New Survey Shows Mormons Want Honest History

[jerryp48]

Put me down as being for the unsanitized history.

As soon as someone finds the unabridged biography of Saul let me know.

[LifeOnaPlate]

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.

Who is Olpin?

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.

CFR on "President" Oaks, and on his alleged quote. Thanks.

[selek]

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.

Call For References, Mocnarf.

Please provide something definitive to support your rather sloppy generalization.

Has someone conducted a study of Mormons and determined scientifically what the average Mormon can and cannot handle? Or is this just a bald-faced and gratuitous slam intended to vent your considerable angst?

Your assertion could just as easily be turned on you- "the average doubter/exit-story-in-progress cannot handle the truth"- and be no less accurate for the revision.

Who is Olpin?

CFR on "President" Oaks, and on his alleged quote. Thanks.

Olpin is the PR consultant referenced in the original hit piece.

[mocnarf]

Call For References, Mocnarf.

Please provide something definitive to support your rather sloppy generalization.

Has someone conducted a study of Mormons and determined scientifically what the average Mormon can and cannot handle? Or is this just a bald-faced and gratuitous slam intended to vent your considerable angst?

Your assertion could just as easily be turned on you- "the average doubter/exit-story-in-progress cannot handle the truth"- and be no less accurate for the revision.

Olpin is the PR consultant referenced in the original hit piece.

He made that statement during his interview that was presented as part of the PBS special on the "Mormons" . Did you miss that PBS "documentary"? I think you can buy the video from the PBS web site.

[freakin a man]

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.

In my opinion, they were at the very least not much a distraction to Joseph Smith. I personally have found the treasure hunting issue to be nothing more than nitpicking. Surely people can find 10 better arguments against Joseph Smith and spend their time on those than this smokescreen.

[TAK]

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?????

Did you bother to read the article? " So they queried 2,000 LDS Church members who were engaged in genealogy online. Respondents were active in the LDS Church, interested in family history and computer savvy."

Do they sound like " "Mormons" who have never read the Book of Mormon, the New Testament? The same ones who watch TV instead of holding Family Home Evening?" - I dont think so..

Hows your genealogy coming along btw?

[LifeOnaPlate]

He made that statement during his interview that was presented as part of the PBS special on the "Mormons" . Did you miss that PBS "documentary"? I think you can buy the video from the PBS web site.

I believe you have misquoted Elder [not Pres] Oaks. If you can't provide the reference you have broken a board rule. Pointing in a general direction doesn't count, if I understand correctly. there is a transcript of the interviews available online. Please, again, CFR or retract the comment, as I believe it is falsehood.

[Corky Wallace]

I don't know about the CFR on Elder Oaks, but here is a reference on similar remarks by Elder Packer:

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/mantle.htm

Maybe I'm missing the boat entirely here - since I'm not citing this remark with the Spirit (as is seemingly directed by Elder Packer in this same speech) - but it seems his admonition is to exclude things that are not worthy or faith promoting, etc.

Honestly, I've not considered the entire context of Elder Packer's speech, and welcome a clarifying explanation from anyone on this point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know about the CFR on Elder Oaks, but here is a reference on similar remarks by Elder Packer:

"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher Of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/mantle.htm

Maybe I'm missing the boat entirely here - since I'm not citing this remark with the Spirit (as is seemingly directed by Elder Packer in this same speech) - but it seems his admonition is to exclude things that are not worthy or faith promoting, etc.

Honestly, I've not considered the entire context of Elder Packer's speech, and welcome a clarifying explanation from anyone on this point.

I can't speak for President Packer right now, but again, the direct quote was supposedly a man named Pres Oaks, and he supposedly said "As Pres Oaks said: the truth is not always helpful," which is different than useful, and certainly isn't President Packer saying it. So the CFR remains.

[Uncle Dale]

I personally have found the treasure hunting issue to be nothing more than nitpicking

Why is a discussion of the Smith treasure-hunting episodes "more than nitpicking" ???

1. JS was not just a pick-and-shovel man for a few days, employed to dig up a lost silver mine

2. JS was the key to the money-digging episodes, in that he claimed to be able to locate the treasure

3. JS and his family reportedly benefitted from digs, in that the deluded diggers would invest more

than just their time and shovels to the work --- some of them became a band of Smith-followers

who began to support JS and his family in ways other than just their treasure-seeking trust.

Consider this description of an earlier treasure-seeking sect, centered in Middleton, Vermont:

[the Middletown, Vermont money-diggers] commenced using the hazel rod and digging for money,

which was in the spring or early in the summer of 1800... the Woods [family] were the ostensible

managers. They did not handle the pick and shovel very much in the digging; that part of

the work was mostly done by those who were drawn into it by the Woods....the Woods superintended

the work, and were the men who handled the rod for the most part in those operations. Jacob Wood,

known as Capt. Wood, one of the sons of Nathaniel, was the leader in the use of the rod. "Priest Wood,"

his father, seemed to throw his whole soul into the rod delusion, but his use of the rod was mostly

as a medium of revelation.... Capt. Jacob was the man to find where the money was buried, and to

use the rod at their public meetings, and on other occasions, though all the Woods and their followers,

had each a rod, which was used whenever they desired any information. If any one was sick, they

sought the rod to know whether they would live or die, and to know what medicine to administer to

them. In all their business matters, they followed, as they said, the direction of the rod, and with it

they could, as they pretended, divine the thoughts and intentions of men.

The greatest part of their digging for money was on the Barber farm... They were led to these places,

or pretended to be, by the rods. Many of the old people have told me, that almost every day during

that season, Capt. Wood, or some other one, could be seen with the two prongs of the rod twisted

around his hands, in search for buried treasures. Whether they were digging for and expected to find

coin or ore, has often been asked of me. They talked the most about money, which they said had

been buried in this region, which would mean coin of course, but my opinion is, that they had become

so deluded that they had no distinct idea as to whether they were in pursuit of gold and silver in coin

or in its natural state, but let this be understood as an opinion. Many not familiar with the facts, have

supposed, and have said to me, that they were under the impression that the Woods acted upon the

theory that those hazel rods may be attracted by metalic substances in the earth, and hence their

motion or working; but they had no such theory as that; there was no show of reason in the affair

from beginning to end, their idea was, that it was revelation, that it was made known to them through

the medium of St. John's rod, and would be revealed to none others but God's chosen people....

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1867Fris.htm#pg049a

If course modern Mormons will object to having the Palmyra Smiths compared to the Vermont Wood

family -- and they will demand "proof" that Joseph Smith, Jr. gathered about him a set of followers

who progressed from being hidden-gold believers, to Gold Bible believers.

If the modern critic asserts that JS used the same seer-stone employed in money-digging to accomplish

his later "translation," Mormons will say "Prove that is so!" And if the critic asserts that JS became an

accomplished con-man in this money-digging delusion -- one who was able to deal with his followers

disappointments with wonderful and fanciful explanations of "treasure spirits," magical spells, and the

like, the modern Mormons will dismiss the sources of these old reports as "anti-Mormon lies."

Were Joseph Knight, or Porter Rockwell, or Alvah Beaman here today, to tell us of JS's evolution from

village scryer and fortune-teller to "choice seer" and religious sect leader, I doubt that modern LDS

would believe a single word those old-time Saints might have to tell us.

Joseph Smith, Jr. only worked as a money-digger for a few days, was not paid much, and talked

his imaginative employer out of the entire project --- and that was the end of the matter?

Nonsense --

Read the 1836 Salem, Massachusetts money-digging revelation in the D&C, to see just how pervasive

this old treasure-seeking mentality was among JS's followers, years after he and his family left NY.

We have barely scratched the surface, in looking into the motives, methods, expectations, and

outcomes of the "treasure hunting issue" and there's much more in the study, than "nitpicking."

Joseph's ability to win and manipulate a band of highly devoted followers is an ability worthy of

our close attention -- whether it was in 1824 or 1844.

Uncle Dale

.

[mnn727]

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?

The fact is I have N-E-V-E-R seen an Anti source give A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G in context, nor have I ever seen them take into account someones entire teachings on a subject, they pick 1 or 2 sentances someone utters out of thousands of sentances someone says on a subject over a lifetime.

[Avatar4321]

Of course we want honest history. Why on earth do you think we ignore antimormons? They wouldnt know honesty if it bit them in the butt.

[Uncle Dale]

Of course we want honest history. Why on earth do you think we ignore antimormons?

They wouldnt know honesty if it bit them in the butt.

CFR

UD

[Christian]

The fact that the questions was even asked by the church is interesting.

Was the survey conducted to really find out whatmembers are intereted in hearing from the church and its curiculum sources? If so, why would the church ask what appears to be a no-brainer question to people--do you want truth "sanitiized"?

Or was the church asking the survey (as many organizations do) knowing what the answer would be so that they could back up accusations that mormons don't, infact want to hide from history?

Or does the mere asking of the question and related conslucion suggest that the church admits it has been promulgating a strongly sanitized version of history?

[e=mc2]

To be quite frank, not only LDS history, but Bible history and Early Christian history also has been sanitized and made to say, not what necessarily really happened with a who did what in history, but more of a politicized agenda driven history. The problem with the supposed history coming out now about "what really could have happened" ideas is that they are simply tossed off as being "too liberal," as if that means anything anyway. I have in mind specifically the work of Robert Eisenman and Jeffrey L. Butz, two authors who have turned over the New Testament and Dead Sea Scrolls history, at least for me. If what they say and show even has a smidgin of reality, then the issue we have facing us is why on earth, as a part of the Restoration is absolutely nothing about James the Just involved?! It certainly *is* the early Christian understanding (at least with several of the early church historians of that era) that James was the proper successor to Jesus, thus involving a family dynasty of succession, nothing like an Apostolic succession as the later orthodoxy was able to propagate since they won the war for correct orthodoxy (which is simply the most successful heresy).........

Do we want any history straight up and unsanitized? It'll completely wipe out what we think we understand, know, believe, and have spirit born testimonies of............ things to ponder.....seriously.

[Uncle Dale]

To be quite frank, not only LDS history, but Bible history and Early Christian history also

has been sanitized...

Oh goody!

Now can we talk about YHWH's female consort and what Cozbi was really doing in her red tent?

d'Unk

[Neighbor]

Call For References, Mocnarf.

Please provide something definitive to support your rather sloppy generalization.

Has someone conducted a study of Mormons and determined scientifically what the average Mormon can and cannot handle? Or is this just a bald-faced and gratuitous slam intended to vent your considerable angst?

Your assertion could just as easily be turned on you- "the average doubter/exit-story-in-progress cannot handle the truth"- and be no less accurate for the revision.

Olpin is the PR consultant referenced in the original hit piece.

Do you ever say anything selek? as though 'call for references' is a statement to think about?

As for one of your questions, perhaps you could just sit down with the 'Book of Commandments" and Doctrine and Covenants or even the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham and see changes and inconsistancies just in those comparisons - no exmormons needed:-)

[Programmer]

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.

What a classic!

[cdowis]

CFR

UD

A specific example is our discussion with Rabanes right here on this forum regarding on his book, "One Nation under Gods". He asked for specific examples of errors in his book, and we had a lively discussion on his chapters on Bloody Brigham and the Fourteen Articles of Faith.

I can still remember his comment on his phoney fourteen articles of faith, "That's what the Mormons really believe."

Several years ago, I once refuted Robert McKay's (president of UTM) arguments on another matter (JS author and proprietor). Several months later he used the same argument. When I confronted him, he openly admitted that he was hoping to "engage" with Mormons who were not familiar with the issue.

And we haven't even started on the Tanners, Ed Decker, etc etc etc etc

[cdowis]

Did you bother to read the article? " So they queried 2,000 LDS Church members who were engaged in genealogy online. Respondents were active in the LDS Church, interested in family history and computer savvy."

Do they sound like " "Mormons" who have never read the Book of Mormon, the New Testament? The same ones who watch TV instead of holding Family Home Evening?" - I dont think so..

OK, so, by your own admission, this study has absolutely nothing to do with the general membership of the LDS church. It only applies to a very small population within the church, presumably to those who go to the Family History library, possibly only the one in SLC, possibly outside Utah.

Just another piece of meaningless academic garbage. I see it all the time -- either the questions on the survey or the sample is hopelessly biased.

Hows your genealogy coming along btw?

Very well, thankyouverymuch. I have personally submitted at least my four generations.

And, since you are asking, how about yours?

[Deborah]

Of course most LDS will answer they want honest history; as far as they are concerned they have the honest history. I by the way would agree with this. Honest history doesn't necessarily mean every detail, but the gist of it that made the church what it is today. I think that can be said about any history, including for example the founding of our nation. Why is it necessary to know all the bad little habits of great men when the history is in what they accomplished in spite of their faults and weaknesses?

A better question to ask is are they even interested in history, honest or otherwise.

[alter idem]

Mormons want inspiring history that has not been sanitized.

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

If they want it, it's out there.

They can't expect to get the unvarnished truth in Sunday School. I thought Uncle Dale's post points out the dangers of this. If you bring something up that's not "faith-promoting", you'll have to spend precious time trying to give all the particulars to explain it. Otherwise, you'll destroy the fragile faith of some members of your class. With only 40 minutes (at best!) a week, you just can't do it.

If members really want "the truth" or in other words, all the facts, they are going to have to do some work. Read some books and learn for themselves. They may say that want it, but if you ask me, most are not interested to put the work into getting this information themselves.

[Scott Gordon]

Well, we are planning on talking about some of that honest history at the FAIR conference. http://www.fairlds.org/conf07a.html

[e=mc2]

And I for one am looking very forward to the conference this year.....

[selek]

And I for one am looking very forward to the conference this year.....

Likewise!

Given that I've never attended before, I'm not really sure what to expect, and am fairly nervous.

Can someone PM me (so as not to further derail this informative and entertaining thread) with details on dress codes (yes, I know, no clown shoes), etiquette, and a basic overview of what to expect (I've already seen the schedule, but don't know what the experience will be like beyond the stated agenda).