The Church Hides Its History....

[why me]

There are already indications that significant numbers of people are leaving the Church because of things they're finding on the Internet. So I think it is becoming increasingly important for the Church to start addressing some of the "slanders" (as you call them) head on.

This is a problem. Many people are leaving the church over its history. However, this is rather odd. Of course, critics claim to the members that the church is hiding its history. And when knowing members point out church websites, church magazines, church manuals where much information can be found, the now doubting member can stay in doubt.

However, it is rather difficult to address issues. I think that changes are happening but it does take time. But it doesn't change the fact that the lds church is perhaps the only church that needs to address its history. And its history is rather benign when compared to the catholic faith or to many protestant faiths. I think that the critics have latched on to the 'hide its history' mantra and are milking it dry. Some critic websites milk the history aspect dry. And judging what the average catholic or protestant knows about their own faiths history, the mormons still do quite well in knowing their history, whatever history of the lds church that may be.

[why me]

"I think the Church has every right to stick to Joseph's and Oliver's version of what happened!"

Yes, this is okay. However, the critics have made doubting members want to know much more. Doubting members want the church to publish a 1000 page history, having every nuance of lds history from a critic perspective and then refuting it or addressing it by the church. And of course, this book will need to be studied every sunday during a history study lesson for the rest of the members life so they don't forget their lds history.

However, even this will not satisfy the critics because they will still find something missing or unsaid in the 1000 page book which means that the lds church will be required to update it perhaps every year to appease the exmembers or critics.

Edited May 29, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

Yet many seem to have all the time in the world to consume anti-Mormon claims and distortions. That has always seemed ironic to me.

This to me is what doesn't make sense...that if they have managed to stumble on the internet across the anti-Mormon stuff, why not also the pro? If you have invested so much time and effort in the past, why not hold out awhile longer before giving up and take the time to research the apologetic side and educate yourself in that area as well, but many of those who have stated that history throws them for a loop and they've lost faith because of it demonstrate little awareness of apologetic info in my experience...at least when they are new to their disbelief.

I think the effort of FAIR members and others to reach people during their faith crisis is wise (such as the FAIR Outreach Message Board)...though having that faith crisis just doesn't make sense to me in the first place, at least not as how it is usually described as experiencing it (I get those who haven't had spiritual witnesses...I would not be a member if I hadn't had one; it is those who state they were typical faithful, devout LDS that I just can't relate to...but I'll admit that and I am not claiming that because I don't get it, it is not a real and appropriate experience for someone to go through...I don't know how it could be appropriate, but I can't imagine too many people wanting to go through it so it must be appropriate in some fashion even if I am too dense to see it).

I can understand the issue for nonEnglish languages though the Church does well imo in getting its own materials out there in various languages, there is unfortunately rampant anti-mormonism that I have heard reports of in various European countries while it has been a struggle to get apologetic material translated...I assume that there might be in other places of the world as well.

Edited May 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Thanks Tacenda you have just supported my point. It is/was available for those who were not to bored.

I made a conscious effort to avoid it, I wasn't interested in any history after 1500 more or less, anything coming close to 'modern' times I actively disliked for some reason. I did manage to pick stuff up because I had a good memory and people around me were interested, but my knowledge didn't become developed until I got married and got involved more directly with such people (some members of my husband's family as well as ward members who I was interacting with as an adult). And I wouldn't say it got 'good' until I got involved in apologetics. But I also knew exactly where to find it if I was interested....we have the JoD and HoC on the shelf at my home, I often hung out at ward libraries when I taught in Primary and saw church history books besides the doctrinal ones and scriptural ones I was interested in plus I was very familiar with public libraries' system due to my first job having been in one and volunteering later in life...so I always knew how to do research even if I didn't....and it does seem strange that people managed to get through high school and especially college without developing that skill...but again maybe it's just my own environment happened to be among people who were interested in self-education both as a child and through the choices I made as an adult on who I wanted to spend time with...but still, didn't we all learn to use a card catalog in junior high?

[Calm]

Well, that is good news. Truly.

That is actually pretty impressive when you think about it...but perhaps that a bit of provincialness and memories of the preinternet age poking through, we are after all a worldwide church, it only makes sense that our members have the right to read the material in their own languages if our leaders are sending out missionaries to convert them.

[volgadon]

Well, that is good news. Truly.

I know a family in my mission who had taught FHE out of it for years.

[Calm]

But it doesn't change the fact that the lds church is perhaps the only church that needs to address its history.

I am not sure this is quite accurate, I would say I've run into many individuals that have had problems with the history of the faith they grew up in or converted to when young, but I don't know if it is as typical as a focus for those who leave their faith as it is among LDS (though I also believe that the number appears to be greater than it is due to most who disappear from the Church do so pretty silently and they do so because of lack of spiritual witness...I am not here making any claims as to why they hadn't received any, the contingent leaving over historical issues are the very vocal minority imo)

There are valid reasons imo why other faiths aren't so tied to their history. They don't teach their doctrine through historical narratives, they don't make claims of prophets or revelation so the character of the men may be ignored easier while it is harder for those who have high expectations of prophets, Catholics and Orthodox have a continuous history to point back to and have already resolved the issue doctrinally in regards to those unworthy who hold church office....in a way distinctly different than what LDS teach. LDS doctrine does not allow for an evil man to be the Prophet or even Apostles or any other valid church leader (though in offices that are not constant exposure it is understood how an evil man might be able to 'hide' his attributes for a time) even if we allow for them to make mistakes, be fallible, etc.

My understanding is that the church office a Catholic (and I am assuming Orthodox as well though I could be very wrong) holds is not impacted by the character of the man who holds that office in the sense of invalidating priesthood or the spiritual attributes of the office/calling (if I have misunderstood, I hope a Catholic and/or Orthodox will straighten me out). For example, a bad Pope does not alter the fact that line of authority of Popes continues. However if there were to be an evil Prophet that was not removed by apostles, impeached or whatever or obviously struck by lightening or something equivalent...there would be valid questions about how that could happen among LDS considering how we believe people are called and operate in their calling and how Priesthood authority is affected by someone's righteousness (I am not stating that if someone unworthily performs an ordinance, it invalidates it).

Besides the major point of the historical framework given to our teaching of the doctrine, I think the bottom line of why people are insisting that our history needs to be addressed is that Joseph Smith talks in Sec 125 about the end of someone's Priesthood or authority if he uses it unrighteously...that is what LDS have to deal with that it appears to me other faiths do not. It opens the question of people looking at Priesthood leaders and wondering if they were righteous enough to maintain that authority or not.

Having said that....from what I have seen it is very typical that the founders of a new religious faith are looked at quite closely by outsiders, more so often than actual doctrine of that faith, and their character---integrity and how they treat others---is a major issue for many. For example, the Moonies, Scientology, the Alamo Christian Foundation, Worldwide Church of God, Christian Science...the founder does not become someone obscure but remains associate with the faith in people's minds so how they react to the founder will often be how they react to the faith.

And there is also the example of the Jewish faith with all the history of its prophets that are constantly being examined, if not questioned (due to the assumption of the OT as being part of the Word of God by three major religious categories) as well as Buddhism in which the life of the Buddha holds a major role in the doctrine/practice as well as the familiarity of outsiders for the faith. And I've heard tons of anti-Catholic criticism demanding that they deal with the less attractive Popes and the Inquisition, etc.

So I see similar aspects in the reactions to other faiths so that I don't believe that the demand to address its history for the LDS faith is that unusual, though I don't know enough in depth and detail of other faiths to be able to place the LDS faith where it should be in the continuum of faiths in regards to this variable. Perhaps it is close to, if not at the top; perhaps it is more middle on the upper side and it is only that it is the faith we are more familiar with and paying attention to that makes it appear to be treated in an unusual fashion.

Edited May 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stroopwafel]

Do other faiths even tell their religious narrative through stories of their own church's history?

I don't have much experience with how other christian churches depict their own history, but Islam comes to mind with its various tales about Muhammad.

The thing with more recent religious movements is that they are too contemporary, too close to our times. They lose of that mystical aura which is usually built through the centuries.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Stroopwafel

[Stroopwafel]

This to me is what doesn't make sense...that if they have managed to stumble on the internet across the anti-Mormon stuff, why not also the pro? If you have invested so much time and effort in the past, why not hold out awhile longer before giving up and take the time to research the apologetic side and educate yourself in that area as well, but many of those who have stated that history throws them for a loop and they've lost faith because of it demonstrate little awareness of apologetic info in my experience...at least when they are new to their disbelief.

I think the effort of FAIR members and others to reach people during their faith crisis is wise (such as the FAIR Outreach Message Board)...though having that faith crisis just doesn't make sense to me in the first place, at least not as how it is usually described as experiencing it (I get those who haven't had spiritual witnesses...I would not be a member if I hadn't had one; it is those who state they were typical faithful, devout LDS that I just can't relate to...but I'll admit that and I am not claiming that because I don't get it, it is not a real and appropriate experience for someone to go through...I don't know how it could be appropriate, but I can't imagine too many people wanting to go through it so it must be appropriate in some fashion even if I am too dense to see it).

I can understand the issue for nonEnglish languages though the Church does well imo in getting its own materials out there in various languages, there is unfortunately rampant anti-mormonism that I have heard reports of in various European countries while it has been a struggle to get apologetic material translated...I assume that there might be in other places of the world as well.

Where the anti-Mormon stuff hits hard is that most of it is based on actual, historically verifiable events. However, the problem is not the events themselves, but rather the depiction made of them and the (very biased) interpretation that is served to whoever stumbles on that material. The Church has not been very open in discussing these issues in a satisfactory manner, and instead has been content with encouraging its members to simply ignore these uncomfortable things and focus on what "really" matters. Dodging the issue I call this, or putting one's head in the sand if you prefer.

I definitely agree that members (or anyone for that matter) should avoid like the plague any anti stuff. Simply put, they are a shame to intellectual honesty. But when members do encounter those "loving" people, where can the faithful members turn to make sense of the new information? I'd say the average members would typically turn to someone they believe could help them, for instance: home teachers, bishop, stake president... However, these people are not habilitated to answer these kinds of issues and will most likely respond with the usual "pray, read scriptures, attend Church". I'm yet to be convinced that this is such an effective remedy...

Echoing calmoriah, the average (English speaking) member will not be drawn, at least at first, to sources such as FAIR and all that apologetics jazz. In my mind, I'd say "Mieux vaut prévenir que guérir" (trans. prevention is better than cure). The controversial information being mostly new to the member, I think it may sometimes make matters worse when he/she subsequently confirms the information from more trusted sources. If the member would have first heard of the controversial stories from an authoritative source which would have helped make sense of these, then I think it would not have such a devastating impact. It doesn't need to become a huge focus; we could have something like a manual, an official resource we could refer to... anything!

[ERayR]

Where the anti-Mormon stuff hits hard is that most of it is based on actual, historically verifiable events. However, the problem is not the events themselves, but rather the depiction made of them and the (very biased) interpretation that is served to whoever stumbles on that material. The Church has not been very open in discussing these issues in a satisfactory manner, and instead has been content with encouraging its members to simply ignore these uncomfortable things and focus on what "really" matters. Dodging the issue I call this, or putting one's head in the sand if you prefer.

The Church is just staying focused. The Church could very well get sidetracked from its mission if it were to pay attention to the critics and anti's.

[Storm Rider]

I really do get tired of the whining. It makes me wonder how those that whine behave in other parts of their life or is this just a special circumstance with religion. I hear the same type of people exaggerating the demise of the Church; everyone is leaving; the Church cannot hold onto members; blah, blah, blah, blah. If even a tenth of what they said was true there would not be anyone left in the pews on Sunday and no new buildings would be built, no new wards would be formed and no new stakes would be announced. I also hear this incessant declaration of the Church "hiding" its history, does not do enough to "tell it like it is"; the list goes on ad nauseum. Here are the facts - history is not hidden; it cannot be hidden; just open your bloody eyes and read. Listen clearly, I am writing this slowly - IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE CHURCH TO RECOUNT EVERY STORY YOU EVER HEARD ABOUT THE CHURCH, JOSEPH SMITH, BRIGHAM YOUNG, ETC. The purpose of the Church is most clearly summed up to bring people to Christ. All else is a subset of that group. We cannot respond to every twit critic of the Church there is in the world. Nor do we care what those daft ex-Mormons care about - We respond to those who are thirsty, who seek after Christ, who yearn for happiness and peace. If we cannot serve you then I would say, with as much love as I can possibly have toward you, please, PLEASE, find a place where you can know Christ. As my dad told me many times, just don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out. Go in peace without the constant need to whine! I really cannot believe these people have not learned this simple lesson - NO WHINING. Just stop it.

[ERayR]

I really do get tired of the whining. It makes me wonder how those that whine behave in other parts of their life or is this just a special circumstance with religion. I hear the same type of people exaggerating the demise of the Church; everyone is leaving; the Church cannot hold onto members; blah, blah, blah, blah. If even a tenth of what they said was true there would not be anyone left in the pews on Sunday and no new buildings would be built, no new wards would be formed and no new stakes would be announced. I also hear this incessant declaration of the Church "hiding" its history, does not do enough to "tell it like it is"; the list goes on ad nauseum. Here are the facts - history is not hidden; it cannot be hidden; just open your bloody eyes and read. Listen clearly, I am writing this slowly - IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE CHURCH TO RECOUNT EVERY STORY YOU EVER HEARD ABOUT THE CHURCH, JOSEPH SMITH, BRIGHAM YOUNG, ETC. The purpose of the Church is most clearly summed up to bring people to Christ. All else is a subset of that group. We cannot respond to every twit critic of the Church there is in the world. Nor do we care what those daft ex-Mormons care about - We respond to those who are thirsty, who seek after Christ, who yearn for happiness and peace. If we cannot serve you then I would say, with as much love as I can possibly have toward you, please, PLEASE, find a place where you can know Christ. As my dad told me many times, just don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out. Go in peace without the constant need to whine! I really cannot believe these people have not learned this simple lesson - NO WHINING. Just stop it.

My sentiments exactly. You deserve at least a couple of dozen rep points for this. Unfortunately I am limited to giving you only one.

[Nevo]

At the end of this very long day, this topic is found to be more than just a little annoying. Fundamentally it comes down to whining; some can find any reason and use every reason to whine. . . . If you want to be happy in this life the first lesson you must learn is to stop whining. . . . Follow the commandments; choose the right, and for goodness sake stop whining about it.

I really do get tired of the whining. . . . Go in peace without the constant need to whine! I really cannot believe these people have not learned this simple lesson - NO WHINING. Just stop it.

Physician, heal thyself!

[Johnnie Cake]

I personally do not believe that the church has hidden its history...it just taught a history that has been spit polished and edited (some say Whitewashed) to make it appear much more faith promoting than it may have actually been in reality and they accompanied this faithful history with a narrative of Joseph Smith Super Human that did not give justice to the real man with all of his human frailties.

If the church is guilty of anything...it is guilty of wanting to created faith in the claims of the institution by teaching its history as they wanted it to be rather than how it actually was. They did this through a less than forthright "milk before meat" teaching of its history in a faith promoting manner. This desire to do good has backfired once the internet became widespread and the history as it was rather than the history as they wanted it to be became more available.

Its ok to blame those that stumble on information that they were unaware of and say well...it wasn't hidden...you were just lazy and didn't do your homework. But for the vast majority of those who faithfully attend church, pay their tithes and attend the temple...they put their faith in the church to give an honest rendering of its history. When they learn that what they were taught was not quite as true as they had been taught to believe they feel betrayed by the very institution they had given everything to. It’s easy to blame the members...but if it was indeed these members that are to blame...why is it that the church is NOW become more forthright in the telling of their history? If what they have taught for years was true and honest...why are they changing what they are now teaching?

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[CV75]

I personally do not believe that the church has hidden its history...

But you do suggest that it is guilty of not being forthright, true and honest.

The Church now has the resources (funds, expertise and methodology, technology, etc.) to devote to the research, preparation and presentation of its history.

There is a time and place for everything. History has to be given proper weight. History is not the religion, the keys, the things of the Spirit, or the basis for a relationship with God. It is as helpful as humanitarian aid, welfare missions, universities and other temporal pursuits (which for their day and time) are most congruous with bringing people to Christ. History is as helpful in the current information age as help with agriculture, clean water, instruction in health and hygiene, and economic structures were/are in other places and ages.

Condemning the Church for not making strides in the History Department is like condemning it for not having a Welfare System until after the Great Depression, or advocating powdered milk/wheat/honey storage in the 1970's when there are other ways, things, and expiration dates of things to store, or whatever else it didn't do when what it eventually did wasn't available or needed.

[Johnnie Cake]

But you do suggest that it is guilty of not being forthright, true and honest.

The Church now has the resources (funds, expertise and methodology, technology, etc.) to devote to the research, preparation and presentation of its history.

There is a time and place for everything. History has to be given proper weight. History is not the religion, the keys, the things of the Spirit, or the basis for a relationship with God. It is as helpful as humanitarian aid, welfare missions, universities and other temporal pursuits (which for their day and time) are most congruous with bringing people to Christ. History is as helpful in the current information age as help with agriculture, clean water, instruction in health and hygiene, and economic structures were/are in other places and ages.

Condemning the Church for not making strides in the History Department is like condemning it for not having a Welfare System until after the Great Depression, or advocating powdered milk/wheat/honey storage in the 1970's when there are other ways, things, and expiration dates of things to store, or whatever else it didn't do when what it eventually did wasn't available or needed.

I do not believe that those who were put in charge of creating and approving what would and what would not be taught thought through the consequneces of teaching a less than forthright history...or perhaps they did and didn't think it would have the impact that it has had and are now trying to make the changes to more forthright teaching material.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[cinepro]

"I think the Church has every right to stick to Joseph's and Oliver's version of what happened!"

Yes, this is okay. However, the critics have made doubting members want to know much more. Doubting members want the church to publish a 1000 page history, having every nuance of lds history from a critic perspective and then refuting it or addressing it by the church. And of course, this book will need to be studied every sunday during a history study lesson for the rest of the members life so they don't forget their lds history.

However, even this will not satisfy the critics because they will still find something missing or unsaid in the 1000 page book which means that the lds church will be required to update it perhaps every year to appease the exmembers or critics.

I've never met any critics who expected that.

The only expectation (hope?) I've heard is for the Church to accurately present historical situations to the best of its ability, and to not intentionally misrepresent (or waffle) on the hard parts.

And FWIW, the Church has already published a 649 page history, so even if a critic were to ask for a "1000 page history", it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility.

And FWIW, here's what that book says about the Book of Mormon translation:

Process of Translation

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

The Prophet was reluctant to give the details about the translation. In a Church conference held 25–26 October 1831 in Orange, Ohio, Hyrum requested that a firsthand account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon be given. But the Prophet said, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.”16Joseph explained in an open letter to a newspaper editor in 1833 the heart of the matter, but he gave few particulars, stating that the Book of Mormon was “found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God.”17His explanation is consistent with the Doctrine and Covenants, which says that he was granted “power to translate through the mercy of God, by the power of God, the Book of Mormon” (D&C 1:29) and that the Lord “gave him power from on high, by the means which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon” (D&C 20: 8 ).

Clearly the most important feature of the translation, as the title page of the Book of Mormon states, is “the interpretation thereof by the gift of God.” Moroni, the last custodian of the ancient text, challenged every reader of the Book of Mormon to learn through prayer the truthfulness of the book; he promised that by the power of the Holy Ghost all people could know that it was true (see Moroni 10:4–5). The Lord’s owntestimony of the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith “has translated the book, even that part which I have commanded him, and as your Lord and your God liveth it is true” (D&C 17:6).

Some critics have suggested that Sidney Rigdon was a principal author of the Book of Mormon. They say that he used a romance by Solomon Spaulding called either Manuscript Found or Manuscript Story as a guide for the historical portions of this work. There is no evidence, however, that Sidney Rigdon knew Joseph Smith before the Book of Mormon was published. Elder Rigdon’s own testimony is that the first time he heard of the book was in October 1830 when a copy was handed to him by Parley P. Pratt (see pages 80–81 of this text). Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript was discovered in the 1880s, and it bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. This obviously fabricated yet widely-propounded Spaulding-Rigdon theory is an attempt by Satan to discredit the word of God.

When Joseph Smith began translating in 1827, he evidently started with the book of Lehi from Mormon’s abridgment of the large plates of Nephi (see heading to D&C 10). After the loss of the 116 pages of manuscript, Joseph apparently started with the book of Mosiah, also found on the large plates. He had just begun the book of Mosiah when Oliver Cowdery was sent to him in early April of 1829. Five weeks later, 15 May 1829, they were on 3 Nephi and the Savior’s sermon on baptism to the Nephites. Not until arriving at the Whitmer residence in Fayette did Joseph translate the small plates of Nephi, which contain 1 Nephi through the Words of Mormon. The Prophet was commanded to translate the small plates to replace the 116 lost pages (see D&C 10:43–45). In the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, John Whitmer’s work as a scribe only dealt with material from the small plates, thus substantiating this conclusion.18

Edited May 29, 2013 by cinepro

[CV75]

I do not believe that those who were put in charge of creating and approving what would and what would not be taught thought through the consequneces of teaching a less than forthright history...or perhaps they did and didn't think it would have the impact that it has had and are now trying to make the changes to more forthright teaching material.

But you do not know, and in place of knowing, assert belief, which is really what this is all about (we all do it!).

By the same argument, those who were put in charge of creating and approving what would and what would not be promoted as good home storage did not think through the possibility of advancements in nutrition and food storage, and so pitched less than candid advice about it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Unfortunately it appears to be only in English....nope, looks like it is at least in Spanish as well.

add-on and on: Scott has found that it is available in 18 languages...not bad, however I would be curious as to how many members outside Canada and the US have access to the internet. My experience is that among the educated and middle class in Russia, internet access is common, but outside the large cities, it wasn't much. But we were there almost ten years ago so it may be quite different now.

And there does seem access available to those in Europe, but it also seems that at least up till recent, access has been mainly to anti-mormon sites....perhaps because of the limited info in other languages besides English when it comes to stuff outside what the Church publishes.

There are versions of the Church website in languages other than English; I wonder if the Church history Institute manual can be accessed on those sites in the respective language.

[Scott Lloyd]

In our current one there is one going on right now, I believe, but it is not ongoing. I tried for several years up in Canada, I was quite shocked that they didn't have it seeing as there was a high concentration of LDS in the city, an institute building along with a chapel right near by one could meet at and a great turn out for Know Your Religion series that I went to.

I think it depends on the willingness of the local stake presidency to administer such an Institute class.

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . . But it doesn't change the fact that the lds church is perhaps the only church that needs to address its history. And its history is rather benign when compared to the catholic faith or to many protestant faiths.

I studied LDS Church history in Seminary, in Institute, and every 4 years in Sunday School. I have even taught it in Sunday School. It's the Church that has decided it's history is important enough to be the subject of study 25% of the time. If they are going to make it the topic in Sunday School, Priesthood, and Seminary, then they have the responsibility to teach it truthfully. Per the Church Website, when we leave out information to make something appear other than it actually is, we are lying. That is what the church employees that write and approve the lesson manuals do. When the Priesthood manual (Joseph Smith) talking about the Kirtland apostasy states "some members started a bank that failed causing many to apostatise" (not word for word but very close) and doesn't give any indication that those random members that started the bank were Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Orson Hyde, and other top church leaders then they are leaving out information to make it appear other than it was which by the Church's own definition is a (not telling the truth) and is hiding history. I could give many more examples but all of you that are stating the Church doesn't hide it's history know many more examples of this than I do. If history isn't important then quit teaching it. If history is important, then teach it truthfully.

[why me]

I've never met any critics who expected that.

The only expectation (hope?) I've heard is for the Church to accurately present historical situations to the best of its ability, and to not intentionally misrepresent (or waffle) on the hard parts.

And FWIW, the Church has already published a 649 page history, so even if a critic were to ask for a "1000 page history", it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility.

And FWIW, here's what that book says about the Book of Mormon translation:

Are the critics happy with this book? I don't believe so? And why not? Because it leaves out information that the critics think should be in it. So, this book needs to upgrade its information by asking critics what should be put in the book and make sure that every nuance of lds history is included. I think that you made my point.

[Johnnie Cake]

Are the critics happy with this book? I don't believe so? And why not? Because it leaves out information that the critics think should be in it. So, this book needs to upgrade its information by asking critics what should be put in the book and make sure that every nuance of lds history is included. I think that you made my point.

I actually own a first edition of "The History of the Church" edited by BH Roberts...and I can tell you that later editions removed alot of the history that used to be shared. For example...In the 1902 edition the church didn't hide the fact that Joseph didn't live the Word of Wisdom...in subsequence editions...his inbibing in alcohol was edited out completely...so an average trusting modern day member would have no clue that Joseph Smtih was a drinker and a smoker. Is that hiding its history? Not exactly becasue one could still go to a first edition and discover that information. But it certainly meets the definition of whitewashing it

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Jude2]

"I think the Church has every right to stick to Joseph's and Oliver's version of what happened!"

Yes, this is okay. However, the critics have made doubting members want to know much more. Doubting members want the church to publish a 1000 page history, having every nuance of lds history from a critic perspective and then refuting it or addressing it by the church. And of course, this book will need to be studied every sunday during a history study lesson for the rest of the members life so they don't forget their lds history.

However, even this will not satisfy the critics because they will still find something missing or unsaid in the 1000 page book which means that the lds church will be required to update it perhaps every year to appease the exmembers or critics.

Isn't that the truth

[omni]

I studied LDS Church history in Seminary, in Institute, and every 4 years in Sunday School. I have even taught it in Sunday School. It's the Church that has decided it's history is important enough to be the subject of study 25% of the time. If they are going to make it the topic in Sunday School, Priesthood, and Seminary, then they have the responsibility to teach it truthfully. Per the Church Website, when we leave out information to make something appear other than it actually is, we are lying. That is what the church employees that write and approve the lesson manuals do. When the Priesthood manual (Joseph Smith) talking about the Kirtland apostasy states "some members started a bank that failed causing many to apostatise" (not word for word but very close) and doesn't give any indication that those random members that started the bank were Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Orson Hyde, and other top church leaders then they are leaving out information to make it appear other than it was which by the Church's own definition is a (not telling the truth) and is hiding history. I could give many more examples but all of you that are stating the Church doesn't hide it's history know many more examples of this than I do. If history isn't important then quit teaching it. If history is important, then teach it truthfully.

I completely agree, I know of no other church that places as much emphasis on it's history and modern leaders as we do. If were going to teach it, then teach it correctly.