Elder Steven Snow: Most Members Couldn't Care Less

[Not Buying It]

This is a fascinating quote:

Elder Snow: That was that was the concern. We wanted to help a lot of people that were struggling on some of these questions. But you’ve got to understand that a large majority, a large percentage of the church could care less. That really hasn’t been anything they’ve worried about. We have anecdotally understood that there have been a few that their world has been rocked by having learned in more detail some of these questions. Now, for the most part, I think they’ve been very, very positive.

See https://gospeltangents.com/2019/07/elde ... el-topics/

So then is the takeaway that the Brethren are counting on a critical mass of members who don't give a flying flip about problems in Church history to move the Church forward through the next few decades? They don't think they need to openly address the issues because most members don't care anyway?

See, I think addressing morally problematic things in your Church's history is important, regardless of how many members care about them.

[Rob4Hope]

This is a fascinating quote:

Elder Snow: That was that was the concern. We wanted to help a lot of people that were struggling on some of these questions. But you’ve got to understand that a large majority, a large percentage of the church could care less. That really hasn’t been anything they’ve worried about. We have anecdotally understood that there have been a few that their world has been rocked by having learned in more detail some of these questions. Now, for the most part, I think they’ve been very, very positive.

See https://gospeltangents.com/2019/07/elde ... el-topics/

So then is the takeaway that the Brethren are counting on a critical mass of members who don't give a flying flip about problems in Church history to move the Church forward through the next few decades? They don't think they need to openly address the issues because most members don't care anyway?

See, I think addressing morally problematic things in your Church's history is important, regardless of how many members care about them.

I understand Elder Snow's position. I have people in my family who WILL NOT look at history or anything counter. Some won't because they are just convinced they have the truth; others won't because they are intellectually lazy and couldn't be bothered to invest the energy. I'm sure there are other categories, but those are the two big ones in my family.

[nibbler]

Who gets to decide whether "most members couldn't care less," the actual member or a church leader on their behalf?

[Advocate]

It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. D&C 131:6

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. D&C 130:19

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge. 2 Peter 1:5

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Luke 11:52




With scriptures like the above, you would expect that anyone trying to do the Lord's will would want everyone to gain as much knowledge as possible. With regard to all parts of the gospel, including "thorny" issues in the LDS church, are church leaders pushing everyone to gain knowledge?

[Rob4Hope]

It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance. D&C 131:6

And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. D&C 130:19

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge. 2 Peter 1:5

Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered. Luke 11:52




With scriptures like the above, you would expect that anyone trying to do the Lord's will would want everyone to gain as much knowledge as possible. With regard to all parts of the gospel, including "thorny" issues in the LDS church, are church leaders pushing everyone to gain knowledge?

Perfect quotes. They seem utterly contradictory with the way policy and culture constrain those who look at controversial things.

This contradiction is one of the items I had on my shelf for decades. I couldn't understand why the warning about reading "anti-Mormon literature" was so strong. I mean, with enough study and factual information, can't you see through the lies of such material? I also remember hearing a warning from someone high up that if you cross into Satan's ground even a little, you will be under his power because he is the 'Father of Lies'--meaning, he was pretty good at it.

So, what gives? On one side we are supposed to gain knowledge and study, and on the other, we are to avoid anything that is under Satan's control (like the world)?

I found it kindof frightening when bringing such questions up to leaders their response was: "Just follow what the Brethren tell you." And,...(this is my favorite)..."You think too much. You just need to have faith..."

Contradictions like this caused me, even as a young teen, to conclude the church really didn't believe what they taught.

[Mormon 8]

And remember, BKP said that the truth in the church is not useful.

[Not Buying It]

It’s hard for me to see it as anything but a tacit admission that they knowingly deceive the members. The members couldn’t care less about a lot of things that get included in the correlated lesson materials, so why nothing from the essays? You think most members give a rip about the Abrahamic covenant, or the battles in the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Isaiah (or the entire Old Testament, really)? Nope. But those things are all in the Church’s lesson manuals.

The reason they don’t put material from the essays in the Sunday School manuals is because they know how bad it makes the Church look, not because of a lack of interest. If members’ interest determined what went in those manuals, they’d be empty. Elder Snow’s reasoning is weak and disingenuous.

[Culper Jr.]

It’s hard for me to see it as anything but a tacit admission that they knowingly deceive the members.

Yup, that's exactly what it is. Omission is deception. They know they don't have good answers, and once a person starts down the rabbit hole they end up in a much less faithful position. The best they can hope for is a nuanced member, which is much harder to control.

I think all they are really hoping for is to give members who don't really care about these issues the illusion that there are answers and that the church is transparent about it. When they inevitably get hit with unpleasant facts they can just rely on the thinking having already been done by the brethren and move on. But the second they really want answers, or something traumatic happens that makes them face that the church is not this perfect happy land and they really start researching this stuff, they're never the same.

[Advocate]

It’s hard for me to see it as anything but a tacit admission that they knowingly deceive the members. The members couldn’t care less about a lot of things that get included in the correlated lesson materials, so why nothing from the essays? You think most members give a rip about the Abrahamic covenant, or the battles in the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Isaiah (or the entire Old Testament, really)? Nope. But those things are all in the Church’s lesson manuals.

The reason they don’t put material from the essays in the Sunday School manuals is because they know how bad it makes the Church look, not because of a lack of interest. If members’ interest determined what went in those manuals, they’d be empty. Elder Snow’s reasoning is weak and disingenuous.

I love this post. As if the members are clamoring to be reminded in every lesson that we should read the scriptures and pray everyday!

[blazerb]

So then is the takeaway that the Brethren are counting on a critical mass of members who don't give a flying flip about problems in Church history to move the Church forward through the next few decades? They don't think they need to openly address the issues because most members don't care anyway?

Yes.

I think they may have their critical mass, by the way. And, you're right; it's lying, if we use the Miracle of Forgiveness definition.

I listened to quite a bit of this interview. Elder Snow seems like a nice man, and his whole life depends on the COJCOLDS being True. Of course he says that he is not bothered by anything in church history. He can't afford to be bothered by anything in church history.

[oliblish]

How can you care or not care about something you know nothing about and have never even heard about?

[1smartdodog]

When I was a kid I did not care anything about many things. Then I got older and found it was important to know as much as possible about those things that effect my life.

I believe that if all members were exposed to the facts and spent just one day delving into them 50% would leave.

The truth is they don’t care because they are oblivious to the information, and the leaders do their best to keep it that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alas]

I beg to differ with him. I think MOST women really want to know more about polygamy, but the church doesn’t allow discussion. The instructors manuals actually say that if it comes up, the instructor should change the subject and move on. We are forbidden to discuss many other history topics. Imagine Mountain Meadows coming up. Dead silence followed by the teacher awkwardly trying to return to an appropriate topic.

There is a huge difference between taboo and disinterest. People do not pursue these topics because they know they are forbidden, not because they are boring. They have been labeled anti Mormon for so long and so throughly that people actually flinch when they come up and quickly move on to an approved topic. It is like someone mentioning a bathroom topic. People know not to discuss. Taboo. Like someone saying something about sex. We know it sent appropriate to talk about in a public setting, but it isn’t that no one is interested.

But part of a taboo is pretending no one is interested anyway. Incest it the usual example of taboo and everyone pretends that no one would ever do that. Yet sex abuse of children is about one child out of four and fathers are the most frequent offenders. No one would EVER do that. In one book the author said that the real taboo is not against incest, it is against admitting that it happens, against talking about it.

So, it isn’t that no one is interested. It is that it is forbidden to show any interest.

[1smartdodog]

I beg to differ with him. I think MOST women really want to know more about polygamy, but the church doesn’t allow discussion. The instructors manuals actually say that if it comes up, the instructor should change the subject and move on. We are forbidden to discuss many other history topics. Imagine Mountain Meadows coming up. Dead silence followed by the teacher awkwardly trying to return to an appropriate topic.

There is a huge difference between taboo and disinterest. People do not pursue these topics because they know they are forbidden, not because they are boring. They have been labeled anti Mormon for so long and so throughly that people actually flinch when they come up and quickly move on to an approved topic. It is like someone mentioning a bathroom topic. People know not to discuss. Taboo. Like someone saying something about sex. We know it sent appropriate to talk about in a public setting, but it isn’t that no one is interested.

But part of a taboo is pretending no one is interested anyway. Incest it the usual example of taboo and everyone pretends that no one would ever do that. Yet sex abuse of children is about one child out of four and fathers are the most frequent offenders. No one would EVER do that. In one book the author said that the real taboo is not against incest, it is against admitting that it happens, against talking about it.

So, it isn’t that no one is interested. It is that it is forbidden to show any interest.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mackman]

Most TBMs couldnt care about issues with the church which is what the church is counting on . Example my wife and sil who wont hear or read about anything derogatory about the church. This is how the church will survive telling all who will listen that any info is "anti mormon".

[blazerb]

I beg to differ with him. I think MOST women really want to know more about polygamy, but the church doesn’t allow discussion. The instructors manuals actually say that if it comes up, the instructor should change the subject and move on. We are forbidden to discuss many other history topics. Imagine Mountain Meadows coming up. Dead silence followed by the teacher awkwardly trying to return to an appropriate topic.

There is a huge difference between taboo and disinterest. People do not pursue these topics because they know they are forbidden, not because they are boring. They have been labeled anti Mormon for so long and so throughly that people actually flinch when they come up and quickly move on to an approved topic. It is like someone mentioning a bathroom topic. People know not to discuss. Taboo. Like someone saying something about sex. We know it sent appropriate to talk about in a public setting, but it isn’t that no one is interested.

But part of a taboo is pretending no one is interested anyway. Incest it the usual example of taboo and everyone pretends that no one would ever do that. Yet sex abuse of children is about one child out of four and fathers are the most frequent offenders. No one would EVER do that. In one book the author said that the real taboo is not against incest, it is against admitting that it happens, against talking about it.

So, it isn’t that no one is interested. It is that it is forbidden to show any interest.

I see your point. I am rethinking what I wrote above. It's much like women and the priesthood question. If you ask members if women should hold the priesthood, very few active members respond positively. If you ask them if they would support the prophet if he announced that women should be given the priesthood, the answers are likely very different.

It would be interesting if we could have a lesson that discussed polygamy without those limits. What would people say? I'm not sure I want to know some members views. I might find them deeply disturbing.

On a side note, my mother told me about a "Know Your Religion" lecture she once attended. The speaker asked who in the audience wanted to be in a polygamous relationship. Not a single person raised their hand. The speaker said that was good. Polygamy was not something we needed at this time, he taught. I don't know what he said after that. My mom, while being about as TBM as possible, hated polygamy. It wrecked her family and caused bitter feelings toward the church among many of her relatives. If the speaker said anything positive about polygamy, my mom probably tuned it out. I suspect that some of the people I go to church with expect to be in polygamous relationships, though. I wonder if no one raised their hand because it's just not a socially acceptable position or if they were really opposed to the practice.

[jfro18]

I see your point. I am rethinking what I wrote above. It's much like women and the priesthood question. If you ask members if women should hold the priesthood, very few active members respond positively. If you ask them if they would support the prophet if he announced that women should be given the priesthood, the answers are likely very different.

It would be interesting if we could have a lesson that discussed polygamy without those limits. What would people say? I'm not sure I want to know some members views. I might find them deeply disturbing.

You can see this from the Nov 15 policy revelation and the flip-flop revelation. The very members that were up in arms against the 'liberal Mormons' who spoke out against the Nov 15 policy were the very same people talking about how they were just waiting patiently for the church to fix this problem.

They would never admit the church made a mistake with the Nov 15 revelation until the church itself reversed it... and that's exactly what you'd see with women who today say they dont want the priesthood or the ability to be equals with 12 year old boys.

On a side note, my mother told me about a "Know Your Religion" lecture she once attended. The speaker asked who in the audience wanted to be in a polygamous relationship. Not a single person raised their hand. The speaker said that was good. Polygamy was not something we needed at this time, he taught. I don't know what he said after that. My mom, while being about as TBM as possible, hated polygamy. It wrecked her family and caused bitter feelings toward the church among many of her relatives. If the speaker said anything positive about polygamy, my mom probably tuned it out. I suspect that some of the people I go to church with expect to be in polygamous relationships, though. I wonder if no one raised their hand because it's just not a socially acceptable position or if they were really opposed to the practice.

Polygamy is an ugly, vile thing and women have to live in its shadow because it's still doctrine and it's still practiced today even if it's not as in your face as it used to be.

And so you have to either ignore it, accept it, or let it eat you up inside... not really a great set of options, but this isn't really a great church so not a shocker there.

My wife would lose her mind if I was with another woman, and yet if you talk about polygamy she has said that we all have a choice and if we are asked to do it by the prophet she would enter a polygamous relationship. That is one of the hardest things I've had to accept her saying, because I have to tell myself she's lying or accept that she would accept being given to another man if a church leader said God wanted it that way. I still can't accept it, but just like above I either have to ignore it, accept it, or let it bother me. I'm still working on that one.

[Linked]

I beg to differ with him. I think MOST women really want to know more about polygamy, but the church doesn’t allow discussion. The instructors manuals actually say that if it comes up, the instructor should change the subject and move on. We are forbidden to discuss many other history topics. Imagine Mountain Meadows coming up. Dead silence followed by the teacher awkwardly trying to return to an appropriate topic.

There is a huge difference between taboo and disinterest. People do not pursue these topics because they know they are forbidden, not because they are boring. They have been labeled anti Mormon for so long and so throughly that people actually flinch when they come up and quickly move on to an approved topic. It is like someone mentioning a bathroom topic. People know not to discuss. Taboo. Like someone saying something about sex. We know it sent appropriate to talk about in a public setting, but it isn’t that no one is interested.

But part of a taboo is pretending no one is interested anyway. Incest it the usual example of taboo and everyone pretends that no one would ever do that. Yet sex abuse of children is about one child out of four and fathers are the most frequent offenders. No one would EVER do that. In one book the author said that the real taboo is not against incest, it is against admitting that it happens, against talking about it.

So, it isn’t that no one is interested. It is that it is forbidden to show any interest.

Great points Alas. I think the church does such a good job indoctrinating members that many have convinced themselves that they are genuinely not interested in the taboo topics. But the messy stuff really is the most interesting once you let yourself think about it.

[wtfluff]

Elder Snow: That was that was the concern. We wanted to help a lot of people that were struggling on some of these questions. But you’ve got to understand that a large majority, a large percentage of the church could care less. That really hasn’t been anything they’ve worried about. We have anecdotally understood that there have been a few that their world has been rocked by having learned in more detail some of these questions. Now, for the most part, I think they’ve been very, very positive.

Perhaps we should re-word Snow's statement: "Church leadership has told the members that they should 'care less' about about historical facts."


Here's the thing Elder Snow: If history is as unimportant as you claim, then you shouldn't be employed as "Church Historian" and the church shouldn't have a "Church History Department." (I could go on and on about this, but I'll just stop there.)

People do care. The church has just made "History" so taboo that people don't dare to think about it for fear of eternal punishment.

[Yobispo]

This is a fascinating quote:

Elder Snow: That was that was the concern. We wanted to help a lot of people that were struggling on some of these questions. But you’ve got to understand that a large majority, a large percentage of the church could care less. That really hasn’t been anything they’ve worried about. We have anecdotally understood that there have been a few that their world has been rocked by having learned in more detail some of these questions. Now, for the most part, I think they’ve been very, very positive.

See https://gospeltangents.com/2019/07/elde ... el-topics/

So then is the takeaway that the Brethren are counting on a critical mass of members who don't give a flying flip about problems in Church history to move the Church forward through the next few decades? They don't think they need to openly address the issues because most members don't care anyway?

See, I think addressing morally problematic things in your Church's history is important, regardless of how many members care about them.

Snow is a liar. Period. He knows good and well why these essays were done, because they're in trouble.