In a day when the Gospel Topics Essays, the Saints book, Book of Mormon Central, and the Ensign openly teach things that, in past generations, were taught only by critics and apostates (things that were specifically opposed by Church leaders at the time), it doesn't seem surprising that the topic of "faith crisis" is on the minds of so many members of the Church.
Readers contact me all the time with questions about friends, family, and ward members who have left, usually over credibility issues; i.e., they can no longer believe the basic truth claims because LDS intellectuals have promoted such hoaxes as M2C, the peep stone-in-a-hat, and the unreliability of the teachings of the prophets.
The specific example I discussed in August involves the peep stone vs. the Urim and Thummim. This and other revisionist Church history ideas were featured prominently at Education Week in Provo.
As I expected, tens of thousands more Latter-day Saints left Provo believing that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by reading words that appeared on a peep stone in a hat (the supernatural teleprompter), while the plates sat nearby, useless and covered with a cloth. This theory requires an "intermediary translator" between Joseph and the Nephite records because, according to the intellectuals, Joseph could not have possibly translated the plates.
Of course, this means that Joseph and Oliver misled the Church when they consistently and persistently said Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from the plates by using the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.
But according to Book of Mormon Central and other M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians, Joseph and Oliver misled the Church about lots of things.
_____
This example surfaced in comments to a review by Jana Riess of the book Bridges: Ministering to Those Who Question by David B. Ostler.
https://religionnews.com/2019/08/09/every-mormon-leader-and-teacher-and-parent-should-read-this-book/
Riess observes these statistics.
Readers contact me all the time with questions about friends, family, and ward members who have left, usually over credibility issues; i.e., they can no longer believe the basic truth claims because LDS intellectuals have promoted such hoaxes as M2C, the peep stone-in-a-hat, and the unreliability of the teachings of the prophets.
The specific example I discussed in August involves the peep stone vs. the Urim and Thummim. This and other revisionist Church history ideas were featured prominently at Education Week in Provo.
 |
| stone-in-a-hat hoax |
Of course, this means that Joseph and Oliver misled the Church when they consistently and persistently said Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from the plates by using the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.
But according to Book of Mormon Central and other M2C intellectuals and revisionist Church historians, Joseph and Oliver misled the Church about lots of things.
_____
https://religionnews.com/2019/08/09/every-mormon-leader-and-teacher-and-parent-should-read-this-book/
Riess observes these statistics.
In the absence of information, leaders sometimes “jump to conclusions because they need to explain it and understand it.” These include the ideas that people are lazy, they are sinful, or they got offended.
Ostler decided to test those ideas on two different populations. In addition to the Faith Crisis Member Survey mentioned above, he also conducted a parallel “Local Leader Survey” in which he asked bishops, Relief Society presidents, and other leaders why they think people leave.
The disconnect was startling. For example, 84% of local leaders said that people leave because they don’t want to live the commandments, but only 9% of Faith Crisis respondents said that actually applied to them.
Instead, they said they were concerned about problems in Church history, the Church’s stance on LGBT issues, unequal gender roles, judgmentalism, and other issues.
The comments include this exchange:
I think there are a few aspects of this situation that Dr. Riess' article touched on, but did not emphasize. (? Perhaps the book did not get into these?)
That's the idea of "how did these bishops (et al) 'know' why these Mormons left? What was the source of their "knowledge"?
It would appear that in fact they had no real knowledge of the reasons these individuals left. Rather, they appear to have made up reasons that would be satisfying to the LDS authorities.
The first obvious question that raises is, "why?" My guess is that the "answers" were very satisfying to all concerned, and reinforced their ideas about LDS beliefs and culture.
And I think this situation raises another interesting question: is there any in-depth curiosity among LDS authorities about these matters? My guess is that they learn quickly that curiosity is not a good characteristic!
•Reply
Ostler decided to test those ideas on two different populations. In addition to the Faith Crisis Member Survey mentioned above, he also conducted a parallel “Local Leader Survey” in which he asked bishops, Relief Society presidents, and other leaders why they think people leave.
The disconnect was startling. For example, 84% of local leaders said that people leave because they don’t want to live the commandments, but only 9% of Faith Crisis respondents said that actually applied to them.
Instead, they said they were concerned about problems in Church history, the Church’s stance on LGBT issues, unequal gender roles, judgmentalism, and other issues.
The comments include this exchange:
I think there are a few aspects of this situation that Dr. Riess' article touched on, but did not emphasize. (? Perhaps the book did not get into these?)
That's the idea of "how did these bishops (et al) 'know' why these Mormons left? What was the source of their "knowledge"?
It would appear that in fact they had no real knowledge of the reasons these individuals left. Rather, they appear to have made up reasons that would be satisfying to the LDS authorities.
The first obvious question that raises is, "why?" My guess is that the "answers" were very satisfying to all concerned, and reinforced their ideas about LDS beliefs and culture.
And I think this situation raises another interesting question: is there any in-depth curiosity among LDS authorities about these matters? My guess is that they learn quickly that curiosity is not a good characteristic!
•Reply
-
It seems that cognitive dissonance is mistaken for a "loss of the Spirit", rather than for what it really is--two mutually incompatible ideas vying for the same space. Just one example of many: Claim: Joseph translated the gold plates using the Urim and Thummim. Dissonance: No, Joseph used a seerstone he placed in a hat. The same seerstone he used when convicted of being an unruly person (bilking neighbors through treasure-seeking). More dissonance: Wait, we weren't taught about a seerstone in a hat in church. Why don't ANY of the church illustrations use in ANY programs show him with his face buried in his hat? And, if he was able to use the seerstone, then why did God make Moroni lug his abridgment around to hide it from the Lamanites?
No comments:
Post a Comment