- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The pain Reuben predicts will lead to adaptations of the old church to new stories and new applications and interpretations and proof-texting and interpretation of scripture to something meaningful to the new generations…. …and the cycle continues forward as generations look for answers to unanswerable questions.
Each generation needs their experience.
You did call it Reuben. I just listened to an episode this morning from MormonDiscussionPodcast that Bill Reel and “Radio Free Mormon” both weigh in on how many questions are VERY carefully answered so that someone that REALLY knows all the history can’t say “they are lying”, but for someone not in the know – they get the feeling they know the issue(s). They dig into thinks like Sister Holbrook saying she learned about JS polygamy from her grandmother reading a book about this. They calculate the timing and it was probably Mormon Enigma (if I recall correctly). That was absolutely a book that was considered “anti mormon” at the time and many bishops and SP’s would have really looked down upon you reading it. They say study, but don’t give one real good “go read this” non-church book (Matt did say to read the essays and that is progress). Like I said and Reuben also said, this book was not written for me. I think it is an attempt to keep more members from becoming like me.
LookingHard wrote:Like I said and Reuben also said, this book was not written for me. I think it is an attempt to keep more members from becoming like me.
I agree, I think it is intended to inoculate and for those who have questions but don’t really want to work hard at it here is a researched reference. And for those who might want to try to answer other people’s questions there is a place to go.
I think what you’re overlooking is the references themselves. If you use the Gospel Library or online (LDS.org) edition most of the references are directly linked and you can read the stuff for yourself. That’s not to say all the references are great – sometimes there’s only Lucy Mack Smith’s book – but sometimes there are multiple references. Obviously the printed book and audio can’t do this, and while I have a Kindle I have not looked at the Kindle edition. I’m just saying there is more than meets the eye for those who want to look further, and that’s very much unlike any previous church publication on its history.
Quote:I’m just saying there is more than meets the eye for those who want to look further, and that’s very much unlike any previous church publication on its history.
In a weird way, that’s a huge step for us.
Mormon Matters just did a good podcast on the SAINTS. I think it was good and well balanced.
A few things I got out of it were (and I am not claiming to be balanced on what
Itook away) - For some people “the story of Mormon history is their theology.” Many people joined the church because of the narrative instead of he theology, thus when they find out much of the story was whitewashed, it is more than just misrepresented history.
- Some said this felt like the church gave just enough new information for people to feel “I have read this. No issues. Why is my son leaving the church over this?” and not realizing there is messiness.
- One person said they didn’t like how the book (even the title) kind of strongly implies, “This IS THE history and anything else is lies.” It seemed to show no “historical humility.”
- There was Catholic person that studies Mormonism and she took the church’s side a bit and made some good points. The Catholic church is NEVER going to write a book that talks about the crusades or the sex abuse scandle. She thought highly that the church has gone as far as it has in talking about some problematic historical areas (while also admitting this still had lots of sugar coating).
I started listening to it this morning – it is an interesting topic 🙂 I just saw this video linked on Facebook and decided to watch. I had forgotten about this thread. I took notes of what was said and my responses. Before starting a new thread, I searched here and found this one that I will just resurrect. To begin, I am theorizing of the church inoculation efforts like a funnel. At the widest point is, in this case, all the YSA. I feel that the presenters wanted to present just a few morsels to give a vague idea of the kinds of doubts that are out there but not really go into depth or give specific examples. Part of this is a function of time constraints, but I believe another consideration is in wanting to be very careful about not presenting information that might begin doubts that had not existed before. So this type of presentation, I believe is for individuals without doubts that might benefit from some inoculation or individuals with fairly miner/unexplored concerns on the shelf that might be helped with some apologetics.
According to my theory, the next widest group in the funnel would be the YSA’s that actually read the book. The book does deal with specific examples and moments in history from an honest but certainly favorable perspective. When I say favorable, I mean favorable to the modern church. It is my experience that this book is told for a purpose and that purpose is not to get to learn more history for the joy of history. The purpose is to help modern members either become better prepared for contradictory information or to help those who might be helped with apologetic answers. IOW, the way that you tell a story says much more about who you are and who your audience is than it tells you about the individuals in your story.
There may be same that read saints and find some points of information unsettling. I believe that the church would want those concerns addressed on an individual basis – perhaps by talking to the bishop or with a family member. I see this as the more narrow or nozzle part of the funnel
I feel like the church hid information from me – why? Quote:Highlights from the answer:
The church didn’t hide the information, it just wasn’t emphasized.
There was that one article about seer stones 40 years ago.
Church lessons taught us to repent and follow the gospel of JC.
I believe the insinuation is that we didn’t hear about peep stones at church because we were busy talking about things that are far more important to our salvation. I could get behind this if not for all the time we’ve spent over the years reiterating the whitewashed retelling of the restoration. Entire months have gone by at church where the lessons felt like they were preparing us for restoration trivia night. The whitewashed restoration was the central focus.
“It can be really painful to learn about something that you thought you should have known and that you didn’t know.”
Confession. I almost turned if off right there. That’s when I decided that I’d only listen to one question at a time and come back to it later. That’s not the best way to validate someone that has that question. Revisiting the question – some young adults feel like the church has been hiding information. The way the validation is phrased flips the narrative from “I feel bad because I feel the church hid things from me” to “I feel bad because I should have known.” Please don’t do that. The youth may be struggling to regain trust. I’m not sure the “you should have known” approach is the best one to take in that situation. In their defense, the person answering did qualify the statement with “some people.”
We know more now. The information wasn’t hidden, we’re discovering it together.
The information age is spreading the word. The information needs to be related in a safe environment, like church and the family.
The conversation among the leaders is not how do we hide history or censor it, it’s about how to make history available and understandable.
Plug for the new book Saints.
I did feel somewhat patronized (the constant smiles also added to my feeling of being patronized) by the part of the answer that talked about how maybe these parts of our history were not emphasized because we were too busy giving lessons on repentance and living more Christlike lives. That made it sound like maybe church history doesn’t matter as long as we are teaching the fundamentals of the gospel. That certainly has not been our position. We believe so much in the importance of the events of the restoration that we actually ask people to affirm their belief in it before they can enter the temple.
The answer given was at least partially true. Leonard Arrington might be surprised to hear that the church didn’t hide/withhold information so I feel like it was selectively true.
Quote:Q: Why was it necessary for Joseph Smith and many other leaders to practice it? What do I tell my family when they ask about polygamy in the early days of the church, they aren’t generally satisfied with the, “Well, we don’t practice it anymore.” answer.
Speaker was descended from polygamists. BoM says that polygamy might be commanded for a very short period to “raise up seed” therefore that was the the purpose. Other speaker said that about 20% of current church members were descended from polygamists and that those who practiced it and those children of those who practiced it were often the most stalwart- thus giving the impression that polygamy was beneficial to the church for that time period. JS was commanded and those around him received personal confirmation that it was right for them. It was always something that people could choose.
I feel that these words are highly selective, clearly not everyone received such a confirmation. Also the comment about people being able to choose is insulting because it glosses over coercion and the heavy restrictions on such a choice.
There were some additional tangential answers dealing with polygamy.
What about JS and his practice of polygamy?
Speaker mentioned that in that time there were sealings for both time and all eternity and also sealings for eternity alone. Those sealings involving JS that are often the most troubling may fall into that second category.
While this is technically true, I believe it gives people too much freedom to dismiss any plural marriages that do not quite sit right with them into this “eternity alone” category without a sexual component.
What are the implications of polygamy for eternity and what existence will be like in the celestial kingdom?
Monogamy is the rule, polygamy is the exception. Polygamy is not needed for exaltation or eternal glory.
Additional comments and thoughts that I find helpful regarding polygamy:
1) Monogamy is the rule – it might have even been said that God loves monogamy.
2) Monogamy is not required for exaltation or the fullness of eternal glory.
3) Speaker mentioned personal ancestry examples of hardships of polygamy (being a first wife but less favored than a later wife and another example of being neglected financially).
4) revelation on polygamy did not come with instruction manual/”We don’t always receive revelation on everything” Joke about maybe we will need the whole millennium to learn all the answers to our unanswered questions. I believe this helps slightly to illustrate that church leaders do not have a quick and easy way to get direct answers to their questions from God.
5) “In the senior councils of the church there is a feeling that polygamy has served its purpose.”
The good news is that the church is slowly moving away from eternal polygamy as a doctrine. As much as I don’t love the glossing over the complexities of reasons that the saints of the restoration themselves believed in for why polygamy was practiced – this new narrative does help the new generation take yet another baby step away from theological polygamy.
Why was it practiced? By divine commandment to meet a temporary need. What does it mean for heaven? Nothing that you need to be worried about. You get to be monogamous for eternity as is the ideal.
Quote:Why are the accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision a little different? Why do we use the version that we use?
Acknowledged four accounts.
Weren’t there a lot more, I don’t know.
Each focuses on different details. The differences make it more plausible and can be attributed to differences in audience.
The 1838 account was longer and had the goal of explaining the church to the outside world, so that’s why we use it.
It’s hard to put spiritual things to words.
I’ll help the guy out here. Symbols have different meaning to different people and words are just symbols. To borrow from Tao, the first vision that can be told is not the eternal first vision.
Differing accounts widens the perspectives.
I wanted to reference that I noticed and enjoyed the discussion of the limitation of words to describe spiritual experiences. I believe that this is a subtle reference to the not prevailing belief that the first vision was visionary in nature rather than a visitation that could be more readily described using words designed to describe what can be perceived by our physical senses.
Quote:Did Joseph translate the gold plates or was it strictly revelation? What role did the Urim and Thummim play in the translation of the Book of Mormon?
Joseph Smith said that he translated the BoM through the gift and power of god. Some want more detail, but that’s what he said.
Scribes and friends did elaborate on the translation process.
Scholarly approach didn’t work so he turned to a revelatory approach.
U&T and peepstone used, later JS didn’t need either when working on the JST.
I believe the insinuation here is that the U&T and peepstone(s) were crutches for receiving revelation and that JS progressed to a point where he no longer needed them.
The content is more important than the way the content was delivered.
I also like this especially because it goes to the heart one of the more prominent examples of “why did the church hide this from me?”The dominant LDS teaching that JS was reading directly from the gold plates possibly aided by the spectacles/interpreters/U&T is something that is fairly well documented to have been historically inaccurate.
I believe that there is evidence that portions of the experience and learning of JS ended up on the written pages of the BoM. I believe that eventually the church may need to use this “translation through revelation” process and the general messiness of revelation to help explain issues with the BoM.
Good for the church in this inoculation effort.
my image of historians are of folks that believe in the exploration and publication of “warts and all” history. My bias leads me to think of historians as individuals wanting to follow the evidence with no preconceived notions (or a willingness and even excitement to overturn preconceived notions). I think of them as scientists of a sort, Social Scientists. This is contrasted by the role of defense lawyers. Defense lawyers are stereotypically less interested in the truth then how those elements of the truth that are known (or likely to become known) by the prosecution can be spun in a way that protects/defends their client.
For this reason I feel tension in the idea of an Apologist (Defense) Historian. I find that this role would be further complicated by such a historian working directly for the church. That seems to me to be a conflict of interest against the pursuit of discovering the unvarnished truth of the past.
However, I do recognize the importance of having someone study the manuscripts in church archives. I also recognize the need for the church to tell its own version if its history. I just can’t help but feel that these two historians on the panel are more like church PR people with backgrounds and education in history then what I had imagined historians to be.
I have not gone back to see if this point has been made in the thread already, but: I give the Church credit for beefing up the History Department with some solid historians and opening up the archives for exploration and study. (I know a couple of them personally, and, while they are active and “faithful” they are nowhere near traditionally orthodox. There obviously was natural pressure/motivation on church leadership from each option, and I am glad they chose the path they took and are taking.
Yes, I agree that the amount of access and transparency that we have now is lightyears ahead of what we had before. Also the two historians that spoke in the fireside walk a careful path, they are there to educate the YSA population but not more than they can digest in one sitting and not in a way that could be said to destroy faith and also in a way that would allow them to retain their jobs and be able to keep working on the multivolume SAINTS and JSP projects.
Perfect can be the enemy of good and progress should always be celebrated.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.