Shocking Omission From Church History Makes Me Angry

[DBMormon]

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).

Kevin I would guess the LDS Church is probably the most detail oriented, record keeping, history sharing church in the world. Can anyone name for me a church that has kept/ shared as many or more records of their history then the LDS church in relation to how long the church has been in existence?

Yet we are the ones hiding info. Is there a baptist site with as much baptist info, Jehovah Winesses? Catholics? Muslim? Hindu?

any takers.

Does this comment make sense

"While the LDS church keeps, records, and shares more of it's history then in other faith it hides it's history more then other faiths"

Does that make sense?

[DBMormon]

I've said it before: It's curious how people who can't be bothered to crack open a Church history text or peruse an Ensign article undergo a metamorphosis into voracious consumers of all things anti-Mormon.

For the record, I'm in favor of a more candid treatment in institutional Church literature of matters about which antagonists generate controversy. I'm less than optimistic, though, that such candid treatment would be well-read, if so many of the rank-and-file in the Church don't bother to examine what's already available. I fear we would hear variations of the same old complaints that they were kept in the dark. There's something about the human psyche that resists the acceptance of personal responsibility.

Scott, I read both in large numbers and anti never bothered me, eventually what got me was the critics hammering the notion the church hid it, and then I thought back to when did I hear those things, and none of them were at church or from a manual I used (joined when 17, so no primary, YM's, seminary, no Mission, nor Institute as life got in the way) Having then not learned it in church I made a bad assumption that the church did what the critics said, which was hide it. They didn't, I simply didn't look in the right places. The critics snare us into their reasoning and it's a shame.

I will also add I too think the manuals can be a lot better on making these details more to the forefront but that is a reaction to the critics methods rather then a admittance of hiding info. It also can't share this info in a giant way at the expense of losing the basics as the latter should be the emphasis.

Edited September 21, 2012 by DBMormon

[Nevo]

Does the Church actively "hide" its history? Not really. Very little is actually hidden from public view. But the correlated version of history that the Church teaches its members necessarily omits anything that might tend to undermine faith. As a result, most members know little or nothing about Joseph Smith's money-digging activities, his 1826 trial, his secret marriages to already-married women and teenage housemaids, the Kinderhook Plates, etc. This is understandable on the Church's part, perhaps even justified, but it does set people up for disillusionment.

I am heartened to see the Church moving toward greater openness and transparency. There will always be a number of members who will remain uninformed about and largely uninterested in LDS history, but fewer and fewer members will find themselves broadsided by disclosures of the sort found in Grant Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins or Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Nevo

[Thinking]

I chuckle when an apologist treats the historical details (which are not hidden but certainly not promoted) as peripherals, or things that don't matter as far as the big picture goes. He may say something like those are not pertinent to my salvation. I disagree. The LDS Church makes historical claims about its origins (the First Vision), its foundational book of scripture (Book of Mormon), and its power to act in the name of God (priesthood). How can I determine if these historical claims are true if I haven't fully researched all aspects of that history?

[cassieblanca]

I chuckle when an apologist treats the historical details (which are not hidden but certainly not promoted) as peripherals, or things that don't matter as far as the big picture goes. He may say something like those are not pertinent to my salvation. I disagree. The LDS Church makes historical claims about its origins (the First Vision), its foundational book of scripture (Book of Mormon), and its power to act in the name of God (priesthood). How can I determine if these historical claims are true if I haven't fully researched all aspects of that history?

Things like MMM are not pertinent because the details about MMM don't determine the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the church and its claims.

The church doesn't deal with the multiple accounts of the first vision because they have already determined which account they feel is the most correct. I think it's fine to look at all the accounts, as long as you realize that they don't have to be identical because they were given by different people and at different times, and sometimes their focus was different because they were given *to* different people. Lots of people believe the New Testament even though the four gospels don't match up on every detail. You can look into the history of the BoM and find apparent anachronisms, but there are plausable answers to all of it and they can be easily found. But that's not how we determine whether the BoM is true or not. It's true- the stuff that the church doesn't talk about really isn't relevant and the truth of the church or the BoM doesn't hang on those things that people get all worked up about. It's just not as big a deal as we all make it out to be.

[KevinG]

Focusing on those things that promote faith does not equal omitting those things that can harm faith.

The information is available to anyone who wants to find it. Sunday school and the Ensign tend to focus on those things that build the Saints individually and as a people. No shock value there.

[Nevo]

The information is available to anyone who wants to find it.

Yes, thanks to Dialogue, Sunstone, Signature Books, the University of Illinois Press, Alfred A. Knopf, etc. Unfortunately, however, a lot of members don't trust anything that doesn't carry the imprimatur of the Church so they remain in the dark.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, thanks to Dialogue, Sunstone, Signature Books, the University of Illinois Press, Alfred A. Knopf, etc. Unfortunately, however, a lot of members don't trust anything that doesn't carry the imprimatur of the Church so they remain in the dark.

A source doesn't have to take an adversarial or cynical tack, nor does it have to carry the imprimatur of the Church to be reliable.

Moreover, the adversarial or cynical sources should be critically scrutinized themselves, because they don't always present a fair or accurate interpretation or conclusion or they might be lacking in essential information.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

The LDS Church makes historical claims about its origins (the First Vision), its foundational book of scripture (Book of Mormon), and its power to act in the name of God (priesthood). How can I determine if these historical claims are true if I haven't fully researched all aspects of that history?

We don't establish truth claims by explorations of contested -- and infinitely contestable -- history. Things like visions and priesthood power have to be experienced, in the present here and now, to be accepted. It has always been thus.

[Thinking]

Things like MMM are not pertinent because the details about MMM don't determine the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of the church and its claims.

Why did you select MMM as your example?

The church doesn't deal with the multiple accounts of the first vision because they have already determined which account they feel is the most correct. I think it's fine to look at all the accounts, as long as you realize that they don't have to be identical because they were given by different people and at different times, and sometimes their focus was different because they were given *to* different people. Lots of people believe the New Testament even though the four gospels don't match up on every detail. You can look into the history of the BoM and find apparent anachronisms, but there are plausable answers to all of it and they can be easily found. But that's not how we determine whether the BoM is true or not. It's true- the stuff that the church doesn't talk about really isn't relevant and the truth of the church or the BoM doesn't hang on those things that people get all worked up about. It's just not as big a deal as we all make it out to be.

I believe that anything that any LDS prophet presented as an official doctrine or practice should be thoroughly examined.

For example,

• Plural Marriage
  
• Priesthood Ban
  
• Book of Abraham
  
• Book of Mormon
  
• Temples
  

[cassieblanca]

Why did you select MMM as your example?

because it was discussed specifically in this thread.

I believe that anything that any LDS prophet presented as an official doctrine or practice should be thoroughly examined.

For example,

• Plural Marriage
  
• Priesthood Ban
  
• Book of Abraham
  
• Book of Mormon
  
• Temples
  

I don't disagree. It's just that some people thoroughly examine things the wrong way. There are people who leave the church, or feel justified in having left, because of DNA evidence, thinking that by learning about it, they have now thorougly studied something in regards to the Book of Mormon. Never mind that the entire book most probably took place in a very limited geography and we don't know how many people came to the Americas some other way. We don't know the details about how many people were here or who they came from, and yet if any Native American's DNA is studied and doesn't match up with European DNA we think that's proof that the BoM isn't true. It's faulty reasoning. All of the so-called anachronisms in the Book of Mormon - we are talking about things and making assumptions based on information we don't have. We just don't have all the details, and a lot of people think that we do.

It's fine to study and examine all of those things. In fact, I think that is part of gaining knowledge and learning which I think all people should do. There are a lot of things that a lot of members don't know, but when they get to the point where it challenges their testimony, many people lose it and leave. They think they have found out all the things that the other members don't know. But what THEY don't know is that there is a whole other level of knowledge and understanding which they are missing out on, and if they keep digging and looking for answers, and if they keep an open mind about it, they are likely to end up where they started (in terms of testimony) before learning those "shocking" things in the first place. More probably, the testimony is much stronger after getting past that stuff though. I know mine is. But I know people who have no interest in that sort of digging, studying, and examining, and their testimonies are very strong too, and they are happy with what they know. I think there's nothing wrong with that, but I always value furthering our knowledge and understanding, especially when it concerns something so eternally important.

[Scott Lloyd]

because it was discussed specifically in this thread.

I don't disagree. It's just that some people thoroughly examine things the wrong way. There are people who leave the church, or feel justified in having left, because of DNA evidence, thinking that by learning about it, they have now thorougly studied something in regards to the Book of Mormon. Never mind that the entire book most probably took place in a very limited geography and we don't know how many people came to the Americas some other way. We don't know the details about how many people were here or who they came from, and yet if any Native American's DNA is studied and doesn't match up with European DNA we think that's proof that the BoM isn't true. It's faulty reasoning. All of the so-called anachronisms in the Book of Mormon - we are talking about things and making assumptions based on information we don't have. We just don't have all the details, and a lot of people think that we do.

It's fine to study and examine all of those things. In fact, I think that is part of gaining knowledge and learning which I think all people should do. There are a lot of things that a lot of members don't know, but when they get to the point where it challenges their testimony, many people lose it and leave. They think they have found out all the things that the other members don't know. But what THEY don't know is that there is a whole other level of knowledge and understanding which they are missing out on, and if they keep digging and looking for answers, and if they keep an open mind about it, they are likely to end up where they started (in terms of testimony) before learning those "shocking" things in the first place. More probably, the testimony is much stronger after getting past that stuff though. I know mine is. But I know people who have no interest in that sort of digging, studying, and examining, and their testimonies are very strong too, and they are happy with what they know. I think there's nothing wrong with that, but I always value furthering our knowledge and understanding, especially when it concerns something so eternally important.

Very well stated. Bravo.

In support of this, I would direct readers to the FAIR Blog post written by Allen Wyatt and excerpted here.

Wyatt makes the point that collections of facts don't necessarily lead one to truth. What makes a world of difference is the interpretation placed on those facts.

[cassieblanca]

Very well stated. Bravo.

Thanks!!