Shocking Omission From Church History Makes Me Angry

[Nevo]

I could be wrong, but I don't think A Comprehensive History of the Church has even been in print during my lifetime.

[Scott Lloyd]

I could be wrong, but I don't think A Comprehensive History of the Church has even been in print during my lifetime.

http://deseretbook.c...-Roberts/i/b487

http://www.kobobooks...CFaaDQgodklMAuQ

http://itunes.apple....d405313867?mt=8

http://www.barnesand...erts/1112713472

Also, A Comprehensive History of the Church was a staple of the CD-ROM compilations, such as "Infobases," "Collector's Library" and "Gospel Library" that were popular in the 1990s and early 2000s.

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a BYU student in the late 1970s, I bought a copy of a newly published, boxed paperback set of A Comprehensive History. I don't recall what I paid for it, but I was able to easily afford it on a college student's budget.

I just checked: In addition to the iPhone app I linked to above ($4.95), a digital copy of A Comprehensive History can be downloaded in the iBooks app for $9.99.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

I could be wrong, but I don't think A Comprehensive History of the Church has even been in print during my lifetime.

Well, that's not the church's fault, that is your fault for not being a good LDS student and seeking out all of the out of print books that substantiate the church's claims.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, that's not the church's fault, that is your fault for not being a good LDS student and seeking out all of the out of print books that substantiate the church's claims.

See my previous post about the availability of Roberts's work within Nevo's lifetime. Obviously, he is quite wrong.

My object in bringing up A Comprehensive History is that it demonstrates that the Church was already dealing candidly with Mountain Meadows a long time ago (1930) in one of its own publications.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Walden]

See my previous post about the availability of Roberts's work within Nevo's lifetime. Obviously, he is quite wrong.

My object in bringing up A Comprehensive History is that it demonstrates that the Church was already dealing candidly with Mountain Meadows a long time ago (1930) in one of its own publications.

Well, unfortunately, this "candid" account of MMM never seemed to trickle down to the numerous lessons I was taught in Primary, Sunday School, Priesthood, 4 years of Seminary, etc. Of course, I was raised in the evil bastion of Southern California, so it may have been taught differently in Utah.

[sheilauk]

And, of course, now the "blame the apostate" arguments begin, though they arrived a little later than I am used to on these boards. Arguments like "Perhaps you were a poor student (obviously since you left the Church)" and admonishments that I did not pick up BH Roberts A Comprehensive History of the Church, which I am sure is such a popular read among LDS youth.

Regarding your comment Lightbearer, that I was a poor student and that is why I left the church, you obviously have not taken the time to read my posts before firing off half-cocked missives regarding my experiences. I left as a result of the failure of Moroni's Promise, and was not exposed to some of the critical historical facts until after I had left the church. It's that simple. Why I offer this information to you, I'm not quite sure, since I am certain that you will now turn around and explain to me how the promise didn't fail, but that I failed. It must be quite comforting to know that you belong to an institution that can absolutely, positively never be wrong, ever.

The point is that the material was available. Many people don't make use of libraries and books to learn things in many areas of life. I have known people who even practically boast that they haven't read a book. If you want to know something, the responsibility is for you to find it and it was and is available, unlike the critics contention that the Church has covered it up. An institutions rarely are wrong - it is the people in them that are wrong. No matter how much material the Church puts in its manuals, if the teacher doesn't mention it or encourage learning, the student will not see it.

In teh end, my simple argument is that the church, IMO, teaches it's own history as being too black and white, with too much of a "you are either with us or against us" mentality, and an overwhelmingly defensive mindset that it's own history must be presented in a manner that is only "faith-promoting", because if it isn't, well than, what are we left with (heres a clue, it's called reality). When you leave little room for the gray areas that dominate all of history, don't be surprised that some are shocked by the massive amounts of gray areas that dominate all of history.

Why should not the Church be faith promoting? Also, here's a thing, not everyone can deal with gray. Again, I know people who do see things in black and white and it would take a lot more than the short amount of time available in Sunday School to change them. The Church must, given the time alloted and the range of individuals, teach to the level of the slowest student. No one should be left behind. Those who want more should be encouraged to seek it for themselves and I'm sure that could have been done, even in the 1970's and 80's. I learnt a lot in my local library and by asking the appropriate people. I find far more information readily available in the LDS church than was in any other church I've been acquainted with.

But go on and continue to blame the critics. Certainly it is much easier to blame them than to take a long, hard and even critical look at the institution that you have devoted a lifetime to.

If people lie or misrepresent then they should have to answer. When the material is available, even if it is considered biased (and history is always biased even when it is truthful - look at history books on wars), any critic should at least be gracious enough to admit it was there even if they condition that with perhaps it wasn't widely enough made known or it was biased. As for looking at the Church in a critical fashion - why should anyone do that with someone who is against it? That's contrary to human nature. I will save any criticism for inside. In other words - "I can fight with my family, but I will not allow anyone else from outside to do so" Would you do any different?

And meanwhile, continue to wonder why it is that once faithful LDS people have their testimonies rocked by previously unknown LDS historical facts, and console yourself that it must be because they failed to read BH Roberts A Comprehensive History of the Church, or that they are poor students, as good students spend their lifetime in the church.

The question is whether they are rocked by the facts which were unknown to them or whether it is something more. I do wonder why people leave but people can give a surface reason and fail to look inside themself. You did not leave due to the lack of historical facts and I know i left other churches for deeper reasons than that. But if it was due to facts they didn't know and really just due to that, then why didn't they investigate deeper first? Was it too gray?

[KevinG]

I started this thread to be an ironic commentary on how critics complain that the truth was hidden from them. My illustration was an omission of details from our history that made Emma Smith look like she had harmed another woman Joseph was sealed to. It turns out that that incident was probably manufactured by critics although I was led to believe it happened.

But true to form critics turned this thread into a commentary on how the church hides its history. Does anyone find the irony in that? I do.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, unfortunately, this "candid" account of MMM never seemed to trickle down to the numerous lessons I was taught in Primary, Sunday School, Priesthood, 4 years of Seminary, etc. Of course, I was raised in the evil bastion of Southern California, so it may have been taught differently in Utah.

As I said in another thread, so much of one's education depends on personal initiative and study habits, being proactive as opposed to reactive.

[Scott Lloyd]

I started this thread to be an ironic commentary on how critics complain that the truth was hidden from them. My illustration was an omission of details from our history that made Emma Smith look like she had harmed another woman Joseph was sealed to. It turns out that that incident was probably manufactured by critics although I was led to believe it happened.

But true to form critics turned this thread into a commentary on how the church hides its history. Does anyone find the irony in that? I do.

How could it be missed, when the irony veritably screams out?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[sheilauk]

I started this thread to be an ironic commentary on how critics complain that the truth was hidden from them. My illustration was an omission of details from our history that made Emma Smith look like she had harmed another woman Joseph was sealed to. It turns out that that incident was probably manufactured by critics although I was led to believe it happened.

But true to form critics turned this thread into a commentary on how the church hides its history. Does anyone find the irony in that? I do.

Indeed.

[Walden]

To me, the irony is that the apologists continually blast the critics for using cherry-picked history to make their claims, when the church does the exact same thing.

[Nevo]

See my previous post about the availability of Roberts's work within Nevo's lifetime. Obviously, he is quite wrong.

Yes, I did a bit more looking and you are quite correct that there was a printing of the Comprehensive History of the Church in my lifetime. BYU Press apparently reprinted their 1965 edition between 1978 and 1982. I would have picked up a set but for the fact that I was a thousand miles away from BYU at the time and just starting kindergarten.

(Due to that accident of birth, I did not read a candid account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre until 1998, when I ordered Juanita Brooks's Mountain Meadows Massacre from Amazon.com.)

Edited September 18, 2012 by Nevo

[BCSpace]

I now have a great deal of trouble believing critics of Mormonism without having first researched and verified their claims because they are prone to omit important details that put the history in a more complete light as opposed to one sided information designed to promote faith in their view.

I no longer have as much faith in the critics of the LDS Church.

Welcome to my world. I have been down so many anti Mormon rabbit holes, it would be impossible to shake my faith in this fashion. There is always some fatal flaw, some missing detail, some unmentioned context, or some forgotten possibility, in antiMomron criticism.

[KevinG]

To me, the irony is that the apologists continually blast the critics for using cherry-picked history to make their claims, when the church does the exact same thing.

Equivocation noted. And when the LDS Church tells its own story its motives are to _____________ faith. While critics tell a story about the LDS Church with the intent of ___________ faith.

Fill in the blanks.

[Walden]

Equivocation noted. And when the LDS Church tells its own story its motives are to _____________ faith. While critics tell a story about the LDS Church with the intent of ___________ faith.

Fill in the blanks.

I'll take a stab at it.

And when the LDS Church tells its own story its motives are to promote blind faith. While critics tell a story about the LDS Church with the intent of criticizing blind faith.

What do you think?

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, I did a bit more looking and you are quite correct that there was a printing of the Comprehensive History of the Church in my lifetime. BYU Press apparently reprinted their 1965 edition between 1978 and 1982. I would have picked up a set but for the fact that I was a thousand miles away from BYU at the time and just starting kindergarten.

That was about the time I purchased my copy of that inexpensive, boxed-set paperback edition (which I still have at home). It wasn't just available at BYU; it was published there, but it was marketed at Deseret Book and virtually every other outlet for LDS books for many years thereafter. And I venture to say that even in the stone-age, when you were just starting kindergarten, products were available by mail-order.

And your grudging admission is hardly adequate, in that it does not acknowledge the fact that Comprehensive History was included in the popular CD-ROM compilations, which were available through much of the 90s and into the 2000s.

Nor does it acknowledge the availability of inexpensive digital versions available on Apple's iBook app, Barnes & Noble's Nook reader and Deseret Book's "Bookshelf" even as I write this.

(Due to that accident of birth, I did not read a candid account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre until 1998, when I ordered Juanita Brooks's Mountain Meadows Massacre from Amazon.com.)

Your personal anecdote not withstanding, the takeaway points are these:

-- As early as 1930 and before, the Church was providing a candid account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and to a wide audience, as Comprehensive History was serialized in a national magazine before it was ever published in book form.

-- Contrary to your guess, pretty much throughout my lifetime and yours, A Comprehensive History of the Church, has been in print and available to most anyone interested.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

I'll take a stab at it.

And when the LDS Church tells its own story its motives are to promote blind faith. While critics tell a story about the LDS Church with the intent of criticizing blind faith.

What do you think?

Thank you for playing. Your consolation prize is continued cynicism.

(For an institution depending on blind faith the LDS Church sure does a lousy job of hiding its multiple published histories).

Edited September 18, 2012 by KevinG

[Calm]

I don't know how old you are, but when I was a BYU student in the late 1970s, I bought a copy of a newly published, boxed paperback set of A Comprehensive History. I don't recall what I paid for it, but I was able to easily afford it on a college student's budget.

It was a big seller if it was the one I am thinking of. Came out in the same format as the typical missionary reference set...golden coloured spines. I saw it in many students' rooms/apts. Almost got one for myself, but my parents already had it on their shelf so I didn't get it. Edited September 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

(For an institution depending on blind faith the LDS Church sure does a lousy job of hiding its multiple published histories).

I lol'ed

[Scott Lloyd]

It was a big seller if it was the one I am thinking of. Came out in the same format as the typical missionary reference set...golden coloured spines. I saw it in many students' rooms/apts. Almost got one for myself, but my parents already had it on their shelf so I didn't get it.

You might be thinking of a later product.

The one I have a copy of is pictured here. The cover of each paperback volume is plain white with black lettering, and the set is encased in a red box.

And you're right, it was very popular at the time it was published, while I was in college.

[Calm]

I remember that one too so perhaps I am confusing the two products.

[Glenn101]

To me, the irony is that the apologists continually blast the critics for using cherry-picked history to make their claims, when the church does the exact same thing.

What claims are you talking about? The spiritual claims? If so, I cannot see your point because the historical events surrounding the spiritual claims are pretty solid (except for the restoration of the Melchizadek Priesthood of course).

The history of the church is an ongoing saga. Very little of the history is taught in the meetings. Very little of polygamy is taught in the meetings and the manuals because it is not current church practive. Much like very little is taught about the Law of Consecration is taught in the manuals because it is not current church practice.

Walden, I feel badly for you that you never received the answer you wished in the way that you wished to receive it. I never received a great revelation either. My testimony has been built on a life time of experiences in the gospel and a five year hiatus. But, at this point in my life, I cannot fathom the story of the restoration not being true, nor the Book of Mormon not being divinely translated, nor Joseph Smith not being a prophet called of God.

Glenn

[Nevo]

And your grudging admission is hardly adequate, in that it does not acknowledge the 1991 paperback release, to which I linked in my post and which, evidently, can still be purchased new.

Scott, your link is to the History of the Church—a different publication entirely. Although it too is out of print.

Anyway, I'll take your word for it that A Comprehensive History of the Church provides a candid account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I just didn't have access to it when I was growing up.

Your lament that "few Latter-day Saints have ever bothered to open that classic work" assumes that they could easily do so if they were so inclined. I am suggesting that your assumption is faulty. I daresay very few LDS homes have ever had A Comprehensive History of the Church sitting on their shelves. It hasn't been in print for over thirty years and was hardly a bestseller even in the 1960s and 70s.

[volgadon]

Scott, your link is to the History of the Church—a different publication entirely. Although it too is out of print.

Anyway, I'll take your word for it that A Comprehensive History of the Church provides a candid account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I just didn't have access to it when I was growing up.

Your lament that "few Latter-day Saints have ever bothered to open that classic work" assumes that they could easily do so if they were so inclined. I am suggesting that your assumption is faulty. I daresay very few LDS homes have ever had A Comprehensive History of the Church sitting on their shelves. It hasn't been in print for over thirty years and was hardly a bestseller even in the 1960s and 70s.

I'm not speaking to universailty, but my parents have the paperback edition from the 70's, IIRC. It has been a long time since I've read it, but I'm not sure how accurate I'd consider BH Roberts' account of the MMM.

[Calm]

Scott, your link is to the History of the Church—a different publication entirely. Although it too is out of print.

Anyway, I'll take your word for it that A Comprehensive History of the Church provides a candid account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I just didn't have access to it when I was growing up.

Your lament that "few Latter-day Saints have ever bothered to open that classic work" assumes that they could easily do so if they were so inclined. I am suggesting that your assumption is faulty. I daresay very few LDS homes have ever had A Comprehensive History of the Church sitting on their shelves. It hasn't been in print for over thirty years and was hardly a bestseller even in the 1960s and 70s.

It used to be available through the HPs bookstores most wards had when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s and not only did my family have that and the Journal of Discourses on our shelves, we visited many LDS homes with them as well. I thought it was standard church fare until I got older. I am not saying everyone had them on their shelves, but it was a good percentage in my experience. Whether they read them or not, I couldn't say. Of course my family's income may have put us into wards with more affluent, though by no means wealthy, members.

A lot of older wards also had extensive libraries likely including these.

Edited September 18, 2012 by calmoriah