The discussion of Hawkgrrrl’s post last week took a bit of a tangent into familiar bloggernacle territory: the Gospel Topics essays. Regular commenter Elder Anderson expressed appropriate shock when some of us described our observations of member apathy towards the essays.
LDS historians went to a lot of trouble to compile them, they are approved by the 1st presidency and Q12, and members are encouraged to include them as teaching materials… [A]ll that effort implies the LDS 1st presidency and Q12 *want* members to be interested. The members are saying “Meh. Your essays are boring. Thanks but no thanks.”?
Well, not in so many words. When I asked a few dozen LDS friends outside the bloggernacle community about general perceptions of the essays, those that were aware of them agreed they serve a useful purpose. However, with so much on their plates, it’s hard for a lot of members to make studying the issues in the essays a high priority. (And when they have friends and relatives leave the church, ostensibly due to the essays, they have even less desire to touch them.)
Then there are people who don’t put much stock in the essays because, in spite of going through the painstaking approval process of church leaders, they recognize the essays as purely academic. As Michael R. Ash put it yesterday, “The essays satisfy the requirement for ‘official’ answers, but it’s important to understand that they do not represent official LDS doctrine. They are academic examinations of the issues. Academic answers can change—they can be right, they can be wrong, or they may need to be modified upon the discovery of additional information.”[1]
Did we even need the essays in the first place? According to Ash, maybe not. “Insisting on official answer answers for everything is a cheap and easy approach that superficially appears to provide comfort, but is nothing more than an information inhibitor.”
What Prompted the Gospel Topics Essays?
Ultimately, something akin to the Gospel Topics essays was inevitable. With my parents and grandparents, a lot of the topics we deem controversial today did not have the same taboos. They lived the priesthood ban. They personally knew older family members who lived polygamy and dealt with the effects of both Manifestos. They were around in the 1960s with the rediscovery and church’s acquisition of the surviving Book of Abraham papyri fragments. For them, many of these things really were common knowledge (even if that knowledge wasn’t always the most accurate).
But something happened. Blame it on correlation or whatever, in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, younger members began relying much more heavily on officially-sanctioned sources for their information, and the church was providing increasingly simplified versions of its history and doctrine for the benefit of a rapidly expanding worldwide base. The church outsourced explanation of complex or less appealing doctrinal and historical aspects to BYU and unofficial apologetic channels like FARMS, FairMormon, and independent scholars. Some members heavily utilized those channels. Others were more skittish about church information from anything other than official sources, sometimes based on recommendations from local and general church leaders.
In the Google age, those tactics just didn’t cut it. Anyone familiar with the internet understands that the website of any major organization has a list of Frequently Asked Questions. This section provides quick access to statements for the most common problems or concerns raised by users. To put it bluntly, the church failed spectacularly in this respect for years. And because of that, people turned elsewhere for answers.
To its credit, the church started moving towards greater transparency on difficult historical aspects at the end of the last decade. It allowed independent LDS scholars unprecedented access to primary documents in preparation for the 2008 publication Massacre at Mountain Meadows. The same year, the Church Historian’s Press was formed and published the first volume of the The Joseph Smith Papers.
Sharon Eubank[2] insightfully noted in December 2008 that the church felt it had unwisely “allowed our detractors to define us in the media.” She continued, “There will be a greater effort to tell our story on our own terms.” To increase positive public perception, the church consulted advertising firms in 2009 and the “I’m a Mormon” campaign was born. Along with the “I’m a Mormon” campaign were opportunities for individual members to answer common questions about Mormonism. Perhaps the church felt apologetic answers from individual members were the way to go.[3]
In my mind, two big events forced the church’s hand in creating “official” responses to controversial topics: #bottgate and the Swedish Rescue.[4]
On February 28, 2012, the Washington Post ran an article on the Genesis group and the LDS church’s evolution on views governing race. Reflections by African-American members like Darius Gray and Don Harwell were the main features (with obligatory coverage of presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s personal experiences, of course). The problem was a section where doctrinal justifications of the priesthood ban were given by Randy Bott, a popular BYU religion professor. He repeated familiar views of past members and church leaders, views considered highly problematic today.
It didn’t take long for the Mormon community to react (for an in-depth examination of the response, see here). The next day the church publicly disavowed Randy Bott’s statements and issued a separate official statement, “Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God” (if you follow the link, you’ll see it now has prominent links to the Race and Priesthood gospel topics essay). Within 2 weeks, the Mormon Newsroom published a new tool called “Mormonism 101: What is Mormonism.” The website gave introductory information about the church and included a Frequently Asked Questions section briefly covering common concerns including women’s roles in the church, polygamy, race and the priesthood, and our understanding of godhood.[5]
Then there was the Swedish Rescue. Sometime before 2010, Hans Mattsson, a former area authority, and other Swedish saints got together and started discussing murkier aspects of church history. Enough disaffection was brewing that the church sent two historians, Elder Marlin K. Jenson and Richard E. Turley, Jr., for a special fireside held November 2010. The historians answered questions from the audience and offered a list of recommended websites as helpful resources.
Enough of a problem persisted, however, that in March 2012 a letter was sent to stake presidents, mission presidents, and district presidents in Sweden with support materials (dubbed “The Swedish Rescue”) for leaders to address the needs of members. Not only were scholarly resources included from the church history department, but also instructions for better pastoral care extended towards those experiencing faith crises.
Releasing the Essays
Although rumors had been circulating for months, the first two essays weren’t released until November 20, 2013. A Deseret News article reported on the project following the release of the third essay, Race and the Priesthood, in early December. The article explained that the intent of the essays was “to use scholarship, historical perspectives and outside resources transparently to help parents answer questions children might come across online.”
As the next 6 essays rolled out over several months, there was relatively little fanfare.[6] In September 2014, a memorandum from the Priesthood Department went out to local church leaders informing them about the Gospel Topics section of lds.org. “When Church members have questions regarding Church history and doctrine, possibly arising when detractors spread misinformation and doubt, you may want to direct their attention to these resources.” The essays weren’t specifically mentioned.
Then, in October 2014, the church released two essays catching the eye of both national and international news outlets: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo and The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage. In the wake of the media storm, the Mormon Newsroom finally published a statement about the Gospel Topics essays. They gave context for the newest polygamy essays, which in many ways described their intent for the entire collection.
Much of what you’ll find in the essays on polygamy has been published in diverse sources and known among long-term and well-read members, historians and Church leaders for many years. The Church has now gathered this information into a single location as a convenient means of placing these resources in the hands of all members.
One year (and a day) later, the final two essays were released: Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple and Women and Mother in Heaven.[7] The press release with these essays encouraged members to utilize the information beyond personal study.
The Church hopes that the material will be referenced in various lessons and classes, cited in talks and utilized in home study along with the large volume of resource materials now available to Church members worldwide.
We Finally Have the Essays. Now What?
Given the most recent press release, people probably don’t need to fear being released from callings for using the essays in church. Elder Ballard has encouraged CES instructors to know the essays like the back of their hands. The information in the essays is being incorporated in new CES curriculum. Elder Richard G. Maynes even drew significantly from the First Vision Accounts essay in a recent worldwide CES fireside.
But… what about regular members? In talking with others, it seems incorporation of the essays at the ward level is inconsistent. Some wards are gung-ho, others stay away from controversial topics like the plague. Some stakes have begun weeknight classes covering the essays. Others prefer to leave controversial subjects to personal study. Some members wish their wards would talk more about this stuff. Some members wish their wards would talk less.
In the conversations, though, a common thread emerged. The majority of people I talked to said the controversial stuff should be a low priority in Sunday meetings. Sundays should be about community and reinforcing gospel fundamentals. It’s unfair to expect members to *want* to talk about the controversial stuff (or feel ready to talk about it). Discussions of controversial topics are better suited for smaller, better controlled, intimate settings.
So for those members who are interested in the essays, that’s awesome. For the rest of the members, well, it’s nice to know they’re available, just in case.
Discuss.
[1] As opposed to doctrine, which is always right and never modified upon the receipt of new revelation.
[2] About 17:30 minute mark.
[3] Admittedly, those answers were only posted once they passed an official screening process.
[4] What?! No CES Letter?! Yeah, so… it got written in April 2013. Rumors about the essays were circulating around the same time. Did the CES Letter contribute to disaffection? Absolutely, but from what I can tell the essays were already being written by the time it went viral.
[5] Here at Wheat and Tares, Mike S gave his thoughts about the new FAQs.
[6] High-profile church disciplinary proceedings may have stolen some of the spotlight from the newer essays in 2014.
[7] Given the charged atmosphere in the last few years, I don’t think it’s coincidence the essays concerning issues most sensitive to Mormon women took the longest to be finalized.
*As Niklas pointed out in the comments below, the church has moved towards getting the information in the essays better incorporated at the ward level. They’ve made the essays easily accessible in the Gospel Library app under the Church History tab. They’ve also referenced them in the new teacher training course, Teaching in the Savior’s Way (teaching.lds.org). A few weeks ago, Julie Smith highlighted a section in the new materials, “Dealing with Difficult Questions,” instructing teachers to become familiar with the information in the essays and encourage other members to use them as resources. In another spot, those teaching youth are encouraged to show them how to access materials in the Gospel Topics section of lds.org.*
Wheat & Tares 
Nice summary!
Great work Mary Ann!
I am the only one in my ward that ever mentions the essays at all in my ward – Sunday or any other day of the week.
I find folks in my ward are fairly indifferent–about as indifferent as I would be to learning how to knit. I surveyed our EQ class, and about 1/2 the class had heard about the essays, even less had read them. By design, the essays are hidden on lds.org and difficult to find unless you are searching for them, so maybe 1/2 was a large portion.
The essays weren’t created for the choir because they don’t know or they don’t care, rather they focus the criticism against the church. In some cases they greatly reduce and limit the breadth that criticism which I think is what they were hoping to do but in one very large area they open pandora’s box when they throw a string of prophets under the bus on the black ban issue strongly suggesting that the prophet can indeed lead the church astray! Mostly it was necessary housekeeping and hopefully will serve as a reminder to the church to not deceive again.
Jason – “I find folks in my ward are fairly indifferent–about as indifferent as I would be to learning how to knit.” That’s awesome.
Howard – yes, I agree it came down to (necessary) housekeeping.
I think regular members will become more familiar with the essays. Two things will contribute to this:
1. The new teacher training material Teaching in the Savior’s Way (teaching.lds.org) advices to use them. (Since this booklet is already translated to many languages, I would assume that the essays will also be translated.)
2. The essays are now in the Gospel Library app under the tab Church History.
I think that regular members will become more familiar with the essays. Two things will contribute to this:
1. The essays are now in Gospel Library app under the tab Church History.
2. The new teachers training material Teaching in the Savior’s Way (teaching.lds.org) advises to use them. (Since this booklet is already translated to several languages, I would expect that the essays would soon be translated to the same languages.)
Very well written. I’m impressed you were able to write a long summary of the origin and purpose of the gospel topics essays without once using the word inoculation. I see two strategies with the gospel topics essays. The first is to try to provide an answer for adult members who have already run into these difficult topics without introducing unsuspecting members to them (so put them on lds.org but don’t make them too accessible). The second strategy is to try to introduce them into seminary, youth, and institute curriculum so that the millennials will be inoculated against the problems if and when they run into them.
I don’t know how effective this will be. How effective was the Swedish Rescue?
Niklas, thank-you for pointing those out. In fact, they are important enough that I’ll add a note in the original post. I agree those are encouraging steps that the church intends members at the ward level to use these, as opposed to just seminary and institute teachers.
Joel, “I’m impressed you were able to write a long summary of the origin and purpose of the gospel topics essays without once using the word inoculation.” What can I say, it’s a talent. 🙂
I haven’t found any follow-up about the effect of the Swedish Rescue materials. If anyone has the info, I’d love to hear.
The first strategy (have the answers neatly packaged and only offer them to people who’ve encountered disturbing materials) is what the church seems to have originally intended for the essays. It’s the same tactic as the Swedish Rescue itself (have historical materials available in case someone has a problem). It was the stated goal in December 2013 (Deseret News article), September 2014 (Priesthood memo), and October 2014 (newsroom) communications.
In the last year, *everything* has shifted towards inoculation (like with the October 2015 statement encouraging members to use this info in talks and lessons and such). From my point of view, the shift to inoculation is pretty good evidence that the first strategy doesn’t work well. Once you get that emotional feeling of betrayal and mistrust (what else are they hiding?), it’s hard to go back. Introducing the material from the beginning is the only way to keep members from feeling deceived (they might be later upset at framing and bias, but that won’t cause near the intensity of reaction).
Awesome summary Mary Ann!
So interesting, thank you Mary Ann!
Although the leaders have been encouraging people to use the essays as part of Sunday discussions, I think it’s doubtful some of the details from those essays will make their way into our actual Sunday School materials.
We had a lesson once in Gospel Doctrine about Joseph and Emma. The lesson and comments were flowery and positive, sort of a Leave It To Beaver perfect picture was being painted. It felt disengenuous to be discussing their relationship without mention of polygamy. I understand the desire to keep our Sunday worship positive and uplifting. But can it also be honest? If I can’t feel comfortable mentioning Joseph’s polygamy in a lesson like that for fear of the dirty looks I’ll receive, can they just get rid of that lesson altogether?
One thing that happened is the church spread beyond a group where “everyone” knew these things to one where that wasn’t true.
Thus the split between those who went “but how could you not have known?” and those who claimed “it was all hidden from me.”
This essay hits the core: for the most part, people aren’t interested (and as we have blogged here before, who is and isn’t is often divided by class, abstract v concrete thinking and such) and so the occasional mentions stuck with some and floated by others.
What the church has now is a permanent marker pointing to these issues so that they are not hidden.
That hasn’t changed interest in them but has erased the divide between those who by background and happenstance learned and remembered these things and those who missed them (and they were very, very easy to miss).
I think that they will act to prevent some conflicts in the future between people who felt betrayed and those who felt insulted by the claims of betrayal.
I’m very hopeful as to where the next step will lead.
Mary Ann, great post. Good info.
It seems to me you are suggesting what prompted the need for essays was the prior generations lived through stuff and while there was no internet, it was known about and not talked about by them.
“For them, many of these things really were common knowledge”
But I don’t really think them living through those times made them more aware then we are. I think we are way more aware, and because we are more aware, the church realized it HAD to respond to these things, bease previous actions to excommunicate questioners didnt solve their problems.
If you asked your grandparents and great grandparents if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, I doubt many would know he did. I believe the RLDS group that lived through that time (1850s) did not know, and it was actually LDS officials that tried to convince them, even though many didnt know about it. Or about Joseph Smith ordaining a black man. Or that many apostles secretly practiced polygamy after the manifesto.
Most of their information came from the authorities who spoke. And some had theories like blacks and press existence faithfulness or lineage from Cain.
There was a bit of a sheltered awareness that simplified things for them, along with a culture that valued talking only about good things and avoid truth that is not helpful.
I don’t think Correlation created the ignorance by white washing, and then a subsequent need for essays. I think there were always bad understandings of these issues. I think they correlated the ignorance that was there. I think priorities dictated what to teach with limited resources. As resources grew, including technology, things bubbled up aND rrvealed they NEVER knew how to answere these questions, and still dono since these esays arent doctrine, just esays and can change.
By the way, this is the challenge for all religions that focus on truth as literal explanations as if to be on the same level playing field as science or temporal studies.
I don’t think it was because prior generations knew more by living through it. They lived through it, were probably more in the dark than we are but had other things on their minds. These essays are PR efforts to plug holes in the leaking dam in today’s world, when we have enough time to look at our navels, tall about bathroom rules, and deal with information overload and walk out of church because we have more options to do so.
“If you asked your grandparents and great grandparents if Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, I doubt many would know he did.”
Heber13, I’m going to be charitable and assume you’re just too young to know what you’re talking about. I’m 62 and no one ever taught a lesson or gave a talk when I was young that said, “Joseph practiced polygamy” And they never did that not because no one knew but because everyone knew. And everyone older than me knew it too.
I feel like Ardis P. in her posting on Keepapitchinin’ where she said she sometimes feels like she has entered an alternate LDS universe when she reads some blog comments. We all knew about polygamy and we all knew it started with JS, after all, we could read the D&C and we knew the history, many of us from family stories. I guess it’s some kind of comfort to people much younger than me to suppose that that “racist jerk” BY started the whole thing, giving emotional distance to a sensitive topic and a soothing balm to their troubled souls. But they and you are wrong.
Interestingly, you follow that quoted statement with proof that it’s wrong. The RLDS church swore up and down for years that JS did not practice polygamy, that BY started it. And that was clear evidence to them that the UT LDS was an apostate branch of the restoration without legitimacy. The UT LDS leaders, like J. Fielding Smith were quite vocal about disproving that contention in order to establish their own legitimacy.
This wasn’t hidden knowledge, it was something that was as common as the air we breathed.
Heber13, Could not disagree with you more seeing I have asked my wife’s grandmothers many of the questions you related above. 30 years ago I was asked to drive my wife’s grandmother and her friends to church and to shop as part of reduced rent while I went to school. The discussions ranged from her polygamous grandparents to the family ties with various handcart companies and wagon trains to Joseph naming and blessing two of her ancestors. The vast knowledge and detailed information they talked about was bewildering at times with them asking me to wait in the car while they retrieved lessons they taught, copies of family journals, or books to help clarify. As for my wife these were all topics covered in Family Home Evening and seminary classes but she always enjoyed hearing her grandmother talk.
I agree with KLC and Mark. The Temple Lot case was what prompted many of Joseph Smith’s wives to come forward and publicly testify about their relationships with him – that was in the early 1890s. Of my great-grandparents who were from pioneer stock, all had been born by that point. My grandparents were very aware of all those details.
I remembered hearing an account of my great-uncle (my grandma’s big brother) talking with his grandpa about polygamy and following church leaders. Not until I started getting into family history in the last 10 years did I find out that the grandfather was John Wickersham Woolley, who had already been exed at that point for performing plural marriage sealings in the temple and was associated with FLDS offshoots (yay Wikipedia). When I approached my mom, she was surprised that I didn’t know those details, why else would the story be significant? I remember family history stories better than any of my siblings, and I’ve been shocked at how much my parents mistakenly assumed we all knew as I’ve been researching in the last decade.
Interesting article. I did want to touch on the part where you give the church credit for being more transparent about it’s history. It is hard for me to give credit anymore than I would a child who is kicking and screaming and fighting his or her parents the entire time they are made to clean up their room.The church had no choice in the matter and even then has had a difficult time being forthcoming.
Sorry, KLC….I wish I could use youth as my excuse, but not so. 🙂 but thanks for the charitable approach. Just my experience in talking to relatives. I’m sure my sampling is small to not know if it’s accurate…but our family came across in hand carts with the Martin company. Survivors didn’t participate in polygamy when arriving in SL valley, that I know of. My grandparents had some pride to say we didn’t participate in it, not everyone did. Not everyone thought highly of it. Not everyone had common knowledge of something they didn’t like.
Most of your comments seem to suggest I’m talking about polygamy in general, which I’m not. People knew OF polygamy. My grandparents didn’t know Joseph’s involvement and they didn’t concern themselves with it, is what they told me. My conversations brought up the subject after reading RSR, and the responses I got were “ya, everyone knew about polygamy back in those days. I hadn’t heard he had 33 wives. You sure about that?” Not that it was a detailed discussion…just my few brief exchanges that gave me that impression.
KLC: “interestingly, you follow that quoted statement with proof that it’s wrong. The RLDS church swore up and down for years that JS did not practice polygamy, that BY started it.”
My point was that people who lived through it did not all know it as “common knowledge”. That is proof. You may be talking about the people arguing that JS started it. People living through it at the time did not all know it, how could they if they were arguing about it. People living through the times of priesthood restrictions based on race did not “all know it” as common knowledge. There were lots of versions about the source of that which the essay helps clarify. Again…they need to clarify things because not everyone has common knowledge about it….now or back then.
There was so much variation there was no “common knowledge” that the solution decided on was Correlation of one version. If it was all common knowledge, correlation wouldn’t be needed.
That’s exactly my point. My experience and your experience shows there was variation.
That is why it isn’t really accurate to paint it as “then something happened. Blame it on correlation or whatever, in the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, younger members began relying much more heavily on official-sanctioned sources…”.
That makes it sound like all other generations knew all the history, and then it changed, like correlation or something “caused” the misunderstanding or lack of information. That’s not how I see it. The variation has always been there.
I agree with you some groups knew and lobbied their case, but can you also see that is what I’m saying….some knew some things, others believed other things? (In and outside UT LDS communities)?
Suggesting everyone just had common knowledge that was accurate would make no sense to me, when it shows how many groups thought differently about it for decades, and there were no documents or libraries for my potato farming ancestors to search for themselves, even if they had time to do so, which they didnt.
They knew about polygamy. They didn’t all have a common knowledge about the origins of it or other details like that.
Again. It shows the need for correlation. Not correlation was the root of the problem for our generation and no other generation had variation in belief.
I think what changed was that we became more aware, and needed better answers. Not that common knowledge was lost.
Heber I think you’ve misread me. I’m not talking about polygamy in general, I’m talking about polygamy and JS. Since we all agree there was polygamy, why wouldn’t it start with JS?
I didn’t grow up in UT, I grew up in SoCal. I didn’t grow up with academic parents or in an academic ward, it was a conservative, suburban LA ward with a mix of working class and professional people. If I would have stood up in Fast and Testimony meeting back then and announced, “Joseph practiced polygamy” they would have looked at me with puzzled faces and thought to themselves, “Well, duh”
“Sundays should be about community and reinforcing gospel fundamentals. It’s unfair to expect members to *want* to talk about the controversial stuff (or feel ready to talk about it).”
I’m sure there are many members who would rather not talk about the controversial stuff, but I don’t think that’s a good reason to keep it out of Sunday School. Keeping these discussions private means that many will stay in the dark, and we’ll have several more decades of people giving comments about how blacks were denied the priesthood because they were less valiant in the pre-existence (among other things). Keeping public silence about the harms and falsehoods of the past means that they remain taboo, and those who bring up the essays to challenge those backward comments will continue to be stared at like they’ve grown an extra head.
I know it’s off topic, but as a younger member of the church (I’m 30) I just have to say that JS polygamy was hidden from me. I had a seminary teacher who taught us that while Joseph received the D&C 132 revelation, he never practiced polygamy himself. Every lesson I’ve ever had on D&C 132 touts Joseph and Emma’s relationship as the perfect eternal marriage of one man and one woman. The first time I learned about Joseph’s polygamy was as a missionary by some angry anti Mormons. When people seem incredulous that I didn’t know, all I can think is, Was I supposed to assume my seminary teacher was lying and the anti Mormons were telling the truth?
By the way, this was a very interesting post.
I had a seminary teacher who believed in the hollow earth theory.
Guess you get all types. 😉
Great post Mary Ann.
The fact that this church produced information not only challenges but contradicts beliefs long held by many members – and that that doesn’t bother them – to me, is the most concerning part of the release of the gospel topics essays.
EBK, I do think we have done a great disservice to younger members by portraying Joseph and Emma as an ideal couple with an ideal marriage for the last couple of decades.
Mike, leadership may have been kicking and screaming a bit with the essays, but to say they weren’t already moving towards transparency is unfair. Research for the MMM book began in 2001. Prior to publication of the book the church allowed Turley to write a Sept 2007 Ensign article on the matter in his official capacity as a member of the church history dept. When the book was published in 2008, BYUtv ran specials about the MMM.
The most recent incarnation of the Joseph Smith Papers project began in *2005* with an expected 26 volumes over a decade. The establishment of the church historian’s press in 2008 indicated that the church was willing to allow publications about church history to have an official seal of approval.
LDS_Aussie, I don’t think leaders were happy about the essays. Like Howard said, it was a matter of housekeeping. The church couldn’t just keep avoiding the issues anymore. I think that there were likely many heated exchanges over these things behind the scenes. Think about Elder Ballard’s address. The way he spoke, it seemed like he would much prefer going back to members growing up in a bubble. The inoculation move was a concession to combat messages from the big, bad, scary world.
EBK & KLC – I agree. I’m happy we steered away from painting Emma as a villainous traitor for her disagreements with the Brighamites. However, overly-romanticizing the relationship between Joseph and Emma ended up causing more problems than it fixed.
It’s also possible that what was happening was that those who knew didn’t talk about it because of the assumption everyone knew.
And new converts or new generations didn’t talk about it because…no one talked about it and they didn’t know.
This was really well done.
I think your insight about older members is correct–at least for me. I’m 57 and a lot of this stuff was just in the water back in the day.
My sense is that probably few in my ward would seek out and read the essays on their own. I have devoted SS lessons to many of the topics covered by the essays (drawing from but not limited to them), such as first vision, polygamy, BoA, Mother in Heaven, race and the priesthood. My hope is that at least students in my class won’t feel blindsided by these sorts of things.
Brent and Kevin – I lean towards pushing the essays (or at least the information in them) in Sunday meetings. However, I understand where those people were coming from who were more skittish about it. For the most part these were people who knew about the essays and had read at least one of them. They were worried about newer members, and they were worried about having discussions that sensitive in a large group.
I had a bad experience once in a Sunday School class where the teacher decided to broach polygamy (prior to any essays coming out). The atmosphere got *very* tense, and after a few comments an old guy decided to crack a joke on the topic to lighten the mood (he’d heard it from a friend in the temple, so clearly it was okay for church). The teacher closed discussion after that. That dumb offensive joke made me sick to my stomach, and I had a hard time walking back into that classroom the next week because of it. The larger the group, the more opportunity for things to go south.
Later I taught a GD class in that ward. I encouraged people to read the essays. I only went into the Nauvoo and post-Manifesto polygamy topics a bit during my year-long tenure, since I was teaching during the time they were released (and hit the media). No matter how much I plugged the essays, though, hardly anyone ever read them.
Great recap. I’m not too shocked by the general indifference of the members when it comes to the essays. Based on the times I’ve taught Gospel Doctrine, finding someone who even knows how to read scriptures or who has read them much at all is a true rarity.
They know how to proof-text. They know how to give the standard answers. They don’t know how to read, and they don’t know how to think, and they feel perfectly comfortable in their superiority to those who do and fail to simply regurgitate the approved answers. That’s certainly not 100% true, but I’d peg it at 80% of the active members I know.
From my experience, people don’t read the essays because they think they already know everything in them by virtue of being lifelong members- they don’t know what they don’t know. We think we have our answers so why keep looking?
I’m in my early 30s like EBK and had a similar experience.
I shouldn’t postulate, but I wouldn’t be surprised if most of us in this generation had similar experiences that can’t be chalked up to solely poor seminary instructors.
My husband (same age) said that one of the biggest bummers for him about reading the essays was reviewing in his mind all of those conversations he’d had with people on his mission bringing up things that he now knows are fact. He said he would tell them “no of course that didn’t happen!” and write them off as “anti-Mormon.” This was after a childhood in Sunday School, four years of seminary, a year of Institute, and time in the MTC. To say he should have known despite his active life in the church is unfair. He now feels like he was taught to sell a product without all of the information. He’s very active and believing, but is understandably bothered by it.
I’d love to poll the membership about when they first heard of JS’s polygamy and correlate that to their current age. I wonder if my age group is one of the most damaged in this. From what I’m gathering, the combination of oral history being diluted over time along with correlation lead to a head in the sand effect for the parents of those of us born in the 70s and 80s, to the point that we were taught these things never even happened. Something tells me this is a real phenomenon in religious and social groups?
I’m hopeful (and envious of) the rising generation. Maybe by the time they go on their missions they can have adult conversations about difficult aspects of gospel history with nonmembers, folks who might respond to the complexity of faith and imperfections of their church and be impressed by these young people who are authentically living their religion.
This article and the discussion has been really fascinating to me. Thanks again Mary Ann!
Sorry to be wordy, but just wanted to add that what may be unique about my generation (though I’d love to hear other experiences) is that not only were these things not taught, spoken of, and pretty much denied, but that we were strongly advised to stay away from any “anti-Mormon” literature.
I was told this by Sunday School teachers and heard it at firesides, as well as by my really fantastic Seminary teacher. So I obeyed 🙂
Maybee, I’m in my early 40s and am in the same boat as you and your husband although I didn’t serve a mission. Raised in the gospel, seminary graduate and almost an institute graduate. I sheepishly think back on all of the times I vigorously defended JS against the horrible antimormon lies that I have since learned are almost all true. I know a lot of people think I should have known but like EBK, was I supposed to believe my church teachers or people trying to convince me the church wasn’t true? The deception has really shaken me. I’m hesitant to talk about the essays at church because I don’t want to rock anyone else’s world like mine has been. Does anyone have any examples of discussions about the essays at church that went well?
I’m not surprised the response seems to be a collective shrug. The essays don’t teach me anything I didn’t already know, and the essays are academic treatments of history — I suppose most people don’t go to church for academic treatments if history. So the essays serve a purpose, and I’m glad they’re there, but the collective shrug makes perfect sense. I think most people go to church for faith, hope, and charity, and the wonderful message of the gospel of Jesus Christ and its restoration.
In my mid-30’s, and my experience mirrors that of Maybee and Q. Rumors about Joseph Smith’s polygamy were “anti-Mormon” and of course good Mormons stayed away from that kind of thing. Didn’t find out about much of it until after I graduated from seminary, served two years in the mission field, and spent a couple of years at BYU.
And yes, I’m cautious about bringing much of what’s in the essays up in church, mainly because I don’t want to shock someone who still believes Joseph was monogamous, etc.
I was born in the 1940’s and have the same experience as maybe, but I never lived in Utah. I have spent 8 years on missions, served on Bishoprics, and attended many leadership meetings, and learned of this stuff from blogs like this. I too feel that we were misled, and this is continuing.
I think it also undermines our trust in the leaders. The leaders continue to blame members loss of faith in the church, on the members themselves, and the world, no responsibility taken themselves.
We just had a special Stake conference, and the message from Utah, was, read your scriptures, overcome your natural man or woman, pray,and avoid pornography. This will keep you safe and on the narrow way. We expected something special, but no.
I believe it is progress that we have the essays, but they are not generally included in meetings. When I have discused them, I find they too are sanitized in the members minds, for example, it was the Lords will that we have racism, and still using the curse of cain justification. This from the SP, who is also the institute director.
Ji is right, the rank and file shrug because the essays are simply facts. They answer “what” not “why”. They intentionally avoid the “so what” and frame each topic to minimize controversy as well as impact. They were intentionally spun to turn mountains into molehills. They frequently argue that the problems in our history are minor compared to the big picture.
So, the collective shrug is evidence they are working the way they were intended.
There are a few more problems with them.
1. President Monson has never come out for them, neither has a high ranking GA in a church-wide venue
2. No authors cited, no official first presidency “stamp” or signature. It has no more weight than a Star B lesson from 1985.
3. Hidden online (still, despite new links in apps, etc.)
4. You gotta admit, we post and create a bunch of blather- a lot of supplemental materials. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Most of it is concentrated ether. if anything impactful comes out, you might as well cry wolf.
5. Can we call a spade a spade? These are spins on our goof-ups or rough spots. They aren’t torches of faith.
I was raised in SLC UT, attended seminary etc. My siblings, my church friends and I–now in our 50’s–were certainly unaware of Joseph Smith’s plural wives. My oldest sibling left the church several years ago upon learning more church history. The rest of us have varying degrees of knowledge about church history.
I find it troublesome that “truth” has been emphasized as a pillar of our religion, yet we hid our past.
For example, whenever Eliza R. Snow was mentioned in lesson material or discussions she was identified as Brigham Young’s wife, not Joseph Smith’s wife, despite the fact that her tombstone reads “Eliza Snow Smith.”
We are taught that “restitution” is important but now not to expect that from leadership. Truth has been a casualty, not just involving church history, but also during the Prop 8 campaign. For me, the Prop 8 campaign has been more damaging to my relationship with the church than the historical issues, (though the historical issues have impacted me).
Geoff–you make some valid points about blame being assigned to members. And yes, I’ve encountered members who still believe the mark of Cain explanation for the priesthood ban.
Has anyone considered that the church has agency? The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that “all things shall be done by common consent in the church”. Not only that, but “by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith”.
So where does anyone come to the conclusion that the members of the church are not responsible for the church’s own doctrine and teachings?
Prophets are responsible for their own teachings. It is ultimately the member’s responsibility to decide, by much prayer and faith, whether to adopt those teachings as the doctrine of the church.
Did the claims in question ever make it into the Doctrine and Covenants, or something unequivocally endorsed as doctrine in the Doctrine and Covenants? If not, it is not a doctrine of the church at all. At best it is a consensus opinion, if not idle speculation.
These principles are important. People shouldn’t go around ignoring what the Doctrine and Covenants actually says in favor of whatever apologetic is convenient for the day. If the church wants to repeal the law of common consent, the first thing to do is to obtain an appropriate revelation, affirmed by the consensus of the spiritual authorities of the church, and ask the membership with adequate notice beforehand – years even – to affirm it as the doctrine of the church, by much prayer and faith.
As a corollary to the proposition that the church has agency, the church can go sideways on some point or another, and it is ultimately only the revelatory skills of the members of the church that can keep it on track. The prophets can’t do it alone. The members must have every key doctrine confirmed to them personally, or the church will drift here and there like any other institution possessed of agency – the principle above all else which ought to be known as the first law of heaven.
Agree with Stephen – they serve to create a marker and erase the divide. Many who left made a huge point of saying they felt ‘betrayed’ by the church. Faith is about trusting what someone else is telling you. The church has rectified this, even at the cost of some, going forward, nobody can say they were betrayed. It’s about creating a ‘feeling’ and sense of community members can trust.
Even in the essays, they are worded so as to give people an ‘easy out’ to continue to make excuses.
Also agree with LDS_Aussie- I wasn’t surprised the church released them essays- they basically had to respond. But I am shocked by how indifferent continuing members are. I know what I was teaching in primary the year they did ‘history of the church’, and it didn’t particularly jive with what came out in the essays….
More than anything, I have definite opinions about continuing members who continue to claim ‘it’s the one true church’. And maybe that was the whole point – how much can you really call out the church as an entity now? It’s more about the membership, unless the church is instituting policies, only then is it big news.
Mark D. You make a great point that the prophets can’t do it alone. We should adjust our expectations on prophets, shorten the pedestal, and be vocal on our personal revelation. So…women and ordination, SSA….don’t let prophets go at these issues alone, right? Let’s keep the church on track with gospel truths.
I’ve used quotes from essays in talks and lessons in my ward. Have heard others also. They are general conference talks or scripture, but reference material. Kinda like an ensign article. It’s not nothing. They are there to be used and don’t need to be used in a confrontational way.
Mark D, I’m perplexed by your comment. How does/should/can the law of common consent work in the modern 11 million+ member church? We’ve seen some daring folks object during the sustainings at GC and it created some minimal waves the first time. Certainly members of OW have attempted multiple times to engage the leadership about what they see as problems, but those efforts seem to fall on deaf ears. These are examples of members pushing back at those doctrines and teachings they don’t accept, but to what avail?
I like the idea of the prophets not having everything on their shoulders. It isn’t really fair to them, but I don’t see them as willing/interested in sharing the load. So what is the alternative and how does it look today?
*I meant to say: They are not general conference talks or scripture, but reference…
So many thoughts and questions…
For folks like me who didn’t know about the essay content and then felt let down, betrayed, etc. Shouldn’t the leadership address this? It’s like I’ve gone through a spiritual shipwreck and have been waiting for the prophets to throw me a life preserver. I don’t expect or even need an apology. I don’t even feel that one is necessarily warranted as I acknowledge that we got here in a very complex way that preceded the current leadership. But a conference talk acknowledging the confusion and angst felt by members over this issue as understandable would be beyond helpful. Explanations as to how we got here so I can empathize more with their situation. Absent this, I keep coming back to a “what’s wrong with me?” situation which isn’t fair either, and it’s a short jaunt from there to “wait, what’s wrong with them?!” anger. I feel like addressing it on their part would be so simple. Hearing Uchtdorf’s “doubt your doubts” talk was like manna from heaven, and he barely touched on it.
Do modern day prophets get chastised from God when they steer things wrong? I can think of examples in the scriptures where leaders are rebuked by God. Does this still happen? Would we know about it if it did? Is it obtuse of me to even bring this up?
Is God in this trial of my faith? I tell myself that by addressing, rather than ignoring, the content of those essays and how I came to find out about them, I’ll be strengthened with a more authentic faith, an active faith. Am I meant to become more aware of the cultural and generational influences that go into our current practice? Am I meant to see our leaders as more human than I did before, and empathize with the difficult job they do?
Does “doubt your doubts” mean that I’m supposed to doubt the foundation of my previous belief? When I doubt my leaders because of all of this, should I be doubting my prior belief that the leaders are always steering things correctly and rebuilding from there? I’m channeling Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s essay “Lusterware” with this comment.
Maybee,
Finding divine reasons for current circumstances is a very human desire, but I would still suggest some caution (based on personal experience).
Leaders definitely consider themselves accountable to God for how they lead the church (Oaks addressed this a couple months ago in a Q&A session where the November 5th policy was brought up). However, apologizing is not something they often do (based on the obvious reason that leaders are human so there will always be missteps in the past). So with the church history stuff, first, there must be something to apologize about. Many members would say that explaining church history is an academic issue, not a doctrinal issue, so church leaders don’t have responsibility for it (which is why they’ve left it to the scholarly realm in the past). So even if the church *did* apologize for stuff (which it doesn’t, as a general rule), it’d still be difficult to build a convincing case.
The church is changing the way it’s teaching it’s history. It’s a tacit recognition that the old system wasn’t working. It’s worth something.
Swedish Rescue – was an unmitigated disaster. The historians gave weak responses and pretty much just backpedaled. The whole thing was recorded and is available on line if you want to listen and decide for yourself. Can’t remember where – perhaps Mormonthink.
Mary Ann, I completely agree that the essays and the church changing how it teaches history is valuable, and I’m grateful for it and optimistic about the future. But that doesn’t change the feelings of hurt and cognitive dissonance that the past way of teaching (or not teaching) these things has caused some members. I just think it would take very little on their part (acknowledgement of the pain, for example) to alleviate some of the inner turmoil. The pain is real, and it only deepens to have it essentially ignored.
Neal, there’s a link for the November 2010 fireside in the OP. The Swedish Rescue materials were given a couple years later.
Maybee, yes, the pain is real. But if other members were able to find accurate historical information on their own, then it means it was possible. As long as it was possible, then the institution doesn’t have to shoulder blame. General and local church leaders *still* advocate only accessing information from official sources. They haven’t changed position on that. Bringing in the gospel topics essays under the umbrella of “official” sources only strengthens their position that the church will provide everything you need to navigate troublesome aspects of it’s history.
I’m in my early 40’s and Joseph’s polygamy was pretty common knowledge when I was growing up. D&C contains revelations he received on polygamy and it’s never been a secret that polygamy was practiced in the early years of the restoration so it was generally acknowledged and taught, though not in detail, by everyone I knew that Joseph also practiced polygamy. I would think that based on circumstantial evidence alone, anyone who taught otherwise should have been seriously doubted.
I have learned other new things from the essays and have been excited every time a new essay came out and I learned something new about our church’s history. I’ll never understand anyone who is upset or dismayed about learning something new, even if that new knowledge contradicts previously held ideas. Personally, I’d rather embrace new correct knowledge than hold on to incorrect ideas.
“General and local church leaders *still* advocate only accessing information from official sources.”
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this statement Mary Ann, and it isn’t the first time I’ve argued against this idea around here. Local leaders, yes, have taught a lot of crazy things including this idea but the general leadership has not. When I argued this before, no one else sided with me but no one was able to produce any evidence to contradict me either.
“I’ll never understand anyone who is upset or dismayed about learning something new, even if that new knowledge contradicts previously held ideas.”
I’m having a hard time understanding folks who weren’t upset by the more troubling aspects of the essays, but I’m sure trying to understand, especially as our leaders are probably in that category. DB are you a woman? If so, when you learned that Joseph created the Law of Sarah to take other wives without Emma’s ok, did that make you “excited?”
“When I argued this before, no one else sided with me but no one was able to produce any evidence to contradict me either.” Do you have any evidence of the general leadership encouraging folks to access information from unofficial sources? If they never even touched on it, then I guess my only influence came from local leaders and I followed it. Anytime a local leader tells me to do something, am I to research what the general leadership has said about it and go with that? And if they said nothing about it, am I to assume the local leaders got it wrong anyway?
“Maybee, yes, the pain is real. But if other members were able to find accurate historical information on their own, then it means it was possible. As long as it was possible, then the institution doesn’t have to shoulder blame. General and local church leaders *still* advocate only accessing information from official sources. They haven’t changed position on that. Bringing in the gospel topics essays under the umbrella of “official” sources only strengthens their position that the church will provide everything you need to navigate troublesome aspects of it’s history.”
I understand what you’re saying here, Mary Ann, and I’m hopeful about my children’s future in the church. I’m only referring to the folks of my generation and others who have already been hurt. I’m talking about things less from a PR standpoint and more from the standpoint that these men are truly called of God to lead and guide His people. I don’t care about the image of the Church in this issue, I care about what is right and good.
With members’ activity (and likely their children’s activity) in the Church being affected by these essays, don’t you think it deserves an honorable mention at General Conference? In the last several years we’ve witnessed the cold shoulder OW received (I’m not even a member of OW, but c’mon can’t you at least sit down and chat with these ladies?), increased spotlight on women’s issues in the church in general, the exclusion policy, and the essays, among others. I’m less troubled by the issues themselves than I am by how the general leadership has failed to address them. For example, how different would the OW issue ended up being if the leadership met with them and agreed to take their question to God. Even if the answer was “No, not at this time.”? That’s a much easier pill to swallow than essentially acting like their members (and their pain) doesn’t exist (unless pressured by the press to make a statement, of course).
Again, I don’t expect apologies. But with so many of my peers experiencing such spiritual turmoil over these issues, shouldn’t they be considered important enough to address? Instead it feels like we’re left to figure it out on our own, which sadly leads to inactivity for many. God loves those members, too. A GC talk or two addressing these things might be enough to get some of those folks to reconsider leaving.
DB – “Local leaders, yes, have taught a lot of crazy things including this idea but the general leadership has not.”
From the Teaching in the Savior’s Way booklet:
“The best sources for answers to difficult gospel questions are the scriptures, the words of living prophets, and other official Church publications. For example, the Church has published Gospel Topics essays to help answer questions about Church history and controversial issues (see lds.org/topics). Become familiar with official Church resources, and encourage those who have questions to study them as well.”
https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-in-the-saviors-way/part-3-teach-the-doctrine/respond-to-difficult-questions-with-faith?lang=eng
I’m in my early 50’s, child of college-educated Midwestern converts, and never once at home or in church heard that Joseph Smith had the collection of wives he did, or any details regarding their collection. I did hear whispers about it from “anti-Mormon” extended family, but knew that my job was to keep them and their lies at bay. (My very young mind managed to gloss over all my questions and accept pioneer-era polygamy as God’s will because…just because I was told so.)
The shock of learning the details was only exceeded by the shock of watching modern leaders and essay-writers insist that it was a perfectly godly practice.
My experience isn’t universal, but that doesn’t really address my problem. 99% of the church could be yawning, but I’m wide awake for the first time, trying to figure out where I belong. Re. polygamy and other essay issues: it’s not what happened so much as how it’s characterized now.
Maybee, I would love to hear something like that. But I went to stake conference yesterday and heard my stake president quote Quentin L. Cook:
“It is not surprising that some in the Church believe they can’t answer Alma’s question with a resounding yes. They do not “feel so now.” They feel they are in a spiritual drought. Others are angry, hurt, or disillusioned. If these descriptions apply to you, it is important to evaluate why you cannot “feel so now.”
Many who are in a spiritual drought and lack commitment have not necessarily been involved in major sins or transgressions, but they have made unwise choices. Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants. Others spend most of their time giving first-class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some have immersed themselves in Internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and, in some cases, invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.”
I’m not holding my breath.
“Some allow intense cultural or political views weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Elder Cook nailed it. In my opinion, the church has let intense cultural views weaken its very own allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Mary Ann,
Yes, this doesn’t help.
So thanks for nothing! (:
“Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony.” I’m not above begging when my spiritual welfare is at stake. Please Elder Cook, help us! Help us draw the correct conclusions!
Yeah, it’s actually really discouraging for me right now, too. LOL.
The way I see it, though, if the church were to issue an official apology for something, should those of us struggling with the stumbling-blocks of unpleasant church history surprises really be at the top of the list? I’d hope black Saints would be getting an official apology WAY before we would (not to mention other groups). People like Darius Gray have made the church so much better by sticking with it (in spite of having many legitimate reasons to leave) and actively working publicly and behind the scenes to make things better for the next generation. I think he’s impacted many more people in the church than he ever thought possible. So if I see the church and gospel as worth something, which I do, there clearly is a way to work to make things better in spite of my frustrations with the decisions of church leaders. That’s why the move towards better church history education for the next generation is such a big deal to me.
But I dislike trying to find divine reasons for things. We messed up, pure and simple. People meant well, but it ended up causing big problems for a lot of us. So we pick things up and try to make it better for the next generation. And then in 30 years they’ll recognize that we messed up big in other ways, and make some further course corrections for their kids. Cause that’s just how life works. 😉
Yes, I agree Mary Ann. It’s the example of faithful black members sometimes that keeps me here. I may think I’ve got reasons to be angry, but they pale in comparison to what they’ve had to endure.
I’m generally an optimistic person, so I mean it when I say I’m hopeful. I suppose I’m too optimistic about the leadership sometimes though. I really have hope they’ll become more open in acknowledging past wrongs. My testimony isn’t completely withered away, and I do believe they are men of God. my belief has evolved to allow them room to make mistakes and that sometimes God lets them make those mistakes. But man, wouldn’t it be amazing if an angel with a flaming sword approached them demanding they apologize to those who have been hurt the most? It wasn’t so long ago that angels appeared and prophets were called to repentance. I would find that very faith promoting.
If Elder Cook suggests I should look inward at my own culpability for my cognitive dissonance I’m not above doing so. But I also expect them to look at (and acknowledge) their own (and their predecessors) hands in this mess. I would respect and sustain them to a greater extent if that were to happen.
Also thank you Mary Ann for engaging me. Knowing I’m not alone in my feelings (as evidenced by your comments all those folks with similar experiences as mine) is incredibly helpful and helps me keep going.
Maybee – “Anytime a local leader tells me to do something, am I to research what the general leadership has said about it and go with that? And if they said nothing about it, am I to assume the local leaders got it wrong anyway?”
That’s what I do, and I’ll show them the error of their ways if I feel it’s necessary. If a local leader teaches that the general leadership teaches or has taught such and such, but in fact the general leadership never has, I am under no obligation to believe or follow what that local leader is saying. Neither are you.
Mary Ann – That quote you provided only says that official church publications are the best resources for answers. It does not advocate only using official church resources for answers.
DB – phew. I’m glad you pointed that out. I’ll just skip on over to Elder Oaks’ talk where he says doing the “best” stuff doesn’t really mean *only* doing the “best” stuff. It also means doing the “good” and “better” stuff on top of it. Oh wait…
Mary Ann – What’s your point? I mean, seriously, what’s your point? You know as well as I that neither that quote you posted nor Elder Oak’s talk you referenced support the argument that the church advocates “only accessing information from official sources.” Are you defending that idea because you support it? I don’t think you do so why are you defending something you don’t support when there’s no evidence to back it up?
DB, I see you are passionate about the point you are making, I just don’t think it translates to real life. Or at least it didn’t 15 years ago.
When you are 17 and and you have heard at firesides, seminary, sunday school, and from your Bishop to beware of non Church endorsed materials regarding church history, are you really going to research what the general leadership has said about that? Even if you aren’t a teen. I don’t think so. You may think it’s my fault that I didn’t research these things on my own, while others did. But from my perspective I was being obedient and they were being foolish. Because that’s what I had been taught over and over.
Maybee – I don’t fault anyone for believing what they were taught, especially as a teenager. I’m simply pointing out that this idea that many people were taught, that the church tells it’s members to not read unofficial material, is not true. And since it’s not true, there’s no reason to continue to believe that. What I don’t understand is why someone who doesn’t like that teaching would continue to staunchly hold on to that idea after I explain to them that it’s not true and they can’t find any evidence that it actually was true. I would think that learning that something you don’t like isn’t true would be liberating. Instead, most people refuse to stop believing it even though they don’t like it and can’t find any evidence to support it. Confusing isn’t it?
DB, But I also see it as very confusing in general.
Something that could easily be cleared up by our general authorities making a strong comment during a conference talk about it. But we haven’t had that, have we? If so, I’d love to know where! Because had I heard that talk as a teen and in my early 20s I would have loved to have started doing some research!
I suspect there is a reason it hasn’t been unequivocally stated by our general leadership. I imagine they didn’t really want folks veering too far from official resources, but didn’t want to state so too obviously. And although I’m frustrated by that, I can also understand and see value in that perspective if that was the case.
Maybee – You’re right. The general leadership don’t really want the members veering too far from official resources and have always encouraged us to stick with official publications. It’s a precautionary position because many members aren’t sophisticated enough to discern truth from half-truth from complete fiction when they wander into the wilderness of worldly publications. At the same time, they have never come out and said that we are only to read official publications.
The best discussion of this topic I’ve read from the church is Dallin H. Oaks’ talk “Alternate Voices” from the April 1989 General Conference. Consider this quote – “Members of the church are free to participate or to listen to any alternate voices they choose, but church leaders should avoid official involvement, directly or indirectly.” And I really like this quote as well – “Some of life’s most complicated decisions involve mixtures of good and evil. To what extent can one seek the benefit of something good one desires when this can only be done by simultaneously promoting something bad one opposes? That is a personal decision, but it needs to be made with a sophisticated view of the entire circumstance and with a prayer for heavenly guidance.” Perhaps this is the conference talk you’ve been wanting.
.i too was born into the 40’s and was introduced to the sanitised version of our church history.
My son and I decided to combine our Adult and YSA class for a one off D&C Church History ( which is poorly named and hardly addresses either) the topic was D& C 132 which included plural marriage…. We addressed the lesson including Joseph Smiths polygamy….. This was before the essays… A near riot took place, half wanted to know the others were vocal about destroying their faith…..
I don’t think much until a very serious and creative attempt to integrate all the information in our curriculum. This is a big ask as my experience is that telling anyone from the Center Stake of Zion that their might be other options is almost impossible.
I spent my life in developing curriculums their is a wonderful opportunity to use both academic and ecclesiastical recourses, electronic, visual interrelated with other resources and perhaps related personal study guides online and at different levels of interest and understanding?
But……..but….don’t hold our breathe!
DB, I apologize for getting snippy.
“The general leadership don’t really want the members veering too far from official resources and have always encouraged us to stick with official publications.” This is where we agree. Elder Ballard encouraged CES instructors to seek out the best LDS scholarship available in addition to keeping up with the most recent official sources. By encouraging members to “stick with official publications,” many members interpret that as implicit discouragement of accessing unofficial sources. I would like to see Elder Ballard’s encouragement extended to general membership. They would then understand that when seeking out the “best books” to learn words of wisdom, they would understand it includes LDS scholarship outside official publications.