Inoculating Ourselves From Certain Aspects Of Church History

[why me]

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?)..

I think that it may have helped. But then again, we also need to understand that when you found out these things that troubled you, nothing apologists said or could have said would have changed your mind because you still left. And now when you hear interpretations about the information from church people, it hasn't changed your mind. And I think that this would be the case for many people. Now was it because you heard the counter apologist information too late? Maybe so and then of course, heaing the information from the church earlier could have helped.

[KevinG]

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?)..

Presentation is key... http://www.math.psu.edu/tseng/H2Ojoke.html

[Libs]

I think that it may have helped. But then again, we also need to understand that when you found out these things that troubled you, nothing apologists said or could have said would have changed your mind because you still left. And now when you hear interpretations about the information from church people, it hasn't changed your mind. And I think that this would be the case for many people. Now was it because you heard the counter apologist information too late? Maybe so and then of course, heaing the information from the church earlier could have helped.

Actually, my original view, of what I learned about history, has been very softened by LDS apologetics. Like I said, earlier, I am much more neutral on all of it, than I was, at the "peak" of my distress over it.

I think hearing it late and hearing it from critics (for the first time) was not a good thing, at all...and I know many people who have left the church, because they sort of went into shock over things they didn't know. Learning about some of this stuff in church, I really believe, would have helped tremendously.

[Libs]

Presentation is key... http://www.math.psu....ng/H2Ojoke.html

lol....yep!

[Damien the Leper]

http://mormon-chronicles.blogspot.com/2012/01/rescue-plan-to-address-difficulties-of.html

A friend sent me the above link yesterday from a recent talk by Marlin K. Jensen. The full audio recording is available here:

http://www.fileswap....Edited.mp3.html

Elder Jensen talks about the difficulties some Mormons face when learning about certain aspects of Church History. It appears that the Church is going to be taking a new direction to address this issue. Some items of note from Elder Jensen include:

I agree with Elder Marlin K. Jenson 100%. I was raised in a household where the lessor known items of Church History were openly discussed. When I was an adult and heard about polygamy, Book of Abraham papyri, etc., it wasn’t a big deal to me because I had been inoculated as a child.

I think it’s great that the Church is going to be making more of an effort to include more of its history in the curriculum. As Elder Jenson says, it’s a problem for some who have grown up in the Church and learn about a troubling aspect from the internet, and not from the Church itself.

How about we re-open the archives that were closed to Leonard Arrington and other academics. The full history should be free information, you know...kinda like the internet. What little faith the church leadership has if they cannot trust the membership with their own testimonies!

[Damien the Leper]

Well because context is everything, including the fact that 14 year olds were considered of marriage age in that day and particularly on the frontier and the fact that from what we can tell it was a sealing only as were the sealings to other men's wives and gee whiz even other men. Sealings were not done in the organized context of today.

So then we've got it wrong according to tradition? Interesting.

[Damien the Leper]

I would, personally, be very dissatisfied if the Church were to come out and declare something wrong that was right, and to say that something shouldn't have happened that should, in fact, have happened..

What should have happened and what should not have happened is subject to criticism.

If the church declared something wrong that you may consider right, what does that mean? Are you simply exercising your freedom to disagree or are you willing to toe the line of 'apostasy' to abide in your conscience?

IMO, 'softening the blow' of something historical is treacherous.

[Libs]

IMO, 'softening the blow' of something historical is treacherous.

It is also treacherous (perhaps even more so) to exaggerate, sensationalize and distort the truth, which is what some critics do.

[Damien the Leper]

It is also treacherous (perhaps even more so) to exaggerate, sensationalize and distort the truth, which is what some critics do.

I completely agree. Neither do any good.

[why me]

Actually, my original view, of what I learned about history, has been very softened by LDS apologetics. Like I said, earlier, I am much more neutral on all of it, than I was, at the "peak" of my distress over it.

I think hearing it late and hearing it from critics (for the first time) was not a good thing, at all...and I know many people who have left the church, because they sort of went into shock over things they didn't know. Learning about some of this stuff in church, I really believe, would have helped tremendously.

I am glad to hear that you have softened your views. I remember a few years ago, I discovered the critic interpretation of lds history and I almost freaked out. It depressed me to know end think that it all may be true. I skimmed many critic sites. But then I found FAIR and other lds sites and read their interpretations and it all looked much better. I have been on the FAIR/MAD/MDD board ever since. However it is not the facts that are troubling but the interpretations. And this is why people need to be careful about the interpretation when they look into church history. Facts are facts but interpretations are primary.

[why me]

It is also treacherous (perhaps even more so) to exaggerate, sensationalize and distort the truth, which is what some critics do.

But when we understand the role of the critic of the lds church: to cast doubt. We understand the heart of their intent and the reason for their interpretations.

[wenglund]

IMO, 'softening the blow' of something historical is treacherous.

I find this statement to be overwrought and way too dramatical, to the point of absurd.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

What should have happened and what should not have happened is subject to criticism.

If the church declared something wrong that you may consider right, what does that mean? Are you simply exercising your freedom to disagree or are you willing to toe the line of 'apostasy' to abide in your conscience?

IMO, 'softening the blow' of something historical is treacherous.

What of those pseudo-religionists and pseudo-historians that would take constrution materials and make weapons out of them to create problems that didn't exist? Should we open the full library to them and provide the raw materials to consruct plausible lies?

Its not the members I worry about with the private materials in the Church archives. It is those who have already proven that no twisting of the source materials is too extreme when combating the evils of Mormonism.

[Damien the Leper]

I find this statement to be overwrought and way too dramatical, to the point of absurd.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Then you missed the point.

[Damien the Leper]

What of those pseudo-religionists and pseudo-historians that would take constrution materials and make weapons out of them to create problems that didn't exist? Should we open the full library to them and provide the raw materials to consruct plausible lies?

Its not the members I worry about with the private materials in the Church archives. It is those who have already proven that no twisting of the source materials is too extreme when combating the evils of Mormonism.

I will have to agree with you here. However, no matter the amount of open information provided the critics will always twist it up. We just need to heed Peter's admonition and be prepared to make a defense.

[cinepro]

What of those pseudo-religionists and pseudo-historians that would take constrution materials and make weapons out of them to create problems that didn't exist? Should we open the full library to them and provide the raw materials to consruct plausible lies?

Its not the members I worry about with the private materials in the Church archives. It is those who have already proven that no twisting of the source materials is too extreme when combating the evils of Mormonism.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that you don't want the Church to release more of the true history or teach it officially because you're worried that the people that already lie about our history will keep lying about it?

Edited January 27, 2012 by cinepro

[Libs]

I am glad to hear that you have softened your views. I remember a few years ago, I discovered the critic interpretation of lds history and I almost freaked out. It depressed me to know end think that it all may be true. I skimmed many critic sites. But then I found FAIR and other lds sites and read their interpretations and it all looked much better. I have been on the FAIR/MAD/MDD board ever since. However it is not the facts that are troubling but the interpretations. And this is why people need to be careful about the interpretation when they look into church history. Facts are facts but interpretations are primary.

Bolding of the last sentence is mine. I very much agree. Interpretation is very important.

But when we understand the role of the critic of the lds church: to cast doubt. We understand the heart of their intent and the reason for their interpretations.

I think most critics have become convinced, themselves, that the LDS Church is something diabolical. That bias actually makes them more vulnerable than I was, when it comes to believing everything they hear. It is not difficult to believe the worst, when you already believe the worst. Everything, then, gets overblown and distorted.

[KevinG]

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that you don't want the Church to release more of the true history or teach it officially because you're worried that the people that already lie about are history will keep lying about it?

No... limit access to legitimate scholars like the Catholics do.