New Survey Shows Mormons Want Honest History

[e=mc2]

It's like a scholars General Conference mixed with a Circus. Of course, I am always somber, quiet, sitting down so as to not interrupt anything at all whatever, just totally reverent I am.......

[Uncle Dale]

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

Give it your best shot then, Bro. Charlie --- but keep in mind that anti-Mormons are not all clones

off of the same stock, and that whenever you LDS make sweeping generalizations as to how stupid

and wrong-minded we all are, you open yourself up to even further criticism.

My humble suggestion: that when you speak of those clueless antis, you prefix your remarks with

some qualifier, such as "many," "most," or "the ones I've encountered," etc.

Your Uncle Dale

.

[mms]

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.

If you think the original SL Trib article was a "hit piece," then it is you, Selek, who has some difficulty with the truth.

[selek]

If you think the original SL Trib article was a "hit piece," then it is you, Selek, who has some difficulty with the truth.

Can you back up that assertion or are you just soiling the carpet?

[cdowis]

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.

Or rephrase the question ==>Do you want church history to be faith-promoting in its objective, or to be more realistic in details. (something like that)

That would be interesting to see the responses from the general membership.

[Deborah]

I've been thinking of this thing of "honest history" some more, in particular in terms of my own life. When I die do I want to remembered for the person I became or for the person I was at some times in my life when I was foolish. The truth is that the experiences of the foolish me helped me to become the person I hope to be remembered as: someone who loves her family, was a hard worker and who tried to help others as much as I was able.

Ask yourselves the question how do you want to be remembered when you die? I think most of us hope to be remembered for all the good things we did and that somehow the stupidity we are all cabable of gets lost. But what if someone had a grudge against you, even if it were based on faulty reasoning. That person decides that they want everyone else to think as little of you as he does. So he goes out and finds people who may not have known you at your best, or finds pieces of writing taken out of context, or finds something someone else wrote in a journal or letter that may have a negative impact (even though the person who wrote it did not intend for it to be used so). That person gathers all this "history" and presents it to your friends and family who may not have been aware of these things. Now some of them will ignore it and say "not interested" because they would rather live with the memory of the person they knew and loved. Some of them may take it and believe that is the real person, and not what you later became, and also learn to hate you. Others will accept the information for what it is, part of the growing process, and move on with no change in their feelings, understanding that we all have weaknesses.

So it is with history. The true history is what Joseph Smith accomplished in his short time on earth. The true history is in the fruits of his labors. The true history is in those who knew him the best and remained close to him and loved him long after death. This is the true history. Those of us who know the other things and still accept Joseph as a prophet, understand the importance of context, of growth and the miracle of a flawed man being able to accomplish so much with the strength of God.

[cdowis]

My humble suggestion: that when you speak of those clueless antis, you prefix your remarks with

some qualifier, such as "many," "most," or "the ones I've encountered," etc.

Your Uncle Dale

.

Yes, of course.

[Scott Lloyd]

Give it your best shot then, Bro. Charlie --- but keep in mind that anti-Mormons are not all clones

off of the same stock, and that whenever you LDS make sweeping generalizations as to how stupid

and wrong-minded we all are, you open yourself up to even further criticism.

.

Then why did you respond to my post as though I were attacking you personally when I mentioned apostates, antagonists and whiners?

Is the chip on your shoulder getting a bit burdensome, Uncle?

What a classic!

The notion that a typical anti-Mormon presents the facts in a way that even approaches truth?

Yes, that is pretty laughable.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Again, I was at that Mormon History Association session.

As I recall the discussion, the findings were that Mormons want to be edified and uplifted in Sunday School class, and that does not entail laying everything out in gritty detail. As you quite rightly point out, this can hardly be done in one 40-minute class period anyway.

But they want to be able to go home and readily access the facts -- probably the Internet is the most convenient source -- and, again, they want it from a source they can trust, not anti-Mormons.

[Uncle Dale]

The notion that a typical anti-Mormon presents the facts in a way that even approaches truth?

Perhaps I could round up a few anti-Mormons and ask them what they think --

On the desk beside my computer I currently have texts open for reference written by:

Mike Marquardt, Wesley Walters, Mike Quinn, Kenneth Winn, Wallace Turner, Wm. D. Morain,

Alexander Campbell, Dan Vogel and M. R. Werner.

So far as I can tell, they all have concluded that Mormonism is not based upon verifiable facts.

Are there any authors there whose work I should discard, as not "even approaching the truth?"

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps I could round up a few anti-Mormons and ask them what they think --

On the desk beside my computer I currently have texts open for reference written by:

Mike Marquardt, Wesley Walters, Mike Quinn, Kenneth Winn, Wallace Turner, Wm. D. Morain,

Alexander Campbell, Dan Vogel and M. R. Werner.

So far as I can tell, they all have concluded that Mormonism is not based upon verifiable facts.

Are there any authors there whose work I should discard, as not "even approaching the truth?"

UD

So you think these folks typify anti-Mormons, then?

And that merely concluding "that Mormonism is not based upon verifiable facts" constitutes anti-Mormonism? By that reasoning, I would be anti-ancient Greek mythology -- which I am not.

Don't hold the chip there too long; it could get tiresome.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

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.

[...]

Actually, many were forced to drink the poison at gun-point (as they knew what was in it, and didn't want to go along with it). This was shortly after the murder of the Congressman (his name escapes me), and after several members expressed a want to leave the colony (which is one of the reasons the Congressman was murdered [under Jonesâ?? direction]) and Jones knew his reign was probably soon to be at an end. Recent evidence has shown that some individuals were actually injected with poison (presumably because they refused even at gunpoint to drink it).

Just wanted to clear this up. Not everyone at Jonestown was mindlessly following Jones. I just don't want all of the victims attributed with something they didn't do.

[Uncle Dale]

So you think these folks typify anti-Mormons, then?

I wouldn't turn down a free lunch from any of them.

But, we can go on and add to the list:

Rev. John D. Nutting

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1900s/1900Nut1.htm#

Rev. R. B. Neal

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1900s/1904Neal.htm

Rev. H. Caswell

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Cas1.htm

Rev. John M. Peck

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/185...mag2.htm#Arthur

Rev. John L. Smith

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2000JLS1.htm

Rev. Kurt Van Gordon -- Rev. Walter Martin -- Ed Decker -- John C. Bennett

Am I getting "warmer" now?

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

I wouldn't turn down a free lunch from any of them.

But, we can go on and add to the list:

Rev. John D. Nutting

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1900s/1900Nut1.htm#

Rev. R. B. Neal

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1900s/1904Neal.htm

Rev. H. Caswell

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1840s/1842Cas1.htm

Rev. John M. Peck

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/185...mag2.htm#Arthur

Rev. John L. Smith

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2000JLS1.htm

Rev. Kurt Van Gordon -- Rev. Walter Martin -- Ed Decker -- John C. Bennett

Am I getting "warmer" now?

UD

If you're trying to make the point that not everybody who criticizes Mormonism is cut from the same cloth you've already done it. And I will cheerfully grant it. In fact I would have done so before you began this exercise.

Happy now?

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder if polled, would these members trust FARMS?

My guess is they would, assuming they are acquainted with FARMS.

Is there a reason why they should find FARMS untrustworthy?

[Uncle Dale]

Happy now?

You are a scholar and a gentleman, sir. ---- care for a free lunch?

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

You are a scholar and a gentleman, sir. ---- care for a free lunch?

UD

In the company of some who post here on this board, I would be embarrassed to call myself a scholar. As for the gentleman part, I'm working at it.

And somebody told me there's no such thing as a free lunch.

[Tchild2]

I kind of preferred the "sanitized" and faith promoting version. It made the church seem "true". the real version with the warts and human failings makes the church seem so...so....human. Kind of like all the other human endeavors and human institutions that one sees in the world.

Do you think that is why the church "sanitizes" its history? It is strangely coincidental.

[Uncle Dale]

I kind of preferred the "sanitized" and faith promoting version. It made the church seem "true". the real version with the warts and human failings makes the church seem so...so....human. Kind of like all the other human endeavors and human institutions that one sees in the world.

Do you think that is why the church "sanitizes" its history? It is strangely coincidental.

Perhaps it is a temptation from Lucifer, meant to thwart the latter day work....

An unsettling idea, no?

Perhaps the day that the topmost leaders admit all the past errors, misdeeds and misdirections

will be the very day that Zarahemla is found.

And the day that they announce that Joseph Smith holds no tangible "keys" will be the day that

Enoch's city returns.

Uncle "and the Second Coming will commence just as soon as [censored] -- do you think?" Dale

[LifeOnaPlate]

I kind of preferred the "sanitized" and faith promoting version. It made the church seem "true". the real version with the warts and human failings makes the church seem so...so....human. Kind of like all the other human endeavors and human institutions that one sees in the world.

Do you think that is why the church "sanitizes" its history? It is strangely coincidental.

Some would assert the opposite.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Mormons want inspiring history that has not been sanitized.

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

Duh

Pa Pa

[Scott Lloyd]

I kind of preferred the "sanitized" and faith promoting version. It made the church seem "true". the real version with the warts and human failings makes the church seem so...so....human. Kind of like all the other human endeavors and human institutions that one sees in the world.

Do you think that is why the church "sanitizes" its history? It is strangely coincidental.

The late Davis Bitton, in his article/address "I Don't Have a Testimony of Church History," said in his long career as a scholar of Church history, he has never encountered anything that negates the truth claims/divinity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

His address is on the FAIR Web site. If I had time, I'd look up the link, but I'll leave you to do that on your own.

[Uncle Dale]

The late Davis Bitton, in his article/address "I Don't Have a Testimony of Church History," said in his long career as a scholar of Church history, he has never encountered anything that negates the truth claims/divinity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

His address is on the FAIR Web site. If I had time, I'd look up the link, but I'll leave you to do

that on your own.

Dr. Bitton was a highly qualified and respected scholar -- his contributions to our past history are

greatly valued by LDS and non-LDS alike, I believe.

The fact that he did not discover any historical evidence that served to "negate" the claims of the

CofJCofLDS is understandable. I could point to some similarly respected Reorganized scholars

and educators who have reached similar conclusions regarding the Reorganized LDS Church.

The opinions of such people should be given their deserved "weight" in our investigations, but each

of us must also come to his/her own conclusions.

After what amounts to nearly a lifetime of study devoted to the topic, I have come away from it

all with mixed conclusions -- none of which negate the divinity of God Almighty, nor his capacity

to carry out a marvelous work and a wonder among the saints of the latter days.

Let each person seek out truth as best they can -- relying on role models like Dr. Bitton when and

where that sort of reliance is appropriate.

Thus endeth the sermon.

UD

[HiJolly]

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

Here's the quote:

: You used an interesting phrase, â??Not everything thatâ??s true is useful.â? Could you develop that as someone whoâ??s a scholar and trying to encourage deep searching?

DHO: The talk where I gave that was a talk on â??Reading Church Historyâ? â?? that was the title of the talk. And in the course of the talk I said many things about being skeptical in your reading and looking for bias and looking for context and a lot of things that were in that perspective. But I said two things in it and the newspapers and anybody who ever referred to the talk only referred to [those] two things: one is the one you cite, â??Not everything thatâ??s true is useful,â? and that [meant] â??was useful to say or to publish.â? And you tell newspapers any time (media people) [that] they canâ??t publish something, theyâ??ll strap on their armor and come out to slay you! [Laughs.]

but then, that's quoting his talk "Reading Church History". Anyway, that quote is here.

Can't believe this CFR went so long w/o a response...

HiJolly

[Hobble Creek]

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.

A few sincere questions ~

Are all those (100%) who have resigned from the Church Apostates?

Are they all by definition antagonists and whiners with an axe to grind and therefore left out of the equation and have nothing worthwhile to add to the sharing of information on the fascinating and interesting subject of the history of the Church?

Or could there possibly be some exceptions? (those who are not necessarily bitter about their former membership, perhaps even greatfull for it and have no regrets because of it as in a wa,y as it had an important hand in the learning process in making them who they are)

Thanx