Real vs Rumor by Keith A Erekson

[Anonymous]

I’ve recently finished the book: Real vs Rumor. The focus of the book is our responsibility as members to develop the skills and attitudes necessary

to distinguish between reliable information that will lift us up and the half-truths and incorrect interpretations of doctrine, history and practices

that will bring us down. So the emphasis is on the individual members not the church as a whole to interpret truth & to act upon it.

The author says:

Quote:

I truly believe that learning how to analyze rumors, myths, and Church history will improve our lives, making us better friends and neighbors, learners and teachers, parents and children, disciples and Saints. Good thinking is both a habit of good living and a divine pursuit that helps us serve on another and draw closer to God by understanding His words and dealings.

If you are looking for answers to specific issues such as: conflicts in church history, mountain meadows massacre, blacks & the PH, Mark Hofmann, etc

you won’t find it.

In the last Appendix of the book, the author reviews assumptions made by members based on certain topics. For example:

Prophets

…Prophets know everything about the future.

…Prophets always receive revelation that is always clear.

…Prophets never make mistakes.

…Prophets never get tricked.

…Prophets never disagree with each other.

Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon

…Joseph Smith never made mistakes.

…The BOM people are the ancestors of all modern Native Americans.

…The BOM presents early American ideas as the will of God.

Church

…Leaders and members of the Church make no errors and have no disagreements.

…The true Church does not change.

…The Church should teach me everything about everything.

History

…Whatever we cannot explain today must have been “the hand of God”.

…Asking questions demonstrates a lack of faith.

…Every question has a complete and satisfying answer.

For each point he goes into an answer about what he means.

As I said earlier, the author said that it is the members responsibility to

Quote:

analyze rumors, myths, and Church history

The question I come away with is: what is the Church’s responsibility?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“The question I come away with is: what is the Church’s responsibility?”

To teach what it (the leadership) believes as inspirationally as possible – including new understandings as they occur as gently as possible to try to “do no harm” to as many members as possible, especially among the most fervent and committed.

I don’t envy that balancing act.

[Anonymous]

I think I have a fair amount to say on this topic.

Having looked just a little into this book content I understand that its purpose is to 1) help members with some critical thinking skills to not make them so vulnerable to misinformation and conspiracy theories and 2) to avoid any sacred cows that would make church members identify this book as damaging to faith.

Old-Timer wrote:

I don’t envy that balancing act.

I see this as a noble goal. I certainly feel that there is a great amount of misinformation floating around and it can be dangerous on several different levels. He is trying to speak to the “faithful” of the church. I believe that LDS culture is such that if he were to say that church members have been remiss in their duty then everyone takes it in stride but if we say that the church has been remiss in its duty everyone gets really defensive all of the sudden.

[Anonymous]

In regards to church misinformation specifically, I think we have built up expectations of the church that are impossible to live up to. Take the following list for example.

Minyan Man wrote:

Prophets

…Prophets know everything about the future.

…Prophets always receive revelation that is always clear.

…Prophets never make mistakes.

…Prophets never get tricked.

…Prophets never disagree with each other.

It seems to me that this list could be roughly summarized by saying that the Prophet can never lead the church astray. Now, I believe that debunking that particular idea would be met with intense resistance. Therefore, the author chips away at this unsustainable assumption in more digestible pieces.

Prophets do not know what is going to happen before it happens. (I personally was very surprised in my reading of RSR that JS was continually surprised and caught unprepared by future events – such were my assumptions about JS.) Prophets can receive inspiration/revelation for broad concepts and be left to their own devices to translate that into policy and implementation. Prophets can make mistakes (We tend to say this but then be VERY reluctant to give any examples). Prophets can be deceived. Prophets can disagree with each other on important doctrinal issues.

When someone that has built their life with the assumptions on this list comes up against contradictory examples, it can be challenging and disconcerting.

The accessibility of information on these topics from reputable and well researched sources is growing every day. Either we adjust our expectations or we will lose more and more of our youth and moderates – leaving a greater percentage of elderly and hardcore believers and I believe a more extreme and geriatric church.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Prophets can make mistakes (We tend to say this but then be VERY reluctant to give any examples).

I think the prevailing attitude is that a prophet isn’t perfect in the sense that they are capable of sin but the hump we can’t quite get over is recognizing that a prophet isn’t perfect when it comes to receiving and interpreting revelation. A prophet teaching perfect doctrines and writing perfect policies gives us that certainty we crave. It’s like a drug.

[Anonymous]

I’ve always wondered how a book such as this, is made & approved for publication. Assuming of course that there is an approval process.

You never hear about this process. At the very least, I would think there is an informal process before you invested the time, effort &

reputation to publish. (Just curious)

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Roy wrote:

Prophets can make mistakes (We tend to say this but then be VERY reluctant to give any examples).

I think the prevailing attitude is that a prophet isn’t perfect in the sense that they are capable of sin but the hump we can’t quite get over is recognizing that a prophet isn’t perfect when it comes to receiving and interpreting revelation. A prophet teaching perfect doctrines and writing perfect policies gives us that certainty we crave. It’s like a drug.

I agree this tends to be the general feeling/idea but I don’t think that’s what Erekson is saying in this book. (I have not read the book, I did listen to an Erekson podcast, the book is on my list.) I think Erekson is saying that prophets are as human as the rest of us, that they see through the same glass in the same dark way, and they can make mistakes like racism or the Kirtland Bank fiasco – and that’s OK.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

I’ve always wondered how a book such as this, is made & approved for publication. Assuming of course that there is an approval process.

You never hear about this process. At the very least, I would think there is an informal process before you invested the time, effort &

reputation to publish. (Just curious)

It is a free country and we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. If you want to get published you can, especially in the day and age of Amazon and self publishing. Of course this book is published by Deseret Book, which does have the overseeing eye of the church. But it’s not anti, not apostate, there’s nothing nonfactual in there as far as I can tell (again I haven’t read it but intend to). I do think there’s a reason Rough Stone Rolling and most of Terryl Givens’ books are not published by Deseret is to avoid that kind of oversight, but it’s also quote possible Deseret said they wouldn’t publish them. Likewise it’s also possible the authors want their works to appear more objective and that Deseret Book may not have a reputation that would be viewed in that way. Either way, Bushman and Givens (and other more progressive and forthright authors) are in danger of “church discipline” because they’re not doing anything wrong.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t explain myself very well. I am curious how someone (anyone) who holds a prominent in the Church & is well known,

goes about writing and publishing a book that has the potential to draw alot of attention & publicity. We all know it doesn’t

take much for members to become overly sensitive & believe it is an attack. Instead of giving information or trying to help

people understand a particular subject or gain understanding.

Do they go to the 1st Presidency?

Do they go to the Q12?

Do they go through a friend or contact within the church to read it & then take it to the powers that be?

Is there an approval process?

Then, do they defend him if the book generates negative press or publicity?

I can’t imagine going on your own to write & publish a book that will always be viewed (by someone) as potentially sensitive.

Especially when it is published by Deseret.

Especially when my job would be on the line.

I’m just using Erekson as an example.

I found his web site to be interesting.

https://www.keitherekson.com/

[Anonymous]

Good questions MM.

I had not realized that…

Quote:

Since 2014 [Keith Erekson] has worked for the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, directing the Church History Library and encouraging historical outreach and public engagement. He also serves on the editorial board of the Church Historian’s Press.

It is possible that he is operating at the church’s behest. Trying to help with the inoculation effort (This is metaphorical inoculation – not COVID related) and trying to discourage extremism and conspiracy theories from growing within the church.

The fact that he published with Deseret Book makes me believe that his writing was thoroughly vetted through the pre-publication process.

I am reminded of the book Believing Christ by Stephen E Robinson. Brother Robinson was a BYU professor at the time and the book was published through Deseret Book. In Believing Christ, the author makes a compelling case for grace using the bible but predominantly the BoM. I personally found this to be super helpful during the very dark time at the beginning of my FC. However, believing that all my foibles were either currently swallowed up in the grace of JC or would be at some point in the future swallowed up in his perfection and grace – that belief left me somewhat less motivated to do my home teaching, pay tithing, or a myriad other drudgerous tasks that the modern church seems to preach are necessary for my eternal destiny.

Brother Robinson wrote a follow-up book called “Following Christ” that seemed to me to be aimed at this specific problem. He compared people like me to members of the family and household of Christ that once inside suddenly refuse to do their chores. I can only speculate but I wonder if pressure was put upon Brother Robinson to write the follow-up book or if he just saw how his teachings were being received and decided on his own to backtrack.

Either way, I think it demonstrates the risks of being a church employee and then publishing what appears to be a pretty innocuous faith promoting book and then getting in hot water (semi-tepid water?) over unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

Minyan Man wrote:

I didn’t explain myself very well. I am curious how someone (anyone) who holds a prominent in the Church & is well known,

goes about writing and publishing a book that has the potential to draw alot of attention & publicity. We all know it doesn’t

take much for members to become overly sensitive & believe it is an attack. Instead of giving information or trying to help

people understand a particular subject or gain understanding.

Do they go to the 1st Presidency?

Do they go to the Q12?

I think maybe or maybe not. I think they were aware that Bushman was writing RSR and that he intended to be forthright. Since he had worked with the church historian’s office and probably with at least some of the Q12 he was/is a known quantity. His intent is not malicious, and while I’m sure he likely has his critics I don’t think there are any major concerns. RSR has been out for a while now (as have some of Givens’ lesser known more scholarly works and books like Robinson’s Believing Christ) and the church leadership has had plenty of time to push back if that was their intent, and since they haven’t (but have on some others) it would appear they at least tacitly approve. They were likely aware that an employee (Erekson) was writing a book and what it was about. I could speculate like Roy does that it’s because of the idea of knowing the truth is a form of inoculation or protection.

Quote:

Do they go through a friend or contact within the church to read it & then take it to the powers that be?

Probably yes to the first and probably no to the second. They have editors and peer reviewers and that’s often pointed out in prologues, dedications, etc. Do they need approval? The Church of Total Control of Latter-day Saints is very quickly coming to an end. Could people like Bushman, Givens, Mason, or Roberson (to name a few) be “disciplined for things they wrote? Sure, if it met the criteria for apostasy, etc. Would they accept such discipline? I guess the answer is what choice do they have? But I don’t think they fear it. (I can’t find the reference immediately and I need to cook dinner, but Bushman has said as much, and Fiona Givens was recently – and quietly – dismissed as an employee of the Maxwell Institute.)

Quote:

Is there an approval process?

Quote:

Probably not a formal one, perhaps tacit approval at most.

Quote:

Then, do they defend him if the book generates negative press or publicity?

I guess if you’re referring to friends or peers, likely so. Unless it is anti or apostate there wouldn’t seem to be a need for the church leadership to say anything either way. I know it’s hard for some members who have been very indoctrinated in the doctrine for a long, long time to wrap their brains around this – but the modern church leadership really does want us to think and decide for ourselves (at least at the macro level).

Quote:

I can’t imagine going on your own to write & publish a book that will always be viewed (by someone) as potentially sensitive.

There’s kind of two aspects to this. First, how many if the 16 million members have read RSR (or will read Erekson’s book)? A very small percentage, and those who don’t want to hear or think about what they have to say will probably avoid it anyway. Second, I’ve only read about Bushman and heard him on podcasts, but I have met Terryl and Fiona (both delightful people) and they don’t seem to care and I don’t mean that in a cavalier way. Truth is truth and if all they’re doing is telling the truth (and I believe it is) then it doesn’t matter what people who “can’t handle the truth” think.

Quote:

Especially when it is published by Deseret.

DB may throw an extra little tilt to it, and I do think there is some higher power (GA) oversight on what they publish. That actually serves to validate it from my point of view. (That’s not to say I think Bushman or Givens are less valid because they don’t publish everything through DB – I think their aim is to reach a wider audience and to be seen as more scholarly. Givens does publish his more popular and less scholarly books through DB.)

Quote:

Especially when my job would be on the line.

Most of them don’t work for the church, again on purpose, although Terryl Givens does now work for the Maxwell Institute. I think if they (Maxwell/BYU) were concerned they wouldn’t have hired him.

Quote:

I’m just using Erekson as an example.

Likewise, I think if Erekson was worried about his job he wouldn’t have written/published it. Just because some of the old guard don’t believe something (or don’t want to believe it) doesn’t make it any less of a truth. There certainly was a time not so long ago (the dark age of the church, essentially post McKay until about 10-15 years ago) when they might have to have been concerned (think September Six). Welcome to 2021 where a church that has always talked about truth can look truth in the teeth.

Quote:

I found his web site to be interesting.

https://www.keitherekson.com/

Yeah, he’s an interesting guy, part of a much more progressive church history department than existed 20 years ago. I’m sure there is stuff still buried in those vaults, but the church is much more willing to dust off that stuff now – and they have to be because if they don’t the antis win.

[Anonymous]

This week’s Church News Podcast with Erekson:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/podcast/2021-08-10/episode-43-church-history-library-director-keith-a-erekson-on-dispelling-latter-day-myths-rumors-221819” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.thechurchnews.com/podcast/2021-08-10/episode-43-church-history-library-director-keith-a-erekson-on-dispelling-latter-day-myths-rumors-221819

From the article’s introduction to the podcast:

Quote:

Church History Library Director Keith A. Erekson says it is important that complete and accurate recounts of history are shared; when rumor and myth mix with reality it can damage a member’s understanding or personal testimony of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. He joins this episode of the Church News podcast to give tips on using critical thinking skills to study the past and dispel latter-day myths and rumors. He also showcases the digital and physical resources of the Church History Library.

[Anonymous]

I listened to the podcast. I had thought that the goal of the book was more broadly to make us more thoughtful about our information sources. While there still may be some of this, the author is pretty clear that he is specifically wanting to address church history information.

Quote:

Can you talk to us about the evolution of why you wrote that book and what you were hoping to help people come to know?

Keith A. Erekson: I think at the simplest I was just hoping to help people think about history. Again, because we do it so much as Latter-day Saints — in our church service, in teaching lessons, in speaking in church and teaching and family home evening, we’re constantly engaging with history and the texts from our past, and I wanted to help people do that the best way possible. And so, probably the long version of the story is that I, as a historian and as a teacher, I’ve talked about these ideas for many, many years in many settings, but then coming to work for the Church History Library, it just started to become clear how much we could benefit by telling good stories about Church history and by paying attention to records, and by asking for evidence, and by making sure not to exaggerate things beyond what really happened. And so all of that kind of came together, and the chance to share these ideas.

On the whole, I feel like this is an inoculation attempt. The author wants to provide a framework for examining information that might have a mixture of real and rumor elements. Bless him for his efforts. I do not think that the book really reaches out to someone like me, but then I am not the intended audience. I have already had a FC that the inoculation is designed to prevent. This seems geared more towards the me from 20 years ago.

And because it is geared towards the me from 20 years ago, it seems to be less forthright than the me from today would like. I imagine that he is walking the fine line of setting up this framework without introducing anything that would perhaps begin the process of questioning. His job is to provide some tools and to do no harm. I feel that he is reasonably successful in this aim.

[Author]

Posts