Hammer Away!

[_Runtu]

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.

That's what I was thinking of when I responded to Dr. Peterson. It's not just removing the context, it's a purposeful avoidance of the context, which helps no one.

[_Aristotle Smith]

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.

Weren't you just saying that no one reads these things? If no one reads it, and it's not the kind of thing that you think should be taught in "Level A" church history, how does this help anything?

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.?

Sorry. I don't see those as even remotely comparable situations.

In any event, after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto, the number of new plural marriages plummeted, and they were performed, when they were performed, in Mexico, on ships off shore, on Catalina Island, and the like. It's pretty clear to me that President Woodruff was acting to meet the demands of the U.S. federal government, and that marriages outside of the United States were viewed by many as still okay.

I'm not surprised that The Principle, for which people had suffered and gone to jail for nearly half a century, was not easily relinquished. Two, and ultimately three, members of the Twelve were excommunicated over it.

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.

I've always discussed plural marriage in such lessons, and see no conflict whatever between doing so and, at the same time, not making polygamy "the focus of the lesson."

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.

I don't agree with you at all on that.

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.

Weren't you just saying that no one reads these things?

No. I said that relatively few do. That's a fundamentally different thing.

If no one reads it, and it's not the kind of thing that you think should be taught in "Level A" church history, how does this help anything?

Some do read it, and it trickles down. I would like more to read it. I'm doing what I can to increase the readership of such materials -- including, but not limited to, puffing them here and over at MDDB.

[Guest]

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?

If you follow this standard of honesty, then teaching level A history is dishonest.

"We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest." http://LDS.org/manual/gospel-principles ... y?lang=eng

Vast quantities of historical information falls under "telling only part of the truth" and "leading people to believe something that is not true." One of the best examples of this is the description and art work that shows the Book of Mormon translation. That one is a blatant lie, but the rest of the history is whitewashed to remove anything that is embarrassing to the Church. That isn't honest.

[_Rambo]

Does the church encourage members to look into their history? History does not need to be taught it church but I think some of the history is important and should be taught. Does it really take much longer to say that Joseph Smith had more than 1 version of the 1st vision? How long does it take to say that Joseph Smith slept with women behind Emma's back?

I think I got taught about the WOW, chasitity, tithing, baptism, faith, etc it least 100 times each and it was very repetitive. I think a little history I did not know would've it least made church a little more interesting.

I guess what I am saying is the church could come out and say read stuff like RSR to get to know church history more. They could say it is better getting it from a friendly source instead of an anti source.

I learned stuff about church history I did not know before from an anti source and I felt betrayed. Then I get told it is my fault for not looking at church history. When I remember Boyd K. Packer saying that a lot of the history was not important. Plus I really didn't think there was much other history to learn because I thought I learned most of the important stuff in institute after going for 7 years.

[_Themis]

In my view, far and away the best method of preventing apostasies on the basis of historical problems is for members to learn more history. Richard Bushman and I have spoken often about “inoculations” by means of good, solid, historical teaching, publishing, and reading. But even the very best selling Mormon historical books and periodicals reach only a few thousand people.

I am in favor of inoculation, but this would mean the church would have to stop avoiding certain issues, and be a little more honest about them. One of the biggest disappointments was realizing that the secular type critical information was a little more accurate then what I was getting from Farms/Fair. I don't think inoculation would have the desired affect you think it would. I do think it would help many more members realize certain LDS claims are not true, and would force change in the church at a pace significantly faster then we see.

If I’m convinced that he was a fundamentally good man, my approach to the murky origins of Mormon polygamy will be different than if I believe him to be a basically bad man or even am agnostic on that score.

I think it will be impossible to be honest about the history and not conclude for many that Joseph was a bad man in many ways. I think for many how good or bad does not matter as much as whether he really did see God and translate things like the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.

Sometimes, issues will arise for which, at least at this point, I have no good answer.

That was never a problem. For most of the issues, good answers were there. The problem was that most of these good answers do not support what the church claims.

[_Joseph]

"As a witness, though, he's unique with specific regard to that of which he was a witness."
************************************

Kind of like those who were 'witnesses' of Zelph, the great White Lamanite warrior? Are their accounts trustworthy?

[_Joseph]

In any event, after Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto, the number of new plural marriages plummeted, and they were performed, when they were performed, in Mexico, on ships off shore, on Catalina Island, and the like. It's pretty clear to me that President Woodruff was acting to meet the demands of the U.S. federal government, and that marriages outside of the United States were viewed by many as still okay.

*******************************************

They were still illegal. Does the fact lds-inc and its leadership conspired to fool the authorities and taught their people to lie and evade law enforcement make it right? Plural marriage was illegal in Mexico and Canada both but lds-inc leaders did not obey those laws any more than those of the US.

The reason is that they were liars who would say anything in the attempt to get what they wanted. Just as they caved in on a 'direct commandment from God' in plural marriage because their property was more important to them than their faith.

[_Fifth Columnist]

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

What forum would suggest that the Church teach level B and C history? Frankly, I would be happy if they would do it in any Church sanctioned forum.

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.

The Church only teaches that which builds faith. Most of the unsavory details are omitted. Believers justify this on the grounds that those details aren't relevant to us, there isn't time to discuss them (we go to three hours of Church a week and nary learn anything new so I think this is bunk), or some such other excuse. The foundational reason for omitting the Church's dirty laundry is that will undermine people's faith.

[_Runtu]

The foundational reason for omitting the Church's dirty laundry is that will undermine people's faith.

This assumes that there is some intentional effort to cover up church history in the manuals. Having written and edited some of them, I'm sure that is not the case.