Some Mormons Search The Web And Find Doubt

[canard78]

I disagree. I think Johnnie is correct that the shift in Church growth to the global south does not bode well for the Church's long-term financial outlook. See, for example, Matt Bowman's bleak assessment in Slate, published a few months back: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/10/mormon_church_money_why_the_lds_church_needs_to_save_for_the_future_.single.html

Ok, I will start a new thread on it. I'd happily discuss it. Just not here.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm inclined to think that our paths are not much divergent.

It would appear that our experiences in the Church certainly have been.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The headline should read some mormons search the web because they have doubts.

I agree that this would probably be a more accurate headline.

[Hamba Tuhan]

It's a shame. If it was an interview broadcast on BYU.tv or on the radio would you listen[?]

No. I don't have the time or the attention span to spend an hour listening to people talk. Give me a transcript that I can scan and read at my own pace any day!

And are you saying [that] Lyman didn't actually say the words you quoted, that instead BY is reporting [what] Lyman might have said[?]

I have no way of knowing the exact words Lyman might have said, which would be a true statement whether it was Lyman or Brigham Young who later reported the conversation. We historians call it 'reported speech' for a reason, and that's precisely why I wrote 'purported' in my post. Nevertheless, the account certainly matches the content and tone of a number of people I've spoken to who, in their presumed quest for 'truth', have felt the need to turn their backs on what truly makes them happy.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

The wealthy and the well educated rarely join the church (though of course there are exceptions).

I sometimes think I live in a parallel universe, but it's been my personal experience that conversion to 'Mormonism' is easier for the educated. Amongst the people I successfully taught as a fulltime missionary were a family counsellor with multiple degrees/diplomas, a nurse, a couple who both had masters degrees in engineering, a man studying to enter the Catholic priesthood, a wealthy investment banker, a woman doing a postgraduate degree in French literature, a professional violinist, an insurance adjuster who had just finished a masters degree, and a woman doing research in genetic engineering. The six months I spent assigned to a university ward were the busiest of my entire mission. Those I taught from less educated backgrounds definitely struggled more, both before and after baptism.

Recent housemates who are adult converts include an IT nerd, a lawyer, and a public servant with degrees in Arab and Islamic studies. My recently released bishop, also a convert, is another lawyer. My current bishop works at the same university I do and jokes that he feels inadequate since both of his counsellors have PhDs whilst he only has a masters degree. We had two convert baptisms in our ward this past weekend, and one of them is the head of IT at a local Catholic college.

Most of the wealthy in the church reached that state after joining...

Though I've definitely seen this process happen as well! Where I have lived, the poor in the Church don't seem to stay that way much beyond the first generation.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

That sounds like a recommendation to wear blinkers.

In China there's a story about a frog down a well: 井底之蛙– Jing Di Zhi Wa

The frog likes the view from the well and is happy with his small piece of the sky. One day he realises it's a much bigger sky.

PI don't think your analogy applies. First of all, a frog that is prevented from seeing the whole sky has nothing in common with a frog that sits beneath the entire sky and chooses to focus on the Sun. There is a difference in not being able to see anything but a small patch of the sky or an individual who wear's "blinders" (a blinker is something else). There is nothing that prevents a LDS from reading, studying, or knowing history; but what if of infinite importance is what an individual chooses to focuses on. If all I did was focus on the ugly or search out the ugly, that is all I will find in life. Nothing I have previously stated is an invitation for others to wear blinders, but there is a strong invitation to focus on that which we believe....specifically, that we believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. This is counsel that leads to peace and happiness. This is counsel that surrounds the individual with that which uplifts. It is clearly evident that there are many people in the world that do not seek anything uplifting, but only seek the ugly. These are people who have found an acceptable sense of contentment in unhappiness; it works for them. When they tire of the chaos there will always remain a port of infinite peace available to all, BUT, they will have to put down their desires to focus on anything but the Son.

[bubbachen]

Can you pass a temple recommend interview by only proclaiming your belief in Jesus Christ?

"A testimony is a spiritual witness given to an individual by the Holy Ghost. The foundation of a Mormon’s testimony is the knowledge that Heavenly Father lives and loves us; that Jesus Christ lives, that He is the Son of God, and that He carried out the infinite Atonement; that Joseph Smith is a prophet, which God called to restore Jesus Christ’s church to the earth; that we are led today by a living prophet; and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Savior’s Church restored on the earth today." Link

I'm not saying to believe in Jesus and skip the rest; I believe the claims of Joseph Smith, the current prophet, that a restoration was necessary and has occurred/is occurring. But I contend that if you don't first have a personal relationship with Jesus, the living Messiah, the Logos of God, then nothing else matters. Your faith in the prophet or your faith in the miraculous transmission of the BOM won't be able to withstand the chaos and confusion poured out on the internet and by critics of the church. Isn't Jesus the way, the truth, and the life? Too many LDS don't really trust Him, in my opinion. Neither do many mainline Christians...

[bubbachen]

Yes. Certainly.

I agree that most of religious history whether Mormon or not is fraught with historical issues.

I don't consider biblical history to be more accurate nor the prophet less fallible. I take it all as a useful resources. Guidebooks on the path. Not rule books that are followed without question.

I agree. Even a foundation built on the Book of Mormon is sand. It is, effectively, a man-made product (even when we consider the source of Joseph's inspiration to be divine).

Christ is the foundation or corner-stone for whatever building goes up later. We believe the first one fell within about 100-200 years. If we remove the keystone (the Book of Mormon and the process of it 'coming forth') then in all likelihood the whole building falls. Maybe only on a personal level. The Book of Mormon remains the main thing holding my 'building' together. If it finally crumbles too, then the building will likely come down too.

But new buildings can be built on old, strong foundations. Anyone built on a foundation of the lamb is, in my view, a member of the church of the lamb (even those who may call the lamb by a different name), even if they have a different book at the keystone.

I find myself agreeing with most everything you say. I think the trick is to obey the light that is given to us, whether from this or that book. What more can be expected of us than to be doers of the word? And what further light can we expect from God if we are hearers only?

[canard78]

...an individual who wear's "blinders" (a blinker is something else)...

You're speaking to a Brit. I should probably come with sub-titles

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/blinker?q=blinkers

blinker

noun

• 
  1 (blinkers) chiefly British a pair of small leather screens attached to a horse’s bridle to prevent it seeing sideways and behind and being startled.
  
• 
  something which prevents someone from gaining a full understanding of a situation:we are having a fresh look at ourselves without blinkers
  

verb

[with object]

• 
  put blinkers on (a horse): Brown Boy will be blinkered for the first time at York
  
• 
  <a name="blinker__14">cause (someone) to have a narrow or limited outlook on a situation: university education blinkers researchers so that they see poverty in terms of their own specialization
  

[canard78]

No. I don't have the time or the attention span to spend an hour listening to people talk. Give me a transcript that I can scan and read at my own pace any day!

That's your call, but I'd also suggest it's your loss. The interview with Mattsson is not simply in the words he used (which you'd get from a transcript) but in the feeling he shares. When reading a transcript you can use your own tone of voice when reading. You can't when listening.

[Storm Rider]

You're speaking to a Brit. I should probably come with sub-titles

http://oxforddiction...nker?q=blinkers

blinker

noun

• 1 (blinkers) chiefly British a pair of small leather screens attached to a horse’s bridle to prevent it seeing sideways and behind and being startled.
  
• something which prevents someone from gaining a full understanding of a situation:we are having a fresh look at ourselves without blinkers
  

verb

[with object]

• put blinkers on (a horse): Brown Boy will be blinkered for the first time at York
  
• <a name="blinker__14">cause (someone) to have a narrow or limited outlook on a situation: university education blinkers researchers so that they see poverty in terms of their own specialization
  

Blinker = blinders; no problems, but the analogy still does not apply.

[canard78]

Three points. First, if somebody reads D&C 132, they know Joseph Smith was commanded to practice polygamy. They don't know whether or not he eventually got around to obeying the commandment.

Second, the article quotes Richard Bushman as saying, “you would be amazed at the number of Mormons who don’t think Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. It just wasn’t talked about. It was never mentioned in church periodicals. That was policy.”

If the Church's policy is not to talk about it, how surprised should you be that people don't know it?

Third, there is a difference between knowing what D&C 132 says, and knowing how Joseph Smith went about practicing polygamy. D&C 132 lays out specific and strict policy for how polygamy must be practiced in order to be allegedly approved by God (e.g. first wife approves, polygamous wives virgins, etc.). How many of Joseph Smith's marriages meet those criteria? Putting together the pieces is disturbing.

Great points. I think people who have been immersed in this for years forget how little is really shared in Sunday School and the approved church content.

They are wrong if they do, but some members consider it an expression of faith to use only the approved content or books by GAs.

Many are happy to be 'fed' on Sunday and do little in the week. Those people may well be ignoring the council to seek out of the best books. It may be their fault that they relied on the church materials. But even if it is their passiveness that caused it, Joseph's plural marriages will come as something of a shock when/if they find out.

Both Bushman and Turley recognise this.

[omni]

Ok, I will start a new thread on it. I'd happily discuss it. Just not here.

Please do as I think Johnny makes some good points that should be discussed.

[Thinking]

They are wrong if they do, but some members consider it an expression of faith to use only the approved content or books by GAs.

Many are happy to be 'fed' on Sunday and do little in the week. Those people may well be ignoring the council to seek out of the best books. It may be their fault that they relied on the church materials.

"Each statement has been referenced, and the original spelling and punctuation have been preserved; however, the sources cited will not be readily available to most members. These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures is sufficient for instruction." (Introduction, Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Brigham Young, page v)

[rockpond]

Great points. I think people who have been immersed in this for years forget how little is really shared in Sunday School and the approved church content.

They are wrong if they do, but some members consider it an expression of faith to use only the approved content or books by GAs.

Many are happy to be 'fed' on Sunday and do little in the week. Those people may well be ignoring the council to seek out of the best books. It may be their fault that they relied on the church materials. But even if it is their passiveness that caused it, Joseph's plural marriages will come as something of a shock when/if they find out.

Both Bushman and Turley recognise this.

Actually, the introduction to the Lorenzo Snow manual states: "If you are teaching a Melchizedek Priesthood or Relief Society lesson, you should not set this book aside or prepare a lesson from other materials."

The introduction to the Brigham Young manual states: "Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction." And: "Carefully avoid controversy."

The introduction to the Joseph Smith manual states: "Do not set this book aside or prepare lessons from other materials."

The introduction to the Wilford Woodruff manual has similar language but it actually counsels against being "tempted" to use other materials to prepare lessons.

We have one disaffected member of our ward who stopped attending church (in her previous ward) after she was reprimanded for using other materials in her Gospel Doctrine lessons. I admit to only knowing one side of this story but look at the quotes above (from books about polygamists which have been stripped of polygamy references)... church headquarters has not been placing a priority on "learning from the best books". The priority from SLC has been that we study from correlated material.

Between raising families, working, church callings, the 3-hour block on Sundays it is not a surprise that many members are not able to dig into other literature on a daily basis after completing their personal scripture study time. Many members must rely on those Sunday meetings for their more in depth study and unfortunately, that study has been limited to only correlated materials.

This is why lifelong members may get their first exposure to difficult topics from non-member friends or the internet. I'd prefer that the "first exposure" come in a gospel doctrine course among friends where an uplifting discussion can take place.

[Johnnie Cake]

I understood. I just reject the conclusion. We have survived on far less in the past when virtually every member was poor and we can do so again.

I also find your split between takers and givers simplistic, judgemental, and disgusting. It seems to be straight out of Ayn Rand's deluded assessment of mankind. Is this really about is getting on fine without your type? If so we do not need you. We want you (and everyone else) but we do not need you.

Really didn't expect you to agree with me Nehor...but let me try to make it a little more understandable for you...it's just simple "Econ 101"...supply and demand... the supply is declining at the same time that the demand is increasing...Something's got to give... the church has limited resources and must allocate those recourses where it feels is can make the greatest return on its investment. But I seriously doubt that those inside the church financial wing would disagree with me...they're living this reality and I'm sure that they have some plan to deal with it...by shifting resources, making cuts in pay, reducing travel expenses and reallocating resources away from unprofitable areas to those areas where the church might turn a profit. And I’m not using the term profit in a derogatory manner. To survive the church MUST turn a profit. To borrow a sentence from the Slate article…”the money to keep the Christmas lights on in Temple Square will have to come from somewhere”. And with an ever increasing and poorer lower tithing paying membership coupled with (and the point of the OP) departure of those internet savvy, higher income, formerly full tithe paying members who are departing in waves…Salt Lake, We have a problem…

Again...to use an example...If the church loses 1 member who had been paying $25,000 in annual tithing that 1 former tithe payer would have to be replaced with 100 Mexican households or 120 Brazilian and it would take nearly 278 African full tithe paying households to equal the same tithing receipts generated by that 1 former US tithing payer. Again Nehor...simple econ 101

http://www.nationson...third_world.htm

Edited July 23, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[Tacenda]

Actually, the introduction to the Lorenzo Snow manual states: "If you are teaching a Melchizedek Priesthood or Relief Society lesson, you should not set this book aside or prepare a lesson from other materials."

The introduction to the Brigham Young manual states: "Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction." And: "Carefully avoid controversy."

The introduction to the Joseph Smith manual states: "Do not set this book aside or prepare lessons from other materials."

The introduction to the Wilford Woodruff manual has similar language but it actually counsels against being "tempted" to use other materials to prepare lessons.

We have one disaffected member of our ward who stopped attending church (in her previous ward) after she was reprimanded for using other materials in her Gospel Doctrine lessons. I admit to only knowing one side of this story but look at the quotes above (from books about polygamists which have been stripped of polygamy references)... church headquarters has not been placing a priority on "learning from the best books". The priority from SLC has been that we study from correlated material.

Between raising families, working, church callings, the 3-hour block on Sundays it is not a surprise that many members are not able to dig into other literature on a daily basis after completing their personal scripture study time. Many members must rely on those Sunday meetings for their more in depth study and unfortunately, that study has been limited to only correlated materials.

This is why lifelong members may get their first exposure to difficult topics from non-member friends or the internet. I'd prefer that the "first exposure" come in a gospel doctrine course among friends where an uplifting discussion can take place.

This is why the hidden history is so insidious. Once it's opened up, the real belief can begin, the testimony can be even stronger. A lot of people mention how before correlation the church was full of vibrancy and members would be free to express opinion and be free to search their faith. I'd love to get back to that. Now everything is so simplified to have stripped away this colorful history. And correlation seems to have made it dark and scary, stuff you can't discuss in the open as if it's bad. This is why people like me are so disturbed. We can't talk about the "secret". As if the "secret" is so bad. Then the "secret" must be bad. It just breeds dysfunctional relationships. I can't talk about JS's wives or I'm going to hurt someone's testimony? If that's the case their testimony is built on sand. And why can't our testimonies be primarily on the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Not on Joseph Smith? Because that's where it's at. Sure maybe some men can bring that idea closer with their words in books etc. But our testimonies shouldn't be whether the church is true, but whether Christ came down and took on the sins of the world is true. We need to get to that portion of the Gospel. Too often people mistake the Gospel as the being a church. Sorry for my rant. I'm just tired of it I guess. Tired of the church not getting to the heart of the matter, no not advertising for the show, btw. Let individuals free and out of the cage. Yes, other non LDS Christian churches are different wherever you go, that's because people are different wherever you go. Someone that is former LDS once said, we have a church of McDonald's. The same is good to a point, but that's where it needs to end.

[ERayR]

This is why the hidden history is so insidious. Once it's opened up, the real belief can begin, the testimony can be even stronger. A lot of people mention how before correlation the church was full of vibrancy and members would be free to express opinion and be free to search their faith. I'd love to get back to that. Now everything is so simplified to have stripped away this colorful history. And correlation seems to have made it dark and scary, stuff you can't discuss in the open as if it's bad. This is why people like me are so disturbed. We can't talk about the "secret". As if the "secret" is so bad. Then the "secret" must be bad. It just breeds dysfunctional relationships. I can't talk about JS's wives or I'm going to hurt someone's testimony? If that's the case their testimony is built on sand. And why can't our testimonies be primarily on the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Not on Joseph Smith? Because that's where it's at. Sure maybe some men can bring that idea closer with their words in books etc. But our testimonies shouldn't be whether the church is true, but whether Christ came down and took on the sins of the world is true. We need to get to that portion of the Gospel. Too often people mistake the Gospel as the being a church. Sorry for my rant. I'm just tired of it I guess. Tired of the church not getting to the heart of the matter, no not advertising for the show, btw. Let individuals free and out of the cage. Yes, other non LDS Christian churches are different wherever you go, that's because people are different wherever you go. Someone that is former LDS once said, we have a church of McDonald's. The same is good to a point, but that's where it needs to end.

Hidden is such an insidious lie. I am also tired of it Tacenda. Tired of the continuous chant around the bubbling cauldron. "Woe is me Woe is me They are hiding history:. There is no hidden history. If it were hidden you would hear nothing of it. There are only things the Church teaches which is connected to its mission and there are things left for you to find on your own. Do you really see the Church leaders as a bunch of shady characters hatching up nefarious plots to keep you in ignorance? The truth is you are having trouble handling what you know and it has nothing to do with how you found out but on how you choose to respond when you do learn it.

Go on down to McDonalds. The menu is out by the drive thru. You can see exactly what they serve. However, That menu board does not tell you about the grease buildup behind the grill or that the nutritional problems associated with the high salt diet nor does it tell you about the kid that is making your burger came to work with a runny nose this morning.

See you at McDonalds.

[rockpond]

Hidden is such an insidious lie. I am also tired of it Tacenda. Tired of the continuous chant around the bubbling cauldron. "Woe is me Woe is me They are hiding history:. There is no hidden history. If it were hidden you would hear nothing of it. There are only things the Church teaches which is connected to its mission and there are things left for you to find on your own. Do you really see the Church leaders as a bunch of shady characters hatching up nefarious plots to keep you in ignorance? The truth is you are having trouble handling what you know and it has nothing to do with how you found out but on how you choose to respond when you do learn it.

Go on down to McDonalds. The menu is out by the drive thru. You can see exactly what they serve. However, That menu board does not tell you about the grease buildup behind the grill or that the nutritional problems associated with the high salt diet nor does it tell you about the kid that is making your burger came to work with a runny nose this morning.

See you at McDonalds.

Tacenda's post was a positive look at the issue. But you are welcome to continue denying that there is a problem and let the New York Times & John Dehlin work it out instead.

[rockpond]

Hidden is such an insidious lie. I am also tired of it Tacenda. Tired of the continuous chant around the bubbling cauldron. "Woe is me Woe is me They are hiding history:. There is no hidden history. If it were hidden you would hear nothing of it. There are only things the Church teaches which is connected to its mission and there are things left for you to find on your own. Do you really see the Church leaders as a bunch of shady characters hatching up nefarious plots to keep you in ignorance? The truth is you are having trouble handling what you know and it has nothing to do with how you found out but on how you choose to respond when you do learn it.

Go on down to McDonalds. The menu is out by the drive thru. You can see exactly what they serve. However, That menu board does not tell you about the grease buildup behind the grill or that the nutritional problems associated with the high salt diet nor does it tell you about the kid that is making your burger came to work with a runny nose this morning.

See you at McDonalds.

By the way... the wives of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff who were conveniently written out of our history... are they also the "grease buildup behind the grill"? They sacrificed to live the principle asked of them. Shouldn't we at least recognize them rather than pretending they don't exist just so that we, as a church, can avoid working through the difficult questions?

[mfbukowski]

I'm not saying to believe in Jesus and skip the rest; I believe the claims of Joseph Smith, the current prophet, that a restoration was necessary and has occurred/is occurring. But I contend that if you don't first have a personal relationship with Jesus, the living Messiah, the Logos of God, then nothing else matters. Your faith in the prophet or your faith in the miraculous transmission of the BOM won't be able to withstand the chaos and confusion poured out on the internet and by critics of the church. Isn't Jesus the way, the truth, and the life? Too many LDS don't really trust Him, in my opinion. Neither do many mainline Christians...

So you find it easier to believe that a quasi-mythical person named Jesus actually lived and died for your sins, based on 2000 year old stories written by uneducated people passing on rumors, than that a guy named Joseph actually restored what Jesus originally taught?

I happen to have a testimony of both but it certainly is not based on stuff I read on the internet.

[Garden Girl]

This is why the hidden history is so insidious. Once it's opened up, the real belief can begin, the testimony can be even stronger. A lot of people mention how before correlation the church was full of vibrancy and members would be free to express opinion and be free to search their faith. I'd love to get back to that. Now everything is so simplified to have stripped away this colorful history. And correlation seems to have made it dark and scary, stuff you can't discuss in the open as if it's bad. This is why people like me are so disturbed. We can't talk about the "secret". As if the "secret" is so bad. Then the "secret" must be bad. It just breeds dysfunctional relationships. I can't talk about JS's wives or I'm going to hurt someone's testimony? If that's the case their testimony is built on sand. And why can't our testimonies be primarily on the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Not on Joseph Smith? Because that's where it's at. Sure maybe some men can bring that idea closer with their words in books etc. But our testimonies shouldn't be whether the church is true, but whether Christ came down and took on the sins of the world is true. We need to get to that portion of the Gospel. Too often people mistake the Gospel as the being a church. Sorry for my rant. I'm just tired of it I guess.

Good morning Tacenda...

First, I'd like to join with numerous others who have said that we really don't have a "hidden history." I agree with you however that some things aren't emphasized, or one must do more reading, etc. But I don't agree that there is some dark and scary "secret." That said, yes, I do agree with you that more openess about our early history is desirable, and also note the recent attempts by the Church to address some of the concerns of people like yourself, which hopefully should prove helpful. I've availed myself of the various discussions of the issues and I'm still as strong (TBM if you will) as ever.

Our testimonies are of Jesus Christ, and that he did indeed come to earth and take on the sins of the world through his atoning sacrifice... and you are correct at the importance of having this testimony... but they must also be firm in whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, thus, "whether the Church is true." We aren't just another Christian denomination... we have unique doctrines brought forth through the restoration not found in other denominations... if we are to be full and faithful members of the Church, we must be able to have a testimony of these doctrines and, hence, Joseph as prophet. Similarly, testimonies of our current leaders as prophets and apostles...

And because we do have and share these unique doctrines, it brings us members together and, yes, we do become a "church."

Hope this finds you well...

GG

[bluebell]

Actually, the introduction to the Lorenzo Snow manual states: "If you are teaching a Melchizedek Priesthood or Relief Society lesson, you should not set this book aside or prepare a lesson from other materials."

The introduction to the Brigham Young manual states: "Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction." And: "Carefully avoid controversy."

The introduction to the Joseph Smith manual states: "Do not set this book aside or prepare lessons from other materials."

The introduction to the Wilford Woodruff manual has similar language but it actually counsels against being "tempted" to use other materials to prepare lessons.

We have one disaffected member of our ward who stopped attending church (in her previous ward) after she was reprimanded for using other materials in her Gospel Doctrine lessons. I admit to only knowing one side of this story but look at the quotes above (from books about polygamists which have been stripped of polygamy references)... church headquarters has not been placing a priority on "learning from the best books". The priority from SLC has been that we study from correlated material.

Between raising families, working, church callings, the 3-hour block on Sundays it is not a surprise that many members are not able to dig into other literature on a daily basis after completing their personal scripture study time. Many members must rely on those Sunday meetings for their more in depth study and unfortunately, that study has been limited to only correlated materials.

This is why lifelong members may get their first exposure to difficult topics from non-member friends or the internet. I'd prefer that the "first exposure" come in a gospel doctrine course among friends where an uplifting discussion can take place.

Just to clarify on the quotes you provided in those lesson manuals-

When the church first started doing the "Presidents of the church" lesson manuals, the committee in charge of them wanted Pres. Hinckley to say a few words as a type of 'forward' to the series. He refused, saying that nothing needed to be added to the lesson manual or those in the future, not even words by him.

When it comes to the Priesthood and RS manuals, it's not an issue of only correlated things being allowed in the lessons. Teachers are not supposed to use anything but the manual and the scriptures-that includes not using GC talks, the Ensign, or any other lesson manual which is distributed by the church.

Such is not true of other Sunday school lessons. While a teacher certainly shouldn't believe that any material they want to teach from can be used, other church resources are allowed. Teaching: No Greater Call (the manual every teacher in the church is supposed to receive or have access to and be trained from) gives a list of generally approved resources for teachers to use:

Teaching, No Greater Call

• •
  Teaching Guidebook
  
• •
  The “Gospel Teaching and Leadership” section of the Church Handbook of Instructions
  
• •
  Family Home Evening Resource Book
  
• •
  Gospel Principles
  
• •
  Scripture Stories
  
• •
  Lesson manuals
  
• •
  Church magazines (check these magazines regularly for stories and other ideas)
  
• •
  Gospel Art Picture Kit (a collection of pictures that includes depictions of scripture stories and events, Presidents of the Church, and gospel principles in action)
  
• •
  Other pictures and posters
  
• •
  The Church hymnbook
  
• •
  Children’s Songbook
  
• •
  Church-produced videocassettes and audiocassettes
  

[Johnnie Cake]

Good morning Tacenda...

First, I'd like to join with numerous others who have said that we really don't have a "hidden history." I agree with you however that some things aren't emphasized, or one must do more reading, etc. But I don't agree that there is some dark and scary "secret." That said, yes, I do agree with you that more openess about our early history is desirable, and also note the recent attempts by the Church to address some of the concerns of people like yourself, which hopefully should prove helpful. I've availed myself of the various discussions of the issues and I'm still as strong (TBM if you will) as ever.

Our testimonies are of Jesus Christ, and that he did indeed come to earth and take on the sins of the world through his atoning sacrifice... and you are correct at the importance of having this testimony... but they must also be firm in whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, thus, "whether the Church is true." We aren't just another Christian denomination... we have unique doctrines brought forth through the restoration not found in other denominations... if we are to be full and faithful members of the Church, we must be able to have a testimony of these doctrines and, hence, Joseph as prophet. Similarly, testimonies of our current leaders as prophets and apostles...

And because we do have and share these unique doctrines, it brings us members together and, yes, we do become a "church."

Hope this finds you well...

GG

Hidden? Not emphasized? Semantics… I think we're all losing sight of the fact that a member of the 3rd Quorum of the 70 rose to that position of authority in the church and had not been exposed to any of the difficulties found in church history that are discussed here on a daily basis. How could that be? Was he lazy? Was he too trusting of the church? Did he sleep through SS lessons? Did he just not ask the right questions? Did he not study the scriptures enough or pray enough. Did he fail to read his monthly Ensign? Did he fail to hold FHE? Was he not listening to Church leader? Did he not tune in to General Conference? How could a man who has risen from a mere member through callings as branch president, bishop, stake presidency councilor, stake president and member of the churches area authority and member of the quorum of the 70 not know this stuff? Come on lofty members of MD&D…what are your excuses for how this could happen?

Since I first started posting here I’ve been told that the church doesn’t hide this information, that it has always been there in plain sight for anyone with eyes to read to discover the true history of the church. Ok…you learned members of MD&D…so you say…then explain how this man knew none of it if what you claim is true.

We now have of at least four incidences where members in foreign countries have discovered this information who have relied on the church for their information and lost belief as a result once discovering the truth...England, Sweden, Africa and the old thread about the youth in Milan, Italy...this coupled with the reality of US members discovering these difficulties...isn't it about time we stop shooting the messenger and direct fault at the one sending the the message?

Edited July 23, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

This is why the hidden history is so insidious. Once it's opened up, the real belief can begin, the testimony can be even stronger. A lot of people mention how before correlation the church was full of vibrancy and members would be free to express opinion and be free to search their faith. I'd love to get back to that. Now everything is so simplified to have stripped away this colorful history. And correlation seems to have made it dark and scary, stuff you can't discuss in the open as if it's bad. This is why people like me are so disturbed. We can't talk about the "secret". As if the "secret" is so bad. Then the "secret" must be bad. It just breeds dysfunctional relationships. I can't talk about JS's wives or I'm going to hurt someone's testimony? If that's the case their testimony is built on sand. And why can't our testimonies be primarily on the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Not on Joseph Smith? Because that's where it's at. Sure maybe some men can bring that idea closer with their words in books etc. But our testimonies shouldn't be whether the church is true, but whether Christ came down and took on the sins of the world is true. We need to get to that portion of the Gospel. Too often people mistake the Gospel as the being a church. Sorry for my rant. I'm just tired of it I guess. Tired of the church not getting to the heart of the matter, no not advertising for the show, btw. Let individuals free and out of the cage. Yes, other non LDS Christian churches are different wherever you go, that's because people are different wherever you go. Someone that is former LDS once said, we have a church of McDonald's. The same is good to a point, but that's where it needs to end.

You really can talk about all of these 'secrets' (which actually aren't secrets at all of course), you just have to know where to do it.

Any member of the church can teach about church history during Family Home Evening, for example, and the curriculum for that really is endless. Or they can attend Institute (JS's plural marriage-though not all the particulars--is taught as part of the Institute courses). Maybe taking a religion class online from a church school if possible is option.

Though the church does not teach its history very in-depth on Sundays, there are other options a person can choose from if they really want to learn more and discuss these subjects with others.

Tacenda, perhaps one of these options would be a good avenue for you.