One such matter that I followed rather closely was on the TempleStudy.com blog/website hosted, owned, and published by Mr. Bryce Haymond. Mr. Haymond, a layman blogger who has attracted a number of readers, had a reader comment that he/she was displeased with some of the comments made concerning the current Temple prep manual (you can read the arguments back and forth at here).
it was in this room (coincidently a Temple) that many members of the Church conflagrated one of the largest apostasies in Church history. Some have quoted Marlin K. Jensen saying something to the effect that the falling away today is rivaling the scale of the Kirtland apostasy.
The background of the situation was that Mr. Haymond and other self-proclaimed experts on Temple doctrine made comments that the current Temple was too watered down, incomplete, and unexciting. Their maligned language was, from what I could tell, an apparent put down to the Church. It went so far as blame the manual for people's lack of preparedness. One reader, who named him/herself "Concerned with questions" (an apt name in my opinion) was skeptical about what Mr. Haymond and others were saying. Mr. Haymond responded with an argument that Hugh Nibley and others were much more willing to publish more "substantial" information about the Temple and that the Church should to.
Mr. or Ms. "Concerned with Questions" made the comment that he/she was "concern there is what appears to be open agreement the correlated materials for the temple preparation course are inadequate. Our manuals may not be, and are not, perfect. But it is very concerning for me to read comments that not only highlight the supposed inadequacy of the text, but to see comments go so far as to state it needs sprucing up. In and of themselves, these comments may be relatively – thought not completely – harmless. What concerns me greatly is the possibility of what could be a natural extension, namely, offering up what that sprucing up should entail – and then beginning to teach it to (1) an unprepared, perhaps even at times hostile, audience online, and (2) a select number of people who have gathered together and created a formal or informal select group" and that the internet was a bad venue for such discussions.
Mr. Haymond's counter argument was that Hugh Nibley (who faithfully studies and dedicates his site to) had the same issue and could not control who read his books. (I like Bryce Haymond's website quite a bit and before you draw conclusions as my opinion please see *note 1)
I read through the whole discussion and found myself increasingly upset about what is going on. I think that the reader/respondent had a very valid argument that was suddenly dismissed.
The internet is nothing like Hugh Nibley's books. To read a Hugh Nibley book one must (1) know who he is, (2) seek out the book, (3) purchase the book, and (4) read through and dig out what they want. The internet on the other hand requires little to no work. Just a Google search. And what are they going to turn up in a Google search? Our blogs. Mr. Haymond's TempleStudy.com blog which poses the argument that the Church is not preparing and publishing good enough books. Or TheTrumpetStone.blogspot.com where I am constantly reading how the Church has failed to make Temples as nice as they once did and that if they don't put enough fancy decor in a building, then that building is inferior (again, see **note 2 below).
Mr. Haymond also used the "milk before meat" argument which I would turn around in this instance. This should make us more cautious. The Savior, when he had a captive audience the same as Mr. Haymond and others, switched his teaching style to parables. In Matthew 13 many passer-by types stop and listen to his dialogue. He switches from bold, forthright doctrine, to more symbolic, cryptic doctrine. It was complex, and even deep doctrine, but it was under the guise of simple, easy to digest stories. He knew, as should we who are using the blogs as venues for teaching, that some were simply not prepared, but would continue to listen on regardless of their preparation.
Both of the aforementioned websites have attracted hundreds more visitors than mine could ever hope to attract; however, that places them in a high responsibility--one that exceeds even Hugh Nibley.
Mr./Ms. "Concerned with Questions" mentioned that Mr. Haymond was giving fuel to the anti-Mormon fire which I do not agree with. The anti-Mormons would be anti with our without Mr. Haymond or TheTrumpetStone. But the curious and sincere investigator is who may be victim. That investigator does not need to hear about where the Church went wrong in the past: they need to hear what the Church is doing right by us now.
A Google search will turn up our publications without reservations! So, that puts us on an entire new level. Mr. Haymond explains to "Concerned with Questions" that if people were not prepared, then they should not read. But that is not the attitude to have. We should invite the reader, if they do not understand, to learn and to understand. Not just to turn away, because in all reality, they won't. They will read on. Ours is the place not to allow confusion to set in.
We do have a responsibility--a much bigger one. We have to be more delicate and sensitive. But we also have this time to shine. Mr. Haymond, myself, Brian from the Trumpet Stone, and many others have people approaching these websites based on a though-provoking question they may have and we can do one of two things: answer questions, or create more. Not to say that creating more is bad, but we then need to help them with the answers.
Let me conclude with an insight from a legal perspective. As an attorney, one needs to prove intent in a criminal conviction. If you watch the show Law and Order: Criminal Intent, you will see that they never merely look for the suspect. Often they find the suspect, have the evidence, but seek after a little think in the law called "intent". If there is no intent, then the sentence is alleviated. Take a murder case, for example: if you per-medidate murder, there is intent; if you commit involuntary manslaughter, there is no intent. That is the really really really easy way to explain it. It can get very convoluted in cases such as vehicular manslaughter, DUII, etc... I mention that because anti-Mormons are the ones with intent. They deliberately draw people away. But there is, in my mind, a spiritual involuntary manslaughter. Alma compared his former iniquities to murder and I think it is an apt illustration. What made Alma and Sons of Mosiah "the very vilest of sinners" (Mosiah 28:4) was that they were seeking to destroy the Kingdom of God albeit they were brought up knowing truth (Mosiah 27:10-11). They had intent. Bloggers who are blundering, Home Teachers who don't think before speaking, brash Bishops, etc... do not have intent to do harm, but the problem is, the outcome could possibly be the same. We must be cautious about what we say and do to those who are sensitive and who do not fully understand.
Let me also conclude with an addendum regarding the argument at hand: Temple Prep--inspired or in disrepair. I believe, overall, Mr. Haymond's initial springboard to the conversation is a good one. The truth of the matter is, the majority of people are unprepared for the Temple. I do not blame the Church. In fact, I think the Church is wise not to publish a bunch of stuff and leave it out for public scrutiny. As time advances, the Church becomes increasingly aware of the surveillance they are under. Secondly, if Bishops and Stake Leaders who mandate the classes look for people such as Bryce Haymond, they will have more success. My brother went through the Temple about 8 months ago and was completely broadsided! He came out confused and unsure about what just occurred.
I pulled my brother aside and asked what he was so unsure about. He mentioned some of the methods of sealing the ordinances. I proceeded to explain that this is common in every day practice. In fact, the Temple is not as odd as people think it is. What do we do in graduation ceremonies? We move from one side of the stage to the other, grabbing our diploma and symbolically switching our tassel on our head from one side to the other as we receive it. Or when police receive their authority, what do they do? They raise their right hand up in the air and recite a promise. Same with the President, same with attorneys, Governors, etc...
Someone asked me why the Temple felt "natural" to me and I did not know how to answer until I was called as a Young Men's President. I went up to take some of our boys through the Order of the Arrow. The Order of the Arrow, or OA, is Scouting's Honor Society and requires the recipients to take certain oaths and obligations after a weekend of service. I sat and watched as the boys went through the ceremonies. As I watched, it clicked--my training in the OA, the Boy Scouts, my School National Honor Society, etc... I was receiving my Temple prep.
As I explained this to my brother, it finally made sense. But does the Church fall short? No. I think the teachers need to have the insight and the green lights from the Bishop, Stake President, and/or Sunday School President to teach it with the Spirit, and to teach it so as people understand the nature of what occurs inside.
So, I agree with the overall message Mr. Haymond conveys, but I again back up what I say when I say we have a responsibility to be more sensitive and understanding of the fact that we appeal to an audience so vast and different.
*NOTE 1: Let me take note here: Mr. Haymond runs a very thought provoking website and he has been ridiculed by others in the Mormon blogernacle. I do not think he is guilty of a wrong-doing, I simply think he and others, including myself, need to be cautious when using the internet as a venue. I do, however, think that other websites, such as FaithPromotingRumor, do in fact attempt to steer people in confusion for whatever reason. They have made deliberate and malicious attacks on Mr. Haymond's work. I am not trying to make an attack; just point out a danger.
**NOTE 2: TheTrumpetStone.blogspot.com is one that I once enjoyed very much. The author at times, however, can destroy people's comments saying that their insights are meaningless and inferior to his. I was happy that one anon author called him out for his comments on one of the Temples. But there are several posts that I are very unkind towards former Church decisions.
This is an interesting topic. You said that "Mr. Haymond and other self-proclaimed expert Temple fanatics made comments that the current Temple was too watered down, incomplete, and unexciting." What exactly did he say? I haven't had time to listen to their google hangouts discussion but will try to find time later. In my opinion, uncorrelated voices are a good thing. I think this is part of the idea behind the whole, "I'm a Mormon" thing that the church is pushing. All of us Latter Day saints are individuals and I like to hear peoples take on things. On the other hand, fault finding can lead to bad experiences for everyone. I guess a good discussion to have would be: what is the difference between fault finding, and being realistic about the shortfalls of a particular program, or manual etc. It is kind of a tricky line to walk I think. I think the concerns posted by "concerned with questions" were valid but if taken to an extreme, I think his/her concerns also would stagnate growth and learning.
ReplyDeleteI like it when mormons can look at something that is being taught and ask freely, "what am I getting out of this that I might be able to share with others?" without feeling like the answer has to be exactly the same as what the manual teaches. I think maybe where the problem starts, is when someone proclaims themselves an expert and asserts that their insights are more valuable that the insights of others or more correct than that of the leaders of the Church. I don't know, it's a bit of a foggy line.
You bring up a good point, and one that maybe I should examine a little further. My first instinct, however, would be to say, fault-finding is the opposite of kingdom building: it seeks to point out where the Church has gone "wrong" and where failures have occurred. Fault-finding is accompanied with an assumption that the person knows better. It leads people away from the Church and focuses on themselves. I do not believe that Mr. Haymond falls under that category, at least deliberately. Having a criticism can be coupled with testimony; and if it is not coupled with a testimony, and if it leads people away from the Church because it leads people closer to themselves, then it falls in dangerous grounds. But people who are catapulting the intellectual, scholarly, and doctrinal blogs are on much different ground than the Mormon.org and Facebook-testimonies. There are people online looking for answers to serious questions, so we NEED people like Bryce Haymond, and others like him. But there's is a unique position. If I gain a following, I am in that same unique position. Let me also make clear that I think Bryce's blog is really good. I think he does a good thing and I agree that generally, we are not preparing people to make covenants as serious as is found in the Temple. I want to hear your ideas though.
ReplyDeleteMaybe then the definition of fault finding, is nonconstructive criticism? If it isn't building the kingdom, it is inappropriate. If it does build the kingdom then perhaps it has its place if done appropriately? D&C 1:25 says in effect that modern scriptures and commandments were given that inasmuch as we err, it might be made known. Noticing errors then can't be in and of itself sinful. Also, we are encouraged to prove all things and hold fast to what is good. However, I think the warning against fault finding that you have brought up is particularly important to keep up front of our minds.
ReplyDeleteAlso of course, we all ought to spend much more time recognizing and supporting the good that our leaders and others are doing than we do noticing their faults. Thanks again for bringing this topic up. It has been a timely discussion for me anyway.
I have been having a discussion with some people who find some of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's faults to be a stumbling block for them. On the one hand, it is important to recognize that they, like all patriarchs and prophets, did make mistakes. On the other hand focusing on their mistakes makes it easy to justify ignoring what they taught under the inspiration of God. Maybe that is the most dangerous part of fault finding. You can lose your trust in a person even if they are trustworthy if you focus on their mistakes.
I must thank you for pointing out that my dialogue was incomplete. Typically I leave it sitting for several days before I post it; that way, I can make edits and try to revisit the language I used.
ReplyDeleteI think part of the reason I am passionate is because of what you are saying. I too have had those discussions lately, and I have become increasingly frustrated to find that it is not anti-Mormon stuff pointing out and underscoring the flaws of church leadership--it is often the otherwise faithful.
Some church members are a little confused as to why we named our kid Brigham. I have found the reason they are a little confused is because even as church members, they have allowed the negative viewpoint of Brigham define him in their mind. In fact, recently I have noticed the Brigham Young has been defined in the minds of Church members by what the antagonists say. Rarely do you hear about the sweet letters he wrote to his daughters, the tender moments with his children, or of his willingness to bite his tongue in the court room when such serious, and most often false, allegations were being brought up.
Although discussions may center around mistakes or mishaps in Church history, or among church administration, we should always allow it to construct and galvanize our testimony. Too often we talk about how brash Brigham Young could be, or the possibly false revelation of John Taylor and then we just leave it at that. There is no point to the conversation and we leave, or are left, with nothing to do with it except remain curious. Then when times get tough in the Church, or when our testimony falls under the tests of life, we are left with a kink in our armor, or worse yet, an excuse to be excused from the trials of discipleship. It gives us an easy way out.
I probably know more about the mistakes of Brigham Young than even most anti-Mormons, but I also see that he had a vital, indispensable role in the Church. The Lord needed his skills and talents despite his shortcomings. Or John Taylor: yes, there are controversies surrounding him, but again, when discussing those controversies, we should pit them up against the contributions.
Church history is a funny thing. It brings up sensitive feelings because we hold the Church to a higher expectation than we should. Even the antagonist seems to think that the Church needs to be flawless. The Church, like ourselves, has to undergo a refining process. And, again like ourselves, it can be a little troubling to revisit and recount the bad things that have occurred. But if we revisit it the correct way, we can allow it to construct and shape our future. But, again just like ourselves, if we revisit it and allow it just sit, then we have fallen into dangerous ground.
The "Concerned with Questions" person probably was being a little brash and likely is a little reactionary. But the point being that we should not seek to steady the ark should be taken into serious consideration.
I have seen, in the past several weeks, half-a-dozen of my friends claim they are no longer numbering themselves with the faithful: all of them have left over the controversial topics of both past and present.
Thanks again for your comment!