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

[ERCougar]

My MIL works for the institute at SUU (as sort of an admin assistant). I guess one of the teachers here was just reassigned to some big CES job in SLC and has been charged with redoing all of the CES curriculum, from seminary through institute. His chief direction--more specific outlines as to what exactly is to be taught, right down to the specific stories to be shared.

I have no idea how true this is, as it's coming third-hand through two sources (my MIL and wife) who aren't necessarily sticklers for details, but that would seem a move in the opposite direction from what anti-correlation people would like. I actually don't have any problem with this if it manages to eliminate some of the crazy stuff put into kids' heads through seminary teachers (I can tell you firsthand that the curse of the Negro is still alive and well in modern seminary classroom teaching).

[UtahDan]

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 think these are great questions and the real nuts and bolts of figuring out the problem. But let me just give one example. In the correlated church we have taught about Joseph having the first vision, it being this great watershed in the history of man kind and in the restoration, and present a single story of how this happened.

Many people have then been bothered when they find out that there are several version of the first vision, that at least facially they are not totally consistent, and that this watershed moment was not even know within the church until (if I have my facts right) 1837. That means that missionaries were out all over the place preaching the BOM and had no idea there had been a first vision experience.

But to me, the truth here is not that hurtful. This could be taught to explain that at some point, we are not clear when, he had this experience. It was an experience that it took him years to understand and it is clear that his understanding of it grew over time. We are not sure why he was so reticent about it, but at the right time he shared it in a forceful way. The church teaches that this was an event that happened and if people wish to understand it better themselves, they should ask God for insight.

I don't think the church has to fill in all the blanks. But I think it can matter of factly say "here is what we know, here is what we believe based upon that, here is why we think it is beautiful, but we don't have all the answers on this topic and we encourage people to ask the Lord if they find they want more answers."

[UtahDan]

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 think this is right. I really believe that the brethren are very well intentioned and that for the most part they have only a very cursory understanding of why some issues are "problems." That information was not available to them in their formative years and now as spiritual leaders and busy administrators they don't have time for leisurely scholarly pursuits. Youth is the laxative.

[ERCougar]

I think these are great questions and the real nuts and bolts of figuring out the problem. But let me just give one example. In the correlated church we have taught about Joseph having the first vision, it being this great watershed in the history of man kind and in the restoration, and present a single story of how this happened.

Many people have then been bothered when they find out that there are several version of the first vision, that at least facially they are not totally consistent, and that this watershed moment was not even know within the church until (if I have my facts right) 1837. That means that missionaries were out all over the place preaching the BOM and had no idea there had been a first vision experience.

But to me, the truth here is not that hurtful. This could be taught to explain that at some point, we are not clear when, he had this experience. It was an experience that it took him years to understand and it is clear that his understanding of it grew over time. We are not sure why he was so reticent about it, but at the right time he shared it in a forceful way. The church teaches that this was an event that happened and if people wish to understand it better themselves, they should ask God for insight.

I don't think the church has to fill in all the blanks. But I think it can matter of factly say "here is what we know, here is what we believe based upon that, here is why we think it is beautiful, but we don't have all the answers on this topic and we encourage people to ask the Lord if they find they want more answers."

I'm not sure I agree with your example here. In teaching the First Vision, the Church is trying to tell the story of the Restoration, either to prospective members or to current members, 90% of whom don't really care about the historical record. Do we really restructure the teaching to cater to the 10% (if even that high)? Shouldn't those 10% be bright enough to figure out a way to reconcile things?

I need to listen to the podcast, but I guess I just don't see the huge problem. 10 years ago--yes. But now we have sites like CUF (and T&S et al) where a faithful questioning Mormon can go to find other faithful questioning Mormons. Those who have the internet savvy to find the anti-Mormon should be able to find these sites too, I would think. At least if they want to.

[UtahDan]

I'm not sure I agree with your example here. In teaching the First Vision, the Church is trying to tell the story of the Restoration, either to prospective members or to current members, 90% of whom don't really care about the historical record. Do we really restructure the teaching to cater to the 10% (if even that high)? Shouldn't those 10% be bright enough to figure out a way to reconcile things?

I need to listen to the podcast, but I guess I just don't see the huge problem. 10 years ago--yes. But now we have sites like CUF (and T&S et al) where a faithful questioning Mormon can go to find other faithful questioning Mormons. Those who have the internet savvy to find the anti-Mormon should be able to find these sites too, I would think. At least if they want to.

It is a cost benefit analysis. I think the 10% number is low and I think in coming years that is going to be a much larger as more and more people learn more on the internet. In any event, why lose even one person to feeling like they were deceived when the truth is not going to bother anyone and will be just as effective in teaching the principle?

[beefytee]

I'm not sure I agree with your example here. In teaching the First Vision, the Church is trying to tell the story of the Restoration, either to prospective members or to current members, 90% of whom don't really care about the historical record. Do we really restructure the teaching to cater to the 10% (if even that high)? Shouldn't those 10% be bright enough to figure out a way to reconcile things?

I need to listen to the podcast, but I guess I just don't see the huge problem. 10 years ago--yes. But now we have sites like CUF (and T&S et al) where a faithful questioning Mormon can go to find other faithful questioning Mormons. Those who have the internet savvy to find the anti-Mormon should be able to find these sites too, I would think. At least if they want to.

Why have 2 separate classes of Gospel Principles/Doctrine (Whatever it's called) and Gospel Essentials then.

I don't know that the split is 90-10.

To elaborate. There have been times I haven't wanted to delve into things and preferred going to Gospel Essentials. Right now, I'm attending the regular Sunday school class.

[ERCougar]

Why have 2 separate classes of Gospel Principles/Doctrine (Whatever it's called) and Gospel Essentials then.

I don't know that the split is 90-10.

To elaborate. There have been times I haven't wanted to delve into things and preferred going to Gospel Essentials. Right now, I'm attending the regular Sunday school class.

That's a good point. I actually thought as I was posting, why not have an advanced class where people can discuss this stuff if they want?

Here's my objection to it. Inevitably, as I ponder things like the Kinderhook plates and why we have no archaelogical hints at the BOM civilizations, I come back to the thought that I just want to be a good person, a good father and husband, kind to the patients I treat (even--especially--the ones I don't like), and a good citizen. That's plenty on my plate and the Church is a pretty good vehicle to do that. I fear that if we get away from the basics, I'll just be annoyed at the inadequate answers that we can't really discuss in any depth because of the format of a large group discussion.

[Pheidippides]

I'm not sure I agree with your example here. In teaching the First Vision, the Church is trying to tell the story of the Restoration, either to prospective members or to current members, 90% of whom don't really care about the historical record. Do we really restructure the teaching to cater to the 10% (if even that high)? Shouldn't those 10% be bright enough to figure out a way to reconcile things?

I need to listen to the podcast, but I guess I just don't see the huge problem. 10 years ago--yes. But now we have sites like CUF (and T&S et al) where a faithful questioning Mormon can go to find other faithful questioning Mormons. Those who have the internet savvy to find the anti-Mormon should be able to find these sites too, I would think. At least if they want to.

I agree with this, with the internet. Frankly, I'd prefer it if Church focused less on history and more on simple doctrine. Atonement. Salvation. Mission of Jesus Christ. And so on. I don't go to church to debate the finer nuances of polyandry. I go to church to learn to be a better human being and to worship God/Jesus.

[Indy Coug]

I agree with this, with the internet. Frankly, I'd prefer it if Church focused less on history and more on simple doctrine. Atonement. Salvation. Mission of Jesus Christ. And so on. I don't go to church to debate the finer nuances of polyandry. I go to church to learn to be a better human being and to worship God/Jesus.

My faith is very utilitarian.

[UtahDan]

I agree with this, with the internet. Frankly, I'd prefer it if Church focused less on history and more on simple doctrine. Atonement. Salvation. Mission of Jesus Christ. And so on. I don't go to church to debate the finer nuances of polyandry. I go to church to learn to be a better human being and to worship God/Jesus.

Respectfully old pal, you can do that at any church. You are a member of a church that makes a claim of authority and bases that claim on historical events. I don't see how we can ever divorce our teaching and our worship from our past and not lose what makes us unique. To me the question is, how do you present it in a way that uplifts and highlights its truth and beauty without mythologizing it to such a degree that people stumble when they learn there is much more to the story than they have been told.

[Pheidippides]

My faith is very utilitarian.

Which is not to say, btw, that I think the church should hide the ball historically. I don't think they can "come clean" inasmuch as nobody really knows what happened back in the day (they're all dead!) but I think Seminary or other extra-church places are a better place to learn that stuff. I certainly don't expect Catholics, for example, to devote a portion of mass to the Spanish Inquisition.*




*Of course, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

[Indy Coug]

Respectfully old pal, you can do that at any church. You are a member of a church that makes a claim of authority and bases that claim on historical events. I don't see how we can ever divorce our teaching and our worship from our past and not lose what makes us unique. To me the question is, how do you present it in a way that uplifts and highlights its truth and beauty without mythologizing it to such a degree that people stumble when they learn there is much more to the story than they have been told.

From my perspective, I have a spiritual witness that the core doctrines of the church are true which has been repeatedly reinforced by the application of those doctrines in my life. For me, that renders most of this stuff that people wring their hands over as nothing more than academic exercise, rather than a fundamental, indispensable part of the search for spiritual truth.

You can't find these doctrines and be taught how they all fit together "at any church".

[Pheidippides]

Respectfully old pal, you can do that at any church. You are a member of a church that makes a claim of authority and bases that claim on historical events. I don't see how we can ever divorce our teaching and our worship from our past and not lose what makes us unique. To me the question is, how do you present it in a way that uplifts and highlights its truth and beauty without mythologizing it to such a degree that people stumble when they learn there is much more to the story than they have been told.

I'm not sure we are as unique as we claim, frankly. I do see your point, and understand the difficulty there. But JS himself said that the fundamental beliefs of our religion are that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected on the third day - and everything else is just ancillary mishmash (I'm paraphrasing, but not much). I think we have mythologized so much that it dominates the fundamentals that we should be learning and pondering, to our detriment.

It's easy to throw peanuts from the gallery, though, especially without offering much concrete in the way of change.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I agree with this, with the internet. Frankly, I'd prefer it if Church focused less on history and more on simple doctrine. Atonement. Salvation. Mission of Jesus Christ. And so on. I don't go to church to debate the finer nuances of polyandry. I go to church to learn to be a better human being and to worship God/Jesus.

This approach devalues both exclusivity and the notion of a restoration in a dispensation of the fullness of times. It is popular with those who advocate a simpleton's approach.

There are plenty of moral lessons that you can apply to your life from situations like polyandry. Beware of the false dichotomy!

There are no easy solutions, and what you advocate seems to work for some Mormons.

[Moliere]

That's a good point. I actually thought as I was posting, why not have an advanced class where people can discuss this stuff if they want?

Here's my objection to it. Inevitably, as I ponder things like the Kinderhook plates and why we have no archaelogical hints at the BOM civilizations, I come back to the thought that I just want to be a good person, a good father and husband, kind to the patients I treat (even--especially--the ones I don't like), and a good citizen. That's plenty on my plate and the Church is a pretty good vehicle to do that. I fear that if we get away from the basics, I'll just be annoyed at the inadequate answers that we can't really discuss in any depth because of the format of a large group discussion.

By using the term "providing" I'm not saying (maybe others are) that we should have church lessons around the Kinderhook plates or around whether polygamy was right or wrong. We can continue to discuss doctrines of the Gospel and we can discuss the correlated version of the First Vision and sprinkle in some historical tidbits. There is so much to learn in just faith, repentance, baptism, HG, atonement, and commandments that we can easily fill up church time with these topics and help people be spiritually uplifted and lead better lives.

What I want is for the correlation of everything to stop, including church plays, study groups, access to archives, etc. For instance, a group of black Mormons wanted to put on a play that talked about an early convert ot the church that was black. The script had to go through the correlation process and they were required to take out portions that didn't fit the correlated materials even though these portions are a part of known history. I guess the church didn't want those in attendance at the play to find out that JS did in fact ordain a black man to the priesthood as this might give the impression that maybe the church was wrong for many, many years in regards to the priesthood ban.