as a result of the recent podcasts over at mormon matters, i've been thinking about inoculation...
what if you'd been a mormon all your life and a good non-mormon friend of yours asked you if it were true that joseph smith was involved in treasure seeking with neighbors and family prior to finding his gold bible? would you deny it as false? to whom would you turn if you'd never heard this idea before? what if your bishop reassured you it was false and that your friend must be persecuting you because of satan's desire to tear down the church? would you google joseph smith to find the answer? would you read lucy mack smith's history? and which version of her history would you read?
there are many who learn troubling parts of church history later in life despite lifetime membership in the church. with each troubling idea discovered, every person reacts differently. some may say the church has deceived them and lose trust. many dismiss the ideas as 'anti-mormon' and therefore false. others may be motivated to learn all there is to know and reconcile new ideas with former misconceptions. i think there are many reasons why there are aspects of church history that many twenty-somethings in the church have never heard. and i feel that many of these reasons are not sinister, but understandable and circumstantial.
here are a few thoughts.
hagiography: A worshipful or idealizing biography...in the 19th century and well into the 20th century it was common to use a biography as a tool for praise and persuasion. many of the biographies written about prominent leaders at the time omitted inconsistencies and troubling facts. it was a well accepted genre of writing and mormon authors were not immune to this tendency when writing about each other. with the tendency in mormon culture to show deference to tradition and authority it is not surprising that when contemporary historians began deconstructing inconsistencies in revered mormon biographies that there was resistance on many levels of the church hierarchy.
some information about church history was not common knowledge until after the 1960's. that would mean that most of the aged and lay priesthood and relief society leaders would never have been taught these historical facts. and since our general authorities are not professional historians and are very busy in their ministry, it is probably unreasonable to expect them to be informed regarding lastest new mormon historical finding. also, when new historical research is written, it is important to treat the information with some dispassionate distance since what is true today may be overturned in 10 years by yet to be discovered source material.
in light of these ideas, it is uncharitable at best and spiritually detrimental at worst to lay blanket blame at the feet of all church leaders for facts they too may not be aware of.
as new information came out in the 60's and 70's it was probably true that some at the highest level of church leadership chose to suppress access to church records because the troubling source material seemed peripheral to the church's mission to teach the fundamentals of the gospel and to lead people to christ. however, in the google age it is hard for any information to stay undiscovered for long.
so here we are in 2007. whatever barriers there have been to open discussion and discovery of difficult historical facts in the past, there seems to be trend towards a more progressive approach to disseminating more complete information in the church--see the church's issuance over the pulpit of encouragement to watch the pbs documentary. see the recent ensign article about the moutain meadows massacre. and the list goes on. a powerful, faithful source for discussion of many of the troubling mormon historical facts is found in rough stone rolling--a favorite of mine--and easily found at your local deseret book.
inoculation is what happens when you receive a vaccine. small doses of the infection are injected into your body. your body receives a small enough dose that your body can grapple with and defeat the infection without experiencing severe illness and/or death. the idea is mormondom is that you inject small doses of troubling church history in a safe environment (3rd hour of church, seminary, institute etc) and allow members of the group to grapple with and come to terms with the ideas.
so what are your thoughts? what historical church fact troubles you (if any) and how old were you when you learned about it? do you wish you had learned certain facts earlier in your life? if so, at what age? how have you reconciled troubling new ideas? would these troubling facts cease to be troubling as they become widely held knowledge with a construct for understanding their implications? i have really enjoyed my recent mormon historical studies and feel that my testimony has deepened and that i approach life from a healthier place...
21 comments:
i think the most troubling thing is the fact that we still aren't utilizing our time in 3 hrs of church to really discuss these things that should be discussed in a friendly, faith-filled environment.
Sorry to disappoint you; but, I learned about these issues at the feet of my parents and my seminary teachers. They have never been buried nor not discussed. Further information was taught at
BYU--thorns and all. The third hour has much doctrine left to be discussed.
interesting father. i believe that there was a shift in the 80's away from the candor you experienced in your seminary classes. i certainly didn't learn any of these ideas in my seminary class. i learned a few of the ideas in a class from susan easton black at byu, but nothing from any of my other seminary classes...
my understanding that back in your day and earlier there were more candid discussions of these ideas in the improvement era. your statement that you learned about such topics in seminary class is heartening. i think that perhaps the classes you attended may have been more stimulating than some of those i attended (not to say i didn't enjoy my religion classes...:)
interestingly though dad, you did balk at orson's take on polygamy in 'saints'. i believe it is pretty well established that joseph entered into marriages unbeknownst to emma. this may be an example of new information coming to light more recently that has been left semi-unturned...
rephrasing my father's comments to answer the inoculation question leads me to believe that seminary and the home are good spots for inoculation and that inoculation can start there, but should continue through college classes.
his last comment, i think, is referring to discussing doctrine rather than history in the 3rd hour of priesthood. what of when our history directly affects the doctrine...?
I think you may have left out a 4th reaction to hearing new "hard" facts about our religion. A simple faithful feeling of "it is still okay." I don't mean to sound like a simpleton, I guess I might fall under the 'find out what happened' category, but I certainly don't gobble up every book written on it to be able to deal with my own faith or loss of...Some people just have a reassuring feeling when they hear new or hard things, and then research them to confirm. If my friends bring things up that I don't know about, I simply state that I don't know, and ask trusted sources, like my father-in-law or church leaders. It seems I have been lucky in having this simple but firm faith my entire life.
A simple but firm faith. I feel the same way, Christine. There are simple, eternal truths of the gospel will never be distorted through history or changes in the practices of the church. They cannot be flawed by man or his interpretation of them. The church exists to bring us closer to Christ and to gain the ordinances necessary for eternal salvation. It is simple and firm.
There is, however, a lot of complex, loose stuff along the way. What of differing historical accounts? What about outright contradicting doctrines from church leaders? Polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, women and the priesthood, gays, Mountain Meadows, and J. Golden Kimball? How do we reconcile the many unknowns?
For most of my life I never thought of the complex and loose. Part of it was not being "educated" on the topics, but a lot of it was a convenient overlooking or excusing. I think this is the happy reality of most church members... is it bad?? Was I blind? Was my faith void because I was blind to the nitty-gritty? While my “church education” didn’t, doesn’t, and will never be all-inclusive… it didn’t, doesn't, and will never take away from the simple, firm, and necessary parts of the faith and the hope of the gospel.
Without Paul's exposure to Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters podcasts, I might have never been "exposed" to some of the complex and loose parts of the church. But that is just the thing... they are parts of the earthly, "fallen," and temporary church. They don't change the everlasting truths of the gospel.
For me, it is a matter of “the church” vs. “the gospel.” And this is how I deal with the complex and loose.
By dividing the human frailties of prophets and leaders from the divine revelation sent to them.
By allowing the Lord to work through our imperfections to create an organization that is getting closer and closer to the sought-after Zion... but is far from it (and we all know it).
By trusting that God means what he says when we are told that "thereby salvation might come to him that should put his trust in the Lord, and should be diligent in keeping his commandments, and continue in the faith even unto the end of his life." (Mosiah 4:6) Pretty simple, huh??
So while I have appreciated learning about the complex and loose in an intelligent, faith-filled environment that doesn't dodge-ball the hard facts--I also appreciate the simple faith I was able to develop in my youth. People develop faith and testimony in every shape and size. Whatever the shape, at the center should be a simple and firm faith of the eternal simples and firms.
christene: i like your 4th category. i think i am closer to that category than the 'read all about it' group. i certainly rely on those around me who have confronted these issues with their faith intact. i also haven't read the seminal historical works on each of the difficult subjects.
i do think that confronting the truth is important though. what our prophets have done in the past is of great importance...especially in a culture where so much importance is placed on every syllable the prophet pronounces.
i guess i killed my own thread? was it something i said? or was it my silly recent comments widget that isn't working right now?
I agree with you both. You did not kill it Paul.
amy jo: if what you said is your most vulnerable point then you've got nothing to worry about:)
what did you take from the talk on the article given in your ward? was the idea to equate the gospel and the church or to separate them?
christene: thank you for not blaming me.
my amy: we have talked together about this, and in many ways we agree. one wrinkle in the 'core gospel' argument versus the church is that we teach that our church is the only true church. so, what distinguishes our 'core gospel' from the next religion? what makes our religion uniquely capable of leading people to salvation? it is not a mainstream lds belief to separate the gospel and the church. there is a culture of accepting all the prophet says as doctrine or commandment and that is often okay--especially since our current leaders tend not to talk in public on the wide variety of topics covered by joseph and brigham in the early days.
my amy's separation is required when looking at the unvarnished history of the church. i believe it can be a healthy distinction to make. however, the devil is in the details.
i have really enjoyed talking about these ideas with amy as i have a felt a change. a change towards greater contemplation of life-changing ideas and philosophies. the need to find what is opinion and what is doctrine in dealing with church leaders places a greater onus on each individual to seek out personal revelation. it also makes for less dogma and more inquiry.
lastly, i'm suprised the nyc hipsters haven't jumped in with any snide remarks...
i guess stevie was the first to make a snide remark...sorry i forgot.
I am the deleter...I didn't have all my facts straight and I had to take Brynn to ballet, so now I'm back and here it goes....
I was in a hurry before here's it all in a nutshell (more like a bombshell).
Amy's comment about the church vs. the gospel was interesting to me. We've been thinking about something similar lately. Our bishop is director of the UC Davis Institute and he had read an essay by a former BYU professor Eugene England entitled "Why the Gospel is as True as the Church" and asked someone to speak on that topic. We thought it was interesting since Bro. England is not an apostle/general authority (not to my knowledge) and had been in trouble before for teaching some things contrary to established church doctrine. I haven't read the England essay yet, but I left sac. mtg. thinking I wanted to...and now if I find the time maybe I will tonight.
Anyway, so in answer to your question Paul, what did I think of it...from what I heard when I wasn't thinking about my own talk was that the church is an instrument given to us by God to become more like him. It sounds like I'm stating the obvious, but I think it is as simple as that. So my answer to you would be C separate, yet equal. our bishop describes the church as weekly "circuit training" so that we can live the gospel. That's a whole other topic I could go on and on about though, he gave an hour power point presentation about it.
Is it the "people" you're talking about vs. the gospel or really the church?
I haven't seen the PBS doc. we were moving to CA when it aired and didn't have tv reception at the time.
Anyway, Paul I think you would really like our bishop. He is interesting. He's a thinker like you. He's also a surfer, sail-er, cyclist, skateboarder...he and Joe are riding a century together this fall. They were actually just talking about the book "Rough Stone Rolling" I don't know that Joe has read it yet?
You guys are thinkers. It's fun to read your blog. I have to be careful so I don't get distracted from daily tasks though with all this thinking...I'm not used to all this thinking! :) But, thanks you two, for giving me something to think about other than soggy cheerios and unfolded laundry.
2nd paragraph line 6 should say "Why the Church is as True as the Gospel." Sorry, it's things like that....that make me delete so much. :)
eugene england's talk is here. the copy is not the best--with repeated words in multiple occasions. what a powerful talk. i really enjoyed it.
eugene england refutes the idea that the church and the gospel are different. and while the title makes you think he is going to tell you why the church is perfect just like the gospel...he takes the opposite route. he says the church isn't perfect and neither is the gospel.
here is an exerpt, "I know that those who use the cliche about the gospel being more "true" than the Church want the term gospel to mean a perfect system of revealed commandments based in principles which infallibly express the natural laws of the universe. But even revelation is, in fact, merely the best understanding the Lord can give us of those things. And, as God himself has clearly insisted, that understanding is far from perfect. He reminds us in the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants, "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known." (D&C 1:24-25.) This is a remarkably complete and sobering inventory of the problems involved in putting God's knowledge of the universe into human language and then having it understood. It should make us careful about claiming too much for "the gospel," which is not the perfect principles or natural laws themselves-or God's perfect knowledge of those things-but is merely the closest approximation that inspired but limited mortals can receive."
England gives many examples that ring true. He moves on from the premise that neither the gospel and the church are perfect to discuss why this imperfection forces us to become better people. he argues that lehi's 'opposition in all things' discussion hits hard the idea that are forced to struggle with opposition in our history and opposition in our philosophical gopsel understanding. the most redeeming element of opposition, he argues, comes through our taking part in a geographical ward. being in a geographical wards forces us to interact with those with whom we would never have sought out on our own. another excerpt, "Before I was a branch president, I served in the bishopric of the Stanford ward in the mid sixties and taught religion at the Institute to bright young students. At the same time, I was doing graduate work in English literature and trying to come to terms intellectually with modern skepticism and relativism and the moral dilemmas of the civil rights and anti-war movements and the educational revolutions of the time. I tended to see religion very much in terms of large moral and philosophical issues that the gospel did or did not speak to. In 1970, I accepted a position as dean of academic affairs at St. Olaf, a Lutheran liberal arts college in the small town of Northfield, Minnesota, and withmall town of Northfield, Minnesota, and within a week of arriving was called as president of the little Mormon branch in that area. I suddenly entered an entirely different world, one that tested me severely and taught me much about what "religion" is. At Stanford much of my religious life had been involved with understanding and defending the gospel-and had been idealistic, abstract, and critical. In Northfield, as branch president for twenty families scattered over seventy-five miles ranging from Utah-born, hard-core inactives with devastating marital problems to bright-eyed converts with no jobs or with drunken fathers who beat them, I soon became involved in a religious life that was practical, specific, sacrificial, exasperating-and more satisfying. And I saw, more clearly than before, how true the Church is as an instrument for confronting all kinds of people with the processes of salvation, despite-even because of-its management by imperfect instruments like myself.
you can here the intellectual tension he felt with the larger philosophical problems within the church at the time--civil rights, gender equality to name two--yet he says that his philosophical life paled in comparison to the powerful , life altering and religious experiences he had through stretching himself through service.
what a great article and a great response to the problem of church history...
another well worded passage (that reminds me of experiences that my mother and sister experienced in our ward that made them better?)
Let us consider why this is so. In the life of the true Church, as in a good marriage, there are constant opportunities for all to serve, especially to learn to serve people we would not normally choose to serve-or possibly even associate with-and thus opportunities to learn to love unconditionally. There is constant encouragement, even pressure, to be "active": to have a calling" and thus to have to grapple with relationships and management, with other people's ideas and wishes, their feelings and failures; to attend classes and meetings and to have to listen other people's sometimes misinformed or prejudiced notions and to have to make some constructive response; to have leaders and occasion-ally to be hurt by their weakness and blindness, even unrighteous dominion; and then to be made a leader and find that you, too, with all the best intentions, can be weak and blind and unrighteous. Church involvement teaches us compassion and patience as well as courage and discipline. It makes us responsible for the personal and marital, physical and spiritual welfare of people we may not already love (or may even heartily dislike), and thus we learn to love them. It stretches and challenges us, though disappointed and exasperated, in ways we would not otherwise choose to be-and thus gives us a chance to be made better than we might choose to be, but ultimately need and want to be
Glad we got back to this discussion...
Fascinating article... thanks for sharing, Amy L. Quoting D&C 1:24-25 in this light is so thought-provoking. It is interesting to think about what we include when we say "gospel." I'll bet it would vary pretty drastically from person to person.
For me it is pretty simple... it is Christ and his atonement. Our dependence on Him. Our need to develop characteristics like Him. It is His ability to make us suitable be with Heavenly Father again.
I've always kind of cringed when people say "I know the church is true..." although I know what they mean. I guess it is all semantics, but I commit myself to saying "the gospel is true." What makes it "true?" It is good and it is right... it makes us better and it will take us where we need to be eternally if we live it. The rest of it is faith.
And for less than one tenth of one percent of the earth's population, the vehicle in mortality is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are told we will be judged by our obedience to the prophet and the Book of Mormon. While there may be differing opinions about whether the prophet is "right" about certain issues, or whether practices are "short-sighted"... we are asked to live by his words. Whether the Book of Mormon is historically correct or not, we will still be judged by our observance of the teachings in it.
Obedience doesn't take away our ability to think, form opinions, or even have different ideas. We aren't commanded to understand or be right, but we are commanded to obey. Sometimes we really don't know why.
I like the last excerpt about serving in the church. His branch situation made me remember a lot about my little Kentucky branch where so much of my testimony was born. Watching my parents serve amongst so many different types of people really showed me that the gospel IS for everyone...
I remember hearing someone say that we don't come to church to observe perfect charity, but to have a place to practice it.
Amy, You explain yourself so well. I love the comments you made about obedience and understading. It's a relief that we don't have to understand everything now, just obey. Joe and I talked about that very thing last night. I agree with what you have said and I admire your ability to put it into words.
Thanks for visiting our blog. BTW we borrowed the parachute from a school in SF. I'm going to try to find one, i'll let you know if I have any luck.
Paul, thanks for posting parts of the article and commentary, when I do read it I'll come back here for "cliff notes." Maybe it would be a good idea to have people "read the material" before coming to sacrament mtg. so that we get more out of the talks. :) I have learned more by reading excerpts than I did hearing the brother who spoke about it.
Post a Comment