What Is Hidden History?

[Calm]

I think you meant modalism rather than moralism and Modalism is a heresy.

Autocorrect

[Calm]

We cannot depend on JS or any other man or woman for a complete understanding of God or even just a glimpse of what he is. Only the Spirit can truly teach us. Only through becoming one with God, even in the very limited way available to us as mortals, can we gain true insight. Perhaps scripture is left incomplete in obvious ways so we do not make the mistake of assuming we can get to know what God is through words rather than realising the only actual vehicle of knowledge in this case is the Spirit. By the scriptures raising more questions rather than giving what appears to be answers, we are driven to seek out more information, not less.

I personally think there are two main purposes to all scripture and that includes modern teachings of our leaders that haven't been canonised and that is to witness that God has a relationship with mankind, both in a general and specific sense and to help us frame the conversation we bring to him when we seek him in prayer or through other means. I don't think scripture is meant to provide with answers in any final sense, they are merely stepping stones placed in the mire of confusion that is mortality that we can choose to use to ease our way or not...but are not in any sense a final destination either in knowledge or revelation.

Edited July 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Another approach, simply because I'm "Mother" does not prevent me from being "Daughter". Until we know fully what is meant by "Father", "Son", "Spirit" and "God", I don't think we will be clear on how they can be one and yet more than one, but I think we can be at peace in our faith that they are both since we can see many parallels in mortality that work that way.

Edited July 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[EditorJack]

How big does a shelf have to be? Or a warehouse? "To Each His Own" here!

ETA: Ran out of posts Deborah, but to answer to the last post to me, I'd have to say, you are one of the lucky ones to have the spirit tell you it's true. But in the scriptures it says this....

Romans 10:17 - Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Faith does not come by feelings or by praying for emotional experiences

1 Peter 3:15- We too should persuade people, not by telling them to follow their emotions, but by giving them reasons: evidence from God's word.

Acts 17:11 - To know whether or not some teaching is true, we should search the Scriptures daily, not pray for an emotional experience.

Galatians 1:8,9; 1 John 4:1,6; 2 John 9-11 - Many false prophets are in the world. How do we know who speaks the truth? Not by feelings, but by comparing what men teach to the true gospel recorded in the New Testament.

 

Emotional experiences may accompany answers to prayer (witnesses of the Spirit), but a testimony isn't just about a feeling that something is true; it's about revealed knowledge that something is true. And if you've never experienced that, I feel sorry for you.

[Storm Rider]

But yet he translated the opposite way. Since he witnessed the FV why wouldn't he clarify to the reader that? I think our salvation rests on the knowledge of who our HF really is. Or who our Saviour really is. He translated that they are one.  Which is what is taught in both the BoM and Bible. And not only in purpose but actuality. And how do I know if JS' s FV wasn't the first written one, by him personally?

 

You are cherry picking your scriptures if you think the Bible or the BofM teaches exclusively that God the Father and Jesus Christ are the same individual. I think you know that already, but this is the seesaw you are on. It is what the many do in most churches; they focus exclusively on the scriptures that support their chosen view point and ignore everything else. Critics do the same thing with the Church, its leaders, and history. Fawn Brodie was notorious for such a standard of research or review.

[Stone holm]

I remember once reading an essay for a graduate symposium at Notre Dame which claimed that the Lucy Mack History was being suppressed by the Church, when asked to comment by the Professor on the accuracy of that, I replied, "That if so, the Church wasn't doing a very good job of it because most of the members I knew had copies." But that was back in the early 90's and I have noticed that that there seem to be a lot more members that are quite less informed about the Church history than they used to be and I attribute some of that to the milkifying of our Church literature and manuals.

[thesometimesaint]

But yet he translated the opposite way. Since he witnessed the FV why wouldn't he clarify to the reader that? I think our salvation rests on the knowledge of who our HF really is. Or who our Saviour really is. He translated that they are one.  Which is what is taught in both the BoM and Bible. And not only in purpose but actuality. And how do I know if JS' s FV wasn't the first written one, by him personally?

 

They are not the same person. Did Christ pray to himself? Does Christ know things Christ doesn't know? Did he ascend unto himself?

 

See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng

[thatjimguy]

I learned about __________ for the first time about 10 years ago. An apologist once criticized me for not knowing about it earlier than that because it was not hidden. While it’s true that the information regarding __________ is not locked away, neither is it left out in the open. It can be found if you know where to look. However, having never even heard about __________, why would I even look for it?

This thread is not about __________, but about what constitutes hidden history. A better question might be, “Are there different levels of hidden history?” The apologist might say, “Here’s the information. It’s not, nor was it ever hidden.” A critic might say, “I was never taught this. Therefore, it was hidden from me.”

The LDS Church is not just another church that is trying to interpret the scriptures and help people live a good life. It makes claims about its origins and authority that make it necessary (in my opinion) to examine closely its history. If the LDS Church does not lock some historical fact away, is that enough to say that it is not hidden?

 

 

Other than the basics people learn in Sunday school, how much does anyone really know about anything past that? In any religion let alone LDS?

 

As far as presenting a positve look, take the church videos for example. They feature Mormons as happy and willowing about in the fields playing with children all the time. And why not? It's a church video to promote a positive feeling.

 

Now in real life, I am more than positive that there were plenty of Mormons that were really rough and rugged people, people that wanted to convert, but rugged low lives nonetheless. It was the wild west after all right? But, even though that might be the truth, it really would not be uplifting, at least in these stories presented, to show that side of people. So they keep those parts on the "cutting room floor" as it were.

[ERayR]

Hidden history is something that some members don't know but all the critics and antis have found in the church history books.

[Stone holm]

Hidden history is something that some members don't know but all the critics and antis have found in the church history books.

I wouldn't call it hidden. Not mentioned maybe. I think the concern is with everybody on the internet people are running across things they had not been taught and had not read because a lot of stuff put out these days is superficial puff heavy on the feel warm and fuzzy side. And it is starting possibly to be a problem as people are going up the ranks somewhat ignorant of some of the deeper doctrine or more controversial history. I don't see any of it as a big problem, but if you are trained or conditioned to think in black and white it can be a shock to the spirit to discover reality is in color. So perhaps they may have overdone the milk before meat thing, and might go with the idea of heart to heart frank talks like we should be having with our children.

[Deborah]

What amazes me is how many people take what they read on the internet at face value and seem to accept it against the years of testimony they have had. When I go to any site I check the source and who it is that is putting up the site. Often it is evident that these are apostates and when that is the case why would you pay any heed to what they say because they will take quotes out of context and put their own spin on them, which is not consistent with church teachings and doctrine.

[Calm]

I know that some people do check after reading it...say on FairMormon for example, but for some reason if the claim is confirmed even partially, it seems like the negative feeling of shock is often permanently attached for some even if the answer also gives some information that if they had encountered it first, they wouldn't have been so shocked.  So while intellectually they might have been okay, because of the emotion involved it creates hole in the dam so to speak that can weaken the entire structure of one's testimony and make it more vulnerable the next time one runs into negative information.  Given enough of these, even if one does eventually find answers, the distrust and expectation of negativity is so strong that the testimony ends up being destroyed.

 

It is unfortunate when emotions are too easily attached to concepts and experiences, but it is understandable if it is a strong emotion as that is how humans and our memories often function.  If smells can trigger emotions, it makes sense that certain ideas can too even if that emotion isn't always warranted.  

Edited November 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

I know that some people do check after reading it...say on FairMormon for example, but for some reason if the claim is confirmed even partially, it seems like the negative feeling of shock is often permanently attached for some even if the answer also gives some information that if they had encountered it first, they wouldn't have been so shocked. So while intellectually they might have been okay, because of the emotion involved it creates hole in the dam so to speak that can weaken the entire structure of one's testimony and make it more vulnerable the next time one runs into negative information. Given enough of these, even if one does eventually find answers, the distrust and expectation of negativity is so strong that the testimony ends up being destroyed.

It is unfortunate when emotions are too easily attached to concepts and experiences, but it is understandable if it is a strong emotion as that is how humans and our memories often function. If smells can trigger emotions, it makes sense that certain ideas can too even if that emotion isn't always warranted.

I love what you said here Cal. You show alot of empathy, thank you.

Many say they put things on a shelf, but soon it got so full it broke. They try like heck to hold it up. I think sometimes the stalwart people have the toughest time because they really did care for and love the church.

After a few things that broke mine, the minute the thought entered my mind that the church wasn't what I thought, it was like, poof, and my testimony took a nose dive.

[ERayR]

I wouldn't call it hidden. Not mentioned maybe. I think the concern is with everybody on the internet people are running across things they had not been taught and had not read because a lot of stuff put out these days is superficial puff heavy on the feel warm and fuzzy side. And it is starting possibly to be a problem as people are going up the ranks somewhat ignorant of some of the deeper doctrine or more controversial history. I don't see any of it as a big problem, but if you are trained or conditioned to think in black and white it can be a shock to the spirit to discover reality is in color. So perhaps they may have overdone the milk before meat thing, and might go with the idea of heart to heart frank talks like we should be having with our children.

 

Sarcasm.

[Stone holm]

Sarcasm.

Not actually.