History Of The Lds Church

[AddamS]

I'm probably a rare example of someone who started as a critic of The LDS Church, but as I learned more about it from coming here and talking to my wife's family has grown to have some degree of affection and understanding for the institution.

Taking a look at several perceived problematic instances of The Church's history with the assistance of the point of view of several of the members here gave me the opportunity to at least understand how a person could know of said events and have it not affect his/her testimony.

It also gave me a better understanding of how some events have been twisted by "Antis" to reflect their point of view. It also gave me a clearer picture of some items commonly misunderstood by Latter Day Saints in a way that sometimes murks the water up a bit, so to speak.

I start this post with the above personal point of view to show that I firmly believe that a person can grow to respect and acquire a degree of fondness for The Church through knowledge of its histrocity because it happened to me... Even though I place no faith in the gospel of The Church.

I know it is neither the responsibility nor the mission of The Church to delve into historic issues. Sanctioned Church actvities focus more on spreading the word of the church, studying gospel, etc... And I believe this is certainly the most impactful use of time and energy.

With all that said, I pose the following hypothertical situation. I would like, if I could, to hear from anybody in a leadership role of their ward to find their point of view.

What would happen if a group of faithful members in good standing decided, on their own, to set aside a schedule weekly meeting to study the historical events (that some claim are "hidden") with a determined focus to use the information to help strengthen their faith? Would there be any concern from local leadership about this?

And what if, even with the honest focus and intent of the group was to be faith promoting a member or two left because of it? Please note I am not saying someone should leave over it. But it does happen.

At what point, if ever, does the church formally intercede? i would assume someone in a leadership position would say something but I may be wrong.

I bring this up because my perspective as a non-member who has grown to like The Church from learning more about it and understanding more of its history (than just out-of-context items, myths, and unrealistic expectations of people who are, after all, only human) is that direct learning about these subjects can surely steel a person's faith as easily as it can soften it.

It seems that if The Church took a formal role in teaching Chuch history it would afford members (and possibly non-members) the opportunity to hear The Church's understanding of said events in a way that promotes faith.

There seems to be an odd assumption that history is something that only seasoned members are ready to address. I think I might give people, particularly religious people, more of a benefit if the doubt regarding their ability to accept and examine some seemingly hard truths and still eb resiliant in faith.

If I gathered up every story ever told about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, then exaggerated every 'lurid' detail ten-fold, it still wouldn't hold a candle to the quesitonable actions of David. And people seem to have no problem thinking of him as a hero.

I'm sure if the lessons were framed correctly teaching LDS history could do much the same.

[cinepro]

What would happen if a group of faithful members in good standing decided, on their own, to set aside a schedule weekly meeting to study the historical events (that some claim are "hidden") with a determined focus to use the information to help strengthen their faith? Would there be any concern from local leadership about this?

And what if, even with the honest focus and intent of the group was to be faith promoting a member or two left because of it? Please note I am not saying someone should leave over it. But it does happen.

At what point, if ever, does the church formally intercede? i would assume someone in a leadership position would say something but I may be wrong.

If I recall, the Church traditionally frowns on any sort of study groups or gatherings of adult members outside of the formal Church organization. I've heard this has to do with experiences where such groups in Utah ended up studying themselves into the FLDS or something like that.

[Bikeemikey]

If I recall, the Church traditionally frowns on any sort of study groups or gatherings of adult members outside of the formal Church organization. I've heard this has to do with experiences where such groups in Utah ended up studying themselves into the FLDS or something like that.

I'm going to use that as an excuse to never have members over for meals at my house.

[AddamS]

Just a heads-up, I don;t usually check in here over the weekend so please forgive me if it takes a couple of days to respond.

Hopefully this makes for some interesting conversation.

[canard78]

If I recall, the Church traditionally frowns on any sort of study groups or gatherings of adult members outside of the formal Church organization. I've heard this has to do with experiences where such groups in Utah ended up studying themselves into the FLDS or something like that.

I'm not now, but when I was serving as BP/on the presidency, I would have been very concerned about this kind of activity.

There were two friends who were reading/swapping a lot of 'lds scholar' books a few years ago (things like Bushman, Quinn, etc I think. Perhaps Palmer too). They invited me to join their book club. I ran a mile and tried to convince them to stop.

One resigned and the other went into inactivity. At the time it confirmed to me that there was no good to be found in studying church history and continued to avoid it for several years after.

These days I'd love to be involved in a group like this. A RSR or Hand of Mormon book club would be great. Insider's View or No Man Knows my History might be less productive!

[Storm Rider]

My folks-in-law were in a Family Home Evening group with friends their own age for years. They met once a month after their children had grown to share a gospel message and have some light refreshments. The Church does not have an opinion one way or another, nor should it, about the social lives of members. My only concern about such a situation is what material would be used and who would be doing the teaching. If someone was so inclined I would probably encourage them enroll in an institute class on the D&C at the same time. Motivation and focus is what would be of interest. Prayer, inviting the Spirit, scripture study should remain primary activities in the life of any disciple of Christ.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't place any faith in the Gospel of the Church either. I prefer the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is indeed the responsibility and one of the missions of the Church too look after the recording of Church history, and people have been called to do that since the beginning.

The Church has sponsored several large scale history projects in the past, and is now in the midst of the Joseph Smith Papers Project -- which can be seen online at http://josephsmithpapers.org/ . If you wish, I can enumerate other large projects by the Church History Dept. If you get to SLC, you will find the Church History Library a great resource. And while there, visit the Church History Museum.

There are indeed problematic issues in LDS Church history, but that is true of all history, everywhere. Just as you state, studying Church history is a good thing -- and it will not cause someone to apostatize who does not already have a significant problem -- such as a belief that Church leaders are perfect, or that a particular leader's point of view is too shocking to be allowable (no matter the position, someone is bound to be offended), etc. Narrowness and bigotry are huge enemies of us all.

As Lee Ann Womack sings in her song, "I hope you give faith a fighting chance."

[canard78]

I don't place any faith in the Gospel of the Church either. I prefer the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is indeed the responsibility and one of the missions of the Church too look after the recording of Church history, and people have been called to do that since the beginning.

The Church has sponsored several large scale history projects in the past, and is now in the midst of the Joseph Smith Papers Project -- which can be seen online at http://josephsmithpapers.org/ . If you wish, I can enumerate other large projects by the Church History Dept. If you get to SLC, you will find the Church History Library a great resource. And while there, visit the Church History Museum.

There are indeed problematic issues in LDS Church history, but that is true of all history, everywhere. Just as you state, studying Church history is a good thing -- and it will not cause someone to apostatize who does not already have a significant problem -- such as a belief that Church leaders are perfect, or that a particular leader's point of view is too shocking to be allowable (no matter the position, someone is bound to be offended), etc. Narrowness and bigotry are huge enemies of us all.

As Lee Ann Womack sings in her song, "I hope you give faith a fighting chance."

When you say history "will not cause someone to apostatize who does not already have a significant problem," what others did you have in mind?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I pose the following hypothertical situation. I would like, if I could, to hear from anybody in a leadership role of their ward to find their point of view.

I'm not sure what kinds of 'leadership roles' you had in mind, but I'm first counsellor in my ward's bishopric, and, speaking generally, I wouldn't have a problem with this. In fact, I'm not certain how anyone would even know about it, and the Church certainly doesn't try to prevent members studying; on the contrary, we're encouraged to be people who study all kinds of things. For example, a few years ago some mates and I each read a volume by Margaret Barker and then had a FHE wherein we discussed the books we'd read and points of intersection with our faith. It never once crossed my mind to run this idea past any leaders, and I'm certain not one of them would have been concerned if for some reason we had.

Having said that, if participants started apostatising as a consequence, we'd obviously know something else was going wrong:

Just as you state, studying Church history is a good thing -- and it will not cause someone to apostatize who does not already have a significant problem...

When you say history "will not cause someone to apostatize who does not already have a significant problem," what others did you have in mind?

I don't know how to find it again, and I suspect I wouldn't be allowed to link to it anyway, but sometime in the past month there was a thread on an apostate message board in which posters all ranted about how much they had hated being Church members: the meetings were boring, the doctrine left them feeling inadequate, the singing was poor, the socials were unfun, their YW advisors had been too straightlaced, the Bishop was bossy, the chapel was too spartan, home and visiting teaching were a pain, the temple was a snoozer, garments were uncomfortable, tithing left them without any money for some proper fun, fasting was unpleasant, Church teachings are too politically conservative, etc., etc., etc. Many of them mentioned feeling depressed pre-apostacy. The distinct impression was of a group of people who had been thrilled to find what seemed to them like a legitimate excuse to jump ship.

The funny thing to me is that I've seen many of these same posters in the past attempt to boost their authenticity by boasting about how 'TBM' they used to be. I'm just not seeing it.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

If I recall, the Church traditionally frowns on any sort of study groups or gatherings of adult members outside of the formal Church organization.

I've just perused both Church handbooks, and I can't find this attitude in either of them. The closest would be the following:

The Church warns its members against symposia and similar gatherings that include presentations that (1) disparage, ridicule, make light of, or are otherwise inappropriate in their treatment of sacred matters or (2) could injure the Church, detract from its mission, or jeopardize its members’ well-being.

That sounds like a completely different situation to the one being discussed here.

[Tacenda]

Hamba, what constitutes a TBM in your mind? How many years does it take to be a TBM? In my mind it could be a day or many years of belief in the church to be one. But in my case it was atleast 45 years. And about 30 of those yrs. were as a TR holder and everyone of those years I was "living my religion" or active. Do you think that only those that never really had a testimony or never really lived their religion (active) are the ones who struggle? Since you did mention something along those lines?

Edited June 29, 2013 by Tacenda

[Questing Beast]

I too have been active in the Church my whole life, am a "card-carrying member" and continue to encourage all of my family to be involved in the Church. I haven't "jumped ship", but I am probably "sea sick", and a bit sick of the sea. I am not interested in belonging to any study group, or starting one, or preaching/promoting my views. I find a mild interest in bouncing ideas off this forum and reading what others contribute. But this is like a virtual reality to me. I don't know anyone here in RL and don't want to, so it does not overlap with my RL, involving flesh and blood people. I take it on faith that I am not simply engaging with an intricate artificial intelligence pretending to be a whole bunch of human beings!

My difficulties with the Church, with Christianity at the core, remain insoluble because none of it seems necessary, or how "God" would do it exclusively. JS's imperfections and mistakes are immaterial to my core issues with dogmatic, organized, man-made religions....

[Robert F. Smith]

When you say history "will not cause someone to apostatize who does not already have a significant problem," what others did you have in mind?

A lot of the Mormons take folklore as absolutely true. Some are narrow-minded and sheltered from reality. Legalistic and doctrinaire minds are also at risk. In other words the difference in approach taken by Rabbi Hillel as opposed to that of Rabbi Shammai. A hint: Jesus likely belonged to Bet Hillel, or at least his heart was there.

Some of the most vulnerable can find reading the Tanners' The Changing World of Mormonism, rev ed. (Moody Press, 1981), devastating, and just be crushed by an Ed Decker film. A well-adjusted and resilient Mormon, on the other hand, would find much to be proud of in Decker's video "The God Makers." The animated section was wonderful. Owing to his own jaundiced views, Decker likely had no inkling of the positive image he had created. Indeed, after showing it in the Phoenix area decades ago, baptisms increased.

[Wiki Wonka]

A lot of the Mormons take folklore as absolutely true. Some are narrow-minded and sheltered from reality. Legalistic and doctrinaire minds are also at risk. In other words the difference in approach taken by Rabbi Hillel as opposed to that of Rabbi Shammai. A hint: Jesus likely belonged to Bet Hillel, or at least his heart was there.

Some of the most vulnerable can find reading the Tanners' The Changing World of Mormonism, rev ed. (Moody Press, 1981), devastating, and just be crushed by an Ed Decker film. A well-adjusted and resilient Mormon, on the other hand, would find much to be proud of in Decker's video "The God Makers." The animated section was wonderful. Owing to his own jaundiced views, Decker likely had no inkling of the positive image he had created. Indeed, after showing it in the Phoenix area decades ago, baptisms increased.

I really love the animated section of the God Makers film. Where else can you find "Starbase Kolob," Joseph Smith sitting between God the Father and Jesus at the final judgment, and hundreds of identical, blonde "goddess wives" changing little spirit babies.

[thesometimesaint]

I'm probably a rare example of someone who started as a critic of The LDS Church, but as I learned more about it from coming here and talking to my wife's family has grown to have some degree of affection and understanding for the institution.

Taking a look at several perceived problematic instances of The Church's history with the assistance of the point of view of several of the members here gave me the opportunity to at least understand how a person could know of said events and have it not affect his/her testimony.

It also gave me a better understanding of how some events have been twisted by "Antis" to reflect their point of view. It also gave me a clearer picture of some items commonly misunderstood by Latter Day Saints in a way that sometimes murks the water up a bit, so to speak.

I start this post with the above personal point of view to show that I firmly believe that a person can grow to respect and acquire a degree of fondness for The Church through knowledge of its histrocity because it happened to me... Even though I place no faith in the gospel of The Church.

I know it is neither the responsibility nor the mission of The Church to delve into historic issues. Sanctioned Church actvities focus more on spreading the word of the church, studying gospel, etc... And I believe this is certainly the most impactful use of time and energy.

With all that said, I pose the following hypothertical situation. I would like, if I could, to hear from anybody in a leadership role of their ward to find their point of view.

What would happen if a group of faithful members in good standing decided, on their own, to set aside a schedule weekly meeting to study the historical events (that some claim are "hidden") with a determined focus to use the information to help strengthen their faith? Would there be any concern from local leadership about this?

And what if, even with the honest focus and intent of the group was to be faith promoting a member or two left because of it? Please note I am not saying someone should leave over it. But it does happen.

At what point, if ever, does the church formally intercede? i would assume someone in a leadership position would say something but I may be wrong.

I bring this up because my perspective as a non-member who has grown to like The Church from learning more about it and understanding more of its history (than just out-of-context items, myths, and unrealistic expectations of people who are, after all, only human) is that direct learning about these subjects can surely steel a person's faith as easily as it can soften it.

It seems that if The Church took a formal role in teaching Chuch history it would afford members (and possibly non-members) the opportunity to hear The Church's understanding of said events in a way that promotes faith.

There seems to be an odd assumption that history is something that only seasoned members are ready to address. I think I might give people, particularly religious people, more of a benefit if the doubt regarding their ability to accept and examine some seemingly hard truths and still eb resiliant in faith.

If I gathered up every story ever told about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, then exaggerated every 'lurid' detail ten-fold, it still wouldn't hold a candle to the quesitonable actions of David. And people seem to have no problem thinking of him as a hero.

I'm sure if the lessons were framed correctly teaching LDS history could do much the same.

I think we have to be very careful in forming and/or attending such groups. The best laid plans of mice and men do often go astray.

I don't have a testimony of Church History.

[rpn]

You left out the policy discouraging groups to promote self-awareness and spirituality (which as described is not directly like a history study class). My concern would be if one person gathered up others, having his or her own doubts. As I speak to the families of disaffected spouses, many of them talk about how studying with others who are also disaffected or questioning changes their own spouses (beyond the disaffection from the church itself) in negative ways. They pull away from their former social networks. They come home full of bitterness and anger.

Personally, I doubt any such group convenes wholly innocently. Those who are just interested in learning history, pass the book around and chat about it when they visit each other, or by email with new info. And when you are on the edge of the cliff, you are far more likely to fall over if everyone is reinforcing that falling over is a good thing. That should be plain from what is read on the internet.

[why me]

What would happen if a group of faithful members in good standing decided, on their own, to set aside a schedule weekly meeting to study the historical events (that some claim are "hidden") with a determined focus to use the information to help strengthen their faith? Would there be any concern from local leadership about this?

Nothing would happen at all. It would be their business. However, the best group would have members who have already been informed of church history at least in outline form and are forming a group to explore the issues further.

[why me]

You left out the policy discouraging groups to promote self-awareness and spirituality (which as described is not directly like a history study class). My concern would be if one person gathered up others, having his or her own doubts. As I speak to the families of disaffected spouses, many of them talk about how studying with others who are also disaffected or questioning changes their own spouses (beyond the disaffection from the church itself) in negative ways. They pull away from their former social networks. They come home full of bitterness and anger.

Personally, I doubt any such group convenes wholly innocently. Those who are just interested in learning history, pass the book around and chat about it when they visit each other, or by email with new info. And when you are on the edge of the cliff, you are far more likely to fall over if everyone is reinforcing that falling over is a good thing. That should be plain from what is read on the internet.

This is why the group needs at least one moderator who is informed about church history and has a faithful interpretation of the history. It shouldn't just be made up of uninformed people who are reading something that has facts that they mainly have not known.

[canard78]

This is why the group needs at least one moderator who is informed about church history and has a faithful interpretation of the history. It shouldn't just be made up of uninformed people who are reading something that has facts that they mainly have not known.

Because the facts alone can be dangerous and need to be respun by a well-read apologist?

[Danzo]

Because the facts alone can be dangerous and need to be respun by a well-read apologist?

Because sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing,

Everyone who has seen a teenager drive knows this.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hamba, what constitutes a TBM in your mind?

An interesting question since I have never once used this term personally. I really only know it from apostate message boards, where posters seem either (1) to be in some sort of competition to demonstrate just how 'true' they once were in a (futile) attempt to establish the irresistible/rational basis of their apostasy or (2) to use it as a term of disparagement for people who just haven't 'seen the light' yet. I understand, however, that it's an abbreviation for 'true believing Mormon'. The images that such a phrase call to my mind are of people like my parents, who were unshakably true to the Lord and His Restored Gospel, who depended on Him fully, and for whom no 'sacrifice' was too great; as a consequence, they called down the powers of heaven upon us, acting as both priests and prophets for our little family. My memories of them are filled with priesthood blessings, specific answers to prayers, miracles as a result of fasting, revelations, visions, prophecy, and so forth. They were unmovable, not out of any presumed ignorance, but because they knew too much.

How many years does it take to be a TBM?

This is a very odd question. Time obviously contributes to one's ever-increasing compilation of experiences, but I should suspect that being true is a choice one can make -- and make sincerely -- in a moment. One of my former Young Men who is now serving his mission was completely inactive until just before he turned 16. When he left for his mission, I'm the one he asked to drive him to the airport (300 km away). Concerned that I possibly hadn't prepared him well enough during those three short years, I spent the time in the car asking him as many questions as I could to see if I could somehow compensate for any remaining inadequacy. In the course of our conversation, I pointed out to him that people were inevitably going to challenge his message -- they would tell him he was mistaken or brainwashed, that he was too young or unlearnt to know what he was talking about, that he didn't know the whole story, etc. How, I asked, would he respond to such challenges. I thought it was a tough question, but he responded, 'That's easy. I'll just tell them I know what I know because I have lived it'. I concluded then and there that he was going to be just fine, and he has been. He is like the man born blind who, after being healed by the Saviour, just shrugged off the sophistry and the loaded questions of the Pharisees and said quite simply, 'One thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see'.

Do you think that only those that never really had a testimony or never really lived their religion (active) are the ones who struggle?

I find it interesting that you seem to equate being active and living one's religion. Let me try to explain how I see things by means of personal anecdote. In addition to all the many, many experiences I've had with the priesthood (some of which I mentioned briefly throughout this thread), I had another experience a week-and-a-half ago, part of which I've already shared here. Thursday afternoon, a single sister in our ward sent me a Facebook message asking if she might have a blessing at church on Sunday. I said sure but asked why she was waiting til Sunday. She said she thought she could make it OK til then, plus she lives on a farm very far outside the city and didn't want to drag anyone out all that way. Respectful of her agency, I told her I appreciated her concern but reminded her that I and plenty of other men in the ward would think nothing of making the trip if that's what she wanted.

After work that evening, I went home teaching. I got home at 9:30, put on a fire, and sat down to eat my dinner and check my email. The first one to load was a Facebook notification from this sister saying that she'd changed her mind and, if it wasn't too late, she would indeed like a blessing. I and my good mate from the ward headed straight out to where she lives/works. She'd told me nothing earlier in the day except that she didn't feel well, and she said nothing more detailed than that when we arrived. My mate anointed, and I sealed. In doing so, I was inspired to bless this sister specifically that she would be able to sleep that night and that her sleep would be restful and uninterrupted. We also promised her that she would heal quickly and be able to fulfil her calling at church on Sunday. Then we left.

As you have already read, it was the next morning that I learnt from her Facebook status that she'd been sick since Monday and that she'd already gone three days without sleep due to the illness. I also learnt that she had indeed slept peacefully through the night after we'd left her with that specific blessing. And she was at church on Sunday looking almost 100%. Now imagine that after having that experience -- and all the ones before it -- I pick up a book and read that Joseph Smith just made up the Melchizedek Priesthood to try to shore up his power during a leadership crisis. Can you explain to me what exactly would need to happen in my head to allow me to discount everything I know from personal experience about the reality of the priesthood and instead put my trust in some made-up words on a page? Again, I just don't see it.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

Hamba, I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but don't people of other faiths get healed also, with prayer?

Also, do you agree or disagree that someone with your kind of faith could lose their testimony over some troubling issues in church history? Or do you think they never had a strong testimony to begin with? If that's a yes, well you'd be wrong.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Hamba, I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but don't people of other faiths get healed also, with prayer?

I certainly hope so!

Also, do you agree or disagree that someone with your kind of faith could lose their testimony over some troubling issues in church history?

I'm in no position to assess a hypothetical 'someone'. I can only speak for myself, and no, I couldn't. By definition, a testimony is a profession of what one has personally witnessed. How could one possibly 'lose' that as a consequence of what someone else might say about the contestable past? I have experienced too much, and consequently I know too much. The only route open for me would be open rebellion -- a path I'm not willing to choose -- or the long, slow road to the 'spiritual amnesia' that inevitably arises when we cease gaining new experiences and let our previous ones slip into the fog of lukewarm forgetfulness.

On this point, I'm reminded somewhat of Peter's words when, during an outbreak of apostasy, the Saviour asked him and the other apostles, 'Will ye go away also?':

'Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life'.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[AddamS]

Interesting conversation and viewpoints on this one.

Thanks to all for your input!

As a bystander it is difficult for me to comment on the responses, but I have found them very interesting and informative.

[The Nehor]

I have never seen a faithful saint without ulterior motives try to form such a group. The most innocent want to show off their knowledge. Some are deliberately trying to undermine faith or are trying to contest against local or global church leaders. I encourage people to study if they have an interest but I have never seen a group like this not go bad. I watched a "Gospel Intellectuals" class form in one of my wards once where they grabbed an empty room during Sunday School hour. I attended once and left halfway through. They just wanted to argue and share quotes of dubious historicity to shock each other or prop up pet theories.

I see this in other informal gatherings. I went to a SA FHE and 90% of what was said by both the guy presenting the lesson was unambiguously false. I cannot complain too much. The girl I was sitting next to and I compared notes on their craziness and I got a date out of it. I stopped going to that after the next week when they started showing clips from a megachurch preacher who wrested the Bible beyond all recognition to justify some weird ideas and the lesson giver pointed out how much truth was in it.