Prophets and History

[Duncan]

Let's face it people have left the church over the history of it. My question is do you think the Prophets foresaw this and took measures to prevent it? It just seems like the historical output (which is good I might add) is a reaction to all this. I don't know if people in the 1880's or 1920's were leaving the Church over historical issues or not but if what we see today is a new phenomenon but I wonder if the prophets saw dissension and turmoil and took action so people would be left without excuse.Were they blindsided by this or did they see it in advance? 

[VideoGameJunkie]

The internet is the biggest cause of members leaving. I don't think prophets in the 1880s and 1920s could predict the internet.

[JAHS]

There have been no historical issues that have bothered me; but then I have been studying the history all along so I haven't been blindsided by any of it. So perhaps it is good that they are making it more available so members and future generations don't have to be surprised by anything. 

And like they say, I don't have a testimony of the history of the church; but rather the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Jeanne]

23 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Let's face it people have left the church over the history of it. My question is do you think the Prophets foresaw this and took measures to prevent it? It just seems like the historical output (which is good I might add) is a reaction to all this. I don't know if people in the 1880's or 1920's were leaving the Church over historical issues or not but if what we see today is a new phenomenon but I wonder if the prophets saw dissension and turmoil and took action so people would be left without excuse.Were they blindsided by this or did they see it in advance? 

Duncan, I believe if they fore saw any of this, the light on a lot of things would have shown up way before now.  I am surprised though that recent prophets ...even David O' Mckay could have for seen somethings simply by the different questions that were being asked.  With the internet age, I can't believe that the church is so surprised that people are leaving.  What they have done with the essays is a good thing to a point, but surely, they saw a crack in dam right after the polygamy era in Utah. 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Let's face it people have left the church over the history of it. My question is do you think the Prophets foresaw this and took measures to prevent it? It just seems like the historical output (which is good I might add) is a reaction to all this. I don't know if people in the 1880's or 1920's were leaving the Church over historical issues or not but if what we see today is a new phenomenon but I wonder if the prophets saw dissension and turmoil and took action so people would be left without excuse.Were they blindsided by this or did they see it in advance? 

I think much of what people get upset over today the people back then probably did not think was that big of a deal. Prophets only know what God tells them and everything else they are on their own like the rest of us.  I don't think any LDS back in the 19th century could envision how people in the 21st century would view things.  Same with us today.  Do we make decisions based on what people 100 years from now will decide as right or wrong?  I sure do not. 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The internet is the biggest cause of members leaving. I don't think prophets in the 1880s and 1920s could predict the internet.

The internet does not cause people to leave.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The internet does not cause people to leave.  

Well what people see on the internet is what's getting people to leave. The CES Letter and the church essays and anti sites and message boards are really ruining some testimonies. Unless you think the gay policy is what caused that mass resignation in November, then it's church revelation that's causing people to leave and resign.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Duncan, I believe if they fore saw any of this, the light on a lot of things would have shown up way before now.  I am surprised though that recent prophets ...even David O' Mckay could have for seen somethings simply by the different questions that were being asked.  With the internet age, I can't believe that the church is so surprised that people are leaving.  What they have done with the essays is a good thing to a point, but surely, they saw a crack in dam right after the polygamy era in Utah. 

95% of what is found on the internet was found in books before the internet was a household word.  The Church was aware of this stuff for a long time but choose to ignore it.  I don't know why.  It is sort of like getting a small cut on the hand and ignoring it and not treating it.  The cut might get infected and if one ignores the problem long enough, they might have some serious trouble.  Perhaps they might have to take the arm off.  Perhaps the Church did not care or perhaps they have purposely avoided the issues to test the membership.  I don't know the answers but it does puzzle me a little bit.

Edited May 14, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Well what people see on the internet is what's getting people to leave. The CES Letter and the church essays and anti sites and message boards are really ruining some testimonies. Unless you think the gay policy is what caused that mass resignation in November, then it's church revelation that's causing people to leave and resign.

That is ignoring the root cause.
What is it about the things you name that cause people to resign.  Resignation is still a choice.
The cause of people leaving is a loss of faith or hurt feelings.   There are many things that can cause those to occur.  Addressing people losing faith and/or having their feelings hurt is the focus (and what probably led the prophets to prevaricate so much on troubling things).

But in the end, the people choose to leave based on how they feel.  School thy feelings, O my Brother.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

95% of what is found on the internet was found in books before the internet was a household word.  The Church was aware of this stuff for a long time but choose to ignore it.  I don't know why.  It is sort of like getting a small cut on the hand and ignoring it and not treating it.  The cut might get infected and if one ignores the problem long enough, they might have some serious trouble.  Perhaps they might have to take the arm off.  Perhaps the Church did not care or perhaps they have purposely avoided the issues to test the membership.  I don't know the answers but it does puzzle me a little bit.

What makes a difference..to me at least..is that some of this stuff was in books or journals earlier..but a lot of it just wasn't taught.

[UtahTexan]

The internet helped bring me back.....

[VideoGameJunkie]

24 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

The internet helped bring me back.....

I'm intrigued, how did the Internet bring you back?

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

What makes a difference..to me at least..is that some of this stuff was in books or journals earlier..but a lot of it just wasn't taught.

I don't blame the Church for not teaching it on Sunday.  They would have to increase the meetings from 3 to 5 or 6 hours to teach all this stuff.  Perhaps even longer.  It should however have made resources available for people to learn from home.  Cover some things in seminary or institute class or have Ensign articles.  It does not have to cover everything but at least cover enough of it to lessen the effect.  

[canard78]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

Let's face it people have left the church over the history of it. My question is do you think the Prophets foresaw this and took measures to prevent it? It just seems like the historical output (which is good I might add) is a reaction to all this. I don't know if people in the 1880's or 1920's were leaving the Church over historical issues or not but if what we see today is a new phenomenon but I wonder if the prophets saw dissension and turmoil and took action so people would be left without excuse.Were they blindsided by this or did they see it in advance? 

Ironically, it's the prophets in history that is my biggest barrier. 

Given the prophets frequently got doctrine they were proclaiming wrong, what are the chances they would also forsee the impact of them getting that doctrine wrong in the first place?

I'm going with: "very low."

Edited May 15, 2016 by canard78

[canard78]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't blame the Church for not teaching it on Sunday.  They would have to increase the meetings from 3 to 5 or 6 hours to teach all this stuff.  Perhaps even longer.  It should however have made resources available for people to learn from home.  Cover some things in seminary or institute class or have Ensign articles.  It does not have to cover everything but at least cover enough of it to lessen the effect.  

Not really. How hard would it have been to include a photo of "head in hat" or to have had two or three versions of the first vision in the handbook. 

Primary, youth, seminary, institute, mission manuals, Sunday school, priesthood & relief society. 

Most of the content of the manuals is mind-numbingly repetitive. 

In the first 30 years of my life the church had around 5000 hours of my time for lessons and talks. That's not enough to find time to be accurate with history. 

I'm glad things are changing for the better. I hear the primary children in my sisters ward had a sharing time where they read the four accounts and created a "harmony" of the accounts. 

[UtahTexan]

16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I'm intrigued, how did the Internet bring you back?

partly, I found out I had a cousin I never knew about on this board due to the net.

Partly, because the more I studied, the more I understood......the more I saw things different than I did in 1989 when I left the Church.

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't blame the Church for not teaching it on Sunday.  They would have to increase the meetings from 3 to 5 or 6 hours to teach all this stuff.  Perhaps even longer.  It should however have made resources available for people to learn from home.  Cover some things in seminary or institute class or have Ensign articles.  It does not have to cover everything but at least cover enough of it to lessen the effect.  

A new manual for a Gospel Doctrine Class on Sunday could spend an entire year on the history of the church..meanwhile, Primary changes its pictures ..and for heaven's sakes..let MIA pick up where Seminary leaves off.  No..it wouldn't be hard.  What is hard is finding things very subtle at first where it makes it look like things are hidden.  Truth isn't hard.  Start with this new generation now.

I think the church would be surprised. 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, Duncan said:

Let's face it people have left the church over the history of it. My question is do you think the Prophets foresaw this and took measures to prevent it? It just seems like the historical output (which is good I might add) is a reaction to all this. I don't know if people in the 1880's or 1920's were leaving the Church over historical issues or not but if what we see today is a new phenomenon but I wonder if the prophets saw dissension and turmoil and took action so people would be left without excuse.Were they blindsided by this or did they see it in advance? 

I think they’ve witnessed the fulfillment of 2 Timothy 3:1-7 for some time and have proceeded to respond with the tools availed in their generation. History has always been used as a weapon against the Church, and the Church has responded accordingly according to the time and place, the resources available, and the general need.

For example, today the financial, academic and scholarly, technological and media resources are greater than previous generations and can be used to package knowledge in a way that will lead people toward or away from the truth. Even objective and impartial historical data can be leveraged by either the light of Christ or the spirit of contention, and everyday people having access to (and even being imposed with) more information and knowledge than ever before, without any corresponding increase in natural intelligence or spiritual talent, still have to make choices with what to do with what life throws at them.

[Tacenda]

12 hours ago, canard78 said:

Not really. How hard would it have been to include a photo of "head in hat" or to have had two or three versions of the first vision in the handbook. 

Primary, youth, seminary, institute, mission manuals, Sunday school, priesthood & relief society. 

Most of the content of the manuals is mind-numbingly repetitive. 

In the first 30 years of my life the church had around 5000 hours of my time for lessons and talks. That's not enough to find time to be accurate with history. 

I'm glad things are changing for the better. I hear the primary children in my sisters ward had a sharing time where they read the four accounts and created a "harmony" of the accounts. 

Agree, if there is nothing to fear or be ashamed of...why not post like it really happened.  It's as if there is something to hide  because the prophets didn't believe in it themselves.  That is where it gets tricky to me. 

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, canard78 said:

Not really. How hard would it have been to include a photo of "head in hat" or to have had two or three versions of the first vision in the handbook. 

Primary, youth, seminary, institute, mission manuals, Sunday school, priesthood & relief society. 

Most of the content of the manuals is mind-numbingly repetitive. 

In the first 30 years of my life the church had around 5000 hours of my time for lessons and talks. That's not enough to find time to be accurate with history. 

I'm glad things are changing for the better. I hear the primary children in my sisters ward had a sharing time where they read the four accounts and created a "harmony" of the accounts. 

It can be included but I am just saying spending a lot of stuff on trivia on Sunday is not the priority of the Church.  That is where the Ensign should come in.  The main teaching for members should be in the home.  Sunday meetings are just to provide the basic foundations.  

[theplains]

On 14/05/2016 at 7:15 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I don't think any LDS back in the 19th century could envision how people in the 21st century would view things.  Same with us today.  Do we make decisions based on what people 100 years from now will decide as right or wrong?  I sure do not. 

That's why the LDS Church does not re-circulate any of its old publications like "The Way to 
Perfection", "Doctrines of Salvation", "Gospel Doctrine", and others. Who knows how many more 
members would leave the church if these historical teachings were more well known.

Fortunately some copies are still obtainable.

Thanks,
Jim

[Coreyb]

On May 14, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Duncan said:

Let's face it people have left the church over the history of it. My question is do you think the Prophets foresaw this and took measures to prevent it? It just seems like the historical output (which is good I might add) is a reaction to all this. I don't know if people in the 1880's or 1920's were leaving the Church over historical issues or not but if what we see today is a new phenomenon but I wonder if the prophets saw dissension and turmoil and took action so people would be left without excuse.Were they blindsided by this or did they see it in advance? 

I agree that the recent historical output by the historical department is a reaction in many ways to the fact that many people have become troubled by Mormon history. I also agree with VGJ that unprecedented access to information and alternative viewpoints via the Internet is the single greatest cause of this trouble. I have not found any evidence that the previous LDS leaders foresaw or planned for our current Information Age and its negative effects on some of the membership. I know President Hinkley made a vague statement about a coming time when technology would greatly increase our reach in spreading the gospel. Some believe he was predicting our current internet culture. If he was he only spoke of the pros for the church and not the cons. 

There is at least one LDS leader who eventually became president that saw the propriety in being open and professional about our history. Many people talk about the "Camelot years" in the history department with Leonard Arrington but don't mention that Howard W. Hunter was the actual ecclesiastical church historian. He spearheaded the changes that took place in the historical department including opening records to outside scholars and publishing academic histories for general consumption. Had we stayed on that trajectory and started to incorporate new Mormon history into curriculum and discourse ( something we are just beginning to do, but had the information to do in the seventies) perhaps the Internet would not be having as much of a negative impact. People would still be disillusioned by Mormon history, but the shock and sense of betrayal felt by so many would likely be less prevalent, IMO.

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/14/2016 at 4:22 PM, VideoGameJunkie said:

 The CES Letter and the church essays and anti sites and message boards are really ruining some testimonies. 

I don't think they are ruining actual testimonies.  If one has a testimony of the Book of Mormon and restoration, than an issue of like how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy is not going to change it.  One might not understand an issue or have trouble with an issue but that should not affect other issues unrelated to it.  If the Book of Mormon is true, it is still true regardless of what happened at Mountain Meadows, or whether Joseph got sealed to some young women, or whether Joseph used a seer stone and a hat to translate Book of Mormon.  They are only ruining people who really don't have a testimony of the Church.  For some, I think they are just finding excuses to leave and one can always find those.  

Edited May 22, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[canard78]

On 15 May 2016 at 11:35 PM, carbon dioxide said:

It can be included but I am just saying spending a lot of stuff on trivia on Sunday is not the priority of the Church.  That is where the Ensign should come in.  The main teaching for members should be in the home.  Sunday meetings are just to provide the basic foundations.  

Shouldn't the first ever documented account of the first vision be considered fairly fundamental?

Given it gives a far more personal account of the event wouldn't it be fairly important class material?

[canard78]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't think they are ruining actual testimonies.  If one has a testimony of the Book of Mormon and restoration, than an issue of like how Joseph Smith practiced polygamy is not going to change it.  One might not understand an issue or have trouble with an issue but that should not affect other issues unrelated to it.  If the Book of Mormon is true, it is still true regardless of what happened at Mountain Meadows, or whether Joseph got sealed to some young women, or whether Joseph used a seer stone and a hat to translate Book of Mormon.  They are only ruining people who really don't have a testimony of the Church.  For some, I think they are just finding excuses to leave and one can always find those.  

*sigh*

Please could I ask you to read this:

http://manyotherhands.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/the-long-and-winding-road-with-plenty.html?m=1

It's quite long, so feel free to skim read. 

I moved to China in Jan 2012 with a very strong certainty of the key truth claims of the church. It took two years, but the very broad process of studying the origins and doctrines of the church ended it for me.