The Mormon Curtain
Shaken Faith Syndrome, Part Deux
Wednesday, Aug 14, 2013, at 07:29 AM
Shaken Faith Syndrome, Part Deux
Original Author(s):
Stormy Waters
Filed Under:
topic_michaelrash_section1.html"">
MICHAEL R. ASH - SECTION 1
In the 2013 FAIR conference Michael Ash gave an address concerning the release of the second edition of Shaken Faith Syndrome.
http://www.fairlds.org/fair-...
I would like to take this opportunity to respond both to his continuing use of the 'doubters have made na ve assumptions' narrative and miscellaneous items in his address.
Hans Mattsson
Quote:
Hans Mattsson is a text book example. As an area 70 in Sweden he received questions from local members about challenging issues. Initially he brushed the issues aside as anti-Mormon propaganda. He claims he couldn t find official answers in the Church so eventually, after he was released, he began searching the web for more information to provide answers. In his search he discovered that the information was true.
First a nitpick with the word choice, he "claims" he couldn't find official answers in the church? Tell me, if the church has official answers, why does FAIR exist? Wouldn't that make FAIR totally superfluous? He goes on to say,
Quote:
"Some members who are unfamiliar with FAIR, LDS apologetics, or LDS scholarly studies may become confused and concerned by contra-LDS information and may not know where to turn for help."
Okay, so there aren't official answers, you need FAIR and LDS apologetics for answers.
Quote:
Hans Mattson says he was shocked to discover that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage. It is certainly true that this topic is not frequently discussed in Church publications or Sunday classes because it does not generally relate to modern directives or gospel principles. But is it fair to say that Joseph s involvement with plural marriage is covered up or hidden by the Church?
A search of Church magazines (via the LDS.org website) demonstrates that the topic has been mentioned in numerous articles in the Ensign. 12 When we look at the manual used in Institute classes and Church history classes at BYU, we read that plural marriage was revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831, and was later taught to other priesthood leaders who were expected to live the principle. 13
Finally, when we turn to the official course guides for those who teach the adult Sunday School classes, we find the same thing. Both the 1979 and 1996 course guides discuss the history of LDS polygamy beginning with its inception as a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith and end with its public announcement in 1852. 14 In the most current (2006) Sunday School course guide (printed in 1999), we read that Joseph and other early Church leaders practiced plural marriage. 15 Does this sound like the Church is hiding its history?
Here Ash seizes on the fact that Hans apparently didn't know that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Then he ignores other details that troubled Hans. From the New York Times article:
Quote:
Is it true that Smith took dozens of wives, some as young as 14 and some already wed to other Mormon leaders, to the great pain of his first wife, Emma?
I would argue strongly that it is not simply that Joseph was a polygamist that bothers people, but rather that the "devil" is in the details. The ages, what Emma wasn't told, and the marital status of some of these women. Are those details covered in church manuals? How many times is polyandry mentioned in official church manuals? With that I would like to address the second theme woven into his address.
Does the church withhold information?
Quote:
Is there any truth to the charge that the Church has withheld challenging details of the past? The answer is both yes and no.
...
Apostle George Q. Cannon, whose faith-promoting stories were intended for the youth of the Church, wrote some of the more popular historical accounts of early Mormonism. Such works, like many other non-LDS works of the nineteenth century, were defensive in tone, biased, one-dimensional, and devoted to evangelizing a particular perspective. Today such writings are often referred to as hagiographies. It was not until the middle of the twentieth century that the modern biography critical, multi-dimensional, and objective (at least in principle) began to take its present form. 11 The early faith-promoting histories, however, became the source of historical knowledge for many Church members and launched similar popular works for decades to come. While it can be said that early LDS histories intentionally withheld challenging and non-flattering information, in the context of the times this was not unique to Mormonism and is to be expected.
So the answer is yes, and the argument is that the church and it's leaders, despite being ostensibly lead by God, couldn't know any better because no one else did.
Quote:
As for the unintentional censoring of information, we turn to the Church curriculum. Some ex-members complain that they never heard certain aspects of Church history from the Sunday School classes they attended. The purpose of Church curriculum, however, including Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society, is to support the mission of the Church: to bring people to Christ. Very little actual history is discussed in Church classes. Even every fourth year when the Doctrine and Covenants is taught (which includes some Church history) the primary goal of the class is to help members draw closer to God, seek the Spirit, and understand gospel principles.
Quote:
The charge that the Church has hidden the truth has not landed on deaf ears. The church has made no effort to hide or obscure its history, Marlin Jensen said, but some aspects such as polygamy haven t been emphasized often because they were not necessarily germane to what is taught at present.
Here I think Ash tries to have it both ways. The church doesn't teach history and it has made no effort to hide it's history.
So does the church hide its history, and is it intentional?
In a guest post for the Juvenile instructor Greg Prince wrote:
Quote:
In the early 1950s teachers in the Church Educational System met in Provo to write curricula for the Seminaries. The committee assigned to address church history quickly became divided into two factions. The alpha members of the two factions, both of whom became General Authorities a decade later, argued for opposing philosophies of how to portray our history. One later observed:
We were writing a Church history unit, and he didn t want anybody to know that coffee was part of the overland trek. I said, What if the kid finds out five years after Seminary? What are you going to do? You ve got a bigger problem then than if you just tell him the first time. And you can tell them why, that the Word of Wisdom didn t really get sanctioned until 1918. So quit worrying about it. I know, but we ve got to protect their faith.
There is no question which faction won at least for the time being. As long as the Church generally controlled the data and it did for well over a century well-meaning leaders and teachers could shield church members from what Al Gore famously called inconvenient truths. The Internet changed the game. No longer is the Church able to shield members from problematic aspects of our history and doctrine. And as the seminary teacher said over a half-century ago, You ve got a bigger problem then than if you just tell him the first time.
In an article for the Deseret News Daniel Peterson wrote:
Quote:
Kimball explained what he called the "three levels" of Mormon history, which he termed Levels A, B, and C. (Given my own background in philosophy, I might have chosen Hegel's terminology instead: "thesis," "antithesis" and "synthesis.")
Level A, he said, is the Sunday School version of the church and its history. Virtually everything connected with the church on Level A is obviously good and true and harmonious. Members occasionally make mistakes, perhaps, but leaders seldom, if ever, do. It's difficult for somebody on Level A to imagine why everybody out there doesn't immediately recognize the obvious truth of the gospel, and opposition to the church seems flatly satanic.
Level B what I call the "antithesis" to Level A's "thesis" is perhaps most clearly seen in anti-Mormon versions of church history. According to many hostile commentators, everything that Level A says is good and true and harmonious turns out actually to be evil and false and chaotic. Leaders are deceitful and evil, the church's account of its own story is a lie, and, some extreme anti-Mormons say, even the general membership often (typically?) misbehaves very badly.
But one doesn't need to read anti-Mormon propaganda in order to be exposed to elements of Level B that can't quite be squared with an idealized portrait of the Restoration. Whether new converts or born in the covenant, maturing members of the church will inevitably discover, sooner or later, that other Saints, including leaders, are fallible and sometimes even disappointing mortals. There are areas of ambiguity, even unresolved problems, in church history; there have been disagreements about certain doctrines; some questions don't have immediately satisfying answers.
...
Kimball remarked that the church isn't eager to expose its members to such problems. Why? Because souls can be and are lost on Level B.
Here we see from Daniel Peterson, that the church has consciously decided to omit parts of church history, because the full disclosure of church history will result in "losing souls."
From the infamous The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than The Intellect
Quote:
There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.
Note that Packer said, "teacher of Church history" so I'm confused does the church teach history or does it not?
As was noted by the poster Nevo letters were sent in the wake of this talk warning of the potential consequences. So what do we see now with Mattsson and others? The predictable/predicted outcome of this unwise policy. So when members feel betrayed, like they haven't been told the whole story, it's because they haven't actually been told the whole story. Not by accident, but by design. The church did it despite the warnings of the potential outcomes. You didn't actually even need any prophetic insight to see the potential for disaster, and the internet is now realizing that potential.
I will address the assumptions aspect of his address in a future post.
See More