The Church Hides Its History....

[Stone holm]

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.

True. And sometimes people totally make up facts in which case the history is untrue. For example, I was once on a School Board's textbook selection committee for the selection of history textbooks. Not wanting to read ten intensely deadly boring high school history texts, I decided to select two items to see if the books got it right. One was discussion of American slavery and the other was discussion of Mormons. I hate to tell say that most of those books really failed the test and should have been banned. But it was amazing how many couldn't get Joseph's death down right -- I think only one got it right. The others had various different fates, i remember one saying he was lynched. Obviously, those histories were just not true, the authors didn't bother trying to get the facts right, or just made them up. They did slightly better with slavery, but even there some got the impact of the cotton gin exactly backwards. So yes sometimes history is not true, and I think in America it seems to be getting less true by the minute. But with regards to truthful history, i give the Church pretty high marks.

[canard78]

I am curious if you would consider that your current understanding of the Church and its leaders is more mature now? Too many members put leaders on very tall pedestals and have unrealistic expectations of them and of the Church as an organization. I suspect that your current understanding makes it much more likely that you are more tolerant of others, accepting of shortcomings, and more focused on learning truth regardless of where it is found.

I think I'm in a position where I respect the prophets as inspired men who regularly speak good words of advice. I don't expect perfection and I don't try to follow every word they speak. I adopt and adapt based on a personal relationship with God and a personal understanding of how to become my very best, but imperfect, self. Becoming and believing walk hand in hand. But believing is only the fuel to the real objective of what you become and who you emulate. Becoming more Christlike remains my lifelong goal.

[canard78]

Don't you see that is irrelevant if you are seeking and getting personal revelation but when you make it relevant you restrict your ability to do so. I have a category I call "Waiting for Answers". It is as big as warehouse 13. I put things on a shelf and occasionally I have an Aha moment and then I get to take something off the shelves and put it in the "Now I Understand" category. If I had to have a perfect understanding of everything before I listened and received personal revelation I would have received nothing. As it is whenever he thinks I am ready God sends the Holy Ghost to take one of my warehouse 13 questions off the shelf and answer it.

I like your analogy and I agree with you. The best approach is to let His spirit speak to my spirit. Probably the closest I'll get to perfect communication (or the least imperfect). The words of prophets (Mormon and non-Mormon) remain relevant to me as a guide to the questions to ask and the behaviours to develop.

[Calm]

The others had various different fates, i remember one saying he was lynched.

If you are saying that was wrong, it is actually right. Lynching is commonly used of hanging, but can mean any death by mob. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lynching?s=t

[ERayR]

If you are saying that was wrong, it is actually right. Lynching is commonly used of hanging, but can mean any death by mob. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lynching?s=t

To parphrase a complaint of the critics: Yes but it prings up images of being taken out and hanged and that is incorrect, It is lying to their readers.

[Closet Doubter]

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.

Actually, I have figured out that the Church is often not much more credible than the critics. I won't accept either sides version of the events without confirming references and the credibility of those references. There are several of you on this board that have been instrumental in reinforcing this perception.

[Closet Doubter]

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

Actually, I it doesn't appear the brethern do agree with you. Every 4 years, Seminary deals with Chruch History. Every 4 years, the subject in Gospel Doctrine class is Church History. It appears the brethern feel it is important to teach Church History along with teaching the gospel but they forgot to teach the history accurately. When we discussed the first vision this year it would have been very easy to discuss the different versions of the vision, what the differences are and some of the possible reason's for the differences. When we discussed the origins of the D&C, instead of inaccurately teaching that the lectures on faith were removed because they were never actually accepted as scripture they could have accurately taught that the lectures on faith were the doctrine part of the D&C that was accepted by the Church in 1835 but as we continued to learn "line upon line" that the Church leadership realized there were many things that were not true doctrine so it was removed from the D&C in the 1920's. The Church should either quit teaching history or teach it somewhat accurately. Their interpretation might be different than the anti's but the facts should be pretty close to accurate.

[ERayR]

Actually, I it doesn't appear the brethern do agree with you. Every 4 years, Seminary deals with Chruch History. Every 4 years, the subject in Gospel Doctrine class is Church History. It appears the brethern feel it is important to teach Church History along with teaching the gospel but they forgot to teach the history accurately. When we discussed the first vision this year it would have been very easy to discuss the different versions of the vision, what the differences are and some of the possible reason's for the differences. When we discussed the origins of the D&C, instead of inaccurately teaching that the lectures on faith were removed because they were never actually accepted as scripture they could have accurately taught that the lectures on faith were the doctrine part of the D&C that was accepted by the Church in 1835 but as we continued to learn "line upon line" that the Church leadership realized there were many things that were not true doctrine so it was removed from the D&C in the 1920's. The Church should either quit teaching history or teach it somewhat accurately. Their interpretation might be different than the anti's but the facts should be pretty close to accurate.

I have always thought that "Church History" name for the fourth year lessons was a bit of a misnomer. You see what is taught is the Doctrine and Covenants. I can kind of understand it though as the sections of the D&C are organizationaland operational instructions Given by God for the organization and operation of the Church. It is not the history that you think is important.

[Calm]

Actually, I it doesn't appear the brethern do agree with you. Every 4 years, Seminary deals with Chruch History. Every 4 years, the subject in Gospel Doctrine class is Church History.

If one goes to lds.org and looks at the manuals used for the current D&C and Church History course for SS, you will notice that while the D&C Institute manual is included as a resource, the Church History in the Fullness of Times Institute manual is not. I find that a particular relevant indication of what amount of lesson time is intended to be spend on the Doctrine and Covenants and what amount is intended to be spent on teaching Church History.

[Calm]

I have always thought that "Church History" name for the fourth year lessons was a bit of a misnomer. You see what is taught is the Doctrine and Covenants. I can kind of understand it though as the sections of the D&C are organizationaland operational instructions Given by God for the organization and operation of the Church. It is not the history that you think is important.

It has always been clear to me that the purpose of the "Church History" part is purely supportive of the "Doctrine and Covenants" part, providing context and examples to clarify and promote teachings and doctrine, not history.

[tagriffy]

I have always thought that "Church History" name for the fourth year lessons was a bit of a misnomer. You see what is taught is the Doctrine and Covenants. I can kind of understand it though as the sections of the D&C are organizationaland operational instructions Given by God for the organization and operation of the Church. It is not the history that you think is important.

I both agree and disagree. It is a bit of a misnomer to call it "Church History" when the focus is the Doctrine and Covenants. However, Church history is important to understanding the D&C. I don't see how the D&C year can be taught without reference to history.

[ERayR]

I both agree and disagree. It is a bit of a misnomer to call it "Church History" when the focus is the Doctrine and Covenants. However, Church history is important to understanding the D&C. I don't see how the D&C year can be taught without reference to history.

It is not hard. We have some very talented teachers in our ward who teach the gospel message of the revelations. Very little history is ever mentioned except to note the year and place the revelation was received. I think a perfectly good understanding can be had without a bunch of history as long as the Spirit is present.

[Calm]

It is not hard. We have some very talented teachers in our ward who teach the gospel message of the revelations. Very little history is ever mentioned except to note the year and place the revelation was received. I think a perfectly good understanding can be had without a bunch of history as long as the Spirit is present.

We certainly don't need to know that it was at least in part Emma who motivated Joseph to ask for information from God that led to the Word of Wisdom. Teaching the Word of Wisdom stands alone. OTOH, it can make it more interesting as well as relatable to our own lives to know that due to his wife being unhappy with the environment that was being created by good intentions coupled with bad habits, we have been given a great gift in our lives that has even led to lives being saved (I know that if I hadn't lived the WoW from a child or a similar restriction, that I likely would have been in a much worse state in my health due to trying to selfmedicate when the doctors were clueless about what was going on with me.)

[ERayR]

We certainly don't need to know that it was at least in part Emma who motivated Joseph to ask for information from God that led to the Word of Wisdom. Teaching the Word of Wisdom stands alone. OTOH, it can make it more interesting as well as relatable to our own lives to know that due to his wife being unhappy with the environment that was being created by good intentions coupled with bad habits, we have been given a great gift in our lives that has even led to lives being saved (I know that if I hadn't lived the WoW from a child or a similar restriction, that I likely would have been in a much worse state in my health due to trying to selfmedicate when the doctors were clueless about what was going on with me.)

For those of us who like to peek behind the curtain it adds something for us but for those who are not so inclined and are interested in the spiritual and doctrinal aspects it is not a necessity.

[Stone holm]

We certainly don't need to know that it was at least in part Emma who motivated Joseph to ask for information from God that led to the Word of Wisdom. Teaching the Word of Wisdom stands alone. OTOH, it can make it more interesting as well as relatable to our own lives to know that due to his wife being unhappy with the environment that was being created by good intentions coupled with bad habits, we have been given a great gift in our lives that has even led to lives being saved (I know that if I hadn't lived the WoW from a child or a similar restriction, that I likely would have been in a much worse state in my health due to trying to selfmedicate when the doctors were clueless about what was going on with me.)

Yeah, I think history that is relevant to understanding doctrine is important. I think what was being suggested in the OP was that the Church should provide a forum for every bit of potential dirty laundry that can be found on any of the former or existing Church leaders, or which could be skewed in some manner to call into question the doctrine and teachings of the Church. There is a fine line. My wife thinks I cross it too often when commenting on doctrine -- and people like me sometimes get branded as controversial which helps free up time since you don't get called upon to give Sacrament talks or teach...lol

[tagriffy]

We certainly don't need to know that it was at least in part Emma who motivated Joseph to ask for information from God that led to the Word of Wisdom. Teaching the Word of Wisdom stands alone. OTOH, it can make it more interesting as well as relatable to our own lives to know that due to his wife being unhappy with the environment that was being created by good intentions coupled with bad habits, we have been given a great gift in our lives that has even led to lives being saved (I know that if I hadn't lived the WoW from a child or a similar restriction, that I likely would have been in a much worse state in my health due to trying to selfmedicate when the doctors were clueless about what was going on with me.)

Yeah, I think history that is relevant to understanding doctrine is important. I think what was being suggested in the OP was that the Church should provide a forum for every bit of potential dirty laundry that can be found on any of the former or existing Church leaders, or which could be skewed in some manner to call into question the doctrine and teachings of the Church. There is a fine line. My wife thinks I cross it too often when commenting on doctrine -- and people like me sometimes get branded as controversial which helps free up time since you don't get called upon to give Sacrament talks or teach...lol

I agree. While it isn't strictly necessary to know the motivations behind Joseph asking for a revelation on a given topic, it is useful for fully understanding the revelation that was actually received. I would consider the person who only said something about the year and place it was received a poor teacher. While the Church doesn't need to air every bit of dirty laundry, a discussion of Emma's complaints and the counter complaints made by the men do help us to fully understand and appreciate the Word of Wisdom. And as an added bonus, it makes it much harder for critics to use that same information to dismiss the WoW.

[CV75]

I agree. While it isn't strictly necessary to know the motivations behind Joseph asking for a revelation on a given topic, it is useful for fully understanding the revelation that was actually received.

On the other hand, so much of how revelation works is really the first thing any human being learns how to do. Learning about it starts with having a conscience and builds up from there, some by scriptural study but mostly by actual experience. I think people already have a built-in means to understand the various routes that are taken for revelation, if they will receive it; it comes quite naturally.

[ERayR]

I would consider the person who only said something about the year and place it was received a poor teacher.

While it adds some depth to those who are interested for those who are not interested, well. Your above statement is wrong. A good teacher is one who can bring the spirit into the lesson and the room and I know several. Teaching history has nothing to do with it.

[tagriffy]

On the other hand, so much of how revelation works is really the first thing any human being learns how to do. Learning about it starts with having a conscience and builds up from there, some by scriptural study but mostly by actual experience. I think people already have a built-in means to understand the various routes that are taken for revelation, if they will receive it; it comes quite naturally.

While it adds some depth to those who are interested for those who are not interested, well. Your above statement is wrong. A good teacher is one who can bring the spirit into the lesson and the room and I know several. Teaching history has nothing to do with it.

In my mind, these two statements work together to show why a good teacher would discuss the history even for those who aren't interested. The human dimension of revelation is absolutely important. History isn't important just for adding depth to the topic. It is also crucial for bringing forward the that human dimension.

[Bit]

If Church members haven't familiarized themselves with the Mormon History holdings of their nearest university library, then it's their fault if they've never heard of Joseph's scrying. The Church has always been entirely forthcoming about this stuff.

Um... how about the Internet?

[Calm]

Um... how about the Internet?

Perhaps he should have posted a sarcasm alert with the post...

[Stone holm]

In my mind, these two statements work together to show why a good teacher would discuss the history even for those who aren't interested. The human dimension of revelation is absolutely important. History isn't important just for adding depth to the topic. It is also crucial for bringing forward the that human dimension.

Yes, so long as the real purpose of an assertion of history isn't actually an attack on a persons integrity.

[Wiki Wonka]

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.

Here's something new that may help put the Church's treatment of the rock-in-hat issue into somewhat better context:

"The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation" in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-spectacles-the-stone-the-hat-and-the-book-a-twenty-first-century-believers-view-of-the-book-of-mormon-translation/

WW

[why me]

I think what was being suggested in the OP was that the Church should provide a forum for every bit of potential dirty laundry that can be found on any of the former or existing Church leaders, or which could be skewed in some manner to call into question the doctrine and teachings of the Church.

I think that the church can begin to cover some of the controversies in the Ensign as they did in the good ol days. And this days were not so long ago. It is really a easy solution. I also think that in the head office there are people who control what information goes in the ensign and what doesn't. These might be typical Utah members who just happen to work in the church office. Also, they might not even know their lds history. For example they can say something about Zina being sealed to Joseph Smith after having a spiritual experience about the principle of plural marriage etc. No problem. I think that once such tidbits begin to come out in church magazines etc, all will be well.

[why me]

Here's something new that may help put the Church's treatment of the rock-in-hat issue into somewhat better context:

"The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation" in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture

http://www.mormonint...on-translation/

WW

I think that outside sources is one way to go. For some strange reason, people think that the lds church should be a history teacher. I know of no church that teaches all their history to its members. But certainly there are books out there that members can read about it. Or journals or magazines not published by that church. But the lds church has a problem and the problem is that they are now expected to publish that 1000 page book covering their history, and then antimormon sites will scour it searching for omissions and 'wrong interpretations' and still try to influence the lds that the church gives the wrong interpretations. It will be in the realm of history interpretation for the lds church. I see no other church required to do this. It is an area that the church can never win only draw. And the former mormons who own antimormon boards know this.

Edited June 8, 2013 by why me