My family was never big drinkers. My parents would have a drink before dinner and some wine during the holidays, 
but never drink wine with dinner. So when I joined the Church, it was pretty easy to give up drinking alcohol because it was never that important to me. Even in college, I was a bit of lightweight in that department.
But after I joined the church, anytime I mentioned drinking, my Mother would almost always say “Well, you used to drink!” To which I always replied, “But I don’t now.”
I see this same pattern here on our blog and I’m sure it exists on other Mormon-oriented blogs. No matter what the topic, no matter what the object of the post, someone will bring up some Mormon history in an unfavorable light in order to level criticism at the Church. Whether it is the issue of Blacks and the priesthood, the role of women in the Church, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, polygamy, and the treatment of gays, to name a few.
It appears that, in the minds of some, no amount of progress, no changing of policy, practice, or the passage of time can atone for the perceived sins of the past. Luckily, the Savior does not hold us to the same standard.
But what society, civilization or group of people could pass the same test? Could the Christian Church pass this test? European nations? The Chinese? The Japanese? The ancient Romans? The Jews? Anyone?
No, they could not. Each has a dark side to it along with the positives they have contributed to the world at large.
Imagine the 4th of July holiday where all we discussed were the atrocities the US inflicted upon the Native Americans, Slavery, the treatment of just about every ethnic group or the lawless old west? No celebration of the creation of this country which has afforded so much opportunity to people from all over the world for the past 200 plus years? We’d be shooting fireworks at each other.
Is it necessary to ignore history? Of course not. Those who do are doomed to repeat it, as the saying goes. But is it necessary to bring up the past shortcomings when speaking of the here and now? Usually not.
Most people would not like it done to them personally. Unfortunately, some people are so bitter against the Church, it is their only way to fight back.
To me, that is sad on a number of levels.
Perhaps, it is time to celebrate the progress that has been made and the progress that will continue as a result of good people striving to make themselves better and thus the world around them benefits from that. Sure, there will be shortcomings and failures, but those are there as lessons to learn from and move on from.
Not dwell on nor not throw up in our faces.
Wheat & Tares 
I think it would help if we lowered all of our expectations. If we expect a perfect organization or enterprise (whether it be a nation, a society, or a church), then we are setting ourselves up for disappointment.
When we recognize that it’s all people…imperfect, ordinary people…then the grays of life don’t become that surprising.
mormon history is different than all your other examples for a couple reasons.
First, a lot of history is brought up to address the credibility of the church as an organization. if it feels that the church is obfruscating or hiding information about its history, that affects the credibility of the organization.
Second, the church claims that its actions are directed by Jesus Christ himself. Therefore it is important to analyze the history and see if it is in line with what Jesus would do.
It would help, to my mind, if these topics were acknowledged, openly discussed, with formal apologies or amends. I was surprised some years ago when a formal apology was made for the mountain meadows massacre. Some argue that the apology fell short, that it didn’t go far enough. I think simply acknowledging faults should be recognized.
The mormon church doesn’t have or permit a lot of nuance, it often says it’s all true or all false. Other organizations (the U.S., the constitution) allow for change and ambiguity. I could protest fourth of july celebrations because of the native americans each year. That’s my right. My citizenship won’t be revoked. I won’t be formally censured, unable to pay taxes, speak up at school board meetings, etc.
I think the LDS corporation needs to develop a thicker skin, discuss all these issues. Make research about them available to anyone, regardless of their temple recommend status. Stop formally censuring scholars who publish books about their research that don’t meet the party line.
As another thought, it’s all well and good to apologize for the treatment of someone (like gays, women or people of color), but until fundamental changes are made, apologies seem hollow. They’re just words.
“mormon history is different than all your other examples for a couple reasons. ”
I just knew someone would say that. It’s more recent and more documented as well.
“I just knew someone would say that. It’s more recent and more documented as well.”
Does that mean I’m wrong, because you anticipated this response?
You call recent policy changes “progress” that we should acknowledge. Does that mean previous policies were bad. If so, how are we to know they are bad if we just ignore them?
Jeff never said that history should be ignored. In fact, he said exactly the opposite.
I admit upfront that I have a personal soapbox issue when it comes to group discussions initiated by an author. I am not a fan of flamewars and threads that spiral out of control, so, on a personal level, I want conversation to stay true to the point of the OP. Disagreement is fine, but I prefer focus regardless of disagreement. I want to learn through group interaction, and that ability decreases directly proportionate to the unrelated rants that occur in the thread. Thus, I appreciate what I think Jeff is saying – that we can have discussions of current issues without having to regurgitate things from the past.
Of course, there are threads where a discussion of the past is necessary and central to the point of the OP. However, there are lots of threads where the past really isn’t relevant or important to discuss – at least, in length and great detail.
I like the personalization of the OP, since I know there are things I’ve said in the past that I no longer believe now – and I am certain there are things I say now that I will not believe in the future. If I write something now and someone says, “But you said __________ four years ago,” all I can say is, “But I don’t believe that anymore.”
I’m fine saying that once (or even twice, sometimes), but I don’t want to have to say it all the time (especially to the same person) – and that repetition happens in too many threads around the Bloggerncale, imo. I think that is what Jeff is saying here, and I agree with the basic point I think he’s making.
“I know there are things I’ve said in the past that I no longer believe now – and I am certain there are things I say now that I will not believe in the future. If I write something now and someone says, “But you said __________ four years ago,” all I can say is, “But I don’t believe that anymore.”
There’s a difference between saying “I don’t believe that anymore” and “I never said I believed that four years ago. My beliefs on the matter have always been consistent from the beginning…”
As Dragon implied, the Church sometimes sounds like the latter rather than the former.
Nice sentiment it’s typically what we do at church but if we ignore our past we are destined to drink correlated Kool-Aid.
Howard,
“but if we ignore our past we are destined to drink correlated Kool-Aid.”
Do you do that? I don’t. So why the generalization?
We often accuse the other people of being the sheep….
Howard, re-read paragraph #8 in the OP.
“It appears that, in the minds of some, no amount of progress, no changing of policy, practice, or the passage of time can atone for the perceived sins of the past. Luckily, the Savior does not hold us to the same standard.
But what society, civilization or group of people could pass the same test? Could the Christian Church pass this test? European nations? The Chinese? The Japanese? The ancient Romans? The Jews? Anyone?”
I don’t hold man-made organizations, nations, races of people to the same standard of a church that says its leaders speak directly with and on behalf of god. Those groups are merely humans doing the best the can. Those who are presumptuous enough to say that their words are God’s words should be judged differently.
As to the “no amount of change…will atone for perceived sins…” I have two comments. Reading the history of church leaders’ comments on homosexuality would lead one that they no more speak to a god that those in the animal kingdom. Published, church-sanctioned pamphlets in the early 1970s contain ridiculous statements that the church leaders “testify” to in their official capacity. To the non-believer, this is clear evidence that these men do not speak for God. No amount of politically correct change can change the fact that church members were given erroneous teachings by “god”, which led to many individuals having twisted views of their life situation.
I would view statements of church leaders and other events if it was all done in the vein of “believing” and “humans striving”. It is not. It is done in a church of “knowledge” and “doing god’s divine will”. You never hear caveats as to the divine source or lack thereof when a church leader is giving instruction. Mormons believe their **** doesn’t stink. The use of the words “perceived sins” illustrates how the church officially views their sins. Not sins, just perceived sins. There is never any official remorse because to do so sets its fragile members thinking god doesn’t direct every leaders’ movement.
If Jesus indeed leads the church it should be held to a different standard than he holds us to.
“If Jesus indeed leads the church it should be held to a different standard than he holds us to.”
Why? It is we.
jeff, mormon history is one of my favorite topics. are you telling me to pick another topic? 🙂
while it isn’t recognized on the internet, the church is making a push to get more of the church history available. if you can refer to my post on the recent mha meetings, church historian rick turley unveiled a new website to show digitized versions of church archives. they are making a massive effort to make these materials available to a wider audience over the next few years. there was a meeting about womens mormon history that I attended as well. so for all the charges that the church is trying to hide some of the past (and I do think that charge had some merit in years past), it does appear that the church is trying hard to make up for lost ground. I encourage everyone to look at new resources previously unavailable such as the relief society minutes (now available on the joseph smith papers website). there is a new openness toward church history that the church is not getting enough credit for, imo. richard bushman recently called this time ‘the golden age’ to study mormon history. I think this needs to be trumpeted a bit more, because far too many people think the ‘hiding’ culture of the past is still alive. times are a changin’.
Jeff,
It depends solely on whether or not some wish to continue the very things that led to the problems in the first place. The issue with blacks and the priesthood for instance is NOT an issue of racism. It is an issue with the prophetic nature of the prophet and how much we should follow him even if he leads us down a terrible course. Thus it is brought up whenever we’re told to follow the prophet, or else. Some kind of crap that Will spews out every now and then.
What progress has been made? Sure we can celebrate that blacks are no longer blamed for Cain’s actions. Wahoo! What else can we celebrate? We still use the KJV, even though its translation has many shortcomings. We haven’t updated the cross referencing and analysis of the scriptures since 1980 or something. We spend a trifle of the church funds on actually taking care of people and billions on some mall. We’ve transformed the church into a corporation (perhaps needed for the current modern culture), but that’s not really progress. Women are treated better than they were in the past. Here in New York, we don’t have any problem with me being the stay at home dad while my wife is the breadwinner, but I am guessing this is not the case among other parts of the Mormon world. Baptism rates have dropped mostly because we’ve reduced the size of the missionary pool, and probably because of how we are perceived.
MMM was an aberration and not a characteristic of the Mormon culture, however, Brigham Young did create a strong culture of fear with his wild language and rhetoric, to the point where members feared anyone who came close to them. Church leaders after him did continue the fearmongering (all the way up to Ezra Taft Benson), but that has died down, which is fantastic progress. It’s nice to hear prophets not keep up the victim mentality.
Our current prophets and apostles are very smart and learned in the scriptures, which comes across in their talks at Conference. This is something they’ve improved since the days of ETB conflating American liberalism with the Gadianton Robbers. Though Gordon B Hinckley’s logic for the support of the war in Iraq was terrible. His use of the Book of Mormon actually justified IRAQ in defending itself against the invading American forces!
As for my life, I’ve lived a generally good life since joining the church (we joined just after my mother divorced my abusive father, so really the only way was up from there). I can’t complain about how the Lord has blessed my life. But I don’t think He means for us to stay silent simply because our own lives are pretty good. If we think something is wrong, we should speak up.
Dan,
“Some kind of crap that Will spews out every now and then. ”
You really COULD control yourself if you made an effort. Thanks,
As a historian I might have something to add here. I think the problem is more judging the past using the morality of today. That is called the “presentism” fallacy. We need to judge actions by the context in which they were performed. When I read the Venerable Bede I don’t expect him to be multi cultural. And I try to understand the Aztec system of Imperial control rather than simply rage against their actions. Judging the morality of the event using 21st century standards without trying to understand the context, thought, and dialogue surrouding your subjects’ behavior is a very shallow form of history.
For critics of the church I expect this shallowness is only matched by the depth of their testimonies. When shallow history is then used as nothing more than a cudgel it is no longer history.
MH,
“jeff, mormon history is one of my favorite topics. are you telling me to pick another topic? :)”
I love Mormon history as well. I’ve been willing to put in the time to try to learn the whole story. What I’ve learned at Church piqued my interest further rather than just accept the abbreviated version.
I’ve put the time into it including spending hours in the Church Archives hunched over a microfilm reader.
Jeff & Ray So what am I to make of this seemingly contradictory paragraph when the thrust of the post seems to suggest the latter?
Is it necessary to ignore history? Of course not. Those who do are doomed to repeat it, as the saying goes. But is it necessary to bring up the past shortcomings when speaking of the here and now? Usually not.
Please explain.
Morgan,
Thanks for your inputs. I suppose one of the hardest things to do is to interpret history using the context and mores of that day.
One of the interesting paradoxes that I cope with is the fact that we can attribute higher moral standards to an earlier time but yet most folks hated anyone who was different than they were.
Contrast that to today where lying, cheating, stealing, infidelity, and children out of wedlock are widely acceptable behavior but people are generally much more tolerant of folks who are different than themselves.
I see a parallel with examining history.
Howard,
“Please explain.”
Let me attempt.
If we discuss how the Church is growing in Africa and that more African-Americans are joining the Church, what purpose does it serve to bring up the fact that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood until 1978? That changed and now they can.
What purpose does it serve to point out that Delbert Stapley might have held a view that would be considered racist by today’s standards?
There might be a time and place to discuss that with people who might not know. But we all know the history. We all know there is little basis in doctrine for the ban. And to bring it up over and over again especially out of context with the discussion is not helpful, nor useful.
That’s my explanation.
Dan,
“Thus it is brought up whenever we’re told to follow the prophet, or else.”
Do you do this? If not, then what is the problem? Because I sure don’t.
OK so I think you’re saying don’t bring up our unflattering history unless it becomes germane to the discussion. Is that correct?
And I forgot to say orginally, great post Jeff.
*originally
Howard,
“OK so I think you’re saying don’t bring up our unflattering history unless it becomes germane to the discussion. Is that correct?”
That’s a good start.
I would have to agree with dragon (comment #2). It is not so much that the Church is not allowed to grow and change its policies, procedures and teachings. But when those teachings were presented as the MIND and WILL of the Lord from those with prophetic authority and when those teachings dramatically caused unnecessary suffering and pain because people were asked to sacrifice significantly due to those prophetic utterances then, yes, there should be accountability.
I present three examples:
1) The oft cited blacks and the priesthood – How many black brothers and sisters accepted the witness of the Holy Ghost and of the Restored Gospel but were subsequently denied the full blessings of the Gospel (including Temple Endowments and Covenants as well as Eternal Sealings) all because of the prejudice of a prophet or the “practices of the times”? And why was such a policy allowed to continue through at least eight or nine additional prophets who all had access to the Mind and Will of Our Lord through their calling?
2) Birth Control and SAHM – How many women were told the Mind and Will of the Lord was to never use artificial birth control but to bring as many of the Lord’s spirit children into the world no matter how great the sacrifice? How many were also told not to work outside the home to provide for these children even if that meant hardship, mental stress and depression. And then, almost within a two year period, the policy is changed and those two decisions on the number of children and working outside the home are personal choices not dictated by the Lord?
3) Gays and Lesbians – How many brothers and sisters were told that the Mind and Will of the Lord was for them to bury their feelings deep down inside and to marry someone of the opposite gender in order to raise up a righteous posterity no matter how little love there was between the spouses? How many were told by the Church and by their local leaders that the feelings would go away once they slept with the opposite sex? Now all of that is changed and they are not to marry if they have these feelings but instead stay celibate for life and not to love during their mortal probation.
The issue with all of these things is the lack of revelation and the presenting of these changes as though they are natural parts of the gospel that have always been so.
So, yes, I would say the Church and our Prophets, Seers and Revelators should be held to a different standard than those individuals who do not present their teachings or beliefs as the Mind and Will of the Lord. Honesty and truthfulness allows for credibility in all matters. Dishonesty and obsfucation destroys credibility in all matters.
If we discuss how the Church is growing in Africa and that more African-Americans are joining the Church, what purpose does it serve to bring up the fact that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood until 1978? That changed and now they can.
What purpose does it serve to point out that Delbert Stapley might have held a view that would be considered racist by today’s standards?
Jeff, Dragon already answered this: if you believe Jesus Christ is literally the direct leader of the LDS Church, then any authoritative doctrinal teaching by any leader (whether related to race or not) is subject to scrutiny in order to qualify that claim.
ALL discussions of Church history are inherently about this issue when you strip things down. It has nothing to do with whether early LDS leaders were “racist” by today’s standards — most Church members understand this implicitly and would forgive this imperfection if it were admitted and addressed directly.
It has to do with whether we can rely on LDS leaders to teach the word of the Lord correctly — whether or not past or present LDS leaders pretend to have direct authority from God to teach X or Y or implement policy Z when perhaps they don’t.
If that’s true, then that obviously becomes germane to ANY current discussion about Church policy or teachings. Wouldn’t Brigham Young’s or later prophets’ teachings about interracial marriage being a sin worthy of death be germane to modern discussion of gay marriage? We have to be able to judge how reliable current leaders are in terms of doctrine related to marriage.
If LDS prophets and apostles filter their own feelings and beliefs within supposed authoritative teachings “from the Lord”, then we should know that: be upfront about it, and tell us how we tell the difference.
Constantly bringing up the Church’s history regarding to race isn’t *about* race, and never was. It’s about trust, authority, and leadership.
OK Jeff I understand better now.
May I use your example? During the proposed discussion regarding church growth in Africa and more African Americans joining the church I might point out that while I’m thankful for that growth it’s sure been a long time coming to the continent of Africa. BY first sent missionaries to South Africa in 1853 and currently aside from the DR Congo and possibly one other to my knowledge there are no other missions in central Africa the few African missions we have tend to be gathered near South Africa and along the west coast. I might also ask if anyone knows about missions aimed at predominately African American neighborhoods because I haven’t heard of any. Is this suitable so far? What if it continued on wouldn’t it logically end up discussing bias and weather or not God participates in racial bias and if not was it of God and if it was not of God what does this mean to the church etc.? Or should we just ignore the elephant in the room like Sunday School and speak only to the positives of current black growth?
Jeff: Nice post and good discussion. Several comments:
1) I understand the analogy with the the 4th of July, but I think there is a big difference with relating that to the Church. In our country, people can and do express different opinions. This has effectively been shut down in official church channels. People get plenty of the “official” version in Church, so perhaps an undue potion of the “contrary” viewpoint is represented in places like this because there is no other place.
Another big difference is in accountability. If someone presents an unfavorable opinion in government, they are voted out. If someone presents an unfavorable opinion in religion, people have to accept it. We still go through the motions of voting “in Favor” or “opposed” when people assume leadership positions in the Church, but a vote of “opposed” would carry a bad stigma. So, there is really NO accountability.
2) I occasionally bring up historical things. I do this for one main reason. There are people who comment saying “This is how things MUST be because it is how they are” (for example garments), yet they don’t understand that they have changed A LOT over the years.
#28 – KMB: Then bring those issues up when those are the topics of the OP; leave them alone when the topic isn’t about those things. I promise there will be PLENTY of posts that deal with those topics directly.
For example, if someone writes a post about a change in the Church’s policy relative to women (say, the replacement of PEC as the lead council in a ward with Ward Council and the statements that doing do in large part was so that women’s voices could be heard and their opinions factored more often) and asks for other suggestions about things that can be done to give women even more voice **without actually ordaining women to offices in the Priesthood**, there is an obvious understanding that women aren’t ordained to offices in the Priesthood at this time.
Of what value is mentioning that fact? Of what value is dredging up quotes justifying that fact? Of what value is contributing to a spiralling thread that veers away from the point of the OP and totally eliminates pthe possibility of insightful, communal learning and, instead, turns the conversation into an oft-repeated argument? Of what value is mentioning the history of women’s issues in general in the Church – unless it’s a simple, “I think __________ is a great idea, but, based on our history, I don’t think it will happen any time soon.”
Again, to me, the author took the time to write something, and we, as commenters, should honor that effort by not derailing it with stuff that really isn’t relevant to the point of the OP – especially when single-issue commenters jump in and contribute literally nothing more than the same stuff we’ve read over and over and over again all across the Bloggernacle whenever anything remotely related to their pet topic (or even not remotely related until they comment) is discussed.
OK Ray don’t threadjack. An abrupt departure from the OP is a threadjack but several less abrupt comments may result in subject drift arriving at the same place so is this about threadjacks, subject drift or keeping it more like Sunday School?
#32 – Keeping it more like Sunday School? Good heavens, where did that come from?
I’ve said I have no problem whatsoever with disagreements – and that I actually enjoy differing opinions than my own because I often learn from them. I don’t read suppressing differing opinions into anything in the OP – and it certainly isn’t in anything I’ve written.
I read the OP as asking that we not dredge up old crap that isn’t relevant to the actual posts. Perhaps I just should have said that.
#30 – Mike, I understand your last paragraph, especially, and totally sympathize. It’s a fine line sometimes between correcting someone simply (“That just isn’t consistent with our history.”) and correcting someone in detail (“Here is exactly why, point-by-point, quote-by-quote, you are wrong.”) – and I have no clue sometimes which is the better option. I know which option is the default for most people, including myself too often – but the default isn’t the better one in lots of cases.
I just know that once the quote-fighting starts, and the post devolves into a historical debate, the thread rarely returns to the point of the post.
Oh, and if I mis-read your meaning with “keeping it more like Sunday School”, I apologize, Howard.
Ray I gave an example of what I meant about Sunday School in 29 maybe you missed it.
Jeff, nice post.
Howard (29) there are also missions in West Africa (Nigeria, Ghana, Cape Verde, Ivory Coast). As for missions focused on African American neighborhoods, I’m not sure what you mean. Certainly in SE Michigan we have many missionaries serving in predominantly African American neighborhoods, and several units of the chuch which are predominantly African American. I assume other major metropolitan areas are similar.
Howard, thanks for pointing that out again.
I just don’t read anything in Jeff’s post that implies we need to ignore elephants that are relevant to the OP. I read the post as saying that we don’t have to bring unnecessary, extraneous elephants into the room with our comments – especially when everyone participating knows about them and probably will discuss them plenty of times in other threads.
I’m saying I think the elephants in the room are sufficient unto the post thereof.
Howard,
“possibly one other to my knowledge there are no other missions in central Africa the few African missions we have tend to be gathered near South Africa and along the west coast. I might also ask if anyone knows about missions aimed at predominately African American neighborhoods because I haven’t heard of any. Is this suitable so far?”
Did you ever think that there are not missions in some countries because the government have not allowed them or because they are predominately Islamic countries? there could be a myriad of reason. the fact that were are in some African countries and having success should be enough to prove there is no overt reason why some countries and not others.
And I have know people who were called on special missions to inner city Wards to help strengthen them. I also recently attended an inner city ward in Baltimore that were extremely deserve and may have even included people from Utah.
As someone who was subjected to the Proselyting program designed for Jews, I hope we never have any programs aimed at particular groups.
The standard program works well enough. And I do not know of any program specifically excluding African American neighborhoods.
Do you?
#13: You suggest that “we” are leading this Church. Look to any GC report and you’ll see that the leaders (and 95% or more of average members) fully acknowledge that the Lord is leading this church.
Jeff:
Do we all know the history? Do we all know there is little doctrinal basis for that issue?
While I have other points to discuss, I’ll focus on this for now. It’s easy to get caught up in groupthink, assuming that since you and your blogbuddies know something, everyone else knows the same story, or at least can echo the outline.
One of the problems I see at Church in this arena is that very, very few people know the nuances of the religion we all claim to be part of. If someone raised the idea that the ban on blacks and the priesthood were non-doctrinal in my SS class, they’d get railroaded out of town as an “apostate” and, potentially, called in to meet with local leaders. I was called in to my bishop a few months back because, for example, some people didn’t like a comment I made regarding the Word of Wisdom.
Someone stated how they were glad that the Church had outlawed alcohol, coffee, wine and tobacco since receiving the Word of Wisdom and how that set us apart from the world, outright stating that our modern understanding of the WoW was the same as in the mid-1840s and rest of the 1800s. All I stated was that the Word of Wisdom we know today didn’t really come into effect until the early 1900s when Heber J. Grant elevated wise advice to a strict commandment.
My bishop, who I think epitomizes most members, stated that the most important thing I could do is to not look at or research the historical differences present in the Church and, instead, focus on what is taught now and “following the Prophet.”
It’s one thing to say we should never bring up the sketchy historical issues of the Church, but there’s no need to let ridiculous beliefs continue when/where they have no historical basis.
Most members – I’d say 75% or more – have little to no knowledge of most of the issues W&T discusses. Several members have even told me that we can’t have gospel discussions outside of Church (because the adversary will be there).
So, while you and most of the W&T (or greater blogging community) might know of these issues, I still think there’s a majority of people who don’t even know they exist. We should be careful to not project our understandings on them and limit discussions for them.
KMB,
“Jeff, Dragon already answered this: if you believe Jesus Christ is literally the direct leader of the LDS Church, then any authoritative doctrinal teaching by any leader (whether related to race or not) is subject to scrutiny in order to qualify that claim.”
The real question is: Do you? Because I do believe that and I also believe that we make progress and the words of leaders from the past must be judged based on when they were said and the context of what was said. Whether or not Jesus runs the Church has little to do with whether its leaders make mistakes.
Otherwise, we got off on a pretty bad foot with Peter. And the Savior was there.
P.S. (Add to #39)
There have been many discussions here on W&T where there was something I didn’t know – most recently on the MMM piece.
So if you were applying that “we all know” section to the regular W&T readers, I’d have to say that I’m not smart enough to know about or have researched many of the details other people read.
Whereas Ray and others might prefer comments that more closely respond to the OPs direct intent, I find a great deal of value in many of the comments, threadjacks and tangential comments. Letting the conversations flow naturally, sans restrictions, has been fun to watch, even when some of them have no relation to the OP.
Seth,
“If someone raised the idea that the ban on blacks and the priesthood were non-doctrinal in my SS class, they’d get railroaded out of town as an “apostate” and, potentially, called in to meet with local leaders. ”
Didn’t happen to me. OD2 is part of Lesson 42 of the Doctrine and Covenants Sunday School lesson. When I taught it, we had that very discussion. Not as “non-doctrinal” but that the ban was justified based on speculative theory and no one really knew why it was in place. And that those speculative theories were incorrect.
I never got called in for that.
Jeff:
Perhaps you’re right, but you’re also ignoring the legions of members who believe that every word that comes out of the leaders mouth during GC is the unadulterated word of God. Whether or not you or I believe that is besides the point – the majority of members do believe it. Today, it’s unfathomable that our leaders could even be making mistakes and it’s either frequently implied, or stated directly, that they don’t.
There’s a huge disconnect between your response and real life.
Seth,
“Most members – I’d say 75% or more – have little to no knowledge of most of the issues W&T discusses.”
I would dispute this number. They certainly might not know it in great details but most of the issues we discuss are part of one of the curriculum that we study, either SS or PH/RS. Not in the same detail, but they are here.
Many members simply do not have the same level of interest in that detail. They do other stuff.
Seth,
“Today, it’s unfathomable that our leaders could even be making mistakes and it’s either frequently implied, or stated directly, that they don’t.”
Really? I highly doubt that. I think refer to a small minority of members who really think that. I know I do not believe this.
#41 – “I find a great deal of value in many of the comments, threadjacks and tangential comments. Letting the conversations flow naturally, sans restrictions, has been fun to watch, even when some of them have no relation to the OP.”
I agree, actually, as weird as that probably sounds right now. I should have been much clearer.
I also find value in many comments that are somewhat tangential – and even in some that are obvious threadjacks. I’m all for letting the conversations flow “naturally”, with one disclaimer:
I almost never find value in comments that subvert the point of the post and often lead to a thread that spirals into a different, and sometimes unrelated, debate by bringing up “old crap that isn’t relevant to the actual posts”. To me, that’s not letting things flow naturally; it’s allowing the total derailment of the post. Those are two very different things – and in the interest of full disclosure, I don’t mind derailment nearly as much after a lengthy discussion as when it happens early on in the thread and a good, natural flow never happens.
Sorry I wasn’t more precise.
One other comment about bringing up “historical issues”, as I am obviously guilty of that. I do it occasionally for one more reason: There are people who emphatically say something WILL or WILL NEVER happen.
As an example, on posts relating to Prop 8, a commentator might say that the Church will NEVER allow a married gay couple to whatever. Or someone might say that the Church will NEVER go back to Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the WofW and allow people to drink beer or wine.
In cases like this, it is useful to point out that McConkie taught that blacks would NEVER have the priesthood until essentially the end of the millennium. Or that polygamy was taught as an eternal principle that would NEVER change.
It’s a device that points out that perhaps we shouldn’t be too dogmatic in things that will NEVER change, as a lot of them actually HAVE changed.
Paul thanks for the west Africa mission update.
Jeff I used your hypothetical to pose some questions in 29 was your 38 an answer those questions?
Ray So threadjacks and subject drift are OK now but don’t subvert the OP until later in the thread. Got it Bro!
Howard, Yes it is.
Looks like I’m threadjacking my own post.
Mike S.
“It’s a device that points out that perhaps we shouldn’t be too dogmatic in things that will NEVER change, as a lot of them actually HAVE changed.”
To me that is a reasonable use of history.
Jeff So apparently your answer was to argue my logical progression didn’t necessarily follow. Is that it? If so would you please answer my questions as if they did follow or provide evidence for your position.
Howard, if #48 included a smile as you were typing, right back at you. Just leave the extraneous elephants in the zoo.
Howard,
Let me see if I can shortcut this for you. If you want to address contemporary issues related to the discussion of the missions in Africa or the growth of the Church in the African American community and somehow punctuate that with a mention that perhaps there might be lingering prejudice among some members because of the Priesthood ban, that is probably OK with me.
Does that help?
Yes Jeff thanks it does help. I’m really not sure what you are trying to say so I’m asking for clarity.
Seth (39 & 41): 75%? Really?? Deseret Book and the church historians published an outstanding history of MMM — no secret discussions there, available for all to read. Ed Kimball’s biography of his father’s presidency (also published by Deseret Book), with extensive discussion of the priesthood revelation was similarly available for all to read. If 75% don’t know it’s because they’re not looking.
That said, Carlfred Broderick years ago discussed in an essay (also published by Deseret Book) the fact that there are members for whom historical issues are not important to their testimony, and he suggested (and I agree) there’s nothing wrong with that. If they are happy, that’s great for them.
And do you have home teachers? Don’t they discuss the gospel outside of church? Do you have FHE? Don’t you discuss the gospel there? Where does one live who is told NOT to discuss the gospel outside of church??
Howard, actually Nigeria and Ghana were the first places that received missionaries (besides S. Africa) after the 1978 revelation. I happen to know because my parents were there (in Lagos, Nigeria) when the missionaries came. There’s great discussion of this subject in the McKay biography by Prince, and also in a book Brother to Brother written by one of the missionaries (I can’t find that one anywhere online, however; I’m sure it’s long out of print).
The church has a temple in Ghana and one in Nigeria, as well.
Jeff:
Do you really think that the church isn’t actively teaching that leaders don’t make mistakes? (See: primary songs that state to follow the leader BC he knows the way, GC talks that say to follow the leader no matter what (which are never corrected and then repeated in local lessons, fhe, local talks), leaders who say the same thing).
Maybe I’m missing something, but our primary and youth programs are inundated with teachings which give tacit approval to the idea that we follow leaders BC they know the way and cannot screw up (I.e. lead us astray).
By the time Mormons have been around as long as Catholics, they will be more Catholic than that are (see: infallibility).
Paul:
Each of the examples you noted are church condoned and approved programs. Try starting a Gospel study course outside church and it will be squashed. Try meeting regularly in your homewith other families to study the Gospel and the church will squash it.
PS… maybe my experience is different, but I’ve seen several instances where members lord over people who don’t fit the stereotypical Mormon…
55 — Paul — I think you are right. So very much of “they are hiding it” is things I learned about by reading Church sources and Church history.
People seem to miss the entire issue of free will, growth and inspiration being what we have, not more, so very often.
I have to say I go to high priest’s group and we have lively discussions. None of them would consider themselves the type of apostates many insist that they would see people as being who express those kinds of thoughts.
Stephan,
I hate to give away the best kept secret in the Church that the most free wheeling discussions go on in HP group meetings. When I was teaching, I had to frequently reel them in, so to speak because the discussions were so out there. Of course, it was also fun to provoke it from time to time.
If anyone wants a real-time example of what I mean by keeping irrelevant, unnecessary elephants out of threads, there is a perfect example in the MMM thread right now. Actually, it’s more a case of imaginary elephants, but it is a good example, imo.
George,
No, I do not think that the Church teaches that you are to follow the leaders no matter what. Some might interpret it that way but I do not. My gift of agency will not allow me to fall into the trap of turning it over to someone else.
#28 KMB
Constantly bringing up the Church’s history…It’s about trust, authority, and leadership.
Agreed, this is why people bring it up… and it may also be why the church hid history.
Why does everyone keep saying the Church hid history? If they did, why did some of us find out about it so easily?
“Why does everyone keep saying the Church hid history?”
Seriously?
Why did Richard Bushman say the following recently?
“We are living in the golden age of Mormon history…History has brought into existence a realm of independent inquiry where scholarship is no longer judged by its partisan conclusions but by its accuracy and insight.”
“We want to know Joseph Smith as he really was in the historical record and not as idealized in our imagination…We do not need to conceal our history. We believe it will be more convincing and more engaging and more true if we tell it as it is.”
Why did Leonard Arrington not get released as Church Historian in General Conference, but released privately? (Too much truth leaked out?)
Why did Packer say “There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.”?
I could go on but the question isn’t worth any more time.
#64: Jeff Why does everyone keep saying the Church hid history?
I suppose that depends on the definition of “hid”.
– When the Brigham Yong “Teachings for Our Times” manual doesn’t mention polygamy a single time but only mentions one wife, even in the 10-20 page biographical sketch, is that “hid” or “conveniently leaving out a major and defining part of a someone’s life”? Technically not “hid”, but certainly not open.
– When we are told to not tell everything, but only faith-promoting things, it may not technically be “hid”, but it could be seen as officially-sanctioned “self-censorship”.
– When President Hinckley is asked in an interview about the teaching that “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become”, and says that he doesn’t know really what that means or that we don’t teach that, it may not be “hid”, but it’s certainly different from other prophets.
So, I guess it all depends on the nature of “hid”. The Church understandably only presents the most favorable side of things. Is this “hid”?
Ray mentioned above Mountain Meadows.
After that horrid incident, there was a concerted effort by the Church at the highest levels, including Brigham Young, to hide what happened.
For instance, the following two stories were crafted: 1) The Fancher party was provoking the Saints by bragging about killing Joseph Smith. 2) The Indians were the ones that did all or at least most of the killing.
Most importantly, those who directed the effort were hidden, both physically and by story. Responsibility rested with the Stake leadership in Iron County. Later, when it became obvious, John D. Lee was solely fingered though he was one of many.
Here, the Church clearly and systematically hid history. There have been recent efforts to take on some responsibility. The recent Ensign article and the recent Turley books are admirable. But, that was after over 120 years of flat-out falsehoods.
Remember, Juanita Brooks was heavily criticized (even threatened with excommunication — saved by David O. McKay) for publishing the first valid history.
Even today, many if not most Mormons, still believe elements of these falsehoods.
Another example is with the wives of Joseph Smith.
In the 19th Century, in the Temple Lot case, the Church collected affidavits from the wives. But, in modern history, you’d have to look long and hard to find Church publications that indicate that Smith married lots of young women and the wives of other men and that he repeatedly lied to Emma. The Joseph Smith manual was particularly odd in this area, acknowledging polygamy but minimizing his role. Third party books and articles are the reason most folks know that history.
So, yes, there is a history of hiding and manipulating.
Hopefully, we’ll do much better in the future.
Just to nit-pick, although I agree that “hid” can have different meanings to different people, Pres. Hinckley didn’t say that we don’t teach that we can become like God. What he actually said, when you listen to the actual interview, is that we don’t teach the first part of the couplet – that, “As man is, God once was.”
He was correct; “The Church” doesn’t teach it. It’s been said by some previous leaders, and it’s believed by many members (given the existence of the couplet), but “The Church” doesn’t teach it – or, more precisely, as Pres. Hinckley qualified in the actual interview, we don’t “emphasize” it. The couplet is printed once in the SS manual, but there is NO discussion or explanation or commentary about the first half of it. ALL of the extensive writing in official publications is about the second half.
Finally, almost everything we know about the controversial things we discuss is because “The Church” kept detailed, meticulous records of them – and published most of them in one form or another. In that sense, it didn’t “hide” those things. However, most members don’t have access to those records, so, in effect, if they aren’t discussed broadly and publicly, they are “hid” in a practical way from the majority of the membership.
Frankly, that’s not a bad thing, in and of itself, imo – since most members don’t give a large rodents hindquarters about those things. It’s frustrating to those who do care – and, obviously, they are more inclined to react negatively than those who don’t care.
I like the recent openness, since I am a history teacher by training and prefer access to all relevant information. In that regard, the internet is wonderful, since I think it has forced the issue by making so many anti-Mormon perspectives available. The Church realizes it has to do more to present “balance” – and that isn’t just with apologetics. I hope it continues.
I think one of the reasons church history is invoked is not in terms of atonement or holding the church accountable for past atrocities or mistakes, or to say the church hasn’t moved on from old positions but to problematicise a current dogmatic position.
I usually bring it up not to tar the church but to remind people that we shouldn’t have too much faith in someone or an institution because if we look at the past it gives us less grounds for such an unmitigated faith in it. I think it is possible to have too much faith in something, where you don’t have sufficient grounds to have faith in it. So for instance the history of blacks and the priesthood helps to remind myself and others that I don’t have grounds to believe unthinkingly that every utterence made by the president of the church is direct from God, or that if that is the position I want to take or believe then it commits me to biting certain bullets.
It isn’t then so much about not moving on from the past. But ensuring my beliefs are consistent and secure through considering its history.
#68: He was correct; “The Church” doesn’t teach it. It’s been said by some previous leaders, and it’s believed by many members
So now I’m really confused.
If one of our leaders says something, and if many members believe it, how can that NOT be what the Church teaches? Or does “the Church” come up with it’s teachings independent of any prophet or apostle? And if so, how?
I suppose the reason this is important to me has to do with my mission.
Prior to my mission, I had a very child-like faith. I believed many things simply because I was told that was how they were. I accepted things prophets and apostles and mission presidents and stake president and everyone else told me merely because of their position.
On my mission (where the work was slow – 50-60 baptisms per year for an entire mission of 80-100 missionaries), we would get an “inspired” program. It was presented to us by our mission president (and often passed along from higher up) as what the Lord wanted us to do. Everyone would get excited that the work would now go forward. But it didn’t. And a few months later, we would be told that that program was wrong because of “x”, but here is the new inspired program.
So, this made me start to question how many things we are told by leaders are truly “what the Lord wants us to do” or just a good idea. And there is a big difference. If I disagree with something but I know it’s what God wants me to do, I’ll do it anyway. If I disagree with something and it’s really just disagreeing with another man, I’ll do what seems right to me in my circumstance.
Fast forward to today. I’ve studied A LOT more Church history, as I was told to do in my patriarchal blessing. And it isn’t just a mission thing – it’s an institutional thing. Major and fundamental things that were taught as eternal principles have changed. Apostles have flat out said they “were wrong” about things they vehemently taught as true for decades, even to the point of suggesting excommunication for someone who disagreed. Prophets downplay historical teachings of other prophets.
So, my child-like faith in the institution has changed because of history. I still believe in God. I still believe in Christ. I love and serve my fellowman. And those are the great commandments. I feel like I am following the path that I am supposed to be following.
How do I use history? I use it to evaluate current proclamations and teachings of the Church’s leaders in the context of history. And to interpret current policies of the Church (ie. attitudes towards a subgroup of people – Prop 8), it is essential to look at historical policies of the Church (ie. attitudes towards another subgroup of people – blacks and priesthood).
It is the only way I can make sense of the world.
Mike S. —
I think your comments are thoughtful.
My own take is that the fundamental problem is that God doesn’t interact with the leadership as much as either we or they would like. I know many think that Christ means with the 12 and the First Presidency every once and awhile. I think the evidence is clear that he doesn’t.
I think most of the time they are trying their best to figure out what deity wants without any voice from heaven or the appearance of heavenly representatives. They are men trying to discern what to do with limited input. That’s tough and that is where so many of the errors come from.
Presidency Hinckley’s response was fascinating. He was asked to give an example of revelation. He said that he felt that the Conference Center was necessary and made an effort to move forward with its construction. And, since it was a good thing, that meant it was inspired. Notice that he didn’t say that he had a vision or visitation, just that he made a calculated choice that worked out.
I suspect that contemporary reality is why so many of these issues arise. I also think that the GAs are reluctant to admit that the heavens are closed most of the time.
#71 – Thanks for that. I understand what you are saying, Mike – truly, I do. It’s why most of us here have had to work out our own understanding of things – and why we have come to varying individual conclusions about some things.
As for your question in #70 (“If one of our leaders says something, and if many members believe it, how can that NOT be what the Church teaches?”):
“The Church” can be defined as many things when it comes to Mormonism. My slightly facetious answer would be that one of our Articles of Faith says, “We believe all things . . .” – which could mean it’s cool that our leaders say all kinds of contradictory things. Of course, I’m grinning while I type that, since I don’t believe it that way, but my main point in pointing out what Pres. Hinckley actually said is pretty simple:
That particular concept (God once was a mortal like us.) really isn’t taught by the global leadership of the LDS Church – and it hasn’t been for a long time. So, “The Church” doesn’t teach it, even if many members still believe it.
Having said that, the LDS Church, in a very real way, is at least two distinct and separate churches – the global one and the local one in which members live and interact. In that sense, “the Church” probably does still teach it in some areas.
That also means some members can’t understand why other members complain about some things (like the color of a man’s shirt and facial hair), because those aren’t issues at their local level – while other members can’t understand why some people don’t complain about those issues, because those issues are presented as if they are central aspects of the Gospel of Jesus Christ at their local level.
This has real significance in discussions like the one in this OP – since some people have known about the historical stuff from as young as they can remember, while others were blind-sided by it at a later age and had it shake their faith.
Fwiw, I’ve been an odd duck doctrinally for as long as I can remember. I’m used to seeing things differently than those around me, since I first realized I disagreed with much of what I was taught about the Book of Mormon (what it actually said) before I was baptized at 8 years old. (I love the book; I just realized that much of what people said about its content didn’t match what I understood as I read it.) I’ve been a heterodox member since the day I was baptized as a child, so I end up seeing nit-picky stuff – since I’ve been exposed already to all the big picture stuff.
“you’d have to look long and hard to find Church publications that indicate that Smith married lots of young women and the wives of other men and that he repeatedly lied to Emma.”
Like FamilySearch?
Jeff —
But, where has the same info been included in the manuals or Church magazines? Those are the vehicles most members see.
My interest in this debate is more selfish. If once long-held doctrinal beliefs are no longer doctrinal, then yes, that raises the possibility that what we are asked to do is not all God’s will. This would not be as big an issue were it not for te unrelenting nature of our leaders’ council in our lives. If some of their teachings are just (well-intentioned) opinions, then I’d like some wine and a few of my Sundays back, thank you very much.
Steve,
“But, where has the same info been included in the manuals or Church magazines? Those are the vehicles most members see.”
I did find an article in October 1902 Improvement Era written by Joseph F. Smith which not only confirmed that Joseph Smith was the Prophet who revealed Plural marriage but also contained a partial list of his plural wives. There was also an Improvement Era article in Nov 1946 by John A Widsoe as part of his Evidences and Reconciliation Series that discussed Joseph’s practice of Plural Marriage.
I have to assume many of the earlier Saints and leaders were more comfortable discussing it than later Saints because many had lived under it and were more familiar with it.
but, you cannot say that it hasn’t been in the church Magazines and well know to some generations of Saints.
Brad,
“If some of their teachings are just (well-intentioned) opinions, then I’d like some wine and a few of my Sundays back, thank you very much.”
Is it really that either/or for you?
Since Joseph Smith’s last drink on the earth was wine, seems like a reasonable request to me.
Jeff, don’t you think that church leaders want people to believe so black and white? I think of Holland’s BoM testimony and President Hinckley’s “it’s either true or a fraud” talk.
I joined the church because it was presented as white. I left because I became overwhelmed by the grey.
Brian,
“Jeff, don’t you think that church leaders want people to believe so black and white? I think of Holland’s BoM testimony and President Hinckley’s “it’s either true or a fraud” talk.
Actually, no, I don’t think they want it black and white exactly.
The fact is that all religious faiths are based on one or more fundamental truths, which must be accepted or why believe it in the first place.
In order to be a religious person in the Judeo-Christian tradition, you have to believe there is a God. Without that belief, you lose the very foundation of the faith.
In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus Christ was a real person who was sent by the Father to take upon him the sins of the world, be crucified and resurrected on the 3rd day. If you don’t believe some or all of that, how can you be a Christian?
To be an LDS Christian, one has to accept that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, brought forth in the latter days to restore the Lord’s true Gospel and the Priesthood to the earth. That he Saw God and Jesus and they told him that he would be that instrument. That he brought forth the Book of Mormon as another Testament of Jesus Christ.
if you can’t believe and accept that and don’t think it’s true, then that is where the fraud comes in. The LDS Church is not what it claims to be in that case.
There are shades of grey within that premise which you can beleive and still be part of the Church. Some folks, for example, do not accept the Book of Mormon as an historical document. Many can co-exist in the Church successfully with those that do.
They are other shades of grey as well.
But I understand where you’re coming from. When I joined the Church I thought it was pretty homogeneous in the beliefs of its members. I found out later that wasn’t quite true. It’s basically true but not totally true. But I learned to accept it because of that basic set of beliefs I think we all do share. Of course, coming from Judiasm, it was pretty easy. In Judiasm, so long as you are not Orthodox, you can pretty much beleive anything you want.
Jeff —
Notice how far you had to reach back?
I went through seminary and BYU religious courses and never was taught that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I’ll bet if you surveyed the membership, the majority would claim that was an anti-Mormon thing.
Of course, if you use third-party sources or dig deeply, you’ll find otherwise, but that is not the typical experience.
Steve-
Here is what I found in the Church History Student manual for BYU and Institute, Religion 341-343, “Church History in the Fulness of Times,” page 256:
“Moreover, Joseph Smith and the Church were to accept the principle of plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things (see v. 45). Accustomed to conventional marriage patterns, the Prophet was at first understandably reluctant to engage in this new practice. Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa eaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841.12 During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands.”
I don’t know. It wasn’t THAT hard to find……
Jeff:
You’re conflating the issue Brian raised. Hinckley’s talk, specifically, stated that since Joseph Smith was a prophet and called of God then that necessarily led to the fact that Hinckley was a prophet and called of God. Hinckley’s it’s “either all true or a fraud” was aimed at the fundamentalist crowd, largely, and others who felt that Joseph Smith could be what he claimed to be, the BoM what it was purported to be and yet, somewhere along the line, some leadership/changes/apostasy could happen that necessitated that they take up another path in life other than LDS Mormonism. Hinckley specifically stated that it was either all, or nothing.
Now, I don’t agree with him on that point. I think it was a strawman argument and little more.
To suggest that the Church doesn’t teach an all black or white existence is to ignore the discussions the missionaries teach and that which is found in Preach My Gospel, and elsewhere.
Specifically, investigators are told: (a) the Church is the only true church on the planet and that all others, while possibly good, only have “partial” truths contained in them… and that they are told to come and join the Mormon faith (not the other way around) so we can add to their truths, that (b) the Church is led by the only prophet on the earth, with the same apostles as Jesus called, that (c) the Church is the only repository of saving ordinances on the planet and (d) to take part of those saving ordinances you have to believe (a), (b), and (c).
There is no other way.
If you wanted to partake of the ordinances, but not become a “member” of the Church, there’s no way that can happen. If you want to partake of the ordinances, but don’t want to be “legally” married, there’s no way that can happen. If you want to partake of the ordinances, but disagree with fundamental principles the Church teaches, there’s no way that can happen.
As much as things are gray in every aspect of life, the Church specifically teaches that things are all or nothing, black and white, true or not true. I just don’t see how any one could argue otherwise. Members certainly believe in the “gray” areas, but the Church does not and advocates avoiding all gray areas.
Troy,
“As much as things are gray in every aspect of life, the Church specifically teaches that things are all or nothing, black and white, true or not true.”
I do not fundamentally disagree that there are certain things one needs to accept to become a member of the Church. Most people who decide to become members WANT to believe these things.
Let’s use a real life example and short cut this. If it were as all or nothing as you claim, we would not have these long winded discussions on the bloggernacle among believing members.
Set aside for a moment, the disenchanted, disgruntled and former members, among the others, we have plenty to discuss and disagree about.
Answer this: Why would anyone want the ordnances and not want to be a member? And how could you accept the ordnances and not accept the fundamental principles?
That truly baffles me.
“Why would anyone want the ordnances and not want to be a member?”
That is an easy one. My gay, Mormon son has said on more than one occasion that he would like to burn all Mormon chapels. Blowing them up would probably be okay with him also.
As far as he is concerned, it is the ordinances he can do without.
“That is an easy one. My gay, Mormon son has said on more than one occasion that he would like to burn all Mormon chapels. Blowing them up would probably be okay with him also.”
Nice. That makes a lot of sense given what I wrote.
Jeff:
Because the ordinances are not tied to any specific religion. I’ve shared one specific take on the subject before (here it is), but it refers to Mormonism as a reincarnation of ancient peoplehood. Mormonism wasn’t about a specific religious set of “beliefs”, but was geared toward ordinances. People come together from diverse backgrounds for the ordinances, but how they live their lives and what beliefs they choose to take on is entirely up to them. Status was defined not be virtue of what you believed or confessed, but instead by what covenants you have assumed. Covenants are entirely different than beliefs.
Today, Mormonism insists that you hold common beliefs in order to partake of ordinances that are little more than covenants between a person and their God. Instead of being bound by that covenant, we’re bound by a belief system that has become a system of enforcement.
P.S. Maybe you overlooked it, but I already answered another issue that you raised:
Membership, in all likelihood, sees things differently than the Church itself. The institution preaches the all or nothing mentality, but individuals see their lives as much more complex than all or nothing, generally speaking. I know people in the church who fully believe the “all or nothing” mentality and note any divergence from official teachings as the beginnings of apostasy.
That doesn’t negate, however, that the Church is quite black and white in what it teaches, in spite of what we may feel on the ground level.
P.S. I could be quite happy taking the ordinances and leaving the cultural church in the dust. There is a LOT that goes on in Church (and my church experience) that has absolutely nothing to do with Christ or spirituality as I see it. I recognize the validity of the ordinances, but I can plainly separate what the ordinances teach and what the cultural Mormon teaches… and they aren’t destined to a life of intertwined eternity.
Seriously, the Church has more than a few “laws” on the books that are nothing more than policy and strictly enforcing that policy as if it were eternal doctrine is one of the many reasons why people become disenchanted with the Church.
“That is an easy one. My gay, Mormon son has said on more than one occasion that he would like to burn all Mormon chapels. Blowing them up would probably be okay with him also.
Nice. That makes a lot of sense given what I wrote.”
Sorry, Jeff. Gave you too much credit. Play on words. Didn’t mean anything by it. You said, “Why would anyone want the ordnances and not want to be a member? And how could you accept the ordnances and not accept the fundamental principles?”
Ordnances—“cannon, artillery,
military weapons with their equipment, ammunition.
Ordinances—Christian rite, among other definitions
Fwiw, the fact that Joseph Smith instituted and practiced polygamy is stated very clearly – unmistakably – in the Seminary manual that each student was given this year for Church History and the D&C. I know; I taught it this year in my town, and there is no mistaking the very direct statement that Joseph was a polygamist.
So, the Church teaches it to every student who attends Seminary.
Ray, part of the problem, of course, is that many of the critics appear to have slept through things like seminary 😉
“Ordnances—”cannon, artillery,
military weapons with their equipment, ammunition.”
Sorry, didn’t catch it.
Troy,
Let me make a few comments on both of your posts. They are quite interesting to me.
“Because the ordinances are not tied to any specific religion.”
I don’t see this. if you regard Joseph Smith as the architect of this religion/people in conjunction with Jesus Christ, then surely you can see that the ordinances are directly tied to the religion and religious observance. How they lived their lives was indeed important and did see an evolution even under Joseph Smith. The Articles of Faith alone speak to this clearly.
“P.S. I could be quite happy taking the ordinances and leaving the cultural church in the dust. There is a LOT that goes on in Church (and my church experience) that has absolutely nothing to do with Christ or spirituality as I see it.”
Can’t disagree with this, but it is the local church that institutes the culture, not the “CHURCH.” in fact, we have seen to some degree, the “CHURCH” trying to divorce itself from the culture in order to be the Worldwide church it is trying to be.
“Seriously, the Church has more than a few “laws” on the books that are nothing more than policy and strictly enforcing that policy as if it were eternal doctrine is one of the many reasons why people become disenchanted with the Church.”
I think this is probably the least of the reasons why people become disenchanted with the Church. But, at the same time, it is the inconsistency of local leadership that can drive people out of the Church.
“I know people in the church who fully believe the “all or nothing” mentality and note any divergence from official teachings as the beginnings of apostasy.”
Yes, I know them as well. They are a clear minority of church members. And they probably never questioned anything in their life. They are not built for that.
Jeff, just want to say that I’m enjoying your comments.
I find it astounding that so many believe the church is hiding truths of history when (as has been demonstrated here) the history is there for all to read (let him who hath ears to hear…).
Thanks, Paul
Jeff + Paul:
This thread needs to die, IMO, but I think you’re both oversimplifying the “hiding” thing of the church.
I grew up in an orthodox household where my father was both my bishop and stake president growing up. The most important thing, my father often reminded me, was to “follow the [living] prophet.” As such, my entire family and I grew up reading church manuals, Ensigns and the scriptures as our reading material, with a good amount of emphasis placed on manuals and Ensigns [this was in the 80s and 90s]. Our family then had youth grow up in the 90s and 00s, and they received the same teachings… with heavy emphasis on “Preach My Gospel” and the “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church” series.
Growing up with this method of instruction, I was faced with only “good” news about the church. The church was growing – as witnessed by temple and chapel growth (I specifically remember Pres. Hinckley emphasizing that point to such an extent that I used it on my friends and such) – and we were very proud to be part of a 10,000,000 member church.
That’s merely to give you a background. I may be an anomaly, but I don’t think so. Many of my mission companions and roommates at Ricks were the exact same way.
And yet, we were really only hearing one side of the story. Maybe the Church wasn’t “hiding” things from us, but it wasn’t very forthright either. I didn’t learn about the whole “blacks and the priesthood” ban until after high school… and not because we didn’t talk about things at home, but rather because we didn’t talk about “those” things. I didn’t learn about Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages, in depth, until well after I was married (temple marriage)… and even then, it took some time before I heard of the marriages to teenage girls. And, then, it wasn’t through “church approved” materials.
Maybe the church isn’t hiding stuff. Maybe the information is in the church approved manuals. But, growing up, I never heard about some of these issues (i.e. Blacks and the Priesthood, polygamy, the change in emphasis on following church leaders, MMM, the Nauvoo Expositor, the church business interests, the polygamy underground, the Word of Wisdom from wise advice to strict commandment, the wine mission in Toquerville, the way the Book of Mormon was translated, the way Brigham Young positioned himself to take charge after Joseph’s death, the way tithing is actually used, etc., etc.,).
Maybe some or all of things are in manuals, but I don’t think there is any emphasis placed on them. And, if they are in manuals, how many instructors take the time to teach them? How many students take the time to read the manuals in their spare time? How many CES leaders tell the stories?
You’ve found a couple of references – some extremely dated and located in places 99% of members wouldn’t look, and some in a BYU manual. Many members (a) don’t attend BYU and (b) even less actually take the class you refer to and (c) even less actually read some obscure 1902 article from JF Smith.
I’m glad you found them, but that evidence is, at best, anecdotal.
Today, emphasis in the Church (i.e. Church “approved” manuals, lessons, etc) is indisputably placed on not studying outside the approved manuals. What is in the manual is gospel, what is outside the manuals isn’t. When the “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church” series on Brigham Young entirely avoid the subject of polygamy OR blacks and the priesthood, and how Brigham Young felt about both, then is that hiding? Obfuscation? Intentional?
I’d argue that both of those teachings – polygamy and how BY felt about blacks and the priesthood – were integral to what made BY tick. They took up substantial amounts of his teachings (especially the former). He preached that man had to have polygamous marriages in order to be exalted… but, when we (in the 2000s) study his words through Church approved materials and those words are specifically selected as his most important teachings and somehow we read nothing of either. It’s not like they glossed over it, though at least referencing them, it’s as if those aspects of BYs life didn’t exist.
You guys can go off on your theories that the Church has never hidden anything, that the Church has always been forthright with it’s history, that the Church never tells “faith promoting” stories at the expense of the truth and on and on, but my study of these details show either a conscious decision to avoid parts of our past, or an extreme ignorance that has been aided by Correlation.
The whole “let him who hath ears” comment is incredibly short-sighted. Really? Are you telling me that when impressionable teens hear faith promoting stories, get taught from Church approved manuals that never mention aspects of the early Church that happened and attend “seminaries” or MTC training… that when all this happens there isn’t some sort of hiding going on?
Seriously? That’s the best you’ve got?
I’m flummoxed by it all. Today couldn’t be the “golden age” of Mormon research if yesterday wasn’t the golden age, if yesterday wasn’t cached in obfuscation. Arrington wouldn’t have been let go if the Church were “open” to research. Today, the Church Archives [all of the Church Archives, not just the “approved” version] would be open to everyone if the Church were open to research. If the Church weren’t interested in putting up a certain “image” for all to see, Poelman wouldn’t have had to re-do his entire talk, taped and then spliced back in as if it were the original. If the Church weren’t interested in putting on a front, then we’d know about when things are rife with errors (i.e. Kimball censuring Benson on his 14 Fundamentals talk, McKay censuring McConkie and Mormon Doctrine).
Today might be a LOT better, but let’s not pretend that the entire history of the Church has been devoid of hiding or putting forth stories that are calculated to reinforce certain ideas in members heads.
BH Roberts once opined:
Back to Brigham’s supposed transfiguration – termed as “one of the most important events” in the Church, the story sold by the Church was told both in an Ensign article (1996) and in a Gospel Doctrine manual. And each time the story told was anything but the truth (Page 35-71). Is the Church absolved from all culpability in this process? That somehow the [false] teaching of one of the “most important events” in Church history deserves no attention nor culpability on the Church. Clearly, the Church hid nothing by sharing that story. Right? … Right?
Let him who has ears hear. Right?
Reid Harper’s article on the transfiguration concludes with this statement:
And this:
So, the historians and churchmen hid the story? It’s the individual’s fault? The church has no responsibility to appropriate vet stories before the go into the Ensign or CES or Gospel Doctrine manuals?
Holy h3ll…
sorry about that comment. I must have copied/pasted wrong portions back in… editor: I’d appreciate someone correcting that, if possible.
Take what follows and delete after “BH Roberts once opined” until you get to his actual quote, “suppose the youth”.
Apologies.
Geoff: Fixed
Geoff,
You put a lot in there to discuss. So let me pick out a few specific.
You accuse me of finding a few “anecdotal” articles to support the idea that Joseph Smith’s polygamy was known to the Church and then whip some old BH Roberts quote on me? It’s a good quote, but still….
You are just as selective in what bothers you as in what you accuse the Church of doing, telling part of the story.
You mention JS marrying teenage girls but without a full story, one might think that he went around having sex with teenage girls. That is not proven. In our society, that is part of what marriage implies.
You criticize BY for his views on Blacks and Polygamy, but fail to credit him for the exodus from Nauvoo, the building up of the great basin and so on.
You say you didn’t even know about the Priesthood ban for Blacks, but yet, as a non-member, I remember the June day in 1978 when that happened. If you were curious, you might have tried to find out what it was about.
You say you were only allowed to read the ensign and the manuals. Well, a lot of it is in the manuals and Ensign and had you really been interested, you might have asked. But I guess you didn’t and now the Church is to blame for that because the manual are not 1000 pages long with details about every story.
It is true that some stories are very embellished and discussed in Church ad nauseum even though they are not true. In most cases, they are trying to convey a lesson rather than history. Kind of like Jonah getting swallowed by a fish.
But we are adults now and can find out for ourselves.
I was never mad at my parents for telling me that storks brought babies.
You’ve also addressed the whole point of the post.
I can’t speak for Jeff (he speaks better than I do, anyway), but I can speak for myself. I grew up in a convert family. My teenage years (in the 1970) were not unlike your experience in the ’80s — we were taught from church manuals, and many of the stories have turned out to be folk stories more than true history.
I think Jeff’s point in the OP (at least my take on it) is that the church today is opening up more. So I should not necessarily judge today’s church on yesterday’s behavior, particularly as it relates to the history.
When I atteneded BYU as a freshman in 1976, I read Brooks’ book on MMM, and I researched my own historical questions in the special collections library. When my friend and I asked why those things were kept under lock and key, we learned it was for the perservation of the material (to safeguard it from “do-gooders” who might otherwise harm it). But there was nothing we did not have access to.
My observation is that since that time, there have been great strides in the opening of the historical kimono, both in and out of the church.
That said, I do not agree that measuring what is taught in seminary is the same as hiding the truth. We can argue about methodology and intent; we can argue about the nefarious goals of those who write the curricula, but I still maintain as I said earlier that there’s nothing wrong with a developing testimony developing over time.
And that said, I also have my own personal quibbles with a simplified gospel doctrine approach and with a simplied instruction in Priesthood and Relief Society. And when I teach in those venues, I do attempt to study and prepare so I can fill in gaps that I see where they occur. (There’s plenty of leeway in nearly every gospel doctrine or priesthood lesson to allow for that, and still to teach “from the manual” in my experience.)
As for this list that you give in your comment, Geoff: “Blacks and the Priesthood, polygamy, the change in emphasis on following church leaders, MMM, the Nauvoo Expositor, the church business interests, the polygamy underground, the Word of Wisdom from wise advice to strict commandment, the wine mission in Toquerville, the way the Book of Mormon was translated, the way Brigham Young positioned himself to take charge after Joseph’s death, the way tithing is actually used” — not sure exactly what you mean.
I lived through the revelation on the PH — was on my mission at the time and my parents lived in West Africa as the first missionaries came, so perhaps I do have a different perspective on that one than some. But I have to think that anyone living in a ward with black members would have some memory of those times.
The change in emphasis on following leaders? From what to what? Were we once told not to follow them? The Savior himself taught that we gain a testimony of His words by obeying them.
Church business interests weren’t too hidden in the past when they advertised in Church magazines.
The way the Book of Mormon was translated? You mean using a seer stone? I learned in seminary that Joseph demonstrated a variety of ways. I also learned about polygamy in seminary, though I admit, not the controversial earliest liaisons. And I did not learn of the post-manifesto polygamy until I read about it here in the blogasphere.
But fundamentally the question is this: What do these historical issues mean for me? (Or for you?) For me, my testimony is around more than the history and the telling of it. There are elements of my testimony that are linked to historical issues, but there are many that are not. I learned as a freshman at BYU — when I first learned of multiple versions of the first vision — that I could sort the difference between those elements. And for me, that worked.
Whether it works for someone else I can’t say.
Let me embellish a bit more. I had an 8th grade US History teacher who opened my eyes to the “rest of the story.”
We discussed how the US supplied Panamanian rebels with weapons so we could build the Panama Canal, how the US started the Spanish-American War on specious circumstances, the plight of Native-Americans, etc. Ever since them, I have been inclined to look for the backstory. I did that for the Vietnam War, the civil rights struggle, etc.
So when I joined the Church and was exposed to Anti-Mormon materials, I investigated. I came out the other side with my testimony stronger for it.
So, I am always inclined to give humans the benefit of the doubt when I look at history.
I am even willing to do that for the Nazis even though they killed a bunch of my family.
Nothing that has happened in Church History even approaches that, the MMM notwithstanding.
As this thread fades into the sunset, it is interesting to note that Pres John Taylor even hid himself.
If interested, you can google his wanted poster.
“It is true that some stories are very embellished and discussed in Church ad nauseum even though they are not true. In most cases, they are trying to convey a lesson rather than history. Kind of like Jonah getting swallowed by a fish.
But we are adults now and can find out for ourselves.”
Ah, yes because we should NOT take what our leaders say or teach at face value, even when they say it is from God or teach it as truth. Because in reality it is myth meant to teach a lesson. Or is that contrary to what is taught that our leaders will never lead us astray…
You ask others to give the Church a break on history without acknowledging the hypocrisy still present in today’s church. We are told that the brethren are of God and will not lead us astray…and instead they teach us myth. If they are of God than we should be able to trust what they say…the problem is that we cannot….because …as admitted earlier…it is myth.
This is why history continues to be brought up. It is about trust. The Church has already broken trust. This is like a husband who breaks trust with his wife over and over but then says don’t hold my past against me…I’ll be true this time. The bast will continue to influence the future…especially given that the past has been injurious.
Troth,
“Because in reality it is myth meant to teach a lesson.”
So, I guess in your book, the same would apply to Jesus himself for teaching parables?
I think those that study Greek Mythology would also say that they were meant to teach a lesson?
And, I never said anything taught at Church about church history was totally a myth or did not happen, I said some of the stories are embellished. That might be spliting hairs a bit, but nevertheless, it is the way I see it.
And how does that apply to leaders leading us astray?
You are conflating parables and history. Christ never contended that the parable of the sower was in fact accurate history…while the above mentioned example of the church’s representation of Brigham Young’s Transfiguration clearly was represented as accurate history in church publications…even though it wasn’t. One is teaching teaching a principles….the other is misrepresentation.
Troth, was Job an actual historical figure or a character is a grand parable? What about Jonah? Both were mentioned by Jesus with no mention of them not being actual people whose stories were not actual history.
Also, if people perceived Brigham as being transfigured in some way, it was real and accurate to them – in every way that matters.
Just to clarify something, “myth” doesn’t mean untruth. The actual definitions include the following:
“a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation.”
Iow, a “myth” (at the most basic level) is nothing more than a story about someone or something that is considered extremely important, usually told by ignoring aspects that would detract from the point the teller wants to convey and emphasizing the point the teller wants to convey.
I am a history teacher by training. History, even personal histories like journals, is mythological almost by default – since writers of history almost always go into their writing with something they want to tell. As a historian, I want to know as many details as possible, because I believe we can learn more by knowing more – but I don’t write off the common myth-writing as dishonest garbage. Generally, that myth-writing is true; it just isn’t fully true. That is a critical factor to understand as a historian, and it gets butchered all the time in most historical commentary.
I don’t know if you have done so or not, but I would recommend Campbell’s “The Power of Myth”. It is really enlightening about this type of stuff.
“Conflating” is a very popular word in this thread. I must look it up to see what it means. 🙂