Mormon Infobia...

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

I think the class may prepare more than the teacher but that's a different discussion.

Then you shouldn't use it as an example here. The teacher's lack of preparation is not a symptom that the Church wants to keep people from investigating, or looking at non-faith promoting material.

Jensen is concerned that the Church is currently experiencing a great apostasy, because they want information and cannot get it from Church sources. Thus they go elsewhere for answers and find that things aren't what they have been told - causing them to exit or not attend. It's an undeniable fact that this is a problem for the Church, as confirmed by Jensen.

Yes, this is a growing problem. There are lots of different issues though. Part of it is the same kind of problem that you might get when you go search on the internet for Santorum and the first non-paid link (which is kept there by understanding and manipulating the optimization algorithms) takes you to something I don't think I can describe in this forum.

Mormonism is not alone in seeing an increase of people leaving the faith. Perhaps the most untouched (but only from a numbers perspective) is Catholicism, where the droves that are leaving are being replaced by hispanics coming in. Most religions have concerns about how to retain members. The LDS Church is no exception.

Perhaps the church needs to do a better job of establishing a narrative that is more accurate. But, I do not think that those leaving the church are doing so primarily becomes of some alleged attempt on the part of the church to prevent people from accessing non-faith promoting material. Nor do I think that the church actually does try to prevent people from going outside of a narrow set of approved sources.

Ben M.

[_Fence Sitter]

Mormonism is not alone in seeing an increase of people leaving the faith. Perhaps the most untouched (but only from a numbers perspective) is Catholicism, where the droves that are leaving are being replaced by hispanics coming in. Most religions have concerns about how to retain members. The LDS Church is no exception.

Perhaps the church needs to do a better job of establishing a narrative that is more accurate. But, I do not think that those leaving the church are doing so primarily becomes of some alleged attempt on the part of the church to prevent people from accessing non-faith promoting material. Nor do I think that the church actually does try to prevent people from going outside of a narrow set of approved sources.

Ben M.

For the most part I agree. The Church is loosing people for a variety of reasons.

[_Drifting]

Perhaps the church needs to do a better job of establishing a narrative that is more accurate.

I agree, so does Jensen.
The question remains as to why it is possible to improve the accuracy of the narrative of Gods one true Church. Why does it take a great apostasy of members for the Church to notice that perhaps its members deserve more accurate information?

But, I do not think that those leaving the church are doing so primarily becomes of some alleged attempt on the part of the church to prevent people from accessing non-faith promoting material.

They are leaving because they find out the accurate information that is unavailable from official Church sources.
As to why it's unavailable?
The Church doesn't know it's own history accurately or it doesn't want the members to know. Take your pick.

Nor do I think that the church actually does try to prevent people from going outside of a narrow set of approved sources.

Now as a teacher you should know that you are only meant to teach the material from the manual. No unofficial sources. That's the official instruction. Tell me I'm wrong and I'll dig out the exact quote, but I suspect you know this is accurate.

[_MCB]

Ben, you are rare among the LDS whom I have met on the internet. Perhps it is because you, on occasion, allow yourself to doubt. It does keep the intellect sharp, for then you can understand the reasoning of others. But is it not that same freedom to doubt also dangerous in terms of faith, when finding something which is truly problematic?

I would hazard to say that Catholicism is more effective in handling such problems than is Mormonism. Do you believe that Mormonism can survive the present crises in faith, and mature like Catholicism has through its long history?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Drifting writes:

The question remains as to why it is possible to improve the accuracy of the narrative of Gods one true Church. Why does it take a great apostasy of members for the Church to notice that perhaps its members deserve more accurate information?

I think that there is an interesting story in Thomas B. Marsh and the pint of cream. Thomas Marsh did not leave the church over a pint of cream (even if there really was a pint of cream, and even if it contributed to his departure). But, obviously, Marsh was held up as an example more and more frequently on this topic until it became embedded in tradition.

How does this relate? I think that in some ways, the church is its own greatest enemy when dealing with this issue. Not because the church wants to portray itself as something other than what it is, or to portray its history as something other than what it was, but rather because we often make assumptions that what someone related or was told, or shared is somehow the gospel truth and this alleviates us from the need to go and look for ourselves. I think this applies to GAs as much as to the rank and file members of the church. We are learning (as are a lot of people) that in the new age of information availability that we have to vet the stories we use in our manuals, in our sermons, and so on. On top of this, we certainly have our fair share of those who want to portray the church in the best possible light, who feel that bringing up negative issues is akin to being disloyal, and who (intentionally or otherwise) contribute to the whitewashing of our history. Perhaps we compound the problem with our ideas of history, with our trying to preserve this heritage (pioneer type stuff), when in reality, those issues make very little difference to much of the membership of the church. My ancestors weren't members of the church, they weren't pioneers, and that history doesn't affect a whole lot my ability to live the gospel. Perhaps we have those who want to hold them up as great examples (there's that urge to whitewash again), but truth be told, we don't really share their world - and as much as we might want to compare, their persecution is not our persecution. Their understanding of the gospel is not our understanding. Their sacrifice is not our sacrifice. Even if we want to think this is the case. I think on the one hand that we like our sanitized and whitewashed history even if it causes us problems later on.

I think that without a major problem in the status quo, there isn't a need or a push to change. But I can also be sympathetic to the other view. I don't want a Sunday School class that is truly about history and not about religion (just as I don't want to have to teach Thomas Marsh as an example of how little things can drive us into apostasy). Sunday School is, of course, its own problem (along with its progressive de-emphasis over the past while). So, what sort of balance can we hope for? Would less whitewashing and the occasional mention of difficult issues be enough? I don't know. How do we balance a desire for better history with the need to function as a religion? As I said, I think part of it is a mess of our own making (and not just all the whitewashing - the emphasis on history certainly contributes).

They are leaving because they find out the accurate information that is unavailable from official Church sources.

I think this is usually debatable in the details. I wouldn't say that its always accurate information. I would say that its different information - and the apparent lack of interest or whitewashing in church sources makes it easy perhaps to see alternative information as having some kind of authority.

Now as a teacher you should know that you are only meant to teach the material from the manual. No unofficial sources. That's the official instruction. Tell me I'm wrong and I'll dig out the exact quote, but I suspect you know this is accurate.

But of course that's for a Sunday School teacher - which brings up the issue of what you think a Sunday School teacher ought to teach. Should it be more about doctrine or more about history? In the long run, it isn't really appropriate to take instructions for a Sunday School teacher and extend them to cover the every day reading (if there is any) of the typical member of the church.

As for me, we spend most of our time reading the scriptures. I don't bring a commentary with me. I don't read the commentary in the manual either. We discuss the scriptures, and it works out very well. Some times I give them alternative ways to read the text. My job is more about directing the discussion and not getting sidetracked when someone wants to discuss politics ....

Ben M

[_subgenius]

This thread brings to mind the following scripture:
"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility."
(2 Nephi 2:11)

This scripture completely contradicts the notions being proposed in the OP and dismantles yet another "witch hunt".

Righteousness only occurs when a person chooses to obey. Obedience for a law out of compulsion is not righteousness. In keeping with this principle, Church leaders teach the members general principles and leave it to their discretion as to how to implement them.

"I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.'"
-Joseph Smith

The OP is completely absurd is perpetuating an assumption that the Church "fears" information - which in fact are usually just criticisms.
We have actually been counseled by the First Presidency to not shy away from such things, but rather to be responsive "in the form of a positive explanation of the doctrines and practices of the Church" (Church News, Dec. 18, 1983, p. 2).

Once again we see a post that completely distorts logic and common sense only to convey another bitter assault at the Church.
Next we will see a post about how Joseph Smith stated that the moon was inhabited with the citation for The Young Women's Journal (1892, vol 3, p. 263-4). Yet there will be no mention of William Herschel, astronomer and planet discoverer, who made similar claims for most every planet. The consistent cherry-picking to simply perpetuate ones own vitriolic discourse is hardly influential and i can not help but wonder what motivates such actions.

nevertheless, i have read nothing that actually supports the belief that the Church "fears" information or that it "prevents" inspection, or that it considers anti-mormon literature anything more than detrimental propaganda, and though they discourage exposure to such material, that is hardly cause for the conclusions drawn by the OP.
Nor am i convinced that one must indulge in as many "contrary" notions as possible in order to qualify as being an informed decision maker - regardless of topic. Besides, even if one was well-versed on the alleged information from both sides of the aisle, one would still stand with the same accusations unless, of course, the decision was "no" to Mormonism.

[_Fence Sitter]

Ben,

I have a great interest in Church history. Outside of the internet I do not know anywhere and very few anyone's that like to talk about it. Maybe Sunday school is not a good place but there are not any options at all provided by the church.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

MCB writes:

But is it not that same freedom to doubt also dangerous in terms of faith, when finding something which is truly problematic?

I think that this reflects what I see as a real problem in many if not most religious people. That is, they want from their religion something that they cannot get anywhere else - certainty. A rather profound expression of this that I have listened to many times since I first heard it can be found here:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=6631954

I think that without freedom to doubt, eventually, you lose the ability to believe. We can talk about faith, but, I think that what we end up with is something else if we don't participate. If we rely on the history that we read and lose our faith when we discover it wasn't really so, then our belief was really only in another's narrative and not in our own. We have to build our own narratives, and we have to be the ones who determine what is good and what is evil.

I would hazard to say that Catholicism is more effective in handling such problems than is Mormonism. Do you believe that Mormonism can survive the present crises in faith, and mature like Catholicism has through its long history?

Catholicism is rather resilient. I suspect that were I not a Mormon I might just be a Catholic. I have never met a catholic theologian that I didn't develop a healthy respect for. I enjoy the ceremony. I wish at times that the Mormon faith would adopt more liturgy. We often look down with disdain on those who engage in it - but really, when I see it, I see a spiritual experience for others that can be deeply meaningful as they embrace it. Our roots as a restorationist movement contribute to our tradition of castigating a more ritual worship (even while we treat our temple ceremonies very differently). Once you get away from the established LDS church into the mission field, I find that attitudes towards this kind of thing vary a great deal. But I appreciate very much that aspect of Catholicism.

Catholicism has its sacred cows to be sure, but, they have opened a great deal up to allow a range of voices and perspectives. Mormonism is a rather young faith in those terms, and yet, it is an off-shoot of a more traditional Christianity we are part of a very old faith tradition. This clash is often a source of conflict. What do we embrace? What do we reject? Sometimes it is more about our recent roots than about revelation.

Mormonism at least in its leadership tends to represent the make up of the church - not at the present moment, but at the moment of the childhood days of its leaders. For example, although the church gave the priesthood to blacks in 1978, the full impact of that change has yet to be fully processed by the church as a whole - and it will be another decade or two (or even a little longer) with the corresponding change in leadership before that process has run its course. As long as a majority of the leadership comes from polygamous backgrounds, that will affect our views on polygamy - but, as more and more leadership comes from outside the United States, these concerns about our history (and protecting it) will diminish. The history isn't what converts people, and it doesn't help us live the gospel. It is a process - and I think that the Mormon faith will do reasonably well in the long run (or at least as well as can be expected in the increasingly atheistic world in which we live).

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

FenceSitter writes:

I have a great interest in Church history. Outside of the internet I do not know anywhere and very few anyone's that like to talk about it. Maybe Sunday school is not a good place but there are not any options at all provided by the church.

This is a more interesting subject in some ways. Our problem is compounded by a couple of issues. First, our professional teaching crew (CES/Seminary/whatever) isn't trained to teach history as such. They aren't equipped with the right skills and tools. They have traditionally maintained a more faith promoting exercise which often backfires. The same methods Grant Palmer used to build faith, he then used to tear it down. The problem wasn't so much the material - it was the bad method.

Second, the church is very wary of what I might term the cult of personality (while at the same time almost encouraging it). The church does not want members having unauthorized classes. There is always this fear that someone will develop a reputation or be held up as something special, and then lead a bunch of people right out of the church. It's perhaps an understandable concern. But, the limited availability of competent instructors makes the task virtually impossible in the current climate.

Finally, I think at the moment that the church is struggling with letting go of trying to be the sole arbiter of its historical narrative. Releasing documents like the Joseph Smith papers is a sign that this is starting to happen. We can perhaps move forward and create some uncorrelated material or lectures, or other types of venues in which this stuff can be discussed. Too many hands in the pie tend to make it taste bad ... I think this may be the struggle right now. Can we encourage faithful approaches without the corresponding urge to micromanage them.

Ben M.

[_Drifting]

FenceSitter writes:

I have a great interest in Church history. Outside of the internet I do not know anywhere and very few anyone's that like to talk about it. Maybe Sunday school is not a good place but there are not any options at all provided by the church.

This is a more interesting subject in some ways. Our problem is compounded by a couple of issues. First, our professional teaching crew (CES/Seminary/whatever) isn't trained to teach history as such. They aren't equipped with the right skills and tools. They have traditionally maintained a more faith promoting exercise which often backfires. The same methods Grant Palmer used to build faith, he then used to tear it down. The problem wasn't so much the material - it was the bad method.

Second, the church is very wary of what I might term the cult of personality (while at the same time almost encouraging it). The church does not want members having unauthorized classes. There is always this fear that someone will develop a reputation or be held up as something special, and then lead a bunch of people right out of the church. It's perhaps an understandable concern. But, the limited availability of competent instructors makes the task virtually impossible in the current climate.

Finally, I think at the moment that the church is struggling with letting go of trying to be the sole arbiter of its historical narrative. Releasing documents like the Joseph Smith papers is a sign that this is starting to happen. We can perhaps move forward and create some uncorrelated material or lectures, or other types of venues in which this stuff can be discussed. Too many hands in the pie tend to make it taste bad ... I think this may be the struggle right now. Can we encourage faithful approaches without the corresponding urge to micromanage them.

Ben M.

I think the Church will end up publishing the same material that, previously, members have been excommunicated or disfellowshipped for publishing or talking about.