Hammer Away!

[_Fence Sitter]

snip

Thanks for the transcripts and notes.

Bishop Jones, if I may ask you a question here, would you be comfortable allowing the members in your ward to use some of the non correlation approved materials Dan (Dr. Peterson if you prefer) referenced above in a church classroom setting?

Thanks

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think the Church is almost certainly wise to teach Level A history rather than Level C. (I assume, of course, that accepting Mormonism and being faithful to one's covenants are good things. Those who don't share my assumption will see things differently.) That said, one size doesn't fit all, and some will require a different approach. (For example, I, personally, would starve to death intellectually on a diet consisting purely of Church classes and the Ensign. But many -- and better people than I am -- flourish on it.)

I moonlight as rongo at the former MADB. I'm also the bishop of the Maricopa 5th Ward. We will make the audio and a transcript available when they're ready. I think my notes were reasonably accurate for jotted notes in an 85 minute fireside address/Q&A, but it's quite possible that in many areas I didn't do Dr. Peterson or others justice in terms of the sense, quality, details of response, etc. They were what I wrote down while trying to keep up.

I, too, wanted to talk to the questioner afterwards, but he had already left. I believe the bishopric member he mentioned who has been a helpful Gesprächspartner is my second counselor's brother-in-law. He was sitting with him and his wife, and he has eaten up the apologetic firesides we have had in our stake over the last two years (he really, really wishes they would/could do some in his stake).

I think it is commendable and admirable that this brother continues to attend, even though he has testimony struggles. I have worked with five members of my ward over the years who have/are having "crisis of faith" or testimony struggles, and I'd wager that every ward in the Church has such members (although people may not be comfortable approaching their bishops or others about it). The brother was really making an observation and a comment, and valuable one, I think. I think he'll be all right, because he's going about it the right way. I'm sure this will stir up a hornet's nest, but my experience is that those who deep-down want to believe/want it to be true will find a way, and those who deep-down don't won't. From what I observed in this brother's manner (and courage in asking his question), I think he'll be fine. It probably was good for him to be able to be open about his struggles in a faithful, mainstream LDS setting, and he has a good support network.

I strongly agree with all this. And I hope that the questioner sensed my sympathy for him, and noticed that I didn't condemn him.

[_Runtu]

To AS:

I don't see that it's the Church's job, as such, to teach anything more than accurate basic history, doctrine, and scriptural understanding. I don't believe that our very limited classroom time should be devoted to studying Rough Stone Rolling, the theological tomes of Blake Ostler (much as I admire them), or Thomas Wayment's, Eric Huntsman's, and Richard Holzapfel's books on the New Testament.

I'm quite serious when I say that I don't think the Church is supposed to be a floating historical seminar. That said, I'm quite content to see teachers and students bring in occasional insights from the work of people like Richard Bushman, Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and etc. I do so myself. I would like to see more members reading the works of such authors.

I don't expect Sunday School to delve into deep and difficult historical questions. Lessons are generally geared toward teaching doctrines and gospel principles (faith, repentance, charity, and so on). I do think the church could back off a little from the overly saccharine treatments of some subjects, but that's my personal preference.

[_Aristotle Smith]

To AS:

I don't see that it's the Church's job, as such, to teach anything more than accurate basic history, doctrine, and scriptural understanding. I don't believe that our very limited classroom time should be devoted to studying Rough Stone Rolling, the theological tomes of Blake Ostler (much as I admire them), or Thomas Wayment's, Eric Huntsman's, and Richard Holzapfel's books on the New Testament.

I'm quite serious when I say that I don't think the Church is supposed to be a floating historical seminar. That said, I'm quite content to see teachers and students bring in occasional insights from the work of people like Richard Bushman, Leonard Arrington, Davis Bitton, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and etc. I do so myself. I would like to see more members reading the works of such authors.

I don't expect Sunday School to delve into deep and difficult historical questions. Lessons are generally geared toward teaching doctrines and gospel principles (faith, repentance, charity, and so on). I do think the church could back off a little from the overly saccharine treatments of some subjects, but that's my personal preference.

Runtu,

Just to be clear, I also don't expect the church to delve into deep and historical questions. I would be satisfied with honesty. I mean is it really too much to ask them to stop claiming that the 1890 manifesto put an end to the practice of polygamy? Is it really too much to ask that they put section 132 in the context of the polygamy it was meant to explain?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Just to be clear, I also don't expect the church to delve into deep and historical questions. I would be satisfied with honesty.

And I am satisfied with honesty.

I think that Level A history is true. So do the leaders of the Church and the writers of Church curriculum. Are we "dishonest" for believing that?

I mean is it really too much to ask them to stop claiming that the 1890 manifesto put an end to the practice of polygamy?

But, to a very large degree, it did.

The so-called "Second Manifesto," is, in my view, a relative footnote. Nuance, additional detail.

Am I "dishonest" for evidently failing to view this story as you do?

Is it really too much to ask that they put section 132 in the context of the polygamy it was meant to explain?

I would appreciate your elaborating on this, as I don't think I understand your point.

[_Runtu]

Runtu,

Just to be clear, I also don't expect the church to delve into deep and historical questions. I would be satisfied with honesty. I mean is it really too much to ask them to stop claiming that the 1890 manifesto put an end to the practice of polygamy? Is it really too much to ask that they put section 132 in the context of the polygamy it was meant to explain?

There's no question that I would have been far less surprised and troubled by certain issues had the church been a little more open in its discussion of historical issues. And I think a lot of people have left because they felt like the church lied to them and hid embarrassing and troubling information. That could definitely be avoided with some context and more information.

That said, I guess I look at it as an institution trying to fulfill its purposes. The church's purpose is to save souls, not to provide a thorough review of its history and origins. And I suspect they feel like they need to put their best face on to do that. Would I prefer a different approach? Yes, but it's unlikely to happen.

I've worked on church manuals, and I know we weren't trying to cover things up or be dishonest in any way. We were just trying to fulfill the goals of the manuals, and those always involved principles and doctrines, not specifics of history.

[_Runtu]

Is it really too much to ask that they put section 132 in the context of the polygamy it was meant to explain?

I would appreciate your elaborating on this, as I don't think I understand your point.

I don't know about AS, but it does bother me that there's a purposeful avoidance of the subject of plural marriage when we study section 132. I understand why that is so, but it seems to me that we're not doing anyone any favors by downplaying it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

There's no question that I would have been far less surprised and troubled by certain issues had the church been a little more open in its discussion of historical issues. And I think a lot of people have left because they felt like the church lied to them and hid embarrassing and troubling information. That could definitely be avoided with some context and more information.

I think this is absolutely true.

But I don't see a fundamental overhaul of the Church's curriculum as the right way to solve the problem.

That said, I guess I look at it as an institution trying to fulfill its purposes. The church's purpose is to save souls, not to provide a thorough review of its history and origins. And I suspect they feel like they need to put their best face on to do that. Would I prefer a different approach? Yes, but it's unlikely to happen.

I've worked on church manuals, and I know we weren't trying to cover things up or be dishonest in any way. We were just trying to fulfill the goals of the manuals, and those always involved principles and doctrines, not specifics of history.

I'm not sure it's a matter of putting "their best face" on. I think Church leaders and curriculum writers (of whom I was one for most of a decade) simply see matters like faith, hope, charity, priesthood restoration, the atonement, and Joseph Smith's prophetic calling as far more fundamental and germane to the Church's mission than, say, precise nuanced details about the enlistment of the Mormon Battalion, the exact history of observance of the Word of Wisdom, and the petering out of plural marriage after the Woodruff Manifesto and then the Second Manifesto.

I don't know about AS, but it does bother me that there's a purposeful avoidance of the subject of plural marriage when we study section 132. I understand why that is so, but it seems to me that we're not doing anyone any favors by downplaying it.

I certainly haven't avoided it when I've taught Section 132.

But some probably do. I've already mentioned above that I think we've been hypersensitive on the issue of polygamy. That's a factor, but there's also the more legitimate factor that, while eternal marriage is still directly relevant to the lives of Latter-day Saints, plural marriage is not.

I agree, though, that avoiding plural marriage may well have been a mistake. That's why I welcome the recent Bringhurst/Foster book on the subject, and Spencer Fluhman's fine recent article on Helen Mar Kimball.

[_Runtu]

I think this is absolutely true.

But I don't see a fundamental overhaul of the Church's curriculum as the right way to solve the problem.

I agree with you. As I said, we had specific purposes in mind when writing curriculum materials. Exhaustive study of history was not one of those purposes.

I'm not sure it's a matter of putting "their best face" on. I think Church leaders and curriculum writers (of whom I was one for most of a decade) simply see matters like faith, hope, charity, priesthood restoration, the atonement, and Joseph Smith's prophetic calling as far more fundamental and germane to the Church's mission than, say, precise nuanced details about the enlistment of the Mormon Battalion, the exact history of observance of the Word of Wisdom, and the petering out of plural marriage after the Woodruff Manifesto and then the Second Manifesto.

That's how I view it, too. Heck, when I was writing church manuals, I wasn't really aware of the nuanced details, as you put it.

I certainly haven't avoided it when I've taught Section 132.

But some probably do. I've already mentioned above that I think we've been hypersensitive on the issue of polygamy. That's a factor, but there's also the more legitimate factor that, while eternal marriage is still directly relevant to the lives of Latter-day Saints, plural marriage is not.

I agree, though, that avoiding plural marriage may well have been a mistake. That's why I welcome the recent Bringhurst/Foster book on the subject, and Spencer Fluhman's fine recent article on Helen Mar Kimball.

I was thinking about how the current GD manual basically tells instructors to avoid talking about plural marriage. I don't think that's helpful, but as you said, the purpose of the lesson is to teach about eternal marriage, not polygamy.

I understand why the church does what it does, but I also understand how some people feel that they weren't told the whole truth.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I mean is it really too much to ask them to stop claiming that the 1890 manifesto put an end to the practice of polygamy?

But, to a very large degree, it did.

Somehow, that just doesn't cut it. Suppose as a Bishop you were interviewing a young man for a temple recommend. You asked him, "Have you stopped fornicating with your girlfriend?" If his answer is, "To a very large degree, I did", is that good enough for the average LDS Bishop? If yes, and a recommend is regularly issued under these circumstances, I will drop this. However, we all know this doesn't fly. He may have cut back on the fornicating from twice a day to once a week. That is stopping fornicating, to a very large degree. Is "almost" now a good enough answer on temple recommend interviews for things like Word of Wisdom observance, chastity, tithe paying, etc.?

The so-called "Second Manifesto," is, in my view, a relative footnote. Nuance, additional detail.

If the post manifesto polygamy was just a couple of hicks out in Manti that didn't get the memo, I would agree. But this was polygamy practiced and sanctioned by the quorum of the twelve. That's not nuance, nor a footnote.

Is it really too much to ask that they put section 132 in the context of the polygamy it was meant to explain?

I would appreciate your elaborating on this, as I don't think I understand your point.

Take for instance lesson 31 in the D&C + Church History manual:

http://LDS.org/manual/doctrine-and-cove ... y?lang=eng

The only time it even mentions polygamy is to say three things: 1) Polygamy "should not be the focus of the lesson," 2) It was practiced at one time, and 3) Mormons certainly are no longer polygamists!

The problem is this leaves Section 132 incomprehensible. While I agree that one need not rehearse the entirety of "In Sacred Loneliness" to provide context, you need some to understand what it is saying. None is ever provided.

If the argument is that the real point that should be taught is the importance of current monogamous temple unions, why bother with section 132 at all? It's because the lesson wants the importance of current monogamous temple unions to have a scriptural foundation, so they reach for 132. Except, that was not the context in which section 132 was given, that wasn't even on the radar at that point in time.