This past Sunday, the LDS Church put together an interesting program, aimed for youth worldwide. The event was held in Nauvoo and featured Elder Cook with historians Dr. Matthew Grow and Dr. Kate Holbrook. I respect Grow and Holbrook as “straight shooters” when it comes to explaining LDS history and defending the tough issues that are hard to answer sometimes.
The Church is stepping up their efforts to teach history the right way. I’m very proud of my church in a lot of ways for doing this. The essays were a first step. This new book series Saints is another big step. I understand there is frank discussion of seer stones, polygamy, and many other difficult issues in that book.
I loved one of the questions: Did Joseph translate the gold plates or was it strictly a revelation?
This issue is starting be a prominent one that is acceptable to discuss even among faithful Mormon scholars. Should we think of the Book of Mormon strictly as a word for word translation of an ancient record, dictated to him from heaven? Or should we think of it more of a revelation, created through the mind of Joseph as he interacted with divinity? Or some combination?
Kate Holbrook took the question and talked about how Joseph started with a scholarly approach which failed and then tried a revelatory approach. She said that both terms are appropriate to use to describe how the Book of Mormon was produced. She compared the BOM translation process to the Bible translation (JST version) process, which we know was more of a revelatory, midrashic kind of thing. She was not very direct, but she seemed to be suggesting that it’s OK to understand the BOM as something other than 100% a direct translation of an ancient record.
An interesting comment I read on Facebook about this event from Stephen Smoot:
“Here is an apostle sitting next to two professional historians. When questions about Church history came from the two young adult hosts (questions concerning seer stones, polygamy, and First Vision accounts) this apostle did not immediately jump in and claim to have all the answers. Instead he turned to the historians and asked them for their perspective before adding his own and bearing his apostolic testimony of the Restoration.
In other words, Elder Cook never put up any pretense to being infallible or omniscient on matters of Church history and doctrine. Nor, for that matter, did Drs. Holbrook and Grow grovel before Elder Cook and obsequiously defer to him as the final authority. It was a mutual, reciprocal, and respectful partnership built on trust and faith.
I like it. I applaud the Church’s efforts on all these things. It’s a move in the right direction.
But.
I’ve seen a lot of criticism of the event as well. A lot of comments I saw were that people felt like Cook, Grow, or Holbrook were not adequately addressing criticism or superficially touching something controversial while skirting around the truly difficult aspects of the issue.
I think the reason the event didn’t measure up for some people is explained in an idea I comment frequently about.
The church traditionally taught (or implied) about a certain issue as A then B. With A as the historical facts surrounding a church issue. And B being the conclusion or outcome.
For example.
A (facts) = Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with the Gold Plates on the table, using the Urim and Thummim (Nephite Interpreters).
B (outcome) = The Book of Mormon is an ancient record 100% dictated to Joseph from God
Critics will say X then Y.
X (facts) = Joseph used a seer stone with head in hat and the Gold Plates were usually not there.
Y (outcome) = The Book of Mormon is a fraud
Another example:
A = The First Vision happened exactly according to the official 1838 version.
B = Joseph had a material visitation from God the Father and Jesus Christ and was told all other churches are not true and that he would be responsible for starting God’s exclusively true church.
X = There are other First Vision accounts, and the first one says nothing about church exclusivity.
Y = Joseph was making it up.
The Church is doing a good job on both these issues in cleaning up how we teach about it. But again, we are shifting A to X but sticking with B, so X then B.
The problem is that as we study the facts of church history, not only does it change how we teach the facts (the A or X), it also puts some of our “B’s” into very dubious territory.
We’re accepting the new X about Joseph’s sketchy polygamy details, but then we’re going to stick with B, that God really commanded it?
It’s easier to change the A to X and much, much more difficult to change the B side of the equation. We don’t need to move it all the way from B to Y. We don’t need to agree with critics that it’s all a fraud and give up all the good that we have as a church. But if we don’t move an inch on B, that will be the new faith crisis for kids inoculated on the new church history. We went from clean, perfect, tidy history with clean, perfect, tidy outcome. Now we switched it to messy, sketchy history with clean, perfect, tidy outcome. That doesn’t compute for a lot of people.
Instead of moving from B to Y, let’s move towards L.
The Book of Mormon is not 100% dictated by God, ie could be more of a revelation than a translation from the first part of post.
The First Vision is real, and the multiple versions of it testify of its reality, but we could soften a bit about how certain we are about what exactly was communicated to Joseph in it, since it was understood differently by him in different times of his life.
The facts of polygamy are ugly, and so it’s likely God wasn’t the author of all that confusion.
I don’t know exactly how this will work, but this is a model of how a direction we could go that would make sense of the facts and address them a bit more directly. This is the next step. We’re moving on the left side of the equation. Now we need to move on the right side of the equation.
“I understand there is frank discussion of seer stones, polygamy, and many other difficult issues in that book.” Eh, frank-ish. Just finished it the other day. Very similar to the Face to Face. In fact, at least one of the apologetic lines at the Face to Face was nearly verbatim in the book (plural marriage didn’t come with instructions).
I agree we are moving towards an “X to B” position right now, and there will inevitably be different problems down the road.
“The facts of polygamy are ugly, and so it’s likely God wasn’t the author of all that confusion.” Based on the Gospel Topics essays, Saints, and Face to Face, this viewpoint is NOT happening anytime soon. The brethren might relent on some stuff, but they are not backing down on the divine origin of polygamy (it was a sanctioned exception to God’s general plan of monogamy).
“The facts of polygamy are ugly, and so it’s likely God wasn’t the author of all that confusion.”
I agree with Mary Ann. While it’s true that “all that confusion” was probably not of God (eg., the way Joseph instituted it), it’s pretty hard for the church to say it didn’t come from God. The church absolutely claims authority to describe proper family relations, and if polygamy were not instituted by God at the time, then you either have to conclude that Joseph was a false prophet or a fallen prophet. “Mistaken” prophet (possibly your position L) isn’t much of an option when he was claiming revelation about it — revelation that remains the foundation of temple sealings today. It’d be pretty hard for church leaders to go with that one.
All good points, from both the OP and Mary Ann. It’s worth remembering, though, that the LDS church hasn’t even hit its bicentennial. We’re still *babies* at this stuff. This long after Jesus died, the New Testament canon was in flux. At this point after Jesus’ death, we’d still be more than a century away from the First Council of Nicaea. Assuming the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still around in the early 2120s, it’s going to look and feel significantly different in many respects—many of which we probably can’t even imagine at present.
That may be unsettling to some Mormons, particularly those who are locked in a belief in Gospel uniformitarianism from the days of Adam and Eve until the Second Coming—a belief that is unsustainable for anyone who studies and thinks about the Standard Works, let alone the histories of Judaism, Christianity, and Mormonism. It may also frustrate some critics who want to see the Church fail and will resent seeing their familiar, stationary punching bag become a moving (and therefore harder) target. But, despite current, crusty, conservationist attitudes about the Church’s beliefs, traditions, and structure, this edifice was built on the concept of radical revelation—change that kept coming and coming and coming, until a hail of bullets stopped it at Carthage Jail. As a faith tradition, we have the room and conceptional resources to evolve. And evolve we will.
I will complement The Church for doing this. I perceive that it may help some people and may prove to be of significant value to “the saints who are left”. . Unfortunately (for me) it’s just “too little, too late”. Once I’ve been lied too or misled….I have a habit of simply walking away. But, here’s to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints! (Diet Coke of course!)
I am probably fairly close to Lefthandloafer. I just can’t make it work.
Three years ago this month Elder Ballard talked in an area broadcast. He said that a young man came to him with questions about the church. He told the young man that he would answer all his questions if he would just read the BOM and come back in a few weeks. The young man came back in a few weeks and Elder Ballard asked if he was ready to have his questions answered. The young man said he had no questions. That really bugged me. Either the story was fabricated or an apostle claims to have the answers to questions that thousand have – but he is unwilling to stand in conference and give these answers.
Then almost exactly a year later Elder Ballard talked in a regional broadcast. He then recommended that you turn to church historians and not top church leaders. It makes me scratch my head when compared to a year before. What changed?
Now the apostles are not going to answer any history questions? Can’t they also get these historians to come and give the apostles and GA’s some training in this area. This issue within the church has been steadily increasing the last several years.
So progress yes. The new Saints book and the fireside are steps in the right direction. But for someone that has spent significant times studying (including the source documents) and has lost reverence and even respect for top church leaders, these steps are certainly “way to little and way late.” But time will tell if this inoculation will stem the tide or not.
Why are they willing to say that the priesthood ban came from men in their time and place, but not willing to say the same for polygamy?
I hope it’s not because African-American men matter, but women then and now don’t.
I’m discouraged . They just doubled down.
Excellent post CIT. I came across this recently.
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/the-b-h-robertsjoseph-fielding-smithjames-e-talmage-affair/
There have been issues like this in the past where nuance was introduced. It’s too bad the black and white thinkers got control of the church.
I too am bothered by the story of Ballard telling the kid to read the BOM and he would no longer have any questions.. If I remember the story right, he said that he was going to answer the questions anyway because he had spent a lot of time studying them. Well sir, give us your damn answers.
Concerning BOM historicity, I did a quick poll of our bishopric and asked them if there was no Lehi and no Moroni, if they would still find value in the BOM. Bishop and executive secretary said they would leave the church if they weren’t real. High councilman and the other councilor said it would not bother them at all.
The polygamy issue is hard to throw nuance into. I think Jonathan Stapley’s book did more than any book I have read in explaining the context around sealing. That to me is the key to understanding Joseph’s and Brigham’s justifications of polygamy. I don’t think an angel appeared to either one of them telling them to take additional wives, but they weren’t above exaggerating an experience to move the church in the way they thought it needed to go. I have a feeling this line of thinking would not go over well in SS, so I would just stick to “Yeah, God told us to do it.”
Happy Hubby, the story that Ballard told is from decades ago. It’s appeared in many of his talks, with the earliest I can find (right now) being a December 1996 Ensign article. In that article, he explains that the kid he was talking to was one of his former missionaries from when Ballard was president over the Canada Toronto mission. The kid came to Ballard “some years later.” Ballard served as president from 1974 to 1977. The incident he described was likely in the 1980s. His answers at that point wouldn’t cut it today. What’s fascinating is that the earlier accounts of the story almost always included the moral that the kid said he learned, “Give the Lord equal time.” Over the years, that moral got dropped in a lot of the retellings. I suspect that the Brethren don’t want people giving equal time to both sides – just use the sources that they tell you are safe.
I can see why LDS leaders are reluctant to make that jump from B to L, for if they do, their religion is no different than any other religion; claims of exclusivity ring hollow in such a scenario. It’s why they shift the narrative, redefine terms, obfuscate history, and tell you it’s always been this way.
As long as bolstering exclusive truth and authority claims is the goal, the path one takes to get there is largely irrelevant.
lefthandloafer.
this i do not understand. people saying they left the church because they were lied to. but they don’t leave america or their jobs.
seriously, what corporation isn’t full of lies and evil?
what country is not full of lies and damages its citizens?
i would like some consistency in peoples reasons for leaving the church.
or at least say “im leaving my religion because i won’t tolerate any lies in a religion”
“but my employer can be evil and my country too”
Mary Ann – thanks for the context. That almost always helps understand things better.
Cody – Are you saying LDS leaders are reluctant to tell the members to, “Go to L”?
😉 Sorry – I couldn’t resist. Please pity my kids that have to put up with me all the time (but I have rubbed off on several of them).
I don’t usually like commenting on things like this generally, because I come off as a crank for whom nothing is good enough except total repudiation of past doctrines, total clarity, etc. I will say that, like other efforts, this one falls short. As someone whose first awareness of politics was the Watergate scandal, I suppose I feel like changing or shifting narratives really make me suspicious of whoever is doing the storytelling. As Mary Ann points out, there seems to be an awareness on the part of leaders that prior explanations or stories aren’t now “good enough”, but that still implies to me that all of this is a carefully gauged and employed strategy. I think that in this case, the church is trying to see how close to the actual truth it can get without losing its core members. It reminds me a bit of politicians being held captive by their base and so never actually doing anything new or progressive or effective for anyone but their base. And Cody is absolutely correct. Make no mistake: The church’s primary goal here is to protect its reputation and its truth claims as much as possible while APPEARING to be genuinely interested in telling the truth. They are definitely all about obfuscation and hemming and hawing when it suits their purpose. This is the reason that church leadership has, IMHO, lost any claim to moral authority. One of the Twelve, I think, claimed that they’re being as “transparent as they know how to be” and I think that’s a telling phrase. They’re not being absolutely truthful and transparent; they’re prevented from doing so by their desire to protect the church’s dominant narrative and truth claims, which means, indeed, that they’re being as transparent as they can, but not truly transparent.
Ruth: Ouch ouch ouch. A very incisive point. Though honestly, there’s so much official doublespeak around the priesthood ban that it’s still in the area of “plausible deniability.” But you’re right, I think racism becomes harder to justify than patriarchy in an ironic and poison result of patriarchy itself: we’re still invested in a family model that places the male as head of household, but we’re no longer invested in a worldview that automatically places people of African descent at the bottom.
Brother Sky: I’m absolutely with you. What would be the harm in the church offering an actual, official, meaningful apology for something? Their statement on the Mountain Meadows Massacre was solid, perhaps in part because it only spoke to conduct and not the actual prophetic authority of any leadership. Would an apology about the priesthood ban really be so damaging to certain segments of our membership that they’d be unable to continue in faith? I don’t think we lost a big contingent of members in Southern Utah after the MMM apology.
“I think that in this case, the church is trying to see how close to the actual truth it can get without losing its core members”
But, the reality is, theyhave nothing to fear, they won’t lose their core members. (As we’ve seen in other areas of our “society” of late), the core is very devout, not troubled by behavior that others might view as immoral or questionable.
Way past time to just rip the bandaid off and put it all out there. Own it.
I’m not thrilled that most of this discussion discusses how to foster a radical shift in longstanding Mormon teachings (e.g. seeing the BOM as inspired and no longer necessarily historical) without first asking whether such a shift is both ethical and grounded in reason.
When people quote God won’t let the church be led astray, I consider this:
One way we might look/frame it is, the way in which Joseph Smith practiced polygamy was so far off the farm that God allowed him to die at the hands of those who opposed him. The only problem with that framing is explaining why polygamy continued after Joseph Smith.
Truckers Atlas: I acknowledge your feelings. For me at least (after years of research and study) – when I finally asked myself “if it was possible that the Book of Mormon was really just a faith based allegory (maybe inspired, maybe not) my mind and heart were finally calm and peaceful. Just, for whatever its worth.
Brother Sky and Lois, just curious. What historical issues do you think are contained in the “Band-aid” Lois speaks of? There are people (though few in number) who believe nothing short of the Church leaders admitting Joseph Smith made everything up and dissolving the Church will suffice. I assume neither of you believe that to be necessary so, in your opinion, how far yet does the Church have to go to be acceptable in how it teaches its history? A related question is how much of the bad history should be taught to investigators? I’m thinking, for example, of the priesthood ban. We’ve had several new members of African descent baptized into our ward in the last three years. Is it incumbent on the missionaries to ensure they were aware of the ban before joining or is it the responsibility of the investigator to vet the Church’s history before joining?
“One way we might look/frame it is, the way in which Joseph Smith practiced polygamy was so far off the farm that God allowed him to die at the hands of those who opposed him.”
I agree, Lois. I also attribute Harold B. Lee’s unexpected death to his unwillingness to bend on the racial issues.
“The facts of polygamy are ugly, and so it’s likely God wasn’t the author of all that confusion.”
This. I don’t think the LDS Church will ever fully arrive into the 21st century until we fully and unequivocally repudiate plural marriage, including vestiges of eternal polygamy that are still being practiced by the two most senior leaders of the Church.
Thank you, Jack. Even as a young man, I remember thinking “what kind of a God would introduce (and force) polygamy on his people? I’ve NEVER believed that this practice was from God and consider it to be a putrid cancer on Mormonism.
I’m kinda/sorta ashamed of Presidents Oaks and Nelson for their rather blatant practice of polygamy: regardless of their words to the contrary.
I was disappointed by the statement in the Face to Face that nobody was forced into a polygamous marriage. I think Emma would disagree. It’s hard to consent to marriages that you don’t know about. Also, D&C 132 basically states that a woman’s consent counts for nothing, and her refusal to consent will result in her destruction. A lot of women (and men) were pressured into plural marriages. The statement made during the Face to Face implied that all involved freely chose to participate, which I don’t believe was the case.
This is getting away from the Face to Face OP, but just for the record, I’m not at all ashamed of those men’s second marriages. But I think women’s second marriages should be treated the same way.
Lefthand, honest question. If you don’t believe polygamy is of God (and I’m not sure I do either), then wouldn’t you presume neither Nelson’s nor Oaks’ sealings to multiple spouses are efficacious? that would make them merely remarried to second spouses after the death of the first, hardly something to be ashamed of. Or do you just disapprove of remarriage after one spouse’s death? Or is it that they think of themselves (factually incorrectly in your opinion) as polygamists? Or is it that they’ve tricked/trapped their second wives in marriages that cannot last for eternity? Or is it something else entirely?
The biggest problem facing the church and its faithful members is NOT the difficulties in its history. But in how the church has framed its truth claim contrary to that difficult history.
If I am reading this article correctly that is the core point. And I would adamantly agree.
What has historically been taught in sunday school flies in the face of what real mormons experience when they step outside the walls of the chapel each and every day. If the church will adjust its sunday school narrative as well, it will go a long way from keeping faithful members from being blindsided in the real world, where we all live.
Congratulations to the church on the effort. 2 steps in. 1,000 more steps to go.
“A related question is how much of the bad history should be taught to investigators? “
Had to laugh when I saw this. Two weeks after I met with my bishop to explain to him why I was leaving the church, he called me in to let me know the ward mission leader (why him I have no idea) said that I should be called to be the Gospel Essentials teacher. Yes, the one to teacher investigators in Sunday School.
The bishop related the strong feelings this brother had and he then agreed.
What makes this even harder to understand was that when I had met with the bishop to explain my exit I told him I believed Joseph Smith was a liar, among other things.
So I guess how much bad history should be taught to the investigators depends, in part, on the bishop.
Not a Cougar: Thanks for your questions. Speaking only for me, I’d like to see a more intellectually honest approach, one that at least opens the door to the possibility of the church acknowledging the true historical record (when it’s clear) or being more willing own past or current mistakes. We all make errors, just as we all sin, so to me, it makes an institution MORE trustworthy when it admits its mistakes, owns them, then apologizes, just as it counsels its members to do. I suppose it’s too much to ask a church (or any other institution) to be completely objective about things, but the Saints volume still smacks of apologetics rather than rigorous examination. When talking about the first vision, for example, it talks about how Joseph Smith sought help writing down what he experienced because it was so powerful. Fair enough, but it doesn’t directly address the contradictions of the first vision statements, among other things how many people he saw. I’d just like a bit more honesty about stuff like that, rather than fudging. And, if we’re honest about things, we’d be even more likely to walk in faith, like the scriptures say, instead of insisting upon the official, “true” version of events. Insisting that things are true when they aren’t provable is just a bad idea, IMHO. How hard is it to just say, “honestly, we have no idea about some of this stuff, it’s a matter of faith”?
And I think investigators should learn all they can about the church before joining it. It would scare some away, but the ones who get baptized after knowing the warts-and-all version of Mormon history I would think would be much more likely to stick around.
The problem with your proposition is that it is completely contrary to what has been taught, as absolute doctrine, regarding the history. The Book of Mormon can’t be “kinda true”, or the First Vision “kinda real”, or nuanced, etc., because every Prophet, Apostle, etc. in the Church has stated without ambiguity, that these things are absolutely, 100%, really, literally, completely true and valid. There’s no wiggle room, even though a ton of LDS people sure would like there to be. That’s why it will never work, because ironically the Church has painted itself into corner from which there is no escaping.
Thanks Bro. Sky. That, so That.
raw garlic,
I have often heard this question brought up. To me it does not seem equal – at all.
The US never promised me that my taxes would get me into the top heaven.
I see the US (in sputters and sprints) moving towards better morality. Sure it isn’t perfect. We have had Slavery, been cruel and poorly treated women, minorities, nationalities, and other groups such as gays. Over time there has been tremendous progress. In all of these I see the US pulling the church to catch up with the church kicking and screaming all the while the church adamantly telling their members, “we are right, God is on our side, THEY are bad.”
The US allows introspection and self-critique. I can take out a full page add in most any newspaper and say that I really dislike a policy or law and we need to change it without serious repercussions such as being deported. In fact in many cases you will actually be seen as a “Good” citizen for doing so. Do what Sam Young is doing and you see the consequence is in the church.
I still feel even with the above that I have not really figured out the core of why I see these two being compared a false equivalency. It just feels to me like, “You need to ignore problems and just get in line.”
And if you talk about an employer, I assume most would agree that if you are not paid – you are free to leave. If one feels that the church seems to be falling short of an organization of God, should we tell them to stay put? Should we tell the Catholics that are disgusted with the profound sex-abuse issue to just stay in their religion because nobody is perfect? Should we ask the missionaries to be spreading that as a message?