Interesting that you link directly to the original Sunstone panel podcast but do not link directly to the follow-up podcasts, instead linking only to the Mormon Matters web site itself. Are you afraid if you link to the podcast in which Equality and Mayan Elephant participated that Mormon Mentality mught get de-listed from the archipelago?

If you scroll up from the comments, Eric, you will see that it is linked to the podcast. It is just indirect.

John, did you listen to all the podcasts?

I was a bit surprised that you felt the need to label GDT as an antagonist, or someone who “views the Church negatively.” How do his comments compare to yours or anyone elses when it comes to the topic at hand – truth? GDT was reporting the source of the metaphor and his view on it. I dont suspect you have any contention regarding how Quinns comments were reported.

compare these comments:

GDT – I do not think inoculation [as discussed by historian Quinn] is the process of telling everything…………To that end, I have to question the morality or the ethics associated with this inoculation.

Fowles – Rather, if the Church is seeking to inoculate members to keep them from falling away, then the Church can and should use the Truth itself as the vaccine.

you are saying the same thing, no? you say the church should tell the truth, and GDT says anything less than the truth should not be the strategy.

what am i missing? do you agree, outright, with something said by a person that who “views the Church negatively”? if so, then we have all made amazing progress, and kudos to dehlin for finally forming a venue where the middle ground could finally be met.

Thanks for listening to the podcast.

I agree that the term “innoculation” might be lead to analogies that go too far, but I think the general idea of having people’s first exposure to various elements of Church history or past teachings be from within the Church or at least a source that isn’t “anti” is a useful one.

I tried to express in my comments on Mormon Matters a frustration with CES, which I think should be the outlet for such information and related discussions. Seminary is an absolute waste of time in terms of learning detailed history, at least it was for me. I would expect release time seminary to teach history at a level that is roughly equivalent to a high school class on such history. Similarly I would expect institute to teach history on a college level. Neither did so.

Because of this some people that have participate faithfully in the full Church program through their lives feel betrayed when they encounter information that on its own might be disturbing. CES could do a lot to contextualize such information. In fact, simply making more members aware of it will probably have a spill-over effect on members that didn’t participate in CES.

Actually John, in the quotes you provided, Jordan is saying that inoculation is not an applicable metaphor. I dont see where he says that the church is not inoculating. In fact, from this quote, it is unclear if he is making any claims as to what the church is, or is not, doing.

I will not represent the position of GDteacher. He can do that himself and from his comments appears quite capable. I dont think he even needs a brother to give us his temple recommend status. I am not saying that his representations are controversial in the slightest. rather, i am curious, when he added value to the discussion, including taking a position in line with yours, you need to put him in one camp or another.

i suppose the benefit of your description of GDT and Jordan, is to point out just how close the faithful LDS (your term) are to those that question the teachings, practices or history of the church, including the faithful, TR holders, Bishops, ethicists, quarterbacks and visiting teachers.

Doesn’t the question of whether it is more reasonable to draw positive inferences or negative inferences depend primarily on the facts themselves, and the facts viewed together and not atomistically?

This is true. Care should always be taken not to draw inferences not warranted by the facts. At the same time, humility in approaching history is a desirable quality, whether dealing with history touching on aspects of the Church or Gospel, or any other kind of history. What can really be known about events, motivations, process, desires, etc. is typically far less than what the conclusions drawn by some historians suggest.

As to Church history, the main post here does not contemplate that complete openness about embarassing or difficult oddities in the Church’s growth, development, and history will never invite warranted negative inferences about an event or an item of history. The idea is that by affirmatively presenting what is known of the historical record on a given issue at the same time that doctrinal truth and/or the bigger picture of the Restoration and the message of the restored Gospel is also presented, negative inferences that might flow reasonably from some items/incidents from Church history (like the MMM) do not induce outright rejection of the bigger picture but rather keep things in perspective. As to which items from the historical record actually warrant interpretation in the most negative or unflattering way possible, that is up to the individual learner or hearer to decide for themselves.

I am not saying that his representations are controversial in the slightest. rather, i am curious, when he added value to the discussion, including taking a position in line with yours, you need to put him in one camp or another.

I meant that it was not controversial to point out that GDteacher views the Church negatively. It was relevant in the main post because GDteacher’s comment was a direct reply to Jordan’s comment, in which Jordan noted that “inoculation” wasn’t the right word to use in the first place. GDteacher disagreed, seeming to argue that it was in fact inoculation and that the Church was engaging in it, or trying to engage in it, and that it was unethical and immoral.

random,

it would go far to reduce contention and to promote understanding if we could have discussions that give more credit to content and less to the beheld labels that are so arbitrarily assigned.

one problem with your use of “anti” is that it truly is a method of categorization of people as much as information. and further, while you assign that category to someone it may not be agreed upon by your subject. at that point – kaboom, wham bam, amen to that conversation. i dont suppose your work conversations or home conversations go well when you expect the other side to accept a pejorative label.

i can see it now. i actually wish i had tried it in some of my meetings. “Well, Brother Simmons, President Harris thinks we should change the Youth Dance to Friday Night rather than Saturday. Your disagreement, along with the tone in which you pointed out a conflict with the High School Musical, suggests that you are Anti-Stake President.” Again, its not about the content, its what side of the debate and the tone that count, thats all.

hey random, do you accept the possibility that someone that does not attend church each week can produce material with either slant?

” We decided not to label a person’s religious affiliation, just as we didn’t label who was or wasn’t a Catholic in filmmaker Helen Whitney’s previous program on Pope John Paul II. There was a concern that people would automatically make judgments, without listening carefully and respectfully, had we labeled whether they were or were not members of the LDS church. We want to point out, however, that the religious affiliation of most of them generally surfaces early in their comments in the program, and certainly it is clear in the extended interviews published on the Web site.”

-From PBS Editors

“To current LDS members I would hope that in their comments they would choose not to confirm accusations of “anti-intellectualism” by condeming what was a thorough and complex, if not a believers, account.”

-comment at pbs

or this, from the Deseret News regarding ‘The Mormons’:

That was THE MOST uninformed, distasteful, misguided bunch of JUNK I ever saw. What on earth was a professor of Islam doing talking about us? They needed to pump up the brightness setting on those paintings. And that picture made Jesus look like a Pagan devil-spirit. It gave me bad dreams, making me wake up at 2 am. — no name

That professor of Islam was none other than Daniel C. Peterson, who was apparently providing distasteful, misguided bunch of junk.

see what i mean random? when you start by putting people in a box, in this case the good box or the bad box, the learning stops. it is true from all sides. exmormons are just as bitter about the information coming from the church.

maybe we should prolong the contest and see who can put the most people in the ugly box by continuing to label one another with such labels as anti-mormon for the exmormons, and anti-anti-cult for the mormons? sounds fun eh?

C. Jones (are you the famous animator, btw? or did he die?):

Did you actually listen to any of the podcasts? Just wondering. Because your question is pretty much explained int he 3 or 4 hours that the various panelists were talking about it. Your remarks seem to fall in the “Blake Ostler” category of dismissing the existence of a problem (or at least of a problem that the church needs to do anything to address, as it is really just a problem of willful ignorance on the part of those discovering the non-hidden hidden stuff).

There is a whole body of research based on Social Inoculation Theory, and it has been applied in a variety of contexts from alcohol use to political messages to sexual harassment.

A brief explanation is found at

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/inocul.htm

C Jones,

Hmmm. Sorry, I am not understanding your point. I don’t know what you mean by “political correctness” of the 1980s and the connection with the doctrines and facts that the church as an institution excludes from its “faith-promoting” instructional materials. Can you elaborate?

Dan,

thanks for your comment. truly. for me, there are profound elements of this discussion of inoculation. the most intriguing is that diverse groups are talking about it. it really shows just how diverse the church membership really is. blake ostler is not a spokesperson for ONE side, Dehlin is not on one side or another, I can only speak for myself and not for a side of the argument. people are all over the spectrum on what they would like, what works for them, and how they view the debate.

another aspect that intrigues me is that this is really about people that are alive today and facing real choices and living real life experiences. this is not a debate about the merits of one persons choices that were made 150 years ago. this is not based on inexact information or holy interpretations of history. it is about real people, right now. your example highlights that fact.

it doesnt matter if one is 50 and experienced, or 18 and googling stuff before a missionary prep class. there is a crisis and it is time for all people to discuss it. there is not a right answer. there is not a perfect approach. there is a lot to discuss. and the point i was trying to make to random, that was lost, is that everyone does not fit into a defined box and calling people anti-mormon is counterproductive to the debate.

Eric S-
I am kinda curious about this subject, but not enough to listen to 4 hours of podcasts :-) I am wondering, though, what your response to the “Blake Ostler” position is.

So far, I am seeing the problem like this: There are historical facts (or at least historical opinions) from the early days of the church that are disturbing to those who have been introduced to them for the first time. Further, some of those people conclude that they have been deceived because, well, actually I’m not too clear on this point. Maybe because what is taught from the church manuals on Sunday consists of mostly positive stories?

Anyway my question is, when did this become the problem that it is today? Church members in Joseph’s time were living the history. The next few generations had immediate ancestors who lived the history along with access to family stories and journals, etc. So what changed? The increasing number of members who didn’t have pioneer ancestors? The failure of those generations to pass on the more unvarnished history that they were familiar with? Correlation? Or to get to my theory, maybe when political correctness became the norm for public discourse, some accuracy or willingness to tell a “warts and all” story was lost in exchange for less divisive, more relativistic speech? In that case, I can’t see it as a problem where a finger can be pointed exclusively at the church as much as at a trend in American society as a whole.

re # 22, Dan, that is a good way to express one of the negative externalities that can result from a passive approach to history, i.e. from simply shying away from complex or difficult topics/events in Church history.

The point of the main post here is that inoculation against such topics/events is the wrong way to think about this, because to the extent that such topics/events are supported by facts and evidence, then they can represent historical truth, or at least some portion of historical truth that is accessible to us given the condition of the historical record. Thinking about inoculating people against Truth, whatever its form, is the wrong approach, particularly because Truth is not an evil to be protected against. Rather, people can arm themselves with a holistic Truth (i.e. the combination of both religious/doctrinal and historical truth) to strengthen them against falling away from the Church in the face of complex or unsavory, albeit isolated/aberrational, facts from the historical record. A conviction of the religious truth of the First Vision, for example, coupled with a perspective of the broader Plan of Salvation, can go a long way to ameliorating the type of alienation that results from learning of unkind or prejudicial statements made by Brigham Young or other early Church leaders about black people.

Even though this approach conceives of the big picture of Truth within the restored Gospel as the vaccine rather than the disease (which seems to be the problem with how the podcasts at Mormon Matters employed the metaphor — proceeding under the assumption that Truth is the disease that will destroy the Church and that a weakened version of the Truth is the vaccine by simply preventing people from reading further) open discussion of complex or difficult events or facts will still cause some people to lose faith or prevent some people from ever giving the holistic Truth a chance in the first place. That is, investigators visiting Church where difficult historical issues are built into the doctrinal discussion during Sunday School lessons might simply be alienated by some aspect of Joseph Smith’s, Brigham Young’s or someone’s character or actions and choose not to investigate further. That is unfortunate and, for believing Latter-day Saints, even tragic. But it should not be a reason for ignoring those details if the result is that some or many Latter-day Saints later feel literally “betrayed” by the Church when they do some reading of their own outside of Sunday School about those complex or difficult aspects of the history, growth, or development of the Church that, although not necessarily actively suppressed or “covered up” by the Church, simply weren’t discussed in Sunday School or seminary. In this case, it’s not that Truth was a disease against which those once believing Latter-day Saints should have been inoculated but rather it’s that people have gotten the impression that the Church was dishonest or betrayed them. There is a big difference there, I believe.

Full and open discussion of historical facts, even alienating or embarrassing/complex facts, coupled with conviction-filled discussion of the big picture of the restored truths of the Gospel, would therefore be using Truth as a vaccine against the suspicion that the Church is covering anything up, betraying people, or being dishonest.

The point of my comment is that I do not think church history is as nefarious as critics make it out to be. It is only nefarious (and thus something requiring “inoculation,” I suppose), if one is prone to draw only negative inferences from the factual record, and not give the LDS church the “benefit of the doubt”.

Most people probably don’t understand that inoculation gives us a weakened version of the disease; I think most of us just think we’re getting a small amount of something, which prepares us for a larger amount later on. I don’t care about the actual mechanics of it, other than it prepares me for a later onslaught. That’s why I think it’s only problematic if you are aware of the exact mechanics of inoculation. For me, the analogy is imperfect, but close enough.

Jordan F:

Why should the LDS Church get the “benefit of the doubt” with respect to whether one should draw negative or positive inferences? Do you afford the same benefit of the doubt to Scientology? The Reorganites? The JW’s? At what point, if ever, would you look at the facts and evidence “straight on,” without a preconceived positive spin in favor of the church?

I am not aware of being in disagreement with Elder Packer. I agree that some things that are true are not particularly useful. It is true that the neighbor’s fat cat is always lurking in my backyard, but that is not really useful to me.

I do not know all the facts behind the excommunication of six people in 1993. The Church has not explained why those people were excommunicated, to my knowledge. It is difficult, therefore, to state that these people were excommunicated for publishing uncorrelated Mormon history.

To the extent that the Church has chosen in the past to shy away from discussion of complex or difficult aspects of early Church history, this was likely a well-intentioned policy mistake that has resulted in some Latter-day Saints leaving the Church after discovering some of these issues through independent reading of historical treatments of the early Church and then feeling like the Church betrayed them for not providing for discussion of these issues in Sunday School or seminary. The fact that people explain that the Church’s passive approach to discussion of history caused them to feel betrayed or lied to by the Church shows that there is a problem with this approach. It is far better to actively provide for discussion of these topics in the context of broader lessons about doctrine. The initial (short-term) result might be that more individuals will feel like there was a cover-up in the past because Sunday School time wasn’t devoted in the past to difficult aspects of history and feel betrayed, as has been the experience of some others, and perhaps some or many of these people will choose to leave the Church because of it. In the long run, however, members of the Church will have a better understanding of the history of the Church and its development, and will have a more intimate understanding of the character and lives of early Church leaders. My sense is that as a result, Latter-day Saints will have a more firm but also more humble testimony of the doctrinal truths that are the fruits of the Restoration.

Jordan,

by “benefit of the doubt,” do you mean predrawn conclusion? is there any allowance for doubt when consuming this information or is there only one right choice – “avoiding falling away from the Church”? (comment #27, above) also, if you were reading closely you would have noticed that the issue at hand was not whether the history is made out to be nefarious by critics, as you suggest. it was the level of difficulty in hearing the history of the church by a stake president, even Richard Bushman. when quinn wrote his history, he was not a critic.

i think an interest in history is one thing that the bloggernacle and the damu have in common. for the most part, the facts are generally agreed upon. with the role of President Brigham Young in the “so-called Massacre” being a huge outlier, i dont think the facts themselves are seen much differently between those that you label as the source of nefarious information and the writers at the archipelegaccle, or whatever its called.

john f., you said this “I agree with you that it is not in the best interests of the Church as an institution or its members individually for the Church to shy away from complex or difficult issues in the history of the Church.”

How would you suggest the Church Leaders handle something as simple as the peepstones? What would you suggest the say regarding the account in ‘Truth Restored’ versus the peepstone story as told by Daniel C. Peterson on the PBS documentary? What should they say regarding the discrepancy in the historical truth versus the picture that is in the missionary manuals and the conference presentations?

Do you think like me – come clean right now on the facts and the misrepresentation and ultimately the church will blossom and grow.

or, do you agree with John Dehlin, Executive Director of Sunstone and founder of Mormon Stories, who thinks that the church will implode if leaders were to come clean on these types of disclosures? (he includes other factors to his implosion scenario)

or, do you make up part of a wider spectrum of beliefs and expectations?

Truth is not evil.

The term “holistic Truth” in this discussion means that a single fact — such as the fact that, in addition to translating the plates through the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith translated a large portion of the plates by placing his seer stone in a hat and drawing it tight around his face to exclude the light and dictating for hours on end without pause — is only one small part of the mosaic of historical and doctrinal truths that comprise the early history and development of the Church. It is meant to point out that the actual religious and doctrinal truths that form Mormonism are as much a part of the story as are historical facts, including facts that are embarassing or complex.

Perhaps “holistic” is the wrong word to use to describe the broader mosaic of Truth at issue, if that word universally invokes images of shysters fudging data. That is certainly not the intent of this post or the ideas expressed in the comments discussing a view of “holistic Truth” relating to Church history.

john f., you said that “I agree that some things that are true are not particularly useful. It is true that the neighbor’s fat cat is always lurking in my backyard, but that is not really useful to me.”

WHAT? john f’s neighbor’s fat cat is reading NOM and FLAK in john f’s backyard? dude man, that is useful. i bet its a black cat.

WHAT? john f’s neighbor’s fat cat is reading NOM and FLAK in john f’s backyard? dude man, that is useful. i bet its a black cat.

I don’t understand the point of this comment.

42: I didn’t say I was offended; I just find it striking how you won’t accept even basic facts that are damaging to your argument (such as the fact that Quinn and Fielding were exed for publishing truth and were not accused of publishing lies; or that Elder Packer did, in fact, compare certain truths–those unflattering to church leaders–as disease germs.)

I know what lurking on blogs or discussion boards is but didn’t understand the point of your comment.

Eric (34)
I know it’s fashionable to claim martyrdom on behalf of the September Six, but the reasons for those excommunications vary dramatically based on who you talk to.
I also disagree with the idea that we should not give the Church the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I think we should give the Church and its detractors the benefit of the doubt. In reading Rough Stone Rolling, for example, I can see honest and flawed Church leaders and members struggling to make sense of radical, inspired ideas and not always succeeding, sometimes even making a complete mess of the situation. I can also see a lot of people in Missouri who came by their fears of “the Mormons” quite honestly, and a lot of apostates who came by their concept of Joseph as a “fallen prophet” honestly as well. I don’t think the beneift of the doubt is mutually exclusive in Church history.

lief,

i agree that it can be a false assumption that the history speaks against the church. however, i stand by the assertion that the history contradicts previous and contemporary presentations of church history. it is the contradiction that is an issue for some people.

i dont disagree that an optimistic viewpoint, when reviewing the history of the church could lead to a faith-promoting experience for SOME people. it could also lead to a complete collapse of faith and very threatening experience for other people – yes, even with an optimistic viewpoint. without predrawn conclusions, loss of faith is very possible as evidenced by thousands upon thousands of real life stories and the need to have this conversation.

church history is more than a collection of facts. there is no assumption that i see that there is a perfect and ultimately comprehensive collections. however, i there is clearly two sets of history books in circulation, the ‘Truth Restored’ version and the version much discussed here, among exmormons and in the bloggernaccle.

there is no chance in hell that two people will all reach the same conclusions on all things. there is an even lower possibility that 4 million active members will all come to the same conclusion and that their collective conclusion will be exactly the same as Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Its that spectrum of beliefs that includes your position, john f’s position and Steve Martin’s position after he took all the discussions but didn’t join because it would hurt his career.

i understand your proposal that members become inoculated regarding the wide spectrum of interpretations. however, just as i dont consider the truth to be a disease, i also do not consider varying responses upon finding new information to be a disease. we are SUPPOSE to be accepting to varying beliefs. i think its called – let them worship how, where, or what they may. unfortunately, that let is not always afforded to all the ‘thems’ out there, especially the ‘thems’ that feel betrayed. maybe instead of discussing inoculation, there should be a podcast on changing the 11th article of faith. though it may get a lot of traction, i do not suggest this – “let anti-mormons worship how, where or what they may even though they are wrong.”

if your suggestion that members can and should be exposed to different interpretations, even in small harmless doses so that the eventual exposure to the disease in its potent form is not harmful, then great. that sounds like teaching, not inoculating. i believe this was one point that Ann Porter made regarding teaching the real facts in Gospel Essentials Class, Seminary and in other lessons. Your suggestion that this teaching, in similar classes, should include an introduction to varying levels of belief is a valuable one. but, like many inoculations, there may be side effects and reactions to the exposure. that is not something the doctor/administrator gets to control, that is just the natural consequence of inoculation.

In most cases, as several people here and elsewhere have pointed out, the ‘nacclers and the DAMU agree on the facts. Personally, I even think we agree on the interpretation of those facts, though john f. says that we don’t.

I think that there are multiple ways to interpret historical facts, particularly in cases where all relevant facts are not necessarily known. Still, it is true that the bigger disagreement, perhaps, between believing Latter-day Saints and those who have fallen away is on the implication of any given set of historical facts. Based on facts in the historical record, it is understandable that you feel that the only logical implication is that the Church is not what it claims to be. The main post and my comments allow for that, I believe, in pointing out that in light of full discussion of what we know of the historical record, some Latter-day Saints will choose to leave.

The hope is that others will choose to stay when discussion of these issues comes in the context of a broader discussion of Gospel truths. What really matters as a member of the Church is a conviction of the Gospel truths. An abiding belief in the need for a Restoration and in the Restoration as ushered in by the First Vision can endure despite complex details about the process of the Restoration, including multiple versions of the First Vision or Joseph Smith’s adolescent treasure-seeking activities, or the use of a seer stone in translation, etc.

Giving the “benefit of the doubt” means not drawing hasty negative conclusions where there is an ambiguity in the historical record. What you’re talking about is sympathizing with a point of view. There’s a big difference.

That is not at all what I’m saying. For me, it means not assuming the worst about people’s and institutions’ motives, and not much more than that.

The historical record being what it is, I cannot personally see how the church can be what it claims to be. That is the only logical implication in my view.

And you have arrived at that conclusion based on what you perceive to be sufficient facts, how much weight you attach to them, and how much weight you attach to other tools for evaluating truth. But the idea that you have arrived at The Truth through a logical process is a conclusion that a lot of honest people disagree with.

Is “fallen away” an offensive way to refer to people who have stopped believing in the Church’s teachings or who have left the Church?

If so, then that was not the intention. The term “those who have fallen away” refers to people who no longer believe in the truth claims of the Church and/or who have left the Church.

Dan,

The context of “benefit of the doubt” in this discussion is summarized by Jordan F’s comment (#29):

The point of my comment is that I do not think church history is as nefarious as critics make it out to be. It is only nefarious (and thus something requiring “inoculation,” I suppose), if one is prone to draw only negative inferences from the factual record, and not give the LDS church the “benefit of the doubt”

The “people’s and institutions’ motives” are irrelevant to many, if not most, of the historical facts that I find most damning to the church’s claims. I believe that church leaders have always had good intentions, generally speaking. I believe that the institution has good intentions as well. Without resorting to a cliché phrase regarding a certain road to hell, let me just say that regardless of whether their intentions are genuine, those intentions may still be misguided. Intentions do not change the facts.

You’re right, and I believe the Church and its leaders are fallible, and have been wrong about many things, including some very important things.
I stay (and enjoy it) because I attach much more epistemological weight to my own experiences than to the Church’s — and its leaders’ — failures, which I believe are many.

I just found out my understanding of BKP’s “disease germs” quote was wrong, and he did in fact say that in 1981. Apologies to all of you- my bad.
Damn – I’m fallible!

Mayan Elephant,

You have repeatedly expressed concern/resentment throughout this post regarding labeling by active LDS toward non-members or disaffected members, and I agree that it does not facilitate rational discussions. Likewise, I do not think labeling by non-members or disaffected members toward LDS is productive either.

“I will continue to try and convince myself that it was not a tribe that I left, but a cult. Tribes and families take care of their own. Cults threaten their own and brainwash them to think its a blessing.
This is not what my people gave their lives for, the current version is why people lose their lives.”
Posted by: Mayan Elephant | May 02, 2007 at 02:59 AM

Didn’t Jesus refer to believers as sheep?

Are you suggesting that use of the term “sheep” above to define believing Latter-day Saints was meant in the way that Jesus used it?

As for use of “those who have fallen away”, do you believe I used that phrase to give offense or to insult people who have chosen to leave the Church or who no longer believe in the Church?

By the way, you must know that I completely understand how conclusions can be easily drawn (and easily supported) the other way once that “spiritual” assurance is laid aside, as we discussed on equality’s blog and elsewhere months ago.

Hey- where is my respect?!? I want Eric to address me as “Brother (formerly Ward Greeter) Jordan T. Fowles.”

All I get is a title-less “Jordan”… :( Where is the respect?

68: Jordan, your position makes sense for someone who interprets their spiritual experiences the way you have interpreted them. Is the circular part the fact that you interpret your experiences the way you do because that’s how the Church says you should interpret them? When I interpreted my experiences the same way, I, too, gave the church the benefit of the doubt–because I was starting with the conclusion.

Of course, if one starts with the absolute conviction that the lunar landing was staged, one can find evidence to support it and can rationalize away opposing facts. Likewise, if one starts with the absolute conviction that an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell, NM in 1947, one can find evidence to confirm that conviction. Those who start with the preconceived conclusion, refusing to consider the possibility of error, will not be moved away from the position no matter the evidence.

So what is at the heart of the matter is not that “faithful” folks look at a set of facts and draw different inferences from non-faithful folks based on their reasonable assessment of those facts in light of other evidence and observations but that faithful folks looks at a set of facts and draw different inferences from the non-faithful because the faithful folks have started with a firm, immoveable conclusion and interpret the facts in light of that conclusion, whereas the non-faithful, while they may start with a conclusion, can change that conclusion if they confront enough evidence to overcome it–it’s not carved in stone but rather written in pencil.

Where does that leave us, then? I think it shows that the argument is not really over how we interpret the facts but in how we interpret our spiritual experiences. Are the spiritual experiences you’ve had a valid basis for forming the concrete conclusions you have formed about the restoration and the LDS Church today? At root, that’s the real difference between us right now. I have had spiritual experiences that I, at one time, interpreted the same way you have interpreted yours. I don’t now deny having had such experiences. I simply stopped using them as the basis for my beliefs about the foundational doctrines of Mormonism.

What! The great Mayan Elephant has put the entire Church into a box!?! The cult box? How can we have a productive conversation now?

Mayan Elephant,

if you havent seen the news from BYU that a student committed suicide on campus, you should look it up. i have no clue why he did it. but, i empathize greatly with him and his family.

Read Ty Mansfield’s book In Quiet Desperation; the first section of the book is written by Stuart’s parents.

i had a long awaited vacation interrupted with the news of the death of a family friend. she hung herself in her own home. she was the mother of young children and the wife of a bishop. do you think, honestly, that i take this lightly?

What does this indicate other than that there are people among us who are seriously mentally ill?
All that said, I agree with you that some people approach our faith like a cult, and they probably have similar experiences as if they were in a cult. Others of us examine it very critically, and we function as very healthy, well-adjusted people who interact very well with other members of society.

Mayan Elephant,

I am sorry if you took offense to my comment. I was trying to point out that even well-intentioned, disaffected members can “draw lines” by using hurtful language that interferes with and destroys productive conversation.

In answer to your question, yes I am trying to do my small part to influence LDS culture in a positive way. Growing up, most stereotypes about LDS that I was exposed to were ones that did not particularly bother me (i.e., prude, bore). My non-member friends would tease me a bit for being so “good,” but I never felt uncomfortable being identified as Mormon. However, I was absolutely devastated when I started law school in L.A. and found that a substantial number of my classmates presumed, because I attended BYU undergrad, that I was racist and homophobic, and because I am a woman, that I grew up downtrodden and second-class. Without question, the most difficult part of my first year of law school was not the Socractic method or book-briefing cases, it was the emotional pain I felt knowing that people who did not know me assumed such terribly ugly things about me. I have no doubt and understand completely that these stereotypes contain an element of truth, namely, that there are bigoted, sexist, homophobic people who identify themselves as members of the Church to which I claim membership. All I could hope for was that some people would be sufficiently open-minded and get to know the real me. Luckily many did, but unfortunately, many assumed I was the exception and not a “real” Mormon because I did not fit their preconceived notions.

I can understand and share many of your concerns regardings the Church and its members. In addition to my degree, the most important thing I took away from USC was the understanding that LDS people can and have deeply offended others, and those wounds get passed on and around. I am trying my best to heal them when and where I can.

That being said, “do you get” that I do not want my children being branded as cultish? That wonderful and good people can likewise be hurt by pejorative terms that you use?

Mayan Elephant,

look what happens when i draw lines and create boxes. i truly have power. are you scared of me yet?

No, not scared, but mostly because I have a hard time following what it is that you are trying to say or what bearing it might have on the topic at hand.

If they have acne and they go to Church, then the cause-and-effect is very apparent. Looks like a cult to me.

Seth and Dan, although I agree that calling the Church a cult and, despite any clear channel of causation, attributing church members’ suicides to the Church are not productive for this discussion, I found your comments in ## 82 and 83 to be equally unconducive to this discussion because they are sarcastic — and thus tear down the object — and they are dismissive of the fact that a reasonable conclusion to draw from aspects of Church history is that the Church is not true. Ultimately, everyone who encounters the Church must decide whether or not to believe the Church’s truth claims. From previous experience I have the impression that both of you fully agree that it is understandable that some people stop believing or choose not to believe in the first place when considering complex and difficult aspects of Church history, which is why your sarcastic comments surprised me.

in a post made earlier this year, and also in a post i made yesterday, i was speaking as a man and not as an elephant.

first of all, to anonymous – congratulations again on the great googling.

here is Part I of my post that was cut for your comment:
http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2007/05/the_mormons_a_r.html

Jordan, I can’t speak for Equality, but i can say that I had a similar reaction to the first hour.

I just wanted to scream out at the screen – “Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamnit. Can’t anyone see what is so inspiring about this?”

I wouldn’t say it is the trademarked spirit at all. It’s more like the draw it would be to have been on the Mayflower, or to have traveled with Lewis and Clark.

Joseph Smith, with all his flaws, was a leader. His followers were a strong community. The comparison of Smith to Henry Ford was very moving and profound. He wanted every person to have miracles and revelation. When Brigham Young said he wanted to be a prophet, Smith embraced it. Smith overpromised and overextended himself to the point of extreme consequence. That too was part of his charm. In all that, he was on a roll and his people were inspired enough by him to create a massive movement and identity.

Look at Smith. Look how fast he was moving. Can you see him stacking his fortune 100 institution with old bastards that worry about earrings or poker and then just sitting back and waiting to see who lives the longest? hell no. He may have 476 wives if he lived as long as Hinckley, but i gaurandamntee ya he would not have yanked their money, priestess authority or curriculum away from them. Sure, inside, the guy was a devil of sorts. But, still, even devils can be fun.

That is what I mourn.

The Hinckley church is the exact opposite of Smith’s. Smith wouldn’t recognize this institution. His strangeness has been replaced with a strange reverence, aptly captured by the description of him as the ‘Mormon Alpha and Omega.’

No longer is this an institution of adventurists and a community that takes in the bold, those willing to buck society for their own benefit or future generations. Now, it is a snitch state on a treadmill with a Mope that is trying to mainstream the joint while maintaining his antique social views.

Nothing, Nothing, Nothing could have better contrasted the first hour, and its incredible metaphors and events, with the current church, than Oaks smirked response, “It is wrong to criticize church leaders even if the criticism is true.”

Oaks should be forced to eat nothing but cucumbers and drink only pickle juice until the morning of the 7th resurrection for that crap.

and here is part II

I just finished watching the second episode.

Will y’all think I am a lesser elephant if I admit that I cried? It’s fine if you think that. It is true. That was brutal to watch. Effing brutal.

I lost it.

Margaret Toscano did me in. I was just amused without seeing anything very interesting, until Toscano came along. Then, it all changed.

I dont know if there are others on here that have sat on the jury side of a Mormon church court. I have. I was a High Priest in the church. I was in the seats they pictured in that video, the jury seats. Damnit. There is no redemption for that. None. Not ever. It is part of me now. I dont expect to ever be redeemed for having been a part of one of those courts. I can only hope to adjust after having made that part of my life experience.

Hearing Toscano tore me to pieces.

The rest of the video was, well, you know, whatever. Who cares? The homosexuality stuff was predictable. Boyd Packer was just what one would expect, a prick. Whatever. The filmmaker was just bizarre. It was sad, but what is the point? Whitney was really dumb to put him on the spot – would you rather have your wife or your son? Lame Helen, very lame.

If people cannot see the absolute trauma that is in those courts, and the heinousness of it all, the little goofy snippets of the choir or some businessman that serves cake in his own home while wearing his suit and tie, are not relevant. Really.

This church judges its own. This church divides families on earth. They use courts to divide families. They use the temple to divide families. They use volunteerism to divide families. Oh, and they do all this, in the name of forever families.

On one hand, I saw Toscano, and I knew she would sit in that chair, and take the bullet for me, for my local leaders, for my mission companions, for my wife and kids, for all women, for Mormons. She could do it because she loved Mormons. Does anyone get that? She loves that community.

And then, Jensen speaks, Boyd Packer speaks, and I realize those men want me gone. They want me silenced. They want me to no longer be a part of the tribe or community that once included Toscano, and many other women like her that they are busy telling to shut up.

Toscano being denied the chance to dress her sister is unreal. If anyone reads this and claims families are forever, remember that image, of a sister, divided from her family, her heritage and ritual.

Honestly, I want to see someone in the bloggernacle scream in all caps with lots of smilies and bold font that what happened to Toscano was out of line. I want Otterson to finally admit that it was wrong, out of line, egregious, and the entire community is worse because of it. Until they do, I will continue to try and convince myself that it was not a tribe that I left, but a cult.

Tribes and families take care of their own. Cults threaten their own and brainwash them to think its a blessing.

This is not what my people gave their lives for, the current version is why people lose their lives.

i hesitate to quote this and put it up here for you all to chew up like raw meet. but, when read in full context it makes more sense that the snip that anonymous threw in here.

oh, and by the way, jordan said this over there, though he said it before my review of the second episode:

ME- I love the way you express yourself. It makes me think and laugh all at the same time, even when I disagree with your conclusions. I have probably read literally thousands of your words (and more) both here and elsewhere at this point.

I can see your point about the differences between the more beaurocratic LDS church of today and the maverick LDS church of yesteryear. It’s one of the things that tickles me as I read various takes on church history.

But I have to say that I believe Joseph Smith would have taken the same strict stance against criticism of “church leaders” as Elder Oaks did- indeed, Joseph Smith did not have a high tolerance for criticism. Nor did Brigham Young.

Posted by: Jordan

john f, i appreciate your remark about betrayal. i think you really do get it and you gotta know how hard it is for me to complement you, given my evil nature and all. of all the comments about inoculation, and podcasts about inoculation, and debates and posts and everything else, i think you finally hit it with one concise statement – bringing the complex and difficult issues into regular Church discussions of doctrine would serve as a vaccine against feeling betrayed by the Church. The truth does not need a vaccine or inoculation, betrayal on the other hand, needs vaccine. betrayal really is the disease, not the truth.

this, along with your acknowledgment that some people may leave upon learning something true, is huge progress and outshines the response that Steve Evans showed in the above link.

regarding the ties to suicide and the church. all y’all need to chill a bit. my point is not that the church caused the death. my point is that there are people living amongst us that are experiencing HUGE problems and facing enormous challenges. some people are going to church and doing all they should be doing, and below the surface, they are not well. and we dont always know who that may be. so, lets stop pretending that those that stay are not fallen and those that leave are fallen and that the church is not responsible for anything and that the church is responsible for everything and that one side is good and one is bad. instead, lets agree that people are very different and they dont all look good in white shirts.

Mayan,

Glad to see you’re back. In spite of my snarky tone, I really do value your perspective.

my point is that there are people living amongst us that are experiencing HUGE problems and facing enormous challenges. some people are going to church and doing all they should be doing, and below the surface, they are not well.

I have been saying that for years. I think we are terrible at seeing mental health issues for what they are, and part of that has to do with our inability as members of the Church to think outside a lot of easy equations that we use to explain why people are unhappy or suffering. I had a mission companion who got dysentery in Brazil, and his zone leader sat down with him and read him this from 1 Corinthians 11:

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

We have all kinds of similar useless formulas we use to explain mental illness, and it’s sad that we do so. I think (and hope) we are doing better about this, but we still have a long way to go.

a random john,

we agree, finally, that betrayal is the big issue. i am thrilled to be at that point. i hope that was evident in my comment to john f.

i have no problem whatsoever with people drawing their own conclusions for themselves. i may not agree with the conclusions but go for it, draw your own conclusions.

People might leave not because the[y] feel betrayed but because the information they’ve been given and the way it was presented caused them to reach the conclusion that the Church is not true.

to that i say, People might leave because the information they’ve been given and the way it was presented caused them to reach the conclusion that the leaders of the Church have not been honest.

i may not get your subtle distinction but let me try and explain it. to you, there is not a betrayal if the source of information is accompanied with a hidden or overt agenda of convincing people to leave the church. and, further, if one feels betrayed by the church it is not justified because the church was simply presenting information with an agenda that promotes continued loyalty and participation in the church. i am assuming that for you the agenda or bias of the church is justified because the church is ‘true’ and because individuals are better off in the church than out. is that close to what you were saying? also, you are saying that people are not actually betrayed, rather they are confused and misled by the bias and agenda of presenters of church history.

random john, what is your agenda? what is mine? after all, everyone has one, including me. what is the agenda of the 14 apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Back in 2005, Jeff Lindsay wrote a good essay on looking for lies, and how it’s not productive in the gospel.

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/liars-liars-everywhere-story-of-my-lie.html

I had a similar predicament when I found out something that an apostle said at General Conference was not universally true. He left some things out, and I took his statements to be in the absolute.

But his statements were not to be taken in the absolute, there were unwritten and commonly known exceptions. However, as a recent convert I didn’t know those commonly-known exceptions, and made decisions and committments based on interpreting his statements in the absolute.

When I found out the whole truth of the matter, I was deeply hurt and considered what he said to be “lies.”

It took a long time for me to finally realize that leaders can’t give everything all at once. You can’t teach the rules and all the exceptions in one fell swoop. Not only is there not enough time in one conference talk, or even in a whole conference, it just isn’t practical anyway.

Aaron,

no, no, no, no, no. it was quite swell actually. you must have clicked the wrong link. I loved it man. i mean, who cant dig on this:

I’ve become ratha weary of tha steady anti-Mormon whin’n `bout how tha Church has “lied.” They’ve stated they complaints a thousand times, n continue ta repeat such accusations on this B-L-to-tha-izzog . Keep’n it gangsta dogg. We all kizzle tha routine . Slap yo self: Joseph lied, tha temple is a lie, tha Book of Mormon is a lie, Gordon B n’ dem Hinckley lied, BYU is a lie, n we is all liv’n a lie. I’m sorry some thugz is so bitta `bout killa bad experiences tizzle may hizzy had wit tha Church or some of its gangsta or `bout human ridin’ in tha mortals in tha Church. Crazy Ass pimpin this blog is not tha forum ta repeat S-to-tha-izzuch accusations crazy up in here.

oh. and i thought my mom lied to me too. in fact, she did gosh darnit. she lied about santa and some bunny thing that comes around when we celebrated jesus’s victory. by the way, the easter bunny is not anti-mormon. i know this.

It took a long time for me to finally realize that leaders can’t give everything all at once. You can’t teach the rules and all the exceptions in one fell swoop. Not only is there not enough time in one conference talk, or even in a whole conference, it just isn’t practical anyway.

Although it is a good move to realize that Mormon leaders are merely mortals, I have trouble with your rationalization. What is the use of speakers if the audience has to have a greater understanding than the presenters?

If this is the standard we apply to Church leaders then the concept of inspired leadership becomes meaningless.

More importantly, it is problematic to burden the members with the shortcomings of the leaders. In the army I learned that the fish begins to stink at the head. In the language of the gospel that means ‘to whom there has been given much, much is expected.’

It is unethical and unreasonable to absolve the individuals with the greatest power from responsibility at the expense of children, converts and faithful members.

Finally, it is simply not true that one cannot give a careful talk that properly distinguishes various circumstances of LDS members. At the very least, one could advise the members that they have to consider their own circumstances in the pursuit of their welfare.

Sadly, that only happens rarely in our culture even though it takes less than thirty seconds to say it. Instead we are socializing children to idolize the prophet at an age where they are too young to consider the meaning of those words.

Dan,

“Nutjobbery” is my new favorite word.

Interesting discussion. Deserves further thought.