You said above “Unfortunately, the percentage of active LDS adults today who know about the things that trouble those who discover it on the Internet is very small.”

What I have found even more Unfortunate is that people in leadership will refuse to even read things like Bushman’s book. I once asked somebody (who held a very high leadership position) if he had read the book. This brother said yes, he started to, but then stopped because he didn’t want to know those things about JS.

How is this leader going to answer questions from members over whom he has stewardship if he refuses to know the facts? How can he minister to his flock? How can I do anything but remain in the Closet with leaders like this?

Closet Doubter

Thanks for the visit, the compliment and the questions. The first time I read No Man Knows my History I could not put it down. I was fascinated. I was an avid reader in High School – lots of Science Fiction. Her book was an exception. Even at that young age I thought she stretched a few things…no, she stretched a lot of things. But she introduced me to a lot of the same things that you find on the Internet today.

I have mixed feelings about the idea of bringing up difficult parts of our history in the LDS classroom. As a called and set apart teacher, we are under very strict guidelines to only teach that which can be found in the manuals. I like the example you used in teaching the 11-year olds.

I also taught course 11 in Primary a couple of years ago. I always responded to the questions of the kids as honestly as possible when they asked, but I never brought up the difficult parts of our history if it wasn’t in the manual. I know the parents of these kids well. If something came up that might be problematic for the other kids, I suggested that they go home and discuss it with their parents. I think that’s best.

An example I just read this evening on the staylds board is from a YW leader who was talking with another YW leader after a meeting about Joseph’s plural wives. The 2nd YW leader had just discovered it on the Internet. A young 13-year old overhead and exclaimed, “What! Joseph Smith practiced polygamy?” What would you say to this young girl?

In all my essays where this has come up over the years I have always expressed gratitude that I learned this stuff when I was a teenager. It never bothered me because I was able to talk it over with my mother, who was really into church history. I think that is the ideal – parents teaching their children about our history – warts and all.

Unfortunately, the percentage of active LDS adults today who know about the things that trouble those who discover it on the Internet is very small. When I taught gospel doctrine classes, the number who could discuss some of the more problematic areas of our history with any detail was maybe five in a class of sixty.

That’s a constant anxiety I always have in the back of my mind when I write my essays. I am a little concerned that my blog might be the place where someone’s son or daughter from my ward or stake might first discover that there are some very difficult issues on our history. I know this stuff is all over the place and I write my essays in such a way that I hope encourage faith, but still…

So to answer your question, I think it would have been helpful in the life of someone like John Dehlin if he had been exposed in seminary to all the pieces of church history that bothered him when he started teaching seminary as an adult. It is my practice when teaching teenagers to hint at problem areas and if they show interest, to suggest that we talk about it after class one on one.

I don’t want to be spouting off about Joseph’s plural wives or how Joseph didn’t translate the Book of Abraham in the same way that Egyptologists do today. The seer stone in the hat is mild compared to a discussion about Masonic influence on the Temple ceremony but that usually only comes up in an adult classroom. I usually talk about details of the issues one-on-one, and not in front of everyone else.

But I’ll bet you’ve had the same experience I have had in a class where a member who is learning about these issues and wants to talk about it tries to dominate the discussion. You don’t want to shut him down. Where else can he go to talk in a safe, open forum? That was John’s big complaint as he related in his crisis of faith. It takes real talent to get someone like that to agree to defer to a one-on-one situation.

Nevertheless, I have seen it done successfully. Usually, there will be a few others who will join in the discussion. I love to see that. Too many adult members of the church just don’t know the history or the doctrine. There are too many cultural and social members who have no depth and no real understanding of what we really believe. Sorry, I’ll get off my soap box now.

Thanks again for adding to the dialog. I hope that answers your question of what I think about the right way to deal with all the things that our youth and others who dig on the Internet are going to find. It would be so helpful if the church had a class in apologetics but not call it that, but rather something like, “How to deal with the difficult questions.”

Instead, we teach our members to say, “Well, I don’t know but I know a couple of nice young men who can answer that question.” Unfortunately, that is simply not always true. I bought and studied anti-Mormon books for years after my mission because I wanted to be able to have ready answers. There’s no way I could have done that on my mission.

I still study the issues today. After thirty five years I’m still learning new details that need explaining. OK, I’m really done now. I look forward to getting to know you a little better as I read through your blog. Feel free to comment on any of my essays from the past. Hopefully our differences on social issues will not be a hindrance to dialog.

What did you think about Brodie’s book when you read it as a teenager? I have a lot of LDS history books on the shelf, including Quinn, Bushman, and etc., but I try to keep my collection as balanced as possible.

I don’t completely agree with you on the idea of keeping the difficult stuff out of seminary or Sunday School. On the contrary, I think including it (along with a balance of everything else) can lessen the feelings of betrayal later on… and I know plenty of active members who felt like they were betrayed–it’s not just those who leave.

For example, when I was teaching the 11 year-old boys last year about the translation of the Book of Mormon, I taught them about the stones in the hat, almost like it was just common knowledge. Hopefully, the next time this comes up they’ll think “Yeah, duh, I heard that, no big deal” rather than “why didn’t anyone tell me that before?”

What do you think?

Keep up the great work!!!!