Church begins inoculation efforts on historical issues

[SoonerCoug]

I'm not sure what you all are talking about because I'm writing from my iPhone and it's hard to read pages and pages of posts since I don't have the 6 plus yet.

let me just say that a famous scientist / acquaintance of mine is retiring at age 82. And he looks extremely old. He worked in the lab till the end, but his productivity really dropped over the last few years. He has helped put Church leaders into better perspective for me.

The Church is led by elderly men who are not at their best. It's really tragic. This is the single greatest factor limiting the Church's ability to deal with difficult issues and move forward into the future. I've called some of them senile at times, and I stand by the terminology. But I think they have one of the toughest jobs in the world. I'm sure some of them want the Church to tell the whole truth but are worried that the devout will take it too hard. It's never easy to admit when you've been wrong, so the Church has chosen to avoid admitting fault and now it is catching up with them.


They need to institute a mandatory retirement age at 80 or so. Prophet emeritus. Etc.

[Green Monstah]

Thanks. I will try to be more kind going forward. But let me explain a bit. When you call an apostle bat-shit-crazy and say that the some of the GA's are cowards because they approach their faith differently than you, don't be so offended with a little pushback. And let's take the Elder Christensen thing as an example. After his talk, you said that he was "bat-shit crazy" then you made some comment about nuance. I made a short response saying something about your bat-shit-crazy label perhaps not being a good example of nuance. You then launched into your double-down marathon. At no point did I ever defend the talk (I think it was a nutty but relatively harmless idea). My only comment was to take exception to your label and then count your responses. OK, maybe I shouldn't tease you about doubling down, but I am still surprised that you would seem to be so perturbed that I pushed back on your characterization.

I will still get to your other question. I have some thoughts on that. (time to check the ribs)

I have been having fun with that. The DD ticker was humorous...especially after my H&M debacle (I'd never heard of the store before visiting CCC).

Contrary to the tone if many of my posts, I actually love the church and want to find a way to be happy within it.

[San Juan Sun]

I actually love the church and want to find a way to be happy within it.

Unknown-21.jpeg

[SoonerCoug]

You guys really should be on twitter.

image.jpg

[Moliere]

You guys really should be on twitter.

Twitter is so 2012, which is when it was monopolized by lame news people (much like the middle-aged moms took over Facebook in 2011). Most cool people are on Instagram now....

[SCcoug]

Twitter is so 2012, which is when it was monopolized by lame news people (much like the middle-aged moms took over Facebook in 2011). Most cool people are on Instagram now....

Which is now owned by facebook.

[Jeff Lebowski]

OK GM, here is my answer to your questions earlier today. You stated that the church has committed “fraud by omission” and suggested that missionaries are under some kind of moral obligation to explain JS polygamy/polyandry to potential converts. I don’t think this is a realistic expectation. But before we get to that, let’s explore the question at a more fundamental level. We frequently hear people claim that the church has deliberately lied to its members or more specifically, that there has been some kind of coordinated conspiracy to keep members in the dark regarding its true history. While I am completely sympathetic to the circumstances and emotions that would motivate someone to make that claim, I don’t think it is a realistic or fair assessment. That is because I don’t think there has been any kind of coordinated effort at concealment. Rather, I think we got to where we are through a purely organic process.

Regarding polygamy, I think the church has gone through three phases: First, we practiced it in secret and publicly denied it (i.e., lied). This started out as a fairly small group but grew to a much larger group once we moved out west. Eventually it became a very poorly kept secret so we stopped lying about it and went public. Then we went through a fairly long period when polygamy was one of our defining characteristics. At this time, I doubt there were any members that were ignorant of JS polygamy/polyandry. In fact, the church engaged in very public back-and-forth with the Reorganized Church where we argued (and gathered hard evidence) that JS implemented polygamy. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this effort led to much of the historical record we currently have on polygamy’s origins. Then the manifesto came out and over a period of a few decades we gradually backed away from polygamy (it was not an instant change). Eventually, we came to identify polygamy as that odd thing that happened a long time ago, but (thank heavens) we don’t do it anymore. Oddly enough, we are now at a point where most members are largely ignorant of something that was common knowledge in the church 150 years ago.

So how do we go through these transitions? Just like any religion, Mormonism has a foundational narrative. Our foundational narrative includes golden plates, the JS vision in the sacred grove, etc. Just like any religion, that narrative is formulated by the body of believers. People that don’t buy into the narrative either don’t join the church or they leave. It is the active believers that by and large define the narrative. So it is perfectly natural that the narrative will evolve over time and it will mostly tend to emphasize faith-promoting stories and de-emphasize or ignore dirty laundry. That is not a conspiracy, it is simple human nature. People tend to celebrate and repeat and talk about things that inspire them, not the ugly stuff. In the recent (pre-internet) era, some people would dig up the nitty gritty historical details about early polygamy. Some would lose faith and leave. Others would process it and move forward, but did not make a great effort to broadcast that information loudly among fellow believers. This is partly because airing dirty laundry is awkward and uncomfortable and it gets people upset. And partly because of the calculus they used to process the information is that the good of the church outweighs the bad, therefore why cause drama and stir things up? To use a personal example, I have known about much of this stuff for as long as I can remember, but I have never felt it was a good idea to dump it on a Sunday school class or priesthood quorum. Private conversation? Absolutely. Large gatherings? No way. It just seems to me like that would be tactless and rude. It would be the equivalent of going to a wedding dinner and standing up to the mic and telling awful stories about the bride or groom. Bad form.

Now, to consider your examples. You seem to express some bitterness about how your leaders reacted to your doubts. But if your claim about this stuff mostly being known only by academics and historians, why would you be surprised if they didn’t know about it? If most members don’t know about it, why would local leaders know about it? They aren’t magically different from the rest of us. They are just the poor saps who agree take on some tough callings. Furthermore, you have expressed some anger and disillusionment from dealing with this information. Why wouldn’t you expect them to experience some of the same difficulties? In other words, their denying the information you shared could be part of their initial stage of processing this information (denial). Rather than imply they are part of a conspiracy, why not cut them some slack and empathize with their situation?

As to your missionary question, no I don’t think missionaries should air all the dirty laundry as part of the discussions. While that may satisfy some people who are itching for a kind of ethical retribution, it is a silly idea. Present the church in the best light possible and explain why it brings joy to your life. If difficult questions are raised regarding history, answer it as best you can and move on. It is a form of religious marketing, not some academic church history education campaign.

Of course, we are now experiencing a strange new era where the internet makes all information accessible in seconds, so we have waves and waves of people exposed to the dirty laundry and struggling to deal with it. How is the best way to navigate this? Really tough question. I suppose these essays are as good a place to start as any. But I think the best and healthiest strategy for dealing this would be the approach described in this essay written by the president of the Community of Christ:

http://www.cofchrist.org/OurFaith/history.asp

You could argue that we are moving in this direction, but it is a slow and bumpy ride.

[scottie]

OK GM, here is my answer to your questions earlier today...

Really good post, JL.

[Uncle Ted]

The fundamental problem I personally have with the polygamy history of the church is the huge lack of agency. First, it seems to me that JS Jr's agency was limited by angel with a sword. If I had an angel with a sword dictating to me what I needed to do then I would have surely made less mistakes in my life.

It seems that Emma's agency was limited by the revised version of the "Law of Sarah" (as described in the 132 section of the D&C). At least BY tried to fixed this by making it easier for women, especially those involved in polygamous marriages, to get a divorce. Of course, it seems that women that did divorce were treated as "black sheep" in the community of the church. Of course, divorced (or unmarried) members are still somewhat treated as black sheep in the church today.

The agency of the young girls that JS Jr and others married was limited. Instead enjoying the best years of their lives they instead were thrown right into marriage that most likely included sex with a man that may be twice their age given the primary reason for polygamy given by the essay and section 132 was having kids to be raised up in the church. In fact, it seems that these young women were kind of sold as property. For example, the following unpublished revelation (now published by BYU) seems to indicate that the Lord was giving the salvation of families for their daughter's hands in marriage to JS Jr, if this revelation is true:

PART 59
A Revelation to Newel K. Whitney given through the Prophet Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, Illinois on July 27, 1842.

1. Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant Newel K. Whitney,
2. The thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes,
3. And shall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house, both old and young because of the lineage of my Priesthood, saith the Lord,
4. It shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the holy promise which I now make unto you, saith the Lord.
5. These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and our daughter Sarah Ann Whitney.
6. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say
7. You both mutually agree, calling them by name, to be each other’s companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others, and also throughout all eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal authority in times past.
8. If you both agree to covenant and do this, then I give you Sarah Ann Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition.
[...]

http://books.google.com/books?id=2M-...tput=html_text

I am glad the church is finally to the stage they can talk about this more openly. Of course, the church has wronged many historians by excommunicating them for publishing well documented articles on this and other subjects relating to the church, taking away much of their agency as well.

[jay santos]

The fundamental problem I personally have with the polygamy history of the church is the huge lack of agency.

That's not the issue I have with it, at all.

The issue is the sketchiness. A prophet receiving revelation that commands young girls of his flock to have sex with him is 100 on the sketchiness scale for prophets starting a new religion.

When you add the flaming sword story to this, it takes the sketchiness level up even higher. It also turns upside down the new apologist angle that creates a plausible story for various difficult issues. BOM anachronisms? Loose translation. Book of Abraham problems? Catalyst theory. It took 150 years to fix the racist priesthood doctrine? The prophets are human and doing the best they can. Terryl Givens is carving a view of the church and a definition of a prophet that is going to work. It will allow church members to say "that was f***ed up. but it's OK."

I think most Mormons, even those with pretty fundamental views, are OK saying "yeah Joseph might have messed that up" when it comes to polygamy. But, with the Terryl Givens approach, it's OK for a prophet to mess stuff up. God fixed it. We're not doing it anymore. No harm, no foul. In my eyes, that's the only possible answer.

The flaming sword story doubles down on it. If you accept that, then you're forcing Joseph into being a liar or deluded. And then, what else was he lying or delusional about. Not only that, but what does it say about God? How often does God send an angel to threaten people? Are we really going with the angle that forcing Joseph into polygamy was the most important things God has ever had to do? All the times he hasn't come with an angel with flaming sword and chose that time to do it? It's a bad path. I think church should have fought to reject the whole flaming sword part of it.

[Uncle Ted]

That's not the issue I have with it, at all.

The issue is the sketchiness. A prophet receiving revelation that commands young girls of his flock to have sex with him is 100 on the sketchiness scale for prophets starting a new religion.

When you add the flaming sword story to this, it takes the sketchiness level up even higher. It also turns upside down the new apologist angle that creates a plausible story for various difficult issues. BOM anachronisms? Loose translation. Book of Abraham problems? Catalyst theory. It took 150 years to fix the racist priesthood doctrine? The prophets are human and doing the best they can. Terryl Givens is carving a view of the church and a definition of a prophet that is going to work. It will allow church members to say "that was f***ed up. but it's OK."

I think most Mormons, even those with pretty fundamental views, are OK saying "yeah Joseph might have messed that up" when it comes to polygamy. But, with the Terryl Givens approach, it's OK for a prophet to mess stuff up. God fixed it. We're not doing it anymore. No harm, no foul. In my eyes, that's the only possible answer.

The flaming sword story doubles down on it. If you accept that, then you're forcing Joseph into being a liar or deluded. And then, what else was he lying or delusional about. Not only that, but what does it say about God? How often does God send an angel to threaten people? Are we really going with the angle that forcing Joseph into polygamy was the most important things God has ever had to do? All the times he hasn't come with an angel with flaming sword and chose that time to do it? It's a bad path. I think church should have fought to reject the whole flaming sword part of it.

I haven't read Terryl Givens' book but maybe I should.

I agree but I have to wonder why the church just doesn't come out and say it was a mistake (and it was actually quite messed up), we are sorry, and we are trying to do better going forward (what SIEQ said). The current path the church is taking seems to be making it worse given the amount of holes in the apologist's explanation of everything like how it completely goes against everything the church has taught about agency as I mentioned above. The entire thing seems closer to Satan's plan instead of Jesus' plan.

[RC Vikings]

OK GM, here is my answer to your questions earlier today.

Well done

[Northwestcoug]

OK GM, here is my answer to your questions earlier today....

Really good post, JL.

[ERCougar]

I'm going off of memory so I may be wrong, but to say that there was no coordinated concealment of Joseph Smith's polygamy is...well, generous. Didn't Joseph F Smith deliberately take out any official account from the official church history while he was historian (this is where I'm fuzzy...)? But beyond that, what about William Law? I heard plenty of stuff about William Law growing up, in official places, but never a word about polygamy. Doesn't that seem like a coordinated concealment? Or why is it that Brigham Young's polygamy is common knowledge but Joseph Smith's is far from it (I'm not so convinced that all or even most members know about this)? I don't want to get into a semantics argument over the meaning of "conceal", but the effects of whatever the church sure look like concealment. I don't expect the church to air its dirty laundry (part of why I think these essays are such a bad idea), but if it's going to educate every member about William Law, then not mentioning the most important facet of the conflict goes beyond that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm going off of memory so I may be wrong, but to say that there was no coordinated concealment of Joseph Smith's polygamy is...well, generous. Didn't Joseph F Smith deliberately take out any official account from the official church history while he was historian (this is where I'm fuzzy...)? But beyond that, what about William Law? I heard plenty of stuff about William Law growing up, in official places, but never a word about polygamy. Doesn't that seem like a coordinated concealment? Or why is it that Brigham Young's polygamy is common knowledge but Joseph Smith's is far from it (I'm not so convinced that all or even most members know about this)? I don't want to get into a semantics argument over the meaning of "conceal", but the effects of whatever the church sure look like concealment. I don't expect the church to air its dirty laundry (part of why I think these essays are such a bad idea), but if it's going to educate every member about William Law, then not mentioning the most important facet of the conflict goes beyond that.

It is not my argument that the church has always been honest about its history. Heavens no. My point is that if you look at the entire arc of Mormonism and analyze how we got to where we are today, the general ignorance you see regarding issues such as polygamy/polyandry is more of an organic process than it is a coordinated program of misinformation/concealment (certain individuals and exceptions notwithstanding - JFS was particularly notorious). Religions evolve and grow by emphasizing certain things and de-emphasizing others. I suppose I could have shortened my essay to a one-liner: "Religions that focus solely on promoting truth as opposed to a favorable narrative don't last very long."

The JS vs BY polygamy thing has always baffled me. Why on earth would it make a difference if it was the second prophet as opposed to the first prophet? And how did this notion start? Seems like it is one of those folklore things like the "not valiant in the preexistence" explanation for the priesthood ban. Or maybe it is partly because polygamy was practiced on a much larger and more public scale in early Utah. Who knows?