NOM

I'm curious to know what people think of the strategy (I guess that's the word) in which the church urges people to study church history more and more deeply.

It just seems so weird to me, since my sanity was saved by just leaving it all on the curb and setting off to study all the stuff I'd been ignoring and sidelining for 50-plus years. I don't see how people will become more forgiving, accepting, etc., of the church's flaws and failings without seeing them in the context of the whole history of the world.

It feels like they're saying, Just a little farther...a little more...just a little more and you'll be back to "normal."

It is very naive advice, based on the assumption that everything has a good, faith-promoting answer and that you can find it through increased effort. The problem is that it only works if you stick to correlated materials, which of course is really what they're telling you to do. "Useful" history, and all that.

There is a similar problem with telling people to read the scriptures more. The church loves two things regarding scripture: reading cover-to-cover and reading every day. Both are acts of devotion that are built around setting goals so you can feel good about yourself and, by direct association, the church. If your ward/stake is anything like mine their always setting ward/stake goals to read the Book of Mormon in a year and they created goal-setting charts, progress trackers and rewards for succeeding. It's never really about learning more, it's about demonstrating devotion.

People get a lot of cred in the church when they have read stacks of church-approved "history" and doctrine.

The advice you never hear is to abandon your preconceptions and try to read the scriptures for what they really say. We are to read the scriptures for confirmation, not enlightenment. I remember how I used to do it in my believing days. It was a chore to be done and put out of the way. I scanned for familiar passages and confirmation stories and phrases. If something seemed out of line with church teachings I would mentally shrug and move on. The scriptures actually became a lot more interesting after my faith crisis and I started reading them for actual content. That's about the time I realized that I could study official church history and just get the same old platitudes over and over again without really learning the history.

As Hagoth indicated, if they're implying the study of correlated material then their strategy makes sense to keep one in the church. If they mean for you to study the unvarnished, unwhitewashed truth, I can't think of anything that would lead you out of the church faster.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2017 5:27 pm It is very naive advice...

I'm trying to get outside of my own mindset, but I'm skeptical. Are there really people whose world was rocked by the essays (or CES letter, RSR, negative church experiences) who regained equilibrium after reading Joseph Smith Papers, or the Book of Mormon e-v-e-r-y day? Just wondering if it's something that sounded good to say, or if they have actual "data."

There is a similar problem with telling people to read the scriptures more. The church loves two things regarding scripture: reading cover-to-cover and reading every day. Both are acts of devotion that are built around setting goals so you can feel good about yourself and, by direct association, the church. ...It's never really about learning more, it's about demonstrating devotion.

Seminary is in most wards a great example of this. I taught from a pretty lame manual and can agree that it's about devotion, cohesion, endurance. Not bad things, but not enough.

The advice you never hear is to abandon your preconceptions and try to read the scriptures for what they really say. We are to read the scriptures for confirmation, not enlightenment.

Has the GD curriculum changed? I've had other callings and not been in there. I got the impression five years ago or so that there was a huge effort underway.

The scriptures actually became a lot more interesting after my faith crisis and I started reading them for actual content.

Amen. And connecting with others who are doing the same, online and elsewhere.

The goal is always to get back, back to how you used to think and feel. Not to move forward, want more, expect more. And to maintain a belief in our authority and exclusivity.

Palerider wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2017 10:15 pm As Hagoth indicated, if they're implying the study of correlated material then their strategy makes sense to keep one in the church. If they mean for you to study the unvarnished, unwhitewashed truth, I can't think of anything that would lead you out of the church faster.

Again, I wish I knew what they are looking at when they suggest this. Are they really hearing about people with lots of angst and questions who, for instance, read the essays and say, Okay, I get it now? Or do they just think: We made material available + lots of people don't have problems = studying our material keeps people in the church. When, in fact, the three have little to do with each other.

TBM's do study- the conference talks and the scriptures. All about OBEY. When I started to lose my faith, my family all sent me conference talks and links to "LDS living".

It is that tricky internet with all of the links that takes people down the rabbit hole. I started at Dialogue, then BCC, then FMH, then NOM- and it was all downhill from there!

Palerider wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2017 10:15 pm As Hagoth indicated, if they're implying the study of correlated material then their strategy makes sense to keep one in the church. If they mean for you to study the unvarnished, unwhitewashed truth, I can't think of anything that would lead you out of the church faster.

+1

I'm quite positive their strategy is to have you read their narrative of that history, ease you into the essays, then make those the new norm so they don't shock anyone and keep you plugged into the matrix. Even when you search for a topic like "Joseph Smith polyandry" what happens in Google? You get the top 3-5 links that are owned by the church or fairmormon! They are using your tithing money to try and buy the online narrative as well! I'd like to know how much the COB spends with Google in an effort to keep the truth several links down the page.

Charlotte wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2017 11:52 pm Again, I wish I knew what they are looking at when they suggest this. Are they really hearing about people with lots of angst and questions who, for instance, read the essays and say, Okay, I get it now? Or do they just think: We made material available + lots of people don't have problems = studying our material keeps people in the church. When, in fact, the three have little to do with each other.

In some cases the advice to study may just be a sound bite to reassure you that all of the good answers are out there if you are willing to do the work. Most people really don't enjoy intensive study; it's hard work and it takes a lot of time. Like so many things in Mormonism, the moment a crack appears, the blame is placed on the person who noticed it. Generally speaking, the people who give the advice that you should study more obviously a) haven't taken their own advice, or b) they have not ventured outside of the correlated lines.

Every time I have asked anyone if they have read a particular essay they have said something like, "no, but I have a pretty good idea what it says and what the answers are."

I just have to keep reminding myself that the typical member does not want to know IF the church is true, they only want to know THAT the church is true, and they have countless thousands of pages of conference talks and platitude-laden books that serve that purpose.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 8:11 am
In some cases the advice to study may just be a sound bite to reassure you that all of the good answers are out there if you are willing to do the work. Most people really don't enjoy intensive study; it's hard work and it takes a lot of time. Like so many things in Mormonism, the moment a crack appears, the blame is placed on the person who noticed it. Generally speaking, the people who give the advice that you should study more obviously a) haven't taken their own advice,

I will say that in the case of my SP he told me (and I believed him) that he had studied all of the "anti" literature and that it hadn't bothered or effected him. The implication was, "So what's your problem?"

What he didn't realize was that by telling me he had studied "it all" and it didn't bother him, I began to see him as having a really serious problem with a bias that his church position wouldn't allow him to overcome. Once you've been in a position to rub shoulders with the GA's on a consistent basis, I think the hero or leadership worship takes over and you want so badly to get into that club with the praise and the adulation, that you just can't bring yourself to confront the truth and all of the social implications of what calling a spade a spade would mean.

By rejecting the false accusation that it's the member's fault for being "unfaithful, lazy, wanting to sin", etc., etc. and placing the fault where it truly belongs, which is on the church and it's leadership for being untrue, we actually take away their power to influence us and do us any further spiritual or emotional harm. And they really, really, hate that. They like to say or imply that they don't "need" anybody but the reality is they hate losing control, especially of intelligent, well respected, service oriented, spiritual people who call them on the carpet for being a fraud.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 8:11 am In some cases the advice to study may just be a sound bite to reassure you that all of the good answers are out there if you are willing to do the work. Most people really don't enjoy intensive study; it's hard work and it takes a lot of time. Like so many things in Mormonism, the moment a crack appears, the blame is placed on the person who noticed it. Generally speaking, the people who give the advice that you should study more obviously a) haven't taken their own advice, or b) they have not ventured outside of the correlated lines.

Every time I have asked anyone if they have read a particular essay they have said something like, "no, but I have a pretty good idea what it says and what the answers are."

I just have to keep reminding myself that the typical member does not want to know IF the church is true, they only want to know THAT the church is true, and they have countless thousands of pages of conference talks and platitude-laden books that serve that purpose.

Uh, this.

When I told my bishop about my problems with the corporate church and sent him that bloomberg article on the church's wealth and the mall, he thanked me and then asked, "but are you still reading your scriptures?" Like that was the problem. I responded by telling him it was my reading of the New Testament that illustrated to me that the church had strayed far, far away from the teachings of Jesus, and that was way more problematic than the bloomberg article I sent him. Since then, crickets.

A faith crisis commonly makes LDS scholars of most of us. Seriously, the meme below would describe me and most of the long time members of this board if we were approached by an LDS leader of any rank concerning "studying more". It's the general theme of an apostate meeting with a general authority who has had their time of manic study of LDS history.



Je Suis Ron Swanson

Palerider wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 9:28 amI will say that in the case of my SP he told me (and I believed him) that he had studied all of the "anti" literature and that it hadn't bothered or effected him. The implication was, "So what's your problem?"

This is a very useful stance for believers to take in the face of doubters, but it seldom means that they have REALLY gone out searching for and seriously considered what is being said outside of authoritative sources. It usually means that they have been introduced to the issues as embedded in apologetic sources like FAIR or Jeff Lindsey's website, where they are often presented in the half-truth format of the essays, followed by a laundry list of possible explanations and a warning to not let Satan dissuade you.

Many of us can understand this version of having "studied all of the "anti" literature" because we probably said and did the same things on our missions or at some other point in our faithful years.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 10:17 am A faith crisis commonly makes LDS scholars of most of us. Seriously, the meme below would describe me and most of the long time members of this board if we were approached by an LDS leader of any rank concerning "studying more". It's the general theme of an apostate meeting with a general authority who has had their time of manic study of LDS history.



Je Suis Ron Swanson

I really love this. It's very true.

Next time, someone thinks they can help me with my issues, I think I'll say this to them. Of course, it won't go well.

Palerider wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 9:28 am By rejecting the false accusation that it's the member's fault for being "unfaithful, lazy, wanting to sin", etc., etc. and placing the fault where it truly belongs, which is on the church and it's leadership for being untrue, we actually take away their power to influence us and do us any further spiritual or emotional harm. And they really, really, hate that. They like to say or imply that they don't "need" anybody but the reality is they hate losing control, especially of intelligent, well respected, service oriented, spiritual people who call them on the carpet for being a fraud.

I want to wave my arms and say, hey, I'm one of those reasonably intelligent, well-respected, service-oriented, spiritual people. I don't actually want to say "untrue" and "fraud," but this is like talking to a brick wall. There's one setting, the "dominant narrative" that no less than Richard Bushman says is not working.

Priesthood restoration, for instance. Couldn't we acknowledge the historical problems, allow fabrication of a sort to be a legitimate conclusion, and then focus on what the priesthood aspires to be and the good that comes from decent men trying to do God's work.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 8:11 am

Charlotte wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2017 11:52 pm Again, I wish I knew what they are looking at when they suggest this. Are they really hearing about people with lots of angst and questions who, for instance, read the essays and say, Okay, I get it now? Or do they just think: We made material available + lots of people don't have problems = studying our material keeps people in the church. When, in fact, the three have little to do with each other.

In some cases the advice to study may just be a sound bite to reassure you that all of the good answers are out there if you are willing to do the work. Most people really don't enjoy intensive study; it's hard work and it takes a lot of time. Like so many things in Mormonism, the moment a crack appears, the blame is placed on the person who noticed it.

I was reminded of this listening to a just-posted Mormon Stories interview with (first name?) Duke. He had a meeting with Elder Golden. His questions were set aside, he was emotionally manipulated and heaped with blame. It's a couple of years back at this point, and I'd like to think the meeting would go differently now, but who knows.

Charlotte wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2017 8:34 pm
Priesthood restoration, for instance. Couldn't we acknowledge the historical problems, allow fabrication of a sort to be a legitimate conclusion, and then focus on what the priesthood aspires to be and the good that comes from decent men trying to do God's work.

Unfortunately I doubt this could ever happen. Although it would be nice if it could. But the brethren have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Because:
No priesthood = no saving ordinances = no temple sealing power = no leverage to demand works and conformity = no power in the leadership.
Since Mormons are a legalistic works based church the minute you eliminate authentic priesthood authority the structure collapses.

I have heard this advice to "study church history more" on several occasions now.

I have heard it from Elder Christofferson who tells people who are having trouble with issues in church history, "Don't make the mistake of not studying church history enough."

I think it is a total strategy, and is another instance in which the church talks out of both sides of its mouth.

The initial message, though not specifically articulated, is that members really shouldn't be studying church history at all beyond the correlated curricula provided by the church.

But once people go beyond the initial implicit message and find issues with church history in extra-correlated materials, the message is now changing to: "Make sure you don't study church history too little!"

The message here is that you are having problems because you studied church history too much, but now there is some magical point at the end of the church history rainbow where if you just manage to study church history "enough," you will arrive at the mystical destination where your issues will be resolved.

Of course, that point seldom comes, because generally the issues just get more complicated. But the carrot is always there for these folks that as long as they are having problems with church history, they still haven't studied it "enough."

That's what I think is going on with this message.

For what it's worth.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

consiglieri wrote: ↑Mon May 08, 2017 7:21 amOf course, that point seldom comes, because generally the issues just get more complicated. But the carrot is always there for these folks that as long as they are having problems with church history, they still haven't studied it "enough."

That's really brilliant. There is no point at which the blame can'not be turned back on you for not enduring to the end and devoting every ounce of energy for the rest of your life to the pursuit of testimony. This is the point at which I am inclined to ask why I shouldn't be devoting the same amount of study to Islam or the J-Dubs. Otherwise how can I be certain they don't have the truth?