Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

White-washed History And Full Disclosure?


wenglund

Recommended Posts

I have seen some intelligent posts here. Too often, the responses are coupled with sneering to the point that it's difficult to see through it. A struggling member shouldn't have to wade through the nastiness and condescension. That's why I wouldn't send a struggling member here. I was unfortunately here a long time before I struggled.

My apologies. That didn't come out right. What I meant is that you seemed to say that nobody would come here unless they were already settled in their minds and wanting to debate.

Nor should a struggling member be exposed to the vitriol, slanting and out-of-context quotation that virtually always characterizes anti-Mormon discourse. It is neither wholesome nor productive. If there is sneering here, that is what is targeted.

Link to comment

Nor should a struggling member be exposed to the vitriol, slanting and out-of-context quotation that virtually always characterizes anti-Mormon discourse. It is neither wholesome nor productive. If there is sneering here, that is what is targeted.

Would that it were always so. But I agree that the sneering happens on both sides.

Link to comment

My apologies. That didn't come out right. What I meant is that you seemed to say that nobody would come here unless they were already settled in their minds and wanting to debate.

I'm not saying everyone who comes here fits that description. I do think most do -- including some who masquerade as sincere seekers.

Link to comment
I am not an anti-Mormon or an apostate (except maybe in the estimation of some who have already written me off), but an active member struggling with historical issues by which I was truly blindsided. I did come here for help, although my entrance was admittedly somewhat clumsy and several "defenders" did not hesitate to kick me while I was down. I know of the other boards and thought this would be the one that would have the best chance of helping me out. The jury is still out, but my preliminary conclusion is that I would never send anyone struggling to this board. I know of at least five people in my same situation (most were led to do research by PBS doc (not me)) and I have told none of them about this board and from what I know, they are not aware of it.

Kick you while you were down? Och, ye puir wee fella. You came in with all guns blazing, and received the appropriate response. Sorry that you feel like such a Victim[TM] now, but if you can't handle the home team's scrum, don't take the field for the opposition.

Was that aimed at anyone in particular?

I wouldn't have thought so. "I'm a totally faithful member with just one little question" is one of the most common anti-Mormon cover stories around here. I think it must be the approach taught in the Apologetics 101 course at the Ed Decker School of Nonsense Polemics.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I'm not saying everyone who comes here fits that description. I do think most do -- including some who masquerade as sincere seekers.

That may or may not be true. However, there are hundreds that lurk these boards with sincere questions that never enter the shark waters here, but get exposed to what this board has become.

Link to comment

Kick you while you were down? Och, ye puir wee fella. You came in with all guns blazing, and received the appropriate response. Sorry that you feel like such a Victim[TM] now, but if you can't handle the home team's scrum, don't take the field for the opposition.

Regards,

Pahoran

I am handling it fine. You, however, Pahoran, appear to be a very unhappy person, and I think even those who agree with your points in general, would also agree that your constant sarcasm and insults are not in accord with the teachings of the Church (if you need references, I can provide them), which teachings you purportedly hold dear and opine about regularly. You appear to pick and choose the teachings to which you will adhere and are no better than those you ridicule and insult on a daily basis. I truly believe that you do signfiicant damage with many of your posts, as we all know that most of the people that view this site never post, but simply read what is going on. I have no doubt that you have single-handedly turned off hundreds of people who hoped to have a different experience reading this site. Out of curiosity, why do you have such an unpleasant disposition? Are you able to function well in social situations outside of your ward (or even in your ward, for that matter)? Do you think that therapy could be an option for you? No, really, I mean it. You seem terribly dissatisfied with your life as it is. Maybe a change is in order. I know you did not ask, but heaven knows I have not asked for much of what you have had to say about me. I will continue to consider my own motivations and actions, and will even consider your and others' comments on them. I do not think a little introspection would be such a bad thing for you, but you may not like what you find, which is the risk we take.

Link to comment
I am handling it fine. You, however, Pahoran, appear to be a very unhappy person, and blah blah blah...

And yet there are still people who try to convince others that ad hominem is some kind of "Mormon apologetic" tactic.

Why, I cannot tell.

Now mms, if it fulfills some emotional need for you to make personal remarks about me, then go ahead. Get it off your chest. You can have the last word.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I am handling it fine. You, however, Pahoran, appear to be a very unhappy person, and I think even those who agree with your points in general, would also agree that your constant sarcasm and insults are not in accord with the teachings of the Church (if you need references, I can provide them), which teachings you purportedly hold dear and opine about regularly. You appear to pick and choose the teachings to which you will adhere and are no better than those you ridicule and insult on a daily basis. I truly believe that you do signfiicant damage with many of your posts, as we all know that most of the people that view this site never post, but simply read what is going on. I have no doubt that you have single-handedly turned off hundreds of people who hoped to have a different experience reading this site. Out of curiosity, why do you have such an unpleasant disposition? Are you able to function well in social situations outside of your ward (or even in your ward, for that matter)? Do you think that therapy could be an option for you? No, really, I mean it. You seem terribly dissatisfied with your life as it is. Maybe a change is in order. I know you did not ask, but heaven knows I have not asked for much of what you have had to say about me. I will continue to consider my own motivations and actions, and will even consider your and others' comments on them. I do not think a little introspection would be such a bad thing for you, but you may not like what you find, which is the risk we take.

I am as TBM as they come and for one think Pahoran is right on. Now I haven't read all of his many post but the ones I have read he does not go against Christs teachings and as many verses you can recite of being kind I can recite just as many on being truthful and sometimes its the truth that hurts. I would for one much rather here Pahorans replies than some namby pamby be kind to every anti love them with kindness type poster. The Church is true and he is s modern day capt Moroni.

Sorry its just one of my peevs when someone cant stand the heat when its directed at them but have no problem if that furnace blaster is pointed away. The church is true bro defend it. :P

Link to comment

Now mms, if it fulfills some emotional need for you to make personal remarks about me, then go ahead. Get it off your chest. You can have the last word.

Regards,

Pahoran

Do you seriously not see that you do this to others on a daily basis? Like I said, some introspection might be in order--what emotional needs are you trying to fulfill each day as you use insults and sarcasm to make your points?

Link to comment

Am I the only one to find that the following raises questions?

1) Who really thinks Grant "tales of Hoffmann" Palmer is a credible guide to early Mormon history?

2) How could "now" be "ten years later" than reading Palmer's inaccurately titled An Insider's View of Mormon Origins when that tome was first published only five years ago by Signature Books?

2) If "anachronisms" are evidence against The Book of Mormon, what do they say about this artfully constructed--and completely conventional--exit narrative?

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm sure you're a great PI Pah. You can (and I'm sure will) pick apart my words to discredit my story. Seems it somehow gives you more credibility...rather than an approach to listen to the thousands of stories us exmos have that you might learn from.

Truth is, I studied with Grant as he was doing his research for his book. As you may know, he chose to not publish the book until his retirement was vested. Again, believe it...or not.

And I've always had to laugh at the attention his title gets from you apologists. Don't you have some other way to discredit him? He worked for the church...isn't that enough to be considered an "Insider?" Sure, maybe if he was a GA or something it might satisfy his critics a bit more, but to a normal reader, working for the CES is logically an "Insider."

Link to comment

I am as TBM as they come and for one think Pahoran is right on. Now I haven't read all of his many post but the ones I have read he does not go against Christs teachings and as many verses you can recite of being kind I can recite just as many on being truthful and sometimes its the truth that hurts. I would for one much rather here Pahorans replies than some namby pamby be kind to every anti love them with kindness type poster. The Church is true and he is s modern day capt Moroni.

Sorry its just one of my peevs when someone cant stand the heat when its directed at them but have no problem if that furnace blaster is pointed away. The church is true bro defend it. :P

You are entitled to believe as you do, but you might want to take a look at Tampinha's posts on this thread and consider whether there is a more effective way of reaching your goal. Then again, if your goal is simply to try to win a war of insults, I could be wrong. I concede that Pahoran is the "Captain Moroni" of the team of "insulters". So maybe there is not much distance in our views after all, I just misunderstood the goal. Now, you call yourself "as TBM as they come." To me there is much irony in that statement considering what follows. Finally, I am "stand[ing]" the heat fine--just sharing some personal thoughts as Pahoran has seen fit to do about me time and time again. Go Cougs!

Link to comment

I cannot say that the church whitewashes its history. I can say that perhaps they may not be so upfront with the details. And maybe they should be so that we can all save time and concentrate our efforts on other topics.

However, I have posted a thread where polygamy is discussed from a church sponsored website. That site certainly had much information on it. The point is: I don't know of many churches that have published their temporal history complete with warts. I don't think that I could find a catholic or protestant version of their church history published by a catholic or protestant publisher. It seems to me that the mormon church is the only church that is feeling pressured to do so by its exmembers.

I don't know when it became fashionable for other churches to publish their history since I see no books. But I don't think that churches feel responsible to do so.

Link to comment

Someone sent me a PM about Catholics knowing their history. I am afraid that I have to disagree. My relatives know nothing at all. No one taught them catholic history. Now it may be true that one can learn 'catholic' history in a western civilization course in high school or college becasue of its influence in western civilization and in making history but the catholic church has no sunday school classes in church history, neither do they have catechism classes for adults. Nor do I ever see a course in Epispocal history or Pyesbertarian history. Now currect doctrine may be different.

No, I stand by my claim: the lds church is the only church that is now feeling pressure about its history. And whose members seem to leave because of a very human imperfect history.

Link to comment

Someone sent me a PM about Catholics knowing their history. I am afraid that I have to disagree. My relatives know nothing at all. No one taught them catholic history. Now it may be true that one can learn 'catholic' history in a western civilization course in high school or college becasue of its influence in western civilization and in making history but the catholic church has no sunday school classes in church history, neither do they have catechism classes for adults. Nor do I ever see a course in Epispocal history or Pyesbertarian history. Now currect doctrine may be different.

No, I stand by my claim: the lds church is the only church that is now feeling pressure about its history. And whose members seem to leave because of a very human imperfect history.

Doesn't the Catholic church have fairly strict requirements and waiting periods if you are an adult convert to the church? I am asking because I don't specifically know, but I seem to recall when a fellow co-worker was converting to catholicism that it was not a quick or easy process.

Link to comment

Was that aimed at anyone in particular?

No.

But I will agree with Pahoran that the MO is standard -- and highly transparent.

Christ said to be wise as serpents yet harmless as doves. I would venture to say that the former entails recognizing and refusing to fall for sophistry in its various forms -- including the kind whereby ravening wolves appear in the garb of "questioning" or "struggling" sheep.

Link to comment

Lamanite,

thank you for that post. It is good to see where you actually stand.

I wish to take issue with something you wrote, however.

"Covertly removed?"

Thank you for admitting that this is only your assumption. Most accusers are not quite so forthright.

You "won't give a reference for deceitful and covert practices" not because this is a non-controversial claim--you know it is not--but because you cannot provide such a reference.

The reasoning behind your assumption is remarkably vague and woolly. There are vast numbers of things not found in any given high school curriculum. Does that allow anyone other than a conspiracy nut to conclude that "someone has covertly removed these facts?"

Don't you know that, in order for someone to "remove" some object O from some location L, there has to have been a time when O was in fact found at L?

The accusation of "deceitful and covert practices" ought not to be accepted so uncritically or repeated so casually. It does not stand up to scrutiny.

Regards,

Pahoran

In the development of our materials I feel there has been times when certain information has been held back. A for instance would be the Gospel Principles chapter on Marriage and its exclusion of Polygamy. This ommision has been done covertly, in the sense that it was concealed or sheltered for our "benefit".

That's my opinion.

Link to comment

In the development of our materials I feel there has been times when certain information has been held back. A for instance would be the Gospel Principles chapter on Marriage and its exclusion of Polygamy. This ommision has been done covertly, in the sense that it was concealed or sheltered for our "benefit".

That's my opinion.

Thank you for the qualifier at the end.

Would you answer a question for me?

The point of the Gospel Principles manual is to acquaint Latter-day Saints with the teachings of the Church and the expectations of them as members.

Who among us is called to practice polygamy today?

What bearing does the long-discontinued practice of polygamy have on members today, which is sufficient justification to take away from already scarce class time to teach it?

Link to comment

Thank you for the qualifier at the end.

Would you answer a question for me?

The point of the Gospel Principles manual is to acquaint Latter-day Saints with the teachings of the Church and the expectations of them as members.

Who among us is called to practice polygamy today?

What bearing does the long-discontinued practice of polygamy have on members today, which is sufficient justification to take away from already scarce class time to teach it?

No one is required to practice polygamy in the 19th century sense of the word. I feel like Sunday School would be a great place to discuss Polygamy in the Bible (for this is what encouraged JS to inquire of God concerning the practice) and in our early Church History, and its discontinuation. This discussion could be brief or extended depending on the "Spirit" of the discussion. This provides us with a rich sense of God's dealings with his people in times past and the place of marriage in Gods plan for us today. Moreover, it would be a great segue to Celestial Marriage and the sealing powers, etc. I think that would be a great lesson as long as it was done under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and the focus remained Christ centered.

Link to comment

I cannot say that the church whitewashes its history. I can say that perhaps they may not be so upfront with the details. And maybe they should be so that we can all save time and concentrate our efforts on other topics.

However, I have posted a thread where polygamy is discussed from a church sponsored website. That site certainly had much information on it. The point is: I don't know of many churches that have published their temporal history complete with warts. I don't think that I could find a catholic or protestant version of their church history published by a catholic or protestant publisher. It seems to me that the mormon church is the only church that is feeling pressured to do so by its exmembers.

I don't know when it became fashionable for other churches to publish their history since I see no books. But I don't think that churches feel responsible to do so.

Is polygamy a "wart" in the Church's history?

Link to comment

No one is required to practice polygamy in the 19th century sense of the word. I feel like Sunday School would be a great place to discuss Polygamy in the Bible (for this is what encouraged JS to inquire of God concerning the practice) and in our early Church History, and its discontinuation. This discussion could be brief or extended depending on the "Spirit" of the discussion. This provides us with a rich sense of God's dealings with his people in times past and the place of marriage in Gods plan for us today. Moreover, it would be a great segue to Celestial Marriage and the sealing powers, etc. I think that would be a great lesson as long as it was done under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and the focus remained Christ centered.

Okay- on this we can agree almost completely.

As I understand your response, you see it as a teaching moment leading to greater truths (an approach I can well respect).

What I still don't see is why such an approach justifies taking away from class time which could be devoted to principles the members are required to live.

Link to comment

I pulled this from the other thread for ease

As for you, Lamanite- you keep demanding a "full and complete picture" without ever bothering to specify just how that should come to pass, or what should be in it. You also steadfastly ignore very real concerns about allowing our lessons to be dictated by those with an axe to grind.

Why is that, do you think?

Maybe you missed some of my other posts.

First I think it should be taken care of in the home.

second, I think any Doctrinal issues or past Church practices that can deepen our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be contained and discussed within Church manuals and settings.

It is my opinion that Polygamy, Joseph Smith vision(s), translation processes, Church leaders opinions vs. Revelation etc. can prove vital to a deepening understanding of God's dealings with his children.

Other issues may only provide an historical context with no real bearing on enriching our current understanding of the Church and the Gospel, these issues can be left aside for those with an interest. However, I would hope the church would not discourage honest historical scholarship. Which I feel some GA's attempted with Juanita Brooks and Leonard Arrington.

Link to comment

Okay- on this we can agree almost completely.

As I understand your response, you see it as a teaching moment leading to greater truths (an approach I can well respect).

What I still don't see is why such an approach justifies taking away from class time which could be devoted to principles the members are required to live.

I think a full understanding of our past provides us with a greater capacity to live the commandments today. Who doesn't like to hear about Lorenzo Snow when talking about tithing? I do. It helps. And if it challenges some beliefs they will come to a greater understanding as they struggle up an almost real mount of transfiguration. I feel like it would be better. But maybe not. When I'm Prophet I'll look you up. Until then, I just teach what's in the manual. :P

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...