Several students' jaws dropped. One, later in the discussion, said she wanted to go back to five minutes ago when she felt like she understood her religion.

The professor dropped it in passing like it was nothing. What ensued after the initial reaction was an attempt at damage control.

He pulled up the church's essay on multiple first vision accounts on the overhead projector in front of twenty students.

We started discussing how accounts evolve over time depending on who you are talking to. The professor, though, admitted that there was a clear theological development in the story. He explained it like this: "it makes sense that Joseph would reinterpret his experience as he learned more through revelation."

This discussion ended with him saying that church growth is flat in north america right now, and the church is undergoing a lot of change. He brought up the essays and said the church is trying to help the members through this change. People get very upset when they first learn about this stuff, but it's no big deal once they study it.

"Please don't leave the church," he said as class ended and attempted to make it sound "jokingly." The air was thick in the room though.
****************************************************************

I think what I witnessed is how Mormonism is going to try and make it through the age of the internet. I watched one well-intentioned professor's attempt at inoculation. All you have to do is sprinkle the information throughout your lectures in passive, short tangents –– not enough to hurt them, just enough to give them immunity.

To be there in the middle of it was like electricity inside me. It was a strange blending of two worlds.

I really don't think this strategy is going to work for them. It is one thing to hear the truth from other sources, but when people in the church hear it from the church, they can't say it's a lie or anti-mormon. There will always be a certain percentage that will excuse anything, but I think this is going to create a big decline in numbers.

Y'all should have been there. It was priceless.

Just like when the polygamy essay came out, there were several students coming out to those who reacted poorly saying "I've always known about this. No one hid it from you. It's no big deal."

We've always been at war with east Asia...

I also think of the sheep in animal farm. You don't have the time go "wait a minute" over the chorus of "four legs good, two legs bad."

Then they closed the discussion with some blame the victim by telling stories of people who heard this stuff and "had their names removed" with a certain shame in the air about it. The conversation became dominated by the yes-men who settled it for everyone amongst themselves that the church needs to be given endless chances, and by the way "Joseph Smith wasn't perfect."

"no big deal once they study it"

Yeah right. If that's the reaction he got to multiple first visions how does he think the class is going to handle polygamy? Growing up I always thought it was practiced sparingly (one or two women) by JS but really took off under Brigham. Didn't know about the other men's wives, or teenagers. I was long gone from the church when I discovered that but that didn't sit well with me at all.

anonrit3n0w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "no big deal once they study it"
>
> Yeah right. If that's the reaction he got to
> multiple first visions how does he think the class
> is going to handle polygamy? Growing up I always
> thought it was practiced sparingly (one or two
> women) by JS but really took off under Brigham.
> Didn't know about the other men's wives, or
> teenagers. I was long gone from the church when I
> discovered that but that didn't sit well with me
> at all.

But the plan is they DON'T study it. They hear about it, they freak out, they are shown a scholarly article that looks like it answers the difficult questions for them, they move on.

That's inoculation. Nowhere in the church plan is the member supposed to actually study this stuff for themselves. If they do, most will leave.

Can't speak for today's youth but that would never sat fly with me. I was that child who needed a why for everything. If I thought I wasn't getting the whole truth I would go searching for it myself. Which is why I'm here and not in church being blindly obedient.

I was building a sturdy shelf.
No time to actually study the issues, too busy building and stacking crazy shit on the shelf. LOL

That is exactly the strategy they are hoping for: Keep the members focused on shoring up the shelf.

No need to think, "Why do I need a shelf in the first place?"

Yup. Home/Visiting Teaching, giving lessons, administrative calling, temple visits, toilet cleaning, and more add up to a lot of busy work that leaves little time for honest study.

Would have liked to have been a fly on the wall in that class and been able to watch the facial expressions as that bit of information was delivered.

And, I am also trying to envision a few of my TBM grandchildren in such a class. Ultra TBM grandchildren....at BYU, the university of the Lord, a professor of religion delivering this blow.

WOW!

I really am surprised that the professor talked about this subject at BYU.

Hooray! Keep the ball rolling and some of those kids, maybe among them my own grandkids!!!! will be the winners!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2015 05:15PM by presleynfactsrock.

I think this professor is trying to educate the students in his class about the dubious history of the church, while continuing to keep his job. I don't think he believes the rhetoric from the essays, and knows the entire thing is based on 'stories'.

If he continues to bring up the other essay topics I can only assume he wants to warn the students about what the actual history is and what the church beliefs, practices, and doctrines really are. To say the church growth in N.America is flat lined gives students the idea that many are responding to these 'stories' with their feet and WHY they are leaving.

Hopefully he will continue using the essays in his class. Surest way to open up the minds of students. These are indefensible stories by anyone's standards, except perhaps those who bilk thousands of dollars from the pockets of faithful believing members.

That's an interesting thought.

I did find it curious when I heard the words "flat" "church growth" and "North America" all used the same way on a recent Mormon Expression episode later that day.

When I heard my first Jan Shipps lecture and realized how much more she knew about Mormonism than I did, I quickly started studying. Guess what happened? Studying things will make things clear that Mormonism is a scam from beginning to present.

I've mentioned before I first heard about the multiple versions when I was in Mutual, & the excuse I was given was that Smith became a better writer as he got older, so of course he was going to write about the experience multiple times. What a crock.

I could see maybe where the story might be told more eloquently from one year to the next, but GEEZ, the very essential elements changed. If I had been visited by Jesus Christ himself, I think I'd have a pretty clear picture of it. I may not remember the exact words spoken to me, but I'd sure as heck remember who and how many "personages" had appeared.

But I was totally TBM when I was at BYU, so perhaps I would have just let it go - just as Scotslander was saying probably - I would have SEEN that there was a big article about it by the church, would have read maybe a little of it and then just assumed that there was a perfectly good explanation within.

In fact, they should make it a habit to write big whoppin rebuttals every time. They could say nothing, just put a lot of faith-promoting, doubt your doubts stuff in there and I bet that'd suffice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2015 06:20PM by seekyr.

Wouldn't surprise me if he were looking for a new job after the semester ends. Sad, but a good possibility :)

Yup. Poor guy is probably updating his resume as we speak.

I think it is a lost cause to think information like that will inoculate members. What it will do is cause mistrust in people who adamantly believed the information was anti Mormon lies. Maybe even anger that they defended what they thought was true so strongly only to find out they had been lied to. They may even know people who were excommunicated for stating the very things the church is coming clean about now. I think what will happen is more people will think, "Gee if the church lied about this, what else did they lie about?" and make their own conclusions. This is already happening and it will only increase. Good for your professor putting it out there for the students who wouldn't otherwise have any notion about the essays.

I agree, I think that is exactly what will happen for a lot of people. Starting to question things is the hardest part. Once you start to unravel all of the lies, leaving becomes a lot easier.

Totally concur with the “inoculation” theory. I was BIC and grew up in Utah. I remember in my teen years in sunday school and in priesthood meetings the “in the know” teacher would informally explain some of the odd doctrines that, now that I’m older, I’m pretty sure are not in the official instruction manual (e.g. adam-god, celestial polygamy, etc… At least I’ve never seen these subjects in an official manual and they certainly are not ever emphasized). Because these types of subjects were not explicitly in the instruction manual it was always kind of random and off-the-cuff (and a sincere belief from a respected adult ward member and neighbor), but at the time I didn’t know that and these types of doctrine didn’t seem that odd relative to the Book of Abraham, etc. (And these lessons were a heck of a lot more interesting than the official tithing, church history, WoW, or chastity type of lesson).

So in a very real way I was “inoculated” to them because they just seemed like the way it always was.

But now that I’m older and with the essays I’ve realized that the official church literature never really mentioned that type of stuff (as far as I know).

One example, I remember the church always emphasizing the great love between Joseph and Emma. When I visited temple square when I was younger (last real visit in the 90’s) I remember seeing a statute of Emma and Joseph together in a pose that seemed to emphasize the love they had for each other. If I hadn’t gotten that informal education when I was younger I can see how someone might feel “a little” misled about the official church line when they learned about the polygamy.

Anyway, on a side point, since Joseph did have all those wives, how come all the other wives are not as represented in official church history as Emma? (They only get an essay?) Shouldn’t all the wives get equal honors? Isn’t equality in the marriage one of principles of polygamy? Unfortunately, I guess it seems that, “All the wives are equal, but the first wife is more equal than others!”

The first wife is always viewed as the first among equals therefore only she needs be included in the history books. Sounds like Mormon logic to me.

I think that there is a bunch of BYU professors that do this on a regular basis. They know that MORmONISM really does not factor out to be correct and /or anything close to what it claims. After a while, they are compelled to explore what other people's sensibilities and /or huge lack of sensibility on MORmON matters really are.

It is like discovering that most people that you work with are blind to a certain object or to certain sounds, and its hard to comprehend. So after a while the professor brings the object to class and sets it on his desk. The Students are oblivious to it, so after a while the professor casually picks it up while he is lecturing, and no body notices it. This is very intriguing. Lets say the invisible object is a whistle. So after a while the professor starts blowing the whistle. Not only do people not see it, but they do not hear it. After a while the professor starts blowing the whistle harder and harder. No one notices, Its a huge amusement and a huge power trip for the professor. Its also an invitation to press on to see just how far the gag can go. When they finally get to the point when some one hears the whistle, the conditions are absurd, then the professor has to act like nothing happened, because they finally stumbled onto the threshold where certain people start to notice the invisible object and what is going on. Its a grand amusement for the instructor to see that people (MORmONS in this case) can be so selectively ignorant and oblivious. But he does not dare wholesale divulge the truth = what is really going on, because that would also mean giving up his big fat paycheck and his career.

I was at YBU Education Week with my convert. One of the big shot legends in his own mind BYU Egypt archaeologists was giving a faith promoting presentation on the latest excavations in Egypt. He claimed to have found a steel crow bar in one of the digs and he showed the photo of it. He probably did find it in the dig, as it was left there by some body else in more modern times. He inferred that the steel crow bar was ancient, and that ancient civilizations were far more advanced than we might think, as a round about defense of (ABSURD) Book of MORmON claims. I knew enough about steel to know that there are not any ancient egyptian steel crowbars or steel anything else. The guy wrapped up the presentation and he could not get out of there fast enough in his effort to avoid me and my questions about the issue.

Nibley did the same thing, in this video he mentions that Joe Smith allowed that Mohammad was a legit prophet, That is in utter conflict with the MORmON ideal that the heavens were sealed from the great apostasy until the first vision, and The MORmON ideal that all prophecy is based on a testimony of the divinty of Christ because Islam emphatically states that Christ is not divine, which in Book of MORmON terms makes it Satanic, and hardly the work/ outcome of a legit Prophet, Nibley knows that but just prattles on like everything is fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVqr0SgKTck

Hinckley got to the point where he gratuitously screwed with the member's brains too, out right referring to the Joe Smith Story as sounding "preposterous". This was Hinckley's way of hyping of the Joe Smith story (because when a person does not believe it,just as Hinckley really did not believe it, then it's boring and it needs spicing up), emphasizing his (BS) power ( the only power that the POS Hinckley ever really had) and reinforcing the notion that the dumb bell MORmON members are duty bound to believe what ever their crap spewing MORmON leaders tell them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWknakABlfc

A deeply flawed person has had way too much power for way too long when they get to the point when they feel justified in doing crap like that.

I remember one of my religion professors dismissing Charles Larson's book 'By his own hand upon papyrus' which takes apart the BOA and arguing that all the translation problems with the BOA could be dismissed with the claim that it was just a conduit for revelation and not really a 'translation' like it says.

I went to the library after that found the book and it totally destroyed everything I thought about the BOA and the weak-ass defense the prof attempted to mount.

Thank you professor for unwittingly pointing me in the right direction!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We can only hope that the students in the class use their brains and do a little more research. Because once you know the truth of it all, there is no going back. That's how it happened with me. I wanted to be sure I was making the right decision about leaving and the more I researched the worse it got. It wasn't an easy process by any means, but I am firm in the decision that I made to leave because I know. Once it becomes clear there is no going back and no way you can even pretend to go along anymore. I hope this happens for those students.
As a side note...I saw some missionaries walking across the street today and it was all I could do to not run them over:-) Yes, I know that sounds mean and cruel but I still have a little anger left inside that I'm trying to rid myself of. Maybe someday I can be a little compassionate toward them. After all, they are someone's kids/grandkids, but I'm not there yet.