Today’s post is from sometime guest poster Shannon Flynn.
I traveled to Los Angeles California last Saturday to participate in the Miller Eccles study group. This is a study group that has been operating since 1979 and now has two California venues, one in Fullerton and the other in La Canada-Flintridge. You can find their web page here. The speaker for the month of April was Elder Marlin K. Jensen. It turned out to be a very enlightening meeting with about 70 attendees at the Saturday night meeting. Elder Jensen had some remarkable things to say and I thought the Wheat and Tares group would be interested in his remarks. Before I get into the specifics I need to set some parameters. The Friday night meeting is usually recorded and then produced as a Podcast. Elder Jensen asked that it not be recorded. I would imagine that this a common church policy for current and former General Authorities. (I only found out about this earlier today via the Miller Eccles Facebook page. Nothing was said about it on Saturday night.) With this in mind, I am going to try to not quote Elder Jensen exactly but instead give my account of the things he said and do it in the spirit and tone he spoke with. I hope this doesn’t cause him any trouble.
He talked quite a bit about the Gospel Topics essays and how they came to be. The idea of having more and better information on controversial doctrine/history topics was discussed by Church leadership for several years before they came out. At one point there was discussion about having a separate website for such a thing, but that was shelved because many didn’t want to draw too much attention to the subject. All of the individual essays were written by outside scholars who were contracted and paid to write them. They were then edited many times within the church before publication. Elder Jensen finally revealed who the champions were of the cause (you know, the ones who kept the project alive even when opposition grew) inside the church hierarchy. It was him on a day-to-day basis and President Uchtdorf in the Q15. Elder Holland and Elder Cook were the apostle supervisors of the department at the time. He and the rest of the church leadership are fully aware that most church members have not read the essays and a large majority never will. (As a personal aside, I could sense that he is very aware of what the average church member’s mindset is like and that there is nothing, as a practical matter, they can do about it.) The overwhelming majority of church members are very content with very basic doctrine taught in an easy to regurgitate way. The order of the day is willful ignorance. He mentioned that the Ensign is written at a 7th grade level and the articles are progressively getting shorter due to decreasing attention spans.
Elder Jensen also talked about the Mountain Meadows Massacre, both the book that was written by Turley, Walker and Leonard, and the interactions the Church has had with the descendant families of those that were killed. He said that when a decision was made for the Church to fully participate in writing a book about the episode a potential stumbling block was encountered very early on. Neither he nor the historians writing the book would embark on the project without full access to all known primary sources. One of the major primary sources that has always been a problem and had never been released, was the written record of the interviews that Andrew Jenson had made in 1892. Elder Jensen recounted how Juanita Brooks had requested access to the material and had been “chased” from the Historian’s office by Joseph Fielding Smith and how Will Bagley was summarily denied. He then went on to say that he and Richard Turley sat in a meeting with the First Presidency and made their request. President Hinckley asked his two counselors if they had ever read those documents and when they answered in the negative – he said he had. Pres. Hinckley suggested that Jensen and Turley return in week, which would give the two counselors a chance to read the material and then they would give them their decision. They came back and the answer was yes. The Church had no editorial control over the writing of the book. Elder Jensen felt like the Church’s only honest course of action was to make a full accounting of all the primary source material they had in their possession. One other key piece of information Elder Jensen revealed was that the statement that was read on behalf of the Church by Elder Henry B. Eyring during commemoration ceremonies on September 11, 2007 was written by Elder Jensen. He was supposed to deliver those remarks but was taken very ill with peritonitis and was in intensive care at LDS hospital that whole week. He said he almost died.
I was impressed with Elder Jensen’s command of Church History. He was able to quote several lines from Brigham Young’s speech in front of the Territorial Legislature in 1852 where Brigham Young essentially codifies the denial of the Priesthood to blacks. I don’t know many who could quote that from memory and it was obvious that he completely understands what those words mean and how deeply they have affected the Church. It is Elder Jensen’s opinion that Brigham Young was not acting in the office of a prophet when he spoke those words.
He was asked if he thought the study of Church history was important and, if so, why. His response was well articulated. He got out his set of scriptures and first turned to D&C 21:1. He was impressed by the fact that one of the very first things that the Church was commanded to do was keep a record. He feels like that is an ongoing and critical mandate for the Church Historian and the department. As an aside he said that as an attorney he finds it noteworthy that if Joseph Smith was going to perpetrate an elaborate fraud he would take such pains to preserve all of the evidence. The second scripture he turned to was Alma 37: 1-8.
1 And now, my son Helaman, I command you that ye take the records which have been entrusted with me;
2 And I also command you that ye keep a record of this people, according as I have done, upon the plates of Nephi, and keep all these things sacred which I have kept, even as I have kept them; for it is for a wise purpose that they are kept.
3 And these plates of brass, which contain these engravings, which have the records of the holy scriptures upon them, which have the genealogy of our forefathers, even from the beginning—
4 Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon.
5 And now behold, if they are kept they must retain their brightness; yea, and they will retain their brightness; yea, and also shall all the plates which do contain that which is holy writ.
6 Now ye may suppose that this is foolishness in me; but behold I say unto you, that by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise.
7 And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls.
8 And now, it has hitherto been wisdom in God that these things should be preserved; for behold, they have enlarged the memory of this people, yea, and convinced many of the error of their ways, and brought them to the knowledge of their God unto the salvation of their souls.
He said that he was sure people in the group had read these verses and were familiar with at least vs. 6 but he would wager that most didn’t realize this was talking about preserving and writing Church History. He said the current Church History Deptartment takes this charge very seriously and it became his main motivation in pushing the agenda of the Church Historian forward, making the department a leading edge and not just a forever follow behind.
Elder Jensen also fielded many comments from the group about them feeling lied to and betrayed by the church. I say comments and not questions since all of them came from people who basically wanted to be heard and acknowledged and there was no real question attached. The first comment/question came from a man who told his own story of reading quotes from a General Authority who said Brigham Young never taught the Adam-God theory but then completely reversed himself in a letter to a BYU professor. Though the questioner didn’t say who he was talking about, it was an interchange between Bruce R. McConkie and Eugene England. Elder Jensen was very gracious in his responses and said that he had personal experience in the same situation where a high ranking Church Authority told him straight out that Brigham Young never taught or preached the Adam-God theory, which of course is simply not true. (He the name of the Church authority but I am going to leave that out as a nod to Elder Jensen.) He reminded everyone to think for themselves and ask what their personal reaction should be to those feeling betrayed. It was obvious that Elder Jensen chose to move past it. He was quite passionate about his feelings regarding the truth and worth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was impressed with his ability to connect with people in a non-confrontational way.
What are your reactions to Elder Jensen’s comments?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Seems generally positive and hopeful.
It’s obviously difficult for some to navigate the fine line between the reality that our church leaders are imperfect individuals and the internal conviction that the Restoration of the gospel and the church with all its insights and protections is wonderfully true. Elder Jensen obviously knows how to walk this line.
Much to celebrate here. I am encouraged. Thank you Elder Jensen for your courage and your thoughtfulness.
Except for this:
“(As a personal aside, I could sense that he is very aware of what the average church member’s mindset is like and that there is nothing, as a practical matter, they can do about it.) The overwhelming majority of church members are very content with very basic doctrine taught in an easy to regurgitate way. The order of the day is willful ignorance.
and
” He mentioned that the Ensign is written at a 7th grade level and the articles are progressively getting shorter due to decreasing attention spans.”
This is a hugely mistaken perception. We are losing our best and brightest because of it. We are among the best educated people on the earth. BYU claims to be the Stanford of the Intermountain West. Let those satisfied with basic doctrine barfing on the 7th grade level sit in the foyers if they can’t take the heat. This has got to change or we will have a starkly dwindling future. To hell with the idea that there is nothing we can do about it. At least try.
The snarky skeptic in me thinks a cold calculation has been made. That the most tithing is collected when we keep it basic. In other words, the thinkers are not the payers. (And a university like BYU claims to be is a farce.) If that be so, enjoy the riches while it lasts but remember the Shaker faith died wealthy. The last of their properties were donated to became state parks.
Mike, the thinkers will *never* be the payers – there’s no money in academics. 🙂
However, the bulk of tithing funds are contributed by people with better-paying jobs, which implies a decent education. Better education doesn’t necessarily translate to interest in church history, though. There are plenty of well-educated people who prefer practical application lessons in church over rigorous scholarly debate. The 7th-grade reading level in the Ensign likely is due to worldwide membership with various education levels.
Mike, I understand what you are saying. It seems wrong to concede the field in the middle of the match without putting a real fight. But the stark reality of the matter is that if they were to go in the direction of moving the 7th grade reading level go to the foyer, 70% of the average ward would be sitting there. The problem doesn’t really lie with General Authorities, though they have a huge share of the problem. It is with the members. To try to see it from the G.A’s view point, gives a different perspective. For the G.A.’s who think about this a lot, (and not all do) they don’t know what they would say to God when He made a surprise visit to an average ward and 70% of the congregation is sitting in the foyer. What could they tell him? “Sorry, but 70 % of your children are too dumb to get with the program!. They just can’t bring themselves to such a pass. Of course, I and many like me sit in the foyer now and nobody seems to really care. This is a problem that I can’t think of a solution.
“It is Elder Jensen’s opinion that Brigham Young was not acting in the office of a prophet when he spoke those words.”
Ultimately it’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves when someone is and when someone isn’t acting in the office of a prophet but I do wonder if it matters whether the prophet believes they are acting in the office of a prophet when they speak.
I believe BY was acting in the office of a prophet when he made his statements on the priesthood ban. BY was setting forth church doctrine and policy. If he wasn’t acting in the office of a prophet wouldn’t that mean someone in a small branch in one of the many stakes of Zion could ordain a black person to the priesthood, despite BY’s statements.
I think we take “acting in the office of a prophet” to mean instances when a prophet said something that hold up to the standards of the day or when time proves his counsel sound and we take “not acting in the office of a prophet” to mean instances where the prophet said something that now makes the saints feel uncomfortable or something that was proven incorrect in time. I’m offering up a definition where “acting in the office of a prophet” means the guy in charge said something and the church was obligated to obey. In that sense I believe BY was acting in the office of a prophet.
There is an Ensign, New Era, and Friend. Too bad a Dialogue or Sunstone couldn’t be added as an official monthly magazine
The Ensign isn’t targeting the educated or even long-time members, but I’m not sure that’s bad. We don’t need to read it (and I don’t, really) The problem with a church source is that it’s viewed as authoritative, and that stuff should probably be kept to the basics. I’ve gotten a lot from ldsliving and various faithful podcasts and blogs that delve deeper into the complexities at the boundaries of faith and “real life”, and they get to express their feelings and perspectives without the onus of having to be authoritative. For educated
Dialogue and Sunstone are mind-expanding and sometimes soul-expanding, but I’d hardly consider them to have the same objective as the church, and they could hardly remain what they are and be official publications of the church.
I would love to have been there to listen to Elder Jensen. I have enormous respect for him.
Also, I’m sorry Elder Jensen was sick, but I’m glad President Eyring gave the remarks at the MMM ceremonies — it gave them even more weight and authority, even if it wasn’t the original intention.
Thank you, Shannon. Your report is valuable to me. I have had a difficult enough time teaching interesting, thought-provoking, and hopefully motivating Gospel Doctrine lessons to a group of adults that are very mixed in their educational levels, historical and doctrinal interests and understandings, length of service/attendance at Church, ability and/or willingness to entertain alternate viewpoints or to articulate their own, that I cannot help but be grateful that I do not need to participate in decision making about what information to push at the entire Church membership. I am grateful that there are those like Elder Jensen and President Uchtdorf who have taken the lead in moving the Church toward greater disclosure. I recently had a friend insist that the best approach to helping those struggling with Church history issues is to tell them everything (assuming one knows everything, of course! 🙂 ) I tried to get him to understand that that approach is as likely to push such people off the ledge as it is to talk them off the ledge, unless it is combined with persuading them to drop the all-or-nothing approach, to accept fallibility in doctrine and behavior from prophets, and to learn to live with ambiguity, uncertainty, and personal responsibility. I would like to see much more emphasis on those matters in Church teaching including in the YMYW and Sunday School classes for ages 12 and up. It seems the Church has been making some progress in that direction, though not as quickly, thoroughly, or unambiguously as some wish.
Sorry — one more quick comment: The gospel topics essays have been used in my ward as the curriculum for a monthly Sunday School class (with a facilitator rather than teacher) in which free, non-judgmental discussion was encouraged, and it’s been fantastic. I’m SO glad the church put those out. How else could such discussions happen at church on church time if the material weren’t church-sanctioned? Elder Jensen’s created quite a legacy for himself, and for the next decades at least, it’s only going to appear more and more impressive and significant.
This was interesting.
Martin, how does that monthly SS class work? Is it a Gospel Doctrine class alternative for those who choose it? or is it a replacement? I ask because I have a bishop and a SS president who would be open to entertaining such an idea.
Reply to Shannon:
I do agree that the church leaders find themselves with not many good options if any. I don’t know what specifically to suggest they do.
Might I point out when the Savior makes this hypothetical surprise visit, that something like 70% of the church is already out in the foyer right now so to speak, if you expand the foyer to include all those who walked through the foyer and on out of the church, ie the inactive.
I imagine that it would be very easy to disturb 70% of the remaining 30% to the point of driving them away.
It is a mistake to equate educational level with intelligence. I know of extremely intelligent people who have very little formal education and our left-wing universities are loaded with idiotic geniuses. One can become reasonably informed in specialized areas with consistent effort if properly motivated. I think that was the point of Sunday school back when it was actually a school and not a propaganda tool.
The gospel topic essays are a big step in the right direction, but in my opinion, they do not go far enough. Who is going to write the next iteration of them? When? Does Elder Jensen have any swag or social capital or credibility with the rest of them or is he effectively been put out to pasture? Why did they suddenly stop, leaving several important topics unaddressed? Do the leaders have data that shows “innoculation” doesn’t work very often and accelerates the exodus?
Another problem that should be considered and remodeled is the existence of “authoritative” sources. This is a common logical flaw, to ascribe a concept to be verified or indisputable because of who said it instead of examining the concept to see if it holds true on its own merits. It is the flip side of the ad homenum attack, to dismiss the message when you distrust the messenger. The Protestants have a concept of something like solaris scriptorum or infallible scripture which we rejected with the emergence of new scripture. But it seems we went right back to the concept. The Mormon people probably wouldn’t listen if the leaders simply told them to stop treating their teachings as authoritative. They would have to get into actual arguments and admit to making errors often.People would have to think on their own and for many they want the thinking already done for them..
In the end we are left with what can I do for my ward this week? Unfortunately for some of us the answer might be very little, or not a damned thing. We all are worse for it.
When I hear stuff like this about those who love to dine on milk being the majority I keep thinking, how exactly are these people supposed to become gods? Oh right, we don’t really believe that anymore. Got it.
“if they were to go in the direction of moving the 7th grade reading level go to the foyer, 70% of the average ward would be sitting there.”
I just couldn’t disagree more. I am a long time church teacher (who strays pretty far from the manuals). There is a hunger for lessons that have meat in them. There is a hunger for digging deep and learning something new, for engagement and thought and thought experiments. When someone teaches the classroom at that level, those that tend to linger in the hallway are more inclined to joint the class.
ReTx. I used to believe as you do. I spent most of my adult life believing that great numbers of church members would become much better students of the gospel/doctrine/history if they just knew where to find it. It is with great sadness and disappointment that I now realize that the overwhelming majority don’t and never will. Of course no one, including me, knows the real numbers so I give numbers just as way to illustrate my points. I think about 5% of the church “get it”. About 25% would like to and I believe they comprise the group you class as having, “a hunger for lessons that have meat”. The remaining 70% are the willfully ignorant. They hate anything other than feel good inspirational stories, they love endless repetition, can’t even begin to tell the difference between true and false doctrine/history and seek a gospel that is a watered down non-denominational Protestantism. They don’t want to be disturbed. I agree with some of the comments above. This not a matter of education. I know huge numbers of doctors, lawyers, school teachers etc. who promote, love and encourage a curriculum and teaching method inside of the church that they would never tolerate in regular life. I see it every week in my ward and I still don’t understand it.
Shannon – I think we are talking apples/oranges. I don’t disagree that the overwhelming majority of members won’t do the hardwork of hunting for and studying the intricacies of the gospel / church history themselves. Where I think we differ is that I overwhelmingly find (and I’m in my 40s and have been a church teacher for 25 of that) that when a teacher does the hard work and presents material in Gospel Doctrine (or Gospel Essentials or Relief Society) in a way that is honest but faith promoting that the majority members get excited about it.
The challenge is the diehard it’s-not-in-the-manual crowd. (I err… may have lost my teaching calling recently because of one of these.)
ReTx, I think you pointed out a significant part of the problem. The “not in the manual crowd”, because of their toe the line attitude , are often the same people who are promoted into leadership. Thus, the cycle continues.
“Deviating from the manual” can go both ways. I and members of my family have had more teachers who taught folklore and fables (such as the Proclamation on the Family long preceded any threats to “traditional” marriage, great calamities will befall CA if Prop 8 doesn’t pass, polygamy was needed to “grow” the church etc etc etc.) than verifiable facts not covered in the manual. Sometimes it is the leaders who deviate, embellish etc when giving talks and lessons.
I think it is best if people identify their sources and differentiate between their own opinions and source material.
I would agree, those who ask few questions are more likely to ascend to leadership positions.
JR, in our ward, a sign-up was sent around to everybody in gospel doctrine asking who would be interested. The idea was to limit the size of the class to about 20 people. People were concerned that if it was too big a group, the discussion would be unwieldy and not meet the need. It ended up with about 25 people, so on the Sunday it’s held, Gospel Doctrine is not nearly as full, but it’s only once per month. There are three educated facilitators, one of which leads (but the other two are usually there too), all of whom are clearly dedicated members but have first hand experience with various issues (a less-active politically active spouse, a gay family member, etc.). Every week before the class is held, the topic is announced and the class members are expected to read the related essay before attending. As part of that email, the SS president includes the following:
Purpose of the Class: Create a place at church where topics that have caused some to struggle with their faith can be discussed in an open manner, giving context and perspective to assist those who so desire to navigate faith and doubt and come closer to Jesus Christ.
Curriculum: Gospel Topic Essays published by the church
Teaching Style: Class held once a month, each teacher selecting and preparing for the essay to discuss but functioning as a discussion facilitator as much as an instructor.
Expectations of Class Members:
1. Read and study the relevant essay prior to each class (an absolute must — you’ll be lost and unhelpful if you don’t)
2. Feel free to ask questions, give insight, and express doubts – the class is a collective effort
3. Be humble — no matter what you think, you do not have all the answers
4. Do not question one another’s righteousness — God gives us all space to struggle with our particular challenges
5. Cede the floor — share your insight, but make sure you’re allowing others the same opportunity
I don’t know how well the class will work in different kinds of wards, but for ours, it’s been fantastic.
Personally I’m too exhausted by life come Sunday to be able to engage with something controversial, what I need is some comfort and re-assurance. I’ve had times when I’ve been a big church attender, got bored and wanted to spice things up a little, but in retrospect I don’t think that well of myself then. As it is hardly a Sunday goes by without me being offended by someone’s well enough meaning remarks that I’m just too darn sensitive to take right now, and if I think about the lives of people I know in the congregation, I mentally cringe for how it must feel to them. When I was on the stake, there was one ward where we all dreaded going, full of conjecturing high priests who used the chapel like a debating chamber.
Give me sweet, boring platitudes that I can shelter in for at least three hours in the week, my own brain gives me no relief the rest of the time. It all got just too complicated.
I’ve read each of the essays as they were released, and found nothing but further questions in them, although at least they are an acknowledgement that these are legitimate areas of confusion.
Print seems the right medium for me, where those who want to engage can do so at their own risk. I’d be cautious about vexing the fragile.
I think your numbers are right on the mark Shannon.
“I think it is best if people identify their sources and differentiate between their own opinions and source material. ”
I agree. A good teacher understands this and cites anything that either makes people uncomfortable or is even mildly controversial. And the best way to do that, I’ve found, is to always cite sources the general populace trusts and/or be really open when something is speculative. I’ve found that me saying ‘this idea is fun, but speculations, creates students who do the same.’
I just can’t see the 25/70 split. I suppose the hungry vs willfully ignorant could be different in the Mormon corridor though, which I admittedly don’t live in.
Handlewithcare says: Personally I’m too exhausted by life come Sunday to be able to engage with something controversial, what I need is some comfort and re-assurance.
I’m generally too exhausted by life to come on Sundays and be bored by the same watered-down pap. I’d love something that would actually engage me. I’d love something like Martin describes in my ward. As it is, we have a family history lab that takes place during Sunday School hour, which I invariably attend – not only do I get a lot done and am able to help others, but I don’t have to waste my time in GD. We have some good teachers, but they do feel themselves limited by the material.
I haven’t bothered with the Ensign in longer than I can remember. If I really want it, it’s online, but I’d rather read Highlights at the dentist’s office.
Thank you for this post. I met Elder Jensen several years ago, and I sincerely think he is one of the best men I’ve ever met – an interesting combination of intellect and humility – capped with good humor.
I believe it was Elder Jensen who recounted a comment made by assistant church historian Richard Turley – his biggest fear for the members of the Church is that they study Church history too little.