Internet And Church History

[Jeff K.]

" I wonder if one reason so much inaccurate information was taught was because even those putting together the manuals were ignorant simply because so much was not available but still locked in the vaults or in old texts no longer published."

You don't suppose it was because Joseph failed to tell them (his contemporaries) of his past? All Joseph had to do was relate his own history accurately and this would not have become an issue..........

Or he was killed before he had to change to provide proper context? Its easy to ruin a dead man's reputation. Some enjoy piling it on, even when the information is less than accurate in terms of context.

[Jeff K.]

People will read what they desire to into the information on the internet. Those seeking to leave will always find ample opportunity for justification. They will claim ignorance of knowledge from seminary, even as others who took those same classes point out to them it was there. Some will claim inaccuracies in history (frankly can anyone give me one good example of accurate history with no ambiguousness to it). Others will see a more nuanced view, and indeed have their faith strengthened as they learn more context.

Anti Mormons will cry and hew at the doorsteps of the church. They will claim what they see is the only accurate view possible. They will dismiss those who have seen the same documents and and found their faith strengthened. Is there anything missing here beyond the preset conclusions and agenda driven positions?

I enjoyed Rough Stone Rolling because it looked at an unvarnished Joseph Smith and completely destroyed the anti Mormon position. It provided well documented context (versus the more poorly driven speculation), it reflected well on a historians ability to provide a more clear picture to the windows of the past. I find it telling how few anti-Mormons have read it, or acknowledged reading it, and how, while well documented, appears to be avoided by anti Mormons? Is the search for truth, or justification of an agenda that they seek?

[Calm]

The one thing I'm still trying to figure out is why our critics insist that the Church is trying to "hide" its history. The Church does nothing of the sort (although I honestly think that anything about LDS history can be faith-promoting if taught correctly). I am also amazed at how pathetic the critics' logic and scholarship are. I mean, if you want to criticize the Church, at least do it right.

Nevertheless, there is nothing to fear. The Church of Jesus Christ is still standing stronger than ever and that will never change, no matter how many times our critics may insist otherwise.

People seem to have forgotten how one did research in the past. Just because it wasn't as easy as the internet doesn't mean that it was hidden. If they use the same standard to measure 'openness' for both post and preinternet, they will end up with a skewed perception of what was really going on. They seem to think that if they can find it now, that they would have found it then if it wasn't hidden, forgetting the ease of access that the internet has created as well as their possible lack of effort or even interest in the past.

Edited July 31, 2011 by calmoriah

[ldsfaqs]

No it is not "well known".

We'll disagree then, because I can bet you 80 out of a 100 at least in your ward certainly know this. (I only use that number because it's possible a lesser majority of children know it)

I've attended many different wards in many different areas (have traveled and moved a lot), even a couple of country's, and every place I've been Plural Marriage and Josephs doing it is always brought up in some class at some point. I think there might even be lessons which mentions it when we are studying the Bible parts that mention it and the D&C section that mentions it.

So, we'll have to disagree.

Temple Lot Case, "wives" of Joseph Smith testify to the contrary.

I attribute the Temple Lot Case to be the phenomena of celebrity, thus extremely unreliable. Everyone wanted a piece of Joseph Smith after his death, including some of those he was sealed with.

Also, is there any reasonable difference between the terms "polygamy" and "plural marriage". Based on meriam-webster, there isn't, as both involve having more than one wife, and intercourse is not a requirement.

Probably not, but since we don't have identifiable terms to use, they will suffice. However, ideologically speaking there is a difference between a religious sealing ordinance and actual polygamy. So, in that sense there most certainly is a difference.

I agree. I think it was Joseph Fielding Smith, who said "Yes he [Joseph Smith] was a treasure seeker, but he was not a horse thief". I have a metal detector and "seek treasure" when ever I can.

Good that we can agree.

-------------

as for the internet and shaking faith, I think there are two main factors, one the information that is alleged to be "covered up" and two the Members of the LDS Church who treat those with questions very very poorly and sometimes with ridicule for their questions.

I don't believe that happens very much. Almost always the only time I see LDS being "treated poorly" for their "questions", is because they are no longer simply questions, they are beliefs and they are bashing the Church with them. That's generally the only time I see LDS treating other LDS poorly. Thus, that's a false statement. Questions are not a problem for LDS, attitude and declarative degrading statements toward the Church and it's leaders etc. are. Statements of belief are not questions.

LDS answer "questions" all the time with no unkindness at all. But, when the questions have actually become beliefs, then they are not questions I'm sorry to say. Then depending on how the person presents the information, they will get a requisite response. LDS don't treat sincere seekers with disrespect, only insincere so-called seekers. Thus, you are wrong here.

Edited July 31, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[alter idem]

I've seen a growing trend (at least in my ward) and was wondering if this is happening all over. There have been a number of members (life long members) in my ward that have left the church because of information they've read on the INTERNET. Most of the reasons I have heard were because of the history of the church that they say has been "hidden" from the general membership. Their testimony of Joseph Smith as well as other early leaders has crumbled to nothing. One family left because of this reason and that of the church's stand on homosexuality. They also felt that they just would never be "good enough" to be members of the church. I'd like to say that I just never paid much attention to it, but can't say that I believe that. I began to notice that our Elder's Quorum has shrunk considerably and I started asking questions. My wife is the Relief Society Secretary and has heard many of the stories. On a personal note, she too has been reading the same things. She told me just a couple of weeks ago that she didn't know if she could believe in Joseph Smith because A. He was a polygamist, B. He was a Treasure Seeker and C. A host of other accusations. The one thing that I find in common with all of these instances is the Internet and the information that is widely available. Does anyone else notice this trend or is it just me? If so, why won't the church come out and defend the accusations? Or at least clarify any misunderstandings?

I'm sorry about that. This has not been my experience, so it may be something that is unique in your area.

I love the internet, it makes it so easy to find information and I think it's great that members of the church can study and learn about the history of the church without having to make much of an effort at it. They don't have to have a well-stocked home library or friends they can borrow from or enough money to buy church books to be well read on church history--if you ask me, there's no excuse for a member of the church today not to take the time to learn about the early church.

It's not surprising to me (and it shouldn't be to any member) that there is a lot of interest in Joseph Smith--the prophet Moroni warned Joseph when he told him that God had a great work for him to do that his 'name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, tongues..among all people'. That's a prophesy most definitely fulfilled.

If our critics want to hurt the church, they know they should aim their attacks at the Book of Mormon. When they can't poke holes in it, they attack Joseph Smith, and though he was a prophet, he was not fallible and it's not hard to find fault. The fact is, the church stands or falls on Joseph Smith being a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon being a divinely inspired book of scripture. Likewise, a true, firm testimony of the gospel rests on the divinity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's prophetic mission to restore the true church.

[frankenstein]

I don't believe that happens very much.

I am glad you believe such, your belief is your belief.

LDS don't treat sincere seekers with disrespect, only insincere so-called seekers.

very interesting concept you have going here, are you saying it is acceptable and ok for LDS defender to disrespect another person if the LDS defender deems the other person insincere? It is documented on other boards, that such an attitude contributed to people leaving the LDS Church.

Thus, you are wrong here.

am I "wrong" or do we just disagree.

[Pahoran]

The source of the rumors was reality. The rumor about his polygamous affairs was based on his attempt to secretly institute the practice. The rumor about him marrying other men's wives, was based on the fact that he did. What exactly is it that the Nauvoo Expositor published that wasn't true?

Let's see. There was that little story of the anonymous English convert who was supposed to have been trapped into becoming a kind of sex toy for the brethren to pass around among themselves.

That story is a complete fabrication from beginning to end.

Do you disapprove of any part of it?

People were leaving the Church based on the allegation of polygamy, and that is why Joseph Smith decided to lie about it publicly. He knew telling the truth would result in even more apostasy and possibly violence towards him and the Church.

Joseph told fewer lies in his lifetime than you do in an average posting day.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

Generations from now, when history of the LDS Church is written, I suspect the introduction of the internet will be seen as a monumental event on par with the introduction of the printing press to Christianity.

And we, living at this time and only a few years into this shift, are totally incapable of foreseeing the changes that will come.

Edited August 1, 2011 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

The internet may be as monumental as the printing press, but not only with church history. It seems to be sweeping everything and a cultural game changing device, extending the economic horizon with innovation.

[robuchan]

People will read what they desire to into the information on the internet. Those seeking to leave will always find ample opportunity for justification. They will claim ignorance of knowledge from seminary, even as others who took those same classes point out to them it was there. Some will claim inaccuracies in history (frankly can anyone give me one good example of accurate history with no ambiguousness to it). Others will see a more nuanced view, and indeed have their faith strengthened as they learn more context.

Anti Mormons will cry and hew at the doorsteps of the church. They will claim what they see is the only accurate view possible. They will dismiss those who have seen the same documents and and found their faith strengthened. Is there anything missing here beyond the preset conclusions and agenda driven positions?

I enjoyed Rough Stone Rolling because it looked at an unvarnished Joseph Smith and completely destroyed the anti Mormon position. It provided well documented context (versus the more poorly driven speculation), it reflected well on a historians ability to provide a more clear picture to the windows of the past. I find it telling how few anti-Mormons have read it, or acknowledged reading it, and how, while well documented, appears to be avoided by anti Mormons? Is the search for truth, or justification of an agenda that they seek?

Rough Stone Rolling was an integral part of my losing my testimony. I know of several others who say the same thing. Many people are getting their fears and doubts about Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, treasure seeking, peepstones, spiritual witnesses, polyandry, Masonic influences on Mormon doctrine, etc validated and confirmed by good LDS scholars like Bushman.

[altersteve]

Rough Stone Rolling was an integral part of my losing my testimony. I know of several others who say the same thing. Many people are getting their fears and doubts about Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, treasure seeking, peepstones, spiritual witnesses, polyandry, Masonic influences on Mormon doctrine, etc validated and confirmed by good LDS scholars like Bushman.

I am sorry that you lost your testimony. But it can be retained again. None of these things, when properly understood, should be reasons to lose one's testimony over.

[Jeff K.]

robuchan, on 31 July 2011 - 08:05 PM, said:

Rough Stone Rolling was an integral part of my losing my testimony. I know of several others who say the same thing. Many people are getting their fears and doubts about Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, treasure seeking, peepstones, spiritual witnesses, polyandry, Masonic influences on Mormon doctrine, etc validated and confirmed by good LDS scholars like Bushman.

I am sorry that you lost your testimony. But it can be retained again. None of these things, when properly understood, should be reasons to lose one's testimony over.

Unless of course you want to lose it. I think it is interesting how Bushman provides such excellent context, that context vidicating Joseph Smith as both humane and as a prophet. And here we have someone without detail explaining that the same context, the same words, are what were an "integral" reason for losing his testimony, and lo and behold he knows several others who have "read the book" and lost their testimony. That would be like stating you went to FAIR wiki and their research led to one losing their testimony, meaning it doesn't matter how Joseph Smith was vindicated, or how the information reflects upon Joseph Smith, it only means that regardless of the scholarly work, you have lost your testimony.

I think there is much more involved here than Bushman's vindication of Joseph Smith leading someone to lose their testimony.

[Storm Rider]

Rough Stone Rolling was an integral part of my losing my testimony. I know of several others who say the same thing. Many people are getting their fears and doubts about Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, treasure seeking, peepstones, spiritual witnesses, polyandry, Masonic influences on Mormon doctrine, etc validated and confirmed by good LDS scholars like Bushman.

This is interesting to me, RSR did not affect my testimony. It is strange when historians focus on controversial points, while ignoring everything else. Further, how many times did Joseph tell the saints he was only man, nothing more and nothing less. We each have our own trials to bear; no one gets away with none, but it does fascinate me at how chinks in our armor are always found. Why do you think that is?

[Calm]

Rough Stone Rolling was an integral part of my losing my testimony. I know of several others who say the same thing. Many people are getting their fears and doubts about Book of Abraham, multiple First Vision accounts, treasure seeking, peepstones, spiritual witnesses, polyandry, Masonic influences on Mormon doctrine, etc validated and confirmed by good LDS scholars like Bushman.

And there are many others who have expressed their belief that learning about such things has either not affected or strengthened their testimony so it would seem that it is not the mechanism, but the individual 'applying' it that is the significant variable.

[ldsfaqs]

The source of the rumors was reality. The rumor about his polygamous affairs was based on his attempt to secretly institute the practice. The rumor about him marrying other men's wives, was based on the fact that he did. What exactly is it that the Nauvoo Expositor published that wasn't true? People were leaving the Church based on the allegation of polygamy, and that is why Joseph Smith decided to lie about it publicly. He knew telling the truth would result in even more apostasy and possibly violence towards him and the Church.

Not true the rumors were "reality".

The rumors and he was charged with was for practicing "Polygamy", he wasn't practicing Polygamy, so when he said he wasn't, he actually wasn't, and thus wasn't lying.

Yes, in private he was practicing a Religious "Sealing Ordinance", but that's not Polygamy which was the charge.

It is the anti-mormons who lied, including the Nauvoo Expositor, not Joseph nor the Church.

Edited August 1, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

very interesting concept you have going here, are you saying it is acceptable and ok for LDS defender to disrespect another person if the LDS defender deems the other person insincere? It is documented on other boards, that such an attitude contributed to people leaving the LDS Church.

First, I find that basically all of those "documented" events you speak of are simply anti's pretending to be mormon. Seen it many times, and I've been doing this long enough that I can tell people apart by their words, attitudes, etc. Anyone that might be "legit" beyond that, they were just looking for a reason to leave. Some person on the internet disrespecting me, isn't going to cause a normal person to leave the Church. Such people were already ready to leave, and it wouldn't have mattered how anyone treated them. Seen that over and over also. When someone has their mind set, it takes a miracle to change it, and it certainly won't happen on the internet. Further, the person in question is the person engaging in offense. Just because others do not tolerate the offense, doesn't make them the bad guys.

Well, you tell me if it's within this forums right to ban someone that comes in and starts the normal low class anti-mormon rag time?

So, I personally don't find it inappropriate to be critical of someone's anti-mormonism. There is a time and place for everything. If I come upon some bully in real life beating on someone, I'm going to beat down the bully as necessary. That doesn't make me bad for doing that. Also, simply because LDS sometimes disrespect the disrespectful, they are well in their right to. No one is required to tolerant disrespect and otherwise common from anti-mormonism. I will condemn it till my dying breath.

am I "wrong" or do we just disagree.

Well, we do disagree, but you're also wrong, because the data demonstrates my position, not yours.

We LDS know exactly what we do, why we do it, and when. Thus, you're wrong.

Edited August 1, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[robuchan]

And there are many others who have expressed their belief that learning about such things has either not affected or strengthened their testimony so it would seem that it is not the mechanism, but the individual 'applying' it that is the significant variable.

I don't disagree. There was some unchecked sentiment in this thread that LDS leaving the church over internet discoveries of historical information were all getting their info from biased Anti-Mormon sources. That may be true for some, but not all, including me and many others I've discussed these things with.

Before the internet and the explosion age, the pattern for most LDS was:

1. Discover a difficult piece of information (I reference several examples in earlier post)

2. Be assured these are all Anti-Mormon lies, since the source was always dubious

Since the internet age, the pattern that affected me (and which I'm claiming also affects many honorable truth seeking LDS):

1. Discover a difficult piece of information (I reference several examples in earlier post)

2. Research the issue and discover it's not an Anti-Mormon lie

3. Study the apologetic version given by Bushman for example, or any of many other LDS scholars and apologists

4. Study the critical version, also focusing on respected scholars and ignoring the hostile Anti-Mormons clearly spouting an agenda

5. Over time and over numerous issues, the collective view becomes very clear

[Storm Rider]

I don't disagree. There was some unchecked sentiment in this thread that LDS leaving the church over internet discoveries of historical information were all getting their info from biased Anti-Mormon sources. That may be true for some, but not all, including me and many others I've discussed these things with.

Before the internet and the explosion age, the pattern for most LDS was:

1. Discover a difficult piece of information (I reference several examples in earlier post)

2. Be assured these are all Anti-Mormon lies, since the source was always dubious

Since the internet age, the pattern that affected me (and which I'm claiming also affects many honorable truth seeking LDS):

1. Discover a difficult piece of information (I reference several examples in earlier post)

2. Research the issue and discover it's not an Anti-Mormon lie

3. Study the apologetic version given by Bushman for example, or any of many other LDS scholars and apologists

4. Study the critical version, also focusing on respected scholars and ignoring the hostile Anti-Mormons clearly spouting an agenda

5. Over time and over numerous issues, the collective view becomes very clear

I am sorry to tell you this, but Bushman is not an apologist; Bushman is a historian. You do understand the difference, yes?

[Jeff K.]

That must be why the church continues to grow, even as more information is made available (especially by the church). People leave the church for their own reasons, almost always having nothing to do with the history. Its a convenient excuse. I think the idea that Bushman's research somehow led them to leave the church is a false canard. It is akin to stating that documentation found by apologists giving context leads one to leave the church.

[robuchan]

I am sorry to tell you this, but Bushman is not an apologist; Bushman is a historian. You do understand the difference, yes?

Sorry if the labels are tripping anyone up. Please replace the words apologists with "believers who produce analysis of the issues" and critics with "non-believers who produce analysis of the issues".

[Jeff K.]

Storm Rider, on 01 August 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

I am sorry to tell you this, but Bushman is not an apologist; Bushman is a historian. You do understand the difference, yes?

Sorry if the labels are tripping anyone up. Please replace the words apologists with "believers who produce analysis of the issues" and critics with "non-believers who produce analysis of the issues".

Which non believers have made a study with the depth of documentation and research Bushman has?

Finally, I have yet to see a critical peer reviewed analysis of Bushman by anti Mormon hisotrians (I mean real hisotrians by the way). Care to show us one?

[robuchan]

Which non believers have made a study with the depth of documentation and research Bushman has?

Finally, I have yet to see a critical peer reviewed analysis of Bushman by anti Mormon hisotrians (I mean real hisotrians by the way). Care to show us one?

We're not looking at this the same way. I'm not saying I've looked at Bushman et al vs Vogel et al and declared Vogel et al as the winners.

I'm not a scholar or an academic. I don't care which side of the argument has produced the most peer reviewed publications. My process in this is to identify all the facts that are generally accepted by both sides and to interpret them the best I can.

Edited August 1, 2011 by robuchan

[Jeff K.]

In other words, you don't care about the accuracy of the history, rather you care about the history that meets your perceptions? Talk about mixed up labeling, you know what you advocate isn't really history then right?

[robuchan]

In other words, you don't care about the accuracy of the history, rather you care about the history that meets your perceptions? Talk about mixed up labeling, you know what you advocate isn't really history then right?

Nope. You've completely missed my point. In fact you've missed it so badly, it seems pointless furthering this discussion.

[Jaybear]

Nope. You've completely missed my point. In fact you've missed it so badly, it seems pointless furthering this discussion.

Spot on. I have found that whenever someone starts a sentence with "In other words", any prior attempts to actually engage in a meaningful discussion of your differences has been pointless. They were just looking for an excuse to insult or disrespect you.