The Church Hides Its History....

[Tacenda]

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.

Probably because we have living prophets, that aren't always perfect and affect history a great deal.

[why me]

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.

Correctly according to whom? And this is the problem. What is correct for you is not correct for someone else. There will always be people complaining about what aspects of history should be included and what interpretation to give. All else would be wrong.

[Stone holm]

Correctly according to whom? And this is the problem. What is correct for you is not correct for someone else. There will always be people complaining about what aspects of history should be included and what interpretation to give. All else would be wrong.

I agree. I don't think we distort our history. Teaching history does not require that we teach slanders. If we are discussing it on the blog, then yes it is okay to occasionally point out blemishes, but it is not necessary to broadcast them to the world, nor is it necessary to constantly repeat and refute the slanders most of which are old slanders which have been refuted to the extent possible a long time ago.

[EllenMaksoud]

I find it amazing that critics claim that the church hides its history when it comes to seer stones. I remember that back in the day, in the seventies, we members were quite smart about how the translation of the book of mormon took place. We knew the ins and outs of the process, including seer stones, head in the hat theory etc. Nothing was hidden. I remember reading this article in the Ensign which was quite a detailed account:

https://www.lds.org/...of-god?lang=eng

I never considered anything hidden in the past. I am sure that there were things not known by us but then I was not the best purchaser of church books back then, and so, I may be mistaken in that claim. Also, in the nineties, we read this article in the Ensign about the book of mormon process which again was quite detailed:

https://www.lds.org/...tament?lang=eng

Again, it was a pretty detailed account and I don't remember much problem in the church about it when the members read it about seer stones etc. I think that we all knew that the translation process was special and a miracle. No Internet to distort the information.

And now of course, in 2013, we have this article in the Ensign:

https://www.lds.org/...of-god?lang=eng

This is a terrific article and it reminds me of the articles that we read back in the good ol' days. So, where exactly is the church hiding this information? I see nothing hidden about the seer stones and the translation process. Why are members taken in about it when they read what the critics are saying on the internet about how the church is hiding it? We need to get the correct information out there and explain that what the critics claim is false.

I don't actually view it as dissembling but the result of a bit of wizardly disorganization. I have gotten very frustrated about trying to find certain things and when I finally did find it, found that I had not asked the right questions. I've actually gotten disgusted enough to leave, but the power of what happened to me when investigating constrains me.

[ERayR]

I agree. I don't think we distort our history. Teaching history does not require that we teach slanders. If we are discussing it on the blog, then yes it is okay to occasionally point out blemishes, but it is not necessary to broadcast them to the world, nor is it necessary to constantly repeat and refute the slanders most of which are old slanders which have been refuted to the extent possible a long time ago.

Agree. However, it is the slanders that critics and anti's insist we teach as real history.

[ERayR]

I don't actually view it as dissembling but the result of a bit of wizardly disorganization. I have gotten very frustrated about trying to find certain things and when I finally did find it, found that I had not asked the right questions. I've actually gotten disgusted enough to leave, but the power of what happened to me when investigating constrains me.

Always keep that experience out front. Reject anything or anybody that would ask you to go contrary to it.

[Nevo]

I agree. I don't think we distort our history. Teaching history does not require that we teach slanders. If we are discussing it on the blog, then yes it is okay to occasionally point out blemishes, but it is not necessary to broadcast them to the world, nor is it necessary to constantly repeat and refute the slanders most of which are old slanders which have been refuted to the extent possible a long time ago.

Agree. However, it is the slanders that critics and anti's insist we teach as real history.

Do you guys even know what the word "slander" means? No one is asking the Church to teach anything false. Quite the opposite in fact.

(Also, the plural of "anti" is "antis")

[why me]

Do you guys even know what the word "slander" means? No one is asking the Church to teach anything false. Quite the opposite in fact.

I think that the critics want the church to teach their side of the story. If the church came out with a faith promoting history book with good details from a faith promoting perspective, the critics would counter with a counter history. What would be true and what would be false in that case?

[why me]

I don't actually view it as dissembling but the result of a bit of wizardly disorganization. I have gotten very frustrated about trying to find certain things and when I finally did find it, found that I had not asked the right questions. I've actually gotten disgusted enough to leave, but the power of what happened to me when investigating constrains me.

Why did you get disgusted enough to leave when you understood that you didn't ask the right questions about what you were searching for?

[EllenMaksoud]

Why did you get disgusted enough to leave when you understood that you didn't ask the right questions about what you were searching for?

Well, even I can be insubordinate at times. Thankfully Heavenly Father has been most kind to me when I am feeling querulous.

[tagriffy]

Correctly according to whom? And this is the problem. What is correct for you is not correct for someone else. There will always be people complaining about what aspects of history should be included and what interpretation to give. All else would be wrong.

So what? If the Church generally practiced what cinepro called the normalization of information (I like that phrase, it tastes good. Thanks cinepro!) the point will come we could say of the critics ... something I'm not actually allowed to say in this forum. The more upfront the Church is about its history, the more irrational critics continued demands become.

[tagriffy]

I think that the critics want the church to teach their side of the story. If the church came out with a faith promoting history book with good details from a faith promoting perspective, the critics would counter with a counter history. What would be true and what would be false in that case?

You choose.

[stemelbow]

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 do think the Church has put itself in a weird spot by emphasizing history. History is tough, no matter how you slice it. Its not neat nor easy. Conclusions seem to come from left field half the time. Two different people can take the same information regarding history and have competing ideas what the data mean. One person could favor one history book while another favors a different one, with their different conclusions, so much so that these two people, perhaps well-read, could hold such divisive views about a certain event in history that there doesn't seem to be any real answer by an appeal to history at all.

We might as well put as much out there as we can and let the chips fall where they may?

or

Shalll we continue on pretending the current appeals to history by the Church have plenty of historical validitiy in order to use it as a tool to promote faith?

Each option probably has its drawbacks. I would say the drawbacks of the former out-weigh the drawbacks of the latter.

[Stone holm]

Do you guys even know what the word "slander" means? No one is asking the Church to teach anything false. Quite the opposite in fact.

(Also, the plural of "anti" is "antis")

Normally, I would join in if I felt that someone was trying to brush off or whitewash a misstep of a GA or the Church, but I can't go with you on the litany of anti garbage and say that I think the Church should give that stuff air time.

[Stone holm]

I do think the Church has put itself in a weird spot by emphasizing history. History is tough, no matter how you slice it. Its not neat nor easy. Conclusions seem to come from left field half the time. Two different people can take the same information regarding history and have competing ideas what the data mean. One person could favor one history book while another favors a different one, with their different conclusions, so much so that these two people, perhaps well-read, could hold such divisive views about a certain event in history that there doesn't seem to be any real answer by an appeal to history at all.

We might as well put as much out there as we can and let the chips fall where they may?

or

Shalll we continue on pretending the current appeals to history by the Church have plenty of historical validitiy in order to use it as a tool to promote faith?

Each option probably has its drawbacks. I would say the drawbacks of the former out-weigh the drawbacks of the latter.

Most Christian Churches spend time on history, except the majority of them after they closed the canon of the Bible don't talk about history after that. I think because most of it is pretty tame, at least the recent history. Even our recent Church history is pretty tame and doesn't get a lot of attention.....I mean how are you going to compete with parting the Red Sea, if you don't have somebody like Joseph Smith translating ancient records. Most people just don't get all that fired up about listening to how Martin Luther tacked polemics to the Church door. They might get fired up about the Congregationalists burning witches in Salem, but I doubt that you hear the Congregationalists spend a lot of time in Church discussing that, and although the Catholics have apologized for the thumbscrews and torture during the Inquisition, its not like they are going to spend a lot of time on that in class.

Yes, we had some Elders go off the rails with MMM -- it happens, and will probably happen again if some of the political hotheads keep getting people riled up -- but what is the point of teaching about that? What would be the point of preaching about how many wives Joseph Smith had as a result of a revelation to follow a practice that has since been discontinued? What possible purpose would that serve as far as trying to teach people what they need to know to progress? Even if we had reliable information.

[tagriffy]

I do think the Church has put itself in a weird spot by emphasizing history. History is tough, no matter how you slice it. Its not neat nor easy. Conclusions seem to come from left field half the time. Two different people can take the same information regarding history and have competing ideas what the data mean. One person could favor one history book while another favors a different one, with their different conclusions, so much so that these two people, perhaps well-read, could hold such divisive views about a certain event in history that there doesn't seem to be any real answer by an appeal to history at all.

We might as well put as much out there as we can and let the chips fall where they may?

or

Shalll we continue on pretending the current appeals to history by the Church have plenty of historical validitiy in order to use it as a tool to promote faith?

Each option probably has its drawbacks. I would say the drawbacks of the former out-weigh the drawbacks of the latter.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say with your latter option. Would you clarify?

[stemelbow]

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say with your latter option. Would you clarify?

Terrible worded sentence sorry.

Status quo? Do we continue to emphasize history, if even in our emphasis we present a history that does not square with what would be considered legitimate scholarly history? It seems to me that's about what we end up with, these days. And that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but close.

[stemelbow]

Most Christian Churches spend time on history, except the majority of them after they closed the canon of the Bible don't talk about history after that. I think because most of it is pretty tame, at least the recent history. Even our recent Church history is pretty tame and doesn't get a lot of attention.....I mean how are you going to compete with parting the Red Sea, if you don't have somebody like Joseph Smith translating ancient records. Most people just don't get all that fired up about listening to how Martin Luther tacked polemics to the Church door. They might get fired up about the Congregationalists burning witches in Salem, but I doubt that you hear the Congregationalists spend a lot of time in Church discussing that, and although the Catholics have apologized for the thumbscrews and torture during the Inquisition, its not like they are going to spend a lot of time on that in class.

Yes, we had some Elders go off the rails with MMM -- it happens, and will probably happen again if some of the political hotheads keep getting people riled up -- but what is the point of teaching about that? What would be the point of preaching about how many wives Joseph Smith had as a result of a revelation to follow a practice that has since been discontinued? What possible purpose would that serve as far as trying to teach people what they need to know to progress? Even if we had reliable information.

I've had teh same questions. Often I ask, why does some questionable or unfavorable event in the history of the Church have to do with my spiritual life now? Normally I conclude...I don't know that it does. So why the emphasis on history? Don't get me wrong, though, history fascinates me.

[tagriffy]

Terrible worded sentence sorry.

Status quo? Do we continue to emphasize history, if even in our emphasis we present a history that does not square with what would be considered legitimate scholarly history? It seems to me that's about what we end up with, these days. And that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but close.

Thank you for clarifying. What would you consider the advantages and drawbacks of each approach?

[Stone holm]

I've had teh same questions. Often I ask, why does some questionable or unfavorable event in the history of the Church have to do with my spiritual life now? Normally I conclude...I don't know that it does. So why the emphasis on history? Don't get me wrong, though, history fascinates me.

Some history has importance either as to understanding doctrine, as stimulating faith, or providing spiritual insight. History can also provide a sense of shared destiny and purpose. Unfortunately, sometimes the mythologizing of history can result in stupidity, but that can always happen. I suppose that we teach our history for these reasons just as the ancient Hebrews did.

[DBMormon]

help me fix my bad assumptions

please show me in material used during the three hour block

1.) how joseph translated using a seer stone

2.) mention of polyandry

3.) Joseph as a scryer

4.) mention of fanny alger

5.) mention of Joseph's others wives as his other wives

6.)talk of connections of masonry & temple endowment

7.)mention that the book of abraham is not as simple as we think.

By the way Like any other place, the Church selectively chooses what to tell and what not to.... the real question is whether it is reasonable to do so and if it is wrong

[tagriffy]

help me fix my bad assumptions

please show me in material used during the three hour block

1.) how joseph translated using a seer stone

2.) mention of polyandry

3.) Joseph as a scryer

4.) mention of fanny alger

5.) mention of Joseph's others wives as his other wives

6.)talk of connections of masonry & temple endowment

7.)mention that the book of abraham is not as simple as we think.

By the way Like any other place, the Church selectively chooses what to tell and what not to.... the real question is whether it is reasonable to do so and if it is wrong

I agree with you on what the real question is. A further problem would be defining "reasonable" and "wrong."

[Stone holm]

I agree with you on what the real question is. A further problem would be defining "reasonable" and "wrong."

Well actually 1 and 6 were mentioned recently in a Sunday school class in our ward, and nobody hides polygamy. As to the other items not sure how that would assist in strengthening the Saints.

[Calm]

I think his points rest on not what is just mentioned, but what is put in the manuals by the curriculum department to be taught.

A lot of stuff, good and bad, is added by teachers so mileage may vary in actual classes. It is the manuals themselves though that are at issue for some.

add-on: the only church manual (as found though a site google search on lds.org/manual?lang=eng) that contains a mention of Masonry is the Institute Church History. There is no mention of the terms "Alger" or "polyandry" or "scryer".

add-on and on: I just looked at the manual list suggested for Sunday School and while the D&C Institute manual is in the list, the Church History is not, only Our Heritage. http://www.lds.org/manual/sunday-school?lang=eng Evidence to me that the "history" part of this year of the four year teaching cycle has always taken a backseat to the doctrine.

Edited June 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I think his points rest on not what is just mentioned, but what is put in the manuals by the curriculum department to be taught.

A lot of stuff, good and bad, is added by teachers so mileage may vary in actual classes. It is the manuals themselves though that are at issue for some.

Yeah, every once in awhile we get a Sunday School teacher that follows the manuals. But after about a year of people falling asleep and snoring in class, or a mass migration of people to have discussions in the hallway they either quit doing so or get released. I swear the people who write those things have a target audience of third grade girls.