The Church Hides Its History....

[why me]

A key difference, I believe, is that so much of our theology is rooted in the history of just the past two centuries: the Restoration.

I think that the bigger problem is the Internet and with it, the rather recent past contained in the entire lds history. And the hatred that the exmormons and the critics have for the lds church that they can dedicate much time to their cause.

[rockpond]

I think that the bigger problem is the Internet and with it, the rather recent past contained in the entire lds history. And the hatred that the exmormons and the critics have for the lds church that they can dedicate much time to their cause.

If the history is true, then you can't blame the source of the information.

My faith crisis came to a head when I was teaching D&C/Church History in early morning seminary. I wasn't looking at anti-Mormon sources.

[CV75]

Funny, I was always taught that the Church operated through Prophets, Seers, and Revelators with Bishops and Stake Presidents that receive inspiration to make the decisions that the Lord desires. Now I am learning that we are just another man made organization and can't be expected to rise above that level. When did the Lord quit directing the Church?

"Brothers and sisters, this is a divine work in process, with the manifestations and blessings of it abounding in every direction, so please don’t hyperventilate if from time to time issues arise that need to be examined, understood, and resolved. They do and they will. In this Church, what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember, in this world, everyone is to walk by faith.

"So be kind regarding human frailty—your own as well as that of those who serve with you in a Church led by volunteer, mortal men and women. Except in the case of His only perfect Begotten Son, imperfect people are all God has ever had to work with. That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it. So should we. And when you see imperfection, remember that the limitation is not in the divinity of the work. As one gifted writer has suggested, when the infinite fulness is poured forth, it is not the oil’s fault if there is some loss because finite vessels can’t quite contain it all.¹⁰ Those finite vessels include you and me, so be patient and kind and forgiving.

"Last observation: When doubt or difficulty come, do not be afraid to ask for help. If we want it as humbly and honestly as this father did, we can get it. The scriptures phrase such earnest desire as being of “real intent,” pursued “with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God.”¹¹ I testify that in response to that kind of importuning, God will send help from both sides of the veil to strengthen our belief."

Full talk: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng

[CV75]

If the history is true, then you can't blame the source of the information.

My faith crisis came to a head when I was teaching D&C/Church History in early morning seminary. I wasn't looking at anti-Mormon sources.

I think just about anything can distract us from the truth. It helps to discern which is true, truer or truest: the actual events, the record of them, or the Lord who will eventually His set everything into proper order. This goes beyond those things we can physically witness and remember (which in the case of most history, is only accomplished by proxy) and gets into what we understand the Lord to be accomplishing with us individually through the Restoration.

[Stone holm]

How does " the Church is perfect,[in the sense that] its doctrine is perfect, and its leadership is divine, but then you and I are in it " since he is one of those GAs do that?

I didn't say the Church was perfect, I said it was true, it is the authorised church.

[rockpond]

I think just about anything can distract us from the truth. It helps to discern which is true, truer or truest: the actual events, the record of them, or the Lord who will eventually His set everything into proper order. This goes beyond those things we can physically witness and remember (which in the case of most history, is only accomplished by proxy) and gets into what we understand the Lord to be accomplishing with us individually through the Restoration.

I thought that there was just truth. Not true, truer, and truest.

I agree that what is important is what the Lord seeks to accomplish with us through the Restoration but I don't necessarily see that concept being trumpeted above the need to agree to the correlated version of church history.

[Closet Doubter]

. . . . . As long as you are fixated on the irrelevancies you don;t have the time to move forward in the gospel. You are forever caught worrying about Josephs "rock in his hat".

The rock in the hat doesn't bother me in and of itself. The fact that the Church places such a large emphasis on it's history and then presents that history in a way that distorts what really occurred, that bothers me. That is what IMHO causes the Church and its leaders to lose credibility. That loss of credibility is the problem the Church faces.

[rockpond]

The rock in the hat doesn't bother me in and of itself. The fact that the Church places such a large emphasis on it's history and then presents that history in a way that distorts what really occurred, that bothers me. That is what IMHO causes the Church and its leaders to lose credibility. That loss of credibility is the problem the Church faces.

Well said. If the rock in Joseph's hat was nothing to worry about, why wasn't that the story I was told growing up in the church? Instead, when I learned about it, it required a paradigm shift in my belief about the Book of Mormon translation process. I was fortunate to have come through that with my faith intact but others aren't so lucky.

[thesometimesaint]

If the history is true, then you can't blame the source of the information.

My faith crisis came to a head when I was teaching D&C/Church History in early morning seminary. I wasn't looking at anti-Mormon sources.

History is never true in a literal sense of the word. What we do get is always someones interpretation/explanation of history. IE; The history of the American Revolution is quite different depending on what side of the Atlantic you are on.

[ERayR]

The rock in the hat doesn't bother me in and of itself. The fact that the Church places such a large emphasis on it's history and then presents that history in a way that distorts what really occurred, that bothers me. That is what IMHO causes the Church and its leaders to lose credibility. That loss of credibility is the problem the Church faces.

That you seem to accept the critics view of history and that you place those perceived discrepancies and that you place history ahead of the gospel in importance IMO causes you to lose credibility. You are too busy worrying what color the tree is to even see that it is a tree.

[ERayR]

Well said. If the rock in Joseph's hat was nothing to worry about, why wasn't that the story I was told growing up in the church?

Maybe because it was thought that it was more important to teach you the Book of Mormon was the word of God.

[ERayR]

History is never true in a literal sense of the word. What we do get is always someones interpretation/explanation of history. IE; The history of the American Revolution is quite different depending on what side of the Atlantic you are on.

Well put. I spent one summer working for the Northern Cheyenne tribe and found the account of Custer at the Little Big Horn river from the Indian side was quite different than the history book accounts.

[rockpond]

Maybe because it was thought that it was more important to teach you the Book of Mormon was the word of God.

Agreed. But if you are going to do that through an account of how it was received/translated/written, why not be accurate in the portrayal?

[rockpond]

History is never true in a literal sense of the word. What we do get is always someones interpretation/explanation of history. IE; The history of the American Revolution is quite different depending on what side of the Atlantic you are on.

It isn't necessarily interpretations/explanations that cause faithful church members to have crises of faith. It is just the facts of history: that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat as opposed to the Urim & Thummim, number/age/marital status of his wives, Blacks being sealed from eternal sealing to their spouses. I think it might be helpful to have those facts more widely disclosed within the church so that the first interpretation/explanation that members get to hear comes from a good source (rather than Google). But, like I said earlier, I don't envy the Brethren in their charge of figuring out a way to deal with this challenge. It's a tough thing to keep the Restoration narrative simple for new members while still preparing older members to deal with the complexities.

[ERayR]

Agreed. But if you are going to do that through an account of how it was received/translated/written, why not be accurate in the portrayal?

I have never seen an inaccurate portrayal of how it was translated. It all depends on where in the timeline of translation it was taken. Again it is more important to teach the Book of Mormon than to make sure we have all the accounts of the translation process and their nuances.

[ERayR]

It isn't necessarily interpretations/explanations that cause faithful church members to have crises of faith. It is just the facts of history: that Joseph used a seer stone in a hat as opposed to the Urim & Thummim, number/age/marital status of his wives, Blacks being sealed from eternal sealing to their spouses. I think it might be helpful to have those facts more widely disclosed within the church so that the first interpretation/explanation that members get to hear comes from a good source (rather than Google). But, like I said earlier, I don't envy the Brethren in their charge of figuring out a way to deal with this challenge. It's a tough thing to keep the Restoration narrative simple for new members while still preparing older members to deal with the complexities.

And I think it is more important to teach the gospel than to teach history and the Brethren obviously agree with me.

[rockpond]

I have never seen an inaccurate portrayal of how it was translated. It all depends on where in the timeline of translation it was taken. Again it is more important to teach the Book of Mormon than to make sure we have all the accounts of the translation process and their nuances.

True - what is shown is accurate at certain times. What is not commonly shown is also accurate but missing from the narrative.

I agree that priority one is teaching that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. And I'm grateful that I was able to receive a personal spiritual witness of that.

I also think that it's counter productive to dismiss the experience of numerous faithful members of the church who, when presented with a more detailed narrative of the process, struggle with their testimony because they feel betrayed.

[rockpond]

And I think it is more important to teach the gospel than to teach history and the Brethren obviously agree with me.

And I agree with you and the Brethren.

And maybe that is the best/only answer to the concern being discussed in this thread: just keep teaching the gospel.

[ERayR]

I also think that it's counter productive to dismiss the experience of numerous faithful members of the church who, when presented with a more detailed narrative of the process, struggle with their testimony because they feel betrayed.

What would be more helpful is to help them to distinguish between relevancies and irrelevancies.

[rockpond]

What would be more helpful is to help them to distinguish between relevancies and irrelevancies.

Yep. And easier to do that before you've lost credibility (in their eyes).

[why me]

If the history is true, then you can't blame the source of the information.

My faith crisis came to a head when I was teaching D&C/Church History in early morning seminary. I wasn't looking at anti-Mormon sources.

But it is not whether the history is true. Rather, it is whether the interpretation of the history is true. It is all down to interpretation of the events.

[why me]

History is never true in a literal sense of the word. What we do get is always someones interpretation/explanation of history. IE; The history of the American Revolution is quite different depending on what side of the Atlantic you are on.

Yes. But it also depends on the historian. For example, Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States gives a far different interpretation of US history than a standard high school textbook. It is good also to remember that when it comes to history, most people have a bias toward a certain interpretation.

[Stone holm]

But it is not whether the history is true. Rather, it is whether the interpretation of the history is true. It is all down to interpretation of the events.

Sometimes it is whether history is true,

[ERayR]

Yep. And easier to do that before you've lost credibility (in their eyes).

How does one validate an irrelevancy to make it relevant and how does that help anyone.

[ERayR]

Sometimes it is whether history is true,

Historical facts are true. It is the interpretation of those facts that may or may not be suspect. Take Laman and Lemuel, the lived the same facts that Nephi did but they interpreted them very differently.