“Why didn’t the Church teach me this stuff?”: "I’ve not been overly patient when newly-minted apostates complain that the Church hasn’t taught them about Joseph Smith practicing polygamy, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, accounts of the First Vision beyond the one canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith’s using a stone in a hat during the translation of the Book of Mormon, and so forth.
First of all, many of these things have been taught by the Church. The four items above, for example, are, respectively, (1) obviously implicit in Doctrine and Covenants 132 (what on earth is it talking about in the early 1830s, if not plural marriage?), (2) discussed in Seminary and Institute manuals, (3) published in Church magazines and in books printed and distributed by the Church’s wholly-owned publishing company, and (4) mentioned in at least one General Conference talk that I can think of just off the top of my head.
I don’t fault people for not being scholars. I’ve publicly lamented the fact that the Saints by and large don’t know their scriptures and their history better than they do, but I know and readily admit that many such members of the Church are far better Saints and disciples of Christ than I am. What I object to, though, is when certain people loudly abandon their faith, claiming that the Church kept such things from them. This simply isn’t true."
'via Blog this'
I like Dan Peterson's blog. I find interesting information there. He is insightful. We mostly agree on politics. But on this issue, I just think he is totally wrong. I endorse Bill Reel's comments in this thread.
The church obscured a number of topics from the view of the average church member, including Fannie Alger, the secret practice of polygamy, polyandry, peep stones, and treasure seeking. As Reel says, you could learn about these topics, but not in any official church publication. The church was happy for church members not to learn about them. Not only that, but church members were generally warded off critical sources exploring these topics as anti-Mormon literature analogous to "spiritual pornography." Of course there are faithful members who write on these topics, too, but it is very unlikely you would ever come across the information without a church critic introducing you to the topic.
I wouldn't say the failure to deal with these issues is a "lie," but it's certainly misleading. In the legal profession, the model rules of professional conduct prohibit applicants not only from lying, but also from "fail[ing] to disclose a fact necessary to correct a misapprehension. . ." The Gospel Principles manual uses a similar definition.
The church has been failing to disclose a number of facts necessary to correct misapprehension on the part of members. I suspect this happens in part because people in the church may not be aware of the real history, although, certainly there are historians creating church curriculum who have decided to include all the faith-promoting stories and skip all of the troubling ones.
I think another reason we skip certain topics is we just don't have good answers to the questions.
I'm glad about recent church efforts to deal with these topics openly--although honestly, I think the internet and social media have forced the issue. Members that feel like they were deceived because they didn't know about these topics earlier are justified in their feelings. Telling all the faith-promoting parts of church history and skipping all the parts that detract from that story is not being totally honest. Even a lawyer could tell you that.
9 comments:
I can see your (and Bill’s) point, but where would you place the culpability? I’m sure there were plenty of prophets and apostles along the way who knew about these issues, but I’m guessing there were some who did not. Until recently you had to be a bit of a scholar to find these things out, and not all of them were scholars.
If you were a leader who was aware of these issues, what motivation would you have to make the general church membership more aware of them? This information certainly changes some of the stories we tell, but does it change church doctrine? And where would you insert it into the curriculum? Missionary discussions? Gospel doctrine class? Seminary and youth curriculum? Primary?
If you concede to the skeptic that they have a basis for their offense, what else are you conceding? That Joseph was a fallen prophet? Never a prophet? That church leaders can lead you astray? Would it put you in a similar camp as the Ordain Women and John Dehlin movements? I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case, I’m honestly curious about your thoughts on the matter.
Do you feel a responsibility to teach these tough topics to your children? If yes, at what age?
If you polled your ward, elders quorum, etc., what percentage do you think would be familiar with the recent essays on lds.org?
"I can see your (and Bill’s) point, but where would you place the culpability? I’m sure there were plenty of prophets and apostles along the way who knew about these issues, but I’m guessing there were some who did not. Until recently you had to be a bit of a scholar to find these things out, and not all of them were scholars."
True. But I think this only confirms the church's role in the concealment of these issues. The reason you had to be a scholar, was because these topics were not addressed in any Church materials. And there was really no way to happen upon these topics until the invention of the internet. You would have to go looking for the topic, without having any indication the topic existed. The only real way to know about the topic would be to read something critical of the church. But to do that would be to disregard counsel about avoiding anti-Mormon literature.
"If you were a leader who was aware of these issues, what motivation would you have to make the general church membership more aware of them?"
The primary motivation should be to give an accurate view of early church history and the development of our doctrine.
The secondary motivation would be to avoid these issues being introduced in a negative light, and then have the problem compounded because not only do the issues exist, but they had previously been obstructed from view.
"This information certainly changes some of the stories we tell, but does it change church doctrine? "
Well, it depends on the issue. Certainly, the early practice of polygamy and polyandrous sealing raises a host of questions about temple sealings and the doctrine associated with them.
And where would you insert it into the curriculum? Missionary discussions? Gospel doctrine class? Seminary and youth curriculum? Primary?
I would say a member probably should know about most, if not all, of these topics before he gets out of high school. Certainly we ought to talk about the way the book of Mormon was translated when we talk about the translation process. We can talk about treasure seeking when we read the portion of the first vision narrative that mentions that. Polygamy could be discussed as part of the new an everlasting covenant lesson. etc.
"If you concede to the skeptic that they have a basis for their offense, what else are you conceding? That Joseph was a fallen prophet? Never a prophet? That church leaders can lead you astray?"
When we hide troubling or difficult facts, aren't we implicitly conceding that they are a basis of offense? Aren't we saying, essentially, "these facts are troubling and we can't explain them in faith-promoting way, so it's best if you don't know about them"? That's my fear. The true church ought to be able to withstand some critical scrutiny.
Also, I suspect that many people agree that conceding mistake in treatment of church history necessarily means the church isn't true--that if the institution is flawed then the gospel is also flawed. But that isn't the case, and we shouldn't play into that false dichotomy. We talk a lot about how the prophets are not perfect people, but then reflexively don't want to admit they ever make mistakes.
A good argument doesn't ignore facts that go against your position. Instead, the argument explains why those facts are either (1) irrelevant, not important, not determinate of the issue or, even possible (2) bolster the client's case. Sometimes there is a way to reinterpret the facts to help your case.
"That church leaders can lead you astray? "
This is a difficult question. I tend to think the church can lead us astray. For example, I don't think the prohibition on blacks receiving the priesthood was doctrinal sound or even good policy.
I tend to think what that means is that God will not hold us responsible for following the prophet, should he tell us something incorrect. Alternatively, you could narrow what it means to be lead astray to mistakes about major doctrinal issues--like misleading about first principle of the gospel.
Admittedly, however, these interpretation are in tension with some church leaders' talks which imply that the brethren will never make a mistake on any issue. I have a hard time squaring that interpretation with past church practices that I think were probably incorrect.
"Would it put you in a similar camp as the Ordain Women and John Dehlin movements? I’m not saying that’s necessarily the case, I’m honestly curious about your thoughts on the matter."
The OW movement has a philosophical dispute with the church over what it should mean to be "equal." OW has taken a secular view of what it means to be "equal" and are imposing it on church practice. I think most non-OW members would say women in the church are perfectly equal, based on their own concept of the term.
If equal means equal control over church government, then the church is not equal because men certainly have more control over church government. But if equal means something else--Equal in the sight of God, or engaged in an equally worthwhile cause, then they are equal.
In my view, the church is on firm footing when it fights these philosophical attacks, because philosophy is always rooted on some sort of premise that cannot be proved. The church, in contrast has a fact-based argument for why its philosophical position should be respected--it was revealed from God.
This is in contrast to historical facts, which are out there, and which need to be dealt with honestly, instead of hidden.
I would guess 1/3 know about the recent essays.
Post a Comment