Jump to content

New Survey Shows Mormons Want Honest History


maklelan

Recommended Posts

Mormons want inspiring history that has not been sanitized.

Well class -- everybody open your 4-in-1s to the footnotes for Father Adam's immersion for the remission

of sins, and we can begin by affirming that he was indeed baptized in the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Ghost -- and thus the Plan of Salvation has conformed to our present latter day work

in all the past six dispendations of the fulness of the everlasting gospel, and.....

Oops -- those are my old notes -- hang on a second here....

We begin with Apostle Orson Hyde admitting under oath in the courtroom at Chardon, Ohio in 1837,

that Joseph Smith, Jr. did indeed initiate the attempted murder of the Gentile Grandison Newell....

Uncle "Will no one rid me of this turbulent troublemaker?" Dale

.

Link to comment

Mormons want inspiring history that has not been sanitized.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6422939?source=rss

I was at the Mormon History Association conference session where Rebecca Olpin and others from the Family and Church History Department presented these findings.

The thing that stood out to me was that Mormons want their history straight and undiluted -- but they want it from sources they can trust. Which pretty much leaves apostates and antagonists and whiners with an axe to grind out of the equation.

Link to comment

Mormons want inspiring history that has not been sanitized.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6422939?source=rss

Q: Do you want your history sanitized:

O Yes

O No

That result is pretty much a no-brainer.

The unstated presupposition is that history is being sanitized. That survey tells us nothing about whether our history is or is not in fact being sanitized. But it clearly leaves the impression that it is.

Yellow journalism at its best.

Link to comment

Q: Do you want your history sanitized:

Yes --- for my young children, and for mentally challenged people with "low I.Q.'s"

and for a fellow on his deathbed, who is asking about faith and repentance.

Here is a great and wonderful opportunity for Mormons --

.... who profess to be a covenant people.

Within that covenant, or Kingdom, or Body of Christ (or whatever term you wish to use here),

there are many needs, many talents, many possibilities for "living the gospel."

The roles of teacher/student may be only a small part of that vast membership's life and labors,

but they are nevertheless very important roles. Not every member need be an historical researcher,

nor a writer of books, nor a theologian, nor one of "the learned."

But together, working as an entire people, there are times and places for un-sanitized history.

Perhaps wisdom lies in knowing the "when and where" part.

UD

Link to comment

Well class -- everybody open your 4-in-1s to the footnotes for Father Adam's immersion for the remission

of sins, and we can begin by affirming that he was indeed baptized in the name of the Father, and of the

Son, and of the Holy Ghost -- and thus the Plan of Salvation has conformed to our present latter day work

in all the past six dispendations of the fulness of the everlasting gospel, and.....

Oops -- those are my old notes -- hang on a second here....

We begin with Apostle Orson Hyde admitting under oath in the courtroom at Chardon, Ohio in 1837,

that Joseph Smith, Jr. did indeed initiate the attempted murder of the Gentile Grandison Newell....

Uncle "Will no one rid me of this turbulent troublemaker?" Dale

.

Dale, you seem to be the resident history expert here. Is this a fair statement of the facts in the Newell case?

Thanks.

Link to comment

I was at the Mormon History Association conference session where Rebecca Olpin and others from the Family and Church History Department presented these findings.

The thing that stood out to me was that Mormons want their history straight and undiluted -- but they want it from sources they can trust. Which pretty much leaves apostates and antagonists and whiners with an axe to grind out of the equation.

How is that? If we give book, page and verse and in context how is it "an axe to grind"? Isn't LDS books worth more to the average Mormon than the paper and ink used to create them? Are they not given by the LDS god to his church for their spiritual growth and knowledge? I think you have the axe because you can't justify or defend your old doctrines. The ones your founding leaders (prophets and apostles) taught were given by their/your god to his only true church but now most have been erased or dramatically changed.

Knock off the inflammatory rhetoric, please. Contribute substantively or do not contribute. ~Mods

Link to comment

Yes --- for my young children, and for mentally challenged people with "low I.Q.'s"

and for a fellow on his deathbed, who is asking about faith and repentance.

Here is a great and wonderful opportunity for Mormons --

.... who profess to be a covenant people.

Within that covenant, or Kingdom, or Body of Christ (or whatever term you wish to use here),

there are many needs, many talents, many possibilities for "living the gospel."

The roles of teacher/student may be only a small part of that vast membership's life and labors,

but they are nevertheless very important roles. Not every member need be an historical researcher,

nor a writer of books, nor a theologian, nor one of "the learned."

But together, working as an entire people, there are times and places for un-sanitized history.

Perhaps wisdom lies in knowing the "when and where" part.

UD

Well stated.

Link to comment

Is this a fair statement of the

facts in the Newell case?

Thanks.

Scott Kenny is a great historian, a good thinker, a fair writer and a poor self-promoter.

I hope his upcoming book on the Kirtland Era stimulates some discussion on these matters.

In the meanwhile -- to see things from a more saintly perspective, read Max Parkin and Dale W Adams.

UD

Link to comment

Q: Do you want your history sanitized:

O Yes

O No

That result is pretty much a no-brainer.

The unstated presupposition is that history is being sanitized. That survey tells us nothing about whether our history is or is not in fact being sanitized. But it clearly leaves the impression that it is.

Yellow journalism at its best.

That's not exactly what the survey entailed.

Link to comment

How is that? If we give book, page and verse and in context how is it "an axe to grind"? Isn't LDS books worth more to the average Mormon than the paper and ink used to create them? Are they not given by the LDS god to his church for their spiritual growth and knowledge? I think you have the axe because you can't justify or defend your old doctrines. The ones your founding leaders (prophets and apostles) taught were given by their/your god to his only true church but now most have been erased or dramatically changed.

rocmonkey, your moniker is clearly appropriate considering the pellets you continually fling.

Call For References-

Please demonstrate the following:

1) That we cannot jusitfy or defend our doctrines. Please note that in order to support this allegation, you will have to undermine and discredit not only this board but nearly 180 years of scholarship by men and women far better educated and inspired than yourself.

2) Please show us which doctrines of the Church have been radically changed and in what fashion. Again, you will have to demonstrate authoritatively what the original doctrines were and why, how they have been changed, and why the "changes" aren't authortitative or inspired.

3) I am going to recommend to the mods (not that I have any particular pull with them) that unless and until you meet the above requirements, that they make you wear a diaper to make it more difficult for you to find things to throw.

Perhaps this limitation might induce you to find something more substantive?

Your claim about context is counterintuitive- as deliberately removing quotes from their context, blatant fraud, and unsupported speculation are the only to weapons in the anti-Mormon arsenal.

I agree with both Scott Lloyd and Solar Powered. There is no evidence that Mormons haven't been given the unvarnished truth or have wanted anything less.

There is a recent fad in our scholarly and media elite that for an article, review, or essay to be considered unbiased, it must stand in opposition to its subject. If it fails to be sufficiently provocative or skeptical, then it is considered either shallow or biased on behalf of the subject.

Frankly, this is sloppy journalism, sloppy scholarship and represents the trespass of editorial intent into ostensibly objective reporting. And it's a shame.

Link to comment

I was at the Mormon History Association conference session where Rebecca Olpin and others from the Family and Church History Department presented these findings.

The thing that stood out to me was that Mormons want their history straight and undiluted -- but they want it from sources they can trust. Which pretty much leaves apostates and antagonists and whiners with an axe to grind out of the equation.

I wonder if polled, would these members trust FARMS?

Link to comment

...

There is no evidence that Mormons haven't been given the unvarnished truth or

have wanted anything less.

That's a rather far-reaching statement, don't you think?

"No evidence" ???? What here would constitute proof? -- or compelling evidence? --

Or even possible evidence ????

No -- don't attempt to answer that question; because you'd either have to make a massive and

absurd over-generalization regarding all Mormons in all situations, or you would have to prepare

a list of official teachings going back to 1830 and demonstrate each was "unvarnished truth."

That would take forever.

But do me one favor, at least -- cite an example where there IS evidence that the adherents

of some particular religious group (say a contemporary Christian denomination) have been

given something other than "the unvarnished truth" by their leaders, and that those cited in

whatever example suits your purposes, have not really "wanted anything less."

Fair enough?

UD

.

Link to comment

That's a rather far-reaching statement, don't you think?

Yes, it was a rather far reaching generalization- but is it any more or less so than the one to which I responded, or are so common on these boards?

But do me one favor, at least -- cite an example where there IS evidence that the adherents

of some particular religious group (say a contemporary Christian denomination) have been

given something other than "the unvarnished truth" by their leaders, and that those cited in

whatever example suits your purposes, have not really "wanted anything less."

Jonestown. If my recollection is correct, the adherents at Jonestown were not aware of what was actually in the Kool-aid. That particular mass murder was orchestrated by the leadership w/o the knowledge of the adherents.

Closer to home, there was the ex-LDS/RLDS fanatic group that wanted to retake the Kirtland temple and usher in the millenium (I cannot recall the names right now, but the ringleader was recently executed, IIRC). Despite being relatively faithful members, the family of five they murdered were clearly not given the whole truth, as they were murdered one or two at time out in the barn while the pending victims were fellowshipped in the nearby farmhouse.

Your question points to the absurdity of the original Strib hit-piece. What group of believers does not want the truth? If not the truth, why else then be believers?

The Strib article touts the fact that Mormons do want the truth as some sort of sea change- and is absurd on its face.

Peggy Fletcher Stack is editorializing, not reporting. Again.

Link to comment

Yes, it was a rather far reaching generalization- but is it any more or less so than the one to which I responded, or are so common on these boards?

Jonestown. If my recollection is correct, the adherents at Jonestown were not aware of what was actually in the Kool-aid. That particular mass murder was orchestrated by the leadership w/o the knowledge of the adherents.

Closer to home, there was the ex-LDS/RLDS fanatic group that wanted to retake the Kirtland temple and usher in the millenium (I cannot recall the names right now, but the ringleader was recently executed, IIRC).

Your question points to the absurdity of the original Strib hit-piece. What group of believers does not want the truth? If not the truth, why else then be believers?

The Strib article touts the fact that Mormons do want the truth as some sort of sea change- and is absurd on its face.

Peggy Fletcher Stack is editorializing, not reporting. Again.

Thank you, selek

UD

Link to comment
"Entire collections have been restricted because of a single paragraph. Now the church can excise that and make the rest available."

Really?

Link to comment

I was at the Mormon History Association conference session where Rebecca Olpin and others from the Family and Church History Department presented these findings.

The thing that stood out to me was that Mormons want their history straight and undiluted

My question to Olpin and others ==>>

Are these the same "Mormons" who have never read the Book of Mormon, the New Testament? The same ones who watch TV instead of holding Family Home Evening?

Are those the Mormons you are talking about... wanting to "learn" about church history?????

Thanks you soooo much for your laughable research study.

Link to comment

Personally, I like unsanitized history that is presented from a pro LDS perspective.

Me too. The loop-de-loops of apologetics are very entertaining. I still get a kick out of Bushman's idea that Joseph Smith's treasure hunting adventures were preparation for his prophetic mission.

Link to comment

Me too. The loop-de-loops of apologetics are very entertaining. I still get a kick out of Bushman's idea that Joseph Smith's treasure hunting adventures were preparation for his prophetic mission.

I don't know. I kind of like the idea that what I'm doing now is preparing me for a prophetic mission.

Link to comment

Which pretty much leaves apostates and antagonists and whiners with an axe to grind

out of the equation.

So it would seem -- so it would seem.

All of which is rather discouraging to a non-member historical researcher such as myself. For this

particular LDS bent of mind "pretty much" makes any findings or conclusions I might offer worthless.

Why should we non-Mormons/ex-Mormons/disinterested scholars/critics even try, then?

Uncle "did we become apostate whiners when refused to gather to The Valley; or buy Kirtland bank stock?" Dale

Link to comment

Replying to New Survey Shows Mormons Want Honest History

Well what did they think Mormons wanted Dishonest History?

Truth ??? the average mormon can't handle the truth. What they

need is sugar plumbs and lolly-pops or a Reese's.

As Pres Oaks said: the truth is not always helpful.

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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