estradling75

New Church History

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, myrmidon said:

 

 

Definitely not a millennial. I had a car with a stereo that took these awesome tapes! And the one being held by random dude's hand- yea I owned that one. Now it is in ITune format.

 

8-track-tapes-of-70s-rock.jpg

 

Ohhh... hope you didn't choose that picture because of Boston.  @mirkwood would want to be your best friend and it's too close to Halloween for that to be a good thing.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, myrmidon said:

I was raised by parents who are not only life long LDS, they are direct polygamous descendants on both sides, very active, very respected, very well -read and my Father held very high local church callings for over 50 years. He is retired now. I was raised not to ever question the leaders or our teachings- ever. I was raised that the standard works and conference talks were all we needed to know. There is even an New Era article (1974) specifying exactly what sources to use- Conference talks and the standard works.

In respects to whatever mode I learn with, the church is very specific about how we are taught when I was growing up in the 70s and early 80s. This material which is in the Essays was not taught. Dr Richard Bushman backs this up with commentary to the NYT stating exactly that. He was also captured on video stating the dominant church narrative is not true. He later explained that what is taught is very different than the true happenings. He even went as far as to say the church should reform how it teaches its history. He is in good standing in the church btw.

I was never interested in much because I figured I was taught all I need to know. Now that I read a couple of essays and have found that I was taught many half truths and had much information concealed from me (us as members at large) I wonder why we were not told some of this. I actually do not wonder why. Some of it is obviously a hot mess or just definitely not what we were taught. 

You could be describing my own life, right down to the decades and the 8-tracks.  And that is the source of my reply.  I was not accusing your parents (nor mine) of doing or being bad in any way shape or form.  But your last paragraph confirms exactly what I was saying:

The consequences of your rearing (and mine) are that you were "never interested much" and you assumed you were "taught all [you ] needed to know".  In other words, no one instilled in you a drive or hunger to go find out more on your own.  They didn't even bother to instill in you the understanding that there's always more to learn - that whatever you already know was not everything there was to know, let alone "enough".  (This wasn't indifference on their part, it just was.  No doubt your parents and teachers (and mine) did as they thought best - and, frankly, someone other than you or I wouldn't have come away with the same conclusions - and I don't think we are any more at fault than our various teachers.)

Being "victim" to the norms of the age and Church teaching methods doesn't require someone to have done wrong - it's the state of every human - they are subject to the circumstances of their lives and their own innate tendencies.

As I mentioned, breaking out of that, realizing the impact it has had on you and how different things could have been is painful.  But there's nothing for it.  Recognize it.  Mourn if you need to.  But then get up and put it behind you.

@Just_A_Guy - whose knowledge of this stuff amazes me and surpasses any knowledge I'll ever have (cuz I'm still not curious about this topic) has done a more than adequate job of addressing the rest of your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zil said:

You could be describing my own life, right down to the decades and the 8-tracks.  And that is the source of my reply.  I was not accusing your parents (nor mine) of doing or being bad in any way shape or form.  But your last paragraph confirms exactly what I was saying:

The consequences of your rearing (and mine) are that you were "never interested much" and you assumed you were "taught all [you ] needed to know".  In other words, no one instilled in you a drive or hunger to go find out more on your own.  They didn't even bother to instill in you the understanding that there's always more to learn - that whatever you already know was not everything there was to know, let alone "enough".  (This wasn't indifference on their part, it just was.  No doubt your parents and teachers (and mine) did as they thought best - and, frankly, someone other than you or I wouldn't have come away with the same conclusions - and I don't think we are any more at fault than our various teachers.)

Being "victim" to the norms of the age and Church teaching methods doesn't require someone to have done wrong - it's the state of every human - they are subject to the circumstances of their lives and their own innate tendencies.

As I mentioned, breaking out of that, realizing the impact it has had on you and how different things could have been is painful.  But there's nothing for it.  Recognize it.  Mourn if you need to.  But then get up and put it behind you.

@Just_A_Guy - whose knowledge of this stuff amazes me and surpasses any knowledge I'll ever have (cuz I'm still not curious about this topic) has done a more than adequate job of addressing the rest of your comments.

Interesting to note...  I am currently going through one of the churches 12 week self reliance courses.  One of the issues we discussed was the dangers of depending on anyone less then God (which includes the Church) on a continuing basis.   The Church does not want you to be financially reliant on it.  (this should be clear to anyone with a bit of thought).  But it also stands to reason that the Church does not want anyone to be Emotionally, Spiritually, Mentally, or even Educationally reliant on it either.  Its there to help when we have hard times and are struggling, but we do need to stand on our own.  The problem is that people do not want to be Self-Reliant on all levels.  In this case it is Educationally...  And when the church comes up short (which it must) the church gets the blame, rather then the person who is not self reliant for their education.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Interesting to note...  I am currently going through one of the churches 12 week self reliance courses.  One of the issues we discussed was the dangers of depending on anyone less then God (which includes the Church) on a continuing basis.   The Church does not want you to be financially reliant on it.  (this should be clear to anyone with a bit of thought).  But it also stands to reason that the Church does not want anyone to be Emotionally, Spiritually, Mentally, or even Educationally reliant on it either.  Its there to help when we have hard times and are struggling, but we do need to stand on our own.  The problem is that people do not want to be Self-Reliant on all levels.  In this case it is Educationally...  And when the church comes up short (which it must) the church gets the blame, rather then the person who is not self reliant for their education.

Yes, excellent example.  To me, everything the Church has been doing the last couple of decades (maybe the whole time and I just wasn't paying attention) has been to gradually move us toward our own personal conversion - fewer hard-fast rules, more "correct principles and let them govern themselves".  In other words, we're growing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Again, trying to place blame isn't the most productive use of time/energy.  Far more productive is the "what are you going to do now"?

I am reading more. In fact I just read both of the current seminary lessons on DC 132. No mention of JS Marrying other mens wives. Not even a link to the essays. So they are still not talking about it. Must be the kids fault.

Edited by myrmidon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, zil said:

You could be describing my own life, right down to the decades and the 8-tracks.  And that is the source of my reply.  I was not accusing your parents (nor mine) of doing or being bad in any way shape or form.  But your last paragraph confirms exactly what I was saying:

The consequences of your rearing (and mine) are that you were "never interested much" and you assumed you were "taught all [you ] needed to know".  In other words, no one instilled in you a drive or hunger to go find out more on your own.  They didn't even bother to instill in you the understanding that there's always more to learn - that whatever you already know was not everything there was to know, let alone "enough".  (This wasn't indifference on their part, it just was.  No doubt your parents and teachers (and mine) did as they thought best - and, frankly, someone other than you or I wouldn't have come away with the same conclusions - and I don't think we are any more at fault than our various teachers.)

The church has always taught not to question our leaders - still does. IN fact Bro Oaks stated never to criticize them even if the criticism is true. How does that relate to this? Who in their right mind growing up in the era I did would ever question anything? Personally, I did not know anyone who spent their youth studying and buying all the latest LDS books at the LDS book store because they just had to suck up all the available information - specifically because they believed information was being withheld. 

I recall when I was gong to get my endowment I asked my parents what was going to happen there. I got told they were not allowed to say anything about it and it will be fine. Well I went and I was kinds shocked because it was so different. Of course like everyone else I was told how special, holy and unique and etc the ceremony was. I believed that all the way to about two years ago when I stumbled across a Free-Masonry ceremony manual. I'll just say it was a catalyst for me to start looking for more info because I felt deceived.

Being "victim" to the norms of the age and Church teaching methods doesn't require someone to have done wrong - it's the state of every human - they are subject to the circumstances of their lives and their own innate tendencies.

I don't feel like a victim, but I do feel a good amount of truth was kept close and not disclosed not because we don't have time to discuss it, but because it is not a clean sanitized and orderly representation of history.

As I mentioned, breaking out of that, realizing the impact it has had on you and how different things could have been is painful.  But there's nothing for it.  Recognize it.  Mourn if you need to.  But then get up and put it behind you.

@Just_A_Guy - whose knowledge of this stuff amazes me and surpasses any knowledge I'll ever have (cuz I'm still not curious about this topic) has done a more than adequate job of addressing the rest of your comments.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A couple of observations:

—Regrding why Smith’s polygamous/polyandrous relationships (or other historical “surprises”) weren’t part of official LDS pedagogy:  The question implicitly assumes that “the Church” has known about these events all along, and deliberately concealed them.  That isn’t necessarily the case, though.  Smith’s marriages were of necessity a closely held secret during his lifetime, and the Church had bigger fish to fry over the ensuing decades.  It wasn’t until the 1880s and 1890s that the Church got around to making a serious effort to track down Smith’s wives.  Even then, much of the Church’s information was fragmentary and/or ambiguous; and there were also difficulties caused by the facts that a) many of the women (and/or their children) were still alive and would have objected to their lives being scrutinized in this way, and b) in polite society of the era, one  just didn’t talk lightly about someone else’s sexual practices.  By the time we get into the 1920s and 1930s, I believe the bulk of the LDS leadership simply didn’t know that Smith had engaged in ostensibly-polyandrous marriages; and any niggling rumors/accusations that may have hit their radar blended easily into the white noise of broader anti-Mormon screeds generally.  The LDS Church’s historical archives holdings were only thoroughly cataloged in the 1980s, and it’s only in the last 5-10 years that Brian Hales has really examined the record (including materials not in the Church's possession) and come up with what I think is the closest paradigm to understanding the bulk of the polyandrous marriages, which is: 

a) 1831:  Joseph learns the doctrine  of plural marriage while engaged in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.  

b) 1834-ish (my memory could be off):  Joseph marries Fanny Alger, Emma finds out and goes postal, Joseph resists further attempts to implement plural marriage for the rest of the decade.

b) 1842-ish - Joseph is told to start practicing plural marriage.  Trying to avoid Emma’s wrath, he embarks upon a series of thoroughly platonic “eternity-only” sealings to women married to non-members.

c) 1843 - Joseph is warned by an angel (complete with flaming sword) that plural marriages are supposed to be *marriages* in every sense of the word, that his prior dealings are insufficient, and that if he doesn’t get with the program he will be removed from his place.  New plural wives now tend to be single women in their twenties and (usually) late teens, with the odd sealing to a married woman who had been through a so-called “frontier-divorce”.  If we believe researcher Meg Stout, Joseph may also have been sealed to a couple of women who were victims of John Bennett’s sex ring during this period; as a means of allowing the women to somehow save face theologically and/or bring them under Smith’s spiritual protection.

—Regarding the age of Smith’s wives:  Helen Mar Kimball’s own account of her relationship with a Smith was pretty standard Mormon fare in the late 1800s and was published several times in a church periodicals.  Her age at the time of the marriage wasn’t seen as scandalous per se given prevailing norms, and Kimball was known to be such a formidable battle axe of a woman that the idea of her as an abashed pawn of Smith’s needed no refutation to anyone who knew her.  (One of Kimball’s children would grow up to be the apostle Orson F. Whitney, who was one of two LDS Apostles who were spiritually sealed to Joseph Smith by virtue of their mothers having been plural wives of his.). The other allegedly 14-year-old wife was Nancy Winchester, and even today historians have no primary sources about that relationship at all (not even a sealing date) except for a list of wives of Smith’s that Eliza Snow drew up forty years after Smith’s death. 

—The answer to your question of Why when teaching about polygamy is it so hard to say, ‘JS himself was very obedient to this commandment and took nearly 40 wives. Some were already married to other living men, some who were older and even one who was 14 years old.?’  Instead we get told something very different” is, that your statement doesn’t tell the whole story either.  It naturally creates more questions that beg for answers, and suddenly a 40-minute lesson that’s supposed to be about how to honor our marital covenants gets bogged down in a 15 minute dissection of historical minutae just to reaffirm the facts that a) there’s an awful lot we just don’t know; and b) in spite of anti-Mormon propaganda and evolving social mores, the weight of the evidence suggests that Joseph Smith really was a good guy.  

I don't believe a lack of time is an excuse for the church to not educate its members. They spend plenty of time teaching, re-teaching and re-emphasizing the same thing all our lives. I am fairly certain they can squeeze this stuff in somewhere. We hear a regurgitation of conference talks all year long. Why not talk about something we have not heard ten times already? The church fully realized that the average member will not take the time and make the effort to do the research neccessary to unravel what is undoubtedly a twisted mess. This being the case, whatever was taught was pretty much it in terms of depth of knowledge. Many years ago the church realized many of its CES folks and lay teachers were going off the reservation so-to-speak and were creating a stir. The church created a "correlation" committee to control the narrative. While that is likely a good thing it further makes them culpable in why we (the LDS collective) doesnt know what it doesnt know. The church controlled the narrative and the curriculum. We were taught what they wanted us to know. Anything above that is just gravy so long as we don't stray too far. Just read any church lesson plan- they tell you where to resource and warn against using previously posted material that is not specifically identified to use in a lesson.

Now I am guilty of not lining the pockets of Deseret Book with the purchase of every LDS history, doctrine book etc. In fact I have never bought or read any of them. I was never interested until I heard a story that did not jive with what I knew as a lifelong member. In fact at first blush of hearing a detail from the Polygamy essay I though for sure it was some anti-mormon lie. Come to find out it was true and I keep finding other things that contradict what we were taught in the church. This is why there was no fanfare in the roll out of the essays. Getting bombed with so much stuff that is from out of left field is too much for many to take. 

As for your assertion that “we get told something very different”—what “different thing” do we get told?  I strongly doubt anyone ever told you Smith was a monogamist.  I recognize that some of these things are surprising to you; but we shouldn’t let our feelings lead us into overwrought rhetoric through which we end up inadvertently creating alternate realities that aren’t supported in fact.  Over time, humans have a knack for buying into the questionable realities they have built up for themselves; and that can lead to some really poor life choices.

I was never told JS married women who were married to other living men. 

We have been told forever that the church has no paid clergy- thats not true and the church ended up admitting it. 

I was definitely never taught the primary means of translation of the BOM was with a seer stone.

 

Why does this matter? It matters because we are supposed to trust what we are taught. Slowly but surely we are learning that we cannot trust the information we are being given. 

—Similarly, on the seer stone:  We still aren’t 100% sure how much the Nephites interpreters versus the Chase stone were used in the translation process; so the “hat” narrative may well turn out to be as incomplete as the “traditional” one.  But as I pointed out in this forum nine years ago, the seer stone itself was mentioned in Church publications in 1977, 1979. 1987, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1994, and 1997.  How often does the Church need to tell us about something before we’re willing to absolve the Church of the accusation of fraudulent nondisclosure?

2:48

 

 

—Regarding the supposed LDS teaching of the 1970s that no research beyond the Standard Works and conference talks was necessary or appropriate:  I can’t speak as to what your own parents said or did; but if your account is accurate, it sounds like they grossly misunderstood Brother Jarman’s 1974 New Era article.  His emphasis on scripture and conference talks is quite specifically geared towards the goal of developing faith in Christ, and he roundly endorses other disciplines of learning generally.  

—Bushman’s remarks don’t point to a conspiracy of silence.  Relative to assertions like yours that “He later explained that what is taught is very different than the true happenings“, Bushman reiterated to Dan Peterson that “Many think they were deceived and the church was lying. That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct.   In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.”  [Emphasis added.]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TCOJCOLDS makes some profound claims.  Those claims i think - at least to a large degree - have been grounded in the narrative they've enjoyed (trying to use respectful terms here) up until a few years ago.  That narrative is now getting blown to bits.  And the people who are doing the blowing up don't really care if it ever gets put together again - in fact, i don't think it would be at all inaccurate to say they are trying to burn the whole thing to the ground - just because they feel like they have been so deceived (just talking about their feelings).

i don't know if TCOJCOLDS is going to be able to stop people blowing it up, discretely disassemble and then reassemble the whole thing - while all the while keep their very profound truth claims standing upright.

It's quite the ask - and i'm glad i'm not in the shoes of the leadership in Salt Lake right now.  i really believe they are doing their best - and just about everything i've heard about them indicates they are gracious to a fault.

But TCOJCOLDS doesn't claim to just be gracious and good - they claim a *lot* more than that - and they are now having to reconcile what they claim they are with their history.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

TCOJCOLDS makes some profound claims.  Those claims i think - at least to a large degree - have been grounded in the narrative they've enjoyed (trying to use respectful terms here) up until a few years ago.  That narrative is now getting blown to bits.

Can you give any solid example of a Church narrative that has been "blown to bits"? Because I hear this a lot, but no one ever seems to have any good examples.

3 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

But TCOJCOLDS doesn't claim to just be gracious and good - they claim a *lot* more than that - and they are now having to reconcile what they claim they are with their history. 

Again, please provide examples of claims the Church struggles to reconcile. I disbelieve that there are many, or perhaps any, such claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Vort said:

Can you give any solid example of a Church narrative that has been "blown to bits"? Because I hear this a lot, but no one ever seems to have any good examples.

Again, please provide examples of claims the Church struggles to reconcile. I disbelieve that there are many, or perhaps any, such claims.

Thanks @Vort

i'm treading a fine line here in terms of not posting material that would be considered "anti".

But, i think big ones are the character of Joseph Smith and other early leaders, evolving first vision accounts, the historicity of the BOM/BOA, etc., - i'd post sources that go through this in great detail - and in great detail, but i'd be breaking forum rules doing so.

My guess is these won't qualify as good examples for you - and i respect that.

 

As far as the claims they struggle to reconcile - maybe it would be more accurate to say the claims whose explanation/reconciliation, as provided by TCOJCOLDS has been insufficient for many.  Mainly just the idea that something as unacceptably and fundamentally flawed as many people see their leaders, canon, policies, etc., as being - can be God's one true church on the earth.

 

Anyways, obviously, i'm not speaking for non-doubting members.  i'm talking about people like @myrmidon and many others.  And i could and should have done a better job of saying that in my earlier post - rather than posting as if the narrative has been destroyed for everyone, for that would definitely not be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, myrmidon said:

I am reading more. In fact I just read both of the current seminary lessons on DC 132. No mention of JS Marrying other mens wives. Not even a link to the essays. So they are still not talking about it. 

Let's look at things logically @myrmidon

That manual published in 2001, so of course it does not contain links to a essay published in 2014.  The Church has also announced that it's redoing all teaching manuals, so there's the opportunity that have it added.  In that mean time, many of the Institute and Seminary classes I know do go over the essays directly already.   

12 hours ago, myrmidon said:

 Why not talk about something we have not heard ten times already? 

Because people still need to hear it.

For example: how many time do we preach "read your scriptures"?    And how many people still have no read their scriptures through once, let alone regular study?  Many of the issues you're talking about here are covered in scriptures and more study-- for example, D&C talks specifically about clergy receiving a wage.

12 hours ago, myrmidon said:

Now I am guilty of not lining the pockets of Deseret Book with the purchase of every LDS history, doctrine book etc.

Free: https://www.lds.org/media-library/ebooks?lang=eng

Free: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org

And many other resources free too, with more coming out regularly now.  Now the will people take the initiative to read the information that's being provided so freely?  That's an individual choice, one only that person can own.  

 

 

As I said earlier, I'm a university teacher, and part of adult education someone owning their own learning and not just depend on a teacher spoonfeeding them.  I try really hard to get folks about of that "spoonfeed me!" rut, and yes I know it's hard for people.   I'm happy with many strides many folks have taken-- like my local institute is have a history-read-a-thon today, organized by the students themselves.  Many people have started honestly reading and studying before church.  And yet many other folks.... old habits are hard to break.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Fixing the tone to what I want it to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Vort

i'm treading a fine line here in terms of not posting material that would be considered "anti".

But, i think big ones are the character of Joseph Smith and other early leaders, evolving first vision accounts, the historicity of the BOM/BOA, etc., - i'd post sources that go through this in great detail - and in great detail, but i'd be breaking forum rules doing so.

My guess is these won't qualify as good examples for you - and i respect that.

 

As far as the claims they struggle to reconcile - maybe it would be more accurate to say the claims whose explanation/reconciliation, as provided by TCOJCOLDS has been insufficient for many.  Mainly just the idea that something as unacceptably and fundamentally flawed as many people see their leaders, canon, policies, etc., as being - can be God's one true church on the earth.

 

Anyways, obviously, i'm not speaking for non-doubting members.  i'm talking about people like @myrmidon and many others.  And i could and should have done a better job of saying that in my earlier post - rather than posting as if the narrative has been destroyed for everyone, for that would definitely not be true.

My personal opinion.

The puzzling thing about MUCH of this and which I do not understand WHY many of the Leaders are doing this is as follows.

Most of the stuff that people are using to "blow up" the church is NOT new.  It has been around, literally, for centuries, at this point...and over a century, even for the new stuff.

The problem is that it was NEVER considered reliable in the past.  Legally, most of it was not even acceptable.  The reason they were not successful was NOT because it was not there (it was) but because it was not recognized to be reliable. 

It could be that so much time has passed that people cannot tell the charlatan's from those who were not charlatans, or those who were working with outside motivations that were actually against the church at the time (Whitmer is a prime example of that later on in his life) and USING their narratives to try to influence people NOT via being truthful, but to do whatever they had to convince them.

This is one reason why, for many years, the narrative of the church differed from that of many of those who were actively trying to destroy the church.  We had prophets (Brigham Young through at least Joseph F. Smith) who actually beheld the events.  The people they talked to beheld the events and if they were saying things that the rest of the Saints didn't experience, they would have been called on it (partly WHY most followed Brigham Young, because his words were the most accurate to what they felt and KNEW).

However, for some reason many in the LDS church have given a monumental weight to those which had no weight before and given credences to those who were discredited previously.  I'm not sure why this trend has started or why it is continuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Let's look at things logically @myrmidon

That manual published in 2001, so of course it does not contain links to a essay published in 2014.  The Church has also announced that it's redoing all teaching manuals, so there's the opportunity that have it added.  In that mean time, many of the Institute and Seminary classes I know do go over the essays directly already.   

What manual are you talking about? The one on LDS.org which is the one I looked at is dated 2013, revised in 2017
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014?lang=eng

 

There is no reference to the essays. If a teacher is doing it of their own accord then good for them. If not, well they are just following orders.

Because people still need to hear it.

So is that supposed to excuse not telling the truth?? We are too busy teaching the same stuff over and over again.

For example: how many time do we preach "read your scriptures"?    And how many people still have no read their scriptures through once, let alone regular study?  Many of the issues you're talking about here are covered in scriptures and more study-- for example, D&C talks specifically about clergy receiving a wage.

Free: https://www.lds.org/media-library/ebooks?lang=eng

Free: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org

And many other resources free too, with more coming out regularly now.  Now the will people take the initiative to read the information that's being provided so freely?  That's an individual choice, one only that person can own.  

As I said earlier, I'm a university teacher, and part of adult education someone owning their own learning and not just depend on a teacher spoonfeeding them.  I try really hard to get folks about of that "spoonfeed me!" rut, and yes I know it's hard for people.   I'm happy with many strides many folks have taken-- like my local institute is have a history-read-a-thon today, organized by the students themselves.  Many people have started honestly reading and studying before church.  And yet many other folks.... old habits are hard to break.

In regard to your continuing mention of "spoon-feeding," no one here and especially me asked for any spoon-feeding. The complete truth would be a refreshingly good start. We have not been getting that in many cases. That is OK, BKPacker basically told the CES body to withhold truth from their students if it was not helpful. All we need to do is look to that statement directed right at who is teaching seminary and institute and we can learn all we need to know about why there is this knowledge deficit. 

 

Edited by myrmidon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

My personal opinion.

The puzzling thing about MUCH of this and which I do not understand WHY many of the Leaders are doing this is as follows.

Most of the stuff that people are using to "blow up" the church is NOT new.  It has been around, literally, for centuries, at this point...and over a century, even for the new stuff.

The problem is that it was NEVER considered reliable in the past.  Legally, most of it was not even acceptable.  The reason they were not successful was NOT because it was not there (it was) but because it was not recognized to be reliable. 

It could be that so much time has passed that people cannot tell the charlatan's from those who were not charlatans, or those who were working with outside motivations that were actually against the church at the time (Whitmer is a prime example of that later on in his life) and USING their narratives to try to influence people NOT via being truthful, but to do whatever they had to convince them.

This is one reason why, for many years, the narrative of the church differed from that of many of those who were actively trying to destroy the church.  We had prophets (Brigham Young through at least Joseph F. Smith) who actually beheld the events.  The people they talked to beheld the events and if they were saying things that the rest of the Saints didn't experience, they would have been called on it (partly WHY most followed Brigham Young, because his words were the most accurate to what they felt and KNEW).

Funny how the narrative right now over many of these issues comes right from the churchs' own essays.

However, for some reason many in the LDS church have given a monumental weight to those which had no weight before and given credences to those who were discredited previously.  I'm not sure why this trend has started or why it is continuing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Church is a very accomplished practitioner of "Inculcation." The teaching of certain ideas and concepts repeatedly is to ensure that not only the material which is needed or wanted to be learned is learned, but also to indoctrinate and to influence a mode of thinking. If the members at large are taught certain things ad infinitum,  it is because the things that are being taught is what the Church wants us a a whole to not only know, but to live and believe. 

There is a lot of stuff missing out there, but the church has known it. Many here on this forum have said as much. If this is so; and I believe it is, there is a reason it has not been taught. That reason is because they didn't want us to know it. Now, thanks to the internet, the Church has had to face the music so- to- speak and publish these essays. I believe this is the tip of the ice berg.

As for me, I am a believer, but I am at a point right now that I do not have a whole lot of trust left. Why? Because I feel lied to. That doesn't make me a victim except for probably my $200K + in membership fees (tithing) I have paid in my adult life if this all turns out to be an orchestrated effort at hiding the truth. We will see how things turn out.

Definition of inculcate

inculcated; inculcating
: to teach and impress by frequent repetitions or admonitions

----Thank you Webster
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, myrmidon said:

In regard to your continuing mention of "spoon-feeding," no one here and especially me asked for any spoon-feeding. The complete truth would be a refreshingly good start. We have not been getting that in many cases. That is OK, BKPacker basically told the CES body to withhold truth from their students if it was not helpful. All we need to do is look to that statement directed right at who is teaching seminary and institute and we can learn all we need to know about why there is this knowledge deficit. 

7 minutes ago, myrmidon said:

That reason is because they didn't want us to know it. Now, thanks to the internet, the Church has had to face the music so- to- speak and publish these essays. I believe this is the tip of the ice berg.

As for me, I am a believer, but I am at a point right now that I do not have a whole lot of trust left. Why? Because I feel lied to.

Let's move beyond complaining and pointing fingers into action.

What are YOU doing to move your own education beyond spoon-feeding and taking care of your own education?

Are you going to read any of the free history books provided to you?  Read the scriptures as instructed?  What are YOU doing to strengthen YOUR walk with God?

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2018 at 1:08 AM, myrmidon said:

Why was I not taught in Sunday School (or ever) JS had multiple wives who were currently married to other living men? Since I was not taught this and no one else was to my knowledge, how was I supposed to know where to find it out and why would I go look for alternative information? Were we not told what books to get our information from? Going out for more information implies I do not trust the church to tell me what I need to know. 

Why was I not ever taught as a youth JS used a peep stone instead of the Urim and Thumim to translate the BOM, much less shown art work which depicts that? 

So yes it is the churches fault I didnt know these things. They are who taught me what I do know and some of it is now revealed to be very different than what all of us were taught. I guess it started being my fault all the way back when I was in Primary.

Of course it is easy to blame the membership for not knowing some things, but who is to blame for what we do know which may or may not be true? Our knowledge comes from what is taught to us. 

Terrly Givens is an lds author that you might like. He is into lds history and from some of his interviews he like the more colourful stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Terrly Givens is an lds author that you might like. He is into lds history and from some of his interviews he like the more colourful stories.

Thanks- I'll check it out. Can I speed-read it at LDS Bookstore?  :)

Edited by myrmidon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Let's move beyond complaining and pointing fingers into action.

What are YOU doing to move your own education beyond spoon-feeding and taking care of your own education?

Not a whole lot. There is so much coming out now, I'm busy just looking into the latest releases of new stuff that everyone except me has known forever- I just happened to miss it in Sunday School apparently.

Are you going to read any of the free history books provided to you?  Read the scriptures as instructed?  What are YOU doing to strengthen YOUR walk with God?

So by saying lets just move along are you agreeing this stuff has been hidden and/or lied about? 

That is the issue at hand- not where to learn more and go along our merry way. 

What happened with the info and why was it not taught? To build trust again one must come clean.

See I dont have very much trust left in this. Lets go back to Paul H. Dunn (Liar extraordinaire). Since you are the all knowing, can you tell me where in the LDS.org website some of his false material is still published? If you can, perhaps you can also tell my why in the world it is still there after 30? years?

Edited by myrmidon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2018 at 8:24 AM, Jane_Doe said:

Again, trying to place blame isn't the most productive use of time/energy.  Far more productive is the "what are you going to do now"?

Assigning blame and acknowledging responsibility is part of getting trust back no? Or is it just a one way street around here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, myrmidon said:

Thanks- I'll check it out. Can I speed-read it at LDS Bookstore?  :)

Or get it at your local library for free, or get it from 'small' retailers like Amazon.

2 minutes ago, myrmidon said:

So by saying lets just move along are you agreeing this stuff has been hidden and/or lied about? 

As I have explained, I am a university teacher.  I am trying to help you move beyond a spoon-feed-me mentality to an adult that owns their own education.

Now what are YOU going to DO to own YOUR own education?  

Are you going to read any of the free history books provided to you?  Read the scriptures as instructed?  What are YOU doing to strengthen YOUR walk with God?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2018 at 12:08 AM, myrmidon said:

So yes it is the churches fault I didnt know these things

The "Church" has offered all of the information in different forms in the past. Going to seminary and institute was the way to learn even more truths. Reading books offered by historians was also a good way. Now a LOT of stuff is online and available at a click. The wards don't go into deeper study because there is so much to consider with the information you find. Some of it would just be out of place especially for visitors. 

Anything else you learn besides the basics is just fluff in this life. Our temple records are so messed up at the moment that a lot of it needs to be redone. Everyone is still learning  God lives, Jesus is the Christ and The Book of Mormon is true. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is The Lord's restored church. The Gospel is perfect but the Saints are not. They CAN be just as ugly as any sinner out on the streets. Even worse often because saints actually know better as to how we should conduct ourselves. Is education important? Absolutley. We should strive to learn and grow. God is not a respecter of persons. What do the humble farmer and medical doctor have in common? They are both children of God and will both become like Father if they live righteously. Eat and drink deeply from the records of the past but never forget, EVERYONE is growing and we all make mistakes. Challenge your doubts and stand firm in what you know to be true as you study and learn. Don't be disappointed when you see things for what they really are. Sometimes we make things bigger in our minds for both good and bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Or get it at your local library for free, or get it from 'small' retailers like Amazon.

As I have explained, I am a university teacher.  I am trying to help you move beyond a spoon-feed-me mentality to an adult that owns their own education.

Now what are YOU going to DO to own YOUR own education?  

Are you going to read any of the free history books provided to you?  Read the scriptures as instructed?  What are YOU doing to strengthen YOUR walk with God?

 

I already answered that. What about Dunn?

Edited by myrmidon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, myrmidon said:

I already answered that. 

I'm sorry, @myrmidom, I understand that you're hurting and upset.  I get that, and I am sympathetic.  However, my patience is wearing thin.  All I've seen you do this thread is complain and demand for others to spoon-feed.  I've asked repeatedly about you taking action, only to be met with more... frankly, whining and demanding others do stuff.  If you're unwilling to take charge of YOUR spirituality, there's nothing I or anyone else can do for you.  No one else can build YOUR relationship with God.

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now