Should the LDS Church provide membership with full details of its history?

[SoonerCoug]

This is all about the Church's business model.

Right now, the Church is going with the smallish-but-fanatical business model. The maximum size of the Church under this model is probably more limited, but the current model has the advantage of maintaining a devoted core of believers who will pay their tithing on schedule.

The alternative business model is the larger-but-lukewarm model. If the Church were to educate members more about its history, you could alienate the core while providing much more room for growth. Many young people who grow up in the Church would be innoculated and less likely to leave the Church when they discover its history as adults. Although you could weaken the devout core under this model, the honesty might actually create more potential to attract converts. That's the way I see the issue.

[Spicy McHaggis]

So if you had all the dirty laundry up front you wouldn't be a full-fledged heretic? If so, why not?

Perhaps I would still be a heretic, but most of us who were brought up believing one thing, only to find out there is an entire different "truth" about it, receive quite a shock to the system.
It becomes very disapointing and depressing to discover the real history.
Why shouldn't we find out the truth, up front?
I believed it with all my heart. I couldn't wait to go on a mission. I turned in my papers 3 months before my 19th birthday.
As I said, it becomes very depressing to discover I believed under false pretenses. For example, the BoA-papyrus. The deceipt followed by the ensuing spin to somehow get people to continue to believe JS came up with the BoA without actually using the papyrus.....he was simply "inspired" by the papyrus, etc.
JS made it perfectly clear that he translated the papyrus.

There are far too many issues to list hear and now.

The deceipt and cover up of the MANY issues will just create apostates when the believer digs around to discover they were never told the truth.
I have to fake it for my family. There are a LOT of fakers who attend every Sunday.

They need to stop hanging the "truth" banner and start hangind the "church is really good most of the time" banner.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Perhaps I would still be a heretic, but most of us who were brought up believing one thing, only to find out there is an entire different "truth" about it, receive quite a shock to the system.
It becomes very disapointing and depressing to discover the real history.
Why shouldn't we find out the truth, up front?
I believed it with all my heart. I couldn't wait to go on a mission. I turned in my papers 3 months before my 19th birthday.
As I said, it becomes very depressing to discover I believed under false pretenses. For example, the BoA-papyrus. The deceipt followed by the ensuing spin to somehow get people to continue to believe JS came up with the BoA without actually using the papyrus.....he was simply "inspired" by the papyrus, etc.
JS made it perfectly clear that he translated the papyrus.

There are far too many issues to list hear and now.

The deceipt and cover up of the MANY issues will just create apostates when the believer digs around to discover they were never told the truth.
I have to fake it for my family. There are a LOT of fakers who attend every Sunday.

They need to stop hanging the "truth" banner and start hangind the "church is really good most of the time" banner.

CUF is a good place to discuss these issues. Some have found a balance between belief and reality, or have found a nice niche as ward heretic.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I think we are at the beginning of the post-correlation age by the way.

There have been some signs that rough waters were ahead: The BoA issues that go back to the late 1960s, Hoffman, the fundamentalist longing for authenticity that spurs events like the polygamy excommunications in Manti, the CES problem, and FARMS are just some of them.

I'm of the right age that FARMS started me down the non-correlated path in the early 90s. In so many ways, FARMS is unsucessfully reacting to problems that B.H. Roberts pulled together all those years ago. Anyone who has read Studies of the Book of Mormon knows about the elephants that FARMS pretends aren't in the living room.

In 1993 I started my "files." They contain material that up to that point were only known on the closely kept Mormon intellectual scene. I started as an apologist missionary who could really, really bash. Over time, I've evolved into a convergent Mormon mystic who now knows that the apologist-anti arguments usually miss the boat. I've also discovered that I've grown spiritually even as I've cast off the Church's exclusive claims.

My academic training is in communications, with an emphasis in emerging media. I've followed how the Church has been trying to deal with emerging media. While I don't think its fair to say the Brethren are out of the loop, I do think the Church is moving too slowly. It takes time to move the ship--too much time, I believe.

We may very well follow a path similar to the CoC, although there will be a heavy price paid. Innoculated Mormons will probably find the Church a friendlier place over the next 30 years--some intellectually troubled less actives will return to the fold. TB Mormons have some fevers in their future (actually, more than a few are coming down with them now), and there are apt to be splinters, reversions to fundamentalism, and maybe even a schism like there hasn't been since the RLDS Church was founded in 1860.

One of the things that is fun about CUF is the mix of reactions to the growing pressures. It's a microcosm of the North American Church (with TB Mormons underrepresented). I like what BCC is doing too.

It's a fun time to be Mormon if you can get your head and heart around what's going on. Frustrations with fundamentalist reversion and ridiculously insistent correlation aside, I'm having a ball being heterodox, but orthoprax. CUFers need each other. I've loved UD's and Rosebud's posts in this thread.

[Moliere]

Why shouldn't we find out the truth, up front?

I have to fake it for my family. There are a LOT of fakers who attend every Sunday.

So you think the church should be upfront but you aren't upfront with your family?

[Moliere]

So listened to all four parts of the interview today and it more or less blew my mind. I think I have a new paradigm for viewing the modern church. But to your point, yes I think correlation was achieving its goal very well until the internet age arrived which was more or less like the Titanic hitting an iceberg. Correlation only works when the correlated materials are the only source of information. It is a correlated upbringing couple with the flood of uncorrelated material that has been so hard for so many.

I think I could start ten new threads based on that interview, but for now I'll just toss out my favorite quote which contrasts the church of Joseph and Brigham with the correlated church:



I think we are at the beginning of the post-correlation age by the way. It will be interesting to see what shape it takes.

Good response and I agree that there are many things to discuss and we should start those threads every once in a while.

I still think correlation was a mistake, or at least a mistake as far as it was taken. I have no issues with the church establishing a single set of doctrine and standardizing that doctrine. The main issue I have is that the church began to really filter everything, and not just the lesson material. THe most troubling story I remember was when church members were trying to do the play called "I am Jane" and certain actual historical events were required to be taken out before they could do the play. I think if it truly is history, the facts should be known and let the people decide how to react to it.

[All-American]

I'm still a little unclear with what you mean by "provide." Do you mean giving members full access to the information they seek, or are you arguing that the church should assume an affirmative duty to teach its members the "full details" of its history?

[Indy Coug]

I'm still a little unclear with what you mean by "provide." Do you mean giving members full access to the information they seek, or are you arguing that the church should assume an affirmative duty to teach its members the "full details" of its history?

That's the issue, IMO. The church could throw out all of these "problematic" historical items, but in what context? There's a lot of blank filling for these thorny issues; who thinks that the church knows how to fill all of those blanks?

If the church goes down that path, attempts to fill in those blanks and that blank filling is found to be insufficient and/or erroneous, does that just exacerbate the problem?

[Sleeping in EQ]

That's the issue, IMO. The church could throw out all of these "problematic" historical items, but in what context? There's a lot of blank filling for these thorny issues; who thinks that the church knows how to fill all of those blanks?

If the church goes down that path, attempts to fill in those blanks and that blank filling is found to be insufficient and/or erroneous, does that just exacerbate the problem?

I don't believe it would exacerbate the problem. It would show good faith and would give the Church a sense of "This is our best knowledge of these things right now. We can move forward knowing this."

The Church should let faithful, but qualified scholars do the work of fitting text with context. That is, after all, a scholarly endeavor. It would also allow Church leaders to get out of the box of pretending to know more than they do, while these same leaders say almost nothing. You shouldn't have to be a scholar to be a Church leader, but at the same time Church leaders should affirm that God does work through his scholars and that Church leaders would oversee the process.

The problem from a leader's POV is a loss of control. But then, leaders are losing that anyway.

Frankly, most all Church leaders have as much to learn about these subjects as do the rank and file. This is one of the reasons why correlation has functioned more like constipation. It's time for the laxatives.

[Goatnapper'96]

I'm still a little unclear with what you mean by "provide." Do you mean giving members full access to the information they seek, or are you arguing that the church should assume an affirmative duty to teach its members the "full details" of its history?

As Mike Waters used to say the ecclesiastical leaders have been usurped by the historians. I don't think the LDS Church needs to undertake a huge endeavor of clearing up misconceptions or teaching its history. Church history taught in ecclesiastical environments should continue to focus upon faith inspiring history. That is fine and appropriate for the context. I do think the Church should be more open about its archives to both friend and foe of the Church. If legitimate academics want access, grant it.

The bigger issue is the internal struggle within the membership, IMO. I believe the most base cause is the mistrust of those not LDS. Some of this is bridged when believing academics publish work that is acceptable in the secular world while shedding light on the various issues at hand, but this issue will continue for some time. Personally, I think that once the Church opens the archives and no longer sends any confusing messages from the leadership wrt openness, the issue will depart in a generation or two. The availability of information will force all members to confront the issues at some point in time. My guess is those who believe it, and enjoy their participation, will stay and those who don't will leave, batshit crazy prediction there I know! I also predict that the types who beat this drum so frequently will find something else to pull string over.

[Goatnapper'96]

I don't believe it would exacerbate the problem. It would show good faith and would give the Church a sense of "This is our best knowledge of these things right now. We can move forward knowing this."

The Church should let faithful, but qualified scholars do the work of fitting text with context. That is, after all, a scholarly endeavor. It would also allow Church leaders to get out of the box of pretending to know more than they do, while these same leaders say almost nothing. You shouldn't have to be a scholar to be a Church leader, but at the same time Church leaders should affirm that God does work through his scholars and that Church leaders would oversee the process.

The problem from a leader's POV is a loss of control. But then, leaders are losing that anyway.

Frankly, most all Church leaders have as much to learn about these subjects as do the rank and file. This is one of the reasons why correlation has functioned more like constipation. It's time for the laxatives.

I don't think the Church needs to affirm God works through his scholars. I think the Church needs to stand by a clarification that scholarship is just that and ecclesiastical leadership is just that. Let the scholars do scholarly things and let the ecclesiasticals do ecclesiastical things. It could even lead to the BYU maybee making it to Pac-12 acceptance and nirvanna someday! WEE!

[UtahDan]

It's a fun time to be Mormon if you can get your head and heart around what's going on. Frustrations with fundamentalist reversion and ridiculously insistent correlation aside, I'm having a ball being heterodox, but orthoprax. CUFers need each other. I've loved UD's and Rosebud's posts in this thread.

Interesting thoughts SIEQ. I agree that turning the church is like turning an aircraft carrier around. And I think we are only at the very beginning stages of the brethren recognizing the fall out of "correlated" members coming into contact with so much uncorrelated material. I think the response for a long time has been a dismissive one but that approach doesn't work when so much information is now available from non-antagonistic sources.

One thought that I have been tossing around is that idea that correlation as applied seems to be synonymous with sanitization, but I can think of no reason why it must be. I think another of Smith's excellent insights is that the church as it is delivered to us through the official materials has become a very scripted sort of thing where the point is to learn and be able to say the right answer rather than ask the right question. I think one possible solution here is a shift toward saying, on a variety of fronts, that the church cannot through its materials or from the pulpit provide all of the answers but that what it can confidently do is point people to the example of Joseph Smith who asked God. Not just ask if something was "true" but actually asked for help in learning an answer (I don't find that to be too fine a hair to split). In other words, correlate your core beliefs and rather than try to defend very difficult ground simply say that some things are mysteries but that God is the ultimate source for answers. Some things the church just won't endeavor to answer. It will disturb a lot of people to learn that all of the answers don't actually exist within the COB or at FARMS, but isn't that what is happening already?

The only alternative is to retrench into even more strident and forceful apologetics, which on many topics are less satisfying the more one knows about the topic. I think that is a bad way to go.

I don't foresee us becoming the CoC any time soon, but it will be interesting to see what correlation looks like by the time our generation begins to control the church. As for whether fundamentalism will get a bump out of these changes, I assume so but how much is anyone's guess. One of the interesting things about Smith is that unlike most who are highlighting problems, he at least claims to have fundamentalist leanings (he doesn't state it that way, but suggesting in his interview that the consecration is something we gave up without enough of a fight is hard to read any other way).

[Sleeping in EQ]

I don't think the Church needs to affirm God works through his scholars. I think the Church needs to stand by a clarification that scholarship is just that and ecclesiastical leadership is just that. Let the scholars do scholarly things and let the ecclesiasticals do ecclesiastical things. It could even lead to the BYU maybee making it to Pac-12 acceptance and nirvanna someday! WEE!

What you suggest would affirm that God works through scholars. I think there is a need for such an affirmation, as more than a little anti-scholarly rhetoric has been bandied about for a couple of generations now. Church leaders have had an obsession to control scholarly work. They've shut down the archive and hassled scholars who didn't toe the line (and even as leaders really didn't know the pieces in play).

One way to look at the problem is that it is a result of pride. Church leaders not wanting to admit they don't know things, but insisting on intense control of curriculum anyway, and scholars not wanting to admit they don't know things and reacting with "certainty" against anti-intellectualism amongst the leadership.

Put simply, the valuable but unbalanced work of people like Quinn is very much a result of pride on all sides.

What I'm suggesting would give the Arringtons of our time their due and would allow leadership to loosen up in a way that is healthy for everybody concerned.

[UtahDan]

Good response and I agree that there are many things to discuss and we should start those threads every once in a while.

I still think correlation was a mistake, or at least a mistake as far as it was taken. I have no issues with the church establishing a single set of doctrine and standardizing that doctrine. The main issue I have is that the church began to really filter everything, and not just the lesson material. THe most troubling story I remember was when church members were trying to do the play called "I am Jane" and certain actual historical events were required to be taken out before they could do the play. I think if it truly is history, the facts should be known and let the people decide how to react to it.

When he explained that Lee began his correlation crusade in response to the fact that the various organs of the church had become very powerful, and increasingly isolated from one another, and were producing materials that were not consistent with one another that rang really true. It makes it clear that the intentions were very good and that there was an effort there to prevent literal schism as various organs of the church taught versions of Mormonism that were different in real ways (though apparently President McKay voiced his concerns at the time that this effort was a moder counsel of Nicea). That was actually very cool to me to get a clear idea of why it was done, and that it really was not an attempt to white wash. The problem is that this is what it became and once non-correlated, non-anti materials became widely available those two world were set on a collision course for each other.

[jay santos]

Over time, I've evolved into a convergent Mormon mystic who now knows that the apologist-anti arguments usually miss the boat.

SIEQ, we talk past each other in most forum threads, and it's probably not the right time to get into it, at least for me.

But here's what I think about your statement. I think you're generally very evasive with what you really believe while making occasional statements, like the one I quote here, that are actually very strong and very clear.

What you're saying is the apologists and anti's are arguing over black and white. Apologists say BOM is ancient record, JS saw God, BoA is account of Abraham. Anti's say BOM is not ancient record, JS didn't see God, BoA is fiction.

Here's what I hear you saying. It doesn't matter. God may or may not exist. If he does, all roads lead to Rome. If he doesn't, well that doesn't matter either. JS believed in God and had good intentions. Or he didn't. Doesn't matter. Nothing matters. Only how it makes you feel. Both the apologists and anti's would say it's a bunch of new age BS.

I'm not ready to say what I think of that opinion. My faith is evolving. I might end up in the same place.

But here's a problem I have with the approach. The apologist view is well defined and understood. The ground rules are there and we can break it down and analyze it. Same for the anti view. But this middle view you seem to be arguing for (and go ahead and tell me if you think I completely miss the boat) is completely hidden, intentionally vague and ambiguous, and impossible to analyze. If we define it and put some assumptions and structure to it and kick it around and analyze it, we might decide it's equally illogical. Let's define it and keep pushing for a logical end.