Church begins inoculation efforts on historical issues

[cowboy]

Really good post, JL.

Ditto. The best post in this thread.

[jay santos]

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?

Arm's length transaction.

[Non Sequitur]

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.

That is well articulated and is the rationale I employed for half my life, but our religion is a religion based on the concept of belief. Belief is at the core. It is fundamental. That is what frustrates those who are struggling. I can tell you that there were times on my mission that I felt like a huckster explaining the tithing thing. Omission is fine when you're talking about solid members protecting their investment, but it's a different thing entirely when you're presenting the religion to initiates or the newly converted. It's like Carfax.

[RC Vikings]

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?

I think many feel like JS like a direct line with God and everybody after him not so much.

[jay santos]

re: concealment or fraud

This isn't as big of a deal to me as it is for many, but I think it's a valid issue. Joseph concealed polygamy from Emma, the church, and the world in general. Yes, polygamy became open, but at least in my lifetime (I don't really know about whether or not this is the case in Brigham's era, I kind of doubt JL's assertion that it was common knowledge), the sexual nature of Nauvoo polygamy has not been common knowledge in the church. Up until just a few years ago, LDS apologists would argue that whether or not Joseph's polygamous marriages were sexual or not is unknown. Since the hiding of it was started by Joseph himself, it makes sense that the church would make at least a little effort to make this public knowledge or at least easier to access it, or at least know that it's endorsed by the church and we shouldn't assume it's all anti-Mormon lies. This essay is good. But before this, I think it's fair to say the church has some blame in perpetuating the concealment of all this information.

[Jeff Lebowski]

re: concealment or fraud

This isn't as big of a deal to me as it is for many, but I think it's a valid issue. Joseph concealed polygamy from Emma, the church, and the world in general. Yes, polygamy became open, but at least in my lifetime (I don't really know about whether or not this is the case in Brigham's era, I kind of doubt JL's assertion that it was common knowledge), the sexual nature of Nauvoo polygamy has not been common knowledge in the church. Up until just a few years ago, LDS apologists would argue that whether or not Joseph's polygamous marriages were sexual or not is unknown. Since the hiding of it was started by Joseph himself, it makes sense that the church would make at least a little effort to make this public knowledge or at least easier to access it, or at least know that it's endorsed by the church and we shouldn't assume it's all anti-Mormon lies. This essay is good. But before this, I think it's fair to say the church has some blame in perpetuating the concealment of all this information.

Why is that a stretch? At that point in time, the church was 100% pro-polygamy, so promoting the JS tie to polygamy would provide a form of validation (kind of the inverse of what we see now). And like I said, there was a very public feud with the Reorg church regarding the JS origin of polygamy.

BTW, another thing that puzzles me about people who are surprised to learn that polygamy originated with JS. Have they not read D&C 132?

[Solon]

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

I agree with the gist of your well-articulated thoughts here and above, but there might be a little bit of room to push back based on the church's general disapproval of "outside" sources. While it may not have been a coordinated attempt to obscure historical developments, the disapproval of the Signature Books crowd created a nearly Byzantine level of insularity & self-affirmation, not to mention an appearance of paranoia.

Obviously, a certain amount of this is systemic - the LDS church derives its identity from its history more than most churches. I don't know any Catholics who get offended when people point out the scientific impossibility of transubstantiation, or feel attacked when someone slams Pope Leo X's excesses.

Clearly the Index of Prohibited Books never really worked for the Catholics. The byu has some crazy-smart people who could write a much better inquiry into these types of issues. Why not unleash the Kraken and see what they can do?

[Green Monstah]

Thanks, JL. I just typed up a 2-page response, but I think I can condense it into a few sentences. First, I don't think there's much real estate between how I think we should handle JS issues and how you think we should handle JS issues (you may disagree, but your response has convinced me otherwise).

I hope I can illuminate my position based on an experience I had on my mission. My last baptism on my mission was a black man. I spent 4.5 months teaching him once or twice a week, and he finally asked me to be baptized a week before I went home. I was elated, but knew I had to discuss the priesthood ban with him. I knew that knowledge of the ban would affect him in a different, more fundamental way than it did me (born in church, lily-white). I was scared to death, but I spilled the beans. I presented the information as I understood it, and quite frankly told him I didn't think it was legitimate, but that there were members who did. To my surprise, he pushed forward with the baptism.

I'm not naive enough to think that's the typical response. Similar to being transparent on JS, there will be mixed results. It may be dirtly laundry, but as a church we make belief in JS as a prophet a foundational tenet of faith. It's not Adam-God, it's not polygamy. Shoot, it isn't even tithing, and WOW--it's more fundational than that. I have no doubt that the essays will result in lost faith, resignations, unsuccessful conversions, but it's a step toward honesty, and it's the right thing to do. My ideal is the course set by the CoC. I know the LDS will move slower than CoC will, and I'm okay with that. We don't need protection from the truth anymore, because the truth is there to be found with a few keystrokes.

The essays are the right idea. I echo the words of Jason Nelson-Seaborn who gave the polygamy essays an A+++ grade for institutional progress, and D grade for content. We need to stop obfuscating. I can't imagine a God who would condemn a person for taking issue with the host of historical dillemas the LDS Church is facing. It will take a generation or two from now before the active body of LDS can internalize and process unsavory information, but it has to happen eventually. Just as I don't revoke my US citizenship because the founders set forth an explicitly racist, sexist constitution, I don't revoke my membership in the LDS Church. It can progress through transparent discourse and honesty and by continually reinforcing the positive consequences of the institution. I hope it does, notwithstanding some of the entrenchment rhetoric we hear from the GAs.

NOTE: so much for a few sentences, but this is still the reader's digest version.

Edit: removed reference to MLM, because I'm not sure the analogy is entirely fair or helpful.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with the gist of your well-articulated thoughts here and above, but there might be a little bit of room to push back based on the church's general disapproval of "outside" sources. While it may not have been a coordinated attempt to obscure historical developments, the disapproval of the Signature Books crowd created a nearly Byzantine level of insularity & self-affirmation, not to mention an appearance of paranoia.

Obviously, a certain amount of this is systemic - the LDS church derives its identity from its history more than most churches. I don't know any Catholics who get offended when people point out the scientific impossibility of transubstantiation, or feel attacked when someone slams Pope Leo X's excesses.

Clearly the Index of Prohibited Books never really worked for the Catholics. The byu has some crazy-smart people who could write a much better inquiry into these types of issues. Why not unleash the Kraken and see what they can do?

That's a fair response.

Thanks, JL. I just typed up a 2-page response, but I think I can condense it into a few sentences. First, I don't think there's much real estate between how I think we should handle JS issues and how you think we should handle JS issues (you may disagree, but your response has convinced me otherwise).

I hope I can illuminate my position based on an experience I had on my mission. My last baptism on my mission was a black man. I spent 4.5 months teaching him once or twice a week, and he finally asked me to be baptized a week before I went home. I was elated, but knew I had to discuss the priesthood ban with him. I knew that knowledge of the ban would affect him in a different, more fundamental way than it did me (born in church, lily-white). I was scared to death, but I spilled the beans. I presented the information as I understood it, and quite frankly told him I didn't think it was legitimate, but that there were members who did. To my surprise, he pushed forward with the baptism.

I'm not naive enough to think that's the typical response. Similar to being transparent on JS, there will be mixed results. It may be dirtly laundry, but as a church we make belief in JS as a prophet a foundational tenet of faith. It's not Adam-God, it's not polygamy. Shoot, it isn't even tithing, and WOW--it's more fundational than that. I have no doubt that the essays will result in lost faith, resignations, unsuccessful conversions, but it's a step toward honesty, and it's the right thing to do. My ideal is the course set by the CoC. I know the LDS will move slower than CoC will, and I'm okay with that. We don't need protection from the truth anymore, because the truth is there to be found with a few keystrokes.

The essays are the right idea. I echo the words of Jason Nelson-Seaborn who gave the polygamy essays an A+++ grade for institutional progress, and D grade for content. We need to stop obfuscating. I can't imagine a God who would condemn a person for taking issue with the host of historical dillemas the LDS Church is facing. It will take a generation or two from now before the active body of LDS can internalize and process unsavory information, but it has to happen eventually. Just as I don't revoke my US citizenship because the founders set forth an explicitly racist, sexist constitution, I don't revoke my membership in the LDS Church. It can progress through transparent discourse and honesty and by continually reinforcing the positive consequences of the institution. I hope it does.

NOTE: so much for a few sentences, but this is still the reader's digest version.

Edit: removed reference to MLM, because I'm not sure the analogy is entirely fair or helpful.

I am all for more openness too. And I also think that the Jason Nelson-Seaborn analysis was spot on.

[SCcoug]

Jason Nelson-Seawright

[Green Monstah]

Jason Nelson-Seawright

My bad.

[Northwestcoug]

I think JL is spot on that the church's current areas of focus/deemphasis is mostly an organic process. I do think, however, that the evolution of the church's doctrine does have the top leaders' fingerprints on it. When it was important to emphasize polygamy, this was done in an official manner. When this was no longer part of official doctrine, the first vision and other foundational claims became more important to be emphasized. If the church ever welcomes gays and lesbians in full fellowship, the church will again deemphasize what is doctrine now, and we will see it evolve into something else.

Concerning polygamy, I doubt it will be completely dropped from doctrine any time soon. Right now it seems the church has two competing interests. It really wants to forget everything about polygamy and leave it behind. But it also wants to make sure everyone knows that it was absolutely God's will that it happened, and whatever mistakes were made practicing or ending it were all man's fault.

These two interests are irreconcilable. Let's argue the possibility that polygamy was just one huge mistake and wasn't sanctioned by God. As long as polygamy is still official doctrine, it is not going away from the limelight, no matter how many press releases the church issues. There is a reason why it continually causes headaches with each successive generation, even though it was officially abandoned over 100 years ago. It's because in it's current iteration, the church will not sanction an alternative viewpoint that it was a mistake. It can not explore the possibility that its prophets misinterpreted God's will. It can't revise the doctrine and covenants and delete section 132. It can't deal with the ramifications that numerous prophets and apostles couldn't see past their own loyalty to earlier teachings to get correction from God. This is understandable; ~70 years of the church's claim to divine direction is based squarely on polygamy.

Reading JL's post made me cut the church some slack about it's dirty laundry. The essays are overall a positive thing, even though it showcases the very worst of apologetics. But in the end, some people will not be able to read 132 and believe that God would actually be behind all that. Most will be able to do it with faith that there was some weird reason behind it all, but some won't. That's where I'm at. I think I would feel comfortable actively participating in church, even as a non-believer, if it would start moving toward a historical viewpoint that the Community of Christ has adopted. But that seems like a tall order given where the LDS church is at currently.

[SteelBlue]

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'm with you here, Jay. I'm never going to accept this angel and a flaming sword explanation as valid, and so I've come to my own personal conclusions, that work for me, as to what this means overall.

[Uncle Ted]

BTW, another thing that puzzles me about people who are surprised to learn that polygamy originated with JS. Have they not read D&C 132?

I think a lot of that has to do how the church "whitewashed" JS Jr as being next to perfection. They talk about that a bit in the podcast I mentioned above. I think folks get blown away to learn that JS Jr may have committed full adultery with Fanny Alger and may not have been as prefect as the lessons implied he was they had in seminary and sunday school.

[jay santos]

Why is that a stretch? At that point in time, the church was 100% pro-polygamy, so promoting the JS tie to polygamy would provide a form of validation (kind of the inverse of what we see now). And like I said, there was a very public feud with the Reorg church regarding the JS origin of polygamy.

BTW, another thing that puzzles me about people who are surprised to learn that polygamy originated with JS. Have they not read D&C 132?

I don't think it's a HUGE stretch, I just am a little doubtful.

We're talking specifically about whether Joseph's plural marriages were sexual, not whether he introduced polygamy. I agree, the latter was commonly known and accepted and spelled out right in the D&C. I don't know if it was commonly known that the marriages were sexual. Seems to me that that knowledge would have trickled down and still be common knowledge.