Hammer Away!

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Fifth Columnist
_Emeritus
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Fifth Columnist »

Runtu wrote:I don't think it's necessarily disingenuous. It's a matter of purpose. When Dan was on the writing committees, I'm sure he was given instructions as to the content and focus of the lessons. Following those instructions does not make Dan or anyone else on those committees dishonest or unscrupulous.

The following instructions excuse does not enough to justify the historical whitewash that takes place. Besides, doesn't this prove my point? Implicit in any instructions are that the lesson must build faith. Thus, any non faith promoting item is nixed.

Runtu wrote:Look, I understand why people are frustrated with the shallow and superficial treatments the manuals give to church history. I think the issue is that, as you said, the higher-ups are not familiar with the history, but they are the ones who control the content. If you don't know about polyandry, for example, you're not going to even think about discussing it in a manual.

I agree. However, I know there are instances where the Church has made a cold calculated decision that admitting certain historical problems will cause more problems than it solves.

There was a letter to the editor of Sunstone that I can't find at the moment where the author describes his interaction with the First Presidency and Q12 on the subject of the Adam-God theory. The FP and Q12 researched the issue and one of them drafted a memo acknowledging that BY actually taught this doctrine. The memo went on to recommend that they should not confirm this to the membership of the Church or it would lead to too many people apostatizing. Instead the leaders responded with lawyerly weasel statements like this from Spencer Kimball:

"He said that he did not say that President Brigham Young did not make the statements which are attributed to him, nor did he claim that they were falsely reported. Neither did he say that Brigham Young taught false doctrine. What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam–God theory is false, and the Adam–God theory is that interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young's words by present day apostates and fundamentalists—their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false."

The author of the letter told the FP and Q12 that this strategy may be okay for those who don't know better but what about the people who actually know the truth? The FP and Q12 responded that some people might apostatize, but their job was to look out for the majority of the members of the Church.

Runtu wrote:So, the writing the committee gets their assignment and fulfills it. Does anyone imagine Dan Peterson or anyone else on a writing committee saying, "Hey, Elder Ballard, why aren't we talking about polyandry?"

And why not? Because there is an implicit understanding that you do not bring up anything that is not faith promoting, hence the whitewash.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Joseph
_Emeritus
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Joseph »

peterson wrote: "If such erasures took place, I'm unaware of theme".

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

Sorry peterson but I believe you are lying. Celstial or not, your assertion with the timing and what was going on does NOT RING TRUE.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Mike:

Alas. There are no quotes. There was no paper.

Buffalo wrote:And, of course, it is mere coincidence that the church manuals, without fail, leave out the most troubling details of LDS history. This is never intentional.

It is intentional -- the manuals aren't produced by impersonal geological processes -- but not for the nefarious reason that you insinuate.

Although they make marvelous material for debates between historians, the very debatable details of early Nauvoo polygamy are not fundamental to understanding or living the Gospel. Nor are the details of the trial of John D. Lee, nor the precise trajectory of Word of Wisdom observance between John Taylor and Heber J. Grant. Nor is Joseph Smith's apparent misstatement of his age in one of the First Vision accounts, nor is Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews.

Aristotle Smith wrote:I think my part of the conversation has reached a satisfying conclusion; it was quite an illuminating journey into the mind of an apologist for the LDS church.

I'm afraid that I don't think you got very far into the journey. But, having driven two blocks toward the airport, you're very likely to return with marvelous tales of your adventures in New Guinea. And your credulous neighbors will probably believe you.

Fifth Columnist wrote:The following instructions excuse does not enough to justify the historical whitewash that takes place.

There is, on the whole, no such whitewash. It's a myth. There's a concentration on the fundamentals and on things relevant to contemporary Latter-day Saints. That may result in a similar end product -- no discussions of Adam-God, no lessons on Sarah Pratt -- but for very different motives. And, since you seem to be fixated on assigning dishonest motives, that's a directly relevant fact.
_Fifth Columnist
_Emeritus
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Fifth Columnist »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Fifth Columnist wrote: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

It's possible to deceive by telling only part of the truth, yes, but telling only part of the truth isn't always (or even commonly) deceptive.

True, when the partial truth is representative of the whole truth - but that is not level A church history. Only the positive, faith promoting, part of the history is presented. Anything that would undermine faith or embarrass the Church is omitted. That is a deceptive telling of only part of the truth that is not representative of the whole.

Daniel Peterson wrote:Every discussion of the Civil War or American Revolution that you've ever heard, every biography that you've ever read, has omitted far more than it has included. (To do otherwise is impossible.) Every account that a daughter gives to her father of how her date went leaves out more than it includes -- perhaps with intent to deceive, but very likely without any such intent at all.

Again, if the history or the account of the date is representative of the whole truth, then it is not deceptive. But if the account of either is glowingly positive when the truth is very far from that (ala Church history), then it is deceptive.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Fifth Columnist wrote: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,

Yes, that's one of the best examples. And it's not very good.

Artist's renditions are often inaccurate. But those wonderful depictions of "The Flight of the Holy Family into Egypt," located in just about every art museum in Europe and North America, aren't "lies," even though they have Joseph and Mary dressed like Ottoman Turks and either passing through Flanders or crossing the Swiss Alps. It's not a "lie" when Renaissance masters depict "The Annunciation" as occurring in an Italian palazzo. It wasn't a lie when the cover artist for my first paperback edition of C. S. Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet had people in space suits standing on a barren landscape like the surface of the moon -- even though that depiction is utterly unfaithful to the explicit descriptions in the novel. It's not a lie when a very common illustration of the experience of the Eight Witnesses has them gathered around a tree stump; it's just artistic license.

First, note that I said the descriptions and the artwork. The descriptions are dishonest because they repeatedly leave out all of the embarrassing details (head in the hat, plates no where to be found, etc.). Again this is telling a partial truth that is not representative of the whole truth.

The artwork is deceptive because it is presented as historical fact. I taught primary and the lesson manual makes it clear to show the picture while teaching the translation story. No one that I know thinks there is any artistic license there (these are chapel Mormons who don't know the real history). In contrast, the examples you cite are not set forth by anyone as actually being an accurate depiction so that just about everyone knows it is artistic license.

Daniel Peterson wrote:History as taught in the Church is simplified, but it's not false. Hence, it cannot justly be termed "dishonest."

If it was simplified to be an accurate representation of the whole truth, then you would be correct. But that is not how it is simplified. It is simplified by removing all the embarrassing and faith challenging portions and glorifying anything that is faith promoting. That is dishonest.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Buffalo »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Buffalo wrote:And, of course, it is mere coincidence that the church manuals, without fail, leave out the most troubling details of LDS history. This is never intentional.

It is intentional -- the manuals aren't produced by impersonal geological processes -- but not for the nefarious reason that you insinuate.

Although they make marvelous material for debates between historians, the very debatable details of early Nauvoo polygamy are not fundamental to understanding or living the Gospel. Nor are the details of the trial of John D. Lee, nor the precise trajectory of Word of Wisdom observance between John Taylor and Heber J. Grant. Nor is Joseph Smith's apparent misstatement of his age in one of the First Vision accounts, nor is Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews.


What's really amazing is that I'm sure you typed that with a straight face.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Mike Reed
_Emeritus
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:28 pm

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Mike Reed »

Daniel Peterson wrote:Mike:

Alas. There are no quotes. There was no paper.

Then would you mind simply correcting/verifying the accuracy of Rondo's notes related to the two points in question? Thanks.
_Fifth Columnist
_Emeritus
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Fifth Columnist »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Fifth Columnist wrote:The following instructions excuse does not enough to justify the historical whitewash that takes place.

There is, on the whole, no such whitewash. It's a myth. There's a concentration on the fundamentals and on things relevant to contemporary Latter-day Saints. That may result in a similar end product -- no discussions of Adam-God, no lessons on Sarah Pratt -- but for very different motives. And, since you seem to be fixated on assigning dishonest motives, that's a directly relevant fact.

This has been the excuse for "lying for the Lord" since the beginning. They lie because in doing so they fervently believe they are furthering the mission of the kingdom of God, they are saving our souls, etc. It's the same reason God tells us that we will suffer "endless punishment." God wants us to think the punishment will not end so that we will be more motivated not to break the commandments when in reality it is nothing of the sort.

As you said, the end product is the same. I call it lying. You call it concentrating on the fundamentals and on things relevant to contemporary latter-day saints. I can honestly see how you think you are justified in what you do and how you feel it is not lying, but that is cold comfort to the believing member who stumbles across "the rest of the story."
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Joseph wrote:peterson wrote: "If such erasures took place, I'm unaware of theme".

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

Sorry peterson but I believe you are lying. Celstial or not, your assertion with the timing and what was going on does NOT RING TRUE.

joseoph if I cared what you thought about me I would be very upset that I cared what you thought about me celstial or not Im going to say it I don't care what rings true with you or not really I don't care at all what I've said is the truth but you can believe whatever you like even though its nonsens truly it is so what have a nice nite your ilk r of no intrest to me got it?

Fifth Columnist wrote:True, when the partial truth is representative of the whole truth - but that is not level A church history.

That is your opinion. Professor Kimball's opinion, like mine, is directly the opposite of yours. As I've said roughly a dozen times.

Fifth Columnist wrote:The descriptions are dishonest because they repeatedly leave out all of the embarrassing details (head in the hat, plates no where to be found, etc.).

Mine haven't. I typically tell about the stone in the hat. (So has at least one General Conference talk of which I'm aware.) I've done so in writing and on national television.

As to the plates: Are you suggesting that Church leaders don't really believe that the plates existed? How can they be consciously deceptive if they believe what they're saying? Are you suggesting that the Church never tells anybody that the plates cannot presently be inspected? I would be surprised if very many members of the Church are unaware of the claim that the angel took them back. Where is the deception?

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.

Fifth Columnist wrote:The artwork is deceptive because it is presented as historical fact. I taught primary and the lesson manual makes it clear to show the picture while teaching the translation story. No one that I know thinks there is any artistic license there (these are chapel Mormons who don't know the real history).

As are the curriculum writers and the illustrators.

Where's the deception?

Fifth Columnist wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:History as taught in the Church is simplified, but it's not false. Hence, it cannot justly be termed "dishonest."

If it was simplified to be an accurate representation of the whole truth, then you would be correct.

It is, and, therefore, I am. QED.

Buffalo wrote:What's really amazing is that I'm sure you typed that with a straight face.

No, the really amazing thing is your apparent utter incapacity to understand why I did. Yet you boast that you've made a journey deep into my mind.

Fifth Columnist wrote:This has been the excuse for "lying for the Lord" since the beginning.

Another venerable myth.

Fifth Columnist wrote:They lie because in doing so they fervently believe they are furthering the mission of the kingdom of God, they are saving our souls, etc.

No, they -- we -- tell the story the way we do because we believe it to be true.

Fifth Columnist wrote:As you said, the end product is the same. I call it lying.

I hope, for your sake, that you won't be judged with the same harshness that you seem eager to apply to those with whom you disagree.

Fifth Columnist wrote:You call it concentrating on the fundamentals and on things relevant to contemporary latter-day saints. I can honestly see how you think you are justified in what you do and how you feel it is not lying,

I know it's not.

Fifth Columnist wrote:but that is cold comfort to the believing member who stumbles across "the rest of the story."

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.

My hope for them is that, eventually, they'll really learn "the rest of the story," instead of just the bits that they think constitute the full account.

Othello got the real skinny, the sordid details, the Level B account behind his blissful Level A, from his close friend and lieutenant Iago. He understood the real "rest of the story" only too late.

Well folks, I've wasted far too much time on this thread, and on this message board, today. I'm not going to waste the evening.

Best wishes to all.
_Ray A

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _Ray A »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Okay, here's the question, as rongo summarized it over at MDDB:

rongo wrote:I’m LDS, but have pretty much lost my testimony over contradictions between the Church’s “tightly-correlated data points” and history. I continue to go to church because of a bishopric member I can talk to about these issues. In the past, my bishop was a nice guy, but completely ill-equipped to discuss or deal with these things. I’ve tried FAIR, MADB, etc., but nothing really helps much. My question is: what is the Church doing to improve this state of things, and are things getting better in this regard?

I think the Church is doing several things that could conceivably improve “this state of things.” The publication of the Joseph Smith Papers (to say nothing of the associated television series, etc.) is a marvelous step; as is the on-going Mountain Meadows Massacre project led by Richard Turley, Glen Leonard, and Ronald Walker; as is Royal Skousen’s work on the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project; as was BYU Studies electronic publication of massive quantities of material from the Church Archives.

There are lots and lots of good new publications in Mormon studies and Mormon history. The trouble is that you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. On the whole, people—and especially Americans, perhaps—just aren’t all that interested in history.

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.

To put it perhaps another way: Many years ago, I heard the late Professor Stanley Kimball (a professor of history at Southern Illinois University and a former president of the Mormon History Association) give a talk to the Miller-Eccles Study Group in southern California in which he spoke of three levels of Mormon history—A, B, and C. (Given my particular background, I would have favored “thesis,” “antithesis,” and “synthesis.”)

Level A would be something like a Junior Sunday School version of Mormon history—probably what the questioner had in mind when he spoke of “the Church’s ‘tightly-correlated data points’”—in which all is simple and clear, the Mormons always wear white hats, there are no ambiguities, etc. (Thesis.) Most believing Latter-day Saints live on this level. They are fine people, very possibly better than most of us here and absolutely better than I am. They lead good lives of service and devotion to family, but they don’t really get into Mormon history very deeply, or read serious theological tomes.

Level B would be the direct opposite of Level A. (Antithesis.) The Mormons, or at least their leaders/founders, wear black hats, and its pretty clear and unambiguous that every significant claim of Mormonism is false. This is the realm of the Tanners and Ed Decker, but also of more than a few secular critics of the Church. (The situation isn’t really quite so simplistic, but we’re going for a schematic presentation here. It’s a heuristic method.)

Level C (synthesis) represents a view of Mormon history that takes into account whatever valid evidence and arguments exist on Level B. It recognizes that Mormons and their leaders sometimes made mistakes, that enemies of the Church weren’t always simply purely evil, that there are ambiguities, etc. But Dr. Kimball’s conviction was that Level C is, on the whole, very like Level A. It’s simply more nuanced, more realistic, less simplistic. (I agree with him. Properly understood, in my judgment, history not only doesn’t “refute” Mormon claims, it supports them. Another way of putting this would be to say that I disagree with the questioner’s perception of “contradictions between the Church’s ‘tightly-correlated data points’” and history.” I do not see substantial contradictions, let alone lethal ones.)

Professor Kimball went on to say that, as a historian, he wished that everybody were on Level C. (I couldn’t agree more strongly.) However, he recognized why the Church tends to teach Level A: People are sometimes lost when they come into contact with any form of Level B history. Once exposed to it, though, they can’t simply return to Level A. They have to work their way through to Level C. But that takes effort, intellectual and/or spiritual, and some won’t make it. They will deny that it even exists, at least in the form that Professor Kimball and I believe it to exist.

One good way to arm people against historical and other challenges to their faith is to fortify their confidence in certain basic claims. (I’ve written several recent Mormon Times articles that cluster around this theme.) If I’m confident that Joseph Smith received real plates from Moroni, the question of whether he was correct on, say, the Elias/Elijah question appears in a very different light than if I think he didn’t. 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.

Sometimes, issues will arise for which, at least at this point, I have no good answer. If I have reason to expect that a good and satisfying answer is possible, it makes sense to bracket such issues for a time, to put them on the shelf. (I’ve seen more than a few of these issues find answers with the passage of an interval, or even flatly dissolve as “pseudo-problems.”) If I come to believe that no such good and satisfying answers are forthcoming or even genuinely possible, then it will seem to make less sense, or no sense at all, to bracket such issues or put them on the shelf.

I concur that most bishops are unequipped to deal with historical issues to any serious degree. This is scarcely surprising. Most bishops, most members of the Church, most Americans, most people generally, are not historians. Our critics have combed through our history for many decades now, seeking problems, or things that they can portray as problems. It’s not at all unexpected to find that most bishops, who are farmers and accountants and PE coaches and high school math teachers and businessmen, are at a loss when somebody confronts them with a seemingly odd quote from Journal of Discourses 23:258 or an allegation from Doctor Philastus Hurlbut. (Bishops have different strengths. I was good at historical and theological issues, but needed a great deal of help when offering financial advice and often resorted to professional counseling services when I encountered cases involving mental and emotional problems.)

Moreover, this isn’t geometry. In geometry, if a proof is sound, there is no room for “opinions” once it has been demonstrated. By contrast, the publicly available facts on matters of worldview leave the conclusions underdetermined. A position or argument that convinces one person will leave another unconvinced—on issues of politics and philosophy just as much as in religion. I don’t know what the questioner looked at on FAIR—I don’t see MDDB (a.k.a. MADB) as an “apologetic” site nor as, on the whole, a good place to look for answers—but I fully expect that some arguments there that one person finds unpersuasive would seem utterly convincing to me. We all come to these topics with different personalities, assumptions, presuppositions, educational backgrounds, psychological quirks, personal histories, and the like, and those will affect our reactions very strongly. Maybe he gave the FAIR material a serious hearing, maybe he didn’t. In either case, he might come away unconvinced. But we’re doing pretty well, I think.

There’s still much to be done. And we’re trying to do some of it. People will still gain and lose testimonies, just as they always have.

Finally, I don’t see “having a testimony” as simply or even largely affirming certain propositions. It’s more like having a relationship (e.g., in a marriage). Trust is everything. And you have to want it. That may not be sufficient, but it's necessary.


I have to admit that was a pretty impressive post.

Questions for Dan Peterson:

I understand that you accept everything literally, but what do you think about faithful members like the late Richard Poll, who have to devise Liahona/Iron Rod Mormon models, and don't literally accept everything?

Isn't this an indication to you that even faithful Mormons like Poll see problems in literalism, who are troubled by history and other matters, and that those who choose to leave are troubled by the very same problems, but express it in apostasy rather than becoming a "Liahona Mormon"? In other words, they feel they would be untrue to themselves to remain Mormons yet give the appearance of acquiescing to everything, while not literally believing everything. It is less honourable to leave, than to remain a "Liahona"?
Last edited by _Ray A on Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
_RockSlider
_Emeritus
Posts: 6752
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Hammer Away!

Post by _RockSlider »

Mike Reed wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote:Mike:

Alas. There are no quotes. There was no paper.

Then would you mind simply correcting/verifying the accuracy of Rondo's notes related to the two points in question? Thanks.



gee mike, thanks for chasing him away.
Post Reply