth hurts. And we have to acknowledge that decisions of past leaders got us into this bind. This bind of members who believe a diluted form of history due to books like Truth Restored, or who were denied access to the truth about our heritage through church channels. These people are now confronted by naked versions of the truth and, as Marlin K. Jenkinson (former church historian said in 2011), we are seeing a period of apostasy (hate that word) that is unparalleled since the apostasy at Kirtland.
Sometimes we need to accept the consequences of our past decisions and leaders, accept the pile of smouldering ashes that results, and then let the phoenix rise from the ashes again.
I agree and yet I do not think that this type of process is any different than how any other business might handle things. The CEO has the final approval for making public statements on behalf of the organization. That very much includes the prerogative to alter the wording as he/she sees fit.
Nobody claims that these public declarations are objective.
Roy wrote:Nobody claims that these public declarations are objective.
Which lessens their impact, in my view.
Objective in the social sciences is non-existent. Things can be more or less objective, but they never are fully objective. If anyone doubts that, watch how Fox News and MSNBC report on the exact same story on the exact same day.
Most people don’t believe what they see; most people see what they believe. Confirmation bias is a powerful force, and most people are completely unaware of the concept, much less the results.
The goal of the church, though, is to maintain faith and to keep their membership. So clearly, one must read the essays with that bias in mind. I agree it is a good step that they at least gave leaders and others information on how to answer such objectionable topics. Also, that they tried to bring in scholars. I disagree that you can’t be objective in social sciences though. There are ways of filtering out the perceptual stuff that puts noise into research…Methods such as replicating results, triangulating results, measuring reliability and validity of measuring instruments, and such. Social sciences research is much less objective than say engineering or medicine, but I still feel you can judge biased research from unbiased research.
Quote:I still feel you can judge biased research from unbiased research.
Amen – and that is important – and I didn’t say otherwise.
I am not sure of all that we are discussing about social sciences but history seems to be very hard to tell fully objectively. Even just the historical events that we choose to highlight and piece together to form the narrative are chosen somewhat subjectively. Just because the interpretation of history is more fluid and more of an ongoing conversation than I might prefer does not mean that anyone’s opinion about history is equally valid. Holocaust deniers come to my mind as individuals that are deliberately obtuse to the mountains of evidence.
Religion and faith seem to almost by definition be subjective and biased. Defenses of religious positions (apologetics) also have somewhat of a reputation for being subjective and biased (though I concede that there are different degrees of this).
I am glad they are trying. I give them credit for trying. I intend to make people aware of the essays….when it fits the lesson (as it did with the one on Sunday, since DHO mentioned church transparency). I just hope that what happened to this guy (a Sunday School teacher who was released for using the essays in class), doesn’t happen to me….I was shocked.
http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2475803-155/mormon-bishop-dismisses-teacher-for-using Of course, I am doing all my teaching on an assignment basis, so there is no release to effect.
Back to the history thing — they are still selling Truth Restored through the LDS Distribution Center. I would think that if they are committed to transparency, they would get rid of materials that whitewash history. Let’s hope they stop selling it altogether after they clear out their inventory, if not before. To me, that is part of transaprency — to get rid of the artifacts of our less than open approach to history in the past.
I read it about a year ago to see what it said in light of the new information I had learned via the internet and scholarly essays. I was really shocked at how it glosses over so many things that are relevant to a person who is deciding to make such as big commitment to our religion. Such as describing JS as arrested (prior to his death, the last time) on a “trumped up charge”. He was arrested for disturbing the peace because he ordered the destruction of the Expositor printing press. I don’t call that a trumped up charge.
Nonetheless, i am happy they are making strides toward greater transparency. I guess part of me is still working through this feeling of being misled when I was a young adult, on the cusp of my life, about to make so many decisions regarding charitable donations, who to marry, and how to spend my spare time. I really would have liked to have known the full range of facts to help me make my decision about whether the join the church in the first place.
I might have done it anyway, but would have done so, inoculated against this feeling that an organization with a divine commission was not fully honest with me about itself when I was considering joining it. YOu could also argue that new members who do not get exposed to anti-Mormon literature, the essays, or historical concerns about the church before they join might feel the same thing eventually.
I hate that things like that happen to anyone, but leadership roulette includes those who reflexively kowtow to reactionary parents / members and do stupid things out of a mistaken sense of protecting the flock. *sigh* I take some comfort that I have not heard about such a situation happening regularly but have heard about quite a few teachers using the essays with no pushback. I also take comfort from the Church’s response, which did not support the Bishop’s decision.
SilentDawning wrote:The goal of the church, though, is to maintain faith and to keep their membership. So clearly, one must read the essays with that bias in mind.
I just think they may have miscalculated. They think that the somewhat heavy-handed, pre-chewed quality of the new writings is what’s needed to keep members. When, at least in my house, we are desperate for a different approach.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.