Hammer Away!

[_Fence Sitter]

snip

MacKay (or Bishop if you prefer),

First let me say thanks for your considered responses and what I see as a refreshing approach on these issues from a person in your position. I am not sure how this approach would be viewed throughout the church but I believe the long term effects would be a greater strength in the faith and understanding of the general membership. I am not of the opinion that the Church should drastically change what and how they are teaching their members, especially in regards to its early history. However it would be a step in the right direction if conflicting views were allowed some freedom within a church setting. It sounds like that is a position you hold.

Regarding the special pleading for David Whitmer and the other witnesses. We agree, I believe, on the events surrounding his departure of the church. It is the concept that God allowed this to happen or even encouraged it to happen by way of commanding David Whitmer to leave so that his “utility as a special witness” to the Book of Mormon would be enhanced that I see as special pleading. I see no evidence that this is the case for David Whitmer or any of the other witnesses.

If you are going to mention that Joseph Smith had 26-33 wives would you also mention that some of those women were already married? If not, why would the number of wives be more significant than their marital status?

[_McKay Jones]

I think the evidence that I am correct is the way members react when they learn the details left out in level A history.

That hasn't been my experience at all. I find that most "naïve" chapel Mormons (for lack of a better term, although it has cachet and accepted meaning here), when introduced by something they have never heard about that is strange and unsettling to them, simply put it in the "head scratcher" file and continue on without much thought. Much to critics' and malcontents' chagrin. The best example of this is Levi Hancock's specific reaction in his journal to what Joseph Smith said about Zelph: "I could not comprehend it, but supposed it was alright" (quoted in Rough Stone Rolling, p. 241).

By the way, who mentioned the embarrassing details in GC? I would like to read that talk since I haven't heard about it.

It was Elder Russell M. Nelson, quoting a description by David Whitmer of the translation process (Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign (July 1993), 61).

"Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."

Anyway, it's never seemed very important to me whether Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using one rock in a hat or two rocks in a bow. Big diff.
Great. Make that point to the correlation committee the next time they decide to revise the manuals so that the rest of the Church can be enlightened that it was no big diff.

I think Dr. Peterson makes a very good point. Why do critics and malcontents fixate on "rock-in-a-hat" as somehow being much weirder than the conventional Urim and Thummim? Why, exactly, would one rock in a hat be any worse than two rocks in a bow?

I sincerely feel sorry for such members who believe themselves to have been betrayed. I don't agree that they have been, but I understand the feeling.

If you don't think they have been betrayed, why would you have any sympathy for them or understand how they are feeling? Perhaps because you really can see why they think they were betrayed (because all the difficult and embarrassing stuff was suppressed their entire life).

Perception becomes people's reality. Feeling betrayed means (to them) that they were betrayed, even if they weren't. Why can't people sympathize with, empathize with, and understand why people can feel betrayed, even if they don't agree that they were?

[_McKay Jones]

McKay (or Bishop if you prefer)

Mckay is fine. I'm not your bishop (at least, that I know of) . . . :)

I am not of the opinion that the Church should drastically change what and how they are teaching their members, especially in regards to its early history.

That's how I feel as well, although I would like more robust history in our manuals. I understand that thw wheels are turning slowly towards that end, but in the meantime, people are going to have to do their own reading and thinking and not expect to be able to outsource it to the Church. Which is probably as it should be.

However it would be a step in the right direction if conflicting views were allowed some freedom within a church setting. It sounds like that is a position you hold.

I think that simply being able to cope with the expression of conflicting views would do a lot for people. That is, being able to express doubts, befuddlement, concerns, etc. in an atmosphere of faith and support would really help struggling people, and probably would have saved some people who have abandoned ship. I think people who know me have always felt that they can talk about what's on their mind and have a discussion, without me sticking my head in the sand or chastizing them (but also being able to receive information, counsel, and helpful clarification).

Regarding the special pleading for David Whitmer and the other witnesses. We agree, I believe, on the events surrounding his departure of the church. It is the concept that God allowed this to happen or even encouraged it to happen by way of commanding David Whitmer to leave so that his “utility as a special witness” to the Book of Mormon would be enhanced that I see as special pleading. I see no evidence that this is the case for David Whitmer or any of the other witnesses.

I agree, and I hope I didn't give the impression that I think this is the reason that God told him to separate himself. It was certainly a tangible result of this, and accrues to the Church's advantage, but I think personally that it was better for David and better for the local Church in the long run. I'm not worried at all about David's chances at exaltation, in other words, even though he died outside of the covenant.

If you are going to mention that Joseph Smith had 26-33 wives would you also mention that some of those women were already married? If not, why would the number of wives be more significant than their marital status?

Well, remember that I said I would only mention the number if it came up. It's pretty certain to come up, because you have to teach the basic idea of commanded polygamy (cf. the section heading), and anybody who's thinking at all is going to wonder how many wives besides Emma Joseph married.

The polyandrous or teenage marriages are a completely different thing altogether, I think. I would only address them in a class setting if they were brought up. We really don't know why these happened (although we all have our ideas), and we don't know how Joseph saw them. Attempting to provide the necessary context would consume the entire class period (or more), precious time that should be devoted to the more important topic of the new and everlasting covenant and the place of celestial marriage (of which authroized plural marriage is only a subset) in it.

I have covered polyandry and teenage wives in much more detail in a stake fireside setting (I presented one on "Can Mormon prophets stand up to scrutiny?," and covered "false prophecies," polygamy, and the priesthood ban). I also have had more than one combined 5th Sunday meeting that was devoted to an anything goes Q&A, and our most recent stake conference also had an open Q&A in the adult session. I think venues like these are much more appropriate for covering these types of things than gospel doctrine class.

[_Fifth Columnist]

I think the evidence that I am correct is the way members react when they learn the details left out in level A history.

That hasn't been my experience at all. I find that most "naïve" chapel Mormons (for lack of a better term, although it has cachet and accepted meaning here), when introduced by something they have never heard about that is strange and unsettling to them, simply put it in the "head scratcher" file and continue on without much thought. Much to critics' and malcontents' chagrin. The best example of this is Levi Hancock's specific reaction in his journal to what Joseph Smith said about Zelph: "I could not comprehend it, but supposed it was all right" (quoted in Rough Stone Rolling, p. 241).

The fact that the new information is strange and unsettling and requires them to put it in the "head scratcher" file is evidence that Level A history is not truly representative of the actual history. Level A history omits all of the difficult and embarrassing aspects of Mormonism when the actual history contains many things like that.

By the way, who mentioned the embarrassing details in GC? I would like to read that talk since I haven't heard about it.

It was Elder Russell M. Nelson, quoting a description by David Whitmer of the translation process (Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign (July 1993), 61).

That was not given in general conference. Perhaps this is what DCP had in mind but was simply mistaken about it being given in GC.

Great. Make that point to the correlation committee the next time they decide to revise the manuals so that the rest of the Church can be enlightened that it was no big diff.

I think Dr. Peterson makes a very good point. Why do critics and malcontents fixate on "rock-in-a-hat" as somehow being much weirder than the conventional Urim and Thummim? Why, exactly, would one rock in a hat be any worse than two rocks in a bow?

It sounds like both you think it is no big diff so you have provided further evidence that the Church should just go ahead and tell the membership.

I will explain why I think it is a big diff. First, it is completely different than what the members believe and what the Church teaches. Unlike level A history, they immediately realize that the gold plates played no role in the translation, Joseph Smith used another supernatural instrument besides the Urim and Thummim, and it sounds mildly weird (or extremely weird depending on how sensitive they are to the weirdness of Joseph Smith placing his face in a hat to translate). Second, the head in the hat is the exact same method Joseph Smith used to unsuccessfully search for buried treasure in his pre-BOM years. Of course, I'm sure this little tidbit would never be mentioned in Church under any circumstances, but it is one of the reasons why it is a big diff.

If you don't think they have been betrayed, why would you have any sympathy for them or understand how they are feeling? Perhaps because you really can see why they think they were betrayed (because all the difficult and embarrassing stuff was suppressed their entire life).

Perception becomes people's reality. Feeling betrayed means (to them) that they were betrayed, even if they weren't. Why can't people sympathize with, empathize with, and understand why people can feel betrayed, even if they don't agree that they were?

It's the same reason that faithful Mormons are incapable of sympathizing with apostates who say they have left after reviewing the history and determining it is not true. They can't sympathize with someone like that because to do so is to acknowledge that there is some validity to their position when faithful Mormons believe there isn't. In fact, in most situations like this, faithful Mormons are so unsympathetic that they cannot believe someone would leave for that reason. Instead, they search for the "real" reason the apostate wants to leave (i.e., want to sin, offended, black character, etc.).

I think that by sympathizing, empathizing, and understanding why the person feels you betrayed, you are acknowledging the person's point of view. You can see why they would feel that way. If so, then I think you can really see why level A history is dishonest compared to a more complete view of the history.

[_harmony]

That's how I feel as well, although I would like more robust history in our manuals. I understand that thw wheels are turning slowly towards that end, but in the meantime, people are going to have to do their own reading and thinking and not expect to be able to outsource it to the Church. Which is probably as it should be.

This concept causes problems, since most of the sources for that "reading" are not sympathetic to any kind of faithful church history. Unless you're going to confine that reading to what apologists and the Brethren consider to be acceptable sources (stay off the freakin' internet!), trouble is going to show up in River City... and anywhere else members actually start thinking.

"Outsource" to the church is an interesting concept. Shouldn't the church be the source of accurate and complete information, not the outsource of it?

That is, being able to express doubts, befuddlement, concerns, etc. in an atmosphere of faith and support would really help struggling people, and probably would have saved some people who have abandoned ship.

Good grief. Such a thing would cause utter consternation in my ward.

I think people who know me have always felt that they can talk about what's on their mind and have a discussion, without me sticking my head in the sand or chastizing them (but also being able to receive information, counsel, and helpful clarification).

Are you also able to receive information, counsel, and helpful clarification, from that struggling member? If not, that's not a discussion; that's a lecture.

If you are going to mention that Joseph Smith had 26-33 wives would you also mention that some of those women were already married? If not, why would the number of wives be more significant than their marital status?

Well, remember that I said I would only mention the number if it came up. It's pretty certain to come up, because you have to teach the basic idea of commanded polygamy (cf. the section heading), and anybody who's thinking at all is going to wonder how many wives besides Emma Joseph married.

So, given the choice, you'd hide the information. Why? Shame? Some internal cognitive dissonance?

The polyandrous or teenage marriages are a completely different thing altogether, I think. I would only address them in a class setting if they were brought up. We really don't know why these happened (although we all have our ideas), and we don't know how Joseph saw them. Attempting to provide the necessary context would consume the entire class period (or more), precious time that should be devoted to the more important topic of the new and everlasting covenant and the place of celestial marriage (of which authroized plural marriage is only a subset) in it.

What is more important... preserving Joseph's reputation or giving accurate information regarding his actions?

I have covered polyandry and teenage wives in much more detail in a stake fireside setting (I presented one on "Can Mormon prophets stand up to scrutiny?," and covered "false prophecies," polygamy, and the priesthood ban). I also have had more than one combined 5th Sunday meeting that was devoted to an anything goes Q&A, and our most recent stake conference also had an open Q&A in the adult session. I think venues like these are much more appropriate for covering these types of things than gospel doctrine class.

Why? Because the higher numbers in attendance are much more intimidating to the members with questions? Q&A like that isn't conducive to answering the hard questions; it helps with the soft questions though, and the questions about local situations. Unless some very brave soul stands up and asks why Joseph had sex with Fanny prior to the restoration of the sealing power, or why Joseph married very young girls after promising their families exaltation, or why he married the wives of men he'd sent on missions, you really haven't had much of a discussion about polygamy.

[_Eric]

I think Dr. Peterson makes a very good point. Why do critics and malcontents fixate on "rock-in-a-hat" as somehow being much weirder than the conventional Urim and Thummim? Why, exactly, would one rock in a hat be any worse than two rocks in a bow?

You're kidding, right? You honestly can't see a difference?

For starters, the Urim and Thummim is a biblical concept. Putting a magic rock into a dusty top hat and reading from it is not.

[_RockSlider]

Even Ben knows that glasses (bow) is better than a rock in a hat

[_Fence Sitter]

I think Dr. Peterson makes a very good point. Why do critics and malcontents fixate on "rock-in-a-hat" as somehow being much weirder than the conventional Urim and Thummim? Why, exactly, would one rock in a hat be any worse than two rocks in a bow?

You're kidding, right? You honestly can't see a difference?

For starters, the Urim and Thummim is a biblical concept. Putting a magic rock into a dusty top hat and reading from it is not.

A critic who rejects biblical teachings along with Book of Mormon teachings would probably see them in the same context; however a non LDS Christian critic would easily see your point. But there is a larger issue here.

I think to label the critics as fixated on the "rock-in-the-hat" issue is a bit disingenuous. It seems to have been an issue for the Church instead, as it has encouraged, allowed, failed to correct, avoided or however you want to phrase it, the concept of using the Urim and Thummin in translation instead of the actual process. Asking why others are 'fixated' on an issue the Church itself has created is an interesting way of forcing the conversation to an apologetic view.

The question Dan raises would be better directed toward the Church. Why did they think it was necessary to leave members with the wrong impression of much of the translation process?

[_Yoda]

When I was growing up, the Urim and Thumum and the seer stones were used interchangeably. For many years, I thought they were the same thing.

[_Aristotle Smith]

When I was growing up, the Urim and Thumum and the seer stones were used interchangeably. For many years, I thought they were the same thing.

Liz,

Was it clear that the seer stones were also used for treasure hunting/digging?

I ask because I think this issue is crucial, a lot of time liberal, Sunstone, internet, and apologist Mormons love to play language games and/or depend on words meaning different things in different contexts.

If a Mormon was not aware that Joseph Smith had a past as a treasure digger, "seer stone" would most likely be taken as a synonym for Urim and Thummim. The reasoning would be that Urim and Thummim would have some connection with prophethood, seers are connected to prophets (prophet, seer, and revelator), therefore Urim and Thummim = seer stone.

However, once you know about the treasure digging, and that the same stones were used for that activity, seer stone takes on a whole new meaning. Then the stone would be for seeing things, as in buried treasure. In this context seer stone has a much more magical and pagan meaning.