Inoculating Ourselves From Certain Aspects Of Church History

[Libs]

I agree that it needs to be addressed somewhere, somehow. A few years ago, the missionaries taught an investigator in my home. After several discussions, I encouraged her to explore critical material and then ask questions if she had any. She spent several days perusing internet sites after that, and I think that really helped her.

Yes, that would be a good thing, I suppose. I really thought I had asked the missionaries a lot of quetions, but I wasn't even aware of some of the "problems", to ask the right questions, at that time. Besides, which, I was so taken by the Book of Mormon, I probably thought I knew most everything I needed to know. I wasn't even very interested in church history at that time. I had been in the church, at least, five years, before these other questions came up.

[LeSellers]

No. You cannot [infer from this comment, that in your opinion, the existence of embarrasing content would be a valid reason for the LDS Church to supress the contents of historical documents].

Not only can he, he will, and probably already has.

His assumption will be based on nothing more than a despite of all things LDS, but he can infer anything he likes.

Whether he may or should is an entirely different question.

Lehi

Edited January 24, 2012 by LeSellers

[Jeff K.]

The Church opened up all archives to Bushman and did not impede his research. The Joseph Smith papers also provide a rich treasure. I thought the information was most helpful; for those of you who are conspiracy theorists regarding church information, nothing will satisfy you.

[frankenstein]

...for those of you who are conspiracy theorists regarding church information, nothing will satisfy you.

I agree. I also think the leadership knows this too, but I also think the leadership is concerned about those who the information will help.

[Bill Hamblin]

I'll believe it when I see it...Not holding my breath...

What I find remarkable is how the Anti-Mormons always tell the whole story.

[Nevo]

The Church opened up all archives to Bushman and did not impede his research.

I don't think Bushman saw anything that wasn't available to other researchers. I'm pretty sure he didn't have access to restricted materials like, say, William Clayton's journals.

[Duncan]

just as an aside but are items in the Church Archives restricted because they are the only copy and they don't want every Tom, **** and Marvin handling them or do they contain Temple Material or the family doesn't want it published or contain confessional type stuff?

[Jeff K.]

I don't think Bushman saw anything that wasn't available to other researchers. I'm pretty sure he didn't have access to restricted materials like, say, William Clayton's journals.

I agree

[Nevo]

just as an aside but are items in the Church Archives restricted because they are the only copy and they don't want every Tom, **** and Marvin handling them or do they contain Temple Material or the family doesn't want it published or contain confessional type stuff?

I don't know all the reasons why certain items are restricted, but in the case of the Clayton journals it evidently has to do with the sensitive nature of some of its contents (which Jonathan Stapley summarizes here as "polygamy, the rift between Emma and Joseph over the topic, the temple quorum, the Council of Fifty, etc”). As I recall, Dean Jessee had the third volume of his edition of Joseph Smith's journals ready to go to press in 1999 or thereabouts but he wanted permission to include excerpts from the Clayton journals in the footnotes. I don't think he got permission. In any case, the book never went to press, and eventually the Joseph Smith Papers project was taken over by the Church History Department.

In recent years, the Church has allowed excerpts from the Clayton journals to be published and I am hopeful that they will eventually release all of it. I suspect the most "damaging" bits have already come to light (in George D. Smith's An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton).

Edited January 24, 2012 by Nevo

[KevinG]

So, you disagree with some of the sentiments expressed by Elder Jensen?

Not at all. I just think it may be a good idea to handle these issues in a setting with more advanced students and in time set aside for them rather than to use Sunday School to bring them up. I am all for bringing them up and discussing them.

...and let me add that Missionaries and investigators should have open access to information regarding these issues. I'm not advocating limiting access, just keeping the basics in the forefront. We can see on these boards how some get so tangled up in the periphery they lose track of the plain and precious truth of the Gospel.

Edited January 24, 2012 by DaddyG

[Libs]

I was thinking, a part of the problem is, when I first started having questions and doubts, I didn't want to tell anyone, because I thought they wouldn't understand or might judge me or wonder if I was losing my testimony, etc. I didn't go to the Bishop or anyone who could have really helped, because...I was embarrassed to admit a faltering faith in the church. If those questions could have been addressed in Gospel Doctrine (or some other class) where it felt safe to discuss in an impersonal way, I think that would have been very helpful.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I was thinking, a part of the problem is, when I first started having questions and doubts, I didn't want to tell anyone, because I thought they wouldn't understand or might judge me or wonder if I was losing my testimony, etc. I didn't go to the Bishop or anyone who could have really helped, because...I was embarrassed to admit a faltering faith in the church. If those questions could have been addressed in Gospel Doctrine (or some other class) where it felt safe to discuss in an impersonal way, I think that would have been very helpful.

This makes complete sense to me. I've actually wondered whom (if anyone) you had talked to. Out of simple curiosity, did you have home or visiting teachers who were engaged personally with you at the time? I'm assuming that, if you had, you might have spoken to one of them about your concerns?

[Libs]

This makes complete sense to me. I've actually wondered whom (if anyone) you had talked to. Out of simple curiosity, did you have home or visiting teachers who were engaged personally with you at the time? I'm assuming that, if you had, you might have spoken to one of them about your concerns?

Yes, I had both a visiting teacher and home teacher. I still have a visiting teacher (she is a friend), but I honestly did not feel comfortable, at the time, asking either of them about the things I had discovered. I think I was feeling guilty about where I had found the information and (although, this might sound strange) I didn't want to "contaminate" anyone who might not know about these things. My visiting teacher was newly reactivated, herself, so I just did not want to discuss these things with her. We did have a discussion about Joseph Smith after I had left the church, and I could tell she really wasn't comfortable with the discussion, so I dropped it. It's been difficult to have any discussion at all about this stuff, except online. Even my Bishop, when I finally got the courage to go back and thought we might have a discussion about the problems, didn't appear to me that he wanted to have that discussion. He wanted me to repent (which I did) and tell me what I had to do, to get back into the Temple. I was pretty disappointed with that discussion. But, I take partial responsibility, as I allowed him to take the lead and didn't press the issues. But, again, I just didn't feel comfortable doing that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

It's been difficult to have any discussion at all about this stuff, except online. Even my Bishop, when I finally got the courage to go back and thought we might have a discussion about the problems, didn't appear to me that he wanted to have that discussion.

Fair enough. Thanks for that. I'm truly sorry you've not had anyone to discuss these issues with. I completely understand the need to feel comfortable having such discussions with someone. I'm the sort of person who shuts right up when I don't feel a certain level of comfort. People wanting to change the topic or merely telling someone to repent isn't going to help much at all.

[Libs]

Fair enough. Thanks for that. I'm truly sorry you've not had anyone to discuss these issues with. I completely understand the need to feel comfortable having such discussions with someone. I'm the sort of person who shuts right up when I don't feel a certain level of comfort. People wanting to change the topic or merely telling someone to repent isn't going to help much at all.

Thanks, Hamba. This is probably starting to sound very whiny and I really don't intend that. I just wanted to give an opinion on what might have helped me (and, perhaps, others). It's difficult to know, even in retrospect, though, if anything would have actually stopped me from leaving. I was pretty upset. But, what I learned might not have had the impact it did, if I had already known at least a little about those issues.

Appreciate your kindness, Hamba. Thank you for the responses.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Libs

[Cold Steel]

I'm troubled by the fact that the First Presidency sees it as such a problem. I'm also troubled that we have members of the church who have committed themselves to the church and then acted as though they were still on a journey of discovery for the truth. I think what we've been taught is that we make a commitment to Christ and his church, and then we plant the seeds of faith and nurture them accordingly. In other words, I know saints who continually go to anti-Mormon sites and try to find answers. Isn't finding answers what one does before they find the answers?

Kirtland was a terrible, dark time in our history and many good, decent, honorable people fell. Fortunately, we had many return and they stayed with the church to their deaths. Unfortunately, some left the church and became bitter enemies. I think it unfortunate that most people in the church get their information from fictionalized accounts that are junk...pure trash. And some of it was turned into video features. I have nothing against such productions, other than most of them tend to be awful, but not instead of reading good firsthand accounts such as journals and autobiographies.

I'm happy to see the program and think it should have been done a long time ago. Not because of apostasy but because it's the right thing to do.

.

[Duncan]

I'm troubled by the fact that the First Presidency sees it as such a problem. I'm also troubled that we have members of the church who have committed themselves to the church and then acted as though they were still on a journey of discovery for the truth. I think what we've been taught is that we make a commitment to Christ and his church, and then we plant the seeds of faith and nurture them accordingly. In other words, I know saints who continually go to anti-Mormon sites and try to find answers. Isn't finding answers what one does before they find the answers?

Kirtland was a terrible, dark time in our history and many good, decent, honorable people fell. Fortunately, we had many return and they stayed with the church to their deaths. Unfortunately, some left the church and became bitter enemies. I think it unfortunate that most people in the church get their information from fictionalized accounts that are junk...pure trash. And some of it was turned into video features. I have nothing against such productions, other than most of them tend to be awful, but not instead of reading good firsthand accounts such as journals and autobiographies.

I'm happy to see the program and think it should have been done a long time ago. Not because of apostasy but because it's the right thing to do.

.

while many left during the Kirtland time some came back!

[why me]

Not everyone goes to Seminary and not everyone was raised in the church. I have heard that converts are particularly vulnerable to falling away (often within the first year). Maybe address some of this history, a bit, in Gospel Principles? I think I would have appreciated that, rather than finding it, accidently, on the internet.

I think that converts fall away because they are baptized too soon. If one is baptized and has not had a testimony, they are likely to leave because they will have a lack of commitment.

Since history is one of interpretation, critics will always have an answer to lds interpretations and most likely their interpretation because it is highly critical and hypothetical will come across more informed.

Edited January 25, 2012 by why me

[why me]

In other words, I know saints who continually go to anti-Mormon sites and try to find answers. Isn't finding answers what one does before they find the answers?

.

When the church comes out with its own interpretation of its history, the critlcs will then change tactics and offer a differing interpretation and their interpretation will be forceful, persuasive, and critical. It will also be hypothetical. The main premise for their interpretation will still be to lead people away from the lds church by casting doubt. I do believe that the critics will always have the upper hand in the beginning of someone's search because it is far easier to cast doubt than it is to build faith in history.

Edited January 25, 2012 by why me

[Duncan]

Plus too laymen in history can get snowballed and not understand how history or historians work. One thing that I love so much is people who have had no interest in history then all of a sudden they read stuff on the 'net and they are now big experts

[why me]

Plus too laymen in history can get snowballed and not understand how history or historians work. One thing that I love so much is people who have had no interest in history then all of a sudden they read stuff on the 'net and they are now big experts

If or when the church begins to publish their accounts of controversial issues, one will see the critics taking full aim at the lds interpretation. And if the lds church's interpretation does not meet the critic standard they will still call the lds church a liar and they will say that the lds church is attempting to hide its history. The critics are masters at persuasion because they can afford to be so and have had many years practice. Unless the lds church adopts a critic interpretation, the critic will always be dissatisfied.

However, at least a person can read a lds interpretation and that will always help somewhat.

[Libs]

I mentioned Michael Ash's book, Shaken Faith Syndrome, over on another thread (I have read it). Seems like that might be a good book to kind of study or pass out in Gospel Doctrine or even Gospel Principles....?

[cinepro]

If or when the church begins to publish their accounts of controversial issues, one will see the critics taking full aim at the lds interpretation. And if the lds church's interpretation does not meet the critic standard they will still call the lds church a liar and they will say that the lds church is attempting to hide its history. The critics are masters at persuasion because they can afford to be so and have had many years practice. Unless the lds church adopts a critic interpretation, the critic will always be dissatisfied.

However, at least a person can read a lds interpretation and that will always help somewhat.

Is the Church doing it for the members, or the non-members?

From what has been said, it sounds like the Church has recognized that it would be better for Church members to learn a more "comprehensive" version of the history (and other issues) from the Church itself instead of from non-Church sources. If this is true, then the "critics" are irrelevant. It is being done for the benefit of the (non-critical?) members of the Church, and if it benefits them it will have been a success.

While it can be argued that the opinion of critics is irrelevant in all cases, I think it could be argued that it is especially true in this case.

[why me]

I mentioned Michael Ash's book, Shaken Faith Syndrome, over on another thread (I have read it). Seems like that might be a good book to kind of study or pass out in Gospel Doctrine or even Gospel Principles....?

I think that one has to ask themselves questions: If this book was given to me at church would I now still be formerly lds? Would this book be enough? What would have been enough to keep me from becoming formerly lds? These questions take refection. The interent is a powerful tool of persuasion.

[Libs]

I think that one has to ask themselves questions: If this book was given to me at church would I now still be formerly lds? Would this book be enough? What would have been enough to keep me from becoming formerly lds? These questions take refection. The interent is a powerful tool of persuasion.

Well...I don't know, but a big part of me thinks that it may have really helped. I would have been exposed in a more faith promoting way, to those things that were so shocking, coming from antis (in a way only antis can present them...y/k?)..

Edited January 25, 2012 by Libs